View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

9/11 Truth News and Updates

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 04 Feb 2014, 08:59

SydneyPSIder wrote:This is just completely hilarious.

You, and they, the 'spokespersons' are starting with the final desired conclusion and working back to possible unlikely explanations that do not fit the physics. What's the name of that particular logical fallacy? Because you personally like to do it a lot.

I've published one trial that was set up to determine the truth of the matter, and it came out false -- phone calls could not be made.

Calls would not go end-to-end, i.e. last from beginning to end without dropouts, in fact they would not even be established in the first place, for a plane flying at any speed much above 100 mph, due to the simple v=s/t equation of how long it takes to handshake with a particular cell phone tower. So excessive altitude and therefore weak signal is one reason it won't work, and handshaking time at high speed and at ANY altitude is another.

These 'spokespeople' you cite will most definitely not be scientists or experts in wireless telephony, they are just PR suits, you know, the kind of spin doctors that they use to diddle people out of their phone bills or spin any network downtime to the public etc.

The excerpted quote below sums it your illogic perfectly -- the supposition you and they are making is complete ungrounded and disproven in a trial. You have presented no evidence whatsoever, just people working backwards from a conclusion. You have proven or disproven absolutely nothing. What a joke you and the apologists are.

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.

“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.” [how much 'leakage' would this be, exactly? no figures? didn't think so. I would suggest any such 'leakage' would be miniscule in line with the design intent of the antennas. we only have a message from a suit on this, not from a design engineer who would be proud of their work minimising any such 'leakage'.]

From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added. [this has been proven to be false, which has been backed up over and over again by reports from flight attendants and aviation workers in general]

Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less. [More self-evident BS.]

“They also were digital phones, and there's a little bit more leeway on those digital phones, so it worked,” she said. [Oh, OK, I see now, that makes perfect sense -- it worked because clearly it worked. No other explanation is possible. Circular reasoning.]

The work has already been done and evidence has already been presented, and can be replicated in study after study -- not that govt officials seem to keen to do that, for some reason.

Then why has it been legal in Europe to do so for several years now? And are you aware that phone's were different 15 years ago and actually had stronger, digital signals? Oh, you didn't know that? Didn't think so.
You know what's laughable Syd? You are cutting down the same spokespeople that you had posted a partial quote of in your vain attempt to prove a point! I just showed the readers the whole story that you tried to hide. Now THAT's funny!!!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 04 Feb 2014, 09:08

sorry, wag, nothing you are saying makes any sense now. you are just arguing rubbish for the sake of arguing.

give me evidence 'from Europe' that ordinary GSM phones can make contact with ground cell towers DIRECTLY from a plane that has not been fitted with the new phone relaying technology that has been out for the last few years (it came out many years after 9/11).

re your attempted random argument about signal strengths being higher in 2001, without tendering any evidence whatsoever, the trial of GSM digital phones was conducted by Dewdney in 2003, within 2 years of the 9/11 event, without much success, as noted -- at low altitudes and relative low speeds in a turboprop type plane with no metal shielding. flight attendants ever since the events of 9/11 have been objecting that it's impossible to make a GSM phone call from the air (except when the new relaying technology is fitted to a plane, of course), except when slowing right down for take-off or landing near an airport, when of course velocity is low to allow handshaking, and there are ample cell towers nearby and within range.

So, where's your European evidence, where's your 'higher signal strength' evidence, before we even entertain your silly fabricated objections for another second.

you are laughable, pseudo'prof'wag, you are laughable. Is anyone else getting sick of profwag's continual line of crap? I know I am. It's just going into the realm of time-wasting now, science was always the first casualty with this one.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 04 Feb 2014, 09:32

SydneyPSIder wrote:sorry, wag, nothing you are saying makes any sense now. you are just arguing rubbish for the sake of arguing.

give me evidence 'from Europe' that ordinary GSM phones can make contact with ground cell towers DIRECTLY from a plane that has not been fitted with the new phone relaying technology that has been out for the last few years (it came out many years after 9/11).

re your attempted random argument about signal strengths being higher in 2001, without tendering any evidence whatsoever, the trial of GSM digital phones was conducted by Dewdney in 2003, within 2 years of the 9/11 event, without much success, as noted -- at low altitudes and relative low speeds in a turboprop type plane with no metal shielding. flight attendants ever since the events of 9/11 have been objecting that it's impossible to make a GSM phone call from the air (except when the new relaying technology is fitted to a plane, of course), except when slowing right down for take-off or landing near an airport, when of course velocity is low to allow handshaking, and there are ample cell towers nearby and within range.

So, where's your European evidence, where's your 'higher signal strength' evidence, before we even entertain your silly fabricated objections for another second.

you are laughable, pseudo'prof'wag, you are laughable. Is anyone else getting sick of profwag's continual line of crap? I know I am. It's just going into the realm of time-wasting now, science was always the first casualty with this one.

You are the one saying it was impossible to call today and didn't include the GSM data. I just refuted it which was pretty easy to do actually.
I know you won't read the following since it's from a 9/11 debunking website which you don't agree with, but Dewdney's test was flawed:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/AK_Dewdney_and_Project_Achilles
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby FatFreddy » 05 Feb 2014, 04:40

Check out what this video says about the cell phone calls at the 1:38:35 time mark.

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (1/3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 05 Feb 2014, 22:57

FatFreddy wrote:Check out what this video says about the cell phone calls at the 1:38:35 time mark.

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (1/3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

Thank you for that information Freddy. Unfortunately, the author's remarks are quite flawed on the cell phone subject (they were also flawed on his comments on CIA and drones, but that's a different issue). It shows an experiment in Japan of cell phones being used from airplanes. The ONLY way to determine with 100% certainty if cell phones were used on the planes would be to take the same carriers with the same type of phones on the same path of the original planes and at the same height and for the same length of time. Cell phone towers are different everywhere in the world so just because it doesn't work over Tokyo or over the mid-Atlantic, doesn't mean that it would not have worked approaching Shanksville. The only way to test with any certainty would be to retrace the original route using 2001 technology. This is also one of the reason's that Dewdney's experiment was flawed as well. Additionally, there's strong evidence that the vast majority of the alleged calls were from seatbacks and only a couple calls were from actual cell phones and I can't find evidence to say when or where exactly these originated. As such, I believe the cell phone topic results in little to no evidence of a conspiracy on 9/11.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 06 Feb 2014, 07:25

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:sorry, wag, nothing you are saying makes any sense now. you are just arguing rubbish for the sake of arguing.

give me evidence 'from Europe' that ordinary GSM phones can make contact with ground cell towers DIRECTLY from a plane that has not been fitted with the new phone relaying technology that has been out for the last few years (it came out many years after 9/11).

re your attempted random argument about signal strengths being higher in 2001, without tendering any evidence whatsoever, the trial of GSM digital phones was conducted by Dewdney in 2003, within 2 years of the 9/11 event, without much success, as noted -- at low altitudes and relative low speeds in a turboprop type plane with no metal shielding. flight attendants ever since the events of 9/11 have been objecting that it's impossible to make a GSM phone call from the air (except when the new relaying technology is fitted to a plane, of course), except when slowing right down for take-off or landing near an airport, when of course velocity is low to allow handshaking, and there are ample cell towers nearby and within range.

So, where's your European evidence, where's your 'higher signal strength' evidence, before we even entertain your silly fabricated objections for another second.

you are laughable, pseudo'prof'wag, you are laughable. Is anyone else getting sick of profwag's continual line of crap? I know I am. It's just going into the realm of time-wasting now, science was always the first casualty with this one.

You are the one saying it was impossible to call today and didn't include the GSM data. I just refuted it which was pretty easy to do actually.
I know you won't read the following since it's from a 9/11 debunking website which you don't agree with, but Dewdney's test was flawed:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/AK_Dewdney_and_Project_Achilles

Virtually that entire article is easily rebuttable rubbish. I'll look at a couple of the arguments of illogic and inconvenience, but it is increasingly a waste of time.

It's amazing how pseudoprofwag pulls out razor sharp logic and captiousness when it suits his argument, but suddenly latches onto the most illogical prevarications when it suits also. I've also noticed that profwag is extremely defensive about anything to do with criticism of the US govt on this site -- particularly JFK, 9/11 and Apollo -- but shows very little genuine interest in the 'paranormal' aspect of the site which is supposed to be its primary focus. Is profwag an irregular and possibly unpaid 'true patriot' intelligence asset who likes to run interference on websites? Doing 'important intelligence work' just like Lee Harvey Oswald thought he was doing? Just wondering.

When digital couldn't get through, their phones switched to analog which, at least in a 911 call, gave them a better chance of getting through. This still doesn't clear up how calls were made at altitudes over 8,000 ft (and possibly up to 30,000 ft).

That's a very interesting observation. I've never, ever owned a phone that could switch from digital to analog as a built-in feature, they require different types of circuits, dual circuits in fact, to do that. There may have been a few handset models out there like that at the network change-over point years ago. The phone settings that let you choose a provider and service are also pretty well set in stone, you have to go into the settings and change the protocols yourself if you decide to go off GSM onto whatever else -- it doesn't just autoflip from 'digital' to 'analog'. Corroboration, anyone?

And as noted, "This still doesn't clear up how calls were made at altitudes over 8,000 ft (and possibly up to 30,000 ft)" -- profwag and fellow apologists are clearly clutching at straws with a convenient mix of logic and illogic and razor sharp attention to exceptions and excuses as a diversion while ignoring the very obvious major problems with the account. So THE WHOLE ARGUMENT PRESENTED BY PROFWAG VIA THAT WEBPAGE IS MOOT FROM THE OUTSET, and profwag has just wasted everyone's time with convenient prevarication yet again.

As was shown above, the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred.

Forget the 1 in 10,000 BS refutation, the 1 in 100 lack of likelihood of getting a phone call off -- and the odds would be even less, about zero, at high altitude and high speed, should tell you the likelihood of any passengers getting long calls through with crystal clear reception as we hear on the recordings. The clarity of the recordings themselves are very suspicious, and as "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" points out, one of the calls allegedly lasted for about an hour somehow -- and as they point out, discussion of the phone calls in the 9/11 report and other reports suddenly went very quiet on the government side, something that every US citizen should be having a deep disquiet about. And in fact the rest of the world's populations who have been asked to accept a nasty hoax perpetrated for reasons of maintaining geopolitical hegemony and imperialistic aims and disrupting the govts of certain strategically placed countries.

To serve a specific region, the region is divided into separate sub-areas (cells). These extend like a honeycomb over the entire Federal territory, but have different sizes. The diameter of a cell ranges from less than 100 metres in inner cities to 15 kilometres in rural areas. The more transmitter locations there are, the smaller the individual cells can be. The smaller the cell, in turn, the lower the broadcasting power of the individual antennae can be.

But wait a sec, the apologists in media reporting also pointed out in one of the treatments that the planes were flying over celltower-rich areas as well, so THAT was the reason they worked. So they want it both ways now? OK...

The one interesting thing is that in all the hypothesising by apologists about phone reception, not a single one has dared to go up in the air and test it for themselves, not even in a regular commercial plane trip they might be taking. Instead they just sit in their armchairs and take hypothetical potshots and try to quibble and pick at irrelevant points in a completely invalid way. Interesting that the govt doesn't do a study for themselves also. Probably for the same reason they've banned the LRO flying over or taking pics of Apollo sites!
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 06 Feb 2014, 07:36, edited 2 times in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 06 Feb 2014, 07:32

ProfWag wrote:
FatFreddy wrote:Check out what this video says about the cell phone calls at the 1:38:35 time mark.

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (1/3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

Thank you for that information Freddy. Unfortunately, the author's remarks are quite flawed on the cell phone subject (they were also flawed on his comments on CIA and drones, but that's a different issue). It shows an experiment in Japan of cell phones being used from airplanes. The ONLY way to determine with 100% certainty if cell phones were used on the planes would be to take the same carriers with the same type of phones on the same path of the original planes and at the same height and for the same length of time. Cell phone towers are different everywhere in the world so just because it doesn't work over Tokyo or over the mid-Atlantic, doesn't mean that it would not have worked approaching Shanksville. The only way to test with any certainty would be to retrace the original route using 2001 technology. This is also one of the reason's that Dewdney's experiment was flawed as well. Additionally, there's strong evidence that the vast majority of the alleged calls were from seatbacks and only a couple calls were from actual cell phones and I can't find evidence to say when or where exactly these originated. As such, I believe the cell phone topic results in little to no evidence of a conspiracy on 9/11.

More conveniently manufactured BS from pseudoprofwag.

If he had cared to do any deeper research, he would have found out that neither UA or AA were offering the seatback service at that time -- in some cases, the phones were still in the planes but the service was switched off, unavailable. His 'strong evidence' has just been made up off the top of his head in order to influence this website. This piece of propaganda, because that's all it is, has been covered in more focussed sites on the 9/11 hoax anyhow, so his disinformation attempts on a relatively obscure website about the paranormal are pretty much a waste of time.

Again, the US govt has pretty well shut up about the seatback question as well. Because it starts to get a little embarrassing the more you look at it.

We're still waiting for your eyewitness testimony transcripts from numerous named people so we can analyse what they really might have been able to see from their alleged vantage points compared with many other eyewitnesses, and look at their intelligence links and backgrounds also.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 06 Feb 2014, 07:38

FatFreddy wrote:Check out what this video says about the cell phone calls at the 1:38:35 time mark.

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (1/3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

Thanks, FF, very informative and useful. profwag is hoping the mists of time will obscure the detail of all the problems with the official story, as does the US govt. He can just say anything 12 years later and hope to get away with it. Luckily we have a few good docos and research and information frozen from that period to refresh our memories.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 06 Feb 2014, 19:05

SydneyPSIder wrote:
If he had cared to do any deeper research, he would have found out that neither UA or AA were offering the seatback service at that time -- in some cases, the phones were still in the planes but the service was switched off, unavailable. His 'strong evidence' has just been made up off the top of his head in order to influence this website. This piece of propaganda, because that's all it is, has been covered in more focussed sites on the 9/11 hoax anyhow, so his disinformation attempts on a relatively obscure website about the paranormal are pretty much a waste of time.

And thank you Syd for attempting to keep me in line. Unfortunately, if YOU'LL do a little unbiased research, you'll find that the seatback service was directed to be switched off, however, there is no evidence that they actually were. When a change to an aircraft such as this, mechanics must keep a log of the things they do to a plane and turning off communication to the seatback service would have been one of the things logged. There is no evidence whatsoever that shows the mechanics actually did shut them off. As such, the logical conclusion is that they were still functional.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 07 Feb 2014, 14:27

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
If he had cared to do any deeper research, he would have found out that neither UA or AA were offering the seatback service at that time -- in some cases, the phones were still in the planes but the service was switched off, unavailable. His 'strong evidence' has just been made up off the top of his head in order to influence this website. This piece of propaganda, because that's all it is, has been covered in more focussed sites on the 9/11 hoax anyhow, so his disinformation attempts on a relatively obscure website about the paranormal are pretty much a waste of time.

And thank you Syd for attempting to keep me in line. Unfortunately, if YOU'LL do a little unbiased research, you'll find that the seatback service was directed to be switched off, however, there is no evidence that they actually were. When a change to an aircraft such as this, mechanics must keep a log of the things they do to a plane and turning off communication to the seatback service would have been one of the things logged. There is no evidence whatsoever that shows the mechanics actually did shut them off. As such, the logical conclusion is that they were still functional.

right, and accepting credit cards back to the billing system and everything.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 08 Feb 2014, 11:17

FF's link to "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" is well worth linking to in its 5 hour entirety:







One general elected to continue the USAF exercises over Canada and Alaska while the US was clearly under attack. He was promoted later, rather than investigated, demoted or dismissed for what would appear to be massive incompetence.

Throughout the 5 hour documentary, as one watches the chief architects of the exercise talking in public, one can't help but notice all the subtle 'body language' cues whenever they are telling porkies or spinning -- their tone of voice changes to wheedling, and they frequently touch their faces or scratch their noses at those points etc -- almost unconscious attempts to 'hide their faces'. Even the most practiced lying psychopaths seem not to be able to control these telltales.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Apr 2014, 16:03

'Rethink 911' campaign running ads on buses in Ottawa, launched on 1 Sept 2013, with accompanying controversy:



http://rethink911.org/news/statement-ot ... in-canada/
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Previous

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests