Questions. Simply.

[ref]

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?

I don't know anybody here. Or I don't know, if I know you from somewhere else, fellow countryman That is the only possibility I know anyone here.

I don't have a negative attitude towards people on this forum. Only towards those, who already attack me with their assuptions and false statements.

I like most of you, even those who criticize me in a civilized manner. But you can't like everybody can you, myself included. Just holding my ground against attacking evilposters Nothing against this board and nothing personal against hans or quad. I just respond in the way they respond to me, that's all.

Nyt sohvalle makaamaan. Ei koko iltaa koneella istuta. Illanjatkoja

 

[~enigma~]

If there were people on Flight 93, they're not heros...just like Jessica Lynch isn't a hero and just like Pat Tillman isn't a hero. THEY'RE VICTIMS and pawns used by the NWO to manipulate the emotions and sentiment of the American people.

Flight 93 was shot down, just like THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TOLD US THREE DIFFERENT TIMES!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84

What, you don't believe your leaders... when it becomes inconvenient for you?

So it's a goverment cover up and an inside job. The government lies to you at every turn except in this case they are being truthful? You are an [rule8]hole .

 

[~enigma~]

Did you happen to catch Loose Change or 9/11 Mysteries? The bias and deceitful manner in which they present information goes as a testimony to the validity of what they actually believe.

Quad,

You do realize that this line is candidate for understatement of the year don't you? Deceit is not even close to what trash they shovel.

 

[Quad4_72]

Quad,

You do realize that this line is candidate for understatement of the year don't you? Deceit is not even close to what trash they shovel.

This is true. I was trying to be nice though

 

[Quad4_72]

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..

Sorry but that is not a stupid question. It is a question that you chose to disregard because I am starting to think that you are in denial about being a CT or just have not came out of the CT closet yet.

Now lets look at the difference between a stupid question and a stupid question with an agenda behind it.

Stupid question: Are buffalo wings really made from buffalos?

Stupid question with an agenda behind it: "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?" -ref

The people on this forum are not stupid ref. Everyone can see the agenda behind your posts and what you are trying to do here. We all know that you think the government had some kind of involvement in 9/11. Just come out with it already.

 

[~enigma~]

Are buffalo wings really made from buffalos?

Ruined some perfectly good buffalo steaks finding out

 

[ref]

Sorry but that is not a stupid question. It is a question that you chose to disregard because I am starting to think that you are in denial about being a CT or just have not came out of the CT closet yet.

Now lets look at the difference between a stupid question and a stupid question with an agenda behind it.

Stupid question: Are buffalo wings really made from buffalos?

Stupid question with an agenda behind it: "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?" -ref

The people on this forum are not stupid ref. Everyone can see the agenda behind your posts and what you are trying to do here. We all know that you think the government had some kind of involvement in 9/11. Just come out with it already.

Buffalos have wings? Go Sabres.

Your government has had a lot of involvement in the aftermath. A lot of involvement that a lot of people dislike.

Before 9/11? It wouldn't be so surprising, if given some real evidence. As of now, not real evidence and no real proof that there is involvement before. So, in short. No hard proof on involvement before 9/11, some terrible mistakes, but nothing to prove that anything was truly intentional. If such evidence would sometime in the future appear, it would be necessary to re-evaluate everything. But as of now, I think there is nothing really proving any involvement.

Happy now? I think you don't know that much after all, do you?

 

[gumboot]

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

"[/SIZE]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."

Just to point out the stupidly glaringly brain-dead obvious...

In the above quote there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Ms Sweeney did not recognise NYC.

-Gumboot

 

[ref]

Just to point out the stupidly glaringly brain-dead obvious...

In the above quote there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Ms Sweeney did not recognise NYC.

-Gumboot

Well not literally. Often thought when asked where you are, and you know where you are, the answer is not "where I am I see buildings and water". It would be more like "I'm in [insert location]". But as of this case, this particular case is everything but a normal calm situation.

 

[Firestone]

ref, please also remember that we don't have a recording of the conversation, only the notes taken by Michael Woodward.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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?

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?

Spare me any wordplay of whether that was about OBL's motives or something strikingly like it. You were implying that the officially named perpetrators really didn't have a motive.

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?

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?

Did you or did you not put great emphasis in the price of the call?

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.

Qack like a duck...... ...... and you ain't stopped.

Hans

 

[ref]

ref, please also remember that we don't have a recording of the conversation, only the notes taken by Michael Woodward.

Yes, that is true.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well not literally. Often thought when asked where you are, and you know where you are, the answer is not "where I am I see buildings and water". It would be more like "I'm in [insert location]". But as of this case, this particular case is everything but a normal calm situation.

Now, this could very well have gone, in a more normal situation:

"I see buildings, I see water, looks like New York"

But in the circumstance, being an experienced hostess, she sees something far more imortant:

"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"

So quite probably, she never got to the point of identifying the place, because the alarming situation takes precedence, and that is what she reports.

Think of this scenario:

A car is driving towards you, and you are (for whatever reason) describing it to someone on the phone:

"It's a blue pickup, rather dented, a Toyota, one passenger, New York plates, number ......"

This would be the normal situation, but something happens so instead you say:

"It's a blue pickup, rather dented, ... hey, it's turning towards the curb .. oh my god! It's coming straight at me!"

Is it reasonable to imply that you apparantly cannot recognize a Tyota or read a licence plate?

Hans

 

[ref]

Spare me any wordplay of whether that was about OBL's motives or something strikingly like it. You were implying that the officially named perpetrators really didn't have a motive.

I don't know what to do with your brain anymore, but I will still try.

I was thinking, whether they were able to foresee the becoming retaliation or not. And how well were they prepared, since it did not go very well for at least Taliban. What is this motive stuff you are talking about?

Did you or did you not put great emphasis in the price of the call?

Everything under the quotation marks, these " ", is not a quotation of me. It is a quotation of a claim, that I asked some reviews for. I put no emphasis on the price whatsoever. If there was emphasis, it was made by the original writer. I asked for opinions about his/her conclusions. Quit that pricecalling already, will you?

Qack like a duck...... ...... and you ain't stopped.

´

Whatever that means. Usually three dots is enough. Anything beyond that is something else.

Hans. Give it a rest already, will you?

 

[ref]

Now, this could very well have gone, in a more normal situation:

"I see buildings, I see water, looks like New York"

But in the circumstance, being an experienced hostess, she sees something far more imortant:

"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"

So quite probably, she never got to the point of identifying the place, because the alarming situation takes precedence, and that is what she reports.

Think of this scenario:

A car is driving towards you, and you are (for whatever reason) describing it to someone on the phone:

"It's a blue pickup, rather dented, a Toyota, one passenger, New York plates, number ......"

This would be the normal situation, but something happens so instead you say:

"It's a blue pickup, rather dented, ... hey, it's turning towards the curb .. oh my god! It's coming straight at me!"

Is it reasonable to imply that you apparantly cannot recognize a Tyota or read a licence plate?

Hans

Hey, now youre making actual sense instead of cheap attacking for whatever reasons. You are very on point on this one. Could we continue this way, shall we?

 

[Pardalis]

OK ref, let's say she didn't recognise New York City. What does that prove?

 

[Quad4_72]

Buffalos have wings? Go Sabres.

Wait...were you serious with that question? Or was that a joke?....I was refering to buffalo wings that you would order at a restaurant. You were probably joking though.

 

[Quad4_72]

Ah. Posted too quick after reading it. DEFINITELY a joke.

 

[ref]

Ah. Posted too quick after reading it. DEFINITELY a joke.

Correct on that one

 

[Quad4_72]

Correct on that one