September 11th true or false?

[sabro]

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams

 

[Pachipro]

An interesting news article yestersay on Fox News and the EU media mentioned that cell phones will be allowed on planes flying travelling above 10,000 ft. "EU To Allow Cell Phone Use on Airlines". However, what is interesting is that a "base station" must be installed on the planes, that the pilot has complete control over and can turn it on or off at his/her leisure that will allow the phones to work.

I find this to be very interesting as on the day of 911 it was reported that many people had used thie cell phones to call loved ones before the planes went down. I myself tried to turn my cell phone before and shortly after 911 when I was flying and was unable to get a signal anywhere. So why were passengers on those planes "allowed" to use their cell phones? was it all BS? I don't know.

All I know is I find it very interesting that a "base station" must be installed on the planes in order to allow cell phones to be able to work on planes. Why was this not the case during 911? Hmmm. Just another weird question that comes to mind when thinking about 911.

 

[JimmySeal]

Can you point to some article that mentions cell phone use from the planes on that day? I too would think it quite impossible to use a cell phone from a plane unless the plane were flying rather low.

The planes do, of course, have those onboard phones that can be used with a credit card.

 

[Pachipro]

Jimmy Seal, after a quick Google Search, rather than post all the links for you, I think you can have your choice.

Click on the link above and after reading them what do you think? Practically all the articles seem to disprove cell phone usage above 10,000 ft. My own trial proves it!

Does anyone not find anything weird or contradictory concering the Fox/EU news story and the suspicious cell phone usage on 911? Something is not clicking here and it justs adds more fuel to the conspiracy theory.

If they couldn't/didn't make the calls, then who did and from where? Or were the wives and mothers called just lying and for what reason?

 

[otoko]

Over the course of three months in late 2003, we investigated the possibility that portable electronic devices interfere with a plane's safety instruments by measuring the RF spectrum inside commercial aircraft cabins. What we found was disturbing. Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations, and sometimes during the especially critical flight phases of takeoff and landing. Although that number seems low, keep in mind that it represents the furtive activity of a small number of rule breakers.

This was part of a much larger piece of research. Research that had nothing to do with 911. Real research.

authors:

Bill Strauss is an expert in aircraft electromagnetic compatibility at the Naval Air Warfare Center and is the technical activities committee chairman for the IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Society. He recently completed his Ph.D. on this topic in the department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, in Pittsburgh. M. Granger Morgan (IEEE Fellow) is head of Carnegie Mellon's department of engineering and public policy and a professor in the department of electrical and computer engineering. JAY APT is a distinguished service professor in the department of engineering and public policy and a research professor at the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon. He is an active pilot and former NASA astronaut. Daniel D. Stancil (IEEE Fellow) is a professor in Carnegie Mellon's department of electrical and computer engineering.

 

[Pachipro]

Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations, and sometimes during the especially critical flight phases of takeoff and landing.

Web site please otoko! Their background and the letters after their name means nothing especially from Carnegie!

All a degree from Carnegie tells me is that a person is easily persuaded to think the way "they" want you to think and then to go out and spout what they have been indoctrinated to believe.

Did you read any of the web sites in the link posted above especially about those from engineers saying it's impossible to make a cell phone call from a plane travelling at more than 350 mph and higher than 10,000 ft as the phone can not get tuned to any particular tower? I thought so

If they are using a phone as you quoted, they are using it under 10,000 ft as the quote implies. Not at 30,000 ft!

Your post would make one believe that it was possible when 10,000 or more links prove otherwise!

Therefore, before you make a post like that, please do your research first and have a website or two to back up your claims or insinuations. Also, it would help to KNOW what you are talking about rather than making irrational posts and quotes on something you apparently know nothing about.

Unless you have something better to add, I still stand by my increasing belief that it was impossible to make a hand held cell phone call from one of those planes.

 

[otoko]

Web site please otoko! Their background and the letters after their name means nothing especially from Carnegie!
All a degree from Carnegie tells me is that a person is easily persuaded to think the way "they" want you to think and then to go out and spout what they have been indoctrinated to believe.

I think anybody could make that claim about any university. Once you qualify things like that you can easily pick and choose what you want to believe.

Did you read any of the web sites in the link posted above especially about those from engineers saying it's impossible to make a cell phone call from a plane travelling at more than 350 mph and higher than 10,000 ft as the phone can not get tuned to any particular tower? I thought so

So why I can't choose to believe that these engineers have degrees from "insert name" university that mean nothing. Well there is a discrepency between what is theoretically possible and what was demonstrated.

If they are using a phone as you quoted, they are using it under 10,000 ft as the quote implies. Not at 30,000 ft!

It does say some of the calls were made during landing a take-off. Some. Ironically the research I was qouting was for whether having cellphones would be safe for airplanes, and the most sensitive times where interference is possible is during the take-off and landing.

Your post would make one believe that it was possible when 10,000 or more links prove otherwise!

T

I want to point out that googled links are not research. Links themselves do not prove anything. No matter how numerous. Don't you see the problem with such reasoning? It is right because everybody say it is so. With that we would not need science, research or critical thinking skills. Scientific research itself many times does not prove anything definitively without any doubt. Usually using the scientific method shows evidence that a theory may be true most of the time.

herefore, before you make a post like that, please do your research first and have a website or two to back up your claims or insinuations. Also, it would help to KNOW what you are talking about rather than making irrational posts and quotes on something you apparently know nothing about.
Unless you have something better to add, I still stand by my increasing belief that it was impossible to make a hand held cell phone call from one of those planes.

I don't know what you are so worked up about. I have no stake in this matter. I'll take research over websites. Though I will supply you with the link, sorry it will be in my next post. I get the feeling you want to believe what you believe and no convincing reserach would sway you. You would find a way to discount it. Considering how easily you dismissed some research because of what college they work at.

 

[Mars Man]

It might be good, dear fellow members et. al, to keep in the mind the atmosphere of the sub-forum we are in--Serious Discussions.

In discussing matters, it would be to our advantage to take into consideration a number of factors when looking over studies, and especially internet sites, related to scientific or empirical knowledge, and reach for the balanced view. Such may call for our having to suspend judgement for a while, or accept an opposing view as being a possibility, until things can be checked out in full.

Peer review is a necessary thing, and that can be checked; another is article/paper citations in other papers. Then, it might be necessary to check any number of details of any part of a presentation, before moving on in that single argument/presentation/hypothesis, and all that, even, before putting one theory or conclusion against another.

In otherwords, let's check it all out from the bottom up, not rush, and refrain from knee-jerk, emotional overtones or 'leans.'

Thanks for helping out ! Mars Man

 

[sabro]

From published reports and the Commission report we know the following:

AT&T and GTE own a service called Airfone which cost $6 a minute and gives the airlines a 15% kickback. Todd Beamer and Mark Bingham were using the Airphone service on flight 93. Two others, including a flight attendant may have used the Airphone also.

Regular Cell phones will work on a plane flying close enough to a tower. Depending on atmospheric conditions, it would be well over 10,000 feet if the plane were directly over the cell tower. If the tower were on a tall building in Denver, even higher. If you are over a large metropolitan area like the greater NY area or in many places between, you are more likely to get a call. Some 4 to 8 others were able to connect on these flights using personal cell phones, but the calls were brief and disconnected. Tom Burnett's calls were documented and clearly from his cell phone. Flight attendant Cee Cee Lyles husband was able to see her caller ID when he answered, so it is clear that she was using her own phone. The call lasted about a minute and got disconnected.

So it is pretty clear from what we have that Cell phones will work... but not very well. It isn't clear why people even tried when there were more Airphones than passengers. It could be that the hijackers were watching or that people didn't know what to do, but it is clear that even though people tried... more often than not, a personal cell phone won't work at that altitude or if it does, your call will be dropped after a very short time.

 

[Pachipro]

I don't know what you are so worked up about. I have no stake in this matter. I'll take research over websites. Though I will supply you with the link, sorry it will be in my next post. I get the feeling you want to believe what you believe and no convincing reserach would sway you. You would find a way to discount it. Considering how easily you dismissed some research because of what college they work at.

I can write a thesis discounting peoples work and propaganda based on their college and such because Carnegie, Mellon, and Rockefeller set up the educational system in the US where the people would be taught what "we wanted them to be taught with no dissension" or they would not receive their "license", i.e diploma, that would enable them "to lead profitable lives." I can list dozens of people who only go with the status quo but believe otherwise, or they would not have received their degree, be allowed to work in their chosen field, or be accepted by their collegues for their differing views in the face of facts and research. However, this is not the thread for that.

I get so worked up over the constant garbage the 911 commission and the media feeds us in the face of real research and explainations and no one questions their findings. Not even the media whis is supposed to question these things.

I believe only what I have researched and nothing else, and the research still points to the fact that, at the time, the technology was not good enough to make hand held cell phone calls the likes of which we are told were made. It was virtually impossible. I will never discount research that is irrefutable, even if it is contrary to what I believe, but your quote didn't add much to the debate. If other research comes up that proves I am wrong, I will admit my mistake and take a differing view. I am not as hard headed as some may think.

Concerning the "BS"(IMO) 911 commission report, here is additional information and research refuting what they have reported. Take it for what it's worth, but it does seem plausable and their research is complete with links. You can also download the whole 911 commission report in PDF from this website.

Also, when asked for the records from airphone, researchers were told they were sealed for "national security" purposes! Yeah, right. Therefore, no one can prove who made what call and from which type of device adding more fuel to a cover-up and a conspiracy of some kind.

Also, for the time being I will refrain from commenting on the subject of cell phone usage during 911 unless other evidence arises. I just started it because of the recent reports that implied cell phone usage on planes is not possible without a "base station". Thanks for your input.

 

[Achilles 1-1]

I'm sorry, I couldn't leave this alone (damn adhd and ocd) take it from an American that September er 11th was not premeditated by the American government, it was a random act of aggression.

 

[Grandpa Frank]

One very sad thing for sure , a lot of innocent people died that day and many later on from breathing the dust.