9/11 - Controlled demolition?

[Glaucus]

They'll just ignore it if they can't argue with it though.

Just like they did in the moon landings thread. When I went though, with a few other people and disproved without doubt everything they threw at us.

Then they just turned around and said you can't change my mind what ever you say. They faked it. I mean WTF no evidence no prove. But then I am a scientific person. Give me stats and/or evidence and I'll believe most things.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

Just like they did in the moon landings thread. When I went though, with a few other people and disproved without doubt everything they threw at us.

Then they just turned around and said you can't change my mind what ever you say. They faked it. I mean WTF no evidence no prove. But then I am a scientific person. Give me stats and/or evidence and I'll believe most things.

ahhh.. i love the smell of a closed mind early in the morning.
trust me mate i understand your point better than most.....i used to live in Dallas where apparently something major happened there in the early 60's lol.

 

[Gman]

It's not, but it easier convincing people there wrong with things they already know about, that's why I said on-board telephones. It proves beyond doubt, they could make phone calls with no argument about the possibilities.

it's been officially said there were 35 calls made among the 40 passengers and crew on Flight 93, so either some mobiles where used or there must have been a hell of a queue for the onboard phone. The FBI also confirm that there were at least 13 mobile phone calls all of which had no billing record.

also telecommunications experts say that given the technology of 2001 calls at an altitude of six miles could have only occurred by fluke at best, so technically it is possible but very unlikely.

Theres also a transcript somewhere (should have saved it) of a conversation from the plane and the conversation from the person on the plane was very erratic probably understandable for someone in their position but based on the transcript the convo sounded more like the passenger trying to convince the relative that they were on a hijacked plane often repeating the same thing asking "you do believe me don't you". I know if i was in the same position id be saying my last goodbyes and "i love you" etc not trying to convince them I really am on the plane.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

also telecommunications experts say that given the technology of 2001 calls at an altitude of six miles could have only occurred by fluke at best, so technically it is possible but very unlikely.

i'm not an expert, and i'm not patronising you at all, but is there proof that the planes were at that altitude at the time of the calls?

 

[n3crius]

haha i've only just seen this thread.

seen posts on this stuff before though. absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Inquisitor]

it's been officially said there were 35 calls made among the 40 passengers and crew on Flight 93, so either some mobiles where used or there must have been a hell of a queue for the onboard phone. The FBI also confirm that there were at least 13 mobile phone calls all of which had no billing record.

Read dmpoole's and The_Dark_Side's posts.

also telecommunications experts say that given the technology of 2001 calls at an altitude of six miles could have only occurred by fluke at best, so technically it is possible but very unlikely.

The World Trade Centre isn't 6 miles tall.

I know if i was in the same position id be saying my last goodbyes and "i love you" etc not trying to convince them I really am on the plane.

That's nice This bloke evidently wasn't.

 

[Glaucus]

it's been officially said there were 35 calls made among the 40 passengers and crew on Flight 93, so either some mobiles where used or there must have been a hell of a queue for the onboard phone. The FBI also confirm that there were at least 13 mobile phone calls all of which had no billing record.

The use of mobile phones on commercial aircraft is generally forbidden during flight. The most well-known reason for this banning is that the mobile phone could interfere with the sensitive equipment on the aircraft. This policy is often based around the fact that during development, many aircraft were not designed to accept signals from mobile phones and there has not been sufficient testing to be sure that they could. This basis can be seen in plans to improve certification [1]. However, the use of mobile phones on aircraft is forbidden across the board by most aviation regulators, and the design specifications of individual aircraft are not taken into account.

According to the BBC " most of the evidence is circumstantial and anecdotal. There is no absolute proof mobile phones are hazardous." [2] Some airlines do allow use of mobiles phones in flight, only restricting their use (and use of all other electronic devices) during take off and landing when communications with the ground are most critical. Meanwhile the passenger aircraft manufacturers, such as Boeing and Airbus, have begun to introduce wireless services on their planes (e.g. WLAN) and radio-based satellite phones are a standard installation on aeroplanes. Clearly there is a direct airline industry advantage in having control over communication systems from within an aeroplane with no clear way for potential competitors to certify their systems as safe for use on board. Some articles have even gone so far as to accuse the airline industry of pushing the ban on mobile phones in order to increase revenue from on-board telephones [3]. A number of new phones have an "airplane mode" feature that presumably stops all incoming and outgoing communications while still allowing the user to play games, type notes etc.

A few U.S. airlines have announced plans ([4] and [5]) to allow mobile phones to be used on aircraft, pending approval by the FCC and the FAA. The idea is similar to that used in some cars on the German ICE train: the aircraft will contain a mobile signal repeater that will then transmit the signals to a terrestrial-based system on separate frequencies that do not interfere with the cellular system. Since the repeater is literally right next to the passengers, the phones' output power would be reduced to the lowest level possible, reducing interference with cells on the ground. ARINC and Telenor have formed a joint venture [6] company to offer such a service on-board commercial aircraft and will be launching a service in late 2006 that will safely allow you to use your cellphone on-board the aircraft. The cellphone calls are routed via the on-board SATCOM to the ground network and an on-board EMI screening system stops the cellphones contacting the ground network.

However most until recently have banned all mobile phones due to concerns about interference, however a lot of airlines have relaxed the ban to just take off and landing (the most crucial stages). This is why we where aloud to have mobile phones and switch them on, on the way back from Dublin. Then new systems some air liners are pushing are simply a relay system to reduce the potential interference.

also telecommunications experts say that given the technology of 2001 calls at an altitude of six miles could have only occurred by fluke at best, so technically it is possible but very unlikely.

As you can see phone calls can and have been made. As for the limits I don't now as for the hight of the planes. The WTC and the pentagon where not at 6miles as for the one which crashed I don't know what its altitude was. Or the strength of the antenna in that region.

there's also a transcript somewhere (should have saved it) of a conversation from the plane and the conversation from the person on the plane was very erratic probably understandable for someone in their position but based on the transcript the convo sounded more like the passenger trying to convince the relative that they were on a hijacked plane often repeating the same thing asking "you do believe me don't you". I know if I was in the same position id be saying my last goodbyes and "I love you" etc not trying to convince them I really am on the plane.

They are likely to say that as before you can say a proper farewell they need to understand what is happening, if you phoned up your parents and said you where about to die and the plane had been hijacked, even now they would think WTF and you are joking. Let alone before 9/11 when hijacking wasn't seen as a major threat.

 

[Gman]

i'm not an expert, and i'm not patronising you at all, but is there proof that the planes were at that altitude at the time of the calls?

Not a clue i'm not that much of a nut to be crawling through fine detail like that but some of the reports i've seen in the past seem to quote that altitude in relation to the mobile calls so i assume they have made some kind of link between that and the official altitude.

But from what i've read very, little has been published about flight 93 instead anything official from the gov has been released to promote the heroism of the passengers and not to pick at the technicalities of how it came down etc apart from the passengers either forced it down or an explosion onboard.

 

[Gman]

The World Trade Centre isn't 6 miles tall.

not talking about them talking about flight 93 where the so called mobile calls came from.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

i suppose the black box recorder would give the exact time of hijack and could easily be compared against the mobile companies records.
if they didn't match up then it would give an accurate time/altitude benchmark to compare against call records.

although realistically then we'd have people saying the black box had been tampered with so there's probably no point to it after all.

 

[Inquisitor]

not talking about them talking about flight 93 where the so called mobile calls came from.

Ah, sorry. Still, as The_Dark_Side says, who says they were at cruising altitude at the time?

 

[Gman]

i suppose the black box recorder would give the exact time of hijack and could easily be compared against the mobile companies records.
if they didn't match up then it would give an accurate time/altitude benchmark to compare against call records.

although realistically then we'd have people saying the black box had been tampered with so there's probably no point to it after all.

true but nothing official has been released about the black box of flight 93 apart from the gov say that after analyzing it's contents they found "nothing of interest", most likely it didn't show anything but like you said simple details could have been made available to disprove some peoples theories.

 

[Inquisitor]

true but nothing official has been released about the black box of flight 93 apart from the gov say that after analyzing it's contents they found "nothing of interest", most likely it didn't show anything but like you said simple details could have been made available to disprove some peoples theories.

I doubt the government care that much about conspiracists. Besides, even if it was released, I very much doubt it would actually convince any of them.

 

[Gman]

I doubt the government care that much about conspiracists. Besides, even if it was released, I very much doubt it would actually convince any of them.

true probably just jump onto the next thread of inaccuracy's and so the cycle continues.

 

[Gman]

little bit more info on the cell phone thing, just found an artical which says that the "FAA statement that Flight 93 never went below 29,000 feet until its' sudden fatal plunge" and that communication via mobile phone was near impossible over 4,000 feet.

Yet the call was apparently made before the plane nose dived so based on this the plane was probably around 29,000 feet when the call was made.

ummm

 

[SexyGreyFox]

little bit more info on the cell phone thing, just found an artical which says that the "FAA statement that Flight 93 never went below 29,000 feet until its' sudden fatal plunge" and that communication via mobile phone was near impossible over 4,000 feet.

Yet the call was apparently made before the plane nose dived so based on this the plane was probably around 29,000 feet when the call was made.

ummm

Well I can say for fact that I have seen people use their mobiles on a plane going from places like Majorca and Tenerife while flying at full cruising height.

ummmmm

 

[Glaucus]

I don't know, but relatives have said they got calls. Along with some released audio streams. I would Believe that until it was proven that it could not happen.

Also where did you get the 4000ft figure from?

 

[Gman]

Well I can say for fact that I have seen people use their mobiles on a plane going from places like Majorca and Tenerife while flying at full cruising height.

ummmmm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5298332.stm
well why the big fuss about this then if it's already possible ?

 

[Glaucus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5298332.stm
well why the big fuss about this then if it's already possible ?

because there is limited range, but because of saftey concerns most airlines still ban it. To reduce the signal the plane has an onboard antenna which relays your phones signal. As you phone would be so close to the planes antenna. The radiation would be minute and thus the risks are slashed. Also with most phones after a certain speed they can't connect to the network, but that depends on a few factors.

OT

I thought the whole point of not using mobiles on flights was that they could cause interference with the flight controls. What next, mobile phones in petrol forecourts?

I love this, its a myth that mobile phones can be an ignition source. Also think he missed the point about the new system..

 

[Gman]

I don't know, but relatives have said they got calls. Along with some released audio streams. I would Believe that until it was proven that it could not happen.

Also where did you get the 4000ft figure from?

got the 4000ft figure from here http://www.rense.com/general69/calls.htm although them seem to get that from another article/publications so no proof on the accuracy of the figure.

this site seems to run a number of mobile phone test at different altitudes and records the results.
http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm