Those IMPLAUSIBLE & IMPOSSIBLE cellphone calls

[Pookie]

Remember the FAKE confession videos? Anyone with a brain can recognise that this Mr Fat Nose (ON THE LEFT) from the 2001 fake confession video is not the REAL Osama bin Laden (ON THE RIGHT).

http://h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/fake_osama_comparo1.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/binladen8.jpg

"Basically, the reason why Osama bin Laden looks fat in the video, and in some frames particularly fat, is because of the camera angle, shadowing and lighting, and the fact that the PAL to NTSC conversion squashed the vertical by 17 percent while the horizontal proportion remained the same as the original."

http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id372.html



LOL

 

[Pookie]

Proving the eternal wisdom of P.T. Barnum.

What makes it even funnier is that I bet LN isn't even getting a cut of the money these scam artists are making off their conspiracy theories.

I bet she bought a t-shirt though. *nods*

 

[unregistered]

 

[Lovelynice]

"Basically, the reason why Osama bin Laden looks fat in the video, and in some frames particularly fat, is because ...

is because it's not Osama bin Laden in that OBVIOUSLY FAKE VIDEO (frame-E).

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/binladen8.jpg

Mr Fatnose looks more like Michael Moore than Osama bin Laden.

even with the alleged 17% bullshit excuse about the PAL to NTSC conversion, Mr Fat Nose still looks nothing like the real Osama. This image below is stretched by 17% and the nose SHAPE is clearly DIFFERENT - and it's a still VERY FAT NOSE, if anything, a 17% stretching of the vertical makes it even more obvious that this man is definitely NOT Osama bin Laden.
http://xs513.xs.to/xs513/07105/MrFatNose.jpg.xs.jpg


and if we stretch the image vertically enough to get the nose looking loong and thin enough, we end up with a face that is also DEFINITELY NOT OSAMA BIN LADEN

http://xs513.xs.to/xs513/07105/MrFatNoseStretched.gif



Pookie's bullshit excuses drop dead again.

 

[Lovelynice]

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing...

LOSE AGAIN, IT WAS NOT A TOWER BUILDING -- it was a low-rise building and nothing like a steel-framed hi-rise tower.

try again, dear.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf

The Kader Toy Factory also collapsed due to fires...

LOSE AGAIN, IT WAS NOT A TOWER BUILDING -- it was a low-rise 4-storey building and nothing like a steel-framed hi-rise tower..


Pookie's bullshit just dropped dead like a stone.

You're not exactly the brainiest of the bunch are you, dear.....

and yet again, you idiots failed to answer the following

WTC 7 wasn't hit by any plane.

and it's collapse was EXACTLY like any other controlled demolition. Explain that.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif


and WTC 1 & 2 both went STRAIGHT-DOWN just like controlled demolitions do.

3 steel-framed buildings doing on ONE DAY doing what can only be done with, and has only been done, with CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS.

Your excuse fails.

Do try again, dear. It isn't difficult to use your brain.

No plane hit this building - it's a typical controlled demolition
http://xs513.xs.to/xs513/07104/building-implosion-11.gif

So is this...
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc7/oslo_demo_clips.jpg

and neither did a plane hit this building...and it's an obvious controlled demolition too...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/hsw_implosion.gif
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/wtc7_collapse_lg.gif
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/wtc7_cbs_lowman.gif


Just like this is a controlled demolition...
http://xs513.xs.to/xs513/07104/building-implosion-9.gif

and despite your bullshit excuses, this one is an obvious controlled demolition too...
http://xs513.xs.to/xs513/07104/image023.jpg

and NONE OF YOU moronic lying government trolls has ever been able to cite anything to back your 9/11 "Arabs did it with boxcutters" silliness with an answer to this;

EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed STRAIGHT-DOWN into their own footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.

Can any of you silly shills cite a single exception to this?

With a photo, video, or anything else.

For MONTHS, AND MONTHS, AND MONTHS you shills have never been able to answer this. Instead, like Pookie the nutter has done, the government trolls have tried to pass of LOW-RISE buildings as if they were hi-rises, tried to pass off CONCRETE buildings as if they were steel-framed (KRcummings did that), and one of the total losers even tried to pass off a 4-storey WOODEN-FRAMED BRICK TOWN-HOUSE as if it were a steel-framed tower building.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Lovelynice]

Ahahaha, that little apparatchik ...

is as dumb as you are.

vetteman, you really prove yourself to be a total loser because you have NEVER been able to counter anything that I've stated.

all you can do is make really DUMB insults as stupid and brainless as Miles.

Pookie got shown as FUCKING WRONG AGAIN

Deal with it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Lovelynice]

Look...

Ah, more insults without a damn answer. It must be sooooo frustrating to have NOBODY BUT FOOLS believe your lying defence of the USA government's bullshit.

How pathetic.

EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed STRAIGHT-DOWN into their own footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.

Can any of you silly shills cite a single exception to this?

With a photo, video, or anything else.

STILL WAITING!

It must be be even more frustrating that the US govt's 9/11 LIE is falling apart around you and YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY. Most people don't believe your total fucking nonsense - because most people are smarter than you lying shills.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Lovelynice]

Don't be silly, we do not have a bevy of buildings that have been collapsed due to airliner impact ....

Oh how sad for your bullshit excuses....

WTC 7 wasn't hit by any plane.

That fucks you up straight away, and most people are well aware of it.


and it's collapse was EXACTLY like any other controlled demolition. Explain that.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif


and WTC 1 & 2 both went STRAIGHT-DOWN just like controlled demolitions do.

3 steel-framed buildings doing on ONE DAY doing what can only be done with, and has only been done, with CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS.

Your excuse fails.


Do try again, dear. It isn't difficult to use your brain.

No plane hit this building - it's a typical controlled demolition
http://xs513.xs.to/xs513/07104/building-implosion-11.gif

So is this...
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc7/oslo_demo_clips.jpg

and neither did a plane hit this building...and it's an obvious controlled demolition too...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/hsw_implosion.gif
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/wtc7_collapse_lg.gif
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/wtc7_cbs_lowman.gif


Just like this is a controlled demolition...
http://xs513.xs.to/xs513/07104/building-implosion-9.gif

and despite your bullshit excuses, this one is an obvious controlled demolition too...
http://xs513.xs.to/xs513/07104/image023.jpg

and NONE OF YOU moronic lying government trolls has ever been able to cite anything to back your 9/11 "Arabs did it with boxcutters" silliness with an answer to this;

EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed STRAIGHT-DOWN into their own footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.

Can any of you silly shills cite a single exception to this?

With a photo, video, or anything else.

For MONTHS, AND MONTHS, AND MONTHS you shills have never been able to answer this.

and as I pointed out VERY CLEARLY already, Pookie the total loser failed YET AGAIN.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Lovelynice]

Most of those people ...

wrong, Mr Loonybin

as you well know.

You idiotic defenders of the USA government's LIES AND BULLSHIT are vastly outnumbered - as I and others have REPEATEDLY shown, and you losers have never been able to counter.

Nearly every poll proves me right.

 

[Lovelynice]

International media doesn't believe you morons either

Largest Swiss Paper Asks
If Bush Was Behind 911
By Elie Peter
9-18-6

ZURICH -- 2,973 humans died with the attacks of 9/11. "Bin Laden" and

"Al Qaeda", the Bush clan cried. The world believed him. In the meantime even scientists doubt the Bush version.

Now, Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel (63) and Daniele Ganser (34) raise hot new questions.

"Something is not correct", says strategy expert Stahel in "World Week", and refers to the "incomplete" official US Government 9/11 Report of 2004.

The university professor confirms his criticism in VIEW:

"Osama Bin Laden cannot be 'the large godfather' behind the attacks. He did not have enough means of communication".

Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon:

"For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World trade center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear."

Raising questions along with Stahel is historian Dr. Daniele Ganser, his colleague at the University of Zurich.

Dr. Daniele Ganser

Dr. Ganser also calls the official US version "a conspiracy theory".

"There are 3 theories, which we should treat equally":

1. "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks.

2. "Let it happen on purpose" - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in order to legitimize a series of wars.

3. "Made it happen on purpose" - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the Pentagon and/or US secret services.

Ganser: "3,000 humans were sacrificed for strategic interests. The more we research, the more we doubt the Bush version. It is conceivable that the Bush government was responsible. Bush has lied so much already! And we already know that the US government planned an operation in 1962 (Operation Northwoods) that was approved by the Pentagon that would have sacrificed innocent US citizens for the government's own interests."

As far as Ganser and Stahel go: "We only ask questions."

Swiss version: http://www.blick.ch/news/ausland/9-11/artikel45057

English Translation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.blick.ch/news/ausla\ nd%2F9-11%2Fartikel45057&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=
UTF-8&oe=UTF-\ 8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

 

[unregistered]

 

[KRCummings]

Hey when I want to know about banking or cheese I'll talk to the fucking Swiss. How the fuck would they know what happened?

The Swiss have some incredible architects and engineers. And chocolatiers. Can't forget the chocolate.
Anyway, they'd know what they were talking about but the ones talking shit are not better than that Jones guy. Morons looking for publicity and probably don't even believe what they are saying or were taken out of context in the first place.

You're wasting your time, ya know. It's like arguing religion, you won't win.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Pookie]

Remember the FAKE confession videos? Anyone with a brain can recognise that this Mr Fat Nose (ON THE LEFT) from the 2001 fake confession video is not the REAL Osama bin Laden (ON THE RIGHT).

http://h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/fake_osama_comparo1.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/binladen8.jpg

"Basically, the reason why Osama bin Laden looks fat in the video, and in some frames particularly fat, is because of the camera angle, shadowing and lighting, and the fact that the PAL to NTSC conversion squashed the vertical by 17 percent while the horizontal proportion remained the same as the original."

http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id372.html



LOL

 

[Pookie]

BZZZZT!
EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed STRAIGHT-DOWN into their own footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.

Can any of you silly shills cite a single exception to this?

With a photo, video, or anything else.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. The Meridian Plaza didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It, like the WTC, used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a

The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." Wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgeably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

About 2 years later the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf

The Kader Toy Factory also collapsed due to fires. It had a steel frame.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/kade-m16.shtml

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

You can find more examples here, at the bottom of the page:

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Many CTs seem to “forget” the two planes, or the construction style of the buildings. Some even dare compare a concrete building to a steel-frame building.



Logical fallacies and strawmen seem to be all you have, LN. Why do you need them? I thought truth was on your side?

 

[Pookie]

LOL!!!11one1!!!11eleventy!111

 

[Pookie]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif

Yep, looks EXACTLY like a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

If you deny that, you are either a moronic fuckwit or a liar.

Naw. It probably means he did some research and knows you're trying to pull one over to sucker people into supporting your scam ... and maybe even making a "monetary love offering" to the "search for truth". Heh.

With some simple research, here is just a small sample of what can be found ...

CTs often show video from street level and remark about how quickly the building fell (6.6 seconds, according to an estimate by BYU professor Steven E. Jones and his students, although since much of the collapse is obscured by other buildings and by the dust and smoke thrown up by WTC 7, it’s impossible to tell exactly when the collapse ends).

However, in this video http://*******.com/z66rz (download and play it in full-screen mode) it’s obvious that the collapse takes at least 13.5 seconds from the first movement of the east mechanical penthouse, a structure about 115 x 130 feet (35 x 40 meters) in area, until it disappears behind the foreground buildings. NIST and FEMA posit that the penthouse collapse was due to collapses on floors at the lower levels.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

Some quotes from the firefighters and others on the damage ...

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a col-lapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt. [Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story build-ing, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [would-n't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely. http://*******.com/g8c6y

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF

...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110217.PDF

At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

[Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Vis-conti http://*******.com/paqux

A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110045.PDF

I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

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 hose line 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 Brandeis 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, Vis-conti, 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.
Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was proba-bly a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.
– Capt. Chris Boyle http://*******.com/e7bzp

So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.
In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.
I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.
Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers. http://*******.com/n5xap


I gots plenty more if you think this isn't enough, LN. Are you going to call all these people (and many many others) moronic fuckwits or a liars too?

If the truth is on your side, why do you have to use deception, LN?

 

[Pookie]

Yes, various altitudes from anything below 10,000ft and in MUCH SLOWER planes.

Let's see you provide REAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES to prove that cellphones can make successful calls from above 30,000ft while flying at over 450mph.

You have yet to cite any.

The only person being debunked is YOU and your very silly excuses (you even tried passing off a slow-moving prop-plane as being equivalent to a jet! )

Pookie, you and the other shills like you on this site, are a bunch of losers. You BORE me.

There's plenty of evidence to support cell phone having been used at altitudes above 10,000 feet at passenger/commercial airplane speeds for many years now, before and after 9/11. You're the one claiming it's not possible. So, prove it's not possible. Until you do, I have no reason to believe those who've stated they have made calls over the years are lying. I have plenty of reason to suspect you are though, Ms. Zogby Poll.


Often referred by Project Achilles

http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm

There is a problem with the Project Achilles experiment: None of the factors of the experiment match what happened on 9/11.

Aircraft: Diamond DA20/C1 Katana two-seater

Cellphones: one Motorola model "120 CDMA" cellphone (A) two Motorola "i1000 plus" cellphones (B) (both fully charged at flight time)

Location: London, Ontario.

The 9/11 aircraft was a 757, airfones were used, and the area overflown had a much greater population density than Shanksville, (I live in Ontario, and I know London is packed), which would affect signaling.

The fact is, the cell phone argument is quite moot since very few of them were used and there was a chance that they could work because Shanksville's population is quite low, therefore less interference with signaling. Project Achilles is a perverted variation of scientific studies.

Continuing on, Avionics Magazine interviewed Bill Strauss, a gentleman who studies cell phones and their effects on planes. Here is part of the interview.
Avionics: Were cell phones used in violation of the rules?

Strauss: I was able to specifically identify eight signals that were cellular calls in flight. Some were at very high altitude, which is technically not possible, according to most cell phone manufacturers. They say calls can't be made that high. Well, we found differently.

Now, did those calls hold for minutes? Probably not. But were they completed? Yes. Calls actually were initiated at, for example, 7,000 feet, 12,000 feet, 18,000 feet and two at 35,000 feet.

Avionics: Do service providers fear that cell phone use at such altitudes would
damage their ground transmitters?

Strauss: That was the original concern. That's why the FCC originally came with the ban on cell phones in the air. The FAA has always deferred to that ban.

In some cases the FCC took care of the FAA's work. Now the FCC is saying, "We no longer see this as an issue because of the sophistication of the cellular network." FCC feels it can probably lift the ban, even if there are problems of interference. They're saying to FAA, "If you want a ban, that's your territory."

You can read more information on the Flight 93 on the following:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html




And yet, Project Achilles says it is possible.

Lovelynice, can't you get anything right? Just once? Seems like the truth isn't on your side? Say it's not so!!!!

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Which network is that? Mine keeps dropping calls at sea level...

 

[Lovelynice]

There's plenty of evidence to support cell phone having been used at altitudes above 10,000 feet at passenger/commercial airplane speeds for many years now, before and after 9/11.

Please provide such evidence with detail on scientific studies showing that the calls are possible.

You have yet to do so. Making generalisations is just more bullshit.

In some cases the FCC ...

Blah, blah, blah....

Carrying on about the LEGALITY is fucking pointless, dear.

I've asked you REPEATEDLY to cite a scientific study which shows that cellphones can make successful calls lasting upto 25 minutes from a passenger jet flying six miles up at over 450mph.

You have FAILED once again, to do so.

TRY AGAIN

 

[Lovelynice]

The 9/11 aircraft was a 757, airfones were used,...

You are bullshitting with a MAJOR pile of crapola with that one, pretending that all the alleged calls were on airfones.

Unfortunately for you, that simply isn't true.

ALL OF THESE CALLS WERE ALLEGED TO BE ON CELLPHONES - which so far, has been proven IMPOSSIBLE to do without an onboard cellular basestation, technology which DIDN'T EXIST until 2004


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

The FACT that these calls could only be FAKE, makes the airfone calls highly questionable as well. This is why your bullshit story FALLS FLAT and DIES.