Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

Although discussing is good, it's ultimately pointless if you're not going to get to the bottom of a situation.

Some people like to actually get to the bottom of those situations and solve cases, expose possible corruption. Not simply talk about them all the time, getting nowhere.

Oh, I see... so this:

If I wasn't such a couch potato, I'd muster the will to begin a proper case documenting the corruption and cover-up on 9/11.

At what point in your life, did you stop and suddenly say "Hey, the Government hands out irrefutable evidence in any and all cases. They are not in the wrong, nor is it possible for them to harbor an agenda?"

This isn't me trying to be unkind, I'm genuinely curious now as to where this began, because your defending the terrori-I mean, US Government, like some kind of agent. Like one of those paid shills or something.

Is you getting to the bottom of the situation...? Sounds to me like you're not trying to do anything except spew CT garbage rhetoric.

I bet that a really comfy couch you're on...

:rolleyes:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I wasn't such a couch potato, I'd muster the will to begin a proper case documenting the corruption and cover-up on 9/11.

Once again, only real evidence will work. Past government corruption is not evidence that implicates the government in the 9/11 attacks.

At what point in your life, did you stop and suddenly say "Hey, the Government hands out irrefutable evidence in any and all cases. They are not in the wrong, nor is it possible for them to harbor an agenda?"

I know the government does not always tell the truth and I know that from experience, however, if you don't like what the government has to say, I have listed a number of non-government sources that can be used as references as well. In other words, focus on what non-government sources have said rather than relying on the government itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the Media, who are owned by the Government? lmao.

The media is not owned by the government anymore than the government owns American Airlines and United Airlines. Remember, those airlines have confirmed the loss of their aircraft on 9/11/2001.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not make accusations towards other members stating that they are "government shills". People have differing opinions, such does not make them agents of the government.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?! As I have said that my own cell phone worked in flight, which basically slams the door shut of the conspiracist claim that a cell phone won't work in flight. In addition, I have posted examples of where cell phones were used in flight.

It does not slam the door shut because you still haven't told us these calls were made in 2001 and how long your conversations lasted, and how high you were in altitude when this call took place. Since 2004 as I have explained to you the capability of cell phone use in planes has dramatically increased with installation of satellite to ground technology on commercial aircraft. So yes in recent times cell phones do work but they rarely did work past a minute in 2001 depending on altitude and rate of speed.

Skyeagle, you wrote a lot but you STILL haven't answered the question I asked of you why are you avoiding it? You made a pretty strong statement above and I asked you for your personal evidence that you have yet to reply to, did you just think I would forget? I am not asking you to reply using other people sources, you said that it was you that made calls not the sources so tell me when you made the calls, how long your conversation lasted and what year they were made in (specifically if it was in 2001) along with altitude, speed, and flight of the location. Also if it was a commercial fight or if it was some other form of non commercial plane you were on. I am very interested in finding this information out thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyeagle, you wrote a lot but you STILL haven't answered the question I asked of you why are you avoiding it? You made a pretty strong statement above and I asked you for your personal evidence that you have yet to reply to, did you just think I would forget?

You implied that cell phones don't work in flight above 2000 feet, but my own cell phone worked in flight to the point that I had to turn it off.

I am not asking you to reply using other people sources, you said that it was you that made calls not the sources so tell me when you made the calls, how long your conversation lasted and what year they were made in (specifically if it was in 2001) along with altitude, speed, and flight of the location. Also if it was a commercial fight or if it was some other form of non commercial plane you were on. I am very interested in finding this information out thank you.

I didn't have long conversations on the cell phone because I was too busy doing such things as flying the plane, which didn't have a working autopilot, while looking out for other aircraft whose pilots sometimes failed to update their altimeters to the current setting for the location I was flying over, which sometimes resulted in their aircraft flying near my altitude, and navigating, so I simply told the callers I would call back. I also noticed that I was receiving text messages, which I didn't respond to until after I landed. This has been occurring off and on for many years because I simply forgot to turn off the phone before the flight.

I have posted those references for a particularly good reason, which shows that cell phones did work temporarily in flight back in 2001, but you also have to remember that the majority of calls were made on Airfones, not cell phones.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crumar

Thanks again for all the technical stuff, most of it over my head.

But I am a HAM radio guy, and radios have long been a hobby.

I would like to mention that, as you already know and have mentioned, the microwave band is very directional. The cell systems designed and built in the 80's and 90's were for people on the ground. Thus, the directional antennae are oriented to that purpose. The term "cell" refers to the ideal hexagonal design of each "cell", and that in the earlier systems, many of the cells were not hexagonal because there were not enough towers to form a hexagon.

I did not know that the satellite interface systems were introduced in 2004, though I was aware about 3 or 4 years ago that they did exist.

There are after-market systems available that allow a cell phone to be used in private aircraft, and all it does is allow the cellphone audio to be fed and controlled into the aviation headset the pilot is wearing. I have never used one.

Even in a low and slow helicopter, the biggest difficulty is actually being able to hear the cellphone audio because of the ambient noise.

There are so many other facts that contradict the OCT that the lies of the cell calls is a minor one indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next time your on a flt,coast to coast try your cell phone at 35k feet. :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many other facts that contradict the OCT that the lies of the cell calls is a minor one indeed.

On the contrary, it has been shown that cell phones have been used in flight and even cell phone experts have stated that cell phone use in aircraft is not impossible.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next time your on a flt,coast to coast try your cell phone at 35k feet. :tsu:

9/11 conspiracist have had each of their claims refuted with facts and evidence and despite no evidence, continue to claim there was a government 9/11 conspiracy.

It has been shown that 9/11 conspiracist are not interested in real evidence because they have actually claimed that certain videos and photos proved their case while they were unaware those videos and photos were deliberately doctored.

They were also unaware that cell phones have been used in flight before the 9/11 attacks and that cell phone experts have stated that cell phone calls from aircraft were in fact, possible during the 2001 time frame.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the Media, who are owned by the Government? lmao.

I think you've got that the wrong way round.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You implied that cell phones don't work in flight above 2000 feet, but my own cell phone worked in flight to the point that I had to turn it off.

I can’t believe this is still being thrown around by you of all people. Reread the posts I made I did not imply that they don't work past 2000ft I said the signal degrades and calls get dropped if they somehow connect. The phone still may have a signal but that does not mean a connection can be made and even if it does show it has a signal over time as you travel it will eventually lose signal as it get stuck on a tower I already explained this to you and this was also further verified by a professor who did a study on this very issue and was posted not by me but by someone else. You preach physical evidence and being open minded when viewing each side of the story yet you are not doing so here at all you are biased plane and simple.

I didn't have long conversations on the cell phone because I was too busy doing such things as flying the plane, which didn't have a working autopilot, while looking out for other aircraft whose pilots sometimes failed to update their altimeters to the current setting for the location I was flying over, which sometimes resulted in their aircraft flying near my altitude, and navigating, so I simply told the callers I would call back. I also noticed that I was receiving text messages, which I didn't respond to until after I landed. This has been occurring off and on for many years because I simply forgot to turn off the phone before the flight.

I have posted those references for a particularly good reason, which shows that cell phones did work temporarily in flight back in 2001, but you also have to remember that the majority of calls were made on Airfones, not cell phones.

Yes you keep posting references that I provided, and have noted that there are contradictions to their stories. I understand you were flying the plane at the time but you can still answer the questions I posed to you after you are done flying the plane you would remember some of these things. Again you're STILL avoiding answering the full question, so to me you are starting to seem like you are either covering something up or lying. Why can't you answer simple questions when put forth to you? I asked you what year were these phone calls placed that is the most important thing out of everything I asked you and after asking you 3 TIMES now you still refuse to answer that question. All your answers are vague, you will not provide your altitude, plane you were using, service provider of your phone, speed of travel, etc. The only thing that you did provide which is telling was that you were not on the phone long enough for it to drop as you traveled; which would indicate your calls were short as you were "flying the plane" the quote is your own words not mine.

I will post the findings once again by a professor who has done the physics and mathematical probabilities of what we are talking about yet again so you can review it. Then I am going to post the responses to refute the claims you are making by engineers and people who have done the same tests and have given their names not hiding or being evasive but precise which you refuse to be Skyeagle. So let us begin shall we.

Test was done by Professor A.K. Dewdney http://physics911.net/projectachilles/

The author (Professor Dewdney) has not placed his university affiliations below his name, as the research described here was not conducted with any university facilities or supported by university-administered grants. He currently holds the titles of Professor Emeritus of Computer Science and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the University of Western Ontario, as well as Professor of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo.

So now that we got his credentials out of the way after he did all his tests lets look at his conclusion.

Conclusions

It cannot be said that the Faraday attenuation experiment (Part Three) was complete, in the sense that the operator normally held the phone to his ear, seated in a normal position. This meant that the signals from the test phones were only partially attenuated because the operator was surrounded by windows that are themselves radio-transparent. Although we cannot say yet to what degree the heavier aluminum skin on a Boeing 700-series aircraft would affect cellphone calls made from within the aircraft, they would not be without some effect as windows take up a much smaller solid angle at the cellphone antenna. Signals have a much smaller window area to escape through, in general. As was shown above, the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. To calculate the probability that two such calls will succeed involves elementary probability theory. The resultant probability is the product of the two probabilities, taken separately. In other words, the probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand. In the case of a hundred such calls, even if a large majority fail, the chance of, say 13 calls getting through can only be described as infinitesimal. In operational terms, this means “impossible.”

At lower altitudes the probability of connection changes from impossible to varying degrees of “unlikely.” But here, a different phenomenon asserts itself, a phenomenon that cannot be tested in a propellor-driven light aircraft. At 500 miles per hour, a low-flying aircraft passes over each cell in a very short time. For example if a cell (area serviced by a given cellsite) were a mile in diameter, the aircraft would be in it for one to eight seconds. Before a cellphone call can go through, the device must complete an electronic “handshake” with the cellsite servicing the call. This handshake can hardly be completed in eight seconds. When the aircraft comes into the next cell, the call must be “handed off” to the new cellsite. This process also absorbs seconds of time. Together, the two requirements for a successful and continuous call would appear to absorb too much time for a speaking connection to be established. Sooner or later, the call is “dropped.”

This assessment is borne out by both earwitness testimony and by expert opinion, as found in Appendix B, below. Taking the consistency of theoretical prediction and expert opinion at face value, it seems fair to conclude that cellphone calls (at any altitude) from fast-flying aircraft are no more likely to get through than cellphone calls from high-flying slow aircraft.

A. K. Dewdney,

April 19th 2003

Below his conclusions other people have done similar tests here take a read.

Hi,

I am an RF design engineer, having built out Sprint, Verizon and another network in New Orleans. You are absolutely correct. We have trouble making these things work for cars going 55 mph on the ground. If you need another engineer’s testimony for any reason, let me know I will corroborate.

my engineering site: http://www.geocities.com/rf_man_cdma/

Brad Mayeux (he gives his e-mail here but I must delete it as it is against the rules of this forum to post this information if you want it you can look at it at the link)

Hi Prof

I have repeatedly tried to get my cell phone to work in an airplane above 2-3000 feet and it doesn’t work. My experiments were done discreetely on [more than] 20 Southwest Airlines flights between Ontario, California and Phoenix, Arizona. My experiments match yours. Using sprint phones 3500 and 6000 models, no calls above 2500 ft [succeeded], a “no service” indicator at 5000 ft (guestimate).

There seem to be two reasons. 1. the cell sites don’t have enough power to reach much more than a mile, 2. The cell phone system is not able to handoff calls when the plane is going at more than 400 mph.

This is simply experimental data. If any of your contacts can verify it by finding the height of the Pennsylvania plane and it’s speed one can prove that the whole phone call story is forged.

Rafe <e-mail provided> (airline pilot)

Dear Professor,

Responding to your article, I’m glad somebody with authority has taken the trouble to scientifically prove the nonsense of 9/11. I was travelling between two major European cities, every weekend, when the events in the US occurred. I was specifically puzzled by the reports that numerous passengers on board the hijacked planes had long conversations with ground phone lines, using their mobile phones (and not on board satelite phones). Since I travelled every weekend, I ignored the on board safety regulations to switch off the mobile phone and out of pure curiosity left it on to see if I could make a call happen.

First of all, at take off, the connection disappears quite quickly (ascending speed, lateral reception of ground stations etc.), I would estimate from 500 meters [1500 feet approx.] and above, the connection breaks.

Secondly, when making the approach for landing, the descent is more gradual and the plane is travelling longer in the reach of cellphone stations, but also only below 500 meters. What I noticed was that, since the plane is travelling with high speed, the connection jumps from one cellphone station to another, never actually giving you a chance to make a phone call. (I have never experienced this behaviour over land, e.g. by car). Then, if a connection is established, it takes at least 10-30 seconds before the provider authorises a phone call in the first place. Within this time, the next cellstation is reached (travel speed still > 300KM/h) and the phone , always searching for the best connection, disconnects the current connection and tries to connect to a new station.

I have done this experiment for over 18 months, ruling out weather conditions, location or coincidence. In all this time the behaviour was the same: making a phone call in a plane is unrealistic and virtually impossible.

Based on this, I can support you in your findings that the official (perhaps fabricated) stories can be categorised as nonsense.

With kind regards.

Peter Kes <e-mail provided>

It must be clearly understood that Prof. Dewdney’s tests were conducted in

slow-moving (<150kts) light aircraft at relatively low altitudes (<9000ft

AGL). The aircraft from which the alleged calls were made on 9/11 were

flying at over 30,000 ft at speeds of over 500 MPH.

During a recent round-trip flight from Orange County, CA to Miami, FL (via

Phoenix, AZ), I, personally conducted an unofficial “test” using a brand new

Nokia 6101 cellular phone [NB: 2005 technology]. En route, I attempted

(discretely, of course) a total of 37 calls from varying altitudes/speeds. I

flew aboard three types of aircraft: Boeing 757, 737, and Airbus 320. Our

cruising altitudes ranged from 31-33,000ft, and our cruising speeds, from

509-521 MPH (verified post-flight by the captains). My tests began

immediately following take-off. Since there was obviously no point in taking

along the wrist altimeter I use for ultralight flying for reference in a

pressurized cabin, I could only estimate (from experience) the various

altitudes at which I made my attempts.

Of the 37 calls attempted, I managed to make only 4 connections – and every

one of these was made on final approach, less than 2 minutes before flare,

I.e., at less than 2,000ft AGL.

Approach speeds varied from 130-160 kts (Vref, outer marker), with flap and

gear extension at around 2,000ft (again, all speeds verified by flightdeck

crews). Further, I personally spoke briefly with the captains of all four

flights: I discovered that in their entire flying careers, NOT ONE of these

men had EVER been successful in making a cell phone call from cruising

altitude/speed in a variety of aircraft types. [NB: Rest assured the

ubiquitous warnings to "turn off all electronics during flight" are

completely unfounded. All modern aircraft systems are fully shielded from

all forms of RF/EMF interference (save EMP, of course). This requirement was

mandated by the FAA many years ago purely as a precautionary measure while

emerging advanced avionics systems were being flight tested. There is not a

single recorded incident of interference adversely affecting the performance

of airborne avionics systems.]

Obviously, my casual, seat-of-the-pants attempt at verifying a commonly

known fact can hardly be passed off as a “scientific” test. Ergo, I shall

offer Prof. Dewdney¹s conclusion, excerpted from his meticulously detailed

and documented paper re slow-flying light aircraft at low altitudes.

Nila Sagadevan (no e-mail provided)

Dear Dr Dewdney

I too can verify that on a private charter airline, Champion Air, which was a 737-300, I believe that is correct or it might have been a 727-300. But regardless of that, we took off from Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport at 0735 in July of 2003. As we were taxiing to the run way the pilot told us to please turn off all electronic equipment, i.e. Cell Phones, Laptops, etc. I did so, but shortly after take off and before the pilot said we could use our “electronic equipment” I thought I would call my mom and let her know we were in the air. We had not been off the ground for more than 2 minutes. I would guess between 2000 and 5000 ft. I was using at the time one of Motorola’s top of the line phones, a V60t. My cell phone carrier is Cingular which is quite a widespread carrier as you probably know, I had absolutely no signal at all. Since we were flying to Cozumel, Mexico I kept trying and watching for a signal until we got out past the coast line of Texas, when then I knew for sure I wouldn’t get a signal again until we landed in Cozumel. Again in June 2004 we flew out of DFW, same airline, same type of plane, and the same thing occurred. This time I left my phone on from take off and up until it lost the signal. Again we couldn’t have been more than 2000 to 3000 ft. off the ground. I lost the signal and never again got a signal until the plane landed in Cozumel. I find it highly unlikely that anyone could have used a cell phone on 9/11/01 at above 2000 feet.

Sincerely,

Brad Taylor (no e-mail provided)

I’ve been using Nokia phones with automatic nationwide roaming, and Cingular before it was Cingular and long before 9/11. I confess to having turned my cell phone on while flying commercial airlines several times prior to 9/11, just to see if signals were available. At 2,000 feet the phone went totally flat. No calls out or in were ever possible. Of course all these stories are anecdotal, but according to cell phone engineers who have cared to comment have stated that commercial aircraft fly far too fast and far too high to expect that folks on flight 93 ever managed to get a call out on their own phones. They’ve said that the towers can’t transition or hand over private cell phones fast enough. I hope we can hear from other ATPs on this subject.

George Nelson (Col. USAF ret.) (no e-mail provided)

As you can see the testimony of other people contradict what others have been saying. Now that we got that cleared up I hope I understand that air phones were used by a lot of the people on the hi-jacked planes. Tell me why hi-jackers would allow them to use these devices? I read in detail the other links that ascertain that air phones were indeed used but that took the investigating officials to come to this conclusion years later as indicated by them going back and forth with the evidence that was provided. The FBI has some credit card transactions to indicate this was the case what took them so long to find it? To me it just seems convenient for them to finally come to that conclusion but I will not call them lairs but I will say there is a lot of contradictions to this story for me anyways. That does not mean all evidence presented by the FBI is fabricated all I am saying is in this particular instance some things do not add up based on records provided by investigating bodies and by those outside the investigation who understand the technology.

Edited by Crumar
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crumar

Thanks again for all the technical stuff, most of it over my head.

But I am a HAM radio guy, and radios have long been a hobby.

I would like to mention that, as you already know and have mentioned, the microwave band is very directional. The cell systems designed and built in the 80's and 90's were for people on the ground. Thus, the directional antennae are oriented to that purpose. The term "cell" refers to the ideal hexagonal design of each "cell", and that in the earlier systems, many of the cells were not hexagonal because there were not enough towers to form a hexagon.

I did not know that the satellite interface systems were introduced in 2004, though I was aware about 3 or 4 years ago that they did exist.

There are after-market systems available that allow a cell phone to be used in private aircraft, and all it does is allow the cellphone audio to be fed and controlled into the aviation headset the pilot is wearing. I have never used one.

Even in a low and slow helicopter, the biggest difficulty is actually being able to hear the cellphone audio because of the ambient noise.

There are so many other facts that contradict the OCT that the lies of the cell calls is a minor one indeed.

Hi Babe Ruth,

This quote may be of interest to you as it explains further in regards to radio and cell singles. Thanks for posting the above I appreciate it.

(source http://physics911.net/projectachilles/)

Prof. Dewdney:

I do not pretend to be any sort of expert of cellular communications, but I am an electronics engineer and hold both amateur and commercial FCC licenses, so I do have some understanding of the relevant principles of radio communication systems.

I read with interest your analysis of terrestrial contact probabilities via cellphones from aircraft. I believe your conclusions are sound, but would like to comment on an element which you pondered regarding the sort of apparent discontinuity in what seems otherwise to be an inverse-square relation beyond a certain altitude.

Cellphones operate by Frequency Modulation, and as such the (apparent) signal strength is not discernible to the listener because the intelligence is contained only in the frequency and phase information of the signal before demodulation. Hence, the system works pretty well until it is so weak that it is abruptly lost. That is, the system can no longer “capture” the signal. It does not get louder and softer with signal strength -until the signal is below the detection level of the receiver, at which point it is essentially disappears. The cellphone also adjusts the transmit power according to the signal level received at the tower end of the link. Once it is at maximum output, if the signal diminishes beyond some minimum threshold depending on the receiver design, it is lost altogether and not simply degraded in quality. Analogous behavior is experienced with FM broadcast stations; as you travel away from the transmitter the station is received with good fidelity until at some distance it rather suddenly cannot even be received any longer at all.

Additionally, cellphone towers are certainly not optimally designed for skyward radiation patterns. Since almost all subscribers are terrestrial that is where the energy is directed, at low angles.

In summary, if your observed discontinuous behavior is real, and I believe there is technical reasoning for such, the probability of making calls beyond some threshold altitude is not simply predictably less, but truly impossible with conventional cellphones under any condition of aircraft etc. because of the theoretical limits of noise floor in the receiving systems. I think the plausibility of completing the calls from 30,000+ ft. is even much lower than might be expected from extrapolations of behavior at lower altitudes which you investigated.

Thank you for your thoughtful work in this area.

Sincerely,

Kevin L. Barton

Hope that helps you understand a bit more thanks.

Edited by Crumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Dewdney and his studies:

911Myths.com - AK Dewdney and Project Achilles

Skipping straight to the end...

Whether his results are "optimal" is open to question, as we've seen, however here he is suggesting there's a 1 in a hundred chance of success of making a call. So how do we get to "impossible"? Like this:

As was shown above, the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. To calculate the probability that two such calls will succeed involves elementary probability theory. The resultant probability is the product of the two probabilities, taken separately. In other words, the probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand. In the case of a hundred such calls, even if a large majority fail, the chance of, say 13 calls getting through can only be described as infinitesimal. In operational terms, this means "impossible."

http://www.physics91...ectachilles.htm

What Dewdney is saying is that the probabilites must be multiplied together. If the chance of you winning a basic prize on the lottery is one in ten, for instance, then the probability of you winning twice with two tickets is 10 x 10 = 1 in 100.

When we're dealing with unrelated and independent events, like the lottery tickets, this is correct. But the phone calls were not independent, they relied on precisely the same set of circumstances. If a 9/11 plane were in the right position, in relation to a powerful base station, for the calls to take place, then it was in the right position for everyone on the plane (who had a mobile which could use that base station). At any given moment, either all this group of people could get through, or none of them. Therefore the chance of 2 people getting through remains close to 1 in 100, even with Dewdneys flawed conditions, not the 1 in 10,000 he claims.

As to why the hijackers would "let the passengers use those devices" (the Airfones), given the following:

1. There were only 5 hijackers on three of the aircraft - Flights 11, 77 and 175 - and 4 on Flight 93 versus the substantially higher number of passengers on those aircraft

2. According to what was reported by people making those calls, the hijackers seemed to be more concerned with keeping passengers and crew away from the front of the aircraft than keeping them from using the Airfones,

3. Airfones are located in seatbacks throughout the aircraft - typically as few as one per row of seats, or as many as one per individual seat depending on seating class.

Why do you think the hijackers would have even tried or have been able to stop people from using the Airfones or their cell phones...?

I'm not professing to have any insight into their mindset, but why would they care since their plan was to destroy the aircraft and kill everyone on board anyway? Its not like the phone calls could have stopped them from what they were planning....

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Dewdney and his studies:

911Myths.com - AK Dewdney and Project Achilles

Skipping straight to the end...

As to why the hijackers would "let the passengers use those devices" (the Airfones), given the following:

1. There were only 5 hijackers on three of the aircraft - Flights 11, 77 and 175 - and 4 on Flight 93 versus the substantially higher number of passengers on those aircraft

2. According to what was reported by people making those calls, the hijackers seemed to be more concerned with keeping passengers and crew away from the front of the aircraft than keeping them from using the Airfones,

3. Airfones are located in seatbacks throughout the aircraft - typically as few as one per row of seats, or as many as one per individual seat depending on seating class.

Why do you think the hijackers would have even tried or have been able to stop people from using the Airfones or their cell phones...?

I'm not professing to have any insight into their mindset, but why would they care since their plan was to destroy the aircraft and kill everyone on board anyway? Its not like the phone calls could have stopped them from what they were planning....

Cz

Thanks for the post Cz that makes a lot of sense. But regardless if it is 1-100 or 1-10000 the fact is a call can be eventually made but as I have said the call will in most likely hood have disconnected within a minute back in 2001 because of altitude, high rate of speed, distance from cell tower etc. You guys get the point by now I am sure what bugs me is posters here using 2012 technology to say calls could be made back in 2001 at all altitudes with posts like "Try to use a phone on a plane now" argument. Please do not confuse the two the technology was much different in 2001 then in 2004 and onwards. Now the problem is why did the FBI initially say it was cell phones and then switched to air phones later in their investigation? That is what I am wondering the most because they had every news outlet report in the early stages of the investigation that it was cell phones and not air phones that were used and a few people on the forums are saying that the media was misinformed and did not know their facts. Well of course they were that is the problem in the beginning at least. As for the hi-jackers I can see why they would focus on the cockpit area vs. the back of the plane it makes sense. Anyway something to think about thanks for posting, have a great day.

Edited by Crumar
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all that Crumar. Kevin Barton makes excellent points, and reminded me of another phenomenon I noted regarding cell phones and altitude and airspeed.

I noticed back around 2005 that if I left the phone on while flying on a longer flight, an hour or more, my battery would lose strength much more quickly. I thought that one reason for that might be that the unit was using more power searching for communication with a tower that it could not find. While in NO SERVICE mode, it seemed to use more power trying to find a ground station to talk to, and not finding such a station, it consumed more power.

Anyway, in addition to the physical impossibility of the 11 September phone calls, the "conversations" offered as evidence had a strange quality about them, coming across as unnatural or staged, between the parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t believe this is still being thrown around by you of all people.

It is all very simple. You have implied that cell phones could not have been used in flight, but facts and evidence have shown that it was not only possible in 2001, but that cell phones have been used in that time frame.

Read it, and understand what is being presented.

Final Contact

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations. “On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.”

From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.

--------------------------------------------------------

Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less.

http://wirelessrevie...s_final_contact

Mobiles on aeroplanes

QUESTION: Can we receive a mobile signal while travelling in an aeroplane?

ANSWER : Mobile phones can receive signals while travelling in an aircraft, provided the base station range allows. Territory covered with GSM network is divided into hexagonal cells. The covering diameter of each hexagonal cell may be from 400 m up to 50 km, which consists of base station that provides communication-receive and transmission, and antennae.

http://www.hindu.com...03100110300.htm

----------------------------------------------------------

An FCC study in 2000 found that cell-phone use aboard aircraft increases the number of blocked or dropped calls on the ground. That's because at high altitude, cellular signals are spread across several base stations, preventing other callers within range of those base stations from using the same frequencies.

http://www.washingto...anguage=printer

---------------------------------------------------------

Paul Guckian, vice president of engineering for cell-phone maker Qualcomm, concurs. "I would say that at the altitude for commercial airliners, around 30,000 or 35,000 feet, [some] phones would still get a signal," he tells Popular Mechanics. "At some point above that-I would estimate in the 50,000-foot range-you would lose the signal." Flight 93 never flew higher than 40,700 feet.

Page 83/ 84, Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics

-------------------------------------------------------

Why the cell phone ban?

The cell phone ban went into effect in 1991, mostly to eliminate the possibility that cell phone calls on airplanes would interfere with cell conversations on the ground, as well as with the airplane's radio communications.

The FCC cited effects of "frequency re-use," which is a fundamental cell phone principle that's helped mobile phones proliferate worldwide. The signal from a cell phone doesn't go on forever; the energy to propel it dissipates after a number of miles, and it dissipates more quickly if it bounces off buildings, hills and other obstacles. This allows the same frequencies to be re-used by operators in different markets sometimes just a few miles apart.

A cell phone signal falling to Earth from a phone aboard a plane encounters no significant obstacles to slow it down, so it's strong enough to reach the ground and find a network on its particular frequency. But if the airwaves belong to a different operator, there's likely to be "noise" and other forms of interference for everybody, the FCC believes.

The 1991 ban hasn't kept people from using their cell phones while in flight, whether it's to secretly scroll through office e-mail, or to respond to far more dire circumstances, as was the case with Chicago resident Matthew Downs on Sept. 11, 2001

http://news.cnet.com..._3-5727009.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Although many airplanes have public "air phones," passengers flinch at the fee of $6 per minute. (Airlines get a cut of the profits, which casts suspicion on why airlines want to keep cell phones turned off in the air.) Despite government regulation, or perhaps because of it, chatting above the clouds on a cell phone has proved irresistible for some. I've seen passengers hunkered in their seats, whispering into Nokias. I've watched frequent fliers scurry for a carry-on as muffled ringing emanates from within. Once, after the lavatory line grew to an unreasonable length, I knocked on the door. A guilt- ridden teenager emerged. She admitted that she'd been in there for half an hour, talking to her boyfriend on a cell phone.

http://web.archive.o...llp0622-01.html

20011028Flight93map.jpg

Now once again, where does i say that cell phone calls from aircraft were impossible? Once again, you've allowed yourself to become a victim of those conspiracy websites.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all that Crumar. Kevin Barton makes excellent points, and reminded me of another phenomenon I noted regarding cell phones and altitude and airspeed.

I noticed back around 2005 that if I left the phone on while flying on a longer flight, an hour or more, my battery would lose strength much more quickly. I thought that one reason for that might be that the unit was using more power searching for communication with a tower that it could not find. While in NO SERVICE mode, it seemed to use more power trying to find a ground station to talk to, and not finding such a station, it consumed more power.

Anyway, in addition to the physical impossibility of the 11 September phone calls, the "conversations" offered as evidence had a strange quality about them, coming across as unnatural or staged, between the parties.

On the contrary, cell phone records have been posted, and remember, the majority of calls were made from Airfones, not cell phones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you keep posting references that I provided, and have noted that there are contradictions to their stories.

What it is, you have fallen victim to those conspiracy websites since it has been well-known that cell phones have been used in aircraft during, and prior to the 2001 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, cell phone records have been posted, and remember, the majority of calls were made from Airfones, not cell phones.

That cellphone records have been posted mean everything to you Sky, but to me they mean that there is a certain probability that, again, the federal government is making stuff up, rather like you did in showing me that video of an F-18 hitting a building.

Fake evidence is an old tactic employed by those attempting to deceive, and deception is what the events of 11 September were all about. Deception and destruction of certain financial records evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That cellphone records have been posted mean everything to you Sky, but to me they mean that there is a certain probability that, again, the federal government is making stuff up,...

Apparently, those references contained facts from experts who have no association with the government. Read the references again.

Fake evidence is an old tactic employed by those attempting to deceive, and deception is what the events of 11 September were all about.

Evidence please! No evidence, and you have no case. :no:

Deception and destruction of certain financial records evidence.

What financial records are you speaking of?

rather like you did in showing me that video of an F-18 hitting a building.

Why are you protesting??? After all, look what you have posted.

* No Boeing struck the Pentagon despite the wreckage was that of a B-757, and then come back and say the aircraft passed north of the Pentagon despite the path of destruction leading to, and within the Pentagon, that depicted a flight path south of the Pentagon. The video made available does not show the B-757 striking from an approach north of the gas station. :no:

* A P700 anti-ship missile struck the Pentagon despite wreckage of a B-757, and none from a P700 anti-ship missile.

* No Boeing crashed near Shanksville, despite the fact recovery crews, investigators, coroner Wally MIller, United Airlines, and many others have confirmed the crash site as that of United 93

* Your claim that the airframe of a B-25 is stronger than the airframe of a B-757, despite the fact the B-757 is a much larger and heavier aircraft that cruise at airspeeds that would destroy a B-25

* An aircraft fuselage cannot penetrate buildings nor create craters in the ground despited photos of a huge crater created by a Caspian Airlines Tu-154 and the huge hole created on the side of the Empire State Building by a B-25.

* The maneuver of American 77 just prior to striking the Pentagon took extraordinary skill despite the fact the maneuver was nothing more than a simple lazy descending turn that did not require superhuman strength nor extraordinary skill

* Explosives took down the light poles near the Pentagon despited the fact the light poles depicted impact damage and nothing to do with explosives

* Nukes took out the WTC buildings despite the fact there was no nuclear explosion, nor explosion of any kind nor radioactive remains

* Explosion in WTC1 just prior to American 11 striking WTC1 despite the fact that no explosions were heard in the video just before the aircraft struck the building

* Molten steel flowing out of the building when in fact, the molten metal was not steel at all

* There were two United 175 at Boston airport. Don' you think that airport officials, ATC, and United Airlines would have noticed something wrong if that was the case?

The list goes on and on.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont miss the Dive from Space tonight Sky ! on Nat-Geo !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont miss the Dive from Space tonight Sky ! on Nat-Geo !

Thanks!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is all very simple. You have implied that cell phones could not have been used in flight, but facts and evidence have shown that it was not only possible in 2001, but that cell phones have been used in that time frame.

Read it, and understand what is being presented.

Now once again, where does i say that cell phone calls from aircraft were impossible? Once again, you've allowed yourself to become a victim of those conspiracy websites.

Once again Skyeagle you are misleading people where did I once say that making a cell phone call in an airplane was impossible?

Fact: Skyeagle is NOT on expert on cell phones nor has any understanding of how they actually worked in 2001. I have repeatedly asked him for his information on when he says cell phones worked for him while he was flying and he will not provide the answers I ask. I asked him specifically if he tested his cell phone in 2001, along with the altitude, speed, cell phone used, air plane flown, cellular provider and to this date he has not responded to any of the above questions so to me he is avoiding questions put forth to him on purpose.

Fact: Skyeagle keeps accusing me of saying that cell phones do not work in airplanes, and I explained to him in 2001 that cell phones after 2000ft had problems maintaining connections even though they might still be able to get a signal because the wave length of the signal begins to degrade as you go higher. I provided case studies from other independent experts who agreed with what I said and he still refuses to acknowledge it. I did NOT at anytime say that cell phones do not work in airplanes at all like he keeps ascertaining. The fact is some cell phones in 2001 were able to gain a signal depending on location and altitude but if a call was made the call would drop within 1 minute or less I have said this countless times already. Show me where I said cell phones did not work on airplanes at all Skyeagle please quote me I would like to see this stop spreading disinformation.

Fact: You assume to much I know what I am talking about because I dealt with the technical side of phone signals on towers using iHLR in 2001. The program could show you where the signal was stuck, and how to fix the problem which I dealt with numerous times. Anywhere in the U.S and partnerships around the world like the Dominican Republic I could access any cell tower using this program and figure out how to fix someone’s signal, and if I was unable to I would put in a request to send out an engineer to the tower to fix the problem. The technology used where I worked was being used by the same carriers across the U.S. and for the most part cell towers were shared amongst different carriers. So yes I do know what I am talking about and I have proved it already what sources you keep bringing up are vague and not technical at all. All they say that in 2001 that cell phones could work, yeah well I have been saying the same thing but not the way you are making them out to work. If you want to keep misleading people time and again I can keep proving my point time and again we can do this forever if you want in this you are wrong. Do not say that I said cell phones do not work on planes in 2001 because that is false and a lie.

Fact: I myself provided a link in regards to airfones and how they were used during 9/11 and agreed that this was the most likely reason why the FBI could trace and verify these phone calls via credit card information. I did NOT say that airfones were not used during 9/11. My case was against the two calls that were made on flight 93 and was presented in court as evidence which your video shows that those calls were made below 2000ft and did not last more then 2 minutes because they got disconnected as per your video source which again proves my point that even if a connection is made the phone call can be dropped for the various reasons I outlined numerous times already. This should show that I understand both sides of the story and I have no bias in regards to what I am writing. Your statement of “Once again, you've allowed yourself to become a victim of those conspiracy websites.” Is false and misleading. In post #2707 I prove this point and you can look it up again for yourself. In addition, just because a conspiracy website puts out information does not automatically make it false it just shows that different people and experts have different opinions on the subject matter and it is up to the people that are reading this information to decide based on their experience in life on what is fact and fake and the problem is not everyone is educated enough nor objective enough to discern these distinctions.

Finally I am starting to see your bias; from this point on I will be taking everything you post with a grain of salt. That is not to say that you are always lying but it is to say that you are not objective as you make yourself out to be and the above facts prove it.

Edited by Crumar
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must take what Sky says with a fairly large grain of salt Crumar. He tricked me last year with some fake video of an F-18 hitting a building.

He is very skilled with pictures and links, but is not exactly trustworthy in his claims.

The cellphone calls were staged, somehow or other, but it is through them that the Official Conspiracy Theory was born. Hijackers and box cutters. Close analysis of the transcripts of the supposed conversations reveals that they are unnatural and improbable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.