The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-28-2013, 10:29 PM   #1
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 53,923
Default 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
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 06-29-2013, 08:12 AM   #2
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,949
Default

NTSA.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 08:39 AM   #3
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,487

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

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

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

Big 'if.'
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2013, 05:46 AM   #4
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 02:59 PM   #5
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,218
Default

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
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 03:12 PM   #6
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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)
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 03:52 PM   #7
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
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.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 03:57 PM   #8
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 07-01-2013 at 04:01 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 04:14 PM   #9
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,218
Default

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
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 06:39 PM   #10
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 53,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
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.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 07:14 PM   #11
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 09:14 PM   #12
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,487

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
I guess you include Verizon in the "Troofer" camp?
And Sprint!!
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 02:32 PM   #13
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 985

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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.
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 03:03 PM   #14
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncsRule View Post
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
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 03:47 PM   #15
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
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.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2013, 09:15 AM   #16
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 985

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

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.
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2013, 09:51 AM   #17
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,487

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncsRule View Post
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.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2013, 01:48 PM   #18
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Another conspiracy theory troll thread?

Wake me up in another month or two...
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:41 AM.


Denver Broncos