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

[T.A.M.]

you are relying on the accuracy of one person, are you sure he is 100% correct?

TAM

 

[Slayhamlet]

37 calls by cell were made, and 17 were sucessful, that's 46%.

Little under half.

V23, you were disputing the likelihood of the cell phone calls getting a connection, remember? Why are you bringing the airphone calls into it? Do you dispute them as well?

 

[Good Lt]

Four. Deal with it

You haven't provided an alternative explanation that we're aware of. The calls happened, whether you want to believe it or not.

Ignoring the facts does not change them.

Deal with it.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Four. Deal with it

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

No. Your source is wrong. There were only two. You cannot rely on the accuracy of news reports when there is much better information available. This is silly.

 

[GT/CS]

No.

Quit jumping to conclusions. I am not throwing out any evidence. I don't believe that 9/11 is an inside job.

I just don't know how this happened. And I have yet to hear a decent explination of how it occured. And by the way, it was 4 cell phones, and 17 calls, not 2.

Thank you for clarifying that issue. I was hoping you were not throwing out all the other evidence but that’s the way I read our posts and just wanted to make sure. I sincerely apologize if I misunderstood your position and annoyed you.

 

[Gravy]

However, as far as I know, the 9/11 report says otherwise, and that the cell phone conversations started at 9:30 AM and at 30,000 ft.

(Which goes to show that they got their facts wrong as far as I am concerned.)

As far as I know, there is no such information in the 9/11 Commission report.

 

[T.A.M.]

See my problem with listing Sandra Bradshaw as a "cell phone" call, is how the hell would they know what row she was seated in? The only way to know this is (A) she made the calls from the row airfone, or (B) someone in her row or elsewhere made a call, and mentioned that Sandra Bradshaw was in row 33 (extremely, extremely unlikely).

TAM

 

[V23]

the # of cell phones, and calls, is your source the commission report?

TAM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067652/

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp

http://www.touchandchange.com/artman/publish/article_1222.shtml

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/chart.html

I think there is a website that breaks down the 9/11 report on this issue, but I can't find it at this second.

When I do I'll post it.

 

[T.A.M.]

V23's source is 911debunker...the page and chart on flight93 calls. I suspect there is some error within it, likely based on cross referencing with media reports of cell phone use, with the official moussaoui trial data.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

Four. Deal with it

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

Second time: you are being argumentative rather than attentive. Please read my posts.

 

[T.A.M.]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067652/

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp

http://www.touchandchange.com/artman/publish/article_1222.shtml

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/chart.html

I think there is a website that breaks down the 9/11 report on this issue, but I can't find it at this second.

When I do I'll post it.

yes, those are the links that 911debunker used on his/her page as sources.

TAM

 

[V23]

V23, you were disputing the likelihood of the cell phone calls getting a connection, remember? Why are you bringing the airphone calls into it? Do you dispute them as well?

Oh ****. Your'e right. according to what I have in front of me only 7 calls and at most 9 were cell.

I sit corrected.

However, that is still 4 cell phones and at least 7 calls.

 

[Slayhamlet]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067652/

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp

http://www.touchandchange.com/artman/publish/article_1222.shtml

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/chart.html

I think there is a website that breaks down the 9/11 report on this issue, but I can't find it at this second.

When I do I'll post it.

The first two are news reports. Journalists get details wrong in their stories all the time. The second two are dubious sources. None of these invalidate the Moussauoi trial evidence.

 

[V23]

You haven't provided an alternative explanation that we're aware of. The calls happened, whether you want to believe it or not.

Ignoring the facts does not change them.

Deal with it.

Yes I have given you an alternate explination. The possibility that the calls were all from airphones is an alt. explination as well as the plane being lower, sooner is an alt. explination . . .

Are you reading the posts?

 

[T.A.M.]

4 cell phones if you use 911debunker and his 4 sources.
2 cell phones if you go by the interpretation of the moussaoui trial data (Cee Cee Lyles, and Edward Felt)

TAM

 

[V23]

I think that before I go any further with this, my next argument is gonna sound just like a CT, so I am gonna go away and do a little research and come back.

If the Moussaoui Trial exhibits show only two calls, and the information I have says four cell phones, then that is a discrepancy that needs to be figured out before I go any further.

I don't need to come up with a grand theory to figure out why the goverment is covering up all those reported cell phone calls . . .

So, yall fight it out, and I'll be back tomorrow with whatever I find that either supports what I am saying or supports what you guys are saying.

Either way, maybe it will finally answer some questions I have had . . .

 

[T.A.M.]

As well, if Burnett's calls were made from cell phone, then (A) how would they know which row he called from, and (B) how would they know he switch rows between placing calls #2, and #3?

TAM

 

[Good Lt]

If the Moussaoui Trial exhibits show only two calls, and the information I have says four cell phones, then that is a discrepancy that needs to be figured out before I go any further.

I'm sure that this is an important sourcing discrepancy, as the inability to resolve it will prove that 9-11 was an inside job.

Right?

 

[T.A.M.]

Good luck V23, but just remember,

Evidence in a court of law, accepted by defense and prosecution, likely obtained from the airfone companies themselves, is a little more reliable then a news article on the matter.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

I'll be bowing out of this thread. I am nauseated by this insistence on the importance of suspected anomalies about completely insignificant details, when the reality is that real, terrorized people made these calls and spoke their last known words in the real world.