Loose Change 2nd Edition - 9/11 Conspiracy Documentary

[weedmeister2]

---

Hibong lang ko fafi kay ive been probably to about 6 to 8 of those bases and was stationed personally on 3 of those mentioned and they are NOT SECRET BASES , they even have a playground inside the base for the babysitting of the kids of active service members hehehe .

Mao ba bro...? oist, basin ALIEN na ka ha...? heheheh

[chad_tukes]

What kind of QUESTION is that ? May I have the pleasure of asking you once again ... w/o these CONSPIRACY THEORIST who are themselves US citizens and are based in the US , w/o their challenges , doubts , questions and criticism's , where would you MR CHAD TUKES and JUAN MIGUEL will position yourselves regarding 9/11 ? DO you even have your own QUESTION that needs to be answered or you just JUMPED to BANDWAGONS ? Other than that being a CONSPIRACY THEORIST based in the US , you are more inclined of what really happened w/c is a TERRORIST ATTACK . Though I doubt either you being a CONSPIRACY THEORIST , gibasehan ninyo hinuon .

Bai, let me ask you just one simple question this time. How do you define a Conspiracy Theory? Isn't it all about formulating questions and not jumping into conlusions without even having any basis to support it? I guess you don't understand what a "Theory" means. There are some (take note, some) questions that are formulated but has never been proven. That is also the reason why questions are made as to why this and that happened.

And about your question, do we have our own questions that needs to be answered? Of course we do. The US government never even provided us with very concrete evidences bai to counteract the Conspiracy theorists' questions. Now how do you see that?

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Bai, let me ask you just one simple question this time. How do you define a Conspiracy Theory?

I dont have my own DEFINITION of it but my guidelines are based on the definition provided by legit dictionaries such as from MERRIAM WEBSTER online dictionary .

CONSPIRACY THEORY :

Main Entry: conspiracy theory
Function: noun
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
- conspiracy theorist noun

THEORY :

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS

Here , the definition of theory is relevant to words :

- ASSUMING
- SPECULATION
- ABSTRACT
- PROPOSE
- ANALYSIS
- IDEAS

Not a single word related to TRUTH and REALITY .

Isn't it all about formulating questions and not jumping into conlusions without even having any basis to support it?

Too bad its not YOU who is FORMULATING the questions . The thing is , do you know why a QUESTION was FORMULATED ?

I guess you don't understand what a "Theory" means.

Your guess is not good as mine , see above " THEORY " definition .

There are some (take note, some) questions that are formulated but has never been proven.

And those questions are the one you GRASPED on from the movie ? I myself would fall on that trap but because I rely more on better and accurate , reliable sources ... rather than sources that only wants to SENSATIONALIZED or worst make money out of the expene of others and escalate PROPAGANDA , then its obvious where you will see siding with specially if I am involved PERSONALLY .

That is also the reason why questions are made as to why this and that happened.

There is also a FINE LINE between questioning and blaming . Dont you think ?

And about your question, do we have our own questions that needs to be answered? Of course we do. The US government never even provided us with very concrete evidences bai to counteract the Conspiracy theorists' questions. Now how do you see that?

LOLZ ... which question was that of yours ? Or was that the QUESTIONS of CONSPIRACY THEORIST ? Now lets go back to JUMPING to BANDWAGONS please . BTW .... when you expect someone to PROVIDE you a VERY CONCRETE EVIDENCE , make sure that you have also enough GRONDS and SOLID BASIS as to why yoiu need to ASK A QUESTION or bisan QUESTION sa uban na lang then sakay na lang sa uso .

[tolstoi]

Dubious Airline Phone Calls


The Mathematical Impossibility

Note: The communications suites commonly used on board private aircraft do not use the same conventional cellphone technology, as purported to have been used onboard Flight 93.

The official report states that regular cellphones were used, as later confirmed by the passengers' cellphone bills. A little homework on the mathematics & nature of cellphone networks verifies the total impossibility of making regular cellphone calls at any sort of altitude in a commercial aircraft.

Here's why:

Cellphone networks operate with each cell covering about 10 square miles (26 square kilometers), with the transmitter in the centre of the cell. Using the formula: Area = pi r squared:

10 miles = 3.14 x (r x r) , therefore giving a radius of approximately 1.784 miles. In other words, the range of the transmitter is therefore slightly greater than 1.784 miles. To round it up, let's call it 2 miles for the sake of arguement.

There are 5,280 feet in a mile, therefore 2 miles = 10,560 feet. Since no signal is transmitted beyond that range, normal cellphone reception at higher altitudes is clearly not possible.

Signal Strength and Shielding.

Further to this, it's widely-known that cellphones do not receive the signal as effectively in a car, due to it being a metal tube - a Faraday cage. This phenomenon also holds in aircraft - another type of metal tube / Faraday Cage. Vans & other vehicles with a lot of metal & little glass cause more of a problem than cars with a lot of glass - the metal acts as shielding, blocking the signal reception - a problem in an aircraft, with relatively few windows. Buildings also block signal on the ground - especially old, solid stone ones - & it can be necessary to move close to a window before you get good reception again. Anything solid will block the signal, & metal provides pretty good shielding.The effective range of cellphone transmitters is therefore closer to a theoretical maximum of approximately 7,000 feet.

Additionally, I had the opportunity to test this recently, between 6th - 14th January 2006, over a total of 10 take-offs and landings at various airports: Glasgow, London Heathrow, Montreal & Calgary, using 3 cellphones, aged between brand new & 5 years old. Although subsequent theft deprived me of my exact measurements, 6,500 feet was indeed the maximum altitude at which any reception was possible - and this only on one occasion. Signal reception became impossible between 2,000 - 5,000 feet on the other 9 occasions, with all 3 cellphones losing signal almost simultaneously. I generally regained signal only 2 minutes before touchdown / lost signal within 2 minutes of takeoff - in other words, very low altitude indeed.

Transmitters for new "3G" networks are much more powerful than the conventional "2G" / "2.5G" technology that was in place / undergoing initial testing in 2001. There are several pressure groups campaigning against the new "3G" network transmitters, due to the increased power output & associated health risks (I have no knowledge of whether these health risks are real or perceived). However, following the basic precepts of radio technology, this increase in power would certainly be indicative of increased range.

This UMTS article dated 7th Sept. 2004 goes into some detail regarding the increase in range of one of the new 3G technologies:

For a city with a population of 100,000, like Erlangen in Germany, a single site rented by E-Plus on a tall chimney will be sufficient to give the entire city UMTS coverage. By way of comparison, the conventional technology would require 14 UMTS base stations to provide the same coverage. A single UHS mounted on the 234-metre tall Rheinturm tower in Dusseldorf will replace no fewer than 40 conventional base stations.

The older technology in use in 2001 could not have extended beyond the range given above, since the varying transmitter range figures that are given in more recent articles reflect the new technologies in play these days. Over a year ago, the available data on transmitter range didn't extend to the upper limits that are now indicated, & explains why I haven't revised my calculations since then to include technologies which, to the best of my knowledge & investigations, were at best on the drawing board - but not undergoing testing at that stage.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article taken from the group infamously named:

LET'S ROLL-KING ROLL.ORG

<joke..i just made that up>

[tolstoi]

Pentagon Releases Video of Plane Hitting Building on 9/11
Tuesday, May 16, 2006

WASHINGTON — Conspiracy theorists may or may not be disappointed Tuesday when they see footage released from the Pentagon showing two angles of American Flight 77 hitting the western wall of the building on Sept. 11, 2001.

The Department of Justice released the videotape after a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a government watchdog. The request was made to quiet claims by some that pictures from that day never showed an airplane, only the "alleged" impact of the plane. Those claims spawned theories that the U.S. government faked the crash at the Pentagon.

"We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77. As always, our prayers remain with all those who suffered as a result of those murderous attacks."

One of the tapes is from a security camera that was used to produce five still shots on that day. That video, which takes pictures in half-second increments, shows the nose cone of the plane clearly entering the picture, then a blur and then a fireball.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195702,00.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HERE's THE ACTUAL FOOTAGE <daw> as released by the U.S government:



But the conpiracy theorist <like me> believes that the actual footage should look like this:

only a demo..not an actual scenario



SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

@ Bai TOLS .... but whoever mathematician who computed that , it does not CLOSE the doors of the POSSIBILITY of CELLPHONE COMMUNICATION .... the air up there .

[tolstoi]

@ Bai TOLS .... but whoever mathematician who computed that , it does not CLOSE the doors of the POSSIBILITY of CELLPHONE COMMUNICATION .... the air up there .

yup..theory ra na bai..pag matikmatik kung possible ba ang cellfone communication within that range.

it's up to the US government to disprove these allegations...but until now they are still mum about it..nganu kaha yadz? =)

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

yup..theory ra na bai..pag matikmatik kung possible ba ang cellfone communication within that range.

Mao lage nakadaot ... some people MISINTERPREST theory and then CONCLUDES right away ... a THEORY is a THEORY .

it's up to the US government to disprove these allegations...but until now they are still mum about it..nganu kaha yadz? =)

It is not the question of why they are still MUM up to this date . Its the question of DE WE NEED TO ? I myself tried it personally using my cellphone when I was inside PAL heading to Cebu . It worked fine and I know it was a stupid to do such a thing .

[tolstoi]

Mao lage nakadaot ... some people MISINTERPREST theory and then CONCLUDES right away ... a THEORY is a THEORY .

It is not the question of why they are still MUM up to this date . Its the question of DE WE NEED TO ? I myself tried it personally using my cellphone when I was inside PAL heading to Cebu . It worked fine and I know it was a stupid to do such a thing .

But the author of the said article had proven the theory first hand..i'm not saying that this is conclusive but i'm just wondering why the U.S. does not disprove any of these claims..perhaps utilizing the Spiral of Silence strategy?

"Additionally, I had the opportunity to test this recently, between 6th - 14th January 2006, over a total of 10 take-offs and landings at various airports: Glasgow, London Heathrow, Montreal & Calgary, using 3 cellphones, aged between brand new & 5 years old. Although subsequent theft deprived me of my exact measurements, 6,500 feet was indeed the maximum altitude at which any reception was possible - and this only on one occasion. Signal reception became impossible between 2,000 - 5,000 feet on the other 9 occasions, with all 3 cellphones losing signal almost simultaneously. I generally regained signal only 2 minutes before touchdown / lost signal within 2 minutes of takeoff - in other words, very low altitude indeed."

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

But the author of the said article had proven the theory first hand..i'm not saying that this is conclusive but i'm just wondering why the U.S. does not disprove any of these claims..perhaps utilizing the Spiral of Silence strategy?

Like I said bai .... there are lots of FACTORS to consider . It is not a matter of PROVING such a THEORY but mere cguro coincidence lang . Ngano siya wala man mo andar ? Ngano ako nakagamit man ? BTW Nokia to na 3300 na model kadtong karaan pod na 1 ra ka games n bitin bitin . Mas haytetch and langit sa Pilipinas or lain ug timpla angradar frequencies sa NAIA and Mactan ?

On the nature of the US Govt why they are not disproving anything ... is it NECESSARY ? Kung ako mismo na ulitmo ug si kinsa ra na bisdak , I know mo andar ang cellphone mintras naa ka sa sulod sa eroplano .