Organising an FAQ

qarnos

Cold-hearted skeptic
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,084
Someone mentioned this in a thread which I have since lost, but is anyone interested in trying to pull something together?

I can't speak for others, but I think it would be a great project for those "popcorn eaters" amongst us (of who I am one!) and would help take the strain off the mainstays of the forum (gravy, mackey, et al) in dealing with woobies.

I would be more than happy to put my hand up to co-ordinate the project. It is mainly a matter of sifting through the forums to find the relevant data. There is a wealth of good information in here which is buried in the noise.

So, who is interested?
 
I suspect he means a "frequently debunked arguments" resource.

Yeah, sorry Zep, I should have been more specific.

Mojo is right - an FAQ for the debunking of 9/11 CTs.
 
How comprehensive are we talking? I'm just thinking, MarkyX has already done one for the more common CT theories...

Are we talking an incredibly detailed one that really goes down to the nitty gritty?

-Gumboot
 
How comprehensive are we talking? I'm just thinking, MarkyX has already done one for the more common CT theories...

Are we talking an incredibly detailed one that really goes down to the nitty gritty?

-Gumboot

I was thinking of starting of broad and narrowing it down over time.

A lot of the stuff could be taken straight from MarkyX's stuff and Gravy's LC guide to begin with, and we can take it from there, adding stuff from the forum as we go.
 
But who would read it, besides us? Well, maybe the fence sitters. But the nutters? Nope. Anyway, I like the idea.

Maybe answering the questions at some different levels? Maybe first a general (laymans) answer, with more and more information behind some links? (Like quotes, calculations and what have you)
 
But who would read it, besides us? Well, maybe the fence sitters. But the nutters? Nope. Anyway, I like the idea.

Maybe answering the questions at some different levels? Maybe first a general (laymans) answer, with more and more information behind some links? (Like quotes, calculations and what have you)

Well, the idea is that when someone claims X we can say, goto the faq, section 3 point 9 or something like that.

I know that the woobies won't read it but the lurkers might.

If we keep it fully sourced there can be no complaints (yeah, right!).

I am just hoping to be able to save the major debunkers the trouble of having to repeat the same stuff over and over.

I feel bad because people like Gravy spend so much time and effort combating this idiocy whilst people like myself eat popcorn and post quick one-liners. I am not a master-debunker and can't recite the NIST report off the top of my head, so this is my way of giving people such as myself a way of contributing to the cause.
 
I suspect he means a "frequently debunked arguments" resource.

Something akin to the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims for 9/11 conspiracy theories would be extremely useful, but a hell of a lot of work to put together.
 
Would this be any different than sites like 9/11 Myths?
Even Mike from 911myths.com has said that his site "isn't organised at all. :)"
SOURCE: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2038111

I had recommended a FAQ that can be cited (chapter and verse?) to spare everyone repeating themselves. I'm glad that Qarnos has started a new thread about this, since the last one was hijacked.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2037902
 
Good idea. and the faq can use "video" sites too and articles to reference and link to.
 
Well, the idea is that when someone claims X we can say, goto the faq, section 3 point 9 or something like that.
Like someone might point to Creationist Claim CB144?

That talk origins archive has been tremendously helpful in fighting creationists. Since CTs steal pages from the creationist playbook, it seems like a good idea to fight back using the same strategies effective against creationists.
 
Like someone might point to Creationist Claim CB144?
Something like that, yes.

Let me see if I can put together an example of a structure. :eek:

This is just a sketch to give folks an idea. It's based on 911myths.com. Each section would then have more-detailed subsections, as with the Anarchist FAQ or the Index to Creationist Claims.

Section A: Events Prior to 9/11/01
Section B: Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda


Section C: The Hijackers (Let's expand on this, as an example.)
C1: Hijacker Identities
C.1.100: Who were the hijackers? (Reserve a whole "century" for these detailed questions, like the Index to Creationist Claims does.)
C.1.101: But didn't Mohammed Atta spell his name with a "Q"? (Really nitty-gritty details get their own numbers.)

C.1.200: Did those named by the FBI really carry out the attacks?
C.1.300: The FBI have even admitted they don’t know who many of the hijackers were
C.1.4: The security camera footage claiming to show Hani Hanjour at Dulles airport on 9/11 actually shows someone else altogether
C.1.5: Many of those named as hijackers are still alive
C.1.6: How could the FBI have DNA samples of the alleged hijackers before 9-11?
C.1.7: The alleged hijackers don’t appear on the passenger manifests

C2: Hijacker Activities
C.2.1: The hijackers reportedly had girlfriends, drank alcohol, went clubbing, not the acts of fundamentalists
C.2.2: Mohammed Atta was a regular visitor to Jack Abramoffs casinos

C3: Hijacker Training
C.3.1: How could such sophisticated attacks have been carried out by a bunch of flight school dropouts?
C.3.2: Some of the hijackers were trained to fly by the US Government
C.3.3: A former German Defence Minister has confirmed the existence of Home Run, a remote control system present in all 757’s and 767’s
C.3.4: The planes were flown to their targets by remote control, not hijackers

C4: Hijacker Ties to Al Qaeda
C.4.1: Is there any evidence that these guys were working for Al Qaeda?

C5: The Moussaoui Case
C.5.1: Does anybody have an example of a question or conspiracist claim for here?

C6: Other Questions
C.6.1: There’s no chance that one of the hijackers passports could be recovered from the WTC rubble

C+: Additional Resources and links (Each section should have one of these.)

Section D: Warnings and Foreknowledge
Section E: The U.S. Military on 9/11/01
Section F: The Twin Towers
Section G: World Trade Center 7
Section H: The Pentagon
Section I: Flight 93
Section J: Investigations
(about the 9/11 Commission, NIST, FEMA, etc.)
Section K: Consequences (about Afghanistan, Iraq, poisonous air, etcetera)
Section L: Other 9/11 Claims (This could also include information about the 9/11 CTers in general and in particular. But it should be fact, not speculation!)

Appendix 1: Additional Material (This would be for existing debunking documents, like Gravy's and MarkyX's work.)
Appendix 2: Current Investigations and FOIA Requests (like what 911myths has now)
Appendix 3: 9/11 Updates (like what 911myths has now; also a repository for new information that needs to be incorporated into the main body of the FAQ)

This is just a sketch, for an example. Change it as needed. I have hybridized two different FAQ systems. I like the block-numbering used by the Index to Creationist Claims; it's kind of like the Library of Congress classification system.

And remember, each entry should be adequately sourced to both print and electronic resources. (Some web resources will disappear over time!) Use the power of hypertext; it is your friend.

What do you all think?
 
Ugh, the formatting is wrong. The Sections should be left-justified, and each level of detail within should be indented. That would make it easier to read.

C.1.101 should be indented just to the right of C.1.100.
 
For ease of navigation,

I notice most of these things are structured based on CT topics. It might be easier to classify them by componants of the attack...

For example I often notice AA11 and UA175 are not given sections, but AA77 and UA93 are.

I would think it a good idea to divide the "elements" involved more clearly:

AA11
UA175
AA77
UA93

WTC1
WTC2
Pentagon
Shankesville
WTC7

Sort of thing.

Otherwise I could see the section "The Twin Towers" being enormous (it has to cover the flights themselves, phone calls etc, impact, design of the towers, survivors, firefighters, people trapped in towers, NIST, FEMA, and so on...)

Or alternatively, perhaps a chronologically inspired FAQ?

In which case, I guess, you'd have, for example, a WTC1 entry for categories before 9/11 (construction, insurance, power-downs, 93 bombing, security coming off, etc), pre-attack (occupancy on the day, etc - small section!) the attacks themselves (impact, people trapped, survivors, firemen, collapse, NIST, etc, etc)

Some sort of cross-referencing might be in order for topics that cross over?

-Gumboot
 
It might be easier to classify them by componants of the attack...

For example I often notice AA11 and UA175 are not given sections, but AA77 and UA93 are.

Otherwise I could see the section "The Twin Towers" being enormous
You're right.

How about this?:
Section F: American Airlines Flight 11 and WTC1
Section G:
United Airlines Flight 175 and WTC2
Section H: American Airlines Flight 77 and the Pentagon
Section I: United Airlines Flight 93
Section J: World Trade Center 7
...with adjustments for the letter sequence that follows.

Or should the each plane have a section and each hit target have a section?

Or alternatively, perhaps a chronologically inspired FAQ?
My proposal is roughly chronological. Sections A-E lead up to the attack. Seciotns F-I are about the attack itself. And Sections J and K are what followed.

Within each section, it could certainly be chronological, as you suggest.

In light of this, I would clarify my idea for "Section A: Events Prior to 9/11/01" to cover pre-attack events. Examples include Operation Northwoods and "Rebuilding America's Defenses". However, I would not put Oklahoma City conspiracy theories there, since it doesn't seem to be used much in a 9/11 context. Oh, but now I'm not sure what is the best way.

I think a lot of these structural and order questions depend on whether this FAQ should be an evidence-based narrative (our story) or a debunking response (to their stories). That will affect the way it is presented.
 
Last edited:
I think it is a great idea. For me personally, the fencesitters/lurkers are who I do this for, so an FAQ for them would make it much easier.

To be done properly though, would be a huge undertaking.

TAM
 
We could also add links to threads in which the particular claim/question was adressed.

Edit: And the person(s) who are responsible for a certain section should be listed so they can be contacted to add new information or to remove errors.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a great idea, and would be happy to contribute to the project.
 
I can proofread if necessary. And you're free to use the paper I wrote a while back if you want for this. Other than that, I haven't got much to offer.
 
I haven't read every post here but...

The 9/11 report has not been read by many cters. I am not sure how many have read it here. The 9/11 commission report had a nice break down of each flight. Alot of it debunks 9/11 claims in and of itself and where it doesn't we add stuff.
 
I haven't read every post here but...

The 9/11 report has not been read by many cters. I am not sure how many have read it here. The 9/11 commission report had a nice break down of each flight. Alot of it debunks 9/11 claims in and of itself and where it doesn't we add stuff.
Someone really familiar with the report might be able to add links or references to specific sections of the report relevant to the answer to each question.
 
I will help to translate it to german.
flag-german.gif
Anyone else?
 
Last edited:
Count me in to help in anyway I can. Perhaps We could take a section each, do up the common questions and the answers.

TAM
 
Great idea. I see 9/11 conspiracy questions asked frequently at "Yahoo Answers" and I often wished I had a comprehensive FAQ to point the person to.

As for the NIST report, that really needs a layman's explanation because that report can be a total turn off.

BTW, hi, I'm new.
 
Great idea. I see 9/11 conspiracy questions asked frequently at "Yahoo Answers" and I often wished I had a comprehensive FAQ to point the person to.

As for the NIST report, that really needs a layman's explanation because that report can be a total turn off.

BTW, hi, I'm new.

Thanks for your support and welcome on board. :)
 
Beginning in timeline derived from the 9/11 report

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
Chapter 1 We have Planes

6:00 Atta and Omari take a flight from Portland, Maine to Logan Airport Atta is flagged by CAPPS security which means his bags are placed on board when he is seated.
6:40 Atta and Omari arrive at Logan
6:45 Atta apparently took a call from Marwan al Shehhi, a longtime colleague who was at another terminal at Logan Airport
6"45 - 7:40 Three members of the AA11 hijacking team-Suqami, Wail al Shehri, and Waleed al Shehri-were selected for CAPPS in Boston

AA11
plane was a 767
81 passengers
9 flight attendants
2 pilots
Atta, Omari, and Suqami took their seats in business class (seats 8D, 8G, and 10B, respectively). The Shehri brothers had adjacent seats in row 2 (Wail in 2A,Waleed in 2B), in the first-class cabin.

7:31 to 7:40 plane boarded
7:40 plane pushed back
7:59 take off
8:14 it was at 26,000 feet
about 8:14 was the actually hijacking

Flight Attendants Betty Ong and Madeline "Amy" Sweeney made phone calls using ATT Air phones. These phone calls are the basis for everthing the 9/11 report knows about the flight.

Betty Ong contacted the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Office in Cary, North Carolina.The emergency call lasted approximately 25 minutes

At 8:19, Ong reported: "The cockpit is not answering, somebody's stabbed in business class-and I think there's Mace-that we can't breathe-I don't know, I think we're getting hijacked." She then told of the stabbings of the two flight attendants.30

At 8:21, one of the American employees receiving Ong's call in North Carolina, Nydia Gonzalez, alerted the American Airlines operations center in Fort Worth, Texas, reaching Craig Marquis, the manager on duty. Marquis soon realized this was an emergency and instructed the airline's dispatcher responsible for the flight to contact the cockpit.

At 8:23, the dispatcher tried unsuccessfully to contact the aircraft. Six minutes later, the air traffic control specialist in American's operations center contacted the FAA's Boston Air Traffic Control Center about the flight. The center was already aware of the problem

At 8:25 the microphone was keyed, and immediately one of the hijackers said, "Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." This was overheard by Boston Control

Also at 8:25, and again at 8:29, Amy Sweeney got through to the American Flight Services Office in Boston but was cut off after she reported someone was hurt aboard the flight. Three minutes later, Sweeney was reconnected to the office and began relaying updates to the manager, Michael Woodward.

At 8:26, Ong reported that the plane was "flying erratically." A minute later, Flight 11 turned south. American also began getting identifications of the hijackers, as Ong and then Sweeney passed on some of the seat numbers of those who had gained unauthorized access to the cockpit

At 8:38, Ong told Gonzalez that the plane was flying erratically again. Around this time Sweeney told Woodward that the hijackers were Middle Easterners, naming three of their seat numbers. One spoke very little English and one spoke excellent English. The hijackers had gained entry to the cockpit, and she did not know how. The aircraft was in a rapid descent.

At 8:41, Sweeney told Woodward that passengers in coach were under the impression that there was a routine medical emergency in first class. Other flight attendants were busy at duties such as getting medical supplies while Ong and Sweeney were reporting the events

At 8:41, in American's operations center, a colleague told Marquis that the air traffic controllers declared Flight 11 a hijacking and "think he's [American 11] headed toward Kennedy [airport in New York City].They're moving everybody out of the way. They seem to have him on a primary radar. They seem to think that he is descending."
At 8:44, Gonzalez reported losing phone contact with Ong. About this same time Sweeney reported to Woodward," Something is wrong. We are in a rapid descent . . . we are all over the place." Woodward asked Sweeney to look out the window to see if she could determine where they were. Sweeney responded: "We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low." Seconds later she said, "Oh my God we are way too low." The phone call ended.3 At 8:46:40, American 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City.39 All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly.


Interesting fact: passenger Daniel Lewin, who was seated in the row just behind Atta and Omari, was stabbed by one of the hijackers-probably Satam al Suqami, who was seated directly behind Lewin. Lewin had served four years as an officer in the Israeli military. He may have made an attempt to stop the hijackers in front of him, not realizing that another was sitting behind him.


UA 175
Boeing 767
2 pilots, 7 flight attendants, 56 passengers.
Banihammad in 2A, Shehri in 2B, Shehhi in 6C, Hamza al Ghamdi in 9C, and Ahmed al Ghamdi in 9D

7:23 to 7:28 boarded jet
7:58 plane pushed back
8:14 took off
8:33 @ 33,000
8:42 and 8:46 hijacking takes place
8:47 the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute.
8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude
8:52 New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it.

They used knives (as reported by two passengers and a flight attendant), Mace (reported by one passenger), and the threat of a bomb (reported by the same passenger). They stabbed members of the flight crew (reported by a flight attendant and one passenger). Both pilots had been killed (reported by one flight attendant).The eyewitness accounts came from calls made from the rear of the plane, from passengers originally seated further forward in the cabin, a sign that passengers and perhaps crew had been moved to the back of the aircraft.

8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: "I think they've taken over the cockpit-An attendant has been stabbed- and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines-Tell them it's Flight 175, Boston to LA." Lee Hanson then called the Easton Police Department and relayed what he had heard.

8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco, reaching Marc Policastro. The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane. The call lasted about two minutes, after which Policastro and a colleague tried unsuccessfully to contact the flight

8:58, the flight took a heading toward New York City

8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney tried to call his wife, Julie. He left a message on their home answering machine that the plane had been hijacked. He then called his mother, Louise Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to take control of the plane away from the hijackers







At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:
It's getting bad, Dad-A stewardess was stabbed-They seem to have knives and Mace-They said they have a bomb-It's getting very bad on the plane-Passengers are throwing up and getting sick-The plane is making jerky movements-I don't think the pilot is flying the plane-I think we are going down-I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building-Don't worry, Dad- If it happens, it'll be very fast-My God, my God.49​
The call ended abruptly. Lee Hanson had heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a television, and in her home so did Louise Sweeney. Both then saw the second aircraft hit the World Trade Center
9:03:11, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center

Flight 77
Boeing 757
2 pilots, 4 flight attendants and 58 passangers
8:09 pushed back from the gate
8:20 took off
8:46, the flight reached altitude of 35,000 feet
8:51 and 8:54 the hijacking began
8:54, the aircraft deviated from its assigned course, turning south
8:56 the transponder was turned off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft was lost. The Indianapolis Air Traffic Control Center repeatedly tried and failed to contact the aircraft. American Airlines dispatchers also tried, without success

the hijackers used knives (reported by one passenger) and moved all the passengers (and possibly crew) to the rear of the aircraft (reported by one flight attendant and one passenger). Unlike the earlier flights, the Flight 77 hijackers were reported by a passenger to have box cutters. Finally, a passenger reported that an announcement had been made by the "pilot" that the plane had been hijacked. Neither of the firsthand accounts mentioned any stabbings or the threat or use of either a bomb or Mace, though both witnesses began the flight in the first-class cabin

9:00, American Airlines Executive Vice President Gerard Arpey ordered all AA flights in the Northeast that had not taken off to remain on the ground.
9:09 American Airlines headquarters extended the ground stop nationwide
9:12, Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane. She asked her mother to alert American Airlines. Nancy May and her husband promptly did so.
9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. She reported that the flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and box cutters. She further indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off.
9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon.
9:32, controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control "observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed." This was later determined to have been Flight 77.
9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon
9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour

Flight 93
Beoing 757
2 pilots, 5 flight attendants, 37 passangers

8:42 took off from Newark Airpot(New Jersey) delayed from 7:45
9:00 Boston ATC listes to tape of AA 11 flight transmission saying "We have Planes. FAA has not yet warned other planes of multipe hijackings.
9:19, the FAA's New England regional office called Herndon and asked that Cleveland Center advise Delta 1989 to use extra cockpit security
9:19, a United flight dispatcher, Ed Ballinger, sent out a warning: "Beware any cockpit intrusion- Two a/c [aircraft] hit World Trade Center." One of the flights that received the warning was United 93. Because Ballinger was still responsible for his other flights as well as Flight 175, his warning message was not transmitted to Flight 93 until 9:23.
9:24, Ballinger's warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit.
9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: "Ed, confirm latest mssg plz-Jason
9:27 hijacking begins

The terrorists who hijacked three other commercial flights on 9/11 operated in five-man teams. They initiated their cockpit takeover within 30 minutes of takeoff. On Flight 93, however, the takeover took place 46 minutes after takeoff and there were only four hijackers. The operative likely intended to round out the team for this flight, Mohamed al Kahtani, had been refused entry by a suspicious immigration inspector at Florida's Orlando International Airport in August.

9:32, a hijacker, probably Jarrah, made or attempted to make the following announcement to the passengers of Flight 93:"Ladies and Gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So, sit." The flight data recorder (also recovered) indicates that Jarrah then instructed the plane's autopilot to turn the aircraft around and head east

The cockpit voice recorder data indicate that a woman, most likely a flight attendant, was being held captive in the cockpit. She struggled with one of the hijackers who killed or otherwise silenced her

Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones. These calls between family, friends, and colleagues took place until the end of the flight and provided those on the ground with firsthand accounts. They enabled the passengers to gain critical information, including the news that two aircraft had slammed into the World Trade Center

At least two callers from the flight reported that the hijackers knew that passengers were making calls but did not seem to care.

At least ten passengers and two crew members shared vital information with family, friends, colleagues, or others on the ground. All understood the plane had been hijacked. They said the hijackers wielded knives and claimed to have a bomb. The hijackers were wearing red bandanas, and they forced the passengers to the back of the aircraft

During at least five of the passengers' phone calls, information was shared about the attacks that had occurred earlier that morning at the World Trade Center. Five calls described the intent of passengers and surviving crew members to revolt against the hijackers. According to one call, they voted on whether to rush the terrorists in an attempt to retake the plane. They decided, and acted

9:57, the passenger assault began. Several passengers had terminated phone calls with loved ones in order to join the revolt. One of the callers ended her message as follows: "Everyone's running up to first class. I've got to go. Bye."

The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of the passenger assault muffled by the intervening cockpit door. Some family members who listened to the recording report that they can hear the voice of a loved one among the din. We cannot identify whose voices can be heard. But the assault was sustained

In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault. The recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts, and breaking glasses and plates. At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane

Five seconds later, Jarrah asked, "Is that it? Shall we finish it off?" A hijacker responded, "No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off." The sounds of fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the aircraft up and down. At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said, "In the cockpit. If we don't we'll die!" Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled, "Roll it!" Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers at about 10:01:00 and said, "Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!" He then asked another hijacker in the cock-pit, "Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?" to which the other replied, "Yes, put it in it, and pull it down

The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, "Pull it down! Pull it down!" The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them. The airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting "Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest." With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes' flying time from Washington, D.C.
 
Last edited:
Something I've seen conflicting reports on: in regard to the airfones, were they owned/operated by AT&T, GTE or Verizon? Which company did Lisa Jefferson (operator who spoke with Todd Beamer) work for?

Thanks in advance.
 
Something I've seen conflicting reports on: in regard to the airfones, were they owned/operated by AT&T, GTE or Verizon? Which company did Lisa Jefferson (operator who spoke with Todd Beamer) work for?

Thanks in advance.
different airlines used different vendors.
AA 11 had ATT
United 93 used GTE
 
firecoins:

Damn that was a nice post.

Alt+F4
Welcome to the JREF forum on Conspiracy theories. All opinions here are allowed, if not accepted. Break no rules, and you will find things work well, and debate and discussion flourish.

TAM
 
In my post of the 9/11 commission's timeline of the hijackings I highlighted passages refering to the black box voice recorder as CTers say it was never found but is used by the 9/11 commission.

Notice the number of phonecalls from the planes, radio transmission, the number of civilians who had received phone calls from the plane including family members, reservation agents, managers, airline dispatchers. 1 family member called his local 911. All these people could not be in on the the conspiracy. If they weren't in on it but the ct is still claimed than the fake phone calls had to be damn good and timed perfectly.
 
I think this is a really good idea. Have you guys considered using a wiki format with a closed editor list?
 
I was just going to suggest a wiki as well. Apparently, a wiki is not that hard to set up. My neighborhood association has one.

We could just make it editable by members. As a reference, I listen to The Atheist Experience and The Non-Prophets podcasts out of Austin, and those guys have set up a wiki to counter Christian apologetics: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

Something like that for 9/11 conspiracies would be great.
 
I'm looking into free wiki sites. Does anyone have a suggestion for a good name? 911Evidence? 911Debunking? I don't like those two, but we would need a name for the wiki before starting the setup.
 

Back
Top Bottom