IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Cellphones/airphones - All Fiction?, or calls real and from airphones

andrewkornkven
post Oct 10 2007, 09:34 AM
Post #21





Group: Newbie
Posts: 52
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 105



QUOTE (tit2 @ Oct 10 2007, 09:32 AM)
Deena Burnett specifies that her husband Tom Burnett used his CELL PHONE for the four calls. It would be necessary that it makes a mistake for the four calls so that the official version can be regarded as truth.

How on earth does Deena know the call is coming from a cellphone?

I do not regard Screw Loose Change as a credible source of information. Neither do I trust "The Tom Burnett Foundation." I maintain that the calls were real, made from airphones.

The information being put out that they were from cellphones is part of a disinformation campaign to make us reject all the phone calls and turn our attention away from the information from those calls that is damning to the official story.

P.S. Let's not forget that at the Moussoui trial, the evidence submitted showed all the calls from Burnett being made on airphones. It's a lot harder to put out disinformation when you are in a court of law, so the FBI had to tell the truth there.

This post has been edited by andrewkornkven: Oct 10 2007, 09:36 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 10 2007, 05:32 PM
Post #22





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



That is a very naive statement Andrew.

I wish it weren't so, but lies are told under oath all the time. There is even a term for it here in the US: "testilying".

If there was no Boeing at Shanksville or the Pentagon, those phone calls are utterly contrived. Faked, if you will, staged, or whatever else you want to call it, but not as represented.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Oct 10 2007, 11:27 PM
Post #23





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



oh, i think i read your essay.

i concluded that you give way too much credit to the bozos orchestrating this ongoing coup d'etat.

but, i am an old guy. and what do i know.

i knew that it was a coup instantly...and what i had to say was aired on rense.com within hours of the events of 11/09/01. i dissected the lies concerning the failures to intercept. but most importantly, i discussed the lies of the purported telephonic communications. all the usg's stories of those communications were/are grotesque prevarications. and why were those stories proferred? because without them there was no other evidence of any hijackings occurring.

all the calls[cellphone/airphone] were fabricated so as to bulwark the "cover" for the furtherance of the coup that began in the 2000 election.

unfortunately, at the time, with very rare exception, no one paid much attention to the realities of telephonic communication from aircraft. certainly the zionist/usg-controlled media avoided the issue.

just as they continue to avoid daniel hopsicker's investigations into the purported perps and their lives and associates in venice, florida.[i must confess that i consider hopsicker's work the most important ignored investigation. even project censored doesn't want to deal with it. that should inform you that even project censored is a bit of a fraud].

the real interesting part of the history is the creator of the "legend" of osama bin laden. a dual passporter[us & israel]. a rabbi by the name of yossef bodansky. a real lizard. along with michael chertoff, and most of the other zionist neocons, who manipulated the usa into a "crusade", i care to insist that he has been an agent of the israeli intell services. who found a home in the reptillian party[but the demtillians, also victims of israeli extortion, have never repudiated his manipulations of facts].

prior to the publication of his book that created the "legend" of bin laden, he authored a few other books. one of particular interest.....

TARGET AMERICA: TERRORISM IN THE US TODAY[the full story of who declared a holy war against america and canada...and why]. when bodansky wrote this book, published by shapolsky[a cia proprietary at that time], he was identified on the cover as an "International Terrorism Expert". his real title at the time was DIRECTOR OF THE REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON TERRORISM & UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE OF THE U S CONGRESS.

bodansky has been a shadow type of agent. when given air on cspan's washington journal after the events of 11/09/01, his appearance was predicated upon his bio of bin laden[a book, by the way, that was being remaindered as of 11/09/01]. early into his appearance, a caller asked him about TARGET AMERICA. his response was very interesting...he became quite exercised, shouted that he was not there to discuss anything other than his bio of the "legend", bin laden, and walked off the set. it was a "bit" that went unnoticed.

it fascinated me, however. who was/is yossef bodansky. before he became adopted by the republican party in the 1990's, he wrote some very anti-islamic, anti-palestinian screeds under the auspices of a houston jewish/zionist foundation - the rabbi friedman foundation.

my research has led me to conclude that it was this foundation, and its acolytes, that exempted george walker bush from doing hard time for cocaine trafficking. i think this rabbinical foundation has the leverage on george walker bush. of course, i could be wrong. but what makes me think that i have it accurately is that yossef bodansky goes undiscussed, unexamined.

personally, i think that birdmen should stop being so quiet. many birdmen know the truth about that day. and should stop being so quiet. unless the birdmen are really fascist bastids at heart.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tit2
post Oct 11 2007, 05:00 AM
Post #24





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 143
Joined: 27-April 07
From: France, Ajaccio
Member No.: 999



Quote :

“How on earth does Deena know the call is coming from a cell phone?"

See:

David Ray Griffin's Response to Cell Phone Criticism

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11930

Quote:

“Casting Doubt on Deena Burnett’s Statement:

Kornkven next says: “Griffin believes the calls were made by cell phones because Deena supposedly said she looked at the caller ID.” But I do not believe the calls were “made by cell phones.” The issue is what Deena Burnett believed and why she believed it. She said the calls were made from her husband’s cell phone because she recognized his cell phone number on her phone’s caller ID. Kornkven seeks to cast doubt on this by saying: “Deena supposedly said she looked at the caller ID.” Why “supposedly”? As I have pointed out in the revised edition of D9D, she has been quoted as saying this. Also, as I pointed out in a recent article, she has stated this in a book that she published in 2006 (“I looked at the caller ID and indeed it was Tom’s cell phone number”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Dec 5 2007, 07:05 AM
Post #25


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



a small request:

does anyone have the official report for whether ed felt's call came from a cell phone or an inflight phone? most of the info out there says it was a cell phone, but one time and one time only i remember someone posting a screencap of a pdf, where the gov alleged that felt's call (along with some others) came from the plane's phone. so im confused.

does anyone know where i can find the "official" info on the ed felt call?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andrewkornkven
post Dec 5 2007, 11:45 PM
Post #26





Group: Newbie
Posts: 52
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 105



According to the evidence presented by the FBI at the Moussoaui trial, Felt's call was from a cell phone.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/planes/evi.../PhoneCalls.jpg

Such a cell phone call would have been possible in this case because the call was made at about 9:58, when the plane was presumable flying at a low altitude.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Dec 6 2007, 12:56 AM
Post #27


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (andrewkornkven @ Dec 5 2007, 11:45 PM)
According to the evidence presented by the FBI at the Moussoaui trial, Felt's call was from a cell phone.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/planes/evi.../PhoneCalls.jpg

Such a cell phone call would have been possible in this case because the call was made at about 9:58, when the plane was presumable flying at a low altitude.

thanks andrew. unfortunately when i clik that link, it takes me to the home page of that site. i was hoping for a dotgov or "official" link, cuz im fairly aware of the public info on the ed felt call.

i guess i should tell u why its so important: IF the gov claims the call came from an ONBOARD phone, then it can easily be proven to be a lie. if they claim it was from a cell phone, well then its the usual argument about wether or not such calls are possible.

regarding the elevation: yes it may have been low enough for the call to be made(debateable), BUT the speed of the plane would still restrict the call from connecting due to handoffs from tower to tower.

and of course there remains the content of felt's call which tells of a scenario that doesnt match any others', or is in direct contradiction of the other flight93 stories.


another question: do u remember how long felt's call is alleged to have lasted? its been awhile since i have worked on this subject so im rusty. but the length of that call was under a minute, right?





eta: sidenote: investigators can actually identify (using triangulation of cell tower locations) where any and or all the calls from a cellphone were made from:

http://brochin.net/cellular/your-cell-phon...-homing-beacon/
http://www.storobinspodek.com/criminaldefenseguide/?p=609

QUOTE
During a criminal investigation the District Attorneys Office will routinely obtain a Court Order for cell site (“antenna”) records. This will allow the DA to determine the general location of where cell phone calls were made from. Cell phone providers will record the identity of the antenna tower to which a particular cell phone was connected to at the beginning, and end, of each call made, or received by the cell phone. The providers maintain this information in the ordinary course of business, and retain it for their own business purposes.

The data will provide many, if not all of the following:
-The subscribers name
-The account number
-The subscribers address
-The subscribers social security number
-The subscribers date of birth
-The subscribers home telephone or alternate number

Wireless networks are divided into geographic areas, or cell sites. Each cell contains an antenna tower that sends a signal to cell phones on the particular network though which the cell phone may call and receive calls while the individual is located in the coverage area. As an individual moves from one location to another during a call, the system automatically switches the connection to the antenna that will provider the user with the best reception.

The way the cell site system works is that each cell phone that is using a particular antenna frequently transmits a unique identification code to register the cell phones presence with each company’s cell site. The company will then use this number, along with identifying information from that particular cell site that the caller is connected to, route calls to and from the cell phone. Each tower is assigned a unique number which is automatically used to route calls and record the start and end of each call.

For mobile phones to work they have to be in regular contact with the cell phone antennas. When the cell phones are on, they emit certain signals (called “pings”) to nearby cell phone towers to let the network know where the user is. The phone companies do not record a history of the pings unless they take some action to do so. Generally, they only retain the last ping, or perhaps the last 24 hours.

If a cell phone is turned on, the provider can ascertain which antenna the cell phone user is in even if they are not making a call. This is widely used by rescue workers and emergency workers. They can find out the last location that the cell phone “pinged” from. Pings narrow the physical location of an antenna and can encompass several square miles.
Todd A. Spodek, Esq. is a criminal defense attorney with Storobin & Spodek, LLP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 9 2007, 07:16 PM
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (paranoia @ Dec 5 2007, 09:56 PM)
if they claim it was from a cell phone, well then its the usual argument about wether or not such calls are possible.

regarding the elevation: yes it may have been low enough for the call to be made(debateable), BUT the speed of the plane would still restrict the call from connecting due to handoffs from tower to tower.

Hello paranoia, (an interesting statement in its own right wink.gif )

There is another issue about cell phone connections on airplanes being possible that I see rarely mentioned- Faraday cage shielding. Most Boeing jetliners (as well as tankers and cargo planes for that matter) that I'm aware of have an electrically-conductive aluminum fuselage.

I know from firsthand experience working inside a steel control center building that I needed an EXTERNAL antenna and an elevated location to make cell phone connections in a very remote worksite location.

Cell phones work reasonably well in automobiles due to the large glass windows and windshield. The relatively small and few windows on a passenger jetliner (presumably for fuselage strength) would SERIOUSLY limit the cell phone antenna coverage EXTERNAL to the fuselage, with the majority of the cell phone RF radiation being concentrated INSIDE the conductive aluminum fuselage IMHO where it could interfere with avionics systems, especially with several or many cell phones actively emitting (but I majored in physics and am no stranger to antennas and RF, so I consider this a more-scientific-than-average opinion). I'm reasonably certain that aircraft have external, downward-directed antennae for radio communications (with the notable exceptions of combat aircraft and AWACS "radomes").

The following FAA page mentions 800 MHz cell phones, but makes no mention of 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, or 1900 MHz cell phones. There are probably other relevant frequency bands too- I'm just going from memory of my cell phones' technical specifications. It states:

"Since 1991, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has banned the inflight use of 800 MHz cell phones because of potential interference with ground networks. This ban requires that in addition to the testing the FAA requires to show non-interference to the airplane systems, an airline would also need to apply for an exemption to the FCC rule before it could allow cell phone use inflight."

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_s...cfm?newsId=6275

The FCC has proposed lifting their 800 MHz ban, but the FAA still would have jurisdiction on cell phone use on airplanes:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.html

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/atta...OC-255246A1.doc

The following page has some good information and good related links:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question230.htm

It states:
"If someone were to turn on a cell phone, the cell phone would transmit with a great deal of power (up to 3 watts). If it happens to create interference that overlaps with radio frequencies the plane is using, then messages between people or computers may be garbled. If one of the wires in the plane has damaged shielding, there is some possibility of the wire picking up the phone's signals just like my computer's speakers do. That could create faulty messages between pieces of equipment within the plane."

I do know that military RF standards are exempt from and different from FAA and FCC standards for electromagnetic emissions and compatibility. The concept of harmonic frequencies also comes into play with "off-band" sources.

I would like to see some empirical test data for cell phone connectivity for aluminum vs. composite aircraft (I have read reports that a mostly composite aircraft had poor cell phone connectivity at low and moderate altitudes, but I don't have the experimenter's name with me at the moment).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Dec 10 2007, 01:59 AM
Post #29


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



thanks dmole for ur technical insights. on a related note of technical nature:


normally, in heavily populated areas with buildings and other objects in the way, the cell towers are aimed DOWNWARD, with multiple towers creating overlapping zones down below.





in less populated areas where there are less cell-towers, the overlapping of zones occurs in a direct line of sight propogation, where instead of down the antennas are pointed more or less at each other:




consequently, there is a maximum height the signal can reach (a height much lower in altitude than an airplane, "flight 93" in this case), described as a fersnel zone:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_zone
QUOTE
"To maximize receiver strength you need to minimize the effect of the out of phase signals. To do that you must make sure the strongest signals don't bump into anything - they have the maximum chance of getting to the receiver location. The strongest signals are the ones closest to the direct line between transmitter and receiver and always lie in the 1st Fresnel Zone.
The concept of Fresnel zones may also be used to analyze interference by obstacles near the path of a radio beam. The first zone must be kept largely free from obstructions to avoid interfering with the radio reception. However, some obstruction of the Fresnel zones can often be tolerated, as a rule of thumb the maximum obstruction allowable is 40%, but the recommended obstruction is 20% or less."


so even if the plane was slow enough and maybe even low enough, its chances of being able to reach a working signal is extremely limited. id say its impossible. over the last few years i have been able to convince a few of my friends to attempt to call me from onboard planes. 3 times they have agreed, and 3 times they say the call never connected. but that is hearsay so feel free to dismiss it. but here are some examples about the cell service near flight 93 path:


the following pages contain comments from cell-phone users in the 50-70 mile radius of the crash stating how intermittent and downright crappy their connections are on the ground!

comments on cell-service:

pittsburgh:
http://www.cellreception.com/search.php?zip=15201&page=1
http://www.cellreception.com/search.php?zip=15201&page=2

connellsville:
http://www.cellreception.com/search.php?zip=15425&page=1

johnstown (north of 93crater):
http://www.cellreception.com/search.php?zip=15902&page=1

greensburg (west of flight 93crater):
http://www.cellreception.com/search.php?zip=15601&page=1

stoystown:
http://www.cellreception.com/search.php?zip=15563&page=1

somerset:
http://www.cellreception.com/search.php?zip=15501&page=1


i didnt bother quoting them since there are so many who say they arent getting signals. but it supports the fact that reaching a cell tower in the area, esepcially from an airplane, is highly unlikely.


but i would really like to home in on the ed felt call. unlike the other calls his reached an actual 911 operator. based on the way the 911 system works, someone had to be in range of the westmoreland county 911 coverage area, for them to receive the call (glenn cramer received it). based on the alleged speed of the alleged plane, counting backwards from the crash, the plane would indeed be over the correct coverage area for cramer to receive the call. but we know for the most part such a call is technically impossible from a plane. so some person or persons had to have made the call (from the ground or from a slower - lower flying plane) instead. not only that but they had knowledge enough to do it at the right time, the same time as the alleged 93 would have been in the area. thats why i think getting to the bottom of the felt call can be helpful and revealing.

if the call came from an airfone, then the call is BOGUS. why? cuz how would the airfone emergency operator know where the plane was and what local 911 police jurisdiction to forward the call to? i have read the call lasted anywhere from 1:10 (wiki) to 78 seconds (pittsburg newspaper). in that amount of time the airfone operator whould never have been able to find and reach glenn cramer in westmoreland county. the official story says that no one knew where 93 was, so how did the airfone operator know where to forward the call? thats why its been crucial to find an official record for the official allegations about the source of the ed felt call.

if it came from a cellphone, then its a whole other set of problems and improbabilities. either way it seems that felt's call did not come from ed felt onboard a plane. felt's brother alleges he has heard the tape and he hasnt expressed any doubt of the identity of the caller:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_90401.html

QUOTE
Edward Felt was identified in May after his family listened to the cockpit and 911 tapes during a meeting of the families and the FBI in Princeton, N.J. Gordon Felt said he recognized his brother's methodical way of handling things and disagrees with Shaw's characterization.

"My brother was not scared," he said. "He was very composed, under the circumstances. He was trying to give the right information. He was being methodical. That's the way he was. He thought everything through. He was giving the flight number and details of the hijacking."


so maybe ed felt could have made the call. but he could not have made it from a cell phone onboard a plane (moving at 400+ mph), nor could he have made it from an airfone. so of all the calls this is the one that we can actually get to the bottom of (imo).


but thanx again for ur input dmole.
thumbsup.gif

This post has been edited by paranoia: Dec 10 2007, 02:02 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post May 12 2008, 08:48 PM
Post #30





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



Imagine you were the recipient of one of the calls on 9/11. You have a close family member onboard a flight that day. The phone rings and it is said family member calling from a hijacked airplane. Now you have been informed of the this and the call disconnects. It matters not if the call originated from airphone or cellphone, what would your first reaction be? Call the police, FBI, in Ted Olsens case the Justice Department then CNN? NO, it would be to try and re-establish contact with someone close to you in grave danger! Human nature would prevail, I know I would be punching in the cell number as fast as I could, or hitting *69 for the last incoming call tracker. All reports of phonecalls (cell/airphone), originate from the air to the ground. There is not one instance of anyone saying they tried to call the passengers. Most reported calls disconnected and no one said they tried phoning the passenger back. What would you do?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hturt
post May 12 2008, 09:51 PM
Post #31





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 88
Joined: 28-June 07
Member No.: 1,285



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....;#entry10739654
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post May 25 2008, 02:46 PM
Post #32





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



In the last 20 years (since cell phones and airphones) there have been numerous air disasters. In those many emergency situations, aircraft in distress, engine failure, hijackings, the passengers have been aware of the possible doom that is happening for extended amount of time. Why is it that we have never heard of any other instance of a personal cell call from an aircraft in trouble? Has anyone here ever heard of a cell call other than on 9/11? What sets 9/11 flights apart from other air disasters that nesessitates the need for the calls? A story. NTSB. In real air disasters the NTSB reconstucts what really happened. The NTSB was relegated to second in command for these flights. A story had to emerge as quickly as possible to quell any uncomfortable questions that would arise. We got the TV version of 9/11, crime commited, crime investigated, convienient clues left behind, commercial breaks and one hour later crime solved. Within one day the FBI had solved the case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post May 25 2008, 03:33 PM
Post #33


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Ricochet @ May 25 2008, 11:46 AM) *
Within one day the FBI had solved the case.


That's exactly right. I think we can see somewhat the same pattern with regard to the Murrah building bombing and with the Anthrax mailings (not to mention the first bombing of the WTC among others). One role of the FBI is to collect evidence in these situations which then is no longer available for review by anyone without a clearance. (I now refer to the FBI as the FBO -- Federal Bureau of Obfuscation. Have evidence of a crime of state you want handled or a 'crime scene' you need cleaned up? Call them.)

However, the FBI is a hierarchy and we know from soon after 9/11 that there were agents in the field who felt very distraught because of information they had been attempting to forward up the chain that (seemingly) didn't get past their superiors to prevent these 'attacks'. The 'Incompetence Theory' explanation posits that this was due to intelligence mismanagement but can not account for why, if that were the case, no one in a position of authority was held accountable for such arguably criminally negligent 'mismanagement'. To my knowledge, not one person in a key position of authority on 9/11 has been held to account for any of the 'errors' that are necessary for the OCT to be true. What this suggests to me is that agents in the field are operating on one set of understandings about what they are doing while their superiors may be operating on a completely different set, tiered information on a 'need to know' basis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post May 25 2008, 04:04 PM
Post #34


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



QUOTE
Within one day the FBI had solved the case.


When Dr Griffin was here a year ago he mentioned that the FBI released the names of the nineteen hijackers nine minutes before it was known by NORAD that Flight 93 was hijacked.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 25 2008, 06:15 PM
Post #35



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Ricochet @ May 25 2008, 12:46 PM) *
Why is it that we have never heard of any other instance of a personal cell call from an aircraft in trouble? Has anyone here ever heard of a cell call other than on 9/11? What sets 9/11 flights apart from other air disasters that nesessitates the need for the calls?

Hi Rico,

Related/supporting info is at:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rcane
post May 26 2008, 04:18 AM
Post #36





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 100
Joined: 1-March 08
Member No.: 2,813



QUOTE (paranoia @ Dec 10 2007, 12:59 AM) *
thanks dmole for ur technical insights. on a related note of technical nature:


normally, in heavily populated areas with buildings and other objects in the way, the cell towers are aimed DOWNWARD, with multiple towers creating overlapping zones down below.





in less populated areas where there are less cell-towers, the overlapping of zones occurs in a direct line of sight propogation, where instead of down the antennas are pointed more or less at each other:




consequently, there is a maximum height the signal can reach (a height much lower in altitude than an airplane, "flight 93" in this case), described as a fersnel zone:


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


so even if the plane was slow enough and maybe even low enough, its chances of being able to reach a working signal is extremely limited. id say its impossible. over the last few years i have been able to convince a few of my friends to attempt to call me from onboard planes. 3 times they have agreed, and 3 times they say the call never connected. but that is hearsay so feel free to dismiss it. but here are some examples about the cell service near flight 93 path:


the following pages contain comments from cell-phone users in the 50-70 mile radius of the crash stating how intermittent and downright crappy their connections are on the ground!

comments on cell-service:

pittsburgh:
http://www.cellreception.com/search.php?zip=15201&page=1
http://www.cellreception.com/search.php?zip=15201&page=2

connellsville:
http://www.cellreception.com/search.php?zip=15425&page=1

johnstown (north of 93crater):
http://www.cellreception.com/search.php?zip=15902&page=1

greensburg (west of flight 93crater):
http://www.cellreception.com/search.php?zip=15601&page=1

stoystown:
http://www.cellreception.com/search.php?zip=15563&page=1

somerset:
http://www.cellreception.com/search.php?zip=15501&page=1


i didnt bother quoting them since there are so many who say they arent getting signals. but it supports the fact that reaching a cell tower in the area, esepcially from an airplane, is highly unlikely.


but i would really like to home in on the ed felt call. unlike the other calls his reached an actual 911 operator. based on the way the 911 system works, someone had to be in range of the westmoreland county 911 coverage area, for them to receive the call (glenn cramer received it). based on the alleged speed of the alleged plane, counting backwards from the crash, the plane would indeed be over the correct coverage area for cramer to receive the call. but we know for the most part such a call is technically impossible from a plane. so some person or persons had to have made the call (from the ground or from a slower - lower flying plane) instead. not only that but they had knowledge enough to do it at the right time, the same time as the alleged 93 would have been in the area. thats why i think getting to the bottom of the felt call can be helpful and revealing.

if the call came from an airfone, then the call is BOGUS. why? cuz how would the airfone emergency operator know where the plane was and what local 911 police jurisdiction to forward the call to? i have read the call lasted anywhere from 1:10 (wiki) to 78 seconds (pittsburg newspaper). in that amount of time the airfone operator whould never have been able to find and reach glenn cramer in westmoreland county. the official story says that no one knew where 93 was, so how did the airfone operator know where to forward the call? thats why its been crucial to find an official record for the official allegations about the source of the ed felt call.

if it came from a cellphone, then its a whole other set of problems and improbabilities. either way it seems that felt's call did not come from ed felt onboard a plane. felt's brother alleges he has heard the tape and he hasnt expressed any doubt of the identity of the caller:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_90401.html



so maybe ed felt could have made the call. but he could not have made it from a cell phone onboard a plane (moving at 400+ mph), nor could he have made it from an airfone. so of all the calls this is the one that we can actually get to the bottom of (imo).


but thanx again for ur input dmole.
thumbsup.gif


Good post. Nice information.


@ Albertchampion. No disrespect but you're awfully one-sided in your opinion of airphone usage. I have my doubts too, but on this board WE HAVE TO BE OBJECTIVE AND MEASURE WHAT WE CAN ACTUALLY MEASURE.

Conjecture has no place here: I am referring to your comment that swiping a credit card couldn't be done secretly. Unless you're having a spasm of sorts and can't stop swinging your arms---yes, you can definitely swipe a credit card. And, i've never had trouble speaking in a normal conversational tone.

The ONLY time i have been able to use a mobile phone above 1500' msl was an old motoral analog about 10 years ago, in a king air BE9T @ FL190. period. the call sounded like the HF band over the Atlantic on a summer night with solar flares.

$.02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post May 26 2008, 01:56 PM
Post #37





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



Ed Felt, (as the story goes), locked himself in a bathroom and made a cell call to 911. There would be no airphones in restrooms on a plane. An article from the Pittsburgh Tribune 9/8/02
QUOTE
Shaw spoke to Edward Felt for one minute and 10 seconds, learning that he'd locked himself in the bathroom to make the call. He told Shaw the flight number and explained that the plane was hijacked in mid-flight on its way to San Francisco.

"He was crying...frightened, scared and anxious," said Shaw, who remained on the line until the signal was lost.

Whether the call was real or not this is on record as the OCT.

This from Globalresearch.ca
QUOTE
The alleged call 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.

It is worth noting that Glenn Cramer was subsequently gagged by the FBI." (See Robert Wallace`s incisive analysis published in Sept 2002 by the Daily Mirror, (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAL403A.html ).

Ironically, this high profile cell call by Ed Felt, which would have provided crucial evidence to the 9/11 Commission was, for some reason, not mentioned in the Report.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 26 2008, 03:44 PM
Post #38



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



FWIW- I've always wondered why there is discussion of where the phone calls originated- telephone "hijacking" goes back to pre-Watergate days, and it has likely only gotten "better" since then. It amazes me that people have the naivete to "trust" their "secure" telephone carriers in these Patriot Act, FISA, ECHELON, SatCom, Verizon/AT&T "black room" Orwellian times.

I don't really consider mine to be an "alt theory" here either.

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/new...0/domestic_taps

http://www.slashgear.com/fbi-is-inside-eve...hone-303215.php

My $0.02 on phone "calls," be they cellular, airphone, or land-based- doesn't any (non-DoD) US phone call go through several switching routers?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post May 26 2008, 05:05 PM
Post #39





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



FBI transcript of Ed Felt phone call.
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-17-F...om-911-call.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post May 26 2008, 07:58 PM
Post #40





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



i think that we may have learned that the FBI has repudiated all the "notional" telephone calls of 11/09/01. whether they were made by an airphone or a cellphone.

so, now, in a very real sense, all arguments concerning these calls has been mooted.

the most treasonous aspect of these stories, however, may have been the ted olson stories. as far as i am concerned, ted olson, solicitor general of the USA, cemented the public perception of arabic hijackers, box-cutters, and the "still-flying" existence of a "lost" airliner[AA77].

in my appraisal, ted olson was a party to what was an on-going coup[started in florida] that was intended to result in the seizure of the USA by a gang of very fascist bastids[aka monarchists].

i also believe that barbara is very much alive. as are all the passengers on AA77.

i could be wrong, of course. some might say that could never have been kept secret for so long. to that i reply, really? it is rather astounding how much can be kept secret by the state. has been kept secret by the bushit state since 11/09/01.

if one is to believe daniel hopsicker, and i do, just think how his investigations into atta, shehi have been avoided by virtually every media outlet. and this is nothing new. think on gary webb's dark alliance series. think on bob parry's iran-contra stories. think on ray bonner who reported on the el mozote massacre for the nyt - and after complaints by the reagan regime was forced to resign because the reagan regime told the nyt that bonner had invented the sty. as we finally learned, ray bonner got it completely accurately.

my airphone experiences were never very good. i never encountered a one that read a credit card on the first swipe. i never encountered a one where my office could hear me unless i shouted into the phone. it is fair for me to say that my gte airphone experiences were all derived from first cabin flying on continental airlines. i have no knowledge of airphones in the back of the bus, nor on ua, aa.

and there is one other observation that i might make...i think it accurate to say that there is one switch that enables airphones on an aircraft. on-off.

finally, the coupsters wanted a false record. only by a bit of fiction could they stampede the amerikan electorate to support invasions of afghanistan, iraq. support the elimination of their constitutional safeguards. support the imposition of a de facto[soon to become de jure] dictatorship.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd September 2019 - 12:24 AM