America Had Better Wake Up!!!

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:03 pm

Jester;926039 wrote: Links there Bulldog, we need links... and you sir, need to step away form the PC and breath some fresh air, for the first time in you I see the elements necessary to go absolutely nuts... do not talk with any hari chrinstnas and please stay away from the energy sucker Danigirl...ok? :-2

I'm not sure why we can't just discuss things. My time's not easily apportioned this week and you want me to go off looking up links to things which I know are easy to find. Heigh ho.

Your administration got its Pearl Harbour that PNAC had identified as a missing requirement."the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebui ... fenses.pdf

That's where PNAC, who ended up running the White House (ask me if you want the list of names in both camps) say that everything they want to do is dependent on "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" if it's to be possible in the upcoming decade. That's the dilemma which looking the other way while the planes fly solves. All it requires is a deliberate refusal to stop the attacks.FBI officials have screamed in public that they were warned off investigating when they tried warning about the hijackers before 9/11.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_advan ... stigations

Coleen Rowley, John P. O'Neill, the claims of David Schippers, the blocked 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report,

"Richard Clarke, who was director for counter-terrorism activities in the White House, and a very important eyewitness. His book Against All Enemies is almost totally ignored by the 9/11 Commission, and it had to be ignored by the Commission because it is at odds, in many important respects, with what the 9/11 Report says (which I will get back to). But he tells us that at 9:59 am on September 11, which is the time when the second tower collapses, the North Tower, the FBI already had a list of the alleged hijackers" - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... eId=4207No amount of obfuscation blurs the fact that every off-track aircraft for decades had been intercepted in short order up until this fiasco. People were refusing to act on 9/11."FAA standard procedures for NORAD interception of off course or ceased responding aircraft" were activated on 129 occasions in the year 2000 and on 67 occasions in the period from September 2000 to June 2001 but failed to do so on 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Consp ... s#Defenses

According to the Chairman, the air defense force was structured to

intercept the former Soviet Union's long-range bomber force if it

attacked over the North Pole. Since that threat has largely

disappeared, the United States no longer needs a dedicated

continental air defense force, and the force has refocused its

activity on the air sovereignty mission, concentrating on

intercepting drug smugglers. However, anti-drug smuggling activities

at some units and alert sites have been minimal and at others almost

nonexistent. Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert

fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled)

1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year.

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9476.htmThe discussion on cellphones is on the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Consp ... hone_calls page. Surely you've read that page in the past? It's a short simple summary of what people are discussing here.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:16 am

Curious how long it took to intercept those that were intercepted, and how long those on 9/11 were out of pocket.

Y'know what? No I'm not. Stuff happens. Ya'll go ahead and figure out how this bumbling retard Harvard graduate mastermind puppet did all this. Morph reality to fit your conclusions. I'm out.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:17 am

Jester;926961 wrote: Ive sent and recived cell calls before on military aircraft and using a satillite phone.Are you claiming you've ever made a cellphone - as opposed to a satellite phone - call from an aircraft more than a mile above the surface? Because that's what we're talking about. Multiple claimed cellphone calls - nothing to do with the fitted airphones, nobody minds those. We're talking about the ones where the people receiving them said they had caller ID from the cellphone. We're talking about people saying they were making calls from places in aircraft that didn't have airphones, like the toilet for example. Those multiple claimed calls are out and out lies. Do you not think that if they were genuine the physical location of the hijacked planes would have been plotted in retrospect over the cellphone masts that handled the calls? Nobody's gone near offering to publish such records. Those cellphone calls are hoaxed, and you diverting with airphones has no bearing at all.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:46 am

spot;926975 wrote: Are you claiming you've ever made a cellphone - as opposed to a satellite phone - call from an aircraft more than a mile above the surface? Because that's what we're talking about. Multiple claimed cellphone calls - nothing to do with the fitted airphones, nobody minds those. We're talking about the ones where the people receiving them said they had caller ID from the cellphone. We're talking about people saying they were making calls from places in aircraft that didn't have airphones, like the toilet for example. Those multiple claimed calls are out and out lies. Do you not think that if they were genuine the physical location of the hijacked planes would have been plotted in retrospect over the cellphone masts that handled the calls? Nobody's gone near offering to publish such records. Those cellphone calls are hoaxed, and you diverting with airphones has no bearing at all.
Okay fine I'm not out.

What motivation would people have to lie about phone calls they'd received?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:12 am

Accountable;927000 wrote: Okay fine I'm not out.

What motivation would people have to lie about phone calls they'd received?
This was in the newspaper today. It is on the trial of supposed driver for Bin laden during the 9/11 episodes. If our government shot down the plane over Penn. Which is what Salim Hamdan has supposedly said then maybe the Government is covering up that part of it for some reason. I have no idea and not really decided one way or the other, I just thought this was interesting.

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba â€” The U.S. government opened its first war crimes prosecution Tuesday with a narrative of Osama bin Laden's driver overhearing his boss offer an eerie post-mortem in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks:

''If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane, it would've hit the dome,'' declared Navy Lt. Cmdr. Timothy Stone.

And so with his first words to a military jury, the Pentagon prosecutor conjured up a conversation from inside the world of al Qaeda, revealed by the accused, driver Salim Hamdan. Bin Laden told his deputy, Ayman al Zawahari, that U.S. forces â€” not heroic passengers â€” brought down United Airlines Flight 93 in a Pennsylvania field on 9/11 before terrorist hijackers could slam it into ''the dome,'' of the Capitol building.

Hamdan, 37, of Yemen is charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terror for allegedly serving as the al Qaeda leader's driver, sometime bodyguard and weapons courier.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/45106.html

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:53 am

YZGI;927044 wrote: This was in the newspaper today. It is on the trial of supposed driver for Bin laden during the 9/11 episodes. If our government shot down the plane over Penn. Which is what Salim Hamdan has supposedly said then maybe the Government is covering up that part of it for some reason. I have no idea and not really decided one way or the other, I just thought this was interesting.

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba â€” The U.S. government opened its first war crimes prosecution Tuesday with a narrative of Osama bin Laden's driver overhearing his boss offer an eerie post-mortem in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks:

''If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane, it would've hit the dome,'' declared Navy Lt. Cmdr. Timothy Stone.

And so with his first words to a military jury, the Pentagon prosecutor conjured up a conversation from inside the world of al Qaeda, revealed by the accused, driver Salim Hamdan. Bin Laden told his deputy, Ayman al Zawahari, that U.S. forces â€” not heroic passengers â€” brought down United Airlines Flight 93 in a Pennsylvania field on 9/11 before terrorist hijackers could slam it into ''the dome,'' of the Capitol building.

Hamdan, 37, of Yemen is charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terror for allegedly serving as the al Qaeda leader's driver, sometime bodyguard and weapons courier.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/45106.html
That kind of coverup I can buy. Of course, that would belie all the rest of the conspiracy, so obviously the story's a hoax.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:04 am

spot;920733 wrote: That's why it's a special date when the laws of physics are deliberately suspended. You can't deny the buildings pancaked or that pancaking of steel shell buildings without charges ever happened on any other day.

I'm just curious if there is another day where two 747s crashed into a building and it did not pancake?

edit... within minutes of each other.

sorry make that two planes..lol

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:08 am

flopstock;927105 wrote: I'm just curious if there is another day where two 747s crashed into a building and it did not pancake?

edit... within minutes of each other.

sorry make that two planes..lol

No planes hit Building 7. And yes, there's steel shell buildings which survived planes flying into them with no loss of structural integrity. What relevance is the "two planes"? One plane, one steel frame building, does it fall or not? Only on 9/11, not on any other day. One steel frame building on fire to some greater or lesser extent, does it collapse or not? Only on 9/11, not on any other day.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:11 am

Accountable;927000 wrote: What motivation would people have to lie about phone calls they'd received?Why ask me a distraction? Why not read what I wrote instead of asking me about something different? The impossibility is as I outlined it. Motivations aren't possible or impossible, they're merely present or not present. You have nothing to say about my points at all?

I don't think the people receiving the calls all lied about them, though I have my doubts about that Olson fellow, the United States Solicitor General.Wife of Solicitor General alerted him of hijacking from plane

September 12, 2001

Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN. A short time later the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Barbara Olson is presumed to have died in the crash.

Her husband said she called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77, which was en route from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles. Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters. She felt nobody was in charge and asked her husband to tell the pilot what to do. Ted Olson notified the Justice Department command center immediately.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_ ... aim_th.htm discusses it, with full references.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:21 am

spot;927111 wrote: No planes hit Building 7. And yes, there's steel shell buildings which survived planes flying into them with no loss of structural integrity. What relevance is the "two planes"? One plane, one steel frame building, does it fall or not? Only on 9/11, not on any other day. One steel frame building on fire to some greater or lesser extent, does it collapse or not? Only on 9/11, not on any other day.

Two planes that size, fully loaded with fuel producing the fire and heat that those planes did?

Can I get an example so that I can check to see what was determined to have kept those structures up? Surely someone investigated them.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:39 am

flopstock;927135 wrote: Two planes that size, fully loaded with fuel producing the fire and heat that those planes did?

Can I get an example so that I can check to see what was determined to have kept those structures up? Surely someone investigated them.

I agree the size of planes is very relevant to the damage they can cause. That's why I discussed Building 7. People who don't want to discuss Building 7 keep bringing up the other two collapses. One steel frame building on fire to some greater or lesser extent, does it collapse or not? Only on 9/11, not on any other day. There have been far more extravagant fires which have failed to bring down other steel frame buildings.

Where did your "fully loaded with fuel" come from? It's a strange description of planes that had flown the trips those two had.

Anyway, you want to play big planes into steel shell buildings which stayed upright. El Al Boeing 747 crashed in Amsterdam's Bijlmermeer, that's one to look at. Note the 747 bit? Full of fuel from just taking off? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... 7crash.jpg The crew dumped what fuel they could in the six minutes between the engines falling off and the plane crashing but I expect they still had pretty full tanks, the plane had just been refuelled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10346431/ is a building drenched in fuel when a C130 obliterated itself inside it. That was on fire too.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:44 am

spot;926975 wrote: Are you claiming you've ever made a cellphone - as opposed to a satellite phone - call from an aircraft more than a mile above the surface? Because that's what we're talking about. Multiple claimed cellphone calls - nothing to do with the fitted airphones, nobody minds those. We're talking about the ones where the people receiving them said they had caller ID from the cellphone. We're talking about people saying they were making calls from places in aircraft that didn't have airphones, like the toilet for example. Those multiple claimed calls are out and out lies. Do you not think that if they were genuine the physical location of the hijacked planes would have been plotted in retrospect over the cellphone masts that handled the calls? Nobody's gone near offering to publish such records. Those cellphone calls are hoaxed, and you diverting with airphones has no bearing at all.

But spot dear... if people on the upper floors of the trade center were able to call their loved ones after the planes hit below them, doesn't that mean the incoming planes should have had the same signal strength? Perhaps even stronger since they came in below the point where calls were later placed from? Your argument presupposes that these planes are at altitude until immediately before impact. I'm pretty sure one of the things that alarmed folks that morning was that the planes had dropped below radar.

Maybe there were cell towers atop the trade center too considering it's population is greater then my entire town. I have no idea about that... I just know that around here they are placed at the highestt point available..

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:48 am

flopstock;927184 wrote: But spot dear... if people on the upper floors of the trade center were able to call their loved ones after the planes hit below them, doesn't that mean the incoming planes should have had the same signal strength? Perhaps even stronger since they came in below the point where calls were later placed from? Your argument presupposes that these planes are at altitude until immediately before impact. I'm pretty sure one of the things that alarmed folks that morning was that the planes had dropped below radar.

Maybe there were cell towers atop the trade center too considering it's population is greater then my entire town. I have no idea about that... I just know that around here they are placed at the highestt point available..

Two problems. It's not just height, it's the 500 miles an hour bit as well, the handover between cell masts, the Doppler shift of the signal frequency. It's not designed to do that. The other is the height at which the calls were made - not at impact but when the planes were logged on the flight recorders over a mile high - in one case over 25,000 feet. It can't be done, and here the stories are of it being done multiple times. It's not true. Neither is "the planes had dropped below radar".

I also mentioned that the planes' routes across country would be pinpointed by the phone mast records if the calls were real, and no such mapping's ever been offered.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:16 am

Here is a site by Popular Mechanics that debunks most of the theroies. I have'nt found a explanation yet on the cell phone calls.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... tml?page=1

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:19 am

spot;927192 wrote: Two problems. It's not just height, it's the 500 miles an hour bit as well, the handover between cell masts, the Doppler shift of the signal frequency. It's not designed to do that. The other is the height at which the calls were made - not at impact but when the planes were logged on the flight recorders over a mile high - in one case over 25,000 feet. It can't be done, and here the stories are of it being done multiple times. It's not true. Neither is "the planes had dropped below radar".

I also mentioned that the planes' routes across country would be pinpointed by the phone mast records if the calls were real, and no such mapping's ever been offered.

I thought earlier calls were from plane phones?

And is there a line of sight with cell towers like there is with my wireless receiver?

I'm just asking this stuff out of curiosity spot.... I firmly believe that bobby and john kennedy (who have been in hiding since their bogus assassinations) masterminded the entire plot with the help of special forces that trained for years in area 51 and the ultimate goal was to destroy the conservative republican stronghold on washington politics along with those capitalist pigs down on wall street. I agree that everyone listed on those passenger lists are most likely bogus names with actors(probably right wingers) hired to play the grieving families and friends of the 'alleged' victims. Why Pennsylvania then?.... you may well ask. check your facts pal. JFK owes Pennsylvania BIG TIME for coming through in 1960, and a Kennedy never forgets! Look at the tourism dollars that has been brought into that previously unheard of state!

Probably the hardest part was coming up with a feasible scapegoat like bin laden though. It just stretches the imagination to grasp the work that must have been involved in building up this bogeyman in the american publics eye, creating videos pro-ported to have been left behind by the bogus terrorists, convincing the stupid ass republicans to take the golden opportunity presented to them to hijack a war to get back at an enemy of bushes daddy and to finally -slowly but surely -turn the american public against that war and president to such an extent that the democrats can then offer up a black with a Muslim name as a viable presidential candidate....

What haven't I covered?:D

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:32 am

flopstock;927273 wrote: What haven't I covered?:DPeople died, floppy. I don't find any of this even slightly amusing.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:53 am

spot;927278 wrote: People died, floppy. I don't find any of this even slightly amusing.

Well, that smacks of 'do you still beat your dog?' nice try..:wah:

Point in fact, you make my point, spot. Real people died here. IN PLANES- IN BUILDINGS. Instead of experiencing life as we watched it unfold in front of us you and your type insist on analyzing and conspiricizing the event to death again and again. Bad **** happened. Sometimes bad **** happens that cannot be fobbed off on the 'big brother' scenario. Sometimes it just happens because other folks are assholes and don't like us.

It amuses me no end, the notion that folks with nothing better to do with their time have figured out and exposed away the facts of the moment in order to make themselves feel more important in their own head. it amuses me even more that there are the gullible out there that believe any kind of crap simply because it is printed somewhere that you can link to!

Bottom line, a lot of **** happened that day that logically shouldn't have. Beginning with a bunch of assholes with a plan to punish civilians and spiraling downward from there.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:56 am

flopstock;927321 wrote: Bad **** happened. Sometimes bad **** happens that cannot be fobbed off on the 'big brother' scenario. Sometimes it just happens because other folks are assholes and don't like us. The Administration needed a new Pearl Harbour and they got it on a plate. A lot of people were ordered to look the other way to allow it to happen, whoever did it.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:55 pm

Jester;926961 wrote: The phone issue is interesting... but I dont see how that proves anything, so they flew lower than normal and multiple calls were made form cells... the report claims mulitple calls were made, fine, cells work on aircraft, Ive sent and recived cell calls before on military aircraft and using a satillite phone.Here's the timeline entry for Tom Burnett's calls: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline. ... rnettcalls

Here's the FBI confirmation that he was Caller ID'd four times using a cell phone, not an Airphone: http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-1 ... urnett.pdf

The first call's immediately after the hijack and at cruising altitude. The hijacking on Flight 93 began at 09:28. Tom Burnett made several phone calls to his wife beginning at 09:30:32. The data recorder of Flight 93 confirms the height the plane was at during the calls. That supposed 9.30 call is at 30,000 feet and it is impossible. The entire pretence that these cell phone calls happened from the hijacked planes is simply not true.

Perhaps you'd like to claim it's miraculous divine intervention? I'd quite like to get that out of the way as an explanation if we may.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:50 pm

Jester;927448 wrote: So, let me get this straight before we proceed any further... your hanging your hat on these 'alleged phone calls' being falsified because it is impossible to send/recivie cell transmissions on flying aircraft, as the evidence that GW Bush and the PNAC diliberatly planned and carried out the destruction of the WTC complex, or knew about the alleged plot prior to and assisted in its destruction to include the extravagant planting of directional charges to purposely destroy the WTC complex?

I'll claim no devine intervention. I just want to make sure that this is evidence your refering to to make the claims you made.

GW Bush is a singularly trivial little front man, I doubt whether he's made a single decision of state since he entered the White House for his first term.

This White House Administration and PNAC are equivalent terms, they're the same people. Just look at the list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac#Assoc ... nistration

I'm quite sure they didn't plan or execute it, these things are left to experts. Someone in the White House Administration undoubtedly liaised with whoever planned whatever was planned because the President wasn't protected in that schoolroom when the second tower was hit - that's pre-knowledge on the part of his security team. The disabling of the US interception of hijacked aircraft on 9/11 is one essential planned aspect, leaving the air defences alone would have resulted in no buildings being reached.

I have no idea what the plan entailed beyond that. One aspect involved the pretended cell phone calls which were simply shoddy plotting since they can't have happened. What does that imply about the actual plot? I've no idea, it merely tells me someone was monkeying with phone calls behind the scenes and it wasn't any tinpot Saudi extremist.

The plot was to enact A 'catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor'. That's what these politicians commissioned, it's what they got. It involved purposely destroying the WTC complex and attacking Washington to ratchet up the outrage. That's a new Pearl Harbor, plain and simple, right down to the body count, and it was planned in the USA to unleash the country's military on the Middle East and to enable the passage of otherwise politically impossible civil surveillance legislation at home.

To slightly adjust your "because it is impossible to send/recivie cell transmissions on flying aircraft", I've claimed only "because it is impossible to send/receive cell voice calls on aircraft flying higher than a mile above the ground". Roughly. At 30,000 it's a dead cert though. At a mile and a half, maybe you might get a fleeting signal but you'd not get a connection. You're passing what few masts are down there one a minute and the hand-over routines in the masts simply don't allow for 400 mile an hour connections. And, crucially, the masts log all the activity and there's no cellphone provider logs in any of the prosecution's case against the hijackers.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:54 pm

Jester;927454 wrote: I have made both cell and satellite calls form military aircraft. Yes. And I have gotten clear reception, and communicated, I rarely talk more than a few minutes, so I cant attest to a sustained signal as per my experience.

Forget the satellite calls, they're a distraction. It's the cell phone network we're discussing.

The height, you keep not saying the height. We're not talking about sat on the runway, after all. If you're telling me these were cell phone calls at over 10,000 feet above ground level then I'll obviously re-think from scratch, and drop all mention of cell phones.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:25 pm

DrJ;924786 wrote: Forgive me Gal,,, but I put buildings together,, I' ll never believe the planes done it,,,have you ever thrown the ball at the stacked bottles at the carnival?

Back to back winners plus,,"building 7" the home of the FBI,,,CIA...C'mon!!

Those were pulled buildings plain and simple,,, it's just to scary for most to even think they may not be able to trust those that may have been involved,,,, I think this is the saddest part of 9/11...

Just my observation,,,

It's not over for the amendment,, it's still got to go back thru the house!

Dr J, I really don't think there is much point in explaining this, as I believe that most conspiracy theories become popular, not because they are plausible, but because there is something emotionally satisfying in thinking you know something everyone else doesn't. There certainly are real conspiracies, but they tend to be based on things that are easy to achieve, like corruption, assasinations, cartel-like business, political murder, extortion, crime.

But not blowing up the centre of your own nation's financial heart in broad daylight on live TV, killing tens of thousands of your own citizens, for no good reason, using the most lunatic method imaginable, where the probabliity of it going horribly wrong, and getting caught is about 100 percent. Governments are bad, but they are not generally mad, and no government would do this, you can start wars on much less of a pretext than September 11th if you wanted to, so why bother? There are far more efficient ways of doing dirty deeds, such lunacy is not required, the only point of September 11th is a demonstration of how much damage the weak (Muslim terrorists) can inflict on the strong (the USA) and on those terms the attack was a complete and sobering sucess, that American citizens would then blame their own government must make al queda thrilled.

As for the insurance scam idea, yeah right, the "owners" of these buildings just happened, on their first dabble in amateur boardroom terrorism to pull of the most massive and devastating attack on American soil in history, as a grubby insurance scam? and nobody noticed, in all the various arms of governance and law enforcement? Have you ever heard of the phrase clucthing at straws??

As for the buildings, the difference between the twin towers, and a few cups stacked on one another is the effect of gravity on their mass. The cups wight about 50 grams and are made of plastic, the twin towers, tens of millions of metric tonnes of concrete and steel. The force of the ball you threw at the cups, (which did not collpase into tiny pieces, but kept their general structure, as their tensile strength is massive compared to the gravity acting on their puny mass) acted to pully kinetic energy to the cups. This kinetic energy was enough to make them accelerate away from the point of impact, in a line along the flightpath of the ball, (though this flightpath described a parabola due to the effect of gravity, which tends to also pull the balls down, in proportion to their mass, with an acceleration due to G, the gravitational constant), hence the flight path of the cups, based on the energy supplied by the ball in one plane, and gravity in another, in other words, a vector.

Now the force of gravity acting on the Twin Towers is the same as that acting on the cups, and they also absorbed kinetic energy based on the velocity and mass of the aircraft, but their mass is millions of tonnes compared to a few grams, also the mass of both airliners was still tiny compared to the towers. They certainly shook when the impacts occurred and there was massive structural damage, but the energy of the collisions was no where near enough to knock these things over like nine-pins, and any collision powerful enough would have probably vaporised them at the same time. These towers were never designed to be able to resist the force of gravity in the verticle plane, only the horizontal, (with allowances for wind sheering forces, which were considerable), that they remained standing for an hour was remarkable considering how compromised they were by the impacts, but it was inevitable that they were going to implode on themselves due to the massive forces bearing down on them.

In these two incidents, once the overall structural integrity failed because of the structural damage, the force of gravity was the only force acting on the falling towers, the tensile strength of the individual components of the towers was useless against the overwhelming force of gravity acting straight down and therefore the towers basically failed structurally, fell apart, and straight down, with the cumulative effect of each 110 floors falling onto the next one, causing an catacylsmic failure, which is what we all witnessed. Watch it, its Isacc Newton and the most powerful lesson in how gravity as a universal force acts on all matter.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:30 pm

Jester;927515 wrote: Is there any proof per the cell phone records that a call was made at such and such a time form a cell phone that coroborates the claimed call? if not then its bogus. Seems very easily verifiable. If you have proof the calls were not recorded on cell records link it. It's whatever the FBI hold and they're not showing any of it. You're asking me to prove a negative and the investigating body - the FBI - has totally refused to discuss or reveal any records they hold from the cell mast software logs. They initially did this on the grounds of not prejudicing a trial of a hijacker. Their continued reason seems plain stonewalling, to me. Someone eventually will hold a judicial enquiry with the power and the desire to command the release of such information.

Is there a call made to tverify the justice command center? or transcript of that?Try explaining that, the phrasing doesn't strike any chord with me.

Ted Olson's come out with a surprising number of variations on those phone calls from his wife, none of which make any sense. The FBI claims in sworn testimony that he received none at all from her or anyone else on the planes. He was a GW Bush campaign employee before the first term even started and here he is lying about the events of the day.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:55 pm

Jester;927557 wrote: Wanna bring up the next cell call? http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-1 ... urnett.pdf

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:01 pm

Jester;927515 wrote: Is there any proof per the cell phone records that a call was made at such and such a time form a cell phone that coroborates the claimed call? if not then its bogus. Seems very easily verifiable. If you have proof the calls were not recorded on cell records link it.

Is there a call made to tverify the justice command center? or transcript of that?

Excuse me but at this point I call out of order.

Expecting those with no access to the network companies' records to produce proof of an absence of data is unrealistic.

The fact that those with the access to the data have not shown evidence that such data is present when it is so much in their interest to do so is, however, indicative.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:06 pm

Jester;927566 wrote: Spot, thats such rubbish and entirely unprovable, and just yer opinion. A very angry and biased opinon, in my opinon.

If 9/11 happened with foreknowledge on the part of any Americans then I'm quite justified in being angry, surely. If it didn't then I'll apologize. I'll read the NIST final report on Building 7, for one thing, and think further after that.

It's all been done before, you know. The Reichstag Fire was an exact mirror of what's alleged here and for identical reasons - the deliberate manipulation of public opinion and the demonizing of a group into The Enemy.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:06 pm

This discussion is pointless.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 pm

Galbally;927573 wrote: This discussion is pointless.I keep being asked to pull in more information, Galbally. I'm by no means impossible to persuade. Voice calls from 30,000 feet at 400 miles an hour on a cellphone? Come on, be serious, you know perfectly well how unlikely so much as a signal notch would be much less a call being put through.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:14 pm

Jester;927568 wrote: I dont think so, as you have said before to me it takes evidence to back up a claim or its unsubstantiated and therefore an opinon. To claim it as proof is not enough.

but to claim it as a point to be disproved is not enough.

It has been placed into this discussion as an anomaly that needs to be explained. To put the onus of proof back onto those raising it does not explain it, therefore, it is still an outstanding item to be explained.

You can fall back on your covert surveillance argument for the non-production of records and Spot then requires to beef up his argument as to why that cannot be, but just to demand proof of the non-existence of records is not sufficient to counter the point.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:25 pm

Jester;927591 wrote: You know what Spot it doesnt matter, Im willing to stipulate that all cell transmissions from flight 93 during its take off to crashing never existed. ( still dont belive it but Im willing to stipulate

How many more calls are we talking about here?

Surely then, that calls all of the other evidence into doubt.

If the authorities have claimed cell phone calls and you are willing to admit that they never occurred then all of the rest of the authorities evidence is deemed unreliable.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:30 pm

Jester;927595 wrote: Bryn Im not a wycliff rules kinda fellow Im talking real world convince me stuff here... I'm a real world smack me in the face kinda guy... it may be some english rule of discourse but I'm an uncooth gun carrying american.

It's not Westcliffe rules, it's simple logic.

Fake one piece of evidence and all other evidence from the same source is suspect.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:38 pm

Jester;927591 wrote: You know what Spot it doesnt matter, Im willing to stipulate that all cell transmissions from flight 93 during its take off to crashing never existed. ( still dont belive it but Im willing to stipulate

How many more calls are we talking about here?

That's the wrong way round. The cell phone calls obviously DID exist. The question, since they couldn't possibly have been made from 30,000 feet at 400 miles an hour, is how they came to exist at all. Only, in my view, by someone monkeying around who had rather more authority than a bunch of Saudi extremists.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:39 pm

Jester;927612 wrote: Not entirely... these folks are real poeple, we have a possible crack pot and a lady in the Sanfrancsisco bay area who lost her husband, for whatever reason she belives her husband called her, the testimony looks plausible, it makes the call suspect, but without better investigation it doesnt make it a lie.No, the nice part about that lady is that she was taking these Caller ID cell phone calls apparently originating from her husband's cell phone in the presence of a police officer. I've not the least reason to think that FBI report is anything but the absolute truth.