Quote:

 

The point of Loose Change is not to prove a case definitively of WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED on 9/11. It's to show people that what they were TOLD HAPPENED, absolutely DID NOT happen in the way they were TOLD.

Loose Change doesn't ANSWER the questions. It poses them, and then asks the public to demand that the answers be uncovered -- stressing that each of us comes to our own conclusions, and doesn't just believe LC more than the official version.

pguillory

 

I am just curious as to who the truth movement considers the conspirators? I know the MSM and many, many other people have been accused of covering up the government's deception. Do you all think that the rescuers, policemen, fiiremen, evidence collectors, airline employees, airport employees, pentagon employees, etc. are willfully helping keep the truth of what happened on 9/11 a secret? Are Lloyd England and Mike walters conspirators?

look-up

 

The point of Loose Change is not to prove a case definitively of WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED on 9/11. It's to show people that what they were TOLD HAPPENED, absolutely DID NOT happen in the way they were TOLD.

SPreston

Aug 4 2008, 07:47 AM

25. How did so many cell phone calls allegedly originate from the aircraft at cruising speed and high altitude when that technology was impossible in 2001?

Quote:

 

I am not trying to bait you into anything. I am just trying to see if those who support the truth movement understand how many people would have to be a part of this conspiracy if it were true.

Quote:

 

Everyday working people like the FDNY were there and they saw the buildings inside and out. They knew WTC 7 was going to collapse before it did.

Quote:

 

They were in the towers before and helped with rescue after. If there was anything like CD or anything at all that was not right, some of them would have known it.

Quote:

 

Would they not come forward out of some loyalty to the govt?

Quote:

 

They lost hundreds of their own and I can't watch the Naudet bros. documentary without tearing up. They hate Guilliani for what happened to them that day, because he never fixed their radios. The police had good radios and they warned their men to get out of the towers before they collapsed.

Quote:

 

There is no way they would be keeping any secrets if they had any.

Quote:

 

Some in the movement have made some pretty damning statements about many people form the airtraffic controllers to the evidence collectors at the pentagon.

Quote:

 

Some in the movement clearly suspect that many everyday people doing their jobs were in on it, or is helping to cover it up. You have to consider that and wonder why regular people would be so corrupt as to go along with this.

Quote:

 

It is Ok to say "Well we are not sure what happened or who were involved, but we know it didn't happen like they said it did".

Quote:

 

Is it even feasible that so many simply have no conscience?

SPreston

 

25. How did so many cell phone calls allegedly originate from the aircraft at cruising speed and high altitude when that technology was impossible in 2001?

Shopnut

 

I have read claims that cell phone calls back in 2001 were unlikely to stay connected for long, but I have not seen any authoritative claims that say the cell phone calls were impossible.

Did anyone ever demonstrated that the use of an analog or digital cell phone was possible or impossible from an airliner at cruising altitude or lower, near or on the routes used by the four aircraft on 9/11?

USA Today - Cell Phones Nearing In-Flight Use in Aircraft

 

The race is on to enable airline passengers to make and receive cell phone calls in flight.
7/19/2004
Cell phone company Qualcomm (QCOM) has teamed with American Airlines (AMR) to develop satellite-based air-to-ground cellular service. Several smaller companies are working on rival systems. In-flight cell service could be introduced within two years and become commonplace within four, developers believe.

Last week, American and Qualcomm officials circled over West Texas in a jetliner making calls from their cell phones. The Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Communications Commission authorized the flight to test the technology's safety and transmission quality.

"It worked great," says Monte Ford, American's chief information officer, and the special flight's host. "I called the office. I called my wife. I called a friend in Paris. They all heard me great, and I could hear them loud and clear."

The Qualcomm-American partnership covers development and testing. If the technology and business models work, Qualcomm could sell it to other airlines as well. And American, the world's largest airline, could decide to use another system on its planes.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2004-07-19-aircells_x.htm

Global cell phone system and method for aircraft

 

United States Patent 7187927
A global airborne cell phone system is used for cell phone calls by using a pico cell. A switch connected to the pico cell switches the cell phone call between a first radio that transmits to a first satellite system and a second radio that transmits to a second satellite system. A navigation system provides aircraft position data. A processor switches the call to the first radio and to the second radio according to coverage of the first satellite and the second satellite for a current aircraft position. A cell phone of a second type makes calls to a pico cell of the second type. A second switch connected to the pico cell of the second type switches the cell phone call between the first radio and the second radio according to coverage of the first satellite and the second satellite for the current aircraft position.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187927.html

The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93

 

As I have pointed out elsewhere, cellphone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8000 feet are essentially impossible, while those below 8000 feet are highly unlikely down to about 2000, where they become merely unlikely. (Dewdney 2003) 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 (Dewdney 2003). An aircraft traveling at this speed would not be over the cellsite long enough to complete the electronic “handshake” (which takes several seconds to complete) before arriving over the next cellsite, when the call has to be handed off from the first cellsite 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.

It must also be remarked that the alleged hijackers of the Cellphone Flight were remarkably lenient with their passengers, allowing some 13 calls. However, it would seem highly unlikely that hijackers would allow any phone calls for the simple reason that passengers could relay valuable positional and other information useful to authorities on the ground, thus putting the whole mission in jeopardy.
http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93

SPreston

 

16. Who ordered that experienced aircraft scene investigators be kept away from the Pentagon crime scene and the inexperienced at aircrash scenes FBI be given sole investigative authority at the Pentagon? Was it because no aircraft crashed at the Pentagon and experienced aircraft scene investigators would figure it out right away when confronted with the evidence and lack of evidence? Was it because the 9-11 perps dare not allow any experienced aircraft scene investigators anywhere near the crime scene?

Quote:

 

Larry S. has been accused of telling FDNY to pull building 7. If the towers were CD, then 7 would have already been set up for CD. Why would they have to get his OK to take it down, if it was already planned? If they hadn't already set 7 up to come down, they didn't have the time nor oportunity to set it up after that call. It doesn't make sense eitherway. Is it possible that he was just telling FDNY to pull their men since so many had already died in the twin towers?

Quote:

 

Also, I don't think those firemen would keep their secrets just for a job. Like I said they lost people they loved very much, and if they thought Rudy was at all directly resposible, they would make sure the world knew. Look at what they did to him in the primaries. If the towers were CD, they would have seen signs of it before and after the buildings collapsed.

SPreston

Aug 4 2008, 04:24 PM

Since Qualcomm and American Airlines were attempting to initiate in-flight cell phone service using orbiting satellites in mid 2004, almost 3 years after 9-11, I would say the answer to your question is a resounding NO THEY COULD NOT.

It must also be remarked that the alleged hijackers of the Cellphone Flight were remarkably lenient with their passengers, allowing some 13 calls. However, it would seem highly unlikely that hijackers would allow any phone calls for the simple reason that passengers could relay valuable positional and other information useful to authorities on the ground, thus putting the whole mission in jeopardy.

No comment on item #16?

look-up

Aug 4 2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

 

Would they not come forward out of some loyalty to the govt?

Not necessarily. The word from the firefighters is that the ones who know there were explosives in the buildings were told not to discuss it by the "higher ups", whomever that refers to.

Quote:

 

There is no way they would be keeping any secrets if they had any.

There is. They lose their jobs or worse. Again, they were told by "higher ups" not to discuss explosive devices they felt, heard, or maybe even found, in the buildings. They got the memo.

Shopnut

Aug 4 2008, 09:52 PM

SPreston

Aug 4 2008, 04:24 PM

Since Qualcomm and American Airlines were attempting to initiate in-flight cell phone service using orbiting satellites in mid 2004, almost 3 years after 9-11, I would say the answer to your question is a resounding NO THEY COULD NOT.

It must also be remarked that the alleged hijackers of the Cellphone Flight were remarkably lenient with their passengers, allowing some 13 calls. However, it would seem highly unlikely that hijackers would allow any phone calls for the simple reason that passengers could relay valuable positional and other information useful to authorities on the ground, thus putting the whole mission in jeopardy.

No comment on item #16?

So no one has tried testing the phones at altitude then? I am not claiming that service would be reliable. I know that the airlines are experimenting with systems that will allow for cell phone calls to be placed from an airliner at altitude without interfering with aircraft instruments. This in itself does not mean that cell phone calls could not be placed back in 2001.

Why do you think only 13 calls were attempted? Did any of the callers say that the hi-jackers were constantly monitoring them? It may be possible that a large number of cell phone calls were attempted, but only the few recorded in the report actually got through.

One comment at a time.

SPreston

 

Since Qualcomm and American Airlines were attempting to initiate in-flight cell phone service using orbiting satellites in mid 2004, almost 3 years after 9-11, I would say the answer to your question is a resounding NO THEY COULD NOT.

It must also be remarked that the alleged hijackers of the Cellphone Flight were remarkably lenient with their passengers, allowing some 13 calls. However, it would seem highly unlikely that hijackers would allow any phone calls for the simple reason that passengers could relay valuable positional and other information useful to authorities on the ground, thus putting the whole mission in jeopardy.

Shopnut

 

So no one has tried testing the phones at altitude then? I am not claiming that service would be reliable. I know that the airlines are experimenting with systems that will allow for cell phone calls to be placed from an airliner at altitude without interfering with aircraft instruments. This in itself does not mean that cell phone calls could not be placed back in 2001.

Shopnut

 

Why do you think only 13 calls were attempted? Did any of the callers say that the hi-jackers were constantly monitoring them? It may be possible that a large number of cell phone calls were attempted, but only the few recorded in the report actually got through.

Shopnut

Aug 4 2008, 10:08 PM

look-up

Aug 4 2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

 

Would they not come forward out of some loyalty to the govt?

Not necessarily. The word from the firefighters is that the ones who know there were explosives in the buildings were told not to discuss it by the "higher ups", whomever that refers to.

Quote:

 

There is no way they would be keeping any secrets if they had any.

There is. They lose their jobs or worse. Again, they were told by "higher ups" not to discuss explosive devices they felt, heard, or maybe even found, in the buildings. They got the memo.

I think that any person brave enough to enter a burning building, would tell their "higher ups" to go pack sand if they were told to keep their mouths shut about any conspiracy to murder the people they risked their lives to protect.

I have read claims that firemen were told to keep their mouths shut, but these claims didn't include the names of who was suppressing the firefighters or the names of the firefighters who were told to keep quiet.

Got any names?

Has anyone ever seen "the memo"?

Quote:

 

Why, we may wonder, have the firefighters and medical workers not been speaking out? At least part of the reason may be suggested by a statement made by Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac. Having said that ?there were definitely bombs in those buildings,? Isaac added that ?many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they?re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ?higher-ups? forbid discussion of this fact.?57

Quote:

 

Given so many signs that the buildings had been brought down by controlled demolition, we might expect that debates about this issue would have taken place. And they did.

Firefighter Christopher Fenyo, after describing events that occurred after the first collapse, said: ?At that point, a debate began to rage because. . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade, and officers were gathering companies together and the officers were debating whether or not to go immediately back in or to see what was going to happen with 1 World Trade at that point. The debate ended pretty quickly because 1 World Trade came down."54

Firefighter William Reynolds reported on a conversation he had with a battalion chief: ?I said, ?Chief, they're evacuating the other building; right?? He said, ?No.? . . . I said, ?Why not? They blew up the other one.? I thought they blew it up with a bomb. I said, ?If they blew up the one, you know they're gonna blow up the other one.? He said, ?No, they're not.? I said, ?Well, you gotta tell them to evacuate it, because it's gonna fall down and you gotta get the guys out.? . . . He said, ?I'm just the Battalion Chief. I can't order that.? . . . I said, ?You got a fucking radio and you got a fucking mouth. Use the fucking things. Empty this fucking building.? Again he said, ?I'm just a Battalion Chief. I can't do that.? . . . Eventually this other chief came back and said, ?They are evacuating this tower.? . . . And sometime after that . . . I watched the north tower fall."55

Shopnut

 

Would they not come forward out of some loyalty to the govt?
There is no way they would be keeping any secrets if they had any.

look-up

 

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

If you are seriously curious and want to know about these things, I strongly suggest that you read this whole document, and then ask yourself why so many of the firefighters, first responders, and police of NYC support this movement.

Bombs

 

Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, after entering the north tower lobby and seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris, asked himself, "how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above?" After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman 'heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.' After they pried themselves out of the elevator, 'another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I'm thinking, "Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!''(12)

More bombs

 

Lieutenant Bradley Mann of the fire department, one of the people to witness both collapses, described shaking prior to each of them. "Shortly before the first tower came down" he said, "I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. People started running." Then, after they had returned to the area, he said, "we basically had the same thing: The ground shook again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down."(26)

Firefighter debates

 

Given so many signs that the buildings had been brought down by controlled demolition, we might expect that debates about this issue would have taken place. And they did.

Debates about Controlled Demolition

 

Firefighter Christopher Fenyo, after describing events that occurred after the first collapse, said: "At that point, a debate began to rage because. . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade, and officers were gathering companies together and the officers were debating whether or not to go immediately back in or to see what was going to happen with 1 World Trade at that point. The debate ended pretty quickly because 1 World Trade came down."(54)

Quote:

 

Firefighter William Reynolds reported on a conversation he had with a battalion chief: I said, "Chief, they're evacuating the other building; right?" He said, "No". . . . I said, "Why not? They blew up the other one. I thought they blew it up with a bomb." I said, "If they blew up the one, you know they're gonna blow up the other one." He said, "No, they're not." I said, "Well, you gotta tell them to evacuate it, because it's gonna fall down and you gotta get the guys out." . . . He said, "I'm just the Battalion Chief. I can't order that". . . . I said, "You got a fucking radio and you got a fucking mouth. Use the fucking things. Empty this fucking building." Again he said, "I'm just a Battalion Chief. I can't do that". . . . Eventually this other chief came back and said, "They are evacuating this tower". . . . "And sometime after that . . . I watched the north tower fall."(55)

Firefighter testimony ignored by 9-11 Whitewash Committee

 

Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, who was quoted earlier, testified in 2004 to members of the Commission?s staff. But, he reported, they were so unreceptive that he ended up walking out in anger. "I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out."(58)

William Rodriguez testimony ignored by 9-11 Whitewash Committee

 

That Cacchioli?s experience was not atypical is suggested by janitor William Rodriguez, whose testimony was also quoted earlier. Although Rodriguez was invited to the White House as a National Hero for his rescue efforts on 9/11, he was, he said, treated quite differently by the Commission: "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower."(59)

Bombs

 

Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, after entering the north tower lobby and seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris, asked himself, "how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above?" After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman 'heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.' After they pried themselves out of the elevator, 'another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I'm thinking, "Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!''(12)

Quote:

 

Firefighter William Reynolds reported on a conversation he had with a battalion chief: I said, "Chief, they're evacuating the other building; right?" He said, "No". . . . I said, "Why not? They blew up the other one. I thought they blew it up with a bomb." I said, "If they blew up the one, you know they're gonna blow up the other one." He said, "No, they're not." I said, "Well, you gotta tell them to evacuate it, because it's gonna fall down and you gotta get the guys out." . . . He said, "I'm just the Battalion Chief. I can't order that". . . . I said, "You got a fucking radio and you got a fucking mouth. Use the fucking things. Empty this fucking building." Again he said, "I'm just a Battalion Chief. I can't do that". . . . Eventually this other chief came back and said, "They are evacuating this tower". . . . "And sometime after that . . . I watched the north tower fall."(55)

JFK

Aug 4 2008, 10:11 PM

Google "Project Achilles".

Shopnut

Aug 5 2008, 02:20 PM

JFK

Aug 4 2008, 10:11 PM

Google "Project Achilles".

I know about that experiment. It shows that cell phones from that era do not work very well in an aircraft.

SPreston

Aug 5 2008, 08:59 AM

SPreston

 

Since Qualcomm and American Airlines were attempting to initiate in-flight cell phone service using orbiting satellites in mid 2004, almost 3 years after 9-11, I would say the answer to your question is a resounding NO THEY COULD NOT.

It must also be remarked that the alleged hijackers of the Cellphone Flight were remarkably lenient with their passengers, allowing some 13 calls. However, it would seem highly unlikely that hijackers would allow any phone calls for the simple reason that passengers could relay valuable positional and other information useful to authorities on the ground, thus putting the whole mission in jeopardy.

You never do ANY research do you? No. Cell phone calls cannot interfere with aircraft instrumentation because the aircraft instrumentation is shielded.
What cell phone calls did do from aircraft back in 2001 was disrupt the cell phone towers on the ground. That is why cell phone calls from aircraft were not allowed.
Cell phone calls did not work at all back in 2001 above 8000 feet at cruising speed. They were unlikely to work above 8000 feet even if the aircraft was circling the cell tower at reduced speed.

No. I believe NO cell phone calls were attempted from the 'hijacked' aircraft. NO cell phone calls were completed from the 'hijacked' aircraft. Of course none of the four aircraft were really 'hijacked' were they? That was all part and parcel of the psyops fantasy wasn't it? Why wouldn't 'hijackers' be monitoring their captives? What kind of world do you live in where captives would not be expected to resist? Would you be a coward and just sit there doing nothing, frightened of a little man with a utility knife? (box cutter)

But if four commercial aircraft were 'hijacked' with passengers and cell phones on board, common sense tells me that the 'hijackers' would confiscate all the cell phones first thing and the 'hijackers' controlling the cockpit would immediately turn off the mobile phones. Correct?

Common sense would tell me that the dying dude in the cave on the kidney dialysis machine co-ordinating the 'Islamic terrorist hijacker' mission would include confiscate all cell phones first thing in his standing orders. Correct? Why would an alleged four 'hijackers' in control of an aircraft take a chance on some passenger or stewardess giving their location or direction or altitude to the US Military or ATCs over a phone?
Please try to use some simple logic before asking your silly questions.

look-up

Aug 5 2008, 02:34 PM

if you're using the flight 93 calls to base your assumption that there were no US insiders involved in 9/11... then your sense of priority is way off, or you are purposely a voiding the most damning evidence in lieu of debunking the most easily debated evidence.

I hope you are more honest with yourself than that. I really hope.

Shopnut

Aug 5 2008, 09:44 PM

look-up

Aug 5 2008, 02:34 PM

if you're using the flight 93 calls to base your assumption that there were no US insiders involved in 9/11... then your sense of priority is way off, or you are purposely a voiding the most damning evidence in lieu of debunking the most easily debated evidence.

I hope you are more honest with yourself than that. I really hope.

Nope. I am merely saying that the cell phones calls were possible and that no one has demonstrated that they could not have been made.