United 93

[fred]

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]

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]

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]

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 shows that cell phones don't work from a plane at 35,000ft.

The 9/11 commission report (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.../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]

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]

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]

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.


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) 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]

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...131056,00.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 shows that cell phones don't work from a plane at 35,000ft.

The 9/11 commission report (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/20...xander_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]

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]

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]

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]

Phew! Finally got to the end of this, er, gem of a thread

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]

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]

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]

Just finished having a read about PNAC.

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........

[fred]

Arrgghhhhhh...... I'm off to build a bomb shelter........

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

[fred]

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]

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......

[Blazing Sporrans]

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]

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.