Undeniable Proof 9/11 was Inside Job

Well, I can give you my experience w/cell phones on a plane.

A few weeks ago I flew back to Texas for my Grandfather's funeral. I switched planes in Chicago. I forgot to turn off my cell phone after my lay over. It was in my bag, which I put in the overhead compartment. My cell phone kept ringing! I was so embarrassed! I acted like it wasn't mine and tried to ignore it. Three calls later, I finally got up to power it down. Not sure how far up we were, but we were at the altitude which they turn off the seat belt sign.

Edit: Double post

[edit on 23-2-2005 by SourGrapes]

I read the link you posted Truth. Call me hard headed, but I'm not convinced of the debunking. IMHO the conspiracy sites did a better job convincing.

I cannot take any more of this "Undeniable" or "Irrefutable" or "Convincing" evidence crap about 9/11 anymore! Give us all a break here!

If there were any such evidence it would be front and center, not buried in some conspiracy website. Your article demonstrated NO such evidence in any form. In law we call this heresay and it is not admissable.

As far as cell phone use on a plane... I have snuck in a number of calls myself to avoid the ridiculous charges that you are hit with using the airphone. It's worked nearly every time.

This is nothing more than heresay, supposition and wanton disregard for hard evidence. Please, NO MORE!

This just came out in USAToday. Interesting read.

www.usatoday.com...

Originally posted by SourGrapes
Well, I can give you my experience w/cell phones on a plane.

A few weeks ago I flew back to Texas for my Grandfather's funeral. I switched planes in Chicago. I forgot to turn off my cell phone after my lay over. It was in my bag, which I put in the overhead compartment. My cell phone kept ringing! I was so embarrassed! I acted like it wasn't mine and tried to ignore it. Three calls later, I finally got up to power it down. Not sure how far up we were, but we were at the altitude which they turn off the seat belt sign.

From my understanding, The tech is available now, but not in 2001.

Thank you for the post

This is a must for all the die hard Republicans out there.

Enlightment is the key.

Originally posted by Bout Time

From my understanding, The tech is available now, but not in 2001.

Now why would this tech be available now and not in 2001? Did they move their satellites? This doesn't make any sense.

But the satellite "Cell Towers" were not up in 2001....it was an innovation of recent vintage.

Actually, the phones on the planes are cell phones! They certainly are not hard wired!

[edit on 23-2-2005 by SourGrapes]

Originally posted by SourGrapes
Actually, the phones on the planes are cell phones! They certainly are not hard wired!

[edit on 23-2-2005 by SourGrapes]

I know they're not Land lines, smart A! But it was on a Bugs Bunny cartoon!

Here's a link: www.detnews.com...

"And now it's practically here. Airbus, American Airlines and some telecommunications firms have run experiments that they say prove in-flight calls can be made - and received - safely.

It has something to do with installing low-power cell sites right on board the aircraft. These sites will then pick up on-board calls and send them directly to satellites.

So by 2006, the experts predict, I'll be able to phone my friend that I'm aboard an earlier flight than the one he'd planned to meet; tell my wife how close I came to missing the flight; finish the interview I started with a news source, and tell my children to phone me back when they finish the conversations they're having on their cell phones. "

Originally posted by Bout Time

"And now it's practically here. Airbus, American Airlines and some telecommunications firms have run experiments that they say prove in-flight calls can be made - and received - safely.

It has something to do with installing low-power cell sites right on board the aircraft. These sites will then pick up on-board calls and send them directly to satellites.

So by 2006, the experts predict, I'll be able to phone my friend that I'm aboard an earlier flight than the one he'd planned to meet; tell my wife how close I came to missing the flight; finish the interview I started with a news source, and tell my children to phone me back when they finish the conversations they're having on their cell phones. "

Yes. They are setting up new 'low-power' cellular sites to allow the use of personal cell phones inflight. It will be at a lower frequency than what the controllers and pilots use. So, they are actually 'blocking' the ability to be at the same frequency of the flights for safety reasons. The ability to call from a cell phone has always been there (since cell phones came out). They do not want passengers to use cell phones on the flight for safety precautions.

Firstly cell phones were banned in 1991 on FCC initiative in USA. The reason was a probable interference of cell phone with the aircraft's communication and navigation systems. But at that time there were no facts that can prove or disprove that statement. The ban could be considered as a private initiative of airlines and telecommunications companies, which didn't want to lose a revenue from the air-phones installed onboard. Look, a one-minute call in the air was much more expensive than a usual cell phone call and, naturally, people used a cheaper service when they had a choice. The situation was regulated in 1991. Ground carriers had no objections. But we should understand that cellular technologies were not widely spread at that time and revenue of carriers was quite sufficient. It wasn't necessary for them to find other sources to get benefit.

www.mobile-review.com...

Also, my old boss would hold conference calls from the company's private jet (from his cell phone). This is a company that I worked for from 1997 - 2001.

The ability to use a cell phone on a plane has been around prior to 1991 when they first banned them on U.S. flights (whether for safety or airline profits is questionable); however, the reception was another story. As towers have been added in populated areas, the reception has improved.


edit: fixed grammatical errors



[edit on 23-2-2005 by SourGrapes]

Why such ridiculous threads when there is no undeniable proof of such claims?

I'll tell you why there's no proof.

Because they're all lies, that's why!

Sometimes I think many people watch too many science-fiction while taking hallucinogens and really believe it to be reality!

People who would dare to think bologna like this aren't "out there".

They go beyond "out there" to being on the verge of "absolutely clueless" or put another way, LOST!

EDIT: Not meaning to be offensive to anyone. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but these far-fetched claims are a bit, how should I say this, TOO MUCH B.S.!



[edit on 23/2/05 by Intelearthling]

Intearthling, i guess some of us are not gifted as you. What might be bologna to you is salami to us.
We're the ones with the open minds and the ones who are weaving a different story together. And it all fits and molds to us like fine leather.
You dont have to beleive- there are other threads out there.
You also do not have to put down a post such as this one. You see, Millions and millions of people world wide think there is a very strong possibility that this was a "job".

dg, your new avatar is hot! Freaky, but hot.

Actually, both dg and sour avatars are very cool. Thats one of the most interesting aspects of this site.

Sourgrapes,

Thank you,got it from Umbrax, he gave it to me. The eyes are a little questionable but hey... its sexy and powerful like me.

Of course it was an inside job. We did find the black boxes, Americans were behind it, and we did blame another country. It's as simple as that!

Hi, New York fans.

About 9/11, the details are not so important.

What is important is the bunch of errors "they-with-$$,$$$,$$$,$$$" did !

And to explain one BIG mistake/error done, read the logics of:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Blue skies.