Questions about the 9/11 Pentagon attack

reply to post by weedwhacker


i appreciate your thoughts and ideas on this weedwacker,but were talking full-duplex radio waves,and dew to the nature of useing a full-duplex mobile signal transmission in flight,it was impossible in 2001 to have a clear unbroken transmission between both lines of the cell communication,if so,then it was a miracle that they manage to actually have a clear unbroken call.

the problem you have,is were talking low power cell transmissions,so unless these phones had 20 ft antennas,and massive battery power,they was not gonna get a signal,hence were i said before it would of been a miracle,this is why the bells started ringing for me about 9/11 as it a lie...and its a rather silly lie,which made me think why lie about this,was it someone getting carried away in the white house poorly though out and run with the press before anyone looked in to it to see if it was even possible on a commercial passenger airliner. ????

reply to post by snapperski


OK....I don't know many technical details about how mobile phones work, need to learn a lot, besides just using them (and getting mad at dropped calls)....but, it's interesting to read this blog I found. Coincidentally, from 2006, about people who've left their phones on, during flights (I know I have, many times. Usually resulted in a dead battery, as it kept searching to lock a signal)...but, some of these folks received texts, and one (I just glanced through it) had a rather unpleasant surprise on his bill, as the phone went into "Roaming" mode, at 1.40 pounds per minute.

www.esato.com...

SO, seems they might have been in Europe, or the UK. Technology much different, there?

reply to post by weedwhacker


the blog you posted,is from 2006,and is about receiving a text msg,upon changeing networks while in flight which half duplex,as depending on your network tariff and phone settings this will happen as your phone scans available networks,and every now and then it would of course pick up a bounceing signal from various networks,but to make a full duplex cell call in flight is impossible,especially in 2001..which brings the question,why would they lie about this,and also go to the effort of which they did,but have always avoided questions about it ever since.

which also begs the question,what else is a lie ?

reply to post by snapperski


I cannot accept your blanket assertion that cell phone calls from planes on 9/11 were impossible because there is far too much evidence to the contrary. Here is an article relating to Matthew Downs who was returning from South America on 9/11 itself. You will see that after being told by the Captain that they had to land due to terrorist attacks he and his fellow passengers soon established the details by using their cell phones :-

news.cnet.com...

Only a handful of calls are thought to have been made by cell phone from 9/11 planes, the vast majority were made by using seat-back phones. So why lie or make up cell phone calls, especially if, as you claim, the technology is dubious ?

So far as I am aware there is not a single recipient of a 9/11 call from a plane who doubts they were talking to the apparent caller, who in many cases was the closest relative. The contents of some of the calls was also remarkable. Linda Gronlund phoned her sister from UA 93 and, amongst other things, gave her the combination of the safe in her closet containing her will. Faked ? Renee May, flight attendant on AA 77, called her parents, believed to have been on a cell phone, and told them the flight had been hi-jacked. She asked them to call American Airlines to tell them and she gave a telephone number. The parents did phone American Airlines while AA 77 was still in the air. Faked ?

I think the whole concept of faked 9/11 calls is preposterous and distasteful.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by snapperski

 

I cannot accept your blanket assertion that cell phone calls from planes on 9/11 were impossible because there is far too much evidence to the contrary. Here is an article relating to Matthew Downs who was returning from South America on 9/11 itself. You will see that after being told by the Captain that they had to land due to terrorist attacks he and his fellow passengers soon established the details by using their cell phones :-

news.cnet.com...

Only a handful of calls are thought to have been made by cell phone from 9/11 planes, the vast majority were made by using seat-back phones. So why lie or make up cell phone calls, especially if, as you claim, the technology is dubious ?

So far as I am aware there is not a single recipient of a 9/11 call from a plane who doubts they were talking to the apparent caller, who in many cases was the closest relative. The contents of some of the calls was also remarkable. Linda Gronlund phoned her sister from UA 93 and, amongst other things, gave her the combination of the safe in her closet containing her will. Faked ? Renee May, flight attendant on AA 77, called her parents, believed to have been on a cell phone, and told them the flight had been hi-jacked. She asked them to call American Airlines to tell them and she gave a telephone number. The parents did phone American Airlines while AA 77 was still in the air. Faked ?

I think the whole concept of faked 9/11 calls is preposterous and distasteful.

well as much as you find it distasteful alfie,science is science,and as you and other de-bunkers like to point out so clearly that the facts of science about 9/11,i'm pointing out the facts for you about mobile calls being made from in flight on commercial airliners in 2001....its impossible for someone to get a signal for more then a few secs,and two,for someone to maintain a call unbroken.....so i'm sorry if you find this hard to belive,but someone in the white house never though the mobile call thing through very well,which explains,how they backtrack claiming it was infact onboard phones they used now..and avoid anything to do with mobile calls..

do you understand the how full duplex cell calls work alfie...please look into it..as i may not be as well informed about planes and there workings like some of you in this thread,but i sure aswell know my stuff when it concerns mobile technology and the nature of radio waves and transmission...and the mobile calls from inflight are impossible in 2001 and if they did manage to get a signal there is no way on earth they would of be able to substain a call for more then a few seconds....so aim your dis-taste towards the white house who brought out this story...and as i said before..this was what set bells off in my head about 9/11..

you don't understand how the signal is transmitted,and different atmospheric pressures effect these signals,hence the reason for special infrastructure to allow people to make these calls.

its impossible for someone to get a signal for more then a few secs,and two,for someone to maintain a call unbroken.....

Oh so wrong! I have been electronics for 35 years and am the holder of an FCC radio license.

Atmospheric pressure has absolutely nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation (radio waves).

Line of site to a tower has everything to do with it. The frequencies that cell phones use allow the power needed to be misrule compared to what most people think. If you are sitting next to a window you can hit towers 10 to 50 (or more) miles away depending on your altitude. This is the main reason you are not allowed to use cell phones in flight. Essentially if everyone were to try to connect while in the air, you could swamp the phone network you were trying to connect to. But a few callers won’t bring the system down. I could go into more detail but your notion of it being impossible is just flat out wrong.

reply to post by samkent


i love to hear how you think back in 2001 it was possible to get a cell signal above 8000 ft at the speed these commercial airliner go,without the infostructure that was implemented back in 2005.

this should be good..fire away...i'm all ears.

Before this new "Pico cell," it was impossible to make a call from a passenger aircraft in flight. Connection is impossible at altitudes over 8000 ft or speeds in excess of 230 mph. FACT !

also have you ever heard of AK Dewdney's "Project Achilles" ?????

To the extent that the cellphones used in this experiment represent types in general use, it may be concluded that from this particular type of aircraft, cellphones become useless very quickly with increasing altitude. In particular, two of the cellphone types, the Mike and the Nokia, became useless above 2000 feet. Of the remaining two, the Audiovox worked intermittently up to 6000 feet but failed thereafter, while the BM analog cellphone worked once just over 7000 feet but failed consistently thereafter. We therefore conclude that ordinary cellphones, digital or analog, will fail to get through at or above 8000 feet abga

Conclusions

the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. To calculate the probability that two such calls will succeed involves elementary probability theory. The resultant probability is the product of the two probabilities, taken separately. In other words, the probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand. In the case of a hundred such calls, even if a large majority fail, the chance of, say 13 calls getting through can only be described as infinitesimal. In operational terms, this means “impossible.”

This is just a couple of quotes from many RF design engineer's and pilots who support the Project Achilles studys.
--------------------------------------------------------
I am an RF design engineer, having built out Sprint, Verizon and another network in New Orleans. You are absolutely correct. We have trouble making these things work for cars going 55 mph on the ground. If you need another engineer’s testimony for any reason, let me know I will corroborate. my engineering site: www.geocities.com... Brad Mayeux

Hi Prof
I have repeatedly tried to get my cell phone to work in an airplane above 2-3000 feet and it doesn’t work. My experiments were done discreetely on [more than] 20 Southwest Airlines flights between Ontario, California and Phoenix, Arizona. My experiments match yours. Using sprint phones 3500 and 6000 models, no calls above 2500 ft [succeeded], a “no service” indicator at 5000 ft (guestimate). There seem to be two reasons. 1. the cell sites don’t have enough power to reach much more than a mile, 2. The cell phone system is not able to handoff calls when the plane is going at more than 400 mph. This is simply experimental data. If any of your contacts can verify it by finding the height of the Pennsylvania plane and it’s speed one can prove that the whole phone call story is forged. Rafe (airline pilot)
--------------------------------------------------------

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.”

I'm still looking forward for you samkent to explain how i'm wrong about being impossible to make mobile calls inflight...oh and good for you and your FCC radio license,so lets hear how me and science is wrong.
and remember were talking about 2001 not after 2005..

reply to post by snapperski


You keep saying cell phone calls from planes were impossible in 2001 but there is not only plenty of informed contrary opinion but also actual examples.

You ignored the link I gave you to an article about Matthew Downs and his fellow passengers on 9/11 finding out the details of the terrorist attacks via cell phones. This was an article from CNet magazine, not the Daily Mirror.

This is another example . Article about 911 dispatcher John Shaw who took a cell phone call from Ed Felt on UA 93 :-

www.pittsburghlive.com...

Was John Shaw "in on it" ?

reply to post by snapperski


This guy in your external source quotes makes a certain assumption:

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.”

He is picturing an airplane flying directly towards, and going between, cell towers....he isn't imagining them off abeam of the airplane. A cell tower off to one side would be "in range" for quite some time. And, we aren't talking about cell phone connections that lasted for hours, here. Mere minutes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, and found that regarding Barbara Olson (she was mentioned, right?) she actually used the on board AirFone when she called her husband's office. It's probably that, when he was interviewed, her husband just assumed that she used her mobile. But, any imagined "hole" in the "story" is picked at by the "truth movement" until it widens and spews black gooey stuff...

www.911myths.com...

reply to post by Alfie1


honestly,it's like talking to a brick wall with you alfie.....now please go do some research yourself,instead of taking the OS word for it,constantly quoting the same 2 sites all you hardlined trusters use....this is fact i'm laying down to you here,someone in ther white house made a big mistake with these supposed cell calls...have you not notice how the tune has changed now,and claiming most of them was made with the inhouse call system.

i can only assume you belive science is wrong,do some real research alfie,before you call me out thank you.

reply to post by snapperski


You seem, for reasons best known to yourself, to be treating A K Dewdney as the last word. However, this is not how he is universally regarded :-

www.911myths.com...

reply to post by snapperski


Did you read this;

The horror of Sept. 11 wasn't Shaw's last experience with an airplane emergency.

This summer when Steelers owner Art Rooney's single-engine plane lost power, Rooney reached for a cell phone. He reached Shaw.

The plane landed without incident.

Article dated Wednesday, September 11, 2002

www.pittsburghlive.com...

Originally posted by snapperski
reply to post by Alfie1

 

honestly,it's like talking to a brick wall with you alfie.....now please go do some research yourself,instead of taking the OS word for it,constantly quoting the same 2 sites all you hardlined trusters use....this is fact i'm laying down to you here,someone in ther white house made a big mistake with these supposed cell calls...have you not notice how the tune has changed now,and claiming most of them was made with the inhouse call system.

i can only assume you belive science is wrong,do some real research alfie,before you call me out thank you.

edit on 29-10-2010 by snapperski because: (no reason given)

You sound as though you are getting rattled snapperski. The two sites I linked you to were "cnet" and "pittsburghlive". Are you seriously saying you keep getting linked to those by " trusters" ?

The point is that you do not seem to have anything to say about Matthew Down's , and his fellow passengers, use of cell phones in a plane on 9/11 nor the report of 911 dispatcher regarding his cell phone call from Ed Felt on UA 93.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by snapperski

 

This guy in your external source quotes makes a certain assumption:

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.”

He is picturing an airplane flying directly towards, and going between, cell towers....he isn't imagining them off abeam of the airplane. A cell tower off to one side would be "in range" for quite some time. And, we aren't talking about cell phone connections that lasted for hours, here. Mere minutes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, and found that regarding Barbara Olson (she was mentioned, right?) she actually used the on board AirFone when she called her husband's office. It's probably that, when he was interviewed, her husband just assumed that she used her mobile. But, any imagined "hole" in the "story" is picked at by the "truth movement" until it widens and spews black gooey stuff...

www.911myths.com...

edit on 29 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Additions

this is not about the Barbara Olson call,as i agree it can be a mistake by the husband to asume she used the inflght phone...the point being is it is impossible for these mobile conversations to have taken place....and my point is why would they lie about this...was it to pump up the public into showing emotions i don't know...but i do know that it was a lie to claim there was cell phone conversations going on....and one of them was ment to have took place in the plane toilet ???? ...now i will say,you people taught me a lot weedwacker/alfie/Varemia/GenRadek and others,i wont deny that,and prove a lot of things to me i belived was bulls#it,but this is something you can defend...those calls were a white house mistake....and i'm guessing there still biteing there knuckles over this mistake.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by snapperski

 

You seem, for reasons best known to yourself, to be treating A K Dewdney as the last word. However, this is not how he is universally regarded :-

www.911myths.com...

once again you quote 911myths as your source ????

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by snapperski

 

This guy in your external source quotes makes a certain assumption:

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.”

He is picturing an airplane flying directly towards, and going between, cell towers....he isn't imagining them off abeam of the airplane. A cell tower off to one side would be "in range" for quite some time. And, we aren't talking about cell phone connections that lasted for hours, here. Mere minutes.

this is the thing weedwacker,that grab my attention in the first place to this whole 9/11 event being a lie,as it was first claimed that the calls were made by mobile phones,not off of the inplane attenna,the infostucture for this to be possible was not implentend till 2005.

Originally posted by snapperski

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by snapperski

 

You seem, for reasons best known to yourself, to be treating A K Dewdney as the last word. However, this is not how he is universally regarded :-

www.911myths.com...

once again you quote 911myths as your source ????

Your evasion of the "cnet" and "pittsburghlive" links to articles about the use of cell phones on 9/11 itself is becoming more and more obvious.

Here is another one to add. If you look into Delta 1989, also on 9/11 and for a time misidentified with UA 93, you will see that there was concern because a passenger kept using his mobile phone despite being told by a flight attendant to stop.

reply to post by Alfie1


well clearly your refuseing to accept scientific fact,as i've already suggested to you,to go do some solid research into this matter,and before another person comments saying about others useing cell phones onboard a plane...

remember this when researching this,were talking 2001,and passenger airliner.

and as for AK Dewdney his a respected professor,who did physical research into this,to prove what most RF telecoms engineers already know.so please tell me what is it that you don't like about Mr Dewdney,is it that his dont agree with your understanding of events that day ?

AK Dewdney

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dillweed
O.K., how about where's the Plane?

Smashed up into little pieces all over the lawn and inside the Pentagon.

A conspiracy web site's take on the ridiculous "no planes hit the Pentagon" claim

Wow, look at all those pieces. And there's the wings, the fuselage, and look, there's Mohammad Atta's passport! My is that a nice non plane we have. Wait, the plane must be stashed in that box, yes, that's it. There's the plane, case closed.

By the way, the pentagon's own video they released showed a missile in the right corner of the screen they forgot to edit out. Look and deny at your own risk.