EPTpower.
Bush Conspiracy Video - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
power. | ||
Mynock
4492 Posts
-Mynock | ||
|
DTDominion
United States2148 Posts
| ||
|
decafchicken
United States20176 Posts
source:http://www.rense.com/general56/cellpp.htm It's HIGHLY unlikely but possible i believe. Here's something related to the 9/11 calls (kind of) It is possible that calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 would have a better chance of getting through to 911 than a new phone would in an emergency today. I worked in the marketing department of a US cell phone company in 2001. At the time, Tri-Mode phones were standard. Tri-Mode phones received 2 types of digital as well as analog signals. By the time the company released its first digital only phones, many who previously enjoyed using their cellphones upgraded to find that they were unable to get a signal or maintain a connection. The following explains why: From "Will your cell phone reach 911?", Consumer Reports, 2/2003 When your phone is in digital mode, it can work only with your home carrier (the company you use for service) for any call--including those to 911--unless the home carrier has a roaming agreement with another carrier. Phones that can work in both digital and analog modes give you more options. Analog provides that safety net for emergency calling. Indeed, the principal FCC regulation governing wireless 911 recognizes the importance of the analog mode. The regulation, which took effect in 2000, says that whenever a wireless phone dialing 911 in analog mode can't get through via its home carrier, that phone must seek another signal, even if it's from a competing carrier, to quickly establish a voice connection. The FCC concedes its rule is only a small step toward improving 911 service. Multinetwork phones, which are normally in a digital mode, aren't required to switch to analog to make a 911 call. There are no regulations for digital-only phones..." In other words, for phones trying to make 911 emergency calls using analog, cell carriers were required to seek out the nearest tower (even a competitors' tower if necessary) to quickly connect the call. There were no such requirements for phones attempting to connect to 911 using a digital signal. This actually did make a phone with analog a better bet for reaching 911. However, companies began phasing out analog, passively at first, after the FCC lifted requirements that they maintain the analog system in Fall of 2002. Among Consumer Reports conclusions: The FCC must ensure that digital phones are more compatible. The FCC voted last fall to phase out its requirement that some wireless providers offer an analog backup signal. We think that was a mistake because the agency did not also require companies to make their digital technologies talk with one another. Simply allowing analog to fade away removes the principal common wireless language. In the end, you will have less assurance than you do now that your phone will get through to 911. http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv2.jsp?CONTENT %3C%3Ecnt_id=299615&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=162691 So attempting to make a call from a plane today using a newer technology cell phone isn't really a fair comparison. The analog system is patchier and discontinued in many places altogether; many phones only offer access digital now anyway. On 911, the callers on the hijacked craft were almost certainly off the digital network using a trimode (or lower quality) phone. When digital couldn't get through, their phones switched to analog which, at least in a 911 call, gave them a better chance of getting through. This still doesn't clear up how calls were made at altitudes over 8,000 ft (and possibly up to 30,000 ft). Thanks, Kelly | ||
|
lil.sis
China4650 Posts
| ||
|
Mynock
4492 Posts
OK, was bit slow, will read it now, (edit, ok I reply now) decaf: You're forgetting a key point here tho, or better two: - The distances provided even better a shield than the hull of the aircraft, which basically means that at altitudes of 32k feet, combined with the effect of the tin box rendered (and still does, regardless of the 900-1800 or whatever other transmission system) the chances of successfull calls virtually nil. - The calls were not made to 911, but to the passenger's relatives, on other normal cell-, or wired phones. + And this is just the technical (obviously most solid and undeniable) aspect of the controversy in question, we're leaving out things like "introducing yourself by your full name when talking to your mom". -Mynock | ||
|
rpf289
United States3524 Posts
On March 03 2006 15:25 -_- wrote: I didn't bring up the past. I'm not that shallow. If I'm going to insult you, I'll use recent experiences.distantvoice: post in the thread. rpf: you're wrong in just about everything you've ever said about anything that ever existed for any amount of time. If you want to ignore me, you have my blessing! Just don't say I contradict myself, when you say you don't care about what I say, and then contradict yourself by posting about it. Oh, and don't be like that little dodging fazant who tries to bring up the past to insult me, and ends up just making an ass of himself. First, you did contradict yourself, and yes, I contradicted myself by posting. Pun intended. | ||
|
lil.sis
China4650 Posts
On March 03 2006 16:29 Mynock wrote: - The calls were not made to 911, but to the passenger's relatives, on other normal cell-, or wired phones. rofl do you even read what you are writing man? "911 emergency" "We are being hijacked please send the police!!!" rofl who do you call when you're about to die, if the call you make may be your last? not 911, that's for sure | ||
|
HowitZer
United States1610 Posts
On March 03 2006 16:28 lil.sis wrote: you guys should just bet $1000 on wether or not the points in the video can be disproven, and then go out and prove each other wrong, for money. i am confident the conspiracy theorists aren't that confident in the results of such an investigation, nor would they be able to find enough unbiased evidence to back their ridiculous claims Did you watch the video? What's ridiculous is that people believe an airplane can cause a WTC to collapse like it did. | ||
CaucasianAsian
Korea (South)11603 Posts
On March 03 2006 16:28 lil.sis wrote: you guys should just bet $1000 on wether or not the points in the video can be disproven, and then go out and prove each other wrong, for money. i am confident the conspiracy theorists aren't that confident in the results of such an investigation, nor would they be able to find enough unbiased evidence to back their ridiculous claims When an airplane hit the tower, it is likely that it could of weakend the metal, not melt it, but weaken it, which would cause the upper 10 floors to start to fall onto the ones below, and if 10 stories of a building in a freefall onto the other floors, it has to collapse.. It was proved on the History channel. I am not saying that there were not bombs or anything such as what the video proves, but just can show that the planes could of made the buildings crash by themselves. | ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
critics may say that it's biased, but it shows a couple of things based in independent sources: the WTC was designed to take the impact of a 707, biggest plane built at the time of the WTC's construction. (source is an interview with Frank Demartini, Manager WTC Construction & Project Management: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm) the video is stored on another "biased" page, but Frank Demartini speaks for himself. the clip is like 30 seconds long. The planes that crashed into it were 767s. Now if you think that these planes are much bigger, able to take more cargo or carried more fuel look at this: ( http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html ) And if you don't believe the charts on this "biased" page double-check in the official reports straight from FEMA: ( http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf (it's on page 19) Next look here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html The Windsor Building sustained a similar fire for more than 18 hours. Although the top ten storeys fell, the rest of the building did not collapse. Click the links on these pages. They back everything up with independent sources. | ||
|
ploy
United States416 Posts
On March 03 2006 18:24 distant_voice wrote: about the crash of the Twin Towers: look at this page: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html critics may say that it's biased, but it shows a couple of things based in independent sources: the WTC was designed to take the impact of a 707, biggest plane built at the time of the WTC's construction. (source is an interview with Frank Demartini, Manager WTC Construction & Project Management: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm) the video is stored on another "biased" page, but Frank Demartini speaks for himself. the clip is like 30 seconds long. The planes that crashed into it were 767s. Now if you think that these planes are much bigger, able to take more cargo or carried more fuel look at this: ( http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html ) And if you don't believe the charts on this "biased" page double-check in the official reports straight from FEMA: ( http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf (it's on page 19) Next look here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html The Windsor Building sustained a similar fire for more than 18 hours. Although the top ten storeys fell, the rest of the building did not collapse. Click the links on these pages. They back everything up with independent sources. Try using reliable sources (and not the same one 3 times). http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/wtccollapse/flash.htm And if you dont believe that, heres a pretty detailed explanation of how and why, from a good source. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html edit: put same link twice :o | ||
|
TameTheMan
United States71 Posts
| ||
|
ploy
United States416 Posts
The reason conspiracy theories are usually viewed on so skeptically is because they are usually complex theories based upon small facts, for example, why do you think that those cell phone calls are so important mynock? Why not focus on some of the bigger facts. | ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
The Article you posted even backs up a lot of things that the video brings up (e.g. the fire not being hotter than about 800° and so on). However the link you posted manages to explain why the Towers collapsed even though the fire wasn't as hot as the official reports say. Finally someone who brings in good arguments!  Through your article I found this: http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/ which further explains why the Towers collapsed. There are still some things that need to be explained: why didn't the Windsor Building collapse completely? did it not have enough weight to push down the other storeys? why is it that so many people heard more than one, if not several explosions? why were the window panes on the first floor blown out? Remember that the elevator shaft was allegedly hermetically sealed. You convinced me that there is a possibility that the Towers could collapse just like they did without bombs. But why is it that so many people heard those explosions? And about the phone calls: there's no such things as big or small facts in my opinion. that's still a point that needs to be cleared up. | ||
|
rpf289
United States3524 Posts
On March 03 2006 19:43 ploy wrote: There are strong arguments for each side. However, I can see the difference between an implosion and an implosion.So many of the 'facts' that the creator of the video have way too many assumptions in them to be accurate. You guys can't possibly think that the planes couldn't indirectly cause the towers to collapse lack the ability to think critically and read between the lines. If anyone still has problems thinking the planes couldn't cause a collapse in the towers, please just try to make a rebuttle for me (like against the links I posted above) and I will explain to you in my own words (simpler words) why its extremely possible. The reason conspiracy theories are usually viewed on so skeptically is because they are usually complex theories based upon small facts, for example, why do you think that those cell phone calls are so important mynock? Why not focus on some of the bigger facts. I trust the word of those who were there over the government. I trust my gut over the word of the government. On 9/11, two planes crash, and totally disappear. Planes were not there. Planes did hit the WTC, but it is not those who brought it down. It is not possible for the corner of a damaged building to result in the neat implosion of the South Tower. I respectfully disagree with you, but for you to say that there isn't something else going on is arrogant of you. A lot of people in government, i.e. Bush's cabinet, resigned, and one of his best military advisors told the truth. Same with the CIA. You're entitled to your opinion, but I still believe that Bush isn't telling the whole story. For example, the FBI shows up at the Citgo nearest to the Pentagon within five minutes of the incident, confescates the security video, and hands the employees a written notice, and threat. So, the FBI knew which places to go to, and they already had the written threat. The FBI isn't exactly known for their tactics. Heh. | ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/ and just because you have to admit that he's right with one thing it doesn't mean that you've "lost" or that the discussion is over. | ||
|
ploy
United States416 Posts
This is probably going to get long, but if you think you can legitly argue in favor of the conspiracy theory, PLEASE read on and discuss with me. BTW, I've been studying as an engineer for some time, so I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass. No, the airplanes did not DIRECTLY cause the buildings to collapse. If the impact of the airplanes had collapsed it, it would have collapsed immediately, and it would have tipped over to the direction the airplane was going and would no doubt have taken out buildings on that side of it. So the buildings withstood the impact of the airplanes, no doubt about it. That says a lot about the strength of that building, it's really quite awesome and it shows you how much safety margin is designed into our buildings, because I can assure you the building was NOT designed to withstand that kind of side load. Normally the only side load on the building in the direction the airplanes were going would be from the wind blowing against it. The building was probably designed for a wind load of maybe 150 mph, I don't know. But it certainly would not have been designed for the kind of load the aircraft put on it, yet it still withstood it. Awesome. Yes, I guess the phase change of steel from solid to liquid is at 3000 degrees. I don't really know, but let's say it does, 'cause it doesn't make any difference. And let's also say that the fire didn't get hot enough get the steel to its critical point (where it changes state from solid to liquid). Again, I don't know what temp it got to, but let's concede for now that it did not reach the melting point of steel. Given those facts, how does he come to the conclusion that the fire didn't cause the collapse? Who says the steel would have to get to its melting point before it would collapse? He never says it. But he ASSUMES it implicitly, and you don't notice that because it's hidden between the lines and you're not thinking critically and logically and you're also not familiar with the behavior of steel when heated. All that logic is embedded and invisible and never stated outright. You have to analyze it in your head to see it. Also, theres this code that has the rules that engineers by law must use when designing steel pressure vessels in nuclear power plants in the US of A. The attachment shows the allowable stress in pounds per square inch (psi) of various kinds of carbon and stainless steel. Each horizontal line is a certain grade of steel, so you stay on one line and read from the left to the right. The higher the allowable stress, the stronger the steel and the more load or weight it can carry. Another factor in the load is the temperature, obviously high temperatures decrease the allowable stress. What happens to the allowable stress, hence the strength of the steel, as the temperature of the steel increases? So here's what happened. As the steel heated up from the fire, the allowable stress (strength) decreased. Since there is safety margin built in, it would not collapse as soon as it started heating. But as it loses strength as the temp goes up, the amount of load or weight it can carry decreases. Eventually it reaches a point where the load it can carry is exactly equal to the load that's actually on it. When the strength decreases further, it no longer can support its load, and the steel starts buckling and the weight above it is no longer being supported by that steel. So then the weight that the steel was supporting would be transferred to the steel below it. Now that steel may have been cool, even room temperature and still be as strong as ever. But it now has a new load on it in addition to its design load, and if that new load exceeds the safety margin designed into the steel it can't handle it either and it gives way. And so the building just collapses like a pancake. The weight of the building above the floors where the plane hit can no longer be supported and starts to drop on the lower levels of steel, which in turn collapse and so on all the way down to the ground. This is exactly what the films show. Now, what about the fact that other buildings have fires and don't collapse. Well, I imagine that this fire was considerably hotter and transferred much more heat to the steel than conventional fires, but let's not even get into that. Building design codes require that you put insulation around the steel that support the building. This is a fire protection measure. the insulation acts as a barrier to the heat, so the steel increases in temperature much slower, allowing more time for the fire to be put out before a structural failure occurs. But in this situation, it seems reasonable to believe that the impact of the airplane into the building would surely have knocked off the insulation from around the beams, removing that protection from them and allowing them to increase temperature faster than they ordinarily would. So the bottom line is, the facts presented by this guy may have been correct, but the logic he used to get from the facts to a reasonable conclusion was bullshit. And it's not just an honest mistake. If he's an engineer, he has to know better. If he's not, he's a clueless idiot for thinking he can figure out what's going on just because he knows the freakin' melting point of steel. The third possibility is that he knows exactly what he's doing and is doing it for some reason, like just as a joke, just to show he can fool people, or to get you on his side of some political issue, such as some anti-government thing. So he gives his conclusion to others as if he knew what he was talking about but knowing full well it's BS. And people actually believe him just because he puts on a good show of pretending to know what he's talking about. What a bullshit artist. Now, if he was so careless and clueless about this argument, what makes you think his other arguments are any better? What I would do here is to select another 2 or 3 claims he's making and check them out. And if they're the same kind of BS, his credibility would be totally destroyed with me, and there would be no point in going over each and every one of them. They're all going to be the same BS. What it looks like to me is that this guy researched all the urban myths out there about 911, and just strung them all together in this video to put them all in one place. in chess you look for your opponent's best moves. In arguments, you look for your opponents assumptions. | ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
------------------------- watch the quote at 37:36: "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications." -Kevin Ryan from the National Institute of Standards and Technology There it says the the steel couldn't have been weakend by the temperatures which didn't rise significantly above 800° according to both your article and the video. The temperature wasn't even close to 2000F let alone was the steel exposed to it for several hours, the building burnt about ONE hour before it collapsed. this contradicts your article: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire. The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire. now who should I believe? both sources are experts. ------------------------------------------- Now to the issue why other buildings didn't collapse because of a fire: The fire in madrid was no cooler than the fire in the Twin Towers which backs up the point that apparently steel is not that easily weakend even though many people suggest it. But when it comes to whether I believe what experts say or whether I believe my own eyes I trust my own eyes more. The films shows several buildings that had worse fires going than the one in the WTC. Again, there was another building where the top storeys fell, yet they didn't tear the rest of the building with them. why not? so if a) the quote from the film is true all your arguing AND the webpages I posted above in the reply to rpf lose credibility. or b) if it's not it's still very odd why the WTC is the only building that did collapse because of a fire, especially considering that the fire wasn't as bad as comparable fires in other skyscrapers (like the ones pointed out in the video). And on top of all that: Even if your assumption proves true, and the impact of the plane did enough damage to the tower's structure to justify the tower's collapse: Why should WTC 7 collapse? Official explanation is that it collapsed just because of the fire (which can't even be seen on any footage afaik although it must've been a raging inferno going for more than 6 hours), an explanation the article you posted refuses. The article I found clicking links on your article's page has no explanation for it either: http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/ An important puzzle at the moment is why the adjacent 46-story building, into which no significant amount of aircraft fuel could have been injected, collapsed as well. Despite the lack of data at present, the likely explanation seems to be that high temperatures (though possibly well below 800°C) persisted on at least one floor of that building for a much longer time than specified by the current fire code provisions. No plane hit the WTC 7 to damage the building's structure. Your argument doesn't work here. If what I wrote is incoherent, excuse me, it's 7 am here and I haven't slept all night. | ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
Mynock, about cell-phone usage on planes, i know that has to be at least 50% bs. I have personally seen people use cell phones while the plane is loading, meaning they are encapsulated within the impenetrable barrier of the hull. Heck, i even found an article from a flight attendant who specifically mentions people using cell-phones in flight -> http://www.caa.co.za/Public/Air Rage/docs/cellp0622-01.html I am a student pilot and next time i go up i will try to remember to use a cell-phone in flight. I fly at around 4000 ft, pretty similar to the article you linked to from some other cross country flyer who claims he could get no signal at all, i'll message you on the results. Another moment for me to reflect on something i remembered from the video. They mention the unusal placement of the freeway street lamps as they were clipped by the plane upon crashing into the pentagon, comparing them against one that was struck by a plane on approach at hobby airport in houston. The problem is, what that plane hit was a light buried in 20 feet dirt and cement, and so naturally was able to withstand the plane hitting it, and only lost the top half which bent off. The lights on freeways however are simply bolted to the ground. I remember watching this episode of scarriest police chases once, where a crazed marine stole a tank from the local depot and drove around san diego, you all remember the one. He must have run into about 20 street lamps on the highway, almost for fun, and what do they do? They just lift right off the pavement and fall over on his tank perfectly. Let alone their alternative theory, that the cia snuck out in about 30 seconds with a truck and threw a bunch of fake street lamps on the ground, and picked up the real ones which were chopped in half, firmly secured to the ground? And that none of the thousands of wide eyed spectators all watching by now saw this? The same ones who say they actually saw the plane strike the building itself? Im really starting to aggree with ploy here, the makers of this story either have intentionally fucked with people to show how easily fooled we are, or are complete idiots whom once you have broken down a few of their half baked ideas leave no need to disprove the rest. They're hack's. | ||
| ||
