It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A physical miracle : Cell phone calls from UA 93

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:51 PM
A physical miracle : Cell phone calls from UA 93

Before discussing if in fact cell phone calls from UA 93 would have been possible we first have to determine who used cell phones and how long the calls lasted. Based on the time of the calls we can then determine the altitude UA 93 was flying at the very moment of the call. Furthermore the way the call ended is noteworthy (did the call get disconnected?)

Passengers who are known to have made phone calls:

Todd Beamer: airphone,
beginning: 9:45, length: approx.: 13 minutes

Mark Bingham: airphone,
begin: 9:42, 9:44 or 9:45, length: 3 minutes, got disconnected
Comment: Not only do all accounts stress the fact that Bingham used an airphone he even said this explicitly during his call. But what is strange is that the Commission points out: �All calls placed on airphones were from the rear of the aircraft.� (CR, 456, Foot.: 77) But Bingham was claimed to have been in first class. Moreover the identification of Mark Rothenberg as the dead passengers is based on the assumption that no passenger from first class was herded into the rear of the plane. Moreover Bingham was Burnett�s neighbour and Burnett explicitly tells his wife that he is passing information to his neighbour. So all in all we have a clear contradiction here. Either Bingham is lying in his phone call or all other mentioned details are wrong. We will assume for this
analysis that Bingham used indeed an airphone.

Sandra Bradshaw: unclear.
While she was calling she was boiling water at the same time. This occupation and the fact that her colleague CeeCee Lyles used a cell phone indicates to me that a cell phone is more likely to have been used. Though this is not clear we don�t count this.

Marion Britton: extremely likely cell phone.
Moreover according to CeeCee Lyles she was sitting in first calls. Therefore basing on the statement of the Commission we take it that she used indeed a cell phone. Beginning: �After 9:30�, 9:41. Length: Approx.: 4 minutes (my estimation based on the content of the call). Call got disconnected.

Tom Burnett: Cell phone.
(For his first two calls we have the word of Deena Burnett, for his third the note of Jere Longman. Moreover we can base this conclusion on the statement of the Commission as Burnett was sitting in first class and that nowhere it was challenged that Burnett used a cell phone). Call 1: Beginning: 9:27, Length: 30�. (my estimation based on the transcript) He hangs up. Call 2: Beginning: 9:31, Length: 1� 30�� (my estimation based on the transcript). He hangs up. Call 3: Beginning: 9:45, Length: 1� 30�� (my estimation based on the transcript). He hangs up. Call 4: Beginning: 9:54, Length: 1� 30�� (my estimation based on the transcripts). He hangs up.

Joe DeLuca: unclear.
He did several phone calls although for some very strange reasons only a very short account of one call is public.

Edward Felt: Cell phone.
As he called from the restroom it must have been a cell phone. Beginning: 9:58, Length: 1� 12�� (according to reports from the emergency dispatcher and his supervisor). The call got disconnected.

Andrew Garcia: Most likely a cell phone.
This assumption is based on the fact that the call got disconnected after Garcia said only one word. The name of his wife. The time of the call is unknown.

Jeremy Glick: Contradicting accounts.
As shown in the article on Glick�s phone call the first reports mentioned that he used a cell phone. Until today the majority of reports write this. As the call lasted much longer than 20 minutes the use of a cell phone at cruising altitude would of course be a real �miracle�. As reports are not clear we won�t count it as a cell phone call though it is very possible that indeed he used one.

Lauren Grandcolas: Very likely a cell phone.
She is known to have passed �her phone� to her neighbour Elizabeth Wainio. It makes absolutely no sense that they do share an airphone. There were more airphones in coach section than passengers aboard! Therefore we take it as a fact what all newspapers wrote or implied: She used a cell phone. Beginning:
Just before 9:50, Length: 30�� (my estimation based on accounts of the call). She hangs up.

Linda Gronlund: Unclear.
She did several phone calls from 9:53 though as in the case of her boy-friend Joe DeLuca only one call is reported.

CeeCee Lyles: Cell phone.
Her husband Lorne Lyles who managed to take her second call reported that he saw her ID therefore we can assume that she used a cell phone. A flight attendant using a cell phone is of course extremely strange given the fact that she should very well know that there are airphones aboard and it is much more likely to come through using this kind of phone. Call 1: Beginning: 9:47, Length: unclear as no indication what she left as a message on her answering machine. But we can assume from the fact that she managed to leave a message that the length was at least: 15�. Call 2: 9:58, Length: 1� 00�� (my estimation based on accounts of the call). She got disconnected.

Louis J. Nacke II: Most likely cell phone.
It is unclear till today if he in fact did a phone call. If the message his wife received that contained only �noise and a click� was indeed from him we should assume that he used a cell phone and got disconnected.

Elizabeth Wainio: Very likely cell phone.
See the explanation given for Linda Gronlund who is supposed to have handed her phone to Elizabeth Wainio. Beginning: 9:51, Length: 11� 00�� (time given in reports. She witnessed the beginning of the passenger attack. For further information check out: �Deconstructing the lesser known phone calls�). She hangs up.

So, what we do have is an absolute minimum of 4 passengers using their cell phones (Britton, Burnett, Felt and Lyles) plus 4 passengers who most likely used them (Garcia, Grandcolas, Nacke and Wainio). We can add that we have two cases of extremely contradicting accounts: )Bingham and Glick. Two passengers we have no more details about (DeLuca and Gronlund) and in fact just a single person we definitely know that he used an airphone: Todd Beamer. Unfortunately the account of his phone call is the one that contains by far the biggest amount of contracitions.

Let�s just wait here for a second: Why do four and even most likely 8 passengers take their cell phones? Why does even a flight attendant go for her cell phone? Why do passengers that got disconnected NEVER try again to reach their beloved ones by using an airphone?

Fortunately for us we have one passenger using his cell phone: Tom Burnett. His use of his cell phone is beyond dispute. Contrary to several phone calls at the end of the flight where we might take into consideration that the altitude was far below normal cruising altitude at least the first three calls of Burnett have been made at cruising altitude. In fact his second call must have happened at a moment when according to the Commission UA 93 reached an altitude of 40,700 feet. His second and his third calls lasted approximately 1� 30�� each. And he never got disconnected. In fact the connection was that good that Deena Burnett heard him talking to his neighbours.
How is it possible that a cell phone works so well at an altitude of 35,000 to 40,700 feet and at cruising speed of 500 mph?
Furthermore how is the case of Elizabeth Wainio to be explained: She used most likely a cell phone and it worked for 11 minutes without getting disconnect?
And how on the other hand does Bingham�s airphone get disconnected after only three minutes? (I just assume for the sake of the argument that he is not lying).

Read more here

by John Doe II

[edit on 25-3-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 07:00 PM
CIT have started to cover this here, if it helps:

There are links to other research from there, too.

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 07:45 PM
So, where would you like to start? You made quite a few assumptions in regards to what kind of phones they were using and where they were sitting on the airplane...but we could argue that all day long. Okay, lets look at some other things. You mention 40,000 plus feet in regards to one call. So was that barometric altitude or radar altimeter altitude? If you look, Im pretty sure its barometric. What difference does that make? Well, with barometric pressure, you are not necessarily 40,000 feet above ground (you are 40,000 feet above sea level), and its definitely NOT the flattest land in the world. Most of us know that when you place rural cell towers, you go for the high ground...not to mention the tower itself is generally taller than an urban one. Depending on the circumstances, the altitude between the jet and the towers was most likely under 30,000 feet at its most extreme. Additionally, rural cell towers are much further apart which would cause a lot less switch over issues. In other words, yes, the cellphones would have been able to make, and hold connections.

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:00 PM
Ya I agree, the 911 official story is crumbling daily.

9/11 was poorly planned and will be exposed fully, very shortly.

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:11 PM
I often wonder how Ivan is allowed to flood this board with his spam.

Now, here is a chart of the phone calls:

So, Ivan..please explain to us what you "think" happened? Were these phone calls faked? Made from a secret location? Did the victims families NOT talk to their loved one?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:01 PM
How many minutes was it in the air? Obviously we cant see the decimals....
Or does 7500 minutes seem too long?

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:09 PM
reply to post by Illahee

Mr. GLick and Mr. Beamer were speaking to their families. Both families state that they were asked to stay on the line when they put their phones down. The phones stayed connected. I'm not sure why this happened...perhaps the folds that run the airphone company will have a better answer.

If you would like, I can dig up the links to the interviews with the families..I have posted them in the past.

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:10 PM
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

From the above evidence presented at the Moussaoui trial we learn the following information :

Jeremy Glick's Phone Call At 9:37:41 lasts until 11:43:49am.

Todd Beamer's Phone Call At 9:43:48 lasts until 10:49:29am.

Which indicates a connection between the airphone (where the calls originated) remained active long past the crash time. The calls are shown as they would be billed. They are not the recipients but the originators.

If Glick and Beamer were on the plane that is alleged to have crashed in Shanksville there is no way for their phone calls to last past the 10:03 'official' crash time.

Every call is documented and where it originated from on the plane. Every call from every flight. Well every call but 1 that is. The call which no information is available for is the call made by Ed Felt at 9:58:00. This call to 911 placed Felt inside the planes bathroom. He makes no mention of any revolt or that the passengers had taken a vote to revolt. Unlike all other passengers he snuck into the bathroom and hid while others are alleged to have openly made phone calls. He is the only passenger that called 911. His call was taken by John Shaw and listened in on by his supervisor Glenn Cramer of West Moreland County 911. FBI immediately took the recording into their possession following finding out of its existence and both Cramer and Shaw have been gagged but only after Cramer is alleged to have told the NYTimes that Felt never mentioned any explosion or smoke. Then he was no longer allowed to speak with anyone else about the call.

Taking Lee Purbaugh's account as truth that the plane he saw was flying right side up and had a grey belly then it is most likely that these passengers were on 2 seperate flights.

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:14 PM
reply to post by IvanZana


I wonder how the mods allow you to post the same things over and over. You posted all this in your Flight 93 smoking gun thread. A thread where you ignored the evidence presented to you. Your response was to just RE- post the same OP over and over. You should go through the 93 or so page thread and count how many times you posted your OP.

Tell me Ivan... you are saying the calls were miracles.... can you tell me what happened? How it was done?

Thanks for YOUR input

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:23 PM

but we were on the Delta flight [1989], the one out of three 8am flights departing Logan that did not get hijacked. Instead, 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. Also, there was an irregularity in the passenger manifest because there were two people [with the same middle eastern name] who were listed but only one aboard.

After our emergency landing, our plane was directed to go to an isolated area of the airport, and we waited for over two hours in quarantine before FBI agents and bomb sniffing dogs came out to the plane. Just after we landed, the pilot gave us permission to make one very brief telephone call before we were banned from any further telephone use. The sixty or so passengers were thus able to gather some alarming details of the unbelievable fates of the other two LA-bound planes and the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, the suicide bombing of the Pentagon as well as reports of other plane crashes in PA and LA (LA proved unfounded) before we were cut off from any further communication. Unfortunately, all this information only added to the alarm and confusion we felt as we waited for over two hours far away from the gates of the airport.

Please read more about flight 1989 Here

Here is the interesting part. These people were allowed to make "One call" while still on the plane. I assume they were landed. Ragardless, I would love to get the transcripts of all the calls the came from Flight 1989.

S/he confirmed that the pilot gave them permission to make one call while they were on the plane. S/he remembers it as being while they were still in the air while her initial letter says that it was after they landed. Either there were 2 calls allowed, their memory (5 years later) differs from what happened, or s/he was incorrect in the initial letter. Remember that s/he wasn't, at the time, writing for posterity but to reassure family and friends. S/he doesn't remember what time s/he was able to make a call(s) that was but for reason thinks it was closer to 1000. It was around the time the first tower collapsed. That was one piece of the information they got while still in the air. They were later able to make more calls after they had landed in Cleveland.
They were told to make one call but people might have snuck more. S/he remembers thinking that it was a very inappropriate joke when someone mentioned one of the WTC towers collapsing.
Although they shared what information they had with other passengers, at the time they did not realize that the flights that hit the WTC towers originated in Boston so didn't realize until later that it could have been them.

Most of the confusion around flight 93 and 1989 was due to the fact that the hijackers on 93 had disabled the transponder that gives air-traffic control the plane's number and altitude (possibly more information). Without this information they were a blip on a 2 dimensional screen. 93 supposedly came within a couple of miles of 1989 before turning and heading for DC which confused ATC.

So on 9/11 there were more that 4 planes with "bombs on board" Middle eastern Hijackers, and frantic " Omg, I think we are being Hijacked" calls taking place to worried family members just like flight 93 .

More to come, have to take wife to Dinner/dance.


posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:26 PM
reply to post by IvanZana

I thought this was the Miracle phone call thread??

I explained to you about flight 1989 on another thread... you haven't responded to it over there yet either.

Are you going to answer my question?

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by CaptainObvious

Your sources have been easily debunked and discredited on all my threads. You have zero credibility. I am not here to entertain your inability to understand the facts.

Your selfish, egotistical approach to debunking "troothers' has exposed you and your agenda to be a fake and unresearched one.

You have been adrift in the sheltered harbour of my patients but I assure you that if your job is to cover up the lies of 9/11, then you have failed, miserably.

Please read Rules Of Disinformation

And then re-read the term and conditions pertaining to trolling 911 threads especially mine here on ATS.

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:57 PM
Actually Capt O, Todd Beamer was speaking with a supervisor at the company that handled the Airfone calls. It is her testimony and that of her company that THEY kept the line open for awhile after all noise coming from the airplane had ceased.

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by Illahee

How many minutes was it in the air? Obviously we cant see the decimals.... Or does 7500 minutes seem too long?

The times in the chart are measured in seconds. Take those numbers and divide by sixty to calculate the minutes.

Which then leads you to a very interesting observation pointed out by Ivan. How did the phones remain on and transmitting, after the plane was supposedly desintegrated so thoroughly that even the fuel became "molecularized?"

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:17 AM
The calls came from an airplane, which one not sure, but one thing is for sure, whatever hit the groung in shanksville was NOT a Boeing 757.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:40 PM
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Yes Swamp.. .you are correct. Thanks for the correction.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:44 PM

Originally posted by IvanZana
Your sources have been easily debunked and discredited on all my threads. You have zero credibility. I am not here to entertain your inability to understand the facts.

Please show me ONE source you have "debunked" or "discredited".

You won't. You will name a source....but not offer ANY back up. You are a master Cut & Paster.

Originally posted by IvanZana Your selfish, egotistical approach to debunking "troothers' has exposed you and your agenda to be a fake and unresearched one.

You have been adrift in the sheltered harbour of my patients but I assure you that if your job is to cover up the lies of 9/11, then you have failed, miserably.

Again me what I have posted that was fake or where I have failed.

And I am not trolling... I am offering a counter to your posts. This is where you fail. Your response to anyone the does not buy into your theories is just to re post it.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:15 PM
Here's something interesting about the Burnett calls. Beside the fact that Deena remembers 4 calls from Thomas, but the FBI only recognizes three, what was actually said on these calls brings up some questions. Here's the "transcripts" of the calls as supplied to the National Review by Thomas Burnett Sr.:

On the second call at 9:34 Thomas says "They're talking about crashing this plane [a pause]. Oh, my God. It's a suicide mission [he talks to people sitting around him]." (the FBI says this call started at 9:37:53 and lasted until 9:38:55)

However, the 911 Commission report states "At 9:39 [9:39:11 to be exact], the FAA's Cleveland Air Route Traffic Control Center overhead a second announcement indicating that there was a bonb on board, that the plane was returning to the airport, and that they should remain seated. While it apparently was not heard by the passengers, this announcement, like those on Flight 11 and Flight 77, was intended to deceive them."

How would this message have the intent of deceiving the passengers if Thomas already heard them talking about crashing the plane? Or was this message to deceive the people on the ground?

Then on his third call at 9:45 (9:43:23 FBI time) Thomas states "They're talking about crashing this plane into the ground." and on his fourth call at 9:54 (no FBI time for this one) he again states "Deena, if they're going to crash this plane into the ground, we're going to have to do something." It strikes me as odd that he would use the prescient term "into the ground" twice, not "into a building" or "into the White House" or "into the Capitol."

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:39 AM
on Flight 1989 which flew very close to flight 93 and was mistakened for it at times also had "terrorists" on board. 2 middle eastern men with the exact same names were causing a scene near the cockpit, there were reports if a bomb being on board.

the passengers were allowed to make phone calls (when landed waiting for fbi to board plane). What do you think they sounded like....... "Mom Mom, it me, i think were are being hijacked, ilove you."

thank god the plane landed in cleavland and no one died.

[edit on 28-5-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 28-5-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:49 AM

Originally posted by IvanZana

Your selfish, egotistical approach to debunking "troothers' has exposed you and your agenda to be a fake and unresearched one.

Interesting that a person whose signature is I AM TRUTH would accuse a fellow ATS member of being egotistical....

Back on topic, can you summarize in your own words what makes the calls a "miracle"? I read through your sources and somehow didn't come to the same conclusion.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in