cell phone quickie

by **ZeroHaven** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 9:29 pm

My mom just reminded me of the fact that we have both been witnesses to people using personal cell phones on international flights - literally on both sides of the Atlantic. My passport confirms I saw it in 2000. It was memorable because most folks are told to turn electronics off, so the rule-breakers try to hide while using them and end up looking silly. Anyone know why all those 9/11 theories are saying it's physically impossible for those last-minute calls to have been made? I mean, other than just to support their own theories. <img src="http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ZeroHaven/tinhat.gif"/>

by **Starman** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:41 pm

Heyia Zero Haven; Interesting question and observation. I don't know what's up with your experience of seeing cell-phones working in-flight. The following articles explain the basics and show why the types of calls made and their duration (up to 13 minutes) are highly improbably if not impossible -- although a possible caveat may be the older phone's capability for both digital and analog mode, increasing odds of successful 911 (emergency) calls. But then, many of the calls made were person-to-person, and NOT using the in-flight Airphone option. So, I don't know what the explanation is. I always thought the 'obvious' problem of cell-phone technical difficulty would have likely been known by those who executed the 911 hijackings, which IMHO was done via remote-control and NOT by ill-trained hijackers (whose flying expertise was notoriously deficient). These questions will be asked for the next 50 years I bet, unless there's an actual and genuine Truth and Reconciliation to bring all these questions to the light of day. Starman **** <a href="http://www.global-conspiracies.com/911_cell_phone_calls_were_impossible.htm">www.global-conspiracies.c...ssible.htm</a> *** <a href="http://www.911dossier.co.uk/hj08.html">www.911dossier.co.uk/hj08.html</a> 'Project Achilles' Report Part Two - February 25th 2003 911dossier notes: We first wondered about the mobile phone calls allegedly made by the 911 victims when we noticed that the first one came form Bush Junta cheerleader Barbara Olsen who apparently was on the plane which hit the Pentagon. It later emerged that Olsen's call was on an airphone and was supposedly made collect (an apparent impossibility). Then we heard serial liar Tony Blair citing the calls as evidence, which made us more suspicious. Now emeritus Canadian mathematics Prof Dewdney has doubted the veracity of the story and actually taken a plane up to test it. The result: calls are virtually impossible over 7,000 feet. Here we have copied his experimental results, this reference is for his backup article where he discusses the general issues: However, on the anniversary of 911, Granada TV carried an impressive docudrama based on the calls, produced by Chris Oxley. So far (8.03) Oxley has failed to return our calls, but a researcher told us the team had been aware it was being said that mobile phone calls were impossible, but had chosen not to investigate the question. Item One - 911 dossier correspondent says he has tried, and reception failed at 2,000 feet Item Two - Professor Dewdney presents his research Item Three - Strange as it seems, with digital technology the mobile calls could have been faked. Note that later in the article the writer claims the US military had no interest in the voice cloning system. This is not credible - they would at least want to know if their enemies could do it - and points to the likelihood that they do indeed use it. The most well-known call was made to a phone operator unfamiliar with the caller, others were far shorter. It would be interesting to know if any of the presumed callers were booked onto the flights at short notice. ** Item One From Our Own Correspondent I tried the cell phones again on a couple of recent trips on the East Coast. One loses the reception at around 2000 feet and don't regain it probably until the plane is lower than 1500 during the approach for landing because the antenna is probably looking for a fix. Whereas during the take off it is losing contact with the land based antennas. 2000 feet is pretty low for a jumbo who would normally be at such low heights in the last phases of landing. Only single engine, light planes fly at that altitude at a speed of 100-120 miles per hour. For a Jumbo flying at 400 miles an hour to lower itself to such altitude would be very precarious and need expert (and probably calm pilots) and not a typical panic situation that they must have found themselves in. A jumbo travelling at 400 miles an hour will cover 2000 feet every 3.4 seconds. It would be impossible for it to keep at such low heights for a long period of time. Some of the calls were purportedly long and apparently there were many calls from different passengers. Also the reception, if any, even at that height (in the middle of hilly and sparsely populated Pennsylvania) would be terrible. This was never reported and the calls seemed to have come loud and clear. ** Item Two 'Project Achilles' Report [ Original page source: <a href="http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/project_achilles_report_2_030225.html">feralnews.com/issues/911/...30225.html</a> ] Equipment: Diamond Katana four-seater (Empire Aviation) cellphones: C1, C2, C3, C4 (See appendix for descriptions.) Personnel: Corey Barrington (pilot) Darren Spicknell (operator - technician for Wireless Concepts, Inc) Kee Dewdney (director) Pat Dewdney (ground recorder) Weather: unlimited ceiling, light scattered cloud at 3,000 and 25,000 feet, visibility 15 miles, wind 5 knots from NW, air temperature -12 C. For this experiment, we flew a circular route, instead of the elongated oval. The circle centred on the downtown core and took us over most of the city suburbs. All locations below are referred to the city centre and are always about three miles distant from it. Protocol: At times specified by the director, the operator made a call to a specified number, stating the code number of the cellphone (1 to 4) and the altitude. The receiver recorded whatever was heard and the time the call was received. At the first three altitudes of 2000, 4000, and 6000 feet abga each cellphone was used once. At 8000 feet abga, only C2 and C3 were tried, C1 and C4 now being hors de combat. Results with timeline: (see url cited for data results) Conclusions: To the extent that the cellphones used in this experiment represent types in general use, it may be concluded that from this particular type of aircraft, cellphones become useless very quickly with increasing altitude. In particular, two of the cellphone types, the Mike and the Nokia, became useless above 2000 feet. Of the remaining two, the Audiovox worked intermittently up to 6000 feet but failed thereafter, while the BM analog cellphone worked once just over 7000 feet but failed consistently thereafter. We therefore conclude that ordinary cellphones, digital or analog, will fail to get through at or above 8000 feet abga. It should be noted that several of the calls rated here as "successes" were difficult for the Recorder to hear, witness description such as "breaking up" or "buzzy." Summary table altitude (in feet) calls tried calls successful percent success 2000 4 3 75% 4000 4 1 25% 6000 12 2 17% 8000 12* 1 1 8% * includes three calls made while climbing; last successful call was made from just over 7000 feet. The four cellphones operated via four different cellular networks (cellsites). Because calls were made from a variety of positions for each network, it cannot be said that failures were the fault of cellsite placement. the London, Ontario, region is richly supplied with cellsites belonging to five separate networks. It may be noted in passing that this experiment was also conducted in a radio-transparent aircraft with carbon-fibre composite construction. Failure to make a call from such an aircraft with any particular brand of cellphone spells automatic failure for the same cellphone from a metal-clad aircraft flying at the same altitude. A metal skin attenuates all cellphone signals to a significant degree. It may safely be concluded that the operational ceiling for cellphones in aluminum skin aircraft (most passenger liners, for example) would be significantly lower than the ones reported here. It may therefore safely be concluded that cellphone calls from passenger aircraft are physically impossible above 8000 feet abga and statistically unlikely below it. A. K. Dewdney February 25/03 ** <a href="http://www.rense.com/general56/cellpp.htm">www.rense.com/general56/cellpp.htm</a> 911 Cell Phone Calls From Planes? Not Likely By Ted Twietmeyer tedtw@frontiernet.net 8-23-4 Or, Why phone calls cannot be made from planes without PicoCell technology No one, with a knowledge of antenna technology could subscribe to phone calls from planes, and here are some basic reasons why. This is somewhat technical, but this needs to be shown why this is virtually impossible. I'll attempt to simplify it. 1. ANTENNAS - All antennas are characterized by what is known as a "lobe pattern." The lobe pattern or area the antenna is designed to serve is a result of it's physical shape and other factors. The best omni-directional antenna is that of the single element antenna, or single dipole antenna such as is used on all cell phones. This has a circular lobe pattern. Note that this is not the same antenna used on cell towers. Directional antennas are widely used in TV and radio to maximize a service area. A receive and transmit radio frequency (RF) pattern of any directional antenna is a roughly eliptical shape, or egg shape. An example are AM radio towers, which may use other towers near them. These other towers can be grounded to act as reflectors and direct service to a nearby city. The FCC determines when and where antenna directional technology can be used, and by which stations. Reflecting antennas can also be used to prevent interference with other stations. Cell tower antennas use a specially designed directional antenna which incorporates a reflector. This reflector is carefully designed to create a directed radiation pattern directed over a large 2 dimensional area. These reflectors work very much like the reflector you see in a floodlight. Directional antenna characteristics are what divides a geographic region into cells. Any given antenna type has the same receive and transmit lobe pattern. Today you can see that most all visible cell towers have a triangular pattern of antennas. This clearly shows that the 360 degree area around a cell tower is divided up into three groups of antennas, with each group facing one of three directions. Each antenna group lobe pattern slightly overlaps the other. The FCC determines the effective radiated power in watts of any transmitter, including cell tower antennas. Therefore, every watt must be used efficiently for best signal quality (such as it is.) Cell tower antenna design dictates that only a VERY small amount of RF is radiated vertically up into the air, as this is considered lost RF energy. 2. AIRPLANES - An airplane is made of aluminum alloy. It is NOT transparent RF frequencies, but instead acts as a shield. Sections of the plane made of carbon composite will greatly attenutate or even stop all cell phone signals, as this is also conductive material. Only when a cell phone has "line of sight" with a cell tower, can a talk connection take place. And such a talk connection can only take place THROUGH A WINDOW ON THE PLANE, because the body of a plane cannot pass the signal from a cell phone. 3. Cell tower antennas use power levels of 100 watts or more and group of antennas can have power levels of 800 watts. However, a pocket cell phone only transmits an RF signal of less than 1 watt, with many phones transmitting just .4 watts. No phone call can be made until the cell tower receives this tiny signal and establishes a channel with the phone by assigning the phone a frequency to talk on. This basic procedure takes place on both digital and analog cell phones. Only the older, bigger bag phones can output up to 4 watts of power, which almost no one uses anymore. In conclusion we have: A. A plane moving at more than 500 MPH B. Plane windows acting as small aperatures for a cell phone RF signal. This forces the cell phone antenna to become highly directional, but without any increase in gain. There is no gain because plane is not a reflector or resonant cavity tuned to cell frequencies. C. The cell phone is rapidly moving past cell towers that may or may not be in line with the side of the plane. If a tower happens to be in line with the side of the plane when it turns, such a connection will not last but few seconds, if at all. D. The pocket cell phone signal of less than 1 watt must be received before the call can be placed. E. Cell antennas have a weak signal lobe above them, making establishing a connection with a phone unlikely. So, how could a phone call be made ? The "911 - In Plane Sight" proves beyond a doubt, that at least one windowless plane was used on the second tower. Imagine the challenge of trying to make a cell phone call, from completely shielded window-less plane ! Network video enlargements clearly show it was armed with a missile which is clearly visible when it was launched. The detailed phone dialogs we've read about from those that "called from the plane" can only be fiction and theatre. Since we know the flights did depart from airports, these same people could not be allowed to live to tell the story of the fictional flight. If they did make phone calls, it might have been at gunpoint on the ground somewhere. It's likely they all went to the bottom of the ocean with their knowledge. Ted Twietmeyer is the founder of <a href="http://www.data4science.net">www.data4science.net</a> which explores charted and uncharted regions of science. The website both encourages public participation, and also provides a way for the public to participate in science projects. ** Comment Name Witheld From Seattle 8-24-4 Dear Ted, I was reading your article on Rense.com on cell phones in flight, yesterday I made 2 flights with a motorola i205 nextexl phone, 1st flight, I had my cell off and then turned it on I suspect a little under 10,000 feet and well over 250 knots in a Boeing 737-400 and could not get ANY signal while still over a major metro area (Seattle). 2nd flight same day I left my phone on during takeoff, and before even reaching 3000, feet and slower than 250 knots( over the San Francisco Bay area)( as there is a speed limit that close to a large airport)like about the time the flaps were coming up the cell had lost its signal. I know this is unscientific but if a newer phone (3 years) since 911 can't maintain a lock I highly doubt a 2001 phone could maintain a lock. Hang in there ** Comment From Kelsea 8-25-4 It is possible that calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 would have a better chance of getting through to 911 than a new phone would in an emergency today. I worked in the marketing department of a US cell phone company in 2001. At the time, Tri-Mode phones were standard. Tri-Mode phones received 2 types of digital as well as analog signals. By the time the company released its first digital only phones, many who previously enjoyed using their cellphones upgraded to find that they were unable to get a signal or maintain a connection. The following explains why: From "Will your cell phone reach 911?", Consumer Reports, 2/2003 When your phone is in digital mode, it can work only with your home carrier (the company you use for service) for any call--including those to 911--unless the home carrier has a roaming agreement with another carrier. Phones that can work in both digital and analog modes give you more options. Analog provides that safety net for emergency calling. Indeed, the principal FCC regulation governing wireless 911 recognizes the importance of the analog mode. The regulation, which took effect in 2000, says that whenever a wireless phone dialing 911 in analog mode can't get through via its home carrier, that phone must seek another signal, even if it's from a competing carrier, to quickly establish a voice connection. The FCC concedes its rule is only a small step toward improving 911 service. Multinetwork phones, which are normally in a digital mode, aren't required to switch to analog to make a 911 call. There are no regulations for digital-only phones..." In other words, for phones trying to make 911 emergency calls using analog, cell carriers were required to seek out the nearest tower (even a competitors' tower if necessary) to quickly connect the call. There were no such requirements for phones attempting to connect to 911 using a digital signal. This actually did make a phone with analog a better bet for reaching 911. However, companies began phasing out analog, passively at first, after the FCC lifted requirements that they maintain the analog system in Fall of 2002. Among Consumer Reports conclusions: The FCC must ensure that digital phones are more compatible. The FCC voted last fall to phase out its requirement that some wireless providers offer an analog backup signal. We think that was a mistake because the agency did not also require companies to make their digital technologies talk with one another. Simply allowing analog to fade away removes the principal common wireless language. In the end, you will have less assurance than you do now that your phone will get through to 911. <a href="http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv2.jsp?CONTENT">www.consumerreports.org/m...sp?CONTENT</a> %3C%3Ecnt_id=299615&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=162691 So attempting to make a call from a plane today using a newer technology cell phone isn't really a fair comparison. The analog system is patchier and discontinued in many places altogether; many phones only offer access digital now anyway. On 911, the callers on the hijacked craft were almost certainly off the digital network using a trimode (or lower quality) phone. When digital couldn't get through, their phones switched to analog which, at least in a 911 call, gave them a better chance of getting through. This still doesn't clear up how calls were made at altitudes over 8,000 ft (and possibly up to 30,000 ft). Thanks, Kelly ** <a href="http://gatorpress.com/badsam/page5.html">gatorpress.com/badsam/page5.html</a> September 2004: The strange case of the 9/11 cell phone calls Last month, Qualcomm Corporation issued a press release stating that they had developed a new technology that would finally make it possible to make cellular phone calls from commercial airliners. Using a technology called "Pico Cells", the system will work as a link between the airliner and ground towers. According to the press release, it is currently impossible to connect by cell phone in a plane that is above 4,000 feet. During the Republican National Convention in New York City last month, Deena Burnett, widow of Flight 93 victim Tom Burnett, spoke of the four telephone calls she received from her husband aboard the doomed airliner on September 11th, all of which were received from his cell phone, one of which lasted 13 minutes. With the FAA statement that Flight 93 never went below 29,000 feet until its' sudden fatal plunge, these two stories seem to be mutually exclusive. Either it is possible to make cell phone calls from a commercial jetliner in flight at cruising altitude - or it isn't. If it is already possible to use a cell phone on a plane, why is Qualcomm so excited about their Pico chip? If it is not possible to do so, there's an even bigger problem. Because there are no survivors of any of the 911 planes, the only "eyewitness" testimony we have is the paraphrased transcripts of phone calls made to family members. This is where we get the descriptions of "Arab looking men" with knives and box cutters, talking about "Allah". It is from these calls we hear the immortal and heroic "Let's roll!". I decided to investigate as thoroughly as possible whether or not the phone calls from Flight 93 and other hijacked aircraft were possible. First I looked into whether the calls could have been made using the "air phone" service aboard the planes. Burnett's wife reported the calls came from her husband's cell phone. Two calls by other passengers were made from locked lavatories, which would have been impossible to make by airphone. Jeremy Glick spoke with his wife for 20 minutes from his cell phone, according to the 911 Commission. These calls occurred while the plane was cruising at over 30,000 feet according to news reports and the 911 Commission. Although there were calls made from airphones by Todd Beamer and other passengers, there were also undoubtedly some calls that are claimed to have originated from cell phones. In some cases witnesses said they recognized the family member's number on their caller ID. So the critical question becomes this: Is it possible to make a cell phone call from cruising altitudes in a jetliner? The answer is disturbing, disquieting, and emphatic. Alexa Graf, a spokesman of AT&T, commenting in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks, said it was "a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations". NSA-trained Electronic Warfare specialist Steve Moser goes further, expressing that he has "severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft (Flight 93)". Moser explains: "When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is your cell phone needs to contact a transponder and complete a digital handshake. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to contact a tower, tell the tower who you are and who your provider is, tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and establish that it is in a roaming area, before it passes out of range. It takes 30-45 seconds to do that. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible." Independent researcher A. K. Dewdney conducted a series of experiments in February and March of 2003, over Toronto, Ontario. Chartering planes from a local airport, Dewdney's team went aloft with different cell phones licensed by all major providers. The pilots were instructed to fly in a grid that covered the overlapping cellular communication towers of five major carriers in metropolitan Toronto. Team members kept records of calls and results from varying altitudes. At 2000 feet, calls could be made about half the time. At 4,000 feet only an average of one in 4 calls was completed. At 6,000 feet, the average was 1 in 12 calls connected. At 8,000 feet and above there was no connection by any of the phones. Dewdney's report concluded "It may be noted in passing that these experiments were conducted in a radio-transparent aircraft with carbon-fibre construction. Failure to make a call from such an aircraft with any particular brand of cellphone spells automatic failure for the same phone from a metal-clad aircraft flying at the same altitude. A metal skin attenuates all cell phone signals to a significant degree. It may safely be concluded that the operational ceiling for cellular phones in aluminum skin aircraft (passenger liners, for example) would be significantly lower than the ones reported here. It may therefore safely be concluded that cell phone calls from passenger aircraft are physically impossible above 8000 feet, and statistically unlikely below that altitude." Skytel Wireless, a leading corporate cellular service provider, assures its' customers: "If you're out of range, on an airplane, for example, the system stores incoming messages for up to 72 hours, automatically delivering them when you return to full service." Finally, I called a friend who works for Jet Blue in New York City as a flight attendant. I asked her if she had ever used her cell phone aboard a flight. "Sure" she said, "but not in the air". I asked her why not. "Well, first of all, it's against the rules. It interferes with the plane's electronics." So I asked her if she turned her phone off to avoid getting calls during flights. "No, we don't have to do that. The phone loses the signal automatically right after we take off. There's no signal, so it won't ring anyway until we land." Last of all I got in a friend's boat equipped with GPS, and headed out into the Gulf on a clear afternoon. Less than 3 miles out from Galveston, there was no longer any signal on my Verizon Wireless phone, and none on his Nextel. That's half the distance of the flight 93 calls, and we weren't traveling at 500 mph either. Ask any local mariner and they can confirm this. So, scientifically and technologically, the cell phone calls of 9-11 were impossible. There were definitely some calls made from airphones, and probably from the WTC planes, which were low enough to connect with a tower for a few minutes before impact. But some of the calls that were reportedly made that day are simply impossible, especially aboard Flight 93. Of course, all of the people who died on that day were heroes who died in an act of war against the American people, no matter what happened. It requires no myth, no propaganda. What is the truth about the cell phone calls of 9-11? The significance of this mystery is something historians may puzzle over for years to come. BAD SAM (now that you know the truth, that's one more person they'll have to kill.)

by **Ferry Fey** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:07 am

ZeroHaven, you mention both calls being on international flights. Something different perhaps at work? How far away from land would you estimate those were? There has recently been a lot of research focused on the 911 calls, with some disturbing results. This is above and beyond any issues of whether it would have been physically possible to have the calls come through. They've been working on analysing what exactly was said, who exactly claimed to have heard it, trying to make what was supposedly described in the phone calls fit with what the various conflicting timelines and internal contradictions revealed. There seem to be a lot of baffling discrepancies that just can't be explained away.

by **ZeroHaven** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:18 am

I'll give as much detail as I can, without giving away too much personal info. I cannot begin to guess the brand of phones or service used. The reason I remember these instances is they were event pockets inside 9 hours of boredom, and I have a distaste for public cell-phone use. At least one of the flights was definitely a 767, and I think one was an "Airbus" - not sure which. May 2000 - SwissAir NYC to Zurich - teenage girl behind me, window seat, pulls out phone. Stewardess politely tells her electronics must be off. Immediately after the announcement that electronics are ok, she calls her mom. Signal is staticy (known via her comments) but I heard enough to know it was a two-way conversation. Sept 2002 - Baltimore/BWI to Vienna Austria(forgot airlines) - roughly 1 ETA hour before landing, last chance potty break!, woman by the toilets hiding her phone in her long hair. She was still talking when I came out. Sept 2002 - Vienna to BWI - maybe Lufthansa - not sure how long after take-off, but after the rapid ascent stage. Older German man in center aisle seat calls someone and after a few words hands phone to woman next to him. She talks briefly. I heard his loud "hallo hallo" - which is why i noticed - but not much else. Dec 2004 - Dulles/DCI to Heathrow - British Air - guy two seats over (center seat) gets told to put away his laptop. He complies, but within a minute pulls out his phone and tells someone the plane is landing within 30 minutes. ____________________________ These are my own accounts, my mom's seen others herself but was there for the teenage girl. I never thought anything of it at the time because I didn't know they were doing something that's physically impossible. All these I mentioned do not include the typical "doing air donuts" around the airport while waiting for a landing slot. The '30 minutes' guy had to call again because we ended up circling the airport for almost an hour. I have very vague recollections of multiple calls during such donuts. It's just natural for people to call and say they're late, so it's not really something to remember. I was always under the (false?) impression that when that high in the air, cells link to the satellite rather than a relay tower. The exact plane types can probably be checked, but I'm not up to it. I don't think it matters really, because I saw it happen on different airlines and routes. I'll probably be taking another flight in about 6 months, and I'm sure someone will be breaking the rules on that flight. I'll remember to ask who their provider is <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> <img src="http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ZeroHaven/tinhat.gif"/>

by **Peachtree Pam** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:01 pm

Hi ZeroHaven, Not to dispute what you are saying in any way, but I have always wished that a really thorough, deep investigation could be made into the people who received these calls, the families, the colleagues, etc. For example, two of the most prominent were the Glick family (Jewish) and the Beamer family (not Jewish). Lisa Beamer did not receive her phone call directly: From Joe Vialls, link posted below Exactly the same applies with United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed before reaching any targets. The aircraft was all over the place at extreme speed on radar, but as with Flight 77 we are asked to believe that the “hijackers” allowed a passenger called Todd Beamer to place a thirteen minute telephone call. Very considerate of them. The Pittsburg Channel put it this way in a story first posted at 1.38 pm EDT on September 16, 2001: “Todd Beamer placed a call on one of the Boeing 757's on-board telephones and spoke for 13 minutes with GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife said. He provided detailed information about the hijacking and -- after the operator told him about the morning's World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks - said he and others on the plane were planning to act against the terrorists aboard.” Note here that Mrs Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone call from Todd personally, but was later “told” by an operator that her husband had allegedly called. Just another unfortunate media con job for the trash can." Now, I'm not denigrating Mrs Beamer's belief that the call came from her husband, I'm sure she believes it. She has appeared on Larry King Live many times. The Glick family is different - apart from their many TV appearances after 911, they have never been heard of since. Mrs Glick was supposed to have talked directly to her husband: From: serendipidy.li: <a href="http://www.serendipity.li/wtc4.htm">www.serendipity.li/wtc4.htm</a> Jane Pauley did a televised interview with the Glick family, whom Jeremy Glick phoned from Flight 93. ... Glick's family are the only relatives [who] 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. ... Vividence tracks web users' individual surfing habits for marketing predictions. ... 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." Where is the Glick family now? They have disappeared down the memory hole......are they back in Israel? Hey, Zero Haven, you are not a plant, by any chance?

by **ZeroHaven** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:54 pm

No I'm not a plant, just a former couch potato. In a way you could call me a refugee! I do not mean in any way to dismiss the serious legitimate questions about the 'alleged' phone calls. It's just that my personal experience tells me something that contradicts the scientific explanation: It is possible to make cell calls from a big plane to ground. I know other things that directly contradict 'science' so it's no big leap for me. The only reason I brought it up is because I'm wading through a pile of half-baked information, and trying to sort it out for myself. It's even possible that SOME of the calls were real while others were not, just to add to the confusion. Where'd that Glick family go? If they're smart they grabbed their stuff and left the country faster than I did. <img src="http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ZeroHaven/tinhat.gif"/>

by **ZeroHaven** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:01 pm

I just came across the plans for a movie <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/330858p-282768c.html" target="top">Flight 93 film to air on 9/11 </a> Excerpts: "movie about doomed United Airlines Flight 93 will re-create how passengers fought with their 9/11 hijackers " "Passengers and crew members used cell phones to call authorities and loved ones. They learned that other hijacked jets had been flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon." "The 90-minute film is half documentary material and half dramatization, but Discovery says only a few lines of dialogue are invented. The rest came from eyewitness accounts, interviews and phone calls made by passengers and crew on the doomed plane - including actual voice mails that will be played in the film." It may be disputable just how much of it is true, and if the voice-mails are real... but the article lists several names that can be looked into. <img src="http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ZeroHaven/tinhat.gif"/>

by **Dreams End** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:27 pm

Well, I have trouble with connectivity here on the ground, so I could see at 33,000 feet there might be some issues. Somewhere recently I read how the industry was touting new technology that would allow cell phones from planes. Ummm, but didn't they...on 9/11....ummm... Anyway, it sure is an easy thing to test for those who fly a lot. Especially if anyone happens to be on the heavily traveled routes these planes were on. In fact, how can this issue not have been settled one way or the other by now? Here's a CNN article where it seems the FAA is going to approve cell phone use on planes...so I guess some of them must work. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/07/14/cell.phones.planes.ap/">www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/pte...planes.ap/</a> here's an article about how a new system is being created to allow cell phone use in flight...i.e. you can't do it very well without this added equipment, which is new and not really in use yet. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Topics > Internet & Networking > Broadband > Wireless Technology & Services > In-Flight Cell Phone Systems Gain Altitude Systems for making cell phone calls on airplanes will be ready later this year, but regulatory hurdles remain. <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121399,00.asp">www.pcworld.com/news/arti...399,00.asp</a><hr></blockquote> It looks to me like some people have been able to make the calls, but as a general rule you need some enhancements on the plane for it to work.

cell phone quickie

cell phone quickie

911 Cell Phone Calls in-flight: Wazzup?

calls

Re: calls

Recipients of the calls

Re: Recipients of the calls

Re: Whoa, a MOVIE

cell phones

Who is online