911 cover up

[Burzhui]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...93973848835726

very interesting video

[nickel]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...93973848835726

very interesting video

much entertainment (forum) there, yes.

http://www.gotapex.com/entertainment...cumentary.html

[Cheesypuff]

is this the loose change video? if it is...I've also watched it.

I like how they ask questions, and make it VERY easy for the government to discredit this video, but havn't yet. with any video there are many holes I would like to be filled...and this video was subjective with a few objective parts. I've wikied this video and that page gives inaccuracies of the video.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29

[Memo]

The video was very convincing when I saw it a few months ago, but I still have some faith in our government to think they wouldn't do this. However, I did think the video served a good purpose in bringing up a lot of questions and having people think twice about the events.

For some comic relief check out Maddox's recent post about it:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

[faither]

I've never seen this Maddox guy before but went to your link and laughed out loud. Aside from Friedman's column today, that was the best thing I've read in a while. Thanks.

[Markel]

This video was NEVER convincing. I always saw it as a bunch of empty conjecture: "This building had a fire and didn't fall down, therefore no building can fall down as a result of fire." "A plane hit this building and it didn't fall down, therefore no building can fall down as a result of a plane hitting it." "We can create a pitiful consipracy video, therefore anybody can make a fool of themselves."

On second thought, maybe there is some truth to that last statement.

[Houdini]

Ok, I'm half-through watching the video. Holy freakin' conjecture Batman! Yeah, someone did his research for a propaganda video and poses a somewhat credible, if you believe all of his statements as gospel, conspiracy theory. But the guy is admittedly not an expert on any of this stuff.

The comparisons b/w the Pentagon crash and similar crashes into the ground, etc., are worthless. Most crash landings, etc., are not at 500+ mph, as pilots generally try to scrub off a lot of speed before crashing, not accelerate like hell before a crash.

Also, so far the only "motive" presented is that someone who owned part of the WTC bought a big insuranace policy.

EVERYTHING they show as text is highlighted - taken out of context, and often the narrator's explanations of the highlights do not say what the highlights say - kinda Michael Moorish as in "this plaque in front of this plane at the Air Force Academy states that this plane was used to kill Vietnamese civilians," etc., when it does not say anything like that.

Also, the "cruise missle" they show, isn't one at all, but a Javelin - something COMPLETELY different in structure, function, and purpose than a cruise missile. It's meant to go up and hit things by shooting straight down - kinda like a ground-launched smart bomb.

So far, I'm not impressed. At all.

H

[ShawnLee]

Loose change? Psh... Totally lame.
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

I trust that research more than the Loose Change research.

I distrusted this video from the moment I heard about it because I heard an interview with the guy who produced it and he was on the radio saying that WTC 7 had been brought down by explosives. An NYPD cop who was there called in saying that part of the towers had knocked out a corner of the building, and that it collapsed over a period of a few hours, not like a sudden explosion as he claimed. The guy had the gall to yell at the cop, "You don't know what you're talking about!'

[Jeffbx]

Here's a good article that pretty much rips the loose change conspiracy vid to threads:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

[Burzhui]

Loose change? Psh... Totally lame.
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

I trust that research more than the Loose Change research.

I distrusted this video from the moment I heard about it because I heard an interview with the guy who produced it and he was on the radio saying that WTC 7 had been brought down by explosives. An NYPD cop who was there called in saying that part of the towers had knocked out a corner of the building, and that it collapsed over a period of a few hours, not like a sudden explosion as he claimed. The guy had the gall to yell at the cop, "You don't know what you're talking about!'

dude, the building was in tact i have it photographed, it was fine

[Burzhui]

strike my last comment out for now, the links i have to satalite immages are no longer working, how odd

[guiseppewv]

dude, the building was in tact i have it photographed, it was fine

You have pictures of all 4 sides of the building taken after the 2 towers fell? And the fire on the fire on the 5th floor?

[Burzhui]

You have pictures of all 4 sides of the building taken after the 2 towers fell? And the fire on the fire on the 5th floor?

Look up marlon, say cheese

[guiseppewv]

Here's a good article that pretty much rips the loose change conspiracy vid to threads:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

Damn, that was a good article. Thanks!!!

As they stated in the PM article a healthy dose of common sense clears up most of the conspiracies but there were a few facts that I was not able to explain, until I saw that PM article. Talk about ripping all the conspiracy theories to shreads. Nice article PM!!!

[guiseppewv]

Look up marlon, say cheese

I guess you never saw all 4 sides after the collapse of the towers. I just wanted to know if you actually saw ll 4 sides.

[InfiniteNothing]

Here's another posting of this subject:
http://www.gotapex.com/entertainment...cumentary.html?
The PM article isn't bullet proof either.

[Burzhui]

Damn, that was a good article. Thanks!!!

As they stated in the PM article a healthy dose of common sense clears up most of the conspiracies but there were a few facts that I was not able to explain, until I saw that PM article. Talk about ripping all the conspiracy theories to shreads. Nice article PM!!!

COnspiracy theories start when the government classifies information that should be public.

Btw what's the deal with the black boxes from the WTC airplanes why were they not found?

[InfiniteNothing]

I've never seen an explanation on how those cell phone calls were supposed to work. No smoking gun but really suspicious.

[Houdini]

I've never seen an explanation on how those cell phone calls were supposed to work. No smoking gun but really suspicious.

Analog mode maybe? It would kill the batteries quicker, but would have much better range, etc., than digital.

[MikeD]

Silly rabbits...you should be more worried about the bird flu that Bush is going to sick on this country in a year or so.

BTW, no pun intended.

[InfiniteNothing]

Analog mode maybe? It would kill the batteries quicker, but would have much better range, etc., than digital.

I think you're still too far, your connection would be super staticy if anything. In the video it was mentioned that a guy actually went up in a plane and tested getting a signal to no avail.

[Lolita]

Taken from Wikepidia:

Loose Change cites a study in which cell phone calls were increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to get through up to and at an altitude of 32,000 ft (9 750 m). According to air traffic controllers in Cleveland, who alerted their counterparts at John P. Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County, Flight 93 headed south and then east and began a steady descent from an altitude of over 20,000 feet (6 100 m) to less than 6,000 feet (1 830 m). [32]

The documentary asserts cell phone calls could not be made from an airplane, and cites new cell systems being tested after 9/11 in planes as compelling evidence in support of that position. Though the film briefly mentions that calls can be and were made using the plane's installed GTE Airphones, it does not explore this further; especially noted as lacking is the ratio of calls placed with this system as opposed to cell phones, despite the fact that many of the cited calls were made using the in-flight phone system. Although cell phone calls are entirely possible at lower altitudes, it could cause interference with the airplane and ground based cell phone networks. [33] [34] The new in-flight systems allows phones to work over the ocean and at lower power levels as the signals are relayed using a satellite uplink; making interference far less likely. It also enables the flight crew to disable cell phones when necessary. This provides additional safety mechanisms and at the same time improves quality of reception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_C...l_inaccuracies

[Houdini]

I think you're still too far, your connection would be super staticy if anything. In the video it was mentioned that a guy actually went up in a plane and tested getting a signal to no avail.

Heh...I don't give that video much credibility to begin with. I've gotten good signal strengths at low altitudes with digital around cities, so I'd imagine that if people didn't have their phones set to "digital only" they might get longer range. True, it would be somewhat staticy, but it's more plausible than using digital (and weaker) signals. I really don't see a reason to question whether cell phones were used or not, especially since the planes were flying pretty low, not at 30k feet when most of the phone calls were made. Still, the airphones were probably the most used.

[guiseppewv]

I think you're still too far, your connection would be super staticy if anything. In the video it was mentioned that a guy actually went up in a plane and tested getting a signal to no avail.

Lolita is right the GTE airphones were the ones being used. Cell phones in mid-air would have a much longer range due to the fact that there is nothing in their way to block/degrade their signal.

[guiseppewv]

COnspiracy theories start when the government classifies information that should be public.

Btw what's the deal with the black boxes from the WTC airplanes why were they not found?

I don't know, maybe the 1200+ degrees of heat for over an hour? Those boxes are designed to withstand extreme heat but usually for only an hour. WTC 2 was on fire for 58 minutes before the collapse and the fire didn't go out with the collapse. WTC 1 was on fire for over 100 minutes and, again, the fire did not go out when the building collapsed.

[nickel]

Silly rabbits...you should be more worried about the bird flu that Bush is going to sick on this country in a year or so.

BTW, no pun intended.

it's already happened


Bird Flu Hits Florida

[InfiniteNothing]

Lolita is right the GTE airphones were the ones being used. Cell phones in mid-air would have a much longer range due to the fact that there is nothing in their way to block/degrade their signal.

Well, cell phones still have the 1/d^2 attenuation. I am aware of the GTE airphones (though I'm interested in seeing more info on those phones) but I was under the impression that some of the calls came from cells (which, by the clarity and lack of drop outs, implies those callers might not be flying). Now, I'm not sure if the guy doing the cell phone test was using an analog phone or a digital phone but I think even if an analog phone was 10 times more powerful, we're still looking at low success rates. Of course if all the calls came from GTE airphones, that would make the cell phone debate moot but I had not heard that was the case.

[guiseppewv]

Well, cell phones still have the 1/d^2 attenuation. I am aware of the GTE airphones (though I'm interested in seeing more info on those phones) but I was under the impression that some of the calls came from cells (which, by the clarity and lack of drop outs, implies those callers might not be flying). Now, I'm not sure if the guy doing the cell phone test was using an analog phone or a digital phone but I think even if an analog phone was 10 times more powerful, we're still looking at low success rates. Of course if all the calls came from GTE airphones, that would make the cell phone debate moot but I had not heard that was the case.

Right, but if a cell phone has a range of 1 mile from phone to tower in a city then chances are it is going to have much greater range from a cell phone in a plane to the tower. The lack of solid structures to increase the attenuation of the signal will increase the range. The attenuation of the signal for most cell phone users is caused by solid objects increasing the transmission loss of the signal not the distance from the transmitter to reciever.

I agree that it is a moot point b/c I believe all of the calls came from the "airphones". I don't ever remember reading or hearing about someone claiming that one of flight 77's passengers used a cell.

[InfiniteNothing]

For the sake of argument, the guy did his tests from a plane. I don't think it matters what his range would have been in the city.

[Thesifer]

I agree that it is a moot point b/c I believe all of the calls came from the "airphones". I don't ever remember reading or hearing about someone claiming that one of flight 77's passengers used a cell.

I remember hearing that day a lot of talk about "Cell phone calls to loved ones" etc. But never put much thought into it at the time. Sad thing is, All I can find now doing a search of google is a bunch of conspiracy pages, which help in the least.

The bad part about trying to research "theories" on the internet is you get a lot of non-facts.
Well I guess when you research anything in general these days.

You have people that will believe it is a conspiracy no matter what. You also have the fact that if it really WERE a conspiracy then you won't be getting the correct information from the usual sources either.

We'll just have to wait until all of the "Officials" get to Deep Throat's age and have them come clean