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