It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You accuse a site of being a "proven disinfo" site, because it's based on opinion?!? ?
Is this the same "impressme" who was posting 'opinion' after 'opinion' in a number of recently started threads, or has someone hacked in and is using your screenname???
Never mind, just support the assertion that the site you mentioned (well, actually, you DIDN'T mention it, could you be specific?) does as you claimed.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Always ask yourselves: "Is someone trying to sell me something, or asking for my money in 'donation', or anything of that sort?"
"Do they have a DVD, a T-shirt, a button, any other trinkets to hawk"?
Stick to the motivations driving this entire subject, and you will (maybe) see the answers.....
Cell Phone Limitations
Given the cell phone technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were virtually – and perhaps completely – impossible. And yet many of the reported cell phone calls occurred when the planes were above 25,000 or even 40,000 feet24 and also lasted a minute or more – with Amy Sweeney’s reported call even lasting for 12 minutes.25
Originally posted by weedwhacker
What I object to are the outrageous claims of having PLANNED and ORCHESTRATED the entire thing!!! That is patently ridiculous, especially when you review the track record of his (or anyone else's) administration. (I'm referring here to Katrina, for one...)
Three problems have been pointed out: (1) The cell phone in those days had to complete a “handshake” with a cellsite on the ground, which took several seconds, so a cell phone in a high-speed plane would have had trouble staying connected to a cellsite long enough to complete a call. (2) The signals were sent out horizontally, from cellsite to cellsite, not vertically. Although there was some leakage upward, the system was not designed to activate cell phones at high altitudes.26 (3) Receiving a signal was made even more difficult by the insulation provided by the large mass of an airliner.
Her husband said she called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77
2. Evidence for Faked Phone Calls
In response to the claim – made in several of my writings and repeated during my Fifth Estate interview – that at least some of the reported phone calls were almost certainly fabricated, one critic wrote: “DRG has no evidence . . . that phone calls were faked.”42 To the contrary, there is considerable evidence for this conclusion.
The Number of People Who Reported Receiving Cell Phone Calls
As we saw, people on the ground reported receiving cell phone calls from UA 93 flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw; UA 93 passengers Marion Britton, Tom Burnett, Jeremy Glick, and Elizabeth “Honor” Wainio; from UA 175 passengers Peter Hanson and Brian Sweeney; from AA 77 flight attendant Renee May; and, according to the best-known version of Ted Olson’s account, AA 77 passenger Barbara Olson. However, the FBI, in its report to the Moussaoui trial, declared that all of those calls were made from onboard phones.
If that is true, how would the FBI explain why so many people reported that they had been called from cell phones?
People do, of course, make mistakes, especially in stressful situations. They may misunderstand, or misremember, what they were told. But is it plausible that so many people would have made the same mistake, wrongly thinking that they had been told by the people calling them that they were using cell phones? (Ted Olson, as we saw earlier, and Renee May’s parents, as we will see below, both said they were uncertain what kind of phone had been used, so they can be excluded from the list of people who would need to be accused of having made that mistake.) Should we not look for some more plausible explanation?
The FBI’s Amazing Treatment of Amy Sweeney’s Calls
What appears to be the FBI’s most elaborate effort to change a story occurred in relation to the phone calls reportedly made by flight attendant Amy Sweeney from American Flight 11. As we saw earlier, an FBI affidavit, dated September 11, said that AA employee Michael Woodward, who reportedly talked to Sweeney for 12 minutes, said she had been using “a cellular telephone.”43
Strangely, the summary of an FBI interview with AA Vice President for Flight Services Jane Allen, who reported that she had conducted a “flight service system conference call” involving Woodward the day after the 9/11 attacks, indicated that she said: “According to Woodward, Sweeny’s [sic] call came from either a cell telephone or an airphone on the aircraft.”44 Surely, however, Lechner’s affidavit, according to which Woodward said simply that Sweeney used a “cellular telephone,” must be considered more authoritative than this indirect quotation of Jane Allen, for four reasons:
First, Lechner would have been trained to be precise about such matters when writing affidavits, whereas Allen’s focus during the conference call would have been on flight services;
second, Lechner had a one-on-one interview with Woodward, whereas Allen talked to him during a conference call involving other people;
third, Lechner’s interview took place on 9/11 itself, whereas Allen’s conference call occurred the following day;
and fourth, Lechner received his information directly from Woodward himself, whereas the FBI summary was reporting a second-hand statement of what Woodward had said.
The FBI’s summary of Allen’s summary of Woodward’s statement provides, therefore, no reason to question FBI Special Agent James Lechner’s affidavit, according to which Woodward said that Amy Sweeney had been “using a cellular telephone.”
It appears, moreover, that this view was almost universally held for the first two years after 9/11. Except for a New York Times editorial in December 2001 saying that Amy Sweeney had called “by air phone,”45 reports that mentioned the kind of phone she used referred to it as a cell phone. For example, former flight attendant Elizabeth Kilkenny wrote in a tribute to Sweeney:
“I recognized her name from a newspaper account which said she was on a cell phone with her scheduler in Boston.”46 A memoriam by the Association of Flight Attendants said that Sweeney “relayed information about the hijacking to her supervisor by cell phone.”47 A biography at the Astro Databank said that she “was able to get through on her cell phone.”48
The fact that there was this near-unanimity about her having used a cell phone is not surprising, given the fact that Lechner’s affidavit to this effect was, in October 2001, made known in an Associated Press story entitled “Flight Affidavit: Flight Attendant Made Call to Report Hijacking,” which said:
“An American Airlines employee received a cell phone call from a flight attendant aboard doomed Flight 11 shortly before it crashed into the World Trade Center, according to newly unsealed court documents. . . . The FBI cited its interview with the American Airlines employee in an affidavit.
However, in spite of Lechner’s affidavit and the resulting near unanimity of opinion that Sweeney had used a cell phone, the 9/11 Commission’s report, which appeared in July 2004, said that she had used an onboard phone. It did not state this in the text, where it would have been widely noticed, but an endnote said:
“Amy Sweeney attempted by airphone to contact the American Airlines flight services desk at Logan. . . . The phone call between Sweeney and Woodward lasted about 12 minutes (8:32-8:44).”50
What had happened to produce this change in the official story?
Phone calls were made using GTE/VERIZON Air Fones - only 2 calls were
made with cell phones and those at end of flight when at low altitude
Air Fones were designed to work from airplanes in flight !
what is your problem?
September 11 Physics Cell Phones
Cell Phone Calls from planes at cruise altitude are physically impossible:
1. K. Dewdney, Professor Emeritus at the University of Western Ontario, has released the results of the third and concluding experiment in the "Project Achilles" series, that concludes that cell phone calls, allegedly made from "hijacked" airplanes on September 11 2001, was impossible. The physical impossibility of the cellphone calls, widely reported in the American media, calls into question the whole Osama Bin Asset story put forward by the American government and press.
See also our page: Cell Phone Calls Flight 77.
• Canadian Professor says 9/11 Cell phone Calls 'Impossible'
• Part One - January 23rd 2003 Preliminary low-altitude cellphone experiment
• 'Project Achilles' Report by Professor A.K. Dewdney - February 25th 2003
• 'Project Achilles' Report by Professor A.K. Dewdney - Final Report and Summary of findings
Originally posted by weedwhacker
I am reminded of a certain poster's incredible assertion regarding Boeing 767 tankers having been used --- that was shown to be false, since they did NOT exist in 2001. Too many such instances, and all for naught.
Keyton (Lori Keyton, DoJ secretary) then received a collect call from a live operator. The operator advised that there was an emergency collect call from Barbara Olsen for Ted Olsen. Keyton advised that she would accept the call. Barbara Olsen was put through and sounded hysterical.
Olson doesn't know if the calls were made from her cell phone or the
telephone on the plane.