|
Edited on Thu Feb-16-06 09:54 PM by JackRiddler
Don't tell me it's known reliably for all calls whether they are from air phones or cell phones (regardless of what's reported).
If Burnett's call was at 10 am, then the altitude could have been very low.
I'm sick of hearing what Bingham would have or should have said to his mom. Do you have any idea how you'd be reacting in that situation? I find it plausible that he'd nervously blurt out his own name and repeat "you believe me, don't you" out of anxiety. He doesn't believe what's happening himself, and wonders if his mother is. He knows he might have only minutes to live.
Are the calls unlikely? Perhaps. Barbara Olsen's seems to be a hell of a whopper. Nice for discussions among 9/11 skeptics, but can you show anything about the calls so definitive that you can convince anyone new, or get probable cause for a case?
Aren't you guys sick of working with entirely non-definitive fragments and pretending they'll add up to anything certain?
The case for an inside job was established years ago, in fact, most of it was obvious on the day and within a few weeks of 9/11. Why not stick to the solid stuff, keep repeating it, and forget all this hypothesizing about cell phones, lagoon landings, and 38,000 possible scenarios?
The chain of command made themselves scarce during the actual attacks, and have produced obviously contradictory and unlikely excuses.
The air defense system failed to follow standard procedures, and produced a wealth of contradictory timelines; most of these are necessarily lies.
The idea that AA77 made it to the Pentagon 50 mins. after the first crash and 45 mins after it was hijacked, without a standdown, flown by Hani Hanjour, and hitting the empty section, is laughable.
The military was staging wargames based on the 9/11 scenario on the day itself, and these appear to have been intended to circumvent air defesne response; at any rate, coincidence on that scale is laughable. The wargames = foreknowledge.
The supposedly incompetent officials who fucked up were all promoted.
The top spin doctors delivered obvious lies ("no one could have imagined").
The first investigation was run by two guys who on 9/11 were meeting with the financer of the hijackers, but somehow forgot this. (Ahmad, Goss/Graham)
A primary long-term Bush security adviser was appointed to pretend to hold the second investigation. (Zelikow, the Commission)
The Commission delivered a joke report that constantly runs away from the evidence suggesting government complicity.
The patsies (or hijackers, whatever) were under surveillance years in advance, contrary to four years worth of propaganda, and the Commission left that out of its report.
The investigators who could have bagged the patsy/hijackers were blocked, obstructed, as a matter of high-level policy.
Dozens of people have gone on record with stories of accurate and specific foreknowledge.
Speculators bet on the outcome using advance knowledge and the SEC tried to wiggle out of confronting it (four years later) by simply ignoring the vast majority of suspicious transactions. The head of the bank responsible for some of the transactions resigned suddenly on Sept. 12.
The buildings were blown up - certainly 7 was, and that unravels the rest of the demolition, since there is no way it could have been prepared for implosion on the same day.
The war in Afghanistan was planned in advance and set for launch in mid-October, lacking only a casus belli.
Would the long-planned invasion of Iraq have been possible without 9/11?
Rumsfeld chose Sep. 10 to slip in the announcement that a Halliburton "audit" under PNAC author and Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim had successfully heisted 2.3 trillion dollars.
The Osama confession video and audio are crude fakes. Why would anyone want to fake these?
The anthrax attacks hit Democratic leaders and the media with US high-grade anthrax just in time to get the USA PATRIOT Act passed – come on!
False-flag attacks are a normal practice of "statecraft."
The Bush mob players have committed far greater crimes than 9/11, even against Americans. Given the pay off, it's a trifle.
Everything in the big picture points at 9/11 as inside job.
So why are we wasting our time with the attempt to convince professional "debunkers" of peripherals and pet speculations? Who really needs to spend time assessing the plausibility of Mark Bingham's reported words, given all of the above?
|