I think me and a freind have made an interesting discovery about the London bombing concerning cell phones. On 9-11-01 in New York we had a similar attack where cell phones had gone out and even pay phones...appearantly the cell towers did still work because the FBI was saying that they were using them as "sniffers" to look for cell signals amid the debris.

In London yesterday, people were complaining about the loss of coverage on their cell phones.

So there are these similarities between these two events where cell coverage was lost even though the bombing style was different.

I also heard that police in London had found a couple of unexploded bombs with cell phones hooked to them...interesting!

Heres my theory...

Well, the terrorists never had the ability to stop cell coverage...but the authorities do.
I have always said 9-11 was an inside job involving the Military/Industrial complex...those people President Eisenhower warned us about. I think demolitions were used in the WTC on 9-11 using a cellular signal to make them go off...thats why the authorities cut the service...they didn't want stray signals making them go off before the specified time. In London...same type of event...they needed the towers off so that there was NO interferance from anyone elses cellphone.

I am sticking with my theory but if you have any knowledge concerning cell phones during yesterdays attack...please let me know. Especially if you lost service.
Let me know when you lost service and when you got it back. Or even if you didn't lose service let me know.

My theory is based on true events as reported by the news. Please lets try and keep this thread informative...thanks.

interesting theory. They actually found bombs with cell phones attached though i havent seen that on the news. could you provide a link?

You do realize that the WTC housed a major telephone/television transmission node, right?

Remember the antenna on top of the north tower? When the building went down, they took the telco nodes and television transmitters with them. I know this because my company spent the next 6 months rebuilding the telecom network for NYC.

Oh, and I had worked in South tower for 6 years prior to and up to the day of 9/11/2001. Funny, I don't seem to recall any friggin explosives being trucked into the complex. And, my cellphone worked perfectly on that day, up until the time tower 1 collapsed.

I remember my phone was still working during 9/11, I was in brooklyn though, and could not call people in certain places in Manhattan

Mightn't it be equally plausible that the networks just get overwhelmed? A lot of people would want to talk to each other, find out how they are? Even the BBC News website went down for a while yesterday morning... was that deliberate as well?

The networks were down for two reasons.

1) Being flooded.


2) To stop terroists setting off bombs using their phones. Part of the government contingency plan.

I think thats the most probably cause of the cell phone theory that the cell phone networks were simply overwhelmed. they aren't designed to handle so many calls at one time. with the 9/11 attacks you would have had millions of people attempting to contact people in NY to make sure they were safe so i could see how that would cause cell phone outages,

Hmmm very true, that is a similarity.
But the bomb with the cell phone I too have never read about... Please provide a link.

Not only the cells, but the land lines were also overwhelmed on that day. Even more so when the towers collapsed, destroying the routers and muxes that comprised the telecom nodes that were in them. The system was incredibly overloaded. IIRC, the TV networks were also knocked off line until they could switch to the back up transmitters located at their respective facilities.

Number 2 is interesting to me Mr. Ed...Sanchera I will look for that link.

Lottie mentioned her phones being out in the London Bombings Thread in the Current World Events Forum...

Number 2 is a fact, it was stated on the news channels and in some papers.

Well I read in the newspapers that the authorities in London cut the service to cell phones so that they could be used only by emergency personel. Now, I don't know how they are able to do that, but the newspaper says they did, and also so that no other bombs could be set off by cell phone. I think I remember them saying that there were potentially more bombs that were rigged to go off with cell phones, but I may be mistaken. As for your theory, DMG, I don't know. It's funny the more I read, the more conflicted my thoughts become on the whole 9/11 thing. So I dunno.

Number 2 does make sense. The question would be wether the network went down after or before the attacks. It would be difficult to notice that though. Say if the attacks happened at 9am they could shut down the network 2-5 min before and nobody would really notice especially once the attacks happened people would be to busy worrying about it then to notice there phones werent working.

They shut down the networks in certain places when they discovered it was a terroist incident. This really isn't a conspiracy and the question is solved now. I don't see what important questions there are left to ask.

Cell phones were down because the authorities used Jammers to disable reception, they initially base the triggering device as a call from another mobile to one that is attached to a home made explosive, this then detonates the explosives, so by jamming the airwaves they hopefully stop further explosions.

Exactly, that and being flooded are the reason the networks were down.
Case closed.

Thanks i can sleep better now knowing the case is closed.

Good, I like to think that I have personally helped you sanchera. Anything to please you.

If you were planning an attack using the cell phone method would you have the explosions go off at different intervals or at the same time?
I would think you would plan for them to go off at the same time which would mean them jamming the signal wouldn't be that affect. But i can see why they would do this anyway. better to be safe then sorry.

The hole in his theory is that if they planted the bombs the network would have to be shut down from when they planted them not just a few min before. If they plant the bombs the day before they could be set off from a mixed cellular signal anytime during that day.

If, the devices were attached to a cel phone detonator, it would require that cel phone to receive a call.

This is an improvement over the old radio detonater that could be set off by any random radio signal. A bit more secure, without the risk of blowing oneself to pieces.

The bombs so far identified were planted on the tubes in back packs, therfore each individual would have planted their package got off the train and then made there way to safety before detonating the device... that is assuming they were triggered by this method, I would assume some were on timers, 5/15 pounds of explosives home made and volatile the work of a smaller group rather than real pro.

XSAS, you must've been busier than a 3 legged dog in a horse race yesterday.
Or aren't you on assignment?

I can truly say that I'm well out of it, and don't miss it. Much, anyway.

Sanchera, they didn't know the terroists where going to do that, as soon as they realised an attack was going on they shutdown some networks to prevent further attacks. It makes 100% sense.
Trust the government, they actually know what they are talking about.

This is another futile attempt to blame Bush and the United States Government.

I know why they jam the signal i agreed thats the best thing to do in that situation. I know it makes sense I never said otherwise. My only poinnt was that i would think the terrorist would time it so they all go off at the same time.

"But i can see why they would do this anyway. better to be safe then sorry."

i dont believe this theory i stated earlier why i thought there was a hole in his theory.

Trust the government? Sure becuase they never lie about anything right. I am not paranoid the govt is out to get me but that doesnt mean i trust them either. They lied to the entire world about the WMD's and I'm supposed to believe everything they say. The American govt has lied to the American people throughout its history so i dont think they have the best track record going. When I can see that the government is more interested in protecting its citzens as opposed to the large corporations i will be more willing to trust our government.

The second theory (as Mr Ed puts it) seems sensible, as they do say that the Madrid bombs mnay have been triggered by a signal from cellphones. But that's very different from claiming that the service was turned off before the bombs went off, surely... that's heading well into the murky waters of conspiracy

WHy not shut down ALL the networks to make sure there aren't any possibilities? Maybe because they already know which signals they need to set them off?

They found an undetonated cell phone in Pakistan last year and they traced it back to its owner...just wondering if they can trace these two they found back to whoever?

PS- My freind said that he saw the story about the undetonated cell phones here on ABC news last night...he told me about it but I have yet to go to their site and see if they have the story.

Of course thats how they found the Madrid bombing Terrorist, from unexploded devices using the same technique as yesterdays attack. However the difference is that the Madrid authorities did not shutdown phone services the bombs did not go off because the batteries ran out, well thats what they said.

i recall losing cell phone coverage on new years eve:( damn government:P

nobody knows anything about what happened yet,and people are already trying to blame the english government.can't we wait a few more days until a few actual
FACTS about the incident come out before we speculate on what the hell happened?

I agree but this unfortunate event falls in the agenda the conspiracy supporters! It will now be used to support a bizzare theory

Sadly, in an incident like this, immediately the people need someone to blame. If someone is not dragged out to the middle of the square and hung for all to see, the people will turn to what they know.
The government. Boo! The government didn't stop this! It's their fault!

Sadly, in an incident like this, immediately the people need someone to blame. If someone is not dragged out to the middle of the square and hung for all to see, the people will turn to what they know.
The government. Boo! The government didn't stop this! It's their fault!


Sadly, in an incident like this, immediately the people need someone to blame. If someone is not dragged out to the middle of the square and hung for all to see, the people will turn to what they know.
Muslims. Boo! Muslims didn't stop this! It's their fault!

See some similarities?

Just ask...who benefits? George Bush and Tony Blair as well as Ariel Sharon have suffered nothing...nothing over any of the attacks...but look at their respective wars and policies and you will see that if anything...these people have benefitted in some way.

No Arab group benefits from this...it would be a mistake too, to see those fighting in Iraq as terrorists. They are a people caught in between an outgoing dictator who was armed by the country who brought sanctions against the people and is now attacking the whole country of Iraq...why...oil.

No oil in Iraq...equals no war in Iraq. It is a simple equation. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that. Bottom line is that the terror attacks strengthens the draconian agenda...much like the Reichstaag fire in Nazi Germany. They blamed it on an innocent group which gave the State the authority needed to pursue military action...in the end...the German war machine was one of the biggest profit makers of all time.

the first shot between the 911 conspiracy and the 7/7/05 conspiracy for the most bizzare has just been fired.

LOL openmind!

I can see why some might think that Bush benefitted from 9/11 in terms of boosting popularity and giving him justification for action against Iraq; i don't agree but i can see the argument. But if Madrid was done for a similar reason (and the similarities between Madrid and London have already been discussed), then didn't it backfire badly? That very weekend there was a general election in which Aznar's government, which up until then had been leading in the polls, was booted out and one of the very first acts of the new government was to pull out of Iraq.

you assume the bombers are rational:)

when discussing fundamentalist extremists, rational should never be mentioned:P

Sorry to throw a spanner in the works guys but anyone who has travelled the London underground will know that you can't receive any signal on your mobile phone whilst you are down there. As far as I am aware the Police are saying the bombs were detonated using triggers (yeah? thanks for the information) this may or may not have been the alarm setting on a mobile phone but it certainly has nothing to do with an external signal. As for the telecommunications signal 'going down' around the time, I think we can safely say this was due to the enormous number of concerned friends and relatives trying to contact loved ones to ascertain whether they were safe.

Well thanks for the info snowball...I see the authorities are ruling out cell phone use altogether? Why would some work and others not?

Still...cell phones were used in Pakistan and Madrid...the Pakistanis found the perpetrator because the bomb didn't go off and traced the number...ha ha. These people would have been profiled and tagged by Londons facial recogniton software and CCTV cameras, seen and unseen. Looks more like a special ops program carried out by professionals careful not to leave a trace except to make a fictitious claim through a website with no affiliation.

It had to take more than one person because the bombs exploded so close together...it was all timed to a tee. Another thing is that radical Islamists don't mind blowing themselves up too if they kill dozens of others. Well...there was NO suicide bomber found. I hear it was army type explosives...if it proves to be true then that also adds to my case.

I have a friend who worked 3 1/2 blocks from the bus bombing. After she got back to her apartment, she got 22 phone calls (11 from her 9 year old brother who had been crying all day back home in the Midlands) A phone system can take only so many people using it before it crashes. Just like too many people here will cause it to crash. London Police was saying today that they considered shutting down the cell phone system in London, but decided not to because of the panic that could have occurred. When the Mount St. Helens volcano went off near by in 1980, phone service was off for over two days because everyone was trying to call friends or relatives to see if they were OK. No conspiracy - just over use.

Here's a quote from a newspaper about the type of explosives used.

Expert says London bombs were crude, easy to carry
Updated, 12:30 p.m. While city struggles to find normalcy, crews say they still haven't reached all of the dead from Thursday's blasts.
By The Associated Press

LONDON - The bombs that destroyed three London Underground cars and a double-decker bus were each lighter than 10 pounds and could be carried in a backpack, police said Friday. An explosives expert said they were likely crude homemade devices set off with a simple timer.

The bombs were probably made from simple, relatively easy-to-obtain plastic explosives, not the higher-grade military plastics like Semtex that would have killed far more people, said Andy Oppenheimer, a weapons expert who consults for Jane's Information Group.

SOURCEDaily Breeze

If this newspaper is not trustworthy enough, let me know.
I'll post quotes from more if need be.

I am not sure about its credibility, if I were you I would stick to the BBC news site.

I basically said this in another post and going back to the Cell phone thing.. Jammers are freely available on the open market, many Celebs bodyguard teams use them in Sports stadiums, Restaurants etc.. so they can enjoy their evening without distraction of a mobile phone going off.

That may not be a bad idea, to bad they are not telling crazy stories maybe then more people would watch,but until that happens i guess some of us will just sit back and make them up!

people do a lot of things in looking at terror attacks trying to convince themselves of a conspiracy theory.if they want to find one bad enough,they'll convince themselves they have!

Is that how it works out in your mind? Openmind? ...lol

Sorry to inform you that is not how it works.

I am afraid it is; people come up with all kinds of mess, they want to blame everyone,but the one who is doing the crime why, because it gives them something to talk about, if you just say the terrorist did it, then you have nothing to talk about, no knowledge of some great secreat, some great threat,you know no more than anyone else! and some people need to feel as if they know more than the rest of us,it makes them feel important, when really they only look like fools!

World events have been covered for a long time isis. Ive gone to college too and none of this was ever taught. There was a coup Detat in this country in 1963...thats what evil men in this country are capable of...you are on a series of rants, you prove nothing by foaming at the mouth.