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.

 

Pilots for 911 Truth Airphone Claim - debunked

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Franz,

What you have stated pretty much sums up what i have experienced.

In all my 20+ years of flying, i have not once had a cell phone work at higher altitudes, prior to 9/11 or after.

When i was a corporate pilot in the mid-late 90's, I have made cell calls in flight, but we would have to descent below 5000 and it was hit and miss...and this was in the Northeast corridor.


Your information is interesting Franz... email us when you get a chance and if you would like to chat a bit more on the subject.

pilots(at)pilotsfor911truth.org

Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org



[edit on 17-9-2007 by johndoex]




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Rob,

You have a copy of the document you say is fake. I say it isn't.... you can easily shut me up by sending a copy over to one of your two contacts that you list. Again...you will refuse to do so. I don't have contacts at the airlines, if I did, I would be sure to have had this validated.

The ball is in your court. If you refuse, you are proving that you fear the results.

Rob, may I once again ask you for your opinions of voice morphing?

Oh one more thing about pilots using phones:


The pilot departed San Jose, California, on a cross-country flight to Sisters, Oregon. He obtained a standard preflight weather briefing. Visual flight was not recommended. Cumulus buildups were reported to the pilot. The pilot indicated that he may be overflying the cloud tops. He did not file a flight plan. The pilot's wife was driving to the same location and they talked by cell phone while en route. When the pilot failed to arrive at the destination a search was started. According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent. Radar was lost at 11,800 feet. Witnesses reported seeing the aircraft descending near vertically out of broken clouds with the engine at full power. When the aircraft was found, the right outboard wing panel from about station 110 outboard was missing. About a month later the outer wing panel was found. Analysis of the failed structure indicated a positive overload of the wing and the horizontal stabilators.

www.aircraftone.com...


Just some other info (this is 2003)

Over the course of three months in late 2003, we investigated the possibility that portable electronic devices interfere with a plane's safety instruments by measuring the RF spectrum inside commercial aircraft cabins. What we found was disturbing. Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations, and sometimes during the especially critical flight phases of takeoff and landing.

www.spectrum.ieee.org...


six

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer
 

I will state to you again...Me and Capt O are TWO different people.... Count them.... 1-Me six 2-Capt. Obvious.....Geeez...should I write it in crayon for you? Would it make it easier for you to understand? If you want to insult me and call into question my integrity please get it right
There are alot of circumstances about different aspects of 9/11 that I do have FIRST hand experience with. I HAVE NEVER, in any post, stated that I am a metalurgist, demo expert etc. There are those out there who can verify that.
I will point out to you your singular lack of research about giving credit about who posted what. The post you are giving me credit for is from Capt Obvious..(which we discussed earlier) .. not me

To Capt. Obvious..I appologize to you and all of the other people posting here for the sake of discussion and knowledge, for the above post. I know it is not on topic.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   

According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent. Radar was lost at 11,800 feet.



I'll address this as your other questions have been addressed. (i'll say it again, keep an eye on our website).

Note when radar was lost. Im thinking the ground wasnt too far below that.

He was flying over high terrain... obviously..

CaptObvious, you supplied the paperwork which contradicts our paperwork. It is up to you to authenticate your claims/documents. We have authenticated ours. But again, keep an eye on the website as we will be addressing this issue.

Voice-morphing? Dont know much about it. Im a pilot. Although i will say it is very simple to morph any voice, i have done it in Pandora's Black Box 2 with our FDR Expert to keep him anonymous.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent. Radar was lost at 11,800 feet.



I'll address this as your other questions have been addressed. (i'll say it again, keep an eye on our website).

Note when radar was lost. Im thinking the ground wasnt too far below that.

He was flying over high terrain... obviously..



As predicted, there is a 13,500 foot peak 20 miles from the "Event City" (which is not necessarily the center of the crash site)... gee.. you think that would be a good place to put a cell tower?

Event City TENNANT
Event State CALIFORNIA

Look it up CaptObvious. :rolleyes:

typo

[edit on 17-9-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Instead of pimping out your website Rob, why don't you just answer the question in THIS forum. The last thing I want to do is give your fantasy website a hit that is does not deserve.

It's simple Rob, ... "Yes I have submitted the paper to my contacts and I will get back to you with their findings as soon as I hear back from them."

or

"No, I do not wish to submit that paper to my contacts for verification."

But, seems you are unable to give me a straight answer.

Thank you,

CO



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Wasn't this discussed a while ago, with the finding that it was possible (maybe 1 in 100 calls) but not 20 or so in total that occurred on 9/11 within hours of each other (minutes in the case of Flight 93)?

I thought I also read that voice manipulation software was demonstrated at Fort Worth (???) months prior to 9/11???? Sorry - no links, but I'm pretty sure I read it recently.

Regardless, why would companies be spending thousands on researching in-flight telephone service provision if mobiles worked reliably at altitude?? In addition - doesn't that make a mockery of the "no phones" during flight? I thought it was quite a reversal in policy, considering their original arguments for having them switched off.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
The original arguments for turning them off in flight was to keep them from interfering with instruments. Until recently they were considering rescinding that order. There is at least one foreign carrier that is still working on it.

The reason they're testing new equipment to allow them to work is because right now when they're in the air the signal hits every cell tower around, and can disrupt the entire network. The new technology limits it to just one cell tower at a time.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by johndoex
 


Instead of pimping out your website Rob, why don't you just answer the question in THIS forum. The last thing I want to do is give your fantasy website a hit that is does not deserve.

It's simple Rob, ... "Yes I have submitted the paper to my contacts and I will get back to you with their findings as soon as I hear back from them."

or

"No, I do not wish to submit that paper to my contacts for verification."

But, seems you are unable to give me a straight answer.

Thank you,

CO


So, you make claims but ask me to authenticate them for you? Excuse me while i laugh....

I have already debunked many of your so-called 'debunks' and claims. Even right here in this thread. The Piper Pilot on a cell phone less than 2000 feet above a peak (when you used it thinking he was 15,400 above the ground) was a classic example of your research ability prior to you posting your claims.

Swim in it...

We will address the information properly and thoroughly the correct way. Unlike you shooting off the hip with any information that becomes available that you perceive supports the govt story. Only to find out you once again placed your foot in your mouth.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I thought I also read that voice manipulation software was demonstrated at Fort Worth (???) months prior to 9/11???? Sorry - no links, but I'm pretty sure I read it recently.


Yup. 1999 to be specific.


By William M. Arkin Special to washingtonpost.com Monday, Feb. 1, 1999

"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.


This is also interesting.


But the "strategic" PSYOPS scheming didn't die. What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam, a senior Air Force officer asked in 1990?

According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.

But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources.


Source: freedom4um.com...

Notice how the holographic technology isn't impossible but only would take a huge amount of energy. Things that make you go hmm....



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


Instead of pimping out your website Rob,



It funny you say this when i dont even have a signature to our site nor do i provide a link when i say "keep an eye on our site". Strawman much?

However, since you brought it up... how do i add a sig? I just tried looking under edit my profile, but sig isnt there.

If im going to be accused for 'pimping my site' i may as well add a signature with a link...


eta: On that note... Cap, you have 'pimped my site' more than i have in this thread... thanks!

[edit on 17-9-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
how do i add a sig?


Member center: Account settings. Hope that helps.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Member center: Account settings. Hope that helps.



ok.. i see member blogs... search members.. but no 'member center'.

A link would help. This forum format isnt anything im used to... and i been on alot of forums..



eta: found it.. its under u2u.. :-)

[edit on 17-9-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   


originally posted by johndoex
I have already debunked many of your so-called 'debunks' and claims. Even right here in this thread. The Piper Pilot on a cell phone less than 2000 feet above a peak (when you used it thinking he was 15,400 above the ground) was a classic example of your research ability prior to you posting your claims.


I don't know if that is really a thorough debunking. We don't know the piper pilot's location or altitude when the call was made. Also, we don't know if there was a tower on that peak in 1996.

Are you saying that you will believe the document that SLC posted is real if the source of the document gives that blog his/her name? I'm just curious.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Captain0bvious
 



Are there now 2 CaptainObvious? huh?



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer
The noise is unbelievable - to hear someone else speak you have to (literally) yell as loud as you can with cupped hands over their ears....


Just wanted to say this is true. I worked on H-53 helo's in the navy and did many maintenance flights. Also flew in CH-3's and CH-46's. You are NOT going to be using a cell phone...lol At ANY altitude. You can't even hear yourself speak. You are also wearing a helmet with ear protection etc... What the guy is claiming is just NOT realistic...

Unless you've grown up on hollywood reality...



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

As you see, these undoctored documents (besides personal information) show that the airphones were not deactivated until March of 2002.


[edit on 15-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]


Hi, Captain obvious.

I have no real interest in the documents or what they imply but I would like to point out that what you have posted is a scan of a document and not a real document. Scanning a document and posting it on the internets does not constitute proof or even a convincing argument.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Wow, I have a clone. I feel honored that someone took the time to make up an account with the same name and an avatar to match!!

Middle School must have let out early yesterday.

To address the document... AGAIN. It was obtained by a person from the Screw Loose Change forum. Has it been validated? It was only validated by a person that "claims" to have worked for the airlines and stated that is looks like the appropriate document. So, in short,no it isn't.

Rob, who is in a heated discussion at the SLC forum has not agreed to have this document verified. He keeps stating to look at his website for updates. I do not have the connections at AA as Rob has claimed he does. Like I stated, his firend was able to obtain a record from AA and send it to him. Wouldn't it be just as easy for his connection to verify this?

In addition, Rob, back a few months ago started this fantasy on his website that he obtained a document that stated that all the airphones were removed from the AA planes. The documet was not what he thought it was. He blacked out the dates and claimed another date proved his theory while from what I learned the date he claimed was a disconnect date, was actually the last official update for that section of the manual.

Rob, has actually posted death threats to skeptics at other websites and has also made phone calls to others saying "We will get you!"

The two websites his is involved with are more into spreading lies and selling barbeque aprons with their logo on it:

www.cafepress.com...




posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I thought I would throw this into the mix, please notice the date and who the carrier is.



American Airlines and QUALCOMM Complete Test Flight to Evaluate In-Cabin Mobile Phone Use

Proof-of-Concept Event Highlights Safe and Reliable Mobile Phone Technology Using CDMA on a Commercial Aircraft
FORT WORTH, Texas and SAN DIEGO — July 15, 2004 — QUALCOMM Incorporated (Nasdaq: QCOM), pioneer and world leader of Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) digital wireless technology, and American Airlines, the world’s largest carrier, today successfully demonstrated in-cabin voice communications using commercially available CDMA mobile phones on a commercial American Airlines aircraft. Through the use of an in-cabin third-generation (3G ) “picocell” network, passengers on the test flight were able to place and receive calls as if they were on the ground.
~~
Today, American Airlines and QUALCOMM showcased their strength as technology pioneers and market leaders in their respective industries,” said Dan Garton, executive vice president of marketing for American Airlines. “American is committed to researching and providing innovative, cutting-edge products and services that enhance our passengers’ traveling experience and give our customers what they value. Even though commercial availability of cell phone use in flight is approximately 24 months away, American Airlines knows that our customers want to stay connected and this proof-of-concept event is an important step in bringing in-cabin wireless services to our customers.”
www.qualcomm.com...

my bold



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join