web space | free website | Business Web Hosting | Free Website Submission | shopping cart | php hosting

   Batcave911 archive for Physics911.org  -  Now up at Physics911.net


Visit the Physics911.org Home Page Physics911.org - Applying Science to Uncover the Truth The Missing Wings at the Pentagon 'Crash' Scene
Main Menu

Physics911.org 
Main Articles
9/11 Scenarios

  Operation Pearl
  Evidence of Complicity
  Jihad - or Black Op?

  Home Page
  Privacy Policy
  S.P.I.N.E. 
  Help Us 
Pentagon Attack
  The Missing Wings
  Pentagon Physics

  Link to Us

WTC Attack

  Collapse of WTC 7
  WTC Dust Cloud
9/11 Achilles Heel?
   Cell Phones & 9/11
Other Resources
   Calendar
   Downloads
   Photo Gallery
   Reference Articles
   Web Links
   Weblog

  Themite Demolition?



 

more6item(s)
Recent Reference Articles
 

 

Top Links
Recent Links
 
 

Physics911.org - Home Page

Welcome to Physics911.org

Physics911.org is the independent initiative of concerned citizens from various countries and walks of life

Latest Articles in Date OrderThe Physics911.org website presents the work of SPINE, the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven

Applying basic scientific principles, SPINE aims to cast light on the true nature of the dramatic events of September 11th 2001.

The 9/11 Enigma

fires raging with the World Trade Center twin towers on 9-11The truth about 9/11 is obviously of central importance.

We're incessantly reminded that "September 11th changed everything". 9/11 has become the defining event of the new century, used to justify an unprecedented surge in militaristic and repressive policies within the USA and elsewhere.

Yet despite the evident significance of 9/11, there has been a marked lack of informed discussion in the mainstream media about what really took place that day. Many anomalies and suspicious leads in the official story, curiosities which the mass media often helped to put into the public domain, have not been followed up or given the attention they clearly merit. The obvious question: "why is the US Administration so averse to a transparent public inquiry?" has barely been asked. Indeed, the reluctance of the mass media to critically examine the official version of events - and its central role in propagating this unlikely story - has itself become a phenomenon which merits investigation.

This site features several recent analyses of the 9/11 crime.

Two general scenarios investigate the broader context and attempt to identify the most likely perpetrators .- September 11th and the Bush Administration: Compelling Evidence for Complicity by Dr Walter Davis and September 11 - Islamic Jihad or another Northwoods? by Dr Tim Howells

Operation Pearl - an alternative '9/11' scenario by Professor A.K. Dewdney is narrower in focus. Dewdney presents an alternative hypothesis for what actually occured on 9/11 - one which better fits the known facts than the 'official version' of that day's events.

where IS the wreckage from a Boeing 767?Two articles examine the attack on the Pentagon. The Missing Wings - an analysis by A.K. Dewdney and Gerry Longspaugh - is possibly the best place to begin if you're not currently sceptical about the official 9/11 story. It is complenmted by a three part analysis by Gerard Holgrem: Physical and Mathematical Analysis of the Pentagon Crash.

From the outset, the collapse of the World Trade Center towers astonished commentators. Remarkably, three tower blocks collapsed on 9/11. Official reports acknowledge that molten steel was found in the rubble. In the mysterious collapse of WTC tower 7, Scott Loughrey examines the most mysterious collapse of all. Dr Jim Hoffman mounts a detailed case in The North Tower's Dust Cloud that the observed dust cloud was measurably far too energetic for a cloud generated simply by gravitational collapse. Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns, a new article by Dr Derrick Grimmer, established the technical feasibility of demolishing the WTC towers using thermite in a controlled implosion, as one possible explanation for the observed events.

dust clouds erupting from WTC Tower 1 on 9/11The official version of events included numerous reports of cellphone calls made from hijacked planes on 9/11. These reports lent credibility to the official 'Arab hijacker' story within hours of the attacks, in the most dramatic manner. Yet the cell phone calls from fast-moving aircraft .are not commonplace. Calls of the type allegedly made on 9/11, in the quantity reported, stretch credulity. Is this the Achilles Heel of the Bush / CNN account of 9/11.

Collectively, we believe this material deals a fatal blow to the credibility of the 'official version' of 9/11. We invite you to read them and consider the evidence for yourself.

Over time, Physics911.org plans to publish more material on related topics.

To comment on articles in this website and receive our occasional email newsletter, please register and login.

If you are already registered, login HERE

Afterword

There's no substitute for reading the evidence - and we suggest you begin with articles on this website. We're reluctant to present even the broad outlines of a case BEFORE you've had a chance to examine this material.

For those who prefer to progress from a broader context to specifics, this Brief Overview of 9/11 Theories may help situate Physics911.org in the current debate about the events of September 11th 2001.

The Physics911.org Weblog.will note major additions to the site, as and when new material is added.

Visitors who can afford to do are urged to donate to Physics911.org, which has been built on a shoe-string with no external support at the cost of many months of foregone income.


Recent Photos
   9/11 Visibility Ac... (2003/11/20)
   None so blind as..... (2003/11/14)
   Pentagon Attack Af... (2003/11/5)
   Satellite Image of... (2003/10/28)
   Columns pushed out (2003/10/23)
   The Project Achill... (2003/10/21)
   The North Tower�... (2003/10/16)
   Pentagon Montage (2003/10/16)
   Pentagon Fireball (2003/10/16)
   Scale drawing of a... (2003/10/16)
Recent Downloads
Please Donate!
Recommend Us!
Contact Us!
 











9/11 Cellphone Calls - an Overview

Reports of cellphone calls from the allegedly hijacked airplanes on 9/11 were crucial in 'selling' the official version of events.

These calls dramatized the horror of 9/11 for the worldwide audience and appeared to prove conclusively that the four 'planes were, in fact, hijacked by terrorists.

However, such phone calls are most implausible on technical and scientific grounds - suggesting the cell phone calls were faked.

Are claims of 9/11 cellphone calls the official story's 'Achilles Heel'?

See also:

Cellphone Calls : Cell Phone Experiments in Airliners
Posted by webmaster on 2003/9/25 3:52:20 (804 reads)

Cell Phone Experiments in Airliners

By Germar Rudolf   - July 2003

Since the topic discussed above seems to be of utmost importance, I decided to make my own experiments while traveling from Chicago, IL, to Burlington, VT, to a family anniversary of a friend.

Phones

  • Audiovox CDM 9000 with Verizon Wireless network.
  • Nokia 8260 with Cingular Wireless network.

Travel Data

1. Trip: Aircraft: Airbus A320. United Airlines Flight 568. Take off from Chicago O'Hare on Friday, July 18, 2003, nominal take off at 18:05 central summer time. Weather conditions: sunny, only a few clouds at both start and arrival in Burlington, VT, at 20:54 eastern summer time.

2. Trip: Aircraft: Airbus A319. United Airlines Flight 397. Take off from Burlington, VT, on Sunday, July 20, 2003, 17:40 eastern summer time. Weather conditions: sunny, only a few clouds at both start and arrival. Arrival at Chicago O'Hare at 19:00 central summer time.



Experiments

While starting, only the Audiovox phone was used. While the plane was still accelerating on the runway, I dialed into my voice message box and received a clear and immediate connection just when the plane took off. I hung up right away and dialed again. As the plane ascended quickly, I received another immediate and clear connection, but this time I entered my PIN number waiting for the message service to grant me access to my messages. However, the connection was lost, and any attempt to reestablish a connection failed. After another minute, the phone complained with a loud alarm tone that no service was available. According to a later inquiry with the pilots, the plane reached an altitude above ground of 15,000 ft (4,575 m) within five minutes.

During this high altitude flight at 37,000 ft, no service was ever available. As soon as the plane started to descend toward Burlington, both cell phones were switched back on in an attempt to get any service. As soon as the phones gave up on searching service, they were turned off and turned on again so that the phones would again search for service. Several minutes before the pilot put out the landing gear at 20:49 EST, both phones indicated that they had found service, but any attempt to get any connection to the voice message boxes with either of the phones failed. On 20:51, two minutes after the landing gear was pulled out, a clear and stable connection to the voice message system could be established by both phones. This connection could be reestablished at will until the plane touched down at 20:54. Asked for his assistance, the pilot explained that he had put out the landing gear at an altitude above ground of 2,000 ft (610 m) at a speed of 200 knots (230 mph/371 km/h).

Since no information could be gained about the exact altitude above ground for the exact time when a cell phone connection gets interrupted during take off-not even this point in time is exactly known-no experiments were done at take off from Burlington.

When descending toward Chicago, the Nokia/Cingular Wireless phone could not establish any service at any time until after the aircraft had landed. The Audiovox/Verizon cell phone managed to get service just as we flew in over Lake Michigan from the east at an estimated altitude above ground of around 6,000 feet. However, none of the uninterruptedly made attempts to get a connection was successful. This cell phone signal was lost again as we flew out toward the center of the lake, and was reestablished as we approach the west coast of Lake Michigan. Uninterrupted attempts to establish a connection to the mailbox continued to fail until one minute after the pilot had pulled out the landing gear some 6 to 8 miles west of the coast of Lake Michigan at 18:56. The first successful connection appeared at 18:57. The second one established right thereafter was immediate and clear until the plane touched down at 19:00. According to the pilot, the landing gear must be pulled out when flying at an altitude of 1,500 ft at the latest (457.5 m). He could not remember exactly at which height he actually pulled the gear, but stated that it was well above that mark, probably at some 2,200 to 2,500 ft (671-762.5 m) at a speed of some 200 knots (230 mph/371 km/h).

Whereas the Nokia phone user was seated one seat away from the window in both descends, the Audiovox user was seated two seats away from the window during the first descent toward Burlington, but right at a window during the descent to Chicago. As a matter of fact, this cell phone was held only 10 cm away from a window to ensure best reception.

Conclusion

Burlington, VT, lies within a more rural area, whereas Chicago is the third largest city of the U.S. with one of the best developed cellular networks. In spite of this, the results were similar in both cases for the Verizon Wireless network, which prides itself on being the best developed in the U.S. The reason why the second phone failed to establish any service in the Chicago area until after landing is unknown.

Cell phones traveling in airliners can get a service signal at heights up to some 6,000 ft, but it is not possible to make a connection, at least not while traveling at the usual cruising speed of a normal airliner (500-550 mph). Since in all cases (if at all) connections could only be established well after the pilots have pulled out the landing gear at some 2,000 ft and at a cruising speed of 230 mph or less, it seems safe to conclude that in summer of 2003, no connection could be made with a cell phone from an airliner flying in the U.S. when above an altitude above ground of 2,000 ft (610 m) and when traveling with a speed over 230 mph. Considering the fast descent of the planes and the fact that they kept slowing down as they approached the runway, the height at which a connection could be established might actually be as low as 1,500 ft (457.5 m), and the speed around 200 mph.

The reason why a connection could only be established at some 1,500 ft above ground despite the fact that a signal was present already at some 6,000 ft may be that the speed of the traveling aircraft was too high at higher altitudes. It seems safe to say that the speed must be under 230 mph in order to establish a stable connection, a speed which an airliner can reach only during landing, with landing gear, air brakes and flaps all the way out.

It is generally agreed upon that all the airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001, flew at a high cruising speed of 500 mph and more until they crashed. Thus, it seems safe to say that no cell phone of any type could have established any stable connection to any cell site at that speed, no matter which height the planes flew at. This is particularly true for United Airlines flight 93, which did not only fly at high speed but also at a relatively high altitude during the time when the alleged cell phone calls were placed.

Appeal to All Readers

Anybody who is willing to provide his own input on this problem by testing his cell phone's capability to make connections from aircrafts during descent is more than welcome. We will publish such data either with the name of the experimenter or anonymously if indicated. Please provide the following data:

  • type of phone, network used;
  • plane flown, airline, flight no., date and time of take off (nominal) and landing (actual);
  • weather conditions prevailing when landing;
  • exact times when you did what or when you succeeded to establish a connection, and since pulling out the gear is a nice reference point, make a note of this as well and ask the pilot while deplaning at what height he pulled the gear.









 
 
 
 

 
Main Menu


  Home Page
  Privacy Policy
  S.P.I.N.E.
  Help Us
  Link to Us

Main Articles
9/11 Scenarios
  Operation Pearl
  Evidence of Complicity
  

Pentagon Attack
  The Missing Wings
  Pentagon Physics

WTC Attack
  Collapse of WTC 7
  WTC Dust Cloud
  
Other Resources
   Calendar
   Downloads
   Photo Gallery
   Reference Articles
   Web Links
   Weblog

Search this site
Login
Username:

Password:


Lost Password?

Register now!
Featured Event
 
Next Listed Event
18th Dec am9:00--
 Meetup Day
Photo Album


Recent Photos
   9/11 Visibility Ac... (2003/11/20)
   None so blind as..... (2003/11/14)
   Pentagon Attack Af... (2003/11/5)
   Satellite Image of... (2003/10/28)
   Columns pushed out (2003/10/23)
   The Project Achill... (2003/10/21)
   The North Tower�... (2003/10/16)
   Pentagon Montage (2003/10/16)
   Pentagon Fireball (2003/10/16)
   Scale drawing of a... (2003/10/16)
Please Donate!
Recommend Us!
Contact Us!
 
9/11 and Cellphone Calls: SPINE Discussion about Cellphone Calls and 9/11 - Part 1  
Author: webmaster
Published: 2003/11/24
Read 139 times
Size 56.07 KB
 
 

Part 1 of a mid-2003 discussion between SPINE members about Cellphone Calls and 9/11

Part 2 is HERE

webmaster
Administrator


Joined: May 13, 2003
Posts: 19

  Posted: May 31, 2003 - 11:33 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports of cellphone calls made from the 'hijacked' airliners on 9-11 was one of the oddities in the 'official version' of events which first alerted Professor Kee Dewdney to the possibility it is essenitally fraudulent.

Dewdney is not the only person who has raised this issue in the exploding internet debate about what really took place on 9-11. But he has probably done more work on the topic than anyone else - including a series of three self-funded practical experiments under the name of 'Project Achilles'.

The results of the third and concluding 'Project Achilles' experiment can be viewed HERE on this site. The Feral News website has reports of all three experiments and the accompanying media releases - start HERE

This forum is open to allcomers. We encourage your reports and comments on this specific topic - whether supportive or not.

Are cellphone calls possible in large aircraft? At what altitude and under what conditions? Please share your thoughts and experiences here.
 
imagine
Registered User


Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 41
Location: Kenner Louisiana
  Posted: Jun 17, 2003 - 01:11 AM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to start by saying that i am sure the Bush and media releases have to be wrong. But i want to bring up some topics so that if there are holes in our story, better to debunk them now, than later.
On the issue of cascading cell phone calls...
I was an engineer for a cell company. In CDMA the most common of technologies used today( but not the only) cascading doesnt occur in the normal sense. That term is used for older systems. There may be irreguarities in the system statistics, but part of my job was to overview stats and sometimes we would see abnormal stats and just attribute them to technical problems with the cell stie hardware, or maybe to several people trying to access the site at one time, such as at a football game etc... Being an engineer, you just dont attribute that kind of thing to an aircraft.
Second, i would like to know if there was an attempt to track the calls. The calls are on record and "backups" are made and held for years by law. I suppose you may need a subpeona to get access to them though. Also in regard to records, iot would be hard to obtain them for another reason. You would have to know the rpcise postion of the aircraft when the call was made, because the call would be logged at as home "switch", different switches handle different areas, and with a plane moving at that speed, the calls would have to make a "hard handoff" between switches ( which is not common, and where most calls will drop EVEN on the ground), but in any event, both switches would have to be looked in for the calls.
I have to say that the owner of the phone, from the bill on the account can also show all of the calls made including the time and where from. All of this is availible from the switch where the phone is registered. Anyone who has a cell phone can request a detailed bill, some people get them automatically ( i do). I guess you could ask the family for the info? If they dont have it they could request it from the service provider.
Third, I do not believe that several calls were placed and connected at 30k feet, but at the same time, i have a very hard time digesting the notion that several people talked to loved ones, and nobody put up a red flag ( in regard to "Pearl" and that operatives were faking these voices).Given - (Mom? This is Mark Brigham) does sound a bit strange?, but it just seems to hard to think that all this was pulled off with no major glitch. I think it more feasable that the plane may have been flying low and slow and that the calls were made, but then at that time the plane should have been at a higher altitude.
Fourth, and also in regard to 3, if the aircraft were at alower altitude, AND ALSO if "plane swapping" took place, where one plane had to land and another take off in its place(x) the air traffic controller would notice the altitude changes and have to be either in on the "scheme" or be very asleep at the wheel, which they are trained not to be.
Back to cell phones, is it possible to find out the altitude and speed of the plane when the supposed calls were made? (Apologies if this is there and i just missed it in the reading).
My first post here, just trying to throw some light on posibilities, or eliminations of some if need be.
any replies welcome
Brad Mayeux
 


 
mothra
Registered User


Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 10

  Posted: Jun 17, 2003 - 06:02 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The switches intrique me. Would it be possible to fix the plane's location at a certain time by checking the switches that may have responded to calls?
 
 
  
 
RustyNails
Registered User


Joined: Jun 18, 2003
Posts: 33
Location: USA
  Posted: Jun 18, 2003 - 12:51 AM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"AND ALSO if "plane swapping" took place, where one plane had to land and another take off in its place(x) the air traffic controller would notice the altitude changes"

This aspect would be taken care of by having the plane's transponders turned off. As such, the ATC controller would not have any idea what altitude the planes were at during the time of the switch, or at any other time since it is the transponder which reports the altitude data (as well as the IFF ident code), not the radar system.
 
 
  
 
imagine
Registered User


Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 41
Location: Kenner Louisiana
  Posted: Jun 18, 2003 - 12:56 AM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mothra wrote:
The switches intrique me. Would it be possible to fix the plane's location at a certain time by checking the switches that may have responded to calls?
Yes deifinately. especially since so many independant calls were made from different phone#s.
From the log files, even from 1 phone call, there may be several cell sites "towers" involved ( the way CDMA works several sites can be involved in a call at one time), it is possible to triangulate from those sites the exact position, there are other methods in the log files such as timing which can tell how far away the caller was( with a little math).
The cell sites, or towers, are different tham switches. A switch is where the call goes to record billing info, and where it makes decisions on what other cells should be ready to accept the call in that area.
A Switch controls several sites ( depending on the size of the company, and area it owns by the FCC at that location) The switch could handle 20, or hundreds of sites.
With a plane moving 3-500mph it would travel out of service from 1 switch to another in just a few minuits. The problem here is most switches do not talk to each other well, usually the call will drop between the switches ( even on the ground at 50mph) I have done several trials of this TRYING to make it work, it very rareley does if ever. So the call would have to be re-initiated on the next switch after the call droppped. in either case, both switches would have the info logged.
There are imaginary geographical lines in the sand between switches. If we can prove that a call was continued from area 1 ( switch X) abd area 2 ( switch Y). that would gain us some assurance that the call did not happen. ( this would be a second option if we can not gain the data from the switch itself).

If we could get a timeline ( i know its there), but one correlating to the geographical position of where the plane "supposedly"was, then put this on a map ( i have the software), then overlay the switch boundries.
We could determine if a call was "supposedly "made and continued though these boundries ( which is an almost imposibility).
If they were,
We have GOOD data !!!

Great Question.
Brad Mayeux
 
 
   
 
RustyNails
Registered User


Joined: Jun 18, 2003
Posts: 33
Location: USA
  Posted: Jun 18, 2003 - 02:31 AM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
imagine wrote:
....There are imaginary geographical lines in the sand between switches. If we can prove that a call was continued from area 1 ( switch X) abd area 2 ( switch Y). that would gain us some assurance that the call did not happen. 


Are you really saying that if a call is listed in the records as continuing from switch X to switch Y that this would be a fraudulent entry?

Is there an accepted percentage estimate available in the industry for dropped connections between switches, even at the 50mph ground conditions?

Do we, or anyody else, have a good idea what the breakdown in calls were from the 'official story' as to the different technologies that were used to make the various calls (i.e. CDMA, TDMA, GSM, AMPS, plane phones)?

Also, wouldn't another factor that (doesn't disprove) makes the official scenario less likely is that most all networks, especially the newer digital ones have good coverage (and smaller cells) only in high population and ground transportation corridors? As far as I know airliners don't follow the highways, but then this all happened on the denser 'right' coast.
 
 
  
 
imagine
Registered User


Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 41
Location: Kenner Louisiana
  Posted: Jun 19, 2003 - 01:42 AM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

Are you really saying that if a call is listed in the records as continuing from switch X to switch Y that this would be a fraudulent entry?
 

Not necessarily fraudulent but not a good probabillity. I have worked on trying to get these handoffs working, it depends a lot on which 2 switches ( and/or companies) are involved. there are a few in the US that work. That info is easy to find out though. If we have the exact geographical info, you can just call the providers cust service lines and ask if it works, or i have friends in the indusrty that can find out.

Quote:

Do we, or anyody else, have a good idea what the breakdown in calls were from the 'official story' as to the different technologies that were used to make the various calls (i.e. CDMA, TDMA, GSM, AMPS, plane phones)?
 


That is a very important question, I think this should be persued if possible.

Quote:

Also, wouldn't another factor that (doesn't disprove) makes the official scenario less likely is that most all networks, especially the newer digital ones have good coverage (and smaller cells) only in high population and ground transportation corridors? As far as I know airliners don't follow the highways, but then this all happened on the denser 'right' coast.
 


I had mentioned this in a post prior to this board. As far as the size of the cell its bassically irrelivant. A 80ft tower, or a 200 ft tower wouldnt make much difference to a plane at 30,000ft, but, in the city, while there is more coverage most new technologies "downtilt" the antennas, which gives better performance to the local area ( this also makes the signal much weaker the higher you go).
In planning a system, most carriers dont spend a ton of money on a site where it will not be used ( over farmland, woods etc...) There will be series of towers along a major highway, usually 2-5 miles apart.
True planes do not fly according to highways. Though i am not very familiar with the area of the crash site. I may take it upon myself to plot it out on a map and get a general idea of what i think the coverage may have been.

What would be very helpfull, if anyone has the info , is the altitude of the plane and the direction/location during the calls.

Brad Mayeux
 
 
   
 
RustyNails
Registered User


Joined: Jun 18, 2003
Posts: 33
Location: USA
  Posted: Jun 20, 2003 - 02:35 AM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
As far as the size of the cell its bassically irrelivant. A 80ft tower, or a 200 ft tower wouldnt make much difference to a plane at 30,000ft


Sorry imagine , what I meant to say was the coverage radius difference between the older AMPS and the newer digital phones. Meaning that the digital phones have even less coverage away from the highways in rural areas, correct?


 
 
  
 
imagine
Registered User


Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 41
Location: Kenner Louisiana
  Posted: Jun 23, 2003 - 11:27 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I have worked with both. They are different technologies, and usually but not always on different frequencies. The digital ( CDMA) needs less power to do the same job, thats why they have less power. The hight of the tower does affect how far away , from the highway lets say, that the call can be made in either technology, so they tend to build taller towers on the highways to reach farther. Thats just a tech note, like i said though the height is negliable with a plane at 30k ft. Both technologies build out relatively evenly in the amount of towers, one reason some people think that the old amps give better range is that they have been around longer and have more sites in general.
Just another tech note...
The older AMPS phones are all most all at 800 Mhz while the new CDMA are at 1900Mhz. 800Mhz does penetrate better through walls trees, etc... while higher freqs can travel further when there are no losses due to physical obstructions.
( If you are off of a rural hwy, you MAY get a little better reception with AMPS ( low freqs) due to trees stopping the high freq CDMA signals).
One more note,
more sites, doesnt mean better reception in CDMA beause the phone works on 1 frequency. It can decode up to 3 signals at 1 time, but all other signals are just interference to the phone. ( In AMPS when the phone hops from 1 site to the next it changes freqs, in CDMA it decodes different signals on the same freq)
You have just completed cell phone engineering 101.

Brad
 
 
   
 
RustyNails
Registered User


Joined: Jun 18, 2003
Posts: 33
Location: USA
  Posted: Jun 25, 2003 - 06:49 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was under the impression that AMPS cells had a 10+ mile coverage radius versus about 5 miles for the digital versions.

Rusty
 
 
  
 
imagine
Registered User


Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 41
Location: Kenner Louisiana
  Posted: Jun 26, 2003 - 01:44 AM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To a small extent thats true, but it depends on a lot of things. types of antenna used, height of the tower, trees/other obstacles type of phone ( some AMPS phones are 3 watts max for the old car mount type with antennas on the roof). I have designed a cdma site and had it working at 10 miles on several occasions. Lots of variables.
Frequency - Amps and CDMA are protocalls, not freqs, MOST AMPS are on 800 mhz and MOST CDMA are on 1900, but not always. There are some CDMA systems at 800 Mhz, these may travel a bit farther through tree clutter etc...
Brad
 
 
   
 
akd
Registered User


Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 3
Location: London, Ontario, CANADA
  Posted: Jul 01, 2003 - 07:22 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the matter of cellphones, there are two issues if we're going to treat this topic properly: a) the calls themselves and the conditions under which they were made leading to an assessment of whether or not they could have been made as described, b) documented evidence that cellphone calls were claimed to have been made by the majpr media.

We must not overlook the fact that all the work in the world could be undermined in a trice by a statement that, well, a few media outlets may have said cellphones, but they meant "airfones. (those back-of-the seat hamdsets that operate through the aircraft's antenna system. (Verizon etc)

We must therefore develop the evidence that remains on the internet, as well as searching other sources. I would very much like to begin a thread on this fundamentally important question.

Does anyone have the documentation ready to hand? A Bush speech would be ideal. So would statements in siome of the US' leading papers such as the NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, Boston Globe, etc. Only with solid documentation can we make it impossible for possible alternate perps to sneak out of this one.

Kee Dewdney
 
 
   
 
imagine
Registered User


Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 41
Location: Kenner Louisiana
  Posted: Jul 02, 2003 - 11:37 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry if this is confusing, it is cut and paste from different articles to get the most info without too much stuff we dont need.
But i think its a start of a database. Hope it helps.

45 people onboard

Todd Beamer - Airphone 9:45
13 minutes with GTE operator trying to use his company's Airfone account then re-routed to a Verizon supervisor
9:45 a.m.
He could see three hijackers, armed with knives. One insisted he had a bomb. Twenty-seven of the passengers had been herded to the rear of the plane, where the hijacker with the bomb was guarding them, he said. Two hijackers were in the cockpit. A fourth was in first class.

source 2)"nine other passengers and five flight attendants had been herded to the back of the plane, said Beamer's friend Doug MacMillan, who heard a transcript of the call. The rest of the passengers were in first class. The pilot and co- pilot had been taken from the cockpit and were nowhere to be seen. It doesn't seem like they know how to fly the plane," Beamer said of the hijackers.
His group was being guarded by a man who claimed to have explosives strapped to his midsection. Beamer, a basketball and baseball player in college and a take-charge guy, said he thought he and the others could "jump the terrorist with the bomb."

In the background, the supervisor could hear screaming. But Beamer's voice never wavered.

CeeCee-attend. cell 2 calls
police officer and detective for six years
call 1
At 9:47 a.m., the answering machine picked up a call from his wife, CeeCee, stranded in the back of the airplane
call2
Lorne Lyles could hear what he now believes was the sound of men planning a counterattack."They're getting ready to force their way into the cockpit," she told him.CeeCee Lyles let out a scream."They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!" she said. Lorne Lyles heard a scream. Then his wife said something he couldn't understand. Then the line went dead

Marion Britton, 1 call ( cell or airphone?)
53, assistant director of the Census Bureau's New York office, phoned a longtime friend, Fred Fiumano. All he can remember is that it was "sometime after 9:30

Britton was crying. She had been hijacked, she told Fiumano, and two people on the plane already had been killed.

Lauren Catuzzi Grandcolas Airphone
She'd been scheduled to take a later flight that day, but rebooked to get home sooner
There's a little problem with the plane. I'm fine and comfortable for now.

-Elizabeth Wainio - Airphone ( shared with Grandcolas)
Mom, we're being hijacked. I just called to say good bye,
"I need to go," she said. "They're getting ready to break into the cockpit. I love you. Goodbye."
10:00 a.m. Flight 93 -- last known human communication from passenger Elizabeth Wainio to her stepmother

Ed Felt - Cell Phone
a software engineer for BEA Systems
In 2000, he was awarded a patent for inventing a system of updating and authenticating passwords within a network to prevent unauthorized users from posing as legitimate users
At 9.58am a 911 call - the last mobile phone contact from Flight 93 - was made from one of the airliner's toilets by passenger Edward Felt.
"He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI
also said there were four men wearing red bandanas and wielding box cutters

Mark Bingham - Cell Phone
owned a public relations firm, the Bingham Group

Bingham slipped into a seat in aisle 4-D, next to Thomas Burnett. Nine minutes after Hall dropped him off, Bingham picked up his cell phone.
He called his mother, Alice Hoglan, 15 minutes before the plane crashed and told her that the plane had been taken over by three men who claimed to have a bomb. Hoglan said her son told her that some passengers planned to try to regain control of the plane.
9:42 Eastern time. Kathy's nephew, Mark Bingham was on the line.
"Alice, talk to Mark," Kathy said, handing her the phone. "He's been hijacked.""Mom? This is Mark Bingham

Thomas E. Burnett Jr - Cell Phone 3 calls
a senior vice president and chief operating officer of Thoratec Corp., a medical research and development company
6:20 a.m. -- 9:20 Eastern time.
They've already knifed a guy.Call the authorities," Tom told his wife over his cell phone. There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI. Around 9:30, Deena Burnett's phone rang again "I told him a lot of planes had been hijacked Were they commercial planes, airliners, he asked her

In his final call, he told her that he and two other passengers had decided to act rather than face certain death. "We're going to try to do something,

Jeremy Glick - Airphone ?
1)Jeremy Glick picked up a GTE Airfone just before 9:30 a.m
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204172858/http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/2 ... toryp7.asp

2)Jeremy Glick, 31, from West Milford, New Jersey, He called his wife, Liz, and in-laws in New York on a cell phone to tell them the plane had been hijacked
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204172858/http://www.wtc-worldtradecenter.com/uni ... ht-93.html
( 2 different stories, the first may have meant that he called his wife on HER cell phone)
In the ensuing 20-minute conversation, he calmed his wife as best he could, joking that he and his fellow passengers might assault the hijackers with butter knives from the in-flight breakfast

Glick said that one of the hijackers "had a red box he said was a bomb, and one had a knife of some nature
Lyz recalls no background noise. No commotion. He described the men as Arabic-looking, wearing red headbands, carrying knives. One told passengers he had a bomb.

Sandy Bradshaw-ATTND 11yrs
Her husband, Phil, a US Airways pilot. 1 call ( cell or airphone ?)
Bradshaw said he took his wife's call about 9:30 a.m
Bradshaw thinks they talked for five or 10 minutes
that would put the attack at 9:40
"I don't know who's flying the plane or where we are," she said.

Sandy Bradshaw, who was trained never to spill hot coffee on a paying customer, slipped into the airplane's galley and began filling pitchers with boiling water.

------
other interests...( no calls)
The pilot was Jason Dahl, 43( wasnt supposed to pilot 93). Sandy, a United flight attendant, went onto United's computer system and shifted him to Flight 93

Wanda Green, She'd phoned her best friend, fellow flight attendant Donita Judge, who opened United's computerized schedule and shifted Green to the Sept. 11 flight.

All said that the hijackers were wearing RED bandanas. The official color of Al Queda is green, red is not anacceptable color for Muslim garb
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204172858/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymo ... land1.html
 
 
   
 
imagine
Registered User


Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 41
Location: Kenner Louisiana
  Posted: Aug 05, 2003 - 01:42 AM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THere are several inconsistancies here. I want to make this a project, but here is a rough first draft.
Sorry for the cut and paste, but i put a few articles together from different sources. They are not in chronological order(so read the dates) and some info was cut out that did not pertain to the discussion, so you can use the link if you want the whole story.
Any additions, or comments are encouraged.

Brad

--8:20 a.m.: American Airlines flight 77 departs

http://web.archive.org/web/20031204172858/http://www.unansweredquestions.net/time ... 30502.html
March 5, 2002
Throughout the working day, they would speak on what they
called the "bat phone".

It was her last newspaper interview. On September 11, American Airlines Flight 77 plunged
into the Pentagon with Barbara Olson on board. It was Ted Olson's 61st birthday that day and
Barbara had delayed flying to Los Angeles so they could celebrate over dinner the night
before.
That morning, a nightmare began to unfold in the room where we are now sitting. "Someone
rushed in and told me what had happened. I went into the other room, where there's a
television," Olson says. "It went through my mind, 'My God, maybe - Barbara's on an
airplane, and two airplanes have been crashed', you know."
Then his secretary told him that Barbara was on the line. "My first reaction when I heard she was on the phone was relief, because I knew that she wasn't on one of those two airplanes." But Barbara then explained calmly that she had been herded to the back of the Boeing 757 she was on, along with the other passengers."She had had trouble getting through, because she wasn't using her cellphone, she was using the phone in the passengers' seats," says Olson. "I guess she didn't have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy."
He was able to tell her about the World Trade Centre attacks before the line went dead, then he called his departmental command centre to let them know another plane had been hijacked.
( OK I know he probabally has multiple lines, but woulndt he wait for her to call back)?

The phone rang again and it was Barbara."She wanted to know, 'What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?' I tried to find out where she thought she was - I wanted to know where the airplane was and what direction it was going in, because I thought that was the first step to being able to do something.
"We both tried to reassure one another that everything was going to be OK, she was still
alive, the plane was still up in the air. But I think she knew that it wasn't going to be OK and I knew it wasn't going to be OK."
They were able to have "personal exchanges", he says, before they were cut off in
mid-conversation. "It just stopped. It could be the impact, although I think she would have There's no point in speculating."
As soon as he heard a plane had crashed at the Pentagon, he says, "I knew it was her".
( at that time there was a frenzy of reports of multiple hijackings, not to mention he just said he didnt know where she was, the plane was hijacked, how did he know it was near the pentagon, it had been in the air for about an hour)

The air-traffic controllers of the FAA explained to reporters of the Christian Science Monitor that, at around 8:55 am, the Boeing had descended to 29,000 feet and had not responded to radio calls.

Then one of the secretaries rushed in and said, "Barbara is on the phone." And I jumped for the phone, so glad to hear Barbara's voice. And then she told me, "Our plane has been hijacked." This was some time -- must have been 9:15 or 9:30

( Cell phones dont work above 5-10,000 ft http://web.archive.org/web/20031204172858/http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney ... 0427.html)

-------------------------------------------------

http://web.archive.org/web/20031204172858/http://www.unansweredquestions.net/time ... 1401c.html
September 14, 2001
KING: The next time you hear from her is on the plane?
OLSON: Actually, I heard from her before that. Before she boarded the plane -- this plane
was scheduled to leave, and I guess did leave, at 8:10 in the morning.
She called me -- we always did this with one another. We always called one another a lot
during the day, sometimes very briefly. But she called me around -- it must have been around
7:30 or 7:40, before she got on the plane. We just talked to one another and how anxious I was for her to come back and how anxious she was to return. But then I did not hear from her again until after she was in the air.
KING: And the plane is now -- she is flying. She calls you, you're at the Justice
Department, right? Solicitor General's office is at the Justice?
OLSON: Yes.
KING: She calls you and what?
OLSON: I had heard a few moments before -- a few minutes before -- of the disaster occurring at the World Trade Center. There is a television set in the back of my office. I turned it on and watched with horror the film being replayed of the airplanes crashing in to the World Trade Center.
KING: Both crashes?
OLSON: Both. The second one had just occurred, I think, when I had turned it on, but they occurred in such a fashion they had film of it, which as this station -- I think I was
watching CNN. And I was relieved because at the moment that I heard there was hijacked
planes, I was both terrified and fearful for everything that was going on. But I made a
mental calculation, because the first thing that comes in to your mind is that Barbara's
plane, could that be one of those planes? And I thought oh, thank goodness, it can't be her plane. I'm sounding rather selfish here. That just went through my mind because there wasn't enough time for that airplane to have gotten to New York.

--9:02 a.m.: United Airlines flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center

 

KING: So the television is on. You've see the buildings, both in disaster mode, and you are
talking to your wife who has just been hijacked.
OLSON: Yes.
KING: And she says?
OLSON: She says we have just been hijacked. I had two conversations, Larry, and my memory is -- tends to mix the two of them up because of the emotion of the events. We spoke for a minute or two, then the phone was cut off. Then we she got through again, and we spoke for another two or three or four minutes. She told me that the plane had been hijacked, that she had been -- she told me that they did not know she was making this phone call.She told me that she had been herded to the back of the plane. She mentioned that they had used knives and box cutters to hijack the plane. She mentioned that the pilot had announced that the plane had been hijacked. I believe she said that. And she -- I had to tell her about the two airplanes that had hit the World Trade Center.
KING: Why?
OLSON: I just felt that I had to. I had to tell her. I will look back at that and wonder
about that same question myself, but I had to tell her.
KING: You're the kind of couple, knowing you guys, you tell each other everything.
OLSON: We are extraordinary close.
KING: This was a mad love affair?
OLSON: Yes, it was. I could not have kept that from her.
KING: What did she say when you told her?
OLSON: I think she must have been partially in shock from the fact that she was on a
hijacked plane. She absorbed the information. We then both reassured one another this plane was still up in the air. This plane was still flying, and this was going to come out OK. I told her, "It's going to come out OK." She told me it was going to come out OK. She said, I love you.
KING: Didn't she ask about the pilot? Was the pilot in the back with her then?
OLSON: I don't know. But she told me at one point in this conversation: "What shall I tell
the pilot? What can I tell the pilot to do?"
KING: Implying he must have been back there with her.
OLSON: Either the pilot or possibly the copilot or part of the crew. That was the
implication, but I didn't really think to ask that specific question.
KING: Did she sound terrified, anxious, nervous, scared?
OLSON: No, she didn't. She sounded very, very calm.
KING: Typical Barbara.
OLSON: In retrospect, enormously, remarkably, incredibly calm. But she was calculating -- I mean, she was wondering "What can I do to help solve this problem?" Barbara was like that. Barbara could not have not done something.
KING: What's going through you?
OLSON: My -- I am in -- I guess I'm in shock. And I'm horrified because I really -- while I
had reassured her that I thought everything was going to be OK, I was pretty sure everything was not going to be OK. I by this time, had made the calculation that these were suicide persons, bent on destroying as much of America as they could.
KING: Did you hear other noises on the plane?
OLSON: No, I did not. At one point, when she asked me what to say to the pilot, I asked her if she had any sense for where she was. I had, after the first conversation, called our
command center at the Department of Justice to alert them to the fact that there was another hijacked plane and that my wife was on it and that she was capable of communicating, even though this first phone call had been cut off.
So I wanted to find out where the plane was. She said the plane had been high hijacked shortly after takeoff and they had been circling around, I think were the words she used. She reported to me that she could see houses. I asked her which direction the plane was going. She paused -- there was a pause there. I think she must have asked someone else. She said I think it's going northeast.

(Actually northeast would have been toward New York, when the plane was hijacked it was over ?, well it was well west of DC and NY, but then she said it was going in circles, so she had absolutely no idea where they were)
( In retrospect the plane did go north east JUST before crashing into the Pentagon, but that doesnt fit the timeline of the phone call)

KING: Which would have been toward the Pentagon?
OLSON: Depending upon where the plane was, .
KING: Dulles...
OLSON: Dulles is west of the Pentagon. So east of Dulles is the Pentagon. And this plane had been in the air for, I think, over an hour. So I don't know where she was when she called.
KING: They didn't do any direct flight right to the Pentagon.
OLSON: No, no. Her plane took off at 8:10. Its impact with the Pentagon must have been
around 9:30 or so. You will probably be able to reconstruct that or have that information as to the time of the impact.

(He was absolutely sure it didt travel straight to the Pentagon, and was also sure that it didnt go to New York ?)

KING: How does the second conversation end?
OLSON: We are -- we segued back and forth between expressions of feeling for one another and this effort to exchange information. And then the phone went dead. I don't know whether it just got cut off again, because the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well, or whether that was the impact with the Pentagon.
It was not -- I stayed glued to my television. I did call the command center again. Someone came down so I can impart this information and also to be there in case she called again. But it was very shortly thereafter that news reports on the television indicated that there had been an explosion of some sort at the Pentagon.
KING: Did you immediately know then that's what it was?
OLSON: I did. I mean I didn't want to. I did and I didn't want to, but I knew. But it was a long time before what had happened at the Pentagon -- or it seemed like a long time -- before it was identified as an airplane. Then the first report that I heard was that it was a commuter plane, and then I heard it was an American Airlines plane.I called some people, I guess maybe just because I had to share the dread that was living with me. I called my mother and I called my son. I said I didn't think -- I thought that -- I was hoping that it wasn't true, but I was very worried. I did not want them to see
something on television and hear her name.

(actually the first reports of the pentagon explosion were of a truck bomb if i remember correctly, how was he sure it was his wifes Jet)?

KING: Did you hear from the president or the attorney general?
OLSON: Oh, yes, I did. I heard from the president. Well, he was in the air. I can't tell you
exactly what time of day that was on the 11th. I also heard from the attorney general. I
also heard from the vice president and many other of our officials of government. And of
course, scores of other people, including you and your wife and...

---------------------------------
September 12, 2001
Terrified passengers and crew on board the hijacked planes used their mobile phones to make desperate calls for help, it emerged today.
As armed hijackers moved through the planes stabbing airline crew to force them to
co-operate, people locked themselves into lavatories to ring relations and emergency
services. On the American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington, television reporter Barbara Olson, 46, locked herself in the lavatory to call her husband, Solicitor General Theodore Olson.

( I guess that Airphone had an extension cord? The cord on an airphone will not reach into the bathroom, this suggests she was using a cell. Cell phones in planes dont work over 5-10,000 ft. inside a sealed bathroom would insert an extra 3-6 dB of loss. I am a cell phone engineer and design cellular systems, that means signal quality, which would have been nearly impossibe anyway would have been cut to 1/3 to 1/6th stregth. Ted states that the quality of the connection was CLEAR !)
( I would be happy if someone would verify the airphone reach of the cord- to the bathroom on a 757)
Seconds after she spoke to him for the second time, her plane crashed into the Pentagon, reportedly killing all 60 people on board. Her distraught husband, a friend of President Bush who fought for him during the legal battle over the disputed presidential election, said: "She called from the plane while it was being hijacked. I wish it wasn't so but it is."
A spokesman for the family said Mrs Olson, a mother and grandmother, only decided to take
the flight at the last minute, to join her husband for his birthday.
He said: "She called and said she was locked in the toilet and the plane had been hijacked.
She said they had box-cutters and knives. They had rounded up the passengers at the back of the plane. She referred to them as more than one. There was nothing she could do. She said to her husband 'What shall I tell the pilot to do?'

Mrs Olson's plane crashed into the Pentagon at 9.43am local time, causing an explosion which destroyed six storeys of the military command centre.
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204172858/http://www.unansweredquestions.net/time ... 91201.html


---------------------------

y Tim O'Brien
CNN
September 12, 2001 Posted: 2:06 AM EDT (0606 GMT)
WASHINGTON -- Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN. A short time later the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Barbara Olson is presumed to have died in the crash.
Her husband said she called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,
which was en route from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles.

Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the
pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she
mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.
She felt nobody was in charge and asked her husband to tell the pilot what to do.
Ted Olson notified the Justice Department command center immediately.
He told CNN that his wife had originally been booked on a flight Monday, but delayed her
departure because Tuesday was his birthday and she wanted to be with him in the morning.
Barbara Olson was a former federal prosecutor and served as Chief Investigative Counsel to
the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight during its probe into the Clinton
Administration "Travelgate" scandal.
She had appeared frequently as a commentator on CNN.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031204172858/http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/

---------------------------------
Now for the FOX report
by Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity, and Brit Hume
Fox News - Hannity and Colmes
September 14, 2001


COLMES: Many of you remember Barbara Olson, who was a frequent guest on this program and a good friend. Ms. Olson was a passenger on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, and earlier today, Brit Hume spoke with her husband, Ted Olson.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIT HUME, FOX ANCHOR: Ted, your wife's name was the first victim's name that we heard from the crash at the Pentagon site. And I know that she spoke to you.
I'd like to convey, on behalf of all of us here, our condolences to you and our best wishes to you, sir.
TED OLSON, SOLICITOR GENERAL: Thank you.
I think some of your viewers know this, but Barbara was on your program and Tony Snow's program from time to time. And she was -- she loved to be with the people here at Fox. The people were very kind to her. And I very much appreciate that.
HUME: And we liked having her here.
I know that she called you while that plane that had taken off from Dulles was in the air. Could you describe those conversations?
OLSON: Yes. There were two conversations.
The plane took off at 8:10 in the morning -- or that's when it was scheduled to take off. And that's when I believe it took off. I had been in my office at the Department of Justice. Someone told me that there had been the two strikes that occurred at the World Trade Center. I turned on the television set in my office and watched, as I guess all of us did, this tragedy unfold at the World Trade Center.
One of the gals in my office came in and said, "Barbara's on the phone." And I picked up the phone. We spoke for a couple of -- maybe a minute or two before we were cut off.
HUME: Did you have a clear...
OLSON: It was clear.
It was cut off. And then a few moments later, we had another telephone conversation that lasted for three or four minutes. I was at first relieved to hear Barbara on the telephone, because panic strikes immediately. My wife had taken off on a plane. Two airplanes had crashed into the World Trade Center. I, of course, like any other person, felt potentially devastated, panicky a little bit.
And I made a calculation that it couldn't possibly -- that airplane couldn't possibly have gotten to New York, although it could have been close.

( in a previous statement he was SURE it couldnt have been her plane, now he kind of backtracks, sounds like he had a calculator and geographical map of the US, i guess he could have made a call and got the flight speed of a Boing 757? )

But then to hear her voice was reassuring and calming. But then her next words out of her mouth were that, "Ted, my plane's been hijacked."
HUME: Now, was she calm?
OLSON: She was very calm. She was completely in control.
HUME: Was she sort of whispering? Or was she speaking in a normal voice.
OLSON: No, she was speaking loud enough that I could hear her. I didn't feel that she was whispering. I said -- I asked her a couple of questions. And I'm not sure now the sequence in which I asked those questions.
But I learned from her that she had been in first class. She had been -- she and the other passengers had been herded to the back of the airplane. I asked her whether they, the hijackers, knew that she was calling. And she said, "No, they don't know."
( sounds like she was in the bathroom after all)
She indicated that they had used knifes and box-cutters to take over the plane. At some point, we got cut off. I immediately called the command center of the Department of Justice to let them know that my wife was on a plane that had been hijacked. I mainly wanted them know there was another hijacked plane out there. I didn't know whether anyone in...
HUME: What did they say when you called them?
OLSON: They just absorbed the information. And they promised to send someone down right away. I didn't know that I was going to get another call.

( Whom is he speaking of , his WIFE? of course she will try to call him back. He sounds like he is making an excuse for being on the phone when his wife who is about to die, just might call again?)

And I expected them to pass the information on to the appropriate people. I assumed that they did.
A few minutes later, another call came in from Barbara. I found out later that she was having, for some reason, to call collect and was having trouble getting through. You know how it is to get through to a government institution when you're calling collect.

( this is a whole can of worms. They call each other constantly (admittedly), they travel a lot, they are not dumb when it comes to cell phones. If it were a cell call, you dont have to call collect. The charges are billed to the account automatically, I have been in the cell industry for 15yrs, but any idiot with a cell can figure that out the first time you leave your city. How did he find out LATER she tried to make a collect call, did she tell him from the grave ? Remember this was the second and final call)

HUME: With a collect call, right.
OLSON: Well, she managed to -- Barbara was capable of doing practically anything if she set her mind to it. In retrospect, I'm not surprised that Barbara managed to get collect calls through.
HUME: You don't know whether it was on a regular cell phone or one of those air phones?
OLSON: No, I don't. I first of all assumed that it must have been on the airplane phone, and that she somehow didn't have access to her credit cards. Otherwise, she would have used her cell phone and called me.

(First, he assumed the OPPOSITE in the interview before this one, saying she was using a cell. Second, Barbra Olson just happened to forget her credit cards on a 4 day long trip? dont think so. Most people have caller ID ( I did in my office, but perhaps Ted Olsons is not as technically advanced as mine) and that would have registered as her from her cell phone.
HUME: Of course.
OLSON: So I think that was probably what it was. But Barbara got through a second time. And we exchanged the feelings that a husband and wife who are extraordinarily close, as we are, those kind of sentiments. And she assured me everything was going to be OK. I told her in the first conversation that the two hijacked planes had hit the World Trade Center.
And my impulse was that I had to tell her that. That was the kind of person she was. That's the kind of relationship that we had. I will always wonder whether I should have. But she -- her instinct was: "What do we do? What do we tell -- what shall I tell the pilot? What can I do?"
And I asked her where she was. And she tried to tell me where she was and what direction the aircraft appeared to be going.
HUME: It was probably hard to tell.
OLSON: I think it's impossible to tell. We've all looked out the window and we don't know exactly where we are. She said there were residences she could see. And she speculated that the aircraft was headed northeast. But I don't know whether that was correct or whether she really knew that or whether someone had told her that.
HUME: Did she describe the hijackers or say what they had said or anything of that kind?
OLSON: No. She -- the only thing she said with respect to that is the pilot had announced that the plane had been hijacked. She said it had been hijacked shortly after takeoff. By this time, the plane had been in the air -- again, I'm presuming that it took off on time -- for over an hour.
She implied that they had been circling around for a while. Not long after the second phone call, the connection was broken, by what I don't know. I was watching television in my office both before, after, and during these telephone calls. I began to hear reports of the explosion at the Pentagon. And I knew in my heart that was that aircraft.
And I also knew in my heart that she could not possibly have survived that kind of an explosion with a full load of fuel on a recently taken-off airplane. I wanted it not to be true. I wanted it not to be her plane. I wanted it -- I wanted, if it was her plane, to have somehow survived because she was in the back of the airplane. But we know that doesn't happen, not with those sorts of things.
HUME: No.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031204172858/http://www.unansweredquestions.net/time ... 91401.html

 


"It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information," the Solicitor-General, Theodore Olson, told the court on Monday.

here is another interesting link to Olson ( Yes VIALS, but some good info anyway)
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204172858/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymo ... 1/lies.htm

Brad M
 
 
   
 
RustyNails
Registered User


Joined: Jun 18, 2003
Posts: 33
Location: USA
  Posted: Aug 05, 2003 - 02:36 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great post Brad,

In addition to the other contradictions, we have the issue of the other passengers (on the other planes only?) stating that they were told to call their families and tell them what was going on.

I know it's a pain to do here, but reading your e-mail version of this was much easier with the colorized highlights.

Rusty

___________________________

See also Part 2 of this discussion.

 

 



 
Main Menu

Physics911.org
  Home Page
  Privacy Policy
  S.P.I.N.E.
  Help Us
  Link to Us

Main Articles
9/11 Scenarios
  Operation Pearl
  Evidence of Complicity
  Jihad - or Black Op?

Pentagon Attack
  The Missing Wings
  Pentagon Physics

WTC Attack
  Collapse of WTC 7
  WTC Dust Cloud
  Themite Demolition?

9/11 Achilles Heel?
   Cell Phones & 9/11

Other Resources
   Calendar
   Downloads
   Photo Gallery
   Reference Articles
   Web Links
   Weblog

Search this site
Login
Username:

Password:


Lost Password?

Register now!
Featured Event
Next Listed Event
18th Dec am9:00--
Meetup Day
Photo Album


Recent Photos
   9/11 Visibility Ac... (2003/11/20)
   None so blind as..... (2003/11/14)
   Pentagon Attack Af... (2003/11/5)
   Satellite Image of... (2003/10/28)
   Columns pushed out (2003/10/23)
   The Project Achill... (2003/10/21)
   The North Tower�... (2003/10/16)
   Pentagon Montage (2003/10/16)
   Pentagon Fireball (2003/10/16)
   Scale drawing of a... (2003/10/16)
Please Donate!
Recommend Us!
Contact Us!
Physics911.org
9/11 and Cellphone Calls: SPINE discussion about Cellphone Calls and 9/11 - Part 2  
Author: webmaster
Published: 2003/11/24
Read 74 times
Size 39.52 KB
 
 

Part 2 a mid-2003 discussion between SPINE members about Cellphone Calls and 9/11.

Part 1 is HERE

 


Author Message
mothra
Registered User

Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 10

  Posted: Aug 15, 2003 - 09:42 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
akd wrote:
On the matter of cellphones, there are two issues if we're going to treat this topic properly: a) the calls themselves and the conditions under which they were made leading to an assessment of whether or not they could have been made as described, b) documented evidence that cellphone calls were claimed to have been made by the majpr media.

The accounts vary. I have read of Beamer, Glick, Olson using AirPhones and read of them using cell phones. The one account that does not vary is that of Edward Felt who called from the restroom on Flight 93. His cell phone has not mutated into a GTE Airphone.

Here is a link and excerpt re the 911 dispatcher who got the call


http://web.archive.org/web/20031204173441/http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/2002 ... 0911p9.asp

Wednesday, September 11, 2002

"John Shaw still has dreams about the phone call he answered while working as a 911 dispatcher in Westmoreland County last Sept. 11.

It was from Edward Felt of Newark, N.J., a passenger using a cell phone aboard United Flight 93. "Terrified" was the only way to describe Felt, the 29-year-old Shaw said.

After his initial shock, Shaw said he began to ask standard questions: where the man was, what type of plane he was aboard, what had happened.

The call lasted only 78 seconds and ended abruptly, moments before the jet crashed in Somerset County."

..........

I have saved the web page which has a photo of this John Shaw.

Here is another link and excerpt, some 'corroboration' of the cell phone story and an indication that the plane was going very fast.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031204173441/http://www.najaco.com/aviation/news/200 ... rch_14.htm

"We don't have all the answers, but there is no question in my mind that the passengers were heroes in the truest sense of the word," said Wells Morrison, the deputy on-scene commander for the F.B.I., who declined to discuss specifics of the voice recorder or evidence found at the crash site. "Everyone should be proud of their actions."
The tape also recorded unnerving background sounds. A two-tone alarm sounded because the plane was flying up to 150 miles per hour faster than the instructed limit of 425 m.p.h. for its low altitude, officials said. The air resistance as the plane rushed so close to the ground created a constant rush of wind.
"It could have even broken the sound barrier for a while," said Hank Krakowski, who was director of flight operations control at United's system control center near O'Hare Airport in Chicago on Sept. 11.
Recent reporting has revealed other intriguing information about what was said and done on the flight. While authorities have said that the hijackers on the four flights had knives and box cutters, one passenger aboard Flight 93, Mr. Burnett, told his wife in a cellphone call that the terrorists also had a gun.
On a tape of a 911 call made by Mr. Burnett's wife, Deena, to the sheriff's department in Contra Costa County, Calif., Ms. Burnett said: "My husband just called me from United Flight 93. The plane has been hijacked. They just knifed a passenger and there are guns on the airplane." Investigators said they found no evidence of a gun at the crash site.
Earlier reports have said that a previously unidentified passenger, Edward Felt of Matawan, N.J., said in a 911 call from a restroom that he saw a puff of smoke and heard an explosion, leading some to cite this as evidence that the plane was shot down by the military to prevent it from crashing into sensitive targets. But the 911 dispatcher, John Shaw, and others who have heard the tape, including Mr. Felt's wife, Sandra Felt, say he made no mention of smoke or an explosion when he said, "We're going down."
........................

Several accounts have the plane close to the ground and flying erratically.

If Flight 93 were at 2000 feet altitude, but moving faster than 425 mph, would the cell phone from the restroom be possible?

Now I am going to shift gears but it is pertinent to the calls from the hijacked planes.

The passengers' calls were crucial in directing public attention to Middle Easterners as perpetrators of the crime. These calls were a necessary component of the attack. In effect, the US would be going to war on the basis of hearsay evidence. So it had to be believable hearsay. How did we get the impression that so many of the hijack victims' families were called?

Mimicking the passengers' voices is a distinct possibility, particularly since the phone truncates a lot of frequencies that identify a voice. But let's look at assumptions about those calls. We assumed that the people who reported receiving them were telling what they believed to be the truth, so we went looking further up the line for the falsehood, and hit on phone fakeouts.

For a moment, let's set aside the explanation of that the recipients of calls were fooled with audio impersonations.

The Beamer family got a lot of attention from the Let's Roll book, and many people bought into the story it tells. However Mrs. Beamer did not talk to her husband but to a Lisa Jefferson who relayed the conversation to Mrs. Beamer. What do we know about this Lisa Jefferson? Who is she?

Ted Olson, solicitor general and husband of Barbara Olson, said she made calls from the back of the plane to which the passengers had been herded. Without the report of Barbara Olson's call, some people might think that Flight 77 was a separate incident. Since the Pentagon was such an atypical crash site, there was the danger that investigators or the public would think that Flight 77 did not go down there. Barbara Olson's calls were crucial for categorizing the event as terrorism. Ted Olson is part of the Bush administration, helped it take power. He is not sympathetic, has a history of lying, has said publicly that he would lie to advance some political agendas, so he was not the guy to help sell the war.

It was not convincing to have only reports of relatives talking to passengers or going through an intermediary as in Todd Beamer's case. What was need to make the hoax work was a relative talking to a passenger as the hijacking occurred. That would be the clincher. No one could doubt it. Jeremy Glick filled the bill.

Jane Pauley did a televised interview with the Glick family, whom Jeremy Glick phoned from Flight 93. Again the calls, in coordination with the report of Beamer's call, put the blame squarely on 'Iranian looking' hijackers. Glick's family are the only relatives actually say on national television - repeatedly - that they had spoken directly to a passenger. So we need only one voice mimicry setup. Glick worked for Vividence, which is an internet marketing research firm. It has a list of testimonials from satisfied big name customers, like Ebay and Oracle. Vividence tracks web users' individual surfing habits for marketing predictions. But most front firms do real work. You can imagine intelligence services being interested in such technology. Maybe Vividence wasn't all a front, but had in place, coincidentally, a person who was connected to the intelligence community. This person would have been Glick's superior in the organization.

I am taking a flying leap here. Glick was a pawn from the git go. 9-11 had been scripted, including hero passengers attacking the hijackers. Flight 93 was never meant to hit anything but the ground. The plot needed a believable attacker. Glick, a collegiate judo champion, a big tough guy, was believable. His pretty wife would be a sympathetic widow. At Vividence his job required him to travel, so when the time came, he could be booked onto a flight, and take it, no questions asked. With months or weeks of lead time, voice mimicry of one person is easy. There would be opportunities to learn biographical details for the fakeout. There would be ample opportunity to test Glick's captured voice on his business contacts to see if it played.

I suspect Barbara Olson's presence on Flight 77 was an accident but once she was there, she got a starring role and the conspirators told Ted Olson what to say. If Barbara Olson had not been on the plane, there might have been reports of another phone call, from another passenger.

The passenger lists vary depending on the site. A non-existent passenger could make a call to a non-existent relative and it would be reported. The corporate media have been good stenographers. All four flights' passenger lists were inordinately short, which bolsters the assumption that the four planes were all doomed -- and prepared. Remote control looks likely, if you include shutting down communications capability except what was needed for remote control of the autopilot. The passengers and crew need not be subdued because they could not control the plane nor could they communicate with anyone outside the plane.

It might be a worthwhile avenue of investigation to check out the more obscure people who reported getting calls from passengers. Do they even exist? How far back do witnesses associate each with the passenger who called him or her?

Without the passengers' phone calls, the US would not have gone to war. Only one person outside the administration, Lyz Glick, did national televised interviews and discussed her direct, real time contact with a passenger during the event. There were reports of contacts but we have learned there is no reason to trust such reports if they serve the administration's purposes. And there was that odd Beamer call. How odd was it?

Report of Todd Beamer's contact was delayed as well as indirect. Beamer worked for Oracle. On Sept. 13, Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, announced to Oracle employees that Beamer had tried to wrest control of the plane from the terrorists. Where did Ellison get that? Does it have anything to do with the fact that Oracle was front-runner for the contract when it looked as if we would all have to carry national id cards? Then on Friday, Sept. 14, Mrs. Beamer's family liaison from United Airlines, Nick Leonard, called her with the news that a GTE airphone operator, Lisa Jefferson, had talked with Beamer during the hijacking.

There would have been ample time between 9-11 and 9-14 to get family names, to find out whether it was believable that Beamer would have prayed in the last moments. Did his speaking voice have any particular characteristics -- stammer etc. The story was laid on Mrs. Beamer, who would want to believe. No one, at that point, would be boor enough to ask her if she had any doubts about the call. Then the book came out, Lisa Beamer accepted the money, and had all the more reason to keep still about any doubts she had.

I am going to assume that the 9-11 plan, like any military plan, made allowance for contingencies. There was probably a back up for Glick in case he couldn't make the flight. Maybe he was the back up.

The government's commitment to Felt's cell phone call from the airliner probably provides physical proof that 9-11 was a hoax. Beyond that, where conjecture is all we have, I look for the simplest ways of working the attack and attendant PR. One excellent voice impersonation against a background of reported phone calls, sounds more do-able than capturing a lot of voices and calling a lot of people.

mothra
 
 
  
 
imagine
Registered User


Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 41
Location: Kenner Louisiana
  Posted: Aug 16, 2003 - 01:33 AM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THere are several inconsistancys in these stories.

Jeremy Glick called his wife, Liz, and in-laws in New York on a cell phone to tell them the plane had been hijacked, Joanne Makely, Glick's mother-in-law. Glick said that one of the hijackers "had a red box he said was a bomb, ----. He left the phone for a while, returning to say, "The men voted to attack the terrorists," Makely said.

So this report says Glick was on a cell, another says he was on an Airphone. I noticed that the FIRST reports said they were cells, then the story changed for a few saying Airphones. I think someone realized an error and tried to fix it.
Also he said there was a bomb on board. Was there ever an investigation into that in the debris of the flight, i havent heard poop on that !
The Olson story, i covered in the thread above, was worse. Ted Olsen had several interviews, changing his story from cell to Airphone, then in another interview, said he wasnt sure trying to explain off why he had 2 stories.
My main Point with Olson is, if it was a cell, and she was in the bathroom with the door closed as he stated, this would lead to another 6-9db loss ( 1/3 to 1/6 power) traveling at that speed and height, NO WAY !!! it wont happen. If it was a Airphone, then how did she lock herself in a bathroom, did she have an extension cord in her purse?

Voice duplication is very possible, almost easy, i did some research on this recently. I have a guitar, and plug it into my copmputer and can manipulate the sound the way i want.

"Mom? This is Mark Bingham...
Does this sound like how you would address your mother?

Edward Felt, a software engineer for BEA Systems, was noted for his expertise in cryptography and encryption systems. Working out of the BEA office in Liberty Corner, N.J., he was one of the original team members for the software program "Tuxedo," which is used for e-commerce by companies such as E-Trade and FedEx.

GOrdon Felt said this....
However, he wants people to remember that his brother and other passengers on Flight 93 were murdered, pointing out that the hijackers made no demands and planned to kill the passengers to carry out their attack in the name of Islam.


Thomas E. Burnett made 4 calls, i only have data for 1 as being a cell, but i would gather that if one was a cell, they all were, but maybe not.

Deena Burnett was waking up at her home in San Ramon, Calif. She'd gone down to the kitchen to fix breakfast for her three daughters. The phone rang. She recalls it was around 6:20 a.m. -- 9:20 Eastern time.
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204173441/http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_heroes.html

Hello. The flight was hijacked at 9:27
(9:27 A.M.) Tom Burnett calls his wife Deena and says, "I'm on United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. The plane has been hijacked. We are in the air. They've already knifed a guy. There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI." Deena connects to emergency 911. [9:27, "she scribbled down what Tom told her --Quote:

and noted the time
 

--," The book Among the Heroes, 8/02, p.

Another thing i found odd about Glick was this ....
Ten minutes into the 30-minute call with her husband, Lyzbeth Glick asked her father to call the FBI on a separate line, Hurwitt said. FBI agents monitored the last 20 minutes of the call and are studying a tape and transcript.
So you get a call, decide you will call the FBI,
and they have an - instant - tap on your phone?
How long did it take her father to look up the number in the phone book, get connected, say hello, im having a problem...
can you please tap my phone, on this other number XXX_XXXX
and all done in less than 1 min.
?????
this is the best link i have for the cell calls, it has links to ALL of the stories.
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204173441/http://www.unansweredquestions.net/time ... ght93.html

Brad M
 
 
   
 
RustyNails
Registered User


Joined: Jun 18, 2003
Posts: 33
Location: USA
  Posted: Aug 16, 2003 - 02:55 AM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
imagine Mothra,

Great posts. I agree with the analysis that the mythical cell calls closed the deal so to speak. We also had initially the magic passport of Atta's supposedly found on the street early on at the WTC, and some other odd paraphernalia (with the look of a plant), but the FBI has quietly backpedaled on this claim and will not discuss it. In that same fashion director Mueller has given a couple of speeches stating that the FBI has no idea who the hijackers were. What gives with this? Is it simply safe to do so later on, after the War on Terrorism has become a fait acompli, in an attempt to preserve some credibility with the public? Seems a little much to me, as if there may be a bigger agenda cooking perhaps.

And now just in the last week the FBI states that after "much" listening to the Flight 93 cockpit recordings, they have determined that the Flight 93 passengers did not succeed in taking back control, but rather the mythical hijackers decided to crash the plane rather than give up control. But not to worry, the "Let's Roll" passengers are heroes just the same. More backtracking, or is this just a convenient means to rub the "Let's Roll" sales pitch in our nose and subtley reminding the public that Islamic evildoers were at the controls without explicitely saying so?

Regarding the phone tapping, it was my understanding that the technology provided by the Israeli Comverse Technology and Amdocs companies not only allowed them to provide all American phone companies with billing services, but that the gear allowed them to provide law enforcement agencies (including Israeli intelligence services) instant phone tap capability from a computer console.

Brad, do you know whether the wireless phone companies use Comverse and or Amdocs technology for either billing and ostensibly legitimate surveillance purposes? I think one or both of these companies may have changed their names after the knowledge of this capability became public and the fact that knowing parties would be capable of tapping virtually anyone's phone without warrant or record. The interesting thing if true, is that one would think that this would have given the conspirators the ability to produce phoney billing records.

BTW, I was originally asked to join the group after my comment to AKD regarding the fact that the tapping capability would allow for the easy prior remote monitoring of 9/11 victims voices as they went about their normal everyday conversations. The voice streams could be piped back to Israel or anywhere desired by the mimicking team for their training purposes.

Rusty
 
 
  
 
mothra
Registered User


Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 10

  Posted: Aug 16, 2003 - 11:06 AM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RustyNails wrote:


BTW, I was originally asked to join the group after my comment to AKD regarding the fact that the tapping capability would allow for the easy prior remote monitoring of 9/11 victims voices as they went about their normal everyday conversations. The voice streams could be piped back to Israel or anywhere desired by the mimicking team for their training purposes.

Rusty


Well, that makes life easier for the conspirators! So someone could make a reservation, which either directly or by cross reference would reveal their phone number, then that person's calls could be tapped for voice capture.

Felt is the only passenger who has not traded in his cell phone for an Airphone.

I have found numerous references to low altitude in the final few minutes, low enough for some cell phones to work.

Arguing against that possibility is tha background in the tape -- audio warning signals that indicate very high speed. If I correctly understand an earlier post on this subject, that very high speed would preclude a cell call. So this one call seems to be the physical impossibility that should cast doubt on all the other calls.

The wiggle room in this cell phone story is that someone may say he misunderstood Felt -- that Felt was not in the restroom, so that would put him within reach of an airphone.

Does anyone have a transcript, a source that puts Felt in the restroom?

mothra 
 
    
 
imagine
Registered User


Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 41
Location: Kenner Louisiana
  Posted: Aug 16, 2003 - 01:39 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rusty,
Comverse. Amdocs hanevt heard of either ( before all this). The cell industry has its own switches, so if i call you and we are both on a cell, it never has to go to the Bell Comapanies, or travel through any landine system. The billing records for the cell system are kept in the switch of that cell system, they do not go to Isreal.
I do remembvre reading a article on exactly what you are talking about, but with cells , it stays local. ( as soon as the call leaves the cell system, ie: get routed to a landline, it becomes open to the public system)
I cannot say for sure about a low altitude call at 500 mph, but it sounds unlikely that it would last for more than a few seconds, but this stuff ( Radio Freq Engineering) is not written is stone, it would depend on a lot of things, what service he had, where the towers are in that area, types of antennas..............

beow is what i have on Felt, i guess it leaves room for an airphone, but just as in the Olson case, if you are in the bathroom, you cant use an Airphone.
Investigators believe Edward Felt may have been in a group of passengers who were herded into the rear of the plane near the bathrooms. From there, at 9:58 a.m., he called 911 on his cell phone and reached an operator in Westmoreland County.
Shaw spoke to Edward Felt for one minute and 10 seconds, learning that he'd locked himself in the bathroom to make the call.

"He was crying...frightened, scared and anxious," said Shaw, who remained on the line until the signal was lost.
At 10:06 a.m., the plane traveling 575 miles an hour dove nose-first into the ground.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031204173441/http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/pa ... teid=50143
At 9.58am a 911 call - the last mobile phone contact from Flight 93 - was made from one of the airliner's toilets by passenger Edward Felt.

Does anyone have anything confirming CeeCee or Thomas E. Burnett were not on cell phones ? I have both of them using cells as well.

Brad
 
 
   
 
RustyNails
Registered User


Joined: Jun 18, 2003
Posts: 33
Location: USA
  Posted: Aug 16, 2003 - 03:11 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
imagine wrote:
Comverse. Amdocs hanevt heard of either ( before all this). The cell industry has its own switches, so if i call you and we are both on a cell, it never has to go to the Bell Comapanies, or travel through any landine system. The billing records for the cell system are kept in the switch of that cell system, they do not go to Isreal.
 


Brad,
Is it possible that the cell switches have a back door like the Comverse central office equipment, thus enabling the easy tapping capability? It seems to me that the companies that build this equipment would be under pressure from the Justice Department and the like to provide this capability, perhaps on the QT.

FYI, besides the easy tapping capability, the other aspect of the Comverse / Amdocs scandal was the tremendous capability that having all American, landline at least, billing records going to Israel gave certain interested parties  to follow persons of interest and make associations based upon the frequency of calls between certain people. This aspect was raised in relation to the Israeli claim of having been closely tracking the Al CIAdians ... um Qaidians, yet if they were doing it very, vey closely, then they should have known the 9/11 details and such. They claimed they didn't reveal 9/11 operational details because they wanted to protect their sources and methods. Nice priorities, and how convenient.

Because they should have been able to tap any land line calls of the alleged hijackers, much less having all the billing records, combined with allegations that the most accomplished intelligence service(s) in the world is claimed to have penetrated the perhaps mythical Al Qaida, perhaps all the above is just a charade to cover the possibility that the persons claimed to be Saudis hijackers were in reality Semitic Jews, as opposed to Ashkenazi European non-Semitic Jews (for appearance sake).

And I remember that Israeli intelligence operatives were discovered living on the same streets as some of the alleged hijackers, just a block or two away. I think may have been some of the Israeli 'art students' that were deported after entering sensitive government facilities trying to 'hawk' art works, but maybe they were other people.

So far, the only country that has benefitted from 9/11 is Israel, although I strongly suspect that the Ashkenazi people are being setup again as sacrificial scapegoats (ala WWII) for the benefit of the larger cabal in the next phase of this drama.

Rusty
 
 
  
 
imagine
Registered User


Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 41
Location: Kenner Louisiana
  Posted: Aug 16, 2003 - 05:06 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel, Novatel,Lucent, are a few of the bigger vendors of switches i know of. A backdoor is always POSSIBLE, but i remember the old days you would need a court order to get this info, with the patriot act, i dont know anymore, i am not in the loop in this indusrty for the last year or two. It si possible that there is a direct line from the local switch to the Vendor, but then the vendor would need to be implicated.

One thing that has bothered me, is whats called E-911. It is a Gov ruling to make sure that if someone calls 911 from a cell, you can determine their position ( i think within 100ft or so).You would still need a direct line into the switch or the FBI to request the info. A direct line into the switch still needs a password, and knowlege of the switch manger, and probabally senior engineer.

E-911
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204173441/http://www.sss-mag.com/e911.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204173441/http://www.fcc.gov/911/enhanced/

Another thing that has bothered me, is that if there were to be a coverup in Pennsylvania, who has to know about it, the Govenor maybe ?
So is it a complete coincidence that Tom Ridge is now Director of Homeland Security?

Brad
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204173441/http://www.geocities.com/RF_man_cdma/
(my site) 
 
 
   
 
mothra
Registered User


Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 10

  Posted: Aug 16, 2003 - 05:55 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
imagine wrote:

One thing that has bothered me, is whats called E-911. It is a Gov ruling to make sure that if someone calls 911 from a cell, you can determine their position ( i think within 100ft or so).You would still need a direct line into the switch or the FBI to request the info. A direct line into the switch still needs a password, and knowlege of the switch manger, and probabally senior engineer.

E-911
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204173441/http://www.sss-mag.com/e911.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204173441/http://www.fcc.gov/911/enhanced/

 


For argument's sake I will assume the airliner was flying low enough for Felt's call to 911 to get through. Would that fix the airliner's position at that moment? The call lasted 78 seconds. From the background alarms we infer that the plane was in excess of 500 mph airspeed. The plane travelled about 10 miles during the call -- assuming straight flight. It crashed 2? 3? (16-24 miles from the end of the call). Can this pinpoint the cell that caught Felt's call and would this cell have turfed the call over to the dispatcher who reportedly handled it?

mothra
 
 
  
 
RustyNails
Registered User


Joined: Jun 18, 2003
Posts: 33
Location: USA
  Posted: Aug 16, 2003 - 06:26 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad,

Aren't all the newer cell switches TCP/IP enabled, conceivably allowing backdoor access from most anywhere and thereby allowing bypass of the vendor to anyone with the proper 'key'? I think this may have been the original leak for discovery regarding the landline systems was discussion over the so-called remote maintenance backdoors. If the maintenance personnel can snoop around, then the spooks can as well.

From readng your SSS link, it seems that being able to narrow down the cell would be possible under the Phase 1 E-911 implementation program, assuming of course all the other conditions are in place as Mothra discusses.

Rusty
 
 
  
 
imagine
Registered User


Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 41
Location: Kenner Louisiana
  Posted: Aug 16, 2003 - 09:58 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was already a problem with a disgruntled worker who was laid off from Nortel, who still had a password, but you still need a password!
Narrowing down the cell is no prob, even without E-911, the info on which cell was used is stored in the switch, and backups are made ( for billing and FCC purposes) i think they keep records for 3-5yrs, cant remember foir sure, but to track an individual call, shouldnt be a prob to find out what cell it originated from, the other cells it talked to, and even a conclusion as to approximate speed. All you need is a the access to the records, any ideas on how to get that ? It could prove/disprove all of the cell calls. The owner of the phone ( or in this case family members) can get some call info ( as to what time the calls were made, and what numbers) buit not all of the switch info, that would have to come from the FBI, Congress ???
Brad
 
 
   
 
imagine
Registered User


Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 41
Location: Kenner Louisiana
  Posted: Aug 16, 2003 - 10:57 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYI, I just posted some info on the Pentagon workers in a new topic line at....

http://web.archive.org/web/20031204173441/http://physics911.org/index.php?name=PN ... &p=133#133

Brad
 
 
   
 
mothra
Registered User


Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 10

  Posted: Aug 24, 2003 - 09:09 PM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The airphones would have to be turned off, either throughout the flight or before the festivities began. It would not do for passengers to be burbling about what a great flight it was at the very moment they were supposed to be hijacked. If the planes were under remote control, and no hijackers in evidence, the flights may have seemed to be taking the scenic route. There would be no fear and that would have been reflected in passenger calls that actually got through. For the same reason the conspirators would not want people using their cell phones, but they could trust physics to keep the cell phones inoperative. Either the aircraft were too high to for the calls to connect, or if low enough, they were going too fast for the handshaking.

This means that Lisa Patterson, the GTE supervisor who told Lisa Beamer about Todd's last call, had to be totally bogus.

So many early reports specified use of cell phones rather than airphones. Perhaps the conspirators ( at least the PR guys )slipped here, because they knew there would be no airphone records, so they said the communications came via cell phone.

mothra
 
 
  
 
imagine
Registered User


Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 41
Location: Kenner Louisiana
  Posted: Sep 13, 2003 - 03:49 AM   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well i did some testing myself. I came in from New Orleans to Houston, Houston to Pheonix, then from Pheonix to Burbank Ca.
I didnt try too many calls, i didnt want to appear suspicious, but i did keep sn eye on my signsl strength.
after 2-3 mins from takeoff in New Orleans, i lost signal. I realized that i was flying over Norco, and industrial area, very small surrounded by swamp, i know the area well. Then passing over a larger city, i regained service for 3-5 seconds, then out again. not long enough for the phone to even place a call at all. Then coming into Houston i got signal a few mins before alnding. Virtually the same happened from Houston to Pheonix, and from Pheonix to Burbank. Only a few times did i have service at all except for the last 2-3 mins of the flights. in those times, service lasted only a few seconds sometimes 15-20, but the signal strength was very bad.

I also went into the bathroom and locked the door on descent ( when i shsould have been in my seat with the seatbelt on.)
I had NO SVC in the bathroom at all times, but when i came out my signal strength went up to 2-3 bars, we were flying lower and about to land.
I realized that these flights are long, and only when about to land
(slowing down and much lower) did it work at all. in flights lasting 45 mins to 2 hrs, only 4-8 mins of usable service was there.
The other big point i found was that traveling over desert, no population there was NO SVC at all.

The thing it seems to me to concentrate on is where flt 93 was? this is somewhat unknown now, the projection of what the plane did is very suspect.
Where it flew( what cities it flew over, the flight path over populated areas) and the altitude and speed will be key aspects of determining any possiblilities fo these calls happening.
anyone up to some research ???
Brad

______________________

See also Part 1 of this discussion.

 
Article Rated: 0.00 (0 votes)
Rate this Article
Return to Category | Return To Main Index
 
Physics911.org




Physics911.org - FOCUS
Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt Sections of the WTC

Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite
to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns

by D. P. Grimmer

Version 1.0, November 23rd 2003

Abstract

Anomalies involving the collapse of WTC buildings on 9-11 are discussed from the perspective of possible controlled demolition implosion rather than of aircraft impact and fuel-fire damage. Considered is the possible use of thermite to melt sections of the columns of the WTC towers inner cores, thus aiding in their collapse. This paper will discuss the structure of the WTC core columns, and estimate the mass of metal to be melted; calculate the sensible and latent heat energy needed for melting this mass; discuss the nature and specific energies of the thermite reaction; estimate the mass and volume of thermite necessary to provide the energies for melting; and discuss the possible locations where such thermite could be placed to cause melting, both internal and external to a core column.

Read more...
0 comments | write comment


 
Visit the Physics911.org Home Page Physics911.org - Applying Science to Uncover the Truth The Missing Wings at the Pentagon 'Crash' Scene
Main Menu

Physics911.org
  Home Page
  Privacy Policy
  S.P.I.N.E.
  Help Us
  Link to Us

Main Articles
9/11 Scenarios
  Operation Pearl
  Evidence of Complicity
  Jihad - or Black Op?

Pentagon Attack
  The Missing Wings
  Pentagon Physics

WTC Attack
  Collapse of WTC 7
  WTC Dust Cloud
  Themite Demolition?

9/11 Achilles Heel?
   Cell Phones & 9/11

Other Resources
   Calendar
   Downloads
   Photo Gallery
   Reference Articles
   Web Links
   Weblog

Search this site
Login
Username:

Password:


Lost Password?

Register now!
Featured Event
Next Listed Event
18th Dec am9:00--
Meetup Day
Photo Album


Recent Photos
   9/11 Visibility Ac... (2003/11/20)
   None so blind as..... (2003/11/14)
   Pentagon Attack Af... (2003/11/5)
   Satellite Image of... (2003/10/28)
   Columns pushed out (2003/10/23)
   The Project Achill... (2003/10/21)
   The North Tower�... (2003/10/16)
   Pentagon Montage (2003/10/16)
   Pentagon Fireball (2003/10/16)
   Scale drawing of a... (2003/10/16)
Please Donate!
Recommend Us!
Contact Us!
Physics911.org
Weblog - Most recent entries
Syndicate weBLogs Syndicate weBLogs

25th November 2003
Introducing two new articles on Physics911.org

Dr Walter Davis of Kent State University has contributed an omportant new paper: September 11th and the Bush Administration: Compelling Evidence for Complicity

Complementary to September 11 - Islamic Jihad or another Northwoods? by Dr Tim Howell, also published on this website, it also takes a broad approach to analysing what occurred on 9/11 and who is most likely to be responsible for the crime.

Dr Davis writes:

Quote:
Why 9/11 was not prevented is one of the most critical questions in current times, because answers may well reveal to more people than ever before, the true nature of the U.S. corporate global empire the most extensive and most destructive in human history. Newspapers across the U.S. called for an investigation into Bush's lies about the reason for war on Iraq. While it is relatively easy for the American people to accept deception for the killing of the Arab people in distant lands, few people will be as accepting if it is shown that this Administration was complicit in acts of atrocities against its own people.

The evidence I present in this article suggests that the most plausible explanation of the events surrounding September 11, 2001, is that the Bush Administration was complicit in the terrorist attacks and has orchestrated its cover-up. The sources cited contain extensive detailed information, additional sources, and analysis beyond what is possible to provide in this summary. I hope that this information will incite public outrage leading to full accountability.


Dr Davis demands accountability from Government - and from the Mass Media, which has played such a central role in the 9/11 affair.

Quote:
questions must be asked as to why no one in any of the government agencies has been held accountable, and why journalists and others in the mass media are not held responsible for the cover-up, deception and lack of investigative reporting.



Well argued, extensively referenced, persuasive yet measured in tone, one wonders why articles such as this have been entirely absent from the New York Times and Washington Post?

WTC Collapse Triggered by Thermite Reaction?

Also likely to remain unavailable via the mainstream media for some time to come is Dr Derrick Grimmers Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns

In fairness, parts of this paper are rather technical. Perhaps mainstream scientific journals will re-publish it?

Dr Grimmer, a founding member of SPINE, presents a lucid analysis of what is sound, and what is not, in the case that controlled demolition brought down the three striken WTC towers on 9/11.

He then applies physical and mathematical analysis to demonstrate the feasibility of one controlled demolition scenario: use of a thermite reaction to generate extreme temperatures and cripple the steel support. This technology is well-understood (no micro-nukes or other exotica required!).

Dr Grimmer shows it could have been deployed to collapse the towers in the manner observed.

Dr Grimmer concludes:

Quote:
It is pure speculation if, how, and when this was done. The columns would have been most easily filled during the initial construction phase, but this requires belief in a foresight and 30-40 year "master plan" that may be difficult for many to think possible. (Many buildings are constructed with ultimate demolition in the design, to make way for future construction in urban areas. Usually, the building design includes cavities for controlled demolition explosive placement. The non-availability of WTC tower blueprints makes it difficult to access this possibility).

However, there have been undoubtedly a number of opportunities under the guise of maintenance: many stories exist about problems with the "insulation" adhering to the steel support structures of the WTC towers. Also, the first attack on the WTC towers in 1993, in the basement of the complex, offered an opportunity for access and "repair" to demolition experts and construction personnel. Thermite is a relatively safe compound, requiring high temperature to initiate reaction - a magnesium fuse is commonly used. We will probably never know exactly what sequence of events unfolded to culminate in the WTC collapses of 11 September 2001.


Did Osama Bin Laden hire the contractors who carried out repairs to the WTC in 1993?

It needs to be investigated.

Robert Friedmans astonishing article Mossad Linked To WTC Bomb Suspect, published in the Village Voice more than a decade ago but never followed up, should also be retrieved from the memory hole.

If we really want the truth, we must follow the evidence trail, wherever it leads.

In the post-9/11 world, more and more people are beginning to realise that understanding contemporary global politics and the process by which political beliefs are moulded is crucial to our collective well-being and survival.

We leave these to politicians and the mass media at our peril.

If we want to re-establish ethics in world affairs, we need to smarten up, fast. We must do better than the generation which preceded us, for all its many qualities.

Heaven forbid that we permit the 9/11 crimes against humanity to remain unsolved for 40 years.

Four years would be too many.
Read webmaster's weBLog | webmaster, 8:16 pm (0 comments | 141 reads)
12th November 2003
Announcing September 11 - Islamic Jihad or another Northwoods?, a new article featured on the Physics911.org website by S.P.I.N.E. member Tim Howells.

The article has already provoked some interesting correspondence.
A reader emailed to say:

Quote:
Was very surprised to see you posting and giving prominent coverage on your website to an article, "September 11 - Islamic Jihad or another Northwoods?",
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204120359/http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18,
which clearly fits into theory # 2 of the three theories you so eloquently
laid out in what I assumed
to be your web page's mission, "Brief Overview of 9/11 Theories", at
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204120359/http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5,
But I thought your website was supposed to be all about theory #3?

"Physics911.org - where we fit in:
Physics911.org is a website created by a team of independent investigators who have come to hold this third and explosive view of the 9/11 enigma."

So, why post this article, all about theory #2, which never uses the words "alleged" and "hijacking" together, and instead speaks of the hijacking scenario as established fact?

I don't get it. What gives?


My response:

Quote:
... I think your email points to the need for Physics911.org to develop a more explicit 'publication policy'. At present it's rather ad hoc.

Heres a few comments on your very welcome email:

1/ Determining content is a juggling act, and I'm not pretending to have it right. It's therefore useful to get feedback, such as yours.

2/ My reading of Tim's article is not that it's a defence of the LIHOP ([they] Let It Happen On Purpose) theory. I don't think he gets into that.

The main burden of his article, as I see it, is to review the implausibility of the official story about the 'hijackers' (I agree that he should say 'alleged', at least once!) and beyond that, to establish, by historical precedent, that such a colossal and violent fraud is possible - and in this case probable.

3/ Please comment directly to the article! Vigorous debate on the site on this issue would be great! The author himself is keen to get feedback.

4/ Personally, I think Tim overdoes the Rowley story (I must tell him!) I think she's part of the 'official story' smoke and mirrors... That's how you get to be so famous and win Time Magazine prizes. And the bulk of her story DOES support the LIHOP angle. I'm more concerned about the 'under-played' whistleblower Sybil Edmonds, who these days appears to reside only down the memory hole: see http://web.archive.org/web/20031204120359/http://www.thememoryhole.org/spy/edmonds.htm
and
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204120359/http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A7829-2002Jun18

I'll cc this to Tim - I think he'd be interested in the feedback.


Tim Howells reply helped clarify his position:

Quote:
> 2/ My reading of Tim's article is not that it's a defence of the LIHOP
> theory. I don't think he gets into that.

Actually the article does state my own theory, which is that the alleged hijackers (I agree this is the correct phrase) were US government agents. I point out that they were trained at secure military installations inside the US, and that al Qaeda and Bin Laden are mere creations of the CIA themselves. I also point out several notorious cases (Northwoods, Gladio, the Lavon Affair etc) in which the US or Israeli government have used infiltrators to create provocations similar to September 11 in that they can be used to justify highly aggressive miltiary action or to discredit the opposition as a legitimate political organization. So I do not accept the LIHOP theory, I think that the attacks of September 11 were planned and implemented by elements of the US and Israeli governments.

If you reread my article, you will see that this is what I say.

> The main burden of his article, as I see it, is to review the implausibility
> of the official story about the 'hijackers' (I agree that he should say
> 'alleged', at least once!) and beyond that, to establish, by historical
> precedent, that such a colossal and violent fraud is possible - and in this
> case probable.

Agreed.

> 4/ Personally, I think Tim overdoes the Rowley story (I must tell
> him!) I think her role may be part of the 'official story' smoke and mirrors... That's
> how you get to be so famous and win Time Magazine prizes. The bulk of
> her story DOES support the LIHOP angle.

What the Rowley story tells us is that high level government officials intervened and stopped investigations that would have exposed the September 11 operations before they could have been carried out. This is consistent either with LIHOP or actual US complicity. Again I favor the latter.

In my opinion even LIHOP is far too damaging to qualify as a limited hangout. After all this amounts to actual complicity in mass murder - enabling it to happen (even passively) is just as bad as pulling the trigger in the eyes of the law. But again, I do not favor LIHOP myself. I think that elements of our own government planned and implemented the attacks.

Re the "hijackers", I'm agnostic on that one. I don't get
into this in the article, because I don't think it matters
really whether the hijackings actually occurred (but were a deliberate provocation engineered by our own government), or were entirely faked, and did not occur at all. Either way the political implications are exactly the same. My working hypothesis is that the hijackings did occur, but that the hijackers were acting as agents for a US intelligence agency, and expected that the planes would be flown by remote control to a safe location, where they could eventually "escape". They understood that the government wanted to use the "hijackings" for political purposes. However, once
the airplanes went on remote control, we all know what
actually happened. At the moment this seems the most
plausible explanation to me, but I'm open to persuasion.

> I'm more concerned about the 'under-played' whistleblower
> Sybil Edmonds, who these days appears to reside only down
> the memory hole: see

> http://web.archive.org/web/20031204120359/http://www.thememoryhole.org/spy/edmonds.htm
> and
>
http://web.archive.org/web/20031204120359/http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A7829-2002Jun18

Thanks for those pointers - I had not seen these before - I'll have to study them carefully.


_____________________________


Also recently published on Physics911.org is a fascinating extract from Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11 by Chaim Kupferberg.

Dr Kupferbergs article is well worth reading in full. The original is available at the Global Reasearch website: http://web.archive.org/web/20031204120359/http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP311A.html

Kupferberg refers to the Official Legend of 9/11, and claims it is bogus. His account of the problems with the official story overlaps and complements Howells - and is consistent with the 'radical' perspective on 9/11 as defined in Brief Overview of 9/11 Theories on this website. He is a 'Black Op', trathern than LIHOP, exponent.

Kupferberg also goes to some length to argue that Israeli interests and the US-based neocons- are themselves being set-up by the real perpetrators. In that respect, he claims, they are equivalent to other, more obvious 9/11 scapegoats such as Saudi Arabia.

It is an interesting theory which may grow in popularity as the wheels fall off the official 9/11 version. Certainly there was something curious about the way the mainstream media very occasionally, but without systematic follow-up, reported extraordinary indications of Israeli covert interference in US politics and communications.

Carl Cameron's Israeli spy-ring story on US Fox News in December 2001 is the quintessential example. Fox is not noted for crusading journalism critical of Israel, to say the least Yet the Cameron 4-part series was so explosive the 'internet inderground' has been boggling with amazement ever since.

Are Israel and Jews in general being unfairly set-up as 9/11 scapegoats, as Kupferberg claims? Or were at least some Zionists key perpetrators?

Kupferberg's contribution to this important debate is carefully argued and merits a careful reading.

His term Official Legend deserves to enter the vernacular. Nicely put.

This "legend", of course, is alive and kicking.

For instance, Reuters report on the latest bombing attacks in Saudi Arabia states: Saudi Arabia has been under pressure to act against al Qaeda since the attacks on U.S. cities on September 11, 2001. Most of the attackers were Saudis and al Qaeda is widely held responsible.

How curious that the Saudi Arabian Government continues to lend support to the 9/11 Official Legend, when it is so clearly and fundamentally open to question.
Read webmaster's weBLog | webmaster, 8:54 am (0 comments | 265 reads)
24th October 2003
Read the latest update (Version 3) of Jim Hoffman's The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center.


Page counts next to article headings seem to be inaccurate, the figures way too low. We're checking why.

According to our stats, Physics911.org received well over 20,000 unique visits on its first two full days: 21st and 22nd October.

Thanks to those of you who've registered, posted comments and corresponded and to sites which have linked to Physics911.org. Thanks also if you've posted references on bulletin boards and newsgroups or recommended the site to friends.



Physics911.org's first poll has attracted only a little interest, possibly because our well-informed visitors are sceptical about electronic democracy.

Nevertheless, early trends are apparent.

At the time of writing, 3% believes the "official story" about 9/11 is "broadly accurate" Almost nine out of ten voters think it's bogus.

Good news for the Bush Administration is that opinion may be moving its way. Only yesterday, "true believers" were down to 2%.


What Really Happened continues its curious and unilaterial campaign against an open-minded investigation of the Pentagon attack.

Here's an item from yesterday's WRH homepage:

Quote:
10/23/03 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SECRET PROBE OF STOCK DEALINGS BEFORE 9/11.

This is an illustration of just WHY the spooks created the "plane did not hit the Pentagon" spoof, so they can lump it in with articles like this to make the whole shebang look foolish; Intelligence services call this technique "poisoning the well", to contaminate a serious asking of questions with something so absurd that the entire subject can be dismissed out of hand. Watch and judge for yourself. Every time a serious analysis about the official story comes out, count on the spooks to rush in with links to the various pages claiming a passenger jet did not really hit the Pentagon.


Hmmm.

Just for the record, Physics911.org is not averse to covering the 'insider trading' trading aspect of the 9/11 story. Whether the interesting reference cited by WRH above is accurate, we cannot say. Incidentally, the story was first published six months ago, and thus provides WRH with the poorest of examples to make a case that "Every time a serious analysis about the official story comes out, count on the spooks to rush in with links to the various pages claiming a passenger jet did not really hit the Pentagon."

Intelligence agencies may indeed be "poisoning the well" in the 9/11 debate. It would be surprising if they weren't.

Our task - and the task of every honest citizen with an interest in this topic - is to make raional decisions about what's fakery and what's not.

We happen to believe that discussion and debate - rational, open and if possible, courteous - are the best tools available to help us all make well-informed decisions.

WRH cannot apparently find the time to reply to our email. Yet it publishes unsubstantiated, poorly-argued commentary like this in its letters column (Oct. 21st):

Quote:
Un-named correspondent Mike, I think physics911.org is screwing up bigtime

Dewdney is now dropping his accurate "Ghost Riders in the Sky" scenario for one that is pretty ridiculous, to allow for the plane not hitting the Pentagon. I almost thought this was a disinfo site at first until I realized the guy that came up with the truth also has come up with this new farfetched scenario. Right out of the box, if all passengers had blown up over PA, there would have been a lot more body parts.

I think his earlier "Ghost" scenario was the accurate one.

Mike Rivero: Yes, the more I look at their site the more it looks like junk to me. I think I am going to pull the links.


C'mon, Mike, your readers deserve better than that.

Don't they visit WRH to get away from the Alice-in-Wonderland world where conclusions precede evidence and sentencing pre-dates trial?

Aren't they trying to correct for the unexplained and unjustifiable avoidance of taboo topics in the mainstream media?

Like Galileo's telescope, The Missing Wings may upset preconceived ideas - but surely it can't hurt to take a look?
Read webmaster's weBLog | webmaster, 6:37 am (0 comments | 406 reads)
21st October 2003
Edited by Mike Rivero, the website What Really Happened has become, over the last couple of years, a popular and often useful daily source of information for web users seeking a non-mainstream, critical view on US and world politics.

Unlike the mainstream media, WRH has consistently given coverage, in the form of annotated hyperlinks from its constantly-evolving home page, to stories about 9/11 and other possible high-level conspiracies.

For instance, last year, What Really Happened linked to A.K. Dewdney's Ghost Riders in the Sky. This was Dewdney's first published hypothesis about 9/11. In Ghost Riders, Dewdney hypothesized that the four planes on 9/11 had been taken over by remote control - then flown into the WTC and Pentagon.

Ghost Riders went through four versions, but the series was finally discontinued by Dewdney in early 2003, when he concluded his first hypothesis had been mistaken in a number of fundamental ways.

Operation Pearl, published in this website, has been 're-branded' because it proposes a significantly different theory from Ghost Riders. Among other things, Dewdney now theorizes that the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were not carried out by the same planes which took off from Boston and Washington that fateful morning. Read Operation Pearl for the fuller story.

Dewdney is a scientist, yet Operation Pearl is a more complicated hypothesis than the earlier Ghost Riders. Scientists have a well-known preference for theoretical simplicity. Complexity is to be explained, not needlessly invested...

Why then did Dewdney change his view to make the plot even more complex - and apparently far-fetched?

The answer, simply, is because the evidence points in that direction.

Dewdney's approach to investigating 9/11 is to consider the data, develop hypotheses which best fit the facts - then present hypotheses in a clear, well-referenced manner. Comment on published material is invited and constructive debate welcomed. In some cases, feedback leads to refinement of hypotheses - or their abandonment.

Its the scientific method.

Disappointing, therefore, that following the launch of Physics911.org a day ago, the homepage of What Really Happened has sported the following comment and link:

Quote:
The Pentagon Plane
Government disinformationalists are still trying to crank up this ludicrous story that a passenger jet did not actually hit the Pentagon. The purpose is twofold, to make critics of the official story look silly, and to waste everyone's time in a pointless argument that serves only to distract from the fact that We The People have never been told the truth about 9-11. Those who are pushing this lemon on the public cannot answer a few simple questions. If the passenger jet didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go? And if the plane and passengers had to be made to vanish anyway, why NOT crash them into the Pentagon? Why risk faking it, only to have to go to the trouble of "disappearing" the plane and passengers later on? Hundreds of witnesses saw the plane flying towards the Pentagon. Where are the hundreds who saw it flying away? Following a loud "bang", wouldn't MORE people be looking up in the sky? Logically, MORE people would see the passenger jet fly away from the Pentagon than towards it. Where are they?


This short warning did not mentioned Physics911.org specifically - and did not link to Physics011.org - but it seems clear this assault is lobbed in our direction.

A short response

Mike and his colleagues at WRH are entitled to believe what they like - and to link with other sites and web-pages as they see fit. It's wise for us all to be cautious about the bona fides of all protagonists in this debate. If we 9/11 skeptics are right, there must certainly be dark forces at play. Mike has it wrong if he thinks Physics911.org is organized by 'Government Disinformation agents', but we're all wise to be on our guard.

There's little point in a tit-for-tat exchange about who is - and is not - promulgating disinformation.

Readers can better judge for themselves who is honest by reviewing the data itself - and the analytic approaches of protagonists in this debate.

We invite you to visit WHR. We do it regularly. The link isHERE, for those who missed it higher up this page.

Why won't WRH link to Physics911.org?

We invite comment from our visitors. If anyone writes well-referenced and clearly-argued rebuttals of article on this site, we'll publish them. We welcome debate. We want to get at the truth - and don't believe we have a monopoly of it.

Why won't What Really Happened join the debate over The Pentagon Wings?

Below is the correspondence between this site and WHR over the latest day. At the time of writing, we have yet to receive a reply from Mike Rivero.

Whos approach do you think is more rational and open-minded?

Quote:
Dear Mike

Thanks for your two emails

I realize that you wish to protect the credibility of your site by confining links to news stories and commentary you can imagine are correct.

It may interest you to know that Dr Dewdney, the author of 'Operation Pearl' and co-author of 'The Missing Wings', also took the view that the strike on the Pentagon was caused by a Boeing during his initial work on the 9/11 story - see 'Ghost Riders in the Sky' at http://web.archive.org/web/20031204120359/http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/index.html

However, examination of the evidence has led Dewdney and others to revise their views, as per 'The Missing Wings'.

Their work, and the site physics911.org as a whole, is presented in the genuine scientific spirit that we examine best evidence available at any given time, develop hypotheses from the data, and present those hypotheses in a clear and well-referenced fashion. If someone can demonstrate the material is incorrect - great! They have the opportunity to do so on the site - in fact it's been set up to help foster rational debate.

Personally, I'd like someone to convince me, through rational argument, that I've been mistaken about 9/11 and that the US Government has been telling the truth all along.

A much nicer world to believe in... if only I could...

Anyhow, I hope that clarifies what Physics911.org is about - and the spirit of unprejudiced, open investigation we care trying to pursue.

Phsyics911.org links to WRH in any case, as it's an excellent daily source of info. (Editors opinion )

All the best

Sid Walker
Webmaster, Physics911.org

____________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Rivero
To: 'Webmaster'
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 4:36 AM
Subject: RE: Launch of two new 9/11 features - and new 9/11 website (Physics911.org)


http://web.archive.org/web/20031204120359/http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3 - The Missing Wings

On reflection, I cannot link to the above as I do not agree with this silly idea that a passnger jet did not hit the Penatgon.


So, you believe The Missing Wings is too silly to merit allowing readers to judge for themselves Mike?

Please explain.

We think you owe it to your readers, who visit WRH because they're looking for the truth.
Read webmaster's weBLog | webmaster, 8:58 pm (0 comments | 589 reads)
20th October 2003
Physics911.org is launched!

The site presents the work of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE). It features well-argued original articles, focusing on the physics and mechanics of the 9/11 crimes, as well as reference material and some additional interactive tools for registered users.

Physics911.org joins the growing community of websites which openly challenge the official version of events regarding 9/11.

SPINE consists of scientists and engineers who have been analyzing the events of September 11, 2001 with a view to developing further information about the alleged terror attacks.

With very few exceptions, the findings of the Panel point to massive deception by the Bush White House and official organs of the US military organization.
Read webmaster's weBLog | webmaster, 4:53 pm (0 comments | 279 reads)

Physics911.org



Up to date news on Sept 11th investigation.
Physics911 Blogspot
(my weblog)
Visit my New WEBLOG !

Old archived logs here    here   and here


Batcave911 homepage
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/bradm/911index/index.html