Have We Been Mislead About 9/11? Revisited

by JamesThomas 144 Replies latest members politics

  • Pleasuredome
    Pleasuredome
    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.

    certainly couldn't agree more with you there. but one thing does stand true is that if you want a war economy you have to have the problem in place first to be able to have a war econony. now, is it purely fluke that just after bush comes to power we had 9/11? if so, the neo-cons were certainly in the right place at the right time, wouldn't you say?

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Pleasuredome

    but one thing does stand true is that if you want a war economy you have to have the problem in place first to be able to have a war econony. now, is it purely fluke that just after bush comes to power we had 9/11? if so, the neo-cons were certainly in the right place at the right time, wouldn't you say?

    That's why I split my derision of people who doubt well-established facts like the physics of the event away from the suspicions I have about it having taking place. They are two seperate discussions.

    Of course, as Watergate and Iran-Contra show, Conspiracies come out. I find my credulity streached by the idea it was planned and executed by US, government bodies or otherwise. It requires a fervent belief in the absolute efficiency of those involved for there to be no evidence of this. Literally thousands of people would knowingly be accessories to murder of fellow citizens. Yes, of course this has happened before, the Communist purges and Nazi genocides, but such actions were directed against those who had already been made into an enemy by propoganda, be it an enemy of the people or a 'zionist'. These actions were directed against John and Jane Does. Not one whistle blower.

    Of course, maybe the Lizard Overlords (have to mention them as some Conspiracists believe in them) or the Elders of Zion (have to mention that as if you follwo Conspiracy theories to their source they are often from sources who believe in a Zionist-inspired NWO, and that the 'Protocol' was a genuine document) scare people so much they can't get one single concrete shred of evidenec out...

    Obviously I don;t believe that.

    However, letting something fester so that bad stuff happens, and being rather startled the bad stuff is quite so bad, is the best fit with my observations. They never dreamed it would be so big and bad - but then neither did Bin Ladin, the collapse of the buildings was a surprise to him too.

    But having ensured there was something to fear they then proceeded with plans already in place, knowing they'd get public backing. The false pretexts regarding Iraq were them doing the same thing again; fear Iraq!!! We must invade, we are at risk... bullshit... but people bought it.

  • Jourles
    Jourles
    I'm sure people would notice all those calls being made, maybe even cabin staff...

    Not necessarily. During those two stages of flight, where are the flight attendants? They are at the front and/or rear of the aircraft buckled in on their jump seats. If the flight is not very full, someone with an earpiece attached to their phone(or bluetooth) could inconspicuously attempt a call by holding their phone down between their legs(this is what I have attempted).

    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.

    Same here. I would rather have someone question me over the technical aspects rather than just taking my word for it. It's like trying to defend a thesis.

    So, those people calling were between 2k ft and 10k ft? Golly gee, more impossible things being done, AGAIN.

    This is only second hand information with no collaboration. He didn't say if the calls went through. He could have just assumed that since they were being rerouted to another airport, if someone was to get on their cell they would be calling their "ride." I'm sorry, but again, this doesn't prove that calls were established and kept up.

    In all these cases of people making cell phone calls from up in the air, I think a cell phone bill, along with a boarding pass, would provide the best proof of these calls being made. Aside from an expert in-flight study of cell phone use specifically measuring call completions and handoffs, a phone bill is the next best thing.

    I wish I could have had an input on A.K. Dewdney's project. I would also have provided more cellular specific test equipment for testing such as an Agilent E7490A CDMA Base Station Over the Air test set(the only drive testing equipment I have access to - but it would work in the air as well). This unit connects to your laptop and runs off of software installed on your laptop. It measures everything in your network. You simply attach a few phones via RS-232 connections to the laptop and an external antenna and gps antenna to the test unit. The gps antenna is for tracking your route and the external antenna is for making general over the air measurements from the network such as RSSI and PN availability. The phones pound out calls and various measurements are recorded through the software. This would be the ideal setup. But, if you wanted to be a stickler and refrain from making calls from up in the air, you could use the E7490A and just have the phones monitor their own signal strength. This would work too. And you could publish your results without backlash from the FCC. These tests are also continuously recorded to your hard drive. You are allowed to record as much data as your hard drive can offer in free space.(hours) Any measurements worse than -100dBm from a cell, would not likely allow a call to go through. -95dBm is about the absolute worst RSSI you can establish a call at(maybe, depends on the phone).

    As we don't have the data we need to resolve this, I've e-mailed Bill and asked when the calls were made.

    Funny, because I emailed A.K. Dewdney yesterday and asked for more information regarding handoffs and if he was able to hand off. I also sent him the link to this thread.

  • Jourles
    Jourles

    Alrighty! I just found the flight data recorder info on Flight 93. It can be viewed here. This was the only flight data recorder that survived from all of the crashes.

    Now, take a look at page 17 according to the pdf page numbering. Look towards the bottom of the graph. The blue line is the altitude of the flight path. If we were to take in all of the measurements as was done by A.K Dewdney and comapred those altitude measurements to this graph, what can we reasonably conclude? Let's say all calls can go through at 8k feet, without repeated redialing. Anything above 8k feet, according to the study, will basically not happen. Add in the type of plane and the velocity, and the actual elevation measurements fall even further(but we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that they were in a Cessna going 150mph). What is the timeframe you would have to work with in getting your cell phone to call out? Roughly 9:56 to 10:02. This is a 6 minute window. And according to the flight recorder, the plane never dipped below 5k feet until, well, you know.

    Read through all of the past interviews with the relatives of the passengers. Especially the ones who know for sure how their loved ones contacted them(airphone vs. cell phone) because of what their caller id showed.

    Six minute window of opportunity. Here again, either the relatives have been lying about receiving calls from these cell phones, or something else is incorrect. My guess is, and was from the very beginning, is that the passengers were only able to call out through the Airphones. But remember, even the official Commission report stated that "cellular phones" were used "shortly thereafter" the hijacking took place. From that time up until even after decsending to 10k feet, over 20 minutes had elapsed. I don't know if I can use any other information. I think I've run out.

  • Pleasuredome
    Pleasuredome
    But having ensured there was something to fear they then proceeded with plans already in place, knowing they'd get public backing. The false pretexts regarding Iraq were them doing the same thing again; fear Iraq!!! We must invade, we are at risk... bullshit... but people bought it.

    true, but there are people who believe that would be a conspiracy too. i think enough people start to realise that this is how a lot of governments work, people can put a stop to a lot of carnage that takes place in the world, instead of believing the bullshit and shouting "go USA" or whatever they chant. trouble is you're never going to be able to stop them trying to do the same in covert ways.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Jourles

    This is only second hand information with no collaboration.

    Mmm, so is ALL the evidenece presented about cell phones NOT being able to make calls.

    So we don't have proofeither way, just anecdotal experience, a research paper with a typo, and a test by Conspiracists that isn't a fair test.

    Let's see what the E-mails stir up...?

    Good find re. Flight 93. Of course, there is one very simple solution; the report is in error and ALL calls were made by airfones OTHER than ones made at altitudes we'd (grudgingly) agree calls COULD be made from. A cell phone user in a hijack unable to get a signal but not prevented physically from calling will not think twice about swiping their cc through an airfone. I suppose that means we need CC details of all pasengers who made calls, to be really thorough.

    Pleasuredome

    but there are people who believe that would be a conspiracy too. i think enough people start to realise that this is how a lot of governments work, people can put a stop to a lot of carnage that takes place in the world, instead of believing the bullshit and shouting "go USA" or whatever they chant. trouble is you're never going to be able to stop them trying to do the same in covert ways

    Oh, it's a valid arguement (that it was a COnspiracy) when applied to the convenient repeat of techniques. Under current representative forms of government, yes, we can't stop them. I'm in favour of direct representation for much of governmental busness but that's an entirely different topic.

  • Jourles
    Jourles
    So we don't have proofeither way, just anecdotal experience, a research paper with a typo, and a test by Conspiracists that isn't a fair test.

    Anecdotal experiences which I myself have never experienced along with many others, including commercial pilots that say calls cannot be made. Some people say they can, others say they cannot. Mkr had a chance to prove that he made a call at >20k feet, but we'll never know since he refuses to share this info even in a private setting.

    The Carnegie study didn't specify if calls were made in mid-flight. The study focused on the "critical stages of flight," takeoffs and landings. And I merely pointed out that the "cdma signature" that they had on the graph was incorrect, as displayed by my own spectrum analyzer covering the same bandwidth span. The signal strength indicated by both phone calls on the graph suspiciously looked as if they made the call attempts themselves, as my brief test also showed. The reference to a "Megawatt" was just a sloppy mistake.

    The testing done by A.K. Dewdney wasn't as thorough as it could have been, IMO(maybe they should have borrowed a professor in EE or Telecommunications). But it did accomplish the basics to get a rough baseline at altitude where calls could and could not be made. The chances of calls going through over 8k feet is merely conjecture, and nearly impossible. We have no proof. And as I tried to demonstrate earlier, handoffs would be the next major hurdle.

    Let's see what the E-mails stir up...?

    I'm hoping we hear back from both parties. Although at this stage of the discussion, I think we are pretty much on the same page now.

    Of course, there is one very simple solution; the report is in error and ALL calls were made by airfones OTHER than ones made at altitudes we'd (grudgingly) agree calls COULD be made from.

    This has been my theory from the beginning. It would also indicate that not only the official report was in error, but the relatives on the ground who testified to the fact that what they saw on their caller id was false too. If the calls were made strictly from the Airphones, then for what reason would these relatives have to lie? Honestly, I don't think they intentionally lied about it. But I can only come to the conclusion that they were in a state of panic which caused them to mentally link a phone call from the plane as equivalent to a cell phone call. A lot of people today still believe(incorrectly) that your typical cell phone "talks" to satellites above the earth. If these relatives are part of that believing group, then I see how they could misunderstand the technology.

    If we were to take Dewdney's study at face value, there was only a 6 minute window where those calls could have been made, and then unreliably at best. The testimony from the relatives says that these cell phone calls occurred soon after the hijacking. Taking all of this into account, the Airphones are the only logical conclusion.

    I suppose that means we need CC details of all pasengers who made calls, to be really thorough.

    Yep. And the cell phone bills would be a nice cherry on the top.

  • mkr32208
    mkr32208

    Except I DON'T get a cell bill! My wife works for the cell company and my line is a COU (?) line! (A free company line) So I'm going to call them up and tell them I need a bill so I can PROVE I was doing something illegal on a company line...

    1. So Genevie can lose HER job!
    2. I can be fined $5000 dollars
    3. I can lose my pilots licence (that cost a hell of a lot more than $5000.00!)

    But I can finally PROVE to a bunch of WHACKO CONSPIRACY NUTS that 9/11 was not a conspiracy!? They won't believe it anyway! No the end does NOT justify the means! I mean we have a lunatic in another thread seriously arguing that some dink crazy identified cordite from looking at a PICTURE of the wreckage of 9/11! There is no WAY to convince any of you fools!

    Ok, I lied I've never ever used my cell phone. Ever, not once, on the ground or in the air! IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY! IN FACT I DON'T EVEN EXIST!

  • Jourles
    Jourles
    Except I DON'T get a cell bill! My wife works for the cell company and my line is a COU (?) line! (A free company line)

    It's funny that you only now mention this....

    So I'm going to call them up and tell them I need a bill so I can PROVE I was doing something illegal on a company line...

    Even I wouldn't be that dumb. Why would you even tell them the reason for viewing the bill? I work for a cell company too, but even the bill for my wife's phone is available online(it's the only way to see the bill due to our company's policy of no-paper bills for employees).

    There is no WAY to convince any of you fools!

    Ha ha ha! You obviously are grouping me in with the "WHACKO CONSPIRACY NUTS" here. Would you mind showing me where I make definitive statements about a conspiracy happening? Or is that too difficult to do seeing I have said over and over and over again "that I am not interested in the conspiracy side of this discussion?" If the facts and evidence that I have presented prove or refute a conspiracy that someone else came up with, then so be it. I guess I'm too [fool]ish to admit that it could or could not happen, unlike the stance you have taken from day 1.

    On a side note, do you scream and yell in real life as much as you do on this board? I couldn't help but notice that in the majority of your posts, you tend to use exclamation points(!) quite liberally. Just as an example, in this last post of yours, you used them 12 times! In your main paragraph, every sentence ends with one! Do you see how this disrupts a normal conversation carried on over the web?! I'm kind of glad you stayed out of the discussion that Abaddon and I had over the last few pages! I don't know if I could have continued with someone screaming at me the entire time!

  • Jourles
    Jourles

    Ascot just sent me this link that I thought should be thrown into this discussion. It is an interview with Jim Meigs, the Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics. The part about cellular phones is as follows:

    So onto the cell phones..

    Solomon: Yeah, tell me a bit about the claim that cell phones don't work above 8,000 feet, the plane was flying at 30,000 feet, how were those calls made?

    Meigs: Yeah, the idea that cell phones don't work in airplanes comes up again and again, but apparently none of the conspiracy theorists ever bothered to call their cell company. We talked to leading engineers across the cell industry and they told us that cell phones work, not perfectly, but reasonably well in airplanes, up to 35,000 feet and more.

    And if you think about it, this makes total sense. In a rural area, a cell phone call tower could cover a couple of hundred square miles. That would be, you know, perhaps 10 miles in either direction, and that would also include 10 miles up into the sky.

    So, where you think about a plane flying through that region, the notion that it could pick up a cell phone tower actually stands to reason. Planes do move pretty fast, and so they move through these cell areas quickly, you might have a lot of dropped calls. And in fact, if you look through the records from Flight 93, that's exactly what happened. People did make calls, some of them were dropped, not all of them were completed, but they did get through.

    Solomon: You know, I was on a plane last night, frankly, from Philadelphia, I tried to make a call - it didn't work. I tried last week, I'm on a plane somewhere almost every week, and I never can make a call. Has the technology changed? I thought it was getting better. This is one of those, sort of, every man goes and says 'well, I'm just going to take a flight and use my phone'. I never get a signal.

    Meigs: What kind of cell phone do you have?

    Solomon: Well, I actually tried with one of my producers too, on a different shoot, I had a blackberry, she had another cell phone. i guess that's all i'm saying is it doesn't work. I don't know, it's one of those things, it's not hard to verify, does that bother you at all?

    Meigs: Well, are you saying that all the cell phone engineers that we talked are also in the plot?

    Solomon: I'm not saying they're in on the plot, I'm just saying, it's one of those ones that's kind of easy to check, right?

    Meigs: Well, yeah, we checked with cell phone engineers, they feel that cell phones work, with some problems, but do work in airplanes - not all the time, and probably better in rural areas than urban areas where the cell towers are said to cover less terrain. So I don't why your cell phone didn't work, but I'm not suspicious of the people in the engineering community who've worked on this, I'm not suspicious of their account.

    And here's the other thing: we have evidence that the cell phones work because people called their friends and loved ones from the airplanes. You know, the conspiracy theory view that those cell phones couldn't have worked, then the next step is, 'so some kind of government computer voice simulation system, you know, imitated Mark Bingham's voice, and he talked to his mother, and she didn't know she was talking to a computer' - I mean, follow that logic, where does it lead you?

    I don't know what "leading engineers" he spoke to, but if his next comment has anything to do with what these "engineers" told him about cell coverage, they spoke to the wrong people -- "That would be, you know, perhaps 10 miles in either direction, and that would also include 10 miles up into the sky." As I already pointed out before(and please reference that chart once again), coverage directly above the cellsite is not possible. This coverage has to come from a cell near the horizon away from the plane. And his question about what kind of cell phone does he have? What's this about? How is that relevant?

    I can't even stomach going through the rest of the comments as they have already been hashed out over and over again. But I did find this funny:

    Solomon: Well, I actually tried with one of my producers too, on a different shoot, I had a blackberry, she had another cell phone. i guess that's all i'm saying is it doesn't work. I don't know, it's one of those things, it's not hard to verify, does that bother you at all?

    Meigs: Well, are you saying that all the cell phone engineers that we talked are also in the plot?

    Solomon is yet another person who says he couldn't get his phone or his producer's to work either, over Philadelphia - a vastly covered cellular area. Meigs immediately gets defensive and basically asks Solomon if the "engineers" they talked to were involved in the plot too. Solomon should have asked Meigs if he has ever been able to call out on a plane seeing that he didn't offer that information on his own.

    This is yet another example of a guy not knowing what he is talking about. He shouldn't presume to know it all when he can't even get the basics down on antenna propagation.

    And here is another link given by Ascot on an interview with Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission Co-Chair.

    Solomon: Where there any notion there was... The NTSB recently released the flight path of United Flight 93 in the past two weeks. One of the interesting things that that showed was, during the flight path, and I think the flight path of that, I think that plane crashed, according to the Report, at 10:03 am.

    And one of the interesting things it showed - this is just recently declassified - that it flew well over 10,000 feet - 30,000, 40,000 feet - from about 9:30 onward. Now, a lot of the cell phone calls that were made from that plane, that ended up being in the movie, were from, you know, people phoning from the plane. And one allegation that's recently come out since the release of that is: cell phones don?t work above 10,000 feet, so how could people get on their cell phone on a plane and phone their relatives?

    Hamilton: I?m no expert on that. I?ve been told cell phones work - sometimes - above 10,000 feet, and as high as 30,000 feet. So it may have been that some of the calls went through and some didn?t, I just don?t know.

    Smart man. He's only been 'told' that cell phones work, but he just doesn't know. No real substance to this interview on cell phones.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit