How 9/11 was done

[lapman]

AKD is a nutcase on cell phones, and his work has nothing to do with 9/11 and 19 terrorist; the same as you being off topic on Iraq, and money problems are. 9/11 truth big problem, focus, and they have zero evidence. Fact is cell phones CAN work in flight.

The technical papers on cell phones from 2001, flying does not mean the cell phone will not work. I am an electrical engineer and a pilot with over 34 years of experience; I have used a cell phone in aircraft it worked, the hardest thing was the noise in my planes, “him mom, this is keith” is hard to hear in a noisy plane! As an engineer, I read the cell phone tech manuals and found out cell phones CAN work in flight. Reading, it is fundamental.

What you have is hearsay, and lack of research. Most the phone calls were done on the super secret seat phones. ... why do you continue to repeat wrong points on 9/11? The work you cite says cell phones can work; otherwise the work is bogus.

The "Airphones were removed from airliners before 2001" fallacy wil be used by 9/11-investigator in 3..2..1..

 

[twinstead]

The cell phone calls HAVE to be declared impossible, even if there's no evidence to support it, so truthers can make up exotic, perhaps alien reverse-engineered voice morphing and super-human surveillance and intelligence gathering technology to explain why NONE of the loved ones who received those calls have ever reported being suspicious they were faked.

I'll tell you what, there's NO technology on Earth that could fool me into thinking I was talking to my daughter when I really wasn't.

Accepting those calls were made from the plane is too dangerous to their fantasies.

 

[DGM]

I'm sure you tried your phone at 100,000 feet at least.

No. Why should I? (I suspect this is a metric conversion problem)

With all due respect, but who should care about your video?

No one actually. What I'd like to know, Why do you take every video that agrees with you as fact?

Prof. Dewdney was for many years the editor of the mathematical recreations column in Scientific American, taking over from Martin Gardner and Douglas Hofstadter. He is also the author of various books on mathematics and computing, including The Planiverse, The Tinkertoy Computer, and others...

Not the CV of an idiot. He is now on the 'terrorist suspect list'. This says a lot more about the current regime than about prof. Dewdney, would you not agree?

Do you just take his word that he's on a no fly list?

Do you have any proof?

William Rodriguez (you know "the last man out") claimed to be on this list, yet he seems to be able to fly around spreading the "truth".

 

[dtugg]

You know, now that I think about it, a joooo job makes perfect sense. Those evil, conniving jooooos faked the Holocast, fooling the entire world except for geniuses like Christopher Bollyn, while besmirching the good name of Adolph Hitler in order to get the United Nations to help steal Israel from the Arabs. Likewise, those evil, conniving joooos faked the 9/11 OCT, fooling the entire world except for geniuses like Christopher Bollyn, while besmirching the good name of Osama bin Laden in order to get the United States to help fight the Arabs. It all comes together, folks.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Prof. Dewdney was for many years the editor of the mathematical recreations column in Scientific American, taking over from Martin Gardner and Douglas Hofstadter. He is also the author of various books on mathematics and computing, including The Planiverse, The Tinkertoy Computer, and others...

Not the CV of an idiot.

Handy tip for future debates: when an appeal to authority has been refuted on content, attempts to bolster the authority do not reinforce the original argument. Dewdney can be as intelligent as you like and still wrong.

Dave

 

[9/11-investigator]

Handy tip for future debates: when an appeal to authority has been refuted on content, attempts to bolster the authority do not reinforce the original argument. Dewdney can be as intelligent as you like and still wrong.

Dave

Thanks for your (self serving) advice. The problem is that he has not been refuted at all. He undertook positive action, rented a plane and went up in the skies to test an hypothesis with damning results for guys like you. And you are always asking loud for proof. What more proof do you want?

I'm still waiting for any experimental results from the debunking camp. I can probably wait until I weigh an ounce, as the Dutch saying goes.

 

[~enigma~]

You know, now that I think about it, a joooo job makes perfect sense. Those evil, conniving jooooos faked the Holocast, fooling the entire world except for geniuses like Christopher Bollyn, while besmirching the good name of Adolph Hitler in order to get the United Nations to help steal Israel from the Arabs. Likewise, those evil, conniving joooos faked the 9/11 OCT, fooling the entire world except for geniuses like Christopher Bollyn, while besmirching the good name of Osama bin Laden in order to get the United States to help fight the Arabs. It all comes together, folks.

Still don't understand why some idiots hold him in such a high regard then turn around and claim his final solution was a dismal failure since the jews themselves had to fake it. Wouldn't it make more sense then if they held the jews in high regard?

 

[Alt+F4]

The whole cell phone story (4 in flight175, 2 in flight77 and 8 in flight93) is based on a lie. Just as the rest of the OCT. The fake calls were necessary to plant the Arabs-did-it story in the public consciousness.

Who faked the phone calls and how did they do it?

 

[Sabrina]

Thanks for your (self serving) advice. The problem is that he has not been refuted at all. He undertook positive action, rented a plane and went up in the skies to test an hypothesis with damning results for guys like you. And you are always asking loud for proof. What more proof do you want?

I'm still waiting for any experimental results from the debunking camp. I can probably wait until I weigh an ounce, as the Dutch saying goes.

Apparently you aren't READING the responses to you then.

Several individuals here have told you that they have attempted the exact same experiment and WERE able to get cell phone signals; they even explained why Dewdney did not receive said signals and why they did. You simply choose to ignore it, as per usual, because it doesn't fit in with your narrow, biased perspective. It's amazing to me the capability you demonstrate to ignore anything that debunks your theory while simultaneously embracing every random thing that does, even when there is no evidence for the things you embrace and countless examples of evidence for the things you dismiss.

In all honesty, watching you is a fascinating case study of the human capacity for self-delusion. Were I to pursue a higher degree in psychology than I already have, I think I'd focus on that arena, considering I'd have numerous examples in the 9/11 "truth movement" to observe.

 

[A W Smith]

Thanks for your (self serving) advice. The problem is that he has not been refuted at all. He undertook positive action, rented a plane and went up in the skies to test an hypothesis with damning results for guys like you. And you are always asking loud for proof. What more proof do you want?

I'm still waiting for any experimental results from the debunking camp. I can probably wait until I weigh an ounce, as the Dutch saying goes.

Yes. dewdney has been refuted . deal with it.

This from flight 1989 that same day

The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight.

dewdney published his paper first in a site dedicated to holocaust denial and historical revisionism. Thats all we need to know about his credibility and agenda. He doesn't even deserve to have the first letter of his name capitalized.
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/3/Dewdney248-271.html

 

[ElMondoHummus]

A while back I tried it myself during a 40 minute flight from Berlin to Amsterdam. I do not think we were even near 15.000 feet. No provider appeared on my display. And that was 2006.

Here is the test report done by prof. A.K. Dewdney in a Cessna 4 seater aircraft from 2003 over the skies of London/Ontario/Canada, in 2004 repeated in a larger aircraft, financed by a Japanese film crew.

Quote from the article: "It should be remarked that not only is the cellphone technological base in Canada identical to its US counterpart, but Canadian communication technology is second to none, Canada being a world-leader in research and development.". Do I hear any protests?

Mind you, this aircraft had minimal Faraday Cage effects in contrast with regular passenger aircraft.

Problems making connections started past 6000 feet. Mind you in small aircraft circling above the ground station low speed with no Faraday Cage effect.

Your debunker article refers to exactly this research. Obviously your article does not refer to any positive research that calls from airliners are in fact possible. There is no research. On top of that, I am a very frequent flyer (over Europe) but I never ever experienced that somebodies phone went off in mid air during a flight, which cannot be said from theater's of cinema's where one is also explicitly asked to switch the thing off.

Here is a recent video (july 2007) of prof. A.K. Dewdney where he is reporting on behalf of a conference on said research on the possibility of making cell phone calls from aircraft. He can no longer attend this kind of conference in person. As a consequence of his earlier 2003/2004 research he is now put on a no-fly list by the same government you are all so vigorously defending here. He is a 'terrorist suspect' now.

He explains how cell phone's work in combination with ground stations.

Prof. Dewdney's conclusion: in a normal passenger airliner the ability to make phone calls cuts off radically above 2000 feet. As an extra consideration: at low altitude's it is equally impossible to make phone calls due to the high speed of the passenger aircraft. By the time the cell phone and the ground station have established a connection via a handshake procedure, the connection is cut off because the plane has moved into a new block.

The whole cell phone story (4 in flight175, 2 in flight77 and 8 in flight93) is based on a lie. Just as the rest of the OCT. The fake calls were necessary to plant the Arabs-did-it story in the public consciousness.

Thanks for your (self serving) advice. The problem is that he has not been refuted at all. He undertook positive action, rented a plane and went up in the skies to test an hypothesis with damning results for guys like you. And you are always asking loud for proof. What more proof do you want?

I'm still waiting for any experimental results from the debunking camp. I can probably wait until I weigh an ounce, as the Dutch saying goes.

You see, this is what I meant earlier about comparing your claims against sites like 9/11 Myths and Debunking 9/11. The issue of making cell phones calls from jetliners is not a theoretical one. On the contrary, cell phone use from altitude has been actively reported prior to and on 9/11:

"Although many airplanes have public "air phones," passengers flinch at the fee of $6 per minute. (Airlines get a cut of the profits, which casts suspicion on why airlines want to keep cell phones turned off in the air.) Despite government regulation, or perhaps because of it, chatting above the clouds on a cell phone has proved irresistible for some. I've seen passengers hunkered in their seats, whispering into Nokias. I've watched frequent fliers scurry for a carry-on as muffled ringing emanates from within. Once, after the lavatory line grew to an unreasonable length, I knocked on the door. A guilt- ridden teenager emerged. She admitted that she'd been in there for half an hour, talking to her boyfriend on a cell phone."
http://www.caa.co.za/Public/Air Rage/docs/cellp0622-01.html

"People have been communicating wirelessly from the main cabin since there have been wireless devices (never mind those overpriced satellite phones). A few years ago, I reported that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was looking the other way while air travelers were firing up their personal digital assistants (PDAs) in-flight and checking e-mail. I have personally used a cell phone on a plane, and I have flown next to people who have used their cell phones, particularly when they are over a populated area or flying at a lower altitude. What is new is that the FAA appears ready to sanction equipment designed to send and receive wireless signals onboard."
http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusin...ications/flying-with-cell-phones-5-myths.aspx

"I sat next to a woman who answered her cell phone at 30,000 feet, just above Mt Adams, on my way to Seattle. She answered to tell the person that she couldn't talk to them as she was on a plane."
http://www.gadling.com/2005/12/05/flight-observations-and-questions/

"Over the course of three months in late 2003, we investigated the possibility that portable electronic devices interfere with a plane's safety instruments by measuring the RF spectrum inside commercial aircraft cabins. What we found was disturbing. Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations, and sometimes during the especially critical flight phases of takeoff and landing."
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar06/3069

From: http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html
Further reading:
http://www.911myths.com/html/the_9_11_calls_weren_t_real.html
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Cellphone_calls_faked
Google returns on search of JREF forum for "cell+phone+altitude"

There is no need for us to conduct experiments on this issue; the ability has already been amply demonstrated. You would have realized this had you taken the trouble to compare your claim against the sites I refer to. It is established already that cell phone calls can be made from altitude. Dewdney's experiment does not change that. At best, he merely demonstrates that at a later date, under conditions not present on 9/11, calls can fail. The results of his experiment do not properly extrapolate to 9/11.

Furthermore, you do not take into account the flaws in Dewdney's experiment:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/AK_Dewdney_and_Project_Achilles

Bottom line is that there is a difference between attempts over urban areas - the areas Dewdney overflew during his experiment - and the general countryside. Towers in more populated areas are more densely packed, and in order to account for interference, do not broadcast at same power as ones in less densely populated areas. Stronger signals out in the countryside means more range. Which is another reason the results of his experiment should not be extrapolated to 9/11. He's testing a fundamentally different set of conditions.

Also, if you try to make the altitude argument, stop and consider when some of the calls were made. Barbara Olsen's calls, for example, were made at a time when FL77 was at 7,000-some feet. And 38 miles from the Pentagon, and Washington DC itself (so it was not over an urban area). Ed Felt's and Cece Lyle's calls were made at a time when radar showed FL93 at 5,000 some feet. All of those are within the altitude that Dewdney's himself says he made a successful connection at.

On top of all that, your own stated failure to connect is irrelevant. First of all, it's merely one single attempt. Second, you forget that back in 2001, cell phones used more power in their transmissions than they do today. Your case also does not reflect the conditions that existed in 2001.

And beyond all of this, you fail to falsify all the calls by claiming cell phones can't connect at altitude. You seem to forget that many of the calls were made from seatback airphones as well.

Dewdney's experiment fails to support the assertion that the calls weere not possible, and fails to falsify reports of such calls connecting prior to 9/11. Your argument fails on that point alone, nevermind the lack of evidence for any claim that they were faked.

Again, I urge you to compare your claims against basic information sites before you bring them here, such as this forums archives, Gravy's links stickied in this subforum, 9/11 Myths, Debunking 9/11, etc. It does not reflect well on your arguments that we don't have to think very hard to answer them, and that instead we need only refer to already compiled sources and quote from them to refute your claims.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thanks for your (self serving) advice. The problem is that he has not been refuted at all. He undertook positive action, rented a plane and went up in the skies to test an hypothesis with damning results for guys like you. And you are always asking loud for proof. What more proof do you want?

A properly constructed experiment that makes a credible attempt to reproduce the specific conditions under which the phone calls were made, would be a good start. Dewdney didn't succeed in doing that, as has been pointed out in the posts you ignored in favour of replying to mine.

Let's go through a quick tutorial on mobile phone cell systems. Different towers use different radio wavelengths, so that signals don't get picked up in error by more than one phone tower. However, the number of wavelengths available is limited, so the transmitter power and the receiver sensitivity has to be kept low enough that the signals from the next nearest neighbour cell, which may be using the same wavelength, are weak enough not to be picked up. Therefore, the more densely packed the cellphone towers, the shorter their range.

Dewdney's experiment was done over a city, where the transmission power and receiver sensitivity of the mobile phone reception equipment is deliberately set low so that signals aren't picked up from next-nearest-neighbour cells which may be as close as a hundred metres away. In that environment it's not surprising that calls can't be made from above 8,000 feet. The cellphone calls made on 9/11 were at low altitudes anyway, and they were made over rural areas, where the spacing between towers was several kilometres and the tower range proportionately greater. The fact that Dewdney seems unaware of this distinction demonstrates that, whatever his general level of physics understanding, he knows very little about the workings of cellular telephony systems. The majority of the 9/11 calls were made on airphones, which are designed to work from airliners at altitude because that's their primary purpose.

For more information, as usual, 9/11 Myths has a wealth of links and quotes. For example, on http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html, you'll find a number of statements from various people outlining the capabilities and limitations of cellphone use from aircraft in flight.

The end result is that it can't be proved that all the calls definitely could have been made, but neither is it possible to prove that they couldn't, and in fact it's not particularly surprising that some, though not all, of the attempts to make calls from cellphones on 9/11 had some limited degree of success. That's a little more complex than simply reading one source that claims that cellphones can't be used from airliners and taking it as irrefutable fact. Unfortunately, that's reality for you; it's complex and sometimes counter-intuitive, and it can't be relied on to support your predetermined conclusions.

Dave

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng

The dog and pony show better known as NIST finally admitted that WTC7 did come down with free fall speed. They had to.

In minute 2:45 a NIST immigrant worker (doing work Americans do not want to do?) explains to us, after some hesitation, that gravity applies to all objects on earth and not just in Ground Zero.

(Where would we be without the giants from NIST I ask you? Thanks Dr. Sundar for telling us. Now please carry on...)

7:27 look at the body language of the NIST employee, he is really feeling uncomfortable! The last time I looked like that was when I was 7 years old and had to admit to my mother that I had taken a cookie from the jar without permission.

8:40 Thank god another immigrant worker comes to the aid of mr Gross and promises that they will correct the mistake in a next version of the report.

Poor NIST. They finally admitted that they do understand the difference between constant velocity and constant acceleration after all.

That was August. In December (after more than 7 years of cover-up) they did come up with a new report in which they finally conceded that during 2.5 seconds there was free fall speed. This has the following implications:

http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility911/visibility911_chandler.mp3

mp3 21:00 - This means that the WTC7 building acted as if for an equivalent of 7-8 stories the 28 steel columns were basically removed. And the only way for this to happen is in a situation of controlled demolition.

And that means that the OCT is out and my opponents are out of business.

Everybody knew this by just looking at the imploding building. Here again is the reaction of a Dutch demolition expert who brings down buildings on a daily basis. And this also fits perfectly with the BBC who told the world that WTC7 had collapsed while it was still visible behind the lovely reporter. ... proving without a shadow of a doubt that the implosion of WTC7 was a scripted event, just like the implosions of WTC1/2 had been scripted events, given the behavior of the 'dancing Israelis'.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Just as an illustration with what kinda guy we are dealing here:

NEW YORK (Associated Press) - A judge says developer Larry Silverstein cannot recover more from the aviation industry than the $2.8 billion value of the World Trade Center if his lawsuits succeed.

Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein made the determination in a ruling filed Thursday. The decision carried Wednesday's date.

Hellerstein rejected Silverstein's claims that his company would be entitled to as much as $16.2 billion from American Airlines, United Airlines and other aviation defendants.

Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning.

 

[Alt+F4]

And that means that the OCT is out and my opponents are out of business.

Just who is out of business, besides Bush & Cheney?

 

[twinstead]

Oh, and do you have any further comment on the cell phone issue 9/11-investigator? Do you agree that declaring them 'impossible' and adjusting your theory accordingly is totally wrong? Are you starting to see that basing a theory on pre-determined conclusions is not only totally wrong, but makes people tend to laugh at you too?

 

[Senenmut]

911 investigator-
did they trace the signals from the phones off the towers they bounced off of?? this would clear things up perhaps.

 

[TjW]

Just as an illustration with what kinda guy we are dealing here:

NEW YORK (Associated Press) - A judge says developer Larry Silverstein cannot recover more from the aviation industry than the $2.8 billion value of the World Trade Center if his lawsuits succeed.

Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein made the determination in a ruling filed Thursday. The decision carried Wednesday's date.

Hellerstein rejected Silverstein's claims that his company would be entitled to as much as $16.2 billion from American Airlines, United Airlines and other aviation defendants.

Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning.

But doesn't this ruling put a crimp in the idea that the government and Silverstein were in cahoots?

If Silverstein and the government were conspiring, the ruling should have gone in his favor.

 

[doobiedoright]

Has to be the best example ever of the moving goalpost!
Just how many times is one aloud to change the subject in a thread?
We have seen calls cant be done,must have been explosives,could not of been explosives had to be thearmite,jews are bad,Silverstein's is lucky,bail out the auto manufacturer's and so and so forth.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for topic

 

[9/11-investigator]

But doesn't this ruling put a crimp in the idea that the government and Silverstein were in cahoots?

If Silverstein and the government were conspiring, the ruling should have gone in his favor.

Here is my list of conspirators with which I can explain (so far) the events of 9/11. I never said that the American of even Israeli government ever conspired regarding 9/11. That does not mean that both governments where not both very 'receptive' about the events. They accepted the challenge that came with it whole heartedly.

And Hellerstein is a judge, not 'the government'. The central idea about 9/11 was not to make Larry rich (that was a nice spin-off, like that pre-9/11 airline put options were), but to enable the US to attempt a global coup d'état and for Israel to get the services of 200,000 American military personnel for free to 'muck out' the Middle East (that's 1 million man year since 2003 to be paid by the American tax payer. That's you).

Maybe that Hellerstein, who is Jewish himself, is somewhat more sensitive than Silverstein and does not want to rock the boot too much and provoke 'anti-semitism'.