9-11 and cell phones

I confess it is somewhat reactionary and backward-looking to post anything concerning conspiracy on the new ATS (let alone anything demanding any exercise of the memory) but the last stage of the Achilles project -Prof Dewdney who has consistently attacked the nonsense about cell-phone/seat-phone calls from Flights 77 and 93- is now very easily accessible ( it's been around for 3 months).
It's at www.physics911.org...
To those who recall the long-ago farce of Barbara Olson and the passengers' uprising etc...blah...yawn, this is of interest -and remember: it is an experiment and judge it as such.
This was but one of the many obvious and quickly forgotten lies, of course; but it's the one that can be tested (we can't rebuild WTC or rerun the day to find out how GWB actually did know, or how the white vans and art students were so quickly forgotten.)
Dewdney isn't particularly biased (in fact taking the position that anything said by the White House or Pentagon is almost certainly a lie can scarcely be called "bias", more like common sense). His case is clear and "testable"
It's odd that more people didn't instantly recall the farce about TWA 800 immediately, at the time.

Originally posted by Estragon
I confess it is somewhat reactionary and backward-looking to post anything concerning conspiracy on the new ATS

Estragon

Nice info, prefaced by an uncharacteristically brutal piece of cynicism.

Although I have to admit, the number of conspiracy deniers or conspiracy uninteresteds seems to outnumber the number of jigsaw and puzzle solvers by a ratio of about 5:1. Plenty have admitted they have no interest in conspiracies and don't believe they exist.

There is a real difference between 'alternative discussion' and 'conspiracy discussion'.

I for one make a point of reading all your posts on either in the few minutes a day I have spent at ATS.

BTW, I had no difficulty believing that cellphones might have been used for last calls from loved ones. It's easy to swallow, given that switching off of cellphones is a safety measure required oin passenger aircraft... it makes one think that they might have been used widely otherwise.

I don't know the difference in modulation between cellphones and the built-in passenger phone systems on may airlines these days, but I presume they are totally unrelated technologies.

These parts of the study's conclusion are the most telling. They tell me that all along I should have been more doubtful, and included the existence of these calls in the 'potentially lies' category... but then I ask, why would any spouse or loved one be reporting that the calls happened, if they didn't?


(Conclusions)

As was shown above, the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. To calculate the probability that two such calls will succeed involves elementary probability theory. The resultant probability is the product of the two probabilities, taken separately. In other words, the probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand. In the case of a hundred such calls, even if a large majority fail, the chance of, say 13 calls getting through can only be described as infinitesimal. In operational terms, this means "impossible."

At lower altitudes the probability of connection changes from impossible to varying degrees of "unlikely." But here, a different phenomenon asserts itself, a phenomenon that cannot be tested in a propellor-driven light aircraft. At 500 miles per hour, a low-flying aircraft passes over each cell in a very short time. For example if a cell (area serviced by a given cellsite) were a mile in diameter, the aircraft would be in it for one to eight seconds. Before a cellphone call can go through, the device must complete an electronic "handshake" with the cellsite servicing the call. This handshake can hardly be completed in eight seconds. When the aircraft comes into the next cell, the call must be "handed off" to the new cellsite. This process also absorbs seconds of time. Together, the two requirements for a successful and continuous call would appear to absorb too much time for a speaking connection to be established. Sooner or later, the call is "dropped."

Question:

Is it conceivable, that when referring to "cell phone" calls, it could have been aluding to the "seat phones" instead? Personally, if I was on a plane that was going down...I'd be making that call to loved ones... Maybe I skipped over it in briefly reading the link, I don't know....but it seems this could just be a case of semantics.....

The seat-phone/credit-card swipe/collect-call business is addressed in the earlier sections (links there)
That some calls may have been faked is not impossible. The behaviour of Solicitor General Olson is in some ways the oddest - he immediately contacted a news agency, his story then disappeared' and remember -this was before the "uprising" on the Pennsylvania plane hit the media: it was the only bit of "Muslims did it" "proof" in the news on the following day

Much of the reliability of cell phone depends on the altitude the call was made from. A few things need to be considered here. Cell phone towers in New York (for example) are mainly on top of tall buildings. The mechanism that communicates with the cell phone units themselves is pointed (untechnical way of speaking) downward because most users are lower down than the tall buildings. This is why people in high rise buildings have crappy service. I work on the 40th floor of a large building. My service is terrible, and I usually must push send 5-10 times until it goes through.
I therefore would question the ability of a standard cellular phone to work thousands of feet in the air (though i can not say for sure because I don't turn mine on in the plane). Normal cell phones would interfere with the electronic devices on the plane. Primarily during landing and takeoff but possibly other times as well. The swipe phones on the seats are a different story. The same way I can't listen to my discman or use my palm pilot during takeoff and landing, but the inflight entertainment system can run. That's an internal system designed specifically to work on an airplane. So yes, I do believe the swipe phones would have worked at great speeds and altitudes because the nature of the system is very different from the system MA described. Judging from what I know i consider it impossible for numerous Normal Cell phone calls to go through from the plane.

By the way... Not every plane has the swipe phones. Has anyone checked into whether or not the model of plane in question had them? If it didn't and the only way to get through was standard cell phones, I would venture to say this did not occur the way we have been led to believe.

I have never owned or used a cellphone, so Ill take this guys word for it. I know you can use the seat phones on a plane, as i have done that before just for the hell of it. Some reports stated specifically the calls were made from "cell phones", so i think some calls were legit, some calls were faked.

I do know, however, that I have yet to see anyone talking on a cellphone on a plane. They tell you to turn them off for take off and landing, but even after that, Ive not seen anyone chatting on one. Ive seen people play on thier laptop comps, or listen to music and stuff.

Pretty damn interesting. I know that one ofg the passengers on flight 93 made a call to a 9-11 disoatcher they said, from a bathroom, so that would mean a cellphone. dunno how high in the air they were. anyway, the reason i question this paticular phone call, is because after he made the phone call, the the FBI found out, they confiscated the recording of the call and told the dispatchers to keep quiet.

So, does this mean, either they were traveling low enough to call, or he wasnt in the bathroom, or, the call didnt take place. then...what did the FBI seize from the dispatcher, and why the silence?

This article appears to state differently

www.panix.com...

The seat-phone lies were, and are, very mysterious: after CNN ran it all reference to it disappeared and the only easily "findable" mention is an interview in a London paper (very handy for Olson as it's published outside US sovereign territory)
The Perjurer General asserted that his wife used the seat-phone but claimed she tried to reverse the charges (call collect) and he asserted that she did not ahve a credit card on her (that's likely??)
One's understanding is that the AL seat phones onbly "go out" if a credit card is swiped through them to deduct an immediate "set up charge": so she had to have a credit card, presumably.
She borrowed one? Then why call collect? And is this even possible?
Set aside whether the phone would have worked or whether, given the speed and movement and high-G turns of the aeroplane anyone could have actually used it (the "Arabs" were where at the time?).
Above all, recall that this was the first mention of the "hijacker" claims -it was not until 4 days later that the Todd Beamer fantasies emerged.
The whole edifice of claims about 9-11 was built upon this.

I thought Cell phone signals were relayed from the service providers satellite.

When you turn on your cellular phone on the ground, it will search for and engage one or two local antennae in a limited area. When you turn on your cellular phone while airborne, it can find and engage hundreds of antennae over hundreds of miles, as it doesn't have to navigate the curvature of the planet.

This causes antennae to become overloaded, and chokes off ground-borne cellular connections.

www.wirelessweek.com...

The prior article was very clear passengers on private Jets use there cell phones all the time.

Good finds, Toltec

There is clearly information and disinformation in the works.

I still can't decide whether size of plane and size of windows are important variables at all.

There is indeed this lack of clarity on cell-phones and it's hard to find two articles that are dealing with quite the same conditions.
That was the continuing appeal for me of Dewdney's Achilles project: it is in a very robust sense experimental: he started from the results not from assuming a correct hypothesis.
Now, he is a reaf prof: this can be verified and to me the whole project is "scientific" in its methodology. I have seen no clashes between his assumptions and what has been "officially" released with regard to altitude, speed and course of the aircraft in question.

I can say that yes, the seat phones work fine in turbulence, turns, etc. (I always call my fiance' to let her know if I'm getting in early, etc.) Also, I've seen people sneak similarly quick cell calls, and they seemed to have no problems.... BTW-It's always business trips, so I expense the call, hehe...

But = if all else is equal - can they "call collect"?

Here's a study that was done using cellphones at equivalent altitudes. I'll be amazed if it actually shows up here. I've tried to post it in the appropriate forum, but someone does not want this subject discussed. That should tell you all you need to know.

'Project Achilles' - Final Report and Summary of Findings

by A. K. Dewdney - 19th April 2003

During the early months of the year 2003, the author conducted three experiments to determine whether and how well cellphones could be operated from aircraft. The first flight (Part One) was essentially a probe of the experimental situation, to acquire some primary data and to work out a simple, readily implemented protocol. The results of Part Two (Diamond Katana 4-seater) have already appeared in these pages. The results of Part Three (Cessna 172-R) appear immediately below.

Since this completes the suite of experiments, it is appropriate to summarize the findings and to draw some conclusions. The conclusions are based partly on the experiments and partly on two other sources. (See Appendix B at the end of the report.) Expert opinion and eyewitness testimony are acceptable not only in court, but in certain scientific inquiries where events are of short duration or experiments are too expensive or impossible to carry out. Of course, eyewitness accounts do not carry the same weight as expert opinions or actual experiments, but the eyewitness accounts quoted below seem to be both consistent and compelling.

Disclaimer: The companies hired to assist in this experiment, namely Empire Aviation and Cellular Solutions, both of London, Ontario, Canada, acted as disinterested commercial parties, with no stake in the outcome or even knowledge of the purpose of the tests.

www.the7thfire.com...

Yeah, the cell phone calls are just one of MANY flaws in the official story.
I still find it amazing that im on a conspiracy board asking people to look at the facts.
There are so many holes in the official story that its sad and shocking when people wont even look at it. All those that rush to shut down these threads, or call it garbage, have either not looked at the facts, or are attempting to suppress the truth.
I personally have spent 3 solid months researching 911.
Im not eloquent or particularly articulate, but i know what i know. I know 911 is a conspiracy.

Originally posted by aware
Yeah, the cell phone calls are just one of MANY flaws in the official story.
I still find it amazing that im on a conspiracy board asking people to look at the facts.
There are so many holes in the official story that its sad and shocking when people wont even look at it. All those that rush to shut down these threads, or call it garbage, have either not looked at the facts, or are attempting to suppress the truth.
I personally have spent 3 solid months researching 911.
Im not eloquent or particularly articulate, but i know what i know. I know 911 is a conspiracy.

THe whole official story of 9-11 is complete FICTION. Keep researching! And keep speaking out! That's all anyone can do. That is the job of a true Patriot.

# the mainstream media. They're all under the control of big brother. Owned by 7-10 entities. It's a joke.

REad the international media (CAnada, British, Asia Times, Australian etc. etc.) You'll get a much more in-depth picture of what's going on.

Actually, it is possible to make cellphone calls from a plane. A couple weeks ago, my uncle was flying to Chicago to visit our family, he caled my mom from the plane to ask her about wiring him money when he got there.

But he had a pretty fancy phone and plan.

It depends on what kind of service you have. Standard, or satelite digital carier?

If your phone service is sattelite/international, yeah, u can make the calls. if your phone is less complex and local, then no.

The key is, which passenger had what plan? Id imagine Barbara Olsen had top notch, given her profession and all. Did others have standard cellphones, or what?

No, seriously, when i said i spent 3 months researching 911 i mean thats ALL I DID for 3 months. I consumed vast amounts of information. I am well aware of the BIG picture, and its all quite clear from where i stand.
'in the right light, study becomes insight' Zach D.
I have nearly 100 websites in my favorites, all pertaining to the 911 and the entire NWO scheme.
I have probably 50 video clips saved. I feel confident that there is no aspect of 911 that i am not familier with.
CELL PHONES may or may-not be the flaw to expose the cover up.
Personally, i find This BIZAARE coincidence to be obvious proof of a cover-up, especially when you bring in the testimony of the FBI whistleblowers. Seems i saw i thread on that but i cant find it now....
At anyrate, we must expose 911 to be the cover-up that it is, and in so doing i believe it will expose the global elite and thus the conspiracy on mankind.
Thats what it is you know, its not black or white, jew or gentile, republican or democrat. This is quite simply a battle between good and evil. Its no theory, and if people insist on remaining in their happy little camps spouting party rhetoric, then they are contributing to the demise of this great nation.