cliffwhite 0 #1 October 10, 2009 Maybe you should take another look at the official story as to why; "Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah... Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes... And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defense system the slip... Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely... Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two... and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically - through their own mass - at free-fall speed, for the first time in history. Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground... only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI... …Meanwhile down in Washington... Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing... Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little... Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building... ...all without a single shot being fired.... or ruining the nicely mowed lawn... and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video... ...Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania... So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later... And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants... except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana... ...Further south in Florida... President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children... shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger... ...In New York... World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously... While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination... And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports... " Here's a question, are there more holes in that story or in Patrick Tillmans' body? They've already been caught in their lie about Tillman. Are they lying about 9-11 and Afghanistan? Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #2 October 10, 2009 can we please get a killfile feature?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,099 #3 October 10, 2009 >So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers >use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be >possible until several years later. Cellphones work just fine in aircraft flying at a few thousand feet. Try it the next time you're in an Otter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #4 October 10, 2009 Quotecan we please get a killfile feature? Have you no self restraint,rhaig? You have the power to only click on the posts you wish to read. You clicked on to this one so obviously you wanted to read it. You don't really need a kill file to shield yourself from my postings ,do you rhaig? Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #5 October 10, 2009 it's like a train wreck. I just can't not look.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #6 October 10, 2009 Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #7 October 10, 2009 Quote>So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers >use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be >possible until several years later. Cellphones work just fine in aircraft flying at a few thousand feet. Try it the next time you're in an Otter. At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were made ,Bill? How fast was the aircraft travelling? Do cellphones work so well in those conditions? Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #8 October 10, 2009 Quoteit's like a train wreck. I just can't not look. So.., as suggested you have no self restraint. Are you a member of ,or have you ever been a member of the military ,rhaig? Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #9 October 10, 2009 QuoteQuote>So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers >use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be >possible until several years later. Cellphones work just fine in aircraft flying at a few thousand feet. Try it the next time you're in an Otter. At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were made ,Bill? How fast was the aircraft travelling? Do cellphones work so well in those conditions? Blues, Cliff Ummm... Weren't Airfones around since the mid-eighties?? Google Timeline"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #10 October 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote>So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers >use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be >possible until several years later. Cellphones work just fine in aircraft flying at a few thousand feet. Try it the next time you're in an Otter. At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were made ,Bill? How fast was the aircraft travelling? Do cellphones work so well in those conditions? Blues, Cliff Ummm... Weren't Airfones around since the mid-eighties??Quote Sure they were ,wolfriverjoe, but the official reports are that many of the calls from flight 93 were on cellphones. Here's the most interesting phone call report from that day. Theodore Wilson, the US Solicitor General went on TV to tell us in detail about the call he recieved from his wife ,Barbara Olson, who was purportedly aboard flight 77 (pentagon). In fact his account is really the only information we have regarding what went on with flight 77 . The FBI says that call never took place. Someones lying. It's time for the truth. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wolfriverjoe 1,523 #11 October 10, 2009 Got a link for that?? (serious question) A link that would be considered independent? Snopes says this particular call was GTE Airfone. I consider Snopes to be reasonable trustworthy. Also, the Taliban was in control of major parts of Afghanistan since the mid/late 90's. Al Queda had training bases there during that time. Bill Clinton sent Tomahawk missles in as an answer the African Embassy bombings in 98. Or was that all just preliminary stuff for the "fake" attacks. Also, I used to be a flight instructor. Anybody could very easily fly a plane (big or small) into a large target just by learning on a decent computer game."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #12 October 10, 2009 QuoteGot a link for that?? (serious question) A link that would be considered independent? Snopes says this particular call was GTE Airfone. I consider Snopes to be reasonable trustworthy. Are you wanting information on the Olson Call? How about asking Snopes (that ever reliable source ..,how are they funded?) To look at the transcripts from the Mossaoui trial. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #13 October 10, 2009 >At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were >made ,Bill? Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell. >How fast was the aircraft travelling? Around 400 knots. >Do cellphones work so well in those conditions? Well enough. We were able to make calls up to about 12,000 feet and could see beacons up to 30,000. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #14 October 10, 2009 Quote>At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were >made ,Bill? Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell. >How fast was the aircraft travelling? Around 400 knots.Quote Interesting! How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ? Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #15 October 10, 2009 >Sure they were ,wolfriverjoe, but the official reports are that many of the >calls from flight 93 were on cellphones. No, the official reports say TWO calls were made from cellphones, and 35 were from the GTE system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #16 October 10, 2009 >How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ? By looking at the airspeed indicator and altimeter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #17 October 10, 2009 Quote>How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ? By looking at the airspeed indicator and altimeter. Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #18 October 10, 2009 Quote>Sure they were ,wolfriverjoe, but the official reports are that many of the >calls from flight 93 were on cellphones. No, the official reports say TWO calls were made from cellphones, and 35 were from the GTE system. Interestingly enough the link provided by wolfriver joe mentions thatTodd Beamers' "cell phone call" was somehow linked over to a GTE systems operator!!! Curiouser and curiouser! A web of lies is hard to untagle and even harder to keep straight. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #19 October 10, 2009 >Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Sorry, thought you were asking about our test flights. >Interestingly enough the link provided by wolfriver joe mentions that >Todd Beamers' "cell phone call" was somehow linked over to a GTE >systems operator!!! Todd Beamer didn't call on his cellphone; he called on the GTE airphone system. Which is why it went to a GTE operator. >A web of lies is hard to untagle and even harder to keep straight. Indeed. Might want to work on that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #20 October 10, 2009 Quote>Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Sorry, thought you were asking about our test flights. Quote You reply was as follows, I'm not sure how you missed the paragraghs in front of each of your replies. " In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were >made ,Bill? Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell. >How fast was the aircraft travelling? Around 400 knots. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #21 October 10, 2009 >I'm not sure how you missed the paragraghs in front of each of your replies. Because the last line of my post was: "We were able to make calls up to about 12,000 feet and could see beacons up to 30,000." and your question was: "How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #22 October 10, 2009 [>Interestingly enough the link provided by wolfriver joe mentions that >Todd Beamers' "cell phone call" was somehow linked over to a GTE >systems operator!!! Todd Beamer didn't call on his cellphone; he called on the GTE airphone system. Which is why it went to a GTE operator.Quote Not according to the Snopes link provided by wolfriverjoe. That account states emphatically that the call was made from a cell phone and by some fluke was directed to a GTE operator. Blues, Cliff >A web of lies is hard to untagle and even harder to keep straight. Indeed. Might want to work on that.2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #23 October 11, 2009 Quote>I'm not sure how you missed the paragraghs in front of each of your replies. Because the last line of my post was: "We were able to make calls up to about 12,000 feet and could see beacons up to 30,000." and your question was: "How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ?" OK , I see. So when asked "At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were made ,Bill? " Your reply of "Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell." was based on ..,wait a second ? "as far as I can tell"? But you thought I was asking about your own testing? The test where you were looking at the altimeter and the wind speed indicator. OK. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #24 October 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteit's like a train wreck. I just can't not look. So.., as suggested you have no self restraint. put a piece of chocolate in front of me and watch what happens. some restraint. but not when it comes to chocolate, and web forums. *** Are you a member of ,or have you ever been a member of the military ,rhaig? I have never been enlisted in any military organization. All my beliefs regarding military service come from working closely with military service men (active duty and otherwise) as a civilian contractor.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #25 October 11, 2009 Quote>Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Sorry, thought you were asking about our test flights. actually I thought his question was "Do cellphones work so well in those conditions? " If he's asking specifically if the phone works on that particular flight, then the answer is of course indeterminate. It looked like he was asking about speed and altitude, so I thought your answer made perfect sense wrt the question.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #11 October 10, 2009 Got a link for that?? (serious question) A link that would be considered independent? Snopes says this particular call was GTE Airfone. I consider Snopes to be reasonable trustworthy. Also, the Taliban was in control of major parts of Afghanistan since the mid/late 90's. Al Queda had training bases there during that time. Bill Clinton sent Tomahawk missles in as an answer the African Embassy bombings in 98. Or was that all just preliminary stuff for the "fake" attacks. Also, I used to be a flight instructor. Anybody could very easily fly a plane (big or small) into a large target just by learning on a decent computer game."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #12 October 10, 2009 QuoteGot a link for that?? (serious question) A link that would be considered independent? Snopes says this particular call was GTE Airfone. I consider Snopes to be reasonable trustworthy. Are you wanting information on the Olson Call? How about asking Snopes (that ever reliable source ..,how are they funded?) To look at the transcripts from the Mossaoui trial. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #13 October 10, 2009 >At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were >made ,Bill? Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell. >How fast was the aircraft travelling? Around 400 knots. >Do cellphones work so well in those conditions? Well enough. We were able to make calls up to about 12,000 feet and could see beacons up to 30,000. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #14 October 10, 2009 Quote>At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were >made ,Bill? Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell. >How fast was the aircraft travelling? Around 400 knots.Quote Interesting! How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ? Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #15 October 10, 2009 >Sure they were ,wolfriverjoe, but the official reports are that many of the >calls from flight 93 were on cellphones. No, the official reports say TWO calls were made from cellphones, and 35 were from the GTE system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #16 October 10, 2009 >How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ? By looking at the airspeed indicator and altimeter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #17 October 10, 2009 Quote>How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ? By looking at the airspeed indicator and altimeter. Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #18 October 10, 2009 Quote>Sure they were ,wolfriverjoe, but the official reports are that many of the >calls from flight 93 were on cellphones. No, the official reports say TWO calls were made from cellphones, and 35 were from the GTE system. Interestingly enough the link provided by wolfriver joe mentions thatTodd Beamers' "cell phone call" was somehow linked over to a GTE systems operator!!! Curiouser and curiouser! A web of lies is hard to untagle and even harder to keep straight. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #19 October 10, 2009 >Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Sorry, thought you were asking about our test flights. >Interestingly enough the link provided by wolfriver joe mentions that >Todd Beamers' "cell phone call" was somehow linked over to a GTE >systems operator!!! Todd Beamer didn't call on his cellphone; he called on the GTE airphone system. Which is why it went to a GTE operator. >A web of lies is hard to untagle and even harder to keep straight. Indeed. Might want to work on that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #20 October 10, 2009 Quote>Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Sorry, thought you were asking about our test flights. Quote You reply was as follows, I'm not sure how you missed the paragraghs in front of each of your replies. " In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were >made ,Bill? Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell. >How fast was the aircraft travelling? Around 400 knots. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #21 October 10, 2009 >I'm not sure how you missed the paragraghs in front of each of your replies. Because the last line of my post was: "We were able to make calls up to about 12,000 feet and could see beacons up to 30,000." and your question was: "How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #22 October 10, 2009 [>Interestingly enough the link provided by wolfriver joe mentions that >Todd Beamers' "cell phone call" was somehow linked over to a GTE >systems operator!!! Todd Beamer didn't call on his cellphone; he called on the GTE airphone system. Which is why it went to a GTE operator.Quote Not according to the Snopes link provided by wolfriverjoe. That account states emphatically that the call was made from a cell phone and by some fluke was directed to a GTE operator. Blues, Cliff >A web of lies is hard to untagle and even harder to keep straight. Indeed. Might want to work on that.2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #23 October 11, 2009 Quote>I'm not sure how you missed the paragraghs in front of each of your replies. Because the last line of my post was: "We were able to make calls up to about 12,000 feet and could see beacons up to 30,000." and your question was: "How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ?" OK , I see. So when asked "At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were made ,Bill? " Your reply of "Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell." was based on ..,wait a second ? "as far as I can tell"? But you thought I was asking about your own testing? The test where you were looking at the altimeter and the wind speed indicator. OK. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #24 October 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteit's like a train wreck. I just can't not look. So.., as suggested you have no self restraint. put a piece of chocolate in front of me and watch what happens. some restraint. but not when it comes to chocolate, and web forums. *** Are you a member of ,or have you ever been a member of the military ,rhaig? I have never been enlisted in any military organization. All my beliefs regarding military service come from working closely with military service men (active duty and otherwise) as a civilian contractor.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #25 October 11, 2009 Quote>Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Sorry, thought you were asking about our test flights. actually I thought his question was "Do cellphones work so well in those conditions? " If he's asking specifically if the phone works on that particular flight, then the answer is of course indeterminate. It looked like he was asking about speed and altitude, so I thought your answer made perfect sense wrt the question.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,099 #13 October 10, 2009 >At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were >made ,Bill? Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell. >How fast was the aircraft travelling? Around 400 knots. >Do cellphones work so well in those conditions? Well enough. We were able to make calls up to about 12,000 feet and could see beacons up to 30,000. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #14 October 10, 2009 Quote>At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were >made ,Bill? Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell. >How fast was the aircraft travelling? Around 400 knots.Quote Interesting! How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ? Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #15 October 10, 2009 >Sure they were ,wolfriverjoe, but the official reports are that many of the >calls from flight 93 were on cellphones. No, the official reports say TWO calls were made from cellphones, and 35 were from the GTE system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #16 October 10, 2009 >How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ? By looking at the airspeed indicator and altimeter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #17 October 10, 2009 Quote>How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ? By looking at the airspeed indicator and altimeter. Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #18 October 10, 2009 Quote>Sure they were ,wolfriverjoe, but the official reports are that many of the >calls from flight 93 were on cellphones. No, the official reports say TWO calls were made from cellphones, and 35 were from the GTE system. Interestingly enough the link provided by wolfriver joe mentions thatTodd Beamers' "cell phone call" was somehow linked over to a GTE systems operator!!! Curiouser and curiouser! A web of lies is hard to untagle and even harder to keep straight. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #19 October 10, 2009 >Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Sorry, thought you were asking about our test flights. >Interestingly enough the link provided by wolfriver joe mentions that >Todd Beamers' "cell phone call" was somehow linked over to a GTE >systems operator!!! Todd Beamer didn't call on his cellphone; he called on the GTE airphone system. Which is why it went to a GTE operator. >A web of lies is hard to untagle and even harder to keep straight. Indeed. Might want to work on that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #20 October 10, 2009 Quote>Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Sorry, thought you were asking about our test flights. Quote You reply was as follows, I'm not sure how you missed the paragraghs in front of each of your replies. " In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were >made ,Bill? Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell. >How fast was the aircraft travelling? Around 400 knots. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #21 October 10, 2009 >I'm not sure how you missed the paragraghs in front of each of your replies. Because the last line of my post was: "We were able to make calls up to about 12,000 feet and could see beacons up to 30,000." and your question was: "How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #22 October 10, 2009 [>Interestingly enough the link provided by wolfriver joe mentions that >Todd Beamers' "cell phone call" was somehow linked over to a GTE >systems operator!!! Todd Beamer didn't call on his cellphone; he called on the GTE airphone system. Which is why it went to a GTE operator.Quote Not according to the Snopes link provided by wolfriverjoe. That account states emphatically that the call was made from a cell phone and by some fluke was directed to a GTE operator. Blues, Cliff >A web of lies is hard to untagle and even harder to keep straight. Indeed. Might want to work on that.2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #23 October 11, 2009 Quote>I'm not sure how you missed the paragraghs in front of each of your replies. Because the last line of my post was: "We were able to make calls up to about 12,000 feet and could see beacons up to 30,000." and your question was: "How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ?" OK , I see. So when asked "At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were made ,Bill? " Your reply of "Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell." was based on ..,wait a second ? "as far as I can tell"? But you thought I was asking about your own testing? The test where you were looking at the altimeter and the wind speed indicator. OK. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #24 October 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteit's like a train wreck. I just can't not look. So.., as suggested you have no self restraint. put a piece of chocolate in front of me and watch what happens. some restraint. but not when it comes to chocolate, and web forums. *** Are you a member of ,or have you ever been a member of the military ,rhaig? I have never been enlisted in any military organization. All my beliefs regarding military service come from working closely with military service men (active duty and otherwise) as a civilian contractor.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #25 October 11, 2009 Quote>Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Sorry, thought you were asking about our test flights. actually I thought his question was "Do cellphones work so well in those conditions? " If he's asking specifically if the phone works on that particular flight, then the answer is of course indeterminate. It looked like he was asking about speed and altitude, so I thought your answer made perfect sense wrt the question.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,099 #15 October 10, 2009 >Sure they were ,wolfriverjoe, but the official reports are that many of the >calls from flight 93 were on cellphones. No, the official reports say TWO calls were made from cellphones, and 35 were from the GTE system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,099 #16 October 10, 2009 >How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ? By looking at the airspeed indicator and altimeter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #17 October 10, 2009 Quote>How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ? By looking at the airspeed indicator and altimeter. Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #18 October 10, 2009 Quote>Sure they were ,wolfriverjoe, but the official reports are that many of the >calls from flight 93 were on cellphones. No, the official reports say TWO calls were made from cellphones, and 35 were from the GTE system. Interestingly enough the link provided by wolfriver joe mentions thatTodd Beamers' "cell phone call" was somehow linked over to a GTE systems operator!!! Curiouser and curiouser! A web of lies is hard to untagle and even harder to keep straight. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,099 #19 October 10, 2009 >Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Sorry, thought you were asking about our test flights. >Interestingly enough the link provided by wolfriver joe mentions that >Todd Beamers' "cell phone call" was somehow linked over to a GTE >systems operator!!! Todd Beamer didn't call on his cellphone; he called on the GTE airphone system. Which is why it went to a GTE operator. >A web of lies is hard to untagle and even harder to keep straight. Indeed. Might want to work on that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #20 October 10, 2009 Quote>Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Sorry, thought you were asking about our test flights. Quote You reply was as follows, I'm not sure how you missed the paragraghs in front of each of your replies. " In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were >made ,Bill? Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell. >How fast was the aircraft travelling? Around 400 knots. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,099 #21 October 10, 2009 >I'm not sure how you missed the paragraghs in front of each of your replies. Because the last line of my post was: "We were able to make calls up to about 12,000 feet and could see beacons up to 30,000." and your question was: "How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #22 October 10, 2009 [>Interestingly enough the link provided by wolfriver joe mentions that >Todd Beamers' "cell phone call" was somehow linked over to a GTE >systems operator!!! Todd Beamer didn't call on his cellphone; he called on the GTE airphone system. Which is why it went to a GTE operator.Quote Not according to the Snopes link provided by wolfriverjoe. That account states emphatically that the call was made from a cell phone and by some fluke was directed to a GTE operator. Blues, Cliff >A web of lies is hard to untagle and even harder to keep straight. Indeed. Might want to work on that.2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cliffwhite 0 #23 October 11, 2009 Quote>I'm not sure how you missed the paragraghs in front of each of your replies. Because the last line of my post was: "We were able to make calls up to about 12,000 feet and could see beacons up to 30,000." and your question was: "How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ?" OK , I see. So when asked "At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were made ,Bill? " Your reply of "Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell." was based on ..,wait a second ? "as far as I can tell"? But you thought I was asking about your own testing? The test where you were looking at the altimeter and the wind speed indicator. OK. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #24 October 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteit's like a train wreck. I just can't not look. So.., as suggested you have no self restraint. put a piece of chocolate in front of me and watch what happens. some restraint. but not when it comes to chocolate, and web forums. *** Are you a member of ,or have you ever been a member of the military ,rhaig? I have never been enlisted in any military organization. All my beliefs regarding military service come from working closely with military service men (active duty and otherwise) as a civilian contractor.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #25 October 11, 2009 Quote>Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Sorry, thought you were asking about our test flights. actually I thought his question was "Do cellphones work so well in those conditions? " If he's asking specifically if the phone works on that particular flight, then the answer is of course indeterminate. It looked like he was asking about speed and altitude, so I thought your answer made perfect sense wrt the question.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,099 #21 October 10, 2009 >I'm not sure how you missed the paragraghs in front of each of your replies. Because the last line of my post was: "We were able to make calls up to about 12,000 feet and could see beacons up to 30,000." and your question was: "How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #22 October 10, 2009 [>Interestingly enough the link provided by wolfriver joe mentions that >Todd Beamers' "cell phone call" was somehow linked over to a GTE >systems operator!!! Todd Beamer didn't call on his cellphone; he called on the GTE airphone system. Which is why it went to a GTE operator.Quote Not according to the Snopes link provided by wolfriverjoe. That account states emphatically that the call was made from a cell phone and by some fluke was directed to a GTE operator. Blues, Cliff >A web of lies is hard to untagle and even harder to keep straight. Indeed. Might want to work on that.2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #23 October 11, 2009 Quote>I'm not sure how you missed the paragraghs in front of each of your replies. Because the last line of my post was: "We were able to make calls up to about 12,000 feet and could see beacons up to 30,000." and your question was: "How did you determine the altitude/speed at time of call ?" OK , I see. So when asked "At what alltitude was flight 93 when the alledged cellphone calls were made ,Bill? " Your reply of "Around 8000 feet as far as I can tell." was based on ..,wait a second ? "as far as I can tell"? But you thought I was asking about your own testing? The test where you were looking at the altimeter and the wind speed indicator. OK. Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #24 October 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteit's like a train wreck. I just can't not look. So.., as suggested you have no self restraint. put a piece of chocolate in front of me and watch what happens. some restraint. but not when it comes to chocolate, and web forums. *** Are you a member of ,or have you ever been a member of the military ,rhaig? I have never been enlisted in any military organization. All my beliefs regarding military service come from working closely with military service men (active duty and otherwise) as a civilian contractor.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #25 October 11, 2009 Quote>Oh!! I wasn't aware you were on flight 93 ,Bill. Sorry, thought you were asking about our test flights. actually I thought his question was "Do cellphones work so well in those conditions? " If he's asking specifically if the phone works on that particular flight, then the answer is of course indeterminate. It looked like he was asking about speed and altitude, so I thought your answer made perfect sense wrt the question.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
