SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3069)9/27/2003 8:19:20 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Respond to of 20039
 
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you actually READ the stuff you yourself post??????
It CONTRADICTS you!!!

sorry pal, i've been working in the cell phone industry for YEARS, and your info is outdated at best and plain old ignorant at worst.

here, let me decimate this paragraph, and subsequently your entire argument:

"When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is that your cell phone needs to contact a transponder."

i'll let you slide with this one. transponder is an old black and white sci-fi term, not an industry term.

"Your cell phone has a max transmit power of five watts, three watts is actually the norm."

you don't have a pacemaker or anything, right? that 5 watt analog will fry an egg, old man. today's digitals use less than a watt.

"If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to 1. Contact a tower, 2. Tell the tower who you are, and who your provider is, 3. Tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and 4. Establish that it is in a roaming area before it passes out of a five watt range."

wrong again. a cell tower's range is between 5 and 20 miles, depending on terrain, weather, etc.
if you leave the range of one tower, the next tower will pick you up, and you won't ever know it. hell, they can pass a call from an analog roaming call to a digital signal, and you can't tell.
and your phone can go through the steps you listed in about 4 seconds.

"This procedure, called an electronic handshake, takes approximately 45 seconds for a cell phone to complete upon initial power up in a roaming area because neither the cell phone or cell transponder knows where that phone is and what mode it uses when it is turned on."

from power up this takes about 6-10 seconds. and the towers can pass you off so you never lose a connection.

"At 500 miles an hour, the aircraft will travel three times the range of a cell phone's five watt transmitter before this handshaking can occur."

i bet you get funny looks when you have to turn the crank on that monster bagphone of yours to "wind up the batteries"....

"Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible. The calls from the airplane were faked, no if's or buts."

but... but... you're wrong.


============================================================

Your data is out of data, modern cell phones do not take 45 seconds to establish a connection with a tower upon powerup in a roaming area. Try it yourself. It takes under 10 seconds (and that is being generous) unless you are on the extreme range and are barely getting any signal.

I'm in a roaming area now. My cell phone is off. Let's turn it on and see, shall we?

Searching.. Searching.. Connected. Voicmail notification. elapsed time: 5.7 seconds. And I'm in a research facility with metal between the walls (read low signal reception). Probably would have been faster if I was sanding outside but it would have been hard to drag my computer stopwatch out there.

Given the heavily populated areas which the planes were flying over, I would assume there would be at least a couple towers and/or relays that the phones could hook up to. They also probably had direct line-of-sight working for them, and the lack of anything but the plane's hull blocking direct contact.

Furthermore, a visit to Boeing's home page, as you suggested, did not confirm your claims, Perhaps if you posted a URL?

I have one for you: boeing.com

In which it clearly states that "At bank angles greater than 67 degrees, level flight cannot be maintained within flight manual limits for a 2.5 g load factor" Furthermore, there is a link in that article showing Boeing passenger planes rated up to about 3g's of force for SAFE emergency recovery maneuvers. However, the planes in question were neither flying level, nor were they intended to survive the extreme banking the pilots were subjecting them to. Therefore one could conclude that a pilot could force the plane into a relatively high-g turn if he wasn't expecting to stay within safe operating limits.

I suggest you do a little more research before trying to spread your anti-government messages (that was your intent, right? Without saying it, you are basically saying the entire 9/11 ordeal is a government scheme/coverup -- who else could manufacture cell phone calls, who else could "take control" of a passenger-filled 757 and fly it into a building?)

Come back to the real world. I am. I have that voicemail to answer =P


===========================================================

What this stated in that article is incorrect regarding the 757's and 767's. The 757 and 767, as used in the hijackings, aren't fly-by-wire aircraft, they're flight control systems are hydraulic, not computerised, all 757's and 767's have are onboard computerised warning systems to suggest actions to the pilot, a voice saying "PULL UP! PULL UP!" and alarms when diving are too low for example. I'd ask people to look into the Boeing 757 that crashed into a mountain ridge while trying to land at Cali, Colombia, in 1995, the 757's ground-warning system told the pilot to pull up, as he did, but the pilot did not retract the speed brakes as they climbed. The only Boeing that is fly-by-wire with build in computerised pilot assistance/override is the 777. On the 777 though the pilot has the ultimate say, pilots in general don't like being flown by computers, they can override the onboard computers and their built-in soft limits i.e. maximum g, pitch, roll etc on the 777.
The only airliners that have flight control computers that the pilot can't override are Airbus A320's and newer Airbus models - the most controversial airliners going among pilots.


===========================================================

He's a liar. 33Q10 is not NSA, it is Army. The "10" designates he is anywhere from an E-1 (buck private) to E-4 (specialist). He is a nothing with 4 years or less time in service. The 33Q MOS is a
microwave communications field engineer. They don;t even work on the Army's version of the cellular phone system (I did). Cell phones will work fine from a plane.


============================================================



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3069)9/27/2003 9:03:32 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20039
 
Ah, yes, another one from that link:

UGH - HELLO!

Who gives a damn if they can use their Digital PCS cell-phones??

Remember: They probably used the phones that are BUILT INTO THE HEADRESTS, in EVERY SINGLE ROW on those planes. Those planes have phones built into them, on every single row. You just swipe your credit card through it, and it charges your credit card, and you can talk.

It uses whatever Airline Cell Phone service they have.


=============================================================

And yet another:

Here's a comment I got back when I copied this post to a pilot's message board:

-----------------------------------------------------------
That wild flight of fantasy posted on another board is misinformed and ignorant. It speaks not to the facts, but to a kid who spends too much time on computer games and conspiracy theory.

He's talking about FMS programming, which performs within certain perameters. The FMS was not used to fly the airplanes into the buildings. They were handflown. The limitations the ill-informed author (Jim Heikkila) described do NOT apply when the airplane is handflown. Software does not protect the airplane in such circumstances.

The airplanes performance limitations can be exceeded. The posting by Mr. Heikkila is nonsensical and ignorant. Don't give it a moments notice, as it means nothing. Neither of those airplanes are flown by 'remote control,' and they were not flown by remote control on 09/11. Such fantasy is stupidity.

The CVR tapes were NOT 'blank.' A great deal of information has been obtained from data recorders and voice recorders; the poster is lying, or very ignorant.

'But due to a glitch in the system on a 757/767, rather than shutting off when the mic is redirected the voice recorder keeps running.'

A completely nonsensical statement. A CVR can be manually erased or stopped, but the mic isn't 'redirected.' It can be set for a lip mic, or an area mic, but it still picks up everything that is said, including very minute cockpit noises such as the flipping of a switch or the pulling of a breaker.

The poster is apparently passing himself off as someone who knows a lot, when in fact he doesn't even know a little. Ignore him; his information is nothing more than lies and mistruths designed to deceive and misinform. There is no substance to his comments.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oh. Raymond? I've made cell phone calls at 39,000 feet. From a jet. It works.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3069)9/27/2003 9:27:52 PM
From: Sidney Reilly  Respond to of 20039
 
Well that's certainly ominous news. Points even more strongly to the idea that the planes could have been remotely controlled all along because the cell phone calls were the only thing that seemed to say that was not a viable explanation. With no cell phone calls, no "eye witness" account of what was going on in the planes, then it's entirely possible the planes were remotely guided to their targets.

seebo.net

Dr. Paul Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, and presently Senior Research Fellow at Stamford University, has lent his support to the independent inquiry findings. He also claims that Osama Bin Laden was not responsible for September 11th. The doctor has challenged President Bush to make public the so-called “irrefutable evidence” incriminating Bin Laden.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3069)9/27/2003 11:16:41 PM
From: AK2004  Respond to of 20039
 
LOL, I know it is not nice to laugh at people like you but you're even more idiotic than usual and that must be Guinness World Records material <ggggg>

slate.msn.com

operatianl altitude of the cell phones is between 5 and 10 miles. IOW it is up to 53,000 feet.

Now here is a trick question for you; is 53,000 more or less than 35,000?



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3069)9/30/2003 7:09:20 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 20039
 
Fertile soil for Sept. 11 theories
Richard Bernstein/NYT NYT
Wednesday, October 1, 2003

News Analysis

BERLIN The first sign of the appeal of the new
theory among people for whom it should have
none was a standing-room-only meeting in June
at Humboldt University of Berlin, one of
Germany's premier institutions of higher learning.
But a lower sort of learning was taking place.

More than 700 people enthusiastically greeted a
series of speakers whose argument was that the
terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were not actually
carried out by the 19 young Islamic militants
identified by the FBI. That, the argument went, is
one of many lies and distortions being perpetrated
by something vaguely called "the media" and by
something very specific: the United States
government and the administration of President
George W. Bush.

Who, then, did carry out the attacks? The answer
was not clear, but the implication was: It was
either allowed to happen or supported by the
United States itself, or the United States actually
organized the attacks to give it a pretext to send
troops to Iraq and, more generally, to dominate
the world.

Since the meeting at the university, the Sept. 11
conspiracy theory mania has grown in strength in
Germany. At least four books are on the market
here. One of them, "The CIA and Sept. 11:
International Terror and the Role of the Secret
Services," by Andreas von Bülow, who was
Germany's federal research minister from
1980-82.

Von Bülow's book, which has been as high as No.
3 on the bestseller list in Germany, is, as the
magazine Der Spiegel put it, "full of the
subjunctive, would have, could have, may have."
He does not directly accuse Washington of
anything, but he writes that the planes hijacked
on Sept. 11 had been secretly fitted with
equipment allowing them to be guided from the
ground.

Most unsettling, perhaps, in a poll first published
by the newspaper Die Zeit in April and published
again two weeks ago by Der Spiegel, roughly one
in five Germans agreed with this statement: "Do
you believe that the attacks were carried out by
the United States government itself?" Germans
are not alone in subscribing to the theories. One
of the four books available here is the German
translation of "The Appalling Lie," by a French
conspiracy theorist, Thierry Meyssan, who
contends that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane
at all but was bombed in a way to make it look like
it was hit by a plane. The book has sold 200,000
copies in France.

"There's a group of people in every country who
will believe any nonsense," a senior German
government official said, dismissing the popularity
of the theories here as nothing unique. But some
analysts say there is something about both
Germany and Sept. 11 that does make the
Germans especially vulnerable to the conspiracy
claims.

"The simple answer is that Germany, as well as
France, was against the war in Iraq, and that
nonacceptance of the war in both countries has
created a lot of mistrust about the explanations for
the war," said Klaus Hillenbrand, managing editor
of the newspaper die tageszeitung, which has
done exposés of Sept. 11 rumors.

A prevailing explanation for the popularity of
conspiracy theories is that they give psychological
comfort to believers. Der Spiegel quotes the
American political scientist Michael Barkun as
saying that conspiracy theories allow people to
"understand everything perfectly" because they
disclose that "all the evil in the world can be
attributed to a single cause."

Some people contend that Germany is prone to
theories that attribute great evil to somebody else
because it gives a sort of exoneration for its Nazi
past. "There was a small portion of the population
in Germany that used the Vietnam War as an
excuse for the crimes of the Nazis," Hillenbrand
said.

"They had the impression, 'Ah, the Americans do
crimes, like My Lai, as well, so they are the same
as us.' It's a special form of anti-Americanism that
has gained some support in Germany," he said.

The New York Times

iht.com