Nikolai Sklobovsky
New member
Quite a different take on 9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change+recut
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change+recut
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Loose Change, 2d edition
- Thread starter Nikolai Sklobovsky
- Start date
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Could phones work from airliners in 2001?
Hi Nikolai,
With a basic set up of news clips and an imagination one can contruct all sorts of scenarios.
If think that there are a number of assertions that are independantly testable.
1. One is the assertion that in 2001 it was impossible to use a cellphone from civilan airliners because of the height: that I'm sure we have enough people who must know whether or not their phones ever worked. Someone must have tried?
2. Is the assertion that the 8 ton engines didn't damage the Pentagon walls as they should have and that the "claim" then that they then evaporated in the furnace couldn'y have happened.
3. There's no damage to the building from the wings of the plane that struck the Pentagon
4. There's no real debris in PA, engine evaporations again
etc!
Now this is fascinating stuff the way it is put together but I myself am yet to be convinced,
Maybe we can just start with one simple item,
Could phones work from airliners in 2001?
That itself can be answered easily if people remember trying to use one.
So, anyone know the answer to just this simple first question.
My own hunch is that the phones could work, the calls were indeed real and there were no "voice duplicating machines" to mimic the voices of those who were claimed to have not died in the planes but merely "allegedly" perished.
Asher
Hi Nikolai,
With a basic set up of news clips and an imagination one can contruct all sorts of scenarios.
If think that there are a number of assertions that are independantly testable.
1. One is the assertion that in 2001 it was impossible to use a cellphone from civilan airliners because of the height: that I'm sure we have enough people who must know whether or not their phones ever worked. Someone must have tried?
2. Is the assertion that the 8 ton engines didn't damage the Pentagon walls as they should have and that the "claim" then that they then evaporated in the furnace couldn'y have happened.
3. There's no damage to the building from the wings of the plane that struck the Pentagon
4. There's no real debris in PA, engine evaporations again
etc!
Now this is fascinating stuff the way it is put together but I myself am yet to be convinced,
Maybe we can just start with one simple item,
Could phones work from airliners in 2001?
That itself can be answered easily if people remember trying to use one.
So, anyone know the answer to just this simple first question.
My own hunch is that the phones could work, the calls were indeed real and there were no "voice duplicating machines" to mimic the voices of those who were claimed to have not died in the planes but merely "allegedly" perished.
Asher
scott kirkpatrick
Member
Cell phones in the air
They work OK. I've used one from a small plane a few times, well before 2001. There's potential for network congestion when a phone is received on two base stations too far apart to be working together on which one should handle the call, but that's all. Cell phones used on the water work 10 or more miles offshore, so an airliner is not too high.
scott
They work OK. I've used one from a small plane a few times, well before 2001. There's potential for network congestion when a phone is received on two base stations too far apart to be working together on which one should handle the call, but that's all. Cell phones used on the water work 10 or more miles offshore, so an airliner is not too high.
scott
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Humming birds fly!
Thanks Scott,
For me this is a physics issue solved by obervers looking just simply realizing that despite assertions of some learned physics, (flummexed by aerodnaymics math), humming birds can indeed fly!
Here we have an answer, yes the argument that the cell phones cannot work is clearly false.
Unless you are lying or delusional! The latter two I dismiss.
Asher
Thanks Scott,
For me this is a physics issue solved by obervers looking just simply realizing that despite assertions of some learned physics, (flummexed by aerodnaymics math), humming birds can indeed fly!
Here we have an answer, yes the argument that the cell phones cannot work is clearly false.
Unless you are lying or delusional! The latter two I dismiss.
Asher
Hi Asher/Scott,
The concern is airliners and cell phones and pre 2001. Not light aircraft, nor sea shore.
I can not verify it, nor can you, but as another argument, look at http://www.physics911.ca/Rudolf:_Cellphone_Experiments_In_Airlines
or more detailed study? at http://physics911.net/projectachilles
and google for more, but I can't be bothered.
I guess everybody involved, for or against, or even just discussing here, has an 'agenda' of some kind.
Best wishes,
Ray
The concern is airliners and cell phones and pre 2001. Not light aircraft, nor sea shore.
I can not verify it, nor can you, but as another argument, look at http://www.physics911.ca/Rudolf:_Cellphone_Experiments_In_Airlines
or more detailed study? at http://physics911.net/projectachilles
and google for more, but I can't be bothered.
I guess everybody involved, for or against, or even just discussing here, has an 'agenda' of some kind.
Best wishes,
Ray
Last edited:
Nikolai Sklobovsky
New member
I'm not drawing any parallels here, but if your ever read about Alexander Litvinenko, he shows similar facts that FSB (Russian Federal Secuity Bureau, akin to FBI/CIA mix) in fact did set up numerous explosions in Moscow and framed the chechens to take the blame. All those ultimately lead to Chechnya war and the lost of lots and lots of civil rights in post-USSR Russia...
Just saying
Just saying
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
But you just did!!I'm not drawing any parallels here, but if your ever read about Alexander Litvinenko, he shows similar facts that FSB (Russian Federal Secuity Bureau, akin to FBI/CIA mix) in fact did set up numerous explosions in Moscow and framed the chechens to take the blame. All those ultimately lead to Chechnya war and the lost of lots and lots of civil rights in post-USSR Russia...
Just saying
Hah Hah Hah!
Asher
Aaron Strasburg
New member
Ray's comment about ships at sea is appropriate, as cell antennae are not designed to waste power by radiating it vertically. You can think of the power radiated as a horizontal donut, with the antenna at the center. This is probably the main reason why the studies he cites showed failures at even modest altitudes.
You can also stand on Sandia Crest, line of sight to Albuquerque, and not get a cell signal. I can't say for sure that's not because of the megawatts of RF power beaming from the radio and TV towers up there overpowering everything else. I strongly suspect that even though you're in range of the cell towers in the city as far as distance goes the fact that you're nearly a mile above them means you get no significant signal.
Regarding the attenuation of the signal inside a big metal tube, I'm absolutely amazed that you can make a GPS receiver work by just holding it near a window in a commercial airliner. Given that GPS can be quite finicky about even trees (not so much now, with better receivers), and the readily observable fact that you can speak on your cell phone while on the ground in an airliner I don't buy the faraday cage arguments. Whether it's because of the windows or because the aluminum is too thin I don't know.
Unfortunately I'm not remotely qualified to discuss the handoff of calls as the plane rapidly moved from one cell to the next. It doesn't seem obvious to me that a passenger on a plane at low altitude could not connect rather independent of the groundspeed, but I really can't say.
My agenda? I'm no fan of either of our supposedly different major political parties, but I can't make myself believe 9/11 was perpetrated by "our" government. I'm paranoid, but not that paranoid....
You can also stand on Sandia Crest, line of sight to Albuquerque, and not get a cell signal. I can't say for sure that's not because of the megawatts of RF power beaming from the radio and TV towers up there overpowering everything else. I strongly suspect that even though you're in range of the cell towers in the city as far as distance goes the fact that you're nearly a mile above them means you get no significant signal.
Regarding the attenuation of the signal inside a big metal tube, I'm absolutely amazed that you can make a GPS receiver work by just holding it near a window in a commercial airliner. Given that GPS can be quite finicky about even trees (not so much now, with better receivers), and the readily observable fact that you can speak on your cell phone while on the ground in an airliner I don't buy the faraday cage arguments. Whether it's because of the windows or because the aluminum is too thin I don't know.
Unfortunately I'm not remotely qualified to discuss the handoff of calls as the plane rapidly moved from one cell to the next. It doesn't seem obvious to me that a passenger on a plane at low altitude could not connect rather independent of the groundspeed, but I really can't say.
My agenda? I'm no fan of either of our supposedly different major political parties, but I can't make myself believe 9/11 was perpetrated by "our" government. I'm paranoid, but not that paranoid....
Hi Asher,
Exactly what is required to convince you? Do you really trust your government representatives? Is it a question that the truth is somehow related to repetition, the glossiest advert, the loudest voice, the biggest bully? Is it too uncomfortable, the fact that you could have been misled, that makes it easier to leave and attempt to fry some other fish?
Best wishes,
Ray
Am I to assume, that had we come to a conclusion that the phones did in fact reliably work, then you would have assumed that all of the 'loose change' was pure conspiracy, and your hunch was proven correct? As it seems that at best, phones might possibly have worked, but not too well, then perhaps this particular 'litmus test' should be disregarded, and perhaps another one could be tried?
Exactly what is required to convince you? Do you really trust your government representatives? Is it a question that the truth is somehow related to repetition, the glossiest advert, the loudest voice, the biggest bully? Is it too uncomfortable, the fact that you could have been misled, that makes it easier to leave and attempt to fry some other fish?
Best wishes,
Ray