Ed Felt's 911 call

[buka001]

At 09:58 Ed Felt made a call to 911, from UA93, where he claimed he had heard some kind of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane.

It appears this statement is being used to prove UA93 was engaged by a missile.

Analysing the CVR data, it appeasr at this time, the hijackers were very concerned with the keeping the cockpit door closed.

Perhaps the passangers had made an attempt with a fire extinguisher to blow the door open at this time. The hijackers sense of urgency in keeping the door closed at this moment does indicate something was happening to that door at that time.

Ed was also in the lavatory at this moment. So he could not see for certain what the passangers where doing at this exact moment. He mentions white smoke, could be from the fire extingiusher. He was in the lavatory, he could not see the whole plane.

If the plane was engaged, would he not have talked about violent shudders, eratic manouvers? Not just some kind of an explosion and white smoke? If it was engaged, parts of the aircraft would be breaking up, there would be fires all over the aircraft, not just smoke.
If a heat seeking missile was used, it would have struck the engine and therefore the fuel would have ignited, therefore the entire plane would have been blown up mid air. This is highly inconsistant with the debris field.

 

[Kryptos]

The "explosion" and "puff of smoke" are myths.

the 911 dispatcher, John Shaw, and others who have heard the tape, including Mr. Felt's wife, Sandra Felt, say he made no mention of smoke or an explosion when he said, ''We're going down.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04EFD6133BF934A15750C0A9649C8B63

 

[Reheat]

The exact contents of the phone call are in dispute. To rationally discuss it involves mostly speculation and supposition.

The proof that UA93 was not shot down is in the fact that there were no NORAD fighters in it's vicinity. In order to believe there were would involve a conspiracy by the FAA and NORAD and the subsequent investigators of the crash scene.

Additional proof: The FDR data shows no anomalies in any aircraft systems right up to impact.

Additional evidence is that the debris field was quite small. Even if we accept a debris field of 8 miles of significant debris, that is smaller than would be expected with any mid air type explosion or significant breakup.

Essentially, the contents of that phone call are a moot point except in the mind of troofers who continue to concentrate on minutiae in order to continue their delusive cult premise.

 

[Unfit4Command]

According to the FDR data, the plane increased in altitude by thousands of feet after 9:58 when Felt's call was placed.

Sounds like a tough task after being struck by a missile.

 

[T.A.M.]

yes, please note that his is one of the few calls made by CELL PHONE, and note that the altitude was pretty low at the time of his call, so when they reflexively bring up the "No cells work at cruising altitude" myth, you can clearly show them that this cell phone call was made WAY, way below cruising altitude.

TAM

 

[BenBurch]

Back in 1993, back when I worked for motorola friends did all sorts of wireless experimentation during hops on the corporate jet. They made cellphone calls, and sent radiomail via the ARDIS system. This was of course using the analog cell system.

 

[GT/CS]

Back in 1993, back when I worked for motorola friends did all sorts of wireless experimentation during hops on the corporate jet. They made cellphone calls, and sent radiomail via the ARDIS system. This was of course using the analog cell system.

We had someone make some calls on one of our company jets. One of our pilots told me that person ended up with a $20,000 fine from the FAA. Don't know if the pilot was pulling my leg or not.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Don't know if the pilot was pulling my leg or not.

did your leg collapse at free fall speed in 7 seconds? 18 if you count the thigh?

 

[Reheat]

We had someone make some calls on one of our company jets. One of our pilots told me that person ended up with a $20,000 fine from the FAA. Don't know if the pilot was pulling my leg or not.

Obviously bluffing you perhaps to keep you from using your phone.

Some airlines DO ALLOW cell phone use during certain phases of flight.

The FAA has no authority to fine a passenger. They are not a Law Enforcement Agency. They can take action again people who are licensed by them such as Pilots, Flight Engineers, etc, but not anyone else.....

ETA: For someone involved in an "air rage" type incident you'll note that either local law enforcement at the point of landing makes the arrest or I've seen some cases where the FBI has been involved.

 

[GT/CS]

did your leg collapse at free fall speed in 7 seconds? 18 if you count the thigh?

Just say no.

 

[TjW]

We had someone make some calls on one of our company jets. One of our pilots told me that person ended up with a $20,000 fine from the FAA. Don't know if the pilot was pulling my leg or not.

The FAA wouldn't care. There is no FAA regulation regarding cell phone use. From the FAA point of view, use of portable electronic devices on board an aircraft is at the pilot's discretion.

The FCC has rules against cell phone use in aircraft.

ETA: I see Reheat beat me to it.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Sorry if I missed something, but didn't Felt's call say the white stuff was coming from outside the plane, maybe even from under the wing? I'd have to dig it up...

Was the explosion something depressurizing the cabin? Other transcripts describe 'whooshing' noises. Or are we not supposed to mention these as we debunk, for National Security Reasons?

 

[Sabrina]

No airline lavatory I've ever been in has had a window, so how could Felt have seen the white smoke if it had been coming from "outside" the plane?

Now granted, I've not been on every plane in the US, much less the world, but I've been on a decent amount, and never seen an airplane lavatory window. Anyone else?

 

[Reheat]

Sorry if I missed something, but didn't Felt's call say the white stuff was coming from outside the plane, maybe even from under the wing? I'd have to dig it up...

Was the explosion something depressurizing the cabin? Other transcripts describe 'whooshing' noises. Or are we not supposed to mention these as we debunk, for National Security Reasons?

Yep, you missed something very prominent in Post #2!

Originally Posted by The New York Times
the 911 dispatcher, John Shaw, and others who have heard the tape, including Mr. Felt's wife, Sandra Felt, say he made no mention of smoke or an explosion when he said, ''We're going down.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A9649C8B63

 

[apathoid]

No airline lavatory I've ever been in has had a window, so how could Felt have seen the white smoke if it had been coming from "outside" the plane?

Now granted, I've not been on every plane in the US, much less the world, but I've been on a decent amount, and never seen an airplane lavatory window. Anyone else?

I have, but it was BBJ. Some airlines do have them though, but I don't believe UA is one of them. I don't necessarily believe he witnessed the smoke from the lav, it's just that he made his call there and happened to have(allegedly) mentioned it.

As for the smoke, since the aircraft was pulling higher G's than normal due to the poor piloting, I'd expect to see condensation along the top of the wing during those moments. Not unlike this.

 

[Swing Dangler]

The FAA wouldn't care. There is no FAA regulation regarding cell phone use. From the FAA point of view, use of portable electronic devices on board an aircraft is at the pilot's discretion.
The FCC has rules against cell phone use in aircraft.
ETA: I see Reheat beat me to it.

I hate to be truther that clears up your thinking but the FAA does prohibit the use of cell phones.

The FAA supports this airborne restriction for reasons of potential interference to critical aircraft systems. Currently, the FAA does not prohibit use of cellular telephones in aircraft while on the ground if the operator has determined that they will not interfere with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which they are to be used. An example might be their use at the gate or during an extended wait on the ground, while awaiting a gate, when specifically authorized by the captain. A cellular telephone will not be authorized for use while the aircraft is being taxied for departure after leaving the gate. The unit will be turned off and properly stowed, otherwise it is possible that a signal from a ground cell could activate it.

The source for this 'new' information is here.

 

[Unfit4Command]

Sorry if I missed something, but didn't Felt's call say the white stuff was coming from outside the plane, maybe even from under the wing? I'd have to dig it up...

Was the explosion something depressurizing the cabin? Other transcripts describe 'whooshing' noises. Or are we not supposed to mention these as we debunk, for National Security Reasons?

CeeCee Lyles' Husband said he heard a 'whooshing' sound before the call was dropped. I'm not sure what time the call was disconnected, I just know it started at 9:58, around the time when the hijackers started pitching the plane up and down and increasing in altitude. The 'whooshing' sound could have been CeeCee Lyles dropping the phone, falling over, etc...but we'll never know for sure.

As for the explosion sound and white smoke, I've never seen anywhere about it coming from under the wing. 911myths covers this topic a bit:
http://www.911myths.com/html/explosion_and_smoke.html

 

[T.A.M.]

I hate to be truther that clears up your thinking but the FAA does prohibit the use of cell phones.


The source for this 'new' information is here.

Actually, it is not completely as clear as that, but for the facts, go here...

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6275

Here is the important passage:

FAA regulations (specifically, 14 CFR 91.21 and 121.306) prohibit use of most portable electronic devices aboard aircraft. The rules specifically exempt portable voice recorders, hearing aids, heart pacemakers and electric shavers because they don't give off signals that might interfere with aircraft systems.

The regulations also let airlines independently determine if passengers can use PEDs not specifically mentioned by the rules. An airline must show that a device does not interfere with safe operation of the aircraft during all phases of flight. In its oversight capacity, the FAA ensures that the operator complies with regulations by reviewing the results of the carrier's tests and analysis of pertinent data.

The FAA has issued guidance to the airlines allowing passengers to turn on most PEDs after the plane reaches an altitude of 10,000 feet. The agency chose that altitude because, at a lower height, any potential interference could be more of a safety hazard as the cockpit crew focuses on critical arrival and departure duties.

Cell Phones: A Different Animal

Cell phones (and other intentional transmitters) differ from most PEDs in that they send out signals strong enough to be received at distances far away from the user.

Since 1991, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has banned the inflight use of 800 MHz cell phones because of potential interference with ground networks. This ban requires that in addition to the testing the FAA requires to show non-interference to the airplane systems, an airline would also need to apply for an exemption to the FCC rule before it could allow cell phone use inflight.

Today, airlines may let passengers use newer-model cell phones in what's called "airplane" mode, which essentially disables the transmission function so they can't make calls. This mode lets users do other things, such as play a game, check an address or look at the phone's calendar.

In February 2005, the FCC issued a proposal to lift the restriction on 800 MHz cell phone calls while airborne if such phones are operating under control of equipment installed in the airplane (e.g., "pico cell" technology) that acts as an antenna for onboard callers and controls the power level of the phones themselves.

Even if the FCC rescinds its ban, FAA regulations would still apply. Any installed equipment would be subject to FAA certification, just like any other piece of hardware. The air carrier would have to show that the use of a particular model phone won't interfere with the navigation and communications systems of the particular type of aircraft on which it will be used.

TAM

 

[Caustic Logic]

No airline lavatory I've ever been in has had a window, so how could Felt have seen the white smoke if it had been coming from "outside" the plane?

Now granted, I've not been on every plane in the US, much less the world, but I've been on a decent amount, and never seen an airplane lavatory window. Anyone else?

That was quick.
I had never really thought about that for some stupid reason, but I coulda sworn - maybe he saw it before going in to call (ie to avoid the hijackers) - lemme dig this up, I think from Center for Coop Research.

This is why I thought that:
"The operator reports, “He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him.” [ABC News, 9/11/2001; ABC News, 9/11/2001; Associated Press, 9/12/2001] One minute after the call begins, the line goes dead. [Pittsburgh Channel, 12/6/2001]"
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a958edfelt
It does say 'from the plane,' but that's pretty vague.

Other response then, I'm in for a lashing.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I have, but it was BBJ. Some airlines do have them though, but I don't believe UA is one of them. I don't necessarily believe he witnessed the smoke from the lav, it's just that he made his call there and happened to have(allegedly) mentioned it.

News to me, thanks!

As for the smoke, since the aircraft was pulling higher G's than normal due to the poor piloting, I'd expect to see condensation along the top of the wing during those moments. Not unlike this.

That could be what he saw, if he saw anything of the sort. It is a humid area, which makes that effect seem likely (?)