'Hi Mom. It's Me, Mark Bingham.'

Originally posted by litterbaux
reply to post by olliemc84

 

He is mistaken or the washingtonpost.com is lieing.

I really don't know who to trust but here is the flight paths that Washington Post has pictured.

The first plane did come down the Hudson. The second didn't. There is no way your grandfather saw the second plane like he said because it came from south west. Maybe grandpa has bionic eyes or he's just telling fish stories.

Ronald Lauder, the chairman of the New York State Commission of Privatization and the New York State Research Council on Privatization, wrote a book in 1992 called “Privatization for New York: Competing for a Better Future.” In 1994, Zionist Lauder suggested to New York Governor George Pataki, whom he had given excessive donations to (48), that privatizing airports would bring in huge revenue for New York. Pataki, intrigued by the idea, commissioned Lauder to bring his ambitious proposal to life. Lauder had his sights set on Stewart Airport in Newburgh, New York. On March 31st, 2000, Lauder vaunted that New York became the first state in the nation to privatize a commercial airport, awarding the contract to UK-based National Express Group, which at the time, was owned by Zionist William Rollason (49). Stewart Airport, is where the paths of Flight 175 and Flight 11 oddly and chillingly converged on 9/11 (50).

Source

Point A is the approximate location of the overlap. Point A is the location of New Windsor, New York. This also happens to be the location of the Stewart Air National Guard Base (aka Stewart Air Force Base, aka Stewart International Airport).

Not only did AA 11 and UA 175 both fly over New Windsor, NY, but they both flew over it at the same time, supposedly almost crashing into each other. This is an unlikely coincidence, since it would be far more likely that if the paths taken from Boston to New York crossed, that the planes would not cross paths at the same time. This occurred at approximately 8:36 am

Source

It was my uncle, not grandfather.

And maybe he did see both planes at the same time.

Originally posted by Tholidor
While there are many things about that day which cast serious doubt on the "official story", I don't really see the Mark Bingham call as being one of them.

Telephone protocols quickly become habitual over time. In this case, it has been stated that Mr. Bingham was in an occupation wherein he initiated and recieved many phone calls per day. In a business setting, it quickly becomes second nature to identify yourself by both first and last name when using the phone. Even under normal circumstances this learned behavior quickly becomes automatic. Under stress this hard-wired procedure is almost impossible to avoid no matter who you are calling.

Case in point: As Air Traffic Controllers we were trained to end every call on the landline/intercom with our two letter "operating initials" (usually first and last initial of our names). This was for ID purposes should the communication tapes need to be reviewed after an incident. It took almost six months (and a LOT of kidding from friends and family) after leaving the job for me to stop ending every phone call with "WB".

It really does not matter where Mr. Binghams mom was when she received the call, as it has been stated that the call was made to HER mobile phone.

Again, there were so many suspicious occurances on 9/11 that it is hard to list them but the Bingham phone call doesn't seem to be one of them in my opinion.

edit on 2-3-2012 by Tholidor because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2012 by Tholidor because: (no reason given)

I agree with most of your post but it is not correct that Mark Bingham's calls were to his mother's mobile phone. They were to Vaughn Hoglan's home phone. He is Mark Bingham's uncle and Mark obviously knew his mother would be there at that time. Would the super secret government agents know though ? and how ?

reply to post by Pigraphia


Your point is well taken. In the early 90's I had the opportunity to spend 8 hours at United Airlines flight simulator training facility in Denver, CO. "flying" the B-747 and B-727 sims. I was surprised that, even in those days, they were turning out fully qualified and certified First Officers who had never even been inside the cockpit of the aircraft upon which they were certified.

Also, for many years now the FAA has allowed pilots to log 25% of MS Flight Simulator time towards instrument proficiency requirements.

I do, however, question the ability of someone who can't even demonstrate basic proficiency in a Cessna being able to perform complex manuevers in a B-757 using only consumer grade simulator software. Perhaps not impossible but certainly very improbable.

Originally posted by Tholidor

I do, however, question the ability of someone who can't even demonstrate basic proficiency in a Cessna being able to perform complex manuevers in a B-757 using only consumer grade simulator software. Perhaps not impossible but certainly very improbable.

What exctly is so complex about crashing an airplane? I'm not a pilot and even I could do it.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


How do you know that?

I agree totally with the OP.

Watching the events of the day live at the time, my immediate thought was --- they're doing controlled demolitions, whoever "they" are. To this day, there's nothing that will change my mind. Those were controlled demolitions.

Also, I believe the WTC planes and 93 were unmanned drones full of flammables, while the Pentagon "plane" was a guided missile.

Inside job, folks! Sometime in the future, historians will look back at this and the JFK hit and agree that these were black ops all the way. Inside jobs.

The spooky part of it is --- who knows what they did with the real planes and passengers? They were obviously done away with in such a way that there is absolutely no trace of them now. What we need on that angle of the story is a good old-fashioned whistle blower.

Originally posted by switching yard
I agree totally with the OP.

Watching the events of the day live at the time, my immediate thought was --- they're doing controlled demolitions, whoever "they" are. To this day, there's nothing that will change my mind. Those were controlled demolitions.

They were and they weren't "controlled"

The buildings was actually designed to collapse like that if it was ever severely weakened.
This was done as a safety issue because they were so freaking tall surrounded by other tall buildings.

There were break away columns built in, there were shear bolts designed to fail, even explosives in key areas that would detonate under certain pre programed conditions.
Even the support of the building a spider web of cables instead of giant metal beams was designed to pull the building in should it ever fail.

Outside the Engineering world not many people know that though so when they see the buildings come down it looks planned.

I have never once in my life ever addressed either of my parents in such a manner. Just another turd added to the bucket of BS.

Originally posted by Pigraphia


Thinking back I've actually said "Ma it's (my name)" before when I am totally out of it.

l.

And if you're being honest and not toss bull to bolster your opinion, I will BET, with every fiber of my being that you did NOT use your last name.

So what will it be?
The truth (you said your first name only)
or
The bull (you referred to yourself, to your mother....when you were 'out of it' by both first and last)?

Did you also happen to question whether she 'believed you or not' like Mark did?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Tholidor

I do, however, question the ability of someone who can't even demonstrate basic proficiency in a Cessna being able to perform complex manuevers in a B-757 using only consumer grade simulator software. Perhaps not impossible but certainly very improbable.

What exctly is so complex about crashing an airplane? I'm not a pilot and even I could do it.

Ah, come on Dave!! That's comes near to being the dumbest comment you have posted on a 911 thread. What a waste of bandwidth. Granted, not much bandwidth, but a waste none-the-less.

reply to post by Wide-Eyes

Apparently he knows everything (except what happened on 9-11).

Originally posted by dubiousone

 

Ah, come on Dave!! That's comes near to being the dumbest comment you have posted on a 911 thread. What a waste of bandwidth. Granted, not much bandwidth, but a waste none-the-less.

...and yet the question still stands- what exactly is so complex about crashing an airplane? The truthers are notorious for chanting "complex and intricate flight maneuvers" and "exceptionally lucky pilots" like they were religious mantras, but the most complex and intricate thing the hijackers did was to fly a plane in a circle. As for being exceptionally lucky, they crashed a plane and were all killed. This is about as "lucky" as a drunk guy crashing his car into a telephone pole.

If you think this is stupid for me to point out, don't blame me. All I'm doing is stripping the flowery prose and eloquent verbosity those damned fool conspiracy web sites use to sucker people into swallowing their drivel, because at the end of the day, a bunch of inexperienced pilots hijacked a number of airplanes and wound up crashing them. What did you expect would happen, that they would fly up into outer space?

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
I have never once in my life ever addressed either of my parents in such a manner. Just another turd added to the bucket of BS.

So know all you have to prove is that no one else, in the modern history of telecommunications, has ever addressed a close relative on the phone using their last name.

I'll be waiting.

But don't bother. I do it on occasion. Have a cousin with the same first name. When I talk to my folks I sometimes have to use my last name because we sound a little a like on the phone.

reply to post by Human_Alien


I didn't say my last name.
I've never had a job where I've had to say my full name just my first and a company greeting, or a company line or w/e.

I find it very funny that you are willing to believe that in the giant conspiracy they would skimp when it comes to writing the scripts.
Yet you find it impossible that someone could say their entire name.
There are far to many things that could go into that, and the fact that you are willing to ignore them in favor of a grand conspiracy is illogical.

If this call was part of a conspiracy they would have gotten it right.
Hell they would have prerecorded it and used a program to auto respond based on the best possible responses if they got a live person.

I also find your whole Either tell the Truth or Lie very immature, argumentative, and insulting.
It's one thing to debate the merits of something it's another to give ultimatums and per-imptive accusations.
If you're not going to approach a debate/conversation like an adult don't bother.

Originally posted by Pigraphia

Originally posted by switching yard
I agree totally with the OP.

Watching the events of the day live at the time, my immediate thought was --- they're doing controlled demolitions, whoever "they" are. To this day, there's nothing that will change my mind. Those were controlled demolitions.

They were and they weren't "controlled"

The buildings was actually designed to collapse like that if it was ever severely weakened.
This was done as a safety issue because they were so freaking tall surrounded by other tall buildings.

There were break away columns built in, there were shear bolts designed to fail, even explosives in key areas that would detonate under certain pre programed conditions.
Even the support of the building a spider web of cables instead of giant metal beams was designed to pull the building in should it ever fail.

Outside the Engineering world not many people know that though so when they see the buildings come down it looks planned.

i have never read or heard that info before. is there somewhere i can research that? it's the one thing that always bothered me about the whole thing. i never believed was government planned but i had suspected that bombs were placed inside the building by the terrorists. i will always believe bush had information beforehand but chose to ignore it. that's the only conspiracy i believe regarding 9/11... that bush was/is an idiot and thought an attack would be a way for him to go to war.

reply to post by hooper


Careful now you are asking people be reasonable and use logic.
It's far safer to believe something more complex and less likely than a simple solution.

That's another thing, the conspiracies say it's logical and more simple to have the conspiracy.
No the conspiracy is needlessly convoluted.

I'm willing to admit there are things about 9/11 we may never know, but to hang the proverbial hat on this of all things is really out there.

reply to post by pasiphae


I really wish I knew the articles of the top of my head, but they were from a Materials Science class years ago.
My professor had done calculations on similar buildings and brought in the papers/articles/journals to show us.
He was making the point that through knowledge and manipulation of known material properties the seemingly impossible can be done.

If you have access to a college library database you could search it "safe demolition via construction design" would be a good search term to start it off.
I'll try to remember search terms that will bring it up, but without access to the database you would have to buy the out of print journals.

I will add looking it up to my list of things to do, I have a library assignment that requires using the same databases.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I noticed that you're very persistent and unrelenting with your views, very admirable. I've always wondered why some people care so much about what others think of 911.

I applaud your convictions, however I disagree with your one-sided analytical approach.

reply to post by L00kingGlass

I noticed that you're very persistent and unrelenting with your views, very admirable. I've always wondered why some people care so much about what others think of 911.

Look no farther than the Norway mass killings.
Some people get so worked up over perceived injustice that they lose it and do something stupid.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


"It's not a question of 'ow 'e GRIPS it! It's a question of airspeed velocity!" (Sorry - had a Monte Python flashback..LOL)

But similar to that, it's not a question of how to hit the ground with an airplane, it's a question of how to keep it flying until you get to where you want to crash. Without the autopilot, hand flying a heavy jet aircraft is a delicate balancing act at best. For example: On a B-707 at cruise speed at 33K feet, 1 degree of yoke deflection aft or forward produces an almost instantaneous 1000 ft/min climb or descent.

I will grant you that a reasonably in-depth knowledge of the Flight Director/Autopilot system, allowing for the creation of waypoints, altitudes at which to cross the waypoints etc. would make it possible to navigate to the towers successfully. However even that would not account for the precision 270 degree descending turn required in the case of the Pentagon strike.