9/11 : Then and now ( Photos )

[Dubious]

The one who have been wasting time -- and forum bandwidth -- is YOU.

Your comment shows the lack of critical thinking. You complained that there should be scientists to debate this. When scientists debate, they usually do not do it live but in print. They debate by methodically analyzed each other's position and offers counterpoints in print for all to see. That is part of the review process. That is how scientific papers publishes and degrees earned. The 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report are in the same vein.

You complained for nothing and am wiling to bet you did not even know those docs by their proper names.

Cant live without personal insults typical superiority complex

Now adays we have internet and we have had online as well as live debates/ discussions via web live from their labs...

Each side has had time to review and write articles about their understanding on the matter but neither side has confronted the other....

 

[gambit]

Cant live without personal insults typical superiority complex

Now adays we have internet and we have had online as well as live debates/ discussions via web live from their labs...

Each side has had time to review and write articles about their understanding on the matter but neither side has confronted the other....

What make you think that there must be face to face confrontation in order to be a valid debate ? Who are you to set the criteria for what is established and accepted in the scientific community ? How many PhD papers have YOU published and/or reviewed ? So according to YOU, unless the debate conforms to your exact specifications, you win by default.

 

[Dubious]

What make you think that there must be face to face confrontation in order to be a valid debate ? Who are you to set the criteria for what is established and accepted in the scientific community ? How many PhD papers have YOU published and/or reviewed ? So according to YOU, unless the debate conforms to your exact specifications, you win by default.

Sorry I dont waste time on blind ignorant people....

 

[gambit]

Sorry I dont waste time on blind ignorant people....

I do -- YOU. It is the Christian thing to do to try to help those in needs, especially on the intellectual side.

 

[Dubious]

I do -- YOU. It is the Christian thing to do to try to help those in needs, especially on the intellectual side.

whatever sails your boat...

Its a Muslim thing to do to hear an old ranting machine to give him peace of soul

 

[gambit]

Another ignorant error from the loony 9/11 conspiracy theories believers is that no jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel and steel has a melting point of...

Questions and Answers - What's the melting point of steel?

Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

So is it true that jet fuel, the kind common to civilian airliners and military combat aircrafts, cannot burn hot enough to literally melt steel ?

Not true.

Afterburner Basics

Since the temperature of an afterburner can reach 1700 deg. C

This is not saying that the temperature of the WTC fires were as hot as the afterburner of jet engines. Rather, this is to expose the technical incompetency and even dishonesty of the 'Troofer' side when the technical information about jet fuel is readily available.

Structural steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steel loses strength when heated sufficiently. The critical temperature of a steel member is the temperature at which it cannot safely support its load. Building codes and structural engineering standard practice defines different critical temperatures depending on the structural element type, configuration, orientation, and loading characteristics. The critical temperature is often considered the temperature at which its yield stress has been reduced to 60% of the room temperature yield stress.

...this is approximately 1000–1300 °F (530-810 °C).

In other words, structural steel that is under constant vertical stress does not have to melt in order to fail its function: withstand that vertical stress load.

All a fire has to do is heat a section of the steel structure to between 500-800 C and let that vertical load do the rest: fail the steel structure.

Those who claimed they saw 'molten steel' were probably honest in their observation. But even if the generosity is granted that there were 'molten steel', that does not mean the WTC steel columns must melt before they can fail. That is a flaw in logic that these loony 9/11 conspiracy theories believers heaped upon people who may not be as technically educated as professional scientists and engineers.

Assuming that there were 'rivers' of molten steel, as exaggerated by witnesses, the molten steel could have been produced later in sub-surface fires, after all, no one was immediately in the ruins after the WTC Towers collapsed. Everyone waited until everything was calm and the country secured from perceived threats before the investigation and clean up processes began.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Has anyone of you used a cell phone back in 2001? If yes, can you remember how the connection was when you drove on an autobahn/ motorway at over 120 km/h? Exactly, it was really bad with constant disconnection and often with any connection.

But on 9/11 the flight attendants miraculously didn't have any problems to make phone calls with their cell phones at 30k feet in the sky.

Another funny story comes from Barbara Olson, a former CNN correspondent and married to Ted Olson, former United States Solicitor General (he helped Bush jun. to his presidency in the Bush vs. Gore case at the Supreme Court). She supposedly got killed in the plane that hit the Pentagon. Ted Olson told the media that his wife made a collect call with her cell phone lol. Since that was impossible, he changed that to an air phone call. But that was also impossible as United didn't have air phones in all their planes. NIST dropped her story completely in the report.

Five years later, Ted Olson married Lady Booth. You can find practicall nothing about her life until she married Ted Olson.

 

[gambit]

Has anyone of you used a cell phone back in 2001? If yes, can you remember how the connection was when you drove on an autobahn/ motorway at over 120 km/h? Exactly, it was really bad with constant disconnection and often with any connection.

But on 9/11 the flight attendants miraculously didn't have any problems to make phone calls with their cell phones at 30k feet in the sky.

Technically -- incorrect.

The cell phone industry knew for yrs that technically speaking, as long as a cell phone is within range of a tower, whether the cell phone is on ground or in-flight, connection can be made and if the cell phone is connected as the cell phone is in-flight, while the connection may not be as secured as on the ground, a cell phone call is technically feasible.

Explainer Mailbag: Explainer Asks, Readers Tell

"According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles."

The Hindu : Mobiles on aeroplanes

...it is possible to receive signals on cell phone while travelling in an aeroplane, provided the base station range allows.

Cell phone use during flights is still banned by regulations because it disrupts cell service on the ground and have the potential to interfere with an airplane's navigation and communication instruments.

In theory, any device that emits electronic waves — including cell phones, laptops, electronic games, pacemakers and hearing aids — has the potential to cause interference to an aeroplane.

Every frequent flyer have sneaked a cell phone call or two or a few despite warnings. I have and it works.

BBC News | UK | In-flight mobile user jailed

Wednesday, July 21, 1999 Published at 13:27 GMT 14:27 UK

A man has been sentenced to 12 months in jail for refusing to switch off his mobile phone during an international flight.

Although he made no airborne calls, experts said interference from the phone could have sparked an explosion or affected the plane's navigational systems as it flew at 31,000 feet.

Tom Fitzpatrick made a text call, not an voice, but a text call. Nevertheless, he had a solid connection enough at 31k ft. And this was back in 1999.

And here is the clincher...

Review of Rules for Wireless Services Onboard Aircraft NPRM | FCC.gov

This prohibition was adopted in 1991 to guard against the threat of harmful interference from airborne use of cellular phones to terrestrial cellular networks.15 The Commission’s prohibition was not to ensure interference-free operation of avionics equipment. When the prohibition was adopted, the Commission noted that a cellular telephone used on board an airborne aircraft would have greater range than a land-based handset, and its signal would be received by multiple terrestrial cell sites in a given market, causing harmful interference.

In other words, the FCC ban on individual cell phone connections had more to do with interference of land towers than of issues with avionics.

Another funny story comes from Barbara Olson, a former CNN correspondent and married to Ted Olson, former United States Solicitor General (he helped Bush jun. to his presidency in the Bush vs. Gore case at the Supreme Court). She supposedly got killed in the plane that hit the Pentagon. Ted Olson told the media that his wife made a collect call with her cell phone lol. Since that was impossible, he changed that to an air phone call. But that was also impossible as United didn't have air phones in all their planes. NIST dropped her story completely in the report.

Five years later, Ted Olson married Lady Booth. You can find practicall nothing about her life until she married Ted Olson.

If you really are a journalist, you must be a really bad one since you cannot do basic research, hence you must work for the 'alternative media'. Keep working those Big Foot stories, buddy.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Technically -- incorrect.

The cell phone industry knew for yrs that technically speaking, as long as a cell phone is within range of a tower, whether the cell phone is on ground or in-flight, connection can be made and if the cell phone is connected as the cell phone is in-flight, while the connection may not be as secured as on the ground, a cell phone call is technically feasible.

Explainer Mailbag: Explainer Asks, Readers Tell


The Hindu : Mobiles on aeroplanes

Every frequent flyer have sneaked a cell phone call or two or a few despite warnings. I have and it works.

BBC News | UK | In-flight mobile user jailed

Tom Fitzpatrick made a text call, not an voice, but a text call. Nevertheless, he had a solid connection enough at 31k ft. And this was back in 1999.

And here is the clincher...

Review of Rules for Wireless Services Onboard Aircraft NPRM | FCC.gov



In other words, the FCC ban on individual cell phone connections had more to do with interference of land towers than of issues with avionics.


If you really are a journalist, you must be a really bad one since you cannot do basic research, hence you must work for the 'alternative media'. Keep working those Big Foot stories, buddy.

Funny thought, that even your MSM contradicts your claims:
How phones work in flight - CNN.com

The maximum distance at which a phone can still make calls and send texts varies depending on the type of tower and transmitter, but an airplane would have to be no more than 10,000 feet in the air for any cell phones on board to still have a signal, according to Bill Rojas, director of telecom research at IDC Asia Pacific.

Speed can also make maintaining a cellular connection difficult, as a device has to switch from tower to tower to maintain a connection. Rojas told CNN that a plane would have to be going 155 miles per hour (250 kilometers per hour) or less for phones in cell-tower range to make or receive calls.

The metal body of an airplane can also impede cellular service.

I left voluntarily and earn more now since we gain readership in double digit every quarter while the MSM is losing money and many are not going to survive this year.

 

[masud]

 

[gambit]

Funny thought, that even your MSM contradicts your claims:
How phones work in flight - CNN.com

The CNN source is not even implicit that cell phone do not work, as you explicitly stated. It says...

Despite the urgings of flight crews to turn off all phones or put them in airplane mode, cell phones can continue to work after a plane takes off, but only while in range of a cellular tower.

And those airliners were within cell towers since they were overland and over populated areas.

That is just pathetic when you do not even understand your own source.

I left voluntarily and earn more now since we gain readership in double digit every quarter while the MSM is losing money and many are not going to survive this year.

Entertainers make more money than real journalists. I will give you that, entertainer.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

The CNN source is not even implicit that cell phone do not work, as you explicitly stated. It says...


And those airliners were within cell towers since they were overland and over populated areas.

That is just pathetic when you do not even understand your own source.

I think this is to hard to understand for you:

The maximum distance at which a phone can still make calls and send texts varies depending on the type of tower and transmitter, but an airplane would have to be no more than 10,000 feet in the air for any cell phones on board to still have a signal, according to Bill Rojas, director of telecom research at IDC Asia Pacific.

and this ...

Speed can also make maintaining a cellular connection difficult, as a device has to switch from tower to tower to maintain a connection. Rojas told CNN that a plane would have to be going 155 miles per hour (250 kilometers per hour) or less for phones in cell-tower range to make or receive calls.

Not to forget that we are now talking about 2015, not 2001.

Entertainers make more money than real journalists. I will give you that, entertainer.

The typical loser when losing the argument, go ad hominem. As a matter of fact, it doesn't matter what you think of me since I don't care who you are.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Another titbit of the 9/11 conspiracy. You guys remember Norman Mineta, the Transport Sec on 9/11?

That's him:

He is now sitting on the board of directors of ICTS, the company that was responsible for passenger security at the airports where the planes got hijacked. That's meritocracy American style.

BTW, ICTS is also responsible for the passenger security at CDG (Paris) airport, where the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, got on the plane as well.

That's the patsy Richard Reid

ICTS is also responsible for the passenger security at Amsterdam Schiphol airport from where the other patsy, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the panty bomber got on the plane.

It's comically surreal!

BTW, ICTS was founded by former members of Shin Bet, the Israeli equivalent of MI5: ICTS International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oldman1]

Don't know much.
Lets just forget about Reports as you americans are not good in Lying.. I will recommend you to just just just "just" search "9/11 inside job" on google image. and see different perspectives presented by different peoples.

I recommend you look at 9/11 myths and see different perspectives. For example believe that Muslims would never do this.

 

[RealNapster]

I recommend you look at 9/11 myths and see different perspectives. For example believe that Muslims would never do this.

Who disabled your Air defense Systems from pentagon ? Al-Qaeda ?
Who hijacked your 3-4 Planes from 3-4 different airports ? what about airport Security ?
A person Bill Cooper who predicted 9/11 attacks was killed shortly after his prediction and that also 3 months before the attack. who killed him ? Al-Qaeda ??
how did Fox tv ACTUALLY predicted 9/11 attacks ?
How Could a Fox TV Show Accurately Predict in Detail the Events of 9/11? | DouglasHamp.com
10 Times TV Shows Predicted The Future | Conspiracyclub

The lone Gunman Series , Who showed the exact scenario of 9/11 attack and that also 6 months before 9/11 ...
11 Times TV Shows Creepily Predicted The Future - Page 12

and that one is something above the earth

What will i say about 9/11 . The Simpson even predicted Syrian Civil war Even before Syrian Opposition Existed

It seems Sympson is America's God. which predicted Every thing Sooooo

All these Tv shows was Onair Months before 9/11 ...