9/11

[Riverwind]

The times at which the cell phone calls were made show that the planes were at normal operating altitude.

Truthies don't have access to the detailed flight recorder information from the planes or the cell phone company records. They cannot possibly correlate the two and draw any definitive conclusion. The cell phone issue is an example of how truthies simply make up facts in order push their adgenda.

[PolyNewbie]

From Gloabl Research:

Cell Phone Calls

United Airlines Flight 175

United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:

"It pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14."

The Report confirms that by 8:33, "it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet." According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it "deviated from its assigned altitude":

"The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it."

And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.

[Flight UAL 175] "At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cell (i.e it was not an air phone). Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. (Moreover, Hanson's call could have been initiated at least a minute prior to his father Lee Hanson picking up the phone.)

Another call was received at 8.52 (one minute after it deviated from its assigned altitude of 31,000 feet). The Report does not say whether this is an air phone or a cell phone call:

Also at 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco, reaching Marc Policastro. The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane. The call lasted about two minutes, after which Policastro and a colleague tried unsuccessfully to contact the flight.

It is not clear whether this was a call to Policastro's cell phone or to the UAL switchboard.

At 8:58, UAL 175 "took a heading toward New York City.":

You need to go back to using empty insults and your new "physics".

[PolyNewbie]

From the same site:

American Airlines Flight 77

American Airlines Flight 77 was scheduled to depart from Washington Dulles for Los Angeles at 8:10... "At 8:46, the flight reached its assigned cruising altitude of 35,000 feet."

At 8:51, American 77 transmitted its last routine radio communication. The hijacking began between 8:51 and 8:54. As on American 11 and United 175, the hijackers used knives (reported by one passenger) and moved all the passengers (and possibly crew) to the rear of the aircraft (reported by one flight attendant and one passenger). Unlike the earlier flights, the Flight 77 hijackers were reported by a passenger to have box cutters. Finally, a passenger reported that an announcement had been made by the “pilot” that the plane had been hijacked....

On flight AA 77, which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, the transponder was turned off at 8:56am; the recorded altitude at the time the transponder was turned off is not mentioned. According to the Commission's Report, cell calls started 16 minutes later, at 9:12am, twenty minutes before it (allegedly) crashed into the Pentagon at 9.32am:

" [at 9.12] Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane."

According to the Report, when the autopilot was disengaged at 9:29am, the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and some 38 miles west of the Pentagon. This happened two minutes before the crash.

Most of the calls on Flight 77 were placed between 9.12am and 9.26am, prior to the disengagement of automatic piloting at 9.29am. The plane could indeed have been traveling at either a higher or a lower altitude to that reached at 9.29. Yet, at the same time there is no indication in the Report that the plane had been traveling below the 7000 feet level, which it reached at 9.29am.

At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. [using an airphone]

Also,

"In other words, at least part of the Commission's script in Chapter 1 on the cell phone conversations, is fabricated.

According to the American Airline / Qualcomm announcement, the technology for cell phone transmission at high altitude will only be available aboard commercial aircraft in 2006. This is an inescapable fact.

In the eyes of public opinion, the cell phone conversations on the Arab hijackers is needed to sustain the illusion that America is under attack.

"

[Roy Wilson]

Timeline of The Attacks

Sept. 11, 2001

7:45-7:59 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 departed Boston for Los Angeles.

7:58-8:14 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 departed Boston for Los Angeles.

8:01-8:42 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93 departed Newark for San Francisco.

8:10-8:20 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles for Los Angeles.

8:38 a.m.: The Federal Aviation Administration notified the military air defense command of a hijacking.

8:43 a.m.: The FAA notified military authorities of a second hijacking.

8:46 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11, carrying 92 people from Boston to Los Angeles, crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center.

8:53 a.m.: The fighter jets from Otis Air Force Base took off and headed toward New York City.

8:55 a.m.: Flight 77 began turning east, away from its intended course.

9:02 a.m: United Airlines Flight 175, carrying 65 people from Boston to Los Angeles, crashes into south tower of the World Trade Center.

9:10 a.m.: Flight 77 was detected by radar in West Virginia, heading east.

9:25 a.m. : The FAA notified military air defense that Flight 77 was headed toward Washington.

9:25 a.m.: Two F-16 fighter jets were scrambled at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia.

9:28 a.m.: President Bush in Florida calls the crashes an "apparent terrorist attack on our country."

9:35 a.m.: The jets from Langley took off.

9:37 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77, carrying 64 people from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into the west side of the Pentagon.

9:48 a.m.: The Capitol and West Wing of the White House were evacuated.

9:49 a.m.: The Federal Aviation Administration bars aircraft takesoffs across the country. International flights in progress told to land in Canada.

9:50 a.m.: 1 World Trade Center – the south tower – collapses.

9:55 a.m.: President Bush leaves Florida for a secure location, Barksdale AFB, Louisiana.

10:10 a.m.: Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania.

10:29 a.m.: 2 World Trade Center – the north tower – collapses.

10-11:30 a.m.: Government buildings around the country are evacuated, including the Capitol and the White House. The United Nations closes. The Securities and Exchange Commission closes all U.S. financial markets for the day. New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani calls for evacuation of lower Manhattan.

12:36 p.m.: President Bush again goes on TV to express the nation's resolve to defend against terrorism.

1:20 p.m.: President Bush leaves Louisiana for secure Offutt AFB in Nebraska, where he again addresses the nation on TV.

2:51 p.m.: The Navy dispatches missile destroyers and other equipment to New York and Washington.

4:30 p.m.: President Bush departs Nebraska, arriving in Washington at 6:50.

5:25 p.m.: 7 World Trade Center collapses.

[PolyNewbie]

source ? Did you get that off 911Myths ? If so it can usually be found that they are lying. See other parts of this thread where I have pointed that out a few times.

[Roy Wilson]

source ? Did you get that off 911Myths ? If so it can usually be found that they are lying. See other parts of this thread where I have pointed that out a few times.

You were ignoring my posts remember? So not only are you a whackjob but a liar.

[Riverwind]

Another call was received at 8.52 (one minute after it deviated from its assigned altitude of 31,000 feet). The Report does not say whether this is an air phone or a cell phone call

IOW - you have no evidence that it was a cell phone call. If cell phones did not work then people would have used the seat phones. You are making up facts to suit your version of the events.

Let's recap the real facts:

1) The planes deviated from the courses - most likely reduced altitude so the hikackers could see where they are going. The only accurate evidence of what altitude the planes were flying at any given time are the flight recorders.

2) Passengers made phone calls to relatives but the only way to know if they were cell phone calls or air phone calls is to use the phone company records.

Therefore, you and any other truthie does not have access to the information necessary to make the claims that you do.

[PolyNewbie]

Roy Wilson:You were ignoring my posts remember? So not only are you a whackjob but a liar.

Yes I remember. I will continue to ignore your posts.

Riverwind:You are making up facts to suit your version of the events.

where ?

[Roy Wilson]

Roy Wilson:You were ignoring my posts remember? So not only are you a whackjob but a liar.

Yes I remember. I will continue to ignore your posts.

Riverwind:You are making up facts to suit your version of the events.

where ?

Continue means you have to begin

[Riverwind]

Riverwind:You are making up facts to suit your version of the events.

where ?

You claim that the official story is inaccurate because cell phone calls were made from the planes when they were flying at altitudes that would make cell phones calls impossible. You don't have access the information necessary to make this claim. Even if the official report appears to make a specific claim that a cell phone call was made at a high altitude then the most reasonable explaination is a typo in the official report.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:You claim that the official story is inaccurate because cell phone calls were made from the planes when they were flying at altitudes that would make cell phones calls impossible. You don't have access the information necessary to make this claim. Even if the official report appears to make a specific claim that a cell phone call was made at a high altitude then the most reasonable explaination is a typo in the official report.

Did you read that link ? There are plenty of sources that indicate some of those calls had to have been made from 30,000 ft.

I'm not claiming that thye official story is inaccurate. I've always said its a complete fabrication when dealing with cell phone calls. "Hi Mom, its Mark Bingham"

[Riverwind]

Did you read that link ? There are plenty of sources that indicate some of those calls had to have been made from 30,000 ft.

You obviously did not read your own links. They made no claim that it was a cell phone call - they simply said that calls were made and those calls could have been made with the seat phones that are in most aircraft and do work at high altitude.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:You obviously did not read your own links. They made no claim that it was a cell phone call - they simply said that calls were made and those calls could have been made with the seat phones that are in most aircraft and do work at high altitude.

from the site:

"Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cell (i.e it was not an air phone). Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. "

[Riverwind]

"Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cell (i.e it was not an air phone). Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. "

Excuse me? Press reports confirm? Give me a break. Press reports have factual errors all of the time. The only way to prove the accuracy of that report is to look at the records from the phone companies. You are blowing a bunch of hot air unless you can produce the records from the phone companies and show that the phone call did not come from an airphone.

So don't waste time posting claims of proof when you don't have them.

[PolyNewbie]

I'm sure that if someone managed to produce phone records you would say that the time was a misprint or something. There are plenty of other independent reports of the same type of thing from the other flights.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

According to the American Airline / Qualcomm announcement, the technology for cell phone transmission at high altitude will only be available aboard commercial aircraft in 2006. This is an inescapable fact.

This is the part that doesn't make sense to me.

When I witnessed people talking on cellphones on that westjet flight, it was at cruising altitude (neither landing or just taken off), and it was well before 2006. I am not sure when exactly it was, but I am fairly certain that I took this flight on Christmas Eve of 2001... just a few months after 9/11.

Even if it is true that a call could not switch between towers back then, it's still possible that a short call could be made. I found a reference in wikipedia that it is possible to get reception from a cellular tower up to 25 miles away from it. 35000 feet is only about 6.63 miles, so the altitude itself is not the limiting factor. You did mention speed though. Lets consider the average cruising speed is 550mph, divided by 60 gives you about 9 miles a minute. If you consider that you can possibly get reception from 25 miles away from a tower, to directly over it, and 25 miles on the other side, that's a 50 mile diameter meaning you could sustain a cellular conversation for up to 5.5 minutes on a single tower. Even 30 seconds is enough time to relay the message outlined in that report you gave... I think it is plausible, especially considering that I have seen people talking on a jet while in the air... and not very recently either.

[Riverwind]

I'm sure that if someone managed to produce phone records you would say that the time was a misprint or something. There are plenty of other independent reports of the same type of thing from the other flights.

That is my point - your make claims and insist they are proven yet when I ask a few simple questions you admit that there is no proof and your claims are based entirely on hearsay. Why should anyone take anything you say seriously when you make claims like that?

[PolyNewbie]

I know that people on this forum think I am a sadist or something for saying that 911 was an inside job, but if the evidence points to 911 being an inside job it is a far worse thing not to say anything - this is particularly true if you have a relative or friend that died in this terrible ordeal.

No matter what happens, no matter who says what, it is always the best thing to stick with the truth. There are many people that know it was an inside job from looking at the evidence but have decided to just keep quiet (and asked me to) because although we are being lied to we must trust these people. I never will trust a liar like this. If the people have some kind of grand plan to improve mankind they would have brought it into the light.

I would bet my life against a free cup of cheap coffee that 911 was an inside job.

[Riverwind]

I know that people on this forum think I am a sadist or something for saying that 911 was an inside job, but if the evidence points to 911 being an inside job it is a far worse thing not to say anything

There was a time immediately after the event when the questions you raise were quite reasonable. The first NIST report did make mistakes and the questions did force the agencies to look a little deeper than they would have otherwise. However, over 5 years have passed - if there was any truth to the allegations then we would have heard from whistle blowers by now - hell, the fact that those Abu Ghraib pictures got released is pretty strong evidence that the gov't has very little control over the information that gets out. You can rant and rave about your so-called evidence but the fact is it is all inconclusive and not proof of anything concrete. Without whistle blowers confirming your version of events you have nothing. Furthermore, there are many examples of whistle blowers coming forward in other situations so you cannot argue that mysterious men in black keeps them silent about this particular event.

[Canadian Blue]

I know that people on this forum think I am a sadist or something for saying that 911 was an inside job, but if the evidence points to 911 being an inside job it is a far worse thing not to say anything - this is particularly true if you have a relative or friend that died in this terrible ordeal.

Apparently, the vast majority of relatives don't like the truthies trivializing the death of their loved ones either by people who have no clue what happened that day.

I would bet my life against a free cup of cheap coffee that 911 was an inside job.

But then again, I'm sure your stocked up on Kool Aid so your ready to give your life.

Besides most of the truthies are anti-semites as well, even Polynewbie stated he would be charged with a hate crime if he let his true feelings known.

[PolyNewbie]

CanadianBlue:Besides most of the truthies are anti-semites as well, even Polynewbie stated he would be charged with a hate crime if he let his true feelings known.

Lies again. I have stated that I do not believe Jews are the culprits behind this grand conspiracy. I have stated reasons why. Although I would like to ignore your posts I would like to also inform you that if you made these statements whilke sitting beside me you would experience a great deal of pain in the process. But because you are such a little piece of fecal matter you have likely been hit before and probably are used to being in pain.

I stated that I would not discuss Jews or the ADL because what I actually say is irrelevant when charges are brought forward, what matters is someone elses interpretation and I can be held responsible for that. And I would not expect to get a fair trial in a Canadian court on this (or any other) matter.

I think CanadianBlues pathetic & lying behaviour provides a bit of insight as to what I could be in for and proof of what I am saying.

You are a sniveling, lying, manipulative, pathetic little weasel for attempting what you are doing. The only way you can win an arguement is to attempt to paint someone as an anti semite.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: However, over 5 years have passed - if there was any truth to the allegations then we would have heard from whistle blowers by now

And we HAVE heard from the wistle blowers. You just keep dismissing them as irrelevant as they risk their lives to expose what really happened.

[Riverwind]

And we HAVE heard from the wistle blowers. You just keep dismissing them as irrelevant as they risk their lives to expose what really happened.

Internet yahoos analyzing video tapes are not whistle blowers. I am talking about people who were actually involved in the event to start with - for example, a human had to plant those explosives, a human had to fake those cell phone calls, a human had to create and plant the debris around the pentagon. There would have to be hundreds - if not thousands of people who actively participated in this so-called cover up yet not one has come forward. If one did they would be famous the deap throat of this generation - yet we have heard from no one. The only rational conclusion is that is because there was no coverup.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Internet yahoos analyzing video tapes are not whistle blowers. I am talking about people who were actually involved in the event to start with - for example, a human had to plant those explosives, a human had to fake those cell phone calls, a human had to create and plant the debris around the pentagon.

But not the guys that were in the room with Cheney and gave congressional testimony that he repeatedly gave a stand down order on air defences when they knew a high jacked plane was headed for the Pentagon/White house area - I guess that doesn't count. Why should others come out with your attitude about this whole thing ? Should they really put their lives on the line for something that is should be already plainly obvious ?

Furthermore it was the families that did lose a loved one that pressured Bush into starting an investigation. It took 441 days before he did an investigation and many of those people think it was a white wash and also think 911 was an inside job.

Riverwind:There would have to be hundreds - if not thousands of people who actively participated in this so-called cover up

A lot of people that have come out in the intelligence community think it was an inside job and that only a handful of people would have to be in on it, the rest play a part without even knowing they are in on something like this and think they are playing a role in something different. Intelligence works on a need to know basis. Only a few really know the big picture, else there is too much of a chance of a leak and operations are strictly structured so that this is possible. It is of the utmost importance. If they really did 911 then they thought of all this.

[Riverwind]

But not the guys that were in the room with Cheney and gave congressional testimony that he repeatedly gave a stand down order on air defences when they knew a high jacked plane was headed for the Pentagon/White house area - I guess that doesn't count.

It doesn't count because it does not mean anything. So what if someone issued a stand down order? It is not evidence of a conspiracy or a cover up. All it shows is that someone screwed up somewhere in the chain of command.

Should they really put their lives on the line for something that is already plainly obvious for people like you?

Why should anyone believe the ridiculous theories that you have cooked up without testimony from some of the people that would have to do the dirty work? Your are awfully arrogant if you think your 'evidence' is conclusive proof - it is all unprovable opinion backup by hearsay.

Only a few really know the big picture, else there is too much of a chance of a leak and operations are strictly structured so that this is possible. It is of the utmost importance. If they really did 911 then they thought of all this.

They could not stop pictures from Abu Ghraib from hitting the media but they can control information about the murder of 3000 Americans? One guy with a cell phone camera would have blown this entire story wide open yet it has not happened. The only rational explanation is there is no story. 9/11 was a terrorist attack aggravated by gov't incompetence - time to turn the page.