Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? The Poll!

[fela fan]

On second thoughts, maybe it isn't so informative.

Surely i'd be able to get a signal somewhere on that mountain then, if signals drop in and out?

And how come nowhere on the london undeground gets a signal.

Seems to me if you're too far down, or too far up, signals become a big problem.

 

[editor]

Surely i'd be able to get a signal somewhere on that mountain then, if signals drop in and out?

And how come nowhere on the london undeground gets a signal.

Seems to me if you're too far down, or too far up, signals become a big problem.

Are you really this dense? If there is no transmitter near you and the nearest one is the other side of a mountain you're only going to get sporadic, reflected coverage. But if you're on a mountain with a transmitter staring right at you, you'll probably get a signal.

But if the transmitter is very weak, you won't get much coverage.

Or if the transmitter is weak and there's loads of mountaineers chatting to their Mums, you won't get much of a signal.

And mobiles don't work on the Underground because (deepest sigh) they're not designed to work underground. just like they won't work in the Channel Tunnel. Or down a coal mine.

And that's because rock is somewhat thicker than air - common knowledge - or so I thought...

 

[fela fan]

Are you really this dense?

And mobiles don't work on the Underground because (deepest sigh) they're not designed to work underground. just like they won't work in the Channel Tunnel. Or down a coal mine.

And that's because rock is somewhat thicker than air - common knowledge - or so I thought...

Try being civil, it's not that hard.

Not designed to work underground? Well, (deepest sigh) what about this from your link:

"Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes.

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations."

 

[Loki]

And how come nowhere on the london undeground gets a signal.

I've received calls on the underground and seen others chatting away on their mobile, think it was Circle line Victoria to High St Kensington. So it does work on certain parts of the network.

 

[fela fan]

I've received calls on the underground and seen others chatting away on their mobile, think it was Circle line Victoria to High St Kensington. So it does work on certain parts of the network.

Okay then loki, nowhere on the underground when under ground.

Better for you?

 

[Loki]

Okay then loki, nowhere on the underground when under ground.

Better for you?

er, nope. Are you suggesting the Circle line is above the ground?

 

[fela fan]

er, nope. Are you suggesting the Circle line is above the ground?

You love your 'suggestions' in other people's language don't you loki. Bit of a conspiracist yourself are you? Always reading things into what folk say.

In fact, i was relying upon my memory that victoria to high st ken was above ground, but correct me if i'm wrong.

If i am, and it's under ground, then you have proved editor wrong with his assertion that, either mobiles were not designed to work under ground, or that rock is denser than air.

 

[Loki]

IIRC you've been in Thailand for a while. Technology's moved on here, some things that weren't possible before are now. I was simply responding to your blanket statement "And how come nowhere on the london undeground gets a signal."

but correct me if i'm wrong.

It's below ground.

 

[fela fan]

IIRC you've been in Thailand for a while. Technology's moved on here, some things that weren't possible before are now. I was simply responding to your blanket statement "And how come nowhere on the london undeground gets a signal."




It's below ground.

Editor, care to comment on this ability for Loki's mobile phone getting a signal while under ground? Rock was supposed to be denser than air... and mobiles weren't designed for underground use, as you deeply sighed!

Loki, i meant under ground underground. I went back to live in london 2000-01 (was in london for 911!!), and one thing people all said was good was that they could get away from the sound of phones while on the tube.

Has that changed now?

 

[Loki]

Has that changed now?

Well yes, on certain parts of the network. I don't know exactly how. Mobile communication technology is constantly improving though, perhaps that's got something to do with it.

 

[pk]

Bigfish - still wriggling I see... you can't handle the fact that I provided the proof you asked for, so now you moved the goalposts.

You are a childish muppet, and as I said before, I look forward to your banning.

And where's Dr "Reporting post! I am offended!!" Jazzz?

Though at least he accepted that I have provided answers to some of his questions.

Now we have the "expert" Fela Fan comparing an approach to New York with some Thai mountain.

Ladies and gentlemen - It's The Muppet Show!

If this conspiranoid cunt Bigfish can't acccept that I have provided proof of the phone calls from Flight 93, then this thread may as well be binned, as it is clear that even when facts are presented, these deluded pricks will look the other way, toward David Icke and Joe Vialls' websites no doubt.

Waste of time trying to reach the clinically paranoid.

Fuck 'em.

 

[fela fan]

Waste of time trying to reach the clinically paranoid.

Fuck 'em.

Does that mean the end of you wasting your time then pk?

And i'm no expert, and perhaps you should note that i talked of two mountains in two countries, with altitude being my point. Can YOU explain why at 2000 foot on the ground, no signal anywhere, but at 20,000 in the air going at quite some speed, no problems whatsoever with signals? Eh?

So much so that one passenger made a call lasting several minutes, even though the expert that editor quoted said any call from that height would be a 'fluke'.

Are you prepared to debate this with me, coz you sure can't throw those jibes about viles or whoever at me, coz i've never read a word by the man.

C'mon man, show yourself to be a debater, not just an insulter.

 

[fela fan]

And where is this proof anyway?

 

[pk]

Fela Fan... did you know that one of the antennae array on top of the WTC was a cellular phone relay?

And the plane hit just below it, right?

So this means mobile phones would have worked at that altitude, because there were mobile signals being relayed that high up.

The reason you didn't get a signal on your mountain is simply because there were no cellular relays nearby, presumably because there aren't any people living/working there.

The reason you don't get a signal on the underground is because there are no relays, and no way for the above-ground signal to permeate the concrete and steel that surround the tunnels.

I'm prepared to debate with you if you are prepared to accept I have provided proof that phone calls from Flight 93 were perfectly possible.

You slippery friend Bigfish is unable to, and Dr Jazzz has flounced.

Look a few pages back for the link. It's there alright.

 

[pk]

http://www.public-action.com/911/finalmoments93/

The Final Moments of United Flight 93

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0GTV/is_21_18/ai_79963471

Final Contact - using cell phones on September 11, 2001
Wireless Review, *Nov 1, 2001 *by Betsy Harter
--------------------------
Here they are Fela Fan.
I'm convinced that the calls were possible, and that they were made.

Are you? If not why?

 

[pk]

Oh dear.

Another one seems to have been spanked.

 

[editor]

Editor, care to comment on this ability for Loki's mobile phone getting a signal while under ground? Rock was supposed to be denser than air... and mobiles weren't designed for underground use, as you deeply sighed!

Are you really this dense? How many times must the obvious be explained to you before you comprehend the simple facts?

Mobile phones are not designed to be used in deep underground tunnels, coal mines, hermit's caves or lead mines. So they won't work in deep tube tunnels or stations.

But not all of the tube network is underground, so there's no reason why mobiles won't work just fine on overground stations or very close to tunnel entrances.

Understand now? Has the penny dropped?

 

[Jessiedog]

And mobiles don't work on the Underground because (deepest sigh) they're not designed to work underground. just like they won't work in the Channel Tunnel. Or down a coal mine.

And that's because rock is somewhat thicker than air - common knowledge - or so I thought...

Surely mobiles are designed to work wherever there is a signal.

Here in HK, mobiles work throughout the underground rail system (MTR) and also in each of the three cross-harbour road tunnels.



Woof

 

[editor]

If i am, and it's under ground, then you have proved editor wrong with his assertion that, either mobiles were not designed to work under ground, or that rock is denser than air.

You're talking shit as usual.

You can not get a mobile signal in deep underground stations because the signal can't penetrate tens of metres of solid rock. The only way that's ever going to happen is if LT install underground relays along the tracks.

 

[editor]

Surely mobiles are designed to work wherever there is a signal.

Yes, but if you're looking for a device that will pick up signals through many metres of rock, the latest Nokia is going to disappoint.

 

[pk]

That's because in HK, you have transponders installed underground to relay cellular signals.

Subway wiring is usually done with "leaky coax" cables, which is the standard cable wires you're used to from your cable TV punctured with tiny holes "allowing incoming and outgoing signals to travel."

Standard base antennas and electronic boxes to capture and resend wireless date are installed in the subway stations as well.

We don't have this in London, nor do they have it in New York.

Too many people live in the tunnels, the workmen get scared down there...

 

[fela fan]

Fela Fan... did you know that one of the antennae array on top of the WTC was a cellular phone relay?

And the plane hit just below it, right?

So this means mobile phones would have worked at that altitude, because there were mobile signals being relayed that high up.

The reason you didn't get a signal on your mountain is simply because there were no cellular relays nearby, presumably because there aren't any people living/working there.

The reason you don't get a signal on the underground is because there are no relays, and no way for the above-ground signal to permeate the concrete and steel that surround the tunnels.

I'm prepared to debate with you if you are prepared to accept I have provided proof that phone calls from Flight 93 were perfectly possible.

You slippery friend Bigfish is unable to, and Dr Jazzz has flounced.

Look a few pages back for the link. It's there alright.

I'll look at your links in a minute, but first a reply to this post.

On the mountain in thailand, no people per se to speak of living there. But in australia, in the hundreds at least, but spread over a fair size area.

I fully understand that signals aren't gettable if there's no antennae or whatever it is that's needed.

An antenna on top of the WTC means phone calls can be made by those on the plane hundreds of miles away from NY city, way way up in the air? Remember no calls were made from the planes that hit the towers, only from the plane that got 'shot down'. That is interesting in itself, why no calls from the planes that crashed into the two towers and into the Pentagon?

I never even tried getting a signal on the underground, but loki said he got one. So ask him and editor about that one.

"...if you are prepared to accept I have provided proof that phone calls from Flight 93 were perfectly possible".

Yeah i'm prepared to accept that, now that you have added the rider 'perfectly possible'.

But i'd still like to hear from an urbanite who has used his/her mobile high up in the air on a jet. You know, just to confirm it's possible like, coz i distrust experts in newspapers. From my experience that is.

I have no 'friends' on urban, i just debate with whoever wants to engage with me, so please recognise that. Maybe i tend to agree with some, but that is the due process of debating.

 

[pk]

What does this have to do with Flight 93 phone calls though???

 

[bendeus]

God!

I am one of the people who often views the 9/11 threads but rarely post because they always degenerate into this.

IMHO, however, I feel that the onus for the flaming/derailing that makes them so tiresome is being unfairly heaped on the 'tinfoil hat/mike yarwood/ck 'nutjobs' (others' words not mine) rather than on the extremely aggressive anti-camp.

It just appears to be a desultory, decreasing curve of baiting, sniping and insults until the 'ck nut' finally snaps and inevitably reduces him/herself to the level of 'discourse' with which they are being bombarded, at which point they are torn to pieces and the point they are trying to make obfuscated in a red mist. Take this thread; I believe that the question that prompted it was simply asking whether people believed (not knew or could prove) that Rumsfeld and by implication the USG had more knowledge of the attacks than is being officially portrayed by the press. What's wrong with that? And it seems by the reaction to the poll that far more people on these boards are interested in alternative views of the tragedy than some would give credit for. How many times have they been derided as a lonely cadre of monomaniac nutjobs ( It looks like the nutjobs outnumber the sane by about 20% at this point)?

I'm not going to get into the debate and will hold my tongue on what I feel about the question (although I voted), simply because I really like to debate points on these boards, but am lukewarm at best about being insulted, demeaned and having my sanity questioned. I'm not attacking people who feel strongly about issues, but I do feel that a little bit more restraint and politeness would bring about the reasoned debated that, as so many vitriolically state, is absent from 'conspiracy' threads.

 

[editor]

Remember no calls were made from the planes that hit the towers, only from the plane that got 'shot down'. That is interesting in itself, why no calls from the planes that crashed into the two towers and into the Pentagon?

As usual, you're talking total and utter shit.

NEW YORK (CNN) NEW YORK (CNN) -- Passengers on one of the planes terrorists crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, planned to resist the hijackers, according to the widow of one of the passengers.

About three-and-a-half minutes before the doomed United Airlines Flight 175 struck the trade center's south tower, Brian David Sweeney, a 38-year-old former U.S. Navy pilot from Barnstable, Massachusetts, made two phone calls.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/10/911.call/

 

[pk]

"...if you are prepared to accept I have provided proof that phone calls from Flight 93 were perfectly possible".

Yeah i'm prepared to accept that, now that you have added the rider 'perfectly possible'.

So you disagree with Dr Jazzz and Bigfish then.

They have been screaming that this is impossible for months now.

Ten minutes Googling and I have shut them up.

For people supposedly passionate about their theories they don't seem to want to face facts.

 

[editor]

I never even tried getting a signal on the underground, but loki said he got one. So ask him and editor about that one.

That'll be because he was either on or near the surface.

What are you having trouble understanding such simple facts?

 

[fela fan]

Are you really this dense? How many times must the obvious be explained to you before you comprehend the simple facts?

Mobile phones are not designed to be used in deep underground tunnels, coal mines, hermit's caves or lead mines. So they won't work in deep tube tunnels or stations.

But not all of the tube network is underground, so there's no reason why mobiles won't work just fine on overground stations or very close to tunnel entrances.

Understand now? Has the penny dropped?

I think you'd better reread the exchanges between me and loki since you were last on this thread.

He said he got a signal UNDERGROUND, not 'overground'. You said it isn't possible.

I know not all the underground is not under ground, but loki told me of a stetch of underground that is under ground where he got a signal, so stop calling me stupid/dense and address what loki is saying. I only cleared it up with him so we could clarify if mobiles could be used underground. He says yes, you say no, could you work it out between you please.

 

[pk]

There are patches of the Underground in London that would give you a faint signal, but an unreliable one.

What is the significance of this anyway Fela?

 

[editor]

IMHO, however, I feel that the onus for the flaming/derailing that makes them so tiresome is being unfairly heaped on the 'tinfoil hat/mike yarwood/ck 'nutjobs' (others' words not mine) rather than on the extremely aggressive anti-camp.

So what do you think of the probability of "Operation Pretend That You're Going to Be Killed by Non Existent Terrorists"?

Or how about the suggestion that the bereaved wives and husbands who took the calls from their loved ones were too stupid to realise that they were being duped by an impersonator?

I'd say the conspiracy fans responsible for posting up such offensive, disgusting bile get all the ridicule they deserve.