THE smoking gun of 911.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I have been trying for days to get a post to "stick" here about the difficulty of people in flight making repetitive cell phone calls successfully to the same people on the ground during the 911 event. These threads keep getting moved or deleted for some reason.

To me, the likelihood, or not, of these calls actually happening the way we've been told they did needs to be thoroughly examined by people techonologically-inclined enough (not I) to do so. This could be THE SMOKING GUN of 911.

I am not talking about using the airline's in-seat phones, but PRIVATE CELL PHONES AS DESCRIBED IN THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT COVER STORY ON 911.

If you work for the phone company or have any specialized knowledge of cell phone technology, please post here your conculsions as to whether the government story about all of these private cell phone conversations successfully connecting from the stricken flights to loved ones on the ground on that day holds water or not. TIA.




posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   
YOU ARE POSTING IN THE WRONG PLACES, THATS WHY THEY ARE BEING MOVED OR DELETED, AND ITS BEEN NAILED INTO THE GROUND.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but regular cell phone calls can be made from aircraft.

When was the last time that you flew in one?

You are not allowed to make calls in flight due to the slim possibility that doing so may cause problems with the planes instrumentation.

However, you are now able to (on some carriers) start making phone calls once your plane taxies off the active runway.

In the case of 9-11 they were able to make their calls due to the low altitude of the aircraft.

The reason that your thread keeps getting jerked around is because:
A. It has already been discussed to death
B. It belongs in the 9-11 super thread

I know I am not the first one to tell you this, I just hope that I am the first ones whose words sink through to you.

Am I the only one to notice that this guy seems to be point trolling?



[Edited on 19/4/04 by COOL HAND]



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I even showed you links of where your information needs to go....





posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   
So far it is sticking...about time. I do not care about visiting other locations, and I have gone back and read some of the other stuff. If you are not here to add information regarding the subject topic, PLEASE GET OFF MY THREAD!!

I have heard that the chances of successfully connecting to the ground at high altitude--which is where these planes would have been for at least several of these call-- are about 1 chance in 100. It was officially recorded that several of these passengers with cell phones connected not just once, but two, or even several times in a row. That narrows the possibilities of this actually occuring significantly.

IMO, it is handy that you can no longer use your cell phones on US passenger flights to test the theory that it could have been done the way the government said it was on 911, now isn't it??



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Man, this is a long introduction . . . . .



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
So far it is sticking...about time. I do not care about visiting other locations, and I have gone back and read some of the other stuff. If you are not here to add information regarding the subject topic, PLEASE GET OFF MY THREAD!!

I have heard that the chances of successfully connecting to the ground at high altitude--which is where these planes would have been for at least several of these call-- are about 1 chance in 100. It was officially recorded that several of these passengers with cell phones connected not just once, but two, or even several times in a row. That narrows the possibilities of this actually occuring significantly.

IMO, it is handy that you can no longer use your cell phones on US passenger flights to test the theory that it could have been done the way the government said it was on 911, now isn't it??


it's been covered...

GET OFF YOUR THREAD>>>> THIS ISN"T EVEN IN THE RIGHT PLACE...


We have tried nicely to show you that you are re-hashing old subjects and information, ...

GO THERE>>>>>



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot If you are not here to add information regarding the subject topic, PLEASE GET OFF MY THREAD!!
ah-hem... Pleae get your thread out of introductions! You've received a warning for knowingly initiating a thread in the wrong forum. Now. I have indeed made several cellphone calls from altitude on commercial aircraft. Digital cell phones do not pose the same threat as analog-style phones, and have improved reception. Some European countries are considering removing the no-calls restrictions because of this. I've also used a wireless Palm from altitude without trouble on a commerical aircraft (same cellphone technology). It's very possible.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I only use one forum, and this is the one I know. I have know interest (or time) in following any other bunny trails to other locations. If this can't be here for some unknown policy reason, please let me know what policy prevents only this thread about cell phones from sticking here when all my other theads stick just fine.

Since when is this "introductions??" How can that be when I'm reading threads here on every possible topic, and only very rarely see someone posting a thread to introduce themselves.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   
It was moved into this forum. It was originally posted in introductions.

EDIT: Hence the u2u you got saying that this thread was moved from introductions into Website-Related.

[Edited on 19-4-2004 by Kano]



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Using a cellphone form an aircraft requires two things:

1. A cell phone
2. a ride on an airplane

I wonder if Mepatriot has ever done/had the two at the same time? I have used my cell phone (digital Samsung A-500 model with Sprint PCS service) from aircraft TONS of times with no difficulty.

As S.O. points out the digital units work much better than the analog.

As many others have pointed out this horse has been beaten to DEATH several times on this board.

Find a new trick pony MP...

m...



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot I only use one forum, and this is the one I know. I have know interest (or time) in following any other bunny trails to other locations.
If you take the time to notice, there are 31 topic forums on AboveTopSecret.com to categorize your posts. You created your post in the Introductions forum, the description of which is clearly, "New members, post a little something about yourself and get to know each other" on the board home page. It has been moved to Website Related Discussion which has a clearly stated purpose of, "Conspiracy-related posts that don't fit a particular forum topic", also on the board home page. The forums are split topically for a reason. We require members to make an effort to determine the best topical forum for their new post. This way, content is properly organized and easier to find. Actually, you have used other forums, and just minutes ago: www.abovetopsecret.com... What are you actually trying to say? [Edited on 19-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   
"...a ride on an airplane" sounds like it could be a single-engine job at 500 feet altitude. This could be a different scenario than flying at near Mach I at 30,000 feet...just perhaps there is more difficulty there. Once again, very convenient that we are no longer permitted to test this "cell phone theory" by flying at those altitudes on commercial jets and trying it out...hmmmmm....



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
I have heard that the chances of successfully connecting to the ground at high altitude--which is where these planes would have been for at least several of these call-- are about 1 chance in 100. It was officially recorded that several of these passengers with cell phones connected not just once, but two, or even several times in a row. That narrows the possibilities of this actually occuring significantly.



As much as I hate adding to this thread, I feel the need to point something out.

The planes were not at high altitude at the time that the calls were made. They were at low altitude while the pilots were busy picking out the individual targets.

Where did you get that high altitude nonsense?

[Edited on 19/4/04 by COOL HAND]



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot
"...a ride on an airplane" sounds like it could be a single-engine job at 500 feet altitude. This could be a different scenario than flying at near Mach I at 30,000 feet...just perhaps there is more difficulty there. Once again, very convenient that we are no longer permitted to test this "cell phone theory" by flying at those altitudes on commercial jets and trying it out...hmmmmm....



Have you read what the others have said? They said they have NO problem making calls, 5 miles up, that is the crusing alt. of passanger planes.

I would think the higher the better reception, concerdring the signal is sent from satlites.

Add as Cool had pointed out the plane was less than 3000 feet up. 3000 and some odd feet is a mile.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
They were at low altitude while the pilots were busy picking out the individual targets.


I don't know what the capabilities are for making cell phone calls from an aircraft, so I won't even comment on the topic.

I would like to know, COOL HAND, where did you get your information? What do you mean by "individual targets"?



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I would like to know, COOL HAND, where did you get your information? What do you mean by "individual targets"?

I was able to review radar tapes from the day. I was merely commenting on what I saw.

By targets, I mean that the pilots were seeking out the particular buildings.


dz

posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Actually, the statement that cell phones effect airplane instruments is not as strong as it seems. It is a very very very small percentage that cell phones effect airplane instruments.

The real reason you can't use cell phones in airplanes is because it bogs the system down. For most people, when you're down on the ground you are picking up maybe 2 or 3 towers if that. Your cell phone knows that if it's losing reception from one tower, it can hop onto another. For the most part, it is invisible to you so you never notice it. Now imagine if you're 30,000 feet up in the air. You can have your pick from a nice selection of towers. So your cell phone will bounce around from tower, to tower, to tower. That'll really bog the system down. Now imagine 70 people doing that. And that's just on one airplane.

So you can see why it really is a problem for people to use cellphones in airplanes.



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Mobile phones work at high altitude. The problem with using them on an airplane is not due to interference with the airplane navigation, older networks were overloaded because the phone attempted to connect with many cell stations at ones, but with modern technology this is no longer the case.


Contrary to popular belief, in-flight cell phone use isn't banned because it interferes with navigation systems. It's banned because a phone at high altitudes will try to connect with many base stations at once. With older cellular standards, this risked overloading the network. However, newer third-generation (3G) networks are designed to maintain multiple simultaneous connections, so the original reasoning no longer applies.



Article



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mepatriot Once again, very convenient that we are no longer permitted to test this "cell phone theory" by flying at those altitudes on commercial jets and trying it out...hmmmmm....
Did you not read that I have done it? Are you paying attention at all?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join