The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   War, Religion and Politics Thread (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   The 9/11 Phone Calls: Disturbing Irregularities Uncovered (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=111336)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN 06-28-2013 11:29 PM

The 9/11 Phone Calls: Disturbing Irregularities Uncovered
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-...16-909978.html

NEW YORK, May 16, 2013

America first learned of the 9/11 hijackings from Solicitor-General Ted Olson, who reported two calls from his wife, well-known CNN commentator Barbara Olson.

From American Airlines Flight 77, Barbara Olson fleshed out the drama of diminutive Muslim hijackers using knives and box-cutters to herd dozens of passengers to the rear of the plane.

These and other reported calls have now been examined by the 9/11 Consensus Panel of scientists, pilots, professors, attorneys, and journalists.

The Panel began its research in 2011 with the Twin Towers and the sudden, stunning collapse of adjacent Building WTC7, a massive 47-storey steel-framed skyscraper.

The official conclusion that all 82 support columns failed simultaneously from fire alone has for years raised serious questions about the official account.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel now offers four evidence-based Points about the alleged phone calls from the 9/11 flights.

The famous "let's roll" drama of the passenger revolt on UA 93 was relayed by passenger Todd Beamer's 13-minute unrecorded seat-back call to GTE telephone supervisor Lisa Jefferson, who reported Beamer as strangely tranquil, declining to speak to his wife. Eerily, Beamer's line remained open for 15 minutes after the crash.

Oddly, the Verizon wireless record shows that 19 calls were made from Beamer's cell phone long after the crash of UA 93.

Initial media reports and FBI interviews detailed more than a dozen cell phone calls from the planes at high elevation.

Yet in 2001, a telephone spokesperson stated that sustained mobile calls were not possible above 10,000 feet.

During the 2006 Moussaoui Trial, the FBI (under oath) reduced the number of cell phone calls to two calls made from 5,000 feet, and presented evidence of only one (not two) "unconnected" call from Barbara Olson, lasting "0 seconds."

In another twist, two other women reported that Caller-ID showed their husband's cell numbers on their answering machines, which while lasting several minutes, had been made from elevations of 25,000 and 35,000 feet.

Finally, although the FBI conducted a massive investigation into the calls, none of the telephone billing, nor any of the cell phone location data stored in standard phone company records has been publicly released.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel has developed 32 Points of evidence.

SOURCE The 9/11 Consensus Panel

Web site: http://www.consensus911.org

W*GS 06-29-2013 09:12 AM

NTSA.

DenverBrit 06-29-2013 09:39 AM

The usual suspects: Troofers, David Ray Griffin and Steven E Jones.

'If' the information is accurate, then worth investigating.

Big 'if.'

06-30-2013 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN (Post 3871178)
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-...16-909978.html

NEW YORK, May 16, 2013

America first learned of the 9/11 hijackings from Solicitor-General Ted Olson, who reported two calls from his wife, well-known CNN commentator Barbara Olson.

From American Airlines Flight 77, Barbara Olson fleshed out the drama of diminutive Muslim hijackers using knives and box-cutters to herd dozens of passengers to the rear of the plane.

These and other reported calls have now been examined by the 9/11 Consensus Panel of scientists, pilots, professors, attorneys, and journalists.

The Panel began its research in 2011 with the Twin Towers and the sudden, stunning collapse of adjacent Building WTC7, a massive 47-storey steel-framed skyscraper.

The official conclusion that all 82 support columns failed simultaneously from fire alone has for years raised serious questions about the official account.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel now offers four evidence-based Points about the alleged phone calls from the 9/11 flights.

The famous "let's roll" drama of the passenger revolt on UA 93 was relayed by passenger Todd Beamer's 13-minute unrecorded seat-back call to GTE telephone supervisor Lisa Jefferson, who reported Beamer as strangely tranquil, declining to speak to his wife. Eerily, Beamer's line remained open for 15 minutes after the crash.

Oddly, the Verizon wireless record shows that 19 calls were made from Beamer's cell phone long after the crash of UA 93.

Initial media reports and FBI interviews detailed more than a dozen cell phone calls from the planes at high elevation.

Yet in 2001, a telephone spokesperson stated that sustained mobile calls were not possible above 10,000 feet.

During the 2006 Moussaoui Trial, the FBI (under oath) reduced the number of cell phone calls to two calls made from 5,000 feet, and presented evidence of only one (not two) "unconnected" call from Barbara Olson, lasting "0 seconds."

In another twist, two other women reported that Caller-ID showed their husband's cell numbers on their answering machines, which while lasting several minutes, had been made from elevations of 25,000 and 35,000 feet.

Finally, although the FBI conducted a massive investigation into the calls, none of the telephone billing, nor any of the cell phone location data stored in standard phone company records has been publicly released.

The 9/11 Consensus Panel has developed 32 Points of evidence.

SOURCE The 9/11 Consensus Panel

Web site: http://www.consensus911.org

Cell phones don't work in flight?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1951452.html

I'd call the idea that UAE has super secret cellular technology funny except that would be right up these clowns' alley.

mhgaffney 07-01-2013 03:59 PM

At the time of 9/11, cell phones did NOT work above 10,000 feet.

This has since changed. Cell phone technology has greatly improved.

I have argued that one of the calls from UAL 93 may have been genuine. The plane was very low. The call only lasted 30 seconds. A document from the 9/11 Commission released back in 2011 further supports the idea that it did happen.

However, most of the 9/11 calls are probably dubious. MHG

07-01-2013 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3871915)
At the time of 9/11, cell phones did NOT work above 10,000 feet.

This has since changed. Cell phone technology has greatly improved.

I have argued that one of the calls from UAL 93 may have been genuine. The plane was very low. The call only lasted 30 seconds. A document from the 9/11 Commission released back in 2011 further supports the idea that it did happen.

However, most of the 9/11 calls are probably dubious. MHG

From what I've read that's not the case at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec15.html

Even back in those days the FCC said the reason aerial cell use was banned was because it could impact ground callers' reliability, not because it wouldn't work in the air (which it did)

mhgaffney 07-01-2013 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3871922)
From what I've read that's not the case at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec15.html

Even back in those days the FCC said the reason aerial cell use was banned was because it could impact ground callers' reliability, not because it wouldn't work in the air (which it did)

The article you cite is from 2004 ---

Lots happened between 2001 and 2004.

07-01-2013 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3871930)
The article you cite is from 2004 ---

Lots happened between 2001 and 2004.

Not when it comes to the issue at hand. Read up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft

Essentially aircraft-based cell phones rain down rf over multiple towers' coverage areas, even ones they're not communicating with. This can cause interference for users of adjacent cells because the towers (that aren't actually handling the airborne call) haven't allocated any space for that frequency use.

Long story short, the airborne calls would generally work just fine, and the only real impact was (theoretically) on people making calls from the ground.

Cell phones have pretty much always worked fine from the air. They were only legally restricted (in the fcc's case) because of the impact that had on everyone else.

mhgaffney 07-01-2013 05:14 PM

Sorry but you need to be wary of Wikipedia when the issue is 9/11.

At the trial of Zacharias Mouassoui in 2006 the FBI only defended two of the 9/11 phone calls. I think we may fairly presume that the rest never happened.

That said, I have stayed away from the 9/11 cell phone calls in my writing -- because the issue is so contentious. There is much better agreement on some other 9/11 issues --

My forthcoming Chomsky piece will focus on the best evidence -- not the contentious stuff.

MHG

L.A. BRONCOS FAN 07-01-2013 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverBrit (Post 3871243)
The usual suspects: Troofers, David Ray Griffin and Steven E Jones.

'If' the information is accurate, then worth investigating.

Big 'if.'


I guess you include Verizon in the "Troofer" camp?

Quote:

Oddly, the Verizon wireless record shows that 19 calls were made from Beamer's cell phone long after the crash of UA 93.

07-01-2013 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3871942)
Sorry but you need to be wary of Wikipedia when the issue is 9/11.

At the trial of Zacharias Mouassoui in 2006 the FBI only defended two of the 9/11 phone calls. I think we may fairly presume that the rest never happened.

That said, I have stayed away from the 9/11 cell phone calls in my writing -- because the issue is so contentious. There is much better agreement on some other 9/11 issues --

My forthcoming Chomsky piece will focus on the best evidence -- not the contentious stuff.

MHG

The issue wasn't 9/11. The issue was 'how cell phones work'

And the science behind it isn't unique to cell phones. Elevation is known to aid any form of rf transmission/reception because it dispenses with physical obstacles. In reality you're reversing the question.

Instead of asking whether cell phones work from airplanes, ask yourself why they wouldn't.

DenverBrit 07-01-2013 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN (Post 3872001)
I guess you include Verizon in the "Troofer" camp?

And Sprint!! :)

BroncsRule 07-11-2013 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3871942)
Sorry but you need to be wary of Wikipedia when the issue is 9/11.

At the trial of Zacharias Mouassoui in 2006 the FBI only defended two of the 9/11 phone calls. I think we may fairly presume that the rest never happened.

That said, I have stayed away from the 9/11 cell phone calls in my writing -- because the issue is so contentious. There is much better agreement on some other 9/11 issues --

My forthcoming Chomsky piece will focus on the best evidence -- not the contentious stuff.

MHG

Noam Chomsky is a historical linguist. Citing him as an expert on wide ranging topics from economics to political theory is dubious at best.

mhgaffney 07-11-2013 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncsRule (Post 3876186)
Noam Chomsky is a historical linguist. Citing him as an expert on wide ranging topics from economics to political theory is dubious at best.

Chomsky is a lot more than the world's leading linguist. He's been our leading dissenter about geopolitics for more than half a century.

If you aren't aware of this, it's probably because the US media blacklisted Chomksy long ago. You don't see him on TV for this reason. Chomsky is too smart. He would make mincemeat of any/all of the pundits. So they banned him.

I think there was one interview with David Moyers. That's it.

MHG

W*GS 07-11-2013 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3876200)
Chomsky is a lot more than the world's leading linguist. He's been our leading dissenter about geopolitics for more than half a century.

If you aren't aware of this, it's probably because the US media blacklisted Chomksy long ago. You don't see him on TV for this reason. Chomsky is too smart. He would make mincemeat of any/all of the pundits. So they banned him.

I think there was one interview with David Moyers. That's it.

MHG

Why do you trust Chomsky? He's a Jew.

BroncsRule 07-27-2013 10:15 AM

Oh, I've read some of Chomsky's political stuff. It's available at the Tattered Cover. I was just pointing out that political science is not his actual area of expertise. Taking Chomsky as a serious Econ or Poli-Sci player just because he has an erudite style of writing would be a mistake. Kind of like taking as gospel an Economist's opinion on Climate Science or the opinion of a Climatologist on structural engineering questions.

If you want to learn a lot about the Indo-European root language, Chomsky's your guy.

DenverBrit 07-27-2013 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncsRule (Post 3883225)
Oh, I've read some of Chomsky's political stuff. It's available at the Tattered Cover. I was just pointing out that political science is not his actual area of expertise. Taking Chomsky as a serious Econ or Poli-Sci player just because he has an erudite style of writing would be a mistake. Kind of like taking as gospel an Economist's opinion on Climate Science or the opinion of a Climatologist on structural engineering questions.

If you want to learn a lot about the Indo-European root language, Chomsky's your guy.

Gaffney rarely knows what he's talking about so it's a wash.

But he's a whiz at poetry and organic gardening. Ask him. ;D

07-27-2013 02:48 PM

Another conspiracy theory troll thread?

Wake me up in another month or two...


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.