OT Pilots for 911 Truth
michael...@mac.com
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
03/26/07
PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
Contact: Robert Balsamo
e-mail: pil...@pilotsfor911truth.org
OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and
aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and
Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their
2002 report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77",
consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path
Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder
(FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission
Report in several significant ways:
The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not
support official events.
All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to
have struck the light poles.
The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being
able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense
"5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the
Pentagon lawn.
The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact
time.
If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at
least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.
In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these
documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they
contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth
has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not
support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official
government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the
Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 .According to the 9/11
Commission Report, which relied heavily upon the NTSB Flight Path
Study, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM
on the morning of September 11, 2001 . However, the reported impact
time according to the NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45 . Also
according to reports, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon
and by doing so, struck down 5 light poles on Highway 27 in its path
to the west wall.
The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11
Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the
Pentagon.
John LaCroix
I don't know which data feeds the flight data recorder (barometric
altitude or radar altitude readings), but here a thought. On climeout
following take off, the pilot's would have reset their barametric
altimeter's to 29.92 mmHg as they passed throught 18,000' (or at least
this was what was done 15 years ago - I admittedly haven't kept up).
If the terrorists didn't reset the altimeter during descent, it's
concivable the baromtetric altimeter could be 100 to 300 feet off.
Matti Partonen
"John LaCroix" <John.L....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f8f00eb-2c0f-47b3...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[....]
> I don't know which data feeds the flight data recorder (barometric
> altitude or radar altitude readings), but here a thought. On climeout
> following take off, the pilot's would have reset their barametric
> altimeter's to 29.92 mmHg as they passed throught 18,000' (or at least
> this was what was done 15 years ago - I admittedly haven't kept up).
> If the terrorists didn't reset the altimeter during descent, it's
> concivable the baromtetric altimeter could be 100 to 300 feet off.
Competent investigators could not have failed to address issues like this
and to spell them out in their report, something along these lines: "Here we
have an apparent discrepancy. We see the following possibilities to resolve
it ......; we consider possibility x to be the most probable."
Matti P.
John LaCroix
> "John LaCroix" <John.L.LaCr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Yeah, that's what I would expect, but I haven't seen the NTSB report
(and am probably not competent to
understand it all).
michael...@mac.com
John any thoughts on why flight 93 had no fuel in it's tanks when it
crashed? Or why one engine was found 10 miles from the crash site?
MT
John LaCroix
>
> - Show quoted text -
No fuel in the tanks? I found a reference on the web to the movie
"United 93" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475276/goofs) that states in
the movie there is a shot of the cockpit
showing no fuel in the tanks. Other than that, how did they tell after
the crash that the fuel tanks were empty? As for the engine, I don't
know. 10 miles is alot. Maybe when the terrorists rolled the
plane toward the ground they over stressed and engine mount and it
came off in flight. I remember dropping 500 lb practice bombs during
low angle (< 15 degrees @ 500 IAS) passes at the range in kansas.
Walking the range after wards, you could see the spot where the bomb
hit the ground (round hole, blue paint) and see where the bomb exited
the ground 1/2 down range - the thing went into the ground and
'skipped' off the bedrock. So weird things happen when heavy objects
hit the ground going really fast. But 10 miles would be quite a ways
for something as large as an engine to 'skip'. My guess is that it
came off, which means broke or shot off.
John L.
michael...@mac.com
Because there was no fire that burned for hours afterwards, in fact
there is no evidence of a fire one would expect to see with a jet full
of fuel. All the other planes upon impact aledgedly had huge fires
that burned for hours. BTW, John I think your basing your info. on a
made for Hollywood drama.
As for the engine, I don't
> know. 10 miles is alot. Maybe when the terrorists rolled the
> plane toward the ground they over stressed and engine mount and it
> came off in flight.
I would assume the flight data recorder would have indicated an
engine broke off in flight right? On the Pilots for truth website
they have analyzed the black box of United 93 and found such things
that the official version of direction on the crash were different
form the black box, as well as the angle of decent before impact and
many other things.
My guess is that it came off, which means broke or shot off.
>
> John L.
My guess is it was shot down. Rumsfeild in a public statement said
flight 93 was shot down then later corrected himself. I can provid
the quote if your interested.
MT
John LaCroix
No, I remember him saying that.
> MT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not basing anything on drama - I just found a website that talked
about a movie that showed zero fuel at takeoff and wondered
if by some magic this factoid got transformed on the web into an item
being circulated as a fact. The story I remember said that the
terrorists rolled the plane and then put it into a dive, the roll
being meant to keep the passengers from breaking into the cockpit, but
to
be honest this was seven years ago and I haven't been paying
attention.
How did 'Pilots for truth' get there hands on the flight data
recorder? Did the NTSA just hand it over to them?
Now that you mention Rumsfeld's statement I seem to recall hearing it
- I thought it was Cheney that said it.
John L.
michael...@mac.com
I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I think the flight data
recorder was introduced as eviedence in the 911 commision report, as
well as the trial of the 19th hyjacker. I'm sure the Pilots who
studied the info. will say on their website.
> Now that you mention Rumsfeld's statement I seem to recall hearing it
> - I thought it was Cheney that said it.
>
> John L.
Here is a quick 30 second clip of Rumsfield saying flight 93 was shot
down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0
MT
michael...@mac.com
According to the Pilots for truth the altitude was by a radar. The
flight data recorder was obtained through a lengthy process under the
freedom of information act. The black box has a lag time of half a
second which is the industry standard these days for commercial
aircraft. Also data from the beacon at Reagan international airport
supports the flight data recorder. They also verified this by a third
means but I can't recall what it was. All three support the info. on
the flight data recorder, and not the 911 commission report.
The simple fact is, flight 77 was on a different angle and degree of
approach than the 911 commission and official story suggests. It was
also way too high to have hit the pentagon. Based on the flight data.
I'm sure you know, you can load data into a software program that will
show a computer animated recreation of the exact maneuvers and flight
information, this is really the only way to decipher all the data. The
reason we now know that flight 77 couldn't possibly have hit the
Pentagon is because of the light poles that were struck down in the
path of whatever it was that hit the Pentagon, are at a different
degree and angle.
The well known video that was released showing the impact of the
Pentagon does in fact show an aircraft. This aircraft is 20 feet
above the ground and is approaching parallel with the ground, most
likely at the same time that flight 77 flew over the Pentagon.
Flight 93 is the same story with the flight data recorder, full of
facts that again differ greatly from the official 911 commission
report.
MT
John LaCroix
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now I'm confused. Were we talking about flight 93 (that crashed in PA)
or flight 77?
michael...@mac.com
Both! I would think as a pilot you would find this information
fascinating and you, more than I, or most of us, would understand the
terminology better. If you go the this site....
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
Scorll down to the video " Air France 1998". All of the flight data
is analyzed and presented by
Calum Douglas in London. After seeing this you will be effected to
say the least.
Also, see the data form flight 93 here......
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Pandora%27s+box&sitesearch=#q=Pandora's%20box%20pilots%20for%20truth&sitesearch=
MT
Matti Partonen
<michael...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:cb90bf3b-66ae-4d8c...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> PRESS RELEASE
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
> 03/26/07
> PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
> www.pilotsfor911truth.org
>
> Contact: Robert Balsamo
> e-mail: pil...@pilotsfor911truth.org
>
> OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA
> Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and
> aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and
> Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their
> 2002 report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77",
> consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path
> Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder
> (FDR).
This is a bit odd, as the document at
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm states that the
Flight Data Recorder of Flight 77 was never found. According to that
document, the FDR of Flight 93 only has been found.
Matti P.
michael...@mac.com
> <michaeltham...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cb90bf3b-66ae-4d8c...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > PRESS RELEASE
>
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
> > 03/26/07
> > PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
> >www.pilotsfor911truth.org
>
> > Contact: Robert Balsamo
> > e-mail: pil...@pilotsfor911truth.org
>
> > OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA
> > Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and
> > aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and
> > Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their
> > 2002 report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77",
> > consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path
> > Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder
> > (FDR).
>
> Flight Data Recorder of Flight 77 was never found. According to that
> document, the FDR of Flight 93 only has been found.
>
> Matti P.
Matti, have a look at this website ( if you haven't already) scroll
down to " in 1998 Air France".
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
Fascinating presentation and in depth analysis of the Flight data
recorder from Untied 77. He states how he abtained the flight data
recorder from United 77. In a separate interview with Jim Lear of
Learjet fame, Mr. Lear brings up an oddity he noticed it the data
recorder of flight 77 as it began it's decent the altimeter was
reset. Something your average hijacker wouldn't do or care about.
Also the data stops just short of hitting the Pentagon another very
strange thing.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
MT
Matti Partonen
<michael...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:5c3ff6ae-3345-44c0...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... [....]
>> This is a bit odd, as the document
>> athttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htmstates that the
>> Flight Data Recorder of Flight 77 was never found. According to that
>> document, the FDR of Flight 93 only has been found.
>>
>> Matti P.
>
> Matti, have a look at this website ( if you haven't already) scroll
> down to " in 1998 Air France".
> http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
>
> Fascinating presentation and in depth analysis of the Flight data
> recorder from Untied 77. He states how he abtained the flight data
> recorder from United 77. In a separate interview with Jim Lear of
> Learjet fame, Mr. Lear brings up an oddity he noticed it the data
> recorder of flight 77 as it began it's decent the altimeter was
> reset. Something your average hijacker wouldn't do or care about.
> Also the data stops just short of hitting the Pentagon another very
> strange thing.
> http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
I watched the first half of the (almost an hour long) video, and what I get
is this:
Calum Douglas presents what is allegedly the data from the FDR of Flight 77.
According to this data, (1) the FDR stopped recording at about the time
something hit the Pentagon, and (2) the flight path according to the FDR
data is not consistent with the observed physical damage at and near the
Pentagon.
Here we have a discrepancy, for which I can see only two possible
explanations:
a. the airplane sensors have transmitted wrong data to the FDR. But,
presumably, those same sensors feed also the plane's flight control systems,
and if those systems get wrong data, the plane does not behave well.
b. the FDR data is not from Flight 77 FDR at all, but from some other
source. Since other airplane crashes are not known near the Pentagon at the
same time, the data cannot come from the FDR of some other plane but must be
bogus, fabricated, and then presented as genuine evidence.
As I said I did not watch the video to thr end, but from the way the video
begins one might guess that Calum Douglas opts for explanation b. If
somebody has explanations c., d., ..., I would be happy to hear them.
Matti P.
Andrew Schulman
> As I said I did not watch the video to thr end, but from the way the video
> begins one might guess that Calum Douglas opts for explanation b. If
> somebody has explanations c., d., ..., I would be happy to hear them.
>
>
site matched to Flight 77 would in some way serve as evidence that
Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?
Andrew
enp...@cox.net
for essentially ceding control to forces beyond your grasp.
Personally, I find it neither useful nor interesting. I don't care
what happened or who might be lying to whom.
Richard Yates
>site matched to Flight 77 would in some way serve as evidence that
>Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon? Andrew
Can you prove that those body parts were not cloned in advance as part of
the plan?
Wollybird
They duct tapped that stuff to the cruse missle to make it look good.
michael...@mac.com
> <michaeltham...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5c3ff6ae-3345-44c0...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 3:40 pm, "Matti Partonen" <matti.parto...@dlc.fi> wrote:
> [....]
>
>
>
> >> This is a bit odd, as the document
> >> Flight Data Recorder of Flight 77 was never found. According to that
> >> document, the FDR of Flight 93 only has been found.
>
> >> Matti P.
>
> > Matti, have a look at this website ( if you haven't already) scroll
> > down to " in 1998 Air France".
> >http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
>
> > Fascinating presentation and in depth analysis of the Flight data
> > recorder from Untied 77. He states how he abtained the flight data
> > recorder from United 77. In a separate interview with Jim Lear of
> > Learjet fame, Mr. Lear brings up an oddity he noticed it the data
> > recorder of flight 77 as it began it's decent the altimeter was
> > reset. Something your average hijacker wouldn't do or care about.
> > Also the data stops just short of hitting the Pentagon another very
> > strange thing.
> >http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
>
> I watched the first half of the (almost an hour long) video, and what I get
> is this:
>
> Calum Douglas presents what is allegedly the data from the FDR of Flight 77.
> According to this data, (1) the FDR stopped recording at about the time
> something hit the Pentagon, and (2) the flight path according to the FDR
> data is not consistent with the observed physical damage at and near the
> Pentagon.
Matti here is a more useful video. It's only 9 minutes but
basically sums up all of your concerns. What Rob Balsamo is showing is
very interesting. The NTSB officially reports the angle of impact
that is different than the FDR indicates. Rob also demonstrates that
based on the last known data, flight 77 was 313 feet above the ground
2 seconds before impact. This means the Cavemen would have had to
throw the plane into an extreme dive, level out parallel with the
lawn, all within 2 seconds. Flight 77 keep in mind was a fully
loaded 100 ton aircraft not designed for such maneuvers.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Pandora%27s+box+flight+77&sitesearch=#
I think based on Rob Balsamo's research and says in the short above
video he concludes the NTSB FDR is bogus. This FDR was obtained from
the NTSB under the freedom of information act. Fortunately there are
other ways to obtain data as you will see in the video.
>
> Here we have a discrepancy, for which I can see only two possible
> explanations:
>
> a. the airplane sensors have transmitted wrong data to the FDR. But,
> presumably, those same sensors feed also the plane's flight control systems,
> and if those systems get wrong data, the plane does not behave well.
Rob points out that the reported maneuver of flight 77 a 330%
downward spiral at a rapid decent could conceivably cause the data to
go haywire and stop recording. However in this short video he
explains this as well.
>
> b. the FDR data is not from Flight 77 FDR at all, but from some other
> source. Since other airplane crashes are not known near the Pentagon at the
> same time, the data cannot come from the FDR of some other plane but must be
> bogus, fabricated, and then presented as genuine evidence.
Absolutely like every other so called fact the 911 commission comes
up with.
>
> As I said I did not watch the video to thr end, but from the way the video
> begins one might guess that Calum Douglas opts for explanation b. If
> somebody has explanations c., d., ..., I would be happy to hear them.
>
> Matti P.
Matti, one of the most troubling little talked about events at the
Pentagon that I've come across is the E-4B otherwise known as the
"Doomsday plane". If you read nothing else this week have a look at
this article it's a bit long but it is very good!
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Gaffney_911Mystery%20Plane.pdf
Witness report see the E-4B circling over restricted air space prior
to, during, and after the attack of the Pentagon. This plane has the
MOST advanced radar and communications systems in the world. It the
command center if all the command centers have been destroyed in a
nuclear attack.
Keep in mind Cheney had knowledge for 40 minutes a plane was
headed for the Pentagon .....“During the time that the airplane was
coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and
say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30
miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the
young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?”
And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of
course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the
contrary!?
In the most restricted heavily guarded air space on the planet they
couldn't scramble one single fighter jet to shoot down flight 77 while
an E-4B was circling over head observing everything? Cheney clearly
gave stand down orders to allow the plane or whatever it was to hit
the Pentagon, as can be seen below....
Norman Mineta made it clear to reporters-- who verified his quotes
in written text alongside him-- that Mineta was indeed talking about a
stand down order not to shoot down hijacked aircraft headed for the
Pentagon.
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260607_mineta.html
MT
michael...@mac.com
Go back to sleep!
MT
michael...@mac.com
That a pretty pathetic line of reasoning. But don't worry there
plenty of people who are working on this on your behalf. We'll awake
you when it's over.
MT
michael...@mac.com
Richard, try googling the serial numbers of these planes. At the same
time Richard, I apologize for supplying you with actual facts, as your
mode of operation is better suited to character analysis of delusional
conspiracy theorists.
Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and
published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past
20 years, the 9/11 ‘black boxes’ are virtually the only ones without
listed serial numbers.
NTSB American Airlines flight 77 flight data recorder report, not
noting a device serial number:
http://www.911myths.com/AAL77_fdr.pdf
NTSB United Airlines flight 93 flight data recorder report, not noting
a device serial number:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf
The United States government alleges that 4 registered Boeing
commercial passenger aircraft were used in the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks, yet has failed to produce any physical evidence
collected from the 3 9/11 crash scenes positively tied to these
federally registered United and American airlines aircraft. Despite
the release of abundant information regarding the 9/11 flights and the
aircraft reportedly used, specific information that would confirm
official allegations regarding the identity of these aircraft has been
mysteriously withheld or denied upon request.
The federally registered aircraft reportedly used during the 9/11
attacks:
- American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175
(N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines
flight 93 (N591UA).
With flight data recorder serial number data that is virtually always
provided within NTSB reports of major U.S. commercial airline crashes
that occur within U.S. territory, one can trace an installed device to
a particular registered aircraft through manufacturer or Federal
Aviation Administration records.
The following e-mail was provided by a Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on
12/26/2007, in response to a 12/16/2007 public correspondence e-mail
inquiry:
“Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the
identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during
those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major
components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in
an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed
upon.”
A 11/26/2007 Freedom of Information Act request of the Federal
Aviation Administration for the last known serial numbers of the
flight data recorders and other components contained by the aircraft
said to have been used during the 9/11 attacks, was unlawfully
denied.
MT
Matti Partonen
"Andrew Schulman" <abac...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:8902cc80-5dc2-4e8d...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I just would like to see a thorough investigation which would at least
attempt to address *all* perceived discrepancies. So far there has been
none.
If it was Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon (and please notice that I
am not saying it wasn't), then, assuming that the plane's flight control
systems were working correctly, the data from the plane's FDR are
necessarily consistent with the observed physical damage. If they are not
(and Calum Douglas argues that they are not), an explanation is called for.
See the video.
My work was once troubleshooting software systems of significant size. If I
had a problem situation with 10 observed anomalies, I had to find
explanations to all 10 until I could be somewhat confident that I had
identified the cause correctly. After having explained 9 of the 10 anomalies
I might have had an idea of the cause; finding explanation to the 10th might
not have changed that idea, or it might. So, in my view, in order to arrive
at the truth in cases like the 9/11 tragedy, one simply cannot afford to
ignore *any* discrepancies in available data.
I am not in the least interested in questions like "conspiracy or not", or
in childish jokes about "cloning body parts", or the like. The 9/11 tragedy
has, believe or not, affected also my life in remote Finland, and I would
like to get to the bottom of it.
So, explanations c., d., ... anybody?
Matti P.
Slogoin
>
> My work was once troubleshooting software systems of significant size. If I
> had a problem situation with 10 observed anomalies, I had to find
> explanations to all 10 until I could be somewhat confident that I had
> identified the cause correctly.
Matti,
You've said this twice and it makes me wonder. What exactly did
you do where you could nail down everything in a large system? I've
never heard of such a thing in all the years I worked in the software
industry. Did you write code for large systems? What is a large system
to you?
I wrote code for the Winblows printing system (a relatively small
system) and even the guys who wrote the Winblows code couldn't figure
out some of the bugs we had just in the printing subsystem. Sometimes
we couldn't even reliably reproduce bugs and ended up leaving them
open indefinitely. I can't imagine being able to nail down every bug
in a large system. How did you do that? You could make some very
serious money (way more than Bill Gates) helping others learn to do
that. 100% reliability is amazing!
Andrew Schulman
Michael-
Please answer this question:
"Do you think the fact that aircraft debris and body parts found at
the
site matched to Flight 77 would in some way serve as evidence that
Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?"
Andrew
michael...@mac.com
Andrew you stated the parts "matched" flight 77 how do you know that?
Where did you find this information? American Airlines flight 77
(N644AA) actually hit the Pentagon? As I stated, there have been no
matched serial numbers identifying fight 77. This is unheard of in
the history of NTSB. But Andrew don't take my word for it, try and
google these serial numbers, and get back to us. Or I know why don't
you ask your sidekick Wollibird to do some research on this as well?
Just remeber one thing Andrew your getting most of your information
from the 911 commission report. The Chairman of the 911 commission is
Thomas H Kean he states "the 911 commission was set up to fail" you
can hear the entire quote in the 30 second YouTube in the link below.
It's now up to us as patriots and citizens to demand a new
investigation! Or are you content to believe an offical report in
which the Chairman himself admits was set up to fail. After Kennedy
assassination, it took 7 days to set up a commission to investigate,
pearl harbor 7 days, 911 took 425 days with Bush and Cheney blocking
their every move.
MT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrv-e37Es8&eurl=http://911blogger.com/
MT
Andrew Schulman
> Andrew you stated the parts "matched" flight 77 how do you know that?
> Where did you find this information? American Airlines flight 77
> (N644AA) actually hit the Pentagon?
>
>
Your "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" and other such websites are businesses.
Knowing they would have a good supply of gullible people like you to
sell DVD's, books, and T-shirts to, they went into the business of
manipulating information to take advantage of the conspiracy mindset
that floats around in the population. Go to any of these websites and
see just how much merchandise is on sale.
And take a look at how much they distort and lie; even Stanley Yates
who had not previously gotten involved here in these discussions
quickly spotted a falsehood and posted about it a few days ago.
You and those like you on this issue ignore the most basic questions,
and refuse to examine any of the ample information, the many articles
and many websites, that refute the conspiracy gobbledygook.
Some of the basic questions are:
1) Why is it you think 9/11 wasn't planned and executed by Al-Qaeda?
2) It would have taken thousands, or tens of thousands of people, to
plan and execute a conspiracy by Bush/Cheney. Yet there is not an
ounce of evidence of this, not a single person has come forward.
3) If this Conspiracy information is so compelling why hasn't a single
major media source with all their investigative resources, especially
sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc., that
have revealed so many misdeeds, especially government misdeeds, in the
past, come up with the same conclusions as the Conspiracy Theorists?
These are general questions, I am not now asking you these questions,
you've been asked them before and have evaded every single attempt by
anyone here to speak directly to these kinds of questions, and you've
disparaged every person, whether here or in the Guardian articles I
posted about, or anything else, with personal attacks to their
integrity or intelligence. So, don't bother repeating yourself.
Quite frankly, there is no rational debate with you, there is only a
waste of time that I am quite tired of.
People have asked here, and privately, why I have spent so much time
on this with you. The answer is that it has been an obligation I have
felt to the many friends I had at Windows On The World/WTC that died
on the morning of 9/11. As some of you may recall, I worked there as
a guitarist, solo and with my group, many hundreds of times over a 24-
year period, my last gig was in late August 2001. If the host of the
breakfast meeting there that morning had wanted music it would have
been me. 114 people died at that breakfast, and 84 staff people at
the restaurant.
So, except for a quick comment if I feel in the mood, I'm done with
your 9/11 theory threads. I tried to talk sense to you but that is
not possible, a point you've proved many times.
All you and your fellow Conspiracy advocates are doing is helping to
create confusion and mistrust. Ironically, one of the biggest
beneficiaries of you Conspiracy Theorists is the Bush Administration!
There is so much that they actually are guilty of that you just muddy
the waters with your nonsense, to their benefit.
Andrew
Postscript:
Richard Yates posted the following a few weeks ago, I think it
deserves a second airing:
eSkeptic: the email newsletter of the Skeptics Society
How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism
by John Ray
>
>
Skeptics today bemoan the overwhelming proportion of people who claim
to believe in all manner of conspiracy theories from the JFK
assassination to the origins of HIV-AIDS. For that reason, it may be
worthwhile to take a moment to stop and celebrate one area in which
skeptical advocacy has been overwhelming successful: the world of 9/11
conspiracies. Through the work of scholars like Michael Shermer and
James Meigs, along with everyday skeptics on the grassroots level,
critical inquiry has been overwhelmingly successful in calling these
conspiracy theorists to task.
>
>
A tragedy on a scale at least comparable to Pearl Harbor or the
Kennedy assassination was bound to inspire a conspiracy subculture,
but the takeoff success of the viral Internet documentary Loose Change
and the movement it created was unprecedented. Looking out on the
world in 2005 when Change became one of the most-watched Internet
videos of all time, with over ten million unique viewers1, it was hard
to anticipate a future that was anything but bleak for those who felt
it was their duty to defend history from such pseudohistorians.
>
>
Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 "truth movement" has ground to
a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the
downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned
skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James
Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and
winning. Skeptics are better at their jobs than they think, and its
important to give credit where credit is due.
>
>
Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may
have been the 9/11 deniers’ biggest mistake. What seems like a perfect
place for pseudoscience — the Internet is un-edited, without fact-
checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind — also became a
perfect place for a rapid-response system of blogs and forums to fight
back. Drawing on the freely available technical information from the
NIST, FEMA, and academic journals which most colleges let their
students access for free, skeptical sites like
ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com <http://ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com/>
and debunking911.com <http://debunking911.com/>
are able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise.
>
>
The Internet forced many "ground-level" 9/11 deniers — those who
spread the gospel on popular social networking sites like Facebook and
in their own blogosphere — into a rhetorical corner.
>
>
Instantaneous information traps old, welldiscussed claims into sheer
redundancy. In three years of debating 9/11 deniers, I have
encountered almost the exact same laundry list of claims on dozens of
occasions. The same resources have been successful in debunking 9/11
myths since their inception, tipping the debate against them. The
first Loose Change was a sweeping work that, by this author’s
estimation2, implicated roughly 578,000 people in their version of
9/11; the "final edition," though twice as long, has orders of
magnitude less content and almost zero positive claims, drumming up a
meager 8,200 suspects3. This is almost certainly a result of Internet-
based skeptics bombarding Loose Change’s makers with the facts.
>
>
What should go down as a knockout blow to the 9/11 denier movement,
what Michael Shermer called "just about one of the best things ever
done in the history of skepticism,"4 is the now-famous Popular
Mechanics article turned into a best-selling book that debunked many
of the top points the conspiracy theorists relied on. Joining a chorus
of mainstream publications including Skeptic and taking the central
claims head on, the Popular Mechanics article became a cornerstone for
the 9/11 denier movement’s undoing.
>
>
The spike in 2006, prompted by the live debate between the editors of
Popular Mechanics and the producers of the documentary Loose Change,
shows that not only was the skeptical perspective more well-accepted
than the conspiracy perspective, it began to dictate the conversation.
(Graph
produced using Google Trends by the author.)
>
>
The Popular Mechanics article was published in its March 2005 issue
and became an Internet hit after the live debate hosted by Democracy
Now! between Popular Mechanics editors Jim Meigs and David Dunbar and
Loose Change creators Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas. In the aftermath
of that debate — if this is any indicator of which side presented the
better case — that article became the most popularly searched item
pertaining to 9/11 conspiracies and, from that point on, the skeptical
perspective became the dominant voice pertaining to the movement. The
conversation was brought to the mainstream, and the mainstream made
its decision.
>
>
Today, the 9/11 conspiracy movement is a shell of what it once was.
The website masquerading as an academic journal, Journal of 9/11
Studies, has dropped from a high of six or seven articles published
per issue to one, and its February 2008 edition (it’s supposed to be
updated monthly) was simply skipped over, evidently for lack of a
single article. The introduction to the main hub of 9/11 denier
activity, 911truth.org <http://911truth.org/> , welcomes its visitors
with a plea that announces, "we’ve cut to the bare bones, but are
still far short of our basic budget needs."
Prominent "truthers" like Mark Dice, Dylan Avery, Jimmy Walter
(lambasted in Penn &
Teller’s Showtime series Bullshit! episode on 9/11), and Kevin Ryan
have dropped into obscurity. The well read author David Ray Griffin
continues to lecture, but to shrunken audiences, and this year’s big
9/11 rally looks to be set in Ottawa, not New York City — evidently
due to lack of interest.
>
>
The number of articles on the popular conspiracy site "Journal of 9/11
Studies" has rapidly dwindled since a peak last year. (Graph produced
using Microsoft Excel by the author.)
>
>
It is rare when those of us in the skeptical community get to
celebrate a concrete success in building public consensus on an issue
of pseudoscience. In the combination of grassroots Internet support
and mainstream media advocacy we have seen one such moment. It was
once feared that the 9/11 conspiracies would be the next JFK
conspiracies — silly yet pernicious, running
unchecked until it was too late. The opposite has happened here.
Because the skeptical
community gave the public some well-needed straight talk on the issue,
pulled no punches, and let no challenge go soundly unanswered, we have
won in six years what could have become a half-century long, uphill
battle as with JFK conspiracy theories. Here’s to winning once in
awhile.
>
References
>
1. Sales, N. "Click Here for Conspiracy." Vanity Fair, August, 2006,
www.vanityfair.com/ontheweb/features/2006/08/loosechange200608
2. Ray, J. "Total Personnel Required for ‘Loose Change’ Version of
9/11:
578,212," www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=34802512&op=1&
#38;o=all&view=all&subj=2211830485&aid=-1&oid=2211830485&id=5523995
<http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?
pid=34802512&op=1&o=all&view=all&su...>
. Original content created by author of this article based on
information
presented in "Loose Change: Final Cut."
3. Ray, J. "8,157 High-Ranking American, British, and Pakistani
Officials
are Out to Get You!"
http://conspiraciesrnotus.blogspot.com/2007/12/8157-high-ranking-amer...
.
Original content created by author of this article based on
information
presented in "Loose Change: Final Cut."
4. "9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction." Narr. Lester Holt.
Documentary. The
History Channel. 20 Aug. 2007.
enp...@cox.net
themselves than they are about their Precioussssss theory.
(Of course I'll expect that observation to fly over their collective
heads...)
michael...@mac.com
Your a fucking genius who ever you are!
MT
Richard Yates
>who had not previously gotten involved here in these discussions
>quickly spotted a falsehood and posted about it a few days ago.
Not exactly.....
michael...@mac.com
Just the facts please mame! Pleaeeeez don't lecture me on the mind of
a conspiracy theorist.
MT
Andrew Schulman
>
>
On Jun 21, 4:31 pm, yat...@apsu.edu wrote:
> Hi Michael.
>
> I'm not here to express any opinion one way or the other about 911,
> but we should be prepared to look at the various sides of an issue
> with the same critical eye. For example, the person you refer to
> above, Jeff King, is referred to all over the Internet as "MIT
> Engineer Jeff King." Which implies what? That he is an MIT engineering
> professor or or research fellow, or some such thing. In reality he's a
> retired family practitioner who studied engineering at MIT as an
> undergraduate 30 years ago. That backgound doesn't support a claim to
> expertise in structural engineering in the year 2008, in my opinion.
Andrew
Richard Yates
Sorry, Andrew. You are right. I missed that post.
Wollybird
> On Jun 23, 6:39 pm, michaeltham...@mac.com wrote:> Andrew you stated the parts "matched" flight 77 how do you know that?
> > Where did you find this information? American Airlines flight 77
> > (N644AA) actually hit the Pentagon?
>
> How do you know it didn't?
>
> Your "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" and other such websites are businesses.
> Knowing they would have a good supply of gullible people like you to
> sell DVD's, books, and T-shirts to, they went into the business of
> manipulating information to take advantage of the conspiracy mindset
> that floats around in the population. Go to any of these websites and
> see just how much merchandise is on sale.
I never thought about it that way. Some how there must be a way to
combine this idea with a titty bar in Santa Fe... I'll get back to you.
michael...@mac.com
Yes and then Stanley and I had a very nice convesation that night.
MT
Matti Partonen
"Slogoin" <la...@deack.net> wrote in message
news:eb0207e0-af07-4579...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 1:28 pm, "Matti Partonen" <matti.parto...@dlc.fi> wrote:
>
>> My work was once troubleshooting software systems of significant size. If
>> I
>> had a problem situation with 10 observed anomalies, I had to find
>> explanations to all 10 until I could be somewhat confident that I had
>> identified the cause correctly.
>
>Matti,
>
> You've said this twice and it makes me wonder. What exactly did
>you do where you could nail down everything in a large system?
I never said I could do that. Sometimes I could nail down the problem at
hand, sometimes not. What I described was an attitude, a way of approach,
with which to tackle the case at hand: one should strive to account for
*all* data, not just a - possibly hand-picked - subset of it, and not be
satisfied until all data has been accounted for, or time does not permit any
more effort to be spent.
I mentioned that in the context of 911 investigation because IMO a similar
attitude is very much needed in that investigation. Not because I say so,
but because doing things that way would add significantly to the credibility
of the conclusions. The more data is left unaccounted for, the more room
there is for speculation.
> I've
>never heard of such a thing in all the years I worked in the software
>industry. Did you write code for large systems? What is a large system
>to you?
>
> I wrote code for the Winblows printing system (a relatively small
>system) and even the guys who wrote the Winblows code couldn't figure
>out some of the bugs we had just in the printing subsystem. Sometimes
>we couldn't even reliably reproduce bugs and ended up leaving them
>open indefinitely. I can't imagine being able to nail down every bug
>in a large system. How did you do that? You could make some very
>serious money (way more than Bill Gates) helping others learn to do
>that. 100% reliability is amazing!
I should perhaps have qualified "significant size" by something like "at the
time". The time was the eighties, the sw system was the operating system of
Honeywell / Honeywell-Bull / Bull mainframes, symmetric multiprocessing,
segmented virtual memory, etc., networking was done outside the OS proper.
--
As you have written printing code for Windows, I have an anecdote for you. I
once (late 1990's) had a HP inkjet printer (in a Windows machine) whose
driver did not work as specified; it had problems in rendering PS Type 1
fonts. I kept complaining to HP for about eighteen months, when one of their
customer support people by mistake put me in contact with HP's printer
driver developers in Singapore. I sent them the problem description, my
suggestion for a fix (in pseudo-code, as I did not have the source), and got
a correctly working driver in return mail a couple of days later!
Matti P.
Matti Partonen
On Jun 23, 6:39 pm, michaeltham...@mac.com wrote:
>> Andrew you stated the parts "matched" flight 77 how do you know that?
>> Where did you find this information? American Airlines flight 77
>> (N644AA) actually hit the Pentagon?
>>
>>
>How do you know it didn't?
>
>Your "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" and other such websites are businesses.
>Knowing they would have a good supply of gullible people like you to
>sell DVD's, books, and T-shirts to, they went into the business of
>manipulating information to take advantage of the conspiracy mindset
>that floats around in the population. Go to any of these websites and
>see just how much merchandise is on sale.
>
>And take a look at how much they distort and lie; even Stanley Yates
>who had not previously gotten involved here in these discussions
>quickly spotted a falsehood and posted about it a few days ago.
Andrew,
I think that after this you are expected to provide a couple of examples of
how the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" website "manipulates information" and
"distorts and lies".
Matti P.
(who does not care about conspiracies)
Slogoin
>
> As you have written printing code for Windows, I have an anecdote for you. I
> once (late 1990's) had a HP inkjet printer (in a Windows machine) whose
> driver did not work as specified; it had problems in rendering PS Type 1
> fonts. I kept complaining to HP for about eighteen months, when one of their
> customer support people by mistake put me in contact with HP's printer
> driver developers in Singapore. I sent them the problem description, my
> suggestion for a fix (in pseudo-code, as I did not have the source), and got
> a correctly working driver in return mail a couple of days later!
>
> Matti P.
This makes zero sense to me. I didn't know HP had printer groups
outside the US but I do know of two groups in the US. How you could
provide pseudo-code for a driver that you had no source code for is
beyond my understanding. It's also amazing that it only took a couple
of days for you to get a driver that used your pseudo-code fix. I
don't suppose you remember exactly what the problem was or what your
fix was or which printer it was or what version of Winblows you had.
Maybe you got lucky and just contacted some tech support dude who
sent you the current build of a prerelease driver after seeing that
your bug was shown as fixed in the bug database.
Do you speak Postscript and GDI? I do, and also speak PCL(several)
and HPGL.
michael...@mac.com
> "Andrew Schulman" <abaca...@panix.com> wrote in message
Exactly so Matti! Andrew's angle is to ask me questions that can
never be answered, such as what was Bush and Cheney thinking, how many
people were involved, etc. These guys are far more interested with the
inner workings of MY brian, than with facts and evidence. I'm far
more concerned with inconsistencies in facts presented in the 911
commissions report. But Andrew, Richard Yates, Seth, Deack, Alain,
etc. never once have found a flaw with the report in which Thomas H.
Kean the Chairman of the 911 report, a staunch Republican says was
set up to FAIL from the beginning, simply because they are way too
lazy to be bothered. If one so much as questions this sacred report
you are instantly labeled a lunatic, conspiracy wacko etc. When in
fact those on the commission itself question it! All this in light of
recent revelations as to extent the present administration has gone to
lie it's way into a heinous war, wire tap Americans, dismantle the
justice department, torture, the list goes on. Hey but whatever you
do, don't question the 911 report!
Notice it makes no difference to any of the above mention fellows,
that the FBI said Ted Olsen never received a call from his wife while
she was onboard flight 77. Whoa! You think that would be front page
news! This is fact they can look up. But in reality they are far more
concerned with not awaking from their slumber, thus their dream might
come to a halt.
I vow here and now to give Andrew a brand new 8 string guitar if he
will tell me what the 911 commission said about building 7 collapse in
their report.
Perhaps instead of focusing on the inner workings of a conspiracy
nuts, we should take a look at the mind of "the fact denier", people
who when once formulate an idea, based on flawed intelligence, can't
quite make the transition into the world of reality.
MT
William D Clinger
> Andrew,
>
> I think that after this you are expected to provide a couple of examples of
> how the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" website "manipulates information" and
> "distorts and lies".
Andrew seems tired of this, and I don't blame him.
If it is really necessary to provide examples of
misleading distortions from that web site, I could
list several from just the article on cell phones.
(Although I am hardly an expert on cell phones, I
have held FCC first class radiotelephone and second
class radiotelegraph licenses, as well as amateur
extra, and was active when amateur radio operators
were pioneering the repeater technology that led to
today's cellular phones. David Ray Griffin and Rob
Balsamo, the authors of that article, have no such
expertise.)
Will
William D Clinger
> Your a fucking genius who ever you are!
Michael's standards resemble Jackson's.
Will
Society of RMCG Geniuses
Matti Partonen
On Jun 24, 5:47 am, "Matti Partonen" <matti.parto...@dlc.fi> wrote:
>
>> As you have written printing code for Windows, I have an anecdote for
>> you. I
>> once (late 1990's) had a HP inkjet printer (in a Windows machine) whose
>> driver did not work as specified; it had problems in rendering PS Type 1
>> fonts. I kept complaining to HP for about eighteen months, when one of
>> their
>> customer support people by mistake put me in contact with HP's printer
>> driver developers in Singapore. I sent them the problem description, my
>> suggestion for a fix (in pseudo-code, as I did not have the source), and
>> got
>> a correctly working driver in return mail a couple of days later!
>>
>> Matti P.
>
> This makes zero sense to me. I didn't know HP had printer groups
>outside the US but I do know of two groups in the US.
The development group was quite certainly in Singapore. The printer was
Deskjet 1120.
> How you could
>provide pseudo-code for a driver that you had no source code for is
>beyond my understanding. It's also amazing that it only took a couple
>of days for you to get a driver that used your pseudo-code fix. I
>don't suppose you remember exactly what the problem was or what your
>fix was or which printer it was or what version of Winblows you had.
I do remember the problem, but not the Windows version.
The problem was as follows: The printer could print in two resolutions, 300
dpi and 600 dpi. With the 300 dpi setting everything was as it should be.
With the 600 dpi setting TrueType fonts were rendered OK but PS Type 1 fonts
came out jagged, as if they were sent to the printer at 300 dpi and then
pixel enlarged by the printer firmware.
With the pseudocode suggestion I could only show what decisions should be
made at a certain logical point, but of course could not say where in the
code to do them. I seem to remember that the developer I communicated with
understood the problem immediately, so it may be that he had no use for my
suggestion. The fix was technically a minor one, and I got the updated
driver as soon as they had run some basic tests.
> Maybe you got lucky and just contacted some tech support dude who
>sent you the current build of a prerelease driver after seeing that
>your bug was shown as fixed in the bug database.
No, it was a head of a driver development group, at least he said he was.
> Do you speak Postscript and GDI? I do, and also speak PCL(several)
>and HPGL.
Postscript marginally, none of the rest.
Matti P.
michael...@mac.com
Will, your making the assumption Andrew is actually capable of
discerning misleading information, he seems far more caught up in his
emotional fog.
Will, interesting rant, yet all you did was tell us your area of
expertise, while at the same time I don't see a single fact in your
post. That seems to be the MO of you guys.
MT
Slogoin
> > This makes zero sense to me. I didn't know HP had printer groups
> >outside the US but I do know of two groups in the US.
>
> The development group was quite certainly in Singapore. The printer was
> Deskjet 1120.
They may have told you they were the development group but without
violating my NDAs I can only tell you that it's highly unlikely.
> With the pseudocode suggestion I could only show what decisions should be
> made at a certain logical point,
Again, this make no sense to me. I would simply have asked you for a
file that shows the problem.
> No, it was a head of a driver development group, at least he said he was.
Yes, it may be what he said. Did you send anybody a sample file of the
problem?
> Postscript marginally, none of the rest.
I think you just got lucky.
William D Clinger
> Will, your making the assumption Andrew is actually capable of
> discerning misleading information, he seems far more caught up
> in his emotional fog.
That's an excellent description of Michael Thames,
but not Andrew.
> Will, interesting rant, yet all you did was tell us your area of
> expertise, while at the same time I don't see a single fact in your
> post. That seems to be the MO of you guys.
I offered to state the facts if it is really
necessary. Listing specific examples of that
web site's misleading distortions is unnecessary
if all who are willing to consider actual facts
already see the distortions.
The short story, however, is that Griffin and
Balsamo's article is based upon a false premise
(that cell phones cannot work at high altitude)
compounded by multiple leaps of illogic.
Will
michael...@mac.com
Will, excellent right on par, you've done the Thames bashing intro.
But got any data to back it up your claims? Or shall the world take
your word for it? This is now the second time I've asked you, perhaps
a third times a charm.
MT
michael...@mac.com
Damn Will, I nearly forgot to ask you since we have a cell phone
expert in our mists. What are your thoughts on the claim Ted Olsen
received two calls from his wife while she was onboard flight 77,
while the FBI has now stated he never received a call from her while
she was onboard. Can you clear this up for us?
MT
Andrew Schulman
> I think that after this you are expected to provide a couple of examples of
> how the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" website "manipulates information" and
> "distorts and lies".
>
>
the Pentagon.
Andrew
Andrew Schulman
> Andrew seems tired of this, and I don't blame him.
>
>
>
>
> If it is really necessary to provide examples of
> misleading distortions from that web site, I could
> list several from just the article on cell phones.
>
> (Although I am hardly an expert on cell phones, I
> have held FCC first class radiotelephone and second
> class radiotelegraph licenses, as well as amateur
> extra, and was active when amateur radio operators
> were pioneering the repeater technology that led to
> today's cellular phones. David Ray Griffin and Rob
> Balsamo, the authors of that article, have no such
> expertise.)
>
>
Andrew
Matti Partonen
On Jun 24, 8:40 am, "Matti Partonen" <matti.parto...@dlc.fi> wrote:
>> > This makes zero sense to me. I didn't know HP had printer groups
>> >outside the US but I do know of two groups in the US.
>>
>> The development group was quite certainly in Singapore. The printer was
>> Deskjet 1120.
>
> They may have told you they were the development group but without
>violating my NDAs I can only tell you that it's highly unlikely.
It may be that when somebody introduces him/herself to you, you assume
he/she is lying.
>> With the pseudocode suggestion I could only show what decisions should be
>> made at a certain logical point,
>
>Again, this make no sense to me. I would simply have asked you for a
>file that shows the problem.
And I, being *very* familiar with the problem, had judged that there is
enough information without such files. The guy at the Singapore facility,
being a very bright person, agreed.
>>>Yes, it may be what he said. Did you send anybody a sample file of the
>>>problem?
>>
>> Postscript marginally, none of the rest.
>I think you just got lucky.
Maybe. But please rest assured that things went just as I had described. I
knew the basics of my trade.
Matti P.
Matti Partonen
Fair enough. I'll go through the site and see if I can find the claim. So
far the claim that I have seen there is that the FDR data that they got from
authorities does not support the view that Flight 77 caused the observed
damage at and near the Pentagon. I'll be back.
Matti P.
William D Clinger
> Have fun, Will!
Since Michael Thames is the only person who
really seems to want this, and we already know
he is beyond the reach of reason, fun appears
to be the only real purpose of this exercise.
Will
Slogoin
> It may be that when somebody introduces him/herself to you, you assume
> he/she is lying.
It may be that you assume the same thing about others. I prefer to
be more generous and assume that things that make no sense to me are
possible mistakes on the part of the other person or a
misunderstanding on my part of what they are telling me.
> And I, being *very* familiar with the problem, had judged that there is
> enough information without such files. The guy at the Singapore facility,
> being a very bright person, agreed.
Since I did this for a living I AM the guy who did QA and wrote
code for OEM printer drivers for most of the major printer
manufacturers. You are now talking to a source for information on this
this subject.
> >>>Yes, it may be what he said. Did you send anybody a sample file of the
> >>>problem?
> Maybe. But please rest assured that things went just as I had described. I
> knew the basics of my trade.
Rest assured that I know the printer business... specifically and
in detail from the inside out. It's possible that not all the facts
are present in this situation but it sure sounds fishy to me after
having done this work for many years. Nobody ever accidentally got to
talk to me about a driver I worked on... nobody. I'll also tell you
that it's not just one person who writes the driver for any printer.
When in QA I always asked for the PostScript file to duplicate the bug
and to save as a test file for later regression testing. As a
programmer I did not deal with any customers directly. First it was
tech support then QA who had to deal with customers. It's almost
always a waste of time for a programmer to talk directly with a
customer so we made sure there were several layers between us and the
end user. Only when a bug was verified by QA, reproducible and filed
in the bug database did the programmer get involved.
OCGC:
I worked with the Coda Music QA people on some problems they had
with some PostScript files printing with our drivers. They always
supplied files as did virtually every problem we had with PostScript
printing. No Finale user even knew what company wrote their printer
driver in those cases.
Andrew Schulman
> "Andrew Schulman" <abaca...@panix.com> wrote in message news:
> >the Pentagon.
>
> Fair enough. I'll go through the site and see if I can find the claim. So
> far the claim that I have seen there is that the FDR data that they got from
> authorities does not support the view that Flight 77 caused the observed
> damage at and near the Pentagon. I'll be back.
>
>
http://www.prnewsnow.com/Public_Release/Government/152145.html
Of course there are quite a few sites with this information.
You might find this interesting too:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68016
I also saw this, I wonder if it's the same Robert Balsamo?
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-8445.htm
Andrew
Slogoin
Fun would be your upcoming event. Wish I could attend. Good luck!
michael...@mac.com
Your first link is correct and is my conclusion as well. The second
two links you provided are just character assignation and attack the
messenger crap!
I have an email into Rob asking if it is him or not!
BTW, I think Matti was hoping for a little more factual debate and
less blood spitting!
MT
michael...@mac.com
OK Clinger you've now succeeded in convincing me I'm delusional. But
in the fact department your zero for three. Lets hear some facts!
You stated Mr Griffin is wrong please explain his mistakes......
MT
MT
Matti Partonen
On Jun 24, 10:21 am, "Matti Partonen" <matti.parto...@dlc.fi> wrote:
>> It may be that when somebody introduces him/herself to you, you assume
>> he/she is lying.
>
> It may be that you assume the same thing about others. I prefer to
>be more generous and assume that things that make no sense to me are
>possible mistakes on the part of the other person or a
>misunderstanding on my part of what they are telling me.
This is the case here, misunderstanding on your part.
[....]
> Rest assured that I know the printer business... specifically and
>in detail from the inside out. It's possible that not all the facts
>are present in this situation but it sure sounds fishy to me after
>having done this work for many years. Nobody ever accidentally got to
>talk to me about a driver I worked on... nobody.
I know the developers are shielded from direct interaction with customers,
and for a good reason. But please note that I wrote "I kept complaining to
HP for about eighteen months, when one of their customer support people *by
mistake* put me in contact with HP's printer driver developers".
>When in QA I always asked for the PostScript file to duplicate the bug
>and to save as a test file for later regression testing.
Good practice. But in my case the bug was visible on any text page printed
with certain settings.
> As a
>programmer I did not deal with any customers directly. First it was
>tech support then QA who had to deal with customers. It's almost
>always a waste of time for a programmer to talk directly with a
>customer so we made sure there were several layers between us and the
>end user. Only when a bug was verified by QA, reproducible and filed
>in the bug database did the programmer get involved.
Yes, normally. But when SW people talk to SW people they may understand each
other and exceptions may be made. To my knowledge, that fix was quietly
propagated to other HP printer drivers, until finally tíme made the entire
matter obsolete. Whether or not it entered any bug database, I do not know.
Matti P.
michael...@mac.com
Matti your a good sport, a better man than me. This is Larry Deack's
"modus operandi". One mentions something in passing and is then
before you know it your cross examined. However what Deack is really
trying to do is discredit you as a viable witness in our 911
discussion. If you haven't already noticed this is all these guys can
do! Attack the messenger.
MT
William D Clinger
me to provide examples of misleading distortions
from the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" web site:
> Will, excellent right on par, you've done the Thames bashing intro.
> But got any data to back it up your claims? Or shall the world take
> your word for it? This is now the second time I've asked you, perhaps
> a third times a charm.
I have already stated the
Executive Summary: The article by David Ray Griffin
and Rob Balsamo, titled "Could Barbara Olson Have
Made Those Calls?" [1], is based on a false premise
(that cell phones cannot work at high altitude)
compounded by multiple leaps of illogic.
Michael Thames also desires help with this matter:
> Damn Will, I nearly forgot to ask you since we have a cell phone
> expert in our mists. What are your thoughts on the claim Ted Olsen
> received two calls from his wife while she was onboard flight 77,
> while the FBI has now stated he never received a call from her while
> she was onboard. Can you clear this up for us?
I can clear it up for most readers of this newsgroup.
For you, no.
The FBI has *never* denied that Ted Olson received a call
from Barbara Olson while she was aboard Flight 77. That
is a conclusion that Griffin and Balsamo reached with
the help of several leaps of illogic, about which I will
say more below.
The fact that Griffin and Balsamo are attempting to give
the impression that the FBI has denied these calls is one
of their misleading distortions. You fell for it.
As for Ted Olson's interview with Larry King, he didn't
appear to have a clue what kind of phone his wife had
used to call him. That's perfectly understandable, but
Olson dug himself into a hole by pretending to knowledge
he didn't have, in an apparent attempt to come up with a
story that would be consistent with the unverified things
that callers were saying to him. I think that's to be
expected also, considering Olson's occupation, clients,
and the kinds of arguments he has made before the
Supreme Court. The bottom line, however, is that Olson
didn't really know what kind of phone was used.
Before we consider Griffin and Balsamo's misrepresentations
of what the FBI has said about those calls, I want to look
at the central technical claim of their article, which is:
Cell phone calls from an airliner were, as DRG
has argued extensively elsewhere, generally
possible only if it was flying slowly and low,
but Barbara Olson's first call, according to the
9/11 Commission, occurred "[a]t some point between
9:16 and 9:26," when the plane was flying too fast
and too high for cell phone calls to have been
possible.
Note that the source for this technical claim is David
Ray Griffin himself. Griffin is a retired theologian,
with no more technical expertise than RMCG's very own
Jackson or Dicerous. As we shall see later, he seems
to have arrived at his conclusion by misinterpreting
and/or misrepresenting various press releases and
airline's warnings against using cell phones in flight.
Yet he repeats his own bogus claim as though it were
fact. His credulous fellow travelers have repeated
the claim so often that a Google search would give the
impression it *is* an accepted fact.
To anyone with a basic understanding of physics or
familiarity with avionics, however, Griffin's claim
should be a real head-scratcher. Airplanes routinely
use radio to communicate with ground stations, and
those communications are unhindered by speed or altitude.
Altitude, in fact, usually improves the range of radio
communications. That's why the cell phone companies
try to put their towers on high ground, and that's why
they use towers in the first place.
The antennas on cell towers are directional, and are
not designed to transmit upwards, but they do so
anyway. Each directional antenna of a cell tower has
to cover a fairly broad horizontal sweep, typically
90 to 120 degrees. Even if these antennas are more
directional in the vertical than in the horizontal,
as they may well be, there is unlikely to be much
attenuation at 30 degrees to the vertical, which means
the directionality of the cell tower's antenna makes
little if any difference to an airliner ten miles away
and flying at 25,000 feet. That is well within the
range of rural cell towers, which can cover a radius
of 30 to 50 miles. (To reduce interference, suburban
and urban cell towers are designed to have more limited
ranges.)
That 30-to-50-mile range is at ground level, where
obstructions and interference are common. The range
to an airborne cell phone would be greater.
In light of those facts, consider Griffin and Balsamo's
claim that cell phone communications would have been
impossible under these conditions:
According to the Flight Data Recorder information
released by the National Transportation Safety Board,
the plane at 9:16 would have been over 25,000 feet,
which is far too high (as well as too fast: 281 knots
[324 mph]), while at 9:26 the plane would have been
flying at 324 knots (370 mph), which is much too fast
(as well as still too high: almost 14,000 feet).
Nonsense. At 360 mph, it would take ten minutes to
pass through the 60-mile diameter covered by a rural
cell tower.
Handoffs between cell towers would be somewhat less
reliable at speed, but it would be possible to complete
calls of several minutes before a handoff would become
necessary. Not particularly reliable, but possible.
Cell phone communications are degraded when you're
inside an aluminum tube, but that doesn't stop airline
passengers from using their cell phones when the plane
is standing still on the ground. Reliability would
improve once the plane gets off the ground and away
from ground clutter.
On the other hand, cell phone communications are often
unreliable, especially in rural areas. Microwave radiation
is absorbed by moisture (that's how microwave ovens heat
food), so clouds and humidity interfere with airborne
cell phones. On the morning of 11 September 2001, the
skies were clear and dry.
A Google search will turn up some experiments in which
Griffin and Balsamo's fellow travellers report that
their cell phones didn't work aboard airliners at
altitude. These sites tend to report results for
just one flight, and do not report whether clouds
were visible. The fact that a cell phone didn't work
on one particular flight does not prove that cell phones
could not have worked on others.
Indeed, the article referenced by Griffin and Balsamo's
footnote 25, which they cited only to bolster their
contention that Flight 77 had no seatback phones, says
this:
Even before Thursday it was widely known that cell
phones will sometimes work on jetliners. Some travelers
use them surreptitiously. On Sept. 11, 2001, several
passengers aboard hijacked airliners called loved ones.
However, the FAA and the airlines ban them because
they fear that the signals could interfere with
navigational equipment. The FCC bans their use from
planes because the signals reach many cell-phone towers
and have been shown to disrupt cellular networks.
Why do Griffin and Balsamo trust this article on the
relatively unimportant detail they care about, while
ignoring the much more relevant content of those two
paragraphs above? The obvious answer is that Griffin
and Balsamo are misrepresenting the articles they cite.
By the way, the article referenced by footnote 25 isn't
much more than a press release, but the same can be said
for nearly all of the very few technical sources that
Griffin and Balsamo cite. See for example footnotes
14, 17, and 39.
The bottom line is that there is no "extremely strong
evidence that her reported calls could not have been
made on a cell phone, given the cell phone technology
in 2001." Griffin basically just made that up, citing
airline's warnings against using cell phones in flight
as though they were technical statements about the
feasibility of using cell phones in flight. Having
made it up, he is now citing himself as the authority
for that nonsense.
Once you understand that high-altitude cell phone calls
were possible (though not reliable), all of Griffin and
Balsamo's arguments about whether seatback phones were
installed on Flight 77 become irrelevant, and their whole
article basically falls apart.
I promised an analysis of the article's illogic. It
contains too much illogic for me to bother with all
of it, but I will address the illogic from which Michael
Thames erroneously concluded that "the FBI has now stated
[Olson] never received a call from [his wife] while she
was onboard."
I think Michael got that from Griffin and Balsamo's
false and/or misleading statement that "the US government
has now said, implicitly, that Ted Olson's claim about
receiving two calls from his wife that morning is untrue."
Note the word "implicitly". That means the government
didn't actually say what Griffin and Balsamo want you
to think it said. What the FBI did say is that there
were four "connected calls to unknown numbers".
According to the 9/11 Commission, "the FBI and DOJ
believe that all four represent communications between
Barbara Olson and her husband's office." Note that
this is at best a second-hand statement of belief.
For the Moussaoui trial, the FBI remained cautious,
saying the callers were unknown. From this caution
Griffin and Balsamo conclude that "unless its former
solicitor general was the victim of two faked phone
calls, he was lying."
That is a spectacular leap of illogic. It is certainly
a misleading distortion, and I really cannot find fault
with those who would characterize Griffin and Balsamo's
allegation as an outright lie.
I could go through the article and spotlight its illogic
line-by-line. Is that really necessary?
Will
[1] David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo. Could Barbara
Olson Have Made Those Calls?. Online at
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html
Andrew Schulman
> I can clear it up for most readers of this newsgroup.
> For you, no.
>
>
Andrew
Andrew Schulman
> BTW, I think Matti was hoping for a little more factual debate and
> less blood spitting!
>
>
Andrew
Richard Yates
> That is a spectacular leap of illogic. It is certainly
> a misleading distortion, and I really cannot find fault
> with those who would characterize Griffin and Balsamo's
> allegation as an outright lie.
Good job, Will. Probably futile though.
RY
michael...@mac.com
Here is the answer to your shameful slanderous insinuations about Rob
Balsamo. Par for the course Schulmannanic!
Rob Balsamo wrote....
Tell the people who are "slamming" the other "Rob Balsamo" they need
to do better research and perhaps realize there is more than one "Rob
Balsamo" in this world.. (i know of one who lived two towns over from
me in NY.. not related too... imagine that..)
although, i was thinking about getting my Series 7 for trading years
ago, almost worked for RBC Dain :)
From Cary.....
Whoever is slamming "this" Rob Balsamo over "that" Rob Balsamo is
making a big mistake. "That' Rob Balsamo was a stock broker and was 37
eight years ago. That would make him 45 now. This Rob Balsamo wasn't a
stock broker EVER as far as I know. He's been a licensed commercial
pilot and is in his late 30's now. This Rob Balsamo is from the New
York area, but I know it's not Brooklyn. Also, that Balsamo got 30
months of jail time. This Balsamo wouldn't have been able to maintain
a commercial pilot's license and fly for a commercial airline with a
felony and jail time.
michael...@mac.com
It's coming!
MT
Slogoin
>
> Good job, Will. Probably futile though.
Probably? Want to bet? I'll give you odds better than any horse race
run in the US on this day.
Slogoin
>
> It's coming!
Oh, boy... can't wait to hear the logic of this one.
michael...@mac.com
Clinger let me first congratulate you. You have become the first and
only person on this forum to respond in a logical and articulate
fashion, although you do get a demerit point for calling me a
"looney". You obviously have a little knowledge of cell phone
workings and this of course is above my head and or interest. So
rather than me debating with you I will provide testimony from those
people actually in the aviation business while at the same time
inviting those who have actually made a cell phone call on this forum
from a plane in 2001 to tell of their experiences.
I will say that in 2001 living remote and in Taos, the only phones
we had were cell phones. They were quite unreliable and I knew every
turn in the road where I couldn't get a signal or dropped a call.
Since then they have towers everywhere, the citizens of Taos held up a
newly built read to go cell tower that would have made life easier for
us on the mesa. Since then I can't think of a place between here Taos
where I can't get a signal, unlike the old days.
So Clinger sit back and enjoy the ride ........ Some actual accounts
======================================================================
Private Pilot Albert Chapio
Houslytere are some aspects of telephonic conversations that day i
care to relate....
firstly, though altitude is a factor in circumscribing cellphone
communication, the controlling factor is speed. even if an aircraft
were flying within the altitude limitations of cell communications, if
it were flying linearly at more than 200kph, a cellphone could neither
perfect nor continue a connection.
and the entirety of the cellphone industry knows that. though that
reality went undiscussed, virtually, in the media.
this is particularly interesting as it pertains to ted olson and his
utterances concerning the telephonic communications that he received
from his wife.
when the impossibility of cellphone communication gained currency, the
new canard floated was airphone communication. let's think about that
for a moment...
i have been flying for years. both privately and commercially. one of
my bonafides is that aopa just sent me a cert for being a member for
60 years.
i fly on commercial airliners with airphones. but guess what, more
often than not, they are not functional. by my reckoning, for those 4
airliners to have functional airphones is a real stretch of the odds
that i have encountered.
and then there are airphones, and their are airphones. some aircraft
have them located at each seat. some have only one located adjacent to
the flight deck.
where were the airphones on the aircraft of that day?
but, of course, the reality of the usage of airphones only gets uglier
for those who insist that telephonic communications were made that
day...
have you ever used one? it is not like picking up the landline in your
house and dialing a number. how do they work?
let us think of the situation that day, purportedly hijackers are in
control of the aircraft and the passengers. and some passengers/crew
pick up airphones and make calls and have lengthy conversations.
imf*ckingprobable. why do i say that? well, if you are a hijacker and
know enough to turn off the transponder, you know enough to turn off
the airphones[there is a single switch that disables them].
but let us just consider that the "hijackers" didn't know of that
switch. but, purported hijackers are roaming the aisle of the
aircraft. do you really think that you could use an airphone so
discretely as to not be observed?
i don't.
it is rarely discussed, but let us discuss what it takes to use an
airphone.
an airphone cannot be used unless a credit card is swiped and
accepted. and that action is very difficult to perform secretly.
if hijackers were patrolling the aisle, no one would have been able to
successfully use an airphone. if you had ever used one, you would know
that to communicate you would have to shout into the phone to be heard
over the ambient aircraft noise. any hijacker would have heard you.
and terminated your connection.
of course, the reality is nastier than that. all telephone
conversations[cell or airphone] will have a billing record.
GTE/VERIZON, who has the monopoly on airphone communications, claims
that it expunged the billing records for the passengers on those
flights that day as a favor to the surviving family members. think on
that for a moment.
also note that Verizon was a more than willing partner in THE ILLEGAL
INTERCEPTION OF US CITIZEN TELEPHONIC/COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS.
and the cellphone billing records also seem to have become sequestered
by this totalitarian state.
why would that be, do you think?
could it be because none of the stories of telephonic communications
from the airliners that day occurred?
never forget, it is only by virtue of these notional telephonic
conversations that there is any "proof" of any hijackings. by muslims.
if i have it inaccurately, please feel free to call me out.
but my proposition is this, everything about the events of that day
have the odor of a mossad/shin beth false flag operation.
========================================================
I can say that the Verizon Airfone's required a credit card to use for
anything other than calling our operations control center at Delta
(*OCC) or our medical advisors (*PMD)...so if calls were made to
relatives of the passengers on board, there would have to be a credit
card record of the call. I do not believe you can call 911 from those
phones, at least at Delta. We have since have them removed from our
aircraft due to complaints about technical difficulties (seemed like
they were never working).
I have never seen a cell phone work in flight, although I have seen
countless passengers try to find a signal in flight, to no avail. I
even tried one myself when I was desperate to get a hold of my mother
during an in-flight emergency I wasn't sure I was going to survive. No
luck.
This was one of the things that seemed very suspicious to me...cell
phones just don't work in flight, no matter the altitude...the speed
at which we travel makes it too difficult for the phones to find a
tower to route the call through.
==================================================================
look, everything about these telephonic communications from these
aircraft that has been reported are inventions[to put it kindly].
cell phones don't work from commercial airliners moving at cruising
speeds unless they are circling a cell tower below 5,000 ft[so as to
make and preserve a connection].
most importantly, the cell phone had better be next to a window. even
in the most auspicious of circumstances, cell phones may not connect
if they are located beyond a window seat.
from inside a lavatory, no cell phone will make a connection, even if
the airliner is circling a cell tower at treetop altitude.
as to airphones...i don't find them on commercial airliners these
days. why would that be? because they rarely worked. for years i
routinely flew from iah to lax to iah. on co. in first class, once
upon a time, there were airphones for every seat. i often tried to use
them to call my office. in scores of flights, i wager i only completed
a handful of connections. it was not a very reliable service.
so unreliable, i think, that the airline industry in 2001 had removed,
were removing them, them from their aircraft.
airphones were a gte monopoly. gte became acquired by verizon. a co-
conspirator who says that they forgave all these charges. therefore
they say that they have no records for airphone usage for those
flights on that day.
but you know, that proposition doesn't fly. to use an airphone, the
call had to be charged not to verizon, but to visa, mastercard,
discover, amexco, diners club. i think that any airphone calls would
have been immediately charged to those cc entities, not to verizon.
so, the question is, have any of the cc records for those callers that
day been reviewed?
i think not. as is the case with so much about that day, half-truths/
un-truths have been proferred and go uncontested, in the main.
==============================================================
I currently fly a medevac King Air out of Fort McMurray, Alberta,
Canada and I have been flying with my cell phone left on for years. My
experience is that the cell phone acquires a signal as we desend below
3,000 ft AGL fairly reliably. I have it in the top pocket of my flight
suit and it vibrates as soon as it is receiving a message so I've had
lots of opportunity to experience this. Signals above this height are
problematic to say the least. The highest I have ever had a good
signal was at 17,000 feet, which was almost 16,000 feet AGL, but this
was only once. I think this may be because there is only one cell
tower for it to receive in this area (over the tar sands plants north
of Fort McMurray).
I have also left it on many times on commerical airliners as a
passenger and I have never been able to get a signal at altitude. I
also fly a Boeing 727 part time and this is the same experience on
this equipment while flying the aircraft and therefore having the cell
phone on the flight deck.
So, having had hundreds of hours of flying with my cell phone on, I
can say fairly confidently that the chances of being able to use a
cell phone in a commerical airliner at altitude are near zero.
=================================================
Slogoin
> Clinger let me first congratulate you. You have become the first and
> only person on this forum to respond in a logical and articulate
> fashion, although you do get a demerit point for calling me a
> "looney". You obviously have a little knowledge of cell phone
> workings and this of course is above my head and or interest.
Once again we get, "don't know and don't care... but... here's a
list of expert science types who are really smart and have all kinds
of credentials to prove it..."
SOOOO... all you folks who bet WC would make a dent in MT's
unwavering belief... pay up.
William D Clinger
> SOOOO... all you folks who bet WC would make a dent in MT's
> unwavering belief... pay up.
To avoid having to declare this income to the IRS,
I suggest you round to the nearest dollar.
Will
Slogoin
LOL!
michael...@mac.com
> Michael Thames, the noted luthier and loony, wants
> me to provide examples of misleading distortions
> from the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" web site:
> I can clear it up for most readers of this newsgroup.
> For you, no.
>
> The FBI has *never* denied that Ted Olson received a call
> from Barbara Olson while she was aboard Flight 77. That
> is a conclusion that Griffin and Balsamo reached with
> the help of several leaps of illogic, about which I will
> say more below.
>
> The fact that Griffin and Balsamo are attempting to give
> the impression that the FBI has denied these calls is one
> of their misleading distortions. You fell for it.
>
> As for Ted Olson's interview with Larry King, he didn't
> appear to have a clue what kind of phone his wife had
> used to call him. That's perfectly understandable, but
> Olson dug himself into a hole by pretending to knowledge
> he didn't have, in an apparent attempt to come up with a
> story that would be consistent with the unverified things
> that callers were saying to him. I think that's to be
> expected also, considering Olson's occupation, clients,
> and the kinds of arguments he has made before the
> Supreme Court. The bottom line, however, is that Olson
> didn't really know what kind of phone was used.
Right you are Clinger!
CNN." According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had
"called twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,"
saying that "all passengers and flight personnel, including the
pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers
Ever since the first news reports broke out, there has being several
contradictions of this story first by Ted Olson himself, on Sept 14,
telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the
Department of Justice collect.
Now Clinger, which is it you ask? When was the last time you made a
collect call from a cell phone in the same city? In your stunning in
depth analysis you seemed to have over looked the significance of this
statement.
What is the significance of this? It means the calls were made from an
Airphone, or some kind of on board phone. and flight 77 didn't have
them, except one phone near the door of the cockpit. This is
ridiculous because you can't access an Airphone with out a credit
card, if you used a credit card the call would not come into the DOJ
as a collect call.
The FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was
an "unconnected call," which lasted "0" seconds," According to the
FBI, therefore, Ted Olsen did not recieve a single call from his wife
on 9/11.
> Before we consider Griffin and Balsamo's misrepresentations
> of what the FBI has said about those calls, I want to look
> at the central technical claim of their article, which is:
>
> Cell phone calls from an airliner were, as DRG
> has argued extensively elsewhere, generally
> possible only if it was flying slowly and low,
> but Barbara Olson's first call, according to the
> 9/11 Commission, occurred "[a]t some point between
> 9:16 and 9:26," when the plane was flying too fast
> and too high for cell phone calls to have been
> possible.
Possible yes probable no. Clinger the odds are greatly against you
here.
I ask again when was the last time you made a collect call from a
cell phone?
>
> Note that the source for this technical claim is David
> Ray Griffin himself. Griffin is a retired theologian,
> with no more technical expertise than RMCG's very own
> Jackson or Dicerous. As we shall see later, he seems
> to have arrived at his conclusion by misinterpreting
> and/or misrepresenting various press releases and
> airline's warnings against using cell phones in flight.
Ho Hum......
>
> Yet he repeats his own bogus claim as though it were
> fact. His credulous fellow travelers have repeated
> the claim so often that a Google search would give the
> impression it *is* an accepted fact.
>
> To anyone with a basic understanding of physics or
> familiarity with avionics, however, Griffin's claim
> should be a real head-scratcher. Airplanes routinely
> use radio to communicate with ground stations, and
> those communications are unhindered by speed or altitude.
True but the communications systems are more powerful and
sophisticated than your average cell phone, and unreliable cell phone
tower network. Are you suggesting Clinger that a commercial airliner
relies on the same communication system as your average cell phone
user? Your not a very smart guy are you Clinger?
Forgive me I just threw-up in my mouth a little!
> Altitude, in fact, usually improves the range of radio
> communications. That's why the cell phone companies
> try to put their towers on high ground, and that's why
> they use towers in the first place.
Ho Hum again........
>
> The antennas on cell towers are directional, and are
> not designed to transmit upwards, but they do so
> anyway. Each directional antenna of a cell tower has
> to cover a fairly broad horizontal sweep, typically
> 90 to 120 degrees. Even if these antennas are more
> directional in the vertical than in the horizontal,
> as they may well be, there is unlikely to be much
> attenuation at 30 degrees to the vertical, which means
> the directionality of the cell tower's antenna makes
> little if any difference to an airliner ten miles away
> and flying at 25,000 feet. That is well within the
> range of rural cell towers, which can cover a radius
> of 30 to 50 miles. (To reduce interference, suburban
> and urban cell towers are designed to have more limited
> ranges.)
So let me get this straight, your actually suggesting cell phone
communications are better in an aircraft traveling 500 mph at 25,000
or 40,000 feet ( I say both as you claim better reception the higher
you go) even up to 30 to 50 miles whoa! Does NASA know about this
too? Gives a whole new meaning to ET call home!
Seriusly Clinger your not being truthful you fail to take into
account the aluminum tube of an aircraft into your equation see the
actual accounts of pilots in my other responce. Useing your logic
that the higher and less obscured line of site makes cell phone use in
commercial aircraft a no brainer. I must be the only fool whose phone
never works in flight.
You need to do some more research, but shite you had me there at
first.
>
> That 30-to-50-mile range is at ground level, where
> obstructions and interference are common. The range
> to an airborne cell phone would be greater.
>
> In light of those facts, consider Griffin and Balsamo's
> claim that cell phone communications would have been
> impossible under these conditions:
>
> According to the Flight Data Recorder information
> released by the National Transportation Safety Board,
> the plane at 9:16 would have been over 25,000 feet,
> which is far too high (as well as too fast: 281 knots
> [324 mph]), while at 9:26 the plane would have been
> flying at 324 knots (370 mph), which is much too fast
> (as well as still too high: almost 14,000 feet).
>
> Nonsense. At 360 mph, it would take ten minutes to
> pass through the 60-mile diameter covered by a rural
> cell tower.
If I have some facts right it's actually easier to connect with
one tower than looseing one connection and getting another tower? I'm
asking as this is what I've heard.
>
> Handoffs between cell towers would be somewhat less
> reliable at speed, but it would be possible to complete
> calls of several minutes before a handoff would become
> necessary. Not particularly reliable, but possible.
>
> Cell phone communications are degraded when you're
> inside an aluminum tube, but that doesn't stop airline
> passengers from using their cell phones when the plane
> is standing still on the ground. Reliability would
> improve once the plane gets off the ground and away
> from ground clutter.
Perhaps in theory, but not in real life Clinger. Why then did most
all airlines have their airphones removed in 2001? Answe,r because
they were a pain in the ass to get good a connection. This seems to
counter your claim of how fantasticly good cell phone reception is the
higher you are in an aircraft. Clinger you looney!
>
> On the other hand, cell phone communications are often
> unreliable, especially in rural areas. Microwave radiation
> is absorbed by moisture (that's how microwave ovens heat
> food), so clouds and humidity interfere with airborne
> cell phones. On the morning of 11 September 2001, the
> skies were clear and dry.
Ho Hum........
>
> A Google search will turn up some experiments in which
> Griffin and Balsamo's fellow travellers report that
> their cell phones didn't work aboard airliners at
> altitude. These sites tend to report results for
> just one flight, and do not report whether clouds
> were visible. The fact that a cell phone didn't work
> on one particular flight does not prove that cell phones
> could not have worked on others.
See the pilots response to this lunacy of yours.
All for now Clinger.... later I shall address your other
misunderstanding and false rumors.
MT
Slogoin
> Your not a very smart guy are you Clinger?
LOL! Next we'll hear how illogical Will is and how some science buddy
of MT's at SNL is so much smarter. ROTFLMAF!
Richard Yates
from time to time is this:
Never conclude that there is conspiracy when simple incompetence explains
things just as well.
RY
michael...@mac.com
Clinger the basis of your essay is, cell phones work more efficiently
the higher you are in an aircraft. Do you realize how ludicrous your
theory actually is?
MT
michael...@mac.com
Cheerleaders on the side lines? Cheers for Clinger he needs every
cheer he can get! Larry what does the math say? The higher you go in
an aircraft the better the cell phone reception? Come on Larry do
something useful with that glue sniffing brain of yours.
MT
Richard Yates
>the higher you are in an aircraft. Do you realize how ludicrous your
>theory actually is? MT
The inaccuracies in your first sentence are just what people here have
objected to. He certainly did not write that. You have taken one piece of
what he wrote - that the clutter of buildings and terrain around an airplane
on the ground is less as the plane leaves the ground and so cell phone
reception could improve (probably true) - generalized it way beyond what he
wrote, and then claimed that it is the entire basis of his post (not true).
You have paraphrased what he wrote as if it were categorical when in reality
he included many disclaimers about the limits of his conclusions. Last, you
took a belittling stance with a rhetorical question.
These two sentences of yours are a microcosm of the selectivity and
distortion that permeate your posts on this subject.
RY
Slogoin
> Larry what does the math say?
Hint: I'm not the one you should be asking for this one.
Richard Yates
> Hint: I'm not the one you should be asking for this one.
I'm sure a Bezier curve will fit the data.
William D Clinger
> Your not a very smart guy are you Clinger?
That's why I hang out here, where you and Jackson
establish the standards for genius.
> So let me get this straight, your actually suggesting cell phone
> communications are better in an aircraft traveling 500 mph at 25,000
> or 40,000 feet ( I say both as you claim better reception the higher
> you go) even up to 30 to 50 miles whoa!
No, that would be an idiotic misinterpretation of
what I said.
> Does NASA know about this
> too? Gives a whole new meaning to ET call home!
Have you ever noticed that you can see farther when
you're up in an airplane than when you're on the
ground?
Better tell NASA. They may already be aware that
that microwaves, like visible light, tend to radiate
in straight lines, but they might not have figured
out the connection between microwave transmissions
and line-of-sight.
> Seriusly Clinger your not being truthful you fail to take into
> account the aluminum tube of an aircraft into your equation....
D'oh! I was sure I had mentioned that.
> If I have some facts right it's actually easier to connect with
> one tower than looseing one connection and getting another tower? I'm
> asking as this is what I've heard.
Under many circumstances, yes. In urban and suburban
areas, dropouts tend to occur during the handoff from
one tower to another. In rural areas, where towers
are more widely spaced and have greater range, dropouts
are more likely to be caused by terrain, distance, and
atmospheric conditions (precipitation, fog/clouds, and
humidity).
For airborne cell phones, terrain is not a factor.
One of the reasons airborne cell phones have problems
in urban/suburban areas is that so many towers are in
the cell phone's line of sight that it becomes harder
for the network to figure out which tower should handle
the call. Furthermore a plane moving at 360 mph will
pass through the typical one-half to one-mile diameter
of an urban cell tower in five to ten seconds, greatly
exacerbating the handoff/dropout problems.
Those problems hardly arise in rural areas, where
atmospheric conditions and the inverse square law
would be the limiting factors.
But if you think it's more likely that the alleged
cell phone call from Tom Burnett to his wife Deena
was "a faked call using a device that, besides morphing
her husband's voice, faked his Caller ID number", as
David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo say they believe,
then I can't really argue with that.
Will
Andrew Schulman
> > I also saw this, I wonder if it's the same Robert Balsamo?
>
>
> Balsamo. Par for the course Schulmannanic!
>
>
Balsamo?"
I thought you believed it was the right thing to do to ask questions?
You are quite the hypocrite, aren't you?
Andrew
Andrew Schulman
> To avoid having to declare this income to the IRS,
> I suggest you round to the nearest dollar.
>
>
You'd have done better talking to a tree.
Andrew
Steven Bornfeld
Occam's razor second corollary?
Andrew Schulman
> On Jun 24, 2:38 pm, Andrew Schulman <abaca...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
Terrific!
And maybe you can also tell us, since you believe Flight 77 never
crashed into the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and all the
passengers?
Andrew
michael...@mac.com
OK Richard I'm game! Lets play.
Clinger said......
> Altitude, in fact, usually improves the range of radio
> communications. That's why the cell phone companies
> try to put their towers on high ground, and that's why
> they use towers in the first place.
Richard here Clinger clearly states altitude is better for cell
phone communications.
Clinger then states....." The antennas on cell towers are directional,
and are
not designed to transmit upwards, but they do so
anyway."
> The antennas on cell towers are directional, and are
> not designed to transmit upwards, but they do so
> anyway. Each directional antenna of a cell tower has
> to cover a fairly broad horizontal sweep, typically
> 90 to 120 degrees. Even if these antennas are more
> directional in the vertical than in the horizontal,
> as they may well be, there is unlikely to be much
> attenuation at 30 degrees to the vertical, which means
> the directionality of the cell tower's antenna makes
> little if any difference to an airliner ten miles away
> and flying at 25,000 feet. That is well within the
> range of rural cell towers, which can cover a radius
> of 30 to 50 miles. (To reduce interference, suburban
> and urban cell towers are designed to have more limited
> ranges.)
So here Clinger has a little problem, he claims that towers are
designed to transmit vertically, but have no problem transmitting
horizontally, even though they were not designed to do so, OK no
problem. He then says if a cell tower can transmit vertically for 30
to 50 miles, it can also do this horizontally up to 30 to 50 miles.
Clinger uses the word "radius" that means a circle. That means
Richard, altitude which is distance, seems to not be a problem and
actually improves, as the signal is unhindered. Up to typically 30 to
50 miles. This is rather strange as most pilots, and people in the
aviation industry report the exact opposite experience. In fact
onboard airphones were so unreliable the airline industry quit
installing them on their planes after 2001. Yet amazingly Clinger
compares reliability of cell phones, to that of a commercial airliners
communication systems, in the quote below.
> Airplanes routinely use radio to communicate with ground stations, and
> those communications are unhindered by speed or altitude.
OK right, BTW, I have some access to a pilot, or two, I'll find out
more about Clingers hypothesis, and get back to you on the
communication system were talking about in a jetliner.
> Cell phone communications are degraded when you're
> inside an aluminum tube, but that doesn't stop airline
> passengers from using their cell phones when the plane
> is standing still on the ground. Reliability would
> improve once the plane gets off the ground and away
> from ground clutter.
Right the further away form the ground a commercial airliners is the
better the "reliability".
So Richard, tell me where I went astray in stating Clingers claim of
improved reliability at higher altidues?
MT
William D Clinger
of how he himself "manipulates information" and "distorts
and lies":
> So here Clinger has a little problem, he claims that towers are
> designed to transmit vertically, but have no problem transmitting
> horizontally, even though they were not designed to do so, OK no
> problem.
I didn't say that. Are you going to blame your
dyslexia for your inability to distinguish the
words "vertical" and "horizontal"?
> He then says if a cell tower can transmit vertically for 30
> to 50 miles, it can also do this horizontally up to 30 to 50 miles.
Didn't say that either. I said that rural cell
towers typically have a horizontal range of 30
to 50 miles. (That range could be increased by
increasing the power output of cell phones, but
the cell phone industry limited the power output
because they didn't want to microwave your brain.
No comment.)
> Clinger uses the word "radius" that means a circle. That means
> Richard, altitude which is distance, seems to not be a problem and
> actually improves, as the signal is unhindered.
Didn't say that either.
> In fact
> onboard airphones were so unreliable the airline industry quit
> installing them on their planes after 2001.
You are confusing onboard (seatback) phones with
cell phones.
> Yet amazingly Clinger
> compares reliability of cell phones, to that of a commercial airliners
> communication systems, in the quote below.
>
> > Airplanes routinely use radio to communicate with ground stations, and
> > those communications are unhindered by speed or altitude.
I made no comparison between the reliability of
cell phones and an airliner's communication
systems. I correctly pointed out that speed and
altitude are of themselves no hindrance to radio
communications. That fact does not imply that
airborne cell phones are reliable or even feasible,
but it does imply that the technical arguments made
by David Ray Griffin are bogus.
> Right the further away form the ground a commercial airliners is the
> better the "reliability".
Didn't say that either, as Richard correctly pointed
out.
> So Richard, tell me where I went astray in stating Clingers claim of
> improved reliability at higher altidues?
It would be much easier to tell you where you did
not misrepresent my claims. A complete list follows
my signature below.
Will
Richard Yates
"Clinger the basis of your essay is, cell phones work more efficiently the
higher you are in an aircraft."
Yates: I wrote that he did not say that and that your paraphrase was a
distortion of what he did say. Your comments below only demonstrate that
once again.
> Clinger: Altitude, in fact, usually improves the range of radio
> communications. That's why the cell phone companies
> try to put their towers on high ground, and that's why
> they use towers in the first place.
>Thames: Richard here Clinger clearly states altitude is better for cell
>phone communications.
Yates: What he 'clearly' does NOT refer to in this sentence, in context, is
high altitudes. He also said 'usually improves' not 'is better for', and he
said 'radio communications' not 'cell phone communications.' These small
distortions add up and undermine any credibility of your argument. You have
to misquote in order to set up a straw man.
>Clinger then states....." The antennas on cell towers are directional,
>and are not designed to transmit upwards, but they do so
>anyway."...
>Thames: So here Clinger has a little problem, he claims that towers are
>designed to transmit vertically, but have no problem transmitting
>horizontally even though they were not designed to do so.
Yates: Surely even you, when seeing these two quotes right next to each
other, can see that you quoted him exactly backwards, unless you do not
understand that 'vertically' and 'upwards' mean the same thing.
> Clinger: ...there is unlikely to be much
> attenuation at 30 degrees to the vertical, which means
> the directionality of the cell tower's antenna makes
> little if any difference to an airliner ten miles away
> and flying at 25,000 feet. That is well within the
> range of rural cell towers, which can cover a radius
> of 30 to 50 miles.
>Thames: He then says if a cell tower can transmit vertically for 30
>to 50 miles....
Yates: No. He did not say that. He said a common range for rural cell towers
was 30 to 50 miles. He means, obviously, 30 to 50 horizontal miles, not
vertical. You have again quoted it exactly backwards.
>Thames: So Richard, tell me where I went astray in stating Clingers claim
>of
> improved reliability at higher altitudes? MT
His point is that cell phones work in rural, flat settings at horizontal
distances of 30 to 50 miles. At that distance horizontally, a vertical
elevation of 25,000 feet is not a steep angle. Cell phones work at closer
distances in hilly terrain and so apparently their directionality is not
strictly horizontal but must have a vertical component too, and so it is
plausible that a cell phone would work at up to that distance and altitude.
What he is deducing from what is every day observation about cell phones is
plausible, but that is not the point. Whether or not it is plausible, or
even whether or not it is true, you have, as always, greatly distorted or
misread what he did write.
I do not know if he is right. I do know that his assumptions are reasonable
and his logic and math are correct, so what he describes is a plausible
hypothesis.
RY
Slogoin
>
> I do not know if he is right. I do know that his assumptions are reasonable
> and his logic and math are correct, so what he describes is a plausible
> hypothesis.
Well, there you go again... using that irrational math and logic
junk. Don't you know intuition is superior to that garbage?
michael...@mac.com
> Michael Thames has given us yet more excellent examples
> of how he himself "manipulates information" and "distorts
> and lies":
>
> > So here Clinger has a little problem, he claims that towers are
> > designed to transmit vertically, but have no problem transmitting
> > horizontally, even though they were not designed to do so, OK no
> > problem.
>
> I didn't say that. Are you going to blame your
> dyslexia for your inability to distinguish the
> words "vertical" and "horizontal"?
Yes I am blaming my dyslexia, and the fact I've written more than I
care to admit today. Please forgive me for screwing up the two words
vertical, and directional. But it doesn't change the meaning of what
I wrote, I was actually describing directional, and mistakenly used
the word vertical.... It can occasionally happen to the best of us.
>
> > He then says if a cell tower can transmit vertically for 30
> > to 50 miles, it can also do this horizontally up to 30 to 50 miles.
>
> Didn't say that either. I said that rural cell
> towers typically have a horizontal range of 30
> to 50 miles. (That range could be increased by
> increasing the power output of cell phones, but
> the cell phone industry limited the power output
> because they didn't want to microwave your brain.
> No comment.)
Clinger come on, you can't make a statement, then after I respond to
it based on the words you wrote, then throw in a qualifier later, and
claim I misunderstood your original statement. You should have been
clear from the beginning.
Besides that your saying cell phone reliabilty is based on how
powerful your phone is. Like a Blackberry. I did hear the more
sophisticated the new cell phones are the more harmful the microwaves
are, the waves containing data are actually the most damaging to your
health, but I digress.
I remember well the little cellphones we had back in 2001 nothing
like the ones today.
Just so you know I threw my cell phone in the trash 2 years ago
after getting land lines here in Santa Fe. I think my brain is
functioning well so far so good. I degress once again.
>
> > Clinger uses the word "radius" that means a circle. That means
> > Richard, altitude which is distance, seems to not be a problem and
> > actually improves, as the signal is unhindered.
>
> Didn't say that either.
A radus describes a circle your saying a tower can transmit a signal
directionally for 30 to 50 miles it can transmit vertically the same,
that makes one big circle, a radius.
>
> > In fact
> > onboard airphones were so unreliable the airline industry quit
> > installing them on their planes after 2001.
>
> You are confusing onboard (seatback) phones with
> cell phones.
No I'm not, onboard seatback phones are also called Airphones. They
are the ones in the back of the seats, the airlines don't install any
more. I do know the difference between seatback ( airphones) and
personal cell phones.
>
> > Yet amazingly Clinger
> > compares reliability of cell phones, to that of a commercial airliners
> > communication systems, in the quote below.
>
> > > Airplanes routinely use radio to communicate with ground stations, and
> > > those communications are unhindered by speed or altitude.
>
> I made no comparison between the reliability of
> cell phones and an airliner's communication
> systems. I correctly pointed out that speed and
> altitude are of themselves no hindrance to radio
> communications.
> Airplanes routinely use radio to communicate with ground
stations, and
> those communications are unhindered by speed or altitude.
Come on Clinger you used the communication systems of a commercial
airliner ( radio) to point out it isn't hindered by altitude or
speed. Implying the same is true for cell phone use.
>That fact does not imply that
> airborne cell phones are reliable or even feasible,
Then is this a retraction of your original hypothesis? But really
why not ? everything you described, cell phone towers everywhere,
clear line of site, 500 mph at 37,000 feet, ( remember your comment
altitude and speed are not a hindrance) this should be cell phone
heaven.
> but it does imply that the technical arguments made
> by David Ray Griffin are bogus.
I don't think so Clinger, you've explain in theory how these things
work, and I don't doubt that it is possible in theory to use a cell
phone at 37,000 feet. However, personal accounts from most people
back in 2001 was the exact opposite of your hypothesis that altitude
and speed are not a hindrance. Most people today report better
connections at lower altitudes and slower speeds. So there is
something else missing in your equation. You might do well to read up
on people's experience in the use of cell phones, what David Ray
Griffin reports is more the norm than your hypothesis.
. >
> > Right the further away form the ground a commercial airliners is the
> > better the "reliability".
>
> Didn't say that either, as Richard correctly pointed
> out.
True, I mean you could be on Mars and in that case might drop a call
or two. But we are talking about commercial jetliners that normally
fly at altitudes of 37,000 to 40,000 feet.
MT
michael...@mac.com
> Yates: You have, as usual, brought much more into your response than I
> addressed in my post. I wrote only about your sentence in which you said:
>
> "Clinger the basis of your essay is, cell phones work more efficiently the
> higher you are in an aircraft."
>
> Yates: I wrote that he did not say that and that your paraphrase was a
> distortion of what he did say. Your comments below only demonstrate that
> once again.
>
> > Clinger: Altitude, in fact, usually improves the range of radio
> > communications. That's why the cell phone companies
> > try to put their towers on high ground, and that's why
> > they use towers in the first place.
> >Thames: Richard here Clinger clearly states altitude is better for cell
> >phone communications.
>
> Yates: What he 'clearly' does NOT refer to in this sentence, in context, is
> high altitudes. He also said 'usually improves' not 'is better for', and he
> said 'radio communications' not 'cell phone communications.' These small
> distortions add up and undermine any credibility of your argument. You have
> to misquote in order to set up a straw man.
Here's what clinger said......
Airplanes routinely use radio to communicate with ground stations,
and
those communications are unhindered by speed or altitude.
Altitude, in fact, usually improves the range of radio
communications.
Question RY are cell phone waves radio waves?
Your small distortions prove to be problematic as well
>
> >Clinger then states....." The antennas on cell towers are directional,
> >and are not designed to transmit upwards, but they do so
> >anyway."...
> >Thames: So here Clinger has a little problem, he claims that towers are
> >designed to transmit vertically, but have no problem transmitting
> >horizontally even though they were not designed to do so.
>
> Yates: Surely even you, when seeing these two quotes right next to each
> other, can see that you quoted him exactly backwards, unless you do not
> understand that 'vertically' and 'upwards' mean the same thing.
Yes I realize that and I addressed it in my response to Clinger.
>
> > Clinger: ...there is unlikely to be much
> > attenuation at 30 degrees to the vertical, which means
> > the directionality of the cell tower's antenna makes
> > little if any difference to an airliner ten miles away
> > and flying at 25,000 feet. That is well within the
> > range of rural cell towers, which can cover a radius
> > of 30 to 50 miles.
> >Thames: He then says if a cell tower can transmit vertically for 30
> >to 50 miles....
>
> Yates: No. He did not say that. He said a common range for rural cell towers
> was 30 to 50 miles. He means, obviously, 30 to 50 horizontal miles, not
> vertical. You have again quoted it exactly backwards.
Richard do you know the meaning of the word radius? If a cell tower
transmits 30 miles horizontally a "radius" implies it transmits
vertically 30 miles as well.
>
> >Thames: So Richard, tell me where I went astray in stating Clingers claim
> >of
> > improved reliability at higher altitudes? MT
>
> His point is that cell phones work in rural, flat settings at horizontal
> distances of 30 to 50 miles. At that distance horizontally, a vertical
> elevation of 25,000 feet is not a steep angle.
No Richard that is not what he said, that's what you are saying.
Clinger said, "the antennas on cell towers are directional, and are
not designed to transmit upwards, but they do so anyway". He agian
confirmed this with his statement saying they form a radius.
> Cell phones work at closer distances in hilly terrain and so apparently their directionality is not
> strictly horizontal but must have a vertical component too, and so it is
> plausible that a cell phone would work at up to that distance and altitude.
Yes that's seems to be Clingers point the (radius) I don't dispute
this.
>
> What he is deducing from what is every day observation about cell phones is
> plausible, but that is not the point. Whether or not it is plausible, or
> even whether or not it is true, you have, as always, greatly distorted or
> misread what he did write.
Whatever!
>
> I do not know if he is right. I do know that his assumptions are reasonable
> and his logic and math are correct, so what he describes is a plausible
> hypothesis.
I don't doubt Clingers hypothesis and knowledge of how it all works.
but it is just that...... a hypothesis. However, as I pointed out to
Clinger his Hypothesis in all it's glorious infinite possibilities
don't seem to pan out in reality. There is more success reported with
cell phones at lower altitudes which imply slower speeds. These
reports seem to go against Clingers claim that speed and altitude
don't present any hindrances.
I posted many pilots experiences regarding cell phone reliability and
use. I even invited those on this forum to post their success with
using cell phones abroad aircraft. The facts seem to favor David Ray
Griffin, and Rob Balsamo's ideas more than Clingers. I've personally
never had any luck using them. My wife who commuted to NYC for years
on a regular basis from Taos, never could connect a call in-flight to
me from her cell phone, if she could, believe me she would talk for
hours. She always had to wait until she arrived and was on the ground
to call and tell me she arrived safely. Come to think of it, I don't
think in my entire life I've witnessed a successful cell phone call
aboard a commercial aircraft, at altitude, only on the tarmac.
MT
michael...@mac.com
That's slander plain and simple. You should have done some
investigation before you posted that and you know it. Consider the
outting of your health status collateral damage and fair game!
MT
MT
Richard Yates
>transmits 30 miles horizontally a "radius" implies it transmits
>vertically 30 miles as well.
A horizontal circle has a horizontal radius. Clinger never said or implied a
30 mile vertical radius. He inferred SOME vertical component to the towers
directionality but only speculated about the size of the vertical angle
between the tower and a plane at a horizontal distance of 30 miles and an
elevation of 25000 feet.
Although he did not calculate it, this angle is less than 11 degrees.
>> Cell phones work at closer distances in hilly terrain and so apparently
>> their directionality is not
>> strictly horizontal but must have a vertical component too, and so it is
>> plausible that a cell phone would work at up to that distance and
>> altitude.
>Yes that's seems to be Clingers point the (radius) I don't dispute this.
If you agree with it at this point, but still misunderstand what came
before, I suspect that you still do not understand this. He never said that
the vertical range was the same as the horizontal range, only that there
must be some vertical component, i.e. enough to work with a plane at that
distance and altitude.
>I don't doubt Clingers hypothesis and knowledge of how it all works.
>but it is just that...... a hypothesis.
This is getting bizarre now. This mini-thread began with your statement
"Clinger the basis of your essay is, cell phones work more efficiently
the higher you are in an aircraft. Do you realize how ludicrous your theory
actually is?"
He and I have shown in detail that you are simply wrong in the claim of your
first sentence. And now you contradict your second. Look at these two
sentences, both direct quotes from your posts. Please resolve the apparent
contradiction between them:
"Do you realize how ludicrous your theory actually is?"
"I don't doubt Clinger's hypothesis and knowledge of how it all works."
RY
William D Clinger
> > I thought you believed it was the right thing to do to ask questions?
> > You are quite the hypocrite, aren't you?
>
> > Andrew
>
> That's slander plain and simple. You should have done some
> investigation before you posted that and you know it. Consider the
> outting of your health status collateral damage and fair game!
> MT
In other words, Michael, you are quite the hypocrite.
No one else has been as irresponsible as you when it
comes to posting unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo.
When challenged, you misrepresent the statements of
your challengers so consistently that you cannot blame
all of it on your poor reading comprehension and general
incompetence in matters technical; at least some of
your ravings must be slander plain and simple.
You have routinely accused people of lying and other
deceptions, most offensively when you have accused the
relatives of victims of 9/11 of lying about the final
phone calls they received from their loved ones on the
planes. You have also gone to absurd lengths to defend
web sites that make such accusations.
While making these far-fetched accusations, you have
consistently refused to answer even the most basic
and obvious questions that any serious investigator
would have to ask about the stories you promote,
such as Andrew's question:
And maybe you can also tell us, since you believe
Flight 77 never crashed into the Pentagon, what
happened to the plane and all the passengers?
Your response to Andrew is nothing more than an attempt
to slither away from the responsibilities of adult
discourse. In other words, it is quite typical of
your posts.
Will
Andrew Schulman
> > I thought you believed it was the right thing to do to ask questions?
> > You are quite the hypocrite, aren't you?
>
> > Andrew
>
> That's slander plain and simple.
>
>
false statement, I asked a question.
>
>
> You should have done some
> investigation before you posted that and you know it.
>
>
general question, does anyone know anything about this?
>
>
> Consider the outting of your health status collateral damage and fair game!
>
>
Andrew
Andrew Schulman
Andrew
michael...@mac.com
Point is Andrew you should have first done more home work before you
post a link "asking" if Rob Balsamo was a convicted Felon. You know
this, and we all know this!
MT
Rob Balsamo
"[quote name='Tashi' post='10745475' date='Jun 25 2008, 01:06 PM']
Rob and everyone thanks for your help I think I was on the computer
for 8 hours yesterday doing battle. Im going to take the day off
today.
Michael[/quote]
You're welcome Michael. Yes, some of these people may actually be paid
by the Pentagon as "Bloggers" in order to sow confusion, set up
strawmans and switch topics in order to discredit the original topic.
Case in point, Clinger switching to the cell phone topic due to the
fact he is unable to address the Flight Data Recorder/Press Release in
the original post. It appears there are about 2-4 "Govt loyalists" on
that thread who have an agenda.
Matt P seems to "get it" though and those with a brain reading through
the thread can see the strawmans being set up by the govt loyalists.
Try to get them back on topic regarding the Flight Data Recorder. I
may even join in when i find some free time. ;)
Or, better yet, invite them here.... (i dont suppose Clinger will
bring his accusations here though as he will be readily exposed)
This may help you to get back on topic and answer Schulmans question
at the same time...
[url="http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?
s=&showtopic=7591&view=findpost&p=9458664"]http://
pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....t&p=9458664[/url]
Also, when you quote me, please quote me in full. Feel free to quote
this post as well. :)
Regards
Rob"
Anyone making excuses for the govt story are welcome to come over to
our forum for debate on the several topics brought up in this thread,
including the original post. I dont suppose we will see many as the
strawmans, accusations and flat out lies being offered here against
P4T will be readily exposed.
Matti Partonen
"William D Clinger" <cesu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:53ed5cc6-5cbe-4074...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> The short story, however, is that Griffin and
> Balsamo's article is based upon a false premise
> (that cell phones cannot work at high altitude)
> compounded by multiple leaps of illogic.
This may not be relevant to the situation in the US, but here goes anyway:
A few years ago (but after 2001) I experimented a bit on a flight from
Florence, Italy, to Helsinki, with a stopover at Munich, Germany.
In the plane I tried to make calls with my cell phone which was set up to
connect to operators in each of these countries (and even those between). I
tried both shortly after takeoff (altitude maybe 3000 ft) and at the
cruising altitude. All attempts were above densely populated areas, covered
by networks of several operators. The phone was a good one, by my then
employer Nokia. No connection at all, none.
I have heard some people in the US report that they have managed to call
home from a plane some time before landing. It may be that in the US
somewhat different technology is in use, or base stations/antennas are
configured differently, or something else.
People at network operators could give a definite answer whether or not the
alleged 9/11 cell phone calls were possible. They have that knowledge. But I
have not seen any comment from them.
Matti P.
Rob Balsamo
Regarding "New Study From Pilots For Truth: No Boeing....."
Please click...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/article_corrections.html
Some people here really need to get better research skills.
Regards
Rob