The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls by Michel Chossudovsky

[Dirk39]

More Holes in the Official Story:
The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls
by Michel Chossudovsky

"Within days of the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in July, American Airlines and Qualcomm, proudly announced the development of a new wireless technology --which will at some future date allow airline passengers using their cell phones to contact family and friends from a commercial aircraft (no doubt at a special rate aerial roaming charge) (see http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2004/040715_aa_testflight.html )

"Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month , American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls." (WP, July 27, 2004)

Aviation Week (07/20/04) described this new technology in an authoritative report published in July 2004:

"Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to-ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground.

For the test flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, the aircraft was equipped with an antenna in the front and rear of the cabin to transmit cell phone calls to a small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station. This "pico cell" transmitted cell phone calls from the aircraft via a Globalstar satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network"

Needless to say, neither the service, nor the "third generation" hardware, nor the "Picco cell" CDMA base station inside the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11, 2001.

The 911 Commission points to the clarity and detail of these telephone conversations."


http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

Hello from Germany!
I would be thankfull, if some of you, who did read the entire article and who doubt the LIHOP and MIHOP theories, to give me some reasons, the author could be wrong about this.
Sounds pretty convincing to me...

Dirk

[LARED]

1. This technology is designed to

overcome problems using existing cell technology in aircrafts.

It addresses the potential problems of interference with the aircraft avionics and the difficulty in using existing cell technology from higher altitudes. The basic problem is that the cell phone tries to connect to multiple towers if you are above them.

It does not mean making a cell phone call was impossible on 9/11.

This issue has been beaten to death on this forum. The bottom line is that cell calls can be made. It is just not going to work all the time or under all circumstances.

[Dirk39]

2. Sorry,

I tried to find infos here, but did just get a weired link to a non-reliable source.

Chossudovsky writes:
"According to industry experts, the crucial link in wireless cell phone transmission from an aircraft is altitude. Beyond a certain altitude which is usually reached within a few minutes after takeoff, cell phone calls are no longer possible.

In other words, given the wireless technology available on September 11 2001, these cell calls could not have been placed from high altitude."

I'm pretty sure, there are a lot of DUers, who use planes from time to time and who have a cell-phone.
The easiest way to prove him wrong:
Are there people here on DU, who had a cell phone and did fly in 2001 or before and who did make cell-phone calls from higher altitudes?

Hi and thanx for the reply,
Dirk

[LARED]

3. The cell calls could have been made.

This is not even debatable.

If you want to, read'em and make your choice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x11406

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x12574

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x12792

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x15258

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x16571

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x16571

[Dirk39]

4. Thanx

Thanx a lot for your links!
I read through them.
Please someone, close this thread, I'm innocent!
Dirk

[LARED]

5. You're welcome (n/t)

[gandalf]

17. Dirk, did you once try it out in Europe?

Twice I forgot to switch off my cellphone in Europe. I had not even a signal after some minutes after take-off.

I am not so sure.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. They were not placed from high altitude. It was low altitude

The plane was flying at low altitude with its transponder turned off.

That is why it got lost to the air traffic control system.

[gandalf]

16. They got lost?

That it technically not true. The ATCs lost them, but not the radar equipment, according to the 9/11 report. So why are you sure they were flying at low altitude?

[RH]

22. It also

had something to do with the fact that the planes changed direction. They were not where they were supposed to be. This should not be so difficult to appreciate. ATC operators are not trained detectives. They work on a day to day basis with pre determined flight plans. It is not so easy to see something if you don't know where to look.

[Abe Linkman]

6. You asked a good question, but it's the wrong question HERE.

The important question for discovering what really happened on 9/11 is not "can cell phone calls be made from an airliner". The reason is: there are agents here from the "Ministry of Truth" who can cite at least one "expert" who will say "YES, it IS possible to make cell phone calls from an airliner."

What you should ask is: Is it true that cell phone calls from airliners WERE MADE on 9/11? We know that Ted Olson lied about the alleged calls his "wife" supposedly made from FL 77, and people who have analyzed the
claims about the other alleged cell phone calls (from other 9/11 flights) believe they were faked. In other words, the calls were NOT made from the airplanes. Just like the fake "fat" Osama video.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RH]

8. And that's not all.

If you're going to suppose that phone calls were faked then what about the real calls that would also be made?

Even if cell phones don't work somebody would surely airfone to get the word out that he wont be home so soon. Even with an aircraft under remote control and the crew kept quiet when a flight turned around to head in the opposite direction somebody aboard was going to be smart enough to notice.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[midwayer]

14. I believe SHE (Olsen) IS ALIVE

I truly believe this

My gut tells me this is so

I don't trust Ted.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. At least you admit that it's a faith-based position

You have no evidence at all for this statement.

All the evidence points to Barbara Olson and all other Flight 77 passengers dying on 9/11.

But believe what you want.

[tngledwebb]

11. Truth will out one day....

Even with multiple lies and tissues of lies. This article is very interesting, in that it leaves out any reference to that one day when cell phone calls from several wayward, low and fast flying airplanes worked well enough to send detailed messages and information to relatives and airline officials. Wonder also if 9/11 report mentions anything re high or low quality of calls due to limits on cell phone technology? Or any summation of calls in detail, using the terms 'unclear' or 'garbled' etc. Anything like 'Ted Olson's recollection of his wife's call was given under oath, time and length of call confirmed by phone bill records'? Any quotes from that section?

[Abe Linkman]

12. Good questions. Ask bolo or 1 of the other "Truth Ministry" agents.

I'm sure they've read the "report". Keep in mind that they've already tried to have it both ways re: the lies of U.S. Solicitor Ted "The Drunken Skirt Chaser" Olson -- a man who never met a Gov't lie he wouldn't defend.

[tngledwebb]

13. Odd, isn't it ...

How specific questions are never addressed directly or get answered with non-sequiters and gobbledygook? (On the other hand rhetorical queries get 2 or 3 responses sometimes in the same minute all from the same tanfoylhack tag team.) Regardless, with cell phone improbabilities, plus FAA database, erratic flight paths, and lack of evidence at crash sites, the 1 plane/no plane theory becomes more credible. Really, why would the perps destroy perfectly good aircraft, not to mention innocent passengers, when explosives, missiles and maybe one dummy plane would do?

[MercutioATC]

15. Wanna talk about unaddressed questions?

I'll compile a list of the questions some of the more prolofic CTists here refused to answer.

Alternately, you can just browse through the 9/11 Forum. There's no shortage of them.

[tngledwebb]

18. 'Official' CT'ers need to understand

that citing 'official reports' is not credible to those who don't trust the 'official sources' due to possible complicity of 'officials'. But carry on, ask your question... By the way, have you read The New Pearl Harbor? There are several interesting sections relating to your profession.

[MercutioATC]

19. The problem is, at least some of the info only comes from official sources

For instance, the ASCE report. Everybody else with a Pentagon theory that's partially based on the damage is getting their information from the handful of pictures we've seen. The ASCE report was written by civil engineers who specialize in reinforced concrete structures and crash damage who actually went to the site and made a detailed examination.

The FAA database issue is another. Unless you're familiar with the way the registration process is handled by the FAA, you'd have to "trust" an official to tell you. I'd encourage anybody that doesn't believe me and doesn't trust that the FAA would tell the truth to find a private pilot who's had issues with this. I know one myself. She wants a particular N-number for a plane she's building, but it's already actively registered - to a plane that's decaying in a barn and hasn't flown in many years (and has been partially parted out).

No, I haven't read "The New Pearl Harbor". Personally, my understanding of the "first" Pearl Harbor doesn't lead me to believe that FDR knew that Pearl Harbor itself would be attacked. I also don't think that Bush knew specifically that the WTC towers and the Pentagon would be the targets - I just think he ignored the credible warnings that airliners could be used as weapons. Perhaps I'll pick up the book the next time I go to the bookstore.

[tngledwebb]

24. Problem with sources

Do you not understand that when a conspiracy this big may involve THE GOVT, they will totally control all critical info. The ASCE report has to be suspect. Civil engineers perhaps, but from where, who picked them? And FAA database is critical because whether accurate or not, the result is somebody is not telling/getting the truth. And YOU may think you can trust NYT or CNN, or Washington Post, etc, but many others will disagree. RH wants folks to know, in the year 2004, that (shock horror!) the net has a lot of crazy ideas, but you find the same at the local library, if they are still open, on TV, radio, newspapers, even the Dead Sea scrolls. Non-Luddites use common sense in determining what is credible. And whatever side you are on the New Pearl Harbor will be eye-opening. But I think you know THAT already.

[RH]

25. My point

would be that if you want to know who picked the people involved with the ASCE report you are very welcome to enquire. Their Media Contact page provides telephone numbers and eMail handles.

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1282

Who picks the people who produce conspiracy theory web sites?

Please do let us know the result of your enquiries.

Founded in 1852, ASCE represents 130,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society.

That sounds to me like a pretty good qualification.

Who would you engage?

[MercutioATC]

26. So how do you resolve it? Do you rely on sources who are using

second-hand and incomplete information to make their point (and, remember, THEY have an agenda to push, too) or do you rely on the most complete data you can find?

I'm not a civil engineer. I can't personally speak to the accuracy of the ASCE report's conclusions. The reason I weigh that particular report heavier than others I've seen is that they're trained experts who were actually there instead of laypersons examining a few photos.

The FAA database issue, however, I DO have experience with (through the friend I mentioned). Imagine trying to argue that somebody COULDN'T have been speeding because speeding is against the law. We know that many people speed and that speed limits aren't a high law enforcement priority so they're rarely enforced. The database issue is the same. Yes, there's a regulation that says you're supposed to file paperwork to remove the registration when a plane crashes or is permanently grounded, but it's never enforced and some people just choose (intentionally or by oversight) not to file.

I admit that I tend to be sceptical of CTs because I have yet to see a 9/11 CT that didn't have major elements that could be easily debunked. I AM still here, though and DO continue to read the theories posted here. Maybe I'll come across one that's more convincing.

[MercutioATC]

28. ...and a comment about "common sense"

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using common sense. A problem arises, however, when the person using common sense doesn't have more than a layperson's understanding of the topic.

The "pod" made sense. Hell, we could all see a darker area there in photos. The problem is, if you know about airplanes, you'd know that the landing gear goes there.

Dick Eastman's 757 that flies at 350 knots with its engines "turned off" might make sense if you don't know that a 757 below 1000' might not be able to fly at 350 knots, even with its engines at full power.

The idea of "replacement planes" makes sense if you're not aware of ATC primary radar and the fact that it would show the "replacement"

"Controlled demolition" of the WTC towers might make sense until you learn something about controlled demolition. It would have taken literally thousands of charges, each in its own hole drilled into concrete supports (and other supports cut away) for a controlled demolition to have taken place.

My point is that I'd encourage everybody to try to find multiple sources of information and use common sense when making conclusions. I'd also warn them that using sources that don't understand the subject matter frequentlt results in erroneous conclusions.

[LARED]

20. How do you know "unofficial" sources

are credible?

The internet is awash with individuals and organizations that have a revisionist, political, or other agenda that they advocate. Truth is not an object to attain with most of these folks, but rather it is used is an object to twist and manipulate.

The fact that there is no or little accountability allows them to put any thing they want into cyberspace.

[RH]

21. So what is you alternative then?

Are you just going to go along with anything you happen read on the Internet?

Or are you going to take the trouble to talk to people who were involved, those who saw for themselves?

Or do you have some kind of crystal ball that does a better job?

Official investigations are conducted by responsible indentified people, all according to standard protocals. They don't just make it up as they go along.

Instead of that how exactly do you propose to proceed, and how far, toward what particular end do you hope to progress?

:shrug:

[RH]

27. It perpetually annoys me

that they come up with arguments based on supposed facts that are easily enough debunked with just a few minutes on google. They fail even to check as much before wasting everybody else's time.

It is also an insult to expect to impress with arguments that just don't make any sense to begin with. If conspirators were determined to give the impression that an airliner hit the Pentagon, an obvious way to do it would be to fly an airliner into the Pentagon, given that one would already appear to have gone AWOL anyway. That one has never been explained.

:crazy:

I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams.

(Hamlet: Act II, Scene II)

[demodewd]

29. re:google

What "supposed facts" are you referring to..state one or two and then back your argument up with "google"

[RH]

30. For instance

the supposed fact of Atta's passport being found in New York.

Or the supposed fact that a BBC story "proves" that a hijacker is still alive when it does nothing pof the sort. The fools don't even bother to read the links they provide!

Both of those corrections I have recently cited.

Did you fail to notice?

Above all else most frequent ignorance is the assertion that "nobody said" when a sensible key word google search comes straight up with somebody who did say.

"Nobody said they saw the plane hit a lamp pole" for instance.

Yes they did:

"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post,"

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Pentagon_policeman.html

[demodewd]

31. different names...same outcome

A hijacker's passport was claimed to have been found. I've made the erroneous claim that it was Atta's and was corrected(not by you)...but the statement still stands...that a hijacker passport was claimed to have been found. It's of course preposterous to think that that could be true. To my thinking its disinformation manufactured by who? who knows but we could make an educated guess.

There are of course erroneous claims made by those who don't believe the government version. No doubt you can go through any number of forums and pick out questionable statements and claims. But does knowing this dismiss all claims...never.

Those who claim that it was just a missile that hit the Pentagon are of course grossly mistaken. But it is all too easy to disclaim all speculation beyond the official version based on that one erroneous notion. Those poles could have been clipped by any number of planes not just a 757.

[LARED]

32. It's of course preposterous to think that that could be true.

Why is it so perposterous to have found a hijacker's passport?

Even if it is an unlikely event, how does it get to be disinformation?


Even if one assumed it is some sort of disinformation, what purpose could it serve? Ask yourself this question first. If it did not exist, would anything change? Would different questions be raised? Would anyone say, "hey, no passports were found so it must be an inside job?"

[demodewd]

33. a small consideration

Its basically one very small item that is not really essential to the basis of a cogent argument that 9-11 was an inside job. My conjecture is that it was a feeble and laughable attempt at disinfo. That's my contention...certainly feasible...certainly rational. You have a different take...fine...but it obviously isn't provable. The pod is provable. You deny it's existence and claim it to be something it possibly could not be. It's located in the wrong place to be what you contend it to be. You are therefore wrong. This is not reasoned speculation ala discovered passport,this is measurable and observable fact.

[LARED]

34. Provable Pods

I must disagree about the pods being provable. To prove something you can provide evidence or argument to establish the truth or validity of something.

There is no argument for the pods. And I know you will disagree, but there is no evidence for it either. A grainy, out of focus unvalidated image does not count as evidence.

[MercutioATC]

35. If the pod is "provable" where did the landing gear go?

I can prove that the landing gear is where you think the pod was. I can also prove that the landing gear was necessary for the plane to have taken off in the first place.

Where does that leave your "pod"?