It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Screw Loose Change" video

page: 11
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by nt327

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by blatantblue
i dont get it
i didnt give explinations about fake ids. i said the fbi was doubtful, thinking the hijackers used fake ids, then cemented their belief later on, and said THOSE were the guys.
the whole fake id thing is speculation

so if everything is speculation we dont know for sure who it was.
so if they used faked id's we for sure dont know who the real atackers are
so with out any evidence how come up to this conclusion.




bro youre not backing up much. im just supposed to take your word for it

FBI statement


So, one fact is apparent. If those who hijacked the 9/11 airplanes were using stolen identities, then we don't know who they were or who they worked for. We can't. It's impossible.

They dont even know who did it.



if they did use them, you can still find out who they are! you have them on video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On video where in the plane?
No matter if they were arabs, the question remains, from 100 pasanger list how do you know they did it?
Or are you insisting that just for the fact that they are arabs they did it.
Because there is no evidence of arabs crashing the plane in to the building, it could of been any one from the pasanger list.
Even if they board the plane it does not prove anything, it just proves they are passangers.
So how do you prove they crashed the plane?
1 they are all dead, you cant ask them, hey did you crash it.
it's being inocent untilproven guilty.
There is no evidence.


There IS evidence that the arabs hijacked the planes. Phone calls made from the passengers described them as middle eastern. On flight 93, one of the terrorists is heard saying he has a bomb and tells the passengers to sit down. The voice heard was a middle eastern accent, and when flight 93 crashed, the black box was found and the cockpit voice recorded, and you could hear the sounds of the pilots and passengers fighting, and the pilots shouting in arabic. I'd say thats solid proof.

There are a few problems with your statement.
1 Cell fones dont work up at higer altitudes.
2 If they were so terified of the terorists how come they were able to make calls, this is the first time in history when pasangers from a hijacked airplane are alowed to make fone calls.
3 Material of the black box was never relised, if they have it I would like to hear it.
When you look at it it smells fishy, again coincidences ocur like the whole 911.
In fact most of the 911 factors ocur by coincidence.
And you know, in some countrys I dont know if united states, voice recording is not reconised as proof, because voices can be faked, so if you record some one and go to cort with it, it is not reconised.
So I would say, where is the proof again?


1. airphones by verizon
2. they thought they were going to die so they called their familes to tell them they loved them one last time.
3. i suppose you mean released, why do YOU need to hear it?? who are YOU to need to hear it?
in every country voice recording is recognized as proof, please tell me what proof you are looking for...thus far you seem the least educated and stupidest person in this post




posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   


1. airphones by verizon

The problem is that they also made calls by cell fones which is kind of imposible.



2. they thought they were going to die so they called their familes to tell them they loved them one last time.

Note, this is the first time when terrorists on a hijacked airplane alow people to make fone calls , just add another coincidence, epecialy when they would reqire to remain sielent,remeber they turned off their transponder to avaoid contact ,to avoid being intercepted, I would say It's coincidence day again.


in every country voice recording is recognized as proof, please tell me what proof you are looking for...thus far you seem the least educated and stupidest person in this post

No it's not, recorded voice does not make solid proof in a court of law, it might impress the jury but the judge will over rule it and dissmis it as a proof.


[edit on 13-6-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78


1. airphones by verizon

The problem is that they also made calls by cell fones which is kind of imposible.



2. they thought they were going to die so they called their familes to tell them they loved them one last time.

Note, this is the first when terrorists on a hijacked airplane alow people to make fone calls , just add another coincidence, epecialy when they would reqire to remain sielent,remeber they turned off their transponder to avaoid contact ,to avoid being intercepted, I would say It's coincidence day again.


in every country voice recording is recognized as proof, please tell me what proof you are looking for...thus far you seem the least educated and stupidest person in this post

No it's not, recorded voice does not make solid proof in a court of law, it might impress the jury but the judge will over rule it and dissmis it as a proof.


they called from airphones....didnt know 3 terrorists could watch a plane full of passengers...how does it impress the jury if the judge threw it out??? are you even from america??



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueSkyes

Originally posted by pepsi78


1. airphones by verizon

The problem is that they also made calls by cell fones which is kind of imposible.



2. they thought they were going to die so they called their familes to tell them they loved them one last time.

Note, this is the first when terrorists on a hijacked airplane alow people to make fone calls , just add another coincidence, epecialy when they would reqire to remain sielent,remeber they turned off their transponder to avaoid contact ,to avoid being intercepted, I would say It's coincidence day again.


in every country voice recording is recognized as proof, please tell me what proof you are looking for...thus far you seem the least educated and stupidest person in this post

No it's not, recorded voice does not make solid proof in a court of law, it might impress the jury but the judge will over rule it and dissmis it as a proof.


they called from airphones....didnt know 3 terrorists could watch a plane full of passengers...how does it impress the jury if the judge threw it out??? are you even from america??

So 3 terrorists decide to control a whole plane, this smells from the begining.
Where did in history did you ever recall pasangers making calls from hijaked airplane,"we have been hijaked !!!!!"
Okay here is a qestion for you, if they made calls from that flight why arent the same things ocuring on the other flights?
I'm from europe and I'm telling you here in a court of law voice recording is not evidence because voice can be faked so easy, the judge will just rule it out as evidence.



[edit on 13-6-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

"There are a few problems with your statement.
1 Cell fones dont work up at higer altitudes.
2 If they were so terified of the terorists how come they were able to make calls, this is the first time in history when pasangers from a hijacked airplane are alowed to make fone calls.
3 Material of the black box was never relised, if they have it I would like to hear it.
When you look at it it smells fishy, again coincidences ocur like the whole 911.
In fact most of the 911 factors ocur by coincidence.
And you know, in some countrys I dont know if united states, voice recording is not reconised as proof, because voices can be faked, so if you record some one and go to cort with it, it is not reconised.So I would say, where is the proof again?" -Pepsi78

(sorry, i messed up the quote thing)



1. Though many of the passengers used airphones, Deena Burnett said she recongnized her husand, Tom, on her caller ID, proving he got through. And cell phones do work in the air. Flight 1989 landed in Clevland because of a suspected bomb threat. If you read testimony's on the event, it says: "The Pilot radioded that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since on the passengers was talking urgently on his CELL PHONE, and ignored repeated flight attendents request to stop using it in flight". Also, my dad has used his cell phone while in the middle of flight many times.

2. Your point? This is also the first time that airplanes were hijacked for suicide mission purpose. The families were terrified of the terrorists, but they wanted to say good bye to there loved ones.

3.Since when are voice recordings not eligable to be considered evidence in court?? I have never heard this. Not trying to sound mean or anything, this is just the first time I have heard this. And if that is true, why are all CT demanding that we hear this tape

[edit on 13-6-2006 by nt327]

[edit on 13-6-2006 by nt327]

[edit on 13-6-2006 by nt327]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
ok you live in europe so one why are you so concerned with our government?? dont you have enough too worry about over there?? you dont want to listen to what we say and you come out with the most outlandish claims such as voice recordings cant be used in court lol...i mean i dont usualy like to insult peoples inteligence but you my freinds are plain stupid



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Okay here is you explenation.
the plane takes off, 3 terrorists take the plane with box cuters, they make it to the cockpit and take control of the plane, with pilots opening the dor after they have been informed on radio contact to lock the dors, after that 1 of the terrorists fly the plane while the rest of the pasangers make mobile calls which is imposible and air fone calls which makes it the first case where passangers are making calls from a hijacked airplane and all that while adrews air force base stands down

Flight 93 was shoot down, there is nothing strange about that, probaly an f16 just riped it apart with a sidewinder, that explains why the plane was no where to be found, plus eye witnes confirming military planes in proximity of flight 93 explains it all really.
www.physics911.net...


. According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a "fluke" that so many calls reached their destinations. (Harter 2001) In the opinion of a colleague of mine who has worked in the cellphone industry, it was a "miracle" that any of the calls got through from altitude
An aircraft, having a metal skin and fuselage, acts like a Faraday cage, tending to block or attenuate electromagnetic radiation. One can make a cellphone call from inside an aircraft while on the ground because the weakened signal is still close enough to the nearest cellsite (relay tower) to get picked up
Once above 10,000 feet, however, calls rarely get through, if ever.

It's imposible, the calls had to be fake.



[edit on 13-6-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Okay here is you explenation.
the plane takes off, 3 terrorists take the plane with box cuters, they make it to the cockpit and take control of the plane, with pilots opening the dor after they have been informed on radio contact to lock the dors, after that 1 of the terrorists fly the plane while the rest of the pasangers make mobile calls which is imposible and air fone calls which makes it the first case where passangers are making calls from a hijacked airplane and all that while adrews air force base stands down

Flight 93 was shoot down, there is nothing strange about that, probaly an f16 just riped it apart with a sidewinder, that explains why the plane was no where to be found, plus eye witnes confirming military planes in proximity of flight 93 explains it all really.



correction-

The plane takes off, and 4 terrorists take control of the plane. The phone calls said 3 becuase the 4th was beleived to be with the pilots as a guest. The took control with knives, and told the passengers they had a bomb. To keep the passengers under control, they were told that the terrorists demands had been met and they were heading back to the airport. Mobile phone calls from a plane are not impossible, considering Deena recongnized the number as Tom's cell number on her phone. And who cares if this is the first time? That is not a valid point. There is a first time for everything.

Whether or not the plane was shot down, i don't know. It's very possible. But I don't know why the government would say they didn't if they did, because there is nothing wrong with shooting down a hijacked plane on a day like that. And the plane was to be found, they found tons of peices of the plane, as well as parts of an engine (according to the screw loose change video).



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by nt327

Originally posted by pepsi78
Okay here is you explenation.
the plane takes off, 3 terrorists take the plane with box cuters, they make it to the cockpit and take control of the plane, with pilots opening the dor after they have been informed on radio contact to lock the dors, after that 1 of the terrorists fly the plane while the rest of the pasangers make mobile calls which is imposible and air fone calls which makes it the first case where passangers are making calls from a hijacked airplane and all that while adrews air force base stands down

Flight 93 was shoot down, there is nothing strange about that, probaly an f16 just riped it apart with a sidewinder, that explains why the plane was no where to be found, plus eye witnes confirming military planes in proximity of flight 93 explains it all really.



correction-

The plane takes off, and 4 terrorists take control of the plane. The phone calls said 3 becuase the 4th was beleived to be with the pilots as a guest. The took control with knives, and told the passengers they had a bomb. To keep the passengers under control, they were told that the terrorists demands had been met and they were heading back to the airport. Mobile phone calls from a plane are not impossible, considering Deena recongnized the number as Tom's cell number on her phone. And who cares if this is the first time? That is not a valid point. There is a first time for everything.

Whether or not the plane was shot down, i don't know. It's very possible. But I don't know why the government would say they didn't if they did, because there is nothing wrong with shooting down a hijacked plane on a day like that. And the plane was to be found, they found tons of peices of the plane, as well as parts of an engine (according to the screw loose change video).

Cant you understand it's fake? the calls are fake, there were alot of cell fone calls, its imposible.


As I have pointed out elsewhere, cellphone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8000 feet are essentially impossible, while those below 8000 feet are highly unlikely down to about 2000, where they become merely unlikely. (Dewdney 2003) Moreover, even at the latter altitude (and below), the handoff problem appears. Any airliner at or below this altitude, flying at the normal speed of approximately 500 mph, would encounter the handoff problem (Dewdney 2003). An aircraft traveling at this speed would not be over the cellsite long enough to complete the electronic "handshake" (which takes several seconds to complete) before arriving over the next cellsite, when the call has to be handed off from the first cellsite to the next one. This also takes a few seconds, the result being, in the optimal case, a series of broken transmissions that must end, sooner or later, in failure.

The calls had to be fake.
It was all staged from the begining.





[edit on 13-6-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
pepsi you are an assclown...so who faked the calls?? and why fake the calls if air calls are so "impossible" as you say...i do however beleive/know the plane was shot down...that i am 100% possitive of...



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
And how did they get the voices of the passengers might I ask??



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueSkyes
pepsi you are an assclown...so who faked the calls?? and why fake the calls if air calls are so "impossible" as you say...i do however beleive/know the plane was shot down...that i am 100% possitive of...

I say it with a very good reason, cell fone calls are imposible to make , the problem was that there was a bunch of cell fone calls not 1 or 2.



According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a "fluke" that so many calls reached their destinations. (Harter 2001) In the opinion of a colleague of mine who has worked in the cellphone industry, it was a "miracle" that any of the calls got through from altitude
An aircraft, having a metal skin and fuselage, acts like a Faraday cage, tending to block or attenuate electromagnetic radiation. One can make a cellphone call from inside an aircraft while on the ground because the weakened signal is still close enough to the nearest cellsite (relay tower) to get picked up
Once above 10,000 feet, however, calls rarely get through, if ever.





As I have pointed out elsewhere, cellphone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8000 feet are essentially impossible, while those below 8000 feet are highly unlikely down to about 2000, where they become merely unlikely. (Dewdney 2003) Moreover, even at the latter altitude (and below), the handoff problem appears. Any airliner at or below this altitude, flying at the normal speed of approximately 500 mph, would encounter the handoff problem (Dewdney 2003). An aircraft traveling at this speed would not be over the cellsite long enough to complete the electronic "handshake" (which takes several seconds to complete) before arriving over the next cellsite, when the call has to be handed off from the first cellsite to the next one. This also takes a few seconds, the result being, in the optimal case, a series of broken transmissions that must end, sooner or later, in failure.

It's you bussines if you want to belive everything that is being feed to you.
I wanted to belive the official story,and I did when it first hapend.
But seeing the falws in it I became skeptical about the whole thing.
There are just so many mistakes for this to make sence any more.

-Fema turining up one day before 911 .

-Terrorists turning out alive, it's a good thing that they showed up and said"we didint do it, if they didint people would still cosider them terrorists today

-Bush saying he saw the first plane hit the towers live on tv.

-adrews air force base standing down with out any reason at all.

-war games on the exact same day

-confiscating material and refusing to relise it( hotel and gas station cams)

-planes flying thru united states for hours with out being detected

-controversial statements which dont mach made by officials.
and so on and on and on, who is going tobelive this garbige any way,those that want to, any one with a little bit of mind will notice that something smells funny and that the official story does not make sence.










[edit on 13-6-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
this guy just took the loose change video and made it his own arguement...i really wish people were smart enough to come up with there own opinions



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Do you have any evidence to back up your claims peps, or should we just take your word for it cause you read it somewhere?

Show us some proof that it is even possible to fake these calls. More importantly show us that they were faked.

Show us that the calls were impossible.

I for one am not going to just take your word for it.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Do you have any evidence to back up your claims peps, or should we just take your word for it cause you read it somewhere?

Show us some proof that it is even possible to fake these calls. More importantly show us that they were faked.

Show us that the calls were impossible.

I for one am not going to just take your word for it.

it's simple a quoted from a site, it explains it all, cell fones do not work, they have a hard chance to even work at lower altitudes, what is there to prove? when a bunch of incoming cell fone calls from the plane get thru,what would the ods of that be?


According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a "fluke" that so many calls reached their destinations. (Harter 2001) In the opinion of a colleague of mine who has worked in the cellphone industry, it was a "miracle" that any of the calls got through from altitude
An aircraft, having a metal skin and fuselage, acts like a Faraday cage, tending to block or attenuate electromagnetic radiation. One can make a cellphone call from inside an aircraft while on the ground because the weakened signal is still close enough to the nearest cellsite (relay tower) to get picked up
Once above 10,000 feet, however, calls rarely get through, if ever.







As I have pointed out elsewhere, cellphone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8000 feet are essentially impossible, while those below 8000 feet are highly unlikely down to about 2000, where they become merely unlikely. (Dewdney 2003) Moreover, even at the latter altitude (and below), the handoff problem appears. Any airliner at or below this altitude, flying at the normal speed of approximately 500 mph, would encounter the handoff problem (Dewdney 2003). An aircraft traveling at this speed would not be over the cellsite long enough to complete the electronic "handshake" (which takes several seconds to complete) before arriving over the next cellsite, when the call has to be handed off from the first cellsite to the next one. This also takes a few seconds, the result being, in the optimal case, a series of broken transmissions that must end, sooner or later, in failure.

so all this is BS huh? they just magicly made the calls
and they all worked too, some of them even called back several times from their cell fones.
I dont see any arguments made by you on this matter, all you give is "how do you know"



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
that seems a bit much too have multiple faked calls...i mean come on how stupid are you...and its Phones not fones...i have sent text messages from mid flight threw my verizon phone so i dont see why calls wouldnt go threw...and thats me first hand...of course ATT is gonna say calls dont work becuase calling from that altitude is not allowed



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueSkyes
that seems a bit much too have multiple faked calls...i mean come on how stupid are you...and its Phones not fones...i have sent text messages from mid flight threw my verizon phone so i dont see why calls wouldnt go threw...and thats me first hand...of course ATT is gonna say calls dont work becuase calling from that altitude is not allowed

should I take your word for it? NO of course not, it's scientifical imposible and all the ods are against you.
Even at low altitude you would have trouble comunicating.
Not to mention that there is electromacnetical interference and that the plane walls make it hard because it shields the signal.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Wrong.
From 911myths




The story...

Many of the passengers on the 911 hijacked jets are reported to have made mobile phone calls to their relatives and others, telling of the hijacking or saying goodbye. However it's virtually impossible for mobile calls to be made above an altitude of around 8,000 feet, therefore these must have been faked.

Our take...

The “impossible” claim is most often associated with Professor AK Dewdney, in a study of his own called "Project Achilles". He actually tried making calls at various altitudes, and concluded that "cellphone calls from passenger aircraft are physically impossible above 8000 feet and and statistically unlikely below it". There are reasons to question Dewdney’s conclusions, though. Read more here.

Phones may be used at some distance from a base station, for instance.

In practice, GSM phones cannot be used more than 35 km (22 miles) from a BTS, no matter how strong the signal.
www.itarchitect.com...

22 miles would be over 100,000 feet. You can’t apply such a simple rule, though, because mobile networks aren’t designed to serve the skies. Others use this quote as an example of professional scepticism.

According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a "fluke" that so many calls reached their destinations.
www.physics911.net...

Although the full quote tells a slightly different story.

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.

“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.”

From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.
wirelessreview.com...

Below a certain altitude? What might that be?

When it comes to land and air, the capabilities of a cell phone don’t change. But what makes it possible to use a handheld while in a plane 10,000 feet in the air, and why should it work there when it doesn’t work in your own neighborhood?

It all depends on where the phone is, says Marco Thompson, president of the San Diego Telecom Council. “Cell phones are not designed to work on a plane. Although they do.” The rough rule is that when the plane is slow and over a city, the phone will work up to 10,000 feet or so. “Also, it depends on how fast the plane is moving and its proximity to antennas,” Thompson says. “At 30,000 feet, it may work momentarily while near a cell site, but it’s chancy and the connection won’t last.” Also, the hand-off process from cell site to cell site is more difficult. It is created for a maximum speed of 60 mph to 100 mph. “They are not built for 400 mph airplanes.”
www.sandiegometro.com...

So it may work at 30,000 feet, although only momentarily? Apparently the New York Times agrees:

Cell phones work on airplanes? Why does the FAA discourage their use? What's the maximum altitude at which a cell phone will work?

From this morning's New York Times: "According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles."
htt



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
If the calls were faked voices, how did they get the passenger voices? And how would they fake a live conversation? The voice morphing only works on recorded tapes. The conversations on 93 were live conversations, not recorded messages. The whole voice over theory is B.S.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   


As I have pointed out elsewhere, cellphone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8000 feet are essentially impossible, while those below 8000 feet are highly unlikely down to about 2000, where they become merely unlikely. (Dewdney 2003) Moreover, even at the latter altitude (and below), the handoff problem appears. Any airliner at or below this altitude, flying at the normal speed of approximately 500 mph, would encounter the handoff problem (Dewdney 2003). An aircraft traveling at this speed would not be over the cellsite long enough to complete the electronic "handshake" (which takes several seconds to complete) before arriving over the next cellsite, when the call has to be handed off from the first cellsite to the next one. This also takes a few seconds, the result being, in the optimal case, a series of broken transmissions that must end, sooner or later, in failure.


Yes it very well may be BS Dewdneys methods were most likely flawed.

www.911myths.com...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join