[Merged]Flight 93 - The Cell Phones that worked!

[V23]

This is a new thread that I am carrying over since the info that was being diccussed in the previous one didn't belong there. I will begin it with a few posts of mine and others.

 

[V23]

Previous Post by V23 -

I am going to be perfectly honest.

I have no idea if 9/11 was an inside job or not.

I have heard some compelling accusations from the "truther" crowd, and I have heard some of the most insane and down right sick/sad ones too from the same group. While I hate using a huge paintbrush to cover the entire organization and those who adhere to their beliefs, I am not as foolish as to believe everything I hear from both sides.

I guess my biggest issue with the truther crowd, is while I have heard a variety of these intersting and compelling ideas and stories coming out of their group, I have never seen any of their supposed "facts" hold up to any real scrunity. While I am certainly of the belief that where there is smoke their is fire, every smoke pile I get too seems to only be a dry ice maker.

Probally the most intersting one I have heard yet is the cell phone story about Flight 93. About 3 months after 9/11, I was luckly enough to have to catch a plane to a police con. in Las Vegas, and while I was in flight I checked my cell phone to see if I could get a signal, just out of curiousness.

The results of my little experment gave me pause. Which is why I have stayed agnostic to the 9/11 CT, instead of atheist.

 

[V23]

Previous post of V23 - (and others)

Originally Posted by maccy
Only two calls were made from Flight 93 on cellphones, the rest were made using airphones. The call durations were 1-2 minutes, after which they were dropped. There is nothing to suggest that this is impossible. Just because you've tried and failed to get a signal doesn't mean that you could never get a signal (or, as Frank Kotsonis said, the plural of anecdote is not data).

For more details see:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Cell_phones
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics..._-_Phone_calls

Also, you have to consider the difficulty of faking the phone calls. Even if you think it is unlikely that a cell phone call could be made, it seems to me even less likely that a call could be faked.

I have yet to encounter a proposition from the CT side that doesn't fall apart under investigation. Although, I accept that some can seem plausible on first glance - mainly because they are talking about things which are outside of our normal experiences.

Quote:
By Slyjoe -
At what altitude were you trying this experiment? And at what altitude were the calls made from 93?

ETA: and just curious - you are agnostic to 9/11 being an inside job because of what is perceived as cell phone anomalies?
Of all the CT stuff that I have heard out there, this is the only accusation that I find merits my attention. This is not to say that I believe that the entire case of a consparicy hangs on this issue for me, nor does it mean that if this turned out to be a real issue, would it change my mind that terrorists were responsible for 9/11, for it wouldn't.

What it means is, this is my one and only thing that I would consider a "loose end". And I have a feeling that the truth of what really transpired on Flight 93, wont change just becasue the 9/11 Commision report got this one wrong.

I just believe that there is some "anomalies" that need to be taken into account and dealt with, for if the skeptics don't, this one issue will be forever considered the thorn in our side when dealing with "Truthers".

I don't want to leave this issue in the relm of "slight possibility" or "maybe plasuable". I want to kmow the truth. How come the passengers of Flight 93 were able to make cell phone converstations from an aircraft moving in excess of over 400 knots and flying over 8,000 ft. in the air?

And I don't believe that the evidence shows that the airplane was at one time "low enough", or that the plane right before crash had slowed down enough for this to occur at the time frames that are being presented. I am sorry, I do not buy it. The time frames I have seen presented for when the cell phone calls were made do not match the amount time that the conversations had to complete them. One or two things there has to be wrong. For the timeframes alone to be true that plane was WAY lower than previously thought, and got lower a lot sooner than has been documented.

Not to mention, I have yet to see a defintive study or document that says EXACTLY which phone calls were air phones and which ones were cell phones, and EXACTLY when they were called, when they ended, and EXACTLY where was the airplane when this occured, and EXACTLY at what Alt. was the plane at and EXACTLY what was the airspeed of the plane when they occured.

All of this information, if it has not been relaesed, (I don't know I just havent seen it yet), needs to be analyzed, and shown beyond any doubt how this occured by the parameters I just listed.

There is something missing, some key piece of this story that in my opinon has yet to come to light. My current theory is that somehow the two or more cell phones used might have been of a diffrent type that would alow for this type of communication above 6,000 and below 8,000 ft. Another is that perhaps the 9/11 commision got it completely wrong and there were no cell phones that were used and they were all just enough air phones calls.

(which would put this thing to rest . . .)

Another possibilty is that they used call fowarding through their air phones, to pay for the time, (all would be needed is perhaps an access no. for their carrier) and this was set up before the flight had began, not knowing of the events that would transpire that day, which is why verison wireless was able to track certain calls.

(I know that last one is real weak, but I am working on it)

By the way, I know I am posting this on the wrong thread, but i just wanted to reply to the two of you here first before I go find the right thread or start a new one.

 

[DGM]

Previous Post by V23 -

A more accurate (although against FAA rules) experiment would have been to monitor for a signal over the whole flight.

 

[V23]

All post came from -

[Split]WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an inside job?

By the way people, I don't have a CT, all I got is questions.

If you got a comment, or got questions too please reply.

By the way here is a website I pulled from this board that I think effectively muddy the waters terribly.

Any comments about it is as well would be also appreciated.

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/7697.html?mode=reply

 

[V23]

A more accurate (although against FAA rules) experiment would have been to monitor for a signal over the whole flight.

Well, I didn't do that. Remember that this was right after 9/11 and everybody was on edge. It would have been my luck that a flight attendant would have spotted me and I would have had to deal with the FAA or local police when I got to Las Vegas, (and for that matter my boss back home).

All experments I have heard of that have monitored their signals inflight have all stated the same thing, basicly NO WAY POSSIBLE. You get above 6,000 ft. that's it, no more signal, period.

So, that leaves me with a problem. Is the 9/11 report wrong and they were not only lower, but MUCH lower way ealier in the flight then perviously thought? And can we pinpoint exactly the entire flightpath, alt. and airspeed and plot it along with the time the phones were used, and which ones?

 

[maccy]

By the way people, I don't have a CT, all I got is questions.

OK what are your questions?

And what if I said that the best evidence that it was possible to make the phone calls from Flight 93, was that they were, in fact, made?

ETA:

Or, to put it another way (and this would a challenge to someone trying to extrapolate a conspiracy theory from these calls).

Can you prove the calls were impossible?

If so, what does this mean?

Is your explanation of what it means possible?

Is it plausible?

Is there any evidence to suggest it happened?

Based on the answers to the above, if we can't definitively exlain how the phone calls were made, does it matter?

 

[Architect]

I once accidentally left my 'phone on (on "meeting" mode) during a flight from Glasgow to Manchester and the "missed calls" ran pretty much continuously over the flight, barring a section which I suspect broadly corresponded to the Southern Uplands (an area of notably poor mobile coverage, what with it being a desolate wilderness and everything).

Not scientific. Not compelling. But I thought I'd mention it.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Have you read this article from 9/11 Myths yet, V32?

BTW, nice avatar.

 

[DGM]

Well, I didn't do that. Remember that this was right after 9/11 and everybody was on edge. It would have been my luck that a flight attendant would have spotted me and I would have had to deal with the FAA or local police when I got to Las Vegas, (and for that matter my boss back home).

All experments I have heard of that have monitored their signals inflight have all stated the same thing, basicly NO WAY POSSIBLE. You get above 6,000 ft. that's it, no more signal, period.






So, that leaves me with a problem. Is the 9/11 report wrong and they were not only lower, but MUCH lower way ealier in the flight then perviously thought? And can we pinpoint exactly the entire flightpath, alt. and airspeed and plot it along with the time the phones were used, and which ones?

One issue I've seen with some "experiments" was the type of phone. I know that the older analog phones and service had a much better range than today's digitals.

I think to really evaluate the validity of the cell call claims (from UA 93) you need to know the altitude and more important the type of phone and the planes exact location. That's a lot of investigation to try to disprove a call to someone that has no question about the validity of the call.

ETA My 9 year old can't stop laughing at the elephant on the trampoline.

 

[Gravy]

The flight 93 cell calls that we know got through weren't made at high altitude. That's easily determined by matching the call times with the plane's altitude at those times. That information is at the sites linked above.

But none of that is necessary. This is the real world, not a fantasy world. The calls happened. If you don't think they should have, you need to adjust your beliefs to fit the facts, not vice-versa.

 

[V23]

OK what are your questions?

And what if I said that the best evidence that it was possible to make the phone calls from Flight 93, was that they were, in fact, made?

You are missing the whole point, (and getting defensive to boot).

Of all the CT stuff I have seen, THIS ONE is their "smoking gun".

And in my opinon, this is the one that needs to be debunked, or at least explained to a scientific satisfaction lest we end up hearing about it for the next 50 years.

And even I have to admitt, I have a hard time debunking it with the given evidence.

Now I know that the phone calls were made, and I know they orignated from that plane.

What I don't know is how. Which leads me to one of three theories . . .

1. The 9/11 Commision report is wrong. The plane was lower, and slower, and did it much sooner than the 9/11 report relates. (Which means that the facts they have are faulty). . . . (plausable)

2. The phones that the 4 passengers had were of a type that had enough signal strength that they could reach the cellphone towers, something that up to this point I did not know existed. There has been reports that older analog phones that used more than 5 watts, (old bag phones), could have pulled it off. The idea that all four of these passengers had these kinds of phones is a bit of a streach. . . . (unlikely)

3. The 9/11 Report was wrong and that NONE of the conversations came from cell phones. All came from air phones. Which begs the question now, how many airphones were aboard, and were there enough to go around for the mutiple calls that went on at the same time . . . (unlikey but barely plausable)

If there is another explination, (that doesn't get us into a grand gov. consparicy, mystery flights, and disembodied voices calling family members claiming to be a realtive on flight 93), I want to hear about it

 

[T.A.M.]

143 posts and this is the first time I have seen you post here on the CT subforum. Where have you usually been posting?

The Cell Phone calls, as Gravy has said, are addressed at the site(s) mentioned.

Of those that were made via CELL phone (and not Airfones) most were at lower altitudes. As well, there is no evidence, save a flawed, poorly designed study by a truther wingnut in London Ontario, that proves the calls could not have been made.

There are airfones on the back of every row IIRC, so that would mean plenty to go around.

Use the search function, as this issue has been debated at length, numerous times.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

V23, I don't understand what more you're asking for. You posted the links where this information is immediately available. Specifically what information are you disputing or confused about?

Edit: Oh, perhaps I see what you're looking at. Chippy's livejournal chart shows some cell calls connecting at times that would indicate a higher altitude. He was relying on some inaccurate press sources for that information (the press sometimes reported any calls as "cell phone calls.") The Moussaoui trial chart shows that all but two of the callers, Cee Cee Lyles and Ed Felt, used Airfones, and those calls were made at about 5,000 feet. We know that by the seat numbers where the calls were made.

 

[DGM]

143 posts and this is the first time I have seen you post here on the CT subforum. Where have you usually been posting?

The Cell Phone calls, as Gravy has said, are addressed at the site(s) mentioned.

Of those that were made via CELL phone (and not Airfones) most were at lower altitudes. As well, there is no evidence, save a flawed, poorly designed study by a truther wingnut in London Ontario, that proves the calls could not have been made.

There are airfones on the back of every row IIRC, so that would mean plenty to go around.

Use the search function, as this issue has been debated at length, numerous times.

TAM

Yeah, But you would need a credit card!!!!!

 

[beachnut]

I hope you did you experiment with pre 2001 towers and phones!!!!!! I did, it worked when flying, I am a pilot. Now there is no reason a cell phone can not work in flight; get the technical manuals, they prove it is possible. So, the phone calls on 9/11 are real. Cell phone or not they worked. Your experiment only proves you can't make a call at a certain place in space. But then you have no idea your phone specs, the specs of phones on 9/11 or what, do you? Like Hani can not fly, anyone can, and cell phones can not work, they do. Antidotal evidence is not the stuff of fact.

The cell phone argument is stupid unless you present the tech manuals on the phones. If you find them, and can read and comprehend, you will have scientific proof they can work in flight! You will also learn why they drop off faster and have problems staying connected. Good luck! The last person I discussed this with found the tech manuals of the day (2001 and before) and said see they don't work. She did surprise me that she found them, but she did not let me down with her comprehension, hte manuals said possible, she was busted. Her cult like 9/11 truth status and hate for Bush, coupled with her ignorance on most 9/11 topics made her a complete failure. You can prove they do not work by a antidotal experiment, but gee, I was talking to my mother in flight before 9/11, so you just are not as good as me making things work! But then I amaze myself with the junk I get to move and work! I have a vintage phone, it worked in 2001 in flight, it may work now; have they changed the towers and the energy? Key terms, LOS, line of sight~! power, energy, towers available. Today most phones are digital, my old pre 2001 phone works better than my kids new phones. Why?

BTW, the phone calls on 9/11 are spelled out, you can see which are cell phones. Which ones were?

 

[GT/CS]

You are missing the whole point, (and getting defensive to boot).

Of all the CT stuff I have seen, THIS ONE is their "smoking gun".

And in my opinon, this is the one that needs to be debunked, or at least explained to a scientific satisfaction lest we end up hearing about it for the next 50 years.

And even I have to admitt, I have a hard time debunking it with the given evidence.

Now I know that the phone calls were made, and I know they orignated from that plane.

What I don't know is how. Which leads me to one of three theories . . .

1. The 9/11 Commision report is wrong. The plane was lower, and slower, and did it much sooner than the 9/11 report relates. (Which means that the facts they have are faulty). . . . (plausable)

2. The phones that the 4 passengers had were of a type that had enough signal strength that they could reach the cellphone towers, something that up to this point I did not know existed. There has been reports that older analog phones that used more than 5 watts, (old bag phones), could have pulled it off. The idea that all four of these passengers had these kinds of phones is a bit of a streach. . . . (unlikely)

3. The 9/11 Report was wrong and that NONE of the conversations came from cell phones. All came from air phones. Which begs the question now, how many airphones were aboard, and were there enough to go around for the mutiple calls that went on at the same time . . . (unlikey but barely plausable)

If there is another explination, (that doesn't get us into a grand gov. consparicy, mystery flights, and disembodied voices calling family members claiming to be a realtive on flight 93), I want to hear about it

I'm having a little trouble understanding how you can let this minor detail derail your thinking on 9/11.

If I understand what you are saying you believe almost all the evidence points towards no conspiracy, but you counter all that evidence with not being able to understand how 2 cell phone calls were placed.

One more time, just so I undertand; You don't understand how the 2 calls were placed so you are going to throw out all the other evidence and say 9/11 may have been an inside job.

Am I reading it right?

 

[T.A.M.]

not to mention, we have no idea how many call "attempts" were made. Perhaps 15 or 20 calls were attempted, leaving the connection percentage at about 10-15%...

TAM

 

[V23]

Have you read this article from 9/11 Myths yet, V32?

BTW, nice avatar.

Thanks . . .

and Thank you for the info.

Unfortuatelly, most that is there in regards to what i am speaking of is hearsay, which of it's self, is not bad. Just not what I need to prove anythng conclusively.

The article keeps pointing too that "some" cell phones have this capablilty, while others don't. Which is fine, except am I to believe that all four of the people on the flight who used the cell had the correct kind of cell to make the calls? And secondly, as far as I know, the only kind of phone that can do it is those older "bag" phones.

So nuff said on that point.

And another thing that was covered, but only briefly, was the speed.

As I understand it, the "handoff" or "handshake" that celluar systmes use to move the signal from one tower to another, at best only work at approx. 100mph or lower. Flight 93 was moving in execess of 400-450 knots.

So as far as I am concerned, if they took place at all on a cellphone, it was a REAL BRIEF call. So I am suspisious of any call that came from that plane longer than a minute that is clamed to be from a cell phone, no matter what alt. the plane was at.

 

[Gravy]

TWhich is fine, except am I to believe that all four of the people on the flight who used the cell had the correct kind of cell to make the calls?

Two people. The calls happened. Live with it.