The very foundation of the official story is the cell phone calls telling the story of the hijackers. The bulk of those phone calls were impossible, given 2001 cell phone technology. And reading the transcripts of the conversations of Betty Ong and others show them to be theatrical and unnatural. Anybody can see it themselves, and Rebekah Roth, a flight attendant herself, talks about it her book Magnificent Deception.
Yet another incredible convenient coincidence among the hundreds that happened on 9/11. Cell phone calls from airplanes at those altitudes were impossible in 2001, but on 9/11/01, they worked just fine from the "hijacked" planes at those altitudes. It's incredible because it's not credible. What makes it even more incredible is that it's one of hundreds of convenient anomalies claimed to be reality by the official 9/11 narrative. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-confession-i-brought-down-wtc7.509900/page-3
Altogether, the passengers and crew made 35 airphone calls and two cell phone calls from the flight. at low altitudes cell phone calls were possible.
Typical convoluted reverse burden of proof silliness. It's not up to anyone to prove anything about the official narrative, it's up to the US government to prove ALL their claims and unfortunately there are way too many that are either not credible or absurdly ridiculous. To make matters worse, they not only destroyed literally tons of physical evidence, they have also over-classified thousands of documents under pretext of national security. If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?
Hello Mom? This is your son _________. How theatrical, just like Betty Ong's narrative. Why don't you PROVE the cell calls were even possible? You cannot, because they were impossible with 2001 cellphone technology.
Actually they were possible at the low altitudes the hijackers were flying at. I can recall being on a plane in 2000 and was instructed to turn off my Blackberry phone prior to take off. I also had a pager which used the exact same technology that was still allowed to be turned on so I used that instead since I dealing with an emergency issue at work at the time. I was able to stay in touch and did not lose my signal until after we passed 20,000'. Note that this was in the Tri State area where there were a lot of cell phone towers because cell phones were big sellers in NYC at the time. So yes, with the planes flying at low altitude over major metro areas like DC and NYC it would have been possible to make cell phone calls. As soon as the seat belt signs for landing would go on everyone would turn on their cell phones and start looking for signals so that they could make calls. I was one of those people doing it at that time.
From a consensus by a panel of experts: The Best Evidence Various technological reports between 2001 and 2004 indicate that, given the cell phones available in 2001, cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners – meaning ones above 20,000 feet – were very unlikely. [18] The most extensive of these reports were by Canadian mathematician and scientist A. K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American. [19] In 2003, he published reports of experiments he had carried out in single- and twin-engine airplanes, showing that at 20,000 feet, there was a one-in-a-hundred chance of successful calls from a single-engine plane, and in a twin-engine plane (which has greater insulation), the success rate at 7,000 feet was 0 percent. He also pointed out that cell phone failure would occur at even lower altitudes in large airliners, which are even more insulated. [20] When the times of the reported phone calls are compared with the official flight data paths, it is clear that some of the cell phone calls reported in the mainstream press occurred when the planes were above 40,000 feet, and all of them occurred above 20,000 feet. [21] Dewdney’s report did not stand alone. Several other articles published between 2001 and 2004 cast doubt on the cell phone calls as being credible. [22] In 2004, Qualcomm announced a successful demonstration of a fundamentally new kind of cell phone technology, involving a “picocell,” that would allow passengers “to place and receive calls as if they were on the ground.” American Airlines announced that this new technology was expected to be commercially available in 2006. [23] This technology, in fact, first became available on commercial flights in March 2008. [24] The cell phone companies have, even before 9/11, kept extensive coded data on each call from the 3-sided cell phone towers, and these data provide triangulation location points. [25] Such data are routinely requested for court cases and would have been used in the massive cell phone investigation that ensued. [26] Therefore the above-reported cell phone calls almost certainly could not have been received from any of the 9/11 planes. Conclusion Beginning with the reported cell phone calls by Barbara Olson aboard UA 93, the (first) official account of the 9/11 attacks depended heavily on media stories of cell phone calls from the 9/11 planes. From 2001 until 2006, such stories appeared to be supported by the FBI and the 9/11 Commission. The Commission reported the stories about Barbara Olson from American 77; Peter Hanson and Brian Sweeney from United 175; and Mark Bingham, Marion Britton, Tom Burnett, and Jeremy Glick from United 93. The 9/11 Commission and the FBI, moreover, did nothing to cast doubt on the belief that these people had, while in 9/11 planes, used cell phones to talk to people on the ground. [27] Therefore, the (first) official account of phone calls from the 9/11 planes, which fleshed out the dramatic public story, is objectively so improbable as to be unbelievable – a fact that casts doubt on the credibility of the official account of 9/11 as a whole. http://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-3/ Other consensus points about the official narrative on the 9/11 phone calls can be found here: I. Consensus Points about the Phone Calls on 9/11 http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/
See prior post. But as already noted, the burden of proof that these alleged cell phone calls were made from the alleged 9/11 planes is on the US government, no one else. They made the claim, they must prove it.
I guess you didn't read and probably didn't want to read from the other links I provided. One might begin to wonder why rather than question the official narrative or at least demand proof (i.e. "hold their feet to the fire"), you seem to desperately want to try to defend it. I personally don't care, it doesn't change the fact that the official narrative is filled with unsupported claims, contradictions, half truths, outright lies and coverups (reams of classified documents/evidence under pretext of national security). The Best Evidence By stating this second version of the official account – that the only reported cell phone calls from the 9/11 planes were made from UA 93 at 9:58:00 AM, after it had evidently descended to 5,000 feet – the FBI seemingly avoided the problem created by the fact that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners could at best connect momentarily in 2001. But five problems remain. 1. The Calls by Lyles and Felt As stated in Point PC-3: “Cell Phone Calls from the Planes: The First Official Account,” A. K. Dewdney reported that he found the success rate of cell phone calls from twin-engine planes fell to zero at 7,000 feet. He also said that the cell phone failure would occur at lower altitudes in airliners, because they are much more insulated. [8] How much lower? According to many anecdotal reports, Dewdney has said, “in large passenger jets, one loses contact during takeoff, frequently before the plane reaches 1000 feet altitude.” [9] The fact that UA 93 was at 5,000 feet does not necessarily show, therefore, that Felt and Lyles could have made successful cell phone calls at 9:58 AM. Indeed there is evidence that they did not make such calls: The UA 93 phone records for the precisely timed 9:58:00 AM calls by both Lyles and Felt show no cell phone number and no duration – information included on any cell phone bill [10] – in spite of “an exhaustive study … of the cell phone records of each of the passengers who owned cell phones.” [11] Read the rest (unless you'd rather stick to your own personal world view, in that case don't bother) ... http://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-4/
As someone with an engineering education I find that 99.9999999999999999% of all 9/11 conspiracies are based upon appalling ignorance of the engineering principles and practices in effect. Those who claim to have some engineering background on these conspiracy topics invariably make the most basic of errors giving lie to their alleged credentials. The 9/11 planes were equipped with GTE Airphones and were also flying low enough for cell phones to work over the areas where there were a large number of cell phone towers. The onus is entirely on the 9/11 conspiracy theorists to prove that such calls were impossible to make under those circumstances. My own personal experience at the time (I was in charge in ensuring that system access to the rest of the world for a Fortune 100 corporation was not interrupted during the 9/11 crisis) is that communications were maintained and that included the AT&T transatlantic cables that ran under the WTC towers. Only the cell towers in the immediate vicinity were impacted when the WTC towers collapsed and even then the transatlantic cable survived. The link is quibbling about a couple of calls that were probably misidentified as cell phones and instead would have been made by GTE airphones. No big deal except to those who don't have a life outside of conspiracy forums.
I believe you mean 9/11 conspiracy theories. As someone who claims to have an engineering education, you should be one of the first in line to question the "appalling ignorance of NIST's engineering principles and practices in effect" with regard to 9/11. They were tasked with the official investigation into the "collapse" of 3 towers on 9/11. Yet I haven't seen one post from you that questions any of their unscientific approach. There's an entire thread on the subject: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/ Not to mention the 9/11 Commission's official conspiracy theory which is not based on any kind of science never mind "engineering principles and practices in effect". http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/ So your point is quite hypocritical and certainly doesn't address my point about you. I have no idea who you're talking about but that's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with this discussion. So you claim. The person who actually did the research and conducted live experiments disagrees with you for the most part. That's correct for anyone who makes such a claim ("conspiracy theorist" or not) for the same reason that the burden of proof is on the US government (the claimant) to prove these cell phone calls were not only possible but were made exactly as claimed. Thanks for that tidbit but it doesn't prove or disprove anything about the 9/11 cell phone calls. Now you're delving into your own theories in order to try to marginalize the consensus of a panel of experts. How do you know the first story wasn't invented then changed when the first story didn't pan out? The more you post, the more it's obvious to me you're desperately trying to defend the official narrative. And what makes that even more obvious is that there's not one post from you that questions any of it. So while you're big into trying to ridicule "conspiracy theorists", you show you're one yourself because you're defending the official conspiracy theory. Your posts are filled with hypocrisy. And would that describe YOU? You are here posting in the conspiracy theory section of the forum, aren't you now?
Thanks for reminding that I am wasting my time on conspiracy threads. FTR the fact that you cannot find my posts on the NIST reports is not my problem. The engineering math was sound in the NIST report and anyone with even the most basic of structural engineering knowledge understands strengths of materials. Too bad none of the 9/11 "truthers" has a clue but that is why they believe in conspiracies in the first place. Have a nice day! Oh wait, is that another "conspiracy"?
I reminded you? How ridiculous is that? There's nothing to find, you never posted anything about NIST that I'm aware of until this post. What "engineering math" was that and what does that have to do with how NIST conducted its unscientific investigation of the "collapse" of 3 towers on 9/11? What does "anyone with even the most basic of structural engineering knowledge understands strengths of materials" have to do with how NIST conducted its unscientific investigation? You are not making any sense and just posting gibberish pretending you know the first thing about the subject. Too bad you haven't addressed anything I posted in response to your post that makes any sense. It seems you are wasting your time in these "conspiracy threads", you don't seem to know the difference between fact and that terrifying term, "conspiracy theory". Thanks, same to you. See what I mean. <Rule 3>
I understand you to say that you did turn off your cellphone, but your pager continued to work. Is that correct? We would need specifics as to model and other particulars, but in 2000 most pagers (I carried one too) were VHF based. Cellphones work in the 850MHz range, pagers work in VHF which is about 150Mhz range. So in that regard they are not the same technology. The behavior and characteristics of VHF and Microwave are considerably, vastly, different.
