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: 13
1
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by nt327
Saying this is the first time someone has made a cell phone call on hijacked plane is a useless argument.


I agree. But, it just gets me that how many coincidences does it take for people to finally go "huh"? 9/11 was coincidence after coincidence. I can't even think of anything that went on that day that wasn't a coincidence. That's my point.




posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueSkyes
pepsi you are an assclown



Originally posted by BlueSkyes
i mean come on how stupid are you



Originally posted by BlueSkyes
i mean i dont usualy like to insult peoples inteligence but you my freinds are plain stupid



Originally posted by HowardRoark
it is entirely possible to make cell phone calls from an airplane.

only idiots argue otherwise.


Griff, I agree. I hope all of this is because mods aren't reading this thread.

Howard's post shouldn't even exist right now. Absolutely nothing in it but a ridiculously unsupported assertion, followed by an insult. All he's doing is provoking.

Seriously guys, this is getting to be a frustrating thread to read, or else I wouldn't say anything to begin with. Anyone remember this?:


It has become apparent to Owners of ATS, (Simon Gray, SkepticOverlord and me, Springer) this forum is slipping into the dark pit of petty name calling and derisive commentary on fellow Members with opposing view points.

This ENDS NOW.

This forum is on "Strict Terms and Conditions of Use ENFORCEMENT" until further notice.

"Strict Enforcement" means:
Any Member lowering themselves to name calling, no matter how innocuous, will be red tag warned on the spot, no questions asked.


It's funny, because I didn't realize that that had been posted in the 9/11 section until today (I usually ignore the stickies, I suppose because I assume they haven't changed since last time).

So maybe "further notice" has been fulfilled?

[edit on 14-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueSkyes
ok you live in europe so one why are you so concerned with our government??

All right, so Pepsi lives in Europe. He/she's already said that English is not his/her first language, so cut him/her a little slack here, okay?

I also don't live in America but I don't see why that precludes me taking part in this discussion. 9/11 had repercussions around the world. We were all affected by it. Research on the internet can be done from any country. I see no reason why I have to be American to take part in this discussion.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by nt327
Saying this is the first time someone has made a cell phone call on hijacked plane is a useless argument.




I agree. But, it just gets me that how many coincidences does it take for people to finally go "huh"? 9/11 was coincidence after coincidence. I can't even think of anything that went on that day that wasn't a coincidence. That's my point.



okay, that's a fair point. I wouldn't say that 9/11 was coincidence after coincidence. I don't think the cell phone was a coincidence though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't cell technology in 2001 reletevly new. If so, wouldn't this be the first time that the oppurtunity to use a cell phone on a hijacked was available?



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by nt327
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't cell technology in 2001 reletevly new. If so, wouldn't this be the first time that the oppurtunity to use a cell phone on a hijacked was available?


Very good point. Of which I was thinking along those lines also. I remember, I got my first cell phone in 97' or 98' I believe. I think the older phones actually had better reception than the newer phones also (I could be wrong...anyone want to verify?).



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
There were cell phones in the 1980's. GPS cellphone technology was what was rather new in this decade. People have had cell phones throughout the 90's. Look at the movies, remember the movie clueless? cell phones all over the place, was made in the 90's.

Oh, and by the way, I made a cell phone call on the way to florida in August 2000, so, they DO work on planes, but it is requested to have them off during flight. Hey, I broke the rules. sue me.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Remember though back in the 80's what cell phones looked like. They were bigger than regular wireless phones today. I remember even a Signfield episode where Jerry was using a cell phone. It was bigger than his head. This was in the 90's.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Remember though back in the 80's what cell phones looked like. They were bigger than regular wireless phones today. I remember even a Signfield episode where Jerry was using a cell phone. It was bigger than his head. This was in the 90's.


I think that seinfield episode was in the early 90's, like 91 or 92, and on top of that, we are talking about 2001... cellphones changed dramatically in a decade. I mean, if I got to, I will pull up some info, but I hope you can just take my word on this one.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I'm actually agreeing with you. Sorry if my posts don't sound it.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I'm actually agreeing with you. Sorry if my posts don't sound it.



lol oh. my B.

God, I really just wish that the FBI will release some other footage of flight 77. WHY HAVEN'T THEY? It's so stupid, the more the days go by, the more skeptical I get about the whole thing. We have seen the WTC being hit over and over and over... it is nothing new. one piece of footage that is undeniable would give alot of credibility to the government... don't they see that?

Of course, people now will argue, but that's why they havent released them, cause there is not any good evidence. but whatever. protocol is protocol.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
This is just my opinion. I think they want us to argue over the little issues. That way the bigger picture is not seen.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
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.


first off im not pro entire government story...like ive said before i beleive/know flight 93 was shot down...i just hate when people come up with stupid arguements and have 0 proof of anything...the guy said you cant make calls from a flight...i myself have sent text messages from a flight...if you want to post on an english speaking board you should atleast be able to spell some basic words IMO



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
To all you people so loyal to your Government. OK, so 9/11 isn't a conspiracy.

So I suppose that means that you haven't noticed how the planet has changed since that day.

I suppose you think that ID cards, martial law, warrantless arrests, erosion of civil liberties and human rights, constant surveillence and microchipped individuals - all born into fruition since 9/11 - are there because the Government cares so much about us and wants to protect us from the evil Muslims?

I suppose invading Iraq as a consequence of 9/11 was totally legit, and nothing to do with oil and control.

And finally, I suppose that you think I'm a paranoid conspiracy nut?



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
erosion of civil liberties??? isnt that the aclu's whole purpose?? i mean i hate the aclu and some of the slime they defend but if there is any civil liberties issues you should go take it up with them. I dont think there is a case they wouldnt take.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Delta Alter
To all you people so loyal to your Government. OK, so 9/11 isn't a conspiracy.

So I suppose that means that you haven't noticed how the planet has changed since that day.

I suppose you think that ID cards, martial law, warrantless arrests, erosion of civil liberties and human rights, constant surveillence and microchipped individuals - all born into fruition since 9/11 - are there because the Government cares so much about us and wants to protect us from the evil Muslims?

I suppose invading Iraq as a consequence of 9/11 was totally legit, and nothing to do with oil and control.

And finally, I suppose that you think I'm a paranoid conspiracy nut?



I see you live in the UK so you probably don't know but I'll clue you in a bit.

Theres are no manditory gubment ID cards required because of 911..There is no martial law..(where are you getting this stuff?)..no more warrantless arrests than before 911 that I'm aware of..my civil liberties remain the same..no one I know is under "constant surveillence"..and no one is microchipped. Where ARE you getting this stuff??

The idea of 911 as a means to invade Iraq is silly once you think about it.

Well yes. If you believe all that stuff..you are a conspiracy nut.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I would like some here to provide links to their argument a source which I have provided numeros times, some say that I have not provided any evidence of what I'm saying which in fact is wrong, I have provided a plausible explenation why cell fones dont work in the air.
Based on a single argument " hey It works I tryed it my self" I see no expanation why cell fones would work at a crusing altitude of a comercial air liner, no arguments why it would work to counter the explenation that it cant , why would a bunch of cell fones work at such altitude especialy when there are explenations that cell fones dont work, they berly work below 2000 feet, there is electromagnetical interfirence , the plane walls work like a shield inside the plane blocking the signal, all we get back as a respoce is "hey it works I tryed it my self" and we should accept that?, that is crap.
No explenation and yet I'm a idiot because I offer an explenation based on some facts.






[edit on 14-6-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Your one source for cell phone calls being "impossible" has been addressed already. It was one guy doing the test in a cessna over Ontario. Since he didn't repeat the tests over the areas the phone calls were made, or in the same planes, we can only gain so much from his theory.

Basically all that he proved was that coming in and out of London, Ontario in a Cessna, you have a one in a hundred chance of makeing a phone call above certain altitudes.

Really it has no bearing on 9-11 phone calls whatsoever.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Delta Alter
To all you people so loyal to your Government. OK, so 9/11 isn't a conspiracy.

So I suppose that means that you haven't noticed how the planet has changed since that day.

I suppose you think that ID cards, martial law, warrantless arrests, erosion of civil liberties and human rights, constant surveillence and microchipped individuals - all born into fruition since 9/11 - are there because the Government cares so much about us and wants to protect us from the evil Muslims?

I suppose invading Iraq as a consequence of 9/11 was totally legit, and nothing to do with oil and control.

And finally, I suppose that you think I'm a paranoid conspiracy nut?



What? I don't have to wear an ID card. Martial Law?? Where did you come with this?? None of this stuff as happened more or less than it did before 9/11. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And lets just say, for the sake of argument, that 9/11 did contribute to Iraq. Lets say that the govt. planned 9/11 so that they could go to war in Iraq. We would have to assume that Suddam Hussein would turn away the weapons inspector giving us cause to invade our country. All for what? Oil? What Oil? The oil prices are still high. If the U.S only went in there for the Oil, than what the hell are we still doing there? And yes, you are a conspiracy nut.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   


None of this stuff as happened more or less than it did before 9/11. Invading Iraq
had nothing to do with 9/11.

You sure about that?


The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush




We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.


Bush repeated over and over that sadam is hosting alqaida and that they have weapons of mass distruction, the fact was that sadam hated aquaida, binladen didint like sadam, so before the US intervention there was stability on this matter.
But now thanks to bush's move on iraq they have radicals, only people like you that ignore things over and over can sustain such things.
1 saddam husein didint turned down the inspectors.
2 Un inspectors said there are no weapons.
3 In fact there were no weapons .



All for what? Oil? What Oil? The oil prices are still high. If the U.S only went in there for the Oil, than what the hell are we still doing there?

Bush went there to get oil for him not for you
he is in the busines with brother cheny, it's just to make some more money and then sell it to you sky high, plus the logner the war lasts the more money they make, so body count=cash$$$$ that is simply because he has shares on the deffence industry.



And yes, you are a conspiracy nut.

Better a conspiracy nut rather than suport a control freak.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Basically all that he proved was that coming in and out of London, Ontario in a Cessna, you have a one in a hundred chance of makeing a phone call above certain altitudes.

Really it has no bearing on 9-11 phone calls whatsoever.


This experiment may though:


Cell Phone Experiments in Airliners by Germar Rudolf July 2003

Conclusion

Burlington, VT, lies within a more rural area, whereas Chicago is the third largest city of the U.S. with one of the best developed cellular networks. In spite of this, the results were similar in both cases for the Verizon Wireless network, which prides itself on being the best developed in the U.S. The reason why the second phone failed to establish any service in the Chicago area until after landing is unknown.

Cell phones traveling in airliners can get a service signal at heights up to some 6,000 ft, but it is not possible to make a connection, at least not while traveling at the usual cruising speed of a normal airliner (500-550 mph). Since in all cases (if at all) connections could only be established well after the pilots have pulled out the landing gear at some 2,000 ft and at a cruising speed of 230 mph or less, it seems safe to conclude that in summer of 2003, no connection could be made with a cell phone from an airliner flying in the U.S. when above an altitude above ground of 2,000 ft (610 m) and when traveling with a speed over 230 mph. Considering the fast descent of the planes and the fact that they kept slowing down as they approached the runway, the height at which a connection could be established might actually be as low as 1,500 ft (457.5 m), and the speed around 200 mph.

The reason why a connection could only be established at some 1,500 ft above ground despite the fact that a signal was present already at some 6,000 ft may be that the speed of the traveling aircraft was too high at higher altitudes. It seems safe to say that the speed must be under 230 mph in order to establish a stable connection, a speed which an airliner can reach only during landing, with landing gear, air brakes and flaps all the way out.

It is generally agreed upon that all the airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001, flew at a high cruising speed of 500 mph and more until they crashed. Thus, it seems safe to say that no cell phone of any type could have established any stable connection to any cell site at that speed, no matter which height the planes flew at. This is particularly true for United Airlines flight 93, which did not only fly at high speed but also at a relatively high altitude during the time when the alleged cell phone calls were placed.


source physics911.ca



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join