Cellphones From Flight 93

Yes, I find this very strange.

 

Click here for full details

A man calls his mother and has to introduce himself? C'mon....... </font>[/QUOTE]Standing Firm, are you saying you think there is a conxspiracy here?

 

I don't find it strange at all. It's great that he had the presence of mind to do that, for a few reasons.
Imagine you're the passenger.

I would do the same.
Why?

1. In a state of panic, I may be calling the wrong person.

2. Stating my full name would make the person I am calling pay complete attention, as it is so odd to use your full name with family.

3. I would hope the phone calls from the plane were being recorded, and that whoever was listening would grab onto this information and help! That's probably my most important one.

Along those same lines, if mom used a recorder, or you knew your cell phone calls were recorded, it would be a way for officials to know you were on the plane, and look for you or your body.

4. In a state of shock/panic, I wouldn't be thinking straight. I might even add my middle name. The call wasn't to say "hi ma", it was to say "I'm being hi-jacked". That's a pretty official, important phone call, and when we make official, important phone calls, it is habit for us to state our full names. I know I do it.

It's really a jump to assume a conspiracy over a passenger using his full name during a telephone call.

 

The recordings were all recovered from The Bermuda Triangle, in the clutches of Bigfoot after Nessie dropped him off there.

*sigh*

You local community college probably has some classes that would interest you. Maybe you could take up a hobby and join those of us who live in reality?

Or maybe not . . . I think there is a UFO coming to get me.

 

And I know that I cannot distinguish voices on the phone. Not even of my wife. (Although, where she used to work, I could pick out her voice from among about 100 other people.)

One time, I picked up the phone, and the other end said, "Hi, Dad!" I talked to a person who I thought was my daughter for a few minutes, making idle chit-chat, until she mentioned a name I didn't recognize. One thing led to another, and we soon figure out that I wasn't her Dad, and she wasn't my daughter.

So, first and last name could have multiple legitimate reasons.

 

I find it strange you are looking at websites with the word "psychics" in the title.

What happened to Mark Brigham anyway? I mean if he was part of a conspiracy theory, shouldnt some crack team of private investigators have outted him by now? Let the man rest in peace.

 

Yes, and so has Elvis

 

Let’s take a couple of examples of 911 hijackers who are supposedly “still alive”:

Said al-Ghamdi is alive according to a 9/23/2001 story in the BBC NEWS:

Source - BBC1


But managing editor John Bradley of the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper where the story originated, says, “That's ridiculous! People here stopped talking about that a long time ago.".... "all of this is attributable to the chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack. What we're dealing with are coincidentally identical names." In Saudi Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are "as common as John Smith in the United States or Great Britain."

Source - Der Speigel

……………………

And in another story, the BBC reported that Waleed Al-Shehri is still alive.

Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm


But NBC’s John Hockenberry (Dateline) did an interview with Waleed’s family members where he interviewed the third brother Salah who agreed that his two brothers were dead and claimed they had been "brainwashed".

Source -
Dateline

 

Another of the hijackers that some sources are claiming is still alive, Abdul Aziz Al Omari;
Here pictured with Mohammad Atta in the background


............
Here is the reportedly alive Al Omari


Doesn't even match!

 

This conspiracy stuff is really surprising me coming from a Christian site. I know some of us (even I) have enjoyed a few wild theories now and then and I even realize that there is SOME truth behind a few things, but THIS is incredible.

The hijackers are still alive?

The phone call was fake?

Planes didn't really hit the towers?

They were blown up from inside?

The government did it to get HomeLand Security Act voted in?

If you guys want to chase something, look at something at least half believable.

Here's an example:
Is it possible that someone in the FBI knew this was going to happen? Let me answer it this way:

It is possible that certain agents had certain PIECES of information that something was going to happen, but to know about it and not stop it, GIVE ME A BREAK.

Read my thread on the OKC Bombing. There were some discrepancies there that will make the conspiracy theory people here run wild. The sad part is that we can't look at the facts and determine the truth without jumping into the swimming pool in our Sunday dress clothing.

I actually think that the government may have known that something was being planned, but get off of this business that everybody who works for the government lies every time they say something.

Has it ever occurred to any of you that if you tell everybody you are around that you believe that the government blew up the trade towers, that you believe that everybody who works for the government is sworn to lie about everything in the government, that you believe that flight 800 was shot down, that Elvis is still alive and well----well, people just might wonder if they should believe you when you witness to them that Jesus is the Son of God?

This is like Chicken Little. How many times do you cry wolf before people quite believing your witness?

Even if I were to believe that aliens are in control of the Senate, I think I would keep it to myself; if nothing more than to prevent damage to my authority on all issues I discuss, including my Faith in God and His Son Jesus. IMHO

 

Who? Me? I wasn't trying to show that some of the hijackers are still alive. Just the opposite.

 

As I've stated on other threads, cellphones don't work at all at altitudes greater than about 5,000 feet. A canadian engineer ran extensive tests that proved this point and I made some tests myself over PA. I tried to place about 25 calls and never could get dial tone until we were about 1,000 feet above the ground.

This whole cellphole thing was a hoax just like many other aspects of 9/11.

 

BOLOGNA! Your cell-phone must not have been working properly. Give me one good reason why a cellphone wouldn't work at 35,000 feet.

Do you know anything about the frequency and its characteristic radiation patterns of cellphones?

What type of an engineer did this test, one that builds bridges?

What aspects of 911 were a hoax? Be SPECIFIC.

 

....and I don't suppose that aircraft comm radios putting out less than one watt at 35,000 feet work either? Boy, are we in trouble!

 

BOLOGNA! Your cell-phone must not have been working properly. Give me one good reason why a cellphone wouldn't work at 35,000 feet.

Do you know anything about the frequency and its characteristic radiation patterns of cellphones?

What type of an engineer did this test, one that builds bridges?

What aspects of 911 were a hoax? Be SPECIFIC. </font>[/QUOTE]I've worked as a telecommunications engineer for 30 years. What do you know about cellphones and what tests have YOU done?

Here's one analysis (not the one I originally saw).

http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm

Refute this. BE SPECIFIC.

[ April 10, 2006, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: StraightAndNarrow ]

 

Give us the documentation to support your idea. I have used a cell phone at higher elevations than one mile. If they did not work above 5,000 feet then Denver would be in trouble.

 

To be specific, when I worked for defense contractors I designed several cell-phone like frequency hopping systems along with being the project design engineer and Chief Engineer of a major ground-to-air military communications system for sold to Egypt and Harris RF devision in Rochester NY. This was before I went into the government and started working on ammunition and weapons systems.

I have personally used a cellphone at 37,000 feet while flying to the across the US towards the Carribean in a Lear Jet.

Any further questions about my capabilties? Oh, I have a BSEE with a Masters.

If you are a telecommunications engineer, why do you have to refer to someone else's article?

Now that we've cleared the air on capabilities, lets discuss the article.

"Spokesperson", probably a highly qualified double E.

The first sentence is absolutely true. If they were designed for use from airplanes, then there would be no need for a tower every few miles for line-of-sight communications. This would be slight over-kill.

Very much like a 1000 pound bomb was not designed for blowing stumps, but it would probably do the job with a slight amount of overkill.

Experienced "Airline" pilot, no doubt with a night job as an electronic engineer.

Actually, in the back of the plane, the cellphones signal would most likely exit the window and not radiate downward (same as the front of the plane). It would lock onto the first receiver obtaining a useful signal (just like it does on the ground). Since an airliner is up so HIGH, then think of it as a WUNDERFUL tower for line-of-sight communications.

The phone would no-doubt remain locked onto the same cell for quite a while, unless it just happened to catch that cell as it went over the horizon.

Bologna. Avionics are NOT shielded on an aircraft. I can give you case after case where unintentional radiation (as it is called-even from the little clock on your laptop) _---wait, let me ask you, how would it get into the avionics receivers? Oh well, I'll tell you, it will go right through the antenna.

The cellphone system would NOT go down. That is bologna from Oscar Myer. But, it would probably get into a tower a long way off and cause potential roaming problems and if everybody in planes were using them, then the channels would be mightily messed up across the country. But, the system wouldn't go down.

Again, b-o-l-o-g-n-a. Written by a double-E no doubt. Actually, it would be within range of a cellphone for probably 15 minutes or longer. Remember, cellphones are LINE-OF-SIGHT. Whoever gets into an open tower will stay there until the tower hands them over to a stronger signal at another receiver. Towers just don't hand off when another tower gets a stronger signal. They hand-off when the signal level gets too low.

Have you ever used a cell phone and started getting a fringe signal with static? Turn you phone off and on again and it will usually lock into a closer tower. (If one is available) and from an airplane there will be plenty of cells available and open.

Obvious. The highjackers only had knives, even if the population believed they had guns. They holed themselves up and sprayed tear gas in the front. They took over the cockpit and locked it up. DUHHHH!

There is no need to discuss any more of the article because it is more expansion based on cell-phones not working at altitudes.

So, when you finish YOUR technical rebuttal, please provide me with your answer as to who, exactly family members were talking to while all of this highjacking took place? Were they someone the government was holding hostage on the ground in Washington?

Your turn........