How can people be so brainwashed

Originally posted by pavil
Adding much complexity to an already complex theory.

We agree. The cell phone thing is at least in my mind debunked. If you need more info, contact Zaphod.

Originally posted by pavil
Do the phone calls match up with the actual plane data we do have, for instance if one of the phone calls mentions something about a dive, is there a record of it on air traffic controller records.

Actually, one of the calls mentions white smoke and explosions. I thought you debunkers did your homework?

That would be hard to do if those calls were not originating from said plane I would think.

I agree.

What was the altitude of the planes and the Cell tower distribution under them? I would tend to think those things would make a difference.

Don't know, and I think you're right.

I would tend to think possible yet harder than normal for sure, to do. It does bear further investigation IMO to find out more. I personally have not seen enough evidence to give a complete answer. Hopefully that answers your question as far as I am able to.

Question for you: You think it "does bear further investigation" And, "haven't seen enough evidence to give a complete answer" but yet you defend the official story like it's gold?

Originally posted by pavil
Not that I know enough about the topic but why does the FCC ban Cell phone usage if they don't work?

If they work or not is not the concern here. In fact all electronic devises must be turned off during both take-offs and landings. That is lap tops, video recorders, blackberries as well as cell phones. After take off, you can turn on your lap top again but your phone must be left turned off. The problem is not about you making or receiving a call on your phone, they could care less about that since it's impossible either at cruising altitudes or at speeds of 500 MPH.
They don't actually ban cell phones, in fact you can bring it on the plane but you must turn it off and this is because the electromagnetic emissions of your cell phone could interfere with the equipment on board, they also require you to turn off your cell phone in all hospitals for the same reason.

Even if you don't make or receive calls your cell phone will attempt to connect to a tower. Cell phones are constantly looking for a signal when they are on even if you don't use it and that is why they ban cell phones in airliners.
They don't care if it works or not, in fact a guy went to jail for 5 months because he was playing games on his cell phone and the staff repeatedly asked him to turn it off. He never talked on the phone, that was not the problem. The perceived or real danger resides merely in having the cell phone on.

I don't know whether the statements you make about cellphones in planes are accurate. Perhaps someone with expereince trying that could add some input.

Well, I have experience in this, since 9/11 I flew twice and both times I was unable to receive any signal. There is also this mathematician guy, A.K. Dewney who made an experiment called Project Achille which attempted to veryfy the effectiveness of cell phones at altitudes. Here is his conclusion:

To the extent that the cellphones used in this experiment represent types in general use, it may be concluded that from this particular type of aircraft, cellphones become useless very quickly with increasing altitude. In particular, two of the cell phone types, the Mike and the Nokia, became useless above 2000 feet. Of the remaining two, the Audiovox worked intermittently up to 6000 feet but failed thereafter, while the BM analog cell phone worked once just over 7000 feet but failed consistently thereafter. We therefore conclude that ordinary cellphones, digital or analog, will fail to get through at or above 8000 feet abga.
911review.org...

But you don't have to believe me, you don't have to believe Dewdney either. Just go out and try it yourself, it just can't be done ....IMPOSSIBLE!

How do you explain the calls that were made then?
How did they happen if not the actual cell and airphones being used. Were they from a central location then made to look like they were coming from a plane?

You are not playing fair here, you answered my question with an other question. The simple fact is that cell phone calls from an airliner are not possible if you either are above 8000 ft or if you are travelling at 500 MPH. But I'll answer your question any way.

Your answer is here in this movie at 1 hour 7 minutes:
video.google.com...

I warn you, there is a lot of mistakes in this movie but the part about cell phones is accurate.

Now, bare to mind that i try to present you with facts and science, not "conspiracy theories". The fact, the ABSOLUTE FACT is that cell phone calls are impossible from inside an airliner. That's a fact, that's a scientific fact which I studied and tested myself.
Now when you ask me how were the calls made if not from the airplane, that question requires me to create a theory and I no longer give you facts if I answer that question.

Cheers,
PepeLapew



[edit on 25-4-2007 by PepeLapew]

Originally posted by Griff
We agree. The cell phone thing is at least in my mind debunked. If you need more info, contact Zaphod.

I don't understand ... are you saying that cell phone calls are possible in an airplane at 35,000 ft and/or 500 MPH?

Pavil, think about this:

- 3 Buildings coming down due to fire for the first time in history and that at free fall speeds. Very strange especially if you study WTC7 which wasn't hit by anything yet collapsed completely into it's own footprint all inside 7 seconds.

- Marvin Bush board member of the company that took care of completely re-doing the security of the two airports in question as well as the entire WTC complex.

- Silvertein buying up the whole WTC complex just weeks before 9/11 and taking out insurance policies specifically covering terrorist attacks.

- Report of 2.3 trillion bucks (2.3 million X one million) is let out on the day just before 9/11 and lost in the shadow of the events so that nobody even remembers that now.

- Jed Bush part of a think tank that specifically wanted to expand imperialism in the ME and increase military budgets by large and they couldn't get it without a "New Pearl Harbor"

- George Bush writing in his journal on the night of 9/11 that "today a new pearl harbor happened"

- Cell calls impossible yet many reported on that day.

- The list is long my friend, I can name you an other 200 coincidences.

Now, maybe you think those are all coincidences, what are you? A tin foil coincidence theorist? (j/k)

But let me ask you a theorical question. Let's say you had a car and you wanted to drive it into my house and kill me. let's say that it was possible to hook a remote control to your car.

How would you drive the car? Would you:
1) Get in it and drive it into my house yourself?
2) Convince 2-3 buddies to get in the car instead of you and drive it into my house?
3] Use the remote control with a dead corpse at the wheel?

Which one would it be? Please do answer even if you think the answer is obvious.

I would tend to think possible yet harder than normal for sure, to do. It does bear further investigation IMO to find out more. I personally have not seen enough evidence to give a complete answer. Hopefully that answers your question as far as I am able to.

Don't count on the NIST or the 9/11 commission to investigate these matters. Don't even imagine they would ever acknowledge that cell phone calls might even possibly be difficult.

Here's the down and gritty for you.
Imagine a car traveling at 150 MPH.
As the car leaves tower A''s range and enters the tower B's range there is a certain procedure that transfers the signal from tower A to tower B. This procedure is known as "hand-off" and it takes between 15 and 35 seconds to do this hand-off.

Now, when you are traveling in a fast car, that's not a problem but when you are traveling at 500 MPH by the time the network has made the hand-off from A to B your airplane is already flying over tower C. So your cell phone spends it entire time trying to connect to a tower and transferring too slow from one tower to the next.

Now look at a picture of an actually cell tower here:
www.geocities.com...
As you can see clearly, the antennas are all pointed to the horizon where the users are, it wouldn't make sense to waste their bandwidth by pointing them up where airplane passengers are not allowed to use their phones.

Now, an airliner travels at 6 miles up, no freakin' way in hell it's going to get a signal that far up especially when you consider that A.K. Dewdney could not even get a call done at 8000 ft. with any of the phones he used.

Originally posted by Griff
I thought you debunkers did your homework?

He is not a debunker, he is exactly where you and I have been before. He has problems absorbing all the information we are giving him ... can you blame him? Can't you understand why he has so much trouble believing our side? Haven't you been there before?

Treat the guy with respect, treat him like an intelligent person and don't stick stoopit "debunker" labels on him and he will probably listen to you all the more.

Teachers don't teach anything by insulting their students, they have to encourage their students and make them feel like they are smart. Respect him and he will be more open to your ideas.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by PepeLapew]

You have voted PepeLapew for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Teachers don't teach anything by insulting their students, they have to encourage their students and make them feel like they are smart. Respect him and he will be more open to your ideas.

although i think griff is one of the most level headed people on the board, i still think what you said was profound.
give 'them' the benefit of the doubt in an argument.
i know i don't, and it weakens my position, sometimes.

don't make 'martyrs' out of your debate opponents, make 'converts'.

of course, this only goes so far as, "anyway, buddy's obviously a shill, so WHATEVER!"

SHILLS!!! DIE SHILLS!!!! (that's german, meaning, "shills!!, the shills!!")



[edit on 25-4-2007 by billybob]

911research.wtc7.net...

Here are the phone records entered into evidence at the Moussaoui trial.
It seems they knew the seat from where the call was coming from, how? It seems to imply that they used airphones for the most part as I don't think they could pinpoint a location with a cellphone nor would the passengers mention the seat location where they are calling from.

If you look at those records you see quite a few missed/dropped calls.

I am not saying I have concrete evidence but the statements of loved ones receiving the calls or listening to them hold weight with me.

You accuse me of answering questions with questions, but you still haven't presented to me a compelling reason why these phone calls are fake. How were they were done and why the "powers that be" went through all the trouble of making these calls to passenger loved ones and others during the hijackings? This single aspect of the operation would be incredibly complex to pull of if these are not the actual passengers making the phone calls.

For example, lets say, for the sake of this debate the calls are faked in some manner. Passenger A calls his wife and talks to her, but it is a faked call. Then the "real" Passenger A calls his wife via airphone ( I supposed those were blocked somehow in your version of events) and talks to his wife mentioning contridictory details to the faked call. Do you see how this starts to get convulated? It would have been far eaiser for the "PTB" to not even attempt to fake phone calls, which then leaves ......what as the answer?

SO aren't there already threads that are specificly focused on the phone issue that cover all the bases, and could simply be linked in here to divert this side issue to a focus thread whithout disrupting this one?

WASN'T this thread about brainwashing, which would make some expect to learn / discuss about various aspects of propaganda, psychology, nationalism, sociology, this particular movement and so on?

EVER hear of a Red Herring?
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 25-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Hey wait, perhaps the evolution of this thread can explain why people are so "brainwashed", or more specifically why nothing ever gets done movement-wise about whatever really is clearly phoney about 911...

Perhaps it's not only because every attempt at various discussion is Red Herring'd right out of coherency, maybe it's because everyones too wrapped up in these contrversial / highly debatable issues instead of focusing on the actionable consensus issues. THis goes for 'both sides' of the argument, but the "Skeptics" seem to be even more guilty of this as you'll see them actually admit that the 911 COmmission was lackluster, bt then they in effect subvert any chance of a group consensus in making sure we get a new investigation ASAP. I've even seen them take it a step further to state that they want a new investigation to prove the "conspiracists" wrong, instead of having a new investigation to get the real truth (which would indicate regardless of what the truth is).

For those who would like to get serious about this "actionable consensus" concept I'm talking about check out our other discussion here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by pavil
Here are the phone records entered into evidence at the Moussaoui trial.
It seems they knew the seat from where the call was coming from, how?

I have no idea how they could tell the seat location of the caller. Here for example they have the CELL call was for almost a minute and they have the exact seat location: 911research.wtc7.net...

I am not saying I have concrete evidence but the statements of loved ones receiving the calls or listening to them hold weight with me.

Then you can choose to believe it all you want but I don't care how many witnesses, how many records, how many dropped calls .... cell phone calls are absolutely impossible from a jet at 35,000 ft and/or 500 MPH.
It's like this: you are a crime investigator and you find a body of a man with a .22 cal bullet in his brain and a .38 cal gun in his hand. It doesn't matter how many witnesses, how many suicide notes and how many reports you find, they guy could not have shot himself with that gun. Same thing with the cell calls, they just were impossible. You don't have to believe me, just go in an airliner and try yourself. I really encourage you to try it yourself and not take the word of anyone else, not my word and not the word of the freakin' pope. Simply not possible.

you still haven't presented to me a compelling reason why these phone calls are fake. How were they were done and why the "powers that be" went through all the trouble of making these calls to passenger loved ones and others during the hijackings?

I did give you an explanation. For it, you have to go to this link and search for the part of it at 1:07:20.
video.google.com...

Now this is only a theory of course but what I know is that cell calls were not possible from inside the planes. Maybe they were fake, maybe they took place with the real passengers from a secret location, maybe they used some sort of a voice synthesizer .... I don't know. What I do know as a student pilot who is building my own airplane and who talks with pilots all the time and who has tried it myself is that cell calls are not possible from a jet (period).

Where did the calls come from, who made them, were they real, are the families lying, or were the families tricked .....I don't know, these are all theories.

But here is a proven fact: cell phone calls not possible from a flying jet. That's not a "conspiracy theory" or a probability, it's a FACT.

Now, here's a call from one of them:
"Mom, this is Mark Bingham."
Now who talks like that? Who tells his mom his full name?

Then the caller continues:
"I want to let you know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco, and there are three guys on board who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb."

And an other weird moment:
"You believe me, don't you?" I said, "I believe you, who are these guys?" There was another long pause. I listened and then the phone went dead.

Now think about this, the guy refers to himself as "Mark Bingham" to his OWN MOTHER!!!! Then he asked if she believed him, almost as if he wasn't too sure if his fake call was convincing.

Now of course, the weirdness of this one call doesn't prove anything but you have to agree it is a weird call and could go toward showing clearly that the call was fake or made by someone else claiming to be Mark Bingham.

Cheers,
PepeLapew

[edit on 25-4-2007 by PepeLapew]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
SO aren't there already threads that are specificly focused on the phone issue that cover all the bases, and could simply be linked in here to divert this side issue to a focus thread whithout disrupting this one?

SO, aren't there any thread for people like you who really have nothing to say other then criticizing other posters' form and other posters' keeping in line with the subject?

Originally posted by PepeLapew
Treat the guy with respect,

You are correct. I appologize to you Pavil for my immature post. I should know better but sometimes we all get caught up in the moment.

Originally posted by Griff


sometimes we all get caught up in the moment.

No worries, I have a thick skin, and I know you didn't mean it like it came out. If ya can't fling some mud once in a while, you go stir crazy, just don't get mad when someone hits you with a little too. Just watch out for the rocks. DON'T THROW ROCKS! Your mother would be disappointed in you.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
I have no idea how they could tell the seat location of the caller. Here for example they have the CELL call was for almost a minute and they have the exact seat location: 911research.wtc7.net...

It shows the first call of 56 seconds but doesn't specify cell, it could be a air phone which is why they could identify seat location. The Second call specifies cell. I assume each air phone had an ID that could be traced.

Again I don't know enough specifics on cell phone transmissions in planes at various altitudes and speeds. Looking on the Internet just brought up the Achilles page that you mentioned. Even then below 7,000 feet they were able to connect sometimes. I know it is different planes ect. ect.

Seems to be a lack of research into airplanes and cellphones in general. The FAA bans them, but doesn't know for sure if they do muck up planes avionics ect. Seems like definitive research on that should be a big priority if they do IMO. Imagine that they do mess up instruments on planes and the FAA doesn't do anything about it? Thats a good thread in itself

You seem to have first hand experience in trying to use your cellphone on planes, I do not. Based on your research and experience you rule out cellphones in planes at 35K and 500 MPH. That high probably poses some problems, if not impossible as you say, I haven't found evidence of them working that high, though some people have reported at least receiving 2-4 bars of signal strength at fairly high (20,000 I believe, forget the website). I don't rule out cell phones being used on planes at lower altitudes as there is some evidence they do connect at 7,000 ft at least sometimes in an area that is sparsely covered with cell towers.

I just wanted to point out that only two phone calls from Flight 93 were made from cell phones, the rest used airphones.

The two cell phone calls (one made by Edward Felt and the other by CeeCee Lyles) were made when the plane was 5,000 feet above sea level and the area they made them in was already 2,350 feet above sea level, meaning the plane was 2,650 feet off the ground when they were made.

The two cell phone calls were cut off at the exact same time that records indicate the plane made an abrupt clime to 10,000 feet just before plummeting towards the ground and crashing.

So, saying that lots of cell phone couldn't be made from 35,000 feet is absolutely correct. That's why only two cell phone calls were made from 2,650 feet.

This information was taken from the Zacharias Moussaoui trial exhibits.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Speakeasy1981]

Originally posted by Speakeasy1981
I just wanted to point out that only two phone calls from Flight 93 were made from cell phones, the rest used airphones.

Here you are pointing out the cell calls from 93 alone and pushing aside all cell calls from other planes ...why?

The two cell phone calls (one made by Edward Felt and the other by CeeCee Lyles) were made when the plane was 5,000 feet above sea level and the area they made them in was already 2,350 feet above sea level, meaning the plane was 2,650 feet off the ground when they were made.

Still the plane would be travelling at 500 MPH and at that speed cell calls can not be made unless you were circling around the same tower in an extremely impossible loop. Furthermore, I would like to know how they got the altitude of the aircraft at any given time since the transponders would be the equipment that would supply this info and they claim the transponders were shut off.

So, saying that lots of cell phone couldn't be made from 35,000 feet is absolutely correct.

Only if you isolate the flight 93 and find a way to slow it down far slower than it's cruise speed of 500 MPH.

That's why only two cell phone calls were made from 2,650 feet.

Again, you are isolating the flight 93 without even speaking of the other 4 flights. And evern if the planes would still fly at 3 feet above ground, you still would not be able to make calls due to speed alone.

The Shadow government fears the red fishes.

Not the way IIB intended to portray the picture but ironically enough the picture serves the purpose of illustrating brainwashing also.

But then again, everything is connected.




[edit on 25-4-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by PepeLapewHere you are pointing out the cell calls from 93 alone and pushing aside all cell calls from other planes ...why?

Well, the discussion was currently focused on the calls from flight 93, so I attempted to address those. Do you have any information showing that the calls made from the other flights were made from cell phones? I remember that Betty Ong from Flight 11 claimed the cockpit wasn't answering their phone, which leads me to believe she was using an on board phone.

Still the plane would be travelling at 500 MPH and at that speed cell calls can not be made unless you were circling around the same tower in an extremely impossible loop. Furthermore, I would like to know how they got the altitude of the aircraft at any given time since the transponders would be the equipment that would supply this info and they claim the transponders were shut off.

Well, from my own research, the plane's speed during the hand off between towers isn't as much a problem for the person on the air as it is for the people on the ground. A call can hand off between two towers at high speeds successfully, but there's a good chance that the hand off will cut off a call on the ground. The worry is, if everyone in the sky started using cell phones, it would drastically cut down on the reliability of phone calls made from the ground, which is the most important to cell phone companies.

In addition, I'm not quite sure that the plane was going at 500mph when the calls were made. The plane certainly wasn't at cruising altitude, so I have no reason to believe that it was going at cruising speeds.

As for the transponders, the information for the altitude of the craft was taken from the recovered flight data recorder.

Only if you isolate the flight 93 and find a way to slow it down far slower than it's cruise speed of 500 MPH.

see above

Again, you are isolating the flight 93 without even speaking of the other 4 flights. And evern if the planes would still fly at 3 feet above ground, you still would not be able to make calls due to speed alone.

Again, the current discussion was focusing on flight 93, so my attention was on that particular flight. And again, from my research, high speed hand offs are a problem for people make calls on the ground getting their calls cut off, not so much the people in the air.