"Cell Phones could not have worked on the highjacked airliners" True?

[librechik]

http://www.rense.com/general40/nocell.htm


snip
Without the phone calls from the hijacked planes, we wouldn't have blamed Middle Easterners, and would have had no excuse to go to war in the Middle East. The calls were central to the plot. With Dewdney's practical demonstration, and a second source corroboration, it is clear those calls did not originate from the airliners. Only Bush & Co. could have worked that. The junta committed premeditated mass murder. It was not a case of letting 9-11 happen. They made it happen

snip

I don't exactly understand this argument, but is it true that only airephones are capable of working at altitude?

[unblock]

1. i always thought cell phones worked fine at altitude

but that they were prohibited because they interfered with pilots' communications. the airphones work on a frequency sufficiently distinct from whatever the pilots use so as not to be a problem.

but i could easily be wrong.

p.s. anyone else thinking of capricorn one? ....

[Hell Hath No Fury]

34. Found an article...

From this one article alone I counted 10 people who made DIRECT cell phone contact with loved ones and friends and gave the same story on Flight 93:


The heroes of Flight 93: Interviews with family and friends
detail the courage of everyday people.
by Kim Barker, Louise Kiernan, and Steve Mills © Chicago Tribune

In the cabin, passengers frantically began making calls, 23 from the seat-back phones alone from 9:31 to 9:53 a.m. Others passed cell phones to people who had been strangers ust minutes before.

Why so many people were able to make calls while apparently under guard by hijackers could be that, as one passenger reported, there was no hijacker among the passengers in coach....

Lauren Grandcolas, flying home to San Rafael, Calif., from her grandmother's funeral, left a message for her husband saying her flight had been hijacked but she was "comfortable, for now."

Linda Gronlund and Joe Deluca, on their way to San Francisco for a vacation together, took turns. She called her sister to say she would miss her. He called his father.

"The plane's been hijacked," he said. "I love you."

Andrew Garcia, an Air National Guard air traffic controller and plane buff, only managed to get out his wife's name, "Dorothy," before his phone went dead.

Other passengers, though, managed to conduct fairly lengthy, even repeated conversations during the plane's final minutes, constructing a jumbled puzzle of what was happening inside the Boeing 757.

Deena Burnett was feeding her three daughters breakfast and watching the news in horror when the telephone rang in her home in San Ramon, Calif.

"Are you OK?" she asked her husband, Tom, 38.

"No," he said. "I'm on the airplane and it's been hijacked."

He told his wife the hijackers had stabbed someone. He told her to call the authorities, and he hung up.

When he called back, she was on the line to the FBI. She told him about the World Trade Center, the first he knew of the attack. He paused. "Were they commercial airplanes?" he asked.

Deena Burnett didn't think so. Cargo or private planes, she said.

"Do you know anything else about the planes?" No, she said.

"Do you know who was involved?" Again, she said no.

He told her the man who was stabbed had died.

The hijackers are talking about running the plane into the ground, he said. Then he said he had to go.

His third call came about 9:41 a.m., shortly after a plane had hit the Pentagon. "OK," he said. "We're going
to do something."

In his fourth and final call, just before 10 a.m., Burnett said he was sure the hijackers didn't have a bomb,
that he thought they had only knives.

"There's a group of us who are going to do something," he repeated....

Across the aisle in Seat 4D, Mark Bingham, 31, called his mother. He was so rattled that when Alice Hoglan got on the line, her son told her, "This is Mark Bingham."

His message was brief: The plane had been hijacked by three men and he loved her.

In the rear of the plane, Jeremy Glick, also 31, a sales manager for a Web site firm and former judo champion, called his wife from a seat-back phone. He described three Middle Eastern men brandishing knives
and a red box.

His wife told him about the attacks at the World Trade Center. He tried to grasp the hijackers' plans — to blow up the plane or fly it into a target? ...

Beamer, 32, an account manager for Oracle, called a stranger. He picked up a seat-back phone and hit "0," and at 9:45 a.m., he was connected first to a dispatcher for GTE Airfone, and then to Lisa Jefferson, the operator's supervisor.

For 13 minutes, Beamer told Jefferson everything he could, passing along information he gleaned himself and from a flight attendant. The passengers remained in their seats, she said he told her, and the flight attendants were forced to sit in the back of the plane...

Sandra Bradshaw, the flight attendant, also identified three hijackers when she called her husband in Greensboro, N.C. She had been moved to the back of the plane, she said, but she and other passengers had a plan. They were going to rush their captors; she was boiling water to throw on them.

Another passenger, Elizabeth Wainio, also apparently talked of a plan to rush the hijackers. In a call she made to her stepmother in Baltimore, using the cell phone lent to her by Lauren Grandcolas, she said, "I've got to go now, Mom, they're breaking into the cockpit," according to the mother of another passenger, who said she spoke with family members about the call. Wainio's parents declined comment....

At nearly the same moment, from the plane's bathroom, someone called 911, repeating that Flight 93 had been hijacked, that this was not a hoax.

Then, Marion Britton called a longtime friend, Fred Fiumano, at his New York City auto shop.

Britton, crying, told him the plane was turning around. It was going to go down.

"Don't worry about it," Fiumano said, trying desperately to reassure her. "They're only taking you for a ride."

[Jacobin]

2. They work

I've used them on private planes at altitude. Still gotta be in the vicinity of a cell, though.

[paulsbc]

3. mine works

in flight. spotty for sure, but after 9/11 I wanted to check that very theory out and sure enough, had solid signal and data services as well

[leftofthedial]

4. as I understand it

they work, provided they are in range of a cell. But they can cause problems not only for the communications systems on the plane, but for wireless providers on the ground as well because they move from cell to cell very quickly (the plane is moving 300 to 500 mph).

[lazarus]

5. I'd like to hear from some of our pilots

DemoTex, for one. I've read that there is no evidence that cell phones or any other electronics actually do interfere with a plane's electronics.

[markus]

24. Worked for a former pilot and Congressman

who was then chair of the House Transportation Appropriation Subcommitte (guy named Bob Carr from Lansing, MI).

He told me it was a buncha hooey so they could install those loverly AT&T things and sell minutes for a lot of money.

I know another congressional boss used his cell phone all the time while flying his plan (but being propellor/piston/unpressurized we used to fly at relatively low altitudes and speeds).

[karlschneider]

25. I guess Mac hasn't seen your question, but I can tell you they work fine

in the plane I usually fly (~400 kt).

[bocadem]

63. They don't interfere...

Cellphones work on 800-1500 mHz

An ILS landing system works on 108-112 mHz


However, if you're landing in the soup with rain and turbulence - you want as little potential radio interference as possible!

[MrPrax]

6. Doubtful they work due to 'cascading'

For all it's worth...
<snip>
Any analysis of the cellphone and "airfone" calls from Flight 93 must begin with some basic, high-altitude cellphone facts. According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a "fluke" that so many calls reached their destinations. (Harter 2001)
In the opinion of a colleague of mine who has worked in the cellphone industry, it was a "miracle" that any of the calls got through from altitude. An aircraft, having a metal skin and fuselage, acts like a Faraday cage, tending to block or attenuate electromagnetic radiation. One can make a cellphone call from inside an aircraft while on the ground because the greatly weakened signal is still close enouigh to the nearest cellsite (relay tower) to get picked up. Once above 10,000 feet, however, calls rarely get through, if ever.

Here is the statement of an experienced airline pilot: "The idea of being able to use a cellphone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast (and thus changing cells too rapidly) for the phone to provide a signal." (AVWeb, 1999)

People boarding aircraft for the last decade or so have all heard the warnings to turn off their cellphones for the duration of the flight. The reason for this has nothing to do with interference with aircraft radio equipment, which is all electronically shielded in any case. Instead, the FCC has requested that airlines make this rule, owing to the tendency for cell phone calls made from aircraft at lower altitudes to create "cascades" that may lead to breakdown of cellsite operations.
The cascade problem is more likely at altitudes of 10,000 feet or lower, where reaching a cellsite, although still a touch-and-go matter, is more easily accomplished. However, because of its superior position, the cellphone may reach several cellsites at once. This can create problems, as software that determines which site is to handle the call makes its judgment based on the relative strength of calls. If the call is made from an overhead position, it may well not be able to distinguish relative strength at different cellsites. When this happens it is designed to close off the calling channel, selecting another channel in its place. But the same problem of deciding which cellsite should handle the call also occurs on the new channel, so the new channel is closed, and so on. One by one, in a rapid cascade that would last only seconds, all the channels would be closed, leading to a network-wide breakdown.
<snip>
The part of celphones is pretty good--the dude did tests with a private plane and everything
Also he did point out ONLY the one flight had calls--why not the other three planes...
Interesting read though
http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/ghost_riders_1-4_1.html

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

7. Owing to all the technological pitfalls quoted...

One more question popped into my mind: What is the density of cellphone towers from where the calls were said to be made? Surely someone has looked into that. As I recall, the population density of that portion of PA is not all that great.

What cells did they access when they made that call?

[BiggJawn]

12. Obviously Alexa is NOT an Engineer.

I Am.

The statment about the hull of the A/C acting as a "Faraday Shield" is bunk. Each window hole would act as a waveguide radiator slot well down into the middle-VHF range. Cel phones operate in the 900 Mcs. or 1600 Mcs range. the RF would go in and out the window like there was no metal there at all. Thousands of Ham Radio operators (in a kinder, simpler time) used to (with permission) work "Aero Mobile" over a several-hundred mile radius at VHF and UHF with less than 5 Watts of transmiter power. The higher the antenna, the longer the range. Period.

Also, At the high-UHF frequencies involved, communitcations is line-of sight. there will be no "rapid switching" of cells, infact, your phone would probably be trying to "lock" several cells at once. (the "cascade" problem) This might cause problems, but you would be in any given cell long enough to say "I Love You, Bye-Bye".

What may have happened is that cel sites were sparse enough out in the wilds of the Pine Barrens or what ever they call that wilderness that the phones were into only 1, maybe 2 cell sites.

I don't think Calico Johnnie or Spooks "R" Us had anything to do with it.

BTW, some Avionics are pretty cheesily built. Certain types used to be almost useless coming in to Indy because of front-end overload from a BC station on 107.9. The FAA doesn't want to take ANY chances with harmonics, sub-harmonics, "spurs" or any of that crap getting into ATA's Plastic Radios in the cockpit, ergo the prohibition on ALL electronics during "critical" parts of the flight..

[FlaGranny]

18. If that's true, how come

when I walk into my metal-skinned mobile home, my cell signal drops out? In fact, the signal to drops to a lower level as soon as you drive a half block into the MH park. Unless it is something other than metal that causes the problem. I have to get next to a window and hold the phone at the correct height before I can get a good connection and thats on the ground and within a mile or two of a cell antenna.

[Atlant]

28. Radio wave propagation is "magic"

> If that's true, how come when I walk into my metal-skinned mobile
> home, my cell signal drops out?

Radio propagation is "magic".

(I'm only half joking.)

Seriously, BiggJawn's explanation was spot-on. And it's a much
different situation for a cell-phone user sitting right at an
aircraft window and a cell-phone user buried in the middle of
the plane or you deep within your mobile home (where "deep
within" means more than a few feet from your nearest unscreened
window).

(Aluminum window screens, by the way, may obscure a window
with-regard-to cell phone signals nearly as effectively as
solid metal. It's for this reason that the door on your
microwave oven contains a piece of metal with lots of small
holes in it; the radio signals that the microwave oven uses
to do its cooking simply can't "fit" through these small
holes. Aluminum window screens work much the same way with
cell phone radio waves.)

Without extensive modeling or testing, and a whole lot of
knowledge about the orientation of the plane versus the
location of the cell cites versus the location of the
cell phone user within the plane, you just can't say whether
a given cell phone user on a plane would "get out" or not,
but it's quite likely that cell phone users near the
windows would get a useful signal.

Atlant

[Atlant]

29. Side note to BiggJawn...

> Without extensive modeling or testing, and a whole lot of
> knowledge about the orientation of the plane versus the
> location of the cell cites versus the location of the
> cell phone user within the plane, you just can't say whether
> a given cell phone user on a plane would "get out" or not,
> but it's quite likely that cell phone users near the
> windows would get a useful signal.

I'm thinking in particular that a cell phone user "deep
within the plane" (that is, more than a few wavelengths
from the multiple windows) MIGHT cause the whole
plane (and its multiple windows) to act something like
a phased-array antenna, possibly creating a cell phone
signal outside the plane that was very "beamy".

If the directional beam that resulted was aimed in the
direction of a cell site, you get a connection. If not,
then your 300mW shoots off towards East Oshkosh and you
won't be making that call right now.

By comparison, a cell phone user right near the window
probably doesn't experience many propagation defects due
to the windows because, as you point out, the size of the
window is sort-of on par with the wavelength, at least
to the first-order approximation of a note posted in DU. :-)

Atlant

[BiggJawn]

41. Ohmigawd! NOT "East Oshkosh!

:7
As I was typing that, I was reminded of a Dielectric or old RCA "TFU" series UHF television pylon, which is pretty much a steel tube peppered with holes that act as radiators.("slot" antennas are what they're called)

It could happen!

[Atlant]

47. "Yes! East Oskosh!"

> Ohmigawd! NOT "East Oshkosh!"

This would work best if said in the Rick Moranis as
"Dark Helmet" Darth-Vader like voice:

"Yes! East Oskosh!"

Atlant

[FlaGranny]

33. Thanks, appreciate the answer.

Just moved to this MH 4 or 5 months ago and I really depend on my mobile phone. It's a pain. I might have to get an antenna.

Edit: You also made me realize why I can get a signal on one side of the house but not the other. One side has aluminum screens - no signal - and the other side has fabric screens - some signal.

[BiggJawn]

43. Well, fly your MH at 30,000 feet and see how it works...

I live in an aluminium-sided building too, and while I haven't noticed any dead spots with my cellie (no metal roof) a lot of my other radio stuff doean't work as well as when I stand outside. height above terrain would have an effect, both on your MH and the airplane.

RF is only partly Physics, the rest IS "Black Magic"...Almost 35 year's experience has taught me that much.
:-)

[FlaGranny]

54. LOL, what a picture!

:D

[sendero]

49. as an Amateur Radio operator for...

.... more years than I care to admit, I have to agree with BiggJ on this. Remember, we are talking about mostly short, furtive conversations here. Expecting a cell phone at altitude to be as reliable as a normal ground based phone would surely be unrealsitic.
Being able to have short conversations, being handled by the same cell tower for the duration, is very believable.

And to add to his point about prohibition of cell phone use.. the problem with RF is it is so damn unpredictable. It would certainly be technically possible to make avionics that were *near* bulletproof (nothing is 100% here) but why bother when it is easier to simply prohibit RF emissions on board a plane. Some day, some joker will cause a near mishap by ignoring that rule, and then a different approach might be taken :)

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Cellphones can and do work at altitude.

http://www.planwireless.com/cell_phones_on_airplanes.htm

http://www.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone.htm

http://www.wired.com/news/rants/0,2350,55156,00.html

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

13. NO they only work at under 10,000 feet

no calls were made on 911 from the "other" planes, were they?
Why?
Don't you think they had cels too ?

Those "tapes" were never verified.
all that 'let's roll' shit was fake as far as I'm concerned--at least until they verify and trace the exact route of those cel calls

We don't really know what happened that day do we.

[ma4t]

17. actually there were cell phone calls from at least one other plane

I recall hearing news reports that passengers on the plane which struck the Pentagon had made cell phone calls to family members.

Frankly, I think it's time for some folks here to give up the tinfoil hats.

[mrfrapp]

19. Links?

"I recall hearing news reports that passengers on the plane which struck the Pentagon had made cell phone calls to family members."

Links? With all due respect, I'd like to read these news reports for myself.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

27. BS the 1 call that supposedly came from pentagon plane was from

Barbara Olson wifeof Fla debacle bush* attorney(who imho is now in the Shadow Gov't working with Cheney...that is the only reported cell call from that bogus plane that hit the Pentagon....check out these US Army and DOD pics...and spot the boeing!

click on the links under the photos at this site ...they are Gov. sites and photos
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

[Sophree]

30. Also

None of the families actually spoke directly with the people on the airplane- it was all relayed through the AT&T operator.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

35. Wrong ---

look at post #34 upthread -- many on Flight 93 spoke directly with friends and family.

[leftofthedial]

32. that was the famous Barbara Olson call

to hubbie at BFEE world HQ

You know, about 6 weeks before, in his grief, he hooked up with the new blond young lady.

[bucknaked]

9. I've seen reports on...

Nasa's ACARS board, where PiReps included nav instruments giving irradic needle jumps on (I assume) older equipment (aircraft) with analog gauges. One incident reported them ordering the FA (flight attendant) to do a round of the cabin, seeing a passenger operating a portable CD player, ordering that passenger to turn it off, and viola! No irradic readings.

On cellphones... you want to see how much EMF those put out, just put one right next to your car stereo while transmitting (talking).

[IranianDemocrat]

10. Your quoting a friggin UFO website.

'nuff said.

[bluestateguy]

11. I'm sorry but that is just a load of crap

I'm not putting it beyond this corrupt administration to try and pull something like that off if they felt they could, but they can't. There are just too many family members who could attest to the authenticity of those phone calls.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

14. show me where they played those calls for family members

??
The story of the Todd Beamer call was "told" by an "operator" who was "said" to have recieved it.

How hard is it to fake an audio?--a struggle that sounds authentic ? any of us could do it with a home computer digital audio setup.
esp when the future "world domination" is at stake.

Do you find feature films believable?
Put it on audio instead and you have a blockbuster -
-hands down accepted during the panic and never re-evaluated after the 911 panic subsides.

I don't accept the lies about the WMD and
who knows how many other lies there are?

Who has verified any calls?

[Pastiche423]

15. In addition...

Have authentic phone records been verified? I have been researching that very thing since a month after September 11, 2001. Could I have missed it?

After all, those phone calls are the only proof there is that there were terrorists on those flights.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

36. Read post...

#34 up thread -- families were spoken to directly from loved ones on Flight 93.

[Pastiche423]

42. Proof?

As in hard copies of phone records?

I have yet to see one. Can you direct me to the evidence? I am not talking about he said/she said commentary. I am talking about actual, in reality, hard cold proof that any calls were made from the flights.

[Robb]

44. Phone records

Phone records are for law enforcement, not Joe Investigator.

That said, I've spoken with two family members who received phone calls from their loved ones in the final moments of the flight (93). You may now classify that as "he said / she said", if you'd like. But there it is.

[Pastiche423]

45. I classify that as no proof

Do the two family members have phone records of the calls? I would assume they took care of their deceased ones bills.

[Robb]

48. Interesting.

You're assuming I'm lying, or that they are. To what end? Why is it so important to you or your theories that there were no phone calls? Not trying to be a wiseass, I'm really curious.

[Pastiche423]

50. I am assuming no such thing

As w/all the million other unanswered questions regarding 9/11, until proof is offered that there were, indeed, phones calls made from the flights, IMHO, it is just one more propaganized piece of the "official" story.

Why is it important? Simply because the "phone calls" are the only so called proof that there were terrorists aboard the flights.

There have been no photos of the terrorists, no DNA, no nothing. Furthermore, 5-7 of the so called terrorists are alive.

[Robb]

55. Caught me in my own logic

Ach!

I was about to chastise you for assuming things were lies until you had definite proof otherwise; then I recalled only yesterday, in response to some news or other, saying how appropriate that was when dealing with this administration.

[dpl202]

56. Sounds like

the only "proof" you'll accept is if you witness the call being made. Phone records, if produced, would just be call "forgeries". Right?

[Pastiche423]

58. Wrong

Phone records would prove that phone calls were made from the planes. Until they are offered, I have no reason to believe there were terrorists on those planes.

But hey, if you want to believe * and his enablers, that is your prerogrative.

Me? I don't believe a fucking thing that comes out of their mouths or any other orifice.

[bearfartinthewoods]

59. oh yeah... like bushco couldn't get phoney phone records done

if you are as skeptical as you sound and believe that the families would lie about the last moments of their loved ones lives why would you believe the phone companies can be trusted.

[Pastiche423]

62. Where did I say I believed

that the families would lie?

No family member has told me jack shit.

The "supposed" phone conversations were told to...........

the media? The RW owned media. The media that has kissed *'s ass since he stole the highest office in the land.

Do you believe everything the media tells you?

[redeye]

16. No, it is not true

As explained by seevral other posters here, the main problem with mobile phones in planes is that they are in range of many antennas. Now, at an altitude of 2 kilometers and on an Earth-sized planet, the horizon line is 160 kilometers from you on the ground; in other words, at normal cruise speed of about 900 km/h, you can be within range of a single antenna for 21 minutes and 20 seconds. Moreover, those numbers use the assumption that the antenna has zero height, which is of course not true.

The limited range of radio waves has to do with only one thing: the Earth's curve. Since at an altitude of 2 km a handphone can be in the line of sight of a single antenna for 21 minutes if the plane passes above the antenna, or 18 minutes if the plane is 80 km from the antenna at its closest.

And remember that the handphone can transmit thru many antennas, so most chances are that you're going to get at least 15 minutes uninterrupted regardless of when you start the call.

[Jacobin]

22. That's very curious

I've been on a general aviation plane at 20,000 feet (pressurized twin Cessna 341B) and used my cell phone. It worked.

Why do people with the tinfoil hats try to change facts fit their theories, rather than making the theories fit the facts?

[karlschneider]

40. I think you mean a 421B. I've flown just about every model Cessna ever

built and never heard of a 341...
;-)

[ArkDem]

20. Your best bet would be to never use Rense as a source.

..

[Braden]

21. my phone rang from the overhead on a flight to

Baltimore recently. we were at 33000 feet from Boston to BWI and the phone started ringing and I didnt realize it was mine until the second call came in. It worked fine.

[Jacobin]

26. You are confusing them with facts

Please delete your post as this fact must be discarded so that the tinfoil hat theory can go rocking merrily along.

First rule: Discard all facts that tend to disprove your theory.
Lotta Rush Limpball logic going on around here.

[ma4t]

46. that just confirms the theory

All the people citing use of cell phones while airborne just goes to show you how powerful the LIHOP/MIHOP conspiracy really is. They actually have altered the laws of physics in a few instances just to sow confusion and doubt!!! We know the tin-foil hat theories can't be wrong, so obviously if evidence disagrees with the theory the evidence must be a special case ginned up by the giant, meanacing omnipotent and omniscient conspiracy.

[leftofthedial]

31. I've heard phones ring a couple of times on flights.

I'd bet with a strong enough radio signal or conducive atmospheric conditions you could occasionally get one to work anywhere.


But do they all work, all the time?

Many of them all at once?

[QuietStorm]

23. The cell phone calls DO SEEM

to have been central to the plot (along with any remote devices that were said to have been in use). If those calls had not set up Arab hijackers this would be a completely different ball game, good point.

I have always thought this was a self attack, but try being heard amidst the pragmatists and the white noise. If it were to be proven America would fall before it was reformed. I haven't read your article yet but as things continue to spin out of control and the pentagon, and the FBI and bush & co continued to be caught in lies I guess this speculation on self attack is going to bubble back up to the surface. Question is will anyone take the ball and run with it. That secret has been waving at us from the corner almost three years now. Who dares to wave back?

Now I will read the article. Yes the cell phones did set the story up didn't it. and no I have not yet read any of the other posts in this thread. My response is based in my own speculations that I have been paper trained to keep very close to my chest because even the most suspicious seem to be just shy of the kind of speculation 9/11 really requires. To say nothing of the censorship practiced on the internet when those people that do entertain the more contravercial speculations get a bit to ornery.

[Robb]

38. What?

"To say nothing of the censorship practiced on the internet when those people that do entertain the more contravercial speculations get a bit to ornery."

You must be on a different internet than me. My tinfoil hat has been bigger than all of Texas before (see "Robb`s Adventures with Nonexistent Sonic Booms"), and frankly I've experienced nothing but good, analytical feedback. Even from the scary ones out there.

There's a difference between being shouted down, and having a theory shot down with facts. When you experience the latter, you accept it, drop your theory, and move forward. I'm on a doozy right now, and if/when it gets shot down with facts, I'll be right there trumpeting about it.

It's one thing to wear a tinfoil hat. It's another to recognize when it's not a good one -- or to hang onto it blindly because you get good speaking engagements....

[QuietStorm]

51. we all have different experiences and points of view

9/11 anti-official story speculations have always and continue to be discouraged and in the face of still mounting and quite alot of circumstantial evidence along with proof of major contridictions in media accounts . as far as I can see those theories that keep bubbling back up to the surface has as of yet not been discounted or shot out of the water to my satisfaction. I do understand the procedures here, was not born yesterday, but thanks for the review and the lecture, it has been duly noted. something went very foul the Pentagon and flight 77 remains quite the eyesoar. I have no need to argue regarding cell phone connectivity up in the air. It is not difficult to assume that perhaps when the planes got low enough they were well within distance of cell phone towers and could have worked. cell phone connectivity is not the cornerstone of speculation in opposition to the official bs on things.

[librechik]

60. thanks Robb--very interesting reading n/t

[Tammuz]

39. Cell phone calls dont disprove LIHOP

The evidence for LIHOP is huge, I just dont know how they managed to get those cell phone calls if the planes were remote controlled.
Maybe they had some 'Lee harvey oswald' type middle eastern men pretend to hijack the planes and then they were remote controlled into the WTC.

[QuietStorm]

52. It could potentially be much more than they LIHOP

conflict and contradictions are quite huge and till this day independent investigations have been impeded and MANY questions remain. I have just ceased going round and round on forums with the many non believers. I do not have the patience with those that seem to need to remain in denial on this. Please understand I point no fingers at anyone here. I have yet to read through the posts in this thread. Mostly because I have generally found those in dispute just blur the issues rather than discredit the speculation. I have been following 9/11 quite meticulously myself. My speculations do not hinge upon opinion, even that opinion in agreement with mine. I follow my own curiousity on this now. And pull relevant articles for my own speculations. Just because it might be cell phones could have worked does not mean the official line has been proven true. There is much that has been said on audio feeds in regard to these cell phones. It still seems the viable speculations that refute the official line, which the officials have yet to change not an iota of, nor have the officials ever seemed ruffled enought to either answer real questions or update their story; can be discourage on forum by much more than strong rebuttal.

[Robb]

53. Agreed

"Just because it might be cell phones could have worked does not mean the official line has been proven true."

Absolutely. "Could have" does not mean "did".

[Capn Sunshine]

57. good point; I still want to know

what happened to the videotapes from the security cameras at Logan Field that day???

[DoveTurnedHawk]

37. This Article Ain't Nuthin' But Shit (eom)

[no_arbusto]

61. ???

The area in question is very rural and has spotty coverage mainly limited to the PA turnpike. I intentionally left my phone on during the descent of a flight about a year ago from Florida to Pittsburgh to see if it would work. It DID NOT. No service whatsoever, and I have a national plan with the leading cell phone company, as well as a Tri band phone. I also know that I was in the same general area as where the flight went down because I used the windmill farm in Somerset, PA as a point of reference.

Cellular phones CAN work, but more than likely won't. I always refer back to this USA Today article that possibly proves that there may have been an oversight on the part of those who said cell phones were used.

AirCell's system would send calls from planes to its inexpensive ground network now used by corporate jets. Its upward-pointing antennas share spectrum and towers controlled by rural cellular companies.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2002-10-22-air-cell_x.htm

[Fescue4u]

64. mine works..

It rang in flight and the stewardess yelled at me :(

[JasonBerry]

65. Mine does - It rang not long ago and embarrassed me

I got the old dirty look from the flight attendent as she watched me turn it off. I had thought it was already off!