Psychic Christine Holohan on TV Fri29Sep

''Ok then prove it. Should be easy if you can so easily declare it impossible."

Well-known Canadian scientist and mathematician A. K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American, reported early in 2003 on experiments showing that these difficulties would have rendered impossible at least most of the reported cell phone calls from the 911 airliners.27 His experiments involved both single- and double-engine airplanes.

Dewdney found that, in a single-engine plane, successful calls could be counted on only under 2,000 feet. Above that altitude, they became increasingly unlikely. At 20,000 feet,

“the chance of a typical cellphone call making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred.... [T]he probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand.”

The likelihood of 13 successful calls, Dewdney added, would be “infinitesimal.”28 In later experiments using a twin-engine plane, which has greater mass and hence provides greater insulation from electronic signals, Dewdney found that the success rate decayed to 0 percent at 7,000 feet.29 A large airliner, having much greater mass, would provide far more insulation – a fact, Dewdney added, that “is very much in harmony with many anecdotal reports ...that in large passenger jets, one loses contact during takeoff, frequently before the plane reaches 1000 feet altitude.”30 Dewdney concluded, therefore, that numerous successful cell phone calls from airliners flying above 30,000 feet would have been “flat out impossible.”31

Such calls would become possible only several years later. In 2004, Qualcomm announced a successful demonstration of a fundamentally new kind of cell phone technology, involving a “picocell,” that would allow passengers “to place and receive calls as if they were on the ground.” American Airlines announced that this new technology was expected to be commercially available in 2006.32 This technology, in fact, first became available on commercial flights in March 2008.33

I suppose he's a crank right?

robindch wrote: »

That's fine, but independent research doesn't mean reading books -- it means getting out there and doing something.

Regardless of that, people lie -- and that applies to conspiracy theorists who have their peculiar reasons for doing so just as much as governments do.

I do hope you are not implying that I am a liar - you do remember carding me for using that term? As for the term 'Conspiracy Theorist' lets go into that term a little. A conspiracy is an agreement to perform together to commit an illegal , evil or treacherous act. Does that not make the official story of 911 a conspiracy theory? Nevertheless this term conspiracy theory' a favorite of yours is used only for those who reject the official conspiracy theory in favor of the alternative theory. As a scientific skeptic I urge you to take a look at this website with an open mind - www.ae911truth.org/

P. S I take it that you go along with the official conspiracy theory? have you done any research on the topic yourself?

robindch wrote: »

No, I am saying that the people who provide the active and large paranoid conspiracy theorist community with their literature are liars.Don't be silly -- you're perfectly well aware of what a paranoid conspiracy theory is :rolleyes:That website is a plain vanilla recycling of the usual paranoid conspiracy theories that surround the WTC attacks. I certainly don't see anything original with that particular website, other than the requests for donations down the left hand side -- turning PCT's into money -- doesn't look like it's a bad business to be in either, judging by the amounts of cash they're making off with!Other than to read the official reports (I'm a qualified engineer, and they are consistent, reasonable and professional accounts of the events of the day), and some segments of the PCT literature (unmitigated, thoroughly inconsistent nonsense), I haven't studied anything concerning the WTC attacks.

As far as I'm concerned, WTC PCT's occupy the same intellectual arena as creationism and one could waste one's entire life rebutting each lie or fantasy as it happens along, only to have it ignored as indeed most of KM's points were here.

I really do have far more interesting and far more productive ways to spend my time

You haven't studied the WTC attacks and willingly accept the official account. That says it all - you are certainly not a skeptic. You haven't even bothered to do proper research. Do you know that I could also accuse you of being an Offical paranoid conspiracy theorist. The official account of 911 is a conspiracy - FACT! Do you accuse your fellow engineers who have petitioned congress looking for a new independent investigation of being delude PCTer's. Can you as an engineer explain the free fall collapse of building 7? Are the six of the 10 911 commisioners who now question the official conspiracy account PCTer's including the senior counsel John Farmer and the commisions authors Kean and Hamlton? What about the majority of the victims familie who want to see a ne investigation. I want buy into your strawman argument of equating the 911 truth movement with creationism. Creationism has nothing to do with questioning 911. Diversion tactics like this serve no purpose and are intellectually bankrupt. So as an engineer - explain the free fall collapse of WTC7?

So we are to believe some guy in India and a vague article on New York Times lol.

Given the cell phone technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were virtually – and perhaps completely – impossible. And yet many of the reported cell phone calls occurred when the planes were above 25,000 or even 40,000 feet24 and also lasted a minute or more – with Amy Sweeney’s reported call even lasting for 12 minutes.25

Three problems have been pointed out: (1) The cell phone in those days had to complete a “handshake” with a cellsite on the ground, which took several seconds, so a cell phone in a high-speed plane would have had trouble staying connected to a cellsite long enough to complete a call. (2) The signals were sent out horizontally, from cellsite to cellsite, not vertically. Although there was some leakage upward, the system was not designed to activate cell phones at high altitudes.26 (3) Receiving a signal was made even more difficult by the insulation provided by the large mass of an airliner.

Furthermore why was TED Olsens phone call rejected by the FBI?

King Mob wrote: »

Prove that it fell at free fall speed.
Why do we have to explain something that simply didn't happen?

So you disagree with NIST who also agree that building 7 collapsed at fere fall speed?

NIST Admits Free Fall: NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]. “Gravitational acceleration” is a synonym for free fall acceleration.

King Mob wrote: »

No more than you expect me to believe this drivel you keep copy pasting.
I back up my claims with actual sources,you do not.


So I take it then you didn't read any of the links I posted?

All this stuff just makes a cellphone call hard, not impossible.



I don't know. You haven't even show that it was rejected.
How does this prove a conspiracy?



Wow, you're really stretching there.
You do know what an out of context quote is right?
And you know why they are dishonest to use?

Tell us what the other two stages where.

The New York Times article indicated that it might be possible on take off and descent when the plane is at low altitudes. Not 40,000 feet - impossible. As the scientist who conducted his experiment proved, but you have proven yourself adept at ignoring empirical evidence. You would rather accept the views of some Indian from the Hindu Times that no one has ever heard of and not the views of a well respected and established scientist contrary to your claims to being a scientific skeptic.I have posted you the link to the Massasoui trial and if you looked properly which I doubt you will get your answer there. You also deny NISTs own report where they admit building sevens free fall speed which is on page 607 of their report.

King Mob wrote: »

Again you've shown nothing substantial to prove that it's impossible to make such calls, I have shown plenty to suggest it is possible.

You mean the non-reviewed, non-replicated experiment published only on a conspiracy theorist website and performed by a guy biased towards a conspiracy theorist explanation?

Very loose definitions of proof and scientist would have to apply.


Oh the irony...

And yet you have no problem disagreeing with the respected and well established scientist who worked on the 9/11 reports.
Do you know what an argument from authority is?
And why it's dishonest to use one?

When 6 out of the 10 commissioners say that they were lied to and that it was tantamount to a criminal cover up then of course I have a problem.

And what's so wrong about using the Hindu times as a source exactly?
What about the other sources?
Did you just look at the headlines and stop?

No you didn't. And you certainly didn't show that they rejected the evidence.

Her you are - www.zimbio.com/Ted+Olson/.../Flight+77+United+States+v+Zacarias+Moussaoui

And can you explain what this is?

http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_calls.pdf

Yup - a contrived manufactured piece of fiction used to back up the official conspiracy theory.

And can you finally explain why this would prove a conspiracy?
Or are you going to start ignoring tough questions again?

Ok let's ignore reality for a second. Lets say the this does show the tower was demolished, why the **** is it in the freely available report on why the tower collapsed?

It took NIST a long time to try and explain WTC & collapse - eventually through sustained pressure from various groups they came out with their report. And as you have seen in the quote which was not taken out of context and which is totally unambiguous - they admit free fall collapse. One of the many reasons why over a thousand scientists want to see 911 re-investigated.

Are you going to answer the original question?
What where the other two stages it refers too?

But I know well you're not going to answer that question, because if you did so truthfully it would negate your point. Because you are taking it out of context and you know that you are.

Not true, read the NIST report and stop trying to obfuscate matters.

robindch wrote: »

GSM in the USA was four years old in 2001 :rolleyes:

It was impossible in 2001 and was duly proven by a renowned Canadian scientist. The transcript from the alleged phone call to Ted Olsen from his wife Barbara read 0.00 seconds i.e their was no phone call and has been rejected by American Airines lthe FBI and the Pentagon. The Barbara Olsen phone call is the one most cited by defenders of the official conspiracy theory. Only two possibilties remain here - either Ted Olsen lied or he was duped.

King Mob wrote: »

Can you explain these phone call then?


And again a non peer reviewed and non replicated experiment by a biased experimenter who uses bad math isn't proof of anything.[/QUO

So, we learn, there were apparently only two sources of information: purely oral reports from people in the office (not backed up by any notes or logs), which provide the account of two calls from Barbara Olson; and "records available for the phone calls from American 77," which provide no proof that Barbara Olson made any calls whatsoever. The DOJ and the FBI merely "believe" that two, or perhaps all four, of the connected calls to unknown numbers had been made by her. Hmmmm

But what are we to suppose about the third call, which reportedly began at 9:25:48 and lasted for 2 minutes and 34 seconds, and the fourth call, which reportedly began at 9:30:56 and lasted for 4 minutes and 20 seconds? Are we to suppose that Keyton received these calls and transferred them to the solicitor general, but then both of them failed, while being interviewed by the FBI, to mention these two calls, which would have lasted a total of almost 7 minutes? The idea is too ludicrous to consider. How, then, are we to suppose that these final two calls could have been "from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office"? Can we imagine that someone else in that office - perhaps Ted Olson's personal secretary, Helen Voss, or someone else who took over telephone duty from Lori Keyton - received these two calls and then, instead of transferring them to Ted, stayed on the line with Barbara for almost seven minutes, and then never told him about these calls? Again, the idea is too absurd to entertain.

Again A highly respected and renowned scientist who has had many of his findings published in peer reviewed magazines like Scientific Journal. And why did the FBI change its position in 2004 and admit that cell phones calls could not be made in 2004..kinda puts a spanner in the works eh?:D

And provide me with proof that those calls came from Barbara Olsen please!

King Mob wrote: »

Then why does a slide used by the FBI state that these phone calls where made?
Are you claiming that the slide you used yourself as a source is fabricated evidence?
Did you know then it was fabricated and ignored that to prove a point, or are you only now deciding it's fake when it's been used against you?

And again they said no such thing.
Unless you can actually provide a source.

And I'll take it you're not going to answer any of the issues I raised about the crap experiment you're taking as gospel truth?

A professor emeritus of Ontario university who is widely respected throughout the scientific community would not dare perform 'crap' experiments or risk his highly valued reputation. But as I said in an earlier post - you are quite adept at ignoring empirical scientific analysis not to mention the collapse of all 3 building that day which magically broke several laws of physics.

King Mob wrote: »

Could you perhaps point to a single claim the Chriskavo Has actually backed up with any kind of source?

Could you point out a single claim I've made that wasn't backed up with any kind of source?

Prove to me that those calls were made by Barbara Olsen?

King Mob wrote: »

Would you like to stick you fingers in you hears and scream lalala too?

I have already explained how I don't have to prove beyond doubt that she made those calls, only that she could have.
And since now you've resorted to this childish tactic of yours it's clear that I've already shown that much.

So answer just one question: Is it possible that she made those calls?
Yes or no?
(Oh and if you ignore this question like the others you can't answer, I'll assume the answer is yes.)

And again I have to ask do you see no irony or hypocrisy in demanding something like that, yet continually ignore my points and questions and requests for sources?

No it is not possible and the one phone call that she allegedly made and was subsequently disclosed by the FBI at the Massasoui trial reads -'' unconnected 0.00 seconds. No call - FBI admits that therefore they reject Olsens story. Its laughably feeble that all you can muster is a '' could have'' so what is your point exactly? Those calls were allegedly made by Barbara Olsen - if it wasn't her , who was it?

robindch wrote: »

"God Says" has been banned permanently from boards and KenFromDublin's account has received a site-wide ban for one week, after which he/she will be free to post here again (despite a number of abusive and threatening PM's).

Censoring an opinion on 911 - free speech anyone?

I have Kens quote here and they certainly not threatening. I hope he gets legal advice for this disgraceful fascistic censoring and abuse of his rights to free speech.