16 years later,9 unanswered questions.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Also, where any of the cell phone calls made or received at a time when the plane(s) were above 10,000 feet?

Without doing your research for you the answer is most likely yes.
The takeover started at 9:30ish when the plane was at 35,000 feet.
From 9:35 to 9:40 the plane rose to 41K.
Then it started an almost constant decrease in altitude.
From 9:40 to 9:54 the plane was still above 10K.
From roughly 9:54 to 9:58 it dropped form 10K to 5K.
The next 4 minutes it rose back to 10K before the final plunge.

The big question is why didn't you look it up yourself ?
I found the basic answer in one google search.
Are you so wrapped up in the conspiracy you don't want to add real facts ?
This is the problem with the conspiracy crowd.
They don't want to pollute their grand conspiracy with real world facts.

The only conspiracies to me left from 9/11 are 93 and 587.

I believe 93 was shot down.
587 was blown out of the sky a few weeks later. There is toll booth video of the explosion.

The government covered up 587 and 93's passengers were immediately made heroes and the WTC thermite nonsense was a distraction.

9/11 was an intelligence failure and it falls squarely on those who were leaving office and who entered. No one else. AW is real. There were no remote planes. There were no bombs.

In the end though 3000 people died.

a reply to: matafuchs

American 587 was a structural failure. The explosion was when the engines separated after the aircraft went into a flat spin after the vertical fin separated. I used to have the NTSB pictures of the fin being recovered from the bay, that included closeup of where the mounts failed. There was no evidence of explosives, and the fin failed before anything else.

a reply to: Willtell

Can you stop the video at 1:13 ? I saw his shoes , he was sitting at the left side of the plane (United Airlines) and the Chinese stewardesses were sitting in the middle (two rows). The rest of the terrorists were in the cockpit, they had to turn an interesting steering wheel to the left direction to hit the tower. he steering wheel didn't seem to be a usual plane's steering wheel.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Also, where any of the cell phone calls made or received at a time when the plane(s) were above 10,000 feet?

Without doing your research for you the answer is most likely yes.
The takeover started at 9:30ish when the plane was at 35,000 feet.
From 9:35 to 9:40 the plane rose to 41K.
Then it started an almost constant decrease in altitude.
From 9:40 to 9:54 the plane was still above 10K.
From roughly 9:54 to 9:58 it dropped form 10K to 5K.
The next 4 minutes it rose back to 10K before the final plunge.

The big question is why didn't you look it up yourself ?
I found the basic answer in one google search.
Are you so wrapped up in the conspiracy you don't want to add real facts ?
This is the problem with the conspiracy crowd.
They don't want to pollute their grand conspiracy with real world facts.

Do you see or recognise any problems with that (sustained cell phone calls above 10K feet)? And I"m not just referring to flight 93.

This segment of September 11 The New Pearl Harbor covers the cell phone call issue in detail.

youtu.be...

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

One problem with you little conspiracy fantasy ....

All the calls except 2 from United 93 were from GTE AirFones, only cellphone calls were at end when was flying
under 8000 ft

Air Fones were trunked VHF radio systems designed to be used by aircraft in flight

Another thing is that cell towers in that area are on mountains at elevation of 3000 ft

Also because is in rural area cell sites are larger with more powerful transmitters

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

You really need to stop enabling people that spin false narratives, and are road blocks to the truth you seek.

How about actually citing the strongest point of argument in regards to fake phone calls, instead of hiding behind a YouTube spin piece!

I understand this is a critique of Griffin in that he has never had proof of fake phone calls.

911review.com...

Critique of David Ray Griffin's 9/11 Fake Calls Theory

Erik Larson

February 10, 2011


In his final conclusion to his Response to Questions essay, Griffin alleges, "The evidence that the alleged phone calls from the airliners were faked is an important part of this cumulative argument [that the official 9/11 story is false]." Again, as there's no evidence the phone calls were faked, the claim that they were faked (or may have been faked) is not only not "an important part" of the case demonstrating the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is false, this claim is actually destructive to the cause of compelling full disclosure and accountability for 9/11. Speculative theories and false claims regarding the veracity of the official 9/11 story are not only not evidence that the public has been deceived about 9/11, and not useful in educating the public or compelling a full investigation, they discredit those who promote them, and, by extension and association, discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. In turn, this makes it more difficult for journalists and public officials to support a full investigation of 9/11, as well as less likely that the general public will.

Exposing More David Ray Griffin Lies 3
truthersaresanitychallenged.wordpress.com...


David Ray Griffin Lies About the Hijackers, Again
screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

ERROR: 'The Phone Calls were Fake'

911review.com...

Devolution

The fake phone calls theory has become increasingly isolated within the community of skeptics, first with the discrediting of the "no-jetliners" claims dovetailing with the fake calls theory, and subsequently with the release of documents finally articulating the government's position that most of the calls were from airphones rather than cell phones. For example, a prosecution exhibit from the 2006 Zacarias Moussaoui trial indicated that only two of the phone calls from Flight 93 were from cell phones, and both were made late in the flight, when the jetliner was at low altitude.

With the first tenet of the fake calls theory undermined by the government's position that most of the calls were from airphones, and its flaws exposed by simple logic, the defense of the fake calls theory has become increasingly convoluted. Undeterred, David Griffin featured the theory in lengthy lectures, essays, and books. Griffin's 2011 essay was the subject of Erik Larson's Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory.

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't think anyone is asserting that the phone calls were "fake". If David Ray Griffin did then he was wrong. The calls were placed from the people themselves, as testified to by those who received them, and in many cases, the caller ID indicated that the call was placed from their cell phone.

Edit: there were more than 2 such calls and allegedly from aircraft other than flight 93.

In one instance the witness made a sworn affidavit to the effect that the call from a cell phone.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Yes, by mistaken accounts. Not by accounts of operators, phone companies, and actual phone records.

So? you have what is not an infallible statement of one cell phone call that only means if proven otherwise, they can be punished for perjury.

If you value personal accounts, there are 1400 hundred people the attests to recovering the human remains identified by DNA, personal effects, wreckage, and flight recorders as evidence at the crash cite of flight 93 crime scene.

More that attest to the radar data submitted as evidence.

And the people that attest to flight 93 crashing.

If the calls were not from the jets, where were they made? Then how did the persons making the calls end up dead at the crash cite?

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
This segment of September 11 The New Pearl Harbor covers the cell phone call issue in detail.

youtu.be...

I thought Griffin was the author of new Pearl Harbor and pushed fake calls through voice synthesizers.

a reply to: neutronflux

No, totally different thing, what I linked was the documentary "September 11, The New Pearl Harbor", not anything by David Ray Griffin (who has otherwise done good work in 9/11 research but made a big error there). You should watch it.

If I'm not mistaken, and I don't have the time or the wherewithal to re-research this stuff, but Peter Hanson's father I think it was, went so far as to find a Minister to witness his sworn testimony that his son had placed a call to him allegedly from UA175 from his cell phone.

The film is correct that the "debunkers" try to falsely claim that only 2 cell phone calls were placed from flight 93 at an altitude below the 10,000 foot ceiling for such calls.

Furthermore, in some of the reports from the FBI interviews with recipients of the calls in the days following the events, verified that some were from cell phones (other than the 2 indicated in the Moussaoui trial evidence).

Anyone who reads this book

Hijacking America's Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence

will come to understand that the calls were or must have been placed from the ground, with the timing and content sequenced and scripted, the people themselves forced to participate under some sort of duress or pressure points to follow the scripting they were given, however horrifying such a thing might be to be forced to consider.

When taken together in its entirety, the entire call record reveals that the official story about what happened on 9/11 isn't what really happened at all.

It's just too horrific for most to consider, but such is the nature of the Big Lie and the reason that it sticks.

All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

If I'm not mistaken, and I don't have the time or the wherewithal to re-research this stuff, but Peter Hanson's father I think it was, went so far as to find a Minister to witness his sworn testimony that his son had placed a call to him allegedly from UA175 from his cell phone.

So why would he do this instead of producing a copy of his sons phone bill ? Either from the phone company or FOIA request from the FBI or both.

Question: Why didn't Massimo Mazzucco have someone file a FOIA request for actual phone records before he made this movie.

That would be the hard evidence you need to prove your point.

The Truther mind is a mysterious thing.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I like how you reference truth movement material that has been proven mostly false. You actually don't cite the actual truth, but the reality filtered through conspiracy.

Let's start small.

Can you actually cite documents and actual quotes of your claims from the source or individuals. Not just because a biased book told you so.

The first reference of new Pearl Harbor is by a individual that believes the calls were synthesized. The calls were not by the individuals and fake.

A majority of the phone calls came from the phones installed on the jets, not cell phones.

How did the identified human remains end up at the crash sites.

What was the location where the people were forced to make the calls in your false narratives.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

If I'm not mistaken, and I don't have the time or the wherewithal to re-research this stuff, but Peter Hanson's father I think it was, went so far as to find a Minister to witness his sworn testimony that his son had placed a call to him allegedly from UA175 from his cell phone.

So why would he do this instead of producing a copy of his sons phone bill ? Either from the phone company or FOIA request from the FBI or both.

Question: Why didn't Massimo Mazzucco have someone file a FOIA request for actual phone records before he made this movie.

That would be the hard evidence you need to prove your point.

The Truther mind is a mysterious thing.

Probably the phone records show the calls were made by the phones on the jets, and there is only evidence by phone records of two calls made by cell phone.

Not as speculated by individuals pushing the synthesized voice faked cell phone calls.

Hello everybody.

Is there a second robopilot on a plane, used in such an emergency when it is hijacked? If so, is it located at the back of the plane? It couldn't be turned on, because the girls were instructed to face the wall.