The 9-11 Truth Movement (Read)

out of interest matthew, did u read dewdney's report?

 

Well your first clue should be the blatant lies the president feeds you every time he opens his mouth. Anyone who this isn't obvious to, there is no hope for. On this fact alone, you should be questioning everything, just as this article does.

 

teach me

 

you can ride a cowboy you just have... nevermind...
damn typos... ya know... ridin bulls and such..
maybe not in the biggest parts of houston but you simply cant say texans dont ride bulls or horses... coz they do... just not... all of em..
but than ag ain ppl ride bulls and horses everywhere, but its especially popular in texas is it not?

the shit has been dropped i'de like to get back on topic anyway.
better t han who rides horses and bulls the most, eh.

 

no it isnt. have you ever been to houston? its 1 of the largest cities in the country, we dont ride horses here. damn son, im sorry the movies arent true about us.

 

can you give me examples? im really interested to hear what you have to say.
screw

 

i got a better idea: YOU prove he's not.

 

i have a better idea, shut up. i asked FNA a question to see what he has to say. i dont have to prove anything to you.
screw

 

then u do a bad job.

 

Yes i did read the report. I was trying to say that i thought cell phones were allowed on planes at a certain time, then were banned. The FAA stopped the use of them because of a 'risk' this might have been overegged by them as not to get their asses sued, if any such accidents occured. When the regulation was made, cellphones were primitive and the 'risks' were unknown, so the ban was a judgement based on the 'worst case scenario' (i think). Now the ban may be lifted.

Thats why i added

Since customers are already using the cell phones on the ground and even calling and talking loudly from their FIRST CLASS seat with drink in hand during the FEDERALLY MANDATED FAA safety announcements and getting up out of their seats with phone in hand and seatbelt undone BEFORE the plane comes to a complete stop at the gate ... I say WHY NOT? Cell phones possibly used to emit radiation but so does the sun and well who knows I love the rudeness of most cell phone users, restaurants, church service on and on!

http://traveltalk.usatoday.com/arti...4/12/15/1621220

http://www.economist.com/business/d...tory_id=2559174

The ability to use them does not seem a question, the 'risk' seems the issue.

People boarding aircraft for the last decade or so have all heard the warnings to turn off their cellphones for the duration of the flight. The reasons for this regulation are somewhat mysterious, since the usual explanation, that delicate aircraft electronics might be affected by cellphone signals, is cast somewhat in doubt by the fact that all avionics are shielded from stray electromagnetic radiation. (Spitzer 1987) On the other hand, the FCC had apparently requested that airlines make this rule, owing to the tendency for cell phone calls made from aircraft at lower altitudes to create "cascades" that may lead to breakdown of cellsite operations. (Fraizer 2002)​

This is old information (1987) NOW the FCC seems to have a change of heart, and due to the airlines being able to 'cash in' the 'risks' are downplayed or just the fact that technology has moved on and the risk has been accounted for in aeroplane systems (sheilding). Cellphones are again possibly being allowed to be used.

If people have been using cellphones, how come A. K. Dewdney
makes the point they may not be able to use them ?. I asked what phones were used on the flight because technology has moved on,

A. K. Dewdney . He notes information from 1999​

Here is the statement of an experienced airline pilot: "The idea of being able to use a cellphone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast (and thus changing cells too rapidly) for the phone to provide a signal." (AVWeb, 1999) ​

Like i say , technology has/had moved on.​

A. K. Dewdney seems to get bored with his 'experiment' and highlights 'mimicry' another possible valid point, slightly 'conspiritorial' don't you think ?. ​

If the hurdle of what cellphones were being used, a experiment with the same cellphones was taken up by A. K. Dewdney then i might start thinking he has a point.​

 

whether technology has moved on since 1999 is irrelevant. as is most of your posting. dewdney investigates if it is possible to make a mobile phone call from an aeroplane at high altitudes using the same or similar technology as used by the passengers on the plane. he concludes after u read his research that it is not possible. until then it was not established if u could or not. my point is then, if that is the case, that on 911 it was not possible to make mobile phone calls from aeroplane mid-air how do we explain the numerous dramatic phone calls purported to be made by passengers on the plane during the act of the alleged hijacking?

perhaps. after i reviewed some of their evidence i came to the conclusion that the conspiracy is the fairy tale the government and mass media have created and put into the public's benighted mind.

what hurdle are u talking about?

 

i have to work on it, matthew. my charms are especially aroused when clever dick english boys try 2 play mind games with me.

as i originally thought, u haven't read dewney's report. anyone following this thread, please don't let matthew put u off. the question of the mobile phones is still very much a live issue. this was posted two days ago on physics 911
http://physics911.ca/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=65

ur the only one talking about this. i can only imagine u love the sound of ur own voice.

 

'Clever dick' moi !, never. I am just answering your posts with what i think. I am not playing 'mind games' what the hell would i want to do that for.

I did read it and posted segments from it, this link you bring now says two different things first 'connection problems' then
http://team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?7.315 it seems to say that calls were made but edward felts call were too precise. Bit hypocrital logic i think.

It makes very much sense to alert the FBI. But basically EVERY passenger has done this already. Why now? And why didn't he phone before as basically EVERY passenger?
Why doesn't he loose a word about the ongoing counterattack?
If for whatever reasons he decided not to participate in the attack why doesn't he want to see if the others are successful?

Erm you was the one that started talking about this. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen

 

u obviously didnt read professor dewdney's report very closely matthew because he didn't test one crappy phone as u keep saying, he actually tested many different phones and brands, in order to make his findings credible, to wit:

. one Motorola model "120 CDMA" cellphone (A)
. two Motorola "i1000 plus" cellphones (B)
· Audiovox CDM 9000 with Verizon Wireless network.
· Nokia 8260 with Cingular Wireless network.
- Motorola i95cl - Telus Mike Network - 800 Mhz IDEN
- Motorola StarTac - Bell Mobility - 800 Mhz Analog
- Audiovox 8300 - Telus PCS Network - 1.9 Ghz CDMA / 800 MHz
- Nokia 6310i - Rogers AT&T - 1.9 Ghz GHz GSM. (Tri-Band - Has an 1.8 GHz and 900 Mhz GSM these are European frequencies)
- Motorola Timeport 8767 - Bell Mobility - 800 MHz Analog (CDMA Tri-Mode 1.9 GHz CDMA / 800 Mhz CDMA)

this informaion is freely available in dewdney's report at this site:
http://physics911.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9

as i said earlier, anyone following this thread shouldn't be put off by matthew's posts. what these tests establish is that cellular phones cannot make calls from aeroplanes when the planes are in mid air. this means that the series of calls purporting to be from passengers aboard the hijacked planes on 911 are highly suspect.

as other writers have already said there are many questions about 911 that deserve proper investigation.

 

It was a bit cheap of me belittling his research, but just look at the link and the results.

 

you guys hear about the explosion in london? Bush was in the country at the time... and minutes after the attack he was rushed to safety... now w hy didnt this happen after 9/11??

 

Where did you hear he was 'rushed to safety' happens he was in a meeting at the time . Also behind closed doors.. I understand what your driving at, but please tell me what source you heard this.

 

I know its not a reasonable source, in fact ide never really credit them at all for something truthful... but i was watching clips from msn.com about the london attack and im pretty sure I heard them talk bout bush moving towards afety after the attacks

 

I think with any news of this kind, it would put the security of all within gleneagles at the top of the security forces agenda. Like i said he and others were in a meeting at the time, it is mere speculation what you are driving at, and a reasoning that he 'may have had something to do wit it' (am i right ?).. clearly ridiculous imho.