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: 14
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Originally posted by Vushta:

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]



ID cards are to become mandatory in the UK, purportedly to 'prevent terrorism.'

Police in the UK are being given powers to give 'On the spot fines' for various 'offences' each at the police officers own discretion

Tony Bliar is in the process of trashing Human Rights Laws. Don't believe me?? READ THE PAPERS

You're not under constant surveillence?? So I suppose the CCTV and possibly satellites that film everywhere you walk just by-pass you?

I have been removed from various public places for participating in non-violent protests. I am being termed a 'Terrorist' and a ''Fanatic' for my Animal Rights views. That is a direct erosion of my Civil Liberties, along with forcing me to have an ID card, filming me every day, and creating new laws that force myself and my family to be bogged down into submission.

No-one is Microchipped? Why don't you do a bit of research before you post on this site. I think you will find it is happening NOW

9/11 wasn't used as a means to invade Iraq? So I suppose I dreamt all the stuff in the papers about Saddam's links with Al'Queda? I can only assume the papers report different stories in the US

I'm glad to be a 'nut.' It sure beats being 'sane' if sane means brainwashed.



[edit on 15-6-2006 by Delta Alter]

[edit on 15-6-2006 by Delta Alter]

[edit on 15-6-2006 by Delta Alter]




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson

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




Yeah right. Germar Rudolf...is this the same Germar Rudolf that states the holocaust never happened? Nice credible source there.

Look..people make cell phone calls from planes. End of story.
What would the point be of faking it? Set up a whole other level of complications to a conspiracy that already must have THOUSANDS of people involved each one of which could expose the "plot"? Whats the point? The crashes would have happened just as well without phone calls.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   


ID cards are to become mandatory in the UK, purportedly to 'prevent terrorism.'



So what? Whats the fear with ID cards. I'll bet you already have ID cards on you. In the US we have Social security cards..so wha?..drivers lincenses that ID you..so what?..etc.



Police in the UK are being given powers to give 'On the spot fines' for various 'offences' each at the police officers own discretion


Like what? Give a couple of examples of the types of offences.



Tony Bliar is in the process of trashing Human Rights Laws. Don't believe me?? READ THE PAPERS


Examples?




You're not under constant surveillence?? So I suppose the CCTV and possibly satellites that film everywhere you walk just by-pass you?


No..I'm not. Sounds like you guys got it pretty bad over there. Maybe you should stop critizing the US and do something about the conditions over there.




I have been removed from various public places for participating in non-violent protests. I am being termed a 'Terrorist' and a ''Fanatic' for my Animal Rights views. That is a direct erosion of my Civil Liberties, along with forcing me to have an ID card, filming me every day, and creating new laws that force myself and my family to be bogged down into submission.



Being removed for whatever kinda depends on what you were doing doesn't it? If you and the group of protesters were in any way blocking or making it uncomfortable for people to conduct business..the YOU were interfearing with others Civil Liberties.
How was the protest conducted?..give some details.




No-one is Microchipped? Why don't you do a bit of research before you post on this site. I think you will find it is happening NOW



Who is being micro chipped against their will?





9/11 wasn't used as a means to invade Iraq? So I suppose I dreamt all the stuff in the papers about Saddam's links with Al'Queda?


No. After 911 the forces went to Afganistan. The idea of 911 being used to invade Iraq is just silly if you think about it.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

No. After 911 the forces went to Afganistan. The idea of 911 being used to invade Iraq is just silly if you think about it.


Silly to whom? GW? I don't think so. He stated plenty of times before the war that Sadam had close affiliations with Bin Laden. How can you disregard this information as silly? Where were you before the war started? So, yes, in part 9/11 was a direct link to the Iraqi war.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
If you don't see the problem with biometric ID cards then the brainwashing is complete! It is a dangerous world we live in when when every minute detail of our personal information is recorded for outside usage.

I have no doubt that the situation over here is more grave than wherever you are. I only have to travel abroad to see the difference in lifestyles.

We have the highest concentration of CCTV in Europe. The police dole out on the spot fines for throwing litter, chewing gum,and whatever they decide is drunk and disorderley behaviour.

Tony Blair is currently putting into the motion the right for the Goverment to OVERWRITE COURT RULINGS, supposedly to protect victims of crime.

Microchipping is not a commonplace occurence in England, no - but the seeds are being sown. I read of a nightclub in Glasgow where the fashionable people are queuing up to get themselves chipped. Microchipping of children is commonplace, and even being offered for free by MASONS.
www.gl-mi.org...

Fear of Terrorism is aiding this agenda. 9/11 created the fear of terrorism



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Vushta

No. After 911 the forces went to Afganistan. The idea of 911 being used to invade Iraq is just silly if you think about it.


Silly to whom? GW? I don't think so. He stated plenty of times before the war that Sadam had close affiliations with Bin Laden. How can you disregard this information as silly? Where were you before the war started? So, yes, in part 9/11 was a direct link to the Iraqi war.


Maybe you misunderstood my comment.

I say that it is silly to think that an "inside job" on 911 was necessary to validate an attack on Iraq.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Oh..ok. I did take your comment the wrong way then. I agree with you.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson


This experiment may though:



Sorry, but one guy with two phones on a plane flight hardly counts as an experiment. Where was the control? Who did the double blind tests? None of these prove anything other than what happened in the specific circumstances tested with those specific phones.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
So, I guess again we can't take anyone's tests as proof until someone is on a plane and gets highjacked over the exact same area and flies at the exact same time, speed, elevation, etc? Come on. It's just like hearing...they were different buildings and materials...you can't compare the two. BS....it's all physics, electronics etc.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Yes, it's all physics and because of that you cannot compare say Empire State with WTC



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
You can't compare everything. But, you certtainly can compare some of the aspects of the two.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Delta Alter

If you don't see the problem with biometric ID cards then the brainwashing is complete! It is a dangerous world we live in when when every minute detail of our personal information is recorded for outside usage.

I have no doubt that the situation over here is more grave than wherever you are. I only have to travel abroad to see the difference in lifestyles.

We have the highest concentration of CCTV in Europe. The police dole out on the spot fines for throwing litter, chewing gum,and whatever they decide is drunk and disorderley behaviour.

Tony Blair is currently putting into the motion the right for the Goverment to OVERWRITE COURT RULINGS, supposedly to protect victims of crime.

Microchipping is not a commonplace occurence in England, no - but the seeds are being sown. I read of a nightclub in Glasgow where the fashionable people are queuing up to get themselves chipped. Microchipping of children is commonplace, and even being offered for free by MASONS.
www.gl-mi.org...

Fear of Terrorism is aiding this agenda. 9/11 created the fear of terrorism.







it's stupid to complain. If you have to wear ID card in order to save thousands of lives, thats fine with me. 9/11 didn't create fear of terrorism, what are you talking about? It just added to it. Take a look at all the terrorists acts that had happened before and after 9/11.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Yup, they're high and a plane rammed them, albeit a completely different plane in completely different circumstances



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by alienanderson


This experiment may though:



Sorry, but one guy with two phones on a plane flight hardly counts as an experiment. Where was the control? Who did the double blind tests? None of these prove anything other than what happened in the specific circumstances tested with those specific phones.



Still better than the experiment on a Cessna, which is what you asked for previously



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Yup, they're high and a plane rammed them, albeit a completely different plane in completely different circumstances


Yes, but what I'm getting at is that in school we learned about the physics behind designing structures. Yes, different materials act in different ways, but the physics behind them are the same. Designing a column or beam is the same for different materials...the things that change are mainly factors of safety for the different materials. Furthermore, when taking statics and structural analysis classes, you'll find that the problems state you have a beam, column ect. They don't state that you have a concrete beam ect. The physics that drives everything is still the same.

Plus, when I made my first statement about this, I wasn't neccessarily talking about the WTC and the Empire State....I was refering to other structures that have partially collapsed due to damage on one side of the building (i.e. the Oaklahoma City bombing) and being able to compare that with WTC7.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   


Look..people make cell phone calls from planes. Look..people make cell phone calls from planes.

Dont buy it , multiple sources say the same thing now , hey guess what they say"IT DOES NOT WORK"
for the same reasons.


End of story.

I can see you hiting us with your scientific knolege, and giving the ultimate example , we are simply amased of your explenation of why cell fones work in the air


[edit on 15-6-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Yes, pepsi, I too would like to see all this research done that proves cell phones can work reliably in planes. So far in this thread I have seen 2 seperate studies done that show they can't. Can someone link to a study that showed they can instead of just posting "I've done it"?



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I've used my cellphone when flying light aircraft, but I thought the majority of the passengers used airphones anyway? The planes descended to low altitudes in the last stages of their flights so what about if any cell phone calls were made then?



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I've used my cellphone when flying light aircraft, but I thought the majority of the passengers used airphones anyway? The planes descended to low altitudes in the last stages of their flights so what about if any cell phone calls were made then?

They talked out thru out half of the flight.
Even if they talked for air fones , they did use alot cell fones.
Speed,electromacnetic interfirence, and the walls blocking the signal are other factors that consist a serios problem, and we are not talking about 1 cell fone call.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Neither of the "experiments" apply the most basic scientific standards, that's why they prove nothing.

Show me an actual study, with a control group, and a double blind test, then we might get somewhere.

Those other tests are just as valid as any one of us saying they worked or didn't work. It doesn't really prove anything.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join