The Official Conspiracy Theory

Christopher7 said:
Where are these tapes? Do you have a URL or just another baseless claim?
Click to expand...
http://aal77.com/faa/faa_atc/zob/2 AWA 2 Accident Package ZOB-ARTCC-287 UAL93 REDACT.pdf

Transcripts of real time communications on 911. Even proof terrorist were on the radio but you need the sound track which I have heard because I have paid attention for 7 years, 7 months, and 26 days while you make up false information.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of evidence!

More stuff to read and cherry-pick for you and 911Truth.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132904



http://aal77.com/faa/faa_atc/zob/2%20AWA%202%20Accident%20Package%20ZOB-ARTCC-287%20UAL93%20REDACT.pdf
At the end of this document are the personal statements the FAA does for all incidents; the tapes were erased as mentioned but those were not evidence tapes, they were personal statement tapes which are not done, but the written statements are. The Washington Post was trying to make a story out of nothing! Pure poppycock.

I could be wrong on a few details but the story you posted is not good for anything but a failed attempt to manufacture a story based on some reporters lack of knowledge.

MikeW said:
This is typical truther cherry-picking. They choose a Washington Post story from one day that poses several questions, and ignore another from the very next day that provides at least some answers. Beachnut's explained the basics, but see http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FAA_destroyed_tapes for just a little more.
Click to expand...
I like this explanation. What say you?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
You could ask him if he heard the terrorist voice on the pilots radio saying they have a bomb on board. The terrorist was thinking he was talking to the passengers but he was on the radio talking to ATC. Terrroist at the controls; proved on 911.

Proof the terrorist was in the seat; more proof is the real bad flying by hand proved by the FDR of 93 and 77.

There were only terrorist in the cockpit reported by crew along with the murder of pilots.

We are done save typing practice and learning more from 911Truth lies than 911Truth learns from the truth which they deny.
Click to expand...

Well you and others have already done that for him both on this theard and the one I linked to before, but I guess in his world evidence would be nothing short of holding the tapes in his hands, which ain't gonna happen so it would be best to end it now.
 
beachnut said:
You could ask him if he heard the terrorist voice on the pilots radio saying they have a bomb on board. The terrorist was thinking he was talking to the passengers but he was on the radio talking to ATC. Terrroist at the controls; proved on 911.
Click to expand...
Your assertion that a hijacker was heard on "the pilots radio" is incorrect. The "bomb on board" statement was heard on the "frequency" and could have come from anywhere.

There is no "Proof the terrorist was in the seat" nor does "the real bad flying by hand proved by the FDR of 93 and 77" prove anything.

Where are the FAA tapes of the "bomb on board" ?
 
Last edited:
TokenMac said:
Well you and others have already done that for him both on this theard and the one I linked to before, but I guess in his world evidence would be nothing short of holding the tapes in his hands, which ain't gonna happen so it would be best to end it now.
Click to expand...
Actually, no one has provided any evidence that a hijacking took place. Just the usual, "It's in this 200 page report somewhere." If you don't know where in the report it is then you haven't read it.
 
Christopher7 said:
Your assertion that a hijacker was heard on "the pilots radio" is incorrect. The "bomb on board" statement was heard on the "frequency" and could have come from anywhere.

There is no "Proof the terrorist was in the seat" nor does "the real bad flying by hand proved by the FDR of 93 and 77" prove anything.

Where are the FAA tapes of the "bomb on board" ?
Click to expand...
No that is not true it came from 93 and they have the pilots screaming as they are murdered.

Proof the terrorist were in the seat is due to the crew stating before they were killed on 911 the terrorists, by seat positions were in the cockpit and the pilots were dead.

I just gave you the transcripts where the terrorist said they had a bomb on board; a lie.

http://aal77.com/faa/faa_atc/zob/2 AWA 2 Accident Package ZOB-ARTCC-287 UAL93 REDACT.pdf

In this doc; do you not read the stuff I post? Are you not able to read?

This could be your problem beside no logic, you don't take the time to read the evidence. Open the book Keith and read; that is what my dad would say if he was alive! Open the book Chris and learn

One third down, at 13:31:56 the terrorist talks to center when he thinks he is talking to the passengers. The pilots are dead for 3 minutes when this happens at 13:31:56. Did you find it; this has aired on national news and is the truth you can't comprehend.
http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/atcwav.shtml Here is a tape of it the Flight 93 stuff

13:28:17 to :50 the pilots are being murdered. About 1/3 in the pdf file.
The terrorist killing the pilots is on the radio twice, and they are dead in seconds.

Over a third down in the transcript, the terrorsts talk from 93 again. BTW
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Actually, no one has provided any evidence that a hijacking took place. Just the usual, "It's in this 200 page report somewhere." If you don't know where in the report it is then you haven't read it.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear what is not to your liking in these links...

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FAA_destroyed_tapes
http://aal77.com/faa/faa_atc/zob/2%20AWA%202%20Accident%20Package%20ZOB-ARTCC-287%20UAL93%20REDACT.pdf
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/
http://salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/index_np.html

All posted by many other people over two theards to which you ignore, then spam, then ingnore, and start a new theard in which to troll with the same questions, to which you get the same links so that you can ignore them then spam some more again.
Click to expand...

Just so we can know what evidence is in your world.
 
Christopher7 said:
Where are the FAA tapes of the "bomb on board" ?
Click to expand...
Forum member 911files obtained them via FOIA. I tried linking to his site but it didn't work out, so I uploaded the relevant Flight 93 audio elsewhere. It has the screams, the controller's reaction, and the "bomb on board" message, and you'll find it here.
 
MikeW said:
Forum member 911files obtained them via FOIA. I tried linking to his site but it didn't work out, so I uploaded the relevant Flight 93 audio elsewhere. It has the screams, the controller's reaction, and the "bomb on board" message, and you'll find it here.
Click to expand...
With the CVR transcript/tape and ATC tapes this proves that the terrorists were in control of the planes but I doubt 911Truth can make a logical connection without esploding their brains.

I found an mp3 but not sure it is good, I have heard the tape before and care not to listen to pilots trapped in seats being killed in a confined space. http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/atcwav.shtml

http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/flight93transcript.pdf
ATC transcript matches the CVR! Proof of terrorists;

On 911 the ATC transmissions were suspected to be from 93; but after the CVR was found the transmissions were confirmed from 93; hard evidence terrorist took 93. Evidence that 911Truth denies.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
With the CVR transcript/tape and ATC tapes this proves that the terrorists were in control of the planes but I doubt 911Truth can make a logical connection without esploding their brains.
Click to expand...
Oh, they know what it indicates, I think - this is more about just denying it. So, this audio might be faked, that phone call can't have happened, handwave this away, ignore that and hope no-one will notice.
 
MikeW said:
Oh, they know what it indicates, I think - this is more about just denying it. So, this audio might be faked, that phone call can't have happened, handwave this away, ignore that and hope no-one will notice.
Click to expand...
The CVR has the same voice as the ATC tape; two independent tapes in two different locations; one from the intercom/radio in 93 onto the CVR, and the other over the VHF radio from 93 to FAA tape! The same guy at the same time dual recorded on on the plane one on the ground. When you add all the pilots who heard the transmission in real time it becomes impossible to fake this small part.

If a few understand the implications of the CVR matching the FAA tapes and the many pilots who heard the same transmissions in real time! It does take a second to understand this, but then there is a way to verify all the evidence on 911.

It is sad some few fringe people can't be skeptical enough to take the time to look at the evidence and try to understand; being on this forum where skepticism is encourage makes it worse when they spew 911Truth junk.
 
I actually heard a truther say that we don't know who was in control of the planes because we don't know middle eastern dialects. As if we can't tell the difference between Osama bin Laden and Borat.
 
beachnut said:
The CVR has the same voice as the ATC tape; two independent tapes in two different locations; one from the intercom/radio in 93 onto the CVR, and the other over the VHF radio from 93 to FAA tape! The same guy at the same time dual recorded on on the plane one on the ground. When you add all the pilots who heard the transmission in real time it becomes impossible to fake this small part.
Click to expand...
C'mon now, you're not thinking like a truther! :D

In this case they'd say... Let me think... The radio transmission didn't come from 93. The CVR audio was faked. The same person was used on both. See? Evidence-free speculation is easy. Plus now I get to switch the burden of proof by saying "prove me wrong", then denying anything you say and pretending I've won. Hooray for 9/11 "truth"!
 
beachnut said:
No that is not true it came from 93 and they have the pilots screaming as they are murdered.
Click to expand...
Where?


http://aal77.com/faa/faa_atc/zob/2 AWA 2 Accident Package ZOB-ARTCC-287 UAL93 REDACT.pdf


One third down, at 13:31:56 the terrorist talks to center when he thinks he is talking to the passengers. The pilots are dead for 3 minutes when this happens at 13:31:56.
http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/atcwav.shtml

Here is a tape
13:28:17 to :50 the pilots are being murdered. About 1/3 in the pdf file.
The terrorist killing the pilots is on the radio twice, and they are dead in seconds.

Over a third down in the transcript, the terrorsts talk from 93 again. BTW
Click to expand...
OK Now you have provided some information other than "It's in there somewhere."
I read the transcript and listened to the audio. I heard the "We have a bomb" but I did not hear the pilots screaming.
I'll check out all the links and get back to you.
 
Christopher7 said:
Since we have been told from day 1 that OBL was responsible even though there is no hard evidence to that effect, we must ask: What evidence is there that the alleged "hijackers" actually planned and carried out the attacks?
Click to expand...

Actually that question doesn't follow from negating the proposition that OBL was responsible. The question you should ask is "To what extent could OBL be said to be responsible for the attacks, if you regard the available body of evidence". The next one should be something along "How could one distribute the responsibility between persons connected to the attacks". Followup questions could be "How is the Al Qaida organized and how do they plan and carry out their operations".

I could argue that OBL is just a galleon figure for the Al Qaida, and that would still not mean that the hijackers were innocent.
 
Christopher7 said:
Where?


http://aal77.com/faa/faa_atc/zob/2 AWA 2 Accident Package ZOB-ARTCC-287 UAL93 REDACT.pdf


OK Now you have provided some information other than "It's in there somewhere."
I read the transcript and listened to the audio. I heard the "We have a bomb" but I did not hear the pilots screaming.
I'll check out all the links and get back to you.
Click to expand...
Pilots screaming are two to three minutes earlier.

I posted both transcripts. One from the FAA, and one from the CVR.
http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/flight93transcript.pdf

One tape is from the FAA ground station where all communications are recored of ATC traffic. Flight 93 transmits and the FAA records.
One tape is from flight 93 cockpit voice recorder (CVR), it records all radio transmissions and also all sounds in the cockpit and crew communications, it also picks up other planes talking and ATC through the radio.

PLUS: The FDR shows the exact time the VHF radio was keyed for the bomb transmission and the going back to the airport transmission at 09:39:11. (data file "DCA01MA065_tabUtoZ" column Q, line 25429, entry KEYED, column heading VHF LEFT KEYING; a ziped version of this and other FDR files are here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2816464&postcount=532 this one is "DCA01MA065_tabUtoZ")

Three sets of data plus; CVR, FDR, FAA tapes and Pilots in different aircraft can verify Flight 93 transmissions. Thus proving terrorist were in the pilot seats; plus the terrible flying verified by the FDR! The one thing 911Truth kind of has right verifies the FDR showing the worse pilots in the world (except the p4t and Balsamo are worse) were all killed on 911.

With the exact voice of the terrorists recorded on the ground and in the plane this verifies the terrorist were on flight 93.

Why do I look up this crap? If 911Truth could do research there would be no 911Truth ranting about junk, making up lies, and spreading false information.
 
Last edited:
Wow.

This thread just literally made me nauseous.

I mean, it's fun to read the wacky theories people come up with. 9/11 Truth is no different than the other screwball movements in this regard. It might even be better, simply because of the sheer magnitude of the size and scope of their wacky theories.

But the thought of some guy listening for the screams of someone like my Brother-in-Law (a former United pilot) as he is stabbed to death just turned my stomach. The idea that this guy thinks thinks the whole thing was faked just went from funny to rage-inducing.

70-some posts in, and I need to go away for a while.
 
Rogue1stclass said:
Wow.


But the thought of some guy listening for the screams of someone like my Brother-in-Law (a former United pilot) as he is stabbed to death just turned my stomach. The idea that this guy thinks thinks the whole thing was faked just went from funny to rage-inducing.
Click to expand...

To me it illustrates perfectly the depths some people will go to support their denial. To people like Christpher7, they are SO convinced that the entire day was faked that nothing is believed, or taken seriously, no matter how compelling--or tragic.

It is indeed truly disgusting.
 
Christopher7 said:
Actually, no one has provided any evidence that a hijacking took place. Just the usual, "It's in this 200 page report somewhere." If you don't know where in the report it is then you haven't read it.
Click to expand...

See Betty Ong's phone call transcript - find it yourself, it is online.
See the transcript of the CVR from flight 93 (the actual audio was not released on request of family members) - find it yourself, it is online.
See the transcripts of phone calls from passengers from the flights - they are online, find them yourself.

You should correctly restate your position as,

"There has been no evidence presented THAT I ACCEPT, that the aircraft were hijacked."

That we understand, because truthers consider all the existing evidence to be faked/forged/planted.

TAM
 
Christopher7 said:
Actually, no one has provided any evidence that a hijacking took place. Just the usual, "It's in this 200 page report somewhere." If you don't know where in the report it is then you haven't read it.
Click to expand...

Christopher7,

For all the work that people did to provide you with the info that you (rather petulantly) demanded, a courteous person would conclude that a simple "thank you" is in order.

A concession that they had unquestionably proved their point would be appropriate, as well.

I guess that a little actual introspection is probably too much to ask...

It is patently evident by this discussion that your objectivity, and therefore credibility, is gone, by the way. That's too bad. You ought to be embarrassed. I don't expect this either.

tom
 
Christopher7 said:
For purposes of debate, "It's somewhere in that 585 page report." doe not qualify as an answer to the question "Is there any evidence that the alleged "hijackers" were at the controls of the 4 airplanes."
Click to expand...

Try pages 22-31. Not that hard to find.
 
Christopher7 said:
Wrong!

Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by Federal Aviation Administration managers, according to a government investigative report issued today.

It is unclear what information was on the tape because no one ever listened to, transcribed or duplicated it, the report by the Department of Transportation inspector general said.

One controller said she asked to listen to the tape in order to prepare her written account of her experience, but one of the managers denied her request.

The inspector general concluded today that the managers' actions resulted in the loss of potential evidence that would allow the 9/11 commission to compare controllers' recollection of the events immediately after the attacks with the written statements prepared three weeks later.

"The destruction of evidence in the Government's possession, in this case an audiotape -- particularly during times of national crisis -- has the effect of fostering an appearance that information is being withheld from the public."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6632-2004May6
Click to expand...

Did you ever hear this clip Chris ?
http://www.zend2.com/go.php?u=Oi8vd...dGNoP2dsPU5MJmhsPW5sJnY9b2xGMFJBSTZFVEU=&b=13
 
Christopher7 said:
Actually, no one has provided any evidence that a hijacking took place.
Click to expand...

The wreckage of four 757/767 aircraft and the fact that the passengers and crew have never been seen since might be a clue.

C7 is operating in simple tantrum mode. he just screams No!!!! to every bit of information presented.
 
bill smith said:
No I didn't know that. Thanks Mike. I see the proxy address in the url now. You live and learn. Here's the youtube link to the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olF0RAI6ETE

PS can you think of any possible eason the guy would have for saying this ?
Click to expand...

I suspect that someone in the Half Truth Movement edited out some very blue language immediately preceding that 14-second out-of-context clip.

So what?
 
Christopher7 said:
I don't know of any hard or compelling evidence that the hijackers were at the controls of the 4 "hijacked" planes. If you have any such evidence, please present it.
Click to expand...

"Hard or compelling evidence" implies there is a rational mind at the other end to interpret such. Obviously, that is not the case here. Christopher7 is the classic - absolute *classic* - conspiracist in that he will demand excessive and hyper-specific evidence as proof of events, and even then will not admit to the event. It is really the most pure proof that most Conspiracy theorists are, in reality, unable to grasp the meaning of large and important events in this world - they can't handle the ramifications or understand that (call it what you will) Acts of God occur. Bad things happen! "Prove it", is the demand. When you provide proof, the response is "More proof". When you provide yet more, the response is " Proof. Prove it", as if you are debating bedtime with a child. When faced with unimpeachable evidence of something happening, the denial becomes "Lies. Fabrications. Falsehoods. Everyone is in on it". It really is the most entertaining part of this whole game. We know nobody on the whacked-out moonbat side of this game will ever do anything about these claims they have, so we can just sit back and watch them make fools of themselves, yet again, on internet discussion fora.
 
bill smith said:
Suppose there WAS no blue language before this part of the clip Al ? What possible reason could he have had for saying 'be careful what you say'' to the other operators ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olF0RAI6ETE repost
Click to expand...

Unfounded conjecture is pointless.

So what? When considered in the context of the massive amount of evidence we have for the 4 hijacked planes and hijackers, this means nothing.

We don't know because someone in the Truth Movement didn't want us to.
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:
So what? Unfounded conjecture is pointless.

We don't know because someone in the Truth Movement didn't want us to.
Click to expand...

If I was asked I would have to say that I don't think he was warning against bad language myself. In that case I think he would have said somethng like ' let's watch the language ladies' or something like that. Not ' be careful what you say....these tapes will be handed over'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olF0RAI6ETE repost

But then again I'm one of those who thinks that Larry Silversrein did not mean 'pull the firefighters out' when he said 'pull it'.
 
Last edited:
The NEADS staff were making jokes occasionally, the kind of dark humour that people sometimes make in a crisis ("I'm glad I'm not flying today", "It's okay, Jim, we'll carjack you on your way home"). To me the comment means "let's stay professional, what we say now is going to be heard by a lot of people".

But of course my opinion matters about as much as Bill's: not at all. The reality is this is evidence of precisely nothing. Other than, perhaps, truthers belief that while one weak "anomaly" may not prove anything, lots of weak "anomalies" constitute a significant case.
 
Guys, Christopher 7 simply has a bad habit of writing "no" as an abbreviation for "overwhelming". So when he says "no evidence" he really means "overwhelming evidence". See, it all makes sense now!
 
MikeW said:
The NEADS staff were making jokes occasionally, the kind of dark humour that people sometimes make in a crisis ("I'm glad I'm not flying today", "It's okay, Jim, we'll carjack you on your way home"). To me the comment means "let's stay professional, what we say now is going to be heard by a lot of people".

But of course my opinion matters about as much as Bill's: not at all. The reality is this is evidence of precisely nothing. Other than, perhaps, truthers belief that while one weak "anomaly" may not prove anything, lots of weak "anomalies" constitute a significant case.
Click to expand...

I agree that it proves nothing as a stand-alone piece of evidence. But in combination with a few other things it can become something truly meaningful. It may slot in wih something else that comes to light in due course.

Even as it is it is enough to raise eyebrows and is therefore useful to the Truth Movement.
 
Osama Bin Laden claims the planes were hijacked.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed admitted his role in 9/11 prior to being caught as well as after.

All 19 hijakcers were videotaped buying tickets and going through security. 9 of the 9/11 hijackers were selected for random security searches. Nothing illegal was brought on board. ALl had been in an Al Qeida camp in Afghanastan. This is all documented.

Many people on the planes were able calle loved ones and told of a hijacking. Some of these calls were recorded. Is this not sufficient eye witness testimony?
 
bill smith said:
I agree that it proves nothing as a stand-alone piece of evidence. But in combination with a few other things it can become something truly meaningful. It may slot in wih something else that comes to light in due course.

Even as it is it is enough to raise eyebrows and is therefore useful to the Truth Movement.
Click to expand...

What raises eyebrows is the the tactics you and your delightful little "movement" uses to try to combat the overwhelming evidence that supports the "official conspiracy theory". That's the reason it's "useful"; you're not looking for evidence, you're looking for ammunition.
 
twinstead said:
What raises eyebrows is the the tactics you and your delightful little "movement" uses to try to combat the overwhelming evidence that supports the "official conspiracy theory". That's the reason it's "useful"; you're not looking for evidence, you're looking for ammunition.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom