Thank you Henry. Let the train wreck commence. (Although if this becomes another lekatt and The Great BeyondI’m buggering off quick smart).
Henry B, I would like to know where you got the information about SKF providing ball bearings to the Nazis. I believe it, but the only source I have for that information is a book called Trading with the Enemy by Charles Higham. His book is not considered credible in these circles because he does not list his sources, a fair criticism. It would be good if his info could be corroborated by sources that are available elsewhere, say in Europe. Check out the other thread, Factual Error in Bush Nazi Column, where I discuss other examples of corporate treason during WWII.
Hi Everyone and especially to all old Freepers!
Yes I have now learned my lesson: Everything is just concpiracy-theories!
OK, I am a foreigner so I believe anything You tell me. It has been on The FOX-News, so it has to be right.
And even The CIA Facta Book is heavy stuff.
I found out that there is a concpracy-theory about that CIA works, they are not lazy bastards:
I was looking for “The Church Commitee” and put into my GOOgle: “Church Committee Frank Otis Pike”
And found:
http://www.namebase.org/main2/Frank_Forrester_-28d-2Did-29_Church.html
and 1.300 other cites as well.
But in this cite, there is hundreds of them. C-theorists, I mean.
Even in Congress hearings.
Has Fox anything about this?
Please Jackmanniii, answer soon. I need to report.
Henry, The Plant
I need a cite for the cell phone issue, not personal anecdotes. The cite you gave does not specifically state that it is possible to make cell phone calls from an airplane at 30,000 feet going 600 mph. This is the SDMB and we have high standards for evidence.
David Ickes is obviously crazy. The 9-11 timeline on cooperative research is all documented facts with some speculation thrown in. I did not dismiss the entire snopes page, just the explanations about how an imaginary plane hit the pentagon.
No, the thread I suggested was for you to assert that 9-11 was conspired by Arab terrorists and for me to debunk that “evidence.” You are making an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence. You are claiming that a group of people is responsible for a crime, so the burden of proof is on you. You can view me as the defense attorney for Osama ben Laden. I don’t have to prove anything–YOU do.
** mystic2311**
Try with these books. I think it is the first one. The owners of SKF, Electrolux, Saab, and some hundreds of other companies, the Wallenberg brothers, the most rich persons in the nordic countries at that time, never got a visa to USA after WWII.
Sampson,A. The Seven Sisters. 1976
Sampson,A. The Sovereign State of ITT. 1974
Check the book-list in my earlier post.
Scroll down the page and You will find his biography as well.
I type here the link, because it has been too long and is maybe not working directly:
namebase.org/main2/Frank_Forrester_-28d-2Did-29_Church
(and in the end you put) .htlm
Two years ago my small library from the -70’ties and forward burned down, so I can not check it for You.
I had all kind of books, from left to right, but those I can buy again. But I also had much material as underground papers etc.
You see I was publishing a few papers about different cultures etc. Also my writings are for ever gone. Some of them is still in The University of Helsinki, in it’s library, where a few copies of all publications should be sent.
My children can go and read them there.
But those monthly papers that I published in Sweden, I never sent anywhere.
Some books I wrote about Finland I have still in my shelf.
What ever age You are. Copy everything You write.
When You need a new memory for Your computer, take the old one to a bank-safe.
I have three hard-disks saved from the last 7 years.
Already now ther is a lot that is amusing to read in retrospect.
I begun to collect everything very carefully after the fire and before that my ex-wife destroyed all the poems I ever wrote to her!
I mean the children could have read some 20 years later how mother and father loved each other etc. Now they only know that father has emigrated to Russia. Sad.
But about the books.
I think Your library has it. His (Samson) books are very famous, or was those days, translated to many languages.
Henry
italics added
The irony is overwhelming…
I apologize for taking you seriously in the earlier thread. Rest assured, I’ll not do so again. I will just smile paternistically when I cross your posts and hope you never end up on the same subway as me.
No, the hypocrisy and double standards on SDMB are overwhelming. Anytime someone deviates from the dominant ideology, he is asked for cites and sources, and then his sources are invalidated. When I ask someone to justify a claim that cell phone calls can be made on an airplane at altitude going 600 mph, I am ridiculed. But thanks for posting that link, it actually proves me right:
“The FCC has its own cell-phone ban, but it has nothing to do with airplane safety. The FCC says signals emitted by phones in the air could occupy
multiple cell towers on the ground and cause interference with calls on the ground. This interference might even allow analog cell phone users to listen to others’ conversations on the ground.”
“The cell-phone industry says it has no way of lifting its own ban because it is physically impossible to construct cell-phone towers to accommodate signals traveling 600 miles per hour at 33,000 feet in the air.”
In other words, it is impossible to make a cell phone call from an airplane at altitude going 600 mph because the cell phone would not know which cell to connect to. It takes a finite time for the cell phone to do an electronic handshake, and by the time it tries to do that, the plane is over another cell. The cell phone either would not be able to establish a connection, or the connection would break off.
Thanks again for finding that link for me. It proves once again that the whole official story about 9-11 is a total hoax.
Wrong answer. Try this paragraph:
or these:
or the next sentence after your quote:
And another in the anecdote department…I’ve seen them used, both incoming and outgoing, on flights. Seen as in my own two eyes, not friend of a friend.
But hey, selective quoting is what props up conspiracy nutjo…er, theorists. And there I was, almost ready to take you seriously again.
D_ODDS:
It just shows how brainwashed you are. Your first quote actually supports what I am saying. The other quotes are irrelevant because they refer to cell phone signals interfering with the plane’s communications. Try again. You are a conspiracy theorist if you believe that people on the 9-11 planes made cell phone calls to the ground.
::smiles paternistically and walks away::
which, of course, signifies defeat
For those (still) interested in (yet) another documentary about the Kennedy assassination:
Tonight on the cable Discovery Channel, part of their Unsolved History series - JFK: Death at Dealey Plaza
Gary Mack, their featured expert, answers questions online after the show.
We really need to get Justhink back so he can write a post that will put this whole thread in perspective.
This tells me pretty much all I need to know about Mystic311. Why is anyone listening to this person?
Before you jump to conclusions, Beagle took this discussion to the pit:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=165730
After, I might add, converting me to an alien.
mystic, you have misunderstood where the burden of proof lies. Here is a summary of those calls and communications on flight 11. I offer this as evidence that the plane was hijacked.
If you wish to debunk this evidence you must offer convincing evidence/reasoning of your own which shows that these communications were never made. If I offer up the tapes of Bin Laden, you must offer convincing evidence/reasoning of your own that the tapes were fake. If I offer up footage of Arab hijack-suspects boarding the planes, you must offer convincing evidence/reasoning of your own that the security photos upon boarding were fake.
I am claiming that Arab terrorists hijacked 4 planes, and the evidence I offer will be from respected sources such as the BBC. If you think this evidence is fake then the burden of proof is on you to prove this, not for me to show it is not fake.
Similarly, if you offer evidence that the planes were not hijacked but that there was some other explanation why they crashed, it would then be up to me to debunk it. If we come to an impasse, well, that’s life. It will then be for anyone else reading the thread to decide.
And understand: I have little doubt that I will not change your mind one jot since, to me, you and this former BBC sports presenter both inhabit the same pile of bananas.
*Erratum: Flight 93, not 11.
Actually, the burden of proof is on you. Pretend you are the prosecutor and you are trying Osama Ben Laden for 2800 counts of murder. The burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Osama is guilty of this crime. The evidence you need is witness testimony, forensic evidence, documentary evidence, etc. Your link to BBC did not work, so I don’t know what was there. Cell phone calls may help prove your case, but I would have to have access to cell phone records during the discovery phase, and I would be allowed to cross-examine witnesses who allegedly received these phone calls, but of course there is no way for them to verify that the person who allegedly called them is actually who they said they were.
So you see there are certain evidentiary problems. It didn’t help that the government destroyed all the forensic evidence from the WTC and sold the scrap steel to China (who mysteriously were admitted to the WTO on 9-15-01).
Maybe that explains why the FBI has not charged Osama with the crime. See his rap sheet here:
When I think conspiracy theorist - especially at 0-dark-thirty - I think “aliens.”
Sentient meat, the BBC transcript is your evidence? I hope you can do better than that.
ALICE HOGLAN:
I took the phone and I heard my son’s voice
and he said to me, “Mom, this is Mark Bingham.”
A son calls his Mom and says, “Mom, this is Mark Bingham.” Excuse me while I suppress hoots of derisive laughter. Just think about it for one second and tell me that is not bogus.
mystic: I shan’t take up much more of your time - if you could answer 3 simple yes/no questions I would be grateful.
1. Was he crazy when he wrote his latest book?
Again, you misunderstand what this is. It is not a court of law. It is a web-based message board of a Chicago newspaper. I am not an attorney or a criminal investigator. I do not have access to the primary evidence, the physical pieces of tape or film and the like. I, like you and everyone else here, am just an everyday person who likes this debate forum. There are people here who have the time, skill and experience to access more detailed resources than I, but I would quite understand their reluctance to expend any energy on one so firmly committed to conspiracism as yourself.
We are not really talking to each other here, we are talking to the audience. (And if I may say, I would be surprised if you had convinced many onlookers of your theories.) So, when I point to the results of my 5-second Google search for a transcript of the phone calls made from the planes, I am offering up evidence which you must rebut if you wish to appear convincing at all.
I repeat: I am claiming that the reason 4 planes crashed on 11/9/01 is because they had been hijacked by Arab terrorists (not necessarily under direct orders from Bin Laden, Colonel Gadaffi or Cat Fecking Stevens). I offer the widely available transcripts of cell-phone calls, air-traffic-control communications and boarding gate security camera footage as my evidence. So the second question is:
2. Do you assert that all of these were faked?
Finally, your methods of debate are typical of three different groups. The first is die-hard conspiracy theorists (CT’s) of which you are obviously one. The second is Young Earth Creationists (YEC’s) - both fairly harmless if a little misguided. The third is far more sinister.
The methodology of all of these groups is to isolate a tiny twig of detail and use it to question the entire forest of opposing evidence. They continually ask “what if…?”, “might it be…?”, “does this suggest…?” instead actually presenting counter-evidence themselves. They demand evidence like a spoiled, greedy infant yet offer none whatsoever in reply. They cast accusations of close-mindedness and brainwashing like wedding confetti, oblivious to the stark, glaring obviousness of their lack of critical thinking to neutral observers.
Believing everything like a gullible fool requires no critical thinking. But remember also: Believing nothing like a paranoid tinfoil-hatted Icke-ist requires no critical thinking either. In any situation there are coincidences, rules bent, procedures not followed to the letter, funny choices of words etc.. Any conspiracy theory could be justified if the minutiae are studied hard enough. We must all consider the whole picture, not wet ourselves over single misplaced brush-strokes.
Please understand, mystic, that the reason I am still here is not because I wish to “win” this argument. (I have long since realised that this is impossible with such groups.) It is because I wish to learn about the mind-set of CT’s and how they differentiate themselves from other such groups and eg. David Icke. I offer a genuine welcome to the Boards and assure you I have no problems with you whatsoever, indeed I hope you stick around on these boards since variety is the spice of life (although you may find few as willing to indulge you as I have in threads like this).
I only have serious issues with this sinister third group I mentioned because it tacitly advocates a morality and philosophy I find abhorrent. And so, based on this and other threads, I must ask my third question:
3. Are you a Holocaust Denier?