Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Suggestion:

Ignore Colby/Lamson. Just carry on as if they are not even here.

To get into it with them just brings the fourm down to the level of

__________________ (you decide).

Dawn

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I find `unfortunate’ is that all too many members of this forum toss out acusations against other members without providing any evidence.

(Edited for brevity.........)

So you don’t think that “wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make”? I that case you should take it up with John and tell him that members should be able to make claims here and be under no obligation to provide evidence.

In the chemtrails thread, post#371, Colby directed the following at me:

The ‘your opinion is invalid because you haven’t read the book’ argument is of limited value. Should someone refraining from debating a Holocaust denier just because they haven’t read one of the books he cites?

Of course the sources I cited destroyed Colby's argument.

I don`t really want to get into a totally unrelated subject on this thread, but whether or not “the sources [you] cited destroyed [my] argument” is quite a debatable proposition especially since the book you cited provides no documentation for its claims. You made an objectively false claim and refused to admit error when this was pointed out.

It's just he decided he'd rather suggest - offensively & ludicrously - that I was a "holocaust denier" in a thread that had absolutely nothing to do with the holocaust rather than bother reading the raw material.

Wrong on both accounts 1) I looked at whatever evidence you provided I just didn’t believe it disproved my position 2) I never suggested you were “a Holocaust denier” I was making the point that one doesn’t have to read a book promoting a theory to know that the theory is false if there is sufficient information on the subject elsewhere. That would go more than doubly for a book like Cook’s which provides no documentation. I could have selected any number of theories but I wanted one that everyone here (now that Sid Walker is gone) recognized as false. I thought about citing creationism but feared that might cause one member to go on again about how “evolution was a hoax”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Suggestion:

Ignore Colby/Lamson. Just carry on as if they are not even here.

To get into it with them just brings the fourm down to the level of

__________________ (you decide).

Dawn

IMHO, it is their very intention [consciouly or unconsciously - I'm inclined to the the former] to do exactly that - to bring discredit to the Forum [that would allow the audacity to question 'the established and 'received' truth'] - rather than the members they attack. Carry on and ignore 'em - best you can. They are like mosquitos and sometimes need a slap.

Quite ironic this coming from people with no compunctions about making accusations again others with out supplying any evidence. National Enquirer style posting. Of course if I had compared Peter to an insect or any other animal and suggested he needed to be disciplined he would have raised cackles.

NOTE TO MODERATORS: I prefer that that Peter's post not be edited because it reflects worse on him than me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If someone refutes your evidence, then ignore their evidence"

Not a wise move, IMO. What if they are right?

I welcome dissent to the opinion I put forward. If my view is incorrect, then people have to have the opportunity to tell me as such. If I am wrong, then people have to be able to tell me such.

I welcome "provocateurs" or "disinformation agents" because I am confident my viewpoints can withstand the scrutiny of others.

If people make false statements, I will be able to show that they are false.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cell phone calls are faked.

Peter,

Perhaps we should wait until we have to hear what Jack has to say before we draw any conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Suggestion:

Ignore Colby/Lamson. Just carry on as if they are not even here.

To get into it with them just brings the fourm down to the level of

__________________ (you decide).

Dawn

Dawn - wise words.

IMHO, it is their very intention [consciouly or unconsciously - I'm inclined to the the former] to do exactly that - to bring discredit to the Forum [that would allow the audacity to question 'the established and 'received' truth'] - rather than the members they attack. Carry on and ignore 'em - best you can. They are like mosquitos and sometimes need a slap.

If your evidence, conclusions or logic suck, you will get called on it. Simple as that. Self-proclaimed truth seekers should be expected to act with intellectual honesty. What discredits this forum the most is when members post work that gets proven wrong and then fail to admit that error. Even worse when they recycle it at a later date as if it still is valid. It also discredits this forum when member both allow this and in fact condone it.

Sometimes people who fit this bill are the ones most needing the slap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So Jack did it occur to you that those vehicles might have been struck by HEAVY oieces of debris?

Show us the debris. It is not in the photo. The trucks have not been moved.

The tower has just collapsed.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to post
Share on other sites
Suggestion:

Ignore Colby/Lamson. Just carry on as if they are not even here.

To get into it with them just brings the fourm down to the level of

__________________ (you decide).

Dawn

Dawn - wise words.

Yes, and above all people should avoid reading these two links:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry127049

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...rning&st=15

Wouldn't want anyone to get any impressions about "provocateurs," considering this thread long ago ceased to be about whether or not Jim Fetzer or Jack White would address themselves to the question posed.

Colby Crew Charter Member

Good point.

The simple questions raised in Post No. 1 remain unanswered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack,

You mention "impossible cellphone calls".

Could you detail the specific calls you have issues with?

Thanks.

ALL OF THEM. I have discussed this with a friend who is a cellphone

technician. The problem is the "HANDOFF".

Any cellphone TRAVELING TOO FAST (air OR ground) needs the

necessary time to accomplish the electronic handoff from one

land tower to the next one. This requires about three seconds.

If the cellphone is traveling too fast, it passes the land tower

receiving the handoff and the network is confused and does

not receive the handoff. A CELLPHONE TRAVELING TOO FAST

WILL SHUT DOWN. The land towers are spaced two or three

miles apart. A jetliner flying 500 mph would pass over MANY

towers, causing electronic confusion!

Any cellphone TOO FAR AWAY, like 30,000 feet overhead,

would not have any way of knowing which land tower to connect

to, since it would be equidistant from MANY land towers. If it

accidentally connected with one, it would be out of range before

a connection could be completed, and then would encounter the

handoff problem if connected.

Any sailor knows that cellphones do not work once the boat is

out of range of land antennas. CELL PHONES ARE DESIGNED

TO ONLY WORK ON LAND, WHERE LAND TOWERS ARE FREQUENT.

Go on a long hike into the mountains away from any highway

and your cellphone will likely be useless.

Another problem is very low power. Cellphones generate only

enough power to reach the nearest land tower, with a tiny battery.

Inside the metal fuselage of a jetliner, the fuselage acts as a

Faraday cage, trapping the weak radio waves INSIDE the

plane.

American Airlines has announced a new service to be available

next year which will allow cellphones to be used aboard their

jets. BUT IT WILL NOT RELY ON LAND TOWERS. It will use the

aircraft shortwave radio to connect with a land station. This is

expected, according to tests, to allow cellphones to be used

on planes.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another phony phone story were the alleged messages (2) of Barbara Olson to husband Ted in Washington.

Allegedly she used an aircraft SEATBACK PHONE, not a cellphone. Seatback phones require use

of a CREDIT CARD for billing. Allegedly she did not have her credit card SO SHE PLACED HER

CALL "COLLECT" to Washington.

There are two things wrong with this official version.

One, airlines DO NOT PERMIT COLLECT CALLS from seatback phones.

Two, all seatback calls from American Airlines planes ARE ROUTED THROUGH AA HEADQUARTERS

AT DFW AIRPORT for billing purposes. American Airlines has produced no records of Olson's call.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to post
Share on other sites
The behavior of Donald Rumsfeld during the attacks, reinforced by the behavior of General Myers. One has to look no further for compelling evidence of government complicity (LIHOP or MIHOP).

Here, Ron. Don't forget these two guys, who refused to testify separately,

and allowed no photos, recordings or notes taken. Why?

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to post
Share on other sites
So Jack did it occur to you that those vehicles might have been struck by HEAVY oieces of debris?

Show us the debris. It is not in the photo. The trucks have not been moved.

The tower has just collapsed.

Jack

Bolding mine. Given such a definitive statement of fact like " The trucks have not been moved." surely you have the data to back your claim. Please supply it or remove your claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ALL OF THEM. I have discussed this with a friend who is a cellphone

technician. The problem is the "HANDOFF".

Any cellphone TRAVELING TOO FAST (air OR ground) needs the

necessary time to accomplish the electronic handoff from one

land tower to the next one. This requires about three seconds.

If the cellphone is traveling too fast, it passes the land tower

receiving the handoff and the network is confused and does

not receive the handoff. A CELLPHONE TRAVELING TOO FAST

WILL SHUT DOWN. The land towers are spaced two or three

miles apart. A jetliner flying 500 mph would pass over MANY

towers, causing electronic confusion!

Any cellphone TOO FAR AWAY, like 30,000 feet overhead,

would not have any way of knowing which land tower to connect

to, since it would be equidistant from MANY land towers. If it

accidentally connected with one, it would be out of range before

a connection could be completed, and then would encounter the

handoff problem if connected.

Any sailor knows that cellphones do not work once the boat is

out of range of land antennas. CELL PHONES ARE DESIGNED

TO ONLY WORK ON LAND, WHERE LAND TOWERS ARE FREQUENT.

Go on a long hike into the mountains away from any highway

and your cellphone will likely be useless.

Another problem is very low power. Cellphones generate only

enough power to reach the nearest land tower, with a tiny battery.

Inside the metal fuselage of a jetliner, the fuselage acts as a

Faraday cage, trapping the weak radio waves INSIDE the

plane.

American Airlines has announced a new service to be available

next year which will allow cellphones to be used aboard their

jets. BUT IT WILL NOT RELY ON LAND TOWERS. It will use the

aircraft shortwave radio to connect with a land station. This is

expected, according to tests, to allow cellphones to be used

on planes.

Jack

First things first. The information I've read states that only TWO cell phone calls were made from Flight United 93. The other 35 calls were made using GTE airphones. This is from a Wiki site I haven't had time to verify yet, but if those details are incorrect they can easily be refuted.

So, 2 cell phone calls to contend with. If possible we need to figure out when those calls were made, and what the altitude of the plane was at the time.

Edward Felt is reported as having made a cell phone call to 911 around 09:58. Ceecee Lyles (a flight attendant) called her husband around the same time, 09:58.

We need to find out the altitude of the plane at this time. Luckily, you can download a copy of the Flight Recorder Data here.

Here's the relevant section for those who don't want to download the whole file.

altitude-1.jpg

The altitude of the plane at the time those 2 cell phone calls were made was no higher than 6000 feet, a little more than a mile.

As for the data you gave about cell phones not being able to make a network connection, I don't know anything about that, but I can do simple maths using the figures you supplied. The aircraft speed at the time is recorded at 300 knots, or approximately 345mph. At that speed the plane will cover approx 1/3 of a mile in the space of 3 seconds, the time you quote as being necessary for a mast to make a connection. I've no idea where the masts are located at that part of Pennsylvania, but if we go with your figure of every 2 to 3 miles, that equates to an approximate time of 20-30 seconds before needing to renegotiate with a different mast. I don't know the length of the two cell phone calls, or the accuracy of the figures you supplied, but I do know that the first cell phone call was disconnected, possibly as the plane passed out of range of a mast.

I've yet to see any evidence presented that proves those 2 cell phone calls were impossible with the technology available at the time, and the data currently available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...