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

[Gravy]

Yes, with any of those phones you could speak to an operator without using a credit card. I did so once.

 

[gumboot]

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

You're missing the most obvious explanation...

4. Those who tested the workability of cellphones at altitude did so in flawed experiments, and in fact mobile phones will work at the altitudes described.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

When I mentioned this on the DU board, someone said, well, phones and networks are better now than they were in 2001.

Actually this isn't entirely true. Network Coverage has certainly increased, but only in terms of surface density, not vertical coverage, so it would not affect the experiment. However due to better surface networks, cellphones are actually considerably weaker than they used to be. Older cellphones (which had to work on a sparse network) tend to maintain a connection in a low coverage area a lot longer than newer phones (which are relying on there being a better network).

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

None of the surveillance video of the four gates at the three airports has been made available; it probably was never made, the cameras having been turned off by someone before the planes were boarded.

The security footage was of the hijackers passing through the security checkpoints, not boarding the flights. There were no cameras at the gate itself.

-Gumboot

 

[A-Train]

The security footage was of the hijackers passing through the security checkpoints, not boarding the flights. There were no cameras at the gate itself.

-Gumboot

The gate itself? What gate are you talking about? There were four boarding gates at three airports. And what security footage are you referring to that shows "hijackers" passing through checkpoints? Sources please.

The truth is we have been shown no credible footage of any of the alleged hijackers moving through any of the three airports involved in 9/11.

At a time when most convenience stores across the country had security cameras, Logan, a major international airport, supposedly had no security cameras in its departure lounges. 3 According to Michael Taylor, president of American International Security Corp, the Newark airport does have video cameras in its departure lounges. So does Dulles International Airport. 4 However, the FBI has refused to release any video from these airports that might prove that the alleged hijackers boarded the flights.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/airportvideo.html

 

[slyjoe]

Actually this isn't entirely true. Network Coverage has certainly increased, but only in terms of surface density, not vertical coverage, so it would not affect the experiment. However due to better surface networks, cellphones are actually considerably weaker than they used to be. Older cellphones (which had to work on a sparse network) tend to maintain a connection in a low coverage area a lot longer than newer phones (which are relying on there being a better network).

-Gumboot

It's not just about coverage either - it is user density. Cell phone power reduction is used to get more users on a cell. The technology matters also - analog vs CDMA vs TDMA. Does anyone know which carriers the two cell calls from UA93 were on?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Is A-train really not aware that no airport gates are filmed? I think he must think that the security check points are gates.

BTW, I was on a flight a month a go and someone's phone rang in flight.

 

[T.A.M.]

I would agree with A-Train on one thing. There is no footage THAT I HAVE SEEN, that is of good enough resolution/quality to positively identify any of the hijackers.

Of course, the plethora of other evidence is more than sufficient.

TAM

 

[AMTMAN]

The gate itself? What gate are you talking about? There were four boarding gates at three airports. And what security footage are you referring to that shows "hijackers" passing through checkpoints? Sources please.

The truth is we have been shown no credible footage of any of the alleged hijackers moving through any of the three airports involved in 9/11.

So I guess the US Airways gate agent that checked Atta in is not credible either.

 

[SDC]

The gate itself? What gate are you talking about? There were four boarding gates at three airports. And what security footage are you referring to that shows "hijackers" passing through checkpoints? Sources please.

The truth is we have been shown no credible footage of any of the alleged hijackers moving through any of the three airports involved in 9/11.

This is, like most Truther arguments, a moot point.There is plenty of information confirming the identity of the hijackers, which has been reviewed and presented ad nauseam (did I get the case ending right?), here and elsewhere.

That A refuses to accept that information is, fundamentally, his problem. The train, to coin a cliche, has long, long ago left the station. A is still on the platform insisting it hasn't, or it's the wrong train, or ... well, anything. In his case the key point is his certainty that the Jews did it -- somehow. But it really doesn't matter.

 

[Ocelot]

Do you think that the St Nicholas church was controlled demo?

No, it was crushed by the Staypuft Marshmallow man. "Nobody steps on a church in my town"

 

[eeyore1954]

You're missing the most obvious explanation...

4. Those who tested the workability of cellphones at altitude did so in flawed experiments, and in fact mobile phones will work at the altitudes described.

-Gumboot

What do you doubt the impartiality and scientific methods of the Achilles Project or whatever it was called?

 

[Dave Rogers]

What do you doubt the impartiality and scientific methods of the Achilles Project or whatever it was called?

Personally I'd make the comment that Dewdney doesn't know jack about mobile phone networks. He claims that the high density of phone masts in London, Ontario means that he should get as good a signal there as anywhere. He clearly doesn't realise that high density means low signal strength; the signal power and sensitivity is lower so that next-nearest-neighbour cells don't interact. In rural locations, with lower mast densities, the signal strength and sensitivity is much higher, and those are the sort of locations where the cellphone calls were made. Since Dewdney starts off such with a fundamental misunderstanding, it doesn't convey much confidence in his work.

Dave

 

[eeyore1954]

Personally I'd make the comment that Dewdney doesn't know jack about mobile phone networks. He claims that the high density of phone masts in London, Ontario means that he should get as good a signal there as anywhere. He clearly doesn't realise that high density means low signal strength; the signal power and sensitivity is lower so that next-nearest-neighbour cells don't interact. In rural locations, with lower mast densities, the signal strength and sensitivity is much higher, and those are the sort of locations where the cellphone calls were made. Since Dewdney starts off such with a fundamental misunderstanding, it doesn't convey much confidence in his work.

Dave

Also Since Dewdney starts off such with a fundamental bias, it doesn't convey much confidence in his work.

Why arent there any other studies or why haven't technicians from the cell phone industry come forward. OF course the obvious conclusion is that the amount of calls that got through is in no way surprising.

But instead of taking the obvious conclusion stories are made up about voice morphing etc. Imagine if it really was an 'inside job' the planners coming up with the idea of faking calls to loved ones of the victims. What a riduculous and unneccessary risk that would have been.

 

[T.A.M.]

A properly conducted study, I think, would have done the following,

(A) obtained versions of the most common cell phones used in 2001, or if possible, found out what the makes of the cell phones were that were used by those who actually made cell phone calls (for UA93, this would have been CeeCee Lyles, and Ed Felt). These should have been the phone types used for the study.

(B) the testing should have been done in a Jet Airliner, 757/767 Class.

(C) the calls should have been placed at speeds and altitudes that matched those of the conditions when the actual cell phone calls were made.

(D) The area over which the planes traveled for the testing should have matched, as near as possible, the areas the actual jets flew over at the time the 9/11 cell phone calls were made.

Of course this is a perfect scenario for the experiment, and the cell networks themselves are different now cw 2001, but Dewdney's failed to even come in almost every aspect.

TAM

 

[nicepants]

Cell phone calls from a plane?

I've seen quite a few twoofers claim that the cell phone calls from flight 93 couldn't have been made because a cell phone can't be used from a plane. They cite, typically, a "study" in which a CTer took some mobile phones up in a cessna and was unable to make calls. Yes, highly scientific.

I wonder what they have to say about this article:

Passenger cited for ignoring repeated requests to get off cell phone during Southwest flight

May 12, 2008: 03:29 PM EST

NEW YORK (Associated Press) - A Southwest Airlines passenger was cited by police Monday for refusing to get off his cell phone during a flight from Austin.​

Police were summoned by Southwest officials and met the plane when it arrived at Love Field. Joe David Jones, 50, was ticketed for disorderly conduct, police said.
Southwest spokeswoman Brandy King said flight attendants asked Jones several times to get off the phone while airborne.
The Federal Aviation Administration bars use of mobile phones when planes are flying due to concerns about interference with the navigation system.
King said airlines can be fined up to $25,000 for allowing cell phone use, while passengers also can be fined.

CTers already think CNN is in on the conspiracy, I guess Southwest airlines is too...

 

[beachnut]

I've seen quite a few twoofers claim that the cell phone calls from flight 93 couldn't have been made because a cell phone can't be used from a plane. They cite, typically, a "study" in which a CTer took some mobile phones up in a cessna and was unable to make calls. Yes, highly scientific.

I wonder what they have to say about this article:



CTers already think CNN is in on the conspiracy, I guess Southwest airlines is too...

I flew, I used the cell phone; noise is a problem in small planes. Line of sight is the key, and how the ground stations work. It there is an cell tower, you can talk. It may not work well, but those pesky cell phone companies are working to make them work all over.

Do not use them in flight, they may interfere with systems on the plane, you could be the next safety meeting footnote.

Cell phones can work in flight. Some crazy woman told me I was nuts, she looked up all the cell phone company tech manuals and said see, they don't work. The tech manuals confirmed they could work.

Reading is great, understanding is priceless.

 

[1337m4n]

They'll probably nitpick at some inconsequential detail like they do every time we present them with an example of a building collapsing entirely from fire.

"Ah, but it was a SOUTHWEST Airlines flight! The 9/11 flights were American Airlines! This proves nothing! LOL."

 

[Blender Head]

I've seen quite a few twoofers claim that the cell phone calls from flight 93 couldn't have been made because a cell phone can't be used from a plane. They cite, typically, a "study" in which a CTer took some mobile phones up in a cessna and was unable to make calls. Yes, highly scientific.

I wonder what they have to say about this article:



CTers already think CNN is in on the conspiracy, I guess Southwest airlines is too...

Was this pre-9/11? No, it wasn't, so how could this prove it happened on 9/11?

/Truther JAQing off

 

[slyjoe]

A previous thread discussing the calls is at:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102247&highlight=cell+phone+Flight