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: 12
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I guess it's imposible that so many calls from the cell fones were made.
Some people still dont like to accept the facts when facts are standig in front of them.




posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Hey Pepsi78,

You keep talking about how we can't accept facts and how we have no proof.

"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." nt327

Why can't you answer my question?

I ask you again for the 3rd time:

How did they get the passenger voices in order to fake the calls???



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Also, some of the flight attendants used the plane phones to tell people what's going on. Those work 100% of the time....



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by nt327
Hey Pepsi78,

You keep talking about how we can't accept facts and how we have no proof.

"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." nt327

Why can't you answer my question?

I ask you again for the 3rd time:

How did they get the passenger voices in order to fake the calls???

Voices on the fone are not the same,in fact I may be calling and sustain I would be some one but be some one else, the voice on the fone sounds diferent, it can be on a higher tone or on the lower tone, I could be calling some one and with a little eqiptment I could impersonate that preson.
Usualy telefones work on a low bandwidth so the voice does not sound 100% like you, voices can be synthesized in near real time if one has a recording of the voice being recorded.
There are voice transformers, voice is just so easy to fake, that is why it's not taken serios in a court of law in some countrys.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Also, some of the flight attendants used the plane phones to tell people what's going on. Those work 100% of the time....

I agree with you, but the problem remains, they still used cell fones in many cases.
something that smells from the start and has no explenation makes the whole story suspicios.

But let's see how doy you explain the cell fones?
You put question after question, it's time for you to aswer some.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
I guess it's imposible that so many calls from the cell fones were made.
Some people still dont like to accept the facts when facts are standig in front of them.


it is entirely possible to make cell phone calls from an airplane.

only idiots argue otherwise.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by pepsi78
I guess it's imposible that so many calls from the cell fones were made.
Some people still dont like to accept the facts when facts are standig in front of them.


it is entirely possible to make cell phone calls from an airplane.

only idiots argue otherwise.


ohh howard that's why they put big antenas on the planes in 2004 and a com station in the plane ,why bother to put any of that stuff when they comunicated very well from flight 93, what a bunch of idiots huh spending money like that for nothing



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Maybe because they wanted the calls to be easier, more reliable and without threat of interference with the avionics?



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Maybe because they wanted the calls to be easier, more reliable and without threat of interference with the avionics?

It's because it didint work with out a com station in the plane.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
It did work, though not perfectly, as you can read in several links posted before. It just wasn't encouraged as there was a fear of interference with the aircraft's systems.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
It did work, though not perfectly, as you can read in several links posted before. It just wasn't encouraged as there was a fear of interference with the aircraft's systems.

hey man, I think you are just plaing dumb, experiments revield that above 10.... feet it wont work , it has 1% rate of success, below 8..... it has low chance also, even at low altitudes it has a low chance.
It's been studied , it's a fact, trying to pull the cat's tail wont work this time, accept the facts as it is.


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.






[edit on 14-6-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
I read about Dewdney's experiments. If I recall correctly, they were done in a Cessna. I haven't been able to find any evidence of him trying the same experiment in a commercial aircraft. Also, I was unable to find any evidence of his credentials.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by tuccy
Maybe because they wanted the calls to be easier, more reliable and without threat of interference with the avionics?

It's because it didint work with out a com station in the plane.


You're just making stuff up as you go and its supported by zero evidence. A typical tactic that most can see through.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueSkyes

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

...thus far you seem the least educated and stupidest person in this post


Number 2. I thought the passengers didn't know about WTC until they called their loved ones. Why would they be afraid to die when before 9/11 the policy of highjackings was to land somewhere until you got what you wanted. Why would they be afraid to die?

The last part of that, IMO, was uncalled for and I can't believe you haven't been warned yet.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I'm actually getting quite sick of the personal attacks on pepsi. He/she might be argueing the wrong stuff or not, but it is totally against the T&C's of this site to be calling him an idiot...Howard.

And blueskies, I can't believe you haven't recieved one warn for these.


thus far you seem the least educated and stupidest person in this post

.i mean i dont usualy like to insult peoples inteligence but you my freinds are plain stupid

pepsi you are an assclown..

i mean come on how stupid are you...and its Phones not fones


I've been saying this for awhile now. If that had been me (someone who doesn't believe the whole government story), I'd have been banned by now. But, since you guys are for the government story, the mods here let you slip. Equality of moderation? I don't think so. Back to the topic.....and please stop with the personal insults.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by BlueSkyes

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

...thus far you seem the least educated and stupidest person in this post


Number 2. I thought the passengers didn't know about WTC until they called their loved ones. Why would they be afraid to die when before 9/11 the policy of highjackings was to land somewhere until you got what you wanted. Why would they be afraid to die?

The last part of that, IMO, was uncalled for and I can't believe you haven't been warned yet.


Have you ever been on an airplane that was hijacked?? Have you ever seen someone stabbed in front of you and then have the people in control of the plane say they have a bomb??? Maybe that's why they were scared. When they heard about the WTC and Pentagon, that's when they knew they were on a doomed flight, thats not when they became scared.

I'm sorry but that was a really stupid point.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by nt327]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aotearoa
I read about Dewdney's experiments. If I recall correctly, they were done in a Cessna. I haven't been able to find any evidence of him trying the same experiment in a commercial aircraft. Also, I was unable to find any evidence of his credentials.


Also, he didn't fly on the same flight path as 93 and 77. He did the expirement in London, Ontario.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by nt327

Have you ever been on an airplane that was hijacked?? Have you ever seen someone stabbed in front of you and then have the people in control of the plane say they have a bomb??? Maybe that's why they were scared. When they heard about the WTC and Pentagon, that's when they knew they were on a doomed flight, thats not when they became scared.


Have you ever heard of people making phone calls on a highjacked plane before?



I'm sorry but that was a really stupid point.



Right back atcha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Short of using guns, I still don't understand how the terrorists managed to get ahold of all four flights they intended to hijack with box cutters and knives. Even a team of Cub Scouts could of successfully taken down the terrorists, landed the plane and still have energy for a camp fire song at the Dude Ranch.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by nt327

Have you ever been on an airplane that was hijacked?? Have you ever seen someone stabbed in front of you and then have the people in control of the plane say they have a bomb??? Maybe that's why they were scared. When they heard about the WTC and Pentagon, that's when they knew they were on a doomed flight, thats not when they became scared.


Have you ever heard of people making phone calls on a highjacked plane before?



I'm sorry but that was a really stupid point.



Right back atcha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





whats your point? There is a lot of things I hadn't heard of before 9/11. Have you ever heard of hijacked airplanes being flown into the world trade center before 9/11? Before the 1972 olympics, had you ever heard of terrorists storming the Olympic Village and killing 11 athletes? I bet you didn't. Does that mean it didn't happen? No, it doesn't mean that. Saying this is the first time someone has made a cell phone call on hijacked plane is a useless argument.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join