Have We Been Mislead About 9/11? Revisited

by JamesThomas 144 Replies latest members politics

• 

  Jourles

  OK, this is going to take some additional time to research, but I've been briefly reading over the official 9/11 Commission Report's chapter 1. Something immediately jumped out at me that isn't right. Follow this timeline really quick ---

  The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet...

  At 9:32, a hijacker, probably Jarrah, made or attempted to make the following announcement to the passengers of Flight 93:"Ladies and Gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So, sit."...

  Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones. These calls between family, friends, and colleagues took place until the end of the flight and provided those on the ground with firsthand accounts. They enabled the passengers to gain critical information, including the news that two aircraft had slammed into the World Trade Center.

  Notice the highlighted portions? How high did the report say Flight 93 was? Roughly 35k feet. What do we know about the ability to make calls over personal cell phones at heights above 10, 20, 30k feet? INFINITELY IMPOSSIBLE at 30k feet. The plane would had to have dropped more than 30k feet from 35k feet over a timeframe of 4-5 minutes. There is no physical way for a jumbo jet airliner to recover from such a drastic drop in altitude and recover. The report does not give any other indication of altitude beyond the 35k feet. And with the instructions given from Jarrah at 9:32, the passengers must have been simply mulling around. A sudden drop in altitude would have created a severe case of mass hysteria.

  The reason I posted this real quick tonight is because I just finished watching A&E's docudrama version of Flight 93. I immediately noticed the impossibilites of the cell phone usage as was depicted. The altitude they were at when the events happened, the duration of the calls, etc. It was pure B.S. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and let them dramatize the events a little, but the personal cell phone parts were laughable(did the movie Flight 93 show the same thing?). If they tried to recreate the events exactly as they happened, i.e. interviewed relatives on the ground who received these alleged calls from their loved ones on their personal cell phones, something isn't right here.

  Either the relatives on the ground made up stories of them receiving the calls for whatever reason(to attract attention? patriotic reasons?) or the 911 Commission is fabricating the report. One of these assumptions is true. The problem is trying to figure out which one.

  It might take me a while, but I'll dig further into this and see what I can find. I'm particularly interested in finding the altitude of the entire flight and any specific, "official" references relating to the times when the personal cell phones were used. This is all that is needed.
• 

  Jourles

  It's not looking good. I never really looked into this 'cell phone' issue before because I assumed that the passengers only made the calls from the in-flight phone system, not from their personal phones. But from everything I have read, the government even backs the assertion that calls were made from personal cell phones.

  I have not been able to locate ANY data which tells what the altitude was for the flight, with the exception of 35k minus 700 feet, in the official report. I also could not find any data on the cell phone records - only that this data "was not released by the government." Without either of these two crucial pieces of evidence, there is not much to go on. But the official report does help with the altitude finding. According to the timeframe it gives, the chances of the passengers using their phones is nil. IT COULD NOT HAPPEN.

  I did run across a simple diagram which shows how a typical cellsite propagates(it saved me from drawing one up and it gives a better visual representation over my previous 'widen your arms' example):

  As you can see, the rf propagation from the cell extends horizontally from the base station. Due to the electromagnetic design of the antennas, there is a slight extension in elevation of the signal path. But this area of coverage is extremely weak. I would have to say that this diagram is very accurate as regards to the theoretical "coverage area." Travel above that imaginary 5k foot line in an aluminum wrapped jumbo jet traveling at 500mph, and your phone is all but guaranteed to show "No Service."

  Again, I am not looking to make this into a conspiracy one way or another. I am merely interested in the cellular aspect of it. And with the evidence available to date, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THOSE PASSENGERS TO HAVE MADE CALLS AT >10K FEET using just their personal cell phones.

  Looking at the bigger picture, Flight 93 has been made into a Gung-Ho event showing the courage of American passengers fighting back against the "terrorists." Even the now popular phrase, "Let's Roll," is used for firing up the patriotic feelings of most Americans, reminding them of the final moments on Flight 93. Was this the intention of the US gov't? To use one plane as a focal point for stirring up emotions of the American public to support the invasion of Iraq? I am beginning to wonder...

  I am not qualified to comment on the WTC building's collapse or the Pentagon plane footage. But I am qualified to comment on this cellular aspect. All I can say is, if the government says that these personal cell phone calls were made at those altitudes and speed, they are lying. If they are fabricating this one event, then what else could they be lying about?
• 

  Abaddon

  Jourles

  Mmm, maybe we are at odds for no reason;

  So any claims from someone that says that their personal cell phone works over this air-to-ground network is lying. Only the embedded phones in the aircraft can place and receive calls on this network.

  No one's said cell phones use airfone networks; I'm just pointing out some cell phone use IS possible from altitude and that there WERE airfones as well (which obviously work at altitude), so any Conspiracist claims the calls obviously are fake as they could not be made is false.

  Well thank you for telling me I was correct regarding CDMA.

  I'll remember next time not to give credit where credit is due as obviously all it gets is a snitty comment.

  They said they were using a fiberglass/carbon fiber aircraft?

  And then they repeated the test in an aluminum plane; their disappointment that the Faraday cage effect doesn't stop calls being made is quite palpable if you thoroughly read the account. There, I've been snitty back, can we get on and be pals now?

  I see you've found the original article in IEEE Spectrum. However, all of this is besides the point. Calls WERE possible from the hijacked aircraft by repeated attempts to connect using a cell phone or via airfones. Conspiracists ignore this in some of the claims they make.

  Notice the highlighted portions? How high did the report say Flight 93 was? Roughly 35k feet. What do we know about the ability to make calls over personal cell phones at heights above 10, 20, 30k feet? INFINITELY IMPOSSIBLE at 30k feet.

  But that isn't a problem if you look at the flight path of the plane;

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

  At about 9:28 a.m., after both towers of the World Trade Center had already been hit, flight controllers in Cleveland overheard some commotion, and possibly screaming, from Flight 93's cockpit. Forty seconds later, more screams were heard. During this time the aircraft dropped 700 feet (200 m). The flight controllers tried to contact the pilot and received no reply. At 9:32, a man with an Arabic accent, probably Ziad Jarrah, transmitted to flight control the following: "Ladies and gentlemen, here [is] the captain, please sit down, keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So sit." (It is likely that Jarrah was attempting to broadcast this over the plane's intercom, but did not understand that the message was transmitted to flight control instead). The flight then reversed direction and began flying eastward at a low altitude. At 9:39, air traffic controllers overheard Jarrah saying "Uh, this is the captain. Would like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb on board, and [we] are going back to the airport, and to have our demands [unintelligible]. Please remain quiet." There were no further transmissions.

  The plane crashed into a reclaimed coal strip mine in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, near the municipalities of Stonycreek Township and Shanksville at 10:03 a.m., according to the 9/11 Commission Report.

  Either the relatives on the ground made up stories of them receiving the calls for whatever reason(to attract attention? patriotic reasons?) or the 911 Commission is fabricating the report. One of these assumptions is true. The problem is trying to figure out which one.

  What about the theory calls were made over the airfones or cell phones once the plane was flying at low altitude? Use Occam's Razor man, you're developing a massively complex explanation that is not needed.

  Oh, and please note the Conspiracists doubting the official story of the WTC collapse and the Pentagon strike aren't qualified either. The events, the 'physics' of the day are pretty indisputable, I've gone round the block on this one several times and whilst I may not be qualified either, I can see the mistakes, wishful thinking, mis-direction, ommitted data and down-right dishonesty typical in Conspiracist claims disputing the 'physics' of the events when they are compared to the 'official story' and expert analysis.

  I really don;t see why people get obsessed with this one. The massive neo-Con conspiracy that can be demonstrated as fact (or shown to be so likely as to make disbelief no real option) is far far more of interest to me; they used some of the same techniques during the reign of Reagan I, and in the endgame of the Cold War, and under the reign of Bush II they did the same. I can go into detail if you like in another thread.
• 

  Jourles

  Well, I did find something on the flight elevation. Let's see how the FAA document matches up.

  Notice the highlighted portions? How high did the report say Flight 93 was? Roughly 35k feet. What do we know about the ability to make calls over personal cell phones at heights above 10, 20, 30k feet? INFINITELY IMPOSSIBLE at 30k feet.

  But that isn't a problem if you look at the flight path of the plane;

  At 9:32, a man with an Arabic accent, probably Ziad Jarrah, transmitted to flight control the following: "Ladies and gentlemen, here [is] the captain, please sit down, keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So sit." (It is likely that Jarrah was attempting to broadcast this over the plane's intercom, but did not understand that the message was transmitted to flight control instead). The flight then reversed direction and began flying eastward at a low altitude. At 9:39, air traffic controllers overheard Jarrah saying

  The official FAA document states that at 9:34(after the takeover), the plane started climbing from 35k feet and turning around. At 9:38, the recorded altitude of the plane was 40,700 feet. Quite the opposite of what is stated on Wikipedia. Which then prompts the question: Which description should we believe - The FAA report, or Wikipedia? At 9:41, transponder contact was lost(altitude indication is also lost with this). At ~10:00, a private pilot reported seeing flight 93 at 8,000 feet. At ~10:04, radar contact was lost with the plane(the crash).

  So from these recorded events, what can we then postulate? First of all, we know that personal cell phones cannot establish calls above 8k feet(according to the one report -- 2k feet is even just as unlikely, IMPO and many others'). And I won't even bother describing the handoff issues again that would knock a call down almost immediately. No personal calls, aside from the Airphone service, could have been made from the time of the takeover and all the way up until at least 10:00. If the plane crashed at 10:04, there would have been a brief period for calls(less than 4 minutes) to be *possibly* made. But according to the testimony of the ones who received these "personal cell phone calls" made from the plane, they started receiving calls almost immediately after the takeover.(Which is also dramatically recreated according to testimony in A&E's Flight 93 and Universal Studio's Flight 93) And when the passengers decided to rush the cockpit, only one recorded phone conversation was in use - the Airphone call to Verizon's call center. How long did this use of force take from beginning to end? It probably chewed up a couple of minutes I'm guessing.

  You be the judge. Could many calls be made in the last remaining <4 minutes while the passengers were trying to rush the cockpit? Of course not. Someone is telling fibs and the public is buying it.

  What about the theory calls were made over the airfones or cell phones once the plane was flying at low altitude?

  From the beginning of these discussions, I have had no problem with the embedded Airphone service. It is 100% believable that some passengers used this service to contact their families, etc. What I do have a problem with, and basically have proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is the use of personal cell phones at the altitudes recorded and for the length of time as shown in the documentaries. From my personal viewpoint, the length of the calls far outweighs the possibility of establishing a call above 8k feet. Handoffs are very strict and can be manipulated via software. Spurious rf reflections that beam into the sky cannot be feasibly measured or calculated on any given day.

  If anyone has a theory on how a cell phone could continuously handoff over 8k feet, I'm all ears.
• 

  mkr32208

  I have a thread running right now about cell phones but is not getting any traffic so maybe some of the individuals here can answer my question like Arthur, Abaddon, XJW4EVR,

  I will say this one last time and fully expect to be ignored again... I'VE MADE MANY MANY MANY CALLS FROM PRIVATE PLANES (WHICH I FLY UP TO AROUND 8000 FEET) AND FROM COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS AS HIGH AS 32000 FEET!

  I made a call on July 4th 2006 while flying to las vegas between st Louis and las vegas at a height of approx 24500 feet msl from a totally enclosed toilet and the call went through fine! It wasn't a long call but IT DID GO THROUGH! I do sometimes have to call a number a few times to get signal but very rarely don't get it at all and have NEVER had a text message not go on the 2nd try!

  Of course there's always the chance that Bush is leaning on me to get me to lie...
• 

  Jourles

  I made a call on July 4th 2006 while flying to las vegas between st Louis and las vegas at a height of approx 24500 feet msl from a totally enclosed toilet and the call went through fine! It wasn't a long call but IT DID GO THROUGH! I do sometimes have to call a number a few times to get signal but very rarely don't get it at all and have NEVER had a text message not go on the 2nd try!

  The only way you could prove this is by posting a scan of your boarding pass and also posting a scan of your cell phone bill showing you made a call during the same time as your flight(accounting of course for time zone changes). If you were somewhere between LV and STL, then your bill should show the roaming city the call was picked up from. Your bill would likely show calls made in sequential order from STL and then a (midflight)call from [Backwater, Kansas], and then calls in LV. Go ahead and provide any documentation you have. Redact it as much as you like to hide personal information. I'm sure all of us would love to see that billing statement(please, no photoshop editing). Here's your chance to prove the experts wrong! If you can provide such documentation, it would surely put to rest all of the conspiracy theories on the web regarding the use of personal phones. And just to let you know, I would be the first person in line to help you spread this info around to all of those types of sites.

  btw, I understand if you already threw away your bill....
• 

  Jourles

  Oh, and I forgot to say - For anyone else who may be flying in the near future and would like to attempt to place a call mid-flight, the same challenge stands. Just make a call pre-flight from your originating city, a call mid-flight, and then another call when you land. Post a redacted version of your billing statement showing at least the three calls and also your boarding pass. This procedure and information is so simple to acquire and carry out, I can't believe I haven't read about someone else doing it anywhere on the web.

  So, are you up to the challenge?
• 

  mkr32208

  Hey thats a great idea I'll commit a felony then post scans of the proof! Wow I should so do that!
• 

  Jourles

  That's what I thought... But you already committed the felony "many many many many" times over.

  You could always just email it to me privately.
• 

  mkr32208

  Yeah but if any one ask I'll say "I was just kidding!" Not quite the same if I posted a bunch of PROOF!