BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 09:21 PM

"How can you possibly have so much faith in them. My experience tells me that if this governments says ANYTHING, it should be questioned and questioned vigorously."

Jack...if you read a lot of my posts, you'll be aware just how little I think of this administration in general. NOTHING I have said should suggest that I 'have trust in them'! But I view these things like I do people...every one must be considered on its own merits. In fact, I just said recently that their very incompetence makes it VERY hard for me to believe they could have either planned OR aided such a complex plots without someone slipping up.
   But, quite apart from that, I will not go from "I don't like them or trust them to do what they need to for the benefit of old retirees like me...or the rest of the country." to believing that they would knowingly and willfully HARM the country in such a hideous way. I KNOW why certain militant Muslims would do that, and I have seen their admissions and threats to do more. They plotted for 5 years to pull off that one...the plot was a one-time, deceptively simple one.

You say that "My experience tells me that if this governments says ANYTHING, it should be questioned and questioned vigorously." ....but my experience says that this is a self-defeating, endless exercise. All you could do would be to 'question'...forever. You could not be right every time, but you'd never know when!
This why I say that it is necessary to know what KINDS of things to seriously investigate....such as the weak and immoral excuses for invading Iraq! Those are all but proven, whereas complicity in 9/11 is not even in the realm of direct accusation of anyone in particular. "Trained operatives 'might' have set charges in WTC7 during holidays and sat around hoping those planes would hit when they were supposed to!"..etc...etc...

I guess that where we have to agree to disagree...you are willing to believe 'they' (a pretty vague 'they') are capable of anything, and should be investigated for ANYTHING that goes wrong, while I am not. Once you are committed to distrusting everything, you don't even have a good idea of how to recognize contrary data when it arrives!
   I don't care to get into that infinite regress...You can chalk it up to stubbornness or whatever you wish, but we seem to have a basic psychological difference about how to look at it all. I guess it will have to be like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:34 PM

>>>I guess that where we have to agree to disagree...you are willing to believe 'they' (a pretty vague 'they') are capable of anything, and should be investigated for ANYTHING that goes wrong, while I am not. Once you are committed to distrusting everything, you don't even have a good idea of how to recognize contrary data when it arrives! <<<

Ding!
Ding!
Ding!
Straw man!!!!!

The "they" is not vague at all!

I've named them. George Bush and the Neocons.

I have not committed to distrusting "everything" I have a specific and I think very reasonable distrust of George Bush and the Neocons. They are habitual and pathological liars. It would be very foolish and naive to trust them or their 'experts' on any major issue. I can make up my own mind on many issues. But for some, evidence was hidden and no proper investigation has ever been allowed to take place.

I didn't say ANYTHING that goes wrong. Just the things they have had their hands on. Or happened on their watch, Anything that has not been independently investigated. Like Katrina: Like No Child Left Behind: Like the sub-prime mortgage crisis: Like the Iraq war and the buildup to it and Yes, even 9/11.

Again, after all of the lies, I fail to see how you trust them and their 'experts' and the political hacks they appointed to investigate 9/11. Frankly it is baffling. Is it some sort of herd instinct. ;-)

By the way, this quote below is mean petty and totally, totally uncalled for.

>>>you don't even have a good idea of how to recognize contrary data when it arrives!<<<

I don't know where you got that idea, I plainly can recognize contrary data. I can also recognize contrary people, and on this issue you are certainly one of those. Stop looking at the trees and take the peek at the forest. The forest is scary and dark the forest is telling me now that knowing what we know now about Bush and the Neocons, we should take another look at 9/11.

Why do you have a problem with this?

>>> believing that they would knowingly and willfully HARM the country in such a hideous way. <<<

The Iraq war has done us much more harm and been much more hideous. Would you have to see all of those armless, legless, eyeless and brain damaged young men and women assembled on the mall in Washington to realize this?

The damage that the 9/11 attacks did to our economy was miniscule compared to that war.

People died in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast because their National Guard and its equipment was in Iraq.

You would need to have the 4,000 US dead from that war die on the same day? Two or three at a time is just as hideous for me.

Are you thinking about the 5 million Iraqi refugees and the hundreds of thousands dead?

Of course they would do something that hideous. They already have. Where have you been for the past seven years?

I'll accept data about structural steel and collapse rates and any of that from independent experts. I don't believe that it was energy weapons as some have proposed. But don't tell me that the reason there was no conspiracy was because these men were not morally weak enough and cowardly to engage in one to Hasten the Utopia they envision. From what I have seen of them I believe that in planning it, their only concern would be if they did it, could they get re-elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:35 PM

No, I was positioning **authorities** as authority. I was claiming that highly qualified and neutral experts disagreed with you.

No, you are positioning yourself as the authority. You are assuming the authority to say that, 1. the authorities you are presenting as evidence are automatically more right than any other authorities, and 2. that the authorities you are presenting always tell the truth. You possess no such authority, which makes your argument a logical fallacy.

Those issues need to be dealt with by experts, and mostly have been. If you intend to doubt the conclusions of certified experts, just BECAUSE they were hired and approved by a commission set up BY the government...which you refuse to trust or believe....what are we to do to convince you?

If you can't see the flaw in this argument, there really is no hope for you. Please show me where I have ever said I doubt the conclusions of those experts BECAUSE they were hired and approved by a commission set up BY the government. (Hint: logical fallacy on your part - assuming facts not in evidence.)

The fact is that I have NOT ever said this. In fact, when I posted my disputes with one of them earlier in the thread, I ONLY disputed his arguments. But you have chosen to ignore that post of mine, and pretend that I did not make it, and you chose not to respond to my refutation of his arguments, or even acknowledge them. And I have said several times right here in this thread that I originally accepted the government's version of events. You have chosen to ignore this as well. Logically, this would mean that my attitude about not trusting the government came after I realized that I found other scenarios for what happened on 9/11 more credible than the government's numerous versions. And I have shown that there are many certified experts who do not agree with your certified experts. But you have ignored those as well. Just because an expert is certified doesn't automatically prove that they are telling the truth in every case. That is something that you have taken on faith. So you are giving your experts the benefit of the doubt just because they are working with the government, and you are doing it on faith. Or at least, you are expecting us to accept it on that basis. I, on the other hand, tend to believe the experts who make sense to me. Some of these experts, by the way, used to work for the government, and have resigned because of the way the government is handling this issue. I have mentioned this before, and you have chosen to ignore it as well.

That's got to be at least ten logical fallacies all wrapped up in one right there.

Yep...I get kinda sarcastic when evidence of real plane parts is ignored in order to enhance a conspiracy theory.

Considering all that you, yourself, have ignored, I would say that's a whole lot of the pot calling the kettle sooty.

Real plane parts are not proof of anything all by themselves. You need to be able to explain all of the other anomalies, as well as provide us with a lot of physical evidence that either no longer exists, or that the government will not release before you can prove anything.

Some of the physical evidence that I am going on is the projectile that hit the Pentagon itself. I have seen it from the front tip to the back end, and what I have seen simply is not tall enough to be the kind of plane that the government is saying it was. So who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes? Logic would tell me that having seen the physical evidence, it makes no sense for me to accept anything on faith.

Perhaps you would like to respond to my refutations of one of your experts rather than ignoring them. Or are you ignoring them in order to enhance your own particular conspiracy theory? Shall I start getting sarcastic now?

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 11:39 AM

On the subject of the cell phones. The experts on this page do a pretty thorough job of debunking what beardedbruce has to say on the subject. Apparently, just knowing what kind of frequencies cell phones use does not make you an expert on how cell phones work in practice...

http://911review.org/brad.com/sept11_cell-phones/engineer_tech.html


The scientist on this page tests whether or not the government's version is even possible...

http://physics911.net/projectachilles

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 01:48 PM

I'm sorry I got this far into this. You know my basic position, and I know yours. I think that anyone reading these threads can pretty well see our relative positions, but I also suspect that most everyone who BOTHERS is already in one camp or the other, and is not likely to change their minds because of what either of us say.

You, Jack & Carol, seem to have a very large capacity to research and debate not only the facts & evidence, but also to question the internal motivation and clarity of thinking and manner of expression of those who disagee with you.
   It has gone beyond whether you are right, I am right, or whether 'right' can even be determined. I am recovering from dental surgery and have work to do in my shop that is suffering. The constant demands that I document everything I say, whether about facts or about 'what I said about what YOU said about what I said' etc., would, if I complied, have me doing little else. (I honestly do not grasp where YOU find the time & energy).
You are obviously honest and concerned and passionate about these issues, and I suppose that, if there is ANY substance to your suspicions, it will be discovered by folks who share both your passion & who have the time to sort it all out.
   All I can do is reiterate my basic skepticism and assure you that I will read what I can .... and wait & see. Obviously, if anyone finds clear and undisputed evidence, it will make the news.

The only possible way you (plural) and I could attempt to conduct much more of this debate would be face to face, with opportunity to say "hey...wait, that's not what I said or meant" and clarify (if possible) the rules.....but that's hardly likely.

(You know...I debate here with Mick about guns, with beardedbruce and Ron Davies about politics, and with several Mudcatters about religion & astrology ...and I get along with them fine in 'real life' and often see them all at the Getaway or elsewhere....but there, we simply don't get into those debates. As you know, 'real life' relationships don't fare well if these issues get the upper hand. I think I'd like to preserve that situation.)

I ain't 'gone', I just don't do well on a treadmill these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 02:12 PM

Looks like it ends in a tie

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 02:34 PM

"at 30,000, there would be very little energy left to ANY signal, and would have nothing to "bounce off of""


You need to study electrical engineering a little. YOU ARE NOW CLAIMING that Cells don't work at a distance of 5 miles from the tower. It this were so, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN the nuumber of Cell calls each day that do go through?

I have talked to spacecraft with a few watts on the spacecraft, and gotten a signal here on earth with no problem- a little more than your impossible 5 miles.

My 30 years of RF experiience trumps his 15. Sorry, I am twice the expert.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 02:39 PM

"Looks like it ends in a tie"....

*grin*...can't tell...the scoreboard has shorted out under the load.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 02:44 PM

Episode 49 of Mythbusters - they proved that cell phones work on planes.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 02:53 PM

Bill, I really don't think you do know my positions. I think that you have taken a little bit of what I have said and lumped it into some sort of giant amorphous concept that you have of everything everyone has said who disagrees with the government, and you're applying this concept that originates with you to all of us who disagree with the government's version of events. I think this explains why you regularly make assumptions and incorrect assertion about what I think and believe.

I really am not interested at all in debating anything with you. But I object to your practice of stomping all over anyone who holds different ideas on this subject than you and maintaining that you are the only one who could possibly be right. As I have already shown more than once in this thread, I don't care whether or not anyone else agrees with me on this subject. I just don't think you or anyone else has a right to make attacks on or even to patronize (as you so often do) anyone who sees things differently than you.

Clearly, your arguments have nothing whatever to do with logic, and are purely emotional in nature. That's not how you like to present yourself, but it is how you operate in these discussions. That cartoon you posted with the guy saying "someone's wrong on the internet" is a perfect representation of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 02:55 PM

beardedbruce, it looks to me like you didn't bother to read all (or even very much) of what I posted the links to for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 03:04 PM

Bruce,

The dude made a lot of points that seemed pretty reasonable such as the "lists", that fact that there are few towers in rural areas and most damningly that the antennae for the towers are pointed down.

It seems pretty convincing. I'd like to see your 30 years of experience in general RF refute his 15 years of specific experience.


Bill,

I agree totally. I'd hate to think that something as meaning less as an Internet debate would interfere with our friendship.

Ron,

Have you been looking at Bill's score because you own was too small you see?

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: GUEST,jts
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 03:23 PM

Ron Olesko loses yet again.

>>>Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 02:44 PM

Episode 49 of Mythbusters - they proved that cell phones work on planes.<<<

They attempted to prove that cell phones did not interfere with aircraft avionics. They conducted their experiment ON THE GROUND in a MOCK UP of a plane.

Mythbusters 49 has NOTHING to due with ANY ASPECT of the CURRENT DISCUSSION! Talk about your logical fallacies!   On the Logical Fallacy scoreboard, I'd say that you are three points down just from that one sentence.


http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cellphones_on_plane.html

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: irishenglish
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 03:32 PM

Guest-you are partially correct, they used a mockup, before switching to an actual corporate jet parked on the tarmac, which your link mentions, but I'm sure you knew that.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: bobad
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 03:44 PM

Some other views re. Phone calls from Flight 93

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 04:19 PM

"damningly that the antennae for the towers are pointed down."

The radiation pattern of the cell antenna is certainly REDUCED directly above the tower, and the signal MOST LIKELY used a tower off to one side or the other (especially since you claim there were NOT any towers in the immediate area- Thus the signal directly above the tower has no significance. Or do you want to change that, now?).

As for aiming "at the ground", the 3 dimensional pattern would be set to INCLUDE the ground surface- the REST of the pattern would be in the air.

Now you are claiming that you can't use cell in tall buildings?

The point is that a low power signal can be received HUNDREDS of MILES away IF IN DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT. At the frequencies involved, THAT is not subject to debate.

Sort of like those airplanes talking directly to control centers and airports: If they can see them, they can talk to them. At 30,000 FEET ( less than 5 miles) they can see a good distance.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 04:27 PM

"It seems pretty convincing. I'd like to see your 30 years of experience in general RF refute his 15 years of specific experience."

My 30 + years of experience with RF communications from air and space vehicles at high speeds vs his 15 years with ground use standing still? You are giving me a free pass here.

The plane was in the air, moving: WHAT part of his experience applies?

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 04:50 PM

poo-poo JTS!! Score keeping? You aren't even playing in the majors and I doubt you could hit a curve.

Yes, Episode 49 has relevance to the current discussion. The subject was whether cell phones could interfere with a plane's instruments - and part of the episode proved that you can get service on an airplane.

Now, if you wish to discuss this - please stop your whining and mocking of those who have different opinions. If you want to refute an opinion or a misrepresentation of fact - please do so. But stop this nonsense. It is not helping your case and your tactics are apparent to anyone who reads this. It isn't working JTS.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 07:06 PM

These so-called truth advocates are not interested in straight debate. Carol, in this case, says I should respond to her tripe. I will not. I have pointed out in any number of threads my answers to the tin hat brigade's assertions. Instead, Carol and her protector, JTS, want to focus on people who disagree with them. I will say one more time, I think ALL of the conspiracy theorists have a screw loose on this stuff. The fact that you have chosen to be the front folks on this is your problem.

You choose to develope theories and find evidence to support your theory instead of the better system of taking the evidence, factor in what happened and motive of the perps, and then making the best conclusion. See the panel of the cartoon that Bill linked to above to know what is wrong with the conspiracy theorist's methods. And take a few minutes and read bobad's link on the cell phone phony info.

And Jack....... you come off like a high school kid arguing with your buddies when you do this "Olesko" stuff. Seems to me that you are the one making it person specific.

This is my last post on this thread. Have fun running in endless "gotcha" circles.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:13 PM

Mick,

You had better be joking. Personal attacks are not allowed in this forum. So if you are not on this thread to discuss the issues and you are not joking around. Some responsible moderator ought to be deleting your posts.


Olesko brought up the score thing I assumed it was a joke. Talking about a score in a discussion was too juvenile to be anything else. I responded because I thought it was funny. I was playing along with his joke. If he is now whining about my joking response that reflects his lack of maturity, not mine. If he doesn't want jokes in his direction he hadn't out to send them in mine. Yeah it is kind of high school to respond to another person's joke. But since he started the joke. It was hardly and personal attack.

Olesko,

Stop what? Refuting your nonsense? I'll tell you this, I've talked to Carol on my cell phone on several aircraft. Yes! Cell phones can work on airplanes or mock ups of airplanes on the ground! The issue at question is whether they work at altitude, flying 500 mph over rural areas. The producers of that show said that they were not able to test service on an airliner while flying. Their test was on that ground in a mock up. It proves nothing. It has nothing to to with the discussion at had. It is you who has to give up this nonsense. Do your homework. Argue honestly. Include a fact or two.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:22 PM

Thanks for proving my point JTS. Nice mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: GUEST,surfin in, surfin out
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:47 PM

Boy, this place has some folks in it that need hobbies. I have just spent a lot of time reading through this topic, and I think I will write a paper on it next semester. JTS needs to go check out a book on passive aggressive behaviour. CarolC lacks the ability to accept any kind of reasoned argument or proof, I think she should seek some help. Big Mick and Ron Olesko don't know when to shut up and quit baiting the others. Bill D tries to be a voice of reason and logic in an insane asylum. bearded bruce seems to be really knowledgeable, but has credential envy. There are a couple of other decent blokes trying to have a reasonable discussion, but how do you do that with daft bunch of conspiracy theorists?

I should get a pretty good grade. You sure can't make this up.

surfs in, surfs up

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 11:27 PM

I see the trolls have showed up. Mick, that's what happens when the moderators of a forum provide a bad example for the members, as you are doing in this thread. You should know better.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 11:33 PM

si, si

Thanks for the dime store diagnosis Sigmund. You may want to think twice before you hand that in. Your instructor may not be the arrogant self important ass that you appear to be.   You have appear to have gathered from Mick's example that insults, disguised amateur psychology is acceptable here. We accept it from Mick because he is being funny. You are merely tedious.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:08 AM

beardedbruce, you are ignoring quite a lot of what was said in the pages I linked to. The first thing that I think should be addressed is applications. You were working with applications in which the cell phones were intended to be used under the conditions that you have described?

The experts in the links I have provided were working specifically with the kinds of conditions that would have applied to the flights we are talking about in this thread. We know that these applications are designed primarily for the use of people who are on or near the ground. These are the problems that come up with that particular application of cell phone technology (from the site I linked to)...

"POWER
Analog phones can use more power as allocated by the FCC.
the phones could use a MAX of 3 watts, but ONLY for non-hand-held
so on a plane, i would suspect, they were all hand- held phones.
Hand-held phones can use a MAX power of .6 watts as per FCC.
but most digital phones actually only go up to a max of .4

So the calls on the flights could have been different technologies, CDMA, or GSM
(analog was almost ALL phased out by then)
and could have been 800mhz OR 1900mhz

Frequency
800mhz is a longer wavelength than 1900mhz
longer wavelengths travel better THROUGH objects,
shorter ones (like 1900mhz) are more "line of sight"
In layman's terms, 1900mhz is closer to light, easily blocked by any object
even a piece of cardboard, but 1900 can BOUNCE better.

CDMA
- signal strength
a CDMA phone is trained to try and use the strongest signal. (cell site)
and it will change from one, to the next IF it can.
(often, it tries, but the signal strength has changed since it polled the level)

Since probably most of the cell calls were CDMA (most popular) at 1900mhz (again most popular)
you have digital technology at a high Frequency.
the MAIN problems are....
at that height, the (digital) phone would not be able to use the closest signal to it.
The closest signal would be from UNDERNEATH the plane.
at 30,000, there would be very little energy left to ANY signal, and would have nothing to "bounce off of"
so, it (the closest signal) would hit the bottom of the plane and stop.
so , to make a call, the phone would have to use signals from even father away.
which creates a bigger problem.
Handoffs....
the phone (CDMA) uses a handoff list, sent by each cell site it talks too.
if you go from a site from the east side of a plane at 30,000ft, then, the BEST signal, starts to come from a site on the WEST side of the plane,
those sites could be 100 miles from each other.
since each site has a handoff list of only a certian number of sites
(the list -usually- only contains sites that are next to it.)
at 30,000ft, it is VERY doubtful that the next strongest signal, would be from the next closest site
the phone would be seeing dozens of signals, from dozens of sites, from miles apart of each other.
the signal strength for each of these would vary GREATLY within milliseconds.

Believe me, its hard to OPTIMIZE these sites correctly for cars going 50mph on the ground.
The sites antennas are OPTIMIZED toward highways, and cities,
and usually DOWN-TILTED.
At 30,000ft, even 1 degree of down-tilt would make the RF energy totally useless.
(you can research antenna patterns + down-tilt)

Even if the antenna is NOT downtilted, there is a natural "roll off"
Even if an antenna is pointed straight alongg the horizon,
the farther you go ABOVE the top of the antenna, the power rolls off


Different systems - Border Handoffs...
Since different carriers may use different frequencies AND technologies,
when you cross a border, the phone drops. PERIOD.
(border handoffs work in many places NOW, but not in 2001)
the different technologies, phones and frequencies could NOT cross carriers boundaries.
(if bought a phone in New Orleans, and flew to Baton Rouge,
the New Orleans system could NOT handoff to the baton rouge system)
now, you could re-originate the call and be ROAMING, but as soon as you go over the border it drops.
i don't know exactly what the borders for different carriers were in 2001, in Pa
but going 500mph, you are sure to cross one in 1/2 hour at the MOST i would guess.
Now, all that aside, i tried it.
Several times. on several flights.
(i know your not supposed to, but that is because it effects the carrier (SPRINT etc...)
NOT the electronics of the plane.
So rest assured i endangered no one.
I was able to make a call or 2 before the plane lifted off
(and actually 1 failed right there on the tarmac)
Several times i was able to get signal strength, even over 20,000ft
but the call never actually connected. (at least not over 2,000ft)
I had made about 20 calls.

I have HEARD of people using cell phones on planes, but i never got a clear answer as to the altitude,
except one guy who flew a cesna at 2,000ft (or under ?)"

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: irishenglish
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 07:53 AM

JTS, again, minor point, but on Mythbusters they performed those tests, first on a mockup, then on a corporate jet parked on the tarmac. That's a half truth you are bringing up. Notice I'm not talking about the results, I just want you to be accurate with what you say.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:03 AM

CarolC..
Nice set of quotes. When you have your EE degree, or at leats a 3rd class radio operators permit, you might actually understand what was said, and how it does NOT support your assertion that "Cell phones can't work in airplanes at 30,000 ft"

The CENTRAL lobe of an antenna pattern can certainly be downward ( ie, set so that the bottom edge of the main lobe is at ground level, or even below) and the antenna will still receive signals from high elevations. As for 800 vs 1900 mhz, BOTH are primarily line of sight, as is the 120 and 240mhz "aircraft " bands that are used to talk between aircraft and grouing ( ATC and towers)

"Hand-held phones can use a MAX power of .6 watts as per FCC.
but most digital phones actually only go up to a max of .4"

Let me see...

.4 watts at say 50 miles (Using the accepted radiated signal strength dropoff of the square of the distance )

vs 10 watts at 300 miles ( aircraft typical ranges)
vs 5 watts at 750 miles ( average power and spacecraft distances)

I will let you figure out the relative power levels, since you claim to know so much about this topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:11 AM

"The closest signal would be from UNDERNEATH the plane."


No, YOU stated that there was someone on the ground ( where the cell is optimized) that was NOT able to get a cell call throught to report the crash- SO THERE WAS NO CELL TOWER UNDER THE PLANE

The signal would go ( out of any window or RF hole in the aircraft (ie, a hole greater than about 2 x the wavelength of the signal) and NOT in all directions. It would then be received by whatever towers were in THAT direction, within line of sight.

"those sites could be 100 miles from each other.
since each site has a handoff list of only a certian number of sites
(the list -usually- only contains sites that are next to it.)
at 30,000ft, it is VERY doubtful that the next strongest signal, would be from the next closest site
the phone would be seeing dozens of signals, from dozens of sites, from miles apart of each other.
the signal strength for each of these would vary GREATLY within milliseconds."

So, the signal strength would be fluctuating so greatly between antennas 100s of miles away that they cannot determine which has tthe strongest one, but not even detectable 5 miles away?

You really need to stick to topics you have some understanding of.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:13 AM

"at 30,000, there would be very little energy left to ANY signal"

Gee, is that because the air is too thin for it to breathe?


30,000 ft is less than 5 miles- are you claiming that cell phones will not work 5 miles from a tower???

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:23 AM

"the phone would be seeing dozens of signals, from dozens of sites,"


Yet the area was so rural that there was no signal on the ground, and the signal could not even be seen, since it was at 30,000 ft?????

Either it would NOT see the signal, or it would- MAKE UP YOUR MIND what you want to claim!

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:25 AM

GUEST,surfin in, surfin out,

You should get a Mudcat name and come back more often.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:30 AM

http://www.cushcraft.com/comm/support/pdf/Antenna-Performance-C-14B37.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:44 AM

>>>TS, again, minor point, but on Mythbusters they performed those tests, first on a mockup, then on a corporate jet parked on the tarmac. That's a half truth you are bringing up.
Notice I'm not talking about the results, I just want you to be accurate with what you say.<<<

That could well be true. I did not see the episode. I did read the producers disclaimer that they were not able to do the tests in a flying airplane. As I said before, I know from experience that one can talk on a parked airplane, at an urban airport on the ground. It may interest people to know that I recall getting only 3 bars of signal but I had all the bars in the airport. I'm on an expert, but I would speculate that the difference may have been due to the metal skin of the planes. But that has no relevance on the debate as to whether it could be done at altitude, at 500 mph over a rural area.

By the way. I believe that the people on flight 93, did make those calls using the skyphones.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:54 AM

The episode explained that they could not do the the tests on a plane due to FAA regulations- Mythbusters cannot break the law with their tests. They did explain that you can receive cell service on an airplane - which is why there is a movement to have the regulation changed in the first place. The FAA claims that cell phones will cause interference. It does have relevance to the debate about whether cell phones would even work on a plane.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:07 AM

Bruce,

I'm not sure you understand what the gentleman Carol was quoting was saying.
A lot of the things that you seem to think were contradictory were combined arguments to show that the signal would be weak and unstable. Maybe you should read what he has said with that in mind.

I like what you said about the compared signal power though. It made sense. But it does beg the questions about the Aircraft's aluminum hull blocking most of the signal and the dozens of towers that the phone might see at 50 miles away confusing the handoffs. Wouldn't the geometry of the Planes "rf holes tend to be constantly changing in relation to the towers as the plane traveled. Though I guess if the person had his or her head in the porthole opening next to the window facing the nearest highway or city he or she could minimize such effects. Also there is something I have observed about my own phone. My phone reception gets pretty crappy below three bars. At one or two bars, especially in a moving car, the sound is bad and dropoffs are frequent. The best reception I have observed in a plane is three bars. I know that this is not scientific. But If I were in a plane today and allowed to use my phone over a rural area. based on that experience, I'd be shocked if it worked. I'd expect the signal to be low because of the distance and even lower because of the plane.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:08 AM

I didn't say "Cell phones can't work in airplanes at 30,000 ft".

I said they can't do that at that height going at that speed.

You are (conveniently, in my opinion), ignoring the problem of 'handoffs' which, when combined with the other factors has created a problem for people wanting to talk on cell phones in airplanes at altitudes above a couple of thousand feet and going at speeds of a few to several hundred miles an hour. You are addressing only the problem of signal, but you apparently don't know enough about the technology being used in practice for civilian use to understand the problems associated with handoffs.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:13 AM

"Aircraft's aluminum hull blocking most of the signal "

Except that through any hole ( ie, window) larger than 2 x wavelength. Most aircraft used for passenger service have windows...

at 1900 mhz, the wavelength is... less than 6 inches.

1/2 wavelength in ft = 462 / frequency in MHz (f I remember correctly from dipole calculations)

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:17 AM

"I didn't say "Cell phones can't work in airplanes at 30,000 ft".

I said they can't do that at that height going at that speed." - CarolC.

Ah CarolC you mean that "Cell" phones work in aircraft at 30,000ft as long as the aircraft is stationary, well that's about as plausable as your theories about 9/11

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:17 AM

"you apparently don't know enough about the technology being used in practice for civilian use to understand the problems associated with handoffs. "

I do understand handoffs- but do you?

The handoff would occur WHEN ANOTHER TOWER got a stronger signal. If the signal is on one cell, it stays there until another cell gets a stronger signal or the signal strength drops below the required level.


As for your comment, I can certainly say that "You apparently don't know enough about the technology being used to understand the problems associated with the conspiracy theories you seem to believe."

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:21 AM

YOUR referenced expert claims ""at 30,000, there would be very little energy left to ANY signal""


My comment was in reply to that- which YOU insisted I had not read.

"30,000 ft is less than 5 miles- are you claiming that cell phones will not work 5 miles from a tower??? "

If HIS statement is true, MY question is certainly a valid one.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:23 AM

No, Teribus, I only said under what conditions they would not work. I did not say under what conditions they would work. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand a distinction like that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:28 AM

When you put all of the problems that the author of the pages I linked to have raised together, and you combine those with the tests and the anecdotal evidence we already have (people reporting failure when trying to place cell phone calls in planes), I think the evidence outweighs your theories, beardedbruce. You have not reported any anecdotal evidence in civilian applications, nor any tests.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:30 AM

Of course, the government could easily prove that the cell phones did work in the planes by simply releasing the phone records, which as far as I know, they have not done.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:51 AM

Sorry Bruce.....You only have thoeries whereas Carol has facts.............................

Carol, just what the hell is it that constitutes a fact versus a thory? Your belief in it? LOL........Seems to be the criteria.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:55 AM

One of my concerns is that looking at the quanity and quality of posts so far is that for some people this is no longer a topic of interest. It's a full blown obsession. How much time do y'all spend on this topic per day?

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: irishenglish
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:48 PM

I know I'm done-this has gotten too technical to comprehend. I'm going to stop while I'm ahead, before I really insult someone on here, which I wouldn't enjoy doing. I'm sure I'll see you all again on here in some capacity,but none of us is likely to change each others minds so I think I need to get back to the music, the reason I came on this board in the first place. Just got the new Oysterband CD the other day, and have been grooving on that, a real gem, and I'll leave you to the discussion. Cheers-irishenglish, or Robert

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:55 PM

Bruce,

You have said a number of informative things and, for me at least, clarified some of the points raised by the cell phone technician that Carol quoted.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:39 PM

It's all theories, catspaw. Nobody has provided any proof of anything - only theories about what could have happened. As I said, proof would be the phone records or the video from the Pentagon that the government refuses to release. Or the metal from the WTC buildings that has been destroyed at the behest of the government. Gee... if they won't let anyone see the real proof, I wonder what they have to hide...

Even the FBI doesn't consider Bin Laden a suspect for 9/11, even though he's on their most wanted list for other things. Their reason? Not enough evidence that he was responsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:45 PM

And by the way, neither you nor anyone else can find a post from me in which I have said I have proof of anything. I have only maintained that no one in the government has provided proof of anything either, and that there is considerable evidence that they are lying. My point has never been that I know what happened. My point has consistently been that there are too many anomalies and inconsistencies for the government's version to be accepted at fact value. My point is and has always been that we need an independent and verifiable investigation into what happened

The fact that you and the others keep choosing to put words in my mouth that I have never said says nothing whatever about me, and everything in the world about you (and them) and your own motives.

Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:45 PM

300 Up