How Elaborate is the 9-11 Consparacy?

[Bill Thompson]

There are videos made, some of them broadcast on Al Jazerra, that show that there is no conspiracy. They show the words and comments of the hijackers. Of course, CT's will tell you that they are fake and part of the conspiracy.

But there is a lot more. For instance, now I see that the family members of the hijackers have made videos.

clearinghouse.infovlad.net/showthread.php?p=13141

At what point does the circle of people and technology involved in a conspiracy get too big and pops and falls apart into the realm of impossible for all practical purposes?

[sts60]

To a conspiracy "theorist", never. There's no such thing as a conspiracy which requires too many people, too many resources, too many disappearing airliners, too many violations of the laws of physics, too large an all-powerful, all-seeing, world-girdling NASA-CIA-Bush-House of Saud-Illuminati-Freemason-British royal family-alien reptile-alliance,... plus an important conspiracy figure who casually admits to deliberately destroying a large building to a television reporter.

[PhantomWolf]

Well OBL when on record just a month ago in claiming responsibility once more, it's hardly made a drop in the bucket against the 911's. This is the thing, regardless of what OBL says, those that want to believe the US Govt did it still will. They just claim that he's a CIA operative, or the message is a fake. I wonder how he feels that this bunch not only deny him his biggest glory ever, but actually award it to those he considers his enemies?

[lenbrazil]

Unfortunately the audio tape proves little the technology exists today to easily fake them, even videotapes can be faked. And even if they made a fairly crude fake audio tape of OBL would you or I know the difference?

[PhantomWolf]

Well true, you or I might not, but I bet there are a lot of people that would.

Last night I went to see X-Men 3. Now I'd been sure to stay away from any hyope so I knew nothing going in. It took me half the movie to realise Beast was Kelsey Grammer. I knew the voice was familer but I couldn't place it. While we might not be able to pick out a fake OBL, those that are/were close to him can do so, and remember that these tapes aren't being released for the western world to listen to anyway, they are being released for the Muslim world, the very people that would be able to detect fakes because they have known him longer, in some cases personally. If you heard a voice on the TV/Radio proporting to be you, one of your friends, or someone you knew well, and you could tell the voice was wrong, would you stay quiet?

[twinstead]

I still would like to know, since according to some CTs cell phone calls from an airliner would be impossible therefore the official story is bogus, how the loved ones who received calls from the hijacked planes--especially flight 93--were fooled into believing they were talking to family members.

[SpitfireIX]

I still would like to know, since according to some CTs cell phone calls from an airliner would be impossible therefore the official story is bogus, how the loved ones who received calls from the hijacked planes--especially flight 93--were fooled into believing they were talking to family members.

Sigh. You had to ask, didn't you?

Here is an "analysis" by computer science professor and 9/11 crackpot A. K. Dewdney .

Dewdney has conducted "experiments" flying in a light plane (not an airliner) over London, Ontario (not Washington, New York, or Pennsylvania), which he claims prove that cell phone calls from an airliner are virtually impossible.

Basically, Dewdney claims that the calls could have been faked using either mimicry or sophisticated computer software; he also postulates that agents could have flown on the planes in order to engage in small talk with the passengers and learn who took those flights frequently, record their voices, and obtain personal information. Dewdney of course merely presumes that all of the callers frequently took their respective flights; he evidently didn't bother to investigate whether or not that is true.

Naturally, he further claims that there are "anomalies" in the conversations; for example, the fact that Mark Brigham identified himself to his mother as "Mark Brigham," or that Barbara Olsen asked her husband (then-US Solicitor General Ted Olsen) what she should tell the pilots (the reasoning being that nothing he could say would help, so why did she bother to ask?). Naturally, everyone is expected to think and speak completely clearly and rationally when aboard a hijacked airliner.

Dewdney has also co-authored an extremely ignorant "hunt the Boeing" article.

[echnaton]

All that ignores the fact that many people have received cell phone call from airplanes. I certainly have. It was however in the days of analog phones, so it is no assurance that modern digital phones would be able to complete a call. Nevertheless, I have had a digital phone on during flights and had enough bars to make me believe I could place a call.

[twinstead]

All I know is that if my wife called me in a stressful situation like that, it would be damned well impossible for either an impostor, computer generated voice, or any thing else for that matter to fool me into thinking I was talking to her when I wasn't.

I probably speak for all the family members who received phone calls too.

[twinstead]

I really think 'show stopper' claims by CTs are the laziest way to ply their trade. The whole cell phones are impossible from planes for 911, radiation will kill you instantly from the moon hoax, etc, they all are designed to allow the CTs to not have to answer any tough questions about any other evidence.

ETA: CTs are a frustrating lot

[SpitfireIX]

All I know is that if my wife called me in a stressful situation like that, it would be damned well impossible for either an impostor, computer generated voice, or any thing else for that matter to fool me into thinking I was talking to her when I wasn't.

I probably speak for all the family members who received phone calls too.

Dewdney handwaves this away as potentially being "wishful thinking"--comparing the family members' experiences to those of people who are fooled by mediums into thinking they have contacted the spirits of their dead relatives. He conveniently ignores the fact that people who attempt to use mediums in the first place are generally both gullible and highly predisposed to believe.

Dewdney of course also neglects to explain why "they" would even risk using bogus cell phone calls, if cell phones really wouldn't have worked, and why "they" would take the very real risk that someone would not be fooled, and tell the media that he or she was completely convinced that the call received was a fake.

[SpitfireIX]

I really think 'show stopper' claims by CTs are the laziest way to ply their trade. The whole cell phones are impossible from planes for 911, radiation will kill you instantly from the moon hoax, etc, they all are designed to allow the CTs to not have to answer any tough questions about any other evidence.

Don't forget the Single Bullet Theory's being impossible.

[Nowhere Man]

spitfireix said:

Here is an "analysis" by computer science professor and 9/11 crackpot A. K. Dewdney .

AK Dewdney? Dang, I really enjoyed his computer column in Scientific American. I'm saddened to hear that he's ventured far out of his field of expertise and is making a [fill in word] of himself.

Edit to add: And how ironic, since Wikipedia lists Yes, We Have No Neutrons: An Eye-Opening Tour through the Twists and Turns of Bad Science (1997). ISBN 0471295868 as one of his books.

Fred

[Al Johnston]

spitfireix said:

Here is an "analysis" by computer science professor and 9/11 crackpot A. K. Dewdney .

That is very disappointing: you'd think the author of Yes we have no neutrons could apply the same rigorous thought to 9/11 as he did to cold fusion

[Nowhere Man]

Oh, hi there, Al. Great minds run in the same gutter, eh?

Fred