Now Almanacs are dangerous

Of one thing you can be certain. Whatever you say on rmr WILL be taken out of context, usually in the OPPOSITE meaning.

Jerry

Man, I don't envy that task. Having been on the other end of the industry, I know the heart still stops and that slow-mo turn towards the TV when the announcer says "... plane crash...".

Joel. phx

There was a show which showed a crash because a repair to a pressure bulkhead only had a single row of rivets, instead of 2. As the investigators were combing the wooded hill, a helicopter with loved ones was dropping flowers n such on the scene. I wouldn't be able to take that,....

No one should have to take that. Give the workers a break and let them hide in a tent or something.

Zooty

I'm no CT fan. It takes a huge volume of information for me to sign on to any one theory of any dubious incident. I am just now finalizing my firm beliefs on the JFK assassination after studying it for about 21 years. Weird as hell things happen to be sure. In the case of 9-11 there are just so damn many of them it is simply unbelievable.

I will leave you with what a college prof of mine and ex-CIA employee said: "The best way to hide a conspiracy is to openly promote a conspiracy." I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if some of the "evidence" was planted for the specific purpose of baiting the CT types. It would be very easy in the cloud of theories to hide the actual truth.

And as long as Bush and his cronies stonewall any legitimate investigation of the worst terrorist attack on this country in its history, conspiracy theories will flourish. One has to wonder if that is not the objective.

Paul

One thing IS certain. Whether or not that is the objective it well serves the current political direction of the administration.

Jerry

As one of those who has actually read the original memo the media is talking about, I can assure you that they are sensationalizing a non-event. It always amazes me how the media can so totally twist things around. The referenced memo specifically states that the mere possession of an Almanac is NOT a terrorist sign, but the media didn't catch that part. (the front of my Almanac says there are over 80 million sold) The purpose of this and dozens of similar memos that have gone out in recent months is to assist Law Enforcement and Security personnel in profiling possible terrorist pre-incident indicators. The only real way to stop a terrorist attack is to catch them during the planning stages when they are performing surveillance and "dry runs". You might remember that one of the WTC terrorist groups was found to have flown the exact flight they meant to highjack prior to the actual attack. The memo the media is talking about, especially when combined with the rest of the series being put out by DHS, states that an officer should take notice when there are multiple indicators together. Yes it does mention Almanacs, but let's put it back in context. For example, a couple men of middle Eastern decent in a rental car who are intently observing the comings and goings of people at a nuclear power plant while taking pictures and/or video and scribbling notes on maps and referencing an Almanac (along with other "tourist" or "historical" type literature) would fit into a profile (yes, a "profile") that LE should check out. As usual, the media has misquoted and taken out of context a small fraction of the whole story just to try and make their ratings. If you were able to read the "rest of the story", it would all make perfect sense. -Scott

Rocket Flyer wrote:

from "9/11 Cellphone Calls - an Overview" at

-- Reports of cellphone calls from the allegedly hijacked airplanes on 9/11 were crucial in 'selling' the official version of events.

These calls dramatized the horror of 9/11 for the worldwide audience and appeared to prove conclusively that the four 'planes were, in fact, hijacked by terrorists.

However, such phone calls are most implausible on technical and scientific grounds - suggesting the cell phone calls were faked.

Are claims of 9/11 cellphone calls the official story's 'Achilles Heel'?

See also:

• 'Project Achilles' - Report, Part One, January 2003
  formatting link
• 'Project Achilles' - Report, Part Two, February 2003
  formatting link
• 'Project Achilles' - Report, Part Three (Final), April 2003
  formatting link
• Cell Phone Experiments in Airliners by Germar Rudolf, July 2003
  formatting link
• SPINE discussion about Cellphone Calls and 9/11 - Part 1
  formatting link
• SPINE discussion about Cellphone Calls and 9/11 - Part 2
  formatting link

This has nothing to do with rockets and is a waste of RMR.

I have been involved on the technical side of wireless telecom for over fifteen years. Professionally speaking, the conspiracy theories on this web site are crap.

Tell me, Ismaeel, what on earth does any of this have to do with rocketry?

Rocket Flyer Southeast Georgia

thanks, Scott

that makes alot more sense!

- iz

Scott Alecks> As one of those who has actually read the original memo the media is

Nothing, which is why he labeled it OT for off topic.

Paul

1. my post is in response to a previous post regarding Conspiracy Theories, that evolved from an example of overzealous law enforcement, of which the BATFE is an example (hence the original relationship to rocketry), but you neglected to include my reference to the preceding post in your response

1. that is the meaning of "off topic", d0h! Note that I had the courtesy to include the proper subject notation.

2. eat my shorts

- iz

Nozzlehead wrote:

nothing, that is why it is "OT" (off-topic)

- iz

Rocket Flyer wrote:

I must say that is the first time I (recall) have seen you use that expression. It could not be used on a better example of a newsgroup terd either.

Well unless it was used on Dave Grayvis or Roy Simpson :)

Jerry

more CT for the Mel Gibsons among us

- iz

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote:

Complete nonsense.

Two scientists, a geologist and an astronomer went to a Velikovski conference together. After it was over, the two met each other in a bar:

Geologist: I found the geological evidence to be complete nonsense, but the astronomical discussion was incredible.

Astronomer: That's funny, I found the astronomy to be complete nonsense, but was impressed by the geology.

From the web site (* is from the web site, and below is my analysis)

• The plane in Pennsylvania was shot down and broke apart in midair.

False. The plane was very easy to "four corner." The distance between the nose, wings, and tail were totally inconsistent with a plane that broke apart in midair.

We should all be familiar with this one. How far do you have to go to get the debris from a second stage cato and how far do you have to go to get the debris from a lawn dart?

• No other explanation can account for the wreckage, which was spread over a six-mile area,

The debris field was fairly close to that of US Air Flight 427. There were some differences caused by the fuel load and the underlying rock strata in the strip mine area, but the differences weren't major.

• or the eyewitness accounts that describe debris falling from the sky.

Eyewitness reports are the least reliable evidence available. Eyewitness reports of the plane breaking apart before impact are not credible, in that they also don't match what would actually happen had the plane broken apart. Some eyewitnesses to Flight 427 report seeing the plane explode and then fall out of the sky. The problem is, eyewitness accounts are easily corruptible by expectations of the observer, questions asked by others, and the desire and determination of the witness to be helpful.

If you aren't familiar with the scientific evidence concerning the reliability of eyewitness accounts, shame on you.

I'm not as familiar with some of the other arguments presented, but if the quality of the arguments about the Flight 93 crash are any evidence, I don't need to be to know that the cited web site is nonsense by people who don't know what they are talking about.

Zooty

That's turd you idiot. I'm the newsgroup turd.