• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

911 TWIN TOWERS was it a demolition or plane???


  • Total voters
    27
Yes Mark, let's cut to the chase. You show the list of which calls were individual cell phone, and which were Airfone. Then show the contract between Airfone and United Airlines, and Airfone and American Airlines with dates covering 9/11/2001

Then we can progress. :mrgreen:
Typical reversal of burden of proof.
Not that it is relevant because HD claim is false
 
Yes Mark, let's cut to the chase. You show the list of which calls were individual cell phone, and which were Airfone. Then show the contract between Airfone and United Airlines, and Airfone and American Airlines with dates covering 9/11/2001

Then we can progress.

:lamo :lamo :2rofll: :2rofll:

OMG - is there anyone who didn't see that one coming?

1. Play the I could explain it but you wouldn't understand card.
2. Play the avoid answering with the "so many words, so little substance" evasion card.
3. Play the why don't you explain your position (so I don't have to explain mine) card.
4. Disappear for a few days and hope everyone forgets.

How about :no:

I asked you first so stop being your usual rude and evasive self. For about the millionth time, your claim, your burden of proof.
 
:lamo :lamo :2rofll: :2rofll:

OMG - is there anyone who didn't see that one coming?

1. Play the I could explain it but you wouldn't understand card.
2. Play the avoid answering with the "so many words, so little substance" evasion card.
3. Play the why don't you explain your position (so I don't have to explain mine) card.
4. Disappear for a few days and hope everyone forgets.

How about :no:

I asked you first so stop being your usual rude and evasive self. For about the millionth time, your claim, your burden of proof.

HD will never give a straight answer. His response to Deuce was a strawman response. Also noted he basically accuses a poster of trying to be an expert. Yet, with all of his wave length , faraday cage, laws of physics., he provides no details.

He doesn't know what he is talking about.
 
HD will never give a straight answer. His response to Deuce was a strawman response. Also noted he basically accuses a poster of trying to be an expert. Yet, with all of his wave length , faraday cage, laws of physics., he provides no details.

He doesn't know what he is talking about.

Bolded is why HD cant give a straight answer.
 
Directional antenna arrays favouring the topography of each site.

The challenge with cellular networks in densely populated areas is stopping the signals going too far.*

So HD has that and a couple of other little technical issues going for him.

AKA he is NOT 100% wrong.

Maybe 98% :doh




* For most of the land area of AU we have the opposite problem - too few people scattered over distances so "in the outback" the layout goes for longer range transmission with directional arrays focussed along the highways. Not many people off the highways. Lots of kangaroos but most of them I see don't have iPhones.


...yet!

He's wrong because he's using the word "impossible" when he should be using the word "unreliable."
 
A variety of laws Deuce, many of them designed into the system by the humans who created it. Also the law as demonstrated by Faraday cages. The airplane fuselage is effectively a Faraday cage.

Further, the system was designed and marketed for pedestrians on the surface of the planet. It was NOT designed for people in airplanes, either GA or airliners.

You should familiarize yourself with how they worked in those days. Handing off from cell to cell, faraday cages represented by cars and airplane fuselage, type and characteristics of wave form and wave length, and a variety of other issues that you have no clue about. Presenting yourself as some sort of expert, implied or otherwise, makes you look really bad.

So, is it the aircraft fuselage that radically changed or are cell phones now capable of penetrating faraday cages? What changed between 2001 and now that makes faraday cages obsolete?

Are you suggesting that cars blocked cell phone calls in 2001 also?
 
So, is it the aircraft fuselage that radically changed or are cell phones now capable of penetrating faraday cages? What changed between 2001 and now that makes faraday cages obsolete?

Are you suggesting that cars blocked cell phone calls in 2001 also?

He knows about as much concerning faraday cages as he does aviation.
Ie nada
 
He's wrong because he's using the word "impossible" when he should be using the word "unreliable."

Like all truthers and Cters in general the misuse of terms is intentional.
 
He knows about as much concerning faraday cages as he does aviation.
Ie nada

Do Faraday Cages have windows?

Planes have windows.
 
Yes Mark, let's cut to the chase. You show the list of which calls were individual cell phone, and which were Airfone. Then show the contract between Airfone and United Airlines, and Airfone and American Airlines with dates covering 9/11/2001

Then we can progress. :mrgreen:

Having already employed #2 I predict Brave Sir Robin is going to go for a double and now employ number,...

1. Play the I could explain it but you wouldn't understand card.
2. Play the avoid answering with the "so many words, so little substance" evasion card.
3. Play the why don't you explain your position (so I don't have to explain mine) card.
4. Disappear for a few days and hope everyone forgets.
 
Poor Henry. He fails at every turn. Hilarious to watch.
 
Back
Top Bottom