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

#2716    Insaniac

Insaniac

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:41 AM

People still covering up the corruption, I see?

Sorry you've had to deal with this, Crumar.

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

#2717    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:49 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 08 November 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

Crumar, you may wish to read the following page at 911Myths.com. It goes into a fair amount of detailm, and provides several verifiable sources which unequivocally state that calls from cell phones in aircraft at the time of 9/11 were indeed possible.

911Myths.com - Mobiles at Altitude

Here's a quote from a fairly relevant section of that page:

Although the full quote tells a slightly different story.

Below a certain altitude? What might that be? So it may work at 30,000 feet, although only momentarily? Apparently the New York Times agrees:

I do realize that you are not saying it is impossible for the calls to have happened, just that it is exceedingly unlikely, at least that is the impression I am getting from your posts. I think you'll find that if you follow the sources and information provided on the page linked above, that the likelihood is greater than you are professing.
Cz

As you said I am not disputing that cell phones do not work on airplanes in 2001 what I am suggesting is that the signal is there and a connection can be made but the connection will not last more then a minute because the signal begins to degrade the higher you go in altitude as well as the planes movement at a high rate of speed moving from one tower to the next gives a very strong probability that it will disconnect you.  Thanks for the post above I appreciate it I will read it in detail when I can but please remember others including myself have posted people who have done real world tests on this subject matter and have in fact proven what I have said in regards to how the cell phones work in air planes prior to 2004.  But again I will read above further when I have time thanks for taking the time to post the information.


#2718    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:56 AM

View PostInsaniac, on 08 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

People still covering up the corruption, I see?

Sorry you've had to deal with this, Crumar.

Heh thanks for the vote of confidence I appreciate it.  I just want people to understand there is always more to a story then one side presents.  Some stuff that I posted I was educated on because I did not have the proper information and these guys helped me in some respects, but at the same time when you present evidence people on the other side of the CT's who defend the governments findings tend to not always be as objective as they claim because misinformation is being spread around by both sides in my opinion for whatever reason.  So I take everything I read with a grain of salt and just try to learn as much as I can you have to keep an open mind when dealing with these subject matters because there is so much information to process and validate or invalidate it can be very time consuming to say the least.

Edited by Crumar, 08 November 2012 - 09:57 AM.


#2719    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,019 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:10 PM

View PostInsaniac, on 08 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

People still covering up the corruption, I see?

Sorry you've had to deal with this, Crumar.

When someone makes such a statement, they have to produce evidence. Anything short of that, won't work. Case in point is where 9/11 conspiracist claimed a video depicting explosions on WTC7 was evidence that explosives were used. However, they were unaware that the video was a deliberate hoax and didn't notice that the video was a reversed mirror image of WTC7, which would have told them the video was doctored.

Another case is where 9/11 conspiracist  claimed that a particular photo proved that molten steel was found within the rubble of a WTC building. The 9/11 conspiracist folks made the claim not knowing that photo actually depicted reflection from a flashlight, which they mistaken as molten steel.

Those are just two examples of many why anything less than real evidence just won't work.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2720    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,137 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:41 PM

View PostInsaniac, on 08 November 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

People still covering up the corruption, I see?

I'm sorry, but did you somewhere prove unequivocally that there was corruption? No....? Yeah... didn't think so.

Well then maybe you can explain how presenting a viewpoint that doesn't agree with your opinions is "covering up" something you have yet to prove even existed...? Not holding my breath for any rational discussion on that either....

Quote

Sorry you've had to deal with this, Crumar.
Yes... so sorry that on a discussion board, someone with a different opinion would actually want to, oh, you know... DISCUSS something... :rolleyes:

If all you want to see are opinions that agree with your own, start a blog.






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 08 November 2012 - 04:44 PM.

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf

#2721    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,019 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:43 PM

View PostCrumar, on 08 November 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:

It does not slam the door shut because you still haven't told us these calls were made in 2001 and how long your conversations lasted, and how high you were in altitude when this call took place.  Since 2004 as I have explained to you the capability of cell phone use in planes has dramatically increased with installation of satellite to ground technology on commercial aircraft.  So yes in recent times cell phones do work but they rarely did work past a minute in 2001 depending on altitude and rate of speed.

The link you provided which I actually posted earlier above does not say that connections to cell phones were possible it only says that the signal may be picked up by a device even at 35,000 ft and that is a big difference.  If traveling at high altitude and high rate of speed  there is a very small chance that a connection can be made but will lose connection rapidly (within a minute or less) because cell towers were not designed to maintain that signal at high altitudes.  I already provided you proof of this in my earlier post but I guess we have to revisit this.

As both you and I posted the link above http://connectedplan..._final_contact/ it says:

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


Let's take the step a bit further.

Quote

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson


From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.

Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson

... said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less.
It helped that the planes were flying in areas with plenty of cell sites, too. Even United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania, was supported by several nearby cell sites, Raney added.

http://connectedplan..._final_contact/


Traveling on Delta Flight 1989 on 9/11

The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight.

http://256.com/gray/...11/travel.shtml

You might remember that it was Delta 1989, which was confused by 9/11 conspiracy folks as United 93.

Edited by skyeagle409, 08 November 2012 - 04:46 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2722    Insaniac

Insaniac

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:43 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 November 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

When someone makes such a statement, they have to produce evidence. Anything short of that, won't work. Case in point is where 9/11 conspiracist claimed a video depicting explosions on WTC7 was evidence that explosives were used. However, they were unaware that the video was a deliberate hoax and didn't notice that the video was a reversed mirror image of WTC7, which would have told them the video was doctored.

Another case is where 9/11 conspiracist  claimed that a particular photo proved that molten steel was found within the rubble of a WTC building. The 9/11 conspiracist folks made the claim not knowing that photo actually depicted reflection from a flashlight, which they mistaken as molten steel.

Those are just two examples of many why anything less than real evidence just won't work.

If I wasn't such a couch potato, I'd muster the will to begin a proper case documenting the corruption and cover-up on 9/11.

At what point in your life, did you stop and suddenly say "Hey, the Government hands out irrefutable evidence in any and all cases. They are not in the wrong, nor is it possible for them to harbor an agenda?"

*SNIP*

Edited by Lilly, 08 November 2012 - 05:33 PM.
removed accusation

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

#2723    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,019 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:50 PM

View PostCrumar, on 08 November 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Some stuff that I posted I was educated on because I did not have the proper information and these guys helped me in some respects, but at the same time when you present evidence people on the other side of the CT's who defend the governments findings tend to not always be as objective as they claim because misinformation is being spread around by both sides in my opinion for whatever reason.  

Anyone who would rather not use the government as a reference, can use a number of non-government sources as references.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2724    Insaniac

Insaniac

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:52 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 08 November 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

Yes... so sorry that on a discussion board, someone with a different opinion would actually want to, oh, you know... DISCUSS something... :rolleyes:

If all you want to see are opinions that agree with your own, start a blog.

Although discussing is good, it's ultimately pointless if you're not going to get to the bottom of a situation.

Some people like to actually get to the bottom of those situations and solve cases, expose possible corruption. Not simply talk about them all the time, getting nowhere.

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

#2725    Insaniac

Insaniac

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:53 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 November 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

Anyone who would rather not use the government as a reference, can use a number of non-government sources as references.

Like the Media, who are owned by the Government? lmao.

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

#2726    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,137 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:58 PM

View PostInsaniac, on 08 November 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

Although discussing is good, it's ultimately pointless if you're not going to get to the bottom of a situation.

Some people like to actually get to the bottom of those situations and solve cases, expose possible corruption. Not simply talk about them all the time, getting nowhere.

Oh, I see... so this:

View PostInsaniac, on 08 November 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

If I wasn't such a couch potato, I'd muster the will to begin a proper case documenting the corruption and cover-up on 9/11.

At what point in your life, did you stop and suddenly say "Hey, the Government hands out irrefutable evidence in any and all cases. They are not in the wrong, nor is it possible for them to harbor an agenda?"

This isn't me trying to be unkind, I'm genuinely curious now as to where this began, because your defending the terrori-I mean, US Government, like some kind of agent. Like one of those paid shills or something.

Is you getting to the bottom of the situation...? Sounds to me like you're not trying to do anything except spew CT garbage rhetoric.

I bet that a really comfy couch you're on...



:rolleyes:

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf

#2727    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,019 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 November 2012 - 05:02 PM

View PostInsaniac, on 08 November 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

If I wasn't such a couch potato, I'd muster the will to begin a proper case documenting the corruption and cover-up on 9/11.

Once again, only real evidence will work. Past government corruption is not evidence that implicates the government in the 9/11 attacks.

Quote

At what point in your life, did you stop and suddenly say "Hey, the Government hands out irrefutable evidence in any and all cases. They are not in the wrong, nor is it possible for them to harbor an agenda?"

I know the government does not always tell the truth and I know that from experience, however, if you don't like what the government has to say, I have listed a number of non-government sources that can be used as references as well. In other words, focus on what non-government sources have said rather than relying on the government itself.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2728    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,019 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 November 2012 - 05:04 PM

View PostInsaniac, on 08 November 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

Like the Media, who are owned by the Government? lmao.

The media is not owned by the government anymore than the government owns American Airlines and United Airlines. Remember, those airlines have confirmed the loss of their aircraft on 9/11/2001.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2729    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 15,604 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 08 November 2012 - 05:36 PM

Do not make accusations towards other members stating that they are "government shills".  People have differing opinions, such does not make them agents of the government.

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

"All that live must die, passing through nature into eternity" ~Shakespeare~ Posted Image

#2730    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:36 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 November 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:


Why?! As I have said that my own cell phone worked in flight, which basically slams the door shut of the conspiracist claim that a cell phone won't work in flight. In addition, I have posted examples of where cell phones were used in  flight.

View PostCrumar, on 08 November 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:


It does not slam the door shut because you still haven't told us these calls were made in 2001 and how long your conversations lasted, and how high you were in altitude when this call took place.  Since 2004 as I have explained to you the capability of cell phone use in planes has dramatically increased with installation of satellite to ground technology on commercial aircraft.  So yes in recent times cell phones do work but they rarely did work past a minute in 2001 depending on altitude and rate of speed.

Skyeagle, you wrote a lot but you STILL haven't answered the question I asked of you why are you avoiding it?  You made a pretty strong statement above and I asked you for your personal evidence that you have yet to reply to, did you just think I would forget?  I am not asking you to reply using other people sources, you said that it was you that made calls not the sources so tell me when you made the calls, how long your conversation lasted and what year they were made in (specifically if it was in 2001) along with altitude, speed, and flight of the location.  Also if it was a commercial fight or if it was some other form of non commercial plane you were on.  I am very interested in finding this information out thank you.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users