Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 8 votes

911 Pentagon Video Footage


  • Please log in to reply
3292 replies to this topic

#2686    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,610 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:13 PM

9/11 was all Bin Ladin !

This is a Work in Progress!

#2687    Insaniac

Insaniac

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,060 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:19 PM

Found an epic video that tells it like it is:



Edited by Insaniac, 04 November 2012 - 10:20 PM.

"He is wise in heart and mighty in strength. Who has hardened their heart against Him, and succeeded"? ~ Job 9:4

#2688    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,610 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:36 PM

So Looks like you are on the fence on the 9/11 event Insanic ? I bet your one of the CT believers right ?

This is a Work in Progress!

#2689    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,734 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:30 AM

View PostInsaniac, on 04 November 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Found an epic video that tells it like it is:

That video is so full of flaws that I am surprise they anyone  would use it. For an example, there was no mystery concerning the $2.6 trillion dollars because;

Quote

The Pentagon and $2.6 Trillion

Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

Apparently, that author of that video didn't know that because of his ignorance of the facts. And, Osama bin Laden was not on dialysis, despite what that video implied.

Now, about what he said about the hijacker who could not handle a Cessna. He had more than enough flying hours to maneuver a B-757 in flight and didn't require knowledge to takeoff or land a B-757. In the case of the interceptors, the pilots were not briefed prior to takeoff because of the prevailing confusion at that time, but that video implied that the interceptors were deliberately sent off-course because the author was ignorant of the facts in that case as well.

The list of ignorance portrayed in that video is a long one to say the least.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 November 2012 - 01:48 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2690    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,734 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:03 AM

View PostInsaniac, on 04 November 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

Fire alone cannot melt holes through, and destroy steel skyscrapers and it makes no sense. Sorry. Prove fire destroyed the WTC. Focus on the WTC.

No evidence was found because the US Government got rid of the incriminating evidence. The FBI were blocked from investigating shortly after the attack took place because the Gov didn't want them finding out the truth. Simple. Admittedly, I don't know much about 9/11 but I'm learning more as we speak. If it is indeed true that witnesses heard falling elevators and not bombs, then atleast we have the thermite evidence.

Thermite evidence was actually found within air samples anyhow. That isn't up for debate. It's simple fact. That proves fire alone didn't destroy the building. The following video isn't the best of proof, but bear with me, here. Theres a conspiracy at work, and you're blinded to it. 9/11 was an inside job.


How do you know that video wasn't a setup?

Do you remember that hoaxed video of WTC7 video where faked explosions were added? The author admitted he hoaxed the video of WTC7, and added a UFO in the video. He even reversed the image of WTC7, but it seem the 9/11 conspiracist were unaware the video was a reversed image of WTC7, which should have told them the video was hoaxed. What did the 9/11 conspiracist do next? The 9/11 conspiracist actually claimed the video was proof that explosives were used to demolish WTC7.

You should have been aware of the rest of the story before you posted those videos.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 November 2012 - 02:03 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2691    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,610 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:52 PM

Key word there Sky "aware" :tu:
On your Six !

This is a Work in Progress!

#2692    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 55 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2010

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:01 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 November 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Then, why did you allow yourself to become a victim of those 9/11 conspiracy websites? I am sure you are aware those conspiracy websites took  a serious beating after facts and evidence were revealed concerning Cleveland airport and United 93.

In that particular case,  9/11 conspiracist confused a Delta Airlines, B-767 as United 93, which was a B-757, and scientist from a KC-135 as passengers from United 93. Check it out and understand why I have said that you are allowing yourself to become a victim of those conspiracy websites who prey on gullible people like yourself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United 93 and Cleveland Airport

http://www.911myths...._cleveland.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will read up on the link when I have time, but just to be clear, everything I posted still has merit.  Did it ever occur to you that you could be wrong just as I can be as well on some of the things we posted?  We are using evidence given to us by government officials and other experts on the Truther sides both could be wrong or right because they are human.  Fact is you were not there to witness the event, neither was I  and we are just going off of evidence found by other people; people who are human and can have their own agenda's, make mistakes, and sometimes lie for their own reasons.  Please keep that in mind I am not gullible I am open and receptive to information if I am wrong I will admit that I am wrong but to make yourself the authority on this subject matter like you have all the facts is wrong of you to do as well.

You need to look at the facts being presented just because some Truthers have falsified information does not paint them all in the same color.  Did it ever occur to you that those who want to continue to cover up things would pose as a Truther and then get discredited in order to benefit the conspirators?  Did you ever consider for one moment that Truthers are actually working for those trying to cover up something?  Yeah I gave you something to think about didn't I?  I see you posting all this evidence and how people who stated one thing then retracted their statements means they were being false to the public all along always proves your point that whatever Truthers say can now be considered a lie.  Also maybe those people who retracted their statements were coerced into making those retractions because they were threatened or they could be working for someone to help cover up what happened.  Keep an open mind Skyeagle don't be blinded by your perceived facts as the ultimate fact, take everything with a grain of salt otherwise you will become gullible just like the rest.  Let us be clear not ALL of the evidence has ever been presented to the public and it probably never will be we are being kept in the dark for reasons beyond our understanding.

Edited by Crumar, 06 November 2012 - 04:04 AM.


#2693    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,734 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:19 AM

View PostCrumar, on 06 November 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

I will read up on the link when I have time, but just to be clear, everything I posted still has merit.  Did it ever occur to you that you could be wrong just as I can be as well on some of the things we posted?  We are using evidence given to us by government officials and other experts on the Truther sides both could be wrong or right because they are human.


If the 9/11 conspiracy folks do not like government sources, they can to these non-government companies.

*   American Airlines

*   United Airlines

*   Boeing Aircraft Co.

*   Rolls-Royce

*   ARINC (ACARS)

*   Air Line Pilots Association

*   Allied Pilot Associaton

*   American Institute of Architects

*   American Society of Civil Engineers

*   Protec Services, Inc.

*  Controlled Demolition Inc

*   D.H. Griffin Companies

*   Mazzocchi Wrecking

*   Gateway Demolition


*   Yannuzzi Demolition & amp; Disposal

And now, this;

*   Police and firefighters reporting the buckling of the WTC buildings minutes before they collapsed, which indicated that fires were weakening the structures of the WTC buildings.


Quote

Fact is you were not there to witness the event, neither was I  and we are just going off of evidence found by other people; people who are human and can have their own agenda's, make mistakes, and sometimes lie for their own reasons.


I have used my many years of experience in the world of aviation to know when the 9/11 conspiracy folks have taken a wrong turn. Let's take a look at some examples.

1.  United 175 carried a pod.

FACT:  9/11 conspiracy folks mistaken main landing gear doors and aerodynamic fairings as a pod. Anther person mistaken the paint scheme on the bottom of the forward fuselage as a pod until I pointed out the paint scheme from another United Airlines B-767.


2.  Some 9/11 conspiracist have claimed that American 77 passed north of the gas station.

FACT: There was no way that a B-757 can maneuver such a maneuver at over 500 mph and not strike the ground with the right wing tip nor conduct such a tight maneuver at over 500 mph. As the facts have it, the flight path can be traced due to the path of destruction leading up to, and inside the Pentagon.

In addition, what video we do have on American 77, shows no drastic right banking maneuvering prior to striking the Pentagon and in fact, the video alone proves that American 77 did not pass north of the gas station prior to striking the Pentagon.


3. 9/11 conspiracist have claimed that a cruise missile struck the Pentagon and created that small exit hole.

FACT:  First of all, the wingspan of a cruise missile is not wide enough to take down those light poles. Secondly, we have a huge explosion on the outside wall of the Pentagon, so did anyone think there would be enough of a cruise missile to travel through the rings and create such an exit hole after such an explosion?


4.  9/11 conspiracist claimed that turning off a transponder will make an aircraft invisible to radar.

FACT: Turning off a transponder will not make an aircraft invisible on radar, but it will make it very difficult to track a particular aircraft.


5. 9/11 conspiracist claimed the 9/11 aircraft were under remote control.

QUESTION: Can you convince the airlines to ground their aircraft for many months in order to modify them illegally to fly under remote control, and do so under the noses of mechanics and inspectors?


6.   9/11 conspiracist claimed that explosives resulted in the collapse of the WTC buildings.

FACT:   There is no evidence in the videos, nor in data from seismic monitors, nor was evidence found in the rubble of the WTC buildings, that explosives were used to demolish the WTC buildings. There is no evidence of thermite cuts on the columns.

Temperatures from the fires were high enough to weaken steel and those facts are supported by non-government sources, such as demolition experts, architects, and civl engineers.


7.   9/11 conspiracist claimed that cell phones cannot be used in flight.

FACT:  Cell phones can be used in flight and recently, I received calls and text messages while flying. Here are additional examples in case you missed it.

Quote

Unsafe At Any Airspeed?

Cellphones and other electronics are more of a risk than you think

Is it safe to use cellphones on airplanes? The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) thinks it may be. In December 2004, the agency began soliciting comments on proposed regulations that would allow airline passengers to use cellphones and other electronic devices.

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

http://spectrum.ieee...at-any-airspeed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pilot Speaks to Wife on Cell Phone during Flight

The pilot departed San Jose, California, on a cross-country flight to Sisters, Oregon. He obtained a standard preflight weather briefing. Visual flight was not recommended. Cumulus buildups were reported to the pilot. The pilot indicated that he may be overflying the cloud tops. He did not file a flight plan.

The pilot's wife was driving to the same location and they talked by cell phone while en route. When the pilot failed to arrive at the destination a search was started. According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent. Radar was lost at 11,800 feet. Witnesses reported seeing the aircraft descending near vertically out of broken clouds with the engine at full power. When the aircraft was found, the right outboard wing panel from about station 110 outboard was missing. About a month later the outer wing panel was found. Analysis of the failed structure indicated a positive overload of the wing and the horizontal stabilators.

http://www.aircrafto...01208X06269.asp

The list goes on and on. Question is; Where will it all end?

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 November 2012 - 05:37 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2694    Insaniac

Insaniac

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,060 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 06 November 2012 - 08:53 AM

What makes you think the Government is more likely to tell you the truth than the average witness or civillian?

If anybody has a reason to harbor an agenda, it's the Government. They are in control of everything, and can use their resources for either good or evil.

"He is wise in heart and mighty in strength. Who has hardened their heart against Him, and succeeded"? ~ Job 9:4

#2695    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,432 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:46 PM

View PostInsaniac, on 06 November 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

What makes you think the Government is more likely to tell you the truth than the average witness or civillian?

If anybody has a reason to harbor an agenda, it's the Government. They are in control of everything, and can use their resources for either good or evil.

Exactly right, and there is abundant evidence that numerous agenda favoring the government and those who control it were advanced that day.

2 interminable wars, an insurance windfall profit for the lessee at WTC, a brand new cabinet level bureau, US securities cleared anonymously the next day, the destruction of mountains of evidence of financial crimes, such as was the case with Enron documents.

It goes on and on.  The largest beneficiaries of the events of the day were the US government and the Israeli government and the Military Industrial Complex.

CIA fingerprints all over the place.


#2696    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 55 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2010

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:01 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 06 November 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

7.   9/11 conspiracist claimed that cell phones cannot be used in flight.

FACT:  Cell phones can be used in flight and recently, I received calls and text messages while flying. Here are additional examples in case you missed it.

Recently is the key word there.  Prior to 2004 when test's were being done on satellite-based air-to-ground cellular service (source: http://usatoday30.us...-aircells_x.htm.) this service was unavailable in 2001.  Passenger’s had to rely on ground cellular towers when using their cell phones, and the on board phones (which is disputed as being installed on flight 77 and on 757's by American Airlines Customer Relations Representative Chad W. Kinder and being disputed by 9/11 Truthers and other skeptics we will get to that in a moment.)  Regardless most news outlets like CNN have it written that Barbara Olsen (one of the hi-jacked callers) had used her cell phone to call her husband.  (Source:  http://edition.cnn.c...a.under.attack/)  "Although officials said the attacks appeared to have been well planned and executed, a passenger on the plane that hit the Pentagon said in cell phone call to her husband that the terrorists were armed with knives and box cutters.

Why is this important you may ask?   I know a lot about cell phones because I was a Tier 2 tech support agent for T-mobile while I was going to University for a number of years in early 2000's and I can tell you at a high rate of speed and altitude a cell phone at that time would cut customers off or rarely if ever even connect.  As the signal bounces to the first tower the plane would be at the 2nd tower or out of range because of its high rate of speed, and the call would get stuck because the signal would still be on the first tower.  If by chance it did the connection would fail after a minute or less because the signal could not travel as fast or reach certain altitudes.  Back then for those who remember when you were driving you would sometimes get static, missed, and dropped calls and it is also why all major phone providers would eventually build their towers near high ways so that there is less dropped calls for their cellular customers while driving.  But remember planes do not travel along highways in a linear fashion and the signal begins to degrade past 2000 ft.  I always fielded complaints from customers once they got on the ground as to why their cell phones would not connect when on a plane at higher than 2000 ft and if they landed while they had their phone on the entire time it would never work.  They usually had to call from someone else’s cell phone or use a land line to fix the problem.   I had to educate them as to how the signal and towers worked and the reason for why they could not get a reduction in their monthly bill for this reason.

After I explained everything to them I would have them turn off their cell phone, take the battery out, and use a program called iHLR (not a misspelling that is how the program was called exactly) to remove their stuck signal from the last tower and once the device was powered back on the signal would reinitialize itself back onto the nearest tower they were located any where world wide if it was permitted.  This would not always work though because if a customer was outside of the U.S and we had no partnerships with that country sometimes they would not have service at all.  With that said it is rare but depending if a plane was close enough to a tower and not at a very high altitude it would be possible to have a brief conversation but after a minute or so the signal would degrade and eventually you would lose the signal. But you don't have to take my word for it here is a link to a senior design RF cell phone engineer ( cellular/CDMA engineer) who address this issue in greater technical detail.  http://911review.org...ineer_tech.html  But of course if it is from a Truther it has to be invalid right?  Please concentrate on the technical aspect of what he is saying.

This is why I am skeptical as to how all these people were able to make calls from American Airlines and United because it just does not add up how so many people were able to connect to the cell towers and those are the facts based on my experience.  Those phone calls that were made from a plane is highly dubious that much I can tell you even the FBI says they came from unknown caller ID and could not pin point the location of where those calls were made precisely and are assuming they came from those flights because the hi-jacked people had to have their voices confirmed by the FBI most likely via family members.  Also keep in mind that the FBI did not let the family of those who died listen to all the phone conversations that took place for each flight but instead gave them a few minutes to listen to and told them they were not allowed to discuss what was on the tapes to the public so some family members didn't even get to hear their loved ones full conversation or maybe not even hear their loved ones at all but the last part is just speculation and not fact because we were not there to hear what the FBI released to the family.

As for the article you site where the pilot speaks to his wife here is my take on it.  The husband is flying a Piper Comanche PA-24-260 which has a top speed of 142-161 knots (roughly top speed 161 = 184.125 mph) which means if the wife was driving as the article claims even at 60 mph toward the same destination he was heading as the article states they were both heading to (not even factoring who was ahead of the other) they could still technically be moving in range of each tower although we don’t even know how long the conversation lasted or if she had a head start.  It could be 20 seconds, or 10 minutes it doesn’t say.  The fact that they were able to talk on a cell phone while in flight is possible I have said that but keep in mind every situation is different he could have been using the highway as a marker following it and keeping a close proximity to cell towers.

Now onto how 9/11 Truthers never own up to what they report this is false as they make a correction which Skyeagle and others have said they never do.  In this article here at the bottom it says (Source: http://pilotsfor911t...g/AA757AMM.html)

"Update 09/18/07: A new document has emerged on the internet through an anonymous source which orders the phones deactivated dated March 2002. This new document is not referenced in the above 757 AMM page as the deactivation order. The document contradicts American Airlines Customer Relations Representative Chad Kinder, American Airlines Public Relations Representative John Hotard who states the deactivation order was issued prior to 9/11/2001 and of course the above 757 AMM page. We are currently in the process of analyzing the conflicts and will update this article as more information becomes available."

Even though Chad Kinder and John Hotard would support what they are claiming they realize there is a conflict in what was reported and have said as such doesn't seem like they are hiding these conflicts to me.

So you can see the Truthers are aware that some sources can conflict with each other and are reporting this fact and not just passing it off as true as some claim they do.  For those who are interested in the context and full article you can go here http://pilotsfor911t...sdfootnote24sym and for those who just want to dismiss the 9/11 Truthers and say they only spread disinformation and misinformation you don't have to click on the link no one is forcing you too.  Now with that said there are Truthers who do spread misinformation just as there are those on the other side of the argument who are doing the same thing as I am telling you in regards to the phone calls.  Notice I will not confirm, report, or claim anything in regards to seatback phones on 757, Chad W. Kinder letter (Customer Relations Representative for American Airlines) as this is being disputed by other sources and you will have to make your own conclusions based on facts and not misinformation.  I will continue to look at your other facts and see if they are valid or can be disproven.  So far to me fact 7 is not correct at all and is in fact misinformation.

Edited by Crumar, 06 November 2012 - 04:54 PM.


#2697    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,734 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:49 PM

Quote

This is why I am skeptical as to how all these people were able to make calls from American Airlines and United because it just does not add up how so many people were able to connect to the cell towers and those are the facts based on my experience.  Those phone calls that were made from a plane is highly dubious that much I can tell you even the FBI says they came from unknown caller ID and could not pin point the location of where those calls were made precisely and are assuming they came from those flights because the hi-jacked people had to have their voices confirmed by the FBI most likely via family members.  Also keep in mind that the FBI did not let the family of those who died listen to all the phone conversations that took place for each flight but instead gave them a few minutes to listen to and told them they were not allowed to discuss what was on the tapes to the public so some family members didn't even get to hear their loved ones full conversation or maybe not even hear their loved ones at all but the last part is just speculation and not fact because we were not there to hear what the FBI released to the family.

Let's take another look.

Quote

THE HINDU

QUESTION: Can we receive a mobile signal while travelling in an aeroplane?

ANSWER : Mobile phones can receive signals while travelling in an aircraft, provided the base station range allows. Territory covered with GSM network is divided into hexagonal cells. The covering diameter of each hexagonal cell may be from 400 m up to 50 km, which consists of base station that provides communication-receive and transmission, and antennae.

All GSM cellular communication telephone cells are performed via these antennae and stations, which are regulated by switching centre. Switching centre provides communication between city telephone network, base stations and other cellular communication operators. Every time you switch on your cell phone, the communication is performed with the nearest base station. Hence it is possible to receive signals on cell phone while travelling in an aeroplane, provided the base station range allows.

Cell phone use during flights is still banned by regulations because it disrupts cell service on the ground and have the potential to interfere with an airplane's navigation and communication instruments.

In theory, any device that emits electronic waves — including cell phones, laptops, electronic games, pacemakers and hearing aids — has the potential to cause interference to an aeroplane.

To be safe, it is recommended banning all electronics during critical phases of a flight, which are generally considered to be during takeoff and landing, when a plane is below 10, 000 feet.

From high in the sky, a cell phone acts like a sponge, sucking capacity out of the cellular sites that carry calls. For ground users, cell phones communicate by connecting to one cell site at a time, from the air, because of the height and speed of an aircraft, the phones often make contact with several sites at once.

If allowed this would limit call capacity, which could mean less revenue. The cellular signal from the air is also especially strong, since it is unimpeded by buildings or other ground clutter. That often means it can jump on a frequency already in use on the ground, causing interruptions or hang-ups.

And airborne cellular calls are sometimes free because the signal is moving so fast between the cells that the software on the ground has difficulty, recording the call made, put the plane at risk because cellular phones can disrupt the aeroplane's automatic pilot, cabin-pressure controls.

Modern aircrafts are installed with in-flight telephones mounted on passenger seats. The carriers receive a cut of the revenue from the telephones installed onboard.

They charge about about $6 for a one minute call, more than 20 times typical cell-phone rates. Thus the airlines and telecommunications companies also have an economic incentive to keep cell phones turned off in the air.

These in-flight telephones also operate on the cellular technology — using a single airplane antenna to which the onboard phones are typically wired.

The outside aircraft antenna that carries the air-phone calls also connects to a ground-based cellular network — but with cells that are spaced much farther apart to avoid multiple phone-ground links.  

http://www.hindu.com...03100110300.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WIRELESS WEEK

Making Calls From The Air

Although airline passengers are warned against using their mobile phones in flight, it's fairly well-known that private airplane pilots often use regular cellular and PCS phones, even if it is illegal. Not quite as well-known, however, is that people have used their wireless phones to make surreptitious calls from the bathrooms of airliners.

http://www.911myths....t_altitude.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And again, I have received cell phone calls and text messages while in flight and the only reason they stopped is because I turned off my cell phone.

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 November 2012 - 05:31 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2698    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,734 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:49 PM

View PostCrumar, on 06 November 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

This is why I am skeptical as to how all these people were able to make calls from American Airlines and United because it just does not add up how so many people were able to connect to the cell towers and those are the facts based on my experience.

The majority of phone calls were from Airfones, not cell phones. Only two cell phone calls were made from United 93, and those calls were made at low altitude, and the rest of the calls were from Airfones.

Quote

As for the article you site where the pilot speaks to his wife here is my take on it.  The husband is flying a Piper Comanche PA-24-260 which has a top speed of 142-161 knots (roughly top speed 161 = 184.125 mph) which means if the wife was driving as the article claims even at 60 mph toward the same destination he was heading as the article states they were both heading to (not even factoring who was ahead of the other) they could still technically be moving in range of each tower although we don’t even know how long the conversation lasted or if she had a head start.  It could be 20 seconds, or 10 minutes it doesn’t say.  The fact that they were able to talk on a cell phone while in flight is possible I have said that but keep in mind every situation is different he could have been using the highway as a marker following it and keeping a close proximity to cell towers.

Was United 93 flying horizonally at over 500 mph when the cell phone calls were made? Think about it.

Quote

Now onto how 9/11 Truthers never own up to what they report this is false as they make a correction which Skyeagle and others have said they never do.  In this article here at the bottom it says (Source: http://pilotsfor911t...g/AA757AMM.html)

I have  repeatedly warned people against using 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' because they refused to correct the disinformation and misinformation on its website.

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 November 2012 - 05:32 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2699    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,734 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:53 PM

View PostInsaniac, on 06 November 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

What makes you think the Government is more likely to tell you the truth than the average witness or civillian?

As I have mentioned earlier, if a person doesn't like the government as a source of information concerning the 9/11 attacks, they can go to non-government sources, and then, look at the evidence.

Quote

If anybody has a reason to harbor an agenda, it's the Government. They are in control of everything, and can use their resources for either good or evil.

Then, use the list of non-government references I have posted.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2700    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,734 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:56 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 06 November 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

Exactly right, and there is abundant evidence that numerous agenda favoring the government and those who control it were advanced that day.

2 interminable wars, an insurance windfall profit for the lessee at WTC, a brand new cabinet level bureau, US securities cleared anonymously the next day, the destruction of mountains of evidence of financial crimes, such as was the case with Enron documents.

It goes on and on.  The largest beneficiaries of the events of the day were the US government and the Israeli government and the Military Industrial Complex.

CIA fingerprints all over the place.

Apparently,  you have no evidence to backup what you say? What CIA fingerprints? Remember, you were the person who threw in a P700 anti-ship missile in the Pentagon attack without a shred of evidence to begin with. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users