RE: The Big Lie! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

thornhappy -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/22/2007 4:39:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or


I also heard about the person who supposedly called from their cellphone. Now I don't know it all, but I know quite a bit about technology. Cellphones communicate with towers on the ground. They have no reason to worry about someone in the friggin ionosphere, so to conserve power the antennae are directional downward. They might be totally omnidirectional, but only in a ½ sphere. Therefore it is HIGHLY unlikely that a cellphone would work in flight. They tell you to turn them off because cellphones, like modern cordlesses check for an open channel as soon as they go off hook. If they can't find one they keep searching, and therefore might hit a frquency that could screw with the operation of the craft, or a hospital for that matter. That's why they tell you to turn them off.
T

Then please explain to me how ham radio operators have been able to hit ground-based 2 meter repeaters (I personally know a few that did, in the days before the electronics ban.  It was discouraged by other hams because you can hit a few at once.)  Cell phone communication is predominately "line of sight" due to the frequencies involved.  It would not be easy to make a cell call from the aircraft (due to trying to get your relatively low power signal out the windows), but it's quite possible.

thornhappy



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/22/2007 5:54:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or


I also heard about the person who supposedly called from their cellphone. Now I don't know it all, but I know quite a bit about technology. Cellphones communicate with towers on the ground. They have no reason to worry about someone in the friggin ionosphere, so to conserve power the antennae are directional downward. They might be totally omnidirectional, but only in a ½ sphere. Therefore it is HIGHLY unlikely that a cellphone would work in flight. They tell you to turn them off because cellphones, like modern cordlesses check for an open channel as soon as they go off hook. If they can't find one they keep searching, and therefore might hit a frquency that could screw with the operation of the craft, or a hospital for that matter. That's why they tell you to turn them off.
T

Then please explain to me how ham radio operators have been able to hit ground-based 2 meter repeaters (I personally know a few that did, in the days before the electronics ban.  It was discouraged by other hams because you can hit a few at once.)  Cell phone communication is predominately "line of sight" due to the frequencies involved.  It would not be easy to make a cell call from the aircraft (due to trying to get your relatively low power signal out the windows), but it's quite possible.

thornhappy



Because they need a minimum amount of time to lock on to a tower, then by the time they lock on the plane was to the next tower, so a cell would not be able to lock on long enough to actually communicate with someone.

That and 2 meter has a longer range because it is a lower frequency...

hope ya dont mind me jumping here



thornhappy -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/22/2007 6:34:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or


I also heard about the person who supposedly called from their cellphone. Now I don't know it all, but I know quite a bit about technology. Cellphones communicate with towers on the ground. They have no reason to worry about someone in the friggin ionosphere, so to conserve power the antennae are directional downward. They might be totally omnidirectional, but only in a ½ sphere. Therefore it is HIGHLY unlikely that a cellphone would work in flight. They tell you to turn them off because cellphones, like modern cordlesses check for an open channel as soon as they go off hook. If they can't find one they keep searching, and therefore might hit a frquency that could screw with the operation of the craft, or a hospital for that matter. That's why they tell you to turn them off.
T

Then please explain to me how ham radio operators have been able to hit ground-based 2 meter repeaters (I personally know a few that did, in the days before the electronics ban.  It was discouraged by other hams because you can hit a few at once.)  Cell phone communication is predominately "line of sight" due to the frequencies involved.  It would not be easy to make a cell call from the aircraft (due to trying to get your relatively low power signal out the windows), but it's quite possible.

thornhappy



Because they need a minimum amount of time to lock on to a tower, then by the time they lock on the plane was to the next tower, so a cell would not be able to lock on long enough to actually communicate with someone.

That and 2 meter has a longer range because it is a lower frequency...

hope ya dont mind me jumping here

whew.  not going to try to edit the quotes lest they be misattributed.

Cell phones can "hand off" between cells.  CDMA ones in particular would have an easier time handing off because they don't have to change frequency ("hard handoff") as often. 



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/22/2007 9:03:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or


I also heard about the person who supposedly called from their cellphone. Now I don't know it all, but I know quite a bit about technology. Cellphones communicate with towers on the ground. They have no reason to worry about someone in the friggin ionosphere, so to conserve power the antennae are directional downward. They might be totally omnidirectional, but only in a ½ sphere. Therefore it is HIGHLY unlikely that a cellphone would work in flight. They tell you to turn them off because cellphones, like modern cordlesses check for an open channel as soon as they go off hook. If they can't find one they keep searching, and therefore might hit a frquency that could screw with the operation of the craft, or a hospital for that matter. That's why they tell you to turn them off.
T

Then please explain to me how ham radio operators have been able to hit ground-based 2 meter repeaters (I personally know a few that did, in the days before the electronics ban.  It was discouraged by other hams because you can hit a few at once.)  Cell phone communication is predominately "line of sight" due to the frequencies involved.  It would not be easy to make a cell call from the aircraft (due to trying to get your relatively low power signal out the windows), but it's quite possible.

thornhappy



Because they need a minimum amount of time to lock on to a tower, then by the time they lock on the plane was to the next tower, so a cell would not be able to lock on long enough to actually communicate with someone.

That and 2 meter has a longer range because it is a lower frequency...

hope ya dont mind me jumping here

whew.  not going to try to edit the quotes lest they be misattributed.

Cell phones can "hand off" between cells.  CDMA ones in particular would have an easier time handing off because they don't have to change frequency ("hard handoff") as often. 



Today you can do it and it will work but not then, first the plane is moving what say roughly 10 miles per miute and the cell phone has to maintain a good connection to even do the handshake in the first place, and then the conversation between that one guy with his supposed mother was hilarious....  you believe this is me dont y9ou mom...   like i just about died laughing at that.  and last a guy tested it at various heights and could not could not get a phone to work more than a few feet off the ground and that was in a cessna i think.  the data of his test is out there on the web so you can google it if you like.  



thornhappy -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/25/2007 9:15:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Today you can do it and it will work but not then, first the plane is moving what say roughly 10 miles per miute and the cell phone has to maintain a good connection to even do the handshake in the first place, and then the conversation between that one guy with his supposed mother was hilarious....  you believe this is me dont y9ou mom...   like i just about died laughing at that.  and last a guy tested it at various heights and could not could not get a phone to work more than a few feet off the ground and that was in a cessna i think.  the data of his test is out there on the web so you can google it if you like.  


This is the kind of thing that drives me up the wall on conspiracy theories.  It's when non-technical types try one demo & make the conclusion that it never could've worked.  It may be someone's idea that you couldn't acquire & then handoff quickly, but I think it's quite possible.  I worked in the industry, and unless someone who was a cellular systems engineer said, nope can't happen, forget it. 

So evidently, the alternative case is someone called from the ground, tells their parent/SO, etc. a story with all the appropriate background noise?   Manages to fool the called party into believing it's really, really them?

And weren't there some calls from the Airphones (back of seat phones)?

And on another tack, if folks don't believe aircraft took down Towers 1 & 2, how do you explain all the aircraft debris scattered around?  Engines, landing gear, seats, etc.

NOVA and Discovery Channel both have shown the failure analysis results (NOVA's was updated later with newer info).  Why develop such intricate theories, requiring all sorts of unlikely things to happen, when  simple explanations (engineering wise) exist?

If I no longer respond to this thread, it should not be taken as assent.

thornhappy



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/29/2007 4:09:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
This is the kind of thing that drives me up the wall on conspiracy theories.  It's when non-technical types try one demo & make the conclusion that it never could've worked.  It may be someone's idea that you couldn't acquire & then handoff quickly, but I think it's quite possible.  I worked in the industry, and unless someone who was a cellular systems engineer said, nope can't happen, forget it.


First you have not forgotten that the us government allegations about the hijackers is a "conspiracy theory".  

i love the way people act like i have some kind of conspiracy theory totally overlooking the fact that all i am really doing is debunking the governments "conspiracy theory"!!

Then you go on to say that "you think its quite possible"?  It sounds to me that you know considerably less about than the guy who at least went up and tried it!

What you said is that you do not really know but because you are or were in the biz you "think" it would.  That frankly does not hold much weight.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
So evidently, the alternative case is someone called from the ground, tells their parent/SO, etc. a story with all the appropriate background noise?   Manages to fool the called party into believing it's really, really them?  And weren't there some calls from the Airphones (back of seat phones)?

So you did not hear what the guy said is that it?  i mean it was so obviously fake it is laughable.

they said cell beyond that i do not know.


quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
And on another tack, if folks don't believe aircraft took down Towers 1 & 2, how do you explain all the aircraft debris scattered around?  Engines, landing gear, seats, etc.


What does aircraft debris have to do with brining down the towers?  i never claimed that aircraft did not hit the buildings, because they did, but aircraft and fire did not bring them down.   did you watch the videos i posted and listen to all those big bangs?  those were big bangs were bombs exploding.  What more needs to be said on that point?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
NOVA and Discovery Channel both have shown the failure analysis results (NOVA's was updated later with newer info).  Why develop such intricate theories, requiring all sorts of unlikely things to happen, when  simple explanations (engineering wise) exist? 

If you are talking about more simple than bombs which is about as simple as it can get i cant wait to hear it.

As i have said many times that i do not need nova or discovery or the gov to tell me how the buildings came down because they came down as a result of being blown all to fuckin hell.

Simple as that and if you again watched the videos i posted you would know that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
If I no longer respond to this thread, it should not be taken as assent. 

Regardless it is assent. lol

Not unless you have some grand scenario to refute why a building should remain standing when bombs blow them up, but i cannot think of any refutations for that, at least none that make any sense.


So far every one who has tried to stand by hold up the governments version has failed miserably to even make a case using the evidence.  They all use faked reports interviews and disinformation and name calling as their methods of proving the governments case which i am sorry to say for both you and me is an abomination.



thornhappy -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/29/2007 12:45:29 PM)

I have the distinct impression that you let nothing, and I mean nothing, come in the way of your beliefs (zero point energy, cold fusion, and the "big lie").  It is frankly not worth the time engaging you.  Like debating evolution with creationists, nothing will change your mind.



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/29/2007 3:10:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

I have the distinct impression that you let nothing, and I mean nothing, come in the way of your beliefs (zero point energy, cold fusion, and the "big lie").  It is frankly not worth the time engaging you.  Like debating evolution with creationists, nothing will change your mind.


you really do not need to put your inablility to score a home run here onto me, others have scored home runs and i always back down, and not only do i back down but i stand up and say it rather than just go AWOL like most do.   Just make a plausible case for petes sake.



mydestiny2043 -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/29/2007 8:09:06 PM)

Hello all,
Not meaning to highjack this thread but it made me think of this video a friend told me about it's called "loose change"
and is based on what some consider the cover up about 911.
Has anyone else seen or heard of it?It made me rethink a few things about how things played out.
 
         db



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (4/30/2007 4:54:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mydestiny2043

Hello all,
Not meaning to highjack this thread but it made me think of this video a friend told me about it's called "loose change"
and is based on what some consider the cover up about 911.
Has anyone else seen or heard of it?It made me rethink a few things about how things played out.
 
         db



oh yeh and in plane view, and aaron russo, and 911, and hmm there are a few more.  If you really want a snoot full go on google video and watch the alex jones stuff...  the nice thing is that he holds the news papers up long enough and they are clear enough that you can pause it and look everything he says up and make your own decisions if you agree with him or not.  the beauty in this is that there is someone at least bringing this info into the open for us unlike the sanitized and media.



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/5/2007 12:15:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

I have the distinct impression that you let nothing, and I mean nothing, come in the way of your beliefs (zero point energy, cold fusion, and the "big lie").  It is frankly not worth the time engaging you.  Like debating evolution with creationists, nothing will change your mind.


Since even einstein both acknowledged its existance and recognized its potiential and stated it as such, and that nasa, stanford, and shit loads of labs around the world are working on/with it you are correct, engaging me on it rather futile if you think you can change my mind.



thompsonx -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/5/2007 7:54:08 PM)

I gotta question.  I am sure that someone knows how much diesel fuel (jet fuel) was in the aircraft that crashed into the buildings.  So it would not be too difficult to come up with how many btus would be available to sink these buildings.  We have already calculated how much explosives it would have taken lets see how they compare.  If the amount of energy for the two is vastly different and in what way how might this alter this discussion.
thompson



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/6/2007 1:52:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I gotta question.  I am sure that someone knows how much diesel fuel (jet fuel) was in the aircraft that crashed into the buildings.  So it would not be too difficult to come up with how many btus would be available to sink these buildings.  We have already calculated how much explosives it would have taken lets see how they compare.  If the amount of energy for the two is vastly different and in what way how might this alter this discussion.
thompson


Kool question!

Ok i have something for everyone to ponder.

I would make a case that th eplanes hitting the steel and cement buildings were no different than a water balloon with a 3 ounce lead weight inside hitting a double payned glass window such that the window is broken and liquid can get inside the building.

So imagine this, or if you have the space to do an actual experiment even better.

First fill a balloon with kerosene. (stand back far enough not to get splashed)

Next draw a target on the glass payne window because we are going to throw it through the glass onto the other side.

Next light a little propane torch beside the target to give us the ignition upon impact in th esame manner as the sparkes from being driven through the conrete would have done when the plane went through the walls.

Next back off an appropiate distance, (this can be determined with a water balloon and a concrete wall and see how far it splashes),  then throw the fuel filled balloon at the target.

This will nearly exactly reproduce the plane hitting the building.

The first thing you would note is that the greater majority of the fuel, i would take a hip shot estimate, about 95% since the plane was going 500+ knots, blew off from turning to mist, just as your balloon did and went up in a big fireball.

Pyrotech people "from experience" can tell you roughly how much fuel it took to make those impressive large awestricken plumes of gas igniting in the air and flying out the other side of the building.

The only gas left to burn inside the building is the gas that would have gotten caught in crevices that were not totally ripped apart or metal that folded in upon itself where the gas could have been trapped.  (if y0ou ever picked up a crashed you know that is not to likely but "it could happen")

That in mind there was virtually no fuel to burn in the building.  That and the real problem is: that jet fuel or natural gas would never get hot enough to bring down the 119 rated steel, even if the building were staturated with it and lit.

So off the cuff (to lazy to get a calculator) figuring, at 3200 degrees, with perfectly semetrical simultaneous heating around each individual column of the 47 main support columns for the main support beams to give away would be roughly 2 hours.

Of course the only problem is that a fuel fire burns roughly at at an average of 1300 degrees  getting cooler as you get closer to the fuel.

It was a cold oxygen starved fire.  That is why it was black smoke.  Just like when you tune your car and black smoke billows out, it runs like shit because there is not enough oxygen to get a good burn inside the engine, thus a cold burn.  Same with any fire, black smoke is a cold fire. 

Another thing no one points out is that even when filled to the max the 757 holds just a "little" more fuel than a 707 tanker, Of which i was the unfortune person to have to sit in 40 below weather gasing enough of them up!!!)  LOL  Its a no heaters allowed ordeal when in the service.  i no longer have the slip to slip it out but maybe there are a few others who still have it to figure out roughly how much fule was used based on time in flight and fill rates..  Several have estimated 1/2 - 2/3ds full.

Wtc1 burning:
http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/175-bridge2.jpg

Note the size of the flames that blew off into nowhere:
Keep in mind the size of the building when looking at the fire burst:
http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/6e.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/6f.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/6g.jpg

other side:
http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/517_wtc2-explosion2.jpg

This one is interesting pic
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5541/spiegelxl1.gif



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/6/2007 4:25:47 PM)

thought about that for another sec.

The time frame i gave using 3200 degrees is a typical blast furnace temperature and is based on the physical size of the columns and does not take into account the covection or heat loss as a result the beams not being fully immersed in the heat.   So it was sort of a worst case example using a blast furnace as a heat source not a randomly distributed fuel fire.



luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/6/2007 5:35:42 PM)

Actually thompson, the offical story (and simple common sense) is that the jet fuel was simply an accelerant to the fire and was entirley burned of f within 10 minutes.  There was plenty of other stuff in the building that can and did burn.  Your question is nonsense.  Thompson here is an experiment you can try to understand.  Take a quart of gasoline and slosh it around your living room, and ignite it.  Will there still be a fire after the Gas is burned off?  Will the total energy released in the fire (that burns down your house) equal the amount of energy released if you burn a quart of gasoline in a pan under safe conditions?



thompsonx -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/8/2007 9:15:14 AM)

luckydog1:
I totally agree with you the total btu expended would be both the gasoline and the house that burned up. This is not my house though is it.  It is a fully sprinklered and protected concrete and steel structure built to withstand this sort of incident.  If we can get some relative numbers we would have a firmer platform for discussion.  I am sure we can find out how much combustible material was in the building at the time of the incident
All I am trying to do here is get a handle on some relative numbers.  How many btu of explosive force, with the placed charges, would it take to bring down the building baised on the earlier discussion in this thread.  How much fuel and its equivilant btu added to the combustible materials in the building was available? 
But lets say we find that all of the jet fuel and all of the combustible materials in the building amount to say five percent of what it would take to bring it down then we need to rethink what we are up to here.  This data is not secret this is common data that can be drug up with a little research....you two seem to argue this incident so passionately I just thought this would be a way to help shed a little light on the subject from a different direction.
thompson



Real0ne -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/8/2007 10:33:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Actually thompson, the offical story (and simple common sense) is that the jet fuel was simply an accelerant to the fire and was entirley burned of f within 10 minutes.  There was plenty of other stuff in the building that can and did burn.  Your question is nonsense.  Thompson here is an experiment you can try to understand.  Take a quart of gasoline and slosh it around your living room, and ignite it.  Will there still be a fire after the Gas is burned off?  Will the total energy released in the fire (that burns down your house) equal the amount of energy released if you burn a quart of gasoline in a pan under safe conditions?


ok so your point is that items in the offices, carpet furniture etc started fire as a result of the accelerant, (jet fuel) and the intense resulting fire weakend the structure?  Just to make sure we are on the same page here.



luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/8/2007 11:09:04 AM)

Its one of the things that weakened the structure.  You really seem to love the logical fallacy of the false dilema.  The plane smashing through the load bearing outside walls, also weakened the structure and caused it to shift.(completely unlike your screen door example inwhich the screen is not load bering at all).  The derbis of the plane hitting the support collums ripping the insulation off of them also weakened the building and made the beans more susceptable to the  heat.  Actually burning any sort of plastic or oil also makes black smoke, but I see why you want to pretend that black smoke only comes from a cold oxegyen starved fire.



luckydog1 -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/8/2007 11:13:47 AM)

Thompson, that is assuming it was explosive force which brought the building down, which there is no evidence for.  Obviously it was not the explosion from the impact alone that brought down the towers or they would have fallen at the time of impact.  Small note isnt jet fuel much closer to Kerosene than Diesel.  Diesel fule is hard to get burning.



thompsonx -> RE: The Big Lie! (5/8/2007 11:44:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Thompson, that is assuming it was explosive force which brought the building down, which there is no evidence for.  Obviously it was not the explosion from the impact alone that brought down the towers or they would have fallen at the time of impact.  Small note isnt jet fuel much closer to Kerosene than Diesel.  Diesel fule is hard to get burning.

luckydog1:
Before we go off chasing red hearings lets get our data straight.  All I want to know at this point is:
first:   How many btu of energy was available from all the burning fuel and the flamible stuff in the building.
second:  How many btu of energy was available from the calculated amount of explosives thought necessary to bring the building down.
Once we have these two numbers we have a bassis for putting this puzzel together.

On a related note diesel,kerosene and jet fuel are all pretty much the same thing.  If you want to look up in old  declassified field manuals for jets like B52s they note that number two diesel or "#2 bunker" is an adequate alternate fuel.  Standard oil sells keroscene  under the name of "clear pearl" sometimes called #1 diesel.  They all have about 120,000 btu per gallon who knows how manny gallons of fuel one of those aircraft carried?
thompson



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125