| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| "Cell Phones Don't Work on a Plane ..."; Flight 93 relative interviewed | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 24 2008, 11:51 AM (855 Views) | |
| Shoestring | Apr 24 2008, 11:51 AM Post #1 |
|
Here's my latest blog entry, relating to the alleged cell phone calls from Flight 93 on 9/11. The original is here: http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/04/husband-of-flight-93-attendant-cell.html The video clip of Lorne Lyles is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBjgV1plf2M Husband of Flight 93 Attendant: "Cell Phones Don't Work on a Plane ..." The husband of a flight attendant on one of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 has, during an interview, revealed his astonishment at receiving a cell phone call from his wife that morning. The reason for his surprise: "because cell phones don't work on a plane." The interview appeared on the 2006 documentary DVD, Portrait of Courage: The Untold Story of Flight 93. In it Lorne Lyles, a police officer in Florida, described how, at around 9:51 a.m. on September 11, he received a call from his wife, CeeCee Lyles, who was a flight attendant on United 93. She told him her plane had been hijacked and that she and some others were getting ready to "go to the cockpit." Lorne described that, after the call got disconnected: "I looked at the caller ID, and noticed that it was a call, and it was from her cell phone. And I'm like, OK, wait a minute. How can she call me from on the plane from a cell phone, because cell phones don't work on a plane? That's what I'm thinking." [1] EXPERT OPINIONS Lorne Lyles' concern was understandable. An article published by the Travel Technologist shortly after 9/11 stated: "[W]ireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did." [2] Wireless Review similarly commented: "Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky [on September 11] brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes. Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations." [3] To investigate this matter, scientist A. K. Dewdney conducted a series of experiments using mobile phones from a small propeller aircraft, over the city of London, Ontario in Canada. (He noted that, "not only is the cell phone technological base in Canada identical to its U.S. counterpart, but Canadian communication technology is second to none, Canada being a world leader in research and development." [4]) Dewdney found: Cell phone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8,000 feet are essentially impossible, while those below 8,000 feet are highly unlikely down to about 2,000, where they become merely unlikely. Moreover, even at the latter altitude (and below), the handoff problem appears. Any airliner at or below this altitude, flying at the normal speed of approximately 500 mph, would encounter the handoff problem. An aircraft traveling at this speed would not be over the cell site long enough to complete the electronic "handshake" (which takes several seconds to complete) before arriving over the next cell site, when the call has to be handed off from the first cell site to the next one. This also takes a few seconds, the result being, in the optimal case, a series of broken transmissions that must end, sooner or later, in failure. [5] TOM BURNETT'S FOUR CELL PHONE CALLS A similar concern to that expressed by Lorne Lyles may also have been hinted at by Deena Burnett, whose husband Tom Burnett apparently called her four times from on board Flight 93. In her own book, published in 2006, Deena Burnett described receiving the first of these calls from her husband at 9:27 a.m. on September 11: "I looked at the caller ID and indeed it was Tom's cell phone number." Deena, who during the early 1990s had worked as a flight attendant for Delta Airlines, asked Tom: "Where are you? Are you in the air?" She commented in her book, "I didn't understand how he could be calling me on his cell phone from the air." [6] Later in the day of 9/11, Deena told the FBI that "only one" of the calls she'd received from her husband "did not show on the caller identification." The reason for this was simply that "she was on the line with another call" when it was made. Otherwise, she had been "able to determine that her husband was using his own cellular telephone" on all his calls, "because the caller identification showed his number." [7] Yet if cell phone calls like these would have been so unlikely from an aircraft in flight, what was really going on that morning? Was it just a "fluke" that these and other alleged passenger cell phone calls got through? Or, alternatively, might the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks have been involved in a sinister and malicious deception, to make the victims' relatives mistakenly believe they had been called from the hijacked flights? NOTES [1] Portrait of Courage: The Untold Story of Flight 93. DVD. Directed by David Priest. Baker City, OR: Grizzly Adams Productions, 2006. [2] Christopher Elliott, "Will They Allow Cell Phones on Planes?" Travel Technologist, September 19, 2001. [3] Betsy Harter, "Final Contact." Wireless Review, November 1, 2001. [4] A. K. Dewdney, "'Project Achilles': Final (Third) Report and Summary of Findings." Physics 911, April 19, 2003. [5] A. K. Dewdney, "The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93." Physics 911, undated. [6] Deena Burnett with Anthony Giombetti, Fighting Back: Living Life Beyond Ourselves. Altamonte Springs, FL: Advantage Books, 2006, p. 61. [7] "Interview with Deena Lynne Burnett (re: Phone Call from Hijacked Flight)." Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 11, 2001. |
 |
 
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Apr 24 2008, 03:44 PM Post #2 |
|
This is fascinating because according to the evidence at the Moussaoui trial everyone except Ed Felt and Cee Cee's 9:58 call were via airphone, even Burnetts. |
|
|
|
| A-Train | Apr 29 2008, 07:06 PM Post #3 |
|
The case of Cee Cee Lyles' cell phone calls to Lorne is easy enough to understand. She made one call at 9:47, on an airphone, and left a message that we can all hear in the Moussaoui trial exhibit. The second call was made on a cell phone at 9:58. UAL93 crashed no later than 10:06, eight minutes later. So presumably the plane was at a low altitude when the second call was made, and therefore under conditions when cell phone calls are indeed possible. ---------------- The case of Burnett's calls is more complicated. All three calls were certainly made by airphones, as indicated in the Moussaoui exhibit. Did Deena Burnett really see his cell number on her caller ID? I greatly doubt it. Yet there is no denying that such is stated in the book she and Tom Giombetti wrote. She also allegedly said she saw the number on her caller ID in her interview with the FBI, as quoted by Shoestring. I wouldn't put any faith in the FBI interview. It is well known that Deena Burnett reported that Tom had seen a gun in the possession of the hijackers. This information is devastating to the official story, pointing to a professional operation beyond the scope of any Arab group. In addition, there is credible evidence that Betty Ong also reported a gun in her phone call from AAL11, and that that report has been covered up by the authorities: http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/46741/1/#new When questioned about the report of a gun, Deena said:
And yet, amazingly, the FBI interview with Deena Burnett does not mention the report of a gun whatsoever! http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-11-FBI-FD302-deena-lynne-burnett.pdf We should be aware of the possibility of a disinformation campaign to discredit all the phone calls, by suggesting they were cell calls, and therefore impossible. The phone calls contain information devastating to the official story, such as the reports of guns. Moreover, nothing in the calls really shows that the hijackers were who the government says they were-- only that they were "Middle Eastern looking," which they undoubtedly were, but which might only mean they were posing as Arabs to frame Arabs for the crime. I don't know how the cell phone claim worked its way into the book supposedly written by Deena and ghostwriter Giombetti. But my guess is that it is a hoax, and Deena herself is playing along for one reason or another. |
|
|
|
| French St | Jun 1 2008, 02:08 AM Post #4 |
|
Sunday, 28 October 2007: Todd Beamer's Odd Phone Call and the Silent Crash of Flight 93. Link : http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2007/10/todd-beamers-odd-phone-call-and-silent.html Quote: "A further oddity was Todd Beamer's remarkable calmness, despite the catastrophic situation he was in. Jefferson recalled: "Todd, when he came to me, he was calm. ... [H]e stayed calm through the entire conversation." [6] In her 2006 book, Called, Jefferson wrote: "[H]is voice was devoid of any stress. In fact, he sounded so tranquil it made me begin to doubt the authenticity and urgency of his call." [7] She told Beamer's wife: "If I hadn't known it was a real hijacking, I'd have thought it was a crank call, because Todd was so rational and methodical about what he was doing" As Betty Ong in the flight 11. A coincidence? http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_flight-11-transcript.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icfkIH3j-nk |
|
|
|
| French St | Jun 3 2008, 10:23 AM Post #5 |
|
A-Train- Quote « The case of Burnett's calls is more complicated. All three calls were certainly made by airphones, as indicated in the Moussaoui exhibit. Did Deena Burnett really see his cell number on her caller ID? I greatly doubt it. Yet there is no denying that such is stated in the book she and Tom Giombetti wrote. She also allegedly said she saw the number on her caller ID in her interview with the FBI, as quoted by Shoestring.” I did not understand why we need to doubt the assertions of Deena Burnett. She should be interviewed again. In any case here is a comparison of his statements with the official history: “Moussaoui trial exhibit” : http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200055.html Tom Burnett Family Foundation :Transcript of Tom’s last calls to Deena: “6:27 a.m.( pacific time) First “cell phone” call from Tom to Deena (Moussaoui trial exhibit: First “airphone” call from Tom Burnett to residence at: 09:30:32, Duration of the phone call: 28 seconds) • Deena: Hello • Tom: Deena • Deena: Tom, are you O.K.? • Tom: No, I’m not. I’m on an airplane that has been hijacked. • Deena: hijacked? • Tom: Yes, They just knifed a guy. • Deena: A passenger? • Tom: Yes. • Deena: Where are you? Are you in the air? • Tom: Yes, yes, just listen. Our airplane has been hijacked. It’s United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. We are in the air. The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, they are telling us there is a bomb on board, please call the authorities. He hung up. 6:31 Deena calls 911 6:34 The phone rang in on call waiting, Tom’s second “cell phone” call. (Moussaoui trial exhibit: Second “airphone” call from Tom Burnett to residence at: 09:37:53, Duration of the phone call: 62 seconds) • Deena: Hello • Tom: They’re in the cockpit. The guy they knifed is dead. • Deena: He’s dead? • Tom: Yes. I tried to help him, but I couldn’t get a pulse. • Deena: Tom, they are hijacking planes all up and down the east coast. They are taking them and hitting designated targets. They’ve already hit both towers of the World Trade Center. • Tom: They’re talking about crashing this plane. (a pause) Oh my God. It’s a suicide mission…(he then tells people sitting around him) • Deena: Who are you talking to? • Tom: My seatmate. Do you know which airline is involved? • Deena: No, they don’t know if they’re commercial airlines or not. The newsreporters are speculating cargo planes, private planes and commercial. No one knows. • Tom: How many planes are there? • Deena: They’re not sure, at least three. Maybe more. • Tom: O.K….O.K….Do you know who is involved? • Deena: No. • Tom: We’re turning back toward New York. We’re going back to the World Trade Center. No, wait, we’re turning back the other way. We’re going south. • Deena: What do you see? • Tom: Just a minute, I’m looking. I don’t see anything, we’re over a rural area. It’s just fields. I’ve gotta go. • He hung up. 6:45 a.m. Third “cell phone” call from Tom to Deena ((Moussaoui trial exhibit: Third “airphone” call from Tom Burnett to residence at: 09:44:23, Duration of the phone call: 54 seconds) • Tom: Deena • Deena: Tom, you’re O.K. (I thought at this point he had just survived the Pentagon plane crash). • Tom: No, I’m not. • Deena: They just hit the Pentagon. • Tom: (tells people sitting around him “They just hit the Pentagon.”) • Tom: O.K….O.K. What else can you tell me? • Deena: They think five airplanes have been hijacked. One is still on the ground. They believe all of them are commercial planes. I haven’t heard them say which airline, but all of them have originated on the east coast. • Tom: Do you know who is involved? • Deena: No • Tom: What is the probability of their having a bomb on board? I don’t think they have one. I think they’re just telling us that for crowd control. • Deena: A plane can survive a bomb if it’s in the right place. • Tom: Did you call the authorities? • Deena: Yes, they didn’t know anything about your plane. • Tom: They’re talking about crashing this plane into the ground. We have to do something. I’m putting a plan together. • Deena: Who’s helping you? • Tom: Different people. Several people. There’s a group of us. Don’t worry. I’ll call you back. 6:54 a.m. Fourth “cell phone” call to Tom to Deena (Moussaoui trial exhibit : There is not a fourth phone call from Tom Burnett to residence) • Deena: Tom? • Tom: Hi. Anything new? • Deena: No • Tom: Where are the kids? • Deena: They’re fine. They’re sitting at the table having breakfast. They’re asking to talk to you. • Tom: Tell them I’ll talk to them later • Deena: I called your parents. They know your plane has been hijacked. • Tom: Oh…you shouldn’t have worried them. How are they doing? • Deena: They’re O.K.. Mary and Martha are with them. • Tom: Good. (a long quiet pause) We’re waiting until we’re over a rural area. We’re going to take back the airplane. • Deena: No! Sit down, be still, be quiet, and don’t draw attention to yourself! (The exact words taught to me by Delta Airlines Flight Attendant Training). • Tom: Deena! If they’re going to crash this plane into the ground, we’re going to have do something! • Deena: What about the authorities? • Tom: We can’t wait for the authorities. I don’t know what they could do anyway. • It’s up to us. I think we can do it. • Deena: What do you want me to do? • Tom: Pray, Deena, just pray. • Deena: (after a long pause) I love you. • Tom: Don’t worry, we’re going to do something. • He hung up » I do not think that Deena Burnett has invented this conversation with her husband for his fourth phone call. Concerning the phone calls of Tom Burnett, it is clear that the official history is in contradiction with the declarations of Deena Burnett. |
|
|
|
| look-up | Jun 3 2008, 10:45 AM Post #6 |
|
I don't know about that. We were told that the flight crashed almost straight down at incredible speed. That is not very conducive to travelling below 2000 feet for several minutes. |
|
|
|
| A-Train | Jun 4 2008, 01:20 PM Post #7 |
|
You're missing the point. I also agree with you that these conversations really took place. The question is, were the calls made on a cell phone or on an airphone? Though Deena's 2006 book (written by her and a ghost writer named Tom Giombetti) specifically states that Tom's cell number was displayed on the caller ID, it is more likely that the calls were made on airphones just as the FBI exhibit claims. Why then the paragraph in the book claiming a cell phone call? Consider the possibility this is disinformation designed to get us to reject the phone call evidence, including Tom's report of guns in the possession of hijackers. |
|
|
|
| A-Train | Jun 4 2008, 01:22 PM Post #8 |
|
The official story says UAL93 crashed at 10:03, but more likely it crashed at 10:06. That's eight minutes after Cee Cee Lyles call to her husband on a cell phone. I doubt the plane was in a nosedive for eight minutes. |
|
|
|
| look-up | Jun 4 2008, 01:37 PM Post #9 |
|
who said it was in a nosedive for eight minutes? |
|
|
|
| A-Train | Jun 5 2008, 09:01 AM Post #10 |
|
What I'm saying is, if the plane crashed at 10:06, I find it plausible that Lyles made her cell phone call to her husband at 9:58. |
|
|
|
| look-up | Jun 5 2008, 10:08 AM Post #11 |
|
fair enough, at least you are not behaving like the other so-called skeptics that come here to troll. at least you are discussing with some honesty. So researchers have said that below 2000 ft calls are possible, but unlikely. So we'll for sake of argument assume that a call went through. Now, how believable is it that the plane was travelling at below 2000 ft for so long before the nosedive? I'm pretty sure that ISN'T what the alleged FDR data says, but I'll have to check into that. What we are left with here is really this... If the FDR data says the plane was above 2000 ft, we can assume that either the call was not made from the plane, or that a freak occurance of nature that allowed a connection to take place and hold for a period of time, coincided with this already miraculous event called "9/11", where lots of freak occurances are alleged to have taken place. What I am saying is this. No one can prove the phone calls DIDN'T happen, and equally no one can prove that they did happen, or if they can prove they did, that those calls originated form the plane in question. People should be equally skeptical of data that supposedly proves the calls took place, especially when all we have is a government agencies "word" that they did. A relative hearing their loved one's voice does not mean that the call actually took place on the plane. I am neutral on this, however, since like I said, even if the calls did take place, it would be a very convenient coincidence, which stacked with all of the other strange coincidences on 9/11, should cast serious doubt on the "randomness" of all of these things happening. One freak occurance might be a coincidence. I could litterally name dozens of them though. How convenient, huh? |
|
|
|
| look-up | Jun 5 2008, 10:22 AM Post #12 |
|
As you'll see, flight 93 was not cruising at a 2,000 ft altitude for ANY period of time, in this link from the NTSB, based on FDR data (allegedly). The plane nosedived into the ground (allegedly), so the theory that calls were made in that last couple of minutes from a higher altitude is not only unlikely, but astronomical (read virtually impossible). http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_Path_%20Study_UA93.pdf (see page 4) The plane was allegedly at approx 5,000 ft when this call allegedly took place. AND it was only at this altitude momentarily before quickly ascending a few thousand feet, then nosediving. Not only does the "nose-dived inverted and at high speed" cast doubt on calls being made shortly before the nose-dive, but it also completely destroys the assumption that the alleged impact site could have been caused by this plane. There is no way a plane travelling straight down at high speed couls spread its debris away from the alleged impact crater and into the woods. If it was more or less travelling straight down, then there is no way the plane could also be travelling across the ground with any significant ground speed and project its debris in one direction only. If the plane was doing what the FDR says it was, then the debris should have equally been dispensed in all directions, not just one. The FDR kills the crashsite. One of them is fake. |
|
|
|
| look-up | Jun 5 2008, 10:24 AM Post #13 |
|
FYI, from: http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/pa_geography.htm "The highest point in Pennsylvania is Mt. Davis at 3,213 feet."... EDIT: From the diagram linked to in a previous post, showing the altitude of Flight 93, the impact area looks to be approx 1,000ft above the ground, so it is possible that cell towers were higher than we are expecting, but only by 1000 ft, give or take the height of the towers themselves. That means we have 5,000 ft altitude minus 1,000 ft elevation in the area, which leaves us with cell calls allegedly made from ~4,000ft above the ground. Edited by look-up, Jun 5 2008, 10:28 AM.
|
|
|
|
| A-Train | Jun 7 2008, 08:02 PM Post #14 |
|
First of all, I don't know what you mean by a "skeptic." I am a truther. I believe the phone calls are real but that they do not support the official story. I believe the hijackings were carried out by agents, some of whom were disguised as Arabs. The phone calls were allowed so that callers would pass on their false impression of an "Arab" hijacking, and Arabs would thus be framed for the attacks. I dispute that calls were "possible but unlikely" below 2000ft. In fact, they were possible up to 10,000 feet and even up to 20,000 feet. The odds of a call, like Renee May's cell phone call from AAL77, which may have been between ten and twenty thousand feet at the time, are approximately about 1-5 percent. That would mean she would have gotten through one to five times out of a hundred tries. It's not hard to imagine her in this situation continuously pressing the redial button on her cell phone dozens, if not hundreds, of times in a desperate attempt to contact loved ones. |
|
|
|
| French St | Jun 8 2008, 05:24 AM Post #15 |
|
"A-Train" - quote: "You're missing the point. I also agree with you that these conversations really took place. The question is, were the calls made on a cell phone or on an airphone?" In the case of statements of Deena Burnett, it is not the only question. According to the FBI report presented at the trial of zacarias moussaoui, the fourth phone call from Tom Burnett to residence at 6:54 a.m.( pacific time) has never happened, what can only be explained in two ways, either the report of the FBI is wrong, or Deena Burnett had lied by pretending that it took place. the same problem appears for the phone calls of Barbara Olson from flight 77. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · United Flight 93 · Next Topic » |
3:59 AM Dec 2
