FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Audio: Dave McGowan - Waking Up America
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dilbert_g said:
Quote:
I thought that the alleged cellphone calls -- while the test flight from Canada itself did not 100% prove that cellphone calls are impossible at that altitude and speed, due to the fact that the tester chose a different plane and location, it's STILL nevertheless KNOWN that such calls ARE in fact impossible.


Dave McGowan goes into the cell phone impossibility debate in detail in his
2006 Nov. 10 newsletter, he thought that the reception by cell phone would have been difficult - spotty at best - but not impossible.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr88.html

a long excerpt:

Quote:
I am not arguing here, by the way, that because it was reported in the mainstream press that the calls were placed via Airphones that it must necessarily be true. What is at issue here is whether the reports, regardless of their veracity, preceded the claims by skeptics that the calls would have been impossible. And since the reports clearly came before the claims of skeptics, there appears to be no merit to the charge that Washington and the media changed the official story in response to skepticism over the phone calls.

It is impossible to know how many cell phone calls were placed to supplement the Airphone calls. What we do know is that many of the reported calls were very brief, with more than a few ending abruptly. Andrew Garcia, for example, was only able to get out his wife’s name, “Dorothy,” before the connection was lost. It seems reasonable to assume that calls such as Garcia’s were the most likely ones to have been placed via cell phones. And we know for certain that Edward Felt’s call, which was dropped prematurely, had to have been made by cell phone since he indicated that he was calling from a restroom, well beyond the reach of an Airphone.

Taking all this into consideration, the first question that comes to mind is: what would have been achieved by faking the cell phone calls? If the storyline was firmly established by the Airphone calls, particularly Jeremy Glick’s detailed 20-30 minute call to his wife, Lyzbeth, and Todd Beamer’s 13-15 minute call to Lisa Jefferson, then why bother with adding redundant cell phone calls that would be vulnerable to detection as fakes? The second question that comes to mind is: if the plan was to fabricate cell phone calls, why go to the trouble of manufacturing calls such as Garcia’s, which did nothing to advance or promote the storyline? And why fake Felt’s frantic call, which directly contradicted a key element of the official storyline?

If the cell phone calls were faked, doesn’t it seem a little odd that the one call that could only have been made from a cell phone, Edward Felt’s call from the restroom, is the one that the government would prefer that you not know about? (The FBI reportedly seized the audiotape of the call, and the operator who fielded it, Glen Cramer, "received orders not to speak to the media." [John Carlin "Unanswered Questions: The Mystery of Flight 93," The Independent, August 13, 2002]) And doesn’t it also seem a little odd that during all of the supposedly fake, scripted calls, “none of the callers mentioned a fourth hijacker,” despite the fact that the official story features not three but four hijackers? (Kim Barker, Louise Kiernan and Steve Mills “Heroes Stand Up Even in the Hour of Their Deaths,” Chicago Tribune, September 30, 2001)

By most accounts, successfully placing a cell phone call from a moving aircraft was not an easy thing to do with the technology available in 2001. The problem apparently stems from the fact that an airplane quite obviously moves very fast, thus passing through reception ‘cells’ very quickly. It is extremely difficult, therefore, to get and maintain a cell phone signal. It is not, however, impossible.

Imagine that you are trapped on a speeding airplane that has been hijacked and you know that, short of some kind of miracle, you are living the last minutes of your life. Imagine also that you have a cell phone at your disposal, but you realize that it is very unlikely to work. During the last, say, forty-five minutes of your life, what do you think you would spend most of your time doing? I am going to take a wild guess here and say that most people in that situation would spend a considerable amount of time frantically punching the numbers of loved ones into their cell phones and hitting the “send” button. Repeatedly. And I’m also guessing that, given the ubiquity of cell phones these days, there were more than a few of them, from various service providers, available to passengers and crew members that day. So it is probably safe to say, without exaggeration, that literally hundreds of cell phone calls were attempted during the final forty-five minutes of Flight 93. And even if the calls had, say, a 98% failure rate, we might reasonably expect a handful of them to get through, if only long enough to say a few final words.

The real issue here though, it appears to me, is not whether the calls were technologically possible. That seems to be almost a moot point. As previously stated, the cell phone calls added nothing to the narrative established by the Airphone calls, and no one has argued, as far as I know, that Airphones don’t really work. If that were the case, you would think there would have been some complaints over the years from all the people who have coughed up $7+ per minute to use them. So the real question we need to ask here is: were all the calls, regardless of how they were reportedly placed, manufactured – presumably to create a patriotic, uplifting storyline?

There appear to be three primary theories concerning the purportedly faked phone calls. It is not really for me to say which is the most absurd and/or offensive, but I probably will do so anyway as we proceed along.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sir Conscious



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 1
Location: Southwest Arkansas USA

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like this guy but got sick of all the "uhhhhhhs" and "ya knows" OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.
_________________
The part of the mind comprising psychic material of which the individual is aware.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
truthseeker



Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 177
Location: NW U.S.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sir Conscious wrote:
I like this guy but got sick of all the "uhhhhhhs" and "ya knows" OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.


Yeah, but Duuuude, you gotta remember that this guy has spent some serious amount of time in Southern Cal, y'know? And, like, that kinda laid-back conversational style is as sticky after awhile as the rat-a-tat gutteral conversational style of the Sopranos is in North Jersey. After you've been either place for a few years, it's dang near impossible not to sound like the natives!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jeroen



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 60

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
@Rumpl4skin: You're losing me Fintan. So, your take - from what I've seen since I showed up here - is that al-Pirate and Mohammed Atta had nothing to do with 9/11, yet somehow there were real hijackers on Flight 93.

So they were..... Hollywood agency temps?

Tell some agents to hijack the plane and land it in X. Then shoot it from the sky. This way it looks like all planes were hijacked, instead of remote controlled (that seems to me to be the most reliable way to crash planes into buildings).

Btw, I noticed something in Dave's newsletter...
Quote:
The phone calls, as recounted by the recipients, were remarkably consistent in describing the situation that the passengers and crew were facing: the distressed callers spoke of three men, all in red bandannas and all Middle-Eastern in appearance, who had commandeered the aircraft.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr88.html

...that reminded me of something else:
Quote:
In 1978, the Second BR, headed by Mario Moretti, kidnapped and murdered Christian Democrat Aldo Moro, who was trying to conclude an Historic Compromise ("compromesso storico") between Italian Communist Party and Democrazia Cristiana. A team of Red Brigades members, using stolen Alitalia plane company uniforms, ambushed Moro, killed five of Moros bodyguards and took him captive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Brigades#See_also

The "compromesso storico" did not piss of reds of course, but that's another story. The uniforms most likely had to make each perpetrator recognizable for his unknown companions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeroen wrote:
Tell some agents to hijack the plane and land it in X. Then shoot it from the sky. This way it looks like all planes were hijacked, instead of remote controlled (that seems to me to be the most reliable way to crash planes into buildings).

Still violates the very first anomaly of the day, in my book - intel never takes unnecessary chances, and too many things can go wrong in an actual hijacking, such as the pilots (most of whom are former military) may thwart the attempt.

The similarity of the hijacker descriptions also means nothing, if the calls were fabricated. Yet... the pristine condition of the "discovered" red bandanna screams out to me that someone wanted the ruse to be discovered. Eventually, after years of endless vitriolic debate, of course.

As for the legitimacy of the "crash site", I recommend by analysis on the smoke plume. A faked smoke plume doesn't mean there was no smoke plume. It just means someone went to a lot of trouble (Val McClatchey and whomever handled her) to fake one, for whatever reason.

My bottom line is this - there's no plane at Shanksville. A smoking hole in the ground, with - according to the county coroner - "not a drop of blood", anywhere.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Jeroen



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 60

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Still violates the very first anomaly of the day, in my book - intel never takes unnecessary chances, and too many things can go wrong in an actual hijacking, such as the pilots (most of whom are former military) may thwart the attempt.

Doesn't matter if you shoot the plane out of the sky does it?
Quote:
The similarity of the hijacker descriptions also means nothing, if the calls were fabricated. Yet... the pristine condition of the "discovered" red bandanna screams out to me that someone wanted the ruse to be discovered. Eventually, after years of endless vitriolic debate, of course.

Don't know about any red bandanna's being discovered, but the comparison with the Alitalia uniforms was just a thought.
Quote:
As for the legitimacy of the "crash site", I recommend by analysis on the smoke plume. A faked smoke plume doesn't mean there was no smoke plume. It just means someone went to a lot of trouble (Val McClatchey and whomever handled her) to fake one, for whatever reason.

My bottom line is this - there's no plane at Shanksville. A smoking hole in the ground, with - according to the county coroner - "not a drop of blood", anywhere.

Well, that's Dave's bottom line too:
Quote:
These witness accounts would seem to indicate that there had been some kind of explosive event in the air above Indian Lake, rather than on the ground a couple miles away.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr86.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeroen wrote:
Quote:
Still violates the very first anomaly of the day, in my book - intel never takes unnecessary chances, and too many things can go wrong in an actual hijacking, such as the pilots (most of whom are former military) may thwart the attempt.

Doesn't matter if you shoot the plane out of the sky does it?

It certainly does. If there's no hijacking, you have a thwarted event, and pilots radioing the news to ATC's. Shooting that plane out of the sky is going to require some serious 'splainin', Lucy.

Quote:

Don't know about any red bandanna's being discovered, but the comparison with the Alitalia uniforms was just a thought.

Yes, at the Moussaoui trial, they produced what appears to be a store-bought conditioned red bandanna.



Apparently the WalMart tag came off in the scuffle, or this could have gone back to the store on 9/12.

Quote:
These witness accounts would seem to indicate that there had been some kind of explosive event in the air above Indian Lake, rather than on the ground a couple miles away.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr86.html

But then you have a shot down aircraft that hit the ground somewhere. There were initial reports of police and FBI roping off an area East of Shanksville, in New Baltimore, PA. Population 12 people and a mule. But I doubt they could successfully hide a 737 crash site for very long. So, this seemed to be standard CT fodder to get everyone buying the "shoot-down" scenario - which I still maintain was and is misdirection. Get everyone arguing over "crash vs. shoot-down", and few will notice there's no fucking plane.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Jeroen



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 60

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It certainly does. If there's no hijacking, you have a thwarted event, and pilots radioing the news to ATC's. Shooting that plane out of the sky is going to require some serious 'splainin', Lucy.

Consider this:
Quote:
The phone calls, as recounted by the recipients, were remarkably consistent in describing the situation that the passengers and crew were facing: the distressed callers spoke of three men, all in red bandannas and all Middle-Eastern in appearance, who had commandeered the aircraft. Two of the men had entered the cockpit and presumably taken control of the plane. The third, sporting what was undoubtedly a fake bomb around his waist, was standing guard over the first class passengers.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr88.html

The explosive belt went off. If, for some reason, that splaination is not good enough, the bomb that the evil terrorists had hidden in the plane went off. Btw, this Lucy, is that the one from the sky with diamonds?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, you blow a plane up in midair, and count on..... for the first time EVER in aviation history, a plane literally being obliterated and/or "sinking completely into the soft Earth of a strip mine." So that no one finds any evidence to the contrary of your story.

And soft Earth, I might add, that literally swallows up every single piece of the plane EXCEPT one of the steel and titanium engines, that hits the same soft Earth as the rest of the plane, but BOUNCES about 1800' into a nearby pond, where it is recovered that morning, by a crew who just happens to know to look into a pond. Where the engine is conveniently explainable as "not hot", because it just hit the cool water. (Btw, using the Roadrunner-like perfect outline shape in the ground, its generally accepted that this plane had to have hit the ground at "close to a 90 degree angle." Do you have ANY idea how high in the air a 6 ton engine would have to bounce in order to land 1800' away, at that angle. Even at 60-70 degrees? It's ludicrous. And why 1 engine buries itself, and 1 bounces away. This is beyond laughable.)

Sorry..... this ridiculous story has more funny-smelling holes in it than Nevada's Bunny Ranch.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Jeroen



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 60

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So, you blow a plane up in midair, and count on..... for the first time EVER in aviation history, a plane literally being obliterated and/or "sinking completely into the soft Earth of a strip mine." So that no one finds any evidence to the contrary of your story.

Hey Rumpy, we were talking about how to explain shooting down an actual plane with real, more or less successful hijackers. For such an event a bomb on the plane seems a good explanation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeroen wrote:
Quote:
So, you blow a plane up in midair, and count on..... for the first time EVER in aviation history, a plane literally being obliterated and/or "sinking completely into the soft Earth of a strip mine." So that no one finds any evidence to the contrary of your story.

Hey Rumpy, we were talking about how to explain shooting down an actual plane with real, more or less successful hijackers. For such an event a bomb on the plane seems a good explanation.

Okay. I'll give you that.

Something just tells me that when you shoot down a plane, there would be one on the ground somewhere, instead of a Wile E. Coyote outline of one with some burning trash in it. And that 2 like objects hitting the same piece of ground would behave a little similarly. But then, I've always been an admitted slave to the laws of physics. Laughing

I've been researching this scenario for a few years. I'm from PA, I have friends in the near and not-so-near area. The whole story is, IMNSHO, a total fabrication - from the phone calls to the passenger revolt to the missing airplane. I firmly believe the whole "no plane" meme we've become accustomed to "debating" in regards to 9/11 is to help lump Shanksville into, as if anyone who thinks there' "no plane" in Shanksville must be part of the dreaded "no planers", who think there were holograms at the trade center and one of them Tom Cruise missiles at the Pentagon.

I also think the "no planers" themselves are an intel misdirection, created to give some traction to another group of easily disregarded people. (No offense to any no planers here. Well, okay... a little disrespect.)

Cool

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2266

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"" three men, all in red bandannas and all Middle-Eastern in appearance""

Were they attired like this when they got on the plane? Must have been interesting........
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.