Those IMPLAUSIBLE & IMPOSSIBLE cellphone calls

[Lovelynice]

We have, of course many "shills" on this site promoting and defendling the Official Lies, the utterly BS story which doesn't work because it requires IMPOSSIBLE things to occur as if by MAGIC.

Maybe you have noticed the same things as these other people have;

I live in San Diego and about 2yrs. ago Microsoft had an XP SP3 update hoopla at the convention center. People from around the world were here, but this one guy I meet when we went out one night had the endless credit card, bought all our drinks and food and we all had a great time. Well as the night went on he was getting wasted of course and let the cat out of the bag, this dude said he was from Virginia and he and 100+ others were full time internet devils advocate for the govt. and they were to go to all of the forums and message sites. There job was to be pro govt. belittle any who countered the argument of the govt. being wrong, there would be at any one time from 1-12 people against one person debating any subject. They would according to him just rip people to shreds in the forums, then it hit me all at once why I could never come up with a good counter argument sometimes when I talked to individuals in the forums, it was because of these people were working in groups against us. I played dumb to this guy, (Karma will get him) and never really said anything on this subject, but trust me on this that they are out there and this does go on. I just want to someday kick there ass on dslreports.com, you will find them there in the forums, it’s pretty obvious who they are.
______

Since 2001, I’ve noticed that the Independent Media Center network has been inundated by Trolls/Plants, and several of them appear on different sites, under different “names”. It’s interesting to note their consistent Tactics of Disinformation, and the issues they usually deal with - Bush/PNAC’s close relationship to the Zionist Extremists in Israel, 911 As False Flag, and anything to do with an ongoing military push or economic summit.

Several sites were hacked at the outbreak of the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Israeli push into Lebanon.

While researching the subject, you may wish to contact the Administrators of some of the IMC’s and get their opinion.

______
I have been noticing for years, information officers, spamming discussion boards… you recognize them.. when they spew out the party line.. the talking points…. when you engage them, ask them if they are on the government payroll… if they so no…. tell them to apply for a job with Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush/Rice/Rove who are looking for unconscionable men like them! to spew out the lies, misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, treachery, equivocation, prevarication calumny and lies..


I'm sure it's easy to pick who they are on this site.


Unfortunately, despite their LIES, all these CELLPHONE CALLS from the planes on 9-11 were fake because they're impossible;

he implausibility of those phone calls...

First the cellphone calls...
Project Achilles

and

I found the listed professional opinions very interesting...

Professional opinions

==========================================================

Dear Sir

I have yet to read the entire [Ghost Riders] article but I do have a background in telecommunications. Using a cell phone on an air craft is next to impossible. The reasons are very detailed, but basically the air craft would run major interference, as well as the towers that carry the signal would have a difficult time sending and receiving due to the speed of the air craft. As well, calling an operator? Well that is basically impossible.

Having worked for both a major Canadian and American provider I had to instruct my staff that operator assistance is not an option. Have you ever tried to use a cell phone in some public buildings? Impossible. There are too many spots that service is voided. Just a tidbit of information to share.

Megan Conley <megan_conley@hotmail.com>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

I am an RF design engineer, having built out Sprint, Verizon and another network in New Orleans. You are absolutely correct. We have trouble making these things work for cars going 55 mph on the ground. If you need another engineer's testimony for any reason, let me know I will corroborate.

my engineering site: http://www.geocities.com/rf_man_cdma/

Brad Mayeux <cdmaman@engineer.com>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anecdotal evidence

==========================================================

Sir,

Yours is the first article I've read which focuses on those dubious 'cell phone calls'. Last month my Wife and I flew to Melbourne, about 1000 miles south of here.

Cell phones are Verboten in Airliners here, but on the return journey I had a new NOKIA phone, purchased in Melbourne, and so small I almost forgot it was in my pocket. I furtively turned it on. No reception anywhere, not even over Towns or approaching Brisbane. Maybe it's different in the US, but I doubt it.

There has to be an investigation into this crime. Justice for the thousands of dead and their families demands it.

Best

Bernie Busch <bbusch@iprimus.com.au>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Prof

I have repeatedly tried to get my cell phone to work in an airplane above 2-3000 feet and it doesn't work. My experiments were done discreetely on [more than] 20 Southwest Airlines flights between Ontario, California and Phoenix, Arizona. My experiments match yours. Using sprint phones 3500 and 6000 models, no calls above 2500 ft [succeeded], a "no service" indicator at 5000 ft (guestimate).

There seem to be two reasons. 1. the cell sites don't have enough power to reach much more than a mile, 2. The cell phone system is not able to handoff calls when the plane is going at more than 400 mph.

This is simply experimental data. If any of your contacts can verify it by finding the height of the Pennsylvania plane and it's speed one can prove that the whole phone call story is forged.

Rafe <rafeh@rdlabs.com> (airline pilot)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings,

I write in praise of your report, as I have felt from day one that the cell phone 'evidence' was perhaps the flimsiest part of the story, and am amazed that nobody has touched it until now.

I'd also like to bring up the point of airspeed, which is what made the cell calls a red-flag for me in the first place. I'm not sure what your top speed achieved in the small plane was, but, in a large airliner travelling at (one would think) no less than 450mph, most cell phones wouldn't be able to transit cells fast enough to maintain a connection (at least, from what i understand of the technology) .. and we're talking 2001 cell technology besides, which in that period, was known to drop calls made from cars travelling above 70mph on the freeway (again, due to cell coverage transits)

Anyway, thanks for shining the light, keep up the good work

Ben Adam

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Professor,

Responding to your article, I'm glad somebody with authority has taken the trouble to scientifically prove the nonsense of 9/11.

I was travelling between two major European cities, every weekend, when the events in the US occurred. I was specifically puzzled by the reports that numerous passengers on board the hijacked planes had long conversations with ground phone lines, using their mobile phones (and not on board satelite phones). Since I travelled every weekend, I ignored the on board safety regulations to switch off the mobile phone and out of pure curiosity left it on to see if I could make a call happen.

First of all, at take off, the connection disappears quite quickly (ascending speed, lateral reception of ground stations etc.), I would estimate from 500 meters [1500 feet approx.] and above, the connection breaks.

Secondly, when making the approach for landing, the descent is more gradual and the plane is travelling longer in the reach of cellphone stations, but also only below 500 meters. What I noticed was that, since the plane is travelling with high speed, the connection jumps from one cellphone station to another, never actually giving you a chance to make a phone call. (I have never experienced this behaviour over land, e.g. by car). Then, if a connection is established, it takes at least 10-30 seconds before the provider authorises a phone call in the first place. Within this time, the next cellstation is reached (travel speed still > 300KM/h) and the phone , always searching for the best connection, disconnects the current connection and tries to connect to a new station.

I have done this experiment for over 18 months, ruling out weather conditions, location or coincidence. In all this time the behaviour was the same: making a phone call in a plane is unrealistic and virtually impossible.

Based on this, I can support you in your findings that the official (perhaps fabricated) stories can be categorised as nonsense.

With kind regards.

Peter Kes <kpkes@yahoo.com>

It must be clearly understood that Prof. Dewdney's tests were conducted in
slow-moving (<150kts) light aircraft at relatively low altitudes (<9000ft
AGL). The aircraft from which the alleged calls were made on 9/11 were
flying at over 30,000 ft at speeds of over 500 MPH.

During a recent round-trip flight from Orange County, CA to Miami, FL (via
Phoenix, AZ), I, personally conducted an unofficial "test" using a brand new
Nokia 6101 cellular phone [NB: 2005 technology]. En route, I attempted
(discretely, of course) a total of 37 calls from varying altitudes/speeds. I
flew aboard three types of aircraft: Boeing 757, 737, and Airbus 320. Our
cruising altitudes ranged from 31-33,000ft, and our cruising speeds, from
509-521 MPH (verified post-flight by the captains). My tests began
immediately following take-off. Since there was obviously no point in taking
along the wrist altimeter I use for ultralight flying for reference in a
pressurized cabin, I could only estimate (from experience) the various
altitudes at which I made my attempts.

Of the 37 calls attempted, I managed to make only 4 connections - and every
one of these was made on final approach, less than 2 minutes before flare,
I.e., at less than 2,000ft AGL.

Approach speeds varied from 130-160 kts (Vref, outer marker), with flap and
gear extension at around 2,000ft (again, all speeds verified by flightdeck
crews). Further, I personally spoke briefly with the captains of all four
flights: I discovered that in their entire flying careers, NOT ONE of these
men had EVER been successful in making a cell phone call from cruising
altitude/speed in a variety of aircraft types. [NB: Rest assured the
ubiquitous warnings to "turn off all electronics during flight" are
completely unfounded. All modern aircraft systems are fully shielded from
all forms of RF/EMF interference (save EMP, of course). This requirement was
mandated by the FAA many years ago purely as a precautionary measure while
emerging advanced avionics systems were being flight tested. There is not a
single recorded incident of interference adversely affecting the performance
of airborne avionics systems.]

Obviously, my casual, seat-of-the-pants attempt at verifying a commonly
known fact can hardly be passed off as a "scientific" test. Ergo, I shall
offer Prof. Dewdney¹s conclusion, excerpted from his meticulously detailed
and documented paper re slow-flying light aircraft at low altitudes.

Nila Sagadevan

Prof. Dewdney:

I do not pretend to be any sort of expert of cellular communications, but I am an electronics engineer and hold both amateur and commercial FCC licenses, so I do have some understanding of the relevant principles of radio communication systems.

I read with interest your analysis of terrestrial contact probabilities via cellphones from aircraft. I believe your conclusions are sound, but would like to comment on an element which you pondered regarding the sort of apparent discontinuity in what seems otherwise to be an inverse-square relation beyond a certain altitude.

Cellphones operate by Frequency Modulation, and as such the (apparent) signal strength is not discernible to the listener because the intelligence is contained only in the frequency and phase information of the signal before demodulation. Hence, the system works pretty well until it is so weak that it is abruptly lost. That is, the system can no longer "capture" the signal. It does not get louder and softer with signal strength -until the signal is below the detection level of the receiver, at which point it is essentially disappears. The cellphone also adjusts the transmit power according to the signal level received at the tower end of the link. Once it is at maximum output, if the signal diminishes beyond some minimum threshold depending on the receiver design, it is lost altogether and not simply degraded in quality. Analogous behavior is experienced with FM broadcast stations; as you travel away from the transmitter the station is received with good fidelity until at some distance it rather suddenly cannot even be received any longer at all.

Additionally, cellphone towers are certainly not optimally designed for skyward radiation patterns. Since almost all subscribers are terrestrial that is where the energy is directed, at low angles.

In summary, if your observed discontinuous behavior is real, and I believe there is technical reasoning for such, the probability of making calls beyond some threshold altitude is not simply predictably less, but truly impossible with conventional cellphones under any condition of aircraft etc. because of the theoretical limits of noise floor in the receiving systems. I think the plausibility of completing the calls from 30,000+ ft. is even much lower than might be expected from extrapolations of behavior at lower altitudes which you investigated.

Thank you for your thoughtful work in this area.

Sincerely,

Kevin L. Barton

Look here http://www.gmpcs-us.com/satnews/jan-5 -Boeing.htm. As we all can see, it is only now that Cell Phones are being tested for in-flight calls. Look at the date of that report, it is Monday, July 19, 2004. Why would people be making in-flight cell phone calls on 9/11, 2001, when on 2004, inflight-calls are only beginning to be tested. And this is just the testing stages, not the official legalization of their usage.

The fact that testing only began a few years after 2001, says a lot about the implausibility that cell phones may have been used in those 9/11 flights. The only twisting of words going on is from the pro-government story advocates' side of the debate, since they fail to recognize this simple simple illogical hole in the official story. The fact that the pro-government story advocates presistently refuse to see this simple illogical hole and continue to deny it, is cause for suspicion.



Statement: Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network" because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high, she said. The technology is "difficult now, but it's not something that can't happen in the future (Washingotn Post, December 9, 2004)

Another link:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/15/MNGUMAC6LB1.DTL

Statement:“Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past.”(San Francisco Chronicle, December 15, 2004)

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page3009/

LOS ANGELES The safe landing of a JetBlue Airways plane with faulty landing gear last night ended a drama carried live by television that riveted viewers outside and inside the aircraft... At one point, he said, he tried to call his family, but his cellphone call wouldn't go through.

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page2923/

Two European airlines will allow passengers late next year to use their own cell phones on commercial flights within western Europe, a Geneva-based technology firm said Tuesday.
TAP Air Portugal and British carrier bmi both have agreed to introduce OnAir's voice and text service for cell phones in separate three-month trial runs, Chief Executive George Cooper said.
The planes _ which will be the first to allow passengers to make and receive calls with their own cell phones while on board _ will give OnAir the chance to assess its service ahead of its general release slated for 2007, he said.
"With both airlines, initially there will be a couple of airplanes _ two or three airplanes _ equipped with this system," Cooper told The Associated Press from Germany. "During that three months, we'll all be evaluating how it's going, what the usage is, how we handle the crew issues and so on."

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page5226/

NEW YORK (Reuters) - One of life's ironic oases of solitude -- the peace people find amid the roar of a New York City subway -- could soon be gone.
As New York plans to make cell phones work in subway stations, experts say Americans eventually could be connected everywhere, underground or in the air.
"It's technically feasible, both for airplanes and subways," said James Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. "It's the social aspect that's really the most intractable."

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page7755/

"Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network" because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high, she said. The technology is "difficult now, but it's not something that can't happen in the future."

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page7756/

FCC set to consider in-flight cell phones. December 15, 2004. Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past -- and whether they'd mess up ground- based communications.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121399,00.asp
"In-Flight Cell Phone Systems Gain Altitude"

Study done about cell phone usage
http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/phonecalls.html
Holes in phone calls

Some calls lasted as long as 25 minutes! WOW!!

They must have been using some great phones back in 2001!

Think it's impossible to con strangers into thinking that you're a relative - even pretending to be their son?

Check out the "Hi Mom, it's me" scam.
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/features/archive/news/2005/06/20050608p2g00m0fe008000c.html

By the way, it was easy to fake someone's voice then.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

Now you know how the voices on the "calls" could be faked.

It's not like these were turing tests, these were just normal average dimwits receiving the calls.

Caller: "Mom? This is Mark Brigham." (Who in hell calls their own mother and introduces himself by his own full name?!)

Caller: "I want you to know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb."

Alice: "Who are these guys?

Caller: (after a pause) "You believe me, don't you?

Caller: "Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?


This "conversation" could fool just about anyone who wasn't intentionally trying to detect whether it was a computer or a person. It's not like he answers her question, he just responds with something vague.

A person claiming to be Todd Beamer, talked to GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson
“Todd Beamer placed a call on one of the Boeing 757's on-board telephones and spoke for 13 minutes with GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife said.......(The Pittsburg Channel, 1.38pm, September 16, 2001). Why would Beamer prefer to talk to a stranger than to someone in his own family? Again we have a LONG phone, and again the mythical terrorists did nothing about it. Notice that his wife, Mrs Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone call from her husband PERSONALLY, but was later “told” by an operator that her husband had "allegedly" called. No evidence at all that it really was Todd Beamer making the call.

Lisa Jefferson certainly wouldn't know who was really on the phone would she? She'd never met the man before, had she? She wouldn't have a clue if it was really Todd Beamer or the pizza guy!


The Betty Ong call is a really strange one. It seems whoever the woman was that was trying convince the operator that she was on a hijacked plane wasn't coached too well. She kept flubbing the script;

MALE VOICE: Which flight are you on?

BETTY ONG: Flight 12.

FEMALE VOICE: Okay, but what seat are you sitting in? What’s the number of your seat?

BETTY ONG: Okay, I’m in my jump seat right now.

FEMALE VOICE: Okay.

BETTY ONG: At 3R.

(OOPS, there was NO SEAT '3R' ON THAT PLANE!)

The woman doing the masquerading flubbed it by not keeping their story straight.

The phone call begun "minutes after 8 am", originally it was stated that the call lasted nearly 40 minutes and ended at 8:46; so we can conclude Betty rung up at about 8:08-8:10. But then sceptics said "Hey, that's BEFORE the hijacking began!", so the official story changed later, then they said it was 8:21 when Betty Ong made her call.

And they still expected everyone to gullibly believe that these mythical hijackers were just going to sit around and let somebody chatter away for a whole 25 minutes?!



You can go to www.ebaumsworld.com and create one side of a phone call using the soundboards, that the other side would at first believe to be Napolean Dynamite!. There's even videos of people using the various soundboards to prank call people, some get strung along for several minutes before they realize it's a prank.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/napoleondynamite-prank1.html

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/jackblack-prank2.html

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/alpacino-prank1.html

But the idiot on the other end of the line can have a conversation with a series of pre-recorded phrases and words played by some "controller" who chooses which phrase to use so it appears to fit with what the other person is saying.

(I've been told that the Pacino one is the best. The guy on the other end of the line gets really angry at a series of recordings.)

By the way, for the shills, we are talking about CELLPHONES, not Satellite Phones (captain bullshit's little slip), and we know that they are IMPOSSIBLE (despite KRcumming's lying post), and that CELLPHONES are very different things from Airphones...




A scientific debunking of the cellphone calls
http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93





.

 

[Lovelynice]

WHICH MEANS ALL OF THESE CALLS WERE FAKE


CeeCee Lyles: Cell phone. Her husband Lorne Lyles who managed to take her second call reported that he saw her ID therefore we can assume that she used a cell phone. A flight attendant using a cell phone is of course extremely strange given the fact that she should very well know that there are airphones aboard and it is much more likely to come through using this kind of phone. Call 1: Beginning: 9:47, Length: unclear as no indication what she left as a message on her answering machine. But we can assume from the fact that she managed to leave a message that the length was at least: 15’. Call 2: 9:58, Length: 1’ 00’’ (my estimation based on accounts of the call). She got disconnected.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93lylesbiop8.asp
http://election.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/12/national/main310935.shtml

Jeremy Glick, 31, from West Milford, New Jersey, He called his wife, Liz, and in-laws in New York on a cell phone to tell them the plane had been hijacked
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627214.asp



Thomas E. Burnett Jr - Cell Phone 3-4 calls
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-capsules.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetnat3p3.asp

Lauren Grandcolas, her husband said his wife made a quick cell phone call before the plane crashed in Pennsylvania.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-capsules.htm

Sandra Bradshaw - cellphone
http://webcache.news-record.com/legacy/photo/tradecenter/bradshaw21.htm


Marion Britton - 13 minutes call from a cellphone
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp
WOW, A WHOLE THIRTEEN MINUTES!!! Amazing bullshit

Elizabeth Wainio - cellphone
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067652



BARBARA OLSON CALL
On the American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington, television reporter Barbara Olson, 46, locked herself in the lavatory to call her husband, Solicitor General Theodore Olson.

( I guess that Airphone had an extension cord? The cord on an airphone will not reach into the bathroom, this suggests she was using a cellphone. Cellphones in planes dont work over 5-10,000 ft. inside a sealed bathroom would insert an extra 3-6 dB of loss. that means signal quality, which would have been nearly impossibe anyway would have been cut to 1/3 to 1/6th strength. Ted states that the quality of the connection was CLEAR !)
( I would be happy if someone would verify the airphone reach of the cord- to the bathroom on a 757) According to the BBC, she used a cellphone http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1539193.stm


NSA-trained Electronic Warfare specialist Steve Moser goes further, expressing that he has "severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft (Flight 93)". Moser explains: "When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is your cell phone needs to contact a transponder and complete a digital handshake. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to contact a tower, tell the tower who you are and who your provider is, tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and establish that it is in a roaming area, before it passes out of range. It takes 30-45 seconds to do that. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible."


United Airlines Flight 175
United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:

"It pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14."

The Report confirms that by 8:33, "it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet." According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it "deviated from its assigned altitude":

"The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it."

And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.

[Flight UAL 175] "At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cellphone. Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. (Moreover, Hanson's call could have been initiated at least a minute prior to his father Lee Hanson picking up the phone.)

United Airlines Flight 93
According to the 9-11 Commission's account:

"the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.”70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft...."

The Report claims that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report's confirmation of the plane's attitude of 35,000 feet. In other words, the calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost UAL 93’s transponder signal (9.41) and approximately 30 minutes before the crash in Pennsylvania (10.03)

There was no indication from the Report that the aircraft had swooped down to a lower level of altitude, apart from the 700 feet drop recorded at 9.28. from a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. Shortly after the alleged hijacking commences, the passengers and flight crew allegedly began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones.

The alleged call (strangely not mentioned in the Report) by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.

"Local emergency officials said they received a cell phone call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the plane had been hijacked. "We are being hijacked! We are being hijacked!" he was quoted as saying.

Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.

"He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_90401.html


Mark Bingham - Cell Phone

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I really tried to get through both posts, but after the first all I could read from you was "Blah blah blah, I'm an idiot."

Yes, anyone who doesn't believe your fantasy is a government plant, sent to a porn message board to discredit your obvious perfectly reasoned out theory. We're all actually passing notes back and forth at the government computer lab here in Los Alamos so we can coordinate our answers and maximize our smear campaign.

We're actually tracking your posts on various message boards and refuting your claims under many different names on each board. Surveillance camera's monitor your movements daily to be sure that we don't miss a trip to an internet cafe or other internet access point. The subdural transceiver implant is tracked via NSA spy satellite and instantly relays location and brain wave patterns that are produced when a citizen resists the hypnotic suggestions relayed below the normal hearing threshold over every television and radio broadcast.

We know who you are.

 

[TWB]

Perhaps it would, however, explain some of the posters here.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

At what altitude were the planes when the calls were "faked?"

Because, you can't really see the Pentagon from 20,000 feet, let alone, hit it...

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I mean, once you realize that something is wrong and you are cruising at tree-top level, you might be tempted to break Federal law and call 9-11 or the last person you ever want to talk to...

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

The technology has not changed since 9-11, just the size of the phones and their computing power. The basics are the same.

 

[TWB]

It is without doubt that at cruising altitude you cannot use a cell phone...I tried it.

But AJ is right, what about at 3000 feet? 2000? it is quite likely that after taking over they dropped the flight level to somewhere under 5000 feet. I think the cell handoff issue is interesting, I dunno whether the speed of the plane prevents handoff between cells.

 

[dolf]

did anyone actually read all of that?

i tried but felt myself slipping into a coma less than 1/4 of the way through.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Thanks T.

dolf, we don't need to read it; all these threads say the same thing.

A conspiracy of thousands is working in complete secrecy to bring war to Arabs for Oil...

 

[dolf]

dolf, we don't need to read it.

thank gawd for that!

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

And, the dumbest Nazi on the face of the planet arranged it all from Crawford Texas and then went out and stole an election to put all those plans in place, Diebold was in on it, which is why they are out of business now, so we cannot ask questions…

And in the NE corridor, unlike the Midwest, there's a lot of overlap, it's not a matter of running out of a cell, but which signal is the strongest and since things run on packets, one call may span as many cells as needed. The packets don't care...

This is the stuff my Alma Matter's computer science department specializes in because of MCI/Sprint's proximity.



And that's where I got my degree.

Lovelynice, where's your degree from?

What field?

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

thank gawd for that!

Do you realize how many members of the Religion of Peace you just offended?

It's spelled 'A-l-l-a-h...'

 

[OTownMarine]

What the hell? Your original cell phone conspiracy theory dies so you start another spouting the same nonsense? You really are pathetic. On a more positive note, it appears you're becoming quite adept at right click copy, right click paste.... Bravo!

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

You've got to BELIEVE!

 

[Lovelynice]

At what altitude were the planes when the calls were ...

...FAKED? as they obviously were...

ANSWER;
Between 31,000 and 35,000 feet.

Too high up to make successful cellphone calls,and flying too fast to maintain any connection for more than a few seconds...which doesn't matter because five to six miles up, making a successful cellphone is IMPOSSIBLE anyway.

Cellular antenna towers don't aim at the SKY moron, they aim to cover the people on the GROUND!

United Airlines Flight 175
United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:

"It pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14."

The Report confirms that by 8:33, "it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet." According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it "deviated from its assigned altitude":

"The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it."

And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.

[Flight UAL 175] "At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cellphone. Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. (Moreover, Hanson's call could have been initiated at least a minute prior to his father Lee Hanson picking up the phone.)

United Airlines Flight 93
According to the 9-11 Commission's account:

"the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.”70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft...."

The Report claims that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report's confirmation of the plane's attitude of 35,000 feet. In other words, the calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost UAL 93’s transponder signal (9.41) and approximately 30 minutes before the crash in Pennsylvania (10.03)

There was no indication from the Report that the aircraft had swooped down to a lower level of altitude, apart from the 700 feet drop recorded at 9.28. from a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. Shortly after the alleged hijacking commences, the passengers and flight crew allegedly began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones.

The alleged call (strangely not mentioned in the Report) by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.

"Local emergency officials said they received a cell phone call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the plane had been hijacked. "We are being hijacked! We are being hijacked!" he was quoted as saying.

Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.

"He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_90401.html

 

[dolf]

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

How many people do you recon it took to fake all that?

Whoo hoo, whoo hoo hoo! Whoo hoo, whoo hoo hoo! Whoo hoo; whoo hoo… Whoo hoo, whoo hoo hoo!

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I really am curious, what's your degree field?

 

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

At what altitude were the planes when the calls were "faked?"

Because, you can't really see the Pentagon from 20,000 feet, let alone, hit it...

If you took those shades off, you could see it.

 

[Lovelynice]

Let's repeat this since the shills have trouble responding with any facts to deny it;

CELLPHONE CALLS ARE IMPOSSIBLE FROM SIX MILES UP IN A PASSENGER JET FLYING AT OVER 450MPH....

and what height were the planes at when the first of the FAKE cellphone calls were made?

Between 31,000 and 35,000 feet.

United Airlines Flight 175
United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:

"It pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14."

The Report confirms that by 8:33, "it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet." According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it "deviated from its assigned altitude":

"The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it."

And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.

[Flight UAL 175] "At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cellphone. Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. (Moreover, Hanson's call could have been initiated at least a minute prior to his father Lee Hanson picking up the phone.)

United Airlines Flight 93
According to the 9-11 Commission's account:

"the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.”70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft...."

The Report claims that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report's confirmation of the plane's attitude of 35,000 feet. In other words, the calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost UAL 93’s transponder signal (9.41) and approximately 30 minutes before the crash in Pennsylvania (10.03)

There was no indication from the Report that the aircraft had swooped down to a lower level of altitude, apart from the 700 feet drop recorded at 9.28. from a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. Shortly after the alleged hijacking commences, the passengers and flight crew allegedly began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones.

The alleged call (strangely not mentioned in the Report) by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.

"Local emergency officials said they received a cell phone call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the plane had been hijacked. "We are being hijacked! We are being hijacked!" he was quoted as saying.

Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.

"He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_90401.html

Well, since I did answer your question and you have not brought up ANYTHING to prove the answer otherwise, and it's obvious that the CELLPHONE calls were FAKE, then I guess that I win, huh?

You shills are so useless.

You can't even defend your own bullshit "Arabs did it" story without having to resort to posting nonsense without any facts.

The Official 9/11 Lie is dying in the light of harsh reality and the unbending laws of physics.

Simple logic;
Impossible to make cellphone calls = faked cellphone calls = the US government LIED.

By all means, keeping pretending otherwise, use as many alts as you like, but your defence of the Official LIES is a failure.

 

[Lovelynice]

The shills can't scientifically prove cellphone calls are possible six miles up in a passenger jet, because the opposite is true.

A cellphone transmits a mere 3 watts, with about 1 mile range per watt, so six miles up is already twice their maximum range.

Moving at over 450mph, they're also out of the cellular antenna tower's "cell" before they can complete the handshake for a connection except for 0.006 of time.

In such a time-frame, moving at 450mph or more, even if they make the connection (only possible at low altitude, not at 31,000-35,000ft), it can't last more than 6-8 seconds because the plane is flying too fast and is already out of the cell before the call can be passed on with another handshake. The planes in question were flying at 500mph or faster at the time the calls were made.

Put these together, and they are claiming a total impossibility.

KRcummings and Breakwall got caught out lying about it.

Cap’n AMatrixca tried to pretend that civilian cellphones can use satellites to make calls (another lie - they can't, that's why they are called cellular phones; they use a cellular network. Satellite phones are a very different device entirely).

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I'm not pretending anything, just relying on eye-witnesses who saw the Pentagon plane flying very low on it's approach to the Pentagon leaving Barbara Olsen plenty of time to say goodbye to Ted.

Did you complete High School?

I'd feel a lot better if you could provide a second source for your contention.

That's what Robert Novak would do.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

They would have reduced airspeed in order to line up on the target.