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: 15
1
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:55 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?


Did I not say.....I don't want to hear..."I did it"? And furthermore.....if some guy can't do a test and come to a diferent conclusion, then why sould I listen to you?

Oh. and now we go to airphones? Where's that from Smith? Another strawman?

Last stages of their flight? Oh, sorry, you mean when they were on the downward spiril? Come on?!!!!!!!




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

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.


First of all....show a test that proves that it does work....meaning...I don't want to hear..."I've done it". At least on our side we have more than 2 tests...what do you have other than "oh...I've done it"?

Show me your studies on the subject LeftBehind because I'm very hard pressed to see any data that you guys have put forth that shows that "you have done it'.....put up or shut up...as Howard says.

[edit on 6/15/2006 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Read the thread, a couple of people have said they've done it.

A lot of phone calls were made on 9-11 from planes.

I personally have made calls from planes.

There you go. Since your standard of evidence is so low that should prove it for you.

A post on ATS is just as reliable as some guy with a webpage claiming it's impossible.


Some of the calls were made from airphones, did the government fake those as well? How did they fake all those phonecalls anyway?

Edit: BTW all I said is that these two tests you seem so proud of don't prove anything. Either way. And we probably will never see a study done on this because the people who do real studies either

A: already know that cell phones work on planes.

B: don't really see a need for such a study.

Even if a study was done that showed it was absolutely impossible, what does that prove?

How does that automatically equal proof that the government faked it? Negative evidence only works for creationism and conspiracies. It doesn't equal proof in the real world.


Edit to add.


www.slate.com...

"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."

[edit on 16-6-2006 by LeftBehind]

[edit on 16-6-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Cell phones on planes: I have used them (before and after 9/11) and have talked to people on planes (before and after 9/11) using their cell

I thought this was common knowledge that they work.
The thing is that it can cause interference. That's why it's discouraged, not that they don't work. They work less and less the more you get away from populated areas....the attacks happened in extremely populated areas so there was no reason for them not to work. They're actually adding equipment to planes now that will make your phones work from anywhere and at any altitude.

Cell phones on planes - 5 myths

as far as the passengers using the plane phones:
The other site where I ususally post from is down today but, this will do I guess...

www.911timeline.net...

16) 8:21 a.m.: Betty Ong, a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11, calls Vanessa Minter at American Airlines reservations from the seatback phone. "She said two flight attendants had been stabbed, one was on oxygen," said the manager on duty. "A passenger had his throat slashed and looked dead and they had gotten into the cockpit." She identifies the seats of the hijackers and confirms that the plane is descending.


8:50 a.m.: Rich Miles, a manager of United Airlines Chicago system operations center, receives a call from a mechanic at an airline maintenance center in San Francisco that takes in-flight calls from flight attendants about broken items. The mechanic says a female flight attendant from United Airlines Flight 175 just called and said, "Oh my God. The crew has been killed; a flight attendant has been stabbed. We've been hijacked." Then the line went dead.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by LeftBehind

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.


First of all....show a test that proves that it does work....meaning...I don't want to hear..."I've done it". At least on our side we have more than 2 tests...what do you have other than "oh...I've done it"?

Show me your studies on the subject LeftBehind because I'm very hard pressed to see any data that you guys have put forth that shows that "you have done it'.....put up or shut up...as Howard says.

[edit on 6/15/2006 by Griff]


Right, but your tests are weak tests. Both were done from a different kind of airplane in a different flying zone with different models of phones.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind



www.slate.com...

"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."

[edit on 16-6-2006 by LeftBehind]

[edit on 16-6-2006 by LeftBehind]


Thanks LeftBehind. That's exactly what I was looking for. I also believe this whole cell phone business is a moot point. You're right...what would it prove anyway? Last time I'm talking about cell phones when dealing with 9/11. Case closed.....for me at least.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I also believe this whole cell phone business is a moot point. You're right...what would it prove anyway? Last time I'm talking about cell phones when dealing with 9/11. Case closed.....for me at least.


I agree Griff. It seems that cell phones calls can be made during flight

Even if it was an 'inside job', faking cell phone calls is overly complicated and not entirely necessary - there are many other issues more worthy of discussion

For me the two main facts that raise concern are the collapse of WTC7 and Bush's behaviour on 9/11 indicating prior knowledge of the hijackings



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AKaholic

Lemmings? Lemmings? We are lemmings because we are "spoon fed" by the media? Rediculous. Maybe we just don't feel a govt could not make a conspiracy as one as large as some people think exist. Do you know how crappy and sloppy our govt is run? If there was a conspiracy someone high up would have leaked it long ago.


I find it fascinating how people confuse the bumbling idiot perspective of the entire government as a whole with our military and the capabilities of factions of high ranking officials and black ops units.

Just look at the fact that the Bush Admin is in power, and give them some credit. Bush is in power still and still has faithul supporters because he converged their political bias with their religious bias and now he's virtually unfadable. Read about political bias in my sig below. 'He' doesnt get the credit he deserves, and whether or not he really is an idiot or a sort of manchurian candidate there is pure genius behind this man and he may just be the greatest psyop president that has ever existed in the US. I've had people tell me that God Himself put him in office, even after proving that he's more of an esoteric occultist than a Christian and also showing what a terrible president he is in more ways than I'd ever think someone could look at and still not change their views about him. Another guy even said he'd vote for Bush to be the 'president' for the rest of his life. lol

Stop confgusing beuricrats and all the lame BS with the capabilities of the ultra elite. Also start recognizing the fact that the Dem's are just as guilty as anyone, like the destruction of the Constitituion, and all the rest as the Rep's, except for few exceptions (that can be explained as plain bipartisan bias motivation).

As for this video I only had time to get thru the first 10 minutes for now. I'll do a full analysis later. SO far I see some good points, but also more nitpicking than ever. I cant wait to see their explanations of the explosion reports and the lobby footage. I'll also point out that the linked site provides video of a fighter jet hitting a concrete wall. Thats just as misleading as any of Loose CHanges weakest links because the wall used was some 12' thick of reinforced concrete which is at least 3X wha the Pentagon was. I'm not even supporting the Pentaon theories here, but I find it hilarious that these so called truth presenters are using the same tactics that they're making Loose Change look like.

[edit on 17-6-2006 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 17-6-2006 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I think we should ban the thread author.He or she is a disninfo agent and one more thnig if screw loose change then watch martial law 9\11:road to police state by alex jones

www.netctr.com\media.html



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by warthog911
I think we should ban the thread author.He or she is a disninfo agent and one more thnig if screw loose change then watch martial law 9\11:road to police state by alex jones

www.netctr.com\media.html


The irony of this statement. You are trying to tell me about a police state document while using a police state tactics to get rid of me.

Funny #.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie

Originally posted by warthog911
I think we should ban the thread author.He or she is a disninfo agent and one more thnig if screw loose change then watch martial law 9\11:road to police state by alex jones

www.netctr.com\media.html


The irony of this statement. You are trying to tell me about a police state document while using a police state tactics to get rid of me.

Funny #.



Thats all you ever get out of the vast majority of CTs. It is odd that they don't see this hypocracy---but then again they don't see the truth in front of their eyes backed by huge piles of evidence.

One of the main complaints of these people is that "the man" or "the NWO" hate and discourage anyone from asking questions and want to silence anyone who isn't a "sheeple" and won't blindly accept whatever they say.

They is exactly what THEY do. Test this theory in any one of the threads. Ask a direct question and you will get no answer that addresses the question. You get deflection, distraction or a changing of the subject---but no answers to direct questions.

Be persistant in asking for evidence to support a claim, and you'll be called a government agent.

The hypocracy is glaring.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta


Thats all you ever get out of the vast majority of CTs. It is odd that they don't see this hypocracy---but then again they don't see the truth in front of their eyes backed by huge piles of evidence.

One of the main complaints of these people is that "the man" or "the NWO" hate and discourage anyone from asking questions and want to silence anyone who isn't a "sheeple" and won't blindly accept whatever they say.

They is exactly what THEY do. Test this theory in any one of the threads. Ask a direct question and you will get no answer that addresses the question. You get deflection, distraction or a changing of the subject---but no answers to direct questions.

Be persistant in asking for evidence to support a claim, and you'll be called a government agent.

The hypocracy is glaring.


Are you a conspiracy theorist expert? This is like the second post where you try to pose tactics of negativity towards conspiracy theorists. How is your life, may we critique, I would love to do that.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie

Originally posted by warthog911
I think we should ban the thread author.He or she is a disninfo agent and one more thnig if screw loose change then watch martial law 9\11:road to police state by alex jones

www.netctr.com\media.html


The irony of this statement. You are trying to tell me about a police state document while using a police state tactics to get rid of me.

Funny #.



Thats all you ever get out of the vast majority of CTs. It is odd that they don't see this hypocracy---but then again they don't see the truth in front of their eyes backed by huge piles of evidence.

One of the main complaints of these people is that "the man" or "the NWO" hate and discourage anyone from asking questions and want to silence anyone who isn't a "sheeple" and won't blindly accept whatever they say.

They is exactly what THEY do. Test this theory in any one of the threads. Ask a direct question and you will get no answer that addresses the question. You get deflection, distraction or a changing of the subject---but no answers to direct questions.

Be persistant in asking for evidence to support a claim, and you'll be called a government agent.

The hypocracy is glaring.

Okay, prove to me and show me who did 911, I want names and background data, can you do that? Hey guess what here is something new, the FBI said WE DONT KNOW WHO DID IT and that being an official statement made by the FBI.
I just think your trooling.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Thats all you ever get out of the vast majority of CTs. It is odd that they don't see this hypocracy---but then again they don't see the truth in front of their eyes backed by huge piles of evidence.


Such as...?

And btw, do you know what ad hominem is, and do you understand that it's fallacious logic and also a disinformation tactic? Stereotyping everyone on here who believes 9/11 was an inside job (a great majority on these forums, see WCIP's poll), and then attacking the stereotype you just invented hardly contributes to finding the truth behind 9/11.

But I would love to see the "huge piles of evidence" you reference. Maybe you meant Atta's suitcase? Or the passport that survived the impacts, and was delivered anonymously?



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie

Originally posted by warthog911
I think we should ban the thread author.He or she is a disninfo agent and one more thnig if screw loose change then watch martial law 9\11:road to police state by alex jones

www.netctr.com\media.html


The irony of this statement. You are trying to tell me about a police state document while using a police state tactics to get rid of me.

Funny #.



Thats all you ever get out of the vast majority of CTs. It is odd that they don't see this hypocracy---but then again they don't see the truth in front of their eyes backed by huge piles of evidence.

One of the main complaints of these people is that "the man" or "the NWO" hate and discourage anyone from asking questions and want to silence anyone who isn't a "sheeple" and won't blindly accept whatever they say.

They is exactly what THEY do. Test this theory in any one of the threads. Ask a direct question and you will get no answer that addresses the question. You get deflection, distraction or a changing of the subject---but no answers to direct questions.

Be persistant in asking for evidence to support a claim, and you'll be called a government agent.

The hypocracy is glaring.

Okay, prove to me and show me who did 911, I want names and background data, can you do that? Hey guess what here is something new, the FBI said WE DONT KNOW WHO DID IT and that being an official statement made by the FBI.
I just think your trooling.


LOL> You just proved the statement I made--i.e change the subject to distract. I made an documenable observation concerning the traits of the average CT. You counter with--"Prove to me"--

But actually this helps a bit. I've repeatedly asked any CT to establish a criteria of what constitutes "proof" and a criteria for what WILL be accepted as valid evidence and proof for all sides of the disscussion to adhere to --and have gotten nothing in response but total avoidence of the question--but now YOU ask for "proof"--o.k.--I offer some as soon as you outline what will be accepted as proof--for all involved.


MMC

posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   


I just think your trooling.


He is a troll...



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta


LOL> You just proved the statement I made--i.e change the subject to distract. I made an documenable observation concerning the traits of the average CT. You counter with--"Prove to me"--

But actually this helps a bit. I've repeatedly asked any CT to establish a criteria of what constitutes "proof" and a criteria for what WILL be accepted as valid evidence and proof for all sides of the disscussion to adhere to --and have gotten nothing in response but total avoidence of the question--but now YOU ask for "proof"--o.k.--I offer some as soon as you outline what will be accepted as proof--for all involved.


First off, you're not even worth the trouble.

Second off, you made the argument of having huge amounts of evidence, can you back it up and have something to show for it, don't turn this into an interpretation match of what "constitutes as proof" or not. That's not an issue at hand, we're debating the physics surrounding the collapse, the structural integrity of the building and its capabilities of strength and how it could of fell.

By all means, use the NIST report as your example, it's been presented 100 times over on this board.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I remember when conspiracy theorists were able to present their theories without being targetted by groups with an agenda. I dont know what has change, but i cannot help but notice that 9/11 researchers are targetted by certain groups.

(this post is not aimed at anyone on this thread)



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoochies
IMHO, there are only 2 types of people who would try and refute the evidence provided by the conspiracy theorists.

1.) The American fascist lemmings blinded by the spoon fed media portrayal of the ACTUAL events of 9/11…
2.) Government DIS-informants trying to prevent exposing the blood thirsty neo-con regime currently in power…AND Fear of them having to REWRITE HISTORY.


I CAN'T believe the lid HASN'T been blown off as of yet to expose the REAL TERRORISTS...

The REAL TERRORISTS are the SAME people professing their DUTY to protect us.

Snooch



well people will believe what they want to believe, just because they dont believe what conspiracy people say doesnt make them wonrg.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by Vushta


LOL> You just proved the statement I made--i.e change the subject to distract. I made an documenable observation concerning the traits of the average CT. You counter with--"Prove to me"--

But actually this helps a bit. I've repeatedly asked any CT to establish a criteria of what constitutes "proof" and a criteria for what WILL be accepted as valid evidence and proof for all sides of the disscussion to adhere to --and have gotten nothing in response but total avoidence of the question--but now YOU ask for "proof"--o.k.--I offer some as soon as you outline what will be accepted as proof--for all involved.


First off, you're not even worth the trouble.

Second off, you made the argument of having huge amounts of evidence, can you back it up and have something to show for it, don't turn this into an interpretation match of what "constitutes as proof" or not. That's not an issue at hand, we're debating the physics surrounding the collapse, the structural integrity of the building and its capabilities of strength and how it could of fell.

By all means, use the NIST report as your example, it's been presented 100 times over on this board.


I've been ignoreing these threads because its obvious that one can not have a reasoned dissussion with a brainwashed mind. Statements like this:




don't turn this into an interpretation match of what "constitutes as proof" or not.


--Show in part what I mean. Are you saying that there should be no criteria for proof or evidence? How much sense does that make? Its a consistant tactic of CTs. Handwave away one of the most important concepts of establishing facts by implying such things are not important. Would you accept this type of crap statement in a trial against YOU? I think not and THEN it would be obvious why not. But simply handwaving away important concepts is what CTs do because they can provide zero valid evidence for ..as of yet..undefine theories.

You seem to imply the NIST report is flawed in its conclusions---which conclusions about what evidence?
Point of a piece of evidence in the report and make a case for it being flawed--and supply some evidence to support your claim.




don't turn this into an interpretation match of what "constitutes as proof" or not. That's not an issue at hand,, we're debating the physics surrounding the collapse, the structural integrity of the building and its capabilities of strength and how it could of fell


It is exactly the issue at hand.
Simply because you state something, that does not make it an accurate statement.

How else is one to determine that the conclusions regarding the physics or structural integrity are in fact valid?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join