PDA

View Full Version : United 93



Pages : [1] 2

Nello
23-Jun-06, 22:22
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, 22:30
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, 22:37
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.

Nello
23-Jun-06, 23:25
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, 03:13
Is it on in the Thurso Cinema just now?

JAWS
24-Jun-06, 05:58
"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, 06:42
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.

fred
24-Jun-06, 09:55
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, 10:00
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)

brandy
24-Jun-06, 10:43
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.

_Ju_
24-Jun-06, 11:16
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.

JAWS
25-Jun-06, 04:34
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" Plato.

sjwahwah
25-Jun-06, 05:43
"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.

JAWS
25-Jun-06, 20:16
"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.

fred
26-Jun-06, 23:28
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.

Nello
27-Jun-06, 00:02
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.

JAWS
27-Jun-06, 00:02
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, 00:09
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.

sjwahwah
27-Jun-06, 03:12
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.

JAWS
27-Jun-06, 03:36
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?

Nello
27-Jun-06, 03:40
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.

JAWS
27-Jun-06, 04:18
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

fred
27-Jun-06, 10:20
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.

PhilR
27-Jun-06, 11:05
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!

JAWS
27-Jun-06, 12:04
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?

JAWS
27-Jun-06, 12:07
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.

fred
27-Jun-06, 21:56
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.

Nello
27-Jun-06, 22:18
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, 22:44
I liked the film, nice bit of fiction but it was well acted.

Rheghead
27-Jun-06, 22:46
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
27-Jun-06, 23:10
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.;)

fred
28-Jun-06, 09:54
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.

PhilR
28-Jun-06, 10:44
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.......

tisme
28-Jun-06, 11:30
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.

fred
28-Jun-06, 18:47
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?

Nello
28-Jun-06, 19:10
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 ??

fred
28-Jun-06, 19:11
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&section=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.

obiron
28-Jun-06, 19:47
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&section=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?????

Nello
28-Jun-06, 20:12
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.

fred
28-Jun-06, 23:32
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, 00:17
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.

Nello
29-Jun-06, 00:46
[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:

JAWS
29-Jun-06, 02:54
[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.

JAWS
29-Jun-06, 03:03
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.

Nello
29-Jun-06, 03:39
[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 !! .. ;)

fred
29-Jun-06, 19:15
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.”

fred
29-Jun-06, 20:09
[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?

fred
29-Jun-06, 20:39
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, 00:36
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.

JAWS
30-Jun-06, 02:34
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.

JAWS
30-Jun-06, 02:42
[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?

Nello
30-Jun-06, 03:15
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.

JAWS
30-Jun-06, 03:42
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?

Nello
30-Jun-06, 03:57
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 .. ;)

squidge
30-Jun-06, 09:44
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

fred
30-Jun-06, 09:59
[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?

fred
30-Jun-06, 21:18
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, 22:45
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?

Nello
30-Jun-06, 22:54
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.

obiron
30-Jun-06, 22:58
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.

Nello
30-Jun-06, 23:05
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
30-Jun-06, 23:29
"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.

Rheghead
30-Jun-06, 23:39
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?

Nello
30-Jun-06, 23:49
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.

JAWS
01-Jul-06, 02:46
[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?

JAWS
01-Jul-06, 03:35
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!

fred
01-Jul-06, 10:12
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.

JAWS
02-Jul-06, 02:03
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.

fred
02-Jul-06, 09:55
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.

JAWS
03-Jul-06, 01:39
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.

fred
04-Jul-06, 23:17
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.

JAWS
05-Jul-06, 00:18
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.

fred
05-Jul-06, 10:04
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]

squidge
05-Jul-06, 10:19
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?

PhilR
05-Jul-06, 11:59
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?

JAWS
05-Jul-06, 14:19
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?

JAWS
05-Jul-06, 14:37
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]

scotsboy
05-Jul-06, 14:54
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.

JAWS
05-Jul-06, 15:39
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!

scotsboy
05-Jul-06, 18:04
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?

fred
05-Jul-06, 20:32
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.

fred
05-Jul-06, 21:36
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.

fred
05-Jul-06, 23:00
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?

scotsboy
06-Jul-06, 08:11
Mid flight, so I would assume between 25 - 30, 000 feet.

golach
06-Jul-06, 09:45
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]

scotsboy
06-Jul-06, 14:36
I am not saying he is right or wrong - simply what I experienced;)

JAWS
07-Jul-06, 01:53
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!

scotsboy
07-Jul-06, 08:37
To be fair Jaws, I don't think Fred has called me a liar - he just asked what altitude the plane was at.

fred
07-Jul-06, 10:02
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?

squidge
07-Jul-06, 11:01
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?

JAWS
07-Jul-06, 11:08
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?

scotsboy
07-Jul-06, 13:10
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?

fred
07-Jul-06, 19:48
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.

fred
07-Jul-06, 21:21
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, 21:41
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.)

fred
07-Jul-06, 23:04
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.

PhilR
08-Jul-06, 12:48
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..............

JAWS
08-Jul-06, 20:49
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.

fred
08-Jul-06, 20:54
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?

JAWS
08-Jul-06, 22:27
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.

fred
08-Jul-06, 23:21
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?

fred
08-Jul-06, 23:25
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.

JAWS
09-Jul-06, 02:01
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, 06:15
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:

scotsboy
09-Jul-06, 10:18
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?

PhilR
09-Jul-06, 11:06
-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 their own agenda.

Neither can he admit that someone living in the middle of his subject matter for the last 3 years might actually know more about what they're talking about than he does sitting in front of a computer screen thousands of miles away.

Hey ho, doesn't look as though we'll see him out here any time soon then. Back to work!

Gullible & ignorant of Basra !!

golach
09-Jul-06, 11:41
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 their own agenda.
Neither can he admit that someone living in the middle of his subject matter for the last 3 years might actually know more about what they're talking about than he does sitting in front of a computer screen thousands of miles away.
Hey ho, doesn't look as though we'll see him out here any time soon then. Back to work!
Gullible & ignorant of Basra !!
PhilR, at last someone who has a real insight into Fred and his conspiracies, I to have viewed Fred's recommended reading, and my first thoughts are that they are very good propoganda and I personally am not going to fall for it.

JAWS
09-Jul-06, 18:53
PhilR, at last someone who has a real insight into Fred and his conspiracies, I to have viewed Fred's recommended reading, and my first thoughts are that they are very good propaganda and I personally am not going to fall for it.
Golach, if you dig deep enough (provided you don't fall sleep in boredom doing it) you will find that many of the sites go round in circles.
Site A makes a statement. Site B refers to site A so B must be right. C refers to B. D refers to C. E refers to D which proves that A must be right.
If E fails return to A and start again missing out E and going to F.

If in doubt then blame the Fire Brigade for the actions of the Arsonist.
If the Fire Brigade were not there to put out he fires the Arsonist starts then the Arsonist would not keep starting them.
Every fire is the fault of the Fire Brigade and the Arsonist is just an innocent victim!

If the above does not convince anybody then concentrate on the type of matches used and if they would work or not if it was raining.
It had to be raining at the time because after the Fire Brigade left the area was wet!
This proves that the fire could not be started by the Arsonist so it must be as a result of the Fire Brigade being there!

fred
09-Jul-06, 20:12
Fred wrote:

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?

A satelite phone should work through glass so it would depend on where the satelite was and if the woman was near to a window.

I don't think there would be a lot of difference between GSM and the American systems except phones have got more powerful in the last 5 years. Do they still have NMT in Saudi? They have it in Kuwait, it has a much greater range.

unicorn
09-Jul-06, 20:20
I think you are quite rude by endlessly trying to undermine PhilR who is in the middle of it all, I think once you have experienced it as opposed to reading and becoming an expert then you will be able to convince me of your knowledge fred. Keep up the good work out there PhilR I do not envy you your job.

fred
09-Jul-06, 23:27
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:

I get a lot of information from a lot of sources, many of them on the ground in Iraq.

If I see the term "haji" used as word of derision in articles written by many different people from many different sources should I just ignore them because PhilR says it's really a compliment? Are you suggesting I write off everything everyone else on the ground in Iraq says because PhilR is the only one that knows what is happening?

It isn't only websites that have agendas you know.

Cedric Farthsbottom III
09-Jul-06, 23:57
The families of the passengers of this flight received messages and calls from their loved one's before the disaster happenend.So if the families are saying they received these messages,why deliberate over "do phones work in planes!!!"

pedromcgrory
10-Jul-06, 00:05
does it really matter anyway

JAWS
10-Jul-06, 03:22
I can't see why the families should lie about such things, surely that is the last thing they would want to do.

canuck
10-Jul-06, 03:53
Over the past 6 months I have been on 8 airplanes. Each time, we were cautioned not to use cell phones just as carefully as we were shown how to buckle and unbuckle our seatbelts and reminded that if travelling with children to put on our own oxygen mask first. I got the impression that cell phones did work in the air and that is why we were asked so politely not to use them.

Blazing Sporrans
10-Jul-06, 07:49
I can't see why the families should lie about such things, surely that is the last thing they would want to do.

In all these arguments, THIS is the one point that I cannot escape from. The families of those lucky enough to make calls from the plane prior to it crashing would surely be the LAST people on this earth who would co-operate with such a conspiracy theory. I know I wouldn't and I couldn't be fooled by someone impersonating my wife's voice, even in moments of extreme stress. So why do it and to what end? Someone provide me with a reasonable explanation of that - preferrably without a link to a third party site please.

fred - you confined your last response only to use of the word 'haji', when surely PhilR is receiving so much more information from people in Iraq than that? Surely he's getting a first-hand flavour of the general population's response to not only the military but to those there helping to re-establish the country's infrastructure? Over to you PhilR - convince me...

fred
10-Jul-06, 09:20
I can't see why the families should lie about such things, surely that is the last thing they would want to do.

So quote the post in which someone said any of the families have lied.

You're building strawmen again.

Blazing Sporrans
10-Jul-06, 09:26
So quote the post in which someone said any of the families have lied.

You're building strawmen again.

So how (or more likely WHY) did the debate ever get onto the truth (or otherwise) of the alleged receipt of calls by families from some of the passengers on the plane? As far as I can remember (which because I'm getting on gets considerably less each day) there is a huge volume of dialogue on here regarding the ability to make/receive cellphone (or any other type) calls from/to aeroplanes. I'm now as confused as I used to be after an episode of SOAP!!

golach
10-Jul-06, 09:35
So quote the post in which someone said any of the families have lied.
Since when have you ever bothered about Truth, most of what you are spouting, is Propaganda, and how much of that is truth, I may be blinkered but I am not believeing half of what you are spouting in here

fred
10-Jul-06, 10:17
fred - you confined your last response only to use of the word 'haji', when surely PhilR is receiving so much more information from people in Iraq than that? Surely he's getting a first-hand flavour of the general population's response to not only the military but to those there helping to re-establish the country's infrastructure? Over to you PhilR - convince me...

After over three years the people of Baghdad are lucky if they get one hours electricity in three. How do I know? it's in an official memo (http://www.google.com/notebook/public/15130270054122524035/BDRQZIgoQ24rg974h) from the American Embassy, read it and see what the people on the ground in Iraq have to say. America can build bases with bus lanes, traffic lights and Mc Donalds, they are building an Embassy the size of a country but the Iraqis can't even turn on a ceiling fan when the temperature is well into the hundreds.

Now why does their infrastructure need rebuilding? Why was it neccessary for us to bomb all their electricity generating plants? Water treatment plants and sewrage pumping stations don't work without electricity it was bound to kill thousands of innocent people from disease. After a war with Iran, Desert Storm and 12 years of sanctions Iraq was a country on its knees, the Womens Institute could have overthrown Saddam why did the most powerful military force in the world by far have to use "shock and awe" tactics?

The answer is for the same reason the Iraqi people have been dehumanised in the eyes of the American soldier, the same reason racism is not only tollerated but encouraged by the military command, because America never intended to liberate Iraq they set out to subjugate it. Last week Bush flew unannounced into Iraq and summoned the Iraqi Prime Minister to the Embassy, does that sound like a free country? Iraq chose the Prime Minister they wanted then America told them which Prime Minister they were getting does that sound like democracy?

The other night I was sat watching CNN news on the TV when the newsreader refered to Bush as "Leader of the Free World", seems like somewhere along the line he went from President to Emperor to me.

golach
10-Jul-06, 10:31
Fred is this Bush's fault too? I dont think so, this is Islam at its worst, not only fighting the Infedels but killing their own kind, not a situation that has an easy answer. Maybe if they stopped killing each other and our troops, they could have electricity and water, they can get guns and ammo, is that more important than water or airconditioning?
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=148911&Sn=WORL&IssueID=29112

Blazing Sporrans
10-Jul-06, 10:38
The answer is for the same reason the Iraqi people have been dehumanised in the eyes of the American soldier, the same reason racism is not only tollerated but encouraged by the military command, because America never intended to liberate Iraq they set out to subjugate it. Last week Bush flew unannounced into Iraq and summoned the Iraqi Prime Minister to the Embassy, does that sound like a free country? Iraq chose the Prime Minister they wanted then America told them which Prime Minister they were getting does that sound like democracy?

The other night I was sat watching CNN news on the TV when the newsreader refered to Bush as "Leader of the Free World", seems like somewhere along the line he went from President to Emperor to me.

But you keep on going on about the dehumanisation of the Iraqi people by a military force bent on subjugating them whatever the cost. I think that's as unfair as accusing our military of doing the same. What about those members of the armed forces who are decent human beings, doing a job they believe is inherently right, i.e. bringing a democracy to a previous totalitarian state, where the former leader could murder whomever he wanted at his whim? Don't say they're all the same because they are not. It's not a perfect world by far, but there are people over there (not necessarily by choice as we all know) who are doing their best to assist the Iraqi people. Not everyone over there is a profiteering racist and it's unfair of you to paint them all as such. I have friends who've been there and have recounted stories which left them in tears over the atrocities they have seen and also left them genuinely amazed at the reception they have had from many native Iraqis. That's not the behaviour of an occupying military force. It was warned beforehand that the invasion of Iraq could result in instability greater than that seen in the break-up of the former Yugoslavian state (and I KNOW that you'll see instability as a euphemism). The majority of the atrocities that we are hearing about on a daily basis are visited by upon one another by differing religious factions within Iraq.

Why don't we abbreviate your argument and take the Iraqi part out of this? Would I be right in summarising the rest as 'fred doesn't like George W Bush' or is it 'fred doesn't like Americans'?

As for the Americans being rulers of the free world, let's face it, that's as old as them coming to the rescue of the allied forces in WWII, which we would never have won without them. It's the same old circus - just different clowns.

PhilR
10-Jul-06, 11:36
Blazing Sporrans, I had intended to drop this thread as it winds me up so much, but since you asked me so nicely, below is my latest response.


I get a lot of information from a lot of sources, many of them on the ground in Iraq.

How do you know they are on the ground, Fred? Do you speak to them personally or just read their internet reports? (By the way, I'd be happy to give you my phone number here to prove that I am actually in Iraq/Kuwait.)


If I see the term "haji" used as word of derision in articles written by many different people from many different sources should I just ignore them because PhilR says it's really a compliment?

But Fred, you said above that you were "...well aware of what the term Haji means to a Muslim". So you didn't need me to tell you that it is a compliment, you just conveniently neglected to include it in your post about some US soldiers 'demonising' the Iraqi people.


Are you suggesting I write off everything everyone else on the ground in Iraq says because PhilR is the only one that knows what is happening?

So now your sources are 'everyone else on the ground'!!! Wow, well I must admit that I only speak to about 20-30 local Iraqis each day, so I'll bow to you there Fred, although strangely none of them yet seem to share your views! Of course I dont know everything that is happening here, but I do know the difference between what I see in front of my eyes and what you cherry-pick off the internet as 'facts' to suit your arguments.


It isn't only websites that have agendas you know.

Wallah!!! At last he admits it....although my only agenda is re-dressing what I identify as misinformation put out by someone who (I presume) has never even set foot near Iraq and has no first-hand knowledge or experience of the people, history or culture (please correct me if I'm wrong Fred).

In a nutshell, the only reason I answer these threads is because I, and many expats/Iraqis out here, are fed up listening to armchair gossip-merchants spouting what is usually complete rubbish, while we are here making a difference to everyday lives of people who are grateful to us. Some of us have lost friends and colleagues, killed by terrorists here, but we get on with the job. It doesn't mean we think the invasion was right, we know that mistakes were made and that abuses occurred and crimes are still being committed. We're not naive enough to ignore this, but where in the world doesn't that happen? Iraq is not unique, it's just trying hard to get back on it's feet and I for one will stay for as long as they want me. I hope I can sit back one day when Iraq is a great nation again and say to my grandchildren that "I played a small part in that". But no doubt there are others like Fred who would love to see civil war break out just so they can post it on the Web that "I told you so!"

Big nutshell I know, but I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks for the support guys....

golach
10-Jul-06, 15:22
Would I be right in summarising the rest as 'fred doesn't like George W Bush' or is it 'fred doesn't like Americans'?
Hmmm good question Blazing Sporrans, I am not too sure on that one[disgust] maybe some of Fred's other threads, eh rants will tell you that:confused

fred
10-Jul-06, 23:07
But you keep on going on about the dehumanisation of the Iraqi people by a military force bent on subjugating them whatever the cost. I think that's as unfair as accusing our military of doing the same. What about those members of the armed forces who are decent human beings, doing a job they believe is inherently right, i.e. bringing a democracy to a previous totalitarian state, where the former leader could murder whomever he wanted at his whim?

Now it is a state where any American Soldier can murder whomesoever he wants to at his whim. How many Iraqis have been killed by American soldiers? We don't know, dead Iraqis arn't worth counting according to the Pentagon. We know that in January nearly 100 people had died while in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly half suspected homicides and 8 of them while being tortured. Occupation forces, including civillian contractors, are immune from prosecution under Iraqi law, so far the longest sentence an American soldier has recieved for murder is 5 months, that was for chaining an Iraqi to the ceiling and beating him to death.

Who is to blame? I've told you who is to blame but if you don't believe me maybe you will believe a retired American General, he should know what he's talking about.


The torture and death catalogued in excruciating detail by this important
Human Rights First report did not happen spontaneously. They are the
consequence of a shocking breakdown of command discipline on the part
of the Army’s Officer Corps. It is very clear that cruel treatment of
detainees became a common Army practice because generals and
colonels and majors allowed it to occur, even encouraged it. What is
unquestionably broken is the fundamental principle of command
accountability, and that starts at the very top. The Army exists, not just to
win America’s wars, but to defend America’s values. The policy and
practice of torture without accountability has jeopardized both.

David R. Irvine
Brig. Gen. (Ret.) USA

Human rights had nothing whatsoever to do with our invasion of Iraq, there were countries with far worse records including American backed countries like Israel. Americas record on human rights is far from perfect as well, they are holding people without trial for years at Guantanamo and using torture on political prisoners.

Take a look at Craig Murray's web site (http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/index.html). He was removed from his job as British ambassador to Uzbekistan for protesting against human rights abuses, sacked by the same government claiming they are saving the Iraqi people from Saddams human rights abuses.



Don't say they're all the same because they are not. It's not a perfect world by far, but there are people over there (not necessarily by choice as we all know) who are doing their best to assist the Iraqi people. Not everyone over there is a profiteering racist and it's unfair of you to paint them all as such. I have friends who've been there and have recounted stories which left them in tears over the atrocities they have seen and also left them genuinely amazed at the reception they have had from many native Iraqis. That's not the behaviour of an occupying military force. It was warned beforehand that the invasion of Iraq could result in instability greater than that seen in the break-up of the former Yugoslavian state (and I KNOW that you'll see instability as a euphemism). The majority of the atrocities that we are hearing about on a daily basis are visited by upon one another by differing religious factions within Iraq.

Iraq was the most secular country in the Middle East before we invaded. The sectarian violence didn't just happen, it was planned in advance an instigated by the Pentagon, they called it the "El Salvador Option".



Why don't we abbreviate your argument and take the Iraqi part out of this? Would I be right in summarising the rest as 'fred doesn't like George W Bush' or is it 'fred doesn't like Americans'?


I speak out against the illegal invasion of sovereign states, I speak out against murder, I speak out against rape, I speak out against torture and you think this is because I don't like Americans?

You seem to be quite critical of Saddam Hussein is that because you don't like Iraqis? I suppose anyone who speaks out against Hitler just doesn't like Germans.



As for the Americans being rulers of the free world, let's face it, that's as old as them coming to the rescue of the allied forces in WWII, which we would never have won without them. It's the same old circus - just different clowns.

And there was me thinking that America entered the war because the Japanese put the Pacific fleet at the bottom of Pearl Harbour.

fred
10-Jul-06, 23:42
In a nutshell, the only reason I answer these threads is because I, and many expats/Iraqis out here, are fed up listening to armchair gossip-merchants spouting what is usually complete rubbish, while we are here making a difference to everyday lives of people who are grateful to us. Some of us have lost friends and colleagues, killed by terrorists here, but we get on with the job. It doesn't mean we think the invasion was right, we know that mistakes were made and that abuses occurred and crimes are still being committed. We're not naive enough to ignore this, but where in the world doesn't that happen? Iraq is not unique, it's just trying hard to get back on it's feet and I for one will stay for as long as they want me. I hope I can sit back one day when Iraq is a great nation again and say to my grandchildren that "I played a small part in that". But no doubt there are others like Fred who would love to see civil war break out just so they can post it on the Web that "I told you so!"


Yes the invasion was illegal, yes mistakes were made, many of them deliberately, yes abuses occured, were allowed to occur, were encouraged to occur, far more and worse than people realise. Yes crimes are still being committed because they are still allowed to be committed.

The people responsible still managed to get themselves re-elected though.

How many more countries will we drop bombs on? How many more sovereign states will we invade illegaly? How many more people will be killed?

What are you doing to prevent Iran or Syria being the next sites for American bases, the next place mistakes are made and abuses committed, the next place people are killed?

The killing will go on, the abuses will go on, because we allow them to go on.

JAWS
11-Jul-06, 01:52
So quote the post in which someone said any of the families have lied.

You're building strawmen again.
I would draw that conclusion from the allegation that cellphones would not work on Flight 93.

Family members of passengers have said they spoke to passengers on Flight 93 via Cellphones.

If they are telling the truth then passengers cellphones on Flight 93 must have been working.
If Cellphones on Flight 93 could not work then the passengers would not be able to talk to family members and those who say they received calls must therefore be lying.

You claim that the plane was at such a level of flight that Cellphone calls were impossible from Flight 93 indicated that it would be impossible relatives to receive such calls.

Either those who say they received those calls are telling the truth, in which case such calls could be made or they are lying because they could not have recieved such calls.

You say such calls were impossible, family members say they received them.
Could they be made or could they not be made?
If one set of circumstances is right then the other must be wrong, either the phone did work or they did not work.
Which is it? Please put my simple mind at rest, it is far too complicated for me to work out.
Did relatives receive calls from Flight 93 or not?

Blazing Sporrans
11-Jul-06, 10:19
Now it is a state where any American Soldier can murder whomsoever he wants at his whim

What abject nonsense! Yes human rights abuses have taken place, as have undoubtedly occurred in every theatre of war, anywhere in the history of man. However, to come out with a statement like that is a twisted attempt at over-emotive argument by someone who has no personal knowledge of what human conflict at close quarters is actually like. The same rules of engagement apply to our military as apply to the American forces and I have close friends who have recently served tours in Iraq who would find this sensationalist nonsense that you spout forth to be offensive in the extreme. You are saying that any American soldier can level his firearm at any Iraqi at any time and pull the trigger without consequence! Can you supply the evidence for this, or is it contained in yet another website link which you have read?



How do you know they are on the ground, Fred? Do you speak to them personally or just read their internet reports? (By the way, I'd be happy to give you my phone number here to prove that I am actually in Iraq/Kuwait.)

Wallah!!! At last he admits it....although my only agenda is re-dressing what I identify as misinformation put out by someone who (I presume) has never even set foot near Iraq and has no first-hand knowledge or experience of the people, history or culture (please correct me if I'm wrong Fred).

In a nutshell, the only reason I answer these threads is because I, and many expats/Iraqis out here, are fed up listening to armchair gossip-merchants spouting what is usually complete rubbish, while we are here making a difference to everyday lives of people who are grateful to us. Some of us have lost friends and colleagues, killed by terrorists here, but we get on with the job. It doesn't mean we think the invasion was right, we know that mistakes were made and that abuses occurred and crimes are still being committed. We're not naive enough to ignore this, but where in the world doesn't that happen? Iraq is not unique, it's just trying hard to get back on it's feet and I for one will stay for as long as they want me. I hope I can sit back one day when Iraq is a great nation again and say to my grandchildren that "I played a small part in that". But no doubt there are others like Fred who would love to see civil war break out just so they can post it on the Web that "I told you so!"

Big nutshell I know, but I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks for the support guys....

No problems PhilR. Congratulations on the work that you're doing and it's nice to know that there are those who are off their backsides doing what has to be done to improve things instead of sitting at home criticising.

fred
11-Jul-06, 10:20
I would draw that conclusion from the allegation that cellphones would not work on Flight 93.

Family members of passengers have said they spoke to passengers on Flight 93 via Cellphones.


Have they? I must have missed that. I've seen a commission report saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones, I've seen countless newspaper headlines and television reports saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones but I haven't seen any actual family members saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones. The only transcript I've seen where a passenger says how he was calling he said that he didn't have long because there were a lot of people waiting to use the airphone.

A police officer testifying at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial said that 37 calls were made by 13 people 2 of which were made by cell phone, one of those to the Pennsylvania sheriffs department.

So how can your perception of what happened and reality be so different? Think back to the phony Bin Laden video released by the Pentagon I posted a link to, notice Bin Laden making a point of saying he planned it how the commission report says it happened, notice he made a point of saying that he expected the jet fuel to melt the steel girders. Anyone seeing the official version of events plastered all over the media over and over again and hearing how Bin Laden made a tape saying the same plastered all over the media over and over again isn't going to be in any doubt about what happened, anyone who points out it couldn't have happened that way will just be written off as a conspiracy theorist.

Blazing Sporrans
11-Jul-06, 11:04
Jaws, I too have been awaiting a proper response to your question. I've been waiting since #116 and #118 where I raised a similar point.

Blazing Sporrans
11-Jul-06, 11:12
Have they? I must have missed that. I've seen a commission report saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones, I've seen countless newspaper headlines and television reports saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones but I haven't seen any actual family members saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones. The only transcript I've seen where a passenger says how he was calling he said that he didn't have long because there were a lot of people waiting to use the airphone.

fred, you always stop short of saying it, so a simple 'yes' or 'no will suffice. In your opinion, did any of the people aboard United 93 speak to their families from on board the plane?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/04/911_families_to_hear_tapes_from_planes/

Particularly the quote:

"Passengers on United Air Lines Flight 93 "died on their feet and doing the very best they could," said Alice Hoglan, of Redwood Estates, Calif., whose son was aboard. That flight crashed in a western Pennsylvania field after passengers were believed to have fought with the hijackers.
Family members said the mood in the meeting room was somber.
"There were many tears -- it was gut-wrenching at times in terms of the loss of life and the tender comments of family members," said D. Hamilton Peterson, whose father and stepmother were killed on Flight 93."

But that is undoubtedly from some easily manipulated next of kin, who want the world to believe that their loved ones died a heroic death, rather than pointlessly ploughing into the ground in a Pennysylvanian field.

Or there's

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-04-911-tapes_x.htm

where you can read:

"Among those arriving at the hotel Friday morning was Sandy Dahl of Denver. Her late husband, Capt. Jason Dahl, was the co-pilot of United Flight 93, which was bound from Newark, N.J., to San Francisco when it was hijacked.
The plane crashed in a western Pennsylvania field after passengers were believed to have fought with the hijackers.
"It is tough, but I'm hungry for the information," said Dahl, who chairs the board of Families of Flight 93. "I need to know. I need to know everything that can be known."
Family members had asked for access to the phone calls and other evidence after some of it was revealed during recent hearings of the independent commission investigating the attacks.
"We are here to make sure today that we learn the truth," Dahl said. "We're also here joining together to remind the nation that this was a victory, this was a victory on 9/11. Our loved ones were the only thing that didn't go completely wrong." "

These people seem like perfect material for collusion and conspiracy.

The choice of screenwriter/director for the film "United 93" is also undoubtedly crucial and central to the conspiracy theory that appears to be appearing here (if nothing else than by inference). After all Paul Greengrass has a history of collusion with and sucking up to the British government doesn't he? He only wrote and directed "Bloody Sunday", that pro-government, anti-IRA movie - or maybe I misunderstood the plot?

JAWS
11-Jul-06, 14:31
THE widow of a passenger who led an attack on hijackers, preventing them from crashing an airliner into a Washington landmark, spoke yesterday of her pride in her husband.
Deena Burnett said she spoke to her husband Thomas, 38, four times as he called her on his mobile telephone from United Airlines Flight 93 before it plunged into a field at Shanksville, 80 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Mrs Burnett believes that, after she told her husband on his mobile phone about the World Trade Centre attacks, he and the other passengers decided to turn the tables on their hijackers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/14/wpit14.xml

You can’t have looked very far fred. There is one “liar” for a start.

fred
12-Jul-06, 09:26
You can’t have looked very far fred. There is one “liar” for a start.

You are getting far too fond of calling people liars JAWS.

How did she know he was calling from his cell phone? Someone on a cell phone sounds no different to someone on an airphone. Did she know the same way you know, did she read it in the paper or see it on TV?

golach
12-Jul-06, 09:33
You are getting far too fond of calling people liars JAWS.

How did she know he was calling from his cell phone? Someone on a cell phone sounds no different to someone on an airphone. Did she know the same way you know, did she read it in the paper or see it on TV?


Moblie phone, Cell phone, Air phone....whats the difference? Fred are you alleging that the widow is lying?

fred
12-Jul-06, 09:48
What abject nonsense! Yes human rights abuses have taken place, as have undoubtedly occurred in every theatre of war, anywhere in the history of man. However, to come out with a statement like that is a twisted attempt at over-emotive argument by someone who has no personal knowledge of what human conflict at close quarters is actually like. The same rules of engagement apply to our military as apply to the American forces and I have close friends who have recently served tours in Iraq who would find this sensationalist nonsense that you spout forth to be offensive in the extreme. You are saying that any American soldier can level his firearm at any Iraqi at any time and pull the trigger without consequence! Can you supply the evidence for this, or is it contained in yet another website link which you have read?


Not just web sites the BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4830782.stm) as well.

There are currently several investigations in progress into civillian masacres in Iraq, one is the rape and murder (http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/documents-proving-alleged-iraqi-rape-murder-victim-was-14-not-20-as-the-military-says) of a 14 year old Iraqi girl. They shot dead her parents, they shot dead her 6 year old sister, they took it in turns to rape her then they shot her dead too.

Over emotive argument? I don't see how you can be too emotive about a thing like that.

squidge
12-Jul-06, 11:17
Fred you never actually answer a question - you are as evasive as those people you post about.

Blazing Sporrans asked if you could supply evidence that an American soldier can level his firearm at any Iraqi at any time and pull the trigger without consequence!

You have posted a link to a site which shows they are under investigation for atrocities - does that mean your answer is no you cant provide evidence as Blazing sporrans asks

Golach, jaws, myself and Blazing sporrans have asked you variously whether you think the relatives were lying and the phone calls - wherever they came from didnt take place

Maybe you could clarify your answers to thses two questions before we go much further

katiekrunch
12-Jul-06, 11:59
I watched the film and glad I did. There is a lot in it to learn from and take note from. You never know whats round the corner and in a situation like that I feel anyone in there right mind would do anything to prevent or deter the inevitable. They feared there lives and the lives of others that may have come to pass and died fighting with shear bravery and desperate determination. The terrorists target with that plane was understood to be the whitehouse, more bloodshead, maybe this was known at the time. The heroic courage and determination of those people onboard flight 93 were more than honourable. I found the film very well made and didn't depict a typical holywood 'action thriller/doccumentry drama'. I credit the producer/director for obviously doing his research and ensuring consent from the living families. It had me stuck to my seat in oar and shock and my heart went out to all those corageous people, those who died and those poor families still living with the nightmare. 'Terrorists' could target anywhere, at any time, it goes to show that it dosn't matter who you are or where you live in this world, we are all at risk and should live every moment to the full and have our witts about us, as you never know whats round the corner.

JAWS
12-Jul-06, 13:23
'Terrorists' could target anywhere, at any time, it goes to show that it dosn't matter who you are or where you live in this world, we are all at risk and should live every moment to the full and have our witts about us, as you never know whats round the corner.
I think the people of Mumbai would agree wholeheartedly with you on that point katiekrunch.

JAWS
12-Jul-06, 14:17
You are getting far too fond of calling people liars JAWS.

How did she know he was calling from his cell phone? Someone on a cell phone sounds no different to someone on an airphone. Did she know the same way you know, did she read it in the paper or see it on TV?Check back fred, I have not called anybody a liar.
The woman in question says she received several calls from her husband on his mobile phone or cellphone as it would seem they are called in the US.

I believe that she is telling the truth about what happened and that her husband called her on his cellphone exactly as she says.
The claim that she could not possibly have done so because his cellphone would not work is implying that she is lying about what happened.


I've seen a commission report saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones, I've seen countless newspaper headlines and television reports saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones but I haven't seen any actual family members saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones. The only transcript I've seen where a passenger says how he was calling he said that he didn't have long because there were a lot of people waiting to use the airphone.

A police officer testifying at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial said that 37 calls were made by 13 people 2 of which were made by cell phone, one of those to the Pennsylvania sheriffs department.
I produce a widow who says she did receive such a phone-call and suddenly I find that virtually the whole of this thread is a dispute, not over if the phone-calls were actually made, but over which type of phone was used to make the calls.

Fred, had you said right at the beginning that the film had simply got the method used to contact relatives incorrect and that the passengers had, in fact, been using an airphone and not cellphones there would have been no confusion.

Am I to understand that there is no dispute that 35 of the calls in question were in fact made but only over the method used to make them and that only two additional calls are in dispute because they could not have been made by the method claimed?

Blazing Sporrans
12-Jul-06, 14:31
Not just web sites the BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4830782.stm) as well.

There are currently several investigations in progress into civillian masacres in Iraq, one is the rape and murder (http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/documents-proving-alleged-iraqi-rape-murder-victim-was-14-not-20-as-the-military-says) of a 14 year old Iraqi girl. They shot dead her parents, they shot dead her 6 year old sister, they took it in turns to rape her then they shot her dead too.

Over emotive argument? I don't see how you can be too emotive about a thing like that.

fred, yet again you are the master of obfuscation. You are contradicting yourself! As squidge has rightly pointed out, you yourself state that investigations in relation to alleged civilian massacres are in progress. That's hardly what I would call , (can I quote you here?) "...a state where any American Soldier can murder whomsoever he wants at his whim". You refuse to supply evidence (at my invitation) that any American soldier can level his firearm at any Iraqi at any time and pull the trigger without consequence. And if these incidents you describe took place then no doubt every right-minded person wishes that the full might of the law is brought to bear on those responsible.

You have pointedly ignored the question that Jaws, squidge and no doubt many others following this thread wish answered, "In your opinion, did any of the people aboard United 93 speak to their families from on board the plane?". Once more, a simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice. It is surely irrelevant whether it was by cellphone, airphone or whatever other means (more of your obfuscation) the important part is whether that alleged communication actually took place or not.

I eagerly await your response....

golach
12-Jul-06, 15:24
If my arithmatic is correct, thats "Strike Three" Fred, your OUT!!!!!!

fred
12-Jul-06, 20:22
Fred you never actually answer a question - you are as evasive as those people you post about.

Blazing Sporrans asked if you could supply evidence that an American soldier can level his firearm at any Iraqi at any time and pull the trigger without consequence!

You have posted a link to a site which shows they are under investigation for atrocities - does that mean your answer is no you cant provide evidence as Blazing sporrans asks

Didn't you look at the BBC news report I posted a link to?


Mr Casey said he did not take part in any atrocities himself, but was advised to always carry a shovel. He could then plant this on any civilian victims to make it look as though they were digging roadside bombs.

So any American soldier can kill an Iraqi anytime, provided he has a shovel handy.



Golach, jaws, myself and Blazing sporrans have asked you variously whether you think the relatives were lying and the phone calls - wherever they came from didnt take place

Maybe you could clarify your answers to thses two questions before we go much further

I already answered you, 6 days ago.

You asked:


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?

I answered:


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.

I don't see how I could have made it any clearer. Seems to me you'd rather believe I say what JAWS pretends I say rather than what I actually write.

fred
12-Jul-06, 21:35
And if these incidents you describe took place then no doubt every right-minded person wishes that the full might of the law is brought to bear on those responsible.


Do they?

As far as I'm concerned Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are the ones mainly responsible. What are the chances of the full might of the law being brought against them?

Did the populations of Germany and Japan just turn into barbaric murderers in the 1930s then turn back into normal decent people again after the war? No, all that changed was their perception of other races, Hitler made his troops believe that they were the master race, that Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals were sub-human.

In an article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/12/nsas12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/12/ixhome.html) in the Telegraph Ben Griffin, an SAS soldier who resigned from the army because of the abuses he saw committed by American soldiers said they view all Iraqis as "untermenchen". Bush took the hatred and fear unleashed by 9/11 and he used it against the Iraqi people.

Systematic abuse of women has been going on in Iraq for a long time, those photos from Abu Grhaib were never released because they would have undobtedly brought acts of retaliation against the United States. In 2004 the Iraqi minister for human rights resigned over Americas refusal to take action against the abuse of women. Here (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/800/focus.htm) is an article written by an Iraqi who was imprissoned in Iraq under Saddam Husseins regime which gives some of the details.

golach
12-Jul-06, 21:53
In an article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/12/nsas12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/12/ixhome.html) in the Telegraph Ben Griffin, an SAS soldier who resigned from the army
I some how doubt the facts in this article for one or two reasons, firstly a soldier cannot just resign from HM Forces, they have to serve their stated time of enlistment, or give notice and that usually takes 2 years. And I do not think a SAS soldier would be allowed to resign so easily, unless he has been discharged for misconduct, and that would put his statments in another light.
Also his age, all SAS are volunteers and have to go through a very intensive and very selective training, which takes years not months, he states his age as 28. Most troopers in the SAS are in their early 30's to my knowledge.
I take his statement with a pinch of salt, and consider it an elaborate story by a Walter Mitty type, because the SAS will never admit to him as ever serving in the Regiment.

katiekrunch
12-Jul-06, 21:57
I think the people of Mumbai would agree wholeheartedly with you on that point katiekrunch.

I use the term 'Terrorists' lightly and carefully, as it dosn't neccessarily imply one nation or one religion or in one singled-out country. They could be anywhere, they could be living next door to 'you' etc.etc.
'Terrorists' are those who use violence and intimidation to achieve political ends, forced or oppressed by fear and/or violence.

JAWS
12-Jul-06, 23:51
I use the term 'Terrorists' lightly and carefully, as it dosn't neccessarily imply one nation or one religion or in one singled-out country. They could be anywhere, they could be living next door to 'you' etc.etc.
'Terrorists' are those who use violence and intimidation to achieve political ends, forced or oppressed by fear and/or violence.I could not agree more, they come in all shapes, sizes, colours and beliefs.

Blazing Sporrans
13-Jul-06, 00:24
Didn't you look at the BBC news report I posted a link to?

So any American soldier can kill an Iraqi anytime, provided he has a shovel handy.

fred, fred, fred - you clearly said "...a state where any American Soldier can murder whomsoever he wants at his whim" and you then attempt to issue a more qualified, very general statement from a source you choose to believe. As usual, your tactics appear that you will not answer a direct question, instead you skirt around the answer and you will then lay some kind of smokescreen in the hope that people will forget the questions that were asked in the first place. Surely in "...a state where any American Soldier can murder whomsoever he wants at his whim", he doesn't have to worry about planting evidence, nor will he have to worry about the locus? He should be able to shoot a line-up of Iraqis queueing for food in the most public environment possible without fearing any repercussion whatsoever but we both know that doesn't happen, therefore your argument is null and void. It's not even a case of semantics, as I asked a very carefully worded question.

Now to quote a little bit more from the article you referred to and quoted from yourself;

"Another veteran, Specialist Jody Casey, who was a scout sniper in Baquba, said he had also seen innocent civilians being killed.

Bombs "go off and you just zap any farmer that's close to you", he said.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif

Mr Casey said he did not take part in any atrocities himself, but was advised to always carry a shovel. He could then plant this on any civilian victims to make it look as though they were digging roadside bombs.

The US and British governments say the fact the allegations are being investigated at all shows that progress has been made in Iraq. UK International Development Minister Hilary Benn welcomed the inquiry and said it was important that the perpetrators were being brought to justice."

So therefore, if Mr Casey says, "Bombs go off and you just zap any farmer that's close to you", how can he be so sure that he hasn't participated in any atrocities if these are the type of tactics employed by himself and his colleagues? Also, these incidents, if true are obviously being investigated (as quoted in the reference article of YOUR choice), further invalidating your argument that Iraq is "...a state where any American Soldier can murder whomsoever he wants at his whim". And I DO dearly hope that any persons, whatever their nationality, are brought to book for any proven abuses of human rights, so when you quote me and respond as before


And if these incidents you describe took place then no doubt every right-minded person wishes that the full might of the law is brought to bear on those responsible.


Do they?

As far as I'm concerned Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are the ones mainly responsible. What are the chances of the full might of the law being brought against them?

DO NOT presume that you talk for me or for the vast majority of those I know who hold a like opinion. You might hold Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld responsible but the troops carry the arms themselves and are capable of making individual decisions. To try and claim otherwise is an argument that fell flat at Nuremberg after WWII.

Finally, can I ask for the third time, "In your opinion, did any of the people aboard United 93 speak to their families from on board the plane?". A SIMPLE 'YES' OR 'NO' WILL SUFFICE PLEASE. And in case you missed it the last time, "it is surely irrelevant whether it was by cellphone, airphone or whatever other means (more of your obfuscation) the important part is whether that alleged communication actually took place or not."

Awaiting a sensible response yet again....

JAWS
13-Jul-06, 00:56
Here are the direct quotes, the accuracy and context of which can be checked should anybody wish.


Family members of passengers have said they spoke to passengers on Flight 93 via Cellphones.

If they are telling the truth then passengers cellphones on Flight 93 must have been working.
If Cellphones on Flight 93 could not work then the passengers would not be able to talk to family members and those who say they received calls must therefore be lying.


Have they? I must have missed that. I've seen a commission report saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones, I've seen countless newspaper headlines and television reports saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones but I haven't seen any actual family members saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones. The only transcript I've seen where a passenger says how he was calling he said that he didn't have long because there were a lot of people waiting to use the airphone.

A police officer testifying at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial said that 37 calls were made by 13 people 2 of which were made by cell phone, one of those to the Pennsylvania sheriffs department.

So how can your perception of what happened and reality be so different.


THE widow of a passenger who led an attack on hijackers, preventing them from crashing an airliner into a Washington landmark, spoke yesterday of her pride in her husband.
Deena Burnett said she spoke to her husband Thomas, 38, four times as he called her on his mobile telephone from United Airlines Flight 93 before it plunged into a field at Shanksville, 80 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Mrs Burnett believes that, after she told her husband on his mobile phone about the World Trade Centre attacks, he and the other passengers decided to turn the tables on their hijackers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/14/wpit14.xml



How did she know he was calling from his cell phone? Someone on a cell phone sounds no different to someone on an airphone. Did she know the same way you know, did she read it in the paper or see it on TV?

The above is what we both said and not, as you allege, my version of what was said.
I therefore ask the same question again.

Am I to understand that there is no dispute that 35 of the calls in question were in fact made but only over the method used to make them and that only two additional calls are in dispute because they could not have been made by the method claimed?

Is anybody else having problems understanding what I am asking?

squidge
13-Jul-06, 07:20
I don't see how I could have made it any clearer. Seems to me you'd rather believe I say what JAWS pretends I say rather than what I actually write.

thanks for your reply Fred

So you are saying that American soldiers can run amok and kill anyone and nothing is ever done about it and that the phone calls were made from the airlines.

How does the fact that soldiers are being investigated and tried for atrocitites square with your first answer, and your "conspiracy theories square with your second answer because surely if the phone calls took place then the hijacking and crash happened as it was reeorted it did.

I am not being difficult but you talk round in circles and i get fed up of following for a while and hten when i return to this thread i cant find my way in again. I dont beleive anything without making my own mind up about it first and thats what i am trying to do

golach
13-Jul-06, 08:59
thanks for your reply Fred
I am not being difficult but you talk round in circles and i get fed up of following for a while and hten when i return to this thread i cant find my way in again. I dont beleive anything without making my own mind up about it first and thats what i am trying to do
Squidge, that is the whole purpose of Fred, to try to confuse and make us so fed up we will start thinking like him, and that we will accept any thing he puts in print. As I have said before its Propoganda, and he is trying to brain wash us. Thanks for the likes of you and Jaws and a few others who dare to dispute him and his rants.

fred
13-Jul-06, 10:11
thanks for your reply Fred

So you are saying that American soldiers can run amok and kill anyone and nothing is ever done about it and that the phone calls were made from the airlines.

How does the fact that soldiers are being investigated and tried for atrocitites square with your first answer, and your "conspiracy theories square with your second answer because surely if the phone calls took place then the hijacking and crash happened as it was reeorted it did.

Well now you must read what I said about American soldiers in the context of the post I was replying to not Balzing Sporrans pedantry. He said:


bringing a democracy to a previous totalitarian state, where the former leader could murder whomever he wanted at his whim?

Do we deduce from this that Saddam Hussein used to walk around the streets of Baghdad pulling out his revolver and shooting people as it took his fancy? No, the reality of it is that under Saddam an Iraqi could walk the streets of Baghdad in safety, people didn't go out in fear of being shot, now things are completely different.

Things have improved recently, it's Congressional election year, the Pentagon reports that it has managed to reduce the number of checkpoint shootings from 4 a week to 1 a week. If they can do that now when violence is at its worst why couldn't they do it for the first three years? Is it that those three lives a week just didn't matter to them? What about all the reported attrocities which wern't investigated? At the moment there are two inquiries into the masacre at Haditha, one into the masacre itself, the other one into the cover up. It took the Washington Post to publish damning evidence that the masacre took place before anyone would do anything.

As for "conspiracy theories", that is what others lable the things I say so that people won't even bother to think about if thay might be true or not.



I am not being difficult but you talk round in circles and i get fed up of following for a while and hten when i return to this thread i cant find my way in again. I dont beleive anything without making my own mind up about it first and thats what i am trying to do

Just read what I write with an open mind and you won't find it nearly so confusing.

scotsboy
13-Jul-06, 12:04
Fred wrote:
Just read what I write with an open mind and you won't find it nearly so confusing.

I think Squidge has a very open mind, and you did not answer her questions.

sjwahwah
13-Jul-06, 13:16
how the thread turned from Flight 93 to the Iraq war only leads me to think that people really want to engage in a debate over the war not some propagandist hollywood film that is brainwashing the populus. (who's really brainwashing you golach?) So, why doesn't some one start a War thread then? Then we can discuss the ever booming opium poppy trade in Afghanistan and enslavement of American troops under the Stop Loss Program and all the rest of it. And, it seems we have plenty of opinions from some of our finest British troops here on Caithness.org... I'm sure they have plenty of insight into the reasons why they were sent to to Iraq for the original Operation Iraqi Liberation (you do the acronym) now widely known as Operation Iraqi Freedom and why we are still there and where they'll be next?? And I'm listening....

Nobody ever said Flight 93 wasn't hijacked.. but, I question by whom? and did it just crash because the passengers were wrestling the controls from hijackers? (and what was this guy exactly going to do with the controls when and if he managed to gain control?) strange how this crash left such a gigantic debris field.. imagine.. hittin the ground and at how many mph again? and debris bouncin' 7 miles away... has that happened in a plane crash before? and yes.. I think the cellphone calls are questionable at the very least!

and please .. the commission report CANNOT be relied upon. how can they write a report on something they barely investigated, which they waited a year to start anyways and anybody who knew anything about 9-11 including survivor William Rodriguez who was the last survivor pulled from the rubble of the world trade center, awarded a congressional medal of bravery and testified three hours of evidence that was omitted entirely from the report be considered reliable? And, why won't Larry McQuillan answer real questions?

the truth is United 93 "the movie" is only a hollywood fabrication of what they would like you to believe happened on the flight.. probably nothing like what actually happened and what bearing does that have on Iraq war.. all the apparent hijackers were mostly Saudis & none Iraqi.

Blazing Sporrans
13-Jul-06, 13:50
I think Squidge has a very open mind, and you did not answer her questions.
scotsboy, you've hit the nail fairly and squarely on the head there. When fred realises that he has painted himself into a corner with his own words, he prefers just to inore the questions put to him by others. After all, one can only assume that he has read my previous post (#147 I think) as it was posted 13 hours ago from the present time of writing, while his most recent posting is only 3 hours ago. Yet again he chooses to completely ignore my questions. He'll probably deride them and say they aren't worth answering or even worth his acknowledgement. Ah - the cut and thrust of skilled debate!! Bravo fred. Your last response was full of further obfuscation (a word I haven't had cause to use in years before reading your posts - yet now you prompt me to use it incessantly). A tactic clearly employed by those who do not wish to answer direct questions with a straight answer (and one which prospers well on the hustings and in parliament).

Way, way back in Post #1 on this thread (which was meant to be a film review, however it got hijacked - anyone else see the irony!) Nello posted the quote "For Evil to triumph Good Men just need do Nothing". This was then attacked as "political propaganda" by fred who said

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.
And this is what fred is so good at. Never, anywhere did Nello choose to say or make the assumption that we in the west are the good guys and that it is the Iraqis who are evil, however this will now be the impression that anyone who reads fred's post will be left with. The way I read it was that the quote about "good men" refers to society as a whole, not any specific or segregated part as fred would have you believe was Nello's intention.

Going back to post #8, fred tells us that "in Iraq we have flattened entire towns, killed millions". Please check http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ which gives the Iraqi casualty figures, which at this time approach 43,400. That will put a better perspective on fred's 'spin'. And no, I'm not an apologist for the war - frankly I don't believe for one minute that ANY troops should be there. I also believe that the whole 'invasion' was orchestrated and that Tony Blair (and the Tories and Lib-Dems) were led up the garden path by the 'intelligence' provided by the Americans, which led to UK involvement in the first place. The whole thing is about Oil and billions of gallons have gone missing during the American-led occupation of Iraq. I was warned that this was coming many years ago by a friend ('StephenBanshee' from AOL take a bow) who could inform people of what was going on and what was impending without the sensationalism and misinformation supplied by people like fred.

That should do me for a while.... (although I'm still waiting for fred's answers)

Kittykat
13-Jul-06, 14:00
I'm new at this, but why doesn't Fred answer anybodys questions properly?

PhilR
13-Jul-06, 14:15
Do we deduce from this that Saddam Hussein used to walk around the streets of Baghdad pulling out his revolver and shooting people as it took his fancy? No, the reality of it is that under Saddam an Iraqi could walk the streets of Baghdad in safety, people didn't go out in fear of being shot, now things are completely different.

Thought I'd heard it all from Fred but this latest is absolutely the most laughable, bizarre and inaccurate rubbish I've seen yet. His cyberspace 'reality' has gone a bit crazy!

Fred, I have no proof that Saddam did or didn't walk around shooting people himself (although I'm sure I could find web reports to say he did), but he certainly got others to do it for him.

Example 1 : His own son, Uday, used to come to Basra and his favourite method of clearing a restaurant he fancied eating in was to first send in one of his pet tigers. Anyone not quick enough was mauled to death. This was told to me by local eye-witnesses, and I spent a few nights in a royal building which still had the cages, as well as the remains of a torture chamber.

Could these locals have been lying, I hear you cry! Possibly, but after living with them for 3 years I'd put a lot more weight on their testimony than a web report! Also, I was in Basra the night Uday and Kusay were killed. There was a street party like you have never seen before! I was also driving through Iraq the day they caught Saddam. My interpretors were crying with joy and people on the street waving at us because the threat of his brutal, murderous regime was gone.

Example 2 : Another acquaintance I made was Jano Rosebiani, an award-winning filmmaker who was backed by the UN with collating and filming evidence of Iraq mass graves and atrocities of Saddam and Chemical Ali. He was in Basra to investigate accounts of Baath party barbeques (subsequently proven) where the entertainment was to line up some, usually, Shi'ite locals at the end of the garden and shoot them just for target practice, before returning to their shwarmas and tea. Again, while I would not normally resort to directing everyone to a weblink 'a-la-Fred', having spent several evenings over a beer with this guy and seeing some of his evidence, I can vouch for what he shows. (www.iraqitruthproject.com)

Walk the streets in safety? I think not!

Many Iraqis may not be overjoyed with the coalition still there, but they know it's still a hell of a lot better than what they had.

sjwahwah
13-Jul-06, 14:49
Blazing Sporran.. hate to burst your non-sensationalist and your absolute misinfomation handed to you about the whereabouts of a few barrels of oil... it's not about stealing oil.. it's about turning the spigot OFF not on. and there's nothing sensational about it... makes quite a bit of sense when you weigh it all up.

Iraq body count? I suppose this started in April of 2003? April 2003 is only a publicly announced & noted invasion how about all the bombings in between 1991 till 2003? What about the millions of Iraqi children killed by UN sanctions previous? How can you count completely melted bodies in Fallujah after their offensive (claimed incendiary) use of white phosphorus (s/)?

Phil R... are you saying that because we aren't sitting in the Iraqi desert we are not clued in and just have NO idea of what is going on over there then? How much truth do you think you can get out of someone when they are defenceless and you are standing with a gun in your hand? Is anybody saying Saddam and family were a barrel of laughs and great guys? I think Fred is saying that it was relative safety. I'm sure it was as safe to sit in a resturant in Baghdad as it is to sit in one in downtown Detroit today. Surely, your not assuming he's claiming that there was no crime by either the Hussein regime or other Iraqis? as that was not the way I took it. Anyways... I'm sure Donald Rumsfeld has killed far more people with his forced FDA approvals of chemical food additives than Uday & Qusay could've done in a lifetime of evening resturant maulings.

George Brims
13-Jul-06, 18:06
Fred rambled:

No, the reality of it is that under Saddam an Iraqi could walk the streets of Baghdad in safety, people didn't go out in fear of being shot, now things are completely different.

I grant you that perhaps on a day to day basis it was safer walking the streets of Iraq when Saddam was running things (unless you ran into the nasty sons or their clique). But what good is it being safe walking the streets during the day, when you get taken away by the secret police in the middle of the night if you say the wrong thing?

Anyway my opinion is that this is a frying pan to fire situation. Anyone who thinks there are going to be any winners in this mess (other than the other countries that sell oil) is delusional.

fred
13-Jul-06, 20:55
Walk the streets in safety? I think not!

Many Iraqis may not be overjoyed with the coalition still there, but they know it's still a hell of a lot better than what they had.

You can spin the propaganda anyway you want it but a 2004 survey by the Lancet (http://www.bluejayway.net/pdf/lancet_10-29-04_article_on_IRAQ_casualties.pdf) still showed that the average Iraqi civilian was 58 times as likely to die a violent death than before the invasion.

fred
13-Jul-06, 21:25
I'm new at this, but why doesn't Fred answer anybodys questions properly?

I do, see, I just answered yours.

fred
13-Jul-06, 21:40
Am I to understand that there is no dispute that 35 of the calls in question were in fact made but only over the method used to make them and that only two additional calls are in dispute because they could not have been made by the method claimed?


Yes, I said that a week ago, the calls were made from airphones not cell phones, all except two of them.

fred
13-Jul-06, 22:00
Finally, can I ask for the third time, "In your opinion, did any of the people aboard United 93 speak to their families from on board the plane?". A SIMPLE 'YES' OR 'NO' WILL SUFFICE PLEASE. And in case you missed it the last time, "it is surely irrelevant whether it was by cellphone, airphone or whatever other means (more of your obfuscation) the important part is whether that alleged communication actually took place or not."

Awaiting a sensible response yet again....

How many more times?

I said a week ago that most of the calls were made from airphones not cell phones, I repeated that reply in my answer to Squidge last night.

You accuse me of not answering Squidges question when I did and then when I post the answer again you accuse me of not answering it again.

What is your problem?

fred
13-Jul-06, 22:06
Fred wrote:

I think Squidge has a very open mind, and you did not answer her questions.

I think she has an open mind too, compared to many.

Which questions do you think I didn't answer?

JAWS
14-Jul-06, 08:48
Just to give a concise version of the direction the debate over the cellphone calls has taken over the length of this thread I have listed those exchanges between fred and myself. There are several others who have been involved in similar exchanges but I thought it only fair not to speak on their behalf despite the fact that many of the points they raised have led to some very important points being made.

I have made a determined effort to keep the Posts quoted only to those relating to Flight 93 and the discussion over the calls between that flight and the ground.
I have avoided including any attempts to drag in matters which really are totally inconsequential to this particular Thread. If I have failed in this then I am sorry.

I have included the numbers of the Posts quoted to make it easier if anybody wishes to check their accuracy as I have edited some parts out which in my opinion refer to matters other than Flight 93 and the messages from it.

Two Weeks ago Post 23

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.

Two Weeks ago Post 48

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.

One Week ago. Post 57

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.

One Week ago Post 69

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.

One Week ago Post 71

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.

One Week ago Post 73

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.------

----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.


One week ago Post81

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.

Five Days ago Post 101


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?

Five Days ago Post 102

Going off into one of your "conspiracy theory" rants everytime one of your arguments falls flat is no substitute intelligent debate.
This refers to Post 100 where I list several sites, including items from the BBC and the Telegraph, along with other sites giving versions of what witnesses from close to the crash site, one from Lambertsville which is within a mile of the crash site and others from Shanksville another nearby town many of whom say Military Planes were seen at the crash site both prior to and within minutes after the crash, including a local teacher who spoke to the Daily Mirror.
Check the sites folks and see if these reports are due to my wild imagination and a relate to Conspiracy Theories of my invention.

Four Days ago Post 114

I can't see why the families should lie about such things, surely that is the last thing they would want to do.

Three days ago Post 117

So quote the post in which someone said any of the families have lied.
You're building strawmen again.

Post 127

I would draw that conclusion from the allegation that cellphones would not work on Flight 93.

Family members of passengers have said they spoke to passengers on Flight 93 via Cellphones. If they are telling the truth then passengers cellphones on Flight 93 must have been working.
If Cellphones on Flight 93 could not work then the passengers would not be able to talk to family members and those who say they received calls must therefore be lying.

Did relatives receive calls from Flight 93 or not?

Two Days ago Post 129

Have they? I must have missed that. I've seen a commission report saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones, I've seen countless newspaper headlines and television reports saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones but I haven't seen any actual family members saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones. The only transcript I've seen where a passenger says how he was calling he said that he didn't have long because there were a lot of people waiting to use the airphone.

A police officer testifying at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial said that 37 calls were made by 13 people 2 of which were made by cell phone, one of those to the Pennsylvania sheriffs department.

So how can your perception of what happened and reality be so different?

Two Days ago Post 132

THE widow of a passenger who led an attack on hijackers, preventing them from crashing an airliner into a Washington landmark, spoke yesterday of her pride in her husband.
Deena Burnett said she spoke to her husband Thomas, 38, four times as he called her on his mobile telephone from United Airlines Flight 93 before it plunged into a field at Shanksville, 80 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Mrs Burnett believes that, after she told her husband on his mobile phone about the World Trade Centre attacks, he and the other passengers decided to turn the tables on their hijackers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/14/wpit14.xml

You can’t have looked very far fred. There is one “liar” for a start.

One Day ago Post 133

You are getting far too fond of calling people liars JAWS.

How did she know he was calling from his cell phone? Someone on a cell phone sounds no different to someone on an airphone. Did she know the same way you know, did she read it in the paper or see it on TV?

One Day ago Post 139

Check back fred, I have not called anybody a liar.
The woman in question says she received several calls from her husband on his mobile phone or cellphone as it would seem they are called in the US.

I believe that she is telling the truth about what happened and that her husband called her on his cellphone exactly as she says.
The claim that she could not possibly have done so because his cellphone would not work is implying that she is lying about what happened.

I produce a widow who says she did receive such a phone-call and suddenly I find that virtually the whole of this thread is a dispute, not over if the phone-calls were actually made, but over which type of phone was used to make the calls.

Fred, had you said right at the beginning that the film had simply got the method used to contact relatives incorrect and that the passengers had, in fact, been using an airphone and not cellphones there would have been no confusion.

Am I to understand that there is no dispute that 35 of the calls in question were in fact made but only over the method used to make them and that only two additional calls are in dispute because they could not have been made by the method claimed?

Last night Post 161

Yes, I said that a week ago, the calls were made from airphones not cell phones, all except two of them.

I leave it upto members to make their own minds up about how the debate commenced and where it has arrived to date.

Is there a reason why the whole thing has been dragged out for so long with so many side-tracks in between?

squidge
14-Jul-06, 09:44
Fred asked me to read what he posts with an open mind
Here are the conclusions i have drawn with my "open mind"from what i have read both here and in other postings by Fred so far

Freds postings lead me to think that he thought the phone calls never happened that the whole hijack and crash was part of a conspiracy by the USA to create the war on terror that would ultimately lead to the invasion of Iraq. The implications within this and other threads appear to be that 9/11 was orchestrated by the USA - they hijacked planes and killed their own citizens, set charges to bring down the twin towers and kill innocent people, They created an illusion with flight 93 to suggest that the plane was hijacked when either it wasnt or it was hijacked with the full co operation of the US government and the people killed by their own government. The calls from the aeroplane never happened and the relatives and friends of the dead are mistaken about the conversations they had. The implication is that Fred believes the US is setting the stage for ... i hesitate to use the words "world domination" because i am deadly serious about what i have read and understood from Fred's postings and I dont want people to think i am over dramatising things but i cant find a better phrase.

Fred appears to believe that the US government is the most evil and most dangerous political force in the world. He also seems to believe that most atrocities can be laid at the feet of the US and that their actions in Iraq and elsewhere are those of "terrorists"

Is anyone else drawing these conclusions from the posts Fred makes or am i wide of the mark. Fred you might want to clarify things if none of the above reflects accurately what it is you try to imply or suggest or state or anything else through the posts you make. We are then able to put things into context a bit better

Thanks

fred
14-Jul-06, 10:55
Is there a reason why the whole thing has been dragged out for so long with so many side-tracks in between?

I answered that question 6 days ago in post 94.


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.

As usual you just ignored what I said and read what you wanted me to say.

Blazing Sporrans
14-Jul-06, 11:29
You accuse me of not answering Squidges question when I did and then when I post the answer again you accuse me of not answering it again.
What is your problem?

So at last an answer then, if somewhat forced. fred has spoken at length about giving very sound technical reasons why cell phones won't work on aircraft, yet we finally have his concession then that 2 calls were made by cell phone and the rest by airphone. So why the long, pedantic debate over the METHOD of call, if you concede that there were calls made from flight 93? I'm at a loss to explain the need for such a debate!

Now that we've got that out of the way, can we move onto THE REST of post #147, which you once more, carefully side-step around, by only finally answering the last question in the last paragraph. It's getting tiresome to have to quote once more, but here goes;



Didn't you look at the BBC news report I posted a link to?
So any American soldier can kill an Iraqi anytime, provided he has a shovel handy.


fred, fred, fred - you clearly said "...a state where any American Soldier can murder whomsoever he wants at his whim" and you then attempt to issue a more qualified, very general statement from a source you choose to believe. As usual, your tactics appear that you will not answer a direct question, instead you skirt around the answer and you will then lay some kind of smokescreen in the hope that people will forget the questions that were asked in the first place. Surely in "...a state where any American Soldier can murder whomsoever he wants at his whim", he doesn't have to worry about planting evidence, nor will he have to worry about the locus? He should be able to shoot a line-up of Iraqis queueing for food in the most public environment possible without fearing any repercussion whatsoever but we both know that doesn't happen, therefore your argument is null and void. It's not even a case of semantics, as I asked a very carefully worded question.

Now to quote a little bit more from the article you referred to and quoted from yourself;

"Another veteran, Specialist Jody Casey, who was a scout sniper in Baquba, said he had also seen innocent civilians being killed.

Bombs "go off and you just zap any farmer that's close to you", he said.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif

Mr Casey said he did not take part in any atrocities himself, but was advised to always carry a shovel. He could then plant this on any civilian victims to make it look as though they were digging roadside bombs.

The US and British governments say the fact the allegations are being investigated at all shows that progress has been made in Iraq. UK International Development Minister Hilary Benn welcomed the inquiry and said it was important that the perpetrators were being brought to justice."

So therefore, if Mr Casey says, "Bombs go off and you just zap any farmer that's close to you", how can he be so sure that he hasn't participated in any atrocities if these are the type of tactics employed by himself and his colleagues? Also, these incidents, if true are obviously being investigated (as quoted in the reference article of YOUR choice), further invalidating your argument that Iraq is "...a state where any American Soldier can murder whomsoever he wants at his whim". And I DO dearly hope that any persons, whatever their nationality, are brought to book for any proven abuses of human rights

Do you have time to answer the rest of that please?

sjwahwah - at least you present a more reasoned argument, although when you reply to my post

Going back to post #8, fred tells us that "in Iraq we have flattened entire towns, killed millions". Please check http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ which gives the Iraqi casualty figures, which at this time approach 43,400. That will put a better perspective on fred's 'spin'. And no, I'm not an apologist for the war - frankly I don't believe for one minute that ANY troops should be there. I also believe that the whole 'invasion' was orchestrated and that Tony Blair (and the Tories and Lib-Dems) were led up the garden path by the 'intelligence' provided by the Americans, which led to UK involvement in the first place. The whole thing is about Oil and billions of gallons have gone missing during the American-led occupation of Iraq. I was warned that this was coming many years ago by a friend ('StephenBanshee' from AOL take a bow) who could inform people of what was going on and what was impending without the sensationalism and misinformation supplied by people like fred.


Blazing Sporran.. hate to burst your non-sensationalist and your absolute misinfomation handed to you about the whereabouts of a few barrels of oil... it's not about stealing oil.. it's about turning the spigot OFF not on. and there's nothing sensational about it... makes quite a bit of sense when you weigh it all up.

Iraq body count? I suppose this started in April of 2003? April 2003 is only a publicly announced & noted invasion how about all the bombings in between 1991 till 2003? What about the millions of Iraqi children killed by UN sanctions previous? How can you count completely melted bodies in Fallujah after their offensive (claimed incendiary) use of white phosphorus (s/)?

please understand that I never said anywhere that it was about the siphoning off of as much oil as possible from Iraq (however I'm sure you'll agree that billions of dollars worth have gone missing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1522983,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1522983,00.html)) and there was no inference that I claimed the Iraq war was to turn the spigot ON. However nothing I said was sensationalist (nor was it intended to be), nor was it misinformation - those were words I used to describe fred's postings. I quoted the Iraq casualties since the commencement of the allied invasion, or whatever euphemism anyone wishes to use for it, purely because that was the point under discussion. I'm quite happy to concede facts to anyone, provided they are accurate and presented in a non-sensationalist way. For instance, John Pilger reported back in 2000, both in the Guardian and on TV documentary that an estimated 500,000 children had died as a result of the UN-imposed sanctions. Do you think that I am in favour of this? For anyone with any interest on the subject then go online and search under 'Iraq' and 'John Pilger' because Pilger has written some fascinating articles on the subject and has campaigned louder and longer than most others againt the Iraq war. And as far as I can recall, I said I was NOT an apologist for the war, I said Blair and the British government were necessarily hoodwinked into the coalition by American 'intelligence' (in what Pilger describes as the most dangerous appeasement since the 1930's) as America could not afford to go it alone in Iraq. It needed allies, so that it could present the illusion that the majority of the west was in favour of the invasion. Of course, once the toe is in the door, the Americans being the self-appointed leaders of the western world, step in, take control and do whatever they like. I also said I was warned this was coming - not the loss of Iraq's oil - the whole American-led invasion. Back in 1998 or 1999, a friend of mine in a politics discussion chat on AOL warned that this would pan out almost exactly as it happened. I'm not afraid to admit the truth when I see it - and that's also why none of the major UK political parties have my vote.

What I do question though are fred's conspiracy theories (or inferences) that the American government had a shady hand in what happened aboard flight 93. I suppose then that the bombing of the World Trade Centre back in 1993 was American led, or that the bombing of the 'USS Cole' in 2000 was American led? Following the unsuccessful attempt to topple the World Trade Centre in 1993 (theories surrounding the plan apparently state that the underground car park bombing would weaken the structure, topple the tower and bring it crashing down into the neighbouring one) is it surprising that the WTC remained a target for Sept 11th 2001? Is it surprising that Osama Bin Laden (or his impostor) would have a tape broadcast on a website giving a learned discourse into what he thought was the likely outcome, i.e. fuel oil explosions and fires weakening the steel structures, causing collapse? Who knows? However, whether it was OBL who broadcast that or someone else, they also had the benefit of hindsight, which allowed them to take credit for whatever they liked, as long as it matched what happened. If only one tower had collapsed, they might just have likely said that was what they planned. And is there not as much interest for the 'insurgents' to believe that OBL is still alive as a figurehead for their fight? I'm not claiming to know enough about them to know for sure but I would have thought that there was a pretty good case for it.

I think I've finally said all I needed to say.

JAWS
14-Jul-06, 15:55
Sorry folks but here is how the discussion over cellphones started on this Thread and how the discussion developed.
Once again I have indicated where the quotes can be found should anybody with to check their accuracy or if their meanings have been taken out of context.

Six Days ago Post 94

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.
Oh dear, it seems that the discussion over cellphones is all my fault because I had the audacity not to simply accept what I am told.

Six hours ago Post 164

I leave it upto members to make their own minds up about how the debate commenced and where it has arrived to date.
Is there a reason why the whole thing has been dragged out for so long with so many side-tracks in between?
Three Hours ago Post 166

I answered that question 6 days ago in post 94.
As usual you just ignored what I said and read what you wanted me to say.

The following is how cellphones became introduced:-

Two Weeks ago Post 13

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.
Two Weeks ago Post 14

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.

Two weeks ago Post 15

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.

Two weeks ago Post 17

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.

Two weeks ago Post 14

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.

Two Weeks ago Post 20

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?

Two Weeks ago Post 23

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.

Two Weeks ago Post 43
Check it if you wish folks, it is a long aside advising Nello of how he is supposed to view the disgraceful way America and Britain behave according to others.

Two Weeks ago Post 44

I will ask again! If the "Official Version" is a total invention then what made the plane crash?

Two Weeks ago Post 48

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.

Two Weeks ago Post 50

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. . .

One week ago Post 57

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.

One Week ago Post 66

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

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.

Sorry, fred, I think the original version was much more realistic, it had a much more realistic plot!

That takes us upto post 69 after which my previous list is fairly comprehensive.

We start of with an assertion that cellphones do not work at 35,000 feet. We are told that there were 10 cellphone calls one lasting 14 minutes.

We end up with most of the calls having been made by airphone and only two by cellphones, one of which is to the Police.

The plane was flown, after the hijack at various heights being at times as low as 700 feet.

There is no indication whatsoever at what height those two calls, or indeed any of the calls were made except for the constant repetition that they would not work at 35000 feet. This has been confirmed by one person, who has a vested interest in proving the phones would not have worked, taking a cellphone up in an aircraft, trying to use it a few times and failing.

It has taken all this time to find out that only two cellphone calls were made, the duration of which and at what level or point in the flight is totally unexplained.

We are told that the film of Flight 93 is total Hollywood Fiction and also that the Official Version is almost a complete invention.
Any questions as to an alternative explanation are met with evasion to put it mildly.

We are now told that the cellphone issue is of minor relevance and that there are many much more serious flaws on the Official Version but none of which have rated a serious mention by those alleging that.

Am I the only one who is puzzled how impossible cellphone calls at 35000 feet made on at least ten occasions including one lasting 14 minutes has now become two cellphone calls made at a completely unknown height and of completely unknown duration.

It seems to me that somebody has been trying to feed us with misleading information and hoping we would swallow it hook, line and sinker so we could be guided to accept a particular version of what happened.

Sorry for having to list everything in this way but it gives everybody an opportunity to decide for themselfes if I am deliberately distorting what has been said.

PhilR
14-Jul-06, 16:25
How much truth do you think you can get out of someone when they are defenceless and you are standing with a gun in your hand?

I take it from the above that you think I am a soldier in Iraq? Wrong. Read back and you will see I am a civilian working here



Phil R... are you saying that because we aren't sitting in the Iraqi desert we are not clued in and just have NO idea of what is going on over there then?

Read back again. I have never said that only people who are here know what is going on. What I have done is respond to inaccuracies posted by someone who has no first hand experience of the place or the people, fails to answer straight questions and who's only response to information which may nullify his argument is to post yet another web report.

In response to my last post......


You can spin the propaganda anyway you want it but a 2004 survey by the Lancet still showed that the average Iraqi civilian was 58 times as likely to die a violent death than before the invasion.

I rest my case!

sjwahwah
14-Jul-06, 20:07
I take it from the above that you think I am a soldier in Iraq? Wrong. Read back and you will see I am a civilian working here


Read back again. I have never said that only people who are here know what is going on. What I have done is respond to inaccuracies posted by someone who has no first hand experience of the place or the people, fails to answer straight questions and who's only response to information which may nullify his argument is to post yet another web report.


In response to my last post......



I rest my case!

doesn't make a bloomin bit a difference if you are a soldier, mercenary, contractor, teacher or what have you... if you don't have a gun I'm sure you are protected by people who have them. And most likely your being paid much better than they are. Or maybe not, i don't know you - set me straight? surely you understand my point regardless.


I've read the posts.. I'm not gonna repost what you've said twice about fred living in a cyber reality of what's going over there in Iraq.. if you say it to him... then surely it is taken as an implication that you believe that anyone that isn't there doesn't have a clue and believe me I don't think you could be more wrong.

sjwahwah
14-Jul-06, 20:31
Fred asked me to read what he posts with an open mind
Here are the conclusions i have drawn with my "open mind"from what i have read both here and in other postings by Fred so far

Freds postings lead me to think that he thought the phone calls never happened that the whole hijack and crash was part of a conspiracy by the USA to create the war on terror that would ultimately lead to the invasion of Iraq. The implications within this and other threads appear to be that 9/11 was orchestrated by the USA - they hijacked planes and killed their own citizens, set charges to bring down the twin towers and kill innocent people, They created an illusion with flight 93 to suggest that the plane was hijacked when either it wasnt or it was hijacked with the full co operation of the US government and the people killed by their own government. The calls from the aeroplane never happened and the relatives and friends of the dead are mistaken about the conversations they had. The implication is that Fred believes the US is setting the stage for ... i hesitate to use the words "world domination" because i am deadly serious about what i have read and understood from Fred's postings and I dont want people to think i am over dramatising things but i cant find a better phrase.

Fred appears to believe that the US government is the most evil and most dangerous political force in the world. He also seems to believe that most atrocities can be laid at the feet of the US and that their actions in Iraq and elsewhere are those of "terrorists"

Is anyone else drawing these conclusions from the posts Fred makes or am i wide of the mark. Fred you might want to clarify things if none of the above reflects accurately what it is you try to imply or suggest or state or anything else through the posts you make. We are then able to put things into context a bit better

Thanks
ya hit the nail bang on the heid dear! minus a few things.. who knows which of the calls are real.. some of them I can assure you are not... but, that doesn't matter, it is only a minute detail in the scheme of things..only a split hair on the donkeys back. Go to google and read about PNAC - Project for the New American Century. It's only there for all the world to see for themselves. and yes.. they mention in roundabout ways "world domination" more than once... and if you read far enough you can find out about how they are developing weapons to target specific gene groups. Who's they? The PNAC website will tell you exactly who they are and lets just say it includes Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Dan Quayle to name only a few. Try it.

If you want to know about the charges in the twin towers go to youtube.com and look up William Rodriguez, he was the master janitor in the trade center for 20 years, one of the 5 master keyholders and last survivor pulled from the rubble and has been travelling the world spreading the facts of 9/11... he along with David Felipe (David spent 30 weeks in a coma after having his skin on his arms and face ripped off by a bomb in B2 - basement level 2) are living proof bombs were going off in the basement of the twin towers moments previous the plane hitting. There is also now extensive scientific proof taken from testing scrap pieces of steel from victims memorials by the former head of the US Energy Department now professor at Brigham Young University... that Thermate a type of Thermite was used to take the towers down.

Secondly, the US are not pulling this all off themselves of course... but, they are a very strong part of the wider network of Globalists.

j4bberw0ck
14-Jul-06, 21:00
Phew! Finally got to the end of this, er, gem of a thread [lol]

Re cellphones: I have line-of-sight to the nearest cellphone mast to me on Wideford Hill, just outside Kirkwall. It's 15.7km, or 9.8 miles, or 51,800 feet if you prefer. My cellphone works just fine, thanks, though it's not happy inside the house unless I sit near a window.

35,000 feet, or 40,000 feet, no problem.

JAWS
14-Jul-06, 21:25
ya hit the nail bang on the heid dear! minus a few things.. who knows which of the calls are real.. some of them I can assure you are not... but, that doesn't matter, it is only a minute detail in the scheme of things..only a split hair on the donkeys back. Go to google and read about PNAC - Project for the New American Century. It's only there for all the world to see for themselves. and yes.. they mention in roundabout ways "world domination" more than once... and if you read far enough you can find out about how they are developing weapons to target specific gene groups. Who's they? The PNAC website will tell you exactly who they are and lets just say it includes Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Dan Quayle to name only a few. Try it.

If you want to know about the charges in the twin towers go to youtube.com and look up William Rodriguez, he was the master janitor in the trade center for 20 years, one of the 5 master keyholders and last survivor pulled from the rubble and has been travelling the world spreading the facts of 9/11... he along with David Felipe (David spent 30 weeks in a coma after having his skin on his arms and face ripped off by a bomb in B2 - basement level 2) are living proof bombs were going off in the basement of the twin towers moments previous the plane hitting. There is also now extensive scientific proof taken from testing scrap pieces of steel from victims memorials by the former head of the US Energy Department now professor at Brigham Young University... that Thermate a type of Thermite was used to take the towers down.

Secondly, the US are not pulling this all off themselves of course... but, they are a very strong part of the wider network of Globalists.Wow, and all that from a suggestion by somebody that they thought a film was enjoyable.

I think I'll go back to believing in aliens invading from Outer Space and replacing all the World's Leaders. Even "V" had a more believable plot.
At least I now know what happened to the Monty Python Scriptwriters once the series finished.

The whole World is being Conned and everybody is too stupid to realise it! What an insulting view of the average persons intelligence.

"Everybody is gullible except me and only I and the chosen few who think like me are clever enough to see the truth!"

Sounds little different to me than the beliefs of the self appointed creators of new Religious Sects trying to convince people that only they know the path to Salvation and all others are the followers of the Prophets of Evil.

sjwahwah
15-Jul-06, 06:56
jaws... there was a time when I thought you were really just a tedious old fart. but, the past few months I must admit I'm really startin' to fancy ya.;)

j4bberw0ck
15-Jul-06, 08:42
Just finished having a read about PNAC. [lol]

For an outfit dedicated, if sjwahwah is to be believed, to Global Domination, they're not terribly active. They write essays. The latest I saw was posted in December 2005, but.............

OMG, I just realised!

If they haven't posted in 2006 it must mean they've been taken out! Or suppressed! Or maybe their plans are at such an advanced stage they need secrecy now! Maybe sjwahwah will be on the hitlist for publicising them so their existence became known to sundry dangerous counter-revolutionaries in Caithness! Oh no, more conspiracy!

Arrgghhhhhh...... I'm off to build a bomb shelter........ [lol]

fred
15-Jul-06, 09:07
Arrgghhhhhh...... I'm off to build a bomb shelter........ [lol]

So tell me, just why did we invade Afghanistan and Iraq?

fred
15-Jul-06, 09:56
Read back again. I have never said that only people who are here know what is going on. What I have done is respond to inaccuracies posted by someone who has no first hand experience of the place or the people, fails to answer straight questions and who's only response to information which may nullify his argument is to post yet another web report.


So what did we know about what was going on in Iraq before the invasion?

This is what we knew.


Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

George Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003


If you don't mind I'll stick to my web reports, their version of the truth doesn't keep on changing.

j4bberw0ck
15-Jul-06, 10:16
If you don't mind I'll stick to my web reports, their version of the truth doesn't keep on changing.
It's in the nature of truth that it changes over time, since truth is effectively faith. My view of truth says that your website "truths" don't change because they're so far "out there" that reality hasn't impinged on them yet to cause a change - David Icke is another case in point.

One of the glories of democracy is that you (and I) can believe almost any old garbage we want to, without the danger of the 4 a.m. knock on the door which a good part of the rest of the world has to live with.


Alice laughed. "It's no use trying," she said, "one can't believe impossible things". "I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Plus ca change......[lol]

Blazing Sporrans
15-Jul-06, 10:16
So what did we know about what was going on in Iraq before the invasion?

This is what we knew.

Quote:
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

George Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003


If you don't mind I'll stick to my web reports, their version of the truth doesn't keep on changing.


I'm quite happy to concede facts to anyone, provided they are accurate and presented in a non-sensationalist way. For instance, John Pilger reported back in 2000, both in the Guardian and on TV documentary that an estimated 500,000 children had died as a result of the UN-imposed sanctions. Do you think that I am in favour of this? For anyone with any interest on the subject then go online and search under 'Iraq' and 'John Pilger' because Pilger has written some fascinating articles on the subject and has campaigned louder and longer than most others againt the Iraq war. And as far as I can recall, I said I was NOT an apologist for the war, I said Blair and the British government were necessarily hoodwinked into the coalition by American 'intelligence' (in what Pilger describes as the most dangerous appeasement since the 1930's) as America could not afford to go it alone in Iraq. It needed allies, so that it could present the illusion that the majority of the west was in favour of the invasion. Of course, once the toe is in the door, the Americans being the self-appointed leaders of the western world, step in, take control and do whatever they like.

I do believe fred has developed a blind spot to my posts...

As for PNAC, headed by that Republican luminary(?) William Kristol - he was DAN QUAYLE's Chief of Staff for goodness sake. Now ain't that something for your C.V.?

fred
15-Jul-06, 11:19
I do believe fred has developed a blind spot to my posts...


Sporrans dear boy I was replying To PhilRs post not yours.

Now get a grip.

fred
15-Jul-06, 11:25
Just finished having a read about PNAC. [lol]

For an outfit dedicated, if sjwahwah is to be believed, to Global Domination, they're not terribly active. They write essays. The latest I saw was posted in December 2005, but.............

OMG, I just realised!

If they haven't posted in 2006 it must mean they've been taken out! Or suppressed! Or maybe their plans are at such an advanced stage they need secrecy now! Maybe sjwahwah will be on the hitlist for publicising them so their existence became known to sundry dangerous counter-revolutionaries in Caithness! Oh no, more conspiracy!

Arrgghhhhhh...... I'm off to build a bomb shelter........ [lol]

Cheney is now Vice President, Rumsfeld is Secretary for Defence, Wolfowitz is President of the World Bank and Jeb Bush's brother is president of the United States of America.

What on earth would they need a preasure group for?

JAWS
15-Jul-06, 11:27
jaws... there was a time when I thought you were really just a tedious old fart. but, the past few months I must admit I'm really startin' to fancy ya.;)Stick with the Tedious Old Fart, it's probably much nearer the truth.

The problem with having become a Tedious Old Fart is that by that time you have realised that the Harbingers of Doom have been shouting their warnings ever since the first human discovered how to create fire. It was at that time a member of the tribe with an over active imagination was heard to cry, "You've got to watch him and his mates. I'm warning you, they're planning to set everything on fire and take over the World!"

Then followed Sooth-Sayers, the Readers of Entrails, the Court Astrologers, the Prophets of the Old Testament and so many more that I fell asleep waiting for the day when even one of them was right.

The Religious ones I could cope with, at least they warned of the acts of some all powerful spiritual being.

Now the same cries are going up by their successors, the doom laden warnings of the Political Doom-mongers, "Follow me or the Devil will strike you down!"

All powerful God's I could just about cope with but all powerful Mortals?
I'd rather stick to believing in Odin and the Halls of Valhalla as being more realistic.

Has anybody cast the Runes yet today or have we employed another set of comedians?

Is there anybody out there called Noah just in case I need to do a crash course in boat-building. After all, he’s the only one I can remember who actually got it right.
I wonder who told him where to find a couple of Koala Bears and a Kangaroos?

“We’re all Doomed, I tell you,. We’re all Doomed!”

Blazing Sporrans
15-Jul-06, 11:53
Sporrans dear boy I was replying To PhilRs post not yours.

Now get a grip.

Well fred, that's acknowledgement at least... Do I get distinguished with the honour of a reply though or is that blind spot really there?

j4bberw0ck
15-Jul-06, 12:59
Cheney is now Vice President, Rumsfeld is Secretary for Defence, Wolfowitz is President of the World Bank and Jeb Bush's brother is president of the United States of America.

What on earth would they need a preasure group for?
I'm grateful for that short lesson in current affairs, fred. IMO Ockham's Razor is all that's needed here. You can read about it at http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html (http://physics.ucr.edu/%7Ewudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html) complete with an example involving the will of powerful aliens, which might form an interesting addition to your list of conspiracies [lol]

Gratifyingly, the article also mentions a relative of Ockham's Razor called Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

For the avoidance of doubt, I just wanted to make it clear that I hadn't interpreted your views on this stuff as malicious ;).

JAWS
15-Jul-06, 13:26
Behave j4bberw0ck, fred has a Political Insight which is beyond all other's comprehension.

Blazing Sporrans
15-Jul-06, 13:56
Goodness gracious me! Re-reading these posts, I've just had the most blinding insight. It is now clear that Jaws, j4bberw0ck, squidge, Golach and I are all PART of the conspiracy. By rebutting fred's arguments/theories, what we're really doing is trying to prevent others from seeing the truth and so perpetuating the secret conspiracy that allows them to take over the world. Damn!!! I've gone and given the game away and blown my cover...

JAWS
15-Jul-06, 15:03
Goodness gracious me! Re-reading these posts, I've just had the most blinding insight. It is now clear that Jaws, j4bberw0ck, squidge, Golach and I are all PART of the conspiracy. By rebutting fred's arguments/theories, what we're really doing is trying to prevent others from seeing the truth and so perpetuating the secret conspiracy that allows them to take over the world. Damn!!! I've gone and given the game away and blown my cover...
My cover is blown! I am all undone!
Can somebody lend me a needle and thread, please! ;)

j4bberw0ck
15-Jul-06, 16:09
Behave j4bberw0ck
http://www.teddies.be/Forum/images/smiles/icon_rofl.gif http://www.teddies.be/Forum/images/smiles/icon_rofl.gif

fred
15-Jul-06, 20:00
I'm grateful for that short lesson in current affairs, fred. IMO Ockham's Razor is all that's needed here. You can read about it at http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html (http://physics.ucr.edu/%7Ewudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html) complete with an example involving the will of powerful aliens, which might form an interesting addition to your list of conspiracies [lol]


So lets apply Ockham's Razor.

I asked you earlier in the thread why we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

You give your theory and we'll see which one passes the Okhams Razor test, lets see which is the simplest explanation which matches all the evidence.

j4bberw0ck
15-Jul-06, 20:38
Hmm... the problem with that test, fred, is that "evidence" in your book is very different to "evidence" in mine. I would tend to discount "evidence" presented verbally only by disaffected government officials, for instance. A good deal of your "evidence" is unsubstantiated bull on various websites, and a hefty dose of pure anti-American prejudice thrown in for good measure.

However, I'll attempt to answer, and I warn you now, it's the simple, common-or-garden, official line. The US and the UK invaded Iraq in light of obstruction and intimidation of UN officials legally mandated to inspect facilities of all descriptions in Iraq. UN Security Council Resolutions (well over a dozen) on Iraq, requiring Iraq to undertake various actions, were ignored by the regime. In 2003, Security Council resolution 1441 - "do it or else" - was ignored.

Iraq had every opportunity to demonstrate that it had no weapons capability that threatened its neighbours, or Europe. It declined to do so. Saddam probably thought threats of invasion were a bluff. Intelligence reports, rightly or wrongly, and whether due to failure or incompetence (I don't know, but probably the latter) concluded that a weapons capability was present.

The UN had, as usual, degenerated into a talking shop (what a waste of time and money that organisation has become). Warnings were given, and Iraq invaded.

As a side effect, it may be no coincidence that Syria left Lebanon, and the Saudis moved to distance themselves from some of their Wahhabi loonies. The Egyptians volunteered to discuss peace with Israel, and the Palestinians made moves in the same direction (pre-Hamas). Wonderful what a little direct action can achieve.

Now, since I've shown you mine, how about you show me yours (so to speak [lol] )? I asked about who all these people were who control both the government and economy of the US. You didn't answer. I was also curious as to what was so good about the socialist setup you claimed existed in Iraq. No response.

golach
15-Jul-06, 21:05
Goodness gracious me! Re-reading these posts, I've just had the most blinding insight. It is now clear that Jaws, j4bberw0ck, squidge, Golach and I are all PART of the conspiracy. By rebutting fred's arguments/theories, what we're really doing is trying to prevent others from seeing the truth and so perpetuating the secret conspiracy that allows them to take over the world. Damn!!! I've gone and given the game away and blown my cover...
Drat Blazing Sporrans!!!!! I never realised I had been exposed, My lifes work...in ruins....what ever shall I do, the World is "Doomed we are all Doomed" [lol]

JAWS
15-Jul-06, 22:16
So lets apply Ockham's Razor.

I asked you earlier in the thread why we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

You give your theory and we'll see which one passes the Okhams Razor test, lets see which is the simplest explanation which matches all the evidence.Probably to see if cellphones were inoperative in mountainous regions and desserts.

I take it Flight 93 was well off course when it crashed.

Why did we invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Now let me think. I might be able to help you out with this one j4bberw0ck!

It's all because of Oil.
It's all because the Americans didn't want Iraq and Iran to change from the Petro-Dollar to the Petro-Euro.
It's all because of Racism.
It's all because the Murderous Terrorists of the British Army needed practice slaughtering innocent, sorry, millions of innocent civilians.
It's all because we wanted to grab all Iraq's oil.
It's all because we wanted to stop Iraq's oil to force the price of oil up.
It's all because we wanted to stop a pipeline being built to China.
It's all because we wanted to ......

Sorry, my memories not that good, there has been a different theory everytime the weather changed.

The truth of the matter is that there is only one real reason for both invasions, and for anything else that does or doesn't go wrong in the World.
It's to give the "We have a compulsive obsessive need to whinge and moan about America on every possible occasion!” Brigade something to occupy there minds.

Don’t worry about trying to explain anything America does or doesn’t do because if it rains in Caithness tomorrow it will be because of some devious plot formed in Washington.

The Afghan Iraq record has been played so often that it really is worn out and the America is secretly taking over the World never even really got as far as the Turntable despite the fact that both records are tunes that certain people cannot get out of their minds and have whistled until everybody is bored to death with them.

Oh yes, and cellphones don’t work in Caithness. This has been proved beyond all doubt. I tried to phone Alexander Graham Bell and the connection definitely didn’t work.

Keep plugging away fred, one day you might manage to convince somebody of something, but do so try and make it something believable.
Perhaps you could try telling us about the fairies at the bottom of our gardens that come out at the full moon and whistle “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”, I’m sure I heard them once but that was probably because I’d been at the Jack Daniels instead of the Old Pulteney.
It's something the CIA put in to it stop you seeing what America is really up to. They don't want you to know that they are secretly planning to invade Scotland to get World Domination in the production of Scotch. Their first move is to infiltrate Caithness with a CIA Headquarters disguised as an ASDA in Thurso.

For those who wonder what Ockham’s Razor is all about here is a definition:-

Occam's (also Ockham's) razor, the leading principle of the nominalism of William of Occam (see Occamism), that for purposes of explanation things not known to exist should not, unless it is absolutely necessary, be postulated as existing; usually called the Law of Parcimony.'.
Oxford English Dictionary, 2002

Or in plainer English more easily understood:-
No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary.

I would suggest that it is important to remember this definition in great detail when reading most of fred’s descriptions of just about everything ranging from 9/11, Flight 93, the Neo-Cons and other such groups, real or imagined and how America pulls the strings and the whole world dances on the end of them.
And don’t forget the Twin Towers. Read Ockham’s Razor again and then remember, It wasn’t really two fully fuelled airliners that weakened the structure causing them to collapse it was because that was known to be going to happen before it did and the building had been secretly wired with explosives by the Americans so they could demolish the towers themselves to invent the War on Terror. Well, didn’t fred tell us that?
Now go back and read Ockham’s Razor again and see which version you find more realistic, I know which I do.

Back to what the Thread was originally about.

Do cellphones work at 700 feet? There must be a Ben nearby that I can do a scientific experiment from, any ideas anybody so we can get back to something of real consequence, could anybody on Flight 93 have made a call using a cellphone and exactly for how long was Flight 93 flying at 35000 feet during the hijack?. Was it the whole half hour or so, 20 minutes, ten minutes or just a few minutes? It was known to have flown for a period at 700 feet and my maths says that is a lot less than six miles high.

Does anybody still believe that the Americans are lying about not having Little Green Men at Area 51. Now that really was a good scam, it kept the Government Cover-up comedians in business for half a century.

Can anybody tell me where Flight 93 is being shown? It would be nice to see the real version of what happened to it and not the “It couldn’t really have happened like that, it's a big cover up.” invention.

changilass
15-Jul-06, 22:20
Goodness gracious me! Re-reading these posts, I've just had the most blinding insight. It is now clear that Jaws, j4bberw0ck, squidge, Golach and I are all PART of the conspiracy. By rebutting fred's arguments/theories, what we're really doing is trying to prevent others from seeing the truth and so perpetuating the secret conspiracy that allows them to take over the world. Damn!!! I've gone and given the game away and blown my cover...

I think it is really terrible that you are all trying to brainwash us:lol:

squidge
15-Jul-06, 23:16
dear!

Dear? Even the Bruce gets a slap when he does the "dear" Thing[disgust]

Strikes me the difference between the two sides here is the same as the difference between an optimist and a pessimist. One sees the glass half full and one half empty and they are never going to agree.

One thing that interests me about the theories that appear to be so dear to our conspiracy theorists is that you seem to suggest that we - those of us who dont actually beleive in all this conspiracy stuff - dont look hard enough to see what you see. It surprises me therefore that on many occasions when i have looked to see if i agreed or believed what was being said I have found masses and masses of conspiracy stuff and often had to sift through to page 15 or 20 of my google search before i find an alternative to your "Masters of the Universe" theories. It strikes me that it might actually be yourselves that dont look hard enough, yourselves that simply read the conspiracy stuff and beleive it and swallow it and suddenly start to convince yourselves that everything you read and see is a lie and there is a plan of world dominance just waiting round the corner to finish us all off. I have never ever ever seen a post where a good solid non conspiracy explanation has been accepted. When evidence has been discussed which disproves a conspiracy theory or is too complex or too solid to doubt, the action is simply to ignore the whole thing and either disappear or change the subject.

fred
15-Jul-06, 23:33
Hmm... the problem with that test, fred, is that "evidence" in your book is very different to "evidence" in mine. I would tend to discount "evidence" presented verbally only by disaffected government officials, for instance. A good deal of your "evidence" is unsubstantiated bull on various websites, and a hefty dose of pure anti-American prejudice thrown in for good measure.

However, I'll attempt to answer, and I warn you now, it's the simple, common-or-garden, official line. The US and the UK invaded Iraq in light of obstruction and intimidation of UN officials legally mandated to inspect facilities of all descriptions in Iraq. UN Security Council Resolutions (well over a dozen) on Iraq, requiring Iraq to undertake various actions, were ignored by the regime. In 2003, Security Council resolution 1441 - "do it or else" - was ignored.

Iraq had every opportunity to demonstrate that it had no weapons capability that threatened its neighbours, or Europe. It declined to do so. Saddam probably thought threats of invasion were a bluff. Intelligence reports, rightly or wrongly, and whether due to failure or incompetence (I don't know, but probably the latter) concluded that a weapons capability was present.


That does not fit the evidence.

On Febuary 24th 2001 Secretary of State for America Colin Powel stated in a press interview with the Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa:


We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq.


America knew then that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, they knew Iraq was no threat to any of their neighbours. If you don't count Colin Powel as a disaffected government official and if you accept http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm as substantiation from a reputable web site.

A useful tool Ockhams Razor, we've eliminated one theory already.

Next?

j4bberw0ck
15-Jul-06, 23:37
I have further evidence of an American conspiracy. Tomorrow evening I was due to take the Northlink ferry to Lerwick for departure to Norway...... just me and my (motor) bike for 2 weeks. Just found (at 2300hr this evening) the Smyril boat is u/s for 5 days and now I have no way to get there within the time I have available, unless I go to Newcastle tomorrow and pay Ł700 return.

Bl00dy Americans! I blame them - it's clearly Rumsfeld's fault that Smyril, knowing their boat is u/s, didn''t bother to tell me and I had to find out for myself. And if I'm defending the accursed Americans and they do this to me, what on earth will they do to Fred?????

Be afraid, fred......... be very afraid. But I guess you already are :lol:

JAWS
15-Jul-06, 23:38
I was also curious as to what was so good about the socialist setup you claimed existed in Iraq. No response.I'' answer that on for you j4bberwOck. It was a one party state set up on Stalinist lines.

How do you come to power? Well, having been Deputy to you ailing Uncle who is President who move relatives and close friends into powerful positions.

Next, at a Party Conference you start to denounce people who might oppose you and as you denounce each one he is removed from the hall followed by a loud gunshot. After many denouncements and loud gunshots you ask if the party members wish to elect you President.
Strangely enough you are elected unanimously.

Shortly after this, many of the people who supported you are executed.

All Political Opposition is declared illegal under punishment of death.

Any member of the Party, including friends and relatives, who become too popular or who you believe to pose a threat are eliminated - permanently.

Any sign of discontent by any part of society is ruthlessly put down.

Finally, you retain power by trusting nobody and keep those under you in line by a reign of terror.

Of course, those with a very deep shade of rose coloured spectacles will, just as the did with Stalin, declare that it is nothing more than despicable lies and propaganda put about by malicious people wishing to demonise a nice lovable friend of the people.

Oh yes, and he also had delusions of creating a Pan-Arab State and guess who was going to be it’s Leader?

j4bberw0ck
15-Jul-06, 23:47
That does not fit the evidence.

I stand by my opening statement. Dissent is at the heart of democracy. It's significant of little but a healthy decison-making process. And you still haven't bitten the (probably American-made) bullet on their economy, or socialism.

But you have tried to use the Razor without (for the first time) all this other claptrap garbage from dubious websites, and for that we must all be grateful ;).

Have a good night, fred, and let me sort out how I'm going to repair my holiday (which was to be the achievement of a dream I've had for years). I am absolutely pig sick.

j4bberw0ck
15-Jul-06, 23:49
:eek: woops! Can I say "pig sick" given the geography of our discussion?

Perhaps "rat sick"might be less offensive :lol:

j4bberw0ck
15-Jul-06, 23:52
Nice one, JAWS. Succinctly put. Large numbers of 9mm headaches to resolve problems. Or dissent of course.

Good job ole Co-lin was in Washington, not Baghdad..... [para]

Blazing Sporrans
17-Jul-06, 10:44
I'm getting worried that we haven't heard from fred. Maybe he's on a sabbatical, studying new website links that provide the evidence to all his postulated theories - or maybe he's taken Nello up on the offer to pay his fare to Iraq to see what's actually happening there. Hmmmm, I wonder....

squidge
17-Jul-06, 10:56
HAve a wee look - he is in Israel and lebanon conflict just now patting me on my head[disgust]

Blazing Sporrans
17-Jul-06, 11:53
HAve a wee look - he is in Israel and lebanon conflict just now patting me on my head[disgust]
Thanks squidge, found him. What a relief! I really think that the rest of us ought to acknowledge how lucky we are to have our own 'interpreter' for international affairs. We ignorami would remain in the dark otherwise...

JAWS
17-Jul-06, 14:11
Thanks squidge, found him. What a relief! I really think that the rest of us ought to acknowledge how lucky we are to have our own 'interpreter' for international affairs. We ignorami would remain in the dark otherwise...
I just wish he would get a new script. The names have changed, the Countries have changed but the same old rubbish has been spouted again and again ad infinitum since the Second World War ended.

Blazing Sporrans
19-Jul-06, 11:02
I just wish he would get a new script. The names have changed, the Countries have changed but the same old rubbish has been spouted again and again ad infinitum since the Second World War ended.

I used to enjoy the banter - now it just annoys me that fred drifts off into another thread and refuses to answer questions put to him in here - purely because he obviously cannot bring himself to admit that some of his facts are wrong or that he got slightly emotive and went over the top with some answers. My wise old granny once told me that you could assess a man's worth by his willingness or ability to apologise when he finds out he's in the wrong. Ah well....

JAWS
19-Jul-06, 13:39
I used to enjoy the banter - now it just annoys me that fred drifts off into another thread and refuses to answer questions put to him in here - purely because he obviously cannot bring himself to admit that some of his facts are wrong or that he got slightly emotive and went over the top with some answers. My wise old granny once told me that you could assess a man's worth by his willingness or ability to apologise when he finds out he's in the wrong. Ah well....Blazing Sporrans, you obviously suffer from the same lack of Political Education as me.
You simply are completely unable to understand that the failure of the Soviet System was not because it did not work but was manufactured by the American led Capitalist West with the intention of gaining supreme power over the whole World.

If only people could be made to see how the evil Americans are willing to go to any lengths, including slaughtering their own citizens, commit any crime and tell any lie to achieve World Domination then the people of the World will rise up and proclaim the Marxist Utopia the World deserves and which the evil American dominated Capitalist West is depriving them of in order to keep them in Slavery!
You, like me, are just a lackey of the Capitalist, Imperialist Warmongers of the West and simply refuse to see the truth that is so obvious to all.

In view of our stupidity, the enlightened ones will move on in order to find people of greater intellect who are more capable of seeing the truth.
Hence, we are to be cast aside in the hope of finding more acceptably revolting subjects elsewhere.

sjwahwah
19-Jul-06, 18:14
“We’re all Doomed, I tell you,. We’re all Doomed!”

you sound convinced.

Blazing Sporrans
19-Jul-06, 19:41
you sound convinced.
Are you too young for Dads Army?? :roll:

fred
19-Jul-06, 20:16
I used to enjoy the banter - now it just annoys me that fred drifts off into another thread and refuses to answer questions put to him in here - purely because he obviously cannot bring himself to admit that some of his facts are wrong or that he got slightly emotive and went over the top with some answers. My wise old granny once told me that you could assess a man's worth by his willingness or ability to apologise when he finds out he's in the wrong. Ah well....

JAWS said the calls to the relatives were made from cell phones, I said they were made from airphones, I was right, JAWS was wrong, end of story. People kept whinging I hadn't answered a question I answered a week before, I answered it again and people kept whinging.

squidge
19-Jul-06, 20:31
JAWS said the calls to the relatives were made from cell phones, I said they were made from airphones, I was right, JAWS was wrong, end of story. People kept whinging I hadn't answered a question I answered a week before, I answered it again and people kept whinging.

The calls were made though Fred, whether from cellphones or airphones - i am sure the relatives of those who were both making and taking hte calls spent a good few precious seconds explaining the technicalities behind the making of the calls. Surely the point is that the calls were made

Blazing Sporrans
19-Jul-06, 20:32
JAWS said the calls to the relatives were made from cell phones, I said they were made from airphones, I was right, JAWS was wrong, end of story. People kept whinging I hadn't answered a question I answered a week before, I answered it again and people kept whinging.
Yes fred, I'll happily admit to the fact that you definitely did answer that question. However, I recall asking you to state whether or not you believed that calls were made as there was a definite inference in one of your earlier posts, that no-one had definitely established that calls (regardless of cellphone/airphone)had been received by relatives, i.e. we were seemingly dependent upon reports that calls had been received. Now, what about the other questions that still remain unanswered?

fred
19-Jul-06, 20:47
Blazing Sporrans, you obviously suffer from the same lack of Political Education as me.
You simply are completely unable to understand that the failure of the Soviet System was not because it did not work but was manufactured by the American led Capitalist West with the intention of gaining supreme power over the whole World.


You'll do anything except face reality won't you?

You have some stupid notion that everyone fits into one of your pigeon holes and that you know all they think and why. Then when reality doesn't fit the pattern in your head you rant on and on trying to change reality to match your pattern.

In the real world steel doesn't melt at 500c, cellphones don't work at 35,000ft and Trotsky rode round New York in a chauffeur driven limousine.

In the real world 1,600 civilian bodies were taken into the Baghdad morgue in June.

Calling me a conspiracy theorist isn't going to change any of that, going on and on about my hidden agenda for saying these things isn't going to alter the fact they are true.

fred
19-Jul-06, 20:57
Yes fred, I'll happily admit to the fact that you definitely did answer that question. However, I recall asking you to state whether or not you believed that calls were made as there was a definite inference in one of your earlier posts, that no-one had definitely established that calls (regardless of cellphone/airphone)had been received by relatives, i.e. we were seemingly dependent upon reports that calls had been received. Now, what about the other questions that still remain unanswered?

I don't remember infering that.

Maybe you would do better if you worked on what I say rather than what you think I might have inferred. I do remember stating quite clearly that calls to relatives had been made.

What questions that still remain unanswered? I must admit I don't bother to read all of what some people write when they go off on one of their rants churning out volumes trying to prove black is white, maybe I missed something.

Blazing Sporrans
19-Jul-06, 21:22
Have they? I must have missed that. I've seen a commission report saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones, I've seen countless newspaper headlines and television reports saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones but I haven't seen any actual family members saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones.
So is your inference then that the calls WERE made but they were made by airphone? Is that what your pedantry has been all about?

Does that disguise the fact that squidges points in post #149

thanks for your reply Fred

So you are saying that American soldiers can run amok and kill anyone and nothing is ever done about it and that the phone calls were made from the airlines.

How does the fact that soldiers are being investigated and tried for atrocitites square with your first answer, and your "conspiracy theories square with your second answer because surely if the phone calls took place then the hijacking and crash happened as it was reeorted it did.

which was further to mine in #147

fred, fred, fred - you clearly said "...a state where any American Soldier can murder whomsoever he wants at his whim" and you then attempt to issue a more qualified, very general statement from a source you choose to believe. As usual, your tactics appear that you will not answer a direct question, instead you skirt around the answer and you will then lay some kind of smokescreen in the hope that people will forget the questions that were asked in the first place. Surely in "...a state where any American Soldier can murder whomsoever he wants at his whim", he doesn't have to worry about planting evidence, nor will he have to worry about the locus? He should be able to shoot a line-up of Iraqis queueing for food in the most public environment possible without fearing any repercussion whatsoever but we both know that doesn't happen, therefore your argument is null and void. It's not even a case of semantics, as I asked a very carefully worded question. go unaddressed?
An answer there will do for a start...

By the way, you keep saying that cellphones don't work at 35,000 feet, yet you have already apparently conceded that 2 calls were made by cellphone

Yes, I said that a week ago, the calls were made from airphones not cell phones, all except two of them.
As I said earlier in here, I'm as confused as I used to be after an episode of SOAP

fred
19-Jul-06, 23:30
So is your inference then that the calls WERE made but they were made by airphone? Is that what your pedantry has been all about?

Does that disguise the fact that squidges points in post #149

which was further to mine in #147

An answer to that will do for a start...


I answered in post 151.

Why do you keep telling people I don't answer questions when I do?

What is to stop an American soldier murdering an Iraqi civilian on a whim? What is to stop an American soldier seeing an Iraqi, deciding to murder him, lifting his rifle, taking aim and shooting him dead then turning round and saying "thought it was a suicide bomber"?

There have been an awful lot of very dead totally innocent Iraqis and precious few investigations. By October 2003 HRW had found 93 killings in legally questionable circumstances yet there had only been 5 investigations above divisional level into misconduct by US soldiers and only one conviction.

American soldiers are immune from prosecution under Iraqi law and the American army doesn't investigate so what is to stop them?



By the way, you keep saying that cellphones don't work at 35,000 feet, yet you have already apparently conceded that 2 calls were made by cellphone

As I said earlier in here, I'm as confused as I used to be after an episode of SOAP

I said two calls were made by cellphone, I've never said they were made from the plane.

What are you trying to prove?

All the newspapers and television said the passengers called relatives on cellphones a film comes out with passengers calling relatives on cellphones someone posts here to say that cellphones wouldn't have worked on a plane at 35,000ft and I posted to say it was true, someone had done research on the subject and found they didn't work.

You spend all your time trying to prove I've said things I didn't say so you can prove me wrong and you keep on saying I haven't answered questions that I answered because you just don't like the answers I gave.

Gleber2
19-Jul-06, 23:33
Elephants are basically nice creatures.

golach
20-Jul-06, 00:23
I answered in post 151.

Why do you keep telling people I don't answer questions when I do?

What is to stop an American soldier murdering an Iraqi civilian on a whim? What is to stop an American soldier seeing an Iraqi, deciding to murder him, lifting his rifle, taking aim and shooting him dead then turning round and saying "thought it was a suicide bomber"?

There have been an awful lot of very dead totally innocent Iraqis and precious few investigations. By October 2003 HRW had found 93 killings in legally questionable circumstances yet there had only been 5 investigations above divisional level into misconduct by US soldiers and only one conviction.

American soldiers are immune from prosecution under Iraqi law and the American army doesn't investigate so what is to stop them?



I said two calls were made by cellphone, I've never said they were made from the plane.

What are you trying to prove?

All the newspapers and television said the passengers called relatives on cellphones a film comes out with passengers calling relatives on cellphones someone posts here to say that cellphones wouldn't have worked on a plane at 35,000ft and I posted to say it was true, someone had done research on the subject and found they didn't work.

You spend all your time trying to prove I've said things I didn't say so you can prove me wrong and you keep on saying I haven't answered questions that I answered because you just don't like the answers I gave.
More Iraqis have been killed by fellow Iragis than by the co-ilition troops, what does that mean to you

JAWS
20-Jul-06, 01:58
You'll do anything except face reality won't you?

You have some stupid notion that everyone fits into one of your pigeon holes and that you know all they think and why. Then when reality doesn't fit the pattern in your head you rant on and on trying to change reality to match your pattern.

In the real world steel doesn't melt at 500c, cellphones don't work at 35,000ft and Trotsky rode round New York in a chauffeur driven limousine.

In the real world 1,600 civilian bodies were taken into the Baghdad morgue in June.

Calling me a conspiracy theorist isn't going to change any of that, going on and on about my hidden agenda for saying these things isn't going to alter the fact they are true.
I have a stupid notion that there is no such thing as a pigeon hole for anybody, each human being reached their own level of self delusion. I gave up trying to understand people once I realised that people who are considered to be suffering from severe mental disorders provided far more lucid conversations than those who are considered normal and are let loose on society.

We have established that we have been discussing no more than two cellphone calls made from Flight 93.
At no stage has there been any indication, other than your assertion, that the two calls were made at 35000 feet or any other known altitude.
As far as cellphones not working at 35000 feet, that is a relevant as saying they do not work in the Mersey Tunnel. There is absolutely no indication that Flight 9 was at 35000 feet when either of the two cellphone calls were made so that whole argument in nothing more than a red herring intended only to cloud the issue.

I have never hears anybody, other that yourself and the particular sources you obtain your information from, suggest that the Twin Towers collapsed because of steel melting.

Trotsky met an unfortunate accident with an ice-pick, and if you car to remember your own description, was a Jew. He was denounced by Stalin as an a Enemy of the Revolution and was ordered to be eliminated. The execution was carried out in so completely botched a manner that not even Stalin could wriggle out of responsibility for it.

Perhaps if terrorist suicide bombers ceased their attempts to reinstate the Baath Party Domination over the people of Iraq by terror there would be far less bodies being taken to the Mortuaries of Iraq. There might even have been no similar victims in Mumbai either.

I will leave the decision as to who is ranting on this thread and who is the one who trying to change reality to fit their own narrow view of how people should view the World.

Somebody in this thread is trying to convince people that everything they believe about Flight 93 and various other related things are all completely fictitious and that they simply do not know what really occurred.

I put most people into the pigeon hole which is labelled "Has enough common sense to recognise reality when they see it".
I'm fairly, no, I am absolutely certain that most people are aware of what really happened during 9/11.
I am certainly not arrogant enough o believe that they need to be re-educated as to the reality by me. I am sure that they can tell the difference between reality and wishful thinking.

Fred, in the real world, death takes place in every area and in many forms most of it unpleasant and, except in very rare cases, never welcome.
I’m sorry that you can extend your sympathy no further than Iraq, which, unfortunate though deaths there are, they form only a small portion of such things, and many far more gruesome.
But those have and still are happening in parts of the World which are of no Political Interest to anybody.

Fred, your real world is confined to Iraq and all things American. You are happy to quote deaths in Iraq, how many people were killed in conflicts in Africa in June?
How many countries are actually involved in conflicts in Africa.
How often are the discussed in the Press or shown on the TV News?
Why is it that their lives are of so little consequence by comparison, are they any less human?
Who is it that is involved in Iraq who is not involved in the many conflicts in Africa?
Could there be an explanation in that question somewhere as to why Africa is almort ignored?
Or is that creating just another Pigeon hole?

fred
20-Jul-06, 09:13
At no stage has there been any indication, other than your assertion, that the two calls were made at 35000 feet or any other known altitude.


Where did I say that?

fred
20-Jul-06, 09:15
More Iraqis have been killed by fellow Iragis than by the co-ilition troops, what does that mean to you

It means the Pentagon decided to go for the El Salvadore Option.

golach
20-Jul-06, 09:49
It means the Pentagon decided to go for the El Salvadore Option.
Are you actually infering that American sympathisers are blowing themselves up, to destabalise Iraq. Or that the US is training the car bombers, get real Fred you are OTT this time. Any time now you will be telling us that Saddams treatment of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, was down to the Pentagon as well.

Blazing Sporrans
20-Jul-06, 10:23
I answered in post 151.

Why do you keep telling people I don't answer questions when I do?

What is to stop an American soldier murdering an Iraqi civilian on a whim? What is to stop an American soldier seeing an Iraqi, deciding to murder him, lifting his rifle, taking aim and shooting him dead then turning round and saying "thought it was a suicide bomber"?

There have been an awful lot of very dead totally innocent Iraqis and precious few investigations. By October 2003 HRW had found 93 killings in legally questionable circumstances yet there had only been 5 investigations above divisional level into misconduct by US soldiers and only one conviction.

American soldiers are immune from prosecution under Iraqi law and the American army doesn't investigate so what is to stop them?
But fred, here we go again - more obfuscation. You clearly DIDN'T answer in post #151 and yet you make that claim, probably in the hope that people won't go back to check and see. In post #147, I said

fred, fred, fred - you clearly said "...a state where any American Soldier can murder whomsoever he wants at his whim" and you then attempt to issue a more qualified, very general statement from a source you choose to believe. As usual, your tactics appear that you will not answer a direct question, instead you skirt around the answer and you will then lay some kind of smokescreen in the hope that people will forget the questions that were asked in the first place. Surely in "...a state where any American Soldier can murder whomsoever he wants at his whim", he doesn't have to worry about planting evidence, nor will he have to worry about the locus? He should be able to shoot a line-up of Iraqis queueing for food in the most public environment possible without fearing any repercussion whatsoever but we both know that doesn't happen, therefore your argument is null and void. It's not even a case of semantics, as I asked a very carefully worded question.
then squidge asked

So you are saying that American soldiers can run amok and kill anyone and nothing is ever done about it and that the phone calls were made from the airlines.

How does the fact that soldiers are being investigated and tried for atrocitites square with your first answer
yet your "answer" is supposed to be

Well now you must read what I said about American soldiers in the context of the post I was replying to
It was MY post you were supposed to be replying to. Can I emphasise the sentences; " Surely in "...a state where any American Soldier can murder whomsoever he wants at his whim", he doesn't have to worry about planting evidence, nor will he have to worry about the locus? He should be able to shoot a line-up of Iraqis queueing for food in the most public environment possible without fearing any repercussion whatsoever but we both know that doesn't happen, therefore your argument is null and void." just in case you decide to skip over them. Your trouble is that you say silly things such as
the American army doesn't investigate when you yourself have already conceded that investigations have taken place. Maybe not as many as you would like, nor reaching the conclusion that you would like, however they have taken place, are taking place and undoubtedly will continue to take place despite your claims to the contrary. You might find this pedantic, however I call it being specific. I find it important in debate to be specific, which means, ultimately, that your own comments can't be used against you later on when you least expect it.

Now to other things. If the two cellphone calls weren't made from inside the airplane, then where were they made from?



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.


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.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. These are all supposition on your part and none of your above theories can be proven in terms of the woman who received the call. We'll never know anything about her (unless scotsboy happens to meet her on a flight again) and therefore it's unlikely we'll ever know what type of phone she used. Me? I prefer to keep an open mind about things, however I will accept a high level of proof from a qualified source - such is the challenge of living life as a healthy sceptic.

Blazing Sporrans
20-Jul-06, 10:43
Naturally, fred will have concrete proof from an unimpeachable source to state that the 'El Salvador Option' is being deployed. This surely won't be just his opinion to explain ongoing civil war..... I wait with baited breath!:confused

golach
20-Jul-06, 10:57
Naturally, fred will have concrete proof from an unimpeachable source to state that the 'El Salvador Option' is being deployed. This surely won't be just his opinion to explain ongoing civil war..... I wait with baited breath!:confused
Fred is becoming a little tedious now I am in two minds where to block his posts or not.[disgust]

fred
20-Jul-06, 11:32
Your trouble is that you say silly things such as when you yourself have already conceded that investigations have taken place.

How many investigations? How many dead innocent Iraqi civillians? How many coverups?

A handful of investigations among thousands of dead Iraqis, it is the investigations which prove my point otherwise you would be claiming murders never took place. Just like the American army at all levels swore blind they absolutely never used white phosphorus as a weapon till it was proved conclusively that they did.



Now to other things. If the two cellphone calls weren't made from inside the airplane, then where were they made from?

Why ask me? I'm the one who said 3 weeks ago in message 32:


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.

Ask JAWS, he's the one that knows everything.

Blazing Sporrans
20-Jul-06, 12:06
You see fred, this is your trouble - you 'cherry-pick' what particular part of a post you wish to reply to and then act as if you've replied in full. What about the rest of what I've said? Why not work your way through my post and answer it piece by piece instead of dotting from one part to another?

Do you think for a minute that I believe there are no cover-ups? Don't try and judge me in what I believe, because I've never once defended the US government position in Iraq. I'm certain that cover-ups have taken place just as I am certain that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the lone gunman responsible for the JFK assassination. I'm certain that cover-ups have taken place and that we'll never hear about them for many years to come. I believe that some soldiers have been affected by Gulf War Syndrome and we have yet to get to the bottom of that! I have plenty theories of my own, however I tend to keep them to myself in the main. What I do not do is post my theories on here as absolute truths and condemn others for being too ignorant to see 'the truth'. I'd prefer to present not just one side of an argument, buth both sides and then allow the uninformed to reach their own independent conclusions. And if that conclusion differed from my opinion, then I would accept that as healthy democracy, where opinions are allowed to differ without consequence for either side.

fred
20-Jul-06, 12:33
Are you actually infering that American sympathisers are blowing themselves up, to destabalise Iraq. Or that the US is training the car bombers, get real Fred you are OTT this time. Any time now you will be telling us that Saddams treatment of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, was down to the Pentagon as well.

I'm saying that the Shi'ite malitia who are going round at night ethnic clensing Sunnis and the Iraqi security forces armed and trained by the United States are one and the same thing. You didn't think there was a fancy dress shop in Baghdad hiring out Iraqi police uniforms did you?

Take a look at this Newsweek report (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/) from January 2005, the Pentagon were seriously debating doing it then, now it's happening.

I've read reports from two different Iraqis who were training for the security forces saying that the Americans gave them a car and a mobile phone, sent them to where thare was a disturbance like a demonstration going on and told them to ring and report what was happening when they got there. Both had to leave their cars to make the call due to a weak signal, both say the cars exploded when they made the call.

There is no doubt in my mind that America was complicit in blowing up the shrine at Samarra. No one else could have done it and a reporter who got eye witness testimony that the American army was active in the area all the previous night till just before the explosion on tape was murdered, guesse what, by American trained and armed Iraqi security services.

Why so surprised? I said on this very forum before the sectarian violence ever errupted that we were trying to stir up trouble between the Shiia and the Sunni. Back when two UK soldiers were caught dressed as Arabs and armed to the teeth in a car which the Arab newspapers described as packed with explosives. I said how the system works then and no one believed me now the trouble is well and truly stirred up.

sjwahwah
20-Jul-06, 13:47
Are you actually infering that American sympathisers are blowing themselves up, to destabalise Iraq. Or that the US is training the car bombers, get real Fred you are OTT this time. Any time now you will be telling us that Saddams treatment of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, was down to the Pentagon as well.
golach... over the months I've seen you criticise.. complain.. moan and challenge others.. but, have never actually seen you display any knowledge or educated opinions except the borrowed kind on any of these subjects. if you have ANY please let us know. for one that can moan about others opinions so much I would love to hear YOU speak to any of these subjects. if you think someones OTT or tedious or just blind stupid.. please hit ignore and spare the rest of us your moaning & pathetic sarcasm.

James A. Baker was the Reagan Chief of Staff when the US provided Saddam the intelligence to better target his chemical weapons. There's a guy to read up on.. James A. Baker the guy who has an office right next to the current President and is the legal backbone of the House of Saud.. and of course James A. Baker III Institute Joint Committee on Petroleum Security. Besides it was Winston bloomin Churchill who further divided the Kurdish lands in the 1920's. And in the 1920's the British Army killed far more Kurds than Saddam ever did.

golach
20-Jul-06, 14:53
golachJames A. Baker was the Reagan Chief of Staff when the US provided Saddam the intelligence to better target his chemical weapons. There's a guy to read up on.. James A. Baker the guy who has an office right next to the current President and is the legal backbone of the House of Saud.. and of course James A. Baker III Institute Joint Committee on Petroleum Security. Besides it was Winston bloomin Churchill who further divided the Kurdish lands in the 1920's. And in the 1920's the British Army killed far more Kurds than Saddam ever did.
YAAWNNN!!!!, that is history!!. I have never claimed to be the font of all knowlege, not like you and Fred, who allegedly are the Oracles of the Western World, I am a doubter of the trash you and Fred spout, along with a few others in here. Attack Jaws if you wish as you have had a go at me and see how you will fare, I may not be as well educated as you but I am entitled to my views and opinions in this web site as you and Fred are.

sjwahwah
20-Jul-06, 15:24
YAAWNNN!!!!, that is history!!. I have never claimed to be the font of all knowlege, not like you and Fred, who allegedly are the Oracles of the Western World, I am a doubter of the trash you and Fred spout, along with a few others in here. Attack Jaws if you wish as you have had a go at me and see how you will fare, I may not be as well educated as you but I am entitled to my views and opinions in this web site as you and Fred are.
yes.. might be trash to you... but, do you have anything to say from your side of the fence to speak to any of these subjects? if you do then lets hear them! if you cannot speak to these subjects how do you know what's trash or not? my point is you only moan and challenge and unleash childish petty sarcasm to anyone with a slightly different view of things whilst you take an "assumed" but, not stated opposing point of view. Nobody is claiming to be an Oracle... but, notice I speak to pretty much the same subjects all the time.... subjects I study several hours a day from both sides of the spectrum believe it or not. I do not cruise threads challenging people on subjects I know nothing about as you seem to do! and why is it always "you & Fred".. "trash this".. "ranting this".. "spouting that" strange how the very people who repeatedly get attacked on these subjects have nearly identical points of view. you figure it out.

i find it interesting how important people find it to split hairs, aggressively challenge, turn el sarcasmo & even go so far as to paint people racists, bigots, ANTI-SEMITICS and the like because their view of the pretty world is being manipulated by someone elses thoughts. well, let the cogs turn and crave conversation not primary school drool.

why would I attack Jaws?

Gleber2
20-Jul-06, 15:46
Ho ho ho Golllllach. I can't help but agree with Sjwahwah!!!! Put your money where your mouth is and debate instead of lambast.

BTW the elephants are nice this year!

golach
20-Jul-06, 19:27
Ho ho ho Golllllach. I can't help but agree with Sjwahwah!!!! Put your money where your mouth is and debate instead of lambast.

BTW the elephants are nice this year!
Sorry O owld mannie O Dunnettttt, I am not rising to the bait, I have already shown my position on this debate, and because I state I am anti some of the tinpot ideas posted on here, I get lambasted by Sjwahwah and yourself. I will no longer be taking part in this debate, see you in the chat room if you dare

sjwahwah
20-Jul-06, 19:59
Sorry O owld mannie O Dunnettttt, I am not rising to the bait, I have already shown my position on this debate, and because I state I am anti some of the tinpot ideas posted on here, I get lambasted by Sjwahwah and yourself. I will no longer be taking part in this debate, see you in the chat room if you dare

i smell dissonance.:roll:

Gleber2
20-Jul-06, 20:03
Sorry O owld mannie O Dunnettttt, I am not rising to the bait, I have already shown my position on this debate, and because I state I am anti some of the tinpot ideas posted on here, I get lambasted by Sjwahwah and yourself. I will no longer be taking part in this debate, see you in the chat room if you dare

I've never lambasted you you miserable old gitttttttttttttttttttt.
although ye deserve it sometimes.LOL:lol:
Chat room? I'm a busy man with limited time to frivolrously waste in pointless pursuits. I waste enough here.

fred
20-Jul-06, 20:27
You see fred, this is your trouble - you 'cherry-pick' what particular part of a post you wish to reply to and then act as if you've replied in full. What about the rest of what I've said? Why not work your way through my post and answer it piece by piece instead of dotting from one part to another?


My time is limited, I have other things to do, other forums other threads other people.

If I were to read and reply to every part of every post from you and Jaws and squidge and golach and anyone else who is having a go at me at the time I would never have time for important pursuits like drinking.

You only think you are important and I should dedicate all my time to you, you arn't all that important at all.

canuck
20-Jul-06, 23:27
BTW the elephants are nice this year!

Are these "elephants", to which you refer, in a botanical form? Are they flowers with another name which me might recognize? Or are they topiary things, like errogie was inspired to work on when he returned from the org get together in Wick?

Gleber2
20-Jul-06, 23:44
Are these "elephants", to which you refer, in a botanical form? Are they flowers with another name which me might recognize? Or are they topiary things, like errogie was inspired to work on when he returned from the org get together in Wick?

Big four legged pachyderms you silly fanciful woman ye.:)

Cedric Farthsbottom III
21-Jul-06, 00:19
Big four legged pachyderms you silly fanciful woman ye.:)

Oh no!!!!The Elephants are back on parade again!!!:lol: Here oor canuck,the fanciful woman ye,start talkin' aboot budgies as Gleber2 is only into elephants and mushrooms.....and music!!!!

canuck
21-Jul-06, 00:37
We are somewhat off the topic here. I'll go back to the original theme of the thread. I haven't jumped in to say too much on United93. I guess it was really too close to home for me to be objective in this discussion. It was a terrifying day. On top of the general worry with planes going down about an hour flying time from here, I was scrambling to prepare my house to recieve 12 Arab students whom my son was on the verge of evacuating from the university residence where he was a don. I know that it has been five years, but the memories are still pretty real.

JAWS
21-Jul-06, 01:13
Post 218

We have established that we have been discussing no more than two cellphone calls made from Flight 93.
At no stage has there been any indication, other than your assertion, that the two calls were made at 35000 feet or any other known altitude.
As far as cellphones not working at 35000 feet, that is a relevant as saying they do not work in the Mersey Tunnel. There is absolutely no indication that Flight 9 was at 35000 feet when either of the two cellphone calls were made so that whole argument in nothing more than a red herring intended only to cloud the issue.

Post 219
From Post 218 you quoted “At no stage has there been any indication, other than your assertion, that the two calls were made at 35000 feet or any other known altitude.” And asked

Where did I say that?

One week ago – Post 129

Have they? I must have missed that. I've seen a commission report saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones, I've seen countless newspaper headlines and television reports saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones but I haven't seen any actual family members saying they talked to their loved ones via cell phones. The only transcript I've seen where a passenger says how he was calling he said that he didn't have long because there were a lot of people waiting to use the airphone.

A police officer testifying at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial said that 37 calls were made by 13 people 2 of which were made by cell phone, one of those to the Pennsylvania sheriffs department.

So how can your perception of what happened and reality be so different? Think back to the phony Bin Laden video released by the Pentagon I posted a link to, notice Bin Laden making a point of saying he planned it how the commission report says it happened, notice he made a point of saying that he expected the jet fuel to melt the steel girders. Anyone seeing the official version of events plastered all over the media over and over again and hearing how Bin Laden made a tape saying the same plastered all over the media over and over again isn't going to be in any doubt about what happened, anyone who points out it couldn't have happened that way will just be written off as a conspiracy theorist.

It was just after I posted that family members had said they spoke to relatives on Flight 93, namely Deena Burnett, widow of Thomas Burnett. (Post 132)

In reply to that Post, you immediately questioned how she knew her husband was using a cellphone. (Post 133)

Now you are disputing your own reply about the number of cellphone calls.

You say the Air Traffic Control reported that the plane was flying at 35,000 feet which as far as I am aware would be it’s normal cruising altitude for that flight.. After the hijack, how much of the time before it crashed did it remain at a constant 35,000 feet?

If the height of 35000 feet is so relevant to the ability of cellphone calls to be made then I must assume that you wish people to believe that there is a suggestion that they were made from that height and no other.
If that is the case then I ask again, where, in any report, does it state with any certainty, that any cellphone calls were made from 35,000 feet or at any other specified height for that matter?

You were the one who introduced the claim that the cellphone calls could not have been made. All I am doing is questioning that claim.

In order to make things simpler so as to take up less of your time I will re-phrase the question.
Setting aside the details of the particular methods used, were any of the reported calls between passengers on Flight 93 and people on the ground actually made or is every reported call a figment of somebody’s imagination for what ever reason.
Basically, were there any calls or not?

(To save you time, I have indicated the numbers of the Posts quoted so you don’t have to waste time searching for them)
Please feel free to reply at your leisure as I am quite willing to wait until you have dealt with matters of far greater importance in other places.

I am certain that squidge and golach and Blazing Sporrans will extend you the same courtesy as I have always found them most patient even when their opinions are dismissed as of little consequence and their refusal to be lead by the nose to have a particular point of view imposed upon them without question.

I have always found them quite intelligent and well able to distinguish between fact and fantasy as are many others on this board.

The fact that people are able to look at any particular subject and draw their own conclusions does not make them gullible, blind to the truth, politically disinterested or any of the other similar semi-disparaging hints which have been aimed towards posters by people with their own particular view of the World.

golach
21-Jul-06, 01:19
I am certain that squidge and golach and Blazing Sporrans will extend you the same courtesy as I have always found them most patient even when their opinions are dismissed as of little consequence and their refusal to be lead by the nose to have a particular point of view imposed upon them without question.

I have always found them quite intelligent and well able to distinguish between fact and fantasy as are many others on this board.

The fact that people are able to look at any particular subject and draw their own conclusions does not make them gullible, blind to the truth, politically disinterested or any of the other similar semi-disparaging hints which have been aimed towards posters by people with their own particular view of the World.
Jaws I take this final posting to say thanks for your support in the past and the esteem you have placed in me, but i have had enough, I am no longer going to accept or give sjwahwah and her cohorts the pleasure of putting me down, I will not be leaving the .Org but will become a lurker, keep up the good work

Cedric Farthsbottom III
21-Jul-06, 01:30
Jaws I take this final posting to say thanks for your support in the past and the esteem you have placed in me, but i have had enough, I am no longer going to accept or give sjwahwah and her cohorts the pleasure of putting me down, I will not be leaving the .Org but will become a lurker, keep up the good work

I am a "new" orger and ye are the "owld" one.A lurker,ye couldnae lurk,yer hands would be shaking at yer keyboard ready to post.Like many I enjoy your posts,so if somebody disagrees wi' ye,dae as the orgers do,argue back!!!If ye still have no joy,then don't go in the cream puff join in wi' pultneytooners song thread!!!:lol: :lol:

JAWS
21-Jul-06, 01:32
Despite the fact that the discussion over the methods of contact between the passengers on Flight 93 and people on the ground, am I the only one who finds that it has as much relevance to whole incident as worrying about the colour of the air-hostesses eye-shadow or the make of the pilots sunglasses.

The plane was hijacked. The plane crashed into a field and people died.
Does anything discussed on this thread alter those simple facts in any way?

If anything does change those simple facts I am quite willing to hear what is different.

Cedric Farthsbottom III
21-Jul-06, 01:39
Two planes went into the Towers.One plane went into the Pentagon. It was to quick for anybody too react.The last plane heard all the news reports that were coming in and some brave souls did something about it.This is the story of United 93 that is in Cedric's head,nobody will change it,no matter what is said.

P.s Nello I haven't seen the film,as the thread ye started wis aboot,but I'll gie it a watch and pm ye on wit I thought!!!

sjwahwah
21-Jul-06, 02:19
Despite the fact that the discussion over the methods of contact between the passengers on Flight 93 and people on the ground, am I the only one who finds that it has as much relevance to whole incident as worrying about the colour of the air-hostesses eye-shadow or the make of the pilots sunglasses.

The plane was hijacked. The plane crashed into a field and people died.
Does anything discussed on this thread alter those simple facts in any way?

If anything does change those simple facts I am quite willing to hear what is different.
I can't help it but, dare I entertain that the plane wasn't hijacked...? considerin' a few saudis the US had confirmed did the "hijackings" have turned up alive and all (BBC News)...surely an event that rocks the world like this.. they did autopsys on them right?.. to confirm exactly who they were.. just a thought I was havin...after looking at the evidence and the non-evidence surely it's worth exploring all scenarios suggested and otherwise. and nobodys had an explanation or opinion as to the previously stated 7 mile.. but, now i learn I was wrong and it is actually 8 mile debris field across a hillside from a high impact crash?

see green cheese thread------>

JAWS
21-Jul-06, 02:33
Jaws I take this final posting to say thanks for your support in the past and the esteem you have placed in me, but i have had enough, I am no longer going to accept or give sjwahwah and her cohorts the pleasure of putting me down, I will not be leaving the .Org but will become a lurker, keep up the good work
Golach, that again is a method I am well aware of. Use any method possible to remove those opposed to you. Call Meetings when you know people cannot attend. Call them at times when you know those opposed to you will have limited time and drag the meeting out until only the agreeable are left.
Insult and denigrate people until they give up and resign.

Don't worry about anybody using the tactic of putting you down because when they use that tactic it says more about them than it does about the person they are attacking, it means they have been reduced to petty name calling.

Golach, most of the posters on the board are well aware of the sort of person you are and, from what I have seen, have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions even when they may disagree.

I quite liked the comment that only the easy questions get answered because the difficult ones take too much time and thought, besides, I have far more important matters to attend to, especially when I haven't got an answer for the questions.
Failing all else, answer the question with a question relating to something vaguely related which you think you can win on.

Golach, remember, when people try to ridicule you all they are really doing is trying to boost their own ego and display their “superior” knowledge.

Don’t worry when people try to rattle your cage, look on it with mild amusement, all it means is that they have nothing to say which is worth listening to, they have run out of intelligent thoughts.

Oh yes, and when it happens, always be polite and never lose your temper.

canuck
21-Jul-06, 02:41
Jaws I take this final posting to say thanks for your support in the past and the esteem you have placed in me, but i have had enough, I am no longer going to accept or give sjwahwah and her cohorts the pleasure of putting me down, I will not be leaving the .Org but will become a lurker, keep up the good work

golach, how will I ever pass my next foootball exam without you there to teach me all I need to know about ..., oh what are those guys called, not jambos, oh, oh .... Don't go, I need you!

Gleber2
21-Jul-06, 03:56
Owld Man, chist give yersel the advice and stuff ye gave me when I took the huff.Go back to the time of my crisis and read all the things you said to me.
Practice what ye preached and take the opposition like a man and stop snivelling. You're bigger than this, aren't you????

JAWS
21-Jul-06, 04:04
I can't help it but, dare I entertain that the plane wasn't hijacked...? considerin' a few saudis the US had confirmed did the "hijackings" have turned up alive and all (BBC News)...surely an event that rocks the world like this.. they did autopsys on them right?.. to confirm exactly who they were.. just a thought I was havin...after looking at the evidence and the non-evidence surely it's worth exploring all scenarios suggested and otherwise. and nobodys had an explanation or opinion as to the previously stated 7 mile.. but, now i learn I was wrong and it is actually 8 mile debris field across a hillside from a high impact crash?

see green cheese thread------>
So the plane wasn't hijacked. I can cope with that, it obviously flew itself. There was a debris field over 8 miles. I can cope with that. The Saudis on the plane are alive and well. I can cope with that. There was a high impact crash. Not only can I cope with that, I would be surprised if it wasn't.

The Saudis you mention were suspected to have been involved but were traced and eliminated. Autopsies are carried out to establish a cause of death but are unlikely to provide an unknown persons identity.
The debris field of a crashed aircraft will vary according to how the plane crashed, it’s speed, the terrain, the angle of impact and many other variables.
A plane travelling at 400 mph will cover in excess of six miles in one minute.

There are many theories, sorry, I will call them alternative possibilities, as to what may have happened to result in flight 93 crashing.
A few, without having the expert opinion of an Air Crash Investigator, sound quite possible, but no more than does the Official version.
Many, on the other hand, would be better placed along side beliefs in Little Green Men, Alien Abductions and Fairies at the bottom of the Garden.

At the present time the Official version is quite believable and is the one I am willing to accept until somebody can provide a definitive alternative version other than vague possibilities.

All you have to do is check any thread on the board which is discussing something quite simple which has happened locally in Caithness and see how many different explanations you will get. .

sjwahwah
21-Jul-06, 11:40
So the plane wasn't hijacked. I can cope with that, it obviously flew itself. There was a debris field over 8 miles. I can cope with that. The Saudis on the plane are alive and well. I can cope with that. There was a high impact crash. Not only can I cope with that, I would be surprised if it wasn't.

The Saudis you mention were suspected to have been involved but were traced and eliminated. Autopsies are carried out to establish a cause of death but are unlikely to provide an unknown persons identity.
The debris field of a crashed aircraft will vary according to how the plane crashed, it’s speed, the terrain, the angle of impact and many other variables.
A plane travelling at 400 mph will cover in excess of six miles in one minute.

There are many theories, sorry, I will call them alternative possibilities, as to what may have happened to result in flight 93 crashing.
A few, without having the expert opinion of an Air Crash Investigator, sound quite possible, but no more than does the Official version.
Many, on the other hand, would be better placed along side beliefs in Little Green Men, Alien Abductions and Fairies at the bottom of the Garden.

At the present time the Official version is quite believable and is the one I am willing to accept until somebody can provide a definitive alternative version other than vague possibilities.

All you have to do is check any thread on the board which is discussing something quite simple which has happened locally in Caithness and see how many different explanations you will get. .
I can assure you... planes can fly themselves. And yes, this was a "crime"... thorough autopsys of all bodies would normally be conducted especially of pilots and hijackers! After PanAm 103 they did an "autopsy" of the plane even and reconstructed the thing. Eyewitnesses in Pennsylvania saw another plane... a military plane. The debris field was huge and there were two main sites.. tis possible it was hit by something or there was a bomb on board. (PanAm 103 left an 81 mile debris field coming from 31,000 ft.) Besides in the photos of the crash of Flight 93.. we see a flaming crater and lots of people in yellow suits... where's the plane? The hijackers who the FBI named... not one out of 19... even the one they found the passport of in the trade tower grounds appear on ANY passenger manifest.

The official version is plausible? oh aye. i still have problems with a few things.... cockpit recorders apparently caught passengers speaking about their plot to break down the cockpit door with a drink cart (see Moussoui trial)... except the cockpit recorders record the cockpit.. not the passengers in the passenger cabin. Allahu Akbar (Allah is greatest) ?? Muslims are surprised by this as when faced with imminent death a Muslim would say in Arabic.. "There is but one god, Allah and Mohammad is his prophet."