Michael Britt - The Psych Files - Dr. Daryl Bem and the Parapsychology PSYOP |328|

#81
Given the technology at the time, it is claimed that those calls should not have been able to been made at that altitude for the length of time they were connected, without the very high likelihood of being disconnected (if you could have made the call at all. I know I was never able to make calls from an airplane at 30k back then with my cell phone)
I thought there was a technology at the time for people to make expensive calls via a telephone in the seat-back of the seat in front - not through cell phones - people just spent on their credit cards!
So, let's say that's true. What does that mean? The calls were made from somewhere else? With the original airplane being replaced with a substitute that continued the flight path being tracked? (Incidentally, the government did research just this kind of swap-out out technology/strategy at one time). Did the government then just disappear entire plain loads of passengers after forcing them to make scripted calls to their loved ones?

What possible kind of story can get wrapped around that? It gets strange, really, really quick, the minute you decide to accept those calls could not have been made in the way they were claimed to be
I find really elaborate plots incredibly hard to credit. After all, if such a thing had been exposed, all concerned might have ended up on death row.

David
 
#83
As Alex said earlier in this thread, following the money is a good way to start, before investigating more complex ideas.

https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-308-911-trillions-follow-the-money/

Hi Steve,

I know I was going to stay away from the forum for a while, and certainly these topics which people clearly have a lot of emotional & psychological attachment and identification with.....but I just checking posts after a few days and I notice this thread first.

Sorry Steve, this is a tired and cliched argument my friend! I've heard it many, many times many, many years ago.

To "follow the money" is to engage in the logical error known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Or, to put it another way, this is "circumstantial evidence". Actually, that would be doing a disservice to both the words "circumstantial" (the circumstances in this case were almost guaranteed....somebody would obviously benefit from it. And this is no evidence!).

Or, to put it another way, if everytime somebody benefited from a crime, natural disaster or whatever was in any way evidence of their guilt.....there would be more people in jail than free!

I have found the case for a 9/11 "conspiracy" to be overwhelmingly in this category of logical error.

Sorry buddy! But I can see quite a few people (including Alex), are attached to this idea, and even believe this is "objective" and "open minded" enquiry, and the rest of us are closed-minded, rather than this being some sort of psychological indicator.

Each to their own :)
 
#84
Or, to put it another way, this is "circumstantial evidence". Actually, that would be doing a disservice to both the words "circumstantial" (the circumstances in this case were almost guaranteed....somebody would obviously benefit from it. And this is no evidence!).
Hi manjit

Have you watched the video in question?

If you take all the 'circumstantial' evidence that is shown in it, it is only a small part of all the evidence that made up my mind that there was something smelly around 9/11. These are just a few questions.

Why we're certain people absent from the towers that morning?
Why was such financial interest shown around the towers shortly before the attack?
Why were unusual buying and selling of shares in the airlines involved ?
Why were those Israeli men filming the incident and obviously pleased about it?
Why were the Air Force doing an exercise at that time we'll to the north, making their response weak and in reality useless/incompetent ?
Why was the official report so flawed?
Why did so many witnesses die unexpectedly?
What were the Bin Ladens' interests in the US? Coincidence?

These are just off the top of my head. There are so many others. Some of it I don't go for but other things definitely stink.

It's interesting. It seems to me that once again we are faced with something that many people 'feel' that there is something 'not right' about things. How many times do are these type of things eventually revealed, leaving people saying "I knew there was something about it that wasn't right".

Interesting too, that proponents and skeptics find themselves on opposite where they would normally argue from.

I think that maybe that just a small part of what is being questioned will turn something up, but something apart from the three thousand or more victims has definitely died among the evidence, the stench is unmistakeable.
 
#85
I have found the case for a 9/11 "conspiracy" to be overwhelmingly in this category of logical error.
I agree. There were all sorts of precedents set on the morning of 11th September, 2001, which have yet to be exorcised from the American psyche. The official story that fundamentalist dissidents managed to hijack commercial airlines armed with carpet knives, and take out the financial district of New York killing three thousand people in the process, is too mundane an explanation to equate with the spectacle, and the scale of its consequences domestically and globally. For it be true meant anything was possible, and that cannot be possible. It is easier to believe the dead are alive in an Arizona bunker, and the planes were holograms, than the banal facts.
 
#86
It is easier to believe the dead are alive in an Arizona bunker, and the planes were holograms, than the banal facts.
I for one am not saying anything like that Gabriel. I doubt that many/any forum members are. Most doubts I have about that event include human fallibility and need for money/power.
 
#87
Hi manjit

Have you watched the video in question?

If you take all the 'circumstantial' evidence that is shown in it, it is only a small part of all the evidence that made up my mind that there was something smelly around 9/11. These are just a few questions.

Why we're certain people absent from the towers that morning?
Why was such financial interest shown around the towers shortly before the attack?
Why were unusual buying and selling of shares in the airlines involved ?
Why were those Israeli men filming the incident and obviously pleased about it?
Why were the Air Force doing an exercise at that time we'll to the north, making their response weak and in reality useless/incompetent ?
Why was the official report so flawed?
Why did so many witnesses die unexpectedly?
What were the Bin Ladens' interests in the US? Coincidence?

These are just off the top of my head. There are so many others. Some of it I don't go for but other things definitely stink.

It's interesting. It seems to me that once again we are faced with something that many people 'feel' that there is something 'not right' about things. How many times do are these type of things eventually revealed, leaving people saying "I knew there was something about it that wasn't right".

Interesting too, that proponents and skeptics find themselves on opposite where they would normally argue from.

I think that maybe that just a small part of what is being questioned will turn something up, but something apart from the three thousand or more victims has definitely died among the evidence, the stench is unmistakeable.

Hey Steve - first off, I feel it inappropriate to continue this discussion in this thread a wee bit! So I'll make this my last response on it!

And, I'm not really inclined to defend what I'm saying here (which I strongly believe is being misunderstood, deeply, by several people here....as is revealed in claims of not being open minded, objective, "certain of the non-existence of conspiracies" - which Sci accused me of, I despair of ever effectively communicating what I'm saying if even he is misunderstanding me!! - these are all quite, quite contrary to who I am. And anybody who knows me, knows that. As mentioned before, I knew most of the elements of the 9/11 conspiracy before 99.9% of it's proponents today.

Which brings me back to your list - sorry dude, there are indeed very simple & obvious answers to all of those lines of query (which, for me, very, very strongly re-inforces the complete lack of substance to the claims!), and NONE of them bring us back to the ideas that a) Osama and al qaeda had nothing to do with it (I made an astonishing prediction back in 1998 then - I actually predicted a conspiracy theory!), b) that no planes with passengers flew into the towers or c) explosives were planted in and caused the destruction of the 2 towers.

There is absolutely nothing which even remotely suggests any of the 3 specific conspiracy theorist claims are "fact", or even likely. Sorry, I just don't see it. But that's not a problem, we're all different.

I just find the claims of not being "objective" or "open-minded" if you disagree or a conspiracy being "obvious" particularly, well, errm, delusional really (not you specifically btw). That's NOT open-mindedness, that's dogmatic.

I also think the mind-frame within which these kind of profoundly unlikely conspiratorial aspects are considered "obvious" is extremely detrimental to genuine "spiritual" experiences and growth. But hey ho, what do I know, and why should anyone listen to anything I've got to say!! I'm a pretty clueless kind of person.

All the best my friend!:)
 
#88
Well I don't think it was interrupting things too much as the thread had basically reached a natural end.

I think it's worth answering your post, as I find it interesting. I'll jot down points as they come up, I don't think there's any point in arguing about 9/11. I'm happy to disagree.

I wish that I was 'defending' my view against someone that wasn't you! :)

The words objective and 'open minded' never even entered my head when I considered your point of view. You, having the point of view you do about 9/11, is more likely to have me doubting my own viewpoint.

You seem more bothered about not being seen as 'open minded, objective' than about 9/11?

My mind is far from made up, but your 'expertise' has not done anything to convince me that I have been duped. So, you studied 9/11 in depth. So what? How 'in depth' can any of us see?

I feel that your reply to me was in fact meant to be a different person. Am I right? It felt like you were getting stuff off your chest that had very little to do with me.

But hey ho, what do I know, and why should anyone listen to anything I've got to say!! I'm a pretty clueless kind of person.
False modesty doesn't suit you Manjit. You're a bright star and don't pretend otherwise! ;)
 
Last edited:
#89
I for one am not saying anything like that Gabriel. I doubt that many/any forum members are. Most doubts I have about that event include human fallibility and need for money/power.
I appreciate my view is a caricature, albeit one some people are prepared to believe, nevertheless it is only one on a scale of insupportable beliefs. Even the most likely conspiracy theory, that the official story is authentic but the authorities knew in advance and allowed it to happen, still demands an impermeable seal on the narrative by those involved. It would only take one whistle blower, and there are potentially hundreds depending on which conspiracy you defend, and the thing blows apart. Flying planes into buildings is not a precise art, suppose one clipped a tower and crashed to the ground? Suppose a group of burly passengers had beaten the would-be hijackers unconscious? The US had many simpler ways of setting up a middle eastern war, if they even needed an excuse. Many people were vehemently anti-war even after the atrocity, so it wasn't an intervention based on public support or that of other national leaders.

The most likely scenario is US security knew there was likely to be a mainland attack within a certain period, and the twin towers represented a legitimate target, as they had been previously. It was successful because domestic airline security was next to non-existent, and the cell had slipped from the radar of western security forces. The same breech happened in the UK with less devastating consequences, some time after, as it did in other European countries without any of those nations being on a war footing. All the subsequent consequences might have been avoided, and could certainly have been handled in a manner more likely to bring peace, but that doesn't alter the fact that governments will never completely eliminate terrorists incidents occurring.
 
#90
Even the most likely conspiracy theory, that the official story is authentic but the authorities knew in advance and allowed it to happen
Indeed! This was one of my very first impressions - within a month of 9/11, based on the facts. Over the years, I have found absolutely nothing to show this is a fact, though, and am inclined to think even this is baseles - though possibly true - speculation. I even more heartedly agree about the "whistleblower" thing, without doubt - without any doubt whatsoever - there would have been whistleblowers by now. And many of them. Please read Eric Oulliet's recent blog posts about UFOs and conspiracies to understand the psychology behind why this is almost certain.

I feel that your reply to me was in fact meant to be a different person. Am I right? It felt like you were getting stuff off your chest that had very little to do with me
Hi Steve - great post Sir! You are quite right, I was summarily responding to all the posts I had read this morning, and responding only to you about it! That is both very unfair and quite rude. Please accept my apologies for that :)

but your 'expertise' has not done anything to convince me that I have been duped. So, you studied 9/11 in depth. So what? How 'in depth' can any of us see?
Again, quite right. However, I have not tried - even in the slightest - to convince anyone of anything regarding 9/11. I have provided no info or detail to support my position. I have no intention of doing so, either, as I have no real interest in these things anymore. Or desire to change the minds of others. My interest is spirituality and mystical experiences and insights, experientially "grokked". I am merely saddened by what I consider to be numerous intelligent and lovely people on this forum being, in my very personal & subjective opinion, drawn to the "negative" side of reality, which I feel is a hindrance to deeper mystical/spiritual experiences.

I shall now slink away into the darkness again and have a strong word with myself for my unfair responses to your post, and question why I ever get involved in the first place! ;)
 
#91
I am merely saddened by what I consider to be numerous intelligent and lovely people on this forum being, in my very personal & subjective opinion, drawn to the "negative" side of reality, which I feel is a hindrance to deeper mystical/spiritual experiences.
Maybe you got involved because 'the negative side of reality' is just as important as any other?

Your last short paragraph had me picturing a scene from Jungle Book.

Brilliant stuff.

 
#92
I have found the case for a 9/11 "conspiracy" to be overwhelmingly in this category of logical error.
I wouldn't go that far - there is something being hidden in the official 9/11 story, but I always think that the more people that end up being involved in a conspiracy - particularly one that involves mass murder - the less plausible it is.

David
 
#93
I thought there was a technology at the time for people to make expensive calls via a telephone in the seat-back of the seat in front - not through cell phones - people just spent on their credit cards!
What I am referring to is not in reference to onboard phones. It's the calls that we know were made with personal cell phones

I find really elaborate plots incredibly hard to credit.
David
Yeah, but ignoring evidence is worse. That's my whole point. I think if you really look at all the evidence with an open mind, it clearly hasn't all been addressed to this day. And, trying to wrap a story around it (elaborate, or not) takes you to really strange places
 
#94
My interest is spirituality and mystical experiences and insights, experientially "grokked". I am merely saddened by what I consider to be numerous intelligent and lovely people on this forum being, in my very personal & subjective opinion, drawn to the "negative" side of reality, which I feel is a hindrance to deeper mystical/spiritual experiences.
Terence said:
I am human, I consider nothing human alien to me
C. G. Jung said:
One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.
 
#95
Hey North, I understand all that. Quite, quite deeply & experientially as well as philosophically! Perhaps read some of my earlier posts on this forum to get a feeling for that ;)

I think my point is a little more complicated or sophisticated than that, perhaps - at least in my own head if not expressed at all well (to be fair, I have not expanded at all what I mean). Every discussion I have online only furthers the sense of futility I have of communicating any understanding of mine effectively in words & online :(

Cheers!
 
#97
What seems obvious to you about 9/11, Alex? I like how our Pabst-beer-drinking, dining-room-set-owning, super-sexy Zebra once put it. But, I'm totally paraphrasing so hope I don't twist his words too bad, but I think he said something like:

Anyone who looks into 9/11 with an open mind should come away with two conclusions:

(1) The official story is total BS
(2) You feel like you are in a strange dream

I totally agree with (1). But, to me, it's impossible to wrap a coherent story around the evidence, at least with as far as it has been investigated to date. Some of the evidence - like the cell phone calls from the airplanes - takes you to really strange places if you ask yourself what does that mean! So, because of (2), 9/11 doesn't seem very obvious to me ... it's almost like a tear in the fabric of reality at times, lol.
hey Ethan... I agree with you a "impossible to wrap a coherent story..." but like so many of these kinda of things (1) is really enough if you totally breath it in.
 
#98
Given the technology at the time, it is claimed that those calls should not have been able to been made at that altitude for the length of time they were connected, without the very high likelihood of being disconnected (if you could have made the call at all. I know I was never able to make calls from an airplane at 30k back then with my cell phone)

So, let's say that's true. What does that mean? The calls were made from somewhere else? With the original airplane being replaced with a substitute that continued the flight path being tracked? (Incidentally, the government did research just this kind of swap-out out technology/strategy at one time). Did the government then just disappear entire plain loads of passengers after forcing them to make scripted calls to their loved ones?

What possible kind of story can get wrapped around that? It gets strange, really, really quick, the minute you decide to accept those calls could not have been made in the way they were claimed to be
 
#99
I watched the video featured in the post above #98

At first I was really interested in what she had to say, with her 'inside aviation' knowledge. However,as the video got more into her theory and she started believing things that were not so feasible to me, I lost interest really.

I am forced to say 'I just don't know' to so much stuff that she seems to have a definite opinion on, at least one thing she says is 'impossible',(involving aircraft speeds) I think is quite possible, but she doesn't really give enough information. Another thing that I had barely heard of, was the Flight Termination System, I certainly wouldn't be happy if a 767/757 that I had been in charge of had such a system onboard!

What I am very interested in, is the way the US appears to have led the world in manipulating things in the Middle East since 9/11, it seems just too convenient. Many other countries have gone along with it, the U.K. and others are just as guilty. I still wouldn't, or rather, would be shocked if there was nothing to 9/11 but bog standard terrorism. I'm feel sure that the vast majority of us would find 'the truth' whatever that may be, to be shocking. Surely the current Presidential debate proves that anything is possible?
 
What I am referring to is not in reference to onboard phones. It's the calls that we know were made with personal cell phones
OK - but were these made while the planes were still at altitude - remember that they came in low near the end, and that could have been the moment when people realised they had very little time left and tried to call home.

Sorry I have not made a study of 9/11 like some of you hve, so this may be BS.

David
 
Top