Ok, one thing that I have heard the least about 9/11 would have to be the phone calls that were made from all of the people "supposedly" on the flight 11 and flight 175. How would we explain those? Were they just fake phone calls that were aired?

They were as real as the Bin Laden tape that was released last week.

NOT

cell phone calls at the altitudes those planes were at that day, in 2001, were not possible. experiments were done to prove this, and there was something like less then .01% success rate connecting calls at those altitudes.

fake phone calls? why not? if you are a truth believer, than i would have to think that you realize that nothing really seems improbable about what tactics the perps might have used to pull this operation off.

There is a bit of speculation surrounding this, as said in LC2E there is software out there that can immitate voices precisely. There is also speculation as to the height of the plane at the time of said calls. Probably the most compelling evidence that they are infact fake is the guy that calls his mum and announces himself by his full name and keeps asking her if she believed him.

Just thought of something else that someone might explain, how on earth were the calls recorded in the first place? I dunno about you but I dont record my phone calls.

yeah that was REALLY weird. dont know about any of you guys, but my mom knows my last name. she has the SAME ONE.

i believe the cell phone companies have records of calls...??? i might be wrong though. and even if it was just the people recording them, what are the actual chances that every single person that day recorded their phone calls from loved ones on the plane?

Speech morphing software can emulate anyone...

.006% at the normal cruizing altitude for those planes I believe.

That's less than a percent....

I do believe they said that 93 was make eractic manuevers and changing altitudes but the percentages were still very low....too low. :rolleyes:



Meth [cheers]

For God sakes...they flew planes into buildings and then caused those buildings to implode either by device or thermite. By the way...there were people in those buildings. Now what would stop them from making a few phone taped phone calls.

I tried doing a search of this site to see if what I'm about to bring up has already been brought up before, but the search function isn't currently working...

I'm confused by the [Loose Change] movie's discussion of calls. The discussion centers around flight 93. It's stated that the calls weren't made. This seems to be pretty absolute. There was a lot of time spent discussing calls made on Airfones. Are these not different than cell phones?

Perhaps Airfone calls Were made (though the provided conversation contents seem to be pretty questionable).

As to any cell calls, I understand that cell phone calls are highly problematic, but in order to determine their likely success rate on 9/11 I'd think that there needs to be a closer investigation into location and altitude for the various calls made (that we're supposedly aware of); also, speed is a factor (it seems that most accounts of the 9/11 aircraft had the aircrafts going at extremely high rates of speed- has it been established that speed was uniformly high through each aircraft's flight?). Being nearly five years out from the date of the crime, it's possible that we couldn't answer this question; cell equipment has increased and has been changed: no idea whether more towers would present more or less of a problem.

To me the Dewdney study hardly seems comprehensive: granted, the guy's not operating with any big research dollars, but this doesn't mean that we should overlook the quality of the tests. It covers only a few different altitudes (were these representative of flights on 9/11?), and we've got no idea what the cell tower availability is in the test area (Ontario I believe) and for the 9/11 flights.

I've got some understanding of typical radio communications as utilized by cell phones, and I would tend to come down on the side of airborne communications being pretty sketchy. I have no direct experience with cell phones in airplanes. However, there are some discussions out there that tend to suggest that such communications aren't necessarily that problematic (as Dewdeny reports). Here's an interesting forum discussion (no specific talk of 9/11):

http://www.digg.com/links/Why_you_cant_use...irplane#c107551

This is anecdotal to be sure, but just how many accounts of real-world attempts do we have?

I noticed that Dewdney's tests were around 5pm - 6pm. This seems to be a time in which cell activity is high. I have to wonder whether this has an adverse effect on establishing calls.


NOTE: Back in 2002 I asked by brother-in-law, who flies a lot, to test the operation of his cell phone. Unfortunately he never did, argh!

Mom: Hello?

Me: Mom. It's your son, Benji Borden. You know me, right?

Mom: Benji?

Me: Mom, they're kidnapping me. Really nasty men. Red bandanas, definitely Arabs! Boxcutters! Slumping around the plane.

. . .Mom, you believe me don't you?

Mom: What the F#$% is wrong with you? Are you smoking pot again?

Me: No, Mom, I've just had two pints of Swedish Cider and Two pints of Tennents. I'm pissed!

JBR [cheers]

you all know she and mark don't have the same last name though, right?

he's mark bingham. she's alice hoglan.

i saw her on larry king last week. just thought it should be mentioned.

That's interesting. Also, how much do they talk? Well, he knows her number by heart or has it on the cell phone, so they might talk often. Still, saying his full name is weird.

1 the evidence points to the fact that any sustained phone call from a cell on the plane in 2001 was near to impossible, more chance in Bush telling the truth.

2 why where/would the cell call be recorded?

3 WHERE ARE THE PHONE RECORDS, as far as i know not 1 phone record from any phone company has been put forward as evidence.

What About The Phone Calls indeed,

Slainte.

Paul.

Don't you think that's odd?

According to the myth of 9/11, cell phones have always worked pretty well from airplanes. . .

JBR [wink]

Well that aside have you ever seen the interview she had on CNN not long after 9/11? For 1 thing it looks like shes reading a friggin script. Antother thing is that she doesnt read it very well and stammers throught the whole interview like she didnt really know what happened to HERSELF on that day...
Watching that interview told me it was BS way more than the actual "phone calls" themselves.

It seems that many people will say and do about anything to get sympathy, specially if their loved ones can be remebered as a hero. I think we need to remember that the ideas that keep people in fear and willing to lie to even themselves, have been ingrained into our minds from birth. It's Programming. This process has been going on for much longer than any of us have been around. The story of the phone calls is to bolster the giving "story". It also makes it harder for some people to question the facts because they fear offending someone who "spoke" with someone who was invovled. "well my moms;s friends son" and so on. Besides, it will make alot of money in the movies.

Dylan and Korey had two call in radio interviews scheduled yesterday during the time they were flying back east from California. They were unable to do the interviews because they could not get through using either their cell phones OR Airphones.

Of course as CT debunkers will tell you, this means nothing as it is anecdotal evidence, not empirical, but it is interesting.

Yeah, you start piling up anecdotes, and after a while you've got a whole heap of them and they can't all be dismissed out of hand.

For instance, my wife is incredulous at best (I'll call her a reluctant Keaner, although she would tell you she doesn't care about politics at all) about my skeptical take on the events of 11-9, and always says she *knows* you can make cell phone calls from an airplane. So we're flying from Memphis to Chicago, then Chicago to London and we get NADA for signal the whole time we're in the air (using a Verizon LG VX7000 CDMA dual-band phone).

She then said it didn't prove anything.

Some people will turn away the truth just to make a point, you know?

JBR :blink:

Hey guys, one problem I have with Loose Change are the phone calls. It really doesn't matter if they were from cell phones or air phones; they were obviously staged at some other place than in the air.

But Loose Changes goes on to show how the "Voice Morphing" can be used to create these calls but a very easy and much simpler solution can be used to induce the calls.

If anyone has ever faced the barrel of a gun, you know you'll pretty much do anything at that point. What's to say these calls didn't happen out of coercion instead of the "voice morphing" scenario? It's really easy. The captors/real hijackers take the passengers into different rooms and point guns at them and make them make the calls. Very simple, effective and it all happens in real time without the voice sampling required and preparation of the tapes. It also explains why deviation made from the ready scripts result in calls that are not in keeping with the conversations.

You are correct, both scenarios are highly possible.

My guess is that the bin Laden video was included in LCSE. Therefore, voice morphing technology was not only limited to the passengers.

Yeah, definitely! I think the current rounds of Bin Laden audio are the exact "voice morphing" that LC pointed out. It's pretty easy in a controlled environment to produce such tapes. On 9/11 though, I'd go with passenger coercion as the main culprit of the calls.

To add to this, some 911 calls were received from the passengers in Illinois. No planes where in that area on that date.

Interesting theory - and similar to some of mine about Flight 587, but if the tech is as good as one would think it is by now, using the software would be much less labor intensive than physically extracting voice recordings. I also don't see how any type of coersion tactics would make Mark Bingham use his first name to his mother.

One of the biggest unanwered questions on the Scholars for 911 Truth forum is to definatively answer: "Were the cell phone calls possible?" To this date, I would summarize our findings as "inconclusive" and it bothers me. Someone in the com-tech world really needs to step up to the plate.

Cell phones will work up to around 58,000 feet (~10Km) at the apex, the centre, of a cell. It will drop off as it approaches the cell masts.

The best visual representation would be the roof of a big tent at the circus, with the apex raised above the sides. The use of cell phones on aircraft are prevented, not because they don't work, but rather, the way in which the signal is physically produced interferes with radar, as well as other sensitive electronic devices.

Cell phones use a system known as PCM, or pulse code modulation and it is transmitted over EM waves using pulse-width modulation:

So, the data (voice, internet, etc.) is virtual and encoded to PCM and the pulse-width modulation is the series of fast beeps that can be heard when you place a cell phone close to a speaker. These beeps are the physical carrier wave upon which the virtual data stream is transmitted. EM interference is accepted by the speakers and then turned into audio.

In a similar fashion, cell phones interfere with radar and ILS approach systems. This can generate false readings, or even crash a system due to a previously unknown bug in the operating system.

If you are not flying by VFR (visual flight rules), as most commercial aircraft do, they follow VOR (VHF Omnidirectional Range navigation system) beacons. VOR is basically a radio signal that can be used to triangulate your position. Again, pulse width modulation is the problem.

You should be able to find plenty on this now...

[smoke]

I've heard this true but the problem is in the "hand-off" to the next cell tower since they will all get the signal at the same strength. In that case, they will all refuse the signal so as not to overload the system.

That "hand-off" only becomes a problem when you move from cell to cell, or approach the apex. The transition is not smooth and the signal can flip back-and-forth between masts due to signal strength. Given an average size of 10Kmx10Km, that is 100 sq Km of airspace from which a call can be made.

So, you are correct that a minor technical issue appears at cell boundries, however, when within a cell, cell phones can operate.

In the context of 9/11, it is important to note that this is technically possible.

Hi MMC

Your research seems to be contradicted by that of Professor A.K. Dewdney tests conducted during January 2003.

Link : http://physics911.net/projectachilles.htm

More info regarding the cellphone calls supposedly made from "Flight 93"

Link : The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93


Hope this helps your research...

All the best

LondonEye
[thumbsup]

His experiment does not take into account the wide variations in both technology and architecture at different points in the cell structure, as well as in different parts of the country and even in different countries. The test was also conducted in Canada.

Without knowing these factors, a direct comparison cannot be done.

i'm starting to wonder if the 'impossible cell phone calls' angle isn't a honeypot in itself... it hasn't been firmly established that cell calls aren't possible at the altitudes the 9/11 flights were flying at. and, there continue to be articles such as this one that claim cell calls from commercial flights are commonplace:

Scientific American

Cell Phones on a Plane

For many of us, the prospect of spending time trapped in an airline cabin listening to a passenger chatter into a cell phone may evoke thoughts of a 1950s horror-movie-like title: "Cell Phone Hell at 33,000 Feet!" Despite the current ban on cellular telephony, that possibility came a bit closer to reality in late 2004, when the U.S. Federal Communications Commission began reviewing a proposed regulation that would permit the use of cell phones in flight. Although no decision date has been set, telecommunications companies and some airlines are champing at the bit to provide these wireless services.

But beyond the anticipation of dollar signs and aural torture to come, recent research indicates that there may be sound safety reasons to continue the existing FCC and Federal Aviation Administration prohibitions on cell phone use in the air.

Experts have debated for years whether it is safe to use cell phones and personal electronic devices (PEDs) such as laptop computers and gaming devices on airplanes. Although crews have submitted numerous reports of errors in avionics (electronic navigation, communications and flight management) systems that ceased after all PEDs were shut down, many specialists consider this evidence to be anecdotal. Further, skeptics doubt that any interference from these devices would lead to mishaps, particularly if they were deactivated during takeoffs and landings. After all, no air accident or near miss has been definitively attributed to radio emissions from PEDs. When confronted with such data in the past, the airline industry has simply responded by installing better shielding around avionics systems and adopting other mitigation strategies.

Recently, however, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University concluded that cell phones and other PEDs could endanger the normal operation of critical navigation systems on aircraft. After monitoring radio emissions from portable electronics during airline flights (with an antenna and spectrum analyzer that fit into a carry-on bag), they estimate that an average of one to four cellular calls are made from the cabin during each trip--despite the ban. The researchers also determined that some of the emissions from mobile phones occurred in frequencies employed by Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, which are increasingly vital for safe landings. In addition, the study warned that avionics that operate at non-cell phone frequencies could encounter interference when nearby wireless signals interact and generate spurious spikes in other frequency ranges.

Given the new research, we recommend that further study be performed before lifting the in-flight prohibition of cell phones. First, the aviation agencies should collect more complete data on aerial wireless-interference incidents. Next, the government should enlist a competent technical organization to characterize the onboard radio-frequency environment more accurately. The aviation industry, the FCC and the FAA should also better coordinate their risk analyses of mobile phone use. Finally, the FAA and the airlines should attempt to convince the flying public that restrictions on the operation of electronic devices are enforced to reduce real safety risks, not to gain some commercial advantage such as protecting existing Airfone-type in-flight phone services.

Being trapped on a plane with cell phone junkies is one thing, but the possibility that their calls could cause a crash is an issue no one should take lightly.

---

i still personally believe that the calls made on 9/11 were highly unlikely if not impossible, and have tried multiple times to make calls from commercial flights without success. but until this is nailed down definitively, it is likely only a distraction and serves to undermine the movement's credibility.

When exactly did this happen?

Yeah, me too. I think cell calls from planes is pretty near impossible because of the fact the plane is so high but also the aluminum skin of the plane itself. Not until the very recently were these kinks worked out by engineers and the new system hasn't even been deployed yet.

But on 9/11, the calls were first reported as cell phones, but later, many of them changed to air phones which is another big red flag.

Loose change points out that at least one flight landed. I think all flights landed shortly after take off and taken elsewhere. At this point the drone planes go up and since Vigilant Guardian (which is why it was going on) is going on with multiple targets with no transponders signals, the real flights got lost in the chaos.

I think all these planes landed shortly after take off and the passengers made to make the calls and then killed off.

If you research the Mark Bingham call, you will see that he talks like a robot. He doesn't answer his mother's questions and he repeats almost everything he says.

Forcing people to make the calls would be incredibly risky. If someone took me into a room with a gun and had me call my house, the first thing I would say is, "Hi mom, the CIA offloaded our plane and now they have a gun to my head." Think they could pull the trigger fast enough to stop me?

If you listen to phone calls made to radio stations live and a time delay is employed, you'll also hear they sound a bit fake and pauses come out of nowhere and for the most part, both parties get confused as the conversation progresses.

The easiest way to prevent what you're saying is to have a time delay on the calls and hold the convo until it "clears."

I've done USAF electronics and now work in computer/network electronics. I've been skeptical about cell phone interference for a while and have many friends who agree. So while I was on a recent flight I tested my phone. Out of twenty attempts, none connected or got signal at all until I literally hit the ground. I tried ten times during descent to try to see if I could get anything a varying altitudes. Nada. One of our members here is a cellular network designer/installer. The cell phone issue is THE REASON he found his way to 9/11 Truth because he SWEARS cell phones CAN'T work in flight.

That said, I think the whole cell phone thing is another red herring.

I think it can be simply concluded that some people who say they heard from their loved ones may have said they got called via cell when in fact they were called via airphone. Simple technical jargon error on behalf on non-technical old folks. Sorta Like my Mom calls me and say her computer is dead. Actually it's her monitor, not her computer.

And who knows, maybe just cuz MY cell didn't work on MY flight dunt mean squat. Well, it means something, but it's not conclusive. And really, people know their family.

They probably called via airphone. And I think the Cleveland story is themost absurd story of all. Leaving survivors would be far too wreckless.

Now why in the world would anybody who is about to die in a plane crash use their final breath to call a radio station? If it were me I'd call family to say "goodbye I love you, please please look after my little boy."

No, you misunderstood. I was making the point that the calls 'may' not have been made in real time but with a slight delay if in fact the victim didn't comply with requests made of them.

[doh] sorry nes - my bad!

I agree that this is definately a possibility. I can't speak for everyone, but when I was held at gunpoint, I definately would have made phone calls if ordered.