So does that mean you will PM me for my email address?
Have We Been Mislead About 9/11? Revisited
by JamesThomas 144 Replies latest members politics
-
-
Abaddon
Jourles
You REALLY want to believe this don't you? So much so you even ignore the evidence you've sourced yourself. You say;
At 9:41, transponder contact was lost(altitude indication is also lost with this). At ~10:00, a private pilot reported seeing flight 93 at 8,000 feet.
You then say;
No personal calls, aside from the Airphone service, could have been made from the time of the takeover and all the way up until at least 10:00.
Without any evidence what-so-ever you ASSUME that the plane did not descend to 8k ft until someone saw it.
Are you saying that a plane that has changed altitude doesn't chnage altitude until someone sees it in some cute Conspiracist version of 'Does a tree falling in a forest with no one to see it make any sound'? Or forgetting the 19 minute window as that ruins your abiltity to claim there is a Conspiracy?
You're obviously bright; can't you see how you LEAP to the conclusion that supports what you want to believe even if this means you make unsupported assumptions (like in the 19 minute gap the plane wasn't at 8k ft until someone saw it). Doesn't that worry you? Check your head.
mkr32208
Don't bother mkr. The fact you can do it, that Conspiracists have done it trying to prove you can't do it, that one to four people on every commercial flight do it, means nothing to people who are as determined to believe in a COnspiracy despite all the evidence as a Creationist is determined to believe in Creation despite all the evidence.
It is a prevailing psychological attitude in some people. As they are not arriving at their belief logically, one can scarse expect to dissaude them from their belief's logically.
It's easier for them to believe you are a pawn of the lizard overlords/lacky of Bush or a liar.
-
Jourles
Boy, some of the items I have brought up still are not being addressed. For instance:
- The official report states that, "Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones. These calls between family, friends, and colleagues took place until the end of the flight and provided those on the ground with firsthand accounts.
Why would the commission file their report informing us of cell phone usage shortly thereafter the hijacking if it didn't happen? How long is shortly? A couple of minutes or twenty minutes? If we are to assume both documentaries are nearly correct regarding the depiction of cell phone use, then the time the cellular calls would have been made was during the ascent from 35k feet to 40k feet, or shortly thereafter. Again, show proof from ANY SOURCE that proves that a call can be made above 10k feet. Mkr's cell phone bill would provide such proof. I would think Abaddon would like to see this as well to rub it in my face and to shut me up once and for all. But since this alleged phone call could have never occurred in a toilet at >20k feet, Abaddon and I will never see the proof from the phone bill. If mkr feels that he will be prosecuted over this proof displayed in a private setting, well, that's just funny to me. I don't have any response except .
2. "If anyone has a theory on how a cell phone could continuously handoff over 8k feet, I'm all ears."
Not only 8k feet, but the alleged calls made shortly thereafter the hijacking which assumably was around 30k feet. You have to remember, a plane will not acquire a signal from the cellular network directly below it(the nearest one). The rf characteristics of an antenna system prohibit this. Rather, the plane would be surrounded in a 360 degree fashion by disparate networks. Explain how handoffs work from these multiple disparate networks and how a call could possibly stay up for any reasonable length of time.
Are you saying that a plane that has changed altitude doesn't chnage altitude until someone sees it in some cute Conspiracist version of 'Does a tree falling in a forest with no one to see it make any sound'? Or forgetting the 19 minute window as that ruins your abiltity to claim there is a Conspiracy?
Are we to assume that the plane dropped below 2k feet the entire 20 minutes so that the passengers could call out on their cells and then back up to 8k feet once being spotted? Or is it more plausible that the plane gradually decsended from 40k feet to an altitude of 8k feet during this 20 minute span? This still doesn't explain the fact that cell phone calls were allegedly made "shortly thereafter" the hijacking.
The fact you can do it, that Conspiracists have done it trying to prove you can't do it, that one to four people on every commercial flight do it
The fact that you can do it at what altitude? The "conspiracists" have only been able to establish, not carry on, a call at 8k feet. If someone brings their phone into a no service area, the phone will attempt to send out a registration request anyway. That study did not describe any lengths of calls attempted. Only "call attempts." A big difference between making calls and keeping them up. Oh, and disregard how they pointed out the critical stages of flight, such as takeoff and landing - which is where the study was primarily focused on. I do not disagree that calls can be made during these "critical stages of flight" since the elevation is quite low.
-
skyking
Yesterday I talked to a local expert about cell phones. Part of his job was to go around and see how far away from a cell tower you can get reception. He went though all the technical language that has already been said here. But listen he said it is very rare to ever get a transmission at ground level five miles away and he said the antennas are positioned to radiate down it would be impossible to transmit over 5000 ft. I showed him the posts on my thread and he said every person that claim they can call on their cell phone without the plane using the very new boxes that will allow cell phone usage is a flat out liar. -
Jourles
Oh, and just so mkr knows - if the FCC was to find out about his cell phone use on a commercial flight, the worst they could do to you is suspend your service and fine you.
I hereby set up this additional incentive to my challenge. I will pay ANYONE $100 via Paypal to provide proof to my previous challenge and will pay any fines issued by the FCC if caught. Sound good?
-
purplesofa
The History Channels explanation of the Twin Towers collapse is on now......
Its really amazing to me there were not more deaths......I remember being online chatting about it as it was happening .....and me and my freind were guessing 50,000 possibly........I wonder how many people could have been in the buildings at any given time during working hours.
purps
-
Jourles
I just have to throw this out there as well...
Allow me to humor both Abaddon and Mkr for the moment. Let's pretend that calls can be established at any elevation, including those made at >30k feet. Explain to us roughly which direction your phone is most likely to acquire a cellsite signal. Utilize the X and Y geometric planes if you have to. I already know which direction Abaddon feels the airplane will pick up the signal from as he explains here:
A plane at 500mph would have around 30 seconds in a cell. This is PLENTY of time for the handover between cells, as a cell monitors for signals with increasing strength coming towards it and organises a handoff from the cell the phone is leaving through a system called MTSO. It's not a process that waits until the cell boundry, it's predicitve, and signal strengths are measured thousands of times a second.
His description works if the cellular base station antennas are on the same horizontal axis as the airplane. But what he simply fails to account for is that the airplane is traveling at 500mph above the theoretical horizontal coverage area of the cellsite and does not pass through these cells on the ground directly below it. Look at the diagram I posted above showing the theoretical coverage pattern that radiates from the cellsite. Place yourself 30k feet directly above that site. How likely is it that you will pick up that site? You won't. Rather, your cell of choice would come from somewhere away from the area directly below the airplane where the electromagnetic waves are more likely to hit you(again, look at the diagram). In this case, and I will answer my above question, your serving cellsite can come from any direction around you heading out towards the horizon(a 360 degree pattern).
So let's just say your phone picks up one of these sites at 30k feet out near the horizon right outside your window. Your call goes through and you have established two-way communication with the other party. Seeing that you are traveling 500mph, which is the next likely cellsite your phone will pick up? Not every cellsite antenna system is built the same nor has the same electromagnetic characteristics. The chances of your phone handing off to a site in the originating cellsite's "neighbor list" is infintesimal. These chances increase exponentially to impossibility once you try handing off from the second site. Don't foget you're still traveling at 500mph at 30k feet! The likelyhood of you latching onto one site and then picking up another site at the other end of town are greater than a neighboring site, at that elevation. The problem here is, "neighbor lists."
"Neighbor lists" are software translations which are part of the cellsite's personality. These lists are stored in a master database back in the serving mtso. On the ground, when your phone travels from one cell to another, the server software that controls the cellsite dips into this neighbor list database when your phone is about to handoff. The cellsite and your phone are working in conjunction with each other trying to determine which Pilot PN(in CDMA) is stongest to handoff to. If the stongest Pilot channel from the other site is listed on your current cellsite's neighbor list, the system will allow your phone to continue its call on that stronger cellsite. But if your phone sees another site across town and wants to handoff there instead, it will try. But since this site across town is not listed on your current serving cellsite's neighbor list, the system will simply drop your call. We try to engineer our ground based network to eliminate this possibility. It requires hours and hours of drive testing to tune it correctly. But try this scenario from the air, and any calls that do go through will most definitely have this problem to contend with. And just so you know - this above description is for a network in one geographic area with one mtso controlling it. At altitude, you will be passing many many many disparate mtso's that may or may not have intervendor/interswitch handoff trunks.
This would make a great thesis one day for when I pursue my Masters in Telecommunications.
-
mkr32208
if the FCC was to find out about his cell phone use on a commercial flight, the worst they could do to you is suspend your service and fine you
So that hundred dollar bet is going to cover my $5000 dollar fine AND them taking away my pilots licence? Ummm NO!
Here's a better idea you take your 100 bucks go to orbitz and get a ticket to somewhere... Then while your on the plane make a call! Then since you lost your own bet with yourself you will break even on the flight!
I don't give a shit about cell phone technology and what tower is connecting and blah blah blah all I know is I have done it and will continue to do it! It's just that simple to me!
It's just like using single side ram sticks in your mother board every manual on the planet says you have use TWO SIMMS together to form a bank or they won't work... GUESS WHAT? I'M DOING IT RIGHT NOW! So maybe your thesis should be on not always relying totally on the manual?
I'm really kind of over this. I mean when you get right down to brass tacks your calling me a liar and I don't need that so I'm out you guys can argue it all you want but I'm out!
-
Jourles
Mkr, all I'm asking is to *privately* see a redacted phone bill. That's all! Or if it makes you feel better, let's pick a neutral party to view it. It's such a simple request! No one from this board, especially me, is going to report you for making a cell phone call on a plane. If I said I had in my possession a GB internal memo that outlined the time frame for them to eliminate sanctions on blood transfusions, do you think people would just take my word for it? Hell no! They would want to see this document as proof of my statements. The same principle applies here.
Here's a better idea you take your 100 bucks go to orbitz and get a ticket to somewhere... Then while your on the plane make a call! Then since you lost your own bet with yourself you will break even on the flight!
Don't you think I've tried this on many occasions already? If I could have proven it to myself, I would have no reason to even be on this thread. I would have made one singular comment saying I was able to make a call and that's it. I've been working in cellular telecommunications for 14 years now. I've flown literally countless times over the years. Not once have I been able to even see a signal from the ground. That is why I was asking to see your bill. If you could prove to me that you did it via your bill, I would believe you. Otherwise I am calling "bunk" on this one.
Such a simple request...
-
Abaddon
Jourles
Explain how handoffs work from these multiple disparate networks and how a call could possibly stay up for any reasonable length of time.
I don't have to. We know that it can work (as proven by Conspiracist) at a third (approximate) of the velocity (of the planes in question). We know 1-4 calls are made from each commercial flight at upto the velocity. You are asking for proof of something there is proof of happening on a regular basis.. I could provide you with proof a kettle over a flame gets hot, but people know this as it happens.
Are we to assume that the plane dropped below 2k feet the entire 20 minutes so that the passengers could call out on their cells and then back up to 8k feet once being spotted?
Strawman. I never said the plane descened to 2k ft as it doesn't have to. There's proof of cell phones being used at 8k ft. Even if it is only a 10% chance, how often would YOU re-try to dial if you were on a hijacked aircraft?? How many times can you re-dial in a minute - let's say 6 times. So with a c. 10% chance on each try, you are certain to get through (briefly, just like the accounts verify) once every few minutes.
Back to the height thing; modern jets climb at 600 - 3,000 fps, the lower being a full laden 757 taking off from a hot airport, the higher end being at 77% of maximum take-off weight (max passengers, fuel for a 2 hour flight) a 757 can climb at over 4,000 fps. Thus we find that these 1-4 calls per flight must - according to your 'calls cannot be made over 2,000 ft' theory - be made in the first 30 - 45 seconds of flight. Common sense alone tells you the calls must be spread over a longer portion of the flight than that, otherwise it would be a far more obvious issue in the management of passengers. Equally common sense tells one that calls ARE possible over 2,000 ft, as obviously most planes don't have four people saying "honey I am on the plane" as they unstick from the runway.
As to the definiton of 'shortly therafter', well, unsurprisingly as you've already decided there WAS a conspiracy and therefore simply have to find 'evidence' for it, you dive at this semantic chink of light as it allows you to retain your presuppositon of Consipracy. Sit through "Loose Change" with me sometime and see how often I point out ommisions, mis-directions, out-of-context quotations or unsupported statements. It is very well done indeed, but you know your subject and you can see it is a very well done web of deciet.
You yorself do something similar in your post about making calls at 30k ft. Never said that, why the straw-man?