Why arnt Americans asking more questions on this ??

[version77]

Quote from walterjennings:

And before I get flamed, I present these links and ideas as questions, NOT evidence. [/B]

Anyone can ask questions. Now bring some evidence to the thread.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from Bitstream:

the quantity and quality of evidence against the govt is absolutely staggering.

Yeah, and Khomeini was Jewish, JFK was shot by Zionists, Elvis lives in a trailer park in Alabama, and Martin Luther King was an alien.

Get a life, Bit. Really....

 

[achilles28]

Quote from whitster:

AND weak and incompetent on the subject of WMD's

They never were.

BushCo cooked the evidence - fit facts around the policy.

Everyone and his sister working CIA Intel during the run up has gone on record toward this.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Bitstream:

comprehensive study on cellphones calls made from airplanes:


http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9

Sigh. People who don't know how to do research, shouldn't do them or they'll just discredit the cause they try to advance.

There are simply not enough data on the website you cited to know exactly what conclusion can be drawn from this study. However, there are a few things that I would like to know before believing this study.

1. Why did they not test all cell phones at each location? At 8000 feet, at first sight it seemd that only one out 6 calls was successful. However, they had 5 cellphones but tried only 2 of them at NW location. Given that C3 started to fail at NW location at 4000 feet ("frag" no complete word), one should expect it to fail at 8000 feet. We don't know, for example, whether at NW location, the other 3 cellphones would have worked. C4 failed at NW at 6000 feet, so it would probably also fail at 8000 feet. But still, If one of C1 or C5 worked, you would actually have a success rate of 40% at this location, a far cry from the 13% claimed by this work.

2. Why did they not test any of the S locations at 8000 feet? There is not enough data but if I have to guess, the success rate at S would probably have been 50% at 8000 feet.

This study is so amaturish, it's completely worthless.

How far does a cellphone signal carry on the ground? The cell towers typically use a grid about 3-4 miles apart. 4 miles would be about 21,000 feet (that's twenty-one thousand feet). If this experiment is to be believed, most people would have trouble getting good signals on the ground.

 

[thenewguy]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Sigh. People who don't know how to do research, shouldn't do them or they'll just discredit the cause they try to advance.

There are simply not enough data on the website you cited to know exactly what conclusion can be drawn from this study. However, there are a few things that I would like to know before believing this study.

1. Why did they not test all cell phones at each location? At 8000 feet, at first sight it seemd that only one out 6 calls was successful. However, they had 5 cellphones but tried only 2 of them at NW location. Given that C3 started to fail at NW location at 4000 feet ("frag" no complete word), one should expect it to fail at 8000 feet. We don't know, for example, whether at NW location, the other 3 cellphones would have worked. C4 failed at NW at 6000 feet, so it would probably also fail at 8000 feet. But still, If one of C1 or C5 worked, you would actually have a success rate of 40% at this location, a far cry from the 13% claimed by this work.

2. Why did they not test any of the S locations at 8000 feet? There is not enough data but if I have to guess, the success rate at S would probably have been 50% at 8000 feet.

This study is so amaturish, it's completely worthless.

How far does a cellphone signal carry on the ground? The cell towers typically use a grid about 3-4 miles apart. 4 miles would be about 21,000 feet (that's twenty-one thousand feet). If this experiment is to be believed, most people would have trouble getting good signals on the ground.

I don't think cell phone towers have spherical range. It's eliptical on the ground, that much I know, but I'm not sure about how high they go.

I'd look it up but my research is shoddy and I don't want to discredit whatever cause it is I'm trying to advance ...

TNG

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from whitster:

LOOK, loosechange is a joke, and has been debunked thoroughly.

but that fact aside, the whole conspiracy thang does not pass the smell test... here's why...

assume for the sake of argument that bushco et al were "in on" the whole 9/11 thang.

we are supposed to believe that the SAME administration that did this (assisted or even organized the killing of people in WTC I and II and/or flew a missile into the pentagon, and/or etc.etc.)

is the SAME administration that invaded Iraq , to a large extent because of causus belli of WMD programs and weapons ( i realize there were numerous other reasons but that was the primary one), would not go as far as to


PLANT SOME FRIGGING WMD's??!?!?!

they would do all this nefarious stuff in 911 to assist in the killing of innocent americans (Which would be an IMPOSSIBLE conspiracy to pull off, regardless, but i digress)... but they would not go as far as to plant some basic WMD's in IRAQ when they KNEW their failure ot find them would destroy them politically?

that is absolutely inconceivable.

think about it. it's a very basic smell test thang

otoh, they are honest enough not to plant WMD's (which would be Much much easier to do than the stuff that loosechange claims they did), and to take a tremendous political hit because of the lack of WMD's

get real

Get real? Reality is the last thing these goofs want to deal with. You make an excellent point, but that won't deter them. They won't let facts or common sense get in the way of a good story.

 

[Bitstream]

prof after analyzing wtc materials finds presence of thermate and immediately receive solicitations [bribe] to change the course of his research and threats.


http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from thenewguy:

I don't think cell phone towers have spherical range. It's eliptical on the ground, that much I know, but I'm not sure about how high they go.

I'd look it up but my research is shoddy and I don't want to discredit whatever cause it is I'm trying to advance ...

TNG

Actually it's not quite ellipsoidal (3D version of elliptical). It's like a lobe shape, with the least signal strength directly above the towers. The further away you're from the tower, the higher you can go and still get a decent signal. Until of course you're so far away that you won't get a good signal even on the ground.