Psychic Christine Holohan on TV Fri29Sep

JimTheBrit

Can any of you folks do a favour for Tony Youens and video her appearance?

Tony's post:

It seems not to matter what we do really. If you're a psychic you just talk tripe then providing it's the sort of tripe people want (and the media certainly want it) then success can be yours. Adrian Shaw and I looked into this case in some depth but hey who cares about that!

If anyone gets the chance perhaps they could record the interview mentioned at the bottom. (i.e. Christine will be interviewed on Good Morning AM on TV 3 this Friday, September 29 at 8am.)

The investigation done by Adrian and myself can be found on my website here: http://www.tonyyouens.com/ruislip_murder.htm

Tony


Article:

http://www.laois-nationalist.ie/news/story.asp?j=24135

Book by psychic tells story from beyond the grave
9/28/2006 - 11:15:51 AM

Voice From The Grave is a new book telling the story of how Stradbally psychic medium Christine Holohan helped British Police to capture the murderer of a barmaid, Jackie Poole in 1983.

Christine is well known in the county for her ability as a psychic medium with many people attending her clinics in Portlaoise. She also appeared on RTÉ's Late Late Show five years ago telling the story of how she helped the police to capture the murderer of the 25-year-old woman.

Her book Voice From The Grave was co-written by well known Laois writer Vera McHugh.

The book centres on Christine when she was living in London around the time the woman was murdered. She details the visits and messages she received from the dead woman's spirit, who asked her to help her.

She said when she first approached the police they were sceptical of her spiritual abilities. She had to prove her skills and indeed says she foretold three events that would affect one of the investigating officers.

She gave them the information that was passed on to her by the dead woman's spirit. She could describe the murder scene, personal details, the killer's description and even wrote his name.

She said that the dead woman passed on 130 details to her in the course of her many visitations. Of that total, Christine said 120 were correct and assisted the police in tracking down the woman's killer.

The book also documents Christine's life as she grew up in Stradbally and names local people and their role in shaping her life.

Christine has also taken part in many TV programmes and worked with police forces in various countries on the role of psychic mediums in helping to solve crimes.

Christine is currently helping British police in tracing the whereabouts of another missing woman whom police suspect has been murdered.

A local launch of Voice From The Grave will take place in The Kitchen, Hinds Square, Portlaoise on Thursday. October 12 at 8pm. All are welcome along.

Christine will be inter-viewed on Good Morning AM on TV 3 this Friday, September 29 at 8am.

sevo

I watched the programme on Ireland AM with Christine Holohan, the psychic/medium, and then bought the book 'A Voice from the Grave'. It's an amazing story. I can't say if it's true or not but I think people should read it for themselves to decide. I think she's on the new show with Grainne Seoige this afternoon as well.

Shinners23

I've read the book and i also went to her for after my friend died. - The only word i can use to describe it would be Amazing.

robindch

There's a deceptively simple technique called "cold-reading" which is pretty easy to learn and which psychics use (consciously or unconsciously) to mislead people who aren't familiar with the technique into thinking that there's something genuine going on. There are plenty of guides to doing a good cold-reading out on the internet. Here's one:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/coldread.htm

More general articles on the topic are here:

http://skepdic.com/coldread.html
http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/confessions.htm
http://www.blgoldberg.com/PSYCHICS.htm

Zombrex

sevo wrote:

It's an amazing story. I can't say if it's true or not

Its hardly amazing then is it :rolleyes:

Robin do the British Police really use a phsyic in open cases?? I find that rather hard to believe, considering the annoyance of fake leads in an open case wasting resources and man power.

robindch

> do the British Police really use a phsyic in open cases??

There are quite a few people who have claimed to have been contracted in to provide some "psychic" service or other, but I don't recall the UK police themselves ever saying that they've done it and I do recall them denying it sometime or other.

Over in the US, things are different. The US military did have a general, one Albert Stubblebine III, trying out all kinds of strange things, including his belief that people could walk through walls, become invisible, and best of all, do serious damage to goats (of all things) just by staring at them. All of this weirdness is documented in The Men who State at Goats. Predictably, Stubblebine has become, in his retirement, a regular contributor to the 9/11 conspiracy industry and you can find him on youtube here spouting the inevitable.

Uri Geller also claims to have done stuff for the US government and spends 5,000 words telling the world that he's a bit surprised that news of it leaked out:

http://www.uri-geller.com/gore.htm

Chriskavo

robindch wrote: »

> do the British Police really use a phsyic in open cases??

There are quite a few people who have claimed to have been contracted in to provide some "psychic" service or other, but I don't recall the UK police themselves ever saying that they've done it and I do recall them denying it sometime or other.

Over in the US, things are different. The US military did have a general, one Albert Stubblebine III, trying out all kinds of strange things, including his belief that people could walk through walls, become invisible, and best of all, do serious damage to goats (of all things) just by staring at them. All of this weirdness is documented in The Men who State at Goats. Predictably, Stubblebine has become, in his retirement, a regular contributor to the 9/11 conspiracy industry and you can find him on youtube here spouting the inevitable.

Uri Geller also claims to have done stuff for the US government and spends 5,000 words telling the world that he's a bit surprised that news of it leaked out:

http://www.uri-geller.com/gore.htm

I am a healthy skeptic like yourself and that included 911. However the 911 conspiracy is no longer a subject of ridicule followed by tin foil hat wearing nut jobs.It is beginning to gain mainstream acceptance in America and respected Zogby polls reveal that the majority of Americans do not accept the official government version. I have done some research of my own and pretty quickly came to realize that the official version does not add up. you also have six out of the 10 commissioners including the head - John Farmer coming out and publicly stating that they were lied to and that this was tantamount to a criminal cover up. Do your own research by starting with the book by David Ray Griffin titled ' The New Pearl Harbor' - a book no less endorsed than by the great Gore Vidal. Discover how 1000 engineers and scientists have recently signed a petition to congress demanding a new investigation. I can guarantee that you will have your doubts.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

- Arthur Schopenhauer

robindch

Chriskavo wrote: »

the 911 conspiracy is no longer a subject of ridicule followed by tin foil hat wearing nut jobs.

This silliness is widespread not because of skepticism, but because of bland credulousness and what Richard Hofstadter famously referred to as The Paranoid Style which jointly, and very sadly, characterize much of what passes for public debate in the USA.

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

I am a healthy skeptic like yourself and that included 911.

Somehow I doubt that.

Since you are a skeptic you'll be able to tell us what sort of evidence or reason that would convince you that 9/11 wasn't some vast global conspiracy, right?

Chriskavo wrote: »

However the 911 conspiracy is no longer a subject of ridicule followed by tin foil hat wearing nut jobs.

Yes it is.

Chriskavo wrote: »

It is beginning to gain mainstream acceptance in America and respected Zogby polls reveal that the majority of Americans do not accept the official government version.

Well seeing as it's so well respected maybe you can post a link to this poll?

Chriskavo wrote: »

you also have six out of the 10 commissioners including the head - John Farmer coming out and publicly stating that they were lied to and that this was tantamount to a criminal cover up. Do your own research by starting with the book by David Ray Griffin titled ' The New Pearl Harbor' - a book no less endorsed than by the great Gore Vidal. Discover how 1000 engineers and scientists have recently signed a petition to congress demanding a new investigation. I can guarantee that you will have your doubts.

Well if government officials and experts say it, it must be true....

Chriskavo

King Mob wrote: »

Somehow I doubt that.

Since you are a skeptic you'll be able to tell us what sort of evidence or reason that would convince you that 9/11 wasn't some vast global conspiracy, right?

Yes it is.

Well seeing as it's so well respected maybe you can post a link to this poll?


Well if government officials and experts say it, it must be true....

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York's Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.
The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.

I take it that you subscribe to the official explanation of 911?


As for having evidence of a conspiracy - you should read Project For A New American Century.

You feel free to believe your conspiracy - the official conspiracy theory of how Americas multi billion dollar defense system was pinned to its knees by a dozen Arab terrorists with primitive box cutters. All at the behest of some guy in a cave thousands of miles away using a sat phone. That guy by the way(OBL) is not wanted in connection with 911 according to the FBI. They admit to having no 'hard evidence' to connect him with that monstrous crime.

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York's Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.
The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.

Hang on a tick.
50% to 41% does not equal a majority.

In fact 50% to 61% don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
Therefore I win QED.

And I wonder how many of those believers are just parroting nonsense they read on the internet.

Chriskavo wrote: »

I take it that you subscribe to the official explanation of 911?

Pretty much yea.

Chriskavo wrote: »

As for having evidence of a conspiracy - you should read Project For A New American Century.

Speaking of parroting...
Yes I have read Project For A New American Century.

The question have you?
Can you actually supply anything from that paper that actually shows it was a blueprint for a conspiracy? (Other than that one "Pearl harbour" bit that is always taken out of context.)

And further more can you explain why they would admit to being involved in such a conspiracy in a document freely available on their own website?

Chriskavo wrote: »

You feel free to believe your conspiracy - the official conspiracy theory of how Americas multi billion dollar defense system was pinned to its knees by a dozen Arab terrorists with primitive box cutters. All at the behest of some guy in a cave thousands of miles away using a sat phone.

And this is impossible because?
How many times where jetliners used as missiles?
How many times where several jets hijacked at once?
Did you know that every single other hijacking attempt was dealt with after the plane lands?

You feel free to believe your conspiracy - the official conspiracy theory of the American government, planting explosive in 3-4 of their own crowded buildings with no one noticing, then demolishing them leaving no trace and then admitting to it in a document they keep on their website.

Chriskavo wrote: »

That guy by the way(OBL) is not wanted in connection with 911 according to the FBI. They admit to having no 'hard evidence' to connect him with that monstrous crime.

Bull****.
I dare you to back that up.

Should be easy if you did really research it and aren't just parroting nonsense you read on a tinfoil hat website.

And you didn't answer my question.

Since you are a skeptic you'll be able to tell us what sort of evidence or reason that would convince you that 9/11 wasn't some vast global conspiracy, right?

Chriskavo

King Mob wrote: »

Hang on a tick.
50% to 41% does not equal a majority.

In fact 50% to 61% don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
Therefore I win QED.- considering the poll was conducte a mere 3 yrs after 911 it represent a significant amount for that time, certainly mainstream by any standards. Wonder what a new poll would show - my bet a far higher percentage

And I wonder how many of those believers are just parroting nonsense they read on the internet.


Pretty much yea.


Speaking of parroting...
Yes I have read Project For A New American Century.

The question have you?
Can you actually supply anything from that paper that actually shows it was a blueprint for a conspiracy? (Other than that one "Pearl harbour" bit that is always taken out of context.)

And further more can you explain why they would admit to being involved in such a conspiracy in a document freely available on their own website?


And this is impossible because?
How many times where jetliners used as missiles?
How many times where several jets hijacked at once?
Did you know that every single other hijacking attempt was dealt with after the plane lands? - Isn't that what NORAD is there for? oh yeah I forgot they had stood down that day because they were conducting war game exercises on planes being hijacked and used as missiles. lol

You feel free to believe your conspiracy - the official conspiracy theory of the American government, planting explosive in 3-4 of their own crowded buildings with no one noticing, then demolishing them leaving no trace and then admitting to it in a document they keep on their website.


Bull****.
I dare you to back that up.


Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

Hmmmmm...

Enjoy believing your tinfoil hat wearing fairytale. I bet you believe Osama that 'ol CIA asset is still alive don't you?

PNAC - 911 fullfilled that script beautifully but you will say coincidence yawn..

Its amazing how defensive you get when someone dares question the offical 911 conspiracy. You know that version just doesn't wash with me mate. The alternative version on the other hand does. A more sober, rational and empirical analysis of what happened that day. 1000's of reputed and respected scientists are of the same opinion particularly regarding the collapse of WTC7. A collapse which cannot be explained by NIST and which was left out of the 911 commision report. Do yourself a favour and read Dave Ray Griffins books on this subject. It might help you take those red rosy glasses off that make you believe everything your government tells you. Bye now.

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

So can you explain why an internal police force would be gathering information on someone not in the country?
Can you explain that if this was a vast conspiracy why don't the FBI fabricate the evidence? Or at lest just say they have it?
Why would they admit something like this at all?

Chriskavo wrote: »

Hmmmmm...

Enjoy believing your tinfoil hat wearing fairytale. I bet you believe Osama that 'ol CIA asset is still alive don't you?

Again you really haven't explained why it's impossible, or answered any of questions.
Funny how you think truth is spread by ignoring that stuff.
Very Orwellian.

Chriskavo wrote: »

PNAC - 911 fullfilled that script beautifully but you will say coincidence yawn..

No it didn't.
If you read the actual document instead of buying bull**** from conspiracy sites you'd see the exact opposite is true.

The quote I'm guessing you are think of (as it's the only part of this thing that conspiracy nuts throw around) is this one:

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

The document then drones on about how to change and update the America Military in the absence of the "New Pearl Harbour".
9/11 made this document completely obsolete.

But let's ignore reality for a sec and say it was evidence of a conspiracy, why is it on their website?

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

Its amazing how defensive you get when someone dares question the offical 911 conspiracy. You know that version just doesn't wash with me mate. The alternative version on the other hand does. A more sober, rational and empirical analysis of what happened that day.

And it's amazing how hypocritical the toofers are.
They seem very reluctant to answer the hard questions.

Chriskavo wrote: »

1000's of reputed and respected scientists are of the same opinion particularly regarding the collapse of WTC7.

And what of the 100's of scientists that agree with the official report

Chriskavo wrote: »

A collapse which cannot be explained by NIST and which was left out of the 911 commision report.

Because the building wasn't attacked?

So then would you like to explain how it fell?
Explosives that no one ever saw, exploded quietly and unseen, and left no trace?

Chriskavo wrote: »

Do yourself a favour and read Dave Ray Griffins books on this subject. It might help you take those red rosy glasses off that make you believe everything your government tells you. Bye now.

So stop believing the government and start believing this guy?

Chriskavo

King Mob wrote: »

So can you explain why an internal police force would be gathering information on someone not in the country?
Can you explain that if this was a vast conspiracy why don't the FBI fabricate the evidence? Or at lest just say they have it?
Why would they admit something like this at all?

You believe that Osama did it, all I am saying is that the FBI dont have enough evidence to connect him to 911.The offical govt version tells us that it was the work of arab terrorists under the direction of Osama. It must be hard to track all those calls he was making to his 911 disciples from his cave in tora bora lol.

Chriskavo

WTC7 supports all the hypothesis of a controlled demolition, as for explosives their has been thermite residue found in hundreds of samples of dust taken from the tragedy - Steve Jones. Enjoy your govt fairytale.

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

You believe that Osama did it, all I am saying is that the FBI dont have enough evidence to connect him to 911.The offical govt version tells us that it was the work of arab terrorists under the direction of Osama. It must be hard to track all those calls he was making to his 911 disciples from his cave in tora bora lol.

So then we can safely assume your knowledge of the "official version" comes from what you've read on conspiracy sites?

Chriskavo wrote: »

WTC7 supports all the hypothesis of a controlled demolition,

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Chriskavo wrote: »

as for explosives their has been thermite residue found in hundreds of samples of dust taken from the tragedy - Steve Jones. Enjoy your govt fairytale.

1. Thermite isn't an explosive, nor has it ever been used in any controlled demolitions, let alone secret ones.
2. Have you actually read the paper or like everything else you've said is just something you've bought unquestioningly form a CT website?

I have read the paper. Two major problems. One it was printed in a very dodgy journal that doesn't do proper peer review. Two, all the "Samples" were collected years later.

So any chance in your hunt for the truth you'll get around to answering all of my questions?

Chriskavo

King Mob wrote: »

So then we can safely assume your knowledge of the "official version" comes from what you've read on conspiracy sites? Not at all. Again if I can reiterate
- 6 out of the 10 commisioners admit that the whole thing is a whitewash and evidence of a criminal cover up.
Not by any stretch of the imagination. A building collapsing at free fall speed neatly into its own footprint? hmmm...

1. Thermite isn't an explosive, nor has it ever been used in any controlled demolitions, let alone secret ones.
2. Have you actually read the paper or like everything else you've said is just something you've bought unquestioningly form a CT website?

I have read the paper. Two major problems. One it was printed in a very dodgy journal that doesn't do proper peer review. Two, all the "Samples" were collected years later.

So any chance in your hunt for the truth you'll get around to answering all of my questions?

I dont claim to have all he answers but i do believe that their is enough contradictions, prevarication and obfuscation in the 911 commision report to demand a new investigation.

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

I dont claim to have all he answers but i do believe that their is enough contradictions, prevarication and obfuscation in the 911 commision report to demand a new investigation.

So then rather explain exact flaws in the commission report, you instead parrot irrelevant and completely debunked myths?
Then refuse to even acknowledge questions you can't answer?

That's some way to get to the truth alright.

Chriskavo

King Mob wrote: »

So then rather explain exact flaws in the commission report, you instead parrot irrelevant and completely debunked myths?
Then refuse to even acknowledge questions you can't answer?

That's some way to get to the truth alright.

Debunked myths like WTC7 free fall collapse and the fact that NIST cant explain it. Certainly hasn't been debunked. The fact that 6 out of the 10 commisioners want a new independent investigation cant be debunked either and are certainly not myths. The only myth we have here is the myth you believe in. Take care now.

Chriskavo

KING MOB - I have to bring wife out for dinner you know enjoy life a little. Will get back to you tommorrow. I see you have almost 4,000 posts...wow...incredible. Life must be so fulfilling for you write now.;) Bye now.

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

Debunked myths like WTC7 free fall collapse and the fact that NIST cant explain it. Certainly hasn't been debunked.

It has been debunked and it has been explained by the NIST.
But I doubt you'd have known that cause you only seem to listen to stuff from conspiracy sites.

Seeing as you claim to be a skeptic like us have a look through these.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Chriskavo wrote: »

The fact that 6 out of the 10 commisioners want a new independent investigation cant be debunked either and are certainly not myths.

Ok then, Back it up!
Which commissioners? When did they say this?
What exactly did they say?

Chriskavo wrote: »

The only myth we have here is the myth you believe in.

So what about the other myths you've spewed?
That there was thermite found?
That norad stood down?
that PNAC was evidence of a conspiracy?

What about the questions you keep ignoring?

Chriskavo wrote: »

Take care now.

This is like the 4th time you've exited dramatically, you realise?

robindch

Chriskavo wrote: »

Life must be so fulfilling

Carded for rudeness.

Chriskavo

Hi King Mob Firstly I apologize for any offence incurred when I implied that you had no life except to post blogs on this site. More luck to you I only wish I was getting paid for all that effort! Secondly and for your consideration and in reply to an earlier quote

''Ok then, Back it up
Which commissioners? When did they say this?
What exactly did they say?''

Here goes -

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had - in a way - conflicts of interest“.

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

CONGRESS
According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).
Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states “The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?”
Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on”
Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren’t being told the truth about 9/11
Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don’t know the truth about 9/11
Former Republican Senator (Lincoln Chaffee) endorses a new 9/11 investigation
Former U.S. Democratic Congressman (Dan Hamburg) says that the U.S. government “assisted” in the 9/11 attacks, stating that “I think there was a lot of help from the inside”
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

Chriskavo

You blatantly lied when you said NIST has provided an explanation for the collapse of WTC7. I have not lied once to you in this debate and if you have to revert to lies only shows desperation on your part. Some skeptic you are..

Benjamin Jones was energized in November when he and others received a response from the national lab charged by Congress to determine why and how the towers collapsed. The letter contained the following phrase:
"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

"That," Jones said, "really was progress. It made me believe we could talk with them."

It is striking. After producing a 10,000-page report, the National Institute of Standards and Technology can't explain the collapse. And on its Web site, NIST clearly states that nowhere in its report did it say that steel in the Twin Towers melted due to fires. In fact, the fires reached only 1,000 degrees Celsius. Steel melts at 1,500 degrees Celsius.

Meanwhile, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has said that its best hypothesis for the fall of the third tower, WTC 7 — diesel fuel stored in the building caused fires that collapsed the building — has a "low probability" of being correct.

read more:
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695275973,00.html

robindch

Chriskavo wrote: »

You blatantly lied

Any more accusations of dishonesty will earn you a permanent ban.

Debate cleanly or go somewhere else.

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

Hi King Mob Firstly I apologize for any offence incurred when I implied that you had no life except to post blogs on this site. More luck to you I only wish I was getting paid for all that effort! Secondly and for your consideration and in reply to an earlier quote

So now you're implying I'm getting paid to debunk this nonsense?
Ha, I wish.

Chriskavo wrote: »

Here goes -

Sources for these?
And you do know what an out of context quote is right?

Chriskavo wrote: »

You blatantly lied when you said NIST has provided an explanation for the collapse of WTC7. I have not lied once to you in this debate and if you have to revert to lies only shows desperation on your part. Some skeptic you are..

Really?
Have you ever actually visited the NIST website?
http://www.nist.gov/index.html
You'll find that the actually did supply a report on WTC7 in 2008.
Complete with explanations for it's collapse.
http://wtc.nist.gov/
Complete with FAQ
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

So that leave only two explanations, either a. you knew about this and lied or b. you are relying solely on crank website for your "Research" and simply don't have all the facts.
Which is it?

Chriskavo wrote: »

It is striking. After producing a 10,000-page report, the National Institute of Standards and Technology can't explain the collapse. And on its Web site,
NIST clearly states that nowhere in its report did it say that steel in the Twin Towers melted due to fires. In fact, the fires reached only 1,000 degrees Celsius. Steel melts at 1,500 degrees Celsius.[/B]

And?
Steel loses 50% of it's structural strength at 750 degrees Celsius.
But then they don't tell you stuff like that on CT sites.

Chriskavo wrote: »

Meanwhile, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has said that its best hypothesis for the fall of the third tower, WTC 7 — diesel fuel stored in the building caused fires that collapsed the building — has a "low probability" of being correct.

read more:
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695275973,00.html

And again more out of context quotes.

It's very ironic you accuse me of dishonesty among other things, yet still refuse to acknowledge tons of questions you can't answer.

Chriskavo

As for NORAD

The military’s first story was that no planes were sent up until after the Pentagon was hit. The military leaders were admitting, in other words, that they had left their fighters on the ground for almost 90 minutes after the FAA had first noticed signs of a possible hijacking. That story suggested to many people that a stand-down order had been given.[28]

By the end of the week, the military had put out a second story, saying that it had sent up fighters but that, because the FAA had been very late in notifying it about the hijackings, the fighters arrived in each case arrived too late. One problem with this story is that if FAA personnel had responded so slowly, heads should have rolled, but none did. An even more serious problem is that, even assuming the truth of the late notification times, the military’s fighters still had time to intercept the hijacked airliners before they were to hit their targets.[29] This second story implied, therefore, that standard procedures had been violated by the military as well as the FAA.

To try to defend the military against this accusation, The 9/11 Commission Report gave us, amazingly, a third version, according to which the FAA, after giving the military insufficient warning about the first hijacked airliner, gave it absolutely no notification of the other three until after they had crashed. But as I have argued in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, this account is wholly implausible. Besides portraying FAA personnel, from top to bottom, as incompetent dolts, the 9/11 Commission’s account rests on claims that contradict many credible and mutually supporting testimonies. In some of these cases, the fact that the Commission is simply lying is abundantly obvious.[30] In addition, this third story implies that the military’s second story, which it had been telling for almost three years, was almost entirely false. If our military leaders were lying to us all that time, why should we believe them now? And if our military is lying to us, must we not assume that it is doing so to cover up its own guilt?

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

As for NORAD

The military’s first story was that no planes were sent up until after the Pentagon was hit. The military leaders were admitting, in other words, that they had left their fighters on the ground for almost 90 minutes after the FAA had first noticed signs of a possible hijacking. That story suggested to many people that a stand-down order had been given.[28]

By the end of the week, the military had put out a second story, saying that it had sent up fighters but that, because the FAA had been very late in notifying it about the hijackings, the fighters arrived in each case arrived too late. One problem with this story is that if FAA personnel had responded so slowly, heads should have rolled, but none did. An even more serious problem is that, even assuming the truth of the late notification times, the military’s fighters still had time to intercept the hijacked airliners before they were to hit their targets.[29] This second story implied, therefore, that standard procedures had been violated by the military as well as the FAA.

To try to defend the military against this accusation, The 9/11 Commission Report gave us, amazingly, a third version, according to which the FAA, after giving the military insufficient warning about the first hijacked airliner, gave it absolutely no notification of the other three until after they had crashed. But as I have argued in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, this account is wholly implausible. Besides portraying FAA personnel, from top to bottom, as incompetent dolts, the 9/11 Commission’s account rests on claims that contradict many credible and mutually supporting testimonies. In some of these cases, the fact that the Commission is simply lying is abundantly obvious.[30] In addition, this third story implies that the military’s second story, which it had been telling for almost three years, was almost entirely false. If our military leaders were lying to us all that time, why should we believe them now? And if our military is lying to us, must we not assume that it is doing so to cover up its own guilt?

Maybe you can save time and just post the link to the site you're copy pasta from?
Did you even bother to check any of the facts it claims?

And as for NORAD standing down, maybe you (I say you, but we both know that means you copying from some crank)can shown what they should have done and how they should have done it.

Chriskavo

You haven't asked me tons of questions but feel free to and I will answer them, I do believe that I have answered of them. As for getting this information of websites - not at all. I have done my own research and read many books on the subject.

Chriskavo

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe you can save time and just post the link to the site you're copy pasta from?
Did you even bother to check any of the facts it claims?

And as for NORAD standing down, maybe you (I say you, but we both know that means you copying from some crank)can shown what they should have done and how they should have done it.

The 911 commision changed its story three times- have you read the piece.

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

You haven't asked me tons of questions but feel free to and I will answer them, I do believe that I have answered of them. As for getting this information of websites - not at all. I have done my own research and read many books on the subject.

Really, cause alot of these claims are the same old debunked nonsense every site repeats unquestioningly.

As for questions you're ignoring.

King Mob wrote: »

The question have you?
Can you actually supply anything from that paper that actually shows it was a blueprint for a conspiracy? (Other than that one "Pearl harbour" bit that is always taken out of context.)

And further more can you explain why they would admit to being involved in such a conspiracy in a document freely available on their own website?


And this is impossible because?
How many times where jetliners used as missiles?
How many times where several jets hijacked at once?
Did you know that every single other hijacking attempt was dealt with after the plane lands?

Since you are a skeptic you'll be able to tell us what sort of evidence or reason that would convince you that 9/11 wasn't some vast global conspiracy, right?

King Mob wrote: »

So can you explain why an internal police force would be gathering information on someone not in the country?
Can you explain that if this was a vast conspiracy why don't the FBI fabricate the evidence? Or at lest just say they have it?
Why would they admit something like this at all?


But let's ignore reality for a sec and say it was evidence of a conspiracy, why is it on their website?

You have not even acknowledged these questions.

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

The 911 commision changed its story three times- have you read the piece.

I did. It seems to mistake general confusion for evil conspiracy. It offers nothing to support it self.
And again you ignore questions.

Chriskavo

The PNAC Plan:

Also as a result of the end of the Cold War the Pentagon's funding was being cut because they no longer had an enemy to justify their massive budget. In response Dick Cheney's conservative think tank "The Project for a New American Century," (PNAC) submitted their manifesto, "Rebuilding America's Defenses". This report suggests that although "the United States faces no global rival," (p.i) the U.S. military should prepare "to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars,"(mission outlines) and set up "an enduring American military presence" (p.74) in the Persian Gulf, including Afghanistan and Iraq. Chapter 5 admits this would take a long time,"absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

3. First Actions as Vice President:

Dick Cheney then selects himself to run as George W. Bush's Vice President in a campaign largely funded by Enron. Shortly after the Supreme Court's intervention made Cheney the VP, he reopened the pipeline negotiations with the Taliban but the original financial offer was now accompanied by threats of military action if the pipeline was not allowed. The Taliban was told, "You either accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs!"

According to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, in their very first National Security Council meeting Bush and Cheney began brainstorming ideas for how to start a war in Iraq, and Judicial Watch has exposed secret maps drawn up by Cheney's Energy Task Force in March of 2001 detailing Iraq's oil industries size and estimated value.

4. Ignored Warnings:

The Bush Administration received dozens of detailed warnings of an impending al-Qaida attack, which included method, likely targets, and names of people involved, from many international and domestic intelligence agencies. Yet all of these warnings were systematically blocked, suppressed, or ignored by the Bush Administration.

5. Obstructed Investigations:

Instead of investigating these warnings President Bush signed presidential directive W199I protecting members of the Bin Laden family and telling FBI Agents and defense intelligence officers to back off from al-Qaida related investigations. Although debunkers will argue the validity of the W199I directive, the testimonies of FBI counterterror chief John O'Neill, field officer Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit of the Minnesota FBI, translator Sibel Edmonds, Anthony Shaffer of Able Danger, and prosecutor David Shippers indicate a concerted high level effort to protect domestic terrorists.

6. Wargame Drills Scheduled for 9/11:

In May, 2001 President Bush put Dick Cheney in charge of the "Office of National Preparedness" charged with protecting America from domestic attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, and managing training exercises throughout all military agencies in preparation for such an attack. It was later revealed that multiple military exercises, remarkably similar to the 9/11 attack, were scheduled for the morning of September 11, 2001. Although military officials refuse to confirm who managed to schedule these drills during the very time of the real attack, these drills would clearly fall under Cheney's jurisdiction.

7. Changes in Military Procedures:

There were already Standard Operating Procedures set in place well before 9/11 concerning how to respond to the hijacking of commercial flights. As soon as any flight goes off course or looses contact with the controllers, the FAA immediately contacts NORAD who scrambles fighters to intercept. This happens on a regular basis. From September 2000 to June 2001, 67 planes steered off course. All 67 times our air defense systems worked as they should, and interceptors were launched.Yet in June of 2001 these procedures are altered to require approval from Secretary of Defense before NORAD could respond with "potentially lethal support", ( launching combat aircraft ), to an emergency call.

8. Afghan Invasion Plans Finalized:

Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Niaz Naik, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October despite having no Congressional approval for any military action. September 9, two days before the attack, the final plans to go to war against the Taliban to begin in October were ready for President Bush to sign in to action. It is critical to point out that without the 9/11 attack the Bush administration would not have had justification to use this plan, yet they continue to claim they had no advance warning about 9/11.

9. Connection to 9/11 Sponsor:

According to the FBI the chief of ISI -Pakistani Intelligence, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, approved over $100,000 in wire transfers to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta as payment for the attacks. During the week of the attack Gen. Ahmed is visiting Washington where he had meetings with Colin Powell, Richard Armatige, CIA Director George Tennant, Porter Goss and other Bush administration officials. The media and the 9/11 Commission both refuse to acknowledge this man who funded the attack or investigate his meetings with Bush officials.

10. Day of the Attack:

While the 9/11 Commission fails to mention the military wargame drills in progress during the attack or the changes in NORAD's hijack interception procedures, they also ignore or distort the many other anomalies concerning the day of the attack including the absence of top officials from their posts, the contradicting stories from NORAD and the FAA, the arrival time of Dick Cheney to the PEOC bunker, and the time that shoot down authorization is announced.

11. Afghanistan Invasion:

The September 11 attack gave Bush and Cheney the very pretext they needed to use the awaiting war plans under the pretext of getting Osama Bin Laden for the attack. Although the Taliban agreed to apprehend Bin Laden on the condition the U.S. would provide evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11, the Bush Administration ignores this request and the invasion starts right on schedule in October.

According to the FBI, to this day the Bush administration has yet to present any hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to the 9/11 attack. This means that the invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified and violates international law.

Despite the claim that the invasion of Afghanistan was to apprehend Bin Laden, the U.S. military allows Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan while many al-Qaida soldiers are allowed to escape capture by a Pakistan airlift.

The Taliban was quickly overthrown and the Bush Administration picks Afghanistan's new president, Harmid Karzai, who was a consultant for Unocal. Less than a year later the 3.2 billion dollar pipeline through Afghanistan began construction.

12. Obstructed Investigations:

For 14 months the Bush administration was able to hinder and obstruct any public investigation of the attack. According to Senator Tom Daschle, both the President and the Vice President lobby him for no 9/11 investigation. Dick Cheney even threatens Congressional Democrats with "interfering with the war on terror" if they press for a 9/11 investigation.

When the 9/11 Commission was finally formed, it was rife with conflicts of interest and severely underfunded. Bush and Cheney refuse to testify unless they are questioned by the commission together, behind closed doors, without being taped, without taking an oath, and with no records kept. The final report is filled with dozens of factual omissions and distortions.

13. There is no doubt that the Bush Administration has used 9/11 to justify it's policy of military aggression along with an unprecedented level of power and secrecy. They then used false evidence to expand the war into Iraq.

All of this information taken together builds a compelling case that members of the Bush administration, namely Dick Cheney, at the very least knew the 9/11 attack was coming and took steps to insure it's success for personal and political benefit. Dick Cheney had a clear motive for the attack, was in a position to facilitate the attack, and is implicated by evidence and witness testimony of involvement. One must only ask why this information is not public knowledge and why formal charges have yet be made against him.

KING MOB :

Very compelling stuff, and shockingly only a portion of the non-scientific evidence publicly available. We also have the issues of insider trading, FAA tapes and CIA interrogation tapes being destroyed on purpose, dubious evidence relating to the hijackers, the fact that Hani Hanjour, who is said to have flown flight 77 into the Pentagon, and pulled off the most complex maneuvers of the day, was a terrible pilot, the un-Islamic behavior of the hijackers, reports of the airplane black boxes being found at ground zero, which contradicts the official story which says they were not found, reports that the father of alleged lead hijacker Mohammed Atta spoke to him on September 12th, 9/11 family member Patty Casazza stating that whistleblowers told her the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets, it is just staggering. And I could go on for a bit with more points still.

robindch

Chriskavo wrote: »

I have done my own research and read many books on the subject.

As a matter of forum policy, there's a fine line between, on the one hand, encouraging Skeptical debate concerning matters of public interest and, on the other hand, allowing people to post pages of unsupported, unscientific views gleaned from crank websites and other staples of the paranoid conspiracy literature. The first is what this forum is for, the latter is best left in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

So far, you've provided little more than huge chunks of cut'n'pasted quotes that are as free of context as they are of any hint of skepticism. And neither have you replied with anything of any substance to King Mob's questions.

This isn't a conversation, it's a sermon and does not suggest to me that you have any interest in skepticism. So could I please suggest that you spend some time reading up on on what [url=scientific skepticism is, and then come back to us if you feel it's appropriate.

And so we have the perfect example of how conspiracy theorists debate.
They bring up long debunked "facts" then ignore any criticisms of those facts and throw out even more "facts", out of context quotes and complete non sequiters.

You've refused to answer any of my questions and instead opted for the usual style of the crank.
you've inadvertently answer one however.

Since you are a skeptic you'll be able to tell us what sort of evidence or reason that would convince you that 9/11 wasn't some vast global conspiracy, right?

It's clear that no amount of evidence or reasoning will change your mind, therefore you are not a skeptic.

I tell you what though, if you're interested in an actual debate instead of shouting dubious facts at me, how about this.
You offer one singular point of information you believe is irrefutable and definite proof of a conspiracy and we will both focus on that one point?

Chriskavo

I thought a sceptic was a person who through their own observations and insight questioned what was given as fact. You however, contrary to scepticism follow the official government version of what happened on 911 despite the fact that 6 of the 10 commissioners (and skeptics) dont. The FBI has Obama Bin Laden top of their most wanted list but nowhere is it mentioned that he is wanted in connection with 911. Why?.. and you have not answered that question but throw it back to me in a twist of distortion and prevarication.You cant answer that question - thats why. You deny NIST failure to explain the collapse of WTC7 even though it is stated on their own website.Their are many many more discrepencies in that commissions and ommisions including the fact that some of the alleged hijackers were still alive, Dick Cheneys stand down order,Hani Hanoors poor piloting skills, the refusal to reveal clear comprehensive footage of the plane hitting the pentagon, the passports of some of the hijackers turning up safe and sound despite the fact that we were told that he planes were literally vaporised on impact with the buildings. We also have witness testimony of ' large explosions' being heard in the sub basement areas BEFORE the second plane hit and many many more.The media report of building sevens collapse an hour before it occured. The office of emergency managements call to Rudy Guillianis office telling them to evacuate because a building was going to explode some six hrs before it did- (WTC7) Richard Gage a very respected architect has gotten the signatures of 1000s of scientist, engineers and architects who want to see the investigation reopened. Now as the skeptic you claim to be - how does all of his reason with you. As a skeptic?.. did you believe the Bush government when they said Iraq had weapons of mas destruction? Did you go along willingly when they tried and failed to connect Saddam to the 911 attacks? Okay maybe you didn't and your proven skills of skepticism were on the alert for those ones...yet you are prepared to accept hook line and sinker their version of 911.

Chriskavo

King Mob wrote: »

And so we have the perfect example of how conspiracy theorists debate.
They bring up long debunked "facts" then ignore any criticisms of those facts and throw out even more "facts", out of context quotes and complete non sequiters.

You've refused to answer any of my questions and instead opted for the usual style of the crank.
you've inadvertently answer one however.

It's clear that no amount of evidence or reasoning will change your mind, therefore you are not a skeptic.

I tell you what though, if you're interested in an actual debate instead of shouting dubious facts at me, how about this.
You offer one singular point of information you believe is irrefutable and definite proof of a conspiracy and we will both focus on that one point?

The rejection of Ted Olsens story (where he recieved a phone call from his wife from the hijacked plane) by American Airlines, the Pentagon and especially the FBI.

robindch

Chriskavo wrote: »

I thought a sceptic was a person who through their own observations and insight questioned what was given as fact.

Your definition doesn't distinguish between somebody who adheres to Scientific Skepticism (see my previous email for a rough and ready definition of what that is) and a Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist (somebody who creates what is frequently a very vivid internal mental image of a fictional alternate reality, usually one in which the beliefs of the general population are controlled by a small number of hyperpolitical operators for their own nefarious, and often contradictory, ends).

In what you've posted so far, I've seen you produce none of your "own observations and insight", but instead, simply pages of text pasted -- I assume pretty much directly -- from somewhere else.

Even by your own faulty definition, that's not "scepticism".

Chriskavo

robindch wrote: »

As a matter of forum policy, there's a fine line between, on the one hand, encouraging Skeptical debate concerning matters of public interest and, on the other hand, allowing people to post pages of unsupported, unscientific views gleaned from crank websites and other staples of the paranoid conspiracy literature. The first is what this forum is for, the latter is best left in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

So far, you've provided little more than huge chunks of cut'n'pasted quotes that are as free of context as they are of any hint of skepticism. And neither have you replied with anything of any substance to King Mob's questions.

This isn't a conversation, it's a sermon and does not suggest to me that you have any interest in skepticism. So could I please suggest that you spend some time reading up on on what [url=scientific skepticism is, and then come back to us if you feel it's appropriate.

It was not gleaned from paranoid conspiracy literature - another popular ad hominen attack made against people who dare question 911.I have as I said earlier done my own independent research and read many books and critically acclaimed I might add on the subject. Ans with all respect for fear of being banned - was this not a debate between myself and King Mob? who Is allowed to post links from so called debunking websites.

Chriskavo

robindch wrote: »

Your definition doesn't distinguish between somebody who adheres to Scientific Skepticism (see my previous email for a rough and ready definition of what that is) and a Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist (somebody who creates what is frequently a very vivid internal mental image of a fictional alternate reality, usually one in which the beliefs of the general population are controlled by a small number of hyperpolitical operators for their own nefarious, and often contradictory, ends).

In what you've posted so far, I've seen you produce none of your "own observations and insight", but instead, simply pages of text pasted -- I assume pretty much directly -- from somewhere else.

Even by your own faulty definition, that's not "scepticism".

Scientific scepticism hmmmm.. and yet you believe a conspiracy which defies all known laws of physics - the collapse of building 7. Perhaps you can enlighten me and answer the question I have posed to King Mobs challenge i.e the rejection of Ted Olsens story by he FBI?

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

I thought a sceptic was a person who through their own observations and insight questioned what was given as fact.

Nope. It's someone who bases their beliefs on evaluation of empirical evidence.

Chriskavo wrote: »

You however, contrary to scepticism follow the official government version of what happened on 911 despite the fact that 6 of the 10 commissioners dont.

1. The offical version is actually support by evidence. And those commissioners didn't say they doubted that the US was attacked from an external threat.
You were just taking the quotes out of context.

Chriskavo wrote: »

The FBI has Obama Bin Laden top of their most wanted list but nowhere is it mentioned that he is wanted in connection with 911. Why?.. and you have not answered that question but throw it back to me in a twist of distortion and prevarication. You cant answer that question - thats why.

I did, you ignored it.
The FBI is an internal police force, catching Osama isn't their department, it's the CIA's and the Military's.
But if they are in on the conspiracy why don't they fabricate the evidence?

Chriskavo wrote: »

You deny NIST failure to explain the collapse of WTC7 even though it is stated on their own website.Their are many many more discrepencies in that commissions and ommisions

So then I take it you haven't actually looked at the website I posted? Which shows the exact opposite?

Chriskavo wrote: »

including the fact that some of the alleged hijackers were still alive,

They weren't, it's a long debunked myth.

Chriskavo wrote: »

Dick Cheneys stand down order,

Never happened, I dare you to provide evidence for it.

Chriskavo wrote: »

Hani Hanoors poor piloting skills,

Another out of context quote. He was crap at landing, taking off and communicating with the tower. None of which he needed.

Chriskavo wrote: »

the refusal to reveal clear comprehensive footage of the plane hitting the pentagon,

And?
If it was a conspiracy why wasn't this faked?

Chriskavo wrote: »

the passports of some of the hijackers turning up safe and sound despite the fact that we were told that he planes were literally vaporised on impact with the buildings.

So they'll plant this evidence but not other forms?
And why exactly is it impossible for small light passports to be blown away from the fires?

Chriskavo wrote: »

We also have witness testimony of ' large explosions' being heard in the sub basement areas BEFORE the second plane hit and many many more.

And as we all know witness testimony is always flawless and never wrong.
But somehow I bet all those people who saw a plane into the pentagon don't count.

Chriskavo wrote: »

The media report of building sevens collapse an hour before it occured.

One I wasn't hours it was 20 minutes. And it was one mention once. During a time when no one knew what was going on.
And at that stage the firefighters had abandoned the building because they knew it was about to collapse.

Chriskavo wrote: »

The office of emergency managements call to Rudy Guillianis office telling them to evacuate because a building was going to explode some six hrs before it did- (WTC7)

Again complete bull****.

Chriskavo wrote: »

Richard Gage a very respected architect has gotten the signatures of 1000s of scientist, engineers and architects who want to see the investigation reopened.

Richard Gage pretends to be a very respected architect.
And 1000s of experts disargee with the bull**** theories, but you seem to ignore them.

Chriskavo wrote: »

Now as the skeptic you claim to be - how does all of his reason with you.

Because all the conspiracy nuts have are made up facts, logical fallacies, rumours, pseudo-science and an amazing ability to ignore facts and their own hypocrisy.

How does it gel with you to ignore all my questions yet still pretend you're interested in the truth?

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

The rejection of Ted Olsens story (where he recieved a phone call from his wife from the hijacked plane) by American Airlines, the Pentagon and especially the FBI.

So hang on....

That's your single piece of evidence that proves 9/11?

Wow, you must be very easy to convince.

All I can find about this guy is some pityful out of context quotes and arguments from incredulity

You might want to pick a subject less laughable.

Chriskavo

They(media) were told the building was going to collapse. Not true and CNN reported its collapse close to an hour beforehand, the BBC about 20 minutes. The fact that no steel structured building had ever collapsed due to fire and the fact that their were other buildings with far worse damage and fire infernoes raging in them - how come the media or anyone else for that matter kno that this particular building was going to collapse. The bankers trust building which was up right next to the south tower recieved far more substantial damage from falling debris and had raging infernoes in a dozen floors yet did not collapse.

Sceptic - sceptic archaic and US, skeptic [ˈskɛptɪk]
n
1. (Philosophy) a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc., in general
3. (Philosophy) a person who doubts the truth of religion, esp Christianity
adj
(Philosophy) of or relating to sceptics; sceptical
[from Latin scepticus, from Greek skeptikos one who reflects upon, from skeptesthai to consider]
scepticism archaic and US, skepticism n

I question and doubt the official 911 theory , that certainly makes me more of a skeptic than you.

Chriskavo

King Mob wrote: »

So hang on....

That's your single piece of evidence that proves 9/11?

Wow, you must be very easy to convince.

All I can find about this guy is some pityful out of context quotes and arguments from incredulity

You might want to pick a subject less laughable.

Answer the question
- The rejection of Ted Olsens story by A.A, The Pentagon and the FBI is of the utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olsen then their is no evidece that flight 77 returned to Washington. The fact that his story has also been contradicted by defenders of the offical story like yourself provides grounds for demanding a new investigation in my book. That little piece of evidence as you sneeringly put warrants a new 911 investigation.

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

They(media) were told the building was going to collapse. Not true and CNN reported its collapse close to an hour beforehand, the BBC about 20 minutes.

And it's impossible they just got it wrong because.....?

Chriskavo wrote: »

The fact that no steel structured building had ever collapsed due to fire and the fact that their were other buildings with far worse damage and fire infernoes raging in them -

And how many building of that exact size and design where subjected to those exact conditions?

Chriskavo wrote: »

how come the media or anyone else for that matter kno that this particular building was going to collapse.

Because the firefighters told them? And I would hope firefighters know when a building is going to collapse.

Chriskavo wrote: »

The bankers trust building which was up right next to the south tower recieved far more substantial damage from falling debris and had raging infernoes in a dozen floors yet did not collapse.

So it was the exact same building as WTC7?

Chriskavo wrote: »

Sceptic - sceptic archaic and US, skeptic [ˈskɛptɪk]
n
1. (Philosophy) a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc., in general
3. (Philosophy) a person who doubts the truth of religion, esp Christianity
adj
(Philosophy) of or relating to sceptics; sceptical
[from Latin scepticus, from Greek skeptikos one who reflects upon, from skeptesthai to consider]
scepticism archaic and US, skepticism n

So it's safe to assume you didn't look at that link describing scientific skepticism?
Particularly the difference between classical metaphysical skepticism and modern scientific skepticism

Chriskavo wrote: »

I question and doubt the official 911 theory , that certainly makes me more of a skeptic than you.

No you parrot the questions and doubt of cranks you bought into without question and doubt.
Answer honestly, have you even tried to verify any of the nonsense you copy pasted?

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

Answer the question

You didn't ask one.
Is it "why are there inconsistencies in his story?"

And my points still stand, because you are relying on out of context quotes and arguments from incredulity.

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

Explain to me why the FBI rejects Ted Olsens story - I have given my reason. Give me yours. Should be fun.

No you haven't given any reasons.

How do you even know his story is rejected?

And how does this prove beyond doubt that 9/11 was an inside job?

Chriskavo

King Mob wrote: »

No you haven't given any reasons.

How do you even know his story is rejected?

And how does this prove beyond doubt that 9/11 was an inside job?

Answer the question
- The rejection of Ted Olsens story by A.A, The Pentagon and the FBI is of the utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olsen then their is no evidece that flight 77 returned to Washington. The fact that his story has also been contradicted by defenders of the offical story like yourself provides grounds for demanding a new investigation in my book. That little piece of evidence as you sneeringly put warrants a new 911 investigation.

It was rejected by the FBI at evidence given at the trial of Zacarius Moussaoui - the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

By A.Airlines -A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

So King Mob please explain this to me with that unique skeptical mind of yours?

Chriskavo

Chriskavo wrote: »

Answer the question

Again, you haven't asked one.

Chriskavo wrote: »

- The rejection of Ted Olsens story by A.A, The Pentagon and the FBI is of the utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olsen then their is no evidece that flight 77 returned to Washington. The fact that his story has also been contradicted by defenders of the offical story like yourself provides grounds for demanding a new investigation in my book. That little piece of evidence as you sneeringly put warrants a new 911 investigation.

Well you realise that wasn't the only evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the pentagon right?

Chriskavo wrote: »

It was rejected by the FBI at evidence given at the trial of Zacarius Moussaoui - the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

And can you actually back this up in any way? Or are we just to take the word of the nameless website you keep copy pasting from?

Chriskavo wrote: »

By A.Airlines -A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

Again back this up.
And it's entirely possible that cell phone work on airplanes. Can you show otherwise?

But clear up something, are you saying that the phone calls where faked?
If this is the case then why did they then reject the story seeing as it's the only evidence the plane was over Washington?
That doesn't make any sense.

Chriskavo

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you haven't asked one.


Well you realise that wasn't the only evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the pentagon right?

And can you actually back this up in any way? Or are we just to take the word of the nameless website you keep copy pasting from?


Again back this up.
And it's entirely possible that cell phone work on airplanes. Can you show otherwise?

But clear up something, are you saying that the phone calls where faked?
If this is the case then why did they then reject the story seeing as it's the only evidence the plane was over Washington?
That doesn't make any sense.

You are funny lol! The technology didnt exist then to make calls from cell phones. It has only been made available recently. indeed some planes today have just put the technology in place. In 2001, it was impossible. Period.Check out the transcripts from the Massasoui trial for yourself , how much more evidence do you need. Anytime I post a reply, you just answer with a broad denial or with puerile statements like "B***S**". If its not that its accusations of copying and pasting from websites or just plain refusal to accept facts. Again some sceptic you are - if the government says its true then it must be true lol.

But clear up something, are you saying that the phone calls where faked?
If this is the case then why did they then reject the story seeing as it's the only evidence the plane was over Washington?
That doesn't make any sense My point exactly and why this important question that you so eloquently and correctly posed needs to be answered by a new independent 911 investigation.

King Mob - Here is a link including details of calls etc : (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).