Todd Beamer's Cell Phone Log-verizon Records Options

[honway]

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-29-F...one-records.pdf

Document provided by INTELWIRE. Please credit INTELWIRE.COM when posting.

This post has been edited by honway: Jul 29 2008, 06:29 PM

[honway]

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/#zmblackwater



Monday, May 12, 2008

Todd Beamer's Cell Phone

A couple of people have e-mailed me now about the item linked below, so I thought I would just save us all some time and briefly post my thoughts about the issues it raises.

This 9/29/2001 FBI lead sheet details phone calls made in relation to the cell phone of Todd Beamer, a passenger on United 93, the airplane hijacked on September 11 that crashed in Pennsylvania. Beamer is famously remembered for reporting that the passengers were planning to storm the cockpit and for issuing the call to that action: "Let's roll."

Todd Beamer cell phone log

The document is confusing. At first glance it appears to list calls that were made by Beamer using the cell phone. What raised questions with my correspondents is the fact that the log shows almost 20 calls after United 93 crashed. All of the calls related to a number in Woodbridge, NJ, and all of them are listed as exactly one minute (suggesting the call was not completed).

My best guess here is that the log represents calls to Beamer's cell, in which case the post-crash calls might have been someone with the phone company or the government pinging to locate the phone in the wreckage, or frantic calls from a friend or family member who was trying to ascertain whether Beamer had been on the flight. The latter theory might make more sense, since the calls start pretty early.

More confusingly, there is a call shortly before the flight took off listed as an "incoming call" with the "number called" being the same number that the document identifies as Beamer's cell phone. (This could be a call to listen to voicemail, or a call to voicemail paired with using the "reply to message" function that most voicemail offers.)

Even if you're of a conspiratorial bent on this issue (which I am not), it's difficult to believe the FBI would release a document showing that Beamer's cell phone was in use after the crash. The 9/11 Commission cites the document but doesn't comment on the post-crash entries.

I'm open to hearing an explanation. If you have actual and specific knowledge of how to read this document, feel free to drop me a line and I'll update this posting.

If you're just guessing, well, you're welcome to speculate and/or investigate-and-publish away, but this post represents the sum total of my insight on the document at this time, and I don't currently have a lot of time to devote to this (either in terms of investigating further or debating it via e-mail). If I get better information, I will post it here. Happy hunting...

Labels: 9-11, Todd-Beamer, United-93
Posted by J.M. Berger | Permalink

[dMz]

Thanks honway,

It looks like you found the exact same question marks that Rico and I did. Related info is at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....

[Leslie Landry]

I know when i get my cell phone bill...it will show all the calls that i have made. When it shows an incoming call...all it will say is "incoming".

If that was my cell phone bill...that would indicate that i had One incoming call and the rest would be outgoing.

I live in Canada so maybe its different in the States.

This post has been edited by Leslie Landry: Jul 30 2008, 04:09 PM

[JCWashington]

I know when i get my cell phone bill...it will show all the calls that i have made. When it shows an incoming call...all it will say is "incoming".

If that was my cell phone bill...that would indicate that i had One incoming call and the rest would be outgoing.

I live in Canada so maybe its different in the States.

It's the same here, in the States. You can definitely tell which calls are incoming vs. outgoing. Was there ever an official explanation as to why there were calls that appear to be outgoing after the crash? Thanks, JC

[tnemelckram]

Ji JC!

It's the same here, in the States. You can definitely tell which calls are incoming vs. outgoing. Was there ever an official explanation as to why there were calls that appear to be outgoing after the crash? Thanks, JC

No, there was no explanation that I am aware of, let alone a satisfactory one. But it was not necessary. All those who didn't want the question to be asked and explored had to do is start beating their chests like a bunch of alpha primates. All the rest of us 'Merikuns could be counted upon to follow suit suit just like the lesser apes in the colony, herd, pack or whatever a social group of primates is called.. Ancient explanation of the tactic:

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.

[amazed!]

Right you are TNE

[Gunfighter3]

What has always been curious to me is that not one of the calls that we heard about came via an air phone. Maybe the passengers were being watched but surely they would be able to see someone whip out a cell phone. Wasn't there an experiment being done before or after 9/11 that involved putting an antenna on the fueslage so passengers could use cell phones on planes?? I recall reading that they needed this antenna to shoot the radio waves to the ground and that cells would not work in flight over a certain altitude.

[amazed!]

Welcome to the forum GF3

Your understanding is correct--cell phones do not work above certain altitudes and airspeeds.

The story the government told about various cell phone calls was fiction, all the way.

[DoYouEverWonder]

What has always been curious to me is that not one of the calls that we heard about came via an air phone. Maybe the passengers were being watched but surely they would be able to see someone whip out a cell phone. Wasn't there an experiment being done before or after 9/11 that involved putting an antenna on the fueslage so passengers could use cell phones on planes?? I recall reading that they needed this antenna to shoot the radio waves to the ground and that cells would not work in flight over a certain altitude.

According to the official myth, the terrorists told people to call their loved ones to tell them they were going to die. I think most of the calls were prerecorded during hijack exercises that these crews might have participated in before 9/11. For example, during a real hijacking I doubt a stewardess would call home to waste time talking to her husband, when she's been trained to take care of the passengers first during an emergency. But if she was playing a passenger during an exercise then she'd go along with the script and would never know that it would be used after her own demise.

[bobcat46]

I have made 12 round-trip trips on major air carriers in 2010, each of which were flights with two legs; therefore, 24 times up and down. On each flight after the gear came up and flaps retracted, I tried to get a signal on my cell phone. Most of the time I was sitting at a window seat, but on some flights I was in the center seat and other times the isle seat. I also tried to get a signal during decent, until the gear came down and flaps extended. When next to the window seat, I would hold the phone up to the window to increase the chanses of finding a signal. Not one time on any of the flights (going up or down) did I get a signal over one bar and when that happened, it quickly went away without me being able to establish a connection. Above approximately 5,000 ft, there was never, ever any signal at all. I also tried on several occasions to get a signal when the aircraft was flying over a large city with lots of cell phone coverage at cruise altitude, but to no avail; never, ever any signal at all.

I have concluded that all of the cell phone calls from all of the planes were staged. They were impossible to have been made from the aircraft on 9/11 like the government has led us to believe.

This post has been edited by bobcat46: Jan 18 2011, 03:25 PM

[onesliceshort]

I have made 12 round-trip trips on major air carriers in 2010, each of which were flights with two legs; therefore, 24 times up and down. On each flight after the gear came up and flaps retracted, I tried to get a signal on my cell phone. Most of the time I was sitting at a window seat, but on some flights I was in the center seat and other times the isle seat. I also tried to get a signal during decent, until the gear came down and flaps extended. When next to the window seat, I would hold the phone up to the window to increase the chanses of finding a signal. Not one time on any of the flights (going up or down) did I get a signal over one bar and when that happened, it quickly went away without me being able to establish a connection. Above approximately 5,000 ft, there was never, ever any signal at all. I also tried on several occasions to get a signal when the aircraft was flying over a large city with lots of cell phone coverage at cruise altitude, but to no avail; never, ever any signal at all.

I have concluded that all of the cell phone calls from all of the planes were staged. They were impossible to have been made from the aircraft on 9/11 like the government has led us to believe.

I really believe that it would be a good idea for members here to attempt this on flights. Particularly the pilots on the forum. How to record each attempt I'm not sure, but it's well worth the effort just to confirm for ourselves and share results. I'll try it the next time I'm on a flight too.

Nice one Bobcat

[cicorp]

A moderator for another 9/11 blog, wrote an article, alleging that cell phone calls can be made from jets at cruising altitude.
http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/news/2011-02-10/crit...ke-calls-theory

Recently Ryan Airlines in Europe allows people to use cell phones during flight, but it requires special OnAir Technology, at 3 Euros per minute.
Why does it take a special new technology and fee, if cell phones would work without it on 9/11/2001?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelne...-the-plane.html

Here is my response to Erik that he quickly censored from 911Blogger....

Crucial to this discussion is the question:
Do cell phones actually work from a jet at cruising altitudes?

Here is an experiment anyone can do, on your next flight.

So far, I have not been able to make calls at cruising altitudes on 3 flights.
even with technology about 10 years after 9/11/2001's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgQTVTJ2yIM CHI-DCA 2010-12 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYOjkOmIn44 DCA-ATL 2011-01 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJk8qdrv6AM ATL-MLI 2011-01 pm

We need more replications of such experiments to determine
if cell phones can or cannot work from jets at cruising altitutes.

[rob balsamo]

We need more replications of such experiments to determine
if cell phones can or cannot work from jets at cruising altitutes.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794289

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...t&p=5466013

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10695795

[paranoia]

2004: http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/20...-aircells_x.htm

The race is on to enable airline passengers to make and receive cell phone calls in flight.

Cell phone company Qualcomm (QCOM) has teamed with American Airlines (AMR) to develop satellite-based air-to-ground cellular service. Several smaller companies are working on rival systems. In-flight cell service could be introduced within two years and become commonplace within four, developers believe.

Last week, American and Qualcomm officials circled over West Texas in a jetliner making calls from their cell phones. The Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Communications Commission authorized the flight to test the technology's safety and transmission quality.

[amazed!]

Modern installations have airborne phones talking to satellites who shoot it back down to ground stations.

A straight cell arrangement, land based and designed for pedestrians and automobiles, will not communicate with fast planes at altitude.

[tit2]

Quote :

« We need more replications of such experiments to determine if cell phones can or cannot work from jets at cruising altitutes. »

The FBI report about flights hijacked on September 11, presented at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006, did not report phone call at cruising altitutes, using a cell phone. See :

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=16924

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/...ts/P200055.html

But the phone call from Todd Beamer has several aspects implausible, inconsistent with the assertion of Erik Larson that there is no evidence that phone calls were faked. See :« Todd Beamer's Odd Phone Call and the Silent Crash of Flight 93 » :

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2007/10/...and-silent.html

[onesliceshort]

Quote :

« We need more replications of such experiments to determine if cell phones can or cannot work from jets at cruising altitutes. »

The FBI report about flights hijacked on September 11, presented at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006, did not report phone call at cruising altitutes, using a cell phone. See :

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=16924

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/...ts/P200055.html

But the phone call from Todd Beamer has several aspects implausible, inconsistent with the assertion of Erik Larson that there is no evidence that phone calls were faked. See :« Todd Beamer's Odd Phone Call and the Silent Crash of Flight 93 » :

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2007/10/...and-silent.html

Thanks very much tit2. Very interesting.

I would tahe anything Erik Larson says with a large helping of salt.

[albertchampion]

here is a story that you ought to think about.

i own a manufacturing business. on my 5 acre site i have a number of buildings. some of them are metal buildings. all of them have alarm systems. some with a land line link. some with a cellular link.

a week ago[always happens on a saturday night] i got a call that an alarm had been triggered. i am convinced that a spider, a cockroach, or a chameleon walked across a motion detector. but i had a service tech come up anyway and check out the system in that building. after he verified that there he could find no faulting sensor, i asked him about installing a cell back up to supplement the land line. he said, no problem, but that an external antenna would have to be installed.

i was fascinated. the company he worked for had installed three building systems with cell back and no external antennas had been specified. nor installed. i said to him, "are you kidding me?" no, he replied. further, he said, let me show you.

now there is a cell tower virtually in my factory's backyard. outside the buildings, 5 bars. inside the steel buildings, where the cell transmitter is located, only a sometime 1 bar. so, i learned that i have alarm systems that may not be able to communicate with the monitoring center. lovely.

is aluminum more transparent to cell transmissions than steel?

[onesliceshort]

is aluminum more transparent to cell transmissions than steel?

http://www.ehow.com/facts_7762729_aluminum...ne-signals.html


http://web.archive.org/web/20060324100513/...ealth_c/046.pdf


http://hubpages.com/hub/Cell-Phones-and-Al...al-Framed-Homes

http://www.the-cell-phone-advisor.com/cell...-reception.html

I can't even make a cell call from inside my house because of aluminium shuttered/PVC framed windows.
Apparently steel wreaks more havoc on the signal (steel framed buildings) according to one of the links above.

When I searched through Wiki and other spponfeed information sites they don't even attempt to answer the question apart from hypotheticals on effects on aircraft instruments.