Questions. Simply.

[MRC_Hans]

Hello Hans.

Show me the part, where I was speaking about the involvement of the US Govt. Then we may continue. But, since such part does not exist, we are not very well off are we?

Well, since the US govt must either be working hard to disclose the culprits, or be involved, there isn't really any alternative, is there? The govt points to OBL. You claim this is false. You even claim it is deliberately false. So who did it and what is the US govt's role?

This position is the most covardly of them all, I even think I prefer 28's. Those who say: "We think the offocial story is a fakery, but oh, no, we're not saying the govt is involved, no, no, we're just asking questions".

Whatever other answers you are looking for, one is certainly implied: If the official story is a fake, then the US government IS involved.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hi Hans once more.

This time you misunderstood my misunderstanding of another post. You seem quite hasty.

Did you or did you not write this:

The question is the actuel pricing in 2001, but it was high whatever the case.

"Yes" or "no" will do.

I'm sorry, ref, I have been through a lot of this and you will have to put up with my lack of patience with all your diversions and allegations. What relevance is the price of an airphone call in this discussion, unless you are implying that it should keep doomed people from trying to place a final call?

Hans

 

[Miss Anthrope]

You see ref, I'm bored with questions like yours. Little kids ask questions. When my kids were little they asked lots of questions. But what's different about CT questions and little kids questions, is little kids learn. Kids grow up and their questions have more depth. The questions become fewer as they learn to answer their own questions.

CTists keep asking the same questions over and over again. CTist never learn. CTists don't try and answer their own questions. CTists are worse then little kids. Their minds don't grow. Unlike little kids, they don't mature.

I feel sorry for CTists since they are stuck in maturing bodies while their brains remain little kids brains. I've been following the 9/11 CTists since early this year and not one of them has come to this forum with answers. Not one of them has come with anything other then questions. (okay, one, Christophera, but his answers are science fiction).

Delurking to give you a thundering round of applause!

 

[Quad4_72]

My first new thread. Yeah. Last time I was accused of hijacking a thread when asking questions there, so now my own thread for them.

1. How many people would you think, it would at least involve if LIHOP was true? What would be the least amount of people needed to create the confusion and allowing everything to take place?

2. The four FDR:s from WTC site have not been found. How come there is not a sighting of any of those four after moving all the rubble? Would they be so destructed?

3. Suppose the FDR's are kept behind closed doors. What, if any, would be the motive for that?

4. It was known that OBL was in Afghanistan and with Taliban. Taliban was already under pressure from the US and others. Do you think they didn't take the counter attack into account, and if did, what was their plan, since Taliban is now out of power and OBL somewhere missing or dead?

5. What is your take on the Barbara Olson phone call from flight 77? There is this claim:

"She was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network."

What is your take on that?

6. Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

Thanks for answers. If already discussed before, my bad.

Alright ref I don't know if you knew this or not, but claiming that you are "just asking questions" does not make you any less of a CT.

 

[ref]

Well, since the US govt must either be working hard to disclose the culprits, or be involved, there isn't really any alternative, is there? The govt points to OBL. You claim this is false. You even claim it is deliberately false. So who did it and what is the US govt's role?

This position is the most covardly of them all, I even think I prefer 28's. Those who say: "We think the offocial story is a fakery, but oh, no, we're not saying the govt is involved, no, no, we're just asking questions".

Whatever other answers you are looking for, one is certainly implied: If the official story is a fake, then the US government IS involved.

Hans

Ahem. When did I claim what to be false? Can you be more specific, please. Especially, what did I claim deliberately false? Who's comments are you reading anyway.

 

[ref]

Did you or did you not write this:



"Yes" or "no" will do.

I'm sorry, ref, I have been through a lot of this and you will have to put up with my lack of patience with all your diversions and allegations. What relevance is the price of an airphone call in this discussion, unless you are implying that it should keep doomed people from trying to place a final call?

Hans

Yes I wrote that. If you would know better, it was a response to a poster, who asked for sources for the credit card -operated air phones in the planes. And I provided him/her with a source that those exist. My original posting also included a story where there was a price. That comment was made to say, that I could not confirm the price with any source. The price does and did not matter. Just that I could not source everything.

When I said the question is pricing, I meant the only open question in my sources is the pricing. Sorry for probable misspelling. Get it now?

 

[ref]

Delurking to give you a thundering round of applause!

You are allowed to have your opinions, whatever they may be. I can take criticism as well. If it only were all civil.

 

[ref]

Alright ref I don't know if you knew this or not, but claiming that you are "just asking questions" does not make you any less of a CT.

And repeating yourself does not make you anything. Even if repetitio est mater studiorum.

 

[ref]

ref:
I didn't see you respond to the comments from this post.

Am I not bothered, or is it a conscious decision? Categorizing people by their opinions. Make your own opinion instead, will you. Some are eager to call me a CT, I never said that and never will they show anything that implies that. The claim is, just asking questions (stupid many say) makes a CT. I am not just asking questions. Of my over a hundred post maybe a diminishing few contain those so called stupid questions. And even those are on purpose.

If your thinking is on that level, that you then start automatically calling me a CT then feel free to do it, I don't have to feel the same though. Categorize me somewhere if you are insecure otherwise.

But what happened to plain free discussion without obligations. I don't demand your stand on anything. Maybe I'll tell some more some time. But I'm not bothered with the few who cannot stand not to categorize me. I'll have other discussions with others.

 

[DavidJames]

Am I not bothered, or is it a conscious decision? Categorizing people by their opinions. Make your own opinion instead, will you. Some are eager to call me a CT, I never said that and never will they show anything that implies that. The claim is, just asking questions (stupid many say) makes a CT. I am not just asking questions. Of my over a hundred post maybe a diminishing few contain those so called stupid questions. And even those are on purpose.

If your thinking is on that level, that you then start automatically calling me a CT then feel free to do it, I don't have to feel the same though. Categorize me somewhere if you are insecure otherwise.

But what happened to plain free discussion without obligations. I don't demand your stand on anything. Maybe I'll tell some more some time. But I'm not bothered with the few who cannot stand not to categorize me. I'll have other discussions with others.

Like it or not you are "categorizing" yourself with your posts. As has been stated already, you are walking in the foot prints of many CTist who proceeded you with similar "questions". They either disappeared or came out of their closet in full CT dress. I don't recall any who didn't fall into those two categories. I'm open to you being the first, but I'm not betting the final years of my kids college education on it.

I'm just wondering why you are reluctant to be honest with those on this forum about your ideas. An honest answer could be "I'm just not sure". But even that is to much for you.

 

[Quad4_72]

Am I not bothered, or is it a conscious decision? Categorizing people by their opinions. Make your own opinion instead, will you. Some are eager to call me a CT, I never said that and never will they show anything that implies that. The claim is, just asking questions (stupid many say) makes a CT. I am not just asking questions. Of my over a hundred post maybe a diminishing few contain those so called stupid questions. And even those are on purpose.

If your thinking is on that level, that you then start automatically calling me a CT then feel free to do it, I don't have to feel the same though. Categorize me somewhere if you are insecure otherwise.

But what happened to plain free discussion without obligations. I don't demand your stand on anything. Maybe I'll tell some more some time. But I'm not bothered with the few who cannot stand not to categorize me. I'll have other discussions with others.

The people who mainly post on this forum are people who have researched 9/11 heavily and know that the official story is true, no question about it anymore. They do not need to ask silly questions. They do not need to ask any in fact. It is a fact that the official story is true. So for someone to come in here asking questions like:

Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

you come off as a CT. Only a CT would ask such a silly question because they rely on this sort of information to back up their claims. Honestly, what does that question have to do with anything? What is the purpose of knowing why she did not recognize New York City? What kind of insight do you gain from knowing the answer to that?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ahem. When did I claim what to be false? Can you be more specific, please. Especially, what did I claim deliberately false? Who's comments are you reading anyway.

You didn't claim anything to be false, that's the cowardly thing. You "just ask questions". However, questions imply that there are answers. If I walk into another guy's office, and say "Hey, how did my briefcase get here?", I am implying something. I'm implying that I didn't put it there, and that my colleguea knows who did.

Likewise, when you ask about how OBL could have a motive for staging 911, you are implying that he didn't have one, which implies that somebody else did it.

There IS such a thing as innocent questions, but yours are not among them, and all I do is recognize the implications of your questions.

And about the price of airphones: Sure, you were just playing innocent again, but unless you were somehow implying that the high price was a counterargument to the official account, then the price is completely uninteresting.

Oh, and of course my (and other's) reactions are colored by the fact that you are about the 20th CTer to arrive here and start asking "innocent" questions. I guess I would feel a little sorry for you, if I was even remotely certain you are not one of them returning.

It would be SO refreshing if one of you would start by saying "I think XXX pulled off 911 for YYY reason, and I back my claim with ZZZ evidence." At least that would show some integrity. Instead we get endless "Why do you people think [insert tired old question]"

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

It is a fact that the official story is true. So for someone to come in here asking questions like:

Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

you come off as a CT. Only a CT would ask such a silly question because they rely on this sort of information to back up their claims. Honestly, what does that question have to do with anything? What is the purpose of knowing why she did not recognize New York City? What kind of insight do you gain from knowing the answer to that?

Exactly! Such a question implies that someting is mysterious about the report. Otherwise the answer would be utterly uninteresting.

Ehrm, btw, I have a question, heheh: Where does that report come from? Where did that recording come from?

Hans

 

[Firestone]

Exactly! Such a question implies that someting is mysterious about the report. Otherwise the answer would be utterly uninteresting.

Ehrm, btw, I have a question, heheh: Where does that report come from? Where did that recording come from?

Hans

I don't think it was a recording. Michael Woodward, the AA flight service manager talking with Amy Sweeney took notes.

ETA: see chapter 1, note 32 of the 9/11 commission report:

The phone call between Sweeney and Woodward lasted about 12 minutes (8:32–8:44) and was not taped. See AAL email,Woodward to Schmidt,“Flight 11 Account of events,”Sept. 19, 2001;AAL notes, Michael Woodward handwritten notes, Sept. 11, 2001;

 

[ref]

I don't think it was a recording. Michael Woodward, the AA flight service manager talking with Amy Sweeney took notes.

ETA: see chapter 1, note 32 of the 9/11 commission report:

Yes exactly.

 

[ref]

The people who mainly post on this forum are people who have researched 9/11 heavily and know that the official story is true, no question about it anymore. They do not need to ask silly questions. They do not need to ask any in fact. It is a fact that the official story is true. So for someone to come in here asking questions like:

Why did Madeline Sweeney, flight attendant for 12 years, not recognize New York City?

"Woodward asks her to look out the window to see where they are. "I see water. I see buildings. We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low. -pause- Oh my God, we are way too low."

you come off as a CT. Only a CT would ask such a silly question because they rely on this sort of information to back up their claims. Honestly, what does that question have to do with anything? What is the purpose of knowing why she did not recognize New York City? What kind of insight do you gain from knowing the answer to that?

Now you finally add some context to your CT claims. It took a while. Asking that question makes me a CT, because no other person would ever ask anything like that. If that is your proof, then I'm not convinced.

But then you seem to know, that CT guys rely on this stuff to back up their claims. OK. So as a CT I should have made a claim somewhere down the line, that I would then back up with that question. Can you tell me, what my claim was then, that I'm so much backing up? Or, if I don't have a claim, that question does not back up anything. Still a CT? Then it would imply, that stupid question equals a CT. That is starting to get pretty far fetched.

You didn't ask that question, so I don't care if you don't know why I asked it. I admit that is a stupid question, but I had my reasons for that. I'm done with the silly questions anyway. Their purpose has already been fulfilled.

I think you had one stupid question on 31st of December. It went like this:
"So ref, now I ask you, what makes your views of 9/11 and the CT you believe the one correct theory?"

That is a stupid question. I hope you understand why. Does that stupid question make you a CT? Hmm..

 

[DavidJames]

...I had my reasons for that. I'm done with the silly questions anyway. Their purpose has already been fulfilled....

Along with only asking questions, being coy like this is also a common CTist trait.

Are you ready to burst out of the closet yet?

 

[ref]

You didn't claim anything to be false, that's the cowardly thing. You "just ask questions". However, questions imply that there are answers. If I walk into another guy's office, and say "Hey, how did my briefcase get here?", I am implying something. I'm implying that I didn't put it there, and that my colleguea knows who did.

Likewise, when you ask about how OBL could have a motive for staging 911, you are implying that he didn't have one, which implies that somebody else did it.

There IS such a thing as innocent questions, but yours are not among them, and all I do is recognize the implications of your questions.

And about the price of airphones: Sure, you were just playing innocent again, but unless you were somehow implying that the high price was a counterargument to the official account, then the price is completely uninteresting.

Oh, and of course my (and other's) reactions are colored by the fact that you are about the 20th CTer to arrive here and start asking "innocent" questions. I guess I would feel a little sorry for you, if I was even remotely certain you are not one of them returning.

It would be SO refreshing if one of you would start by saying "I think XXX pulled off 911 for YYY reason, and I back my claim with ZZZ evidence." At least that would show some integrity. Instead we get endless "Why do you people think [insert tired old question]"

Hans

Hello Hans Holger Danske. Came to save the day?

Another one of those so fake quotations of me. I didn't ask OBL motives for staging 9/11 at any time. Why do you claim that?

The price is uninteresting, yes. Said it on the last post already, and explained why I even mentioned it. No need to repeat it because I hope you can read, then try to understand what you read, ok?

Here comes again the "so many have done this and that, you must be doing the same, you are one of them". Oh no, actually it is already clear to you that I am one of them. Holy Tights. Where is Batman. If I eat Chinese food am I Chinese? If I train Jiu-Jutsu am I Japanese? If I asked a couple of stupid questions for my own reasons am I a CT? If I work in Danske Bank am I Danish? The answer is, you might be, but it is also highly likely that you are not.

Howdy.

 

[ref]

Along with only asking questions, being coy like this is also a common CTist trait.

Are you ready to burst out of the closet yet?

I will burst somewhere, but closets have nothing to do with it.

David James is a decent goalie. Don't know about your decency though.

 

[chacal]

Speaking of asking questions. Ref, my friend you seem to have a negative attitude towards people on this forum. You wouldn't be someone we already know, would you?