Flight 93: Cell Call Exposed Options

[georgie101]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RjNB9MGSoWc

Anyone seen this yet?
Music is too loud IMO.

[Sanders]

Anyone seen this yet?
Music is too loud IMO.

Yeah I know, the video is saying to listen carefully to the end of the call yet there's that crazy brass-section ending of a Radio-Head song playing in the background

But "you did great" is pretty clearly audible once you pick it out. Chilling.

Thanx for the link georgie.

[eti1777]

Hi,

you can hear it without music in the Moussaoui exibit zip, although i'm not sure it's really 'you did great' that has been said...
The husband's testimony is more damning IMO, confirming she called from her cellphone...

edit: After converting it in mp3 and re-loop-listening it sounds like "you did great". There's also another sound, after she knocks the phone for the first time at the end, something like "all right dear", "call received"? Can't make it out.

This post has been edited by eti1777: Jul 30 2008, 04:59 PM

[eti1777]

And how about Waleska Martinez, seated in the middle of the plane, alledgedly calling from the back, to some brokers company, Dratel Group Inc, ..., but without making any contact. How do they know it was her calling?

[honway]

From Moussaoui trial exhibits:

[hturt]

At around 18-20 Seconds there is noise in the back ground that is very faint, would need someone that knows how to analyze audio to bring it out. Also, is that call rather unnoisy from a plane in descent?

[albertchampion]

could someone tell me why this board is still giving "air" to the cell phone issue.

technicallly, this is a "decided" issue, i think. unless a passenger had a window seat, unless the aircraft was below 5,000 ft and circling a cell tower, no cell phone connections could be made. and definitely no extended conversation could be implemented.

anyone who attempts to assert that any cell phone conversations occurred from the "involved" aircraft that day is either ignorant or a disinformation agent.

what has always fascinated me is how it has been that no one[s] seem to know about the cell phone system in the areas traversed by 77,93.

in that area of the usa, this area where cell phone calls purportedly were made, is the worst cell tower covered area in the usa. that was the case in 2001. and it is still the case. and that is for individuals on the ground and stationary.

i frequently put my sales engineers into this territory. when in that territory, as far as cellphone communications are concerned, they are out of it. only when they can get to a landline can they communicate with my offices.

[amazed!]

Good post Albert. I agree.

[hturt]

Did the GTE phones in the seat backs work differently?

[eti1777]

could someone tell me why this board is still giving "air" to the cell phone issue.

technicallly, this is a "decided" issue, i think. unless a passenger had a window seat, unless the aircraft was below 5,000 ft and circling a cell tower, no cell phone connections could be made. and definitely no extended conversation could be implemented.

anyone who attempts to assert that any cell phone conversations occurred from the "involved" aircraft that day is either ignorant or a disinformation agent.

what has always fascinated me is how it has been that no one[s] seem to know about the cell phone system in the areas traversed by 77,93.

in that area of the usa, this area where cell phone calls purportedly were made, is the worst cell tower covered area in the usa. that was the case in 2001. and it is still the case. and that is for individuals on the ground and stationary.

i frequently put my sales engineers into this territory. when in that territory, as far as cellphone communications are concerned, they are out of it. only when they can get to a landline can they communicate with my offices.

Hi albertchampion,

I don't think there's any "air" given to the cellphones-working-on-a-plane issue. I'm convinced they didn't. I should have been clearer. The husband saying he saw her cellphone number appearing on his phone makes me believe that the call made from CeeCee Lyles cellphone was not made from the plane, or any planes, but from the ground.

[hturt]

ahh you're right he does say he saw her CallerID. The AttaZIP file posted by eti1777 says she made the call from a GTE airphone. They can't have it both ways.

[eti1777]

ahh you're right he does say he saw her CallerID. The AttaZIP file posted by eti1777 says she made the call from a GTE airphone. They can't have it both ways.

there's alledgedly one from the GTE airphone, left on the answering-machine, and one from her cellphone afterwards to her husband.

[albertchampion]

no apologies, but i must admit that i can sound snippy concerning this topic.

if you will recall, it was ted olson[solicitor genereral of the usa], that promoted the prevarications of an "end-of-life" phone call[S] from his fascist-broadcaster wife, barbara, in which he stated that she had told him that "arabic hijackers" had seized AA77.

it must never be forgotten that it was this "report" by the counsel, an attorney-an officer of the court, to the bush administration, that was, has been, remains the only linkage of hijackings of commercial airliners on that day.

ted olson was, has been, is, will always be a gauleiter of the amerikan nazi party. his wife was an amerikan nazi agitprop agent.

knowing what i knew about cell phones/air phones, i wrote some scathing analyses of ted olson's very consequential prevarications. they were the prevarications that caused the usa to invade afghanistan, iraq. these were "aired" at rense.com within days of 11/09/01.

when i would discuss these "comm issues" with friends[sic] and associates, they would respond by calling me a "conspiracy theorist" or a tin-foil madhatter.

it was very disconcerting. people denying realities. were they bushits? yes, by and large. did they want to learn about cell and airphone comm realities? they did not. they were very comfortable to go and start the mass killing of non-combatants. i must say, however, that i found demtillians as reluctant to accommodate realities...they were just as keen on signing up for mass-murder[just as long as their children would be exempted from service in the military].

even more disconcerting was how everyone in the comm industry kept their mouths shut. but i guess, by now, we know why...the managements of all those companies were, in the main, also reptillian fascist bastids.

and even now, as a matter of politics, the grotesque lies stemming from 11/09/01 that led us into two essentially genocidal invasions of sovereign nations are not going to be a subject of election politics. the treason[s] at the jcs, executive branch, legistlative branch, judicial branch levels that created the events of that day, that have created the new totalitarian state of amerika, will not be a topic for the forthcoming elections.

this presidential election will be like most elections in the past. it will continue to be the model that enron exploited in its energy trading scheme.....all a punch and judy show.

[Johnny Angel]

Discussing this cell phone topic, 2006, five years after 911,, A fellow worker while on a jet passenger plane flying from pittsburg to Miami, claims that he sucessfully made cell phone calls from high above the clouds.. Using his personnell phone, not the Airlines phone..

I have read that by 2004 the Airlines have added, technology to allow personell cell phone to be used. Some type of receiver on the plane which receives calls and uses a more powerful signal to get the call to a land base.

This is the place to get the correct answer... Thanks..

[simba]

could someone tell me why this board is still giving "air" to the cell phone issue.

technicallly, this is a "decided" issue, i think. unless a passenger had a window seat, unless the aircraft was below 5,000 ft and circling a cell tower, no cell phone connections could be made. and definitely no extended conversation could be implemented.

anyone who attempts to assert that any cell phone conversations occurred from the "involved" aircraft that day is either ignorant or a disinformation agent.

what has always fascinated me is how it has been that no one[s] seem to know about the cell phone system in the areas traversed by 77,93.

in that area of the usa, this area where cell phone calls purportedly were made, is the worst cell tower covered area in the usa. that was the case in 2001. and it is still the case. and that is for individuals on the ground and stationary.

i frequently put my sales engineers into this territory. when in that territory, as far as cellphone communications are concerned, they are out of it. only when they can get to a landline can they communicate with my offices.

I tried it personally when airborne especially when in a holding pattern at 210 kts or family vfr flights at 120 kts at low altitudes around big Dutch cities and we have a very good cell phone infrastructure but making mobile calls is impossible above 1000 ft and can say that most of the time above 500 ft is impossible to stay connect longer then 5 seconds when switching from pole to pole. I never had spoken any pilot here that really can…. Just my 2 cents…

This post has been edited by simba: Aug 3 2008, 07:43 AM

[amazed!]

Fascinating story Albert.

The Nazis are in control, no doubt.

As for the cellphone thing, the differences between 2001 and now are fairly significant, in terms of technology. I can remember a guy when they first came out that owned a Cessna 414 which I used to fly. Once he used his cellphone from the cabin, and got all sorts of complaints from the carrier. Anyway, in certain locations and altitudes the older technology would work in an airplane, but only under certain conditions related to keeping the airplane relative to the antenna.

I just finished flying a helicopter for 6 years, and at 1500 feet, the cellphone goes "No Signal".

The other day I flew a guy in a Baron, he's got the latest and greatest blackberry, and he is getting messages at 9500 feet. My guess is somehow the satellites are involved.

[Ricochet]

Discussing this cell phone topic, 2006, five years after 911,, A fellow worker while on a jet passenger plane flying from pittsburg to Miami, claims that he sucessfully made cell phone calls from high above the clouds.. Using his personnell phone, not the Airlines phone..

I have read that by 2004 the Airlines have added, technology to allow personell cell phone to be used. Some type of receiver on the plane which receives calls and uses a more powerful signal to get the call to a land base.

This is the place to get the correct answer... Thanks..

It's called Picocell, which is an access point base station—is a small cellular base station within the aircraft. It captures the cell signal amplifies and directs it to a ground station relay. The APBS protects the aircrafts instumentation from signal interference. The technology for the airline industry did not come out until after 2002 and was still then mostly experimental.

[albertchampion]

ah, i have written about this perviously on this board. but to reiterate.....

since 1998, i have routinely flown from iah - lax - iah.

i did this at least 4-8 times a year. until 2005. now i only do it 3-4 times a year.

after sept 2001, however, i made a point of tracking cell phone capabilities on that route. as you may know, the commercial air traffic essentially flies over I-10. and I-10 has sprint cell towers virtually every hundred miles.

in a first class window seat, bulkhead row, i have kept my cellphone on for virtually everyone of these flights. here is a recap of my experiences...

departing iah, cell phone signal is lost within 2-4 minutes on climb-out.

before departing, i had voicemail msg left for me.

until june 2007, no cell service connected with me enroute to relay this voicemail msg.

first cell signal connection was not made until just crossing the 405 on final to lax.

in 2007, something changed. and i knew beforehand that it had changed. sprint had erected a cell tower 2x-3x taller outside el paso. so, virtually over el paso, sprint connected with my cellphone to report a voicemail msg. i immediately attempted to retrieve the msg. that never happened. by the time i made that attempt, the continental 737-900 was out of range.

and that is the problem with cell connections from "vehicles" traveling at more than 100-200 mph. "handshaking" can neither be completed nor a connection maintained with the connection-initiating cell tower.

at palm springs, in the descent into lax, the airliner's altitude is approx 10,000 ft. and once again, my cell phone got a connection noting a voice mail msg. but as i instantly tried to retrieve that msg, the signal was lost.

and though flying into lax, over a well cell-towered, heavily populated metropolis, no signal was noticed, no connection made until we were virtually on the ground.

on the return flights from lax-iah, same story.

so, my conclusions have always been that all attempts to conduct cell phone conversations from commercial airliners at cruising altitudes, traveling linearly at cruising speeds will fail. and that anyone who says otherwise is a disinfo agent.

these iah-lax-iah flights may be the best covered routes with cell phones in north america. the aircraft is always above a cell tower circuit. still, until 2007 with the erection of two taller towers[el paso, palm springs] no signals could be received in a first class window seat.

and by the way, in a friendly environment, i had a difficult time monitoring my cell phone without the flight attendants noticing. imagine the situation with hijackers roaming the cabin.

and lastly, in any seat other than a window seat, i think i would never have received any signals at el paso, palm springs in 2007.

and as to airphones, it must never be forgotten that there is a switch that disables them. would hijackers have failed to shut-off that service?

but i have related my airphone experiences previously. i shall not bore you again.

occam's razor would say that there were no long-winded telephonic communications conducted from the 4 aircraft that day.


and why is it that i think the fbi agrees with me?

[Ricochet]

albertchampion
Another curious question. If Cee Cee Lyles was a former policewomen, why wouldn't she join in the asault on the suppossed hijackers?

This post has been edited by Ricochet: Aug 3 2008, 04:39 PM

[ogrady]

Like the OK City bombing (large explosive devices removed by bomb trucks - news footage of first reports - never played or mentioned again) and WTC bombs (news footage of bomb witnesses, audio recordings of large explosives, fireman's testimony of bombs, etc. - shown in first reports - never played again), it is by the initial reports - which are quickly excised and deposited in Memory Hole - that we can identify the cover-up.

Flight 93 Lands in Cleveland - (from Cleveland Mayor and United spokesman). Cleveland Airport Evacuated. Google this story and you will be told - This story does not exist. Well, it existed in the initial reports on 911.

My conclusion. Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. There's no reason not to believe the initial reports that slipped through the cracks and every reason not to believe any of the subsequent lies.

Similarly, the Barbara Olsen phone calls (from which we get ALL of our information about hijackers with plastic boxcutters) - never existed according to the FBI. If these calls were never placed (Olsen's calls have been exhaustively researched elsewhere - but Moussaui trial evidence dismisses them entirely) where do we get the info about the boxcutters?

The perps have painted themselves into a corner at every turn. Why don't more people want to know?