SELECTIVE BELIEF SYSTEMS
the mind of man/woman continues to puzzle me.
either there are disinformation agents posting on the eschaton site or there are individuals who think that the bushit regime will lie about some subjects, but will tell the truth about others. and, they think that they can discern prevarications from truths.
late last night, i picked up on some postings accusing me of being stupid, ignorant because of a piece i put up on this blog that was very critical of an article that aired recently in THE NATION.
especially as it pertained to cellphone communications on 11 september 2001.
from the few posts that i caught while traveling, a few posters[imposters] assert that i don't understand the capabilities of cellphones in airliners in 2001.
it is important to emphasize, here, that without those cellphone conversations that have been proffered by the bushit state, there is virtually no other probative evidence that any "arabs" hijacked four airliners on that day. in other words, if the cellphone calls could not have been made, conducted, then the heart of the bushit regime's assertions about that day have been ripped out.
and if those cellphone conversations are tantamount to arlen spector's magic bullet, then the rationales for the invasions of afghanistan, iraq are provably fraudulent. and acts of treason.
and that takes me to the issue of certain [im]posters. "snow, country" in particular. but a few others, as well.
from time to time, i have read some posts from some of these individuals. and they seem to be skeptical about the bushit regime and its pronouncements.
but, when the issue involves the events of 11/09/01, anything asserted by the bushits seems to be accurate. and anyone who points out the problems with the bushit assertions is ignorant, stupid, a conspiracy theorist. hmmmmmm.
i will be dealing with this issue of faith-based reality, selective perceptions, at greater detail when i reach my final destination. but for now, pay attention....
on 11/09/2001, cellphones could not make connections, nor conduct any long-term conversations from aircraft traveling at normal cruising speeds, at altitudes much above 3,000 - 8,000 ft.
that was reality then. it remains reality.
i read some [im]poster relate that he could carry on cellphone conversations whenever he flew. i shall be quite candid, now. i consider that assertion a prevarication. but, that [im]poster is invited to relate what years, what routes of travel, at what altitudes, on what airlines, he was able to do this.
i have been routinely flying between iah-lax for the last decade with a cellphone. it is a vector that overflies interstate 10. my cellphone company's have been verizon and sprint. their towers run the length of I-10. since 11/09/01, i have been making a record of cellphone capabilities along this well-towered vector. here are my observations....
within minutes of launching from either iah or lax, the cellphone loses its ability to find service. why? two principal reasons, the cell towers are designed for terrestrial communications and they are designed for stationary or virtually stationary[less than 150nph] signals.
in 2001, terrestrial cell towers were line of sight devices. and the antenna array would be unable to pick up signals above certain altitudes. the altitude would depend on certain factors: placement[location] of the tower, height of the tower.
in 2001, very few towers were taller than 75 ft. this limited altitude pick-up to less than 5,000 ft.
but the salient problem was speed of the signal source. if your cellphone was under 5,000 ft and traveling at speeds of less than 110nph, and you had a window seat, with the phone next to the window, you could probably make a connection. and even have been able to have maintained it until you traveled beyond the range of the initiating tower.
but let us reflect upon those airliners on that day.
the salient conversations, purportedly, were transmitted from aircraft traveling over some of the most inadequately served cell areas in north amerika. areas where my salesmen in 2001 could not regularly connect to a cell tower. areas that are similar to eastern montana, northeastern wyoming.
the assertion that anyone in those airliners made cellphone connections, let alone conducted lengthy conversations, has to be considered a fiction.
as i know the 2001 technology, the only way that a passenger in an airliner could make and preserve a connection in an airliner would be for these conditions to obtain:
1. aircraft would have to be below 5,000 ft.
2. aircraft would have to be traveling either at virtual stall speeds or circling a cell tower.
3. passenger using cellphone would have to be in window seat with phone virtually against window.
all these conditions were not operative on 11/09/01.
i want to end this in this fashion. have you ever been on an airliner in flight when someone is using the airfones? with the background noise, haven't you noticed how the passenger using the airfone shouts into the airfone?
similarly, haven't you been on a commercial airliner when it is on the ground, and cell phone usage is allowed. didn't you hear every conversation as the communicators shouted into their phones?
so, consider this, aircraft have been hijacked. and yet, with hijackers controlling the plane, some passengers go unnoticed yelling into their cellphones. because i can assure you of this, even if you are sitting forward of the engines, you must speak loudly to be heard over the drone of the background noise. and i think no hijacker would fail to hear that.
i close this way...
put a tail on ted olson. my guess is that if you do that, you will find barbara.
investigate the estate filings for all those passengers on those airliners.
try to figure out why the families of the airliner passengers have been more acquiescent to the bushit story of that day than the families of those victims of the wtc. in fact, it is my understanding that the families of 93 refused compensation.
why? is it because they know that their loved ones are still alive?
and why doesn't the purportedly legit press examine these issues? zionists?
how many witness protection program communities does the state operate?
are there "prisoner" sites where passengers on those airliners, from that day, are being incarcerated?
anything goes with this bushit regime.
put a tail on ted olson is my last recommendation. if you do that, i think you will find barbara.
either there are disinformation agents posting on the eschaton site or there are individuals who think that the bushit regime will lie about some subjects, but will tell the truth about others. and, they think that they can discern prevarications from truths.
late last night, i picked up on some postings accusing me of being stupid, ignorant because of a piece i put up on this blog that was very critical of an article that aired recently in THE NATION.
especially as it pertained to cellphone communications on 11 september 2001.
from the few posts that i caught while traveling, a few posters[imposters] assert that i don't understand the capabilities of cellphones in airliners in 2001.
it is important to emphasize, here, that without those cellphone conversations that have been proffered by the bushit state, there is virtually no other probative evidence that any "arabs" hijacked four airliners on that day. in other words, if the cellphone calls could not have been made, conducted, then the heart of the bushit regime's assertions about that day have been ripped out.
and if those cellphone conversations are tantamount to arlen spector's magic bullet, then the rationales for the invasions of afghanistan, iraq are provably fraudulent. and acts of treason.
and that takes me to the issue of certain [im]posters. "snow, country" in particular. but a few others, as well.
from time to time, i have read some posts from some of these individuals. and they seem to be skeptical about the bushit regime and its pronouncements.
but, when the issue involves the events of 11/09/01, anything asserted by the bushits seems to be accurate. and anyone who points out the problems with the bushit assertions is ignorant, stupid, a conspiracy theorist. hmmmmmm.
i will be dealing with this issue of faith-based reality, selective perceptions, at greater detail when i reach my final destination. but for now, pay attention....
on 11/09/2001, cellphones could not make connections, nor conduct any long-term conversations from aircraft traveling at normal cruising speeds, at altitudes much above 3,000 - 8,000 ft.
that was reality then. it remains reality.
i read some [im]poster relate that he could carry on cellphone conversations whenever he flew. i shall be quite candid, now. i consider that assertion a prevarication. but, that [im]poster is invited to relate what years, what routes of travel, at what altitudes, on what airlines, he was able to do this.
i have been routinely flying between iah-lax for the last decade with a cellphone. it is a vector that overflies interstate 10. my cellphone company's have been verizon and sprint. their towers run the length of I-10. since 11/09/01, i have been making a record of cellphone capabilities along this well-towered vector. here are my observations....
within minutes of launching from either iah or lax, the cellphone loses its ability to find service. why? two principal reasons, the cell towers are designed for terrestrial communications and they are designed for stationary or virtually stationary[less than 150nph] signals.
in 2001, terrestrial cell towers were line of sight devices. and the antenna array would be unable to pick up signals above certain altitudes. the altitude would depend on certain factors: placement[location] of the tower, height of the tower.
in 2001, very few towers were taller than 75 ft. this limited altitude pick-up to less than 5,000 ft.
but the salient problem was speed of the signal source. if your cellphone was under 5,000 ft and traveling at speeds of less than 110nph, and you had a window seat, with the phone next to the window, you could probably make a connection. and even have been able to have maintained it until you traveled beyond the range of the initiating tower.
but let us reflect upon those airliners on that day.
the salient conversations, purportedly, were transmitted from aircraft traveling over some of the most inadequately served cell areas in north amerika. areas where my salesmen in 2001 could not regularly connect to a cell tower. areas that are similar to eastern montana, northeastern wyoming.
the assertion that anyone in those airliners made cellphone connections, let alone conducted lengthy conversations, has to be considered a fiction.
as i know the 2001 technology, the only way that a passenger in an airliner could make and preserve a connection in an airliner would be for these conditions to obtain:
1. aircraft would have to be below 5,000 ft.
2. aircraft would have to be traveling either at virtual stall speeds or circling a cell tower.
3. passenger using cellphone would have to be in window seat with phone virtually against window.
all these conditions were not operative on 11/09/01.
i want to end this in this fashion. have you ever been on an airliner in flight when someone is using the airfones? with the background noise, haven't you noticed how the passenger using the airfone shouts into the airfone?
similarly, haven't you been on a commercial airliner when it is on the ground, and cell phone usage is allowed. didn't you hear every conversation as the communicators shouted into their phones?
so, consider this, aircraft have been hijacked. and yet, with hijackers controlling the plane, some passengers go unnoticed yelling into their cellphones. because i can assure you of this, even if you are sitting forward of the engines, you must speak loudly to be heard over the drone of the background noise. and i think no hijacker would fail to hear that.
i close this way...
put a tail on ted olson. my guess is that if you do that, you will find barbara.
investigate the estate filings for all those passengers on those airliners.
try to figure out why the families of the airliner passengers have been more acquiescent to the bushit story of that day than the families of those victims of the wtc. in fact, it is my understanding that the families of 93 refused compensation.
why? is it because they know that their loved ones are still alive?
and why doesn't the purportedly legit press examine these issues? zionists?
how many witness protection program communities does the state operate?
are there "prisoner" sites where passengers on those airliners, from that day, are being incarcerated?
anything goes with this bushit regime.
put a tail on ted olson is my last recommendation. if you do that, i think you will find barbara.
posted by albertchampion at 7:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home