|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Continuity
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1662
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:29 pm Post subject: The cellphone calls... |
  |
|
I was reading recently (I'll dig the links out) that the purported cell phone calls that were made from the 'planes should put an end to any doubts about the flight paths.
In other words, if these calls actually occured, it should be possible to use the records (which are kept by law for 2-5 years) of the time, duration and which towers the cell phones were using to plot relatively exactly where the 'planes were at the time the calls were made. This is relatively simple, using triangulation.
But, naturally, this hasn't been done. It's bullshit about the flight paths being unknown in places, anyway, because the military would certainly have been able to track these flights.
I will post elsewhere, also, about the fact that when the known flight paths are overlayed over maps of RADAR coverage, they seem to intersect at times closely with (small) "blank" areas in the coverage between the different (RADAR) stations.
So this suggests that the 'hijackers' knew where these holes in the RADAR coverage were, and deliberatly flew through them (why?), or something else... (And I think we *all* suspect what that might be)
Regards,
C.
_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.
Cat Haiku
Last edited by Continuity on Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
backandtotheleft
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 92
Location: Deep Down
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
This one is easy.
Have you ever tried making a cell phone call from a plane?
I have.
I've never gotten it to work.
Why don't you try?
Argument against attempting to make cell phone calls from a plane: potential 'interference' could mess with plane's essential functions causing the plane to crash.
Argument for attempting to make cell phone calls from a plane: the government claims others did it, and that's not why the planes crashed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Continuity
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1662
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:21 am Post subject: Yes... |
|
|
... I know that it's impossible to make calls from moving, fast jetliners. 
I was just pointing out the potential hole in the official story that there were both multiple cell calls, and also their being unknown sections in the flight paths.
They can't have it both ways - we could try and FOIA the cellphone tower records, if they still exist. It's a double-weakness in the 'cellphone calls' story, if you like.
A triple if you consider that there's *no way* just turning a transponder off would keep anyone, certainly the mil, from knowing where those 'planes were, yet still those navigation paths show up in all the official literature about 9/11 as dotted lines in far too many places. (ie at all)
Do you see?
Reagards,
C.
_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.
Cat Haiku
Last edited by Continuity on Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rumpl4skn
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2848
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The whole scam about not using a cell phone in a plane because of "potential interference with guidance systems" is a corporate scam in itself.
They will only work well below about 2,000', and the only reason they don't let you use them during takeoff and landing is because you are zipping through cells so fast they can't track your calls properly, and that would give people free minutes and essentially untraceable calls.
This info is from a friend who works in cellular. Anyone have any info to the contrary?
_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Continuity
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1662
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:41 am Post subject: Nope... |
|
|
| Quote: | | This info is from a friend who works in cellular. Anyone have any info to the contrary? |
That all checks out.
But:
| Quote: | | and that would give people free minutes and essentially untraceable calls. |
I don't think that's the case, though, IIRC you either can't get a lock *at all* coz you're zipping past the towers to fast for them to lock on/handshake etc., and I think this can cause a "cascade" effect across the towers, kinda like a DOS attack on the net. It sorta chokes the system trying to keep up with the constant on/off, handshaking and tracking. I've got docs on this, somewhere...
About their purported danger - I once asked all the stewards, and I think it may have been first officer on a flight a few years ago, *why* do we have to switch phones, laptops, radios, walkmen off when we board? What cockpit/avionics feature *is* it that is so endangered by these devices?
None of them could answer me. They all just thought for a minute, and admitted, "We don't know - it's just something they tell us in training"
I thought the officer might have said something like, "There's a slight danger of interference from nearby cell phone emissions to the functioning of the nav beacons or the comms radio" or something - but no - nothing.
Regards,
C.
_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.
Cat Haiku |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rumpl4skn
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2848
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:49 am Post subject: Re: Nope... |
|
|
| Continuity wrote: | About their purported danger - I once asked all the stewards, and I think it may have been first officer on a flight a few years ago, *why* do we have to switch phones, laptops, radios, walkmen off when we board? What cockpit/avionics feature *is* it that is so endangered by these devices?
None of them could answer me. They all just thought for a minute, and admitted, "We don't know - it's just something they tell us in training"
I thought the officer might have said something like, "There's a slight danger of interference from nearby cell phone emissions to the functioning of the nav beacons or the comms radio" or something - but no - nothing.
Regards,
C. |
If you want to get more CT about it - I suspected that it may have even fit into a pre-9/11 scam. If you prevent people from even attempting cell phone calls during flight, then few will realize how difficult it is to accomplish at low altitude and how impossible at high altitudes.
I once asked a pilot why "terrorists" like Richard Reid just didnt hit the forward lavatory, whip out their cell phone, disrupt the instruments, and try to crash the plane that way. He came clean about it, and told me not to worry, that cell phones "had no effect on the instruments."
So, I returned the favor - I came clean about Richard Reid, and told him that he wasn't a real terrorist. 
_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Continuity
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1662
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:55 am Post subject: LOL... |
|
|
| Quote: | | So, I returned the favor - I came clean about Richard Reid, and told him that he wasn't a real terrorist. |
LOL - now what he should have done is smuggled a big ol' microwave oven in his hand-luggage, gone to the forward toilet, sat on the crapper, plugged it in, took the door off and pointed it in the vague direction of the cockpit.
They don't say *anything* about not heating your own food up during the flight, do they?
Not very bright, these guys.
Regards,
C.
_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.
Cat Haiku |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stallion4
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From my own experience, when I've brought up the "cell phone" issue in the past, someone will usually ask me "how do you know what altitudes the flights were when cell phone calls were made?".
So in an effort to help others who bring up the cell phone issue, but can't answer the question above, below is an article I wrote that helps answer that question. Feel free to use it if someone asks you to prove cell phone calls were allegedly made at altitudes above 30,000 feet:
| Quote: | Proof that cell phone calls were allegedly made during normal cruising speed and altitudes above 30,000 feet on Flight 93 (according to the FAA, the 9/11 cOmmission and Tom Burnett's wife Deena Burnett)
From the 9/11 cOmmission and FAA:
| Quote: | "the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.”70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft...."
Scroll down to "United Airlines Flight 93" section:
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/08-23-04/discussion.cgi.42.html |
| Quote: | United 93 took off from Newark at 8:42. It was more than 40 minutes late. At 9:28, United 93 acknowledged a transmission from the controller. This was the last normal contact the FAA had with United 93.
Less than a minute later, the Cleveland controller and the pilots of aircraft in the vicinity heard “a radio transmission of unintelligible sounds of possible screaming or a struggle from an unknown origin …”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007/ |
| Quote: | 9/11 commission staff statement No. 17
The text as submitted to the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
June 17, 2004
Between 9:34 and 9:38, the controller observed United 93 climbing to 40,700 feet and immediately moved several aircraft out of its way. The controller continued to try to contact United 93, and asked whether the pilot could confirm that he had been hijacked. There was no response.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007/ |
Below are documented reports of when two of the (alleged) cell phone calls were made. When compared to the 9/11 cOmmission's own timeline, it becomes quite clear that these calls must have (allegedly) been made above 30,000 feet.
| Quote: | Flight 93: Forty lives, one destiny
Sunday, October 28, 2001
...She recalls it was around 6:20 a.m. -- 9:20 Eastern time.
It was Tom (Burnett).
"Are you all right?" she asked.
"No. I'm on United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. The plane has been hijacked. We are in the air. They've already knifed a guy. There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI."
Deena Burnett dialed 911...
...Around 9:30, Deena Burnett's phone rang again. It was Tom.
"He didn't sound frightened, but he was speaking faster than he normally would," she said. He told her the hijackers were in the cockpit.
"I told him a lot of planes had been hijacked, that they don't know how many," she said.
"You've got to be kidding," he replied.
"No," she said.
Were they commercial planes, airliners, he asked her. She didn't know.
"OK," he said, "I've got to go." He hung up.
Deena looked at the television. The Pentagon suddenly appeared, a hole torn into its side by an oncoming airplane. She wondered if it was her husband's flight. Deena Burnett started crying...
Link to article:
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp |
Several reports that corroborate the time of Tom Burnett's calls to his wife using his cell phone:
| Quote: | (From cooperativeresearch.org's 9/11 Timeline)
(9:27 a.m.): Flight 93 Passenger Tom Burnett Calls Wife, Mentions Bomb, Knife, and Gun
Tom Burnett calls his wife, Deena, using a cell phone and says, “I'm on United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. The plane has been hijacked. We are in the air. they've already knifed a guy. There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI.” Deena connects to emergency 9-1-1. [ABC News, 9/12/01; Longman, 2002, pp 107; MSNBC, 7/30/02; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/01 (B); Toronto Sun, 9/16/01]
...This is the first of over 30 phone calls by passengers inside the plane. [MSNBC, 7/30/02]
Source:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=ua93 |
And here's proof how Deena identified that it was here husband calling her using his cell phone:
| Quote: | Widow tells of poignant last calls
By Greg Gordon -- Bee Washington Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Wednesday, September 11, 2002
[SNIP]
Their conversation was so brief that Deena was unable to tell Tom about the other planes. Her heart racing, she phoned an emergency number and was patched through to the FBI.
The FBI agent was understandably confused, thinking she was phoning about one of the planes that had already hit the World Trade Center towers. "No, no, this is a third plane," she insisted.
They were interrupted by another call. Deena's caller ID told her it was Tom. This time, he told her the terrorists were in the cockpit. "The guy they knifed is dead," he said.
[SNIP]
Source:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/4351212p-5372600c.html |
So there's the proof that at least two of the cell calls were allegedly made at normal cruising speed and altitudes above 30,000 feet according to the FAA, the 9/11 cOmmission and Tom Burnett's wife Deena.
Here's what (we're told) happened:
Flight 93 was traveling a normal flight path at an altitude of "35,000 feet above eastern Ohio" before the FAA lost contact with the pilots in the cockpit at "9:28 a.m.". They then observed the plane on radar drop "700 feet" -- and "between 9:34 and 9:38" an FAA controller observed United 93 "climbing to 40,700 feet and immediately moved several aircraft out of its way."
Tom Burnett allegedly called his wife the first time using a cell phone, in which Deena Burnett's caller ID confirmed it was Tom's cell phone calling her, just before "hijackers" entered Flight 93's cockpit at "9:27 a.m."
He then allegedly called her again using his cell phone a few minutes later to tell her that the "hijackers" had entered the cockpit.
Related:
New cell phone technology allows call from flights?
What about all those 9/11 calls?
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911cellphonecalls
”Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network, because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high.”
Washington Post, 12/9/04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50320-2004Dec9.html
“Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past.”
San Francisco Chronicle, 12/15/04
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/15/MNGUMAC6LB1.DTL
'Project Achilles' - altitude cellphone experiment
parts 1, 2 & 3
by A. K. Dewdney
http://guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/cell-phones.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Continuity
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1662
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:06 am Post subject: How about... |
|
|
Do 757-222 toilets have windows in them? Anyone?
No plane I've been in has had see-through windows, or even windows at all in the toilets, if I remember correctly.
| Quote: | Ed Felt - by Cell Phone
A software engineer for BEA Systems, in 2000, he was awarded a patent for inventing a system of updating and authenticating passwords within a network to prevent unauthorized users from posing as legitimate users.
At 9.58am a 911 call - the last mobile phone contact from Flight 93 - was made from one of the airliner's toilets by passenger Edward Felt. "He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI also said there were four men wearing red bandanas and wielding box cutters |
Wonder why they gagged *him*?
_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.
Cat Haiku
Last edited by Continuity on Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macauleym
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject: Re: How about... |
|
|
| Continuity wrote: | Do 757-222 toilets have windows in them? Anyone?
No plane I've been in has had see-through windows, or even windows at all if I remember correctly.
| Quote: | Ed Felt - by Cell Phone
A software engineer for BEA Systems, in 2000, he was awarded a patent for inventing a system of updating and authenticating passwords within a network to prevent unauthorized users from posing as legitimate users.
At 9.58am a 911 call - the last mobile phone contact from Flight 93 - was made from one of the airliner's toilets by passenger Edward Felt. "He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI also said there were four men wearing red bandanas and wielding box cutters |
Wonder why they gagged *him*? |
I was going to ask you where you got this quote, but then I searched for part of it ("Glenn Cramer has now been gagged") and found a Mirror article which clarifies and provides some very interesting info about Flight 93. I'll repost the article in the Flight 93 thread, but here let me quote the relevant passage from it to clarify who Glenn Cramer is:
| Quote: | At 9.58am a 911 call - the last mobile phone contact from Flight 93 - was made from one of the airliner's toilets by passenger Edward Felt.
Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.
"He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI. |
So Glenn Cramer was the guy who answered the 911 call from Edward Felt, who reported hearing an explosion and seeing white smoke. The most obvious reason why the FBI would silence Glenn Cramer is to cover up his testimony which contradicts the official story that Flight 93 merely crashed -- was not shot down and did not explode before crashing in Shanksville.
As for Edward Felt, he might have seen white smoke inside the plane, when the lavatory door was open a crack. If he was inside the lavatory when he heard the explosion, he might have opened the door a crack to try and see what it was. And he might have seen white smoke either inside the plane, or outside the plane through a window (looking through the partly-open lavatory door). Or he might have heard the explosion and seen the white smoke, and THEN entered the lavatory to make the 911 call and report what he had witnessed.
This is all speculation, but my point is that I don't think Edward Felt's testimony can be dismissed simply by saying "the lavatory didn't have a window". There are other possible explanations for what he reportedly said -- and, what's more, explanations which belie the official story, rather than defending it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macauleym
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually, this whole Edward Felt/Glenn Cramer thing is turning out to be more complicated than I first thought. See my post here and the one right below it for more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Southpark Fan
Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Posts: 573
Location: The Caribbean of Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
