Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

duplicate post deleted

Edited May 31, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

The dispatch supervisor Glen Cramer read, on the day of the crash, from the call transcript. He had also monitored the call, handled by John Shaw. Do you really believe that they or the person who wrote the transcript just made up the explosion and fire?

That should read Cramer "claimed" he read the transcript on the day of the crash, is there any confirmation of his story? Who are "they" Cramer is only one person. I also find it odd that a small 911 service would have transcripts made the same day, esp. a day when they would have been unusually busy.

The link within your link that alleges that dispatcher Shaw denied there was any reference to explosion and fire does not work.

True the Internet Archive has been down most of today http://www.archive.org/ your can try the url on it later.

In this story Shaw recounts the call and makes no mention of Felt saying anything about an explosion or smoke. The reporter spoke to Cramer about the call again there's no mention of smoke or hearing an explosion.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011207dispatcher1207p3.asp

You also failed to address other points raised on the page. If there was an explosion 8 minutes before the crash we would expect debris to have shown up over 50 miles from the crash site if it was flying at 400 mph (almost 70 miles if it was going 500 mph and 20 miles if it was going 150 mph which is close to the stall speed of a 757.

There are no witness accounts that I have seen saying anything about noticing any damage to the plane or smoke coming from it. Accounts vary but almost all say the 757 was flying erratically, low to the ground and then suddenly pitched the right and then plunged to the ground at a 90 degree angle.

In any case, the FBI confiscated the tape, and Cramer was told not to discuss it (per an extensive report by London's Daily Mirror, quoted by WorldNetDaily 1/25/03). It is therefore hardly surprising if his subordinate Shaw changed his story subsequently.

"Changed his story"? When did Shaw ever say Felt mentioned a smoke or an explosion? Please provide a link to the WorldNetDaily / Daily Mirror story, I did some googling and couldn't find it. I any case is there any confirmation other than from Cramer that this happened?

Our British friends should be able to clarify this but my impression is that the Daily Mirror is not exactly the UK's most reputable news source.

http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1118970.jpg

The tape that Felt's brother heard was played for him by the FBI. That makes the tape worthless, given that discredited agency's proven track record of manufacturing, destroying, ignoring, or altering evidence, notably in cases where any government "conspiracy" is at all suspected.

Please provide examples of documented cases of such alteration of evidence by the FBI. Also I think it would he hard if not impossible to have faked Felt's voice well enough to fool his brother and other family members (see below). True they could have edited the existing tape but that probably would have caused continuity problems.

There is a legitimate question, based on the known physics, as to how many of the cell phones calls from the hijacked airliners were actually made, as opposed to being produced by the government. Particularly suspect is Barbara Olson's unrecorded, implausible as quoted call from Flight 77 to her husband, given that Ted Olson, who is on record as saying there are times when the government has to lie, couldn't get his story straight about it, and the 9/11 Commission could do little to help him out.

Please explain exactly was "implausible" about Barbara Olson's call and how her husband contradicted himself. Do you think she's really alive? Or perhaps you think he was complicit in her death?

As for the calls from the planes

-Some where made from airphones.

-The planes were not always at cruise altitude and it's believed that all the flights were flying fairly low at times after getting hijacked

-No one has shown that cellphone calls from high altitude would not work at the locations they were 'supposedly' made. The only study along those lines was carried out over London, Ontario. It shows calls at 8000 feet having a 5 – 13 % success rate. The conspiracist who carried out the study didn't fly any higher than that but extrapolated lower figures for higher altitudes. http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm It should be noted the study was carried out a mathematician with no telecommunications experience.

Was the Felt call bogus too? If so, that raises interesting questions. Was there a scenario in effect by which the plane was to be shot down, and then its destruction blamed on a terrorist bomb? (There were two radio transmissions conveniently heard from hijacked Flight 93 saying that there was a bomb on board.) Felt's call would have been confirmation of a bomb. But any such scenario was of course jettisoned, and the tape of Felt's call may have been edited accordingly.

?????????????

How did the FBI or whoever fake a call by Felt that could fool his own brother and other family members? According to this report from the Pittsburg Tribune other family members heard the tape too. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_90401.html.I don't understand your theory do you think they faked the call by accident? Or perhaps they didn't have their cover stories straight? So you suspect they faked a call by Felt to 911 saying he heard an explosion and saw smoke, then they faked the tape the call without Felt saying anything about smoke or an explosion? What then caused flight 93 to crash? This is almost as odd as your suggestion that an AA 757 swooped down on the Pentagon but managed to fly away unnoticed and at that very moment a missile or drone not seen by any witnesses or spotted by radar hit the building. Why would they go to all the effort to hijack a plane only to fake it's destruction by a bomb? Like Alice said things are getting "curiouser and curiouser".

Len

Edited May 30, 2006 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

Len,

Do you really expect me to respond to all that? I don't have as much free time as you obviously do.

Ron

[Len Colby]

Len,

Do you really expect me to respond to all that? I don't have as much free time as you obviously do.

Ron

Why don't?

Believe it or not Ron, it didn't take me that long to write my reply, which is not that much longer than your post. I thought you were retired. Give it a couple of days.

All I'm asking you to do is back your claims and explain logical holes in your theories - if truth really is on yourside it shouldn't be too difficult or time consuming.

Len

[Ron Ecker]

All I'm asking you to do is back your claims and explain logical holes in your theories

When I ask a question, it is not a "theory." It's a question. I haved many questions about 9/11. I'm not going to respond to a bunch of questions about questions. If you don't think the questions are sensible, so be it.

As for my "claims" (statements?), I have said that I plan to edit the post, considerably, with full citations and links where available.

[Len Colby]

Ron what difference would it have made if Bush, Rummy, Wingate and Myers were "at battle stations"?

Although John has already taken the time to answer this dumb question, I will now take the time to respond with one example. (Perhaps I shouldn’t call the question dumb, I should call it rhetorical, as I have to believe that you asked the question already knowing the answer, as any intelligent person would know, your purpose in asking it I can only guess, unless it was to test the intelligence of others).

Ron - My question was neither rhetorical nor stupid. If it had been you should have been able to give a reasonable answer. In your 1st post on this thread you stated that the absence of Myers, Rumsfeld and Bush "assure(d) the uninterrupted success of the 9/11 operation". I obviously asked my question in that context so far neither you nor John have shown how the "success of the 9/11 operation" would have been interrupted if they had not shirked their responsibilities. Would the Pentagon attack have been prevented? Would the Twin Towers have resisted collapse longer?

I agree Bush and Rumsfeld should have taken a more active role that morning but I haven't seen any evidence that this would have reduced the death and destruction that day.

Len

[Ron Ecker]

My question was neither rhetorical nor stupid. If it had been you should have been able to give a reasonable answer. In your 1st post on this thread you stated that the absence of Myers, Rumsfeld and Bush "assure(d) the uninterrupted success of the 9/11 operation". I obviously asked my question in that context so far neither you nor John have shown how the "success of the 9/11 operation" would have been interrupted if they had not shirked their responsibilities.

I did not say that the operation would have been interrupted if Myers, Rumsfeld and Bush had done their jobs. My whole point is that they did not do their jobs to assure there would be no interruption. That doesn't mean there would have been an interruption, it means that they wanted to avoid the possibility, by being unavailable to ask any questions or give any orders, and acted in concert accordingly.

The reason I resist taking the time to answer questions from you is that it's like playing ping pong. It goes nowhere, partly because the questions you ask are often time wasters like this one. Another time waster that comes to mind is when I referred in another thread to Pennsylvania dispatcher John Shaw and his supervisor Glen Cramer, then called them "they," and you came back and wanted to know who "they" were. JOHN SHAW AND GLEN CRAMER.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Ron Ecker]

There is a point to be made about the Willie Brown story, and the point is made by David Ray Griffin in his excellent book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. (I know that Len thinks that Griffin is a tin-foil hat idiot, but Griffin's book contains page after page of cogent and well-researched observations about the 9/11 commission "investigation," so perhaps the book was ghost-written.)

"Whatever the truth about (the Willie Brown) story is, it has been widely reported, so the Commission should have looked into it and provided the results of its investigation. But the Commission's report contains no reference to Willie Brown" (p. 57).

Griffin goes on to cite another incident of apparently far more significance than the Willie Brown story, which the Commission also ignored:

"Another incident suggesting foreknowledge is also widely known because it was reported by Newsweek two weeks after the attacks. On September 10, according to this report, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." I could find no evidence in (its) report that the 9/11 Commission had investigated this story" (p. 57).

These are the kind of stories that the much-aligned Warren Commission, for all of its shortcomings, would have looked into, in order to dispose of them. But the 9/11 Commission, with its 567-page paperback, made no attempt to meet the investigative standards, as lacking as they were, of the Warren Commission with its report and 26 volumes of supporting material.

Most of the supporting material for the 9/11 investigation is not even accessible to the public, which makes all those "see" references in the commission report footnotes mockingly insulting to those trying to do research on 9/11.

[Len Colby]

I did not say that the operation would have been interrupted if Myers, Rumsfeld and Bush had done their jobs.

You wrote (edited for clarity)

If the tape is genuine, Bin Laden is obviously exaggerating his role in taking full responsibility for 9/11. To cite a few examples…His handpicked operatives did not tell the U.S. Secretary of Defense to hide from his duties and responsibilities… nor did they tell the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to hide…nor did they tell General Wingate, in charge at the Pentagon war room, to take that morning off…nor did they arrange to have the U.S. President remain preoccupied with a pet goat story during the attacks…There are many things that Bin Laden and his hand-picked operatives could not have arranged to assure the uninterrupted success of the 9/11 operation

My whole point is that they did not do their jobs to assure there would be no interruption. That doesn't mean there would have been an interruption, it means that they wanted to avoid the possibility, by being unavailable to ask any questions or give any orders, and acted in concert accordingly.

That’s basically the same thing, how many hairs can you split on the head of a pin? What order could they have given that would have prevented the attacks from going through? They could have scrambled jets from Langley sooner but they still could have used the “excuse” that flight 77 wasn’t spotted on radar until a few minutes before. NORAD didn’t have any radar coverage of the 48 contiguous states before 9/11, planes without transponders on only show up as ‘blips’ on primary radar, there was no primary coverage in some area including most of West Virginia which the 757 flew over, there would have been thousands of blips in the primary radar for the DC area.

Even if the fighters had made it to DC in time there is no guarantee they would have been able to intercept the 757 let alone shoot it down. It is also doubtful that any President would have made the politically difficult decision to shot it down. Shooting down a jetliner over DC probably would have resulted in casualties on the ground, 11 people were killed in sparsely populated Lockerbie, 43 people were killed when an El Al cargo plane crashed into an apt building in Amsterdam, etc etc.

The reason I resist taking the time to answer questions from you is that it's like playing ping pong. It goes nowhere, partly because the questions you ask are often time wasters like this one. Another time waster that comes to mind is when I referred in another thread to Pennsylvania dispatcher John Shaw and his supervisor Glen Cramer, then called them "they," and you came back and wanted to know who "they" were. JOHN SHAW AND GLEN CRAMER.

My point exactly Ron, John Shaw NEVER said that Felt told him anything about smoke or an explosion, AFAIK only Cramer made that claim hence the question. Cramer is one person the appropriate pronoun would have been 'he'.

[Ron Ecker]

What order could they have given that would have prevented the attacks from going through?

Perhaps none. That is not the point, but I am through trying to explain the point or anything else to you. I have suspicions about your motives, and am through discussing anything with you on this forum.

[Len Colby]

There is a point to be made about the Willie Brown story, and the point is made by David Ray Griffin in his excellent book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. (I know that Len thinks that Griffin is a tin-foil hat idiot, but Griffin's book contains page after page of cogent and well-researched observations about the 9/11 commission "investigation," so perhaps the book was ghost-written.)

"Whatever the truth about (the Willie Brown) story is, it has been widely reported, so the Commission should have looked into it and provided the results of its investigation. But the Commission's report contains no reference to Willie Brown" (p. 57).).

There was no reason to investigate Willie Brown's "warning" for reasons spelled out above.

Griffin goes on to cite another incident of apparently far more significance than the Willie Brown story, which the Commission also ignored:

"Another incident suggesting foreknowledge is also widely known because it was reported by Newsweek two weeks after the attacks. On September 10, according to this report, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." I could find no evidence in (its) report that the 9/11 Commission had investigated this story" (p. 57)

Where were they planing to travel to and when? If Griffen left that out of his book it's probably because they weren't scheduled to take an early morning flight to California. Was the cancellation linked to the State Dept. memo cited in the 2nd linl of my 1st post?If you could provide a link to the Newsweek article the story would be easier to evaluate

These are the kind of stories that the much-aligned Warren Commission, for all of its shortcomings, would have looked into, in order to dispose of them. But the 9/11 Commission, with its 567-page paperback, made no attempt to meet the investigative standards, as lacking as they were, of the Warren Commission with its report and 26 volumes of supporting material.

To me it sounds more like the kind of stuff the HSCA would have looked into. The report was far from perfect and has some mistakes but that doesn't mean that the absurd CT's re^9-11 have any validity

Most of the supporting material for the 9/11 investigation is not even accessible to the public, which makes all those "see" references in the commission report footnotes mockingly insulting to those trying to do research on 9/11.

I agree but that still doesn't prove 9-11 was an inside job. I would support release of this material

Edited June 1, 2006 by Len Colby

[Guest]

What order could they have given that would have prevented the attacks from going through?

Perhaps none. That is not the point, but I am through trying to explain the point or anything else to you. I have suspicions about your motives, and am through discussing anything with you on this forum.

This I am afraid rather sums Ron Ecker up. For a "free thinker" he doesn't seem to like contrary opinion very much.

Public life, as interpreted by his rather limited lights, is all one big conspiracy.

Anyone who doesn't agree must have their motives questioned and be suspected of involvement in said conspiracy.

Sad but not illuminating

[Ron Ecker]

No comment. Besides, I've tried to communicate intelligently with Andy Walker before.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

OK, I'll try again, does anyone know if the tape has been authenticated yet. Its gone awfully quite on this side of the Atlantic. If this is infact Bin Laden confessing to the masterminding of 911 I would have thought that the "authorities" would be shouting it from the rooftops.

[Ron Ecker]

Stephen,

The New York Times reported at the time that the audiotape "was deemed authentic by American intelligence officials and terrorism experts," though "there is no way to absolutely confirm the tape's authenticity."

Of course, such statements are worthless, since the "American intelligence officials" could be the same people who made the tape.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/world/mi...serland&emc=rss