I love how the guy in the first video proves his arguments. He provides one sided information, then asks a skewed question, and answers it, as if his answer is fact. He must be a debate master.
As for the cell phones, they do work in the air. Not very well, but they do work. In case you haven't flown in recent years, they don't allow you to turn on cell phones will in flight. Only recently, they have started discussing allowing cell phones in flight. They used to claim that it interferred with the equipment, and they've recently discovered that it has no effect. So that device getting installed into planes, is probably a step towards improving reception if they are going to start allowing cell phone usage.
Some of those calls were using the sattelite phones though... especially the clearer calls (liek flight attendants). Also, that one son DID talk to his mom that way normally. She's stated so in interviews on 9/11 specials. Or is she being paid off to act as though her son spoke formally to her like that? I've known people that use their parents names rather than calling them mom or dad.
notman, he linked to a experiment that showed that the chances of a cell phone at that height getting through was atronomically slight at best. Yet we heard from multiple people.
Here is a quote though to make it more apparent.
[ QUOTE ]
Cellphone networks operate with each cell covering about 10 square miles (26 square kilometers), with the transmitter in the centre of the cell. Using the formula: Area = pi r squared:
10 miles = 3.14 x (r x r) , therefore giving a radius of approximately 1.784 miles. In other words, the range of the transmitter is therefore slightly greater than 1.784 miles. Let's call it 2 miles for the sake of argument.
There are 5,280 feet in a mile, therefore 2 miles = 10,560 feet. Since no signal is transmitted beyond that range, normal cellphone reception at higher altitudes is clearly not possible.
I also wonder VIg if thats what happened. Yet, there where no bodies according to the initail corner at the scene, and Cinncinatti reported a flight 93 being landed.
doesn't matter if you believe in the theories or not.
The 1st Gulf war, by Bush senior, was all based on a fake court case about babies being thrown out of cots. The witnesses were actors, Iran's own diplomat used his daughter, and american citizen, to act as a nurse stationed in Iran.
Now, if they can make that shit up and make you swollow it, for a war, then openly admit that it ws all lies some 10 years later, I doubt anyone will give a flying fuck about what truths come out over the ground for the second Gulf war.
Please please watch the videos of WTC7 collapsing. It is only the 3rd building (in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD!) to collapse from fire damage. The first two are the twin towers.
For it to collapse like that, the fire would have to be spread out over the entire base at equal tempretures. If it really did collapse because of damadge, it would look something like this:
(ok so I don't believe the missle thing on second inspection)
As for the twin towers, there are numerous eye wittness accounts from firemen, firecheifs, police, medics etc about the bombs, blasts and melted bases of the twin towers. I am more inclined to believe them, than the american news media some days later. In fact the news changed from the bomb stories to "America under attack" half way into the first day after Bush announced it was Terror. How the hell did anyone know that early? Why were the bomb stories covered up?
The current evidence points towards even detonation of bombs about the bases of both towers, from the eye witness accounts to the clean up operation where destruction experts (who were hired for the clean up) tell of melted, twisted iron supports at the base of the buildings. Same as dynamite's effects, they say.
[ QUOTE ]
LordScottish, this might be an interesting read. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
The fundamental argument of ID proclaining itself to be a scientific theory is thoroughly explored and debunked. The court seemed to me to have quite a sound argument.
I'm not saying ID isn't true. Instead each person needs to make a personal decision as to what they believe. In this regard, conspiracy theories in general are on the same ground as ID. They lack credible peer-reviewed and experimentable scientific data.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks EricChadwick, I agree with you there. I should have said it's a bad idea to compare the 2 in order to show that both are wrong. I never heard anyone say that ID is a scientific theory here in europe, it seems this is mainly happening in the US. The only thing scientific about ID is the criticism on the different versions of the theory of evolution.
Thanks, but I did. That guys results mean nothing to me. I KNOW people have used them in the air. Do a google search on it. Once you get past the conspiracy theory sites, you'll read forums and articles about people using them on commercial jets. How about a question to counter the one asking why they are adding boosters. If cell phones can receive in flight, then why is it against the rules to use them? People wouldn't use them if they can't connect to anyone.
Hawken: You are changing the accounts of the eye witnesses. They said they HEARD what sounded like a bomb going off. They didn't SEE it. There's a big difference there. By clipping together a bunch of sentences, pulled from a longer interview, you can easily make it seem like everyone heard bombs. They are describing sounds they heard, and most said LIKE a bomb. Concrete floors collapsing together will sound like that.
That guy is stating that only 3 buildings have fallen due to fire. He's giving examples of buildings which were constructed completely different than the trade centers. The fires in those other buildings also weren't as hot. When he describes what the towers were made of, he fails to discuss HOW they were constructed. Watch the discovery channel some time. They have a complete show dedicated to how the towers were constructed, and where the weaknesses were. It makes perfect sense how the towers fell like they did, when you understand what was holding each floor up.
Also, that guy claims all the fuel burnt up on impact when that fireball comes out. That is NOT all the fuel burning up. It's just another claim to help support his argument.
1. Some planes include cellphone stations these days that are connected to the network via sat uplink. I think cellphones are only problematic during take-off and landing when they can disturb the ground-air communication, in flight they don't cause any real problems.
2. If a cellphone doesn't get a connection it increases its signal power until it either gets a connection or reaches maximum power. Even turning a phone on for a moment could cause a signal disturbance. Such a stronger signal might be able to get through and get you a connection but it will also cause the most disturbance to the plane's sensors.
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, Franky, I'd like to thank you taking the time to insult me for words I haven't said, and for opinions I don't have.
[/ QUOTE ]
Pot, meet kettle.
[ QUOTE ]
We all know the governments explaination for the attacks, atleast those of us who have paid attention since the attacks, so why should I have to tell you? In fact the operation after the attacks was called "Operation Enduring Freedom". The president has, numerous times, stated that the terrorist attacks were an attack on our freedoms.
[/ QUOTE ]
The President's statements to help whip up support for his pet war are not 'the official reason.' You should know that. Here's what the Wiki has to say. Basically, the US was punished for violating Muslim lands and supporting Israel. And that's what the government says. But you go on believing otherwise, you rebel you.
[ QUOTE ]
This is a blanket over events that have progressed since the end of the second world war. It's a tactic to blind those from questioning whether our actions played a role in provoking the attacks. It's evident by being called unpatriotic simply for questioning authority.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, It's W trying to scare people into supporting the war. And it's Fox News calling people unpatriotic for asking questions, not the govt. They may think it, but they don't say it.
[ QUOTE ]
And if I knew the exact source of the attacks, I wouldn't be questioning...so how could I tell you? Is it wrong to have doubt and suspicion?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not in the least. My question about the source was actually an honest question, I didn't know what you meant; what you were referring to as 'the source' wasn't clear to me. Sorry I wasn't clear in my question.
[ QUOTE ]
Considering all these points, it seems you are the one who won't listen. I doubt you read my replies to understand my point, but rather to place me in the crosshairs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not true, I read your replies to see if you actually have any new information; I haven't seen anything but assumptions and questions. Questions do not count as information. A good number of the questions you've posed already have answers, but you don't believe them; yet you have nothing to back up your view of the answers.
[ QUOTE ]
I have not already decided what happened. I do not know. I've said many time my only option is to question.
[/ QUOTE ]
But when your questions are answered, and you don't accept those answers even though they are the most likely answers, what does that make you look like?
[ QUOTE ]
And I do not interpret this video as the word of god, I only take the aspect I believe is plausible.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, which parts are those? Please elaborate. And I won't post anything about the parts you find plausible until I watch the video for myself.
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, my own take on the attacks is not reflected in any explaination from either side, as they only see black or white.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough.
[ QUOTE ]
It is known that there are sections of the 9/11 Commission kept in secret because over time declassifed excerpts from those sections have been released. And against your assumption, I do not believe our current adminstration played a direct role in the attacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. But I didn't know that until you said it.
[ QUOTE ]
If you read the commission itself, there are sections detailing how the government in fact ignored all warnings. It even took steps to increase the chances of the attack being successful. I see this as "allowing" them to take place. That still falls under involvement.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree they ignored many warnings, but what steps did they take to allow the attacks to happen?
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I believe (i don't know) there was a third party not connected to the US government or terrorist groups. But a group working for the benefit of the governments interest (and Israel's) to frame terrorist organizations.
[/ QUOTE ]
You think someone would bother framing a terrorist organization? Why? Are you one of those that thinks the US is run by the EVIL ZIONINST HORDE? The US already offers unilateral support to Israel, it's not like we need a reason to offer them our protection. And what did Israel get out of the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq? How have they gained?
[ QUOTE ]
This is also suggested in evidence found during the anthrax scare. Do you even remember that?
[/ QUOTE ]
I remember the anthrax scare, I remember it was considered domestic terrorism. What evidence are you referring to?
[ QUOTE ]
I do not see or care about missles and strange helicopters and all that other childish bullshit, but you are quick to label me with those supporters....no matter how many time I try to clearly explain my position.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the first time I've ever heard you try to seperate yourself from them. You've been all about 'asking questions' until you were challeneged.
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore I ask you get your facts straight before turning this discussion you have no role in, into personal insults.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which facts did I get wrong? That you didn't post the video? Okay, you got me there. Your position re the conspiracy nuts? Had you made it clear I wouldn't have gotten it wrong, now would I?
[ QUOTE ]
And it's no surprise MoP praises you for taking the time to do what you do best.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's because MoP recognizes a man using his talents well.
And what did Israel get out of the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq? How have they gained?
Afghanistan and Iraq could be used to mount a two-fronted attack on Iran. Though I still think it'd be much cheaper and less messy to just hammer a few long range missiles into the Iranian seat of government. Or at least make that the declaration of war, take out the heads before mounting an attack.
Hawken: You are changing the accounts of the eye witnesses. They said they HEARD what sounded like a bomb going off. They didn't SEE it. There's a big difference there. By clipping together a bunch of sentences, pulled from a longer interview, you can easily make it seem like everyone heard bombs. They are describing sounds they heard, and most said LIKE a bomb. Concrete floors collapsing together will sound like that.
That guy is stating that only 3 buildings have fallen due to fire. He's giving examples of buildings which were constructed completely different than the trade centers. The fires in those other buildings also weren't as hot. When he describes what the towers were made of, he fails to discuss HOW they were constructed. Watch the discovery channel some time. They have a complete show dedicated to how the towers were constructed, and where the weaknesses were. It makes perfect sense how the towers fell like they did, when you understand what was holding each floor up.
Also, that guy claims all the fuel burnt up on impact when that fireball comes out. That is NOT all the fuel burning up. It's just another claim to help support his argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
What guy?
I didn't write see or hear. But yes, there are numerous accounts of bomb desruction previous to and after (molten pools of steel) the buildings fell.
WTC7 is still a mystery, and isn't concluded in the FEMA reports. Even the guy who owns the building (Larry Silverstein) is quoted in an interview as saying that they decided to "pull" the building not put the fires out. Very, very mysterious.
Notman it would be better to make statements of your own conclusions not finding holes in others, becuase we all get our information from the internet - and there's 100's of counter arguements to pick from...
You appear to be getting mixed up about what I'm saying or other people are saying, and confronting me on things that I didn't state. That discovery channel program (which also aired in the UK at the same time) is based on the FEMA report, which was thrown together quickly without evidence. The evidence was shipped off and melted down or scrapped in other countries within days. There wasn't a proper investigation after the felling of the two buildings, so it kinda makes it hard to believe a program based on one report without investigation of the failed materials.
No, I'm referencing the first movie, which is very similar to the one you posted previously. It's the same guy narrating. You are again acting as though the 'proof' in those videos, of explosions, is true. The flashes on the different floors and the people saying their heard a sound 'like' a bomb, are what I believe you are refering to when you suggest that bombs were used.
Sometimes I go on further to dispute the video, rather than just disputing your point. I could go on all day about how rediculus these videos are, but it would be too big of a post to go point for point with those 2 hour long videos.
What conclusions would you like me to state? Two commercial jets hit two buildings and the jet fuel heated the metal support brackets and beams, to a point where they became weakened and failed. The floors drop, and a building collapses. There is nothing more to prove. I'm finding holes in the arguments people use to suggest that the above didn't happen.
I haven't talked out WTC 1&2 in any detail, I'm more interested in WTC7. Because if that was felled on purpose, it stands to reason that the other buildings were also premeditated destructions.
The guys in these videos speak a lot of shit, I thought we figured that out first time around? But then again, there's a lot of shit on the news too.
[ QUOTE ]
i just think the pentagon crash is weird.. Where is that friggin plane?
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the only one that I've found questionable, even in the beginning. It's often used to prove that this was all a government arranged deal. I think there may be a coverup about the pentagon, but I don't think it's for the reasons the videos suggest. This is one of those things that I'm hoping will eventually be revealed.
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, Hawken is talking about detonation charges not missles.
So Notman, why did WTC7 fall? It wasn't hit by a plane, or doused in fuel. So why? The official story is that it was struck with debris.
[/ QUOTE ]
When did I say he was talking about missiles? I was discussing how he suggested (and the video) that it was detonation charges. The 'like a bomb' quotes in the video were suggesting that something was detonated.
Is it that hard to believe that a combination of debris and fire caused WTC7 to fall? I can't say for sure because none of those videos show the condition of the other side of WTC7. But later on, they show the other building behind WC7 distroyed from debris. It's still standing, but large pieces of the buildings were all over it.
To be honest, I thought I had heard back in 2001, that they were purposely going to take it down because it was near collapsing. Hadn't heard that it fell on it's own as it plays out in these videos. So I'm not planning on arguing WTC7 without full knowledge of it's demise, just like no one else here really should be... unless you were there and witnessed it.
I've been keeping my discussions to things I witnessed that day, which was the Twin Towers falling, the aftermath of flight 93, and the Pentagon's hole. I also witnessed irresponsible speculation from the media. Many of which were replayed in the second video as evidence. They forgot the one where they claimed a car bomb when off in PA... which obviously never happened.
WTC7 may have been put down on purpose, perhaps to stop the spread of fire? Maybe the company that owns the building was going to demolish it anyway as stated above, but it would cost them less durring this fiasco then to shut down the street.
Who knows. To quote my favorite movie: "It's a headless blunder, operating under the illusion of a master plan."
The government must seem infalable to the mass public to keep things in check. While they may not divuldge anything, i'm pretty sure most humans beings including the president would'nt harm innocent civilians unless there was just cause. Trusting the judgement is another factor, but hey, everyone can vote. We botch, we remember it and dont put another 'W' into office.
The truth wont stop things, it wont set there souls free. Bush has already done enough damage to educate the country more about choosing a proper president, and perhaps we needed the lesson to not take our freedoms for granted. Conspiracy or not, as cold eharted as it may sound, we still live in a great country, at least those of us who wish to take advantage of the many opportunities. You just have to look hard enough, and want hard enough to find the peace.
Debating or arguing things that cant be proven is fun, but don't let it get out of hand. This stuff will be mystery longer than JFK/Area 51 will ever be. Maybe 'no one atually knows the details' is the answer, and everyone is making up what they want to.
[ QUOTE ]
The truth wont stop things, it wont set there souls free. Bush has already done enough damage to educate the country more about choosing a proper president, and perhaps we needed the lesson to not take our freedoms for granted.
[/ QUOTE ]
I had hoped this also, but it was already proven that the country has learned very little the re-elected this idiot, even with everything he had done. Now it's just gotten worse.
I'm glad the debates are here. I like to keep an open mind, America is a great country and its a shame for all of this to happen, from the bottom of my heart I feel to sorry for the people who died. It's just too scary to comprehend dieing in such a way.
That's where I'll agree with you
I hope no one is taking my responses as angry. They are just meant as opinion and counter discussions
Whenever I see the trade tower footage (originals) I get angry. I think of the lost lives and the damage done.
The one thing I agree with in the second video is, where was our government? Why weren't we protected? Although he suggested they sat on things, in reality I think they were just caught off guard and took too long to make decisions. No one wants to be the guy to order a commercial jet to be shot down
I get even more upset when people make these conspiracy videos and don't do a balanced report. They really stretch to make a point, and they claim assumptions as facts.
But I don't feel anger when I discuss it. When I feel someone is attacking me, I may get upset, but not when it's kept as a discussion/debate
[ QUOTE ]
I KNOW people have used them in the air. Do a google search on it. Once you get past the conspiracy theory sites, you
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm so you don't give one iota of evidence.. Yet you continue to spew the same line. In fact the link I gave you your arguement was used, and shown to be flawed. Your not being a reasonable objective arguer here (speaking of ID). BTW I did do a search, how do you think I came across that link I agave you (which you have seemed to not bother reading through without hitting the reply first).
"Google it" is the crux of a flawed viewpoint. In other words, you dont know the information yourself.
[ QUOTE ]
forums and articles about people using them on commercial jets.
[/ QUOTE ]
This technology to allow this wasnt available until after 9/11 notman. In fact I believe it was said 2004 when it was introduced. Again, look at the link I gave.
So if you have evidence.. not your personal opinion. Give it, elsewise back out of this as you have nothing to say.
Clicked on the second result, and towards the bottom of the first page they said this.
"A cell phone signal falling to Earth from a phone aboard a plane encounters no significant obstacles to slow it down, so it's strong enough to reach the ground and find a network on its particular frequency."
oXYnary, if you expect that one single internet link to a forum actually related to the "Loose Change" video counts as evidence, then you're sorely mistaken.
I might start believing your side of the argument if you can point me to 2 or 3 non-biased sources of information regarding this.
That's the problem with the internet, it's so easy to just Google up a page giving "evidence" for anything ... hell if I wanted to I could give you a quote and a link to a site that proves we're energy beings made of light and should worship the cat goddess that lives in the sun.
So before you start saying "you don't give one iota of evidence", consider the "evidence" that you yourself are giving, and maybe actually dig a little deeper rather than just grabbing the first thing that fits your pre-formed opinion of what the "facts" are.
well i hate these dumb threads, but one point that my girlfriend has made over and over since the bombings(she is a PhD chemist) is that jet fuel could never reach a tempreture high enough to melt steel, or weaken the infrastructure of a sky scraper, never, not even during cumbustion. there is no way an explosion from an air plane could take down a building, and even more scientifically impossible causeing an explosion at the top of a building and making the support beams on the bottom collapse. there is no know physics in the universe that could ever explain it. those are the words of an inorganic chemist who specializes in organometalics and knows metal down to the atom and all the physical properties of pertty much all metals. she knows exactly what it would take to destroy, bend, melt fracture that grade of steel.
not an airplane.
i would also like to say i hate hippies and baba ganoush. pita bread sucks and berts beez wax is really a subsiderary of johnson and johnson who do animal testing on thier products. i dont really care much about 9/11 or the war really, i am pretty indifferent about most things that dont affet me directly. so i can say these things with no bias toward a neo hippie beatnik puckrock agenda, as well and a bible thumping guntoating racist american perspective. i believe facts, and my girlfriend is good for those. on a side note the video was extremely one sided but did raise a few interesting questions. but none that havent already been raised before. he could of made it about 15 mins if he just wanted to raise a few scientifically viable questions instead of pretending he had any answers.pretending to know for a fact things that are pretty much unproven and mysteries will always makes you look like a dumbass.
The reason I suggested google was so you'd have many options rather than me posting all the google results here. If you want, I can post them here, but I'm not using 'google them' as a crux. I read your link earlier, and considered editing my post, but I figured you read it yourself and didn't need me quoting it. There are several posts stating that it's possible:
Gecko:
"Contrary to what is stated in the documentary, it is quite possible to make cell phone calls from airliner cruising altitude. I know someone who owns a pressurized private aircraft, and he occasionally makes cell phone calls from 25 thousand feet. The key is to make the call over a rural area, and not an urban area."
FireEyes:
"Just watched the documentary and I found the "cell phone calls" section to be completely wrong. I work for a company that is writing a research document on mobile phones on planes.
Firstly it is very possible for you to make and receive phone calls using your cellular phone whilst in a plane."
So you've got ONE guy who states some equations. What he doesn't include is the source of his equations, nor if that only covers ground radius. Radio frequencies can travel upward unobstructed. Then this guy further tried to state that his cell phone stopped working at specific altitudes. Did he have an alitimeter onboard? Personally I can't tell what the hell height I am until we level off that the pilot tells us. My point is, I really question the guys statements. Maybe he couldn't receive calls a high altitudes, but others were able to.
That 'technology' isn't required to make phone calls, it is probably meant to improve the ability.
Edit: Ok, how about this... the guy states that the cell phone range is 10 square miles. So how far to you think that claim is vertically? 30,000ft is 5.682 Miles. That is the typical cruising altitude. Seems to me like the towers could reach that.
Indeed, notman. If people were making short calls on their cell phones over a rural area, base stations are often several kilometres apart, it would take even a fast-moving plane about a minute to cover that distance, so a short call is entirely possible.
And also this is from an official source, not some random guy on a forum.
[ QUOTE ]
Cellular base stations transmit and receive signals from mobile phones or other types of mobile radio. Each base station provides coverage for a given area, termed a cell. Base stations can be a few hundred metres apart in major cities or several kilometres apart in rural areas.
Arshlevon: That's good info, thanks. I'm wondering what happened to the wreckage from the plane after they hit the towers. Surely having a large amount of burning plane inside the tower can't be healthy for it?
there was a detonation of some buildings in portugal, near Troia ( a portuguese province ) wich detonated some of the few tall buildings from the late 60 `s. i SAW it and was VERY similar to the way that the WTC went .
Theres alot of information misguided and misfed or given to the wrong people, but it is clear that something is missing...all we must know is what exactly.
mop, another thing about airplanes my girlfriend says is that they are made of very lightweight metals,and very thin sheets of lightweight metals. so they can fly. buildings arent made to fly and are made extremely hard dense metals. each floor of a building is made to withstand thousands of tons of weight, more than several airplanes. it also has alot to do with desity of the materials involved. she gave an anology of running at a stop sign pole with piece of paper pulled between two hands. there is no speed fast enough you could ever run into the pole to bend it or break it with the paper. conversley there isn't metal dense enough in airplane save for the little black box that could really even dent constuction grade steel nomatter how fast its traveling. thats the big physical problem. another thing is a lot of the wieght in a plane is the fuel where the molecules are much more densley packed than a few sheets of lightwieght metal welded to a lightwieght frame and this would be dispersed on inpact as well as the plane being torn to bits as soon as it hits one of the main support beams, so at no one point really is the entire weight of the plane bearing down on one area of floor. and one more point she made is that airplane fuel, or almost anyfuel for that matter dosent really explode, it ignights. it will make a huge fire ball, but the fire ball produced will not contain the massive force of a chemical explosion like a bomb, creating a shockwave that can rip things apart by sheer force.
Here's a good link about the physics of the collapse. arshelevon, not to knock your girlfriend's expertise, but I think there are many factors besides just weight and temperature that caused the structural failure. A 757 weighs 220,000 pounds. A 767 weighs 312,000 pounds and both have a cruising speed of over 500MPH. I have no doubt that there is a speed at which a piece of paper will shear off a stop sign. Sort of like when a meteor hits a large body like the earth or moon. With enough velocity a very small object can make a very big splash.
yes sledgy a meteor can make a big splash if it hits a big ball of dirt and rocks, but not if hits a huge ball steel.and a meteor is a very densly packed ball of menerials a plane is a hollowed out frame with thin sheets of lightwieght metal on it, 2 totally diffent things. the weight of something is only reletive to its density when calculating an impact. you can have a million pound ball that is just a cm inch shell of chocolate and drop it fom space and its not going to do much to the earth. its not solid. if a plane was a solid hunk of 200,000 metal verses thin sheets of metal tacked on with 1/4 inch rivits to a hollow frame you might have something. and you are trying to argue with internet, that never works.
yes sledgy a meteor can make a big splash if it hits a big ball of dirt and rocks, but not if hits a huge ball steel.
Have you seen the NASA impact tests where they fired small balls at a steel plate at 10km/s? That looked like quite a splash (it looked like water frozen in mid-splashing, roughly a 20cm diameter area affected by a 1cm ball). A comet can come at 80km/s, IIRC. Every fragment of such a comet could cause a big impact.
Either way, I doubt the fuel was the only thing within the building that could burn, some of the stuff there might indeed be capable of producing sufficiently high temperatures.
Doesn't mean I think the forces add up, in fact I doubt a collapse from fire would really have looked like that. Plus there was an earthquake reported at a nearby seismograph the moment the towers started collapsing (i.e. before it hit the ground). If the theory of an internal collapse was right I hink we'd have seen some major damage to the outer areas spreading from the point of impact downward during the collapse, not just the moment the internals hit the ground.
The reasoning that an object with low mass couldn't damage an object with high mass doesn't hold water. If the velocity is great enough, this happens.
Ever see the photo of a piece of hay that pierced a tree trunk during a tornado? Closest thing I could find on a quick search was this one, a vinyl record stuck in a telephone pole by a tornado. http://www.tornadochaser.net/images/record.jpg
"Above photo illustrates the awesome power of a tornado demonstrated by slaming this 33rpm plastic record into a telephone pole. Historic NWS Collection
Courtesy NOAA/Department of Commerce"
If I follow your reasoning, then the front of a car wouldn't be dented when it hits a deer.
Another example, plywood through a palm tree. http://www.fema.gov/kids/trnsfe.htm
(though someone will probably argue FEMA is part of the massive gov't conspiracy.)
On the WTC7 issue, it couldn't have been 'brought down' as in demolished, simply because demolition charges take weeks to put into place. So it's not like they said 'well, it's burning, blow it' and just sent guys in to blow it up. Either there had to be charges already in place (which I personally have never seen evidence of), or the fire caused it to collapse. Which seems kind of unlikely to me. So I dunno. But bringing it down on purpose couldn't be a snap decision made on the day.
As for the towers, the reason given on a History Channel breakdown was the planes hit on the corners of the building, damaging the outer supports and putting way more weight on the floors just below the impact than they could take. The floors above the impact collapsed downward, crushing the rest of the tower on the way down. So the base supports of the towers don't even enter into it.
Also, arsh, the fuel igniting means it won't just go 'pop' and burn out, it'll burn hotter over a longer period of time. The situation wasn't 'burning jet fuel poured over structural steel' it was more like 'structural steel in a furnace lit by burning jet fuel.' Everything on the floors of the impact was on fire, for an hour. I bet it got damn hot in there.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, arsh, the fuel igniting means it won't just go 'pop' and burn out, it'll burn hotter over a longer period of time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fuel doesn't burn hotter over time; it's surroundings will rise in temperature until it reaches an equilibrium with the temperature of the burning fuel, but the only way to make the fuel burn any hotter is to oxygenate it somehow.
I say the only way to settle this once and for all is to construct of an exact duplicate of the WTC buildings, fly a remote-controlled 757 into the exact same spot, and try to duplicate the results. This sounds like a job for the Mythbusters! I'm on this phone with them now
I have no question about saudis flying the planes, especially since the House of Saud involvement in world banks, american investment groups, and controlling stock in the media outlets has led to such a cozy relationship that people from Saudi Arabia don't need to sit for an interro..view.. when applying for a visa, just mail in the application and have one mailed back. Apparently it wasn't too hard for saudi-born islamic fundamentalists to enter the US at all.
/edit .. further info: http://www.cis.org/articles/Katz/katz2003.html
Also, I'm wondering who else has seen Al-Jazeera's 'Control Room' movie.. has nothing to do with the wtc, but shows some of the media dealings behind the iraq invasion. Regardless of the potentially slanted points of view, there is some sound logical reasoning in it.
So since demo charges can't be set up that quickly, is it likely that the building was already rigged and they were waiting for an excuse to blow it? Didn't it include a CIA office or something?
[ QUOTE ]
So since demo charges can't be set up that quickly, is it likely that the building was already rigged and they were waiting for an excuse to blow it? Didn't it include a CIA office or something?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's very likely at all. It doesn't make sense to plant explosives without a specific, planned time for them to be detonated.
Yes, if there were explosives already placed then they knew they'd have an opportunity to detonate them soon. Can explosives be set up to demolish a building that accurately in such a short timeframe? Doesn't that require weeks just to get a company for that and make the plans for it? I doubt planned demolitions are offered by the fire dept now.
eh, the explanation I heard was that the buildings were protected with fireproof insulation so that the supports didnt melt or get damaged by fire, but the insulation was all blown off with the explosion. Once they eventually weakened the weight of the above floors became too much and they toppled. Sounds about right to me- once a small part of the support gets damaged the whole thing is threatened.
But for that you'd have to get demolition experts to the location first (when they need medics and rescue troops there's usually no space on the transporter to spare for other people) and a civilian can hardly order the military around so the experts would have to have been nearby already. And wouldn't it have made more sense to wait with demolishing stuff until the big desaster is dealt with? I doubt fire would spread so fast and uncontrollably that you have to demolish such a building immediately.
Maybe it was completely normal but I somehow doubt that. Wasn't the building still in use?
[ QUOTE ]
Rooster: What about the part where the owener admits to blowing up WTC7?
[/ QUOTE ]
To play devil's advocate, he didn't say that he ordered the building to be demolished; the words he used were "pull it," which could mean to pull out the firefighters and abandon the attempt to save the building.
Considering the precise way in which the building collapsed, and the fact that the collapse was allegedly caused by a fire (which I doubt), I personally do think it was a demolition job, but the phrase "pull it" is a bit ambiguous and we may be misinterpreting how it was used. Probably not, considering the context of what he said, but it isn't exactly a confession either.
[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't the building still in use?
[/ QUOTE ]
It was being used to store all sorts of documents (including documents pertaining to lawsuits against several large corporations), but I'm not sure if it was being used for office space or anything like that.
To play devil's advocate, he didn't say that he ordered the building to be demolished; the words he used were "pull it," which could mean to pull out the firefighters and abandon the attempt to save the building.
[/ QUOTE ]
If anyone can watch that video and think he is talking about firefighters, then I think english must not be their native language.
Ok, I give. But I'm not getting attached this time.
[ QUOTE ]
Once they eventually weakened the weight of the above floors became too much and they toppled. Sounds about right to me- once a small part of the support gets damaged the whole thing is threatened.
[/ QUOTE ]
That sounds reasonable. But it's hard to believe that the whole structure would fall straight down due to the top most floors. I would think they would fall over and the rest, or a good portion of the lower levels build to hold the weight, would remain standing. Close up videos show that the top of one building did fall to one side, but then it fell into itself straight down. It's so strange that the entire structure crumbled...and so quickly.
I also believe WTC7 was demolished. But I wonder if it was rigged just before or just after the attacks. If it was just before, more questions. Why they would do it...even more.
Replies
As for the cell phones, they do work in the air. Not very well, but they do work. In case you haven't flown in recent years, they don't allow you to turn on cell phones will in flight. Only recently, they have started discussing allowing cell phones in flight. They used to claim that it interferred with the equipment, and they've recently discovered that it has no effect. So that device getting installed into planes, is probably a step towards improving reception if they are going to start allowing cell phone usage.
Some of those calls were using the sattelite phones though... especially the clearer calls (liek flight attendants). Also, that one son DID talk to his mom that way normally. She's stated so in interviews on 9/11 specials. Or is she being paid off to act as though her son spoke formally to her like that? I've known people that use their parents names rather than calling them mom or dad.
Here is a quote though to make it more apparent.
[ QUOTE ]
Cellphone networks operate with each cell covering about 10 square miles (26 square kilometers), with the transmitter in the centre of the cell. Using the formula: Area = pi r squared:
10 miles = 3.14 x (r x r) , therefore giving a radius of approximately 1.784 miles. In other words, the range of the transmitter is therefore slightly greater than 1.784 miles. Let's call it 2 miles for the sake of argument.
There are 5,280 feet in a mile, therefore 2 miles = 10,560 feet. Since no signal is transmitted beyond that range, normal cellphone reception at higher altitudes is clearly not possible.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=40
Watch the entire thing and pay more attention.
I also wonder VIg if thats what happened. Yet, there where no bodies according to the initail corner at the scene, and Cinncinatti reported a flight 93 being landed.
The 1st Gulf war, by Bush senior, was all based on a fake court case about babies being thrown out of cots. The witnesses were actors, Iran's own diplomat used his daughter, and american citizen, to act as a nurse stationed in Iran.
Now, if they can make that shit up and make you swollow it, for a war, then openly admit that it ws all lies some 10 years later, I doubt anyone will give a flying fuck about what truths come out over the ground for the second Gulf war.
Please please watch the videos of WTC7 collapsing. It is only the 3rd building (in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD!) to collapse from fire damage. The first two are the twin towers.
For it to collapse like that, the fire would have to be spread out over the entire base at equal tempretures. If it really did collapse because of damadge, it would look something like this:
(ok so I don't believe the missle thing on second inspection)
As for the twin towers, there are numerous eye wittness accounts from firemen, firecheifs, police, medics etc about the bombs, blasts and melted bases of the twin towers. I am more inclined to believe them, than the american news media some days later. In fact the news changed from the bomb stories to "America under attack" half way into the first day after Bush announced it was Terror. How the hell did anyone know that early? Why were the bomb stories covered up?
The current evidence points towards even detonation of bombs about the bases of both towers, from the eye witness accounts to the clean up operation where destruction experts (who were hired for the clean up) tell of melted, twisted iron supports at the base of the buildings. Same as dynamite's effects, they say.
LordScottish, this might be an interesting read.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
The fundamental argument of ID proclaining itself to be a scientific theory is thoroughly explored and debunked. The court seemed to me to have quite a sound argument.
I'm not saying ID isn't true. Instead each person needs to make a personal decision as to what they believe. In this regard, conspiracy theories in general are on the same ground as ID. They lack credible peer-reviewed and experimentable scientific data.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks EricChadwick, I agree with you there. I should have said it's a bad idea to compare the 2 in order to show that both are wrong. I never heard anyone say that ID is a scientific theory here in europe, it seems this is mainly happening in the US. The only thing scientific about ID is the criticism on the different versions of the theory of evolution.
Watch the entire thing and pay more attention.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, but I did. That guys results mean nothing to me. I KNOW people have used them in the air. Do a google search on it. Once you get past the conspiracy theory sites, you'll read forums and articles about people using them on commercial jets. How about a question to counter the one asking why they are adding boosters. If cell phones can receive in flight, then why is it against the rules to use them? People wouldn't use them if they can't connect to anyone.
Hawken: You are changing the accounts of the eye witnesses. They said they HEARD what sounded like a bomb going off. They didn't SEE it. There's a big difference there. By clipping together a bunch of sentences, pulled from a longer interview, you can easily make it seem like everyone heard bombs. They are describing sounds they heard, and most said LIKE a bomb. Concrete floors collapsing together will sound like that.
That guy is stating that only 3 buildings have fallen due to fire. He's giving examples of buildings which were constructed completely different than the trade centers. The fires in those other buildings also weren't as hot. When he describes what the towers were made of, he fails to discuss HOW they were constructed. Watch the discovery channel some time. They have a complete show dedicated to how the towers were constructed, and where the weaknesses were. It makes perfect sense how the towers fell like they did, when you understand what was holding each floor up.
Also, that guy claims all the fuel burnt up on impact when that fireball comes out. That is NOT all the fuel burning up. It's just another claim to help support his argument.
2. If a cellphone doesn't get a connection it increases its signal power until it either gets a connection or reaches maximum power. Even turning a phone on for a moment could cause a signal disturbance. Such a stronger signal might be able to get through and get you a connection but it will also cause the most disturbance to the plane's sensors.
First of all, Franky, I'd like to thank you taking the time to insult me for words I haven't said, and for opinions I don't have.
[/ QUOTE ]
Pot, meet kettle.
[ QUOTE ]
We all know the governments explaination for the attacks, atleast those of us who have paid attention since the attacks, so why should I have to tell you? In fact the operation after the attacks was called "Operation Enduring Freedom". The president has, numerous times, stated that the terrorist attacks were an attack on our freedoms.
[/ QUOTE ]
The President's statements to help whip up support for his pet war are not 'the official reason.' You should know that. Here's what the Wiki has to say. Basically, the US was punished for violating Muslim lands and supporting Israel. And that's what the government says. But you go on believing otherwise, you rebel you.
[ QUOTE ]
This is a blanket over events that have progressed since the end of the second world war. It's a tactic to blind those from questioning whether our actions played a role in provoking the attacks. It's evident by being called unpatriotic simply for questioning authority.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, It's W trying to scare people into supporting the war. And it's Fox News calling people unpatriotic for asking questions, not the govt. They may think it, but they don't say it.
[ QUOTE ]
And if I knew the exact source of the attacks, I wouldn't be questioning...so how could I tell you? Is it wrong to have doubt and suspicion?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not in the least. My question about the source was actually an honest question, I didn't know what you meant; what you were referring to as 'the source' wasn't clear to me. Sorry I wasn't clear in my question.
[ QUOTE ]
Considering all these points, it seems you are the one who won't listen. I doubt you read my replies to understand my point, but rather to place me in the crosshairs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not true, I read your replies to see if you actually have any new information; I haven't seen anything but assumptions and questions. Questions do not count as information. A good number of the questions you've posed already have answers, but you don't believe them; yet you have nothing to back up your view of the answers.
[ QUOTE ]
I have not already decided what happened. I do not know. I've said many time my only option is to question.
[/ QUOTE ]
But when your questions are answered, and you don't accept those answers even though they are the most likely answers, what does that make you look like?
[ QUOTE ]
And I do not interpret this video as the word of god, I only take the aspect I believe is plausible.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, which parts are those? Please elaborate. And I won't post anything about the parts you find plausible until I watch the video for myself.
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, my own take on the attacks is not reflected in any explaination from either side, as they only see black or white.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough.
[ QUOTE ]
It is known that there are sections of the 9/11 Commission kept in secret because over time declassifed excerpts from those sections have been released. And against your assumption, I do not believe our current adminstration played a direct role in the attacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. But I didn't know that until you said it.
[ QUOTE ]
If you read the commission itself, there are sections detailing how the government in fact ignored all warnings. It even took steps to increase the chances of the attack being successful. I see this as "allowing" them to take place. That still falls under involvement.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree they ignored many warnings, but what steps did they take to allow the attacks to happen?
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I believe (i don't know) there was a third party not connected to the US government or terrorist groups. But a group working for the benefit of the governments interest (and Israel's) to frame terrorist organizations.
[/ QUOTE ]
You think someone would bother framing a terrorist organization? Why? Are you one of those that thinks the US is run by the EVIL ZIONINST HORDE? The US already offers unilateral support to Israel, it's not like we need a reason to offer them our protection. And what did Israel get out of the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq? How have they gained?
[ QUOTE ]
This is also suggested in evidence found during the anthrax scare. Do you even remember that?
[/ QUOTE ]
I remember the anthrax scare, I remember it was considered domestic terrorism. What evidence are you referring to?
[ QUOTE ]
I do not see or care about missles and strange helicopters and all that other childish bullshit, but you are quick to label me with those supporters....no matter how many time I try to clearly explain my position.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the first time I've ever heard you try to seperate yourself from them. You've been all about 'asking questions' until you were challeneged.
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore I ask you get your facts straight before turning this discussion you have no role in, into personal insults.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which facts did I get wrong? That you didn't post the video? Okay, you got me there. Your position re the conspiracy nuts? Had you made it clear I wouldn't have gotten it wrong, now would I?
[ QUOTE ]
And it's no surprise MoP praises you for taking the time to do what you do best.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's because MoP recognizes a man using his talents well.
Frank the Avenger
Afghanistan and Iraq could be used to mount a two-fronted attack on Iran. Though I still think it'd be much cheaper and less messy to just hammer a few long range missiles into the Iranian seat of government. Or at least make that the declaration of war, take out the heads before mounting an attack.
Hawken: You are changing the accounts of the eye witnesses. They said they HEARD what sounded like a bomb going off. They didn't SEE it. There's a big difference there. By clipping together a bunch of sentences, pulled from a longer interview, you can easily make it seem like everyone heard bombs. They are describing sounds they heard, and most said LIKE a bomb. Concrete floors collapsing together will sound like that.
That guy is stating that only 3 buildings have fallen due to fire. He's giving examples of buildings which were constructed completely different than the trade centers. The fires in those other buildings also weren't as hot. When he describes what the towers were made of, he fails to discuss HOW they were constructed. Watch the discovery channel some time. They have a complete show dedicated to how the towers were constructed, and where the weaknesses were. It makes perfect sense how the towers fell like they did, when you understand what was holding each floor up.
Also, that guy claims all the fuel burnt up on impact when that fireball comes out. That is NOT all the fuel burning up. It's just another claim to help support his argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
What guy?
I didn't write see or hear. But yes, there are numerous accounts of bomb desruction previous to and after (molten pools of steel) the buildings fell.
WTC7 is still a mystery, and isn't concluded in the FEMA reports. Even the guy who owns the building (Larry Silverstein) is quoted in an interview as saying that they decided to "pull" the building not put the fires out. Very, very mysterious.
Notman it would be better to make statements of your own conclusions not finding holes in others, becuase we all get our information from the internet - and there's 100's of counter arguements to pick from...
You appear to be getting mixed up about what I'm saying or other people are saying, and confronting me on things that I didn't state. That discovery channel program (which also aired in the UK at the same time) is based on the FEMA report, which was thrown together quickly without evidence. The evidence was shipped off and melted down or scrapped in other countries within days. There wasn't a proper investigation after the felling of the two buildings, so it kinda makes it hard to believe a program based on one report without investigation of the failed materials.
In addition that program doesn't talk about WTC7.
Sometimes I go on further to dispute the video, rather than just disputing your point. I could go on all day about how rediculus these videos are, but it would be too big of a post to go point for point with those 2 hour long videos.
What conclusions would you like me to state? Two commercial jets hit two buildings and the jet fuel heated the metal support brackets and beams, to a point where they became weakened and failed. The floors drop, and a building collapses. There is nothing more to prove. I'm finding holes in the arguments people use to suggest that the above didn't happen.
The guys in these videos speak a lot of shit, I thought we figured that out first time around?
i just think the pentagon crash is weird.. Where is that friggin plane?
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the only one that I've found questionable, even in the beginning. It's often used to prove that this was all a government arranged deal. I think there may be a coverup about the pentagon, but I don't think it's for the reasons the videos suggest. This is one of those things that I'm hoping will eventually be revealed.
So Notman, why did WTC7 fall? It wasn't hit by a plane, or doused in fuel. So why? The official story is that it was struck with debris.
Dude, Hawken is talking about detonation charges not missles.
So Notman, why did WTC7 fall? It wasn't hit by a plane, or doused in fuel. So why? The official story is that it was struck with debris.
[/ QUOTE ]
When did I say he was talking about missiles? I was discussing how he suggested (and the video) that it was detonation charges. The 'like a bomb' quotes in the video were suggesting that something was detonated.
Is it that hard to believe that a combination of debris and fire caused WTC7 to fall? I can't say for sure because none of those videos show the condition of the other side of WTC7. But later on, they show the other building behind WC7 distroyed from debris. It's still standing, but large pieces of the buildings were all over it.
To be honest, I thought I had heard back in 2001, that they were purposely going to take it down because it was near collapsing. Hadn't heard that it fell on it's own as it plays out in these videos. So I'm not planning on arguing WTC7 without full knowledge of it's demise, just like no one else here really should be... unless you were there and witnessed it.
I've been keeping my discussions to things I witnessed that day, which was the Twin Towers falling, the aftermath of flight 93, and the Pentagon's hole. I also witnessed irresponsible speculation from the media. Many of which were replayed in the second video as evidence. They forgot the one where they claimed a car bomb when off in PA... which obviously never happened.
Who knows. To quote my favorite movie: "It's a headless blunder, operating under the illusion of a master plan."
The government must seem infalable to the mass public to keep things in check. While they may not divuldge anything, i'm pretty sure most humans beings including the president would'nt harm innocent civilians unless there was just cause. Trusting the judgement is another factor, but hey, everyone can vote. We botch, we remember it and dont put another 'W' into office.
The truth wont stop things, it wont set there souls free. Bush has already done enough damage to educate the country more about choosing a proper president, and perhaps we needed the lesson to not take our freedoms for granted. Conspiracy or not, as cold eharted as it may sound, we still live in a great country, at least those of us who wish to take advantage of the many opportunities. You just have to look hard enough, and want hard enough to find the peace.
Debating or arguing things that cant be proven is fun, but don't let it get out of hand. This stuff will be mystery longer than JFK/Area 51 will ever be. Maybe 'no one atually knows the details' is the answer, and everyone is making up what they want to.
The truth wont stop things, it wont set there souls free. Bush has already done enough damage to educate the country more about choosing a proper president, and perhaps we needed the lesson to not take our freedoms for granted.
[/ QUOTE ]
I had hoped this also, but it was already proven that the country has learned very little the re-elected this idiot, even with everything he had done. Now it's just gotten worse.
I hope no one is taking my responses as angry. They are just meant as opinion and counter discussions
Whenever I see the trade tower footage (originals) I get angry. I think of the lost lives and the damage done.
The one thing I agree with in the second video is, where was our government? Why weren't we protected? Although he suggested they sat on things, in reality I think they were just caught off guard and took too long to make decisions. No one wants to be the guy to order a commercial jet to be shot down
I get even more upset when people make these conspiracy videos and don't do a balanced report. They really stretch to make a point, and they claim assumptions as facts.
But I don't feel anger when I discuss it. When I feel someone is attacking me, I may get upset, but not when it's kept as a discussion/debate
I KNOW people have used them in the air. Do a google search on it. Once you get past the conspiracy theory sites, you
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm so you don't give one iota of evidence.. Yet you continue to spew the same line. In fact the link I gave you your arguement was used, and shown to be flawed. Your not being a reasonable objective arguer here (speaking of ID). BTW I did do a search, how do you think I came across that link I agave you (which you have seemed to not bother reading through without hitting the reply first).
"Google it" is the crux of a flawed viewpoint. In other words, you dont know the information yourself.
[ QUOTE ]
forums and articles about people using them on commercial jets.
[/ QUOTE ]
This technology to allow this wasnt available until after 9/11 notman. In fact I believe it was said 2004 when it was introduced. Again, look at the link I gave.
So if you have evidence.. not your personal opinion. Give it, elsewise back out of this as you have nothing to say.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cell+phone+flight&btnG=Google+Search
Clicked on the second result, and towards the bottom of the first page they said this.
"A cell phone signal falling to Earth from a phone aboard a plane encounters no significant obstacles to slow it down, so it's strong enough to reach the ground and find a network on its particular frequency."
Edit: oops I meant the 2nd, not the 1st.
I might start believing your side of the argument if you can point me to 2 or 3 non-biased sources of information regarding this.
That's the problem with the internet, it's so easy to just Google up a page giving "evidence" for anything ... hell if I wanted to I could give you a quote and a link to a site that proves we're energy beings made of light and should worship the cat goddess that lives in the sun.
So before you start saying "you don't give one iota of evidence", consider the "evidence" that you yourself are giving, and maybe actually dig a little deeper rather than just grabbing the first thing that fits your pre-formed opinion of what the "facts" are.
Cheers.
not an airplane.
i would also like to say i hate hippies and baba ganoush. pita bread sucks and berts beez wax is really a subsiderary of johnson and johnson who do animal testing on thier products. i dont really care much about 9/11 or the war really, i am pretty indifferent about most things that dont affet me directly. so i can say these things with no bias toward a neo hippie beatnik puckrock agenda, as well and a bible thumping guntoating racist american perspective. i believe facts, and my girlfriend is good for those. on a side note the video was extremely one sided but did raise a few interesting questions. but none that havent already been raised before. he could of made it about 15 mins if he just wanted to raise a few scientifically viable questions instead of pretending he had any answers.pretending to know for a fact things that are pretty much unproven and mysteries will always makes you look like a dumbass.
Gecko:
"Contrary to what is stated in the documentary, it is quite possible to make cell phone calls from airliner cruising altitude. I know someone who owns a pressurized private aircraft, and he occasionally makes cell phone calls from 25 thousand feet. The key is to make the call over a rural area, and not an urban area."
FireEyes:
"Just watched the documentary and I found the "cell phone calls" section to be completely wrong. I work for a company that is writing a research document on mobile phones on planes.
Firstly it is very possible for you to make and receive phone calls using your cellular phone whilst in a plane."
So you've got ONE guy who states some equations. What he doesn't include is the source of his equations, nor if that only covers ground radius. Radio frequencies can travel upward unobstructed. Then this guy further tried to state that his cell phone stopped working at specific altitudes. Did he have an alitimeter onboard? Personally I can't tell what the hell height I am until we level off that the pilot tells us. My point is, I really question the guys statements. Maybe he couldn't receive calls a high altitudes, but others were able to.
That 'technology' isn't required to make phone calls, it is probably meant to improve the ability.
Edit: Ok, how about this... the guy states that the cell phone range is 10 square miles. So how far to you think that claim is vertically? 30,000ft is 5.682 Miles. That is the typical cruising altitude. Seems to me like the towers could reach that.
And also this is from an official source, not some random guy on a forum.
[ QUOTE ]
Cellular base stations transmit and receive signals from mobile phones or other types of mobile radio. Each base station provides coverage for a given area, termed a cell. Base stations can be a few hundred metres apart in major cities or several kilometres apart in rural areas.
[/ QUOTE ]
From here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/topics/mpsafety/school-audit/stewqa.htm
Arshlevon: That's good info, thanks. I'm wondering what happened to the wreckage from the plane after they hit the towers. Surely having a large amount of burning plane inside the tower can't be healthy for it?
Theres alot of information misguided and misfed or given to the wrong people, but it is clear that something is missing...all we must know is what exactly.
When nobody knows nothing, Everybody is an expert.
\and you are trying to argue with internet, that never works.
[/ QUOTE ]
hahaha ok you got me there.
Have you seen the NASA impact tests where they fired small balls at a steel plate at 10km/s? That looked like quite a splash (it looked like water frozen in mid-splashing, roughly a 20cm diameter area affected by a 1cm ball). A comet can come at 80km/s, IIRC. Every fragment of such a comet could cause a big impact.
Either way, I doubt the fuel was the only thing within the building that could burn, some of the stuff there might indeed be capable of producing sufficiently high temperatures.
Doesn't mean I think the forces add up, in fact I doubt a collapse from fire would really have looked like that. Plus there was an earthquake reported at a nearby seismograph the moment the towers started collapsing (i.e. before it hit the ground). If the theory of an internal collapse was right I hink we'd have seen some major damage to the outer areas spreading from the point of impact downward during the collapse, not just the moment the internals hit the ground.
Ever see the photo of a piece of hay that pierced a tree trunk during a tornado? Closest thing I could find on a quick search was this one, a vinyl record stuck in a telephone pole by a tornado.
http://www.tornadochaser.net/images/record.jpg
"Above photo illustrates the awesome power of a tornado demonstrated by slaming this 33rpm plastic record into a telephone pole. Historic NWS Collection
Courtesy NOAA/Department of Commerce"
If I follow your reasoning, then the front of a car wouldn't be dented when it hits a deer.
Another example, plywood through a palm tree.
http://www.fema.gov/kids/trnsfe.htm
(though someone will probably argue FEMA is part of the massive gov't conspiracy.)
As for the towers, the reason given on a History Channel breakdown was the planes hit on the corners of the building, damaging the outer supports and putting way more weight on the floors just below the impact than they could take. The floors above the impact collapsed downward, crushing the rest of the tower on the way down. So the base supports of the towers don't even enter into it.
Also, arsh, the fuel igniting means it won't just go 'pop' and burn out, it'll burn hotter over a longer period of time. The situation wasn't 'burning jet fuel poured over structural steel' it was more like 'structural steel in a furnace lit by burning jet fuel.' Everything on the floors of the impact was on fire, for an hour. I bet it got damn hot in there.
Frank the Avenger
Also, arsh, the fuel igniting means it won't just go 'pop' and burn out, it'll burn hotter over a longer period of time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fuel doesn't burn hotter over time; it's surroundings will rise in temperature until it reaches an equilibrium with the temperature of the burning fuel, but the only way to make the fuel burn any hotter is to oxygenate it somehow.
I say the only way to settle this once and for all is to construct of an exact duplicate of the WTC buildings, fly a remote-controlled 757 into the exact same spot, and try to duplicate the results. This sounds like a job for the Mythbusters! I'm on this phone with them now
from here - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
I have no question about saudis flying the planes, especially since the House of Saud involvement in world banks, american investment groups, and controlling stock in the media outlets has led to such a cozy relationship that people from Saudi Arabia don't need to sit for an interro..view.. when applying for a visa, just mail in the application and have one mailed back. Apparently it wasn't too hard for saudi-born islamic fundamentalists to enter the US at all.
/edit .. further info: http://www.cis.org/articles/Katz/katz2003.html
Also, I'm wondering who else has seen Al-Jazeera's 'Control Room' movie.. has nothing to do with the wtc, but shows some of the media dealings behind the iraq invasion. Regardless of the potentially slanted points of view, there is some sound logical reasoning in it.
So since demo charges can't be set up that quickly, is it likely that the building was already rigged and they were waiting for an excuse to blow it? Didn't it include a CIA office or something?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's very likely at all. It doesn't make sense to plant explosives without a specific, planned time for them to be detonated.
Rooster: What about the part where the owener admits to blowing up WTC7?
Maybe it was completely normal but I somehow doubt that. Wasn't the building still in use?
Rooster: What about the part where the owener admits to blowing up WTC7?
[/ QUOTE ]
To play devil's advocate, he didn't say that he ordered the building to be demolished; the words he used were "pull it," which could mean to pull out the firefighters and abandon the attempt to save the building.
Considering the precise way in which the building collapsed, and the fact that the collapse was allegedly caused by a fire (which I doubt), I personally do think it was a demolition job, but the phrase "pull it" is a bit ambiguous and we may be misinterpreting how it was used. Probably not, considering the context of what he said, but it isn't exactly a confession either.
[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't the building still in use?
[/ QUOTE ]
It was being used to store all sorts of documents (including documents pertaining to lawsuits against several large corporations), but I'm not sure if it was being used for office space or anything like that.
To play devil's advocate, he didn't say that he ordered the building to be demolished; the words he used were "pull it," which could mean to pull out the firefighters and abandon the attempt to save the building.
[/ QUOTE ]
If anyone can watch that video and think he is talking about firefighters, then I think english must not be their native language.
[ QUOTE ]
Once they eventually weakened the weight of the above floors became too much and they toppled. Sounds about right to me- once a small part of the support gets damaged the whole thing is threatened.
[/ QUOTE ]
That sounds reasonable. But it's hard to believe that the whole structure would fall straight down due to the top most floors. I would think they would fall over and the rest, or a good portion of the lower levels build to hold the weight, would remain standing. Close up videos show that the top of one building did fall to one side, but then it fell into itself straight down. It's so strange that the entire structure crumbled...and so quickly.
I also believe WTC7 was demolished. But I wonder if it was rigged just before or just after the attacks. If it was just before, more questions. Why they would do it...even more.