Skeptic Project

>> And btw Bin Laden refused to take money from the US, maybe Edward W. can expand.

That's true, he did. He used his own money to fund his own group, his group wasn't trained by the CIA either. There were other groups that were, however. As for the name Al-Qaeda, there seems to be a contradicting situation going on here. While there are some sources that say the name was given to them originally from the US government as a way to identify them, bin Laden claimed in an interview that he and his leadership came up with the name instead. I suggested on this site that perhaps bin Laden is just lying, after the name Al-Qaeda became synonymous with him, it doesn't matter if he made it up or not, it is he and Al-Zawahiri's philosophy.

>> He said they designed the towers to withstand the largest airliner at the time a 707 LOST and LOW ON FUEL and that they did not factor in the subsequent fires from the fuel.

I saw in a video interview that this was done after the fact, apparently the question came up after design what would happen if a plane hit it. And basically it came down to saying that, perhaps a 707 -- the largest plane at the time -- lost in the fog, if it hit it, the building could likely stand the impact.

>> EXACTLY ZERO SUCCESSFUL HIJACKINGS IN THE UNITES STATES

Apparently then there's no such thing as a first time for everything? That's good to know, so putting a gun in my mouth, since I've never shot myself before, will end well because, there's never a first time for everything. Total straw man, I know, but I'm trying to display how ludicrous that statement is in proving 9/11 was an inside job.

>> Most people can't even remember the official lie, which is that Todd Beamer called (somehow)

Oh my god, you're a no-phoner as well?

>> I'm weeping as I write this, because I have absolute certainty that something exactly like this happened, and that this poor dazed widow was given a fool's conundrum, to tell the lie, to be the widow of a hero, instead of just some poor bitch who lost her husband at the business end of an air to air missile.

And the plot thickens, more and more people are needed for the conspiracy to work.

"If only there was some sort of popular hand-held device that allowed people to place telephone calls!"

http://www.megomuseum.com/startrek/images/tricorder.jpg

Apparently then there's no such thing as a first time for everything? That's good to know, so putting a gun in my mouth, since I've never shot myself before, will end well because, there's never a first time for everything. Total straw man, I know, but I'm trying to display how ludicrous that statement is in proving 9/11 was an inside job.

If you have a gun without bullets in it, it would be quite a feat to shoot yourself in the head with it. Go ahead, give it a try. If you manage to shoot yourself with an unloaded gun, be sure and come back here to this forum and tell us all about it. Maybe you could even post a video of it on YouTube explaining how you killed yourself by a shot to the head with an unloaded gun.

"It's been firmly established that cell phone calls from planes at altitude would have been impossible."

Lols.

If I (Larry Silverstein) insured my Honda Civic (WTC) against vandalism (terrorism) then beat my car with a bat to get the insurance money. What do you think I would be able to do with that insurance? Could I use it to go buy whatever I wanted (Xbox 360, Xbox 360) or would I have to use it on the car?

Once the insurance company cuts you the check, you can spend the money on whatever you want, pretty much. I guess that would depend on what's available for sale. I'm not aware of any World Trade Centers for sale that the money could be spent on. Maybe there's one hidden somewhere. Perhaps you could spend the next nine or ten months searching Google Earth looking for it. Report back when you are finished.

Is it a personal payout or a payout to only pay for what was covered with my insurance policy? It is my personal understanding that I cannot smash the shit out of my car and use the insurance money to pay for something else. Correct, Plautus?

It may be correct that this is your understanding, but insurance companies aren't in the business of providing new cars for people, or new buildings, or whatever, they simply pay out money. Essentially it's like a bet. Take life insurance, for example, a life insurance policy is a bet between you and the insurer over when you will die. They hope you'll live a good long time paying premiums. Unless it's health insurance, then they hope you die before they have to pay out a cent, and they'll try to deny every single claim you make (like all insurers do, pretty much, even if they insure a multi-billionaire like Larry Silverstein.

Except this plane was heavier and going extremely fast. Not the cautious "navigating through some fog" speed that the designers had intended.

The physics tells us that the impacts and fires were comparable to the damage the buildings were designed to withstand. I may get into trouble here but I think I remember some statistic like the buildings were designed to stand, with up to like forty percent of the structure removed. It was heavily over-engineered and designed to stand, no matter what. This is why the "pancake" theory is so absurd, it relies on the building being designed to collapse like a house of cards due to gravity, instead of being designed to RESIST the forces of gravity like every single construction on the face of the planet.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html</p>

"Wireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They speculate that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground

"it was almost a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations... 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"

While serious doubts regarding the cell calls were expressed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, a new landmark in the wireless telecom industry has further contributed to upsetting the Commission's credibility. Within days of the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in July, American Airlines and Qualcomm, proudly announced the development of a new wireless technology --which will at some future date allow airline passengers using their cell phones to contact family and friends from a commercial aircraft

"Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls."

"Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring [July 2004] ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to-ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground.

For the test flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, the aircraft was equipped with an antenna in the front and rear of the cabin to transmit cell phone calls to a small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station. This "pico cell" transmitted cell phone calls from the aircraft via a Globalstar satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network"

Needless to say, neither the service, nor the "third generation" hardware, nor the "Picco cell" CDMA base station inside the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11, 2001.

The 911 Commission points to the clarity and detail of these telephone conversations.

In substance, the Aviation Week report creates yet another embarrassing hitch in the official story.

The untimely July American Airlines / Qualcomm announcement acted as a cold shower. Barely acknowledged in press reports, it confirms that the Bush administration had embroidered the cell phone narrative (similar to what they did with WMDs) and that the 9/11 Commission's account was either flawed or grossly exaggerated.

According to industry experts, the crucial link in wireless cell phone transmission from an aircraft is altitude. Beyond a certain altitude which is usually reached within a few minutes after takeoff, cell phone calls are no longer possible.

In other words, given the wireless technology available on September 11 2001, these cell calls could not have been placed from high altitude.

The only way passengers could have got through to family and friends using their cell phones, is if the planes were flying below 8000 feet. Yet even at low altitude, below 8000 feet, cell phone communication is of poor quality.

The crucial question: at what altitude were the planes traveling, when the calls were placed?

While the information provided by the Commission is scanty, the Report's timeline does not suggest that the planes were consistently traveling at low altitude. In fact the Report confirms that a fair number of the cell phone calls were placed while the plane was traveling at altitudes above 8000 feet, which is considered as the cutoff altitude for cell phone transmission.

I could belabor this point for hours, providing dozens of authoritative sources saying exactly the same things, that these calls were all impossible. Only massive ignorance could allow people to believe otherwise. Hopefully this will cure the ignorance of the members of this forum.

I wish I lived in a world where things always went according to plans.

What a neat world that would be.

I'd settle for a world where the laws of physics always apply, and can not be suspended by muslims with box cutters.

BEHOLD!

Oh, yeah, globalresearch.ca, they are known for their rigorous study of cell phone technology.

Wait, what?

Read the sources that were cited in that report, you'll find that in every case they are people working in the telecom industry who know better than anyone else what is possible and impossible when it comes to cell phone communication.

Try reading it before you dismiss it next time, then you won't look like so much of a buffoon.

PS: Impuning the source is a logical fallacy.

Eat shit, fuckface.

Nothing you post is anything I have not read a hundred times before.

likewise

If cell phones don't work on airplanes, why do cell phones have Airplane modes?

Can't resist, can you?

Do you take medication for this?

"I have the position of strength here, so the job is much easier for me than it is for you. You're the one with the uphill battle"

Fool, did you forget what site you're posting on? You really think that, don't you? Your entire reality is a total fantasy.

Truthers are mocked by pretty much everyone. Hell, you even got kicked out of the Zeitgeisters because of it.

I don't think I am the one with the uphill battle.

Position of strength, lol. Dunning Kruger.

Fool, did you forget what site you're posting on?

No.

Truthers are mocked by pretty much everyone.

I'm not sure what you mean by "truthers", but I don't mind being mocked. It's not going to stop me from compulsively correcting errors.

Hell, you even got kicked out of the Zeitgeisters because of it.

This is a little complicated to deconstruct.

First of all, I wasn't "kicked out" of anything. I'm able to use any of the Zeitgeist Movement forums at any time. Attempts have been made to ban me, but all they are capable of banning are IP's and ID's. They can ban IP's, they can ban ID's, but they can not ban me. Also, the only person who decides if I'm a member of the Zeitgeist Movement is me. I have decided that I am a member.

As for the reasons all the IP and ID banning has been taking place, that's very simple. I was initially banned for suggesting to people using the movement's Ventrilo server that there was a better, open source alternative called Mumble that people were already using. The admins on the Ventrilo server didn't like the idea of a forum they couldn't control, so they allowed other users on that server to harass and insult and yell at me. When I finally told one of these cretins where to stuff it, my ID was immediately banned. After this ban on the Ventrilo server I went to the web site forums and complained about an unjust banned, for which I got my threads locked and I had ID's banned repeatedly as I kept posting the same information and called the community to action about it. These actions led to a minority of moderators of those forums to institute a "global ban" wherein they purported to ban me from all of the movement's forums. Those bans were a dismal failure, as I continued to post to those forums and continued to use Ventrilo, IRC and then Teamspeak 3 when it was established. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. I was banned for challenging mod authority and for absolutely no other reason. Post facto justifications include the obvious belligerence and disgust I displayed at their childish and counterproductive actions that were, in essence, just a waste of their time and a burden on other users. To this day those same moderators continue to do the same kinds of things to other people, alienating more and more as each day goes by, proving beyond doubt that they (the moderators) are a solution looking for a problem, that they cause the problems they pretend to solve.

I don't think I am the one with the uphill battle.

You should have just stopped at "I don't think", because it doesn't seem to me that you do think, about anything, ever.

Sticking it to the man.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010066904_2001108092.pdf</p>

A NASA study from June 2001. Summarizing that "14 years of incidents reported by pilots to the ASRS" of interference caused, or suspected to be caused, by passenger electronic devices. Mobile phones were the most frequently identified source of interference."

So a pre-9/11 report about how Mobile Phones shouldn't be used on airplanes because they cause interference. So... they don't work but just cause interference? What's causing the signal interference if they can't get a signal?

Furthermore, a 2000 report by the British Civil Aviation Authority states that:

"interference levels produced by a portable telephone, used near the flight deck or avionics equipment bay, will exceed demonstrated susceptibility levels for equipment qualified to standards published prior to July 1984. Since equipment qualified to these standards are installed in older aircraft, and can be installed (and is known to be installed) in newly built aircraft, current policy for restricting the use of portable telephones on all aircraft will need to remain in force.. …For safety reasons, the Regulatory Authorities should continue to prohibit the use of portable telephones by passengers on aircraft whilst the engines are running."

Note the key term of "used". As in using it to do the only thing cell phones could do back in that time, make phone calls.

This won't convince you though, that superiority complex of yours won't allow it. Last post for me in this thread on this subject, done with the hijacking. No pun intended.