Question to all frequent air travellers

[Woody Box]

Did you ever hear a cellphone ringing at travel altitude?

There are always people who forget to turn off their phone. I want to find out the frequency of these people.

A second question:

From your experience, what is the statistical probability to hear a cellphone ringing at high altitude on a flight?

One flight out of five? (20 %)
One flight out of ten? (10%)
One flight out of hundred? (1%)
Or less?

[whatelseisnew]

1. You are leaving out the vibration ringer setting

which would be easier than hearing over the plane noise

[American Renaissance]

2. I use mine all the time,

However, it is really only workable flying over the Northeast and California.

[LARED]

3. Does it work above 3000 feet?

Your input is appreciated.

[Woody Box]

4. Interesting

It works at high altitude too (35000 ft)?

[gandalf]

5. My test some months ago: Absolutely negative on two flights

See my thread

Recently I tested this. I used a GSM mobile phone, power = 2 W, and did not switch it off during the flight. The flight lasted around one hour, between two European countries. I tested it on the flight to my destination and on the return flight.

Result on both flights: There was no connection during the flight. Around 5 minutes after take-off the phone lost its connection to the ground cells and was not able to re-establish it. It would therefore have been impossible to make a call.

Limitations: In the US the GSM system is not or seldom used (at least according to my knowledge), and the mobile phones might have higher transmitting powers. So my test does not replicate the US environment.
Yet, in my case I was not even able to find a signal from the ground, leave alone establish a connection and make a call. Europe has a denser net of ground cell stations than the US, I suppose, due to its higher population density.

[JackRiddler]

6. my experiment

Took cross-country flights recently. Had a Nextel phone. Connection to ground ended almost immediately on take off. Fell asleep. When I awoke, over California, I discovered the phone had readjusted to Mountain Time (Phoenix). This is only possible if it connected to a ground station while in that time zone.

The same happened on the way back, but again I slept through it. So how long this connection to the ground was and whether or not a call was possible during this time is questionable.

Do we know the altitudes of the planes on Sept. 11th?!

[Woody Box]

7. Alleged cell phone call from 35000 ft

There is one cell phone call (NO airfone) allegedly made from travel altitude. It "happened" on UA 93 when the transponder was not off yet, that's why we know the altitude:

Tom Burnett's first phone call to his wife at 9:27.

As they spoke, the call-waiting on Deena's phone clicked. It was Tom, calling from the plane on the cell phone he had nearly lost in a sporting goods store two days earlier.

Source: Jere Longman, "Among the Heroes". He has spoken with every UA 93 family, including Deena Burnett.

Regarding the other cell phone calls, there are no exact altitude data. But don't forget the speed of the plane (500 mph or more). It's impossible to call at this speed either.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Why would Deena Burnett lie?

What reason do you have to dispute her testimony?

[gandalf]

9. What reason?

What about technical considerations like the cruising speed?

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Despite the technical considerations...

...we still have the stories given to us by the families about their deceased loved ones calling them.

The technical considerations do nothing but show how difficult calling from a cell phone on a plane can be. Regardless, we still have the stories showing it can be done.

And it was done.

Ask the mother of Renee May.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Sep-13-Thu-2001/news/16989631.html

Yes, that's another cell phone call from Flight 77. It's not Barbara Olson. So much for the "Olson only one to call from Flight 77" meme.

[Woody Box]

11. I never said she's lying

How do you conclude from my posting that I think she's lying?

She said her husband called her on his cellphone. Ok. The official story is that her husband was aboard UA 93 at 35.000 ft in the air.

If Miss Burnett is right, her husband's cellphone was not aboard an airplane at 35.000 ft. So the official story, department UA 93, is not right.

Maybe the person calling just pretended to be Tom Burnett?

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Your idea that Mrs. Burnett didn't recognize her husband's voice...

...is laughable.

Since you're not saying Mrs. Burnett is lying, let's move on:

Her husband called her. She recognized his voice. He said he was on the plane, which according to you was at 35,000 feet.

Why are you saying that that Tom Burnett is lying?

[Woody Box]

13. When did you stop to beat your wife?

Why are you saying that that Tom Burnett is lying?

Question of this type are not admissible.

I didn't say Mrs. Burnett is lying. I didn't say she's not lying.
I didn't say Tom Burnett was lying. I didn't say he was not lying.

It is impossible to make a cell phone call from 35000 ft. That's what I'm saying.

End of discussion.

[TrogL]

14. You can make a cell phone call as long as you've got line of sight

You just have to get lucky and get a free repeater.

[Woody Box]

35. LLLLOOOOLLLLLL (nt)

[gandalf]

36. Math example

Assume you are flying at an altitude of 10km, and even though your mobile phone has only 2W, it can reach cells at a distance of 20km.
If you are flying over a big city with many small cells, lets take an average radius of .5km, your mobile phone has, at every moment, the possibility to connect to 1200 cells. That seems a lot of trouble for the electronic protocols to assign the right cell.

(height of 10km and reach of 20km means you can reach cells in an circle with a radius of 17,32km)

That's only a rough estimation, but it shows that it is certainly not trivial for the mobile phone system to establish a stable connection, as neither the speed nor the altitude of a plane correspond to the standard design parameters of the system.

[TrogL]

15. Isn't that an interesting bit of logic

Mrs. Burnett says she took part in a cell phone conversation originating from 35000 feet.
You say that is impossible.

Either she took part in the conversation or she didn't. It's a zero-sum argument.

Sounds like what you're saying is that the aircraft wasn't at 35,000 feet, or the cellphone wasn't on the airplane.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Oh, come on.

This is the clear consequence of what you are saying.

It is impossible to make a cell phone call from 35000 ft. That's what I'm saying.

Therefore, when Mrs. Burnett says she got a phone call from her husband while his plane was at 35,000 feet, you are saying that either she or her husband was lying.

Which one was it, woody?

[Woody Box]

32. I repeat myself - special edition for boloboffin

This is the clear consequence of what you are saying.

No. Everybody else unterstood my statement, I think:

Maybe the person calling just pretended to be Tom Burnett?

You may say that this is laughable. I don't laugh -> voice morphing software

There are four scenarios:

1) Cellphones work from 35000 ft (physically impossible)

2) Maybe the person calling just pretended to be Tom Burnett (laughable according to boloboffin)

3) Deena Burnett lies

4) Tom Burnett lied

So, 2, 3, 4 are possible (maybe laughable). I don't say which one matches the reality. Time will tell.

[leftofthedial]

37. or 5) the plane was not at 35000 feet

when the call was made

or 6) the plane the call was made from was not the one that was tracked at 35000 feet.

[seatnineb]

16. "One of them has a gun"

In the words of Tom Burnett...........

"They have a bomb on board"
"They have already knifed a guy"
"One of them HAS A GUN......."

So come on Bolo.......

Lets hear you say that Tom Burnett is a liar.........

[Bolo Boffin]

18. No reason for me to say Tom Burnett is a liar.

The hijackers might have had a gun.

The hijackers might have had a fake gun.

Tom Burnett might be reporting what a passenger told him - and that passenger might have been mistaken as well.

But they might not have been.

Tom's not lying. He had reason to state that the hijackers had a gun, just as he had reason to use his cell phone to call his wife, no matter what the altitude of the plane.

End of red herring.

[DulceDecorum]

19. Double hearsay

It's nice to see that certain people have open minds when it comes to cell phones aboard aircraft.
But what amazes me is that these individuals are very frequently the same people who rush in unison to condemn the FAA for listing the United Airlines planes as in working condition to this very day.

Please do not forget that the American Airlines planes were also listed as being in fine working condition up until the day that two different owners via two separate Trustee Banks asked to have both planes removed from the FAA roster. They claimed that the planes had been destroyed but a look at all aviation records in the world do not indicate that ANY such destruction occurred. This leads to the conclusion that said planes are also alive and well but are not currently in US civilian airspace.

Oh, some of you might like to know that N591UA, aka Flight 93 has been spotted flying in US airspace. On paper it is being passed off as N594UA but all visual aspects, including the nose and tail numbers show that it has not even been repainted.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled mental programming and behavioral modification.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. You're changing the subject, Dulce.

What number is changing the subject on the list of truth supression techniques? 6? 8? Be sure to post that link and let us know...

[DulceDecorum]

39. Barbara Olson fans

would like to know where she spent the night of September 10, 2001.

Ted Oslon would also like to know.

[Abe Linkman]

44. UNFAIR.

C'mon, DD. Tell us whatcha got.

[Abe Linkman]

47. Did Ted Olson CALL Barbara? Were any calls made TO planes on 9-11?

We've heard the claims about calls made FROM 9-11 flights, but has anyone claimed they made calls TO someone on 9-11 flights?

Theodore "Governments Lie" Olson: did he call or try to call Babs?

Did Osama call Hani to congratulate him?

Did Osama call Mohammed "Playboy" Atta to see how the flight was going?

Did Saddam Hussein call anyone on the flights?

[DulceDecorum]

80. Some answers

Alice Hoglan of San Francisco, California, said her 31-year-old son, Mark Bingham, called her by air-phone on United Airlines Flight 93, 15 minutes before the Boeing 757 crashed in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/family.reacts/

Alice Hoglan, a United flight attendant who was phoned by her son, Mark Bingham, a passenger on the plane, while the hijacking was in progress, CALLED HIM BACK at 9:54 a.m. and left two messages on his cellphone, urging him and the other passengers to rush the cockpit because the flight appeared to be a suicide mission. Her son, who she believes helped try to retake the plane, apparently never got the messages, but Ms. Hoglan later retrieved them from the phone company.

'Mark, apparently it's terrorists and they're hell-bent on crashing the aircraft,' Ms. Hoglan said in the second message, urgency in her voice. 'So, if you can, try to take over the aircraft. There doesn't seem to be much plan to land the aircraft normally, so I guess your best bet would be to try to take it over if you can, or tell the other passengers. There is one flight that they say is headed toward San Francisco. It might be yours. So, if you can, group some people and perhaps do the best you can to get control of it. I love you, sweetie. Good luck. Goodbye.'
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2002/nyt032702.html

Part of the Pentagon building outside Washington has collapsed.
It had been hit by two planes apparently hijacked by terrorists in Boston earlier today.
It is understood the building is evacuated.
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/11/story23325.asp

Among the passengers was Barbara Olson, the wife of solicitor general Theodore Olson. Mrs Olson, a CNN commentator, had frantically called from her mobile phone to say her plane had been hijacked.
A spokesman for her husband later revealed she had not even been due to fly on the flight. "She flew a day early to make sure she could be at Ted's 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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4254934,00.html

Ms Olsen was on her way to MEET her husband to celebrate his birthday when the flight was hijacked.
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/11/story23389.asp
Now that makes more sense, but it still doesn't tell us where, presumably in Boston, she spent the night.
Nor with whom.

[Bolo Boffin]

101. Ludicrous.

Among the passengers was Barbara Olson, the wife of solicitor general Theodore Olson. Mrs Olson, a CNN commentator, had frantically called from her mobile phone to say her plane had been hijacked.
A spokesman for her husband later revealed she had not even been due to fly on the flight. "She flew a day early to make sure she could be at Ted's 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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4254934,00.html

Ms Olsen was on her way to MEET her husband to celebrate his birthday when the flight was hijacked.
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/11/story23389.asp
Now that makes more sense, but it still doesn't tell us where, presumably in Boston, she spent the night.
Nor with whom.

Barbara Olson was aboard Flight 77, which left Washington DC for Los Angeles. Ted Olson was in Washington. It makes no sense that Barbara Olson leaves Washington to meet her husband. These reports are wrong.

Your delight in spreading rumors about Barbara Olson is no skin off my nose, but if you want the charges to stick, you should make sure you can get basic facts correct. Otherwise, people will begin to suspect that anything you state should be rejected until otherwise proven sound.

[DulceDecorum]

105. Where was Babs Olson on September 10, 2001?

boloboffin says:
Barbara Olson was aboard Flight 77, which left Washington DC for Los Angeles. Ted Olson was in Washington. It makes no sense that Barbara Olson leaves Washington to meet her husband. These reports are wrong.

OK then, where was Ted?
In Los Angeles?
Was HE the reason why she got on that plane?

Did she think that she was going to meet snuggle-ums on the West Coast,
via a plane piloted by two persons whose visual restrictrictions made a successful landing at that particular airport extremely unlikely?

Spouses have been known to lie to each other.
Judging from her books,
Barbara Olson was a complete stranger to the truth.
If she was LEAVING her husband on his birthday, then that just goes to show just how much she truly "loved" her husband.
If she was hurrying home to him, then she does look less like crud.

Either way, the story is that Ted Olson was born on September 11, which "fact" has yet to be verified. Deep searches into her resume, have so far failed to turn up evidence of Barbara having actually ever been involved in professional ballet or have ever actually tied the knot with "hubby" Ted.
So far, there is no reason to believe that Babs even had an urgent appointment in Los Angeles. But then again, like we said earlier, spouses have been known to lie to each other.
And even to the mass media.

[seatnineb]

20. Plain fake.......

Tom Burnett said.......

"One of them has a gun"

He did not say....
"One of them might have a gun"

He did not say
"One of them might have a fake gun"

He did not say
"One of the passengers has told me that they might have a gun"

Dont get me wrong.....

I dont trust Tom Burnett's testimony

Or at least the testimony provided on his behalf by his wife .

But

Tom Burnett (we are led to believe) was on the Plane..
You Bolo,were not......


Your excuses and denials are thinner than straws.....

And how about Tom Burnetts Biological compass....
The following is taken from a documentary about Flight 93
that marked the one year anniversary in 2002 that was shown on ITV in the U.K.

Flight 93: A Reconstruction.

Deena Burnett...
"At one point I asked Tom if he could tell where he was"

Tom Burnett.....
"I cant tell...I can see a field..."
"We are turning around we are turning back to New York"
"We are going back to the Trade Center"
"No..no....no..... wait we are going back the other way"
"We are heading .......south......."
"Okay I have to go"

So come on Bolo.......tell us how Tom Burnett managed
to decipher the geographical direction the plane was going in........that is something that only a pilot would know..is it not.....?

[Bolo Boffin]

21. I'm sorry to disappoint you

I don't have any idea how Tom Burnett knew that he was heading south.

Maybe somebody in his group had a compass?

Dont get me wrong.....

I dont trust Tom Burnett's testimony

Or at least the testimony provided on his behalf by his wife .

So it is your position that Mrs. Burnett is lying?

[seatnineb]

23. What a concoction

What..... between the sighting of a gun,the ability to make a cell phone call from 30000ft ,a biological compass and the ability to silence 39 other individuals huddled at the back of the plane our Tom sure was a man of many talents and outright contradictions.....


More from Deena Burnett.,......
Interviewed in Flight 93: A Reconstruction

"The last phone call came(from Tom Burnett) at 5 or 6 minutes before the top of the hour....."
"He was very quiet ...very solemn......."
"I could NOT HEAR ANYTHING IN THE BACKGROUND"
"It sounded like a routine flight..."
"All I could hear was the engines of the plane....."

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Outright contradictions?

How does Tom Burnett contradict himself?

And you didn't answer my question. You said that a phone call at 35,000 ft impossible. That makes Deena or Tom a liar. Which is it, seatnineb?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

28. I left my crib notes at the office

what number is name calling on the disinfo truth supression list?

[demodewd]

25. Voice morph.

Mrs.Burnett could have heard a morph of her husband's voice.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Evidence? n/t

[Woody Box]

33. Nonsense

demodewd mentioned the possibility of voice morphing. We don't need evidence to put up a working hypothesis.

[gandalf]

29. Why can't we stay on topic?

Again a thread deteriorates. The original question was not who on the plane lies, who doesn't recognize his wife's voice etc.

If I remember correctly, one could cut and paste the stuff of old threads here.

Would it be possible in this thread to simply collect personal experiences about using cell phones in airplanes that cruise at travel altitude and speed?

[LARED]

30. Why can't we stay on topic?

Simple. The answer to the topics underlying question is that cell phones work in flight. This was established a long time ago.

It's about as pertinent as a topic asking people if they think the earth is flat.

IMO, the tread really belongs in the DU lounge.

[Abe Linkman]

31. What point are you trying to establish?

You'll never get very far by arguing technical points with the other side. They have access to experts on every technical subject you can bring up, and those experts will provide "proof" (or at least anecdotal evidence) for whatever they "need" to prove.

If one argues that a B757, piloted by "Amazin' Hani", couldn't possibly do the areonautical maneuvers it supposedly did on 9-11 --- the other side can just pick up the phone (or maybe walk to the next cubicle) and get an "expert" to provide a believable anecdote about a similar example. They may even be able to provide a link to a video of an example!

Besides, regardless of whether or not a cell phone call is sometimes, under certain conditions, possible to make while flying in an airliner; that misses the bigger point: THE #1 Most Important Claim About The Pentagon Attack Is A Lie Told By The Solicitor General Of The United States; one Theodore "Ted The Tipsy Skirt Chaser" Olson. His lie about having received cell phone (or airphone) calls from his wife* is critical to establishing the BIG LIE about 9-11: "The Wacky Cave Man and Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory.

So, I say, with all due respect...it's a waste of time to argue technical points with the other side.

[Woody Box]

34. There's a difference

The collapse of the towers was a singular event. This question is impossible to answer without expert knowledge.

But we don't need technical experts to answer the cellphone question. It happens thousand times a day that someone doesn't switch off his phone on a plane.

[Abe Linkman]

38. Allow me to try it this way, then.

You said:
"But we don't need technical experts to answer the cellphone question."

What is the cellphone question you are concerned about? If it's whether or not anyone has ever used a cellphone on a commercial airliner, surely the answer is yes. So, WHAT IS THE POINT of asking,
if that is what you are trying to get at? The answer to that question proves nothing relevant, does it?

[MercutioATC]

40. I believe the question is:

"Under what circumstances do cellphones work on planes?"

What are the factors and how do they work?

Is it a range from the tower issue (35000' is nearly 7 miles away from anything on the ground)?...is it a speed issue (as some here have asserted)? Is it a combination of the two?

Are there areas of the country or individual providers with different equipment that would increase or decrease the probability of being able to connect at cruising altitude?

Simply put, we really don't know anything. All we have are the conflicting statements of "experts" and anecdotal claims. An understanding of the system itself might be beneficial.

[gandalf]

42. What kind of system do you use in the US? GSM? nt

[MercutioATC]

48. TDMA, CDMA and GSM

Different companies use different syatems.

[Abe Linkman]

45. The answer would prove nothing & is no help in revealing 9-11 truth.

It appears that cellphones only work rarely on planes, but since the other side can instantly provide an expert claiming otherwise; the very question itself is nothing more than a distraction or red herring.

[MercutioATC]

49. Knowing what the issues are would, at least, help define the possibilities

There are people who claim that callphones can be used at 35,000 feet. There are those who claim they can't based on "tests" done on two flights.

Knowing the physical limitations of the systems and what factors have an effect on those limitations would be helpful.

[Abe Linkman]

50. Knowing what a Red Herring is would, at least help avoid wasted time.

Starting an argument over whether or not cellphones can be used at 35,000 feet is a diversion. The other side can always come up with a Joe Sixpack and five experts who'll claim they've actually heard of someone using a cellphone at 35K feet, or at least they've heard it's theoretically possible to do so.

The other side wants people to think that if cellphones can be used at 35K feet, then the alleged calls on 9-11 actually took place...just like the corporate media reported.

Have YOU ever seen anything in the way of proof for Ted Olson's claims?
Oh. Think that's maybe because none exists and Ted was lying for PNAC?

[MercutioATC]

51. I really don't get this whole "red herring" thing.

Cellphone use at cruising altitude is part of the official story. Either it's possible or it's not. It may not be as important an issue as some others, but it's still a point of contention.

[Abe Linkman]

52. That's odd. The issue of cell phone calls was debunked two years ago.

The only people bringing it up are those who didn't know, and the only people trying to keep it alive are those who support the "Wacky Cave Man and Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory. And, you didn't KNOW that?

You didn't answer my question, either - and that makes me wonder.
If it's still a point of contention as far as you are concerned (that Ted Olson received cell phone calls from FL 77 just moments before it allegedly crashed)...have you seen any evidence or proof to back up that contention? That would be really amazing, in light of the fact that there's no proof that FL 77 ever crashed anywhere, let alone at the Pentagon.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Ladies and gentleman....Elton John.

Picture yourself in a boat on a river
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes

Cellophane flowers of yellow and green
Towering over your head
Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes
And she's gone

Lucy in the sky with diamonds

Follow her down to a bridge by a fountain
Where rocking horse people eat marshmallow pies
Everyone smiles as you drift past the flowers
That grow so incredibly high

Newspaper taxis appear on the shore
Waiting to take you away
Climb in the back with you head in the clouds
And you're gone

Lucy in the sky with diamonds

Picture yourself on a train in a station
With plasticine porters with looking glass ties
Suddenly someone is there at the turnstile
The girl with kaleidoscope eyes

PS: Check out the article I found about two cell phone companies busily working to make money off of something you claim was debunked two years ago.

[Abe Linkman]

61. When exposed.....run for the Herring.

I see you've been out of the rotation for a few days, but now you're rested and back to running like usual. To safer ground.

[MercutioATC]

57. I'm not trying to keep anything alive, but it is still a point

of contention. I've yet to see the evidence you claim debunks the notion that cellphones can be used at altitude. What I DO know is nobody here seems to have a real understanding of cellular communications, the differences between the systems used or their limitations.

Regardless of how many times the "Wacky Cave Man" line is thrown out there, characterizing OBL as an unsophisticated bumpkin with no resources is simply false. Perpetuating that image perpetuates the lie.

[Abe Linkman]

60. Are you calling me a liar? THAT'S against DU rules.

1.) Cell phones occasionally work in airplanes.

2.) Alleged cell phone calls from B. Olson to Ted, from FL 77, are THE MOST CRITICAL alleged phone calls made on 9-11.

3.) Neither you nor anyone else has even a shred of evidence that B. Olson called her husband Ted from FL 77.

4.) Supporters (paid & otherwise) of the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory dwell on the Red Herring of whether or not cell phone calls can be made from airliners...in hopes of fooling the public into accepting the lie about cell phone calls from FL 77.

5.) The U.S. Government claimed it had proof that OBL was behind 9-11 and that they would release such proof to the public. To date, NOT one shred of credible evidence has been released. Paid and unpaid supporters of the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory are thus forced to focus attention on irrelevant issues such as whether or not cellphones can be used in airliners. That's about as important as whether or not it is PHYSICALLY possible for "Atta's" passport to survive the firery WTC crash.

The pattern of O.Story Conspiracy promoters is: once the absurdity of their Red Herring issues is pointed out, to then claim that "no one here seems to have a real understanding of the principles of passport survival in firery crashes, or how cellular communications works, or the differences between "finding" a passport and "planting" a passport.

Such nonsense only serves to bring into question what would motivate people to continue to promote the bogus Official 9-11 Version.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. We were talking about the Burnetts, not Barbara Olson, Abe.

You are the one that brought the red herring of Barbara Olson into this conversation.

You have yet to explain to me the MOST CRITICAL importance of Olson's calls, anyway. What would have been different about the United States response to 9/11 had the Olson calls never become public knowledge? What exactly would have happened differently?

[Abe Linkman]

68. The Olson calls never happened and you know it.

n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

98. No, I don't know it.

There's only one reason to assume that the Olson calls didn't happen: Ted Olson's proven ability to spread lies due to his involvement in the Arkansas Project.

But since other people talked on the phone with Barbara that day, this is a minor point. It deserves to be mentioned and taken into account, but it doesn't completely impeach the cell phone calls that Barbara made from Flight 77. It certainly doesn't negate every other phone call made from the doomed flights that day.

Now stick to the subject: can cell phones work in airplanes - case in point, the Burnetts. Can you manage to stick to the subject without changing it?

[Abe Linkman]

106. Now, answer the question, bolo.

Do you or do you not have any evidence to support your claims that Barbara aka Mrs. Olson made cell phone calls from FL 77?

After two years of ducking, evading, asserting, using the alert button, and remaining immune from personal impeachment, you are still here making unsubstantiated claims about alleged phone calls from FL 77.

Why don't you just admit that the investigations into those claims clearly demonstrate the utter unlikelihood of them happening, and that YOU and your side have no facts, no proof, and no logic in support of what is obviously a lie.

[Abe Linkman]

70. Then talk about the Burnetts & stop bringing up Red Herrings

Your side has tried to hijack the discussion and turn it into one of whether or not it is possible for a cell phone to work in a commercial airliner. That's a trivial Red Herring.

You have yet to provide even a shred of credible evidence that Ted Olson received ANY cell phone calls from the woman aka Barbara Olson. Why?
I think the reason is because there is no evidence, because the calls never happened, but the lie that they did has to be perpetuated because otherwise, the entire "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory falls like a lead balloon.

But, a good actor can pretend all kinds of things. Know any?

[Bolo Boffin]

97. You're the one that brought up Olson, Abe.

Woodyb is the one that questions whether cell phones can work in planes. That's what we were discussing and the Burnetts were the case in point.

YOU have brought all this folderol about Barbara Olson into the mix. Stick to the point.

[Abe Linkman]

107. The point is that you have no proof of any cell phone calls on 9-11.

"Woodyb" now knows that you and yours can provide "evidence" that sometimes, in certain cases, cell phones can work in planes.

That's a triviality only someone out to promulgate the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory would want to continue pursuing long after the point has been made.

Is there any other reason why you want to focus on trivial Red Herring issues like that? I can think of several, but I can't mention them.

[MercutioATC]

67. If I call you a liar, you'll know it. That's not what I said.

I simply find it amusing that somebody so concerned with sticking to pertinent facts chooses to reduce OBL to a "wacky caveman" when that doesn't even approximate reality.

OBL recieved training from our CIA. He is well educated. He has influential connections. He has money. He's intelligent.

You say that it's unreasonable to expect that a "wacky caveman" could pull off the events of 9/11. That's true, but OBL is no "wacky caveman".

[Abe Linkman]

69. OBL is a CIA-made Patsy.

Now, do YOU have any evidence he was involved in 9-11...other than being a Patsy?

[Abe Linkman]

71. Not only "unreasonable", there's NO evidence OBL had anything...

to do with 9-11...except maybe being a Patsy. I find it amusing that somebody who, when cornered, tried to back off bogus claims by asserting that s/he only knows about ATC stuff -- but now claims to be an expert on OBL. You said he was trained by "our" CIA (as opposed to "their" CIA, I guess). So was Lee Harvey Oswald.

OBL was in a military hospital in Pakistan on 9-10-01 (and most likely during the hours whenever the "attacks" of 9-11 occurred). Yet, you and yours want us to believe that he _______ 9-11 attacks.

You don't provide any evidence, but then again, you're an ATC and only know about ATC stuff whenever you're backed into a corner.

[MercutioATC]

85. Your attacks are kind of funny....

Just because I have technical knowledge of ATC procedures doesn't mean I can't assert a viewpoint that's unrelated to ATC. Where's YOUR doctorate in 9/11? I never claimed to be an expert on OBL, that's a gross misrepresentation on your part.

To delve a little deeper, how does the physical location of OBL on 9/11 have anything to do with his involvement? Nobody claims that he flew the planes, just that he masterminded the operation. As far as I can see, that doesn't require his physical presence.

I'm simply stating that OBL is not some unwashed, ignorant "caveman". He's an intelligent, educated well-funded person who is a lot more capable than the "wacky caveman" image you gain such pleasure in conjuring.

[Abe Linkman]

89. OBL is intelligent & savvy. He wouldn't be involved in 9-11.

OBL has denied ANY involvement with 9-11. His long experience as a CIA asset apparently taught him that it isn't very healthy to disobey his masters, as Lee Harvey Oswald found out.

As far as "claims that he masterminded the operation": Got evidence?

[MercutioATC]

92. "OBL is intelligent & savvy."...but..I thought he was a "wacky caveman"

Really. Which is it?

As far as evidence, I don't have any, personally. Do you? (I'm not talking about expert testimony or suppositions, I'm talking about evidence.)

I've never said that I believe all of the "official explanation". I think some asses are probably being covered. That doesn't mean, however, that I'll turn a blind eye to logic and grasp at straws. I won't automatically discard everything the government says. I won't be dismissive by using condescending nicknames.

There's a WHOLE lot of territory between the official explanation and the reality you seem to see. Somewhere in there is where I reside.

[Abe Linkman]

93. You say you don't have any evidence, but you still believe it...sort of?

Reall. Which is it?

"As far as evidence, I don't have any, personally. Do you?"

No, I don't have any evidence that OBL had ANY part to play in 9-11, except that of Patsy...nor do I have any reason to suspect that OBL had anything to do with 9-11. Furthermore, it defies common sense to think that a man who lives in a cave, is in poor health, knows he's being watched (even visited) by the CIA...would even TRY to pull off something like what happened on 9-11. That would be nuts and even suicidal. (and you say he's a fairly sophisticated, worldly, wealthy cave man).

Yet, you still support the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory...sort of...but you do "discard some things" (WHAT, you haven't given us the benefit of knowing, so we'll just have to trust you...like those fake videos of Osama).

Just because you "reside" somewhere between reality and a BIG LIE, isn't very reassuring. And, you say you're an ATC? I'm not sure what is the scariest: that, or your fuzzy reasoning.

[MercutioATC]

96. There are parts I believe and parts I don't.Why is that hard to understand

Your sarcasm aside, I'm sure you knew I was asking what proof you hold that OBL was NOT involved.

If you do, I'm interested...

Otherwise, you seem a mite hypocritical accusing me of "fuzzy logic"...

[Abe Linkman]

108. Maybe it's a little worse than just "fuzzy logic".

You're asking me to prove a negative. Prove you aren't a disinfo agent.

[MercutioATC]

114. My point was that neither you nor I have concrete proof of what we

believe. If you're going to dismiss my opinions for lack of proof, you should also reexamine your own.

As I said, I'm not completely satisfied with the official explanation, but I find some of the theories I've read here to be a little too farfetched.

As far as my opinion of your "wacky caveman" label for OBL, I feel it's innacurate. That's my opinion.

[Abe Linkman]

115. But YOUR side is claiming to know what happened. YOU need proof.

You are here on a site for people who QUESTION the Official Story Conspiracy Theory ("Wacky Cave People Did It")...and you are part of the group that has NEVER questioned that story (saying you're not completely satisfied is a meaningless statement).

Since you are here promoting the Official Story, it is YOUR OBLIGATION to prove your claims. So far, you and yours have not offered the slightest bit of credible evidence to support your claims about the cave people. Meanwhile, many OBJECTIVE amateur (NOT PR/disinfo people) investigators have done a marvelous job in deconstructing the lies behind the bogus "Wacky Cave People Did It" Official Conspiracy Theory.

You can't even give a logical explanation for how OBL could have possibly masterminded 9-11. All you can do is make assertions. Can't you even make a case for him...even though there's no evidence, I'd think one of you could give a coherent, logical, realistic, plausible scenario for how OBL could be responsible for "Pearl Harbor, The Sequel".

[MercutioATC]

118. I don't HAVE a "side" here. I have my own views.

My function here has never been to promote the official story, but to correct obvious errors people had in their understanding of certain ATC systems and procedures. I will occasionally also interject my own opinions (such as I have with the accuracy of calling OBL a "wacky caveman").

I have seen quite a few arguments that used incorrect premises as "proof". I happen to be in a position to dispel some of these misconceptions, much as a doctor would in a conversation dealing with medical issues or an attorney when discussing legal issues.


As far as an explanation as to how OBL could have organized 9/11, how is it illogical to believe he could? He had the resources, the connections, the training and the ill will borne for the U.S. Is this proof he did it? No. However, I have yet to see any evidence that somebody else did it, either.

OBL does seem like the likely candidate to me. Without concrete proof either way, we're forced to form an opinion. That's mine.

[demodewd]

53. MOS33Q10 speaketh

http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1049

"The cell phone calls from the aircraft could not have happened. I am a National Security Agency trained Electronic Warfare specialist, and am qualified to say this. My official title: MOS33Q10, Electronic Warfare Intercept Strategic Signal Processing/Storage Systems Specialist, a highly skilled MOS which requires advanced knowledge of many communications methods and circuits to the most minute level. I am officially qualified to place severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft.

It was impossible for that to have happened, especially in a rural area for a number of reasons.

When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is that your cell phone needs to contact a transponder. Your cell phone has a max transmit power of five watts, three watts is actually the norm. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to 1. Contact a tower, 2. Tell the tower who you are, and who your provider is, 3. Tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and 4. Establish that it is in a roaming area before it passes out of a five watt range. This procedure, called an electronic handshake, takes approximately 45 seconds for a cell phone to complete upon initial power up in a roaming area because neither the cell phone or cell transponder knows where that phone is and what mode it uses when it is turned on. At 500 miles an hour, the aircraft will travel three times the range of a cell phone's five watt transmitter before this handshaking can occur. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible. The calls from the airplane were faked, no if's or buts"

[Bolo Boffin]

55. And so does capitalism...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2002-10-22-air-cell_x.htm

The spread of cell phones may soon reach forbidden turf: airline flights. At least two companies, AirCell and Verizon Airfone, are developing technology to let passengers use their cell phones without disrupting airplane electronics or ground cellular service.

...The FCC bans use because of ground concerns. Cell phones often don't work at 30,000 feet, but when they do, signals can reach hundreds of towers at once, clogging networks.

I think this should clear this idiocy about cell phones not working on planes up completely. There will soon be corporations making money off of something that your anonymous source claims is impossible.

[gandalf]

58. "this should clear this idiocy": Certainly not

Even if the fuselage of the plane with its small windows absorbs some of the energy of the signal (thus diminishing the chance for a successful call), it will indeed reach ground towers.
And even though the transmitting frequency of the phone is different from the plane systems, during the process of modulation/demodulation within the cell phone, frequencies are transmitted that might interfere with the airplane systems.

Theoretically, for instance, European GSM mobile phones have a reach of 35km, due to the traveling time of the signal. If it arrives to late (if the distance is too long), it will miss the correct timeslot, which lasts around 4 micro seconds.

But that does not mean that it's is actually possible to establish a connection, stable enough for a phone call. Naturally it is a difference between a signal merely reaching 1200 towers (the antennas of which are horizontally directed) at the same time and really establishing a connection, which requires to assign a certain tower and running a handover protocol.

It is, however, not only the height of the plane, it is also the speed that causes problems.

The hypothesis that the Time Division Multiple Access concept together with the handover protocols used for many digital phones does not work during normal flight conditions is therefore certainly not an idiocy.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. What part of "people are making money off of it" don't you understand?

It's obviously not impossible - people are making money off of it happening.

If people are not disputing their charges, then the cell phone calls can happen. You can list all the problems you want, but the fact remains - it's reliable enough that corporations want to make money off of it.

If the technology's real, you must learn to deal.

[gandalf]

66. Which part of "are developing" don't you understand?

"it's reliable enough that corporations want to make money off of it."

According to your post, the technology is still being developed. "At least two companies, AirCell and Verizon Airfone, are developing technology to let passengers use their cell phones".

According to my understanding of "developing", if something is developed, it doesn't exist at the moment.

[Bolo Boffin]

99. The article clearly states that phones can work in midflight.

The developing technology (back in 2002, hello!) is to keep the phone calls from disrupting the network so much.

But the phones could work, even at heights of 35,000 ft. And the phones did work at those heights - notably on September 11th, when many passengers used cell phones to try and call their loved ones. Some got through.

Calling any of these people liars because of your pet theories is disgraceful.

[Abe Linkman]

109. Trying to imply that calls WERE made is illogical.

Implying or saying that "many passengers used cell phones" - merely because it might be possible to use a cell phone during a flight -- is illogical.

Calling people disgraceful because they point out your fallacious reasoning is not a sign of confidence in what you are here to promote.

[Abe Linkman]

62. Yes, it's time to "move on"...to important issues like the Olson lies.

"I think this should clear this idiocy about cell phones not working on planes up completely."

Now, do you still contend that B. Olson called Ted from FL 77? If so, do you have any proof to back up that claim? You seem to have excellent "research" sources, but in two years you've yet to provide even a scintilla of evidence for what is arguably the most crucial issue in the
Pentagon events of 9-11.

It's time for you and your side to put up, or "move on" to other issues.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. We are talking about the Burnetts, Abe.

Why are you trying to change the subject?

[Abe Linkman]

72. That was before you left the rotation, bolo.

Other supporters of the "Wacky Cave People Did It" have moved on to the trivial Red Herring issue of whether or not it is physically possible for more than one CIA Angel to dance on OBL's head.

I think that's because there's no credible evidence that ANY cell phone calls were made during the actual 9-11 flights.

[seatnineb]

94. Don't count on Deena, Bolo...you may regret it.....

Ahhh yes ...Bolo’s reliable friends the Burnetts.......

Deena kindly remind Bolo again of that last call from Tom.......

(Deena Burnett interviewed on the T.V program.....FL93:A Reconstruction(2002))

“The last phone call came(from Tom Burnett) at 5 or 6 minutes before the top of the hour....."(according to this it would be 9:54AM or 9:55AM)
"He was very quiet ...very solemn......."
"I could NOT HEAR ANYTHING IN THE BACKGROUND"
"It sounded like a routine flight..."
"All I could hear was the engines of the plane....."

But Deena aren’t you a forgeting that a fully fledged counter terrorist operation was already being staged by the “heroes”........?

Just listen to FL93 Flight Attendent Sandy Bradshaw calling by phone to her husband.
“We are all running to 1st class!”
And when did Sandy say this....
According to her husbands estimation it would have been at 9:40AM
http://www.warroom.com/nyterrorism/flightattendant.htm

Funny how Deena(I will sue 3rd world Sudan for a trillion dollars)Burnett NEVER heard Burnett(Tom),Bingham,Beamer and Glick do their “heroic”thing....

So which is it Bolo........
Sandy("They are Islamic looking!") says “We are running to 1st class” at 9:40AM

Or is it Trustworthy(“one of them has a gun”) Tom...
“Some us are going to do something” at 9:54AM or 9:55AM

Looks like Sandy beat you to it Tom.......

Oh the pathetic lies............

[DulceDecorum]

41. Bad news, good news.

Airfone's domestic commercial airline partners include United, Continental, Delta, USAirways, American, Midwest Express and Air Wisconsin. The new low rates began at Friday, Sept. 21 and will end at 11:59 p.m. Friday, Oct. 5. In addition, there will be no charge for any domestic call that was placed on the Airfone system on Sept. 11.
http://www.m-travel.com/10930.shtml
I do not anticipate that you will have any luck whatsoever in locating ANY cell-phone bills from ANY of those passengers.

However,
we can still show you the WHOLE damn plane they called from, if and when you decide you are interested.
N591UA never crashed. It is still flying in US airspace using the alias N594UA. Maybe we could charter it and try calling out on our cell-phones. But I don't think that we will be able to get through to anyone unless we take a few Muslims along for the ride so that they can suspend the laws of physics, just like they did on September 11, 2001.

[Abe Linkman]

43. Were the billing records sent to China for "recycling"?

If not, THEY would be very interesting to see.
Also, Theodore "Tipsy Lie Ted" Olson's telephone record log would also be very interesting to see...if the original could be found...and if it could be determined that it hadn't been tampered with.

[gandalf]

46. Where did you get the info from regarding the new registration

of the N591UA plane? Because, according to airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N594UA&distinct_entry=true), N594UA existed before 9/11/01.

[DulceDecorum]

54. Bob Novak

does not have to reveal his sources and Cheney STILL won't tell us who was on that Energy Commission. So why should DulceDecorum have to spill the beans? I claim executive privilege.

United Airlines has quite a few planes that it is not telling the FAA anything about (see the triennial report data.) One of these is N591UA and another one is N594UA.
The transponder and the N-number are linked and United is circumventing this by renaming N591UA and giving it the transponder code, which is linked to N-number N594UA. This works very well on paper and since Air Traffic Control goes by what they see on their screens, this works very well for general aviation purposes within US airspace.

However, everything comes undone when a plane enthusiast sees and records the actual nose number and the actual tail number of the plane. United is too cheap to repaint the plane and it so it is still flying with the nose and fleet number of 5494 and the n-number or tail number of N591UA.

Hang out long enough at any United hub and you may just verify this for yourself. And yes, you are correct, N594 is much older than N591UA. The older plane had a very long history of maintenance problems. The newer plane was and is just dandy.
Perhaps the reason that the air force and NORAD did not respond was simply because there was absolutely nothing for them to respond to in the way of rogue planes.
Remember, even the American Airlines planes survived until January 14, 2002 and if there is ANY record of their destruction on that day, rest assured that DulceDecorum has not yet found it. In other words, if those AA planes survived 9:11, then they too are still alive and well and one of these days they are going to be caught sitting on some runway.

But hey, don't let any of this stop you from discussing the events of September 11, 2001 as if planes were actually hijacked. Without the so-called involvement of Muslim hijackers there is no casus belli for war, and war and oil are what the United States of Halliburton want.

[MercutioATC]

59. One HUGE error in what you claim here...

"The transponder and the N-number are linked and United is circumventing this by renaming N591UA and giving it the transponder code, which is linked to N-number N594UA. This works very well on paper and since Air Traffic Control goes by what they see on their screens, this works very well for general aviation purposes within US airspace."

Abso-friggin-lutely incorrect. Every aircraft has a registration number (tail number). The U.S.'s start with "N".

General aviation aircraft use this number as their Aircraft ID (call sign) when they file a flight plan and talk with ATC.

Commercial flights use the airline-assigned flight number (eg: USA1240, the flight number that appears on your tickets and the monitors in the airport) to file flight plans and communicate with ATC. As ATC's we have no idea what a commercial flight's tail number is, only the Aircraft ID the flight is filed under (USA 1240, for example).

None of this has ANYTHING to do with transponder code assignment.

As flight plans are entered into the FAA's computers, the computer assigns them a transponder code. Upon departure, the pilot will dial the transponder to that code for the duration of the flight. When he lands, he will turn off the transponder and will most likely have a new trandponder code on that aircraft's next flight.

Codes are NOT assigned to individual aircraft on a permanent basis.

[DulceDecorum]

76. Oh dear

I must have gotten confused by the FAA website
which gives the Mode S code number for each plane
when you type in the N-number.
The Mode S code number stays the same even when the actual aircraft is de-registered.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=7007F
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=92067

And then I went and misread this entry.

Mode S Code
Eight digit transponder address code assigned to each U.S. Registration Number as part of the Mode Select Beacon System (Mode S). Sometimes referred to as the ICAO address code.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/definitions.asp

And then I misunderstood the general aviation use of flight numbers under ACARS.

Who uses flight number GS0001 ?
This is a code assigned to general aviation aircraft, mainly executive jets. In addition, some Atlantic Coast Airlines flights were using this flight number. Another variation on this is UV0001 which are general aviation aircraft under the dispatch of Universal Radio ( an aircraft dispatch company in Houston Texas).
http://www.acarsonline.co.uk/aclink/alfaqs.htm

My mistake.
But it is comforting to know that
MercutioATC says:
As ATC's we have no idea what a commercial flight's tail number is, only the Aircraft ID the flight is filed under (USA 1240, for example).

Well then,
that makes it even easier for United to get away with flying that particular plane in US airspace. Especially since united has a history of using incorrect numbers.

The following are aircraft that have either the wrong registration on ACARS or have some sort of 'non registration' id that has been tied up. I have NOT included the more obvious ones (like the FRD329 = N329K) nor have I included the 'temporary' ones (entry errors like United using fleet numbers - 2072 instead of N772UA, N428UAL instead of N428UA).
<snip>
There is also a use of "generic" ids by bizjet manufacturers. Noted so far have been CESSNA, EXCL1, BRVO1, ENCR1, LJTEST, BLTEST, DFMRG, DFJET and GLEX1. These do NOT correspond to a SINGLE aircraft (except for possibly GLEX1 which needs confirmation) but rather to new aircraft being tested. THE PROBLEM ARISES WHEN THE UNITS DO NOT GET SET TO THE CORRECT IDs. CESSNA has been logged all over the world AT THE SAME TIME....obviously not the same aircraft.
http://www.acarsonline.co.uk/aclink/alanomal.htm

I do hope that I am not misreading that AGAIN.
Somehow I now have the impression that the Mode S units are supposed to be set to a certain ID number which will then readily identify that particular plane on ACARS. And somehow I have have gained the impression that the Mode S code number is permanently assigned to a particular N- number.
Oh dear.
oh dear.
This is all so confusing.

[MercutioATC]

83. Your error was in mixing terminology.

Mode S codes are NOT the "transponder codes" that people are talking about. ATC doesn't read Mode S codes.

The transponder codes we use are a 4-digit number (each digit between 0 and 7) that the user selects on the transponder unit in the aircraft. This 4-digit code is randomly assigned by ATC computers as the flight plan is entered into the system.

ACARS is not an ATC system...I don't know how it makes use of Mode S codes, but regardless, it has nothing to do with ATC.

[DulceDecorum]

111. Still confused

We know there are many questions about transponder systems and the ability to turn them off in flight. Transponders continuously transmit aircraft identification, altitude and air speed data to ground radar. The flight crew can turn off the transponder when requested to do so by Air Traffic Control because of clutter on the ATC radar screen or when there are faults in the transponder. Flight crews are trained to use the transponder to notify ATC when the aircraft is in distress and/or being hijacked. The crew can also use special radio terminology to alert ATC of a hijacking. There are also special codes between the flight deck and cabin crews to indicate a hijack situation. Even with the transponder turned off, the flight path of the airplane is still visible on radar.
http://appropriations.senate.gov/releases/record.cfm?id=178772

Mode S Code
Eight digit transponder address code assigned to each U.S. Registration Number as part of the Mode Select Beacon System (Mode S). Sometimes referred to as the ICAO address code.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/definitions.asp

28.
Hugh McLaurin, Federal Aviation Administration, phone interview with author, 2 August 1993. Note: a transponder is a transmitter in an airplane that sends out a coded signal to air traffic controllers to help them locate the position of aircraft on their radar scopes.
Mode "A" transponders report only a selectable numerical code and the lateral position of the airplane,
while Mode "C" transponders report altitude, as well.
Mode "S" transponders send out a discrete code that applies only to that particular aircraft and always remains the same.
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/trailblazer/SP-4216/Source/source7.html

Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS)
The requirement for certain categories of civil aircraft either registered in UK or flying within UK airspace to be equipped with ACAS took effect on 1 January 2000. ACAS equipment currently available is TCAS II which uses SSR transponder returns to calculate potential airborne conflicts and automatically provides the flight deck crew with alerting and collision avoidance information. TCAS can provide alerting information on any aircraft transmitting an SSR code but collision avoidance guidance can only be provided for conflicting aircraft transmitting Mode C or Mode S.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_501660.hcsp

Many interesting technologies are used in air traffic control systems. Primary and secondary radar are used to enhance a controller's "situational awareness" within his assigned airspace -- all types of aircraft send back primary echoes of varying sizes to controllers' screens as radar energy is bounced off their (usually) metallic skins, and transponder equipped aircraft reply to secondary radar interrogations by giving an ID (mode A), an altitude (mode C) and/or a unique callsign (mode S). Certain types of weather may also register on the radar screen.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/air%20traffic%20control

Mode- A - A transponder which does not give the controllers altitude information
Mode-C - A transponder and encoding altimeter which together give air traffic controllers altitude information
Mode-S - A transponder which features unique identification per unit, the potential for low-speed up and down datalinks, and "selective interrogation" triggered by ground facilities
http://www.jetsales.com/stage/jsglossary/glossary3.html#M

In the 1960's, the United States air traffic control (ATC) system was in disarray. Delays were increasing, efficiency was low, and air traffic was growing at an rate that the system was unprepared to handle. By the end of the decade, a number of converging factors, on several different fronts, came together to solve these problems. The solution was Mode S, an air traffic control data link technology designed by MIT's Lincoln Labs to alleviate the existing problems of the day as well as to meet the challenges of future growth. Today, Mode S is an integral component of the Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), which is an international standard for commercial aircraft.
http://web.mit.edu/6.933/www/Fall2000/mode-s/index.html

I still think that the Mode S code number given on the FAA website is unique to that particular FAA-assigned N-number.
I still think that someone somewhere in Air Control should be able to tell which plane is which.
And I know for a fact that N591UA has made at the very very very least, one flight while impersonating N594UA.
And gotten away with it.

MercutioATC
perhaps you can tell us why the media made such a big fuss about the hijackers ability to turn off transponders when it appears that you ATC people tell pilots to turn them off every single day.
Surely the hijackers knew where the transponder knobs were. You yourself say that the transponder code is set by hand after the flight plan generated a code-number. Therefore, this cannot be a mystery to anyone who has spent a few hours on a flight-simulator.

[MercutioATC]

113. Transponders:

Mode S 8-digit codes are not used by ATC. To the best of my knowledge they are used to transmit company messages to/from the aircraft. ATC uses only the 4-digit transponder code (user selectable) and Mode C (altitude) data transmitted by the transponder.

I have no idea why the media does what it does...most of the media's mistakes are due to an improper understanding of equipment or procedures.

We have pilots change their transponder codes before every flight to match the code assigned them by NAS National Airspace System) computers. We also occasionally have them change their code in flight for a variety of reasons. We can have them leave their transponder on and just stop their altitude reporting (which we do when their transponder is transmitting erroneous data). When the plane lands, it turns off its transponder.

An 8-year-old could probably find the transponder and turn it off if you told him what to look for. It's not a security device, it's a reporting tool.

[demodewd]

116. How long?

How long does it take to punch in the four digit hijacking code? Two seconds? Yet it wasn't done on any of the planes.

[MercutioATC]

117. You're right...about 2 seconds.

All I can say is that if men with weapons suddenly proke into the cockpit, my reactions would be defending myself, making sure the plane stayed in the air and notifying somebody what was happening...in that order. Things very well may have happened too quickly. Since anybody with any flight training knows about transponder codes, it's also possible that the hijackers made sure the code was never entered.

[seatnineb]

120. the 2 seconds that never were

2 seconds to punch in the hijack code?.....I am going to hold you to that Mercutio......
You ducked,dodged and weaved away from this in the"It was not Flt 77" thread.


So lets take DESERT STORM veteran Leroy Homer....
One of the pilots of FLT 93....
Lets begin with the information provided by his wife.....

flag #1
"Melody Leroy later learned(after 9/11) from a member of the Air Force who worked with her husband that a couple of weeks before the incident(9/11),they were all sitting around and talking about the intelligence that was filtering through from the military that something big was going to happen......."
http://www.subliminalnews.com/archives/000144.php

Getting warm........


flag #2
"Leroy Homer,36, the first officer,recieved a radioed text message from air traffic control in Chicago warning aircraft of that morning's(9/11) hijackings."beware cockpit intrusions" the text message said..At about 9:15am the crew typed a one word reply:..."CONFIRMED".."
http://www.devvy.com/red_20011210.html


Getting warmer........

flag #3
In the T.V documentary FLT 93:A Reconstruction we see how the hijackers initiated the Hijackings......

The 4 hijackers get up from their seats.
They walk casually towards the overhead compartments.
They open them.
They slowly tie Red bandanas around their foreheads.
They then draw their knives.
Ziad Jarah screams "ALLAH O' AKBAR!"
He slits the throat of a 1st class passenger.
Other 1st class passengers then start screaming.
The other 3 hijackers scream at the passengers.."YOU SIT DOWN"
Other 1st class passengers continue screaming.
The hijackers then assault the Flight attendents at the LOCKED cockpit door.
Ziad Jarah screams "WHERE IS THE KEY..GIVE ME THE KEY!"
The flight attendent at the cockpit door screams "NO...PLEASE NOOOOOOOOOOO!".

Getting far too hot for the integrity of a pilot who took part in Desert storm isnt it?
Leroy Homer had ample time to punch in that 2 second Hijack code and you know it.....

[MercutioATC]

124. I wasn't there, were you? How do you "know" anything?

You're basing your conclusion on a TV reconstruction of of an incident with no survivors? How do we know events transpired that way?

The "hijack" code on a transponder is 7500. I think 2 seconds is ample time to change from 4572 (or whatever) to 7500. 10 seconds, tops.

Regarding whether the flight crew had time to enter the code, we really don't know how much time they had. With the cockpit door closed, they very well might not have heard noises in the passenger compartment (I've ridden in the cockpit of a 757...I know). Even if they did, their first reaction would probably have been to see what was going on, not to start broadcasting "hijack".

This Monday-morning-quarterbacking serves no purpose. Sure, we can come up with what SHOULD have happened when we know that 4 planes were hijacked. The point is, the flight crews didn't expect a hijacking. It would be unreasonable to expect them to dial in 7500 because of some noises from the back without seeing what was going on first.

[seatnineb]

127. Beware Cockpit Intrusion! Beware Cockpit Intrusion! Beware Cockpit Intr...

Predictably enough Mercutio, you evaded the following:

Desert Storm/U.S Air Force/Flt 93 pilot Leroy Homer recieved this message.....
"Beware Cockpit Intrusion".
He WAS prepared.
The door WAS locked.

It does not matter whether the hijackers threatened flight attendents and coerced Leroy Homer to open the door(as appears in the extremly patriotic Flt 93 Reconstruction T.V documentary).
Alternatively it does not matter whether they rammed the door until they could barge their way in.......

Leroy(Something Big Is Going To Happen!)Homer did not punch the code when he had ample time to do so...
And didnt.....

Anyways.....how innocent was Ex-Desert Storm Pilot Leroy Homer?...
After all he was involved in some capacity of the following:
"The evidence on the ground as well as bombing raid reports suggest instead the use of massive carpet-bombing alleged to have dropped 85,000 tons of bombs, or the equivalent of seven and-a-half Hiroshimas, primarily on civilian infrastructures and at the cost of about 200,000 civilian lives according to former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark".
http://hiddenwars.com/

It is amusing to see how you try to defend the paradoxical and indefensible .......

[demodewd]

132. :wtf:

The hijackers were breaking open the cockpit door(Flight 93) but the flight crews didn't expect a hijacking?? :wtf: Square pegs in a round hole! You have no legitimate rebutal. Period.

[LARED]

133. Not so fast there

Prior to 9/11 that last hijacking of a commercial airliner in the USA as something like 20+ years ago. The airline security apparatus focused on the prevention of bombing not hijacking.

Given this information I think it is reasonable to believe that the pilots were not expecting a hijacking because someone entered the cabin.

BTW, my understanding is that cockpit doors were not normally locked or at least easily compromised. So were they really "breaking open" the door as you imply.

[seatnineb]

135. My Dear LARED

If the door of flt 93(and the other 9/11 planes)was/were unlocked.......

Oh dear
You really do have an affinity for pilots who contravene F.A.A regulations dont you........
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/355912/

As for an "easily compromised door"..
Strange..
This same door(flt 93) was sturdy enough to resist the combined brute force of Judo champs,Quaterbacks,Bull Riders,Ex-Police Officers and a food cart......
So says your Master ,F.B.I Boss Robert Mueller.....

Yet 2 Arabs managed to ram this very same door with such speed that Ex-U.S AirForce Captain Leroy Homer did not have enough time to punch in that all important Hijack code..

Please do keep defending the indefensible and paradoxical......
We're enjoying it whilst it lasts......

[demodewd]

136. Shortly after 9 a.m.

"Shortly after 9 a.m., a message, automatically sent to all United Airlines pilots by the home office, had flashed on the cockpit computer screen. It notified them that American Flight 11 had already crashed into the first World Trade Center tower and United 175 had just plowed into the second tower. They were also told that American Flight 77 had been hijacked and was headed for Washington. D.C. That message was followed by a general warning and three ominous words: "Beware, cockpit intrusion."
One of the pilots typed. "Confirmed."

http://www.pathlights.com/Flight%2093.htm

[MercutioATC]

137. Actually, it would have been more likely to have been a drunken or

deranged passenger than a hijacker, but that's beside the point. I still believe that finding out what was going on and defending themselves would have been their first two natural reactions.

[demodewd]

138. 4 out of 4 WOW!!

You are assuming that on all 4 flights the crews would not have been aware of an intended hijacking before they were overcome by alleged hijackers in the cockpit. 4 out of 4! Sign this guy up!

Take a swing at this curve ball...."Shortly after 9 a.m., a message, automatically sent to all United Airlines pilots by the home office, had flashed on the cockpit computer screen. It notified them that American Flight 11 had already crashed into the first World Trade Center tower and United 175 had just plowed into the second tower. They were also told that American Flight 77 had been hijacked and was headed for Washington. D.C. That message was followed by a general warning and three ominous words: "Beware, cockpit intrusion."
One of the pilots typed. "Confirmed."

http://www.pathlights.com/Flight%2093.htm


Pride goeth before a fall

[MercutioATC]

139. I stand by what I said. Additionally, if they DID automatically assume

the disruption was caused by hijackers, their first action would most likely have been to try to fight off the hijackers and keep the plane flying, not set a transponder code.

...as far as your "curve ball", you DO realize that it only applies to UAL93, right? The three other aircraft had no advance notice.

"pride goeth before a fall"??? Please...

[seatnineb]

140. Keep running Mercutio.......

Between the time taken for the hijackers to :

1)Force the pilots to open the door by threatening to kill the flight attendents.....

Or

2)Threatening the flight attendents (and then knifing them) to give them the Boeing key to open the door........

Or

3)By just plain ramming the door.....

Leroy Homer had the TIME advantage to punch in that 2 second code....
Which ever way you look at it......

As for the other flights ...


How about crack military pilots Oganowski and McGuiness of Flight 11?

Apart from flight attendents, they actually had counter terrorist expert Danny Lewin also holding up the hijackers, subsequently buying them even MORE time to punch in that code...

As for Ex-Navy Saracini and Ex-Marine Horrocks of Flight 175.....
Was it not they themselves who informed an ATC that they had :
"Heard a suspiciouse call on departure from BOS"
"Looks like someone keyed the mike and said stay in your seats"
Was it not they themselves who were asked by an ATC to look out for the MISSING flt 11?


The only flight you can grapple onto with this desperate claim is the beloved flt 77........
Well I guess if Hani could walk through customs with Box-cutters and knifes in his pockets then bypassing the cockpit door of flt 77 shouldnt have been too hard...........

Question.

What is a hijacker least likely to do when he hijacks a plane.

Answer.

Punch in the hijack code.

Well that is what Ex-military pilots:
Oganowski,McGuiness,Saracini,Horrocks,Burlingham and Homer DID....

[MercutioATC]

141. That borders on getting personal, but I'll let it go. Your problem is,

you don't KNOW how long it took for the hijackers to gain entry to the cockpit. Perhaps the flight attendant had just entered the cockpit to see if he/she could get anything for the captain and first officer. Perhaps the door wasn't locked.

Can you tell me that you know that the scenario didn't unfold as follows:

The hijackers wait for the cockpit door to be opened and storm the flight deck. The flight crew, taken totally by surprise, attempts to fight off their attackers while flying the airplane. They're unable to enter 7500 before they're killed. On the first 3 planes, that seems like a very realistic scenario to me.

On UAL93, it would have been more difficult as the warning had already been given that three other aircraft had been hijacked. What we don't know is if, possibly, the captain had asked a flight attendant to come to the flight deck so he/she could be told to beware of possible hijackers. If so, that would have been an occasion on which the cockpit door was open.

Actually, those doors are none too sturdy (Have you ever seen the little lock mechanism? Pitiful.). Two men hitting at the door at the same time would probably have no trouble popping the lock, eliminating the need for all of the "open door" suppositions I've used above.

It's not a perfect world. Things don't always go as they should. If they did, this probably wouldn't have happened...

[DulceDecorum]

142. A passenger in the jump seat

would have a much easier time hijacking that plane.
Furthermore, he could open the cockpit door to allow an accomplice to come in.
And we know for a fact that some of the so-called hijackers had trained as pilots at US military bases and therefore had the proper paperwork to be get aboard the plane sans ticket or reserved seat.

But the problem with all these scenarios is always the same.
The damn planes ALL survived the events of September 11, 2001.

In addition to which,
the credentials of the original pilots are very shaky,
never mind the fact that two planes were NOT scheduled to fly,
one took off from TWO gates simultaneously
and one was chartered by an entity that shall remain nameless.

Many of the hijackers are still alive
and many of the passengers are not yet dead.
The names on the lists keep on changing
and we have no idea what, if anything, was put in any coffin
despite the fact that ALL of the survivors have luxuriant heads of hair.

But enough about reality,
let us resume the class on Osamarama-hijackology 101.

[MercutioATC]

143. Wow! A veritable smorgasboard of conspiracy theories!

I won't address which "hijackers" are still alive.

I WILL address the following:

1) It was relatively easy to get access to the jump seat. I've done it many times as an ATC. We had paperwork that we turned in to the gate agent and that gained us access to the flight deck. It could have been easily faked.

2) Which planes "survived" 9/11? 2 of them have been decomissioned and the other 2 did not "survive", their compant has chosen not to retire their tail numbers (much like an athlete's jersey number not being used by anybody else after he retires).

3) The "2 gates issue" has still not been oficially explained, but is so minor that I doubt it ever will. Gate assignments change all of the time.

4) Which passengers are not dead? Show me one shred of proof of a passenger on the list of any of those four planes who is still alive.

It's valuable to ask questions, but it's more valuable to limit those questions to issues that really exist...

[TrogL]

144. I've been in the jumpseat myself

I'm fascinated with aircraft. One of the pilots of a 737(?) noticed me looking in the cockpit and invited me in. I asked a whole bunch of questions, and then the stewardess came in to talk about something and then some other people and I ended up being in there for about half an hour. The stewardess kicked me out because it was time to start our approach.

[MercutioATC]

145. And THAT'S what I'm talking about...

...the atmosphere was completely different before 9/11. Passengers were regularly invited into the cockpit. Regardless of "procedure" security was relatively non-existant.

By the way, TrogL...it was fun to see all of that stuff up close, wasn't it? I remember my first couple of times in the jumpseat and I was fascinated, even though I knew the other side of the job (ATC).

[demodewd]

146. But...

But... there are other questions pertinent to the possibility that four planes in succession can be taken over by hijackers equipped with just "boxcutters". Your claims rely upon the premise that all four cockpits were open.

This hardly appears to be the case in that Flight 93 would have been informed of the other hijackings.So how do you explain why the transponder was turned off on #93 when it was reported that the "hijackers" had to storm the door and the crew already were informed of the other hijackings and obviously would have been on high alert? This implies most strongly that the cockpit door would have been locked and/or the pilot and co-pilot would have VERY wary of any intrusion especially by two Arab men.

You fail to explain this. Explain it..please.

And the turning off of all four transponders is the key. What advantage does this give the hijackers anyway? The planes can still be located and as an ATC you are only too aware of this as you have told us numerous times. Yes...the turning off of all the transponders really does lead us to other explanations. As to the other three planes..who knows?

You can't assume to know...

Then there is the resistance potential of the flight crew. Would all eight of the crew be physically subdued by men that appeared to be generally smaller? And the crew are being subdued with men wielding boxcutters? The flight crews were manned by men who for the most part took pride in their physical conditioning.

I personally believe that the pilots would have resisted to the end at the notion that they were being forced to give up control of the plane. Why would the hijackers insist upon taking over the controls unless they were up to something highly irregular?

There was no need for the hijackers to fly the plane...historically the crew would comply with their demands and land the plane wherever the hijackers would have requested for them to land it. But no!!! These guys want to fly the plane?? 'On no!! Like hell!'

Then there are the numerous alleged details of the hijackers' preparatory staging. This would not arouse the suspicions of the attendants? It is a distinct possibility. Putting on alleged "red bandanas"? "Hello pilot...this is Sweeney ...we've got four or five Arab looking guys all getting out of their seats at once and they're donning red bandanas....' 'One just grabbed Susie...oh my God!' ...screams...

And then the pilot is thinking...'Gee?!?!?!... should I press the hijacker alert??...Naw...I guess things aren't that irregular'...

...Really?

[MercutioATC]

154. Wow! A lot of stuff there. I'll try to hit the high points...

Actually I explained that the locks on the cockpit doors before 9/11 were very flimsy. I'm 5'8" tall and about 160# and I don't think I'd have a problem popping one of them (any pilots on the board, have a comment on this?). The doors didn't NEED to be open, but it would have been easy for the hijackers to wait for the door to be open. Why did UAL93's hijackers wait so long to take action in comparison to the other three flights? One possibility is that they were told to wait for an open door situation and that situation didn't arise on UAL93.

UAL93 did have advance warning that other aircraft had been hijacked. The only explanation that seems to work for their failure to enter 7500 is that the attack came too quickly for them to take action. The only fact we have is that none of us know exactly how the hijacking of UAL93 transpired. It's possible that they broke open the door and stormed the cockpit with no advance warning. It's possible that they held a knife to a flight attendant's throat and forced them to knock on the cockpit door with a question for the captain. That was far enough into the flight for meal service to begin and, from experience, I know the flight attendants bring meals to the flight crew when they hand them out to everybody else.

Turning the transponders off didn't make a real difference, as you say. It did, however, have the potential to significantly add to the confusion on the ground and was a smart step to take by the hijackers. Sure, the planes were still tracked, but had the controllers' attention been elsewhere when the transponders were turned off, it would have taken a short time to identify which primary target was the aircraft. It COULD have had a much greater effect.

As far as the need for the hijackers to fly the plane, it was absolutely necessary. I don't know one pilot who would crash a plane into a building rather than ditch it in a less populated area. NO pilot would have complied with a demand to fly into a building. The hijackers absolutely had to be flying the planes.

[demodewd]

159. rebuttal

1."Actually I explained that the locks on the cockpit doors before 9/11 were very flimsy. I'm 5'8" tall and about 160# and I don't think I'd have a problem popping one of them (any pilots on the board, have a comment on this?). The doors didn't NEED to be open, but it would have been easy for the hijackers to wait for the door to be open. Why did UAL93's hijackers wait so long to take action in comparison to the other three flights? One possibility is that they were told to wait for an open door situation and that situation didn't arise on UAL93."

1.The cockpit door surely would have been secured after the 9:00 warning from UAL.Normal protocol in regards to cockpit entry certainly would have been suspended considering the gravity of the news...that two airlines had been hijacked and one had already crashed into WTC 1.Any attempt to pry open the door would have prompted the pilot/co-pilot to initiate 7500. And why would the hijackers wait until #93 approached Cleveland? Would not that increase the odds that the flight would have been aborted? They had no idea that the Air Force would be on stand down...which for all practical purposes it was.

2."UAL93 did have advance warning that other aircraft had been hijacked. The only explanation that seems to work for their failure to enter 7500 is that the attack came too quickly for them to take action. The only fact we have is that none of us know exactly how the hijacking of UAL93 transpired. It's possible that they broke open the door and stormed the cockpit with no advance warning. It's possible that they held a knife to a flight attendant's throat and forced them to knock on the cockpit door with a question for the captain. That was far enough into the flight for meal service to begin and, from experience, I know the flight attendants bring meals to the flight crew when they hand them out to everybody else."

2.It's possible...it's possible...etc etc. Again... the crew was on a high level of alert. Surely all personel would have been informed to look out for any suspicious behavior and notify the Captain immediately.The transponder was turned off from the outside.

3."Turning the transponders off didn't make a real difference, as you say. It did, however, have the potential to significantly add to the confusion on the ground and was a smart step to take by the hijackers. Sure, the planes were still tracked, but had the controllers' attention been elsewhere when the transponders were turned off, it would have taken a short time to identify which primary target was the aircraft. It COULD have had a much greater effect."

3. Turning the transponders off permitted the source of interference to hijack and fly the plane by remote.

4."As far as the need for the hijackers to fly the plane, it was absolutely necessary. I don't know one pilot who would crash a plane into a building rather than ditch it in a less populated area. NO pilot would have complied with a demand to fly into a building. The hijackers absolutely had to be flying the planes."

4. As I stated previously, the Captain and co-pilot would not have ceded controls of the plane to the hijackers without putting up a fight.Relinquishing controls to the intruders would have implied something more than a conventional hijacking. There would be no practical purpose of the hijackers taking control unless they were going to crash the planes. The crew would have suspected this. That is why they would have stood their ground and they were bigger.

[MercutioATC]

161. Ok...a rebuttal to your rebuttal...

1) Explained in #2

2) What do you mean "The transponder was turned off from the outside"? Outside of what? There's no access to the transponder from outside the cockpit (unless you're outside of the plane).

3) How would turning off a transponder allow remote control? Even IF you believe in the whole remote control thing, there's absolutely no correlation between a transponder and a remote control device.

4) Of course the flight crew wouldn't have relenquished the controls willingly. I think it's a safe bet that they were dead or unconscious. "They were bigger"??? Please...

[demodewd]

166. those trusty boxcutters

They were dead or unconscious from what? The overwhelming superiority of the hijackers? Please... Boy those trusty ol' boxcutters are nasty little weapons!!

[MercutioATC]

167. Anything heavy would have worked...

Bottles of wine, knitting needles - both allowed on airplanes. You're not all hung up on the boxcutter thing, are you? Hell, they could have used the oxygen bottle that's usually kept in the closet by the galley...

The point is, the boxcotters were not the only "weapons" available to them.

[demodewd]

169. Wanted...

Wanted... Airline pilots...the weak and feeble need only apply. What Herculean physical talents these young Arabs must possess. No chance for other variables here. It's a slam dunk folks! Arabs 8 American Anglos 0. And the pilots have no defense...all those years of body buffing are useless against those Arabs. No need to use that hatchet that is in every cockpit. What a sickly tool. They'll be on us in a split second. Even if that have to kick open the cockpit door. We're so physically slow and inept that we won't anticipate anything they throw at us.

[Bob Stanford]

170. There have been lot of hijackings

demodewd, do you want to tell us that all the hijackings in the last 50 years or so were fakes or what?

BTW the hijackers probably had mace or something like that.

Bob

[Abe Linkman]

171. I think they had the power of Voodo + a whole lotta MoJo

That combination could have made up for any lingering hair pain or general torpor after snorting coke the night before and drinkin' it up in the toody bars.

[demodewd]

173. a bit different

Well,Bob, these "hijackings" were a bit different than the typical ones...duh...do ya think?

[MercutioATC]

177. See my response to seatnineb above...

[seatnineb]

174. Mercutio's 9/11 Pulp Fiction

Come on Merc....
You are boxing yourself into a corner.....

You do realise that these bottles of wine and knitting needles would have been available to the passengers aswell....like Danny Lewin(Israely Defence Force),Charles Jones(U.S Air Force) and Kenneth Waldie(U.S Naval Academy)

Hell Danny Lewin was trained to kill a terrorist with his bear hands OR a even a credit card........

And what about the pilots.....
Apart from having an axe who's to say that Oganowski and McGuiness did not have a gun aboard.......some Airline companies(not sure if American Airlines was one of them?) allowed pilots(at the pilots discretion) to carry guns on board BEFORE 9/11!

[MercutioATC]

176. Tell you what, YOU fly an airplane and have 2 or 3 men storm

the cockpit (a very small space) and see how you fare. The flight crew was seated and in a confined area and the attack caught them by surprise. It's not hard to rush up behind somebody and hit them on the head, regardless of how big they are.

As far as the passengers overpowering the hijackers, of COURSE they could have. They didn't even have to be specially trained. However, it's our nature NOT to put ourselves on the line like that when there's the possibility of a peaceful solution. The mood is different today, but we're talking about a time before hijacking an aircraft and crashing it was something most people could even consider.

We'd been culturally to comply with a hijacker's demands and wait for a peaceful outcome. That's what the passengers did. If the UAL93 story is to be believed, the only reason the passengers took action is because they were informed that the other hijacked aircraft had been crashed into buildings.

Hindsight's 20/20. Unfortunately, nobody that day had the benefit of hindsight.

[demodewd]

181. a split second

You are superimposing a reality that didn't exist(on at least 2 of the planes). The transponders were turned off before the alleged hijacker cockpit entry. You are assuming that the crew would be totally unaware of the intrusion and would have no time to respond. A split second is time enough to turn one's torso and raise one's hands in defense.

[MercutioATC]

186. Where are you getting the information that the transponder was turned off

before the cockpit entry? Just from the ATC records vs. the stated times of the cellphone calls? That involves a few too many variables for me. Unless you're married to the idea that the transponders were turned off remotely, it makes no sense.

If you ARE married to the "remote control" theory, I guess I have only one question. Why?

Why would the government implement a plan with so many possible failure points when it would be SO much easier to just blow up some buildings conventionally? Taking down the WTC towers with conventional explosives or just blowing up a few planes in the air and blaming it on terrorists would have elicited just as much outrage with substantially fewer chances for error. It simply makes no sense.

[Llyr21]

182. LOL EAAASY

All ya gotta do is push the yoke forward rapidly and back..... the people storming the cockpit will be knocked out cold.

And a counter question.... YOU try to pull an unconscious 180 lb guy out the "holes" that the pilot and copilot sit in.. or try to get 2 people in a postion to do it in those cramped conditions.... very nearly impossible.

[MercutioATC]

185. Have you SEEN the cockpit of a 757 or 767?

Sure, there's not a lot of space to flail around, but they hardly sit in "holes". It wouldn't be very difficult to move a body from those seats.

[Llyr21]

189. Yes I have.......

Yes I have, and they don't "hardly sit in holes" they EXACTLY sit in holes, surrounded by the panel above their knees, a panel at armrest level on the outside and the center console on the inside... I sincerely suggest you actually try to remove 180 lbs of dead weight human from those postions before claiming it wouldn't be very difficult.

And I see you have NO answer why the pilots couldn't have so easily incapacitated any would be attackers by utilizing their easy and rapid ability to control high g forces.

[MercutioATC]

195. Assume that while you're typing at the computer (like you probably are).

I rush you from 6 feet and hit you in the head with something. Are you going to move your mouse back and forth or are you going to reflexively try to turn around and defend yourself?

Again, we now know that those planes were being hijacked. The flight crews didn't have that luxury.

[seatnineb]

183. Lewin brakes hijacking rule No1....

You are digging yourself deeper into that paradox hole Merc......

MercATC wrote

"We'd been culturally to comply with a hijacker's demands and wait for a peaceful outcome. That's what the passengers did. "

Danny Lewin didnt......he dove straight in for a fight.....and he was a counter terrorist expert.......

[MercutioATC]

184. And you know this HOW??

...just curious. What sources do you have that the rest of us don't?

[seatnineb]

192. www.fbi.gov

At this "source"
Mercutio will encounter his worst nightmare......

http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ArticlePage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article^l1426&enZone=Culture&enVersion=0&

"Danny was on his way to a meeting in Los Angeles last September when four of the passengers seated next to him in Business Class on American Airlines Flight #11 suddenly attacked a stewardess and attempted to take control of the cockpit. Danny struggled with the hijackers, trying to block them from entering the cockpit area. The Internal Secretary of American Airlines determined that Danny Lewin was stabbed by Satam a-Skoami, a 25 year-old Saudi Arabian, while the hijackers succeeded in crashing flight #11 into the north tower of the World Trade Center. The FBI contacted the Lewin family and offered them a simulation of the events on the doomed flight based on the testimony of stewardess Amy Sweeney in a phone call she made during the attack. "

"Danny's brother, Yonatan, says the family is comforted by Danny's final act of bravery: "I wasn't surprised to hear FROM THE FBI that Danny fought the hijackers. I imagined that's what he'd do. Danny wouldn't sit quietly. From what we heard from the Americans, the hijackers attacked one of the stewardesses. Danny got up to protect her and block them from entering the cockpit."


Kiss goodbye to open cockpit doors,pilots not having enough time to punch in the hijack code,flight attendents who phone bosses on the ground,instead of notifying their captains in the cockpit.......

Not nice really......confronting those paradoxical,indefensible holes that make up the B.S that is the official story.....
Is it Mercutio?

[MercutioATC]

194. I see, you're relying on an FBI simulation.......

...that's the same FBI that was at Waco and Ruby Ridge, right?

I bow before your overwhelming evidence. The FBI is obviously infallible...

Seriously, you argue against the "official story" and then use an FBI friggin' SIMULATION as proof???

[DulceDecorum]

151. Sense and probability

MercutioATC says:
I remember my first couple of times in the jumpseat and I was fascinated, even though I knew the other side of the job (ATC).

The state of Air traffic Control in the US is pitiful.
Some ATCs appear to be ignorant of FAA regulations such as
FAA AC 91.21-1
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/91-21_1.html

A person in the jump-seat could easily have disabled one or both pilots and flown the plane to parts unknown.
But since two of the planes are STILL FLYING
and the other two remained viable until a claim was issued to the FAA in January 2002,
and several of the alleged hijackers are STILL ALIVE,
we really have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of any hijack having ever taken place.

THAT is probably the real reason as to why the planes never squawked the 7500 code.

Remember, the CIA was running an exercise involving planes crashing into buildings on that very day and the Vigilant Guardian exercises concerning the use of guided missiles were taking place simultaneously.
Furthermore, the WTC was rotting from within and was doomed to collapse in the very near future. How do you think that they were so prepared to pull Building Seven?

We also know that the US Treasury moved 25 BILLION dollars out on that day, which fact may have a strong bearing on the need to empty US airspace of aircraft that might record or otherwise interfere the transportation of said bullion.

[MercutioATC]

155. A response:

I'm an ATC...I don't fly planes. There are PLENTY of FAA regs that I know nothing about. The few thousand I deal with directly are enough for me.

Which planes are "STILL FLYING"? You DO realize that thee are plenty of planes that aren't flying that still have active tail numbers, don't you? In fact, occasionally tail numbers purposely aren't turned back in as a memorial to the crash. Just because an "N" number hasn't been pulled doesn't mean the plane is still flying.

[DulceDecorum]

149. Information provided by the FAA

MercutioATC says:
2) Which planes "survived" 9/11? 2 of them have been decomissioned and the other 2 did not "survive", their compant has chosen not to retire their tail numbers (much like an athlete's jersey number not being used by anybody else after he retires).

I am going to go out on a limb and call that statement a bold faced -- oh yeah, I can't do that here on DU even if I can so prove it.

What the heck do you mean
that United has chosen NOT to retire the tail numbers of N591UA and N612UA?

The serial numbers of the ORIGINAL planes are SAME serial numbers of the planes that ARE STILL FLYING.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=591UA
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=612UA&cmndfind.x=15&cmndfind.y=8

MercutioATC, HOW IS IT,
that YOU know MORE about the registration of these planes than the FAA?
Why should anyone here accept that YOU are the United Airlines spokesman?
You have offered NOTHING to back up your specious conspiracy theory.

United Airlines NEVER retired the ORIGINAL PLANES.

Let me explain it in terms you can understand.
The planes that had those tail-numbers during the Clinton Administration
are the same exact planes that will continue to have those same exact tail-numbers
in the Kerry Administration.

Same plane,
same serial number,
same tail-number
same nose number
same fleet number
SAME PLANE.
IT NEVER CRASHED.

And the reason you won't address the hijackers who are still alive is because
you simply CANNOT dispute that well verified FACT.
As for the passengers,
many of them were fictitious and others were long dead.
Some of us DO check things out, you know.
And we do NOT limit our queries.
Now, I have provided you with a written question ahead of time so you can plan for it.
I have asked you substantiate your claim to have more knowledge concerning the status of those planes than does the FAA.
I await your reply.

[MercutioATC]

156. I'm still missing why you think the planes are still flying...

Sure, the FAA still has the registration numbers (tail numbers, "N" numbers, whatever you want to call them) listed. United obviously never sent the paperwork to pull them. How is this proof that those planes are still flying?

Just to clarify, a serial number on a plane is like a VIN on a car. It never changes. The registration number is like a license plate. It can change many times. A flight number is like an individual trip in a car "trip to the grocery store", "trip to the mall", "trip to work". It frequently changes.

[DulceDecorum]

163. N591UA has been spotted

flying around in US airspace long AFTER September 11, 2001.
N591UA has the serial number 28142 and the fleet (nose) number 5491.
It appears to be based at the United Airlines Chicago hub at O'Hare
and is passing itself off as N594UA
which has the serial number 28145 and the fleet (nose) number 5494.

The FAA registration number for N591UA CLEARLY demonstrates that
the current Boeing manufacturer serial number (VIN number)
is the exact same number that held that FAA registration number on September 10, 2001.

In other words, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
And the damn plane is still flying around.
Yet US Air Traffic Control personnel cannot grasp these simple facts.
I am starting to understand why Ronald Reagan simply fired them all.

Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
-- Mark Twain.
-- N591UA.

[MercutioATC]

188. Ok, I'm going to have to ask a couple of questions here...

1) Exactly who "spotted" an this aircraft?

2) What did they "spot" (the "N591UA", the serial number "28142" or the nose number "5491")?

3) You DO realize that, except for the serial number, any number can be transferred from one aircraft to another (example: Arnold Palmer owns "N1AP". When he bought a new Citation 750 a few years ago, he transferred the N-number from the old plane to the new plane.)?

I'd have some serious questions for anybody who claimed to have seen the serial number that was on UAL93 (or any of the other flights that crashed) since 9/11. Anything but that, seeing the serial number on the cockpit bulkhead, is meaningless. All of the other numbers are interchangeable.

[DulceDecorum]

197. Answers

1)
Shall remain nameless.
We have seen those pictures of the Iraqis who were "interrogated" using Gitmo techniques.

2)
Nose: 5491 Tail-number 591UA, and more.

3)
Yes. The N-number can be transferred.
However, the manufacturer serial number CANNOT be transferred.
Boeing 757-222 SERIAL NUMBER 28142 is flying around Chicago under the alias 594UA.
According to the FAA, N594UA Boeing 757-222 with a DIFFERENT serial number, namely 28145.

So United Airlines is lying to the FAA
whenever it files a flight plan for N594UA
and then replaces it with the allegedly deceased N591UA
which plane has featured prominently in numerous apparently fraudulent claims,
some of which have resulted in considerable payments being made into UAL coffers,
and other claims which have resulted in thousands of deaths worldwide.

You brought up a very interesting case.
N1AP is the registration owned by Arnold Palmer
who has chosen to incorporate his initials into his plane registration.

Palmer’s new Citation X, serial number 176, has assumed his distinctive N1AP registration.
http://cessna.com/news/article.chtml?ID=YybL0RKUWMIjS60jucA0u9HlL2qRL1AoD1Fktj9MEkPa2oYbmN

A run through the FAA interactive website does not produce any indication that the Cessna Citation that Palmer is currently flying differs from the original Cessna Citation that he originally purchased.
This lack of information would indicate that the FAA is not being fully transparent.
We have seen this anomaly before, and it also involved a famous golfer.

Payne Stewart is reputed to have perished on October 25, 1999, about 1213 central daylight time (CDT), a Learjet Model 35, N47BA, operated by Sunjet Aviation, Inc., of Sanford, Florida, crashed near Aberdeen, South Dakota.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
When we run the N-number we obtain the Lear Jet Serial number 060.
When we run the serial number 060 we obtain very strange results.
There is no reason to delve deeply into this here. However we will take a small peek into the records of the plane that Stweart allegedly owned, or part-owned, or simply chartered.

According to FAA records, the accident airplane, a Gates Learjet Model 35, serial number (S/N) 060, was manufactured in 1976 and had been maintained and operated by Sunjet Aviation since January 1999. The airplane's titleholder as of October 25, 1999, was Jet Shares One, Inc., and the previous titleholder was McMillin Aircraft, Inc. The airplane had a total of eight passenger seats. Two AlliedSignal (Honeywell) Model TFE731-2-2B turbofan engines powered the airplane.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
http://www.airsafe.com/stewart.htm

The FAA registered plane was powered by turbojet engines manufactured by Garrett, model TFE 731 SER.
The FAA has not been able to contact this company.
The FAA states that the plane was registered to JetShares One Inc on 10/25/1999 which is the exact same day upon which the crash occurred.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=47BA

However, there is, in existence today,
a Learjet answering the description of the plane described by the NTSB report
in ALL ASPECTS, save one.
It is a Learjet model 45 not 35.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/nnumsql.asp?NNumbertxt=1MG

The point that I am trying to make is this.
The FAA records are generally VERY reliable.
However, every so often, powerful people tamper with the information that is given to the FAA.
As you can see,
we have two planes which allegedly crashed,
and yet continue to be FAA-registered and capable of flight.
That is par for the course.

[MercutioATC]

199. You DO realize that all you're offering is anecdotal "evidence".

Somebody who "shall remain nameless" saw the nose number (transferable) a tail number (also transferable) "and more"??

Yeah, well I'll bet I can find a guy who'll swear he was on the planes when they crashed but was saved by aliens who took him to their home planet and used him as a sex slave before returning him to Earth.

I see absolutely no reason to take the word of somebody who 1) can't be questioned or even identified and 2) by your own ommission, might not have even seen the serial number (which is the only number that matters.

Thanks, but I'll wait for something a little more substantial before I start writing letters to Congress...

[DulceDecorum]

202. Not anecdotal

Provable.
And from a VERY credible source.

Bob Novak may go around committing acts of treason,
but DulceDecorum,
who has taken lessons from Dick Cheney,
knows how to protect a source.

Besides which,
the source to which I am referring is NOT the only person who has seen that plane flying around US airspace or landing at O'Hare.

This is EXACTLY how the plane looks today.
And photographs of it, taken recently DO exist.
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N591UA&distinct_entry=true

Flight 93 Heroes & Mysteries
Editor's Comments

Why are there no known pictures of the Flight 93 wreckage? The only pictures available of the crash site
show rescue workers peering into a crater, but there is no wreckage to be seen.

The Story of Flight 93 Reported 24 Hours After the Crash.
United's Flight 93, bound for San Francisco from Newark, New Jersey, crashed near a strip mine at 10:06 a.m.
Tuesday in a wooded section of Somerset County, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, apparently killing all
45 people on board.
Eight minutes earlier, emergency officials in neighboring Westmoreland County said they received a cell phone
call from another passenger who said the plane had been hijacked.
The impact was so powerful that police investigators who cordoned off the site as a crime scene on Tuesday
reported finding no pieces of debris larger than a phone book, and no bodies.
http://www.september11news.com/Flight93.htm

Reporters were taken to the top of a hill overlooking the scene. The crash left a V-shaped gouge in a grassy field surrounded by thick woods, just below a hilltop strip mine. THE GOUGE WAS 8 TO 10 FEET DEEP AND 15 TO 20 FEET LONG, said Capt. Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police.
Investigators believe the plane crashed there and disintegrated, sending debris into thick trees nearby, Monaco said.
''There's nothing in the ground you can see,'' Monaco said of the crash site. ''It just looks like tiny pieces of debris.''
http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2001/09/12attack/ke091201s69779.htm

That's funny, I could have sworn that a Boeing 757 is a whole lot bigger than 10 feet by 20 feet. And somehow or other I though that the force of impact would have made a deeper hole or at least compressed the plane into a big blob.
Oh well,
I guess this means that the FAA really does know better
than the media whores who answer to pimp-master Wayne Stroup.

[MercutioATC]

203. Without a verifiable source, it's anecdotal.

Even if the person came forward and identified him/herself, it would be nothing more than a story without proof.

We're honestly supposed to believe that a plane that crashed is really still flying because somebody just SAYS so and took some pictures that 1) could be of any plane and 2) could have been taken at any time?

As far as the size of the gouge, something big traveling quickly obviously impacted. Do you know what kind of force it takes to make an 8-10-foot crater? If the plane nosed in, that size of an impact crater doesn't seem out of line to me. More importantly, it didn't seem out of line to the NTSB who has investigated thousands of airplane crashes.

I don't know about treason, but Bob Novak knows nothing about ATC operations.


I'm sorry. An independant third party would have to verify the claim for it to be credible. Otherwise, it's just some random person telling stories.

[DulceDecorum]

204. The FAA registrations are NOT anecdotal

and you have discounted that.
And the FCC rules about cell-phones.
As well as the FAA regulations backing up the FCC rules about cellphones.

Here is an article where indenties are hidden.
Anecdotal, no doubt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/national/06CND-TAPE.html?ex=1084507200&en=db0f7d206f75ff0b&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

All lies and jest.
Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
The Boxer.
Simon & Garfunkel.

MercutioATC,
where is the debris from Flight 93.
Wherdy go?

[Abe Linkman]

205. "ATC" person: FL93 passenger remains: Wherdy go?

I've always wondered why that crater allegedly made by FL93 looked odd.

Wherdy remains of the alleged victims? Thank you, I'll hold.

[MercutioATC]

207. See post #206. The remains were there, it was reported.

[Abe Linkman]

210. This gentleman has a different viewpoint than "M.ATC"

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2004/030504flight77.htm

[MercutioATC]

211. Which is it? NO passengers or a LOT of passengers?

Considering ATC had UAL93 in radar contact (transponder turned off or not) until moments before the crash, I'd like to know how the government stuffed a bunch of bodies on it while in midair and them blew it up.

I have no doubt that there are enough nuts with websites out there that somebody could post links forever. Show me one who has both first-hand knowledge of the crash sites and the expertise to interpret that data. I've yet to see it.

...by the way, I'm pretty sure I can still get that man who was abducted by aliens to comment....well, maybe not. I have to "protect my sources"...

[MercutioATC]

206. United has not filed paperwork with the FAA. American did.

United chose, for whatever reason, not to retire the registration numbers of its two planes that crashed. American did. The FAA site does NOT say that these planes are flying, it says that the registrations are still valid (which they are, even though there is no plane to go with the registration).

Having the registration in the FAA database means nothing more than this.


On edit:

Aircraft are subject to spot inspection by the FAA. Would United REALLY leave such evidence open to an FAA inspector's scrutiny? Can you imagine the lawsuits that would result?

The passenger remains? To be perfectly blunt, little bitty pieces. Any impact strong enough to break a 757 into tiny pieves would certainly do the same to a human body. Nowhere does it say that remains were not found and recovered. What it DOES say is that they were in the form of small pieces. You's expect something different?

[seatnineb]

209. Paper stronger than flesh

Yup......
Sure is strange that 2 bibles and Ziad Jarrahs passport survived in readable condition amidst such carnage......

What do you say Merc....
Looks like we are in F.B.I territory again.........

[MercutioATC]

212. F.B.I.??? I thought I was supposed to be C.I.A....

Jesus! Before you make judgements with a layperson's knowledge of crashes, why don't you find out what a real NTSB inspector has to say? They are, after all, the people who do this for a living.

Personally, I think electricity is magic and I'm just glad it works for me, but I hear that there are people who understand all of that "amp" and "watt" and "phase" stuff...

...at least I'd talk to an electrician before I tried to post opinions on what electricity can and can't do.

[seatnineb]

214. The N.T.S.B have an ominous tie with United Airlines.....

Lets have a look at Mercutios friends from the N.T.S.B.....
Looks like they are not averse to the odd fraudulent misdeminour........

"According to a U.S. Department of Transportation inspector general report, the failure of internal controls resulted in the embezzlement of approximately $95,000 by NT SB employees. In addition, during the first 11 months of fiscal year 1999, 94 percent of the $3.6 million in Rapidraft checks that were issued were inappropriate expenditures. In addition, hundreds of checks were processed even though there were missing signatures, authorization numbers, or violations of NTSB's internal financial controls."
http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/newsletter168.htm


And have a historic tie with United Airlines and the F.A.A when it comes to concealing and manipulating evidence with regards to airline crashes.....

"In the 1950s and 1960s, United Airlines experienced a series of brutal airline disasters, one after the other, far more than any other airline in the United States, and more than all the other airlines combined. These and other air disasters were bred by high-level corruption at United Airlines, aided and abetted by management personnel at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), aided and abetted by coverups of every government and non-government check and balance. "

http://www.defraudingamerica.com/deffirst.html

[MercutioATC]

216. Your first link is filled with complete tripe..the second with 50-year-old

data...

Is there corruption in some if not all government agencies, as well as a good portion of companies in the private sector? Yes. Does this have a bearing on the events of 9/11? I fail to see how...

[seatnineb]

217. F.B.I vs N.T.S.B

Sorry Merc......
Your denial does not wash.............
Even if the N.T.S.B had good intentions..........
The F.B.I will make sure that these good intentions don't see the light of day.........


"The FBI and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) intentionally lied to Congress and the public concerning key evidence about the downing of Trans World Airlines Flight 800. So indicates recent evidence brought to light in a tape-recorded conversation with James Kalstrom, the FBI Special Agent in charge of the disaster investigation."



" The NTSB is the chief authority in investigating aircraft accidents-- even above the FBI which, to Russell, made a strange scenario even stranger. "The night of the disaster the navy provided a DC-9 in Washington and loaded up the FBI and the navy people--and even though there were seats available, they would not allow the NTSB Go-Team to ride with them. They had to wait until the next day. By that time the FBI had taken over and never relinquished control."

"The most important data is the eyewitness reports. And they would not even allow them to be interviewed by the NTSB people--only the FBI who are not qualified to investigate accidents. But in this case they just blundered through with brute force and kept everyone at bay."

http://www.lightplanet.com/Clinton/flight_800_10-98.htm

Looks like a precedent has already been set.....

[MercutioATC]

218. Au contraire, my assessment of your links is spot-on.

Your first link's top story has to deal with RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minima). It reads:

"As Bill Sees It: (Editorial) FAA To Make Skies Even "Cozier": Saying they are doing it to "reduce delays," the FAA is planning reduction in vertical separation of planes from 2000 feet to 1000 feet by December 2004. This is not only a reduction in safety but will also increase the number of planes (and their noise and air pollution) at airports. Aviation industry-bought newspaper stories on this issue snidely headline the story as "FAA Seeks To Make The Skies Cozier." This sounds like they are going to increase seat separation instead of dangerously bringing planes closer together in the air!!! Neglected also in these stories were opposition opinions or even a mention that this will mean more planes over aviation-assaulted residential communities, whose residents won't feel "cozy" at all, especially at night."

It's people like this that make my life hell...those who'll complain loudly about something they don't understand.

We currently separate planes by 1000' vertically up to 29000' and by 2000' vertically from 29000' to 60000'. The reason we use 2000' separation above 29000' is due to the limitations of pressure altimiters.

RVSM uses a different system to measure altitude...one that doesn't lose accuracy based on altitude. Therefore, we will be able to use standard 1000' vertical separation for all RVSM-equipped aircraft regardless of altitude. If anything, safety will increase due to the increased accuracy of the equipment.

The claim that RVSM will increase noise over residential communities is preposterous. RVSM has zero effect on traffic below 29000', which is WAY too high for noise to be a factor.


On Edit:

The "embezzlement" by NTSB employees is, in fact, one small part of a much larger problem involving the unauthorized use of U.S. Government credit cards. For years, companies have offered discounts to government travellers (similar to AAA discounts). Those federal employees with government credit cards occasionally charged personal travel to the government cars to get the discount. At the end of the month, the employee got the credit card bill and (usually) paid it (government cards are guaranteed by the U.S. Government, but are billed directly to the employee, just like a personal card).

This process was widespread throught all areas of the government. The GAO investigated and identified 2 basic issues: 1) government cards are only supposed to be used for official business and 2) if the employee failed to make payments, the government was responsible for the bill. It was less an issue if embezzlement than improper use of a credit card.

For the last 4 or 5 years, awareness has been heightened and the government is conducting more frequent audits to eliminate the problem.

...that's not nearly as much fun to accuse people of as "embezzlement" though, is it?

[seatnineb]

219. Not nearly

.......as funny as 2 former N.T.S.B employees who pleaded guilty to embezzlement!

NTSB: Rapidraft Payment System; April 13, 2000 Statement by Inspector General
Kenneth M. Mead

Although independent from DOT, we were asked by the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to audit NTSB's Rapidraft Payment System(a third-party check writing program). We found that the System had been seriously mismanaged, used extensively for purposes other than intended, and subjected to embezzlement. Two former NTSB employees embezzled nearly $100,000 using the Rapidraft Payment System.

Basic internal controls designed for the System were not followed, leaving the System vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. For example, check stocks were not protected from unauthorized use, checks were paid without the required signature or authorization number, and 37 of the 177 employees' signatures were forged. These findings were significant because during Fiscal Years 1997 through
1999, NTSB issued 26,097 Rapidrafts totaling $12.9 million. Our
recommendation that NTSB immediately discontinue using Rapidrafts was
implemented before we completed audit work. NTSB also replaced its Chief Financial Officer and contracted with a public accounting firm to review all of its financial systems. The two former employees were indicted and PLEADED GUILTY TO EMBEZZELEMENT.
http://www.oig.dot.gov/show_txt.php?id=118

[MercutioATC]

220. You're bitching about $100k????

Sure, there were abuses, but the major problem wasn't the drop-in-the-bucket theft by TWO employees, but an overall use of the system in a way other than was intended.

Try to see the bigger picture here, we're talking about millions or billions of dollars (depending on how wide a net you cast). To say that embezzling is any kind of a problem statistically is just silly.

I do agree, though, the the system has been used for personal expenses in the past (which the employees then payed for themselves) and that this is a misuse of the program(s).

[seatnineb]

221. N.T.S.B have a few tricks up their sleeve.....

Bitching......?
As I said I actually found it quite funny........

But the F.B.I - N.T.S.B charade of flight TWA 800 is far more interesting.......

The fuel temperature in TWA 800's center wing tank (CWT) was well below minimum flammability much less at explosive vapor temperatures. (Environmental conditions do not support the NTSB theory).

There is no source of ignition in the B747 CWT (aircraft design does not support the NTSB theory).

Conventionally designed aircraft cannot fly much less generate lift to climb absent the gross tonnage of fuselage forward of the wing. (Laws of physical science and principles of aerodynamics do not
support the NTSB theory).

The twelve or more explosive chemical residue hits by BATF's EGIS 3000 equipment are physical evidence of high explosive involvement. (Leading edge hi-tech forensic evidence does not support the NTSB theory).

Testimony from eyewitnesses along eleven nautical miles of shore front show first sightings of ascending objects that cross correlate to a launch position well away from FL800's track. (Eyewitness testimony does not support the NTSB theory).

The medical examiners' report shows a uniform instantaneous cause of death and evidence of high velocity metal in the cabin. (Post mortem examinations do not support the NTSB theory).

The debris field shows that TWA FL800's nose forward of the wing was shattered after being hit from the left by a huge force that distributed the gross tonnage as much as 2900 ft. right of the projected aircraft track. (Debris field evidence does not support the NTSB theory).

Exerpt of a letter by Commander William Donaldson that was sent To the then current F.B.I Director Louis Freeh.
http://www.lightplanet.com/Clinton/flight_800_10-98.htm

[seatnineb]

208. Mercutios nemesis...........

The N.T.S.B?
And who's jurisdiction did the N.T.S.B's investigation fall under with regards to 9/11?

You guessed it Mercutio.........
The F.B.I!

And we all know what you think of them........
To quote Mercutio from post 194
"The same F.B.I that was at Waco and Ruby's Bridge?"
That right Mercutio........
If I am not mistaken they were also present at an abandoned mine field in Johnstown,Pennsylvania...

[MercutioATC]

213. My "nemesis"?? Hehehehe.

In case you hadn't heard, I'm ATC. I couldn't give a flying....well, you know....how the FBI handles its investigations.

What I DO find funny is some people's insistance that "the system" is lying to them when their bases for this are 1) unconfirmed reports and half-understood assessments of the situation and 2) the "system"s statements.

...and, actually, Shanksville is south of Johnstown by a bit...

In time of war, I fall under DOD jurisdiction. That doesn't mean I lose my ATC expertise. The NTSB fell under FBI jurisdiction because it had to do with a domestic act of terrorism. That doesn't mean the NTSB forgets averything it knows about crash evaluation.

[seatnineb]

147. There is only one door that is open .....the door of lies

According to Madeline Sweeney......the hijackers are storming the cockpit AS she relays the information to her boss Woodward.........

But Sweeney says that 2 flight attendents are already dead and so is a passenger........
So hijackers have already been on a killing spree BEFORE entering the cockpit..
This implies resistance and time taken ...............
There is also this important factor ...... Danny Lewin rises from his seat to defend a flight attendent who is PROTECTING the cockpit door........
Yet MORE time for Oganowski.........
But still no hijack code..........
This is the noble F.B.I and Israely media version of events.....
Dare to disagree with it?
And if you do.........what does that say about everything else that the F.B.I says as far as you are concerned....
I like the way you manipulate the parameters of the official story to try and conceal its blatant lies........
Without success.


You say that from your own experience it might be difficult to hear noises emanating from the cabin if you are inside the cockpit......
But have you ever been on a flight were people are being stabbed,are choking(from mace) and (in Lewins case) fighting and getting stabbed(or shot).........
I did not think so........
Kiss goodbye to the open cockpit door on flight 11

Another contradiction whilst we are at it..............
Strange....once he had "morphed his way into the cockpit"...Atta had the presense of mind to turn off the transponder ..........
But could not see or know that Oganowski(or McGuiness) was keying the mike?........despite the fact Atta is right next to them.......

We also know that a flight attendent and crew member was killed on Flight 175............
Again this implies a confrontation.......
Or do flight attendents only react when intruders are already in the cockpit........?

All this despite the fact that the pilots of 175 were on the look-out for a missing plane ...
And had heard "suspiciouse" calls in Boston airspace .
There is a difference (for pilots and ATC's) between threatening calls,missing planes ..............and a turned off transponder........
Plus the fact that co-pilot Horrocks was a MARINE ....
You are not going to get an easy ride (wielding a less than 4 inch knife) trying to subdue this guy...........


As for flight 93's mercurial cockpit door.........
Sandy Bradshaw(flt 93 attendent) said the passenger uprising began at 9:40am
Yet flt 93's CVR hears the "heroes" in the cockpit at 10:00AM........

You mean the same door with the "feeble" lock managed to resist at least 4 burly American patriots from ramming it open for nearly 20 minutes.....
Yet Ziad Jarrah and Co managed to kick this same door in...... in less than 2 seconds......the time taken for our friend Leroy to pump in that Hijack code........


Oh well. Mercutio........
Another day at the office of paradoxes and indefensibles for you eh?

[LARED]

148. But still no hijack code..........

did you ever consider that perhaps the Hijack code was never entered because the pilot simply communicated to an ATC that they were being hijacked?

Also what exactly is you point about the hijack code?

What difference can it make whether it was entered or not?

[DulceDecorum]

150. The Original Pilots

must have all been a bunch of absolute idiots.
The original morans.
That is the reason why they did NOT enter the hijack codes.

LARED says:
What difference can it make whether it was entered or not?

I cannot answer this question POLITELY, so I am FORCED to let it pass.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/08/14/alaska.sept11/

[seatnineb]

152. No hijack code = No NORAD=No interception =

LARED......
The following explains to us why Mercutio is so apprehensive about the pilots OF 9/11 being in a position to squawk the hijack code...........


10-2-6. HIJACKED AIRCRAFT
When you observe a Mode 3/A Code 7500, an unexplained loss of beacon code, change in direction of flight or altitude, and/or a loss of communications, NOTIFY SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL IMMEDIETLY. As it relates to observing a Code 7500, do the following:
NOTE-
Military facilities WILL NOTIFY THE APPROPRIATE FAA ARTCC, or the host nation agency responsible for en route control, of any indication that an aircraft is being hijacked. They will also provide full cooperation with the civil agencies in the control of such aircraft.

EN ROUTE. During narrowband radar operations, Code 7500 causes HIJK to blink in the data block.
NOTE-
Only nondiscrete Code 7500 will be decoded as the hijack code.
a. Acknowledge and confirm receipt of Code 7500 by asking the pilot to verify it. If the aircraft is not being subjected to unlawful interference, the pilot should respond to the query by broadcasting in the clear that he/she is not being subjected to unlawful interference. If the reply is in the affirmative or if no reply is received, do not question the pilot further but be responsive to the aircraft requests.
PHRASEOLOGY-
(Identification) (name of facility) VERIFY SQUAWKING 7500.
NOTE-
Code 7500 is only assigned upon notification from the pilot that his/her aircraft is being subjected to unlawful interference. Therefore, pilots have been requested to refuse the assignment of Code 7500 in any other situation and to inform the controller accordingly.
b. Notify supervisory personnel of the situation.
c. Flight follow aircraft and use normal handoff procedures without requiring transmissions or responses by aircraft unless communications have been established by the aircraft.
d. If aircraft are dispatched to escort the hijacked aircraft, provide all possible assistance to the escort aircraft to aid in placing them in a position behind the hijacked aircraft.
NOTE-
Escort procedures are contained in FAAO 7610.4 <../../MIL/index.htm>, Special Military Operations, Chapter 7, Escort of Hijacked Aircraft.
e. To the extent possible, afford the same control service to the aircraft operating VFR observed on the hijack code.
REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Code Monitor, Para 5-2-13 <../Chp5/atc0502.html>.

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html

If the above ONLY refers to a post 9/11 scenario
Perhaps Mercutio can tell us how the above has changed since 9/11 if at all...........

[LARED]

153. And what happens if the pilot

get on the radio and says "control tower we are confirming that we have been hijacked." Contol tower returns. "flight 93, hijack is confirmed."

Does the pilot still need to punch the hijack code?

[MercutioATC]

158. Ah! 7110.65 quotes!

The only change to the procedure since 9/11 that I'm aware of:

Pilots used to have the additional option of identifying themselves as hijacked by adding "Trip" to their callsign (as in "United Trip 93"). Now, pilots are supposed to just state "We are being hijacked".

Yes, entering 7500 would have sped up the decision-making process. That's probably the exact reason the hijackers would have been trained to incapacitate the flight crew and turn off the transponder as a first priority.

[MercutioATC]

157. You're now using Sweeney as a source? I thought cellphones didn't

work in flight.....

Regardless, I stand by my assessment. Short of gunshots or loud shrieking right outside the cockpit door, you wouldn't hear a thing on the flight deck. It really is like being in a bubble surrounded by cotton...sound just doesn't reach you from the cabin. Don't believe ME, ask a pilot.

Again, since we don't KNOW what happened (although we know that the plane did crash...well, MOST of us, anyway) we don't know how the hijackers gained entry.

I'll propose a scenario:

UAL93 recieves the warning that other planes have been hijacked. They're on heightened alert, but frankly their chances of being hijacked are remote...they're one of 4500 airplanes in the air, they're well into their flight, and things have been calm so far. Still, they're cautious and make sure the cockpit door is secured. It's meal time and there's a knock at the cockpit door. They open it and the hijackers storm in, immediately attacking the flight crew and turning off/smashing the transponder (something they've been trained to do). They drag the flight crew out of their seats, take control of the plane, and head East.

My scenario is just as likely as any you can propose...more likely, in fact, because the flight crew didn't have the benefit of your hindsight. We KNOW that people were regularly allowed "up front" to see the cockpit. There was virtually no security.

Let me put it another way. I live in a very safe community and I regularly leave my patio doors open at night during the summer. I know there's a possibility of theft and there have been occasional thefts in my neighborhood. If I was killed in a home invasion and couldn't relate the tale would it be correct to assume that there was some coverup when I was simply complacent and had left a door open as I had hundreds of times before?

You may not subscribe to my possible scenarios, but they're one hell of a lot more likely than most of the cloak-and-dagger explanations I've seen here.

[demodewd]

160. 1 in 4500 are very good odds!

1 in 4500 is a very high probability of occurence and would demand eternal vigilance especially in the realm of safeguarding the lives of all passengers and crew! And they would not even know the odds. They were potentially eligible just like everyone else.Thats all that mattered and believe you me that would really matter! You're making light of a most probable situation. The pilot and co-pilot were not in a void..they had phone contacts outside the cockpit. Again...any suspicious behavior would have given queue for a flight personel response. Your scenario does not give good reason why none all of the transponders were turned off in all hijackerd planes. And on Flight 11,the transponder was turned off at 8:20 and yet according to the narrative given by Sweeney the hijackers were still forcing their way into the cockpit after 8:21. This is the official narrative. Are you denying the veracity of Sweeney's phone conversation?

[MercutioATC]

162. That's not the point...

There are quite a few variables that could have reasonably come together to cause the cockpit door to be open.

My question to you is why were there hijackers at all if the planes were simply crashed by remote control? Does that make ANY sense?

[medienanalyse]

164. about sense

Dear Mercutio,

sometimes truth slips out unwillingly, and I can imagine you are now really angry with yourself, biting your lips like Bush in Sarasota, havning asked that question:

"why were there hijackers at all if the planes were simply crashed by remote control? Does that make ANY sense?"

Yes it makes a lot of sense to invent 19 hijackers of Arab origin if you want to get the Arab oil and if you want to control the prices and the amount China gets and so on.

BTW, dear ATC, you have for sure some evidence of the existence of hijackers aboard, have you?
- videos on Logan and the other airports, especially Logan, where ten Arab men met, very dedicatedly, and then split into two groups. Makes a unforgettable picture
- fingerprints on the boarding passes
- identification of the body remains of the 9 "hijackers" who are still on ice of AA77 and UAL93
- voice recordings which identify their voices
- FDR data which tell us which movements were made by the pilots

and so on and so on.

No?

You only have FBI allegations, alleged phone calls - but no physical evidence? What now?

[demodewd]

165. re: about sense

Thank you.

[MercutioATC]

168. Aside from the total lack of ANY evidence of remote control hardware,

you mean? Why were there no pieces found in the wreckage? Who would take the risk that those pieces would be found and use them in the first place?

And WHY assume remote control? Where has there ever been anything suggesting it?

I'm still interested in what the transponders had to do with remote control, too.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

178. I've dealt with my own question but I'll elaborate...

Again, the actual FACTS are limited. We simply don't know what really happened.

I believe that hijackers took control of the airplanes for a few reasons:

1) Commercial aircraft have been hijacked before.

2) Nothing about the basic events (not necessarily all of the details, but the basic events) seems implausible:
a) Hijackers get on the airplane with weapons (there have been plenty of accounts of this happening before. Hell, 25 years ago as a kid, I accidentally got on a plane with a hunting knife in the side pocket of my carry-on bag that I didn't realize was there and that I didn't find until I got home a week later).
b) They wait until the cockpit door is open (again, this was a regular occurrance...only on UASL93 would it have been less likely for the door to be opened without good reason).
c) They overpower the flight crew (two seated men whose movement is severely restricted attacked by surprise from behind don't seem to me to be particularly difficult people to subdue).
d) They take control of the aircraft and fly them into buildings (difficult with no hands-on training, but possible with flight training in other aircraft and a knowledge of 757/767 series cockpits)

Keep in mind, this is all done at a time when we, as a culture, have been conditioned to obey criminals like hijackers and kidnappers and wait for a positive outcome. What was the preffered way to deal with a carjacking? Just give the carjacker what he wants. A bank robber? Do what they say "so nobody gets hurt". Passengers would have been reluctant to take action for fear of making the situation worse. This premise seems to be supported by the fact that only the passengers who knew that the other planes had been crashed chose to take action against the hijackers.

I'd like to hear what merit you find in the remote control theory.

[medienanalyse]

180. I do not understand at all why my mesage was deleted

in fact Mercutio answers to it, there was no discussing of the messenger and so on. And I know DU borad managers have no time to discuss why it was deleted. So I must take it as bad luck.

As far as I remember I told you that I answered your point and that you evade answering your own point. Same now: you do not answer to my question what evidence is available for the perpetratorship of the 19 Muslims.
You discuss instead what could have happened, what could have caused what allegedly happened. This is discussing the end of a fairy tale. Senseless.

[MercutioATC]

187. What evidence is available for your theory(ies)?

I freely admit that I am not privy to any information that everybody else doesn't have access to (not enough to make a difference, anyway). I believe what I believe for the reasons I gave in my last post. Additionally, I have yet to see an alternative theory that made sense...either the underlying premises are flawed or they present a greater possibility of failure than would be acceptable.

What I don't understand is why, especially because I'm not saying that the official version of events is necessarily 100% accurate, my opinion elicits such a strong response from some people.

[Abe Linkman]

190. Strong odors can have that effect

"What I don't understand is why, especially because I'm not saying that the official version of events is necessarily 100% accurate, my opinion elicits such a strong response from some people."

[MercutioATC]

196. Care to offer anything other than sarcasm?

You have no problem demanding proof from me...do you have proof or are we just talking about opinion?

[Abe Linkman]

198. According to you, YOU are only giving an opinion.

I assume if you had factual evidence, you'd present it and let US take some pot shots at it. Am I right?

[MercutioATC]

200. You're correct and I've stated that numerous times.

Why the double standard? How do you qualify yourself as the grand poobah of cutting through bullshit with a theory with no proof when you accuse me of spreading disinformation when I state my theory with no proof?

I've never accused you of purposely being dishonest...why do you feel the need to make that claim of me?

[Abe Linkman]

201. I didn't say I doubt you're an ATC. There's no way to know.

As far as someone "accusing" you of "purposely being dishonest" -- I don't know who did that, but reading your posts over a long period of time, I'd say that the legal doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" definitely could be seen to be applicable in a number of situations.

[MercutioATC]

215. Well, actually, you DID imply it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x11165#11432

[seatnineb]

172. MercutioATC Vs Madeline Sweeney

According to Sweeney..........
The hijackers are NOT yet in the cockpit.......
Yet Sweeney is on the phone to her boss Woodward at Logan.......
But Sweeney should have been on flt 11's interphone to Oganowski to warn him of the impending "storming of the cockpit" by the hijackers....

Still

Such indecisive action has earned our Madeline the :
Madeline Amy Sweeney Award for Civilian Bravery


Remember.... Sayaret Matkal Captain(Israels top counter terrorist Unit),Danny Lewin(by trying to protect a flt attendent at the cockpit door) had bought more time for Sweeney(in the cabin) to have got on that interphone to warn Oganowski........

Simultaneously Lewin bought more time for Oganowski and McGuiness in the locked cockpit to pump in that Hijack code......

If it its getting claustrophobic in the office of paradoxes and indefensibles , Mercutio ,we can always help you to get out....

You have already shown signs of potential.....
For in MercutioATC's own words
"I thought cell phones dont work in flight"

Thats the spirit.......

[MercutioATC]

179. One question: How do you use the "official story" to back your claims

when you don't believe in the "official story"?

To refresh your memory, I never said I believed in the "official story" in its entirety. What I do believe is that 4 planes were hijacked and crashed. I don't believe our government actually did it, but I do believe they were completely inept in handling the warnings and are now (since 9/11) madly trying to cover their asses and spin this into something that supports their agenda.

[seatnineb]

191. MercutioATC Vs Madeline Sweeney .... Rnd2

Remember Sweeney gave seat numbers NOT names.......

But according to the honorable F.B.I themselves....
Sweeney gave numbers that DID NOT correspond to the seat numbers assigned to SOME of the hijackers on their tickets........

Then WHICH OTHER passengers sat in the seats that Sweeney identified as belonging to the hijackers?

Over to you Mercutio........

[MercutioATC]

193. Over to ME? YOU'RE the one citing Sweeney, not me.

Where'd this Sweeney stuff come from, anyway? I've made it clear that I'm not toeing the official line here...

[LARED]

73. Why would the FAA ban them if they don't work?

How cell phones work

http://www.privateline.com/Cellbasics/Cellbasics.html


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If We Can Fly, Why Can't We Talk? by Elisa Batista

The world is going mobile everywhere except in the air.

A Saudi Arabian army captain received 70 lashes earlier this month for using his mobile phone during an airplane's takeoff.

British oil worker Neil Whitehouse spent a year in jail for refusing to shut off his cell phone during a 1998 British Airways flight from Spain.

See also: Is Phone Interference Phony? Few Options For Yakkin' Flyers Can Cell Phones Crash Planes? Are Airborne E-Devices a Danger? Unwired News: The Next Generation

Swiss investigators believe that mobile phone interference may have helped cause last year's crash of Crossair flight LX498, which went down shortly after takeoff from the Zurich airport, killing all 10 passengers on board.

A Slovenian flight on the way to Sarajevo made an emergency landing last month after the cockpit fire alarm went off. Investigators say a cell phone left turned on in the luggage compartment triggered the erroneous warning.

To the frustration -- if not incredulity -- of airplane passengers, whose only option to communicate with someone on the ground is airplane seat-installed phones, the aviation industry touted these incidents as more proof that cell phone use in flight is dangerous.

And that belief only reinforces the industry's resolve to keep permanent a ban on using the devices during flights.

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt, (handheld devices) can interfere under very precise circumstances," said John Sheehan, who headed an RTCA study showing that portable electronic devices could interfere with a plane's navigation and communication systems.


........


"I question (the prohibition of cell phones in flight) because they have a telephone if you pay for it," said Larry Murphy, vice president of sales and marketing for Flying Food Group.

Besides, Murphy says, "In private jets you can use your own phone."


http://www.privateline.com/Cellbasics/cellphonesairlines.html

One more


http://www.aircell.com/about/presentations/WAEA-11.2002.pdf

[gandalf]

74. The answer is very simple:

Cell phones can cause interferences with the plane systems because they transmit signals to find a cell station to communicate with. They keep trying to find a cell, that means they transmit signals even though no cell might respond.

But naturally these signals can interfere with the plane systems.

It's not necessary to actually establish a longer connection to cause interferences.

[LARED]

78. The way I read it is that

the cell phones attempt to connect to far too many towers at once, causing causing two things to happen.

Interference with ground cell phone system, and difficulty in maintaining a good signal as the aircraft moves thought multiple towers.

The third thing that the FAA is afraid of in electronic interference with the aircraft.

If you read the links and snippets I posted it is clear that cell phones can work in flight. The technical issues at play are the need to create in-flight telecom systems that work with ground cell phones without causing problem. The cell phones will work, just not all the time.

[DulceDecorum]

84. But -- but --

they all worked just fine on September 11, 2001.

Thomas E. Burnett Jr called his wife, Deena, FOUR (4) times.
Perhaps, if we can just get those Muslims to suspend the laws of physics again,
then we can all call out all the time.

[LARED]

88. Is there a point in there?

So he called four times. So what?

[Abe Linkman]

90. 4? Yeah, that's nothing. Barbara aka Olson called more times than that.

That Osama guy is something else, ain't he? In honor of his BIG day, cell phones work on airliners, idiots can pilot huge planes as well as Tom Cruise, passports can survive fires so hot they cause the tallest buildings in NYC to collapse in less than two hours, the entire U.S. Defense system goes dumnb and is unable to perform its duties to protect the country, Commander BUNNYPANTS can watch an airliner crash into the WTC BEFORE it's shown on Network TV, and that's only the beginning. Somebody up THERE really must like Osama.

Who else wishes they could be so lucky?

[Bolo Boffin]

100. It is claimed that Barbara Olson called only twice.

Do try to read the accounts before you dismiss them, Abe.

[Abe Linkman]

110. Yes, I agree: they are only bogus claims from a known liar.

I've read the accounts, and I know how absurd it is to say they are true, and it's very disappointing that some people are here knowingly promoting a phony story, yet that issue can't be freely explored.

[Bob Stanford]

91. No, they did not work fine

"Olson called her husband twice from the plane, with both conversations cut short by bad connections"
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/firstweek/20010912-9999_1n12olson.html

btw, I don´t like your "humor", it´s always the same and it´s boring.

Bob Stanford

[DulceDecorum]

104. Bob Stanford

put me ignore.
Please please.
It is that little snooze button at the top of this and every other post.
Do it. Now.
Then you will never see anything written by me and your life will be ever so much better.
Hop to it then. Ta.
:hi:

Unbeknown to the hijackers, passenger and political commentator Barbara Olson, 45, was able to call her husband -- Solicitor General Ted Olson -- on her cellular phone.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/03/ar911.phone.calls/

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.

HUME: Of course.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html

Not bad for a piece of equipment the FAA had ordered removed from that type of plane on account of it being a fire hazard.

[DulceDecorum]

77. Who here has EVER

received a call from a cell phone aboard a plane?

Does ANYONE here personally know anyone who has EVER done so?
had you even heard of such a thing BEFORE September 11?

The fact that something is banned does not means that it works.
The cell phones are banned because they INTERFERE with avionics within the plane and mess up the cell towers on the ground.
Plus they do not work.
But they sure fry all the other wireless whenever they give it a shot.

Even the airfones do not work properly.
America West has sued because of it and the FAA has ordered most air-to-ground telephone systems (and quite a few in-flight entertainment systems) removed because they are just flat out dangerous and have been known to cause shorts and fires aboard aircraft.

As for the claim that airlines benefit from airfones, this is not true. The calls cost so much that hardly anyone ever uses them and the wires and equipment is so heavy that it causes the jet to burn up more fuel and also cut down on the amount of cargo it can carry. Airfones are dead weight and a dead loss and many airlines are trying to get rid of them.

Incidentally,this is what happened when someone rented a private plane and flew around trying to phone home.
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/september-eleven/cell-phones.htm

[LARED]

79. Does ANYONE here personally know anyone who has EVER done so?

Yes, I work with a pilot. He has told me that his cell phone will work in flight.

[DulceDecorum]

82. That is entirely

between you and he.

QUESTION: What kind of a pilot flagrantly disobeys FAA and FCC regs and endangers his plane (and those on the ground) from within his own cockpit?
ANSWER: LARED's friend.

I trust he means that it works when the plane is NOT actually in the air. Otherwise, he/she really should have his license revoked.

[LARED]

87. It's a private plane

Different rules.

[DulceDecorum]

102. US airspace,

FAA regulations,
US citizens at risk.

http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/abclearjet.htm

LARED your friend is an absolute schmuck.
Even car drivers are discouraged from using their phones while driving in their private cars.

And don't bother trying to convince us that John Travolta is allowed to use a cell phone while piloting his Boeing 707 simply because he owns it.

[MercutioATC]

119. What does the Payne Stewart article have to do with anything?

It simply says that his wife tried to reach him by cellphone and couldn't. We know everybody on the plane was dead. Who were you expecting to answer the phone.

LARED's friend isn't doing anything unusual or wrong. The FAA, being overly-cautious as it can be sometimes, had decided that certain electronic devices cannot be used on commercial aircraft. There is no such prohibition on private aircraft.

[DulceDecorum]

121. Proof?

Show me where the FAA says that a private plane can do what it likes.
Show me where the FAA allows ANY plane to use cell phones.
Show us the proof positive.

Prove that LARED's schmuck friend is LEGALLY permitted to willfully endanger the lives of ordinary people by using his cell phone in flight when car drivers are strongly discouraged from using their cell phones while driving.
Doesn't that scofflaw have enough dials competing for his attention when he flies under Visual Flight Rules? Or does he simply have two hard meat-heads atop his brazen neck?
He is functionally deaf while chatting on the cell phone and is blithely ignoring the radio.
Yes, there are deaf pilots
http://www.deafpilots.com/faq.html
but I am sure that FAA takes a very dim view of those who can hear just fine
but simply refuse to do so.
LARED your pilot friend is in criminal violation of federal law.

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
Sec. 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.

Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. The following notice must be posted on or near each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft:
``The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA regulations.''
http://squid.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=22&SECTION=925&TYPE=TEXT

OK MercutioATC, over to you.
Demonstrate that 47 CFR 22.925 is no longer valid
or show us where it says that 47 CFR 22.925 does not apply to private planes
piloted by LARED's friend.

[LARED]

122. I'm not an expert in this

but I'm guessing pilots are going to be familiar with the FAA regulations (the rules that were referenced) and perhaps not all are familiar with FCC regulation (I ones you referenced)

Do you think the FCC publishes that rules because of concern for public safety, or concern for telecommunication interference with the cell system?


I can add with a high level of certainty that your belief that people will know every regulation in the Federal Code demonstrates expectations by you that is not possible. In the industry where I work there is a whole group of people that spend all their time trying to figure out what in the world those pesky regulators have created today. It's a full time job.

[Abe Linkman]

123. Which industry are you referring to? n/t

n/t

[DulceDecorum]

128. Guess again

LARED says:
I'm guessing pilots are going to be familiar with the FAA regulations...

Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft - FAA AC 91.21-1


1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides aircraft
operators with information and guidance for assistance in the
compliance of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Section 91.21.
Because of the potential for portable electronic devices to
interfere with aircraft communications and navigation equipment,
FAR Section 91.21 was established. It prohibits the operation
of portable electronic devices aboard U.S.-registered civil
aircraft, operated by the holder of an air carrier operating
certificate or an operating certificate, or any other aircraft
while operating under instrument flight rules. The rule permits
use of specified portable electronic devices and other devices
that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause
interference with the safe operation of the aircraft in which it
is operated.
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/91-21_1.html

Question: What kind of pilot does not bother to find out about federal regulations before he gets into his private plane and turns on a cell phone?

Answer: LARED's friend.

Question: How and when did LARED's friend determine that his cell phone would NOT interfere with the safe operation of his private airborne plane?

Answer: Huh?

[LARED]

129. Ok DD

What exactly does this new hobbyhorse of your (investigation of Federal regulations) have to do with whether a cell phone will work in fight?

[DulceDecorum]

131. I dunno

lets call the FAA
and tell them the name of your friend
and what he does when he is piloting his private plane
and let the federal law enforcement boys sort it out.
Knowing their track record, he will walk.

LARED,
do you think your friend was lying?
Can he show you the bills and the flight plan?
Can he PROVE he was in the air at the time the cell phone calls were made?

NONE of the 9:11 passengers can.
(Even if they were were alive they still would not be able to.)

THERE ARE NO BILLS WHATSOEVER.
NONE.
NOT A ONE.

There is NO proof whatsoever that ANY calls were actually made from airborne planes on September 11, 2001.
And ain't nobody around hyar who believes that sad story.

[MercutioATC]

125. You're absolutely correct. It's a violation of FCC regs...not FAA regs.

There has not been one documented case of a cell phone disrupting anything on an aircraft. This rule exists because cell phones in the air hit more cell sites than those on the ground, taxing the cell system.


http://www.cs.ccsu.edu/~pelletie/local/news/telecom/Cell_phones_on_planes.html


I don't think LARED's friend is going to hell for this....

[DulceDecorum]

130. FAA AC 91.21-1

It prohibits the operation of
portable electronic devices aboard U.S.-registered civil
aircraft, operated by the holder of an air carrier operating
certificate or an operating certificate, or any other aircraft
while operating under instrument flight rules. The rule permits
use of specified portable electronic devices and other devices
that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause
interference with the safe operation of the aircraft in which it
is operated.
http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/91-21_1.html

MercutioATC says:
I don't think LARED's friend is going to hell for this....

Why?
Is hell full?

Cell phones are forbidden within hospitals.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9605/16/cellphones/
Cell phones have also been known to interfere with Emergency personnel.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Apr-06-Tue-2004/news/23594591.html
http://www.securityworld.com/library/workplacetech/cellphoneuse.html
But yet MercutioATC says:
There has not been one documented case of a cell phone disrupting anything on an aircraft.
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/3355.shtml

[Woody Box]

75. German cellphones don't work in airplanes

In September 2003, I started a private poll on the important German internet forum telepolis:

Funktionieren Handys in Flugzeugen? (Do cellphones work in planes?)

Here are the results:

http://www.heise.de/tp/foren/go.shtml?read=1&msg_id=4245301&forum_id=47533

Eight people answered. Seven of them denied to have successfully established a connection at cruising altitude. Mostly a few minutes after takeoff, the connection vanished.

One person (rog2002) answered that one time his cellphone was ringing while the plane was in the air. I asked him about the altitude. He told me it happened when the plane was descending, definitely below 1000 m (3000 ft). So this is a further confirmation:

Apart from the start and the landing phase, cellphones don't work in airplanes.

I doubt that the difference of the european and american systems does matter. Even if the american phone is sending signals double as strong as the european one, its probability to establish a connection at 35000 ft is nearly zero:

Example:

probability of GSM phone: [phone]
probabiliy of US system phone: [phone]

Still not really reliable.

[LARED]

81. I doubt that the difference of the european and american systems does matt

There are significant difference between American systems and European system. So what are you basing that statement on?

[Bob Stanford]

86. Hmmm, woody, aren´t you cheating?

I´ve checked the poll. Somebody made a statement, which I copy here in the translation of google (original & link follows):

"I heard in US airplanes already a lot of Analogmobiles ring.

respicefinem (23. September 2003 21:14)
It is already a few years ago (there also hardly one has itself largely over it excited). 6000 feet at least (approx. 2000 m) was the height. So deeply also the kidnapped airplane could have been on the way. From a "cruising altitude" from 9000 m never was the speech. I had at this time a Analoghandy of QUALCOMM (Provider Verizon). That showed receipt in the airplane also rather for a long time after the start still (to I it switched off). Also here the flight altitude must have been at least 2000 m."

This is the link: http://www.heise.de/tp/foren/go.shtml?read=1&msg_id=4248190&forum_id=47533

This is the original (german) text:

Ich hab in US-Flugzeugen schon jede Menge Analoghandies klingeln hören
respicefinem (23. September 2003 21:14)

Ist schon ein paar Jahre her (da hat sich auch kaum einer groß
darüber aufgeregt). 6000 feet (ca 2000 m) war die Höhe mindestens.
So tief könnte auch das entführte Flugzeug unterwegs gewesen sein.
Von einer "Reiseflughöhe" von 9000 m war nie die Rede.

Ich selbst hatte zu dieser Zeit ein Analoghandy von Qualcomm
(Provider Verizon). Das zeigte im Flugzeug auch ziemlich lange nach
dem Start noch Empfang (bis ich es ausschaltete). Auch hier muss die
Flughöhe mindestens 2000 m gewesen sein.

[Woody Box]

103. No

I've mentioned already rog2002, whose experience seemed to contradict the experience of the other guys.

Regarding respicefinem's statement, as far as I can remember I thought about including his post but dropped it due to lack of credibility and precision. "Some years ago" he used his cellphone, and the altitude "must have been" at least 2000 ft. That's not the kind of answer I wanted. The other answers were precise and referring to fresh experience. And respicefinem
was well known for vehemently defending the official story. Another reason to take his statement with a grain of salt.

Any more examples that I was "cheating"?

[Bob Stanford]

112. YES, that´s obviously cheating (n/T)

YES, that´s obviously cheating (n/T)

[Woody Box]

126. No

I'm not cheating. LARED is cheating.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x11406

Ashcroft: ...not to sell her (Jane Reno) short...

Ben-Veniste: She's not short.

Ashcroft: Pardon?

Ben-Veniste: She's not short. I'm short.

[Bob Stanford]

134. YES, that´s obviously cheating

And btw, you concealed the only experience IN THE USA.

And btw, LARED is not cheating, as you can read in the thread you mentioned. If you do not agree, please leave a message THERE.

[nomatrix]

95. This was attempted to be answered on Goggle

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=173057

A variety of answers.

Still, I am not sure, from reading the article links, that calls weren't from installed onboard phones. Hope this helps.


Air Cell makes a phone for use onboard.
http://www.aircell.com/index.php



Edit to add air cell link.