Jourles
Well, call me silly, but I just typed some search string like 'rate of climb 757' (not 'cause 757's were involved in 9/11, but 'cause it is a representative type in common use) into Yahoo! and found a bullitin board for pilots where it was discussed. I am talking about how quickly a plane would be above this 2k ft altitude above which cell calls are 'impossible'. I don't recall the original search string, but the one above I just used yields this;
http://www.757.org.uk/sops/sop3.html
This gives roc as 1,000-2,000 fpm after the first thousand feet of altitude. So, either from a technical website or a Forum for pilots I am correct in saying if cell-phone calls are impossible above 2k ft then all the calls would have to be made in the first minute or so (initial climb would typically be faster until reaching the Aa), or the last couple of minutes (if you do the maths for rod and recommended height at 40nm).
I'm sure people would notice all those calls being made, maybe even cabin staff...
I'm enjoying this by the way, it's fun to have a discussion with someone who actually does know what they're talking about on a technical discussion over 9/11 - even if I don't agree with them. As regards the study;
We could easily identify CDMA cellphone signals in the frequency spectrum analysis by their correlation to prescribed CDMA channels, their relatively wide bandwidth (1.23 MHz), and a distinctive flat top. In other words, it is almost impossible to miss the "Bart Simpson hairdo" profile of a CDMA call. It was harder to identify other cellphone signals unambiguously, such as TDMA or those of older analog phones. While the particular technology associated with these signals could not be identified, there is little doubt that they were cellular in nature, given the high emission level typically observed.
We were able to clearly identify some cellphone signals that originated from on board the aircraft [again, see chart, "Cellular Stands Out"]. Ours was a conservative estimate, since a call made at the other end of the cabin from the instrumentation would be below the threshold we could observe. Our measurements also found emissions from other onboard sources?devices used by passengers?in the frequency used by GPS.
Our research shows clearly that, in violation of FCC and FAA rules, calls are regularly made from commercial aircraft. Results from our analysis imply that calls from on board scheduled commercial aircraft in the eastern United States occur at a rate of one to four per flight. In addition, we saw other signals that suggest that at least one passenger neglects to turn off his or her cellphone on most flights
As we don't have the data we need to resolve this, I've e-mailed Bill and asked when the calls were made. If the e-mail is still current I hope I will get a reply. Oh, whilst looking for his e-mail I found this;
A few years ago I was caught in the roughest descent I'd ever experienced in a commercial airplane. As the pilot's voice came on, informing us that San Francisco was unapproachable and we were being redirected to Oakland, passengers began making cell-phone calls to their rides -- hiding the phones from flight attendants, of course, since a federal law prohibits cellular calls on an airplane.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16675&ch=infotech
So, those people calling were between 2k ft and 10k ft? Golly gee, more impossible things being done, AGAIN.
Pleasuredome
Have you actually researched that question? The links below might help a bit. I can provide the answer but honestly, I'm getting bored of the subject and it is really not rocket science (not that there's anything wrong with your head) to figure it all out, you just have to put the time in.
One example of the misdirection used by Conspiracists is over the passenger lists. Provisional lists, lists not taking into account one passenger had two tickets (anti-social or morbidly obese?), lists of VICTIMS (thus not hijackers), lists where names are not published at the request of the deceased family, all presented in such a way as to make it look like something going on when it isn't. It's hearing voices in static, getting a signal out of what's just noise.
I know people are dubious about al-Q links, saying the video was forged; they're less chatty about the fact recent video releases have shown old Bin Laden 'fessing up. I suppose they are all forged too? And what about what we know for certain; that in the '70's and '80's the US government pursued policies that portrayed Russia as far greater a risk than it actually was, gaining support for massive millitary spending (thus spreading plenty of money around) and forcing the USSR into bankrupcy. Chances of a raproachment (sp?) between the USA and the USSR were sabotaged by US foreign policy.
And now we have another enemy to fear, in worse than the red menace as they were over there and this new lot strike into the hearts of us. A newer better fear to get the public to back massive millitary spending (ch-ching). What they've spent on Iraq would by now pay for clean drinking watr for 95% of the planets population (so I've read). But you don't get to create a war economy at peace, and bolting pipes together in Africa doesn't actually put a lot of money in American pockets, as given the funding it's possible with local labour. The same bunch of neo-Con's behind Reagan are behind Bush. USA Inc.. Lovely. And that's fricking REAL.
Thus my rather dismisisve attitude to most of this guff.
seawolf
You're right, I stand corrected regarding 'pull'. I actually (previously) tried to find instances of it being used in that context, but obviously missed them.
However, how many Wall Street Execs know industry slang? your response to this is incomprehensible;
Really? That's bad logic. I guess reading a cult book on Jehovah's Witnesses written by an author that was never a Jehovah's Witness and doesn't know the lingo is a waste of time?
Errrr.... no, someone not exposed to JW's or irregulary exposed to JW's might not know a Dubbie term (Lord's Evening Meal or Kingdom Hall for example, or misuse a term.
However;
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
... and;
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
... really do not support a demolition hypothesis for any of the buildings. 7 WTC alone collapsed over c. 40 seconds (see 5-23 of above pdf file), was far more damaged than the partial truths Conspiracists specialise in (http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm) and an early withdrawl from the vicinity was ordered ("Fire Chiefs at the scene advised all units to stay away from 7 WTC because of the collapse dangers"). Here's the quote on motion sensors;
Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.
http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html
Additional quotes like this;
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445989
... seem to be ignored by Conspiracists as they make their claims impossible, as are quotes like this;
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
... which explain how easy it is for someone to make semantic hay whilst the sunshines, and make unsupported claims of explosions when there was massive damage;
We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what?s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn?t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn?t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we?re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn?t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn?t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I?m standing next to said, that building doesn?t look straight. So I?m standing there. I?m looking at the building. It didn?t look right, but, well, we?ll go in, we?ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody?s going into 7, there?s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445989
... fires which burned unchecked;
... and enough evidence of a gradual weakening of the building, subsidence and finally a slow collapse which was not that symetrical at all - that's attested to very clearly in the above links, if you take the trouble to read them.
And there's the rub. I can find this stuff, so can you. You not finding comprehensive and reliable explantions for events on 9/11 like the WTC7 collapse is simply due to you not looking for it, as you like the Conspiracy idea, you like feeling you are holding special knowledge the vast majority don;t have the wit to access. This is the psychology prevailing in Conspiracists; an elite distain for the majority.
It seems just like some people expect a 757 with a crumpled nose on the Pentagon lawn like a fender bender in a Wal-Mart carpark, some expect a collapsing building to fall like a tree. The c-o-g of the structure was such that to collapse significantly off-base its top would have to be meters out of alignment. People see it and think 'oo, it looks like a demoltion'. They see spurts out of the side of the building in advance of the downwards collapse, and think they are explosions, ignoring the compression of air by the collapse blowing debris out of windows in advance of the collapse itself. They hear lots of bangs and assume it is an explosion rather than perimeter colums giving way or massive concrete floors smashing into each other. They see moltien metal dripping from a window, and despite the fact every 2lbs of steel beam would need 0.13 lb of thermite, despite the fact there's no way such a quantity of material could be placed in secret, they assume it was a demolition. They ignore the possibility it was molten aluminum from plane debris, contaminated with organics and plastics from the offices and thus glowing a darker colour than ally normally does.
Which is why I think coming up with such an unsupported, contrieved and fanciful explanation for the collapse when the entire sequence is explicable using the 'official story' is akin to speculating on the existence of a Creator simply 'cause one can't understand evolution. It is an argument from incredulity, a deliberate selection of a highly complex and unlikely scenario when there is one that fits what happened perfectly well. Whatever happened to Occam's Razor?
And, come on. The bull over passenger lists etc.. do people seriously think that there would be silly little flaws like that if it WAS a Conspiracy??? If the buildings WERE demolished, then there is obviously scope for it going balls-up as it's a large complex action, but the release of documents is something that can be controlled far more finely - and if you actually look at the so-called-issues with the lists they melt away as links provided in above posts by myself illustrate.
skyking
Boy that disprove everything that all the facts about the cell phones,
What, that cell calls made c.5k ft were impossible when Conspiracists make them at 8k ft?
metal melting at such low temperatures,
Not steel, but it didn't have to melt, it simply had to elongate and weaken due to the heating it would receive in an office fire. As for OTHER metals, there were plenty of sources of metal with lower melting points.
the firefighter reporting he was on at the floor were the plane hit and the fire was under control,
... and that means what? There were no fires anywhere else because he didn't see any on that floor. No, it doesn't mean that.
the every fact he could of made it to the floor, the building falling at all most the same rate as free falling,
Read the FEMA faq above; oh, of course, you'll know it by heart as you have so comprehensively researched this... you obviously have forgotten it...
parts of the motor of flight 93 being found 25 mile away,
References please.
thousands of Jews not showing up to work that day,
Lie; you've been suckered. If you disagree, PROVE this statement, or quit trying to act like you know something others don't..
HELL the passports thing disprove it all
The fact paper was blasted out of the building by the explosion of the impact and littered Wall Street like a ticker-tape parade show flammable materials could be ejected from the site undamaged.
Abaddon thank you for showing how stupid I am
No skyking, only YOU can prove how stupid you are...
