15 years 911 twin towers was it a controlled demolition ???

[Quag]

You are thick as a brick Mike. eace

Typical total lack of intelligent reply and an attempted deflection when your "evidence" is destroyed.

 

[Quag]

You're a hero Deuce, a regular hero.

deuce is an actual pilot, unlike certain "flight instructors" we have here

 

[Quag]

So it is a definite NO , for you to be able to back up your opinion, even when shown experts in 2001 disagree with your view.

Name calling doesn't do much to support your stance. Now if you were to provide a source and a direct quote from that source that backs up what you say....

Lol HD provide a source, that is a good one

 

[Thoreau72]

So it is a definite NO , for you to be able to back up your opinion, even when shown experts in 2001 disagree with your view.

Name calling doesn't do much to support your stance. Now if you were to provide a source and a direct quote from that source that backs up what you say....

What has happened is that I have backed up my opinion, over 10 years ago, by empirical evidence and experiments that you in your dissonant state refuse to acknowledge. This demonstration is why it is so useless to engage with the dissonant. eace

 

[zyzygy]

What has happened is that I have backed up my opinion, over 10 years ago, by empirical evidence and experiments

In a separate reality perhaps. I don't think that you know what the word empirical means.

 

[Quag]

What has happened is that I have backed up my opinion, over 10 years ago, by empirical evidence and experiments that you in your dissonant state refuse to acknowledge. This demonstration is why it is so useless to engage with the dissonant. eace

No HD what you did was look for stuff to validate your pre-concieved notions, refused to fact check them and ignored all the actual evidence.

 

[Quag]

In a separate reality perhaps. I don't think that you know what the word empirical means.

Empirical means anything that he thinks might support his pre-concieved notions, regardless of its veracity

 

[mike2810]

What has happened is that I have backed up my opinion, over 10 years ago, by empirical evidence and experiments that you in your dissonant state refuse to acknowledge. This demonstration is why it is so useless to engage with the dissonant. eace

Then it would very easy for you to give the thread and post number. Funny, if one would look back at your posting history when you were HD. When asked to post sources, you gave some lame excuse that you were not good at linking to information on the web. The result was no sources. Then you started to give a few statements of well read "X"., but no specific page or direct quotes from the book "x". Heck, even others provided links to Prager's ebook on the nukes, which you never did.

You can call me or others a dissonant. That does not make it so. It still is your opinion.

As far as this thread, you have failed to back up your statements regarding cell phones or disprove/discredit the link to an article I provided. You even admitted you didn't even read the article.

So in the end HD, we will agree, it is useless to discuss things with you. Too bad, at times you have interesting comments. The vail attempt at name calling is just another indication you really have nothing of substance to add to the discussion. eace

 

[Mark F]

What has happened is that I have backed up my opinion, over 10 years ago, by empirical evidence and experiments that you in your dissonant state refuse to acknowledge. This demonstration is why it is so useless to engage with the dissonant. eace

Then it would very easy for you to give the thread and post number. Funny, if one would look back at your posting history when you were HD. When asked to post sources, you gave some lame excuse that you were not good at linking to information on the web. The result was no sources. Then you started to give a few statements of well read "X"., but no specific page or direct quotes from the book "x". Heck, even others provided links to Prager's ebook on the nukes, which you never did.

I seem to recall in this thread Henry being asked repeatedly to back up certain claims with any actual evidence. If Henry is telling the truth then he must have provided that information right here in this thread somewhere.

Maybe I missed it.

 

[mike2810]

I seem to recall in this thread Henry being asked repeatedly to back up certain claims with any actual evidence. If Henry is telling the truth then he must have provided that information right here in this thread somewhere.

Maybe I missed it.

Not going to look through this thread again. What I recall is he has givin his opinion and personal experience as evidence.

 

[Quag]

I seem to recall in this thread Henry being asked repeatedly to back up certain claims with any actual evidence. If Henry is telling the truth then he must have provided that information right here in this thread somewhere.

Maybe I missed it.

You cant overlook something that isnt there

 

[Mark F]

Not going to look through this thread again. What I recall is he has givin his opinion and personal experience as evidence.

No worries. I have done it for you. What follows is every instance in which Henry provided sources, links and direct quotes to support any of his claims in this thread:

 

[braindrain]

Of course you will ZY, from your Ivory Tower.

Much better then taking the word of a certain poster on this site who refuses to back up any of his claims and has been caught playing fast and loose with the truth many many times. Not to mention simply making things up. That poster would be you in case there is any confusion.

 

[zyzygy]

Much better then taking the word of a certain poster on this site who refuses to back up any of his claims and has been caught playing fast and loose with the truth many many times. Not to mention simply making things up. That poster would be you in case there is any confusion.

Would that be the wannabe pilot?

 

[Deuce]

You're a hero Deuce, a regular hero.

Your concession on that point is welcome.

 

[Deuce]

What has happened is that I have backed up my opinion, over 10 years ago, by empirical evidence and experiments that you in your dissonant state refuse to acknowledge. This demonstration is why it is so useless to engage with the dissonant. eace

You believe you have presented "empirical evidence" that cell phone communications above 1500 feet were impossible in 2001?

 

[Quag]

You believe you have presented "empirical evidence" that cell phone communications above 1500 feet were impossible in 2001?

When HD claims he "flew" a helicopter and tried to use his cell phone and it didn't work in his world that is empirical evidence.
Do not expect anything more concrete than that from HD, he doesn't do reality

 

[Mark F]

When HD claims he "flew" a helicopter and tried to use his cell phone and it didn't work in his world that is empirical evidence.
Do not expect anything more concrete than that from HD, he doesn't do reality

How do people who live in hilly terrain manage to use their phones if just a little altitude suddenly renders them useless?

 

[zyzygy]

How do people who live in hilly terrain manage to use their phones if just a little altitude suddenly renders them useless?

They can't use their phones but they keep quiet about it because they are part of the conspiracy.

 

[Quag]

How do people who live in hilly terrain manage to use their phones if just a little altitude suddenly renders them useless?

Have you ever flown in a helicopter?
Cell phone reception is the least of the problems with use in most helicopters.
Something our "flight instructor" would know if he had ever actually flown in one

 

[Mark F]

Have you ever flown in a helicopter?
Cell phone reception is the least of the problems with use in most helicopters.
Something our "flight instructor" would know if he had ever actually flown in one

I have actually piloted a helicopter. Pre cell-phone days so I couldn't tell you if one worked or not but since helicopter flights are almost always at relatively low altitude,...

The last few times I have flown commercially I have had no problem getting bars even at cruise altitude. But again, all of this is so much attempt to skate around the fact that only a tiny handful of very short calls were made from Flight 93 on cell phones and all while the plane was at or below 5,000 feet. Don't let Henry sucker you into his vague and poorly defined fact-free arguments and let him lead. Just shut his BS down.

 

[Quag]

I have actually piloted a helicopter. Pre cell-phone days so I couldn't tell you if one worked or not but since helicopter flights are almost always at relatively low altitude,...

The last few times I have flown commercially I have had no problem getting bars even at cruise altitude. But again, all of this is so much attempt to skate around the fact that only a tiny handful of very short calls were made from Flight 93 on cell phones and all while the plane was at or below 5,000 feet. Don't let Henry sucker you into his vague and poorly defined fact-free arguments and let him lead. Just shut his BS down.

It isn't the bars, it is the noise that is usually the problem with helicopters. Some are relatively quiet but most make communication without a decent headset difficult to say the least.
Heck even just listening to the radio you can usually tell when someone else is flying a 'copter because the noise comes through the mike.
The idea of using a cell phone in one is rather absurd.
Of course our resident "flight instructor" may have been "flying" one of the quieter ones but lets be honest who believes he has been in any type of aircraft let alone knows how to fly?

Hds claims that cell phones didn't work in planes back then is an outright lie but then so much of his nonsense is

 

[zyzygy]

It isn't the bars, it is the noise that is usually the problem with helicopters. Some are relatively quiet but most make communication without a decent headset difficult to say the least.
Heck even just listening to the radio you can usually tell when someone else is flying a 'copter because the noise comes through the mike.
The idea of using a cell phone in one is rather absurd.
Of course our resident "flight instructor" may have been "flying" one of the quieter ones but lets be honest who believes he has been in any type of aircraft let alone knows how to fly?

Hds claims that cell phones didn't work in planes back then is an outright lie but then so much of his nonsense is

He flew in one once and the pilot had to restrain him from switching the big fan on the top of the aircraft off while trying to make a call.

 

[Thoreau72]

You believe you have presented "empirical evidence" that cell phone communications above 1500 feet were impossible in 2001?

Yes, but I do not expect a person in denial to accept it.

For whatever reasons, you are not candid enough to have ever mentioned what sort of airplanes you were flying in 2001, to ever have discussed what sort of airplanes you supposedly still fly. No big deal, but just a suggestion of some sort of insecurity in that regard. So pardon my skepticism regarding your desire to have an open and mature discussion of such matters.

You seem to do the same regarding your cell phone experiences, and so I'm skeptical of that.

I know what I did with helicopters and cell phones for several years beginning in 2002, and I don't mind talking about it. I don't mind talking about my knowledge regarding cell phone system design as a result of studying for FCC Amateur Radio license.

You won't even comment on the change from analog to full digital in the cell phone system, so again some sort of insecurity seems to be apparent, or else your version of rational and honest public dialogue is very different than mine. Many posters are very comfortable admitting when they are wrong from time to time, but you're not one of them.

Despite your claims, the cell phone system in 2001 and after was significantly different than it is today, and it is fundamentally dishonest to claim otherwise.

 

[Quag]

Yes, but I do not expect a person in denial to accept it.

For whatever reasons, you are not candid enough to have ever mentioned what sort of airplanes you were flying in 2001, to ever have discussed what sort of airplanes you supposedly still fly. No big deal, but just a suggestion of some sort of insecurity in that regard. So pardon my skepticism regarding your desire to have an open and mature discussion of such matters.

You seem to do the same regarding your cell phone experiences, and so I'm skeptical of that.

I know what I did with helicopters and cell phones for several years beginning in 2002, and I don't mind talking about it. I don't mind talking about my knowledge regarding cell phone system design as a result of studying for FCC Amateur Radio license.

You won't even comment on the change from analog to full digital in the cell phone system, so again some sort of insecurity seems to be apparent, or else your version of rational and honest public dialogue is very different than mine. Many posters are very comfortable admitting when they are wrong from time to time, but you're not one of them.

Despite your claims, the cell phone system in 2001 and after was significantly different than it is today, and it is fundamentally dishonest to claim otherwise.

Despite your claims cell phones worked in planes in 2001.
Try being honest for a change.