Truthers - Let's talk U93 phone calls

It's funny to watch the troll pull arguments out of his rectum though.
 
Ok my belief is that some of the calls may have been real, and some (as with Ceecee Lyles were fake) For the one's that are real, the general theory goes like this:

"A self-powered cell phone repeater the size of a shoe box is placed on board Flight 93 within a piece of luggage. The repeater is sufficiently powerful to establish reliable connections with ground stations for several minutes at a time, and forwards all the communications between the cell phones aboard the plane and ground stations. The repeater is programmed to broadcast on a separate encrypted channel a duplicate of all the call data in real time, which is monitored by operatives who have ability to block any of the calls at any time. "

To me this is the most straight forward approach, that enable the operatives to still have control of the situation.

I would say hijackings are real (to get these calls CVR...etc), planes are remotely taken over and flown to destinations. Of course there would have to be some work done on the ground to allow remote control possible. At this time they could be landed and drones sent off (this scenario wouldn't necessary require remote control of course), or obviously just flown into the buildings.

These are probably the best scenarios for 93, 11, and 175. 77 (the one that hit the pentagon) is a different matter in my opinion, but do not want to get into that now.
 
little grey rabbit said:
But is a will a valuable document? Why would anyone steal it? Supposing she had died in a car accident, did the secret of the safe combination pass to the grave with her? Why would anyone know she had a will in her safe in the first place?
Click to expand...
You put a will and other documents in a safe so it will survive a fire, not necessarily that you think someone will steal it.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Ok my belief is that some of the calls may have been real, and some (as with Ceecee Lyles were fake) For the one's that are real, the general theory goes like this:

"A self-powered cell phone repeater the size of a shoe box is placed on board Flight 93 within a piece of luggage. The repeater is sufficiently powerful to establish reliable connections with ground stations for several minutes at a time, and forwards all the communications between the cell phones aboard the plane and ground stations. The repeater is programmed to broadcast on a separate encrypted channel a duplicate of all the call data in real time, which is monitored by operatives who have ability to block any of the calls at any time. "

To me this is the most straight forward approach, that enable the operatives to still have control of the situation.

I would say hijackings are real (to get these calls CVR...etc), planes are remotely taken over and flown to destinations. Of course there would have to be some work done on the ground to allow remote control possible. At this time they could be landed and drones sent off (this scenario wouldn't necessary require remote control of course), or obviously just flown into the buildings.

These are probably the best scenarios for 93, 11, and 175. 77 (the one that hit the pentagon) is a different matter in my opinion, but do not want to get into that now.
Click to expand...
Very imaginative tmd, still stupid but you can have a gold star sticker for making up such a bizarrely entertaining story.
 
Craig4 said:
My will and several other important documents are in a fireproof safe. Why is this idea so strange?
Click to expand...
Trolls don't need safes? rabbit thinks we're inventing this common place thing anyway.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Ok my belief is that some of the calls may have been real, and some (as with Ceecee Lyles were fake) For the one's that are real, the general theory goes like this:

"A self-powered cell phone repeater the size of a shoe box is placed on board Flight 93 within a piece of luggage. The repeater is sufficiently powerful to establish reliable connections with ground stations for several minutes at a time, and forwards all the communications between the cell phones aboard the plane and ground stations. The repeater is programmed to broadcast on a separate encrypted channel a duplicate of all the call data in real time, which is monitored by operatives who have ability to block any of the calls at any time. "

To me this is the most straight forward approach, that enable the operatives to still have control of the situation.

I would say hijackings are real (to get these calls CVR...etc), planes are remotely taken over and flown to destinations. Of course there would have to be some work done on the ground to allow remote control possible. At this time they could be landed and drones sent off (this scenario wouldn't necessary require remote control of course), or obviously just flown into the buildings.

These are probably the best scenarios for 93, 11, and 175. 77 (the one that hit the pentagon) is a different matter in my opinion, but do not want to get into that now.
Click to expand...

Jesus, anybody can make stuff up. I could go all James Bond on the story too if I wanted to. Now, if you actually had any evidence that this took place, that would be impressive. As it stands, anybody with half an imagination can come up with this.

Seriously. Just let bill smith take a crack at it. I'm sure between the two of you, you could get an entire screenplay together.
 
Dash80 said:
Very imaginative tmd, still stupid but you can have a gold star sticker for making up such a bizarrely entertaining story.
Click to expand...

Troofers always seem to think the possible is impossible, and the impossible possible.



I was on a flight (first class) back around that time. Sometime during the flight, a cell phone could be heard ringing from the coat closet. The flight attendant found the ringing phone in a jacket pocket (mine) where it had been left and not turned off. Needless to say I got a tongue lashing from the flight attendant. No repeaters, just a standard phone that in those days had greater range because of the lack of towers.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I would say hijackings are real (to get these calls CVR...etc), planes are remotely taken over and flown to destinations. Of course there would have to be some work done on the ground to allow remote control possible. At this time they could be landed and drones sent off (this scenario wouldn't necessary require remote control of course), or obviously just flown into the buildings.
Click to expand...

Mere words are inadequate to describe the galactic stupidity of this post.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Ok my belief is that some of the calls may have been real, and some (as with Ceecee Lyles were fake) For the one's that are real, the general theory goes like this:

"A self-powered cell phone repeater the size of a shoe box is placed on board Flight 93 within a piece of luggage. The repeater is sufficiently powerful to establish reliable connections with ground stations for several minutes at a time, and forwards all the communications between the cell phones aboard the plane and ground stations. The repeater is programmed to broadcast on a separate encrypted channel a duplicate of all the call data in real time, which is monitored by operatives who have ability to block any of the calls at any time. "

To me this is the most straight forward approach, that enable the operatives to still have control of the situation.

I would say hijackings are real (to get these calls CVR...etc), planes are remotely taken over and flown to destinations. Of course there would have to be some work done on the ground to allow remote control possible. At this time they could be landed and drones sent off (this scenario wouldn't necessary require remote control of course), or obviously just flown into the buildings.

These are probably the best scenarios for 93, 11, and 175. 77 (the one that hit the pentagon) is a different matter in my opinion, but do not want to get into that now.
Click to expand...

So, any proof any of this actually happened?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Ok my belief is that some of the calls may have been real, and some (as with Ceecee Lyles were fake) For the one's that are real, the general theory goes like this:

"A self-powered cell phone repeater the size of a shoe box is placed on board Flight 93 within a piece of luggage. The repeater is sufficiently powerful to establish reliable connections with ground stations for several minutes at a time, and forwards all the communications between the cell phones aboard the plane and ground stations. The repeater is programmed to broadcast on a separate encrypted channel a duplicate of all the call data in real time, which is monitored by operatives who have ability to block any of the calls at any time. "
Click to expand...

First of all....

Most of the connected calls weren't cell phone calls anyway...

But with that said.....

A cellular phone signal is capable of connecting with a cell tower (even with the directional anteanns before you try to bring that up) at crusing attitudes. A cellular tower signal is capable of connecting with the cell phone at crusing attitudes.

There are several factors that will affect this connection...but it is definately possible at altitude.

There are two issues with using cell phones at altitude:

1. There is the potential for your cell phone to interfere with systems on the plane...especially is there is unshielded or damaged cable. While this is unlikely IMO....the possibility does exist.

2. The cell phone Network was not originally designed to handle calls from a transmitter with the altitude and speed of an airliner. Thus, in theory, you could connect with several towers at once (due to the clear LOS from you to the towers...no ground obstructions) which could cause dropped calls for users on the ground or other unwanted affects (like you not being properly billed). There is also the chance of your call being dropped repeatedly due to you moving very quickly from one "cell" to another.



Bottom line....some of the issues with using cell phones on airplanes exist precisely because is is possible to make calls from altitude...
 
Craig4 said:
My will and several other important documents are in a fireproof safe. Why is this idea so strange?
Click to expand...
Truthers living in mama's basement don't have any documents they need to protect from fire, so it seems strange to them that adults commonly do have such documents.
 
WildCat said:
Truthers living in mama's basement don't have any documents they need to protect from fire, so it seems strange to them that adults commonly do have such documents.
Click to expand...
Neither do they understand fire itself.
 
tmd2_1 said:
"A self-powered cell phone repeater the size of a shoe box is placed on board Flight 93 within a piece of luggage. The repeater is sufficiently powerful to establish reliable connections with ground stations for several minutes at a time, and forwards all the communications between the cell phones aboard the plane and ground stations. The repeater is programmed to broadcast on a separate encrypted channel a duplicate of all the call data in real time, which is monitored by operatives who have ability to block any of the calls at any time. "

To me this is the most straight forward approach, that enable the operatives to still have control of the situation.
Click to expand...

tmd, I have seen some real classics from truthers throughout the years. This is one of them. And from a "JREF" truther no less....I mean, come on, your post is of the "youtube" or "IMDB" truther quality.

I expect so much more from a JREF truther.....

[facepalm]
 
little grey rabbit said:
Is this an American thing? As I said, I have never known anyone to have a safe.

I think it is common in Australia to store your will with the Public Trustee (run by the state governments). Don't you have something similar in the US of A?
Click to expand...
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-..._gc.r_pw.&fp=ce3884293190aba3&biw=924&bih=454

  1. Lorrin Lee Home Safe System - Wills. Trusts. Probate. Deeds ...

    lorrinlee.com/homesafe/
    "To ORGANIZE your LIFE and store all your valuable documents in ONE location — a protected fireproof and waterproof Home Safe System. With this system ...
  2. I N T E G R I T Y - Residential Home Safes

    www.integrity.nu/products.aspx?cc=1,1072,1000 - Australia
    For the protection and safe keeping of important documents such as passports, deeds and wills, a home safe is a logical solution. But why limit the use of a safe ...
  3. National Will Safe Ltd

    www.nationalwillsregister.org.uk/
    Home, Welcome to National Will Safe ... Wills are returned to you or your Will writer - free of charge at any time. Wills are returned to your Executors when ...
  4. Storing Wills & Trusts | eHow.com

    www.ehow.com › Personal Finance
    Gardening & Plants; Landscaping; Interior Design; Home Improvement ... Storing Wills & Truststhumbnail ... Home safes come in a variety of styles and sizes. ...
  5. Are Home Safes Worth the Money?

    www.untwistedvortex.com/2011/06/29/home-safes-worth-money/
    1 post - Last post: Jun 29
    For most people, a home safe is an occasional passing thought that never ... copies of insurance and mortgage papers, wills, vehicle titles, etc? ...
  6. Home Fire Safes - Mancini Safe Company

    www.mancinisafe.com/FireResistant.htm
    All of our fire resistant home safes are tested in ovens that reach temperatures over ... 1-Hour Fire Label that will protect important documents: wills, deeds, birth ...
  7. 30 Minute Fire Rated Safes : VaultandSafe.com

    www.vaultandsafe.com/sentry_30_minute_fire_rated_safes.shtml
    Vault and Safe is the #1 source for high quality 30 Minute Fire Rated Safes to ... insurance records, and wills are safe in the event of an average house fire. ...
  8. Home-safes for protecting irreplaceable items

    www.1st-diy-home-surveillance-guide.com/Home-safes.html
    Among your documents you certainly value citizenship certificates and property rights, insurance and bank papers, contracts, wills etc. Many Home-safes are ...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
newton3376 said:
Why would someone have to blow up a safe little gray rabbit?

You don't believe in voice morphing little grey rabbit? I'm proud of you :)....now keep using that little grey brain of yours little grey rabbit and soon you won't believe in any of the truth movements fantasies...I hope you can do that little grey rabbit.
Click to expand...

LOL! Haahahaha! I haven't laughed this hard in a long time! You totally made my day.. Little Grey Rabbit? WHO has a screen name like that?!

Anyway, my family puts important documents in a safe. It's not necessarily to protect them from theft, but from damage incase of a house fire. If your house burns down, at least you'll have whatever you locked securely in the safe. A 'will' would be one of those documents.
 
Last edited:
USAFMXOfficer said:
tmd, I have seen some real classics from truthers throughout the years. This is one of them. And from a "JREF" truther no less....I mean, come on, your post is of the "youtube" or "IMDB" truther quality.

I expect so much more from a JREF truther.....

[facepalm]
Click to expand...

It's simply a hypothesis. It explains why cell phones that seemingly would not work on planes, or at least not connect as often as they appeared to, did on that day. And how operatives could still maintain control. As I've stated the hijackings could be real, the calls real, and it wouldn't change my mind in the slightest about 9/11.
 
newton3376 said:
First of all....

Most of the connected calls weren't cell phone calls anyway...

But with that said.....

A cellular phone signal is capable of connecting with a cell tower (even with the directional anteanns before you try to bring that up) at crusing attitudes. A cellular tower signal is capable of connecting with the cell phone at crusing attitudes.

There are several factors that will affect this connection...but it is definately possible at altitude.

There are two issues with using cell phones at altitude:

1. There is the potential for your cell phone to interfere with systems on the plane...especially is there is unshielded or damaged cable. While this is unlikely IMO....the possibility does exist.

2. The cell phone Network was not originally designed to handle calls from a transmitter with the altitude and speed of an airliner. Thus, in theory, you could connect with several towers at once (due to the clear LOS from you to the towers...no ground obstructions) which could cause dropped calls for users on the ground or other unwanted affects (like you not being properly billed). There is also the chance of your call being dropped repeatedly due to you moving very quickly from one "cell" to another.

Bottom line....some of the issues with using cell phones on airplanes exist precisely because is is possible to make calls from altitude...
Click to expand...

Please provide evidence that a cell phone will work at cruising altitude. I've left my phone on during takeoff and witnessed the lost signal far before reaching cruising altitude, not very long after takeoff. Was technology better in 2001?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom