It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question on "the cell phone call" and 911 plane attacks?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
They work on planes. They ask you to turn them off for interference with radio com. Problem is you are moving so fast that the cell towers cant keep up with you. Take a radio onboard, illegal as all get out but you will get reception and a cell phone is a radio.


It may be a radio signal but cell phones work completely differently. And he is 100% right, cell phones DO NOT WORK above 1000 feet, especially when in a commercial airliner traveling at such high speeds.

Unlike a radio, a cell phone has to 'reconnect' to each tower that it gets assigned to, when travelling at such high speeds the cell phones cannot keep up with all the reconnecting they have to do, and you will not get any reception.

Then theres the possibility of the plane not being anywhere near a cell tower (say as it passes over a large unpopulated area) where it will also not work, and at more then 10,000 feet you start to get so far out of range that even if you were still in the air you wouldnt get any reception...




posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Let's look at the nature of some of the calls, as well as the pilots that were supposed to have been overtaken by the guys with boxcutters.


In one of two calls Ted Olsen said he received from his wife, Barbara, she asked "What should I tell the pilot?," referring to Chic Burlingame, the captain, who was then supposedly seated in the rear with Barbara. Chic was a graduate of Naval Academy and flew F-4s in Vietnam. It seems highly doubtful that he could have been persuaded to hand over the stick without a fight, and agree to sit in the back of the plane, especially when controllers had been broadcasting to pilots that Flight 11 had been hijacked.


911research.wtc7.net...
www.washingtonpost.com...

Burlingame was also "a health nut, jogger and exceptionally competent pilot."

And a pic of this veteran of the Vietnam war, "health nut" and "exceptionally competent pilot" that was overtaken, without a fight (!), by a Muslim with a box cutter:



And an example of a box cutter, for reference:



Remember that this pilot was also, allegedly, sitting around in the back of the plane with other passengers when the call was made.

Other suspicious calls:


Madeline Sweeney, who was the "anchor" for Flight 11, says: "I see, buildings, water, ... Oh my God!", immediately before the crash, as though she, a Massachusetts-based flight attendant of 12 years, had never seen the Manhattan skyline before. Supposedly she was continuously monitoring the view out a window.





There is no public evidence of recordings of any of the conversations, despite the extended length of some of them, except for the alleged calls from Flight 11 attendants Madeline Sweeney and Betty Ong.


911research.wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net...

On the other three pilots:


John Ogonowski was captain of American Airlines flight 11. Ogonowski was an Air Force fighter pilot in Vietnam and joined American Airlines in 1979. He was big, burly and physically strong. His co-pilot, Tom McGuinness, was also in excellent physical condition.

Victor Saracini was captain of United Airlines Flight 175. Saracini was a former fighter pilot of the Vietnam era. He was in superb physical shape, with a quick and alert mind.

...

LeRoy Homer was the first officer of United Airlines Flight 93. It crashed in Somerset County, PA, at 10:10 a.m. Homer, muscular and agile, was a former Air Force pilot.

Given the experience of these pilots, it is very difficult to imagine a forced takeover of any of their cockpits.


Any of these guys sound like people you would want to mess with if you were only armed with a box cutter?


Billie Vincent, a former FAA security director, found it implausible that the hijackers could have taken over the flights without firearms.


Yeah, I didn't think I was alone in my thinking.


911research.wtc7.net...
web.archive.org...



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   
So aside from the fact that the link i put up leaves some evidence to be questioned which is important, it still does not say if cell phones work on planes above 1000ft.

There are people on this thread saying they do and people on this thread saying they don't. So which is it?

And again even if they do work, then it still does not answer the questions about the lack of calls (on the link i put up) on the other planes and the large amount of calls on the plane that is said to have went because the passengers attacked the highjackers. Or why there was not a fight put up on the other planes like the one plane that a fight was said to be put up.
Was that plane then actually shot down by us before it reached the white house and the calls and passengers attacking the highjackers something made by the gov't. to cover up them shooting it down?
There is evidence either way that leaves questions.
I understand why the gov't. would do this but does it then make it right that they killed all those passengers just to save the white house from being destroyed (IF that is what happened)? also i guess the passengers probably would have died anyway if they crashed into the white house, but some may have survived also if that would happened...



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
One of the "calls" was from a 33 year old to his mother. When listening to a recording of the call, something struck me as VERY odd. The person who picked up the phone was his aunt. He starts off telling her the airplane had been taken over and doesn't know what the outcome will be, etc, etc.

His aunt goes to get his mother on the phone . . . and when "Mom" gets on the phone he starts off with this, (paraphrased) "Hi, This is [his full name] and then proceed to explain that the plane has been taken over and he doesn't know if he will ever see her again, loves her, etc.

What strikes me as COMPLETELY out of sorts is this:

I'm calling my mother to tell her this horrific news, and when she gets on the phone I identify myself by my full name ?!?!?!?!?

Come on..... "Mom, our flight has been taken over. I don't know what's going to happen, but just wanted to say I love you and so on and so forth..."

Not "Hi, this is [full name] . . . to your mother?!?!!?

What sense does that make...

i'll try to find the link to the actual recording and put it up...so all can hear for themselves . . . and make of it what you want.

If I was calling my mother, under such dire circumstances, I certainly wouldn't start the conversation with "Hi, this is [full name] I'm on flight#?? and the plane has been taken over, and I don't know how this is going to end, etc., etc.

!?!?!?

N E WAY?!

I'll see if I can find the link to the actual recording.

Mark Bingham phone call

[edit on 2-8-2005 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
12M8, that is a good find. the link does not work for me though? If that guy really did say his full name over the phone to his own Mom, it's more then enough proof for me that something more was going on. I could even see if he said his first name like "mom, it me, john" or something but to then go on with you last name to your own mom makes no sense.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
"Mom, this is Mark Bingham. I'm on the plane and there are 3 guys who say they have a bomb.....etc., etc."

CNN 9-11 media files

It's on the lower right hand side of the page.

You can choose youe platform (i.e. Windows Media, Real Player, etc.)



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
ok, thanks i played it. the thing taht sucks though is it is not the actual call from him, but his mother explaining the call. but even she makes a little bit of a deal about him saying his full name.
Either way it's interesting. but maybe he always just said his name like that as part of his personality because his mom laughs when she said he said his full name and she says it's classic or classic him.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I'll find the actual recording . . . It gives a better representation of the oddity of it all.

The CNN link was one I had bookmarked, though I do recall having listened to the actual recording. Will post as soon s I find it.

In the actual call, when the aunt picks up the phone the conversation starts as though he thought he was talking to his mother, not the aunt. I think it was the same, "This is Mark Bingham" thing though.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I just listened to the interview as well, and found what she said about asking him who had hijacked the planes interesting. She says that after she asked him who it was exactly that hijacked the planes, it was if he had become distracted, or someone was talking to him in the background, and he just repeated that he loved her, etc. and hung up. That seemed a bit odd as well.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a bit odd indeed.

anyways, the eyewitness accounts of stating the planes that crashed into the WTC were not even passenger planes completely distorts this story. this is just another piece of evidence that doest seem to fit in the official govt. story



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
i am not sure what you mean by them not being "passenger" planes. They look like passenger planes to me. what do you mean by that?



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GREGNOW
i am not sure what you mean by them not being "passenger" planes. They look like passenger planes to me. what do you mean by that?


Some witnesses reported that the planes didn't appear to have windows, and looked military. I think one of them was actually featured on Fox as the events were still unfolding.



There are some inconsistencies, from what clear footage we do have.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I don;t understand though. We could all be witnesses as they have it on tape and they played it like a million times just on teh actually day of the attacks. are you saying the TV foortage is not clear enough to tell? I don't really remember if it was clear or not , just that it looked like passenger planes flying into the towers.
On top of that either way it would not make sense that they did not have windows as real passengers died on those planes either way and i doubt they were part of plan to purposely die. also i doubt all those families greving over their loved ones who died on the planes are faking it either. also, why would real passengers get on planes with no windows?
Is there more to this story or smoething. if not i'd have to say those planes were indeed passenger planes, you know?

[edit on 2-8-2005 by GREGNOW]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GREGNOW
I don;t understand though. We could all be witnesses as they have it on tape and they played it like a million times just on teh actually day of the attacks. are you saying the TV foortage is not clear enough to tell? I don't really remember if it was clear or not , just that it looked like passenger planes flying into the towers.


The middle pic above, showing Flight 175, is taken from actual footage. Compare the pics and see which parts look like a commercial 767, and which do not. I don't know if any of the videos got a clear look at the top part of the fuselage; they may or may not have, but the above photo is authentic.


On top of that either way it would not make sense that they did not have windows as real passengers died on those planes either way and i doubt they were part of plan to purposely die. also i doubt all those families greving over their loved ones who died on the planes are faking it either. also, why would real passengers get on planes with no windows?
Is there more to this story or smoething. if not i'd have to say those planes were indeed passenger planes, you know?


If the planes that hit the WTC were really military 777s, then the planes were switched off at some point. This would not really surprise me, but I'm not totally convinced either way. No doubt those passengers are dead, wherever they are.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ekul08

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
They work on planes. They ask you to turn them off for interference with radio com. Problem is you are moving so fast that the cell towers cant keep up with you. Take a radio onboard, illegal as all get out but you will get reception and a cell phone is a radio.


It may be a radio signal but cell phones work completely differently. And he is 100% right, cell phones DO NOT WORK above 1000 feet, especially when in a commercial airliner traveling at such high speeds.

Unlike a radio, a cell phone has to 'reconnect' to each tower that it gets assigned to, when travelling at such high speeds the cell phones cannot keep up with all the reconnecting they have to do, and you will not get any reception.

Then theres the possibility of the plane not being anywhere near a cell tower (say as it passes over a large unpopulated area) where it will also not work, and at more then 10,000 feet you start to get so far out of range that even if you were still in the air you wouldnt get any reception...



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
The windows from flight 175




posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GREGNOW
EDSINGER, read the link i put up about the total LACK of calls on the other planes. did you even read the link?
There IS evidence there that could use some explaining, you know?


Ok, from your source:


There are reports of thirteen cell phone calls from Flight 93 passengers, but only zero or one from passengers on any of the other flights.


Flight UAL 175

"At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

"Also at 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco, reaching Marc Policastro. The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane. The call lasted about two minutes, after which Policastro and a colleague tried unsuccessfully to contact the flight."

"At 8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney tried to call his wife, Julie. He left a message on their home answering machine that the plane had been hijacked. He then called his mother, Louise Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to take control of the plane away from the hijackers.

At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter.

Flight AA 77

[at 9.12] Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane."

At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. [using an airphone]

Flight AA 11

Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney called the American Airlines Flight Services Office using an airfone.

At 8:41,Sweeney told Woodward that passengers in coach were under the impression that there was a routine medical emergency in first class. Other flight attendants were busy at duties such as getting medical supplies while Ong and Sweeney were reporting the events.

Oh, and as to the altitude of flight 93:


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. During the first broadcast,the captain or first officer could be heard declaring “Mayday”amid the sounds of a physical struggle in the cockpit. The second radio transmission, 35 seconds later, indicated that the fight was continuing. The captain or first officer could be heard shouting: “Hey get out of here—get out of here—get out of here.”



When Flight 93 is over Youngstown, Ohio, Stacey Taylor and other Cleveland flight controllers see it rapidly climb 6,000 feet above its assigned altitude of 35,000 feet and then rapidly descend. The plane drops so quickly toward Cleveland that the flight controllers worry they might be the target.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I've said this before, and probably will have to again. Everything I've read/learned/researched/been told is that prior to 9/11 flight crews were trained to give ANYTHING to the hijackers, get the plane on the ground, and let someone negotiate the release of the passengers. Prior to 9/11 about 98% of hijacked planes were landed, demands were made, and passengers released. The thinking was that if you let the hijackers have what they want, they will land somewhere, and you can either negotiate or storm the plane. If the hijackers said "we're pilots, get out of the cockpit, and were holding razor blades to the pilots throats, the pilots were NOT going to put up a fight and risk crashing the plane, if they thought it would be landed somewhere and the passengers released/rescued.

And they were NOT 777s that hit the WTC. There are HUGE obvious differences between the two of them. The military doesn't even USE the 777. They have 2 747s, some 757s, and a bunch of 737s but NO 777s.

[edit on 2-8-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The windows from flight 175



What are those made of, exactly, Howard?


Btw, thanks for the info about the plane's altitude.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I've said this before, and probably will have to again. Everything I've read/learned/researched/been told is that prior to 9/11 flight crews were trained to give ANYTHING to the hijackers, get the plane on the ground, and let someone negotiate the release of the passengers. Prior to 9/11 about 98% of hijacked planes were landed, demands were made, and passengers released. The thinking was that if you let the hijackers have what they want, they will land somewhere, and you can either negotiate or storm the plane. If the hijackers said "we're pilots, get out of the cockpit, and were holding razor blades to the pilots throats, the pilots were NOT going to put up a fight and risk crashing the plane, if they thought it would be landed somewhere and the passengers released/rescued.


Reasonable enough.


And they were NOT 777s that hit the WTC. There are HUGE obvious differences between the two of them. The military doesn't even USE the 777. They have 2 747s, some 757s, and a bunch of 737s but NO 777s.


Can you not tell the different between a commercial aircraft and Flight 175 in that pic? Look at the wings. The engines are similar, but that's about it. Look at the wings especially and see whether they match more a 767 or a 777. If it was a 777, it would likely not have been in the possession of commercial airlines at the time for obvious reasons, ie the fact that it would entail the planes had been switched.

[edit on 3-8-2005 by bsbray11]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join