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.

 

Pilots for 911 Truth Airphone Claim - debunked

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Ah! The Big O = Osama. The penny drops...


And where does it say that the US Govt is going to put him on trial some day? The US has had many opportunities to pick him up and has failed to do so - in fact, as reported in many respected publications the US has gone out of its way to NOT apprehend him when they had the chance. So how, where, and when will they ever put him on trial?

The fact that many people believe he is dead, including his own family, and has been since late 2001, is of course beside the point...!




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TwoSheds
Incidentally, this whole thread is misleading. For 3 or 4 years the insistence was that the calls had been made from cell phones. These claims were quite specific; there was no "mistake" in the heat of the moment.


Absolutely right. I am a mobile phone systems test engineer by trade; I spend as much time in the air testing these systems as I do testing them on the ground. It was the stories of cellphone calls from the planes which finally convinced me that the official story was a lie of mammoth proportions.

I'm actually quite glad in a way that they DID change their story though; firstly it means just a few more people would have cottoned on to the truth, but secondly and more importantly to me it meant I could stop giving the technical explanation as to WHY exactly it's impossible to make cellphone calls from planes over about 1500ft!


six

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TwoSheds
 

It has been shown that the cell phones, with the technology at that time, would work to 50,000 feet. The max altitude for 93 was 44,000 ft. Wy would cell phones not work?

Can not versions of the story change as more and more evidence comes out?

Have you ever been in a "heat of the moment" type incident?..I have...More times than I care to talk about. Time changes..things are said ... Nobody is sure what is going on...Every single persons event is different in some way, even though they are at the same place. So nick picking at comments that were made..what people said that they saw/heard, in the "heat of the moment" does not lend credence to finding the truth. I think the term is "the fog of war".

BTW ....I did not know you were privy to the inner workings and secrets of the Irannian goverment. Another discussion...another time


six

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer
 


I have friends who were in the military, who would make cell phone calls in helos at higher altitudes that that. If you cant make cell phone calls above 1500 ft, how were they able to make these calls? They told me that their cell phones work better at altitude and they could get service in the air over areas where on the ground the couldnt.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
It has been shown that the cell phones, with the technology at that time, would work to 50,000 feet. The max altitude for 93 was 44,000 ft. Wy would cell phones not work?


Um, I beg to differ. Please show me where "this has been shown". My job is testing these systems, and I can tell you beyond any doubt that cellphone calls on 9/11 could NOT have been made from that height. And if they COULD, why did the FAA feel it necessary to spend millions of dollars installing cell booster stations in planes starting around the back end of 2004?

The reason cell phones cannot be used from that kind of height on planes is in 2 main parts.

1. Cell phone systems are designed to allow hand-off between cells at a MAXIMUM of 100mph - ie; the speed cars might travel. The ground-based technology is not designed for hand-off above this speed- because quite simply it is not necessary.

2. Cell phone systems use an omni-directional, horizontally poloarised antenna. This means it transmits in all directions - except upwards. In other words, there is no cell coverage above around 1500 ft. The only reason that transmission is possible at these low altitudes is because of leakage, side-lobes (at a fraction of the main carrier power) and harmonics. Even then, you are not guaranteed coverage for any length of time if you are close to the cell boundaries - for the reasons given above.

3. Your assertion that your military friends have made cellphone calls at higher levels in helos is, quite simply, a lie, either on their part or on yours. It is flatly impossible - see above. And moreover, military personnel in helos were probably using military comms systems; I spent 15 years in the British Army working on a system called Ptarmigan which was essentially a military version of a GSM system. Because it was linked into all British military vehicles you could use it from the air. But regular civilian cell phones do NOT work better the higher up you go.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by franzbeckenbauer]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
It has been shown that the cell phones, with the technology at that time, would work to 50,000 feet. The max altitude for 93 was 44,000 ft. Wy would cell phones not work?


Would you care to prove that? I am not aware of any claim that cell phone technology worked at that altitude back then - OR that FL93 was flying at 44000 feet...!


Originally posted by six
Can not versions of the story change as more and more evidence comes out?


After years??? That's some "heat" and a hell of a long "moment"...!!


Originally posted by six
Have you ever been in a "heat of the moment" type incident?..I have...More times than I care to talk about. Time changes..things are said ... Nobody is sure what is going on...Every single persons event is different in some way, even though they are at the same place. So nick picking at comments that were made..what people said that they saw/heard, in the "heat of the moment" does not lend credence to finding the truth. I think the term is "the fog of war".


So even the 9/11 Commission was operating "in the heat of the moment"?!


Originally posted by six
BTW ....I did not know you were privy to the inner workings and secrets of the Irannian goverment. Another discussion...another time


WHAT?!?! You're having a laugh, ain't you?! I'm arguing with a schoolboy, aren't I?!


six

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TwoSheds
 

I will tell you...But I know that your not going to accept where I got it from. Here goes. It was the show that was on the History Channel about 911 conspiracies. The comment can from the people at Popular Mechanics. As I see it they are impartial and have no reason to lie.

As for the other statement.." I have some Iranian nukes, oh , and some Iraqi WMD to sell you". Those were your words. Yes, I was havng a laugh...And no I am not some school boy... Last time I checked I held a couple of college degrees



[edit on 17-9-2007 by six]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TwoSheds
 


The calls made from the flights were from cell phones and airphones. In fact, 2 cell phone calls were made at approx. 9:58 am on United Airlines Flight 93. The plane was flying at approximately 5000 feet above sea level at that point, over a part of Pennsylvania that has the highest elevations in the state (mountain ridges up to/exceeding 3,000 feet).


Here is some more interesting info:

Downs, a software salesman, learned of the terrorist attacks while on a commercial flight returning home from South America. The captain explained that "terrorist attacks on airplanes" meant they were making an emergency landing. People on board using cell phones soon discovered the true nature of the day's events.

"We found out from people using their phones that the World Trade Center was hit, and some unspecified area in Washington," Downs recalls.

www.news.com...


...we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight

256.com...

Here is some more information:


When it comes to land and air, the capabilities of a cell phone don’t change. But what makes it possible to use a handheld while in a plane 10,000 feet in the air, and why should it work there when it doesn’t work in your own neighborhood?

It all depends on where the phone is, says Marco Thompson, president of the San Diego Telecom Council. “Cell phones are not designed to work on a plane. Although they do.” The rough rule is that when the plane is slow and over a city, the phone will work up to 10,000 feet or so. “Also, it depends on how fast the plane is moving and its proximity to antennas,” Thompson says. “At 30,000 feet, it may work momentarily while near a cell site, but it’s chancy and the connection won’t last.” Also, the hand-off process from cell site to cell site is more difficult. It is created for a maximum speed of 60 mph to 100 mph. “They are not built for 400 mph airplanes

www.sandiegometro.com...




Cell phones work on airplanes? Why does the FAA discourage their use? What's the maximum altitude at which a cell phone will work?

From this morning's New York Times: "According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles."

www.slate.com...


six

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer
 


Nope...not a lie... Those phone calls were made...I was the recipent. They were not on any military comms....I am not discounting your expertise. I am taking you at your word that you are what you say you are. Now, calling me a liar, without merit, is something else. You do not know me..therefore you are not qualified to call me a liar. I have no reason to lie. Nothing to gain. Nothing. I was passing along a ancedote from my past that happened several times.

I will point up to Capt O's post above for more proof. Thank you C.




[edit on 17-9-2007 by six]


six

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TwoSheds
 


Whos to say we are not. We turned over Saddam when we could have just as easily shot him. Granted...a 2000 pounder on his head would be easier. But if we are going to follow the principles of this country, then it should be be a trial by jury...Then a 2000 pounder to his head




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
Nope...not a lie... Those phone calls were made...I was the recipent. They were not on any military comms....I am not discounting your expertise. I am taking you at your word that you are what you say you are. Now, calling me a liar, without merit, is something else. You do not know me..therefore you are not qualified to call me a liar. I have no reason to lie. Nothing to gain. Nothing. I was passing along a ancedote from my past that happened several times.

I will point up to Capt O's post above for more proof. Thank you C.


Again, quite simply, those calls were NOT made on an aircraft over a maximum height of around 1500ft. End of story. Have you ever been in a military helicopter? The noise is unbelievable - to hear someone else speak you have to (literally) yell as loud as you can with cupped hands over their ears. How people supposedly made phone calls from a helicopter and were able, at the same time, to speak to you and describe where they were - and for you to hear them, and they you, stretches imagination beyond breaking point. It didn't happen.

And I'm sorry to say, in this instance I am eminently qualified to say that SOMEONE here is telling lies - or exaggerating wildly. Firstly, as already described; calls can not be made on civilian cell phones above a height of about 1500ft, end of story, end of discussion. The technology isn't designed for it and simply can't handle it. Plus, the very fact that you could hear your friends talking over the infernal din that goes on inside a helicopter suggests to me that they were not in a helicopter at all; if any kind of conversation took place then quite simply they were not. I'd suggest the same is true of military transport aircraft too - I have been in the back of C130 Hercules many many times and again you can hardly hear yourself think.

PLUS. Military men, on helicopters (or in the back of military transport planes), unless they are the pilot, sit in the back and are strapped in. They have NO idea at what altitude they are flying, what course they are flying, or what is going on either on the flight deck or outside the plane. And the pilot doesn't waste the time and energy to keep them informed. IF you received phone calls from friends in military helicopters (which as already described is highly unlikely), how do YOU know they were over 1500ft? It's not like some kind of bar where they hang out and swap stories...

Now, if your friends were the flight crew, they wear headsets - which they don't remove just to make cellphone calls to their friends. Even if they did, the same thing applies; they would not be able to hear you or you them.

So again. Someone is telling tall tales, exaggerating wildly, or flat out lying. Which is it?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer
 


Fraz... please show your data to back up your claims.

Thank you
CO



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Here is the bottom line folks...

quoted from page one...


Here are the facts

-Hotard says there was a deactivation order issued prior to 9/11/2001 according to Tulsa MX facility. But no record of AA77 having the phones deactivated (pretty much what we state in the article).

- 757 AMM page dated 01/28/01 says ECO F0878 was the order which deactivated the phones. ECO F1463 and F1532 were the orders to remove the phones. (I dont think anyone disputes the authenticity of the 757 AMM page anymore, although AMTMAN and Pat still refuse to post it)

- Chad Kinder says in an email the phones were deactivated on AA77 and that all pax used cell phones. When asked to confirm his email, Chad replied, "It sounds like an accurate statement, let me check the FAQ database in which we pull all our replies to FAQ's". Anxious to help at initially, following up with Chad on the subject, he refused to talk and handed us over to AA Legal Dept. (all recorded)

- AA Legal Dept refused to go 'on record' saying AA77 had active phones on board. They replied they will find out for us. They have not followed up or returned calls. Again, recorded.

- Anonymous AMTMAN shows up on the web with paperwork that contradicts all of the above, doesnt give his name to Pat (as our ource has done for us), and you people lap it up like puppies eating peanut butter...

I think that about sums it up... enjoy your weekend all..


1. Bottom line, we know who supplied our paperwork. We know him by name, some of us have sat down and tossed a few back with him, he works for American Airlines. The paperwork we have supplied contradicts the paperwork CaptObvious has supplied. Can CaptObvious say the same. Does CaptObvious know who provided his paperwork? Other than SLC... no, he doesnt and cannot.

2. John Hotard is a real Public Relations Rep for American Airlines. John has stated that the deactivation order was issued prior to Sept 11, 2001. Once again contradicting the paperwork CaptObvious has provided.

3. Chad Kinder, a real Customer Service Agent for American Airlines has stated AA77 did not have working airphones and that all passengers used their cell phones. Once again contradicting the paperwork CaptObvious has provided.

CaptObvious does not know where the paperwork came from. He does not know if the person works for American, nor does he know his name.

And thats the bottom line...

typo



[edit on 17-9-2007 by johndoex]


six

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer
 


Again with calling me a liar eh???? OK.... You didnt read my reference and /or ignored the post of Capt O. None of what I said was manufactured, imbilished in any way. I never said it was a high quality call. I just said it was made. I also passed on what was told to me by several people in the military. So I guess they are all liars too eh? I have flown in a military helo before , so I do know how loud it is. If you fly in them enough, you have a pretty good judgment of how high you are and where you are.
Since you chose to ignore Capt O's post....What about his references? What about Popular Mechanics? They are quoted as gospel elsewhere by CT'er's. So if these reference dont jive with you, are they lying? Again I am assuming and giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are what you say you are even though several references dont match with what you say. You still are not qualified to call me a liar no matter your expert qualifications.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Fraz... please show your data to back up your claims.


What is the point, Captain Obvious or Six or whatever your name is at this moment in time? You have demonstrated on this and other threads that you have no interest in open-mindedly reviewing data or evidence.

And what data exactly do you want me to show? Data that proves that phone calls cannot be made from the air? Would you understand RF transmitter test results or antenna RF power leakage test results if I showed them to you? I don't think you would; so what would be the point? I have a briefcase full of them on paper; would you like me to type them up to show you? Again, what would that prove? If you have any interest in the truth you will do some research of your own. Try, for instance, Project Achilles; Google it. Somehow, I don't think you will...

Or do you mean data to show that it's impossible to have a mobile phone conversation from the back of a military helicopter? Or data to prove that military helicopter pilots don't take off their headsets whilst flying?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
Since you chose to ignore Capt O's post....What about his references? What about Popular Mechanics?


Oh.

My.

God.

Did you really just say that?! Popular mechanics, Captain Obvious? (And yes, you are very obvious!) I noticed that you posted some BS from some Internet link that quoted unnamed officials as backing up the mainstream view. Please, find out who these unnamed officials are and what their role is. Then I might listen to them. Failing that, I think I'll just sit here and s'n-word' behind my hand...

Oh, please don't (and I really mean this!); please please PLEASE don't quote anything from 9/11myths - my sides are already splitting from the PM reference and I just don't think they can take any more. And I BEG you, no Wikipedia...!!!



six

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer
 

Not the same person.....Have you even bothered to see where else I have posted, or what I have posted. You cant say I am not open minded. When I am wrong I will admit it openly...without prompting. I research before I post on here. To me without doing so is a insult to yours and my intelligence..and a waste of time.
A reference was given above by Capt O...You thoughts please. Your thoughts on Popular Mechanics?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
Your thoughts on Popular Mechanics?


Not sure about others. But, I myself can't post what I think of PM. I would get banned here.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
I research before I post on here. To me without doing so is a insult to yours and my intelligence..and a waste of time.
A reference was given above by Capt O...You thoughts please. Your thoughts on Popular Mechanics?


How, exactly, do you know "roughly" what altitude you're at? How many times have you been on military helicopters? Are you ex-military? If so, how many times have you been on a military helicopter out of which you could see NOTHING at all? What type of military helicopters? Are there any circumstances about 9/11 for which you WON'T claim first hand experience? Are you also a metallurgist? A demolitions expert? Don't laugh; I have met people who have claimed to be all of those things, and qualified judges at the same time, to give them the authority to speak about law...

Also, in response to your point about always researching before posting here. You posted a link earlier quoting some unnamed official who claimed to have technical knowledge that an "official" would not normally have. This demonstrates a singular lack of research; people who have done research don't depend on claims by unnamed officials... Since when do "officials" have technical information at their fingertips? Since the unnamed person in question could not possibly have known he would have had to ask someone; a technician or engineer or some such. The person who provided the answer would have been named. Unless, of course, NO-ONE supplied the answer (because they couldn't - because it is an outright lie) - hence the reference to an unnamed official.

So, now that I have given my thoughts about PM (as far as I am able!), please supply the name of the unnamed official who spoke so authoratively about technical matters he could not POSSIBLY have known about...

[edit on 17-9-2007 by franzbeckenbauer]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Little question about the document.

With the papers I use for all sorts of official bussines, both for work and private, when there is REFERENCE printed across the page, it means that the sheet of paper is only to be used as a reference as to what the official document looks like, in other words, its nothing more then a mockup document to show layout to external people. Just like you do with fake checks and fake money.

The big reference is printed on it to make sure that when externals get their hands on one of these documents, they can't forge official documents with these reference samples because its a bit obvious that the forgery is made on a mockup of the official version of the document.

These documents are only to be used as a reference of what the official document looks like, but never as an official document.

Is this different in the US? Does reference printed on a paper mean something else for you guys? If so, what does it mean in your paper mil?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join