COMMENTS:
Yeah, a head transplant is a lot more likely than growing your hair and putting on a bit of weight.
Doesn't look that much different if you compare the facial details (those that you can make out).
Of course I will receive a comical blasting for even suggetsing that they are pictures of the same guy but hey, I am not basing my assumptions on an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Lovelynice sets up the mother of strawmen to knock down too.
Let's be clear on some claims and the reality behind them.
1)"The plane which they refuse to show us any video of?" Irrelevant. They pulled wreckage from the impact site, photographed it AND pulled the remains of all the victims AND identified them using DNA analysis.
2)"The plane that did the fighter-jet style maneuvers and flew in a way that experienced pilots of heavy passenger aircraft say it would be impossible for the real Hanni Majour to pilot"
No one but conspiracy theorists make this claim - backed up by some out of context quotes about how surprised the ATCs were at the unusual flight pattern.
3)"let alone navigate hundreds of miles by sight alone."
He had a pilot's license that was INSTRUMENT RATED. This means he could navigate using the INSTRUMENTS.
Once again I urge everybody who is unsure of whether to believe the conspiracy theorist to research all sides of this "debate".
They have absolutely no hard, physical evidence whatsoever. None.
And rigging the ballot choices in such a blatant way is pure misdirection, insinuation and underhanded.
Check my user page for some REAL evidence.
{He had a pilot's license that was INSTRUMENT RATED. This means he could navigate using the INSTRUMENTS.
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Sep 18, 06 5:55am}
So, the instruments on a light prop plane flying at typical prop plane speeds and altitudes, not the instruments in the highly complex cockpit of a passenger jet flying at 500mph.
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training;
by Nila Sagadevan Physics 911
There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators. What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.
In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH — and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.
Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.
SOME RELEVANT EXCERPTS;
"....But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)
In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.
And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!
The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.
Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.
Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself."
ANOTHER RELEVANT EXCERPT;
"...I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.
The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.
Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.
At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)
The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their “final approach” maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft."
{ 2)"The plane that did the fighter-jet style maneuvers and flew in a way that experienced pilots of heavy passenger aircraft say it would be impossible for the real Hanni Majour to pilot"
No one but conspiracy theorists make this claim - backed up by some out of context quotes..
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Sep 18, 06 5:55am}
Then you should have no difficulty finding the full context what the Air Traffic Controllers said and posting it.
{1)"The plane which they refuse to show us any video of?" Irrelevant. by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Sep 18, 06 5:55am}
It's not irrelevant at all. There are dozens of CCTVs around the Pentagon, at least one of them would have video of a plane and show WHAT KIND OF PLANE.
So WHY isn't the USA government releasing video of a plane hitting the Pentagon?
Also, you haven't addressed the fact that as the pictures show, the USA government LIED about Hanni Majour being on that plane. That certainly isn't him in the suspicious security video despite their claim that it is.
{Yeah, a head transplant is a lot more likely than growing your hair and putting on a bit of weight.
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Sep 18, 06 5:55am}
Receding hairline, so NO, he didn't grow any hair where he doesn't have any hair follicles.
The real Hanni Majour has an elongated skull and thin nose. The anonymous guy claimed to be him, DOESN'T. His head is rounded and he has a lower forehead even without the receding hairline. Anonymous guy is also more solid in his jaw line and has a thick neck.
In fact, anonymous guy probably looks more like YOU, widehead - if your username was descriptive of your appearance - than Hanni Majour.
Its imposible to tell from comparing those pictures. Neither is exactly clear and we have no idea how much time has passed between the two. Can you provide the date the top picture was taken? People do change. Looking at the bottom picture, its difficult to tell if its the same man and it very well could me, particularly if he let his facial hair grow and gained weight. Not knowing the date the first picture is from makes it anyone's guess.
None of us look exactly the same in pictures that may have been taken a year or more apart. We all gain weight or lose weight, change hair styles, grow beards, etc. Those pictures prove nothing to me.
And you've dismissed ballots that don't allow for other choices to be added in as not being a true ballot. You did this with one of mine. So how come you don't allow choices to be added in Lovelynice? Does that mean this is not really a ballot at all?
Assuming it is the one in the foreground, they could be claiming it's one of the guys behind him, who of course don't look anything like him either, the foreground innocent civilian in the bottom picture looks more like the actor they used in the fake Osama Bin Laden 'confession' tape than he looks like 'Hanni the wonder pilot', I'm referring to the video they miraculously claimed to just 'find' in drawer in a house of a city of 130.000 people, which they released at the same time as an interview with Osama was published in which he denied any involvement in 9/11 and instead blamed 'a government within a government ' of the United States - PNAC and their expedient 'Catalysing event like a New Pearl Harbor' perhaps folks?
Here is what Osama stated;
'I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. there are intelligence agencies in the U.S., which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taleban and then this incident happened.
You see, the Bush Administration approved a budget of 40 billion dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance. Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the U.S. secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.'
{Its imposible to tell from comparing those pictures. by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:57am}
Not really, the differences are easy enough for anyone to see. You're not playing the "Believe me, not your own eyes" game are you? Sure looks like it.
{facial hair grow and gained weight. by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:57am}
Must've done a lot more than that. Hair transplant for the dramatically receding hairline, and drastic skull replacement surgery with a new jaw and rounded head vs his previous long head.
{We all gain weight or lose weight, change hair styles, grow beards, etc. Those pictures prove nothing to me.
by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:57am}
Yes, but none of us have plasticine heads that we can just remold into a different shape when we feel like.
This excuse of yours is beginning to appear much like neothe1's silly excuses about the MrFatNose fake pretending to be Osama bin Laden in the FAKE 2001 "confesssion" video.
{And you've dismissed ballots that don't allow for other choices to be added in...
by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:58am}
Strawman bullshit. The truth is I've dismissed ballots like the one that you posted which was nothing more than personal attack on me and other 9/11 sceptics where you only had YES and YES, and nothing more. Which is exactly what I rated down.
Are you going to now begin another tirade of personal insults on this ballot without citing any sources, quotes, or links to support you?
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it Hanni Hanjour?
That shot you have used was only used but a few media outlets - see chicagotribune.
NBC claimed this was him, which looks at lot more like him...
911myths . com / assets / images / RealHanjour . jpg
The man had a commercial pilots license did he not?
"In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training,after being rejected by a Saudi flight school. He checked out flight schools in Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them before returning to Saudi Arabia. In 1997, he returned to Florida and then, along with two friends, went back to Arizona and began his flight training there in earnest. After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot's license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999
faqs . org / docs / 911 / 911Report-242 . html
faqs . org / docs / 911 / 911Report-243 . html
"Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school,Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough.The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001."
faqs . org / docs / 911 / 911Report-243 . html
faqs . org / docs / 911 / 911Report-244 . html
As widehead says, make sure you do your research, and don't simply get all your info from conspiracy sites.
Take it easy there Lovelynice. I am pointing out that to me, I cannot make any sort of definitive conclusion. As I pointed out in my comments, bases upon these pictures, I cannot tell one way or the other. If you feel that you can, thats your right. I'm saying that I cannot, so I await more information or other evidence to compare.
{We all gain weight or lose weight, change hair styles, grow beards, etc. Those pictures prove nothing to me.
by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:57am}
Yes, but none of us have plasticine heads that we can just remold into a different shape when we feel like.
This excuse of yours is beginning to appear much like neothe1's silly excuses about the MrFatNose fake pretending to be Osama bin Laden in the FAKE 2001 "confesssion" video.
by Lovelynice on Mon Sep 18, 06 12:24pm
{And you've dismissed ballots that don't allow for other choices to be added in...
by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:58am}
Strawman bullshit. The truth is I've dismissed ballots like the one that you posted which was nothing more than personal attack on me and other 9/11 sceptics where you only had YES and YES, and nothing more. Which is exactly what I rated down.
Are you going to now begin another tirade of personal insults on this ballot without citing any sources, quotes, or links to support you?
by Lovelynice on Mon Sep 18, 06 12:28p
^^ See, you prove my point. I give my legitimate and honest opinion and what do you do? Insult me. Can you not just accept that in this case, I cannot make a determination. So do you want to shove your facts and conclusions down my throat or are you civil enough to accep that based on the pictures above, I cannot come to a conclusion, as there are variables that I have issues with.
Instead of insulting me with words like : "This excuse of yours is beginning to appear much like neothe1's silly excuses about the MrFatNose fake" or "Strawman bullshit" maybe you should recognize that people do not come to the same conclusions you have.
And once again you go on with your demand for "sources, quotes, or links to support you" and once again I must point out that it is you who posted the ballot and you who chose the pictures to use in support of your argument and you who are making a statement of fact. I and others just happen to feel that the evidence you present is not compelling enough so its not my job to supply anything. Its yours if you want to change my mind. Or, you can be normal and accept that you are not always right and that you should not become hostile at the first sign of disagreement.
{See, you prove my point....
by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 1:31pm}
No, you just proved mine.
Fully 100% as expected as you yet again devote an entire posts with a ridiculous number of insults in it to a personal attack without EVEN ONCE having any real relevance to the ballot by quoting any sources, or citing links which are relevant.
Until you do, I will ignore you.
You have nothing FACTUAL to say anyway.
^^ What is wrong with you!? I answered the ballot question. I clearly stated that based upon the pictures, I could not tell one way or anohter.
You then insult me Lovelynice with :
"This excuse of yours is beginning to appear much like neothe1's silly excuses about the MrFatNose fake" or "Strawman bullshit"
And now you have the nerve to say that I insluted you and made a personal attack?
Where. Go right now and in this ballot string, you pull for me the comment I made that insulted you first. You can't.
You have to knock this off Lovelynice. Its sick. Its reall a sick disorder you have. Anyone who disagrees with you and your first reaction is to insult.
Get your own facts and stop acting like an unhinged jerk. If you don't like that I and other do not see this ballot the way you do, then I strongly suggest you think twice about being on this site.
The pictures YOU chose do not convince me. Deal with it or get better "evidence."
You're really a disgusting person.
{The man had a commercial pilots license did he not? by wolf_nipple_chips on Mon Sep 18, 06 12:56pm}
For flying small prop planes, not huge 115 ton passenger jets.
Why can't you cite any experts saying that specifically that he could pilot huge passenger jets?
Received karma rating of : -5 from Lovelynice
For the Ballot comment#1071803 @ Bestandworst.com.
INAPPROPRIATE - quote something relevant to the ballot topic or get lost
^^ Want to play Karma war? Just sent you some to thank you for the Neg 5 you sent me.
How dare you tell me to post something relevant to the ballot when I clearly did! You have some nerve acting as if once YOU post a ballot or comment that we should all just follow what you say and accept it. Anyone can see that I answered this ballot honestly and in fact, with a very similar response to that of Wideheadofknowledge.
You abused Karma. Deal with it or you get lost. You're an abrasive, tacky and nasty person who can't handle the fact that people disagree with you.
So bring it on Lovelynice. You will lose. You get lost.
{What is wrong with you!.
by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 1:50pm}
More like WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???
EVER SINCE YOUR VERY FIRST POSTS ON THIS SITE, YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT ENGAGED IN PERSONAL ATTACKS ON EVERY 9/11 SCEPTIC ON THIS SITE, WITHOUT EVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, CITING ANY FACTS, QUOTES, LINKS, OR SOURCES, RELEVANT TO THE BALLOT QUESTIONS ON THE 9/11 BALLOTS THAT YOU POST ON.
GET A LIFE, AND GET LOST.
If you can't post anything except INSULTS and if you can never cite any FACTS, SOURCES, QUOTES, OR LINKS, then I don't want to ever her from you, see you, or even argue with you ever again.
I will ignore you.
FINAL WORD UNTIL YOU WAKE UP TO YOURSELF.
^ And once again, I demand that you pull from this post where I insulted you? You can't becuase once again, the proof is there for all of us to see that when faced with someone who legitimately disagrees with you, YOU are the one to insult and get rude. Look at you sickness! When cornered and faced with the fact you are a nasty and bitter person who cannot act civilly, you respond with the absurd demand for links, quotes and sources. Can you not get this through your sick mind that it was you who posted this ballot and you who chose the pictures to use as evidence to bolster YOUR views so in fact, I answered honestly and appropriately. It is YOU who should supply more evidence if it is YOU who wishes to prove a point.
Get lost yourself. You really are a nasty, bitter and abrasive person who truly has delusions of grandeur. You have some nerve trying to twist this around once again.
Hey, guess what. You and your lying shill aliases are fooling no one.
Its imposible to tell from comparing those pictures. Neither is exactly clear and we have no idea how much time has passed between the two. Can you provide the date the top picture was taken? People do change. Looking at the bottom picture, its difficult to tell if its the same man and it very well could me, particularly if he let his facial hair grow and gained weight. Not knowing the date the first picture is from makes it anyone's guess.
None of us look exactly the same in pictures that may have been taken a year or more apart. We all gain weight or lose weight, change hair styles, grow beards, etc. Those pictures prove nothing to me.
by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:57am
^^ By original comment on this ballot. Seems pretty obvious I replied appropriately. You however posted about 3 replies to mine and each one getting more agressive and insulting. Do you really not see that anyone coming onto this ballot is going to read it and see that it is you who once again insulted and acted inappropriately?
Looks like you need to rethink being on this site at all. You're really most unwelcome.
{See, you prove my point.... by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 1:31pm}
No, you just proved mine. Fully 100% as expected as you yet again devote an entire posts with a ridiculous number of insults in it to a personal attack without EVEN ONCE having any real relevance to the ballot by quoting any sources, or citing links which are relevant. Until you do, I will ignore you. You have nothing FACTUAL to say anyway.
{And you've dismissed ballots that don't allow for other choices to be added in... by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:58am}
Strawman bullshit. The truth is I've dismissed ballots like the one that you posted which was nothing more than personal attacks on me and other 9/11 sceptics where you only had YES and YES, and nothing more. Which is exactly what I rated down. Are you going to now begin another tirade of personal insults on this ballot without citing any sources, quotes, or links to support you?
{Its imposible to tell from comparing those pictures. by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:57am}
Not really, the differences are easy enough for anyone to see. You're not playing the "Believe me, not your own eyes" game are you? Sure looks like it.
"Instead of insulting me with words like :
"This excuse of yours is beginning to appear much like neothe1's silly excuses about the MrFatNose fake or "Strawman bullshit" maybe you should recognize that people do not come to the same conclusions you have."
by Beauregard
Those aren't insults, merely observations, try again.
You're a very sensitive soul aren't yoo Beauregard?
The real perpetrators of 9/11 had some balls, imagine they posted that random image up and claimed it was 'Hanni can't fly a Cessna Hanjour' - obviously banking on the gullibility of the wideheadofknowledge's, wolf_nipple_chips and Beauregards of this world in falling for it hook line and sinker.
I bet if they had posted a video still of Santa Clause walking through the foyer you'd be here defending that too.
There is no rhyming or reasoning with you guys, truly a case of none being so utterly blind as those who just quite simply refuse to see.
I think others may have noticed this, but I'll just mention it anyway.
I never repeat the words in detail of somebody else's personal attacks and insults against me or anyone else.
That doesn't that those other person's didn't engage in personal attacks, it's just that it's wrong to repeat their same insults and personal attacks against another person, and I feel it's unnecessary for me to repeat their personal attacks and insults against me.
Why should I repeat somebody else's personal attacks and double them for that person engaging only in personal attacks - particularly when that person never cites any sources, quotes, or links relevant to the ballot and will frequently spend most of their effort only in personal attacks. Even more so when that person has engaged in stalking behaviour and devoted entire ballots only to making personal attacks against me and telling lies about me and other members of this site.
I don't mind an insult here and there, but when an ENTIRE POST (of a whole paragraph or more) is only created as an insult, I will rate them down. If they think that's unfair, then maybe they should learn that being relevant to the ballot is considered at least reasonable behaviour, but FILLING A POST OF 20+ WORDS with ONLY A PERSONAL ATTACK AND NOTHING MORE is not.
I see someone has been trying to censor Lovelynices's right to free speech by karma blocking three so far of her perfectly reasonable comments.
As a maintainer of Best and Worst.com I will have you know that this is not only morally and ethically reprehensible but also totally against the rules of this website.
I rated Lovelynice's comments down after she rated mine down. Look, the fact is and you can't deny it, I answered this ballot with a very straight forward and honest answer. Ken, this has nothing to do with being sensitive or not. If you read, and I assume you can read ;) Lovelynices insulting replies, what should we determine? What we all determine is that she is seemingly incapable of anyone who disagrees with her. Read above and judge for yourself.
I blocked none of Lovelynices comments and in fact, only rated her comments down after she rated mine down. You know the expression if you can't take the heat? It applies here. If Lovelynice can't handle someone disagreeing with her, then she is in the wrong place. The funny part is all I said was I needed to see more photographic evidence!
Its imposible to tell from comparing those pictures. Neither is exactly clear and we have no idea how much time has passed between the two. Can you provide the date the top picture was taken? People do change. Looking at the bottom picture, its difficult to tell if its the same man and it very well could me, particularly if he let his facial hair grow and gained weight. Not knowing the date the first picture is from makes it anyone's guess.
None of us look exactly the same in pictures that may have been taken a year or more apart. We all gain weight or lose weight, change hair styles, grow beards, etc. Those pictures prove nothing to me.
by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:57am
^^ Again, my reply to this ballot. Perfectly normal, understandable and respectful commnet. Look above where I first entered it in and then look above that to Wideheadofknowledge's comment. Its evident that I was not the only one with that reply.
I will never give in on this. I will continue to post my comment to this ballot to prove that in fact, Lovelynice's subsequent replies were snippy, uncivil and totally uncalled for. Plain and simple. If she cannot handle opposing views, then she should not post on this site. Seems she is the overly-sensitive one.
Why were you trying to rate her ballot out of existence Beauregard?
Because Ken, she rated my comment down and it in fact was a very fair comment to make, given her snippy reply to my original posting.
LN love to say that the "shills" attack the ballot maker / 9/11 sceptics. But look at what she does and did. She in fact replied to my perfectly reasonable participation in this ballot with snide insults. So who attacks who?Have I ever attacked her or your views on 9/11? Never. Not once. I have called her on her lack of respect and civility, but never once have I attacked her for her views on 9/11. I rated her ballot and her comments down because she was the first to use neg. karma, as I show below.
Make that as I show above ;)
Now hold on a minute Beauregard, you are totally out of order here, the first and only mention of 'shills' on this ballot was by YOU - just now.
It's bad enough that you are rating her comments out of existence - none of yours were karma blocked by her by the way - but to try and block her ballot is just plain and simple censorship, very unfair, and censorhip of free speech cannot be tolerated in a democratic society by anyone - it's more offensive than any insult, at least an insult utilises the free will of free speech.
So lay of the ballot okay, because by trying to censor the ballot itself you then censor ALL of our comments and speculation on an extremely revelatory, provocative and stimulating ballot.
Bravo Lovelynice.
No Ken, I am not out of line. Try to see past your "friendship" with Lovelynice. She rated me down first. Here are her neg karmas
Received karma rating of : -5 from Lovelynice
For the Ballot comment#1071818 @ Bestandworst.com.
INAPPROPRIATE - yet another post of yours that is ONLY a personal attack and nothing more
Received karma rating of : -5 from Lovelynice
For the Ballot comment#1071803 @ Bestandworst.com.
INAPPROPRIATE - quote something relevant to the ballot topic or get lost
Anyone can plainly see that I in fact answered the ballot question fairly and with no agenda. How can you defend her replies that were rude and insulting? You can't and the fact that you do, then the 9/11 conspiracy theory crew has no one to blame but themselves.
Are you going to tell me that my response to this ballot warranted her snotty replies? I don;t think so.
The fact is, what she is doing is to give your detractors ammo. Every time she responds to someone who answered fairly and honestly with an insult, she in effect is no better than those she labels shills, fools, idiots, liars and other such words.
And you're being very, very dramatic. I rated the ballot itslef down once. I stand by my ratings. If she cannot deal with people fairly, the way she demands to be treated, then she has no one to blame but herself.
I notice you have not replied as to whether or not you feel my comment on this ballot was somehow inappropriate. Why is that? Could it be because you and Lovelynice know that in fact, I answered honestly and with courtesy, yet she did not?
So answer the question. Is my comment to this ballot worthy of her snotty reply?
Post Script. In fact, she did Karma block 2 of my comments. The only reason they are showing again is because she has created so many enemies, that they are more than willing to rate mine back up. They did. Sorry, but thats not my problem. I'm sure you rate hers back up. Right? ;)
Its imposible to tell from comparing those pictures. Neither is exactly clear and we have no idea how much time has passed between the two. Can you provide the date the top picture was taken? People do change. Looking at the bottom picture, its difficult to tell if its the same man and it very well could me, particularly if he let his facial hair grow and gained weight. Not knowing the date the first picture is from makes it anyone's guess.
None of us look exactly the same in pictures that may have been taken a year or more apart. We all gain weight or lose weight, change hair styles, grow beards, etc. Those pictures prove nothing to me.
by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:57am
{Its imposible to tell from comparing those pictures. by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:57am}
Not really, the differences are easy enough for anyone to see. You're not playing the "Believe me, not your own eyes" game are you? Sure looks like it.
by Lovelynice on Mon Sep 18, 06 12:15pm
{facial hair grow and gained weight. by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:57am}
Must've done a lot more than that. Hair transplant for the dramatically receding hairline, and drastic skull replacement surgery with a new jaw and rounded head vs his previous long head.
by Lovelynice on Mon Sep 18, 06 12:19pm
{We all gain weight or lose weight, change hair styles, grow beards, etc. Those pictures prove nothing to me.
by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:57am}
Yes, but none of us have plasticine heads that we can just remold into a different shape when we feel like.
This excuse of yours is beginning to appear much like neothe1's silly excuses about the MrFatNose fake pretending to be Osama bin Laden in the FAKE 2001 "confesssion" video.
by Lovelynice on Mon Sep 18, 06 12:24pm
{And you've dismissed ballots that don't allow for other choices to be added in...
by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:58am}
Strawman bullshit. The truth is I've dismissed ballots like the one that you posted which was nothing more than personal attack on me and other 9/11 sceptics where you only had YES and YES, and nothing more. Which is exactly what I rated down.
Are you going to now begin another tirade of personal insults on this ballot without citing any sources, quotes, or links to support you?
by Lovelynice on Mon Sep 18, 06 12:28pm
^^ For your reference. My comment and her subsquent replies (tirades?). Totally uncalled for. So answer. Was my comment worthy of snippy insults? No, it was not.
Two Karma perfectly legitimate downratings by Lovely is you're justification for trying to wipe HER ballot and comments out of existence?
C'mon, who are you trying to fool - yourself?
And how dare you accuse me of not being able to see past my friendship with Lovely, I see censorship for what it is, I know that two of Lovelynices ballots were mysteriously wiped off the site before, and she had to repost them, I'm not accusing you of being responsible for those attempts at censorship but this is what we are up against and we will counter censorship wherever it rears it's ugly head.
Clearly this is useless because you are not even addressing the issue here. So answer the question. Did my comment warrant snippy insults, or did it warrant a calm and reasonable reply?
You can try all you want to dimiss her actions. I will not, nor will others, of that I know. So answer my question please.
And please, enough with the victim mentality! Censorship my ass! I participated in the ballot failry and with a very reasonable comment.
The fact you can rationalize away her reaction and subsequent abuse of Karma speaks to your true nature as well.
Enough with the rhetoric. You're making yourself look bad.
I await your direct answer to my question. Can you answer it?
And how dare you accuse me of not being able to see past my friendship with Lovely, I see censorship for what it is, I know that two of Lovelynices ballots were mysteriously wiped off the site before, and she had to repost them, I'm not accusing you of being responsible for those attempts at censorship but this is what we are up against and we will counter censorship wherever it rears it's ugly head.
by Ken_from_Dublin on Mon Sep 18, 06 4:47pm
And by the way, it is clouding your judgement. Otherwise you'd address the fact that she was the FIRST one to use Neg. Karma. So was that censorhip of me Ken? I guess by your defintion, then Lovelynice, by being the firt to use Neg. Karma, did in fact, seek to cencor me? Thanks for clearing that up!
And its clouding your judgement, whether you are capable of hearing the truth or not, becuase a reasonable person would read my comment and say that in fact, it was a most measured, appropriate comment to make. Be a real friend and point that out to her.
I await your answer on my comment to this ballot.
"Here is what Osama stated..."
Ah, so you trust the words of a known supporter of terrorism and the mastermind behind the deaths of US citizens but we cannot possibly accept the word, research, examinations, investigations and evidence of the countless people who support the official 9-11 story?
I can see now where your loyalties truly lay...
We all gain weight or lose weight, change hair styles, grow beards, etc. Those pictures prove nothing to me. by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:57am}
Yes, but none of us have plasticine heads that we can just remold into a different shape when we feel like. This excuse of yours is beginning to appear much like neothe1's silly excuses about the MrFatNose fake pretending to be Osama bin Laden in the FAKE 2001 "confesssion" video. by Lovelynice on Mon Sep 18, 06 12:24pm
{And you've dismissed ballots that don't allow for other choices to be added in... by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 8:58am}
Strawman bullshit. The truth is I've dismissed ballots like the one that you posted which was nothing more than personal attack on me and other 9/11 sceptics where you only had YES and YES, and nothing more. Which is exactly what I rated down. Are you going to now begin another tirade of personal insults on this ballot without citing any sources, quotes, or links to support you? by Lovelynice on Mon Sep 18, 06 12:28p
^^ See, you prove my point. I give my legitimate and honest opinion and what do you do? Insult me. Can you not just accept that in this case, I cannot make a determination.
So do you want to shove your facts and conclusions down my throat or are you civil enough to accep that based on the pictures above, I cannot come to a conclusion, as there are variables that I have issues with. Instead of insulting me with words like : "This excuse of yours is beginning to appear much like neothe1's silly excuses about the MrFatNose fake" or "Strawman bullshit" maybe you should recognize that people do not come to the same conclusions you have. And once again you go on with your demand for "sources, quotes, or links to support you" and once again I must point out that it is you who posted the ballot and you who chose the pictures to use in support of your argument and you who are making a statement of fact. I and others just happen to feel that the evidence you present is not compelling enough so its not my job to supply anything. Its yours if you want to change my mind. Or, you can be normal and accept that you are not always right and that you should not become hostile at the first sign of disagreement.
entered by : Beauregard
Submitted on : Sep 18,2006 1:31:23 pm
^^ For your further reference Ken, you say that the comment above that I made warranted negative karma from Lovelynice. How? List of me exactly why that comment above, that I made in reply to her snippy insults, warrants negative Karma Ken? You blindly defend her abuse of the Karma attack, so I want to hear from you exactly why that comment above, in reply to her series of insluts, warranted negative Karma.
"You have nothing FACTUAL to say anyway."
When you start applying the same logical consistency to your own claims, Lovelynice it will be a breakthrough.
Absolutely none of your claims are based on FACTS just pure conjecture, anomaly hunting, guess work and a highly selective approach to the evidence.
{Absolutely none of your claims are based on FACTS
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Sep 18, 06 5:07pm}
Rubbish and nonsense, as proven by the rest of what you say in that sentence;
{anomaly hunting, ....
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Sep 18, 06 5:07pm}
Some anomalies which you have never gotten around; cellphones don't work on passenger planes flying 5-6 miles up at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation (technology that didn't exist until 2004), nor can they last longer than a few seconds at that speed at low altitude either because there simply isn't time for both the handshake and the handoff to another cellular network "cell" before the plane is out of range (minutes long cellphone calls are IMPOSSIBLE in those conditions), which means the cellphone calls - all of them - alleged to be from those planes, were FAKE.
It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint - except with controlled demolitions, Can you cite a single exception to this? Many physicists and engineers, in increasing numbers, are saying that according to the laws of physics, its IMPOSSIBLE for a steel-framed hi-rise building to collapse at near freefall through it's own structure. It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked.
It's a FACT, that there was NO INFERNO in either of the WTC twin towers. The temperatures of the fires never went above 360C, and apparently were around 250C, which is well below the 550C at which steel only barely begins to lose it's elasticity. Glass melts at 700C - There are no reports of melting glass at the towers, and the glass in the storeys above the fire didn't seem to break so the temperature was clearly way below 700C. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC - Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. Kevin Ryan of UL had cited a similar figure (250C).
It's a FACT that there were hundeds of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings, and that their claims are supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
Those are some BIG ANOMALIES, neh? You've never done better than try to flippantly dismiss the EXPERIENCED rescue workers and firemen's reports of EXPLOSIONS, and tried to pretend that these people who often have miitary backrgounds wouldn't recognise EXPLOSIONS. You've also pretended that statements such as that by Indira Sing about WTC 7's controlled demolition; " The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word 'we're going to have to bring it down.'" - don't exist as if they will go away.
{warranted negative Karma.
by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 5:06pm}
To me it did, and I rated you down once for that post because it was again a personal attack. You responded by rating down both the ballot and the 3 other comments of mine that were perfectly reasonable and on-topic for no other reason than spite.
I rated down your next personal attack post as well after that.
But I never rated you down for a post that wasn't a personal attack in any form, and was related only to the ballot. Uniike what you did.
I may be over-sensitive to your generally insulting comments, but considering that you wasted dozens of posts in a row before on ONLY PERSONAL ATTACKS on 9/11 sceptice and ME IN PARTICULAR, without even once citing any quotes, sources, links, or any kind of facts related to the 9/11 related ballots which you posted on, I think that sensitivity is justified.
Anyway, thank you for the apology in PM, and I hope you won't continue carrying on that way.
^ The apology was for rating down the ballot.
I hope likewise that you will see that to engage people in a topic, its important to treat them with respect. Your views and opinions are yours and you have the right to believe what you wish to, always. But likewise, not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill or a liar. Sometimes its just as it appears, in that someone else has a differing take on the issue.
When you or I, or anyone posts a ballot or comment making a statement of fact, it is not always warranted that the participant post any links, quotes or sources if he or she simply disagrees with the ballot. If the participant makes a counter statement and presents it as fact, then yes, he or she is responsible to supply some form of evidence.
In this ballot, I simply said that I could not make a decision. I didn't say it was him in both pictures and I didn't say it was not him. I simply said that based on the pictures shown, I could not decide. I think thats a fair response, don't you? I also don't think it necessitates my having to post any links, quotes or sources, sine the premise of the ballot is to compare the two pictures and decide if it his him in both, or not. I said I could not determine.
Anyway, enough of this now. I'm moving on. (Bet you're glad to hear that ;)
Why are using Kevin Ryan as an expert witness? The guy worked in the Water Testing section of UL and was later fired for making the groundless, speculative statements that he did. UL support the official version of events NOT the conspiracy theorists.
I have addressed all the points you raise on numerous occasions - it is the conspiracy theorists who are ignoring the evidence in favour of pure speculation based on an unfalsifiable, illogical and demontrably false premise.
Where's your evidence? You have none.
{Why are using Kevin Ryan as an expert witness?...
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Sep 18, 06 7:46pm}
Why are you ignoring the report by NIST, and everyone else, that confirms those temperatures that Kevin Ryan cited, and the fact that there was no inferno?
He got it right, and he had access to the UL data, which is why he sent that email. You also have no evidence as to the the real reason for Kevin Ryan's resignation (he wasn't sacked).
{But likewise, not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill or a liar...
by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 7:36pm}
I didn't say that they were, but there's at least three very obvious shills posting on this site, and one tells LIES all the time when he's not spamming with paste paste paste a thousand times.
I call them as I see them.
{ When you or I, or anyone posts a ballot or comment making a statement of fact, it is not always warranted that the participant post any links, quotes or sources...
by Beauregard on Mon Sep 18, 06 7:36pm}
It is if they never do anything else, and only make personal attacks. To do the later is dishonest and shows no respect at all. It's also the only way that others are going to take the person's opinions seriously if they try to state something as fact.
{I have addressed all the points you raise on numerous occasions ...
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Sep 18, 06 7:46pm}
and so far, you haven't been able to really refute them, nor provide anything factual to support the claim that the cellphone calls were anything other than fake, since they were impossible in those circumstances. Nor have you ever cited any evidence of anyone ever successfully simulating the collapse of those buildings as anything other than controlled demolitions.
"nor provide anything factual to support the claim that the cellphone calls were anything other than fake, since they were impossible in those circumstances."
Sloppy reporting has led to most of the cellphone misunderstanding. Some calls attributed to cellphones were actually made on airphones. Cellphone calls at low altitudes are possible despite what you say. Look up a credible, independant source.
"Nor have you ever cited any evidence of anyone ever successfully simulating the collapse of those buildings as anything other than controlled demolitions."
And why should anyone need to? There were no traces of explosives found in the rubble, the collapse and damage were not consistent with controlled demolition, video exvidence does not indicate controlled demolition and finally your eyewitness testimony does not support controlled demolition.
Again I am pointing out that you have absolutley no physical evidence that what you are claiming is true - in fact ALL your claims fly directly in the face of the physical evidence!
{Some calls attributed to cellphones were actually made on airphones. by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Sep 18, 06 10:44pm}
Todd Beamer ring a bell? cellphone. Very clearly, and repeatedly, and always mentioned as a cellphone
There were LOTS of cellphone calls.
Your excuses don't work.
{Cellphone calls at low altitudes are possible despite what you say.by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Sep 18, 06 10:44pm}
Maybe you need to get an education. It's not only the altitude which is important it's the SPEED. They can't make the handoff in time before they're out of the cell when travelling at over 450mph. Result; calls can't last more than a few seconds, and minutes-long calls are simply impossible.
{"Nor have you ever cited any evidence of anyone ever successfully simulating the collapse of those buildings as anything other than controlled demolitions."
And why should anyone need to? by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Sep 18, 06 10:44pm}
Because unless it can be proven that there was enough energy for a gravity driven collapse, which so far nobody has been able to do, then the only explanation acceptable with physics and engineering is a controlled demolition.especially as that is EXACTLY what they looked like. Saying otherwise is just political excuse making.
{the collapse and damage were not consistent with controlled demolition, by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Sep 18, 06 10:44pm}
yes they were. Many recognised them as such.
{video exvidence does not indicate controlled demolition
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Sep 18, 06 10:44pm}
Yes it does.It shows long lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions. Confirming what the witnesses say.
YOu missed this the first time...
"Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school,Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough.The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001."
faqs . org / docs / 911 / 911Report-243 . html
faqs . org / docs / 911 / 911Report-244 . html
and this...
That shot you have used was only used but a few media outlets - see chicagotribune.
NBC claimed picture below was him, which looks at lot more like him...
911myths . com / assets / images / RealHanjour . jpg
"Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 5257.
Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview (Apr.9, 2004).
Lovelynice, your inane tactic of addressing my points partially in separate posts is beginning to wear thin.
1) You are totally and utterly wrong about cellphones. The data is all there on the web. Use it.
2) Your continued bleating about controlled demolition is sounding more and more like the ineffectual whining of a spoilt child. There is absolutely no evidence of a controlled demolition. ZERO.
3) The seismic data does not support a controlled demolition. Not one expert agrees with your interpretation of the seismograph.
If not one demolitions company agrees that there was a controlled demoltion and the seismograph boffins refute the claim that their data supports the controlled demolition why do you think that is?
Nila Sagadevan? Oh lord...
{You are totally and utterly wrong about cellphones. The data is all there on the web. by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 19, 06 3:32am}
B U L L S H I T You are really pushing LIES there.
I am TOTALLY RIGHT about the cellphones. You have NEVER been able to prove otherwise!
The Official "Arabs did it" Conspiracy Theory is made even more ridiculous because Cellular Antenna Towers aim their antennas to cover the people on the GROUND, not at the SKY as anyone walking down the street looking for one can verify.
Moving at over 450mph, a passenger jet is also out of the cellular antenna tower's "cell" before they can complete the handshake for a connection except for 0.006 of time.
In such a time-frame, moving at 450mph or more, even if they make the connection (only possible at low altitude, NOT at 31,000-35,000ft), the call can't last more than 6-8 seconds because the plane is flying too fast and is already out of the "cell" before the call can be passed on with another handshake. The planes in question on 9/11 were flying at 500mph or faster at the time the calls were made.
Put these together, and they are claiming a total impossibility.
The technology to allow such calls using relays on planes has only become a feasible possibility since 2004;
Statement: “Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past.” (San Francisco Chronicle, December 15, 2004)
bewareofthis . info / pagecache / page7756 /
Statement: "FCC set to consider in-flight cell phones. December 15, 2004. Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet - THEY WEREN'T IN THE PAST - and whether they'd mess up ground - based communications . "
bewareofthis . info / pagecache / page5226 /
NEW YORK (Reuters) - One of life's ironic oases of solitude - the peace people find amid the roar of a New York City subway - could soon be gone.
As New York plans to make cell phones work in subway stations, experts say Americans eventually could be connected everywhere, underground or in the air.
"It's technically feasible, both for airplanes and subways," said James Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. "It's the social aspect that's really the most intractable."
bewareofthis . info / pagecache / page2923 /
Statement: Two European airlines will allow passengers late next year to use their own cell phones on commercial flights within western Europe, a Geneva-based technology firm said Tuesday.
TAP Air Portugal and British carrier bmi both have agreed to introduce OnAir's voice and text service for cell phones in separate three-month trial runs, Chief Executive George Cooper said.
The planes _ which will be the first to allow passengers to make and receive calls with their own cell phones while on board _ will give OnAir the chance to assess its service ahead of its general release slated for 2007, he said.
"With both airlines, initially there will be a couple of airplanes _ two or three airplanes _ equipped with this system," Cooper told The Associated Press from Germany. "During that three months, we'll all be evaluating how it's going, what the usage is, how we handle the crew issues and so on."
bewareofthis . info / pagecache / page3009 /
LOS ANGELES The safe landing of a JetBlue Airways plane with faulty landing gear last night ended a drama carried live by television that riveted viewers outside and inside the aircraft... At one point, he said, he tried to call his family, but his cellphone call wouldn't go through.
bewareofthis . info / pagecache / page7755 /
"Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network" because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high, she said. The technology is "difficult now, but it's not something that can't happen in the future."
pcworld. com / news /article / 0, aid, 121399 , 00 . asp
"In-Flight Cell Phone Systems Gain Altitude"
gmpcs-us . com / satnews / jan - 5%20 - Boeing . htm
As we all can see, it is only now that Cell Phones are being tested for in-flight calls. Look at the date of that report, it is Monday, July 19, 2004. Why would people be making in-flight cell phone calls on 9/11, 2001, when on 2004, inflight-calls are only beginning to be tested. And this is just the testing stages, the fact that testing only began a few years after 2001, says a lot about the IMPOSSIBILITY that cell phones may have been used in those 9/11 flights. The only twisting of words going on is from the pro-government story advocates' side of the debate, since they try to make everyone to ignore this simple simple illogical hole in the official story.
Professional opinions
Dear Sir
I have yet to read the entire article but I do have a background in telecommunications. Using a cell phone on an air craft is next to impossible. The reasons are very detailed, but basically the air craft would run major interference, as well as the towers that carry the signal would have a difficult time sending and receiving due to the speed of the air craft. As well, calling an operator? Well that is basically impossible.
Having worked for both a major Canadian and American provider I had to instruct my staff that operator assistance is not an option. Have you ever tried to use a cell phone in some public buildings? Impossible. There are too many spots that service is voided. Just a tidbit of information to share.
Megan Conley
Hi,
I am an RF design engineer, having built out Sprint, Verizon and another network in New Orleans. You are absolutely correct. We have trouble making these things work for cars going 55 mph on the ground. If you need another engineer's testimony for any reason, let me know I will corroborate.
my engineering site: geocities . com / rf _ man _ cdma /
Brad Mayeux
Sir,
Yours is the first article I've read which focuses on those dubious 'cell phone calls'. Last month my Wife and I flew to Melbourne, about 1000 miles south of here.
Cell phones are Verboten in Airliners here, but on the return journey I had a new NOKIA phone, purchased in Melbourne, and so small I almost forgot it was in my pocket. I furtively turned it on. No reception anywhere, not even over Towns or approaching Brisbane. Maybe it's different in the US, but I doubt it.
There has to be an investigation into this crime. Justice for the thousands of dead and their families demands it.
Best
Bernie Busch
Hi Prof
I have repeatedly tried to get my cell phone to work in an airplane above 2-3000 feet and it doesn't work. My experiments were done discreetely on 20 Southwest Airlines flights between Ontario, California and Phoenix, Arizona. My experiments match yours. Using sprint phones 3500 and 6000 models, no calls above 2500 ft , a "no service" indicator at 5000 ft (guestimate).
There seem to be two reasons. 1. the cell sites don't have enough power to reach much more than a mile, 2. The cell phone system is not able to handoff calls when the plane is going at more than 400 mph.
This is simply experimental data. If any of your contacts can verify it by finding the height of the Pennsylvania plane and it's speed one can prove that the whole phone call story is forged.
Rafe (airline pilot)
Greetings,
I write in praise of your report, as I have felt from day one that the cell phone 'evidence' was perhaps the flimsiest part of the story, and am amazed that nobody has touched it until now.
I'd also like to bring up the point of airspeed, which is what made the cell calls a red-flag for me in the first place. I'm not sure what your top speed achieved in the small plane was, but, in a large airliner travelling at (one would think) no less than 450mph, most cell phones wouldn't be able to transit cells fast enough to maintain a connection (at least, from what i understand of the technology) .. and we're talking 2001 cell technology besides, which in that period, was known to drop calls made from cars travelling above 70mph on the freeway (again, due to cell coverage transits)
Anyway, thanks for shining the light, keep up the good work
Ben Adam
Dear Professor,
Responding to your article, I'm glad somebody with authority has taken the trouble to scientifically prove the nonsense of 9/11.
I was travelling between two major European cities, every weekend, when the events in the US occurred. I was specifically puzzled by the reports that numerous passengers on board the hijacked planes had long conversations with ground phone lines, using their mobile phones (and not on board satelite phones). Since I travelled every weekend, I ignored the on board safety regulations to switch off the mobile phone and out of pure curiosity left it on to see if I could make a call happen.
First of all, at take off, the connection disappears quite quickly (ascending speed, lateral reception of ground stations etc.), I would estimate from 500 meters and above, the connection breaks.
Secondly, when making the approach for landing, the descent is more gradual and the plane is travelling longer in the reach of cellphone stations, but also only below 500 meters. What I noticed was that, since the plane is travelling with high speed, the connection jumps from one cellphone station to another, never actually giving you a chance to make a phone call. (I have never experienced this behaviour over land, e.g. by car). Then, if a connection is established, it takes at least 10-30 seconds before the provider authorises a phone call in the first place. Within this time, the next cellstation is reached (travel speed still > 300KM/h) and the phone , always searching for the best connection, disconnects the current connection and tries to connect to a new station.
I have done this experiment for over 18 months, ruling out weather conditions, location or coincidence. In all this time the behaviour was the same: making a phone call in a plane is unrealistic and virtually impossible.
Based on this, I can support you in your findings that the official (perhaps fabricated) stories can be categorised as nonsense.
With kind regards.
Peter Kes
I can provide email addresses for all those people whose anecdotal evidence was quoted.
WELL, WIDEHEAD OF ZERO KNOWLEDGE, are you still going to tell MORE LIES about the cellphone calls being possible? If you are, then PROVE IT.
Because YOU HAVE NEVER MANAGED TO DO SO!
and the same goes for your LIES about the WTC collapses, as you try DESPERATTELY to tell everyone that they weren't controlled demolitions - when they absolutely without any doubt WERE! As I've shown REPEATEDLY, and all you've managed to do is blather on with pathetic failing excuses.
It is a FACT that it's impossible to make cellphone calls from passenger planes flying at cruising altitude six miles up and flying at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which wasn't available prior to 2004 and is still in testing stage), and it's a FACT that cellphone calls from a vehicle moving at over 450mph (even if successfully make the handshake when flying at low altitude) will only last a few seconds since there is no time for the hand-off; the call will ALWAYS drop out in just a few seconds - minutes long cellphone calls are IMPOSSIBLE.
It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint - except with controlled demolitions, and that it is IMPOSSIBLE without a controlled demolition according to the laws of PHYSICS.
It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked.
It's a FACT, that there was NO INFERNO in either of the WTC twin towers. The temperatures of the fires never went above 360C, and apparently were around 250C, which is well below the 550C at which steel only barely begins to lose it's elasticity. Glass melts at 700C - There are no reports of melting glass at the towers, and the glass in the storeys above the fire didn't seem to break so the temperature was clearly way below 700C. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC - Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. Kevin Ryan of UL had cited a similar figure (250C).
It's a FACT that there were hundeds of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings, and that their claims are supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
AND I'VE PROVEN MY POINTS DOZENS OF TIMES ALREADY ON THIS SITE!
"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."
Alexa Graf, spokesperson for AT&T
"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. They also were digital phones, and there's a little bit more leeway on those digital phones, so it worked”
Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson
"Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles."
NYTimes
Hmmm, paints a rather different picture doesn't it?
Lovelynice said - "The temperatures of the fires never went above 360C, and apparently were around 250C, which is well below the 550C at which steel only barely begins to lose it's elasticity"
1, The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers.
2, When steel reaches 650 celcius it looses half it's strengh, when it reach 1,000 degrees, it only has ten percent of it's original strengh.
Where is your evidence for such a claim?
{"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."
Alexa Graf, spokesperson for AT&T by widehead ofknowledge on Thu Sep 21, 06 4:45am}
The little while being a few seconds ONLY. At over 450mph, the plane is moving too fact for the connection to succeed in both the handshake and the handoff to the next cell; it's out of the cell before the handshake could be completed. Result= dropped call, always.
Also, at cruising altitudes, it's rather worse than call quality being "not good", it's actually IMPOSSIBLE to make a successful cellphone call from a passnger jet flying six miles up at 450mph.
We are talking about CELLPHONES of course, not Airphones and not Satellite Phones.
The technology to allow such calls using relays on planes has only become a feasible possibility since 2004;
Statement: “Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past.” (San Francisco Chronicle, December 15, 2004)
beware ofthis . info / pagecache / page7756 /
Statement: "FCC set to consider in-flight cell phones. December 15, 2004. Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet - THEY WEREN'T IN THE PAST - and whether they'd mess up ground - based communications . "
beware ofthis . info / pagecache / page5226 /
NEW YORK (Reuters) - One of life's ironic oases of solitude - the peace people find amid the roar of a New York City subway - could soon be gone.
As New York plans to make cell phones work in subway stations, experts say Americans eventually could be connected everywhere, underground or in the air.
"It's technically feasible, both for airplanes and subways," said James Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. "It's the social aspect that's really the most intractable."
beware ofthis . info / pagecache / page2923 /
Statement: Two European airlines will allow passengers late next year to use their own cell phones on commercial flights within western Europe, a Geneva-based technology firm said Tuesday.
TAP Air Portugal and British carrier bmi both have agreed to introduce OnAir's voice and text service for cell phones in separate three-month trial runs, Chief Executive George Cooper said.
The planes _ which will be the first to allow passengers to make and receive calls with their own cell phones while on board _ will give OnAir the chance to assess its service ahead of its general release slated for 2007, he said.
"With both airlines, initially there will be a couple of airplanes _ two or three airplanes _ equipped with this system," Cooper told The Associated Press from Germany. "During that three months, we'll all be evaluating how it's going, what the usage is, how we handle the crew issues and so on."
beware ofthis . info / pagecache / page3009 /
LOS ANGELES The safe landing of a JetBlue Airways plane with faulty landing gear last night ended a drama carried live by television that riveted viewers outside and inside the aircraft... At one point, he said, he tried to call his family, but his cellphone call wouldn't go through.
beware ofthis . info / pagecache / page7755 /
"Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network" because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high, she said. The technology is "difficult now, but it's not something that can't happen in the future."
pcworld. com / news /article / 0, aid, 121399 , 00 . asp
"In-Flight Cell Phone Systems Gain Altitude"
gmpcs-us . com / satnews / jan - 5%20 - Boeing . htm
As we all can see, it is only now that Cell Phones are being tested for in-flight calls. Look at the date of that report, it is Monday, July 19, 2004. Why would people be making in-flight cell phone calls on 9/11, 2001, when in 2004, inflight-calls were only beginning to be tested?
Why can't you cite some REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of cellphone calls being possible in those conditions?
PROJECT ACHILLES
physics911 . net / projectachilles . htm
"Private pilots flying light aircraft are nowadays familiar with the fact that they may use their cellphones to make calls to the ground, at least if they are not higher than one or two thousand feet. Above that altitude, calls get rather iffy, sometimes working, sometimes not. The higher a pilot ascends, the less likely the call is to get through. At 8000 feet the pilot will not get through at all unless he or she happens to be using a cellphone with the same capabilities as C5 (See appendix A.) But even that cellphone begins to fail at 6000 feet."
CELLPHONE EXPERIMENTS IN AIRLINERS
physics911 . ca / org / modules / news /article . php? storyid = 7
"Cell phones traveling in airliners can get a service signal at heights up to some 6,000 ft, but it is not possible to make a connection, at least not while traveling at the usual cruising speed of a normal airliner (500-550 mph). Since in all cases (if at all) connections could only be established well after the pilots have pulled out the landing gear at some 2,000 ft and at a cruising speed of 230 mph or less, it seems safe to conclude that in summer of 2003, no connection could be made with a cell phone from an airliner flying in the U.S. when above an altitude above ground of 2,000 ft (610 m) and when traveling with a speed over 230 mph. Considering the fast descent of the planes and the fact that they kept slowing down as they approached the runway, the height at which a connection could be established might actually be as low as 1,500 ft (457.5 m), and the speed around 200 mph.
The reason why a connection could only be established at some 1,500 ft above ground despite the fact that a signal was present already at some 6,000 ft may be that the speed of the traveling aircraft was too high at higher altitudes. It seems safe to say that the speed must be under 230 mph in order to establish a stable connection, a speed which an airliner can reach only during landing, with landing gear, air brakes and flaps all the way out.
It is generally agreed upon that all the airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001, flew at a high cruising speed of 500 mph and more until they crashed. Thus, it seems safe to say that no cell phone of any type could have established any stable connection to any cell site at that speed, no matter which height the planes flew at. This is particularly true for United Airlines flight 93, which did not only fly at high speed but also at a relatively high altitude during the time when the alleged cell phone calls were placed."
{"Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles."
NYTimes
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Sep 21, 06 4:45am}
10 miles on the ground (for some), not in the air. The cellular network antennas DON'T POINT AT THE SKY, they are aimed to cover the people on the GROUND. The signal doesn't form a sphere, because they use dish antennas, so it's focused efficiently. You only have to walk down the street and look up to see this for a FACT. The ground itself is also not a dish antenna.
^So, Verizon are just making it up are they?
{1, The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit)....
by wolf_nipple_chips on Thu Sep 21, 06 8:17am}
and the temperatures never even got higher than 700*C for an absolute certainity (as I explained about the glass already), and in the conditions with a huge chunk of wall missing where the fires were, they're effectively open air, which according to Corus Constructions tests means the temperatures wouldn'tbe higher than 250-360*C.
^You have evidence that the glass didn't brake do you?
"and the temperatures never even got higher than 700*C"
Even if it reached that height, the steel would have lost half its strength.
No one had ever claimed that the steel reached melting point, it did however get to the point where it's strengh was greatly reduced.
"Why can't you cite some REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of cellphone calls being possible in those conditions?"
And why are AT&T and Verizon NOT qualified enough for you?
Let's get this straight - cellphone companies are not good enough evidence for you but speculative comments by non-specialists are?
And be consistent - you haven't supllied ANY 'real scientific evidence' for any of your claims about 9-11.
And lovelynice, before you say Project Achilles was a reliable study, it wasn't.
Different plane, different area(over a populated area), different speed, different altitude, more modern phones.
And it was carried out by AK Dewdney - not exactly an unbiased report.
Anyway, lets say it is reliable.
In this report it is stated that there a is 1 in 10 chance of people getting through at 8,000.
Firstly, we have no way of corrobrating what exact height the plane was at when all the calls were made. We do know for a fact that when the passengers were preparing to storm the cockpit the plane was at a steady 5,200 feet. Even the laughable loose change says that at 4,000 feet there a 40% chance of making a call.
Secondly, we also have no idea how many people actually tried to call and couldn't getting through.
How do you know there were not 100 hundred attempted phonecalls from that plane? If you couldn't get through, you'd keep on trying.
{Even if it reached that height, the steel would have lost half its strength.
by wolf_ nipple _chips on Thu Sep 21, 06 10:40am}
What??? On ALL THE BOX COLUMNS, and ALL THE STEEL SUPPORTS, at ALL THE SAME TIME???
S I M U L T A N E O U S L Y ?
Where do you come up with your excuses from? Do you even THINK before postting them?
{Firstly, we have no way of corrobrating what exact height the plane was at when all the calls were made.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Fri Sep 22, 06 2:54am}
Rubbish, I've already posted about this many times
THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND FEET when the first calls were "alleged" to have been made.
FLIGHT 93
United Airlines Flight 93
According to the 9-11 Commission's account:
"the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.” 70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft...."
The Report claims that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report's confirmation of the plane's attitude of 35,000 feet. In other words, the calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost UAL 93’s transponder signal (9.41) and approximately 30 minutes before the crash in Pennsylvania (10.03)
There was no indication from the Report that the aircraft had swooped down to a lower level of altitude, apart from the 700 feet drop recorded at 9.28. from a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. Shortly after the alleged hijacking commences, the passengers and flight crew allegedly began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones.
The alleged call (strangely not mentioned in the Report) by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.
"Local emergency officials said they received a cell phone call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the plane had been hijacked. "We are being hijacked! We are being hijacked!" he was quoted as saying.
So, the ALLEGED cellphone calls from Flight 93 were made while the plane was at cruising altitude between 34,000 to 35,000 feet.
In other words, they were IMPOSSIBLE and therefore could only be FAKE.
{And why are AT&T and Verizon NOT qualified enough for youby wideheadofknowledge on Thu Sep 21, 06 11:10pm}
Who said that's what I stated? I didn't. You're playing a silly strawman again.
You didn't post comments from their telecommunications experts and professionals, you posted quotes from company PR mouthpieces picked for looks and good public relations skills - essentially corporate manager types who would know nothing about the science of it, and didn't refer to any expert opinions nor to any scientific studies. Nothing they said was based on any scientific studies.
As I already showed, the scientific studies and expert opinions very convincingly state that the calls are technically IMPOSSIBLE (and I didn't only cite AK Dewdney, I cited others which you're deliberately ignoring)
I want to see you post actual scientific studies PROVING that the cellphone calls were possible.
I will be very surprised if you ever succeed in doing this, because on every other site that I've asked for such evidence, nobody has been able to provide such proof.
{In this report it is stated that there a is 1 in 10 chance of people getting through at 8,000.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Fri Sep 22, 06 2:54am}
Yes, and he stated the calls were TECHNICALLY IMPOSSIBLE at cruising altitude, but so did many others. Not just him.
Lovelynice, you may wish to have a look at the flight 93 cockpit transcript, released after the Moussaoui trial. 10 minutes after the plane is hijacked, and a good 15 minutes before it crashed, the pilots are heard saying "down, down, down" followed shortly by "seven thousand". Then "up, down, up down".
Proof, that the plane was not at 35,000 all the time.
i . a . cnn . net / cnn / 2006 / images / 04 / 12 / flight93 . transcript . pdf
"What??? On ALL THE BOX COLUMNS, and ALL THE STEEL SUPPORTS, at ALL THE SAME TIME??? "
No. Some of the box columns were damaged by the plane. How do you know that some of the core columns had not already failed?
YOu can see by the way the south tower fell that it wasn't a global failure.
|
