Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners, Faked!

reply to post by Sean48


This isn't the thread to talk about whether BUSH KNEW (or suspected) at all.

Frankly, I've stated time and again that I could believe in the "LIHOP" scenario (although I fail to see Bush as that bright, but others around him may have acted to stymie the flow of Intel --- don't know about back then, but even today, per Negroponte in an interview, there are 28 different sources of Intel that have to be looked at, and coordinated. Lots can fall through the cracks).

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...)

Oh, and just thought, Clinton and the U.S.S. Cole incident...bad Intel there, too.

reply to post by weedwhacker

You accuse a site of being a "proven disinfo" site, because it's based on opinion?!?

?

To bad it’s a fact.

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???

Lets stick to the thread Topic ok, and not on trying to do “character assignation” on the messenger.
BTW, everyone who knows my work, I do bring creatable sources to the table, and ATS casual readers know that.

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.

Pretty please......

Please stick with the thread topic.



[edit on 13-1-2010 by impressme]

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.....

you guys spout the same old stuff , donating money , Crazy conspiracy

sites. You can relax , my wallet is closed , nary a penny.

And as far as sites , The only official 911 site I visit is visibility911.com... ,and a Site or 2 that you OS'ers

send me too, I'm willing to see what motivates you guys to defend

such a sinking ship.

reply to post by weedwhacker

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

www.globalresearch.ca...


Can you show me the technology that supports that Sweeney’s phone call was possible?

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...)

Not really a good point in support of the OS. We all know people that are wonderful at appearing inept so that they can be nefariously sneaky when they want to be. That is an OLD trick. Mainly, your example is what really highlights things. 9/11 dealt with lots of American's dying. If he was behind it, he had to not care about the deaths. His response to Katrina lead to a lot of people dying. That is the response you would get from someone who did not care about a lot of American's dying. Seems like the same thing to me. Thanks for pointing that out.

reply to post by weedwhacker

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.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Can you prove that this information is wrong?
Can you prove that cell phone calls in airplanes back in 2001 did not need to complete a “handshake.”?
Is it true that cell phones signals were horizontally back in 2001?

Can you provide proof that receiving a signal was “not difficult” because of the airplanes mass insulation?

I am sure you can provide some creditable internet sources that have documentation from the FAA or the Airline companies that prove that a person can make phones calls at 30,000 feet in a fast moving airliner for at least 12 minutes uninterrupted.







[edit on 13-1-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


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 !

en.wikipedia.org...

So what is the problem?

reply to post by thedman


Now that a list popped up so fast. Let me change my question to this.

Why do I count "cell phone" next to 11 names on the list from Mike? What are your sources?

[edit on 1/13/10 by Lillydale]

reply to post by thedman



Well, not quite:

There was a combination of both and here is a list of what type of phone and what time they called.

passenger calls and from what phone on flight 93

[edit on 13-1-2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by thedman


Barb apparently had no need for an airphone.

Her husband said she called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77

So I believe the question is about her call being recorded as not connected. Does anyone have any records to show either way?

reply to post by Lillydale


That would require a subpoena or court order. Unless its posted somewhere on the internet which I doubt seriously.

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?

Looks like the FBI enjoys making up lies and this is what I was looking for. How dose the FBI know if the phone calls where from cell phones or from the onboard phones.

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.
”49
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?

www.globalresearch.ca...

BINGO?

How many times does the FBI have to change their story to make it fit the OS because their original statements do not hold water? Here is your poof people, the FBI is lying, and who is going to question their authority.





[edit on 13-1-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by Lillydale

 

That would require a subpoena or court order. Unless its posted somewhere on the internet which I doubt seriously.

Yeah, that was kind of my point. Thanks.

reply to post by Lillydale


I have looked on the internet but nothing. I would obviously think that those records are now buried somewhere or in some evidence folder that if asked where it is, they couldn't find it.

reply to post by thedman

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 !

en.wikipedia.org...

what is your problem?

Who was using GTE/VERIZON Air Fones?

Please show proof of how does the FBI know who, or what passenger were using what phone?

That is my problem. I don’t depend on hear say information coming from third parties.

BTW I don’t always take Wikipedia as a good source because anyone can edit Wikipedia that is a proven fact. That is like saying the National Enquire said two people used GTE/VERIZON Air phones the author is making a claim without any sources.




[edit on 13-1-2010 by impressme]

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.
Links:
• 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

911review.org...

Besides, just David Ray Griffin hypothesis. For any of you debunkers who cannot answer any of my questions, here is another Professor K. Dewdney Emeritus at the University of Western Ontario, who has done a lot of extensive research about cell phone technologies of phones in services on 911.

Professor K. Dewdney, says it was impossible.
Whom do you want to believe, a bunch of lying FBI agents working for the Bush administration and have been caught in one lie after another, or an honest hard working professor who has nothing to gain but getting the truth out. I find the Professor is more creditable than a bunch of FBI men, loyal to Bush & Cheney.

There is some good reading material here, for those who are searching for the truth.

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.

That's funny weedwhacker, Because I worked at Boeing Commercial Airplane Company at the Everett Washington factory from 1989 to 1997 and I helped build some of those that were made for the military in varying configurations including some that had center pod nacelles just like the planes shown in some unconfiscated 9/11 videos.
I wonder what your motivation is for trying to debunk things that go against the offical whitewash story?

reply to post by Sanity


Lost patriot? I think I will leave that one alone but I never stated that I was an expert on cell phones but it is pretty common knowledge about the technology. How old are you? Sometimes I think the people who post this garbage are so young that they did not know what the tech was because they were busy getting coins with their game boy. Ever fly in a Lear or Gulfdtream? If not ask someone who has....

Stop looking at your conspiracy websites and take a look at they why which is why I posted the information about the FCC thinking maybe you could understand the point. Here is the most non biased site I could find/

www.privateline.com...

Fact is that there were no faked calls and this is just another thread OP that has been debunked on here and in the mainstream (meaning normal everyday people not CNN or FOXnews) society.

This is an article PRE 9/11. It talks about the reasons why you may not want to allow people to use phones in the sky as well as some good information about people who use cells in their private aircraft.

This explains that the biggest reason that they do not want people to do this is interference like the FCC post I already showed you. I just wanted you to see that the technology was there.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by esdad71]

[edit on 13-1-2010 by esdad71]

FBI interview notes and records obtained through FOIA. It covers some of the calls made from Airfones (and who received them) that day including Barbara Olson.

911myths.com...

Some highlights.....

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.

For all the bashing done to Ted Olson by truthers....on the afternooon of 9/11 he told the FBI...

Olson doesn't know if the calls were made from her cell phone or the
telephone on the plane.

More documents concerning phone calls that day...

911myths.com...

Even more document, including GTE's participation in collecting the records of the Airfone calls that day (includes which Airfones onboard Flight 93 that were used and by who)

911myths.com...

reply to post by antideceit


You mean you worked on the jets being built for foreign military sales.