Author Topic: Podcast #50  (Read 38683 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline swpalmer

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 144
Podcast #50
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2006, 10:15:42 PM »
Re: 45-degree cut on steel support column... looks like a VERY rough "cut".. doesn't look melted.. looks like what might happen if hardened steel  was "snapped" due to a tremendous load.


Re: Faraday cage theory.  Any signal inside the plane would easily get out (since the plane is not grounded).  The problem of course is that a cell phone needs a signal to get in... (otherwise the phone would say "no service").
That isn't much of a problem either.. there are plenty of windows along the body of the craft - right at the height where the cell phone would be, though I don't think that matters much.  The thing is that the wavelength of a cell phone signal is short enough that the windows are not small enough to block it.  This works much like the grid on the window to your microwave oven.  It has holes in it that let visible light through but not microwaves.  In that case the microwaves are too big and are blocked by the shielding.   Cell phones also use microwaves, at around 1.9GHz, but the opening of a window in an airliner is too large to block them.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_shielding
Quote
RF shielding is the protection of sensitive electrical equipment from external radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation by enclosing it in a conducting material. RF shielding is a refinement of the principle of the Faraday cage, which protects equipment from electric fields such as those from electrostatic discharges.

The enclosure may be made of an unbroken conducting sheet, like the metal box surrounding a sensitive radio receiver, or a wire mesh, like that in the door of a microwave oven. Any holes in the box or mesh must be significantly smaller than the wavelength of the radiation that is being kept out, or the enclosure will not effectively approximate an unbroken conducting surface.


The wavelengths of digital cell phones are 16-17cm, the window on an airliner is not significantly smaller.

Offline EarthWanderer

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 3
Cell phones on airliners
« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2006, 01:31:07 AM »
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=675091

The passenger aircraft is one of the last places on earth yet to be invaded by the mobile phone. Safety is the major reason forbidding their use, with interference to navigation equipment cited as the principal hazard. Surprisingly, tests have shown that mobile phones actually work very well in the air. The aircraft structure does not prevent communication with the ground-the windows may well act as a form of slotted waveguide antenna-and coverage is excellent. The drawback, as far as the mobile operators are concerned, is that a mobile phone operating at 30000 ft can be seen by many cells at any one time, playing havoc with frequency reuse between cells. A number of approaches to enabling ordinary mobile phones to be used on board an aircraft have been studied. The author looks at some of the developments that should bring seamless communications from ground level to 30000 ft. In particular the author discusses the potential of aircraft based satellite communication using INMARSAT

Can we put that outrageous claim to bed now?
ll can be known in the book.

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Re: Cell phones on airliners
« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2006, 01:53:09 AM »
Quote from: "EarthWanderer"
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=675091

The passenger aircraft is one of the last places on earth yet to be invaded by the mobile phone. Safety is the major reason forbidding their use, with interference to navigation equipment cited as the principal hazard.


An interesting side note. Tests performed by Mythbusters showed that although the frequency of cell phone signals does severely interfere with the navigation equipment on airplanes, Modern navigation equipment is properly shielded and unaffected.
'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

"People in bamboo houses should not throw pandas" -Jesus

Offline Carl

  • The Number You Are Thinking Of
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Re: Cell phones on airliners
« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2006, 08:56:01 AM »
Quote from: "Wonko the Sane"

An interesting side note. Tests performed by Mythbusters showed that although the frequency of cell phone signals does severely interfere with the navigation equipment on airplanes, Modern navigation equipment is properly shielded and unaffected.


...apart from the radio. You can't shield an aircraft's radio receiver from signals that broadcast on the same or close frequency. Noise like the "dat-dat dat-dat dat-dat" that always seems to preceed an incoming call on a mobile phone over a voice channel could lead to misinterpretation of instructions by the pilot.

I didn't see the Mythbusters episode - did they explore mutual interference at all? Phones in close proximity can create signals that interfer with each other to create completely different and unexpected frequencies.

Offline zylark

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Podcast #50
« Reply #19 on: July 11, 2006, 12:33:25 PM »
Earthwanderer, if you read my posts you will see that I do not claim that it is impossible to use a cellphone on an airplane. What I was saying though is that as the aircraft picks up speed and altitude, it becomes very difficult.

Ofcourse many variables exist. Like is the cellphone attempt over rural or urban areas, was the cellphones used of the analougue or digital kind, local load on the cellphonenetwork etc.

But what tests have shown, actual real life tests, is that once you get to 2000ft in an aircraft, you experience some breakup and loss of connection. When you get higher, it becomes more and more difficult to place and maintain a connection.

This is not an argument I'm pulling out of my ass here. It is very well known that airlines and aircraft manufacturerers themselves have been researching this and they've all come to the same conclusion. Reliable cellphoneconnections are very difficult to achieve whilst the aircraft is moving and at altitude. The faster the aircraft moves, and the higher it is, the more difficult it gets.

In this test ( http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9 ) they've used a relatively slow single-engine Cessna and 5 different cellphones using between them a mix of analogue and digital handsets from a variety of manufacturers and subscribtions (network providers).

And that test is the third they've done, and all three times the results are basically the same. At very low altitude (2000ft and less), no serious problems were found. Increasingly as they gain altitude, it becomes more and more difficult to establish and keep up a connection. As a sidenote, they've only been able to test upto 8000ft, seeing as small Cessnas do not have a pressurecabin.

But on the same page you will find anectdotes from individuals that have not heeded the "no-cellphones-during-flight" demand on commercial flights. And they too experience the same. I quote:

Quote
I was travelling between two major European cities, every weekend, when the events in the US occurred. I was specifically puzzled by the reports that numerous passengers on board the hijacked planes had long conversations with ground phone lines, using their mobile phones (and not on board satelite phones). Since I travelled every weekend, I ignored the on board safety regulations to switch off the mobile phone and out of pure curiosity left it on to see if I could make a call happen.

First of all, at take off, the connection disappears quite quickly (ascending speed, lateral reception of ground stations etc.), I would estimate from 500 meters [1500 feet approx.] and above, the connection breaks.

Secondly, when making the approach for landing, the descent is more gradual and the plane is travelling longer in the reach of cellphone stations, but also only below 500 meters. What I noticed was that, since the plane is travelling with high speed, the connection jumps from one cellphone station to another, never actually giving you a chance to make a phone call. (I have never experienced this behaviour over land, e.g. by car). Then, if a connection is established, it takes at least 10-30 seconds before the provider authorises a phone call in the first place. Within this time, the next cellstation is reached (travel speed still > 300KM/h) and the phone , always searching for the best connection, disconnects the current connection and tries to connect to a new station.

I have done this experiment for over 18 months, ruling out weather conditions, location or coincidence. In all this time the behaviour was the same: making a phone call in a plane is unrealistic and virtually impossible.


But this is very easy for all of you to prove wrong. Just light up your cellphone midflight (preferably over a populated area) and see if you can get a connection and maintain it. Better yet, leave the phone on for the duration of the flight, and take a note of when you loose connection to your provider, and when you get it back again.

Last weekend of this month, me and a couple of friends of mine (one which is a ATC & hobby-pilot) will be taking to the skies on a pure fun recreational sightseeing trip of the lovely Norwegian fjords and Glaciers. With the pilots permission, I'll test out my cellphone for myself just to see.

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
    • http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Podcast #50
« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2006, 12:37:15 PM »
Cellphones work inside jets. High altitude may limit this for technical reasons, but then none of the planes were at cruising altitude so this is a non-issue.

Regardin the "freefall" argument, this is not a accurate depiction of the physics involved. Once the load of the floors below the collapse were significantly exceeded, they would not have offered significant resistance and therefore would not have slowed the collapse. They would simply have buckled and snapped. In fact, in order to slow the collapse the supports would have had to exert more force then they were capable of doing - so it is absolutely not impossible for the towers to have fallen as they were. Also, no one but conspiracy theorists are making this argument. The scientific community knows better. Seriously, if you could prove the collpases were impossible, why would this not garner incredible attention from serious scientists?

Re WTC7 - the propane tanks did not explode, they simply fed the flames through pipes to distant parts of the building. The tanks themselves were not on fire. And the collapse was not due to seismic forces, but an actual piece of the towers falling on and collapsing part of the support structure of WTC7.
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide
snovella@theness.com

Offline WayneR

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 4
    • http://mysite.verizon.net/wayne1026/main/
Podcast #50
« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2006, 12:59:38 PM »
Zylark,


I have seen the video of the colapse of the towers - how can you doubt the pancake explanation when that is exactly what we all witnessed?  Jets hit, fire burned everything on several floors (paper, wood, plastics, etc), and the top colapsed down one floor at a time starting from where the fire weakened the structure.  Do you honestly believe someone set charges on every floor, triggering them one floor at a time, to produce the observed "Pancake" effect?  Why go to all that trouble, crashing the planes at exactly the height where the preset charges were placed?  THis is quite a far fetched scenario!

Also note: a friendship between the Bushes and the Saudi Royal family is hardly proof of a conspiracy with Osama Bin Laden.  I don't trust Bush farther than I could throw him, but I hardly think he could pull off the bizzare conspirancy you describe.

WayneR

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Podcast #50
« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2006, 04:21:01 PM »
I have an odd view on conspiracies. The best proof the conspiracies of this scale are impossible is the outright incompetence of the government. The Bush administration hasn’t been able to keep anything secret. They have done tons of really horrible things that he has tried to keep secret but are constantly being leaked to the press. Nixon couldn't even keep Watergate secret and that was a tiny conspiracy compared to 9/11 conspiracy theories.
__________________________________________

Seriously though, if you use occam's razor the simplest explanation is obvious....

Aliens

Clearly Aliens are responsible for 9/11 and therefore all anomalies that we find are aliens.
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/WTC_UFO.html

It seems as if they had been planning it for months
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4521482851149317053

This is the simplest explanation, How else do you explain THIS   :P

( :lol:  :lol:  :lol: the site is called "Anomalies Unlimited" :lol:  :lol:  :lol: )
'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

"People in bamboo houses should not throw pandas" -Jesus

Offline zylark

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Podcast #50
« Reply #23 on: July 11, 2006, 04:54:19 PM »
Hehe, I wasn't suggesting that Bush-Bin Laden family ties is proof of conspiracy. Quite the opposite. Once more for your reading pleasure:

Quote
-Close link between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens: Entirely correct and proven beyond any doubt. But not mystical. Saudi-Arabia is one of the US biggest suppliers of oil. I'd expect nothing less than the Oilcentric Bushes having close relations with one of the leading Saudi families.


Of course, it might be a bit ambigous if you as a reader have already pegged me as a crazy Conspiracy Theory nut. I should have stressed that it is not a sign of conspiracy, but of business relations between to families that basically live in the same professional sphere.

And no, there is no need to place demolition charges on each and every floor. Once every 10 floors would be more than sufficient. And there are several indications of this. Sulphur and aluminium baked into molten iron from the wreckage of the support coloumns support the possibility of demo-charges beeing used. As these two compounds (together with IronOxide as oxidant) are what drives a Thermate steel-cutting charge.

And an even weakening of the inner core throughout its length would be necessary for the entire structure to fall at freefall velocities. If the inner core was not weakened, it would provide substancial resistance to the falling floors. Not hindering the collapse, but slowing it down.

This is simple physics: Resistance slows falling objects. The more resistance, the more time it takes an object to reach the ground with the kinetic energy available. And the central _very_ dense and solid core, would provide considerable resistance. Remember also that just a few floors beneath where the aircrafts impacted and down to the basement, there were _no_ fires (excepting the initial fireblast of jetfuel that went down the elevatorshafts centrally in the core), and the structure was thus not impaired at these floors beneath the impact.

The only solid facts we have is that:

- The US administration did get prior warning to the hijackings, weeks in advance.
- There was aircraft hitting those buildings exactly as forewarned.
- A fireball of jetfuel functioned as a matchstick and set several floors on fire. The jetfuel fire expired after max. 10 minutes.
- The remaining fires was from interior fixtures, furniture and equiptment found in most modern offices.
- These fires were not intense. We can actually se people standing in the gaping holes of the towers shortly after the initial jetfueled fire died out.
- We have firemen reporting that the fires was nearly under control and in two isolated pockets in the first tower prior to the collapse.
- The buildings collapsed at free fall velocities.

The official explanation (of the collapse) is thus as much speculation as alternative explanations. None of the debris was actually investigated by forensic building experts. It was hauled off to offshore recycling before a any investigation could be done. What little remains of the steelcore coloumns is in memorial sites scattered around the US. A very unusual procedure, seeing as in all other disasters and accidents, the remains are gathered and studied to find the exact reason for the disaster. Here it got shipped and melted down ASAP.

So due to the lack of actual physical evidense, what we're left with are speculations. NIST used models in their work of finding an explanation. Several, until they indeed found one that would facilitate a collapse under very favourable conditions. This is hardly solid evidense. And not to be disrespectfull to your government, but when it is known that their political agenda necessitated a "Pearl Harbour" event to get their policies through swiftly, to start their wars of choice, and to restrict the civil and constitutional rights of american citizens, it all leads to a very frightening picture.

Even if the official explanation is true, and the administration merely ignored the threat despite several warnings from trusted international partners and allies in the intelligence community, it still gave the Bush administration carte-blanche to enable their corporatist fascist empire agenda. And it still makes the Bush administration guilty of conspiracy to let known terrorists on a known mission with known targets carry out their heinous crimes by the simple act of not acting to prevent it to the best of their ability.

There's just too many coincidenses lined up that had to happen for this tragedy to take place. None is out of the realm of possibility by them selves, but with so many it becomes more and more unlikely that the current administration is entirely innocent in the event. They had the motif, and the means to make the job easy for the hijackers. And they seriously bungled up and actively restricted the investigation of the event.

But I think we'll just let the matter rest. I understand most (all?) here have great trust in the official explanation. Reading it as the gospel truth. I remain skeptical to it.

I'm not dismissing the possibility of me seeing patterns where there are none. But to me the official solution contains pieces that look very hammered down into where they do not fit in jigzaw, making it look not entirely consistant and certainly not complete.

edit: to Wonko

Normally I'd be very much inclined to agree. Hell, I use the same argument when it comes to the JFK assasination and the notion that UFOs are hidden in Area51 and such.

To me the smoking gun here is all the people that got warned prior to 9-11. This proves many in government knew something was about to happen, and leaked it as all government officials and other organizations do. However, the small handfull of actual decisionmakers failed to do anything to prevent the event. One could argue they made it easy for the hijackers since they needed such an event to push their agenda through.

edit2: Ah, and the links you (wonko) gave to way-out-there conspiracy theories is just an attempt to ridicule my arguments. Nice try :)

My arguments are based in reality and historical precedent of similar events, using arguments that can easily be dismissed by proof of the contrary. At least the possibility of what I'm saying may contain truth, insomuch as the official report may contain truth. Both are strictly speaking speculations (with regards to the collapse of the towers and WTC7 at least) But ofcourse, my arguments do have their base in a political point of view that is highly distrustfull and suspicious of the current US administration. It's methods (lying) and goals (empire). All outlined in the PNAC manifest.

Offline zylark

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Podcast #50
« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2006, 06:37:20 PM »
Quote from: "Steven Novella"
Cellphones work inside jets. High altitude may limit this for technical reasons, but then none of the planes were at cruising altitude so this is a non-issue.


You haven't been reading what I'm writing, but I've possibly not been clear enough. I've never argued that using a cellphone inside jets is impossible. And I've only covered the cellphoneusage from Flight 93. The one that did _not_ reach it's intended target.

All the other three aircraft was certainly below 2000ft at the time the cellphonecalls from these planes were made, and I'm not contending the validity of these.

But Flight 93 was enroute to it's target and was supposedly flying at high altitude.

And as independent research from both enthusiasts and major airliners and airplanemanufacturers have shown, obtaining and maintaining a cellphoneconnection is highly unlikely above even relatively low 4000ft. At 8000ft and above it is nearly impossible. This is fact. Not speculation. You can test this yourself really easy.

edit: I do not claim those (cellphone) calls were false however. Just that the official report is quite unlikely with regards to Flight 93 and its alleged flight-route/altitude. For those cellphonecalls to get through (most were under 30 seconds in length before beeing cut off, as one would expect) the aircraft must have been flying considerably below cruising altitude. Closer to 2000ft for a considerable amount of time. As for why, I can only speculate.

But possibly the aircraft (beeing the last of the four) was forced to low altitude by interceptors that was now very much scrambled and alerted to the situation. Standard procedure is to intercept and force the hijacked plane to low altitude for next to force it to land at the nearest appropriate runway. Later one of three things happened, either:

- The passenger revolt was successfull, but with no-one to pilot the aircraft, it crashed shortly after.
- The passenger revolt was almost succesfull, but the hijackers blew up the aircraft with the explosives that they claimed they had.
- The aircraft was shot down by an interceptor after it not beeing willing to comply. This later hushed down to avoid the PR nightmare that could possibly follow.

Allthough I don't really think anyone would fault the Airforce or administration for allowing a shoot down considering the situation, it would certainly make a better PR story if the passengers themselves brought the plane down by overtaking the hijackers.

Seeing as there were no large chunks of debris as seen in _all_ other previous aircraft crashes, a midair explosion is thus likely.

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Podcast #50
« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2006, 10:50:53 PM »
Quote from: "zylark"
edit: to Wonko

Normally I'd be very much inclined to agree. Hell, I use the same argument when it comes to the JFK assasination and the notion that UFOs are hidden in Area51 and such.

To me the smoking gun here is all the people that got warned prior to 9-11. This proves many in government knew something was about to happen, and leaked it as all government officials and other organizations do. However, the small handfull of actual decisionmakers failed to do anything to prevent the event. One could argue they made it easy for the hijackers since they needed such an event to push their agenda through.

I wonder...How many people do you think would have to be in on the conspiracy? From what you have said it seems like thousands but I wonder what you think. The number of people in on Watergate could fit in a room and that was leaked, the number of people in on the plame leak etc, etc. was only a small handful and that was leaked too.

If there were people that were warned who do they say they were warned by...and who do those people say they were warned by, why hasn't the conspiracy totally unraveled if this is the case?

Quote


edit2: Ah, and the links you (wonko) gave to way-out-there conspiracy theories is just an attempt to ridicule my arguments. Nice try :)



Not it the least, you obviously missed the point. I was trying to make a point about hunting for Anomalies when you are trying to reach a scientific conclusion and at the same time make a point about the proper use of Occam’s razor (albeit in a comedic fashion)

Oh and one more thing, let’s use some logic here and make a little HYPOTHETICAL thought experiment. Let’s assume that some persons in the government wanted to pull of 9/11.….Why the hell would they bother to  place explosives all over the buildings if they were going to crash  planes into them any way?? Why not just put some extra fuel of explosives in the planes so that the building would collapse on their own? (assuming also that the planes themselves couldn’t take down the buildings)


edit: I was at 5000 feet the other day on top of a mountain and my cellphone worked fine. I wonder what test you are refering to because the FAA prohibits any and all cell phone use in a plane so if those test were performed they were done illegaly and I would want to know who performed the tests.
'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

"People in bamboo houses should not throw pandas" -Jesus

Offline zylark

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Podcast #50
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2006, 12:14:49 AM »
In response to Wonko:

Quote
I was at 5000 feet the other day on top of a mountain and my cellphone worked fine.


Ofcourse it did. I've been high up on mountains an platous myself with perfect cellphone coverage. Norway is after all basically an alpine country. The height of the mountain is measured from water level, not the surrounding landscape. So with regards to heights and cellphoneusage you need to think in terms of Air to Ground Level (AGL, or relative altitude. Even more correct would be to measure altitude above the cellphone tower) _not_ altitude above sealevel (absolute altitude). I'm sorry if this was not clear in my previous posts.

As for the tests themselves in actual aircraft, I've already given links. The short of it is that cellphone towers are focused antenna that are designed to cover a mainly 2D area on the ground. Ususally in clusters of three around a central truss, each antenna covering an 120' arc. Very little RF signal spills upwards. These antennas are placed high, and focused downwards to limit their range so that the network can best decide which antenna that can best service your cellphone.

For more on cellphones: http://www.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone.htm

The cellphonenetwork though is not designed to handle really fastmoving cellphones. To establish a connection, the network need to figure out which antenna can service you best, and then initiate a "handshaking" process to establish connection. This takes several seconds. But if you during this procedure move to an area better served by another antenna, the handshaking process is stopped at the old antenna, and a new is initiatet with the new antenna. This problem is compounded at altitude (above 2000ft AGL), due to the cellphone beeing in contact with several antennas at once, with a near equal signalstrength. A problem not encountered at groundlevel. And a problem cellphonenetworks are not designed to handle. That is also why they are testing having a small cellphonetower/node onboard aircraft to facilitate cellphoneusage on aircraft. The signal would then be bounced to satelite and then to your networkprovider.

Quote
I wonder...How many people do you think would have to be in on the conspiracy? From what you have said it seems like thousands but I wonder what you think. (snip) If there were people that were warned who do they say they were warned by...and who do those people say they were warned by, why hasn't the conspiracy totally unraveled if this is the case?


Not many. Remember I'm supporting a conspiracy more of omission to act. Where those involved saw an opportunity when they learned of the Al-Quaida plans from foreign intelligence agencies weeks if not months in advance. That they were warned is public knowledge, and confirmed by your own congress during the 9-11 hearings. Not to mention the foreign intelligence agencies themselves.

But ofcourse, that aircraft crashing into buildings will by itself not be a cataclysmic mesmerizing event. And it certainly would not bring down the affected buildings. It would not be the "Pearl Harbour" they needed. So my opinion is that they needed to "assist and abet" by ensuring those buildings went down. And again, that does not require many people. A handfull of demolition experts over the weeks prior to 9-11 would be all required.

That, and ofcourse getting rid of the evidense (of demolition) afterwards before serious studies could be initiated. Which they did. And those responsible for the planning and execution of the removal of the WTC debris was actually the company Controlled Demolition Inc. ( CDI was retained by Tully Construction Co. Inc, one of the site's four cleanup management contractors. On September 22, 2001, CDI submitted a 25-page "preliminary" document to New York City's Department of Design and Construction, which approved the plan. )

So you're left with the inner circle of the Bush Cabinet, a couple of middlemen and the demolition experts. Perhaps 30-40 people in total.

As for all those civilians, businessmen and such that received warnings, why should that have an impact on the conspiracy at all? All they received was a relayed warning from sources within and outside of the US who knew an attack was imminent. And we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, as I have reiterated several times now, that it was known prior to 9-11 by several foreign intelligence agencies that there was indeed to be an attack on 9-11. This warning was given to several individuals in both governement and government agencies. How it was to be executed, and what the targets were. That these lower ranked (and not in on the conspiracy) individuals later warned loved ones, family, friends and businesscontacts is not unusual. And most were anonymous. As government officials who reveal secrets (as all intelligence information is) suddenly find themselves without a job, and possibly within a cell.

But please remember, I'm not stating the demolition of WTC as fact. It is not proven. But so neither is the explanation given in the official 9-11 report. The official report doesn't even begin to explain how WTC7 collapsed. Not a word, as if it didn't happen.

Offline zylark

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Podcast #50
« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2006, 04:10:56 AM »
I stumbled upon this video by Media Critic and Journalist Barry Zwicker (1h10m)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623

It's a very levelheaded report on 9-11. It does not cover any of the forensic material, but rather builds the case of historical presedent, that the Bush administration did have prior knowledge, did not act to prevent the event, and later shuffled away evidense whilst stalling an official inquiry.

In short, much of what I have been argumenting to you all here regarding 9-11.

I do believe that as Americans the wool have pulled down your eyes by your corporate media. And as a result of this you are politically naive. Us Europeans are not so impaired. At least, not to such a degree.

As skeptics it is your duty to not only look matters regarding science and superstition, but also politics. And in this case world politics and a criminal treasonous administration.

For a deeper look at the motifs behind the actions of the Bush administration, this video of a lecture held by ex-cop and founder of From the Wilderness investigative news service ( fromthewilderness.com ) Michael C. Ruppert paints a real bleak picture of _why_ 9-11 transpired. Again not touching on the forensic evidense. It's long though, 2h17m.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145

Consider the arguments they make and evidense they show, and tell me a case cannot be made for 9-11 beeing a conspiracy where the Bush administration was not involved on some level.

(oh, and I'm sorry for the low resolution of those videos, but that is googlevideostreaming for you)

Offline cyborganics

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 289
    • http://www.cyborganics.org
Podcast #50
« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2006, 04:32:39 AM »
Whoop, I replied to another thread talking about this ep so I will cut and paste even though it might be a little after the fact...

Quote
I sat down and did a truth table for a friend to illustrate the point...

Three options expressed as A, B and C.
"A" represents the correct answer in each truth table.
Truth table 1 expresses the three possible choices without a change of mind whereas truth table 2 expresses the player opting for a change.

Truth table 1:
ABC
O-b : Correct
-Ob : Wrong
-bO : Wrong
1 / 3 games won.

Turth table 2:
ABC
xOb :Wrong
Oxb :Correct
Obx :Correct
2 / 3 games won.

O = final selection
b = exposed incorrect option
-  = ignored second option
x = first selection dropped in favour of O


... and I don't even know where to start with the 9/11 bits.
cientist: A man who knows nothing until there is nothing left to understand.

www.cyborganics.org

Offline nick mallory

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Podcast #50
« Reply #29 on: July 12, 2006, 09:47:00 AM »
So i read this thread on a day when Islamist terrorists have blown up 4 trains in Bombay, killing perhaps 200 people and maiming many more.  This after similar atrocities in London, Madrid, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Bali, Kenya, Tanzania etc etc.  My patience with conspiracy theories seeking to blame it all on George Bush rather than the terrorists who delight in murdering so many ordinary people just going about their day until they're blown to smithereens is wearing extremely thin.

 

personate-rain
personate-rain