Posted on 01/26/2003 9:28:46 PM PST by Polycarp
The following was an e-mail exchange that delved a little deeper into 'reports' that were circulating and *why* certain things were improbable and unlikely to have occured.
And remember, you *won't* hear this from anybody else ...
"one of the passengers was in the washroom when he called."This, in paticular, was an early media report. I *too* heard this *early* report ...As we now know, the hijackers, it seems, had no particular qualms (sp?) about passengers making 'phone calls'.
Additionally - making a 'phone call' from a lavatory on an aircraft like that would be doubly difficult from a signal transmissison standpoint - there are **no windows** (aperatures) from which the signal can escape the aircaft fuselage without a lot of loss!! This is an important matter if you have ever tried to work 2 Meters using an HT (Handie-Talkie) from inside a car. Granted, 146 MHz is about 1/6 that of a cell phone and will work with a proportionally smaller aperature - the signal must first traverse from inside the aircraft 'til an aperature/aperatures is encountered THEN propagation into free space and a cell site can be made.
This is an additional reason why I do not 'buy into' this story ...
Furthermore - *no* credible storys heard in the second person (the person called) have in any way alluded too or confirmed a 'cell phone' was used.
Never having tried making a phone call from an aircraft, but being intimately aware as having actually done the design, the layout, assigned the frequency reuse/freq groups and sectorization of a cellular/PCS system followed by the supervision of in-service drives by the STA (System Test Analysts) - I HIGHLY doubt a call of any usable duration could be (what is termed) 'held' if indeed a call even could have been 'dialed' ... it would be more likely in an open- terrain/open-country environ where the cells are not spaced as closely together - but the same rules basic (reuse of frequencies, etc) still apply. These systems are planned and designed to provide service to ground-based phones - and use the isolation of the landscape to re-use the same frequencies over and over - place a 'user' aboard an aircraft - and the nothing in terms of that phone call, such as freedom from interference, can be assured and the call will likely 'drop' in a short time ...
You see, all these antennas on water towers and free-standing "candlabra" structures focus the majority of their energy in a narrow beam:
o Elevation pattern - 10 to 15 degrees or so. Assuming *no* downtilt, only half of this (5 to 5.5 degrees) pattern is above the horizon. o Azimuth pattern - 120 degrees (some antennas slightly more, some slightly less)Cellular/PCS base stations therefore *do not* have much of a pattern a) overhead or b) much signal strength at even a 30 degree or 45 degree elevation angle above the horizon.GTE Airphone base-stations, by contrast, *do* have an entirely different antenna system, and are engineered to provide 'service' into space using antennas with much *larger* vertical beamwidths.
Also, no-one seems to 'question' the simple assertion that a cell phone was used on really simple common-sense basis either. On board an aircraft, I normally place my phone in my briefcase then either stow that under the seat or place it in the overhead. We probably all do - with the exception of women who place their phone into their purses.
Now, my question is, were all these passengers, when hearded to the rear of the plane, allowed to remove their personal effects (men - briefcases, women - handbags/purses) from where they had stored them from under seats of overhead storage?
I wouldn't think so ... another *reason* all these 'cell phone' stories' are media mis-perception/mis- characterization. It is much more plausable - and ALL substantial accounts now indicate - that the aircrafts's 'Airphone' service was used ...
----- Original Message ----- From: "---------------" <------------.com> To: "_Jim" <----------@------.com> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 11:07 AM Subject: Re: Interesting, chilling article >> _Jim, if I remember correctly one of the passengers was in the > washroom when he called. He reported a flash and the phone > went dead. It may have been the plane where the passengers > tried to take over. ----------. > > _Jim wrote: > > > "In recent days, snippets of **cell > > phone calls** that originated from > > the four hijacked flights ..." > > > > From the personal testimony (during interviews) > > of the several people/groups receiving phone > > calls from people aboard these planes - they did > > NOT use cell phones, they used instead the (GTE?) > > *Airphone* service available on these flights!!! > > > > In fact, Alice Hoglan (Flight Attendant) whose son > > (aboard flight 93, the one that fought the hijackers) > > called her CORRECTED on-the-air the interviewer TWICE > > as to how he called her ... another call from that > > same plane was *also* an 'Airphone' call. > > > > Further down in the story we have this: > > > > "It is unclear from the phone account where > > Sweeney was when she was talking to the > > ground manager or what type of phone she > > used." > > > > ... we have an intellectually lazy news media who > > have apparently NEVER flown and seen let alone USED > > those phones that are situated on the backs of > > most airplane seats ... > > > > Do you *really* think that a flight attendant > > would use her *own* cell phone - or facilities > > that are ever-present and *known* to work in the > > air (such as the 'Airphone' service)? > > > > I would like to hear stories from someone who > > has used a cell phone aboard a flight while in > > the air - I have personally used 2-way handheld > > UHF radio gear while inn flight - the range is > > tremendous (as one would expect). > > > > The problem with using a cell phone aboard an > > aircraft in flight is that the *cell phone* will > > be literally *seeing* control channels from *multiple* > > cell sites concurrently - quite possibly to the > > point that no individual, clear usable signal can > > be found such that *no* call can be placed in the > > first place let alone the call 'held' for any > > usable duration. > > > > The only reason I get 'up' like this on this subject > > is that I have spent a goodly part of my life, both > > professionally and as a ham radio operator, working > > on, designing, using or planning 2-way and cellular > > networks or working in industry in telephony and I > > just can't stand idly (sp?) by while more 'myths' > > are propagated by the media on a rather straight- > > forward (but little understood) technology .... > > > > > > > > _Jim > >
That's the question *you're* supposed to answer ...
No they don't.
There *is* a recommened upper number of flight hours and 'cycles' (takeoff/landing cycles) ...
What - are you saying those airframes are made of silly putty and will continue to ***flex*** forever?
'course not ... metal fatigues eventually, after continued flexure, in some *designs* this results in more potential 'cycles' than other designs BUT the 747 has lower numbers than present designs ...
Oh, by the way, the planes hijacked on 9/11 ended up a hell of a lot lower than 10,000 feet, if they got there in the first place.
Take your idiocy, and your unbelievably massive arrogance, and shove them. I'm not going to argue proven, commonly-known reality to you; it's like getting into a flame war with someone that thinks the sun revolves around the earth. If anyone else wants to continue this nondebate with you, they're welcome to waste their time.
*plonk*
Ok, donning the tin foil hat.
First, all government conspiracy participants make a big circle facing outward.
Second, all participants interlock their arms.
Then, government conspiracy participants circle the room three times counter-clockwise chanting "Paul is dead" and "I buried Paul."
Next, when sufficiently dizzy, all fall down.
Drat. Now I have to shoot myself for revealing the secret government employee silence method. Extensively tested at area 51, by the CIA and USAF, in 1941.
Military aircraft might not show up on civilian radar if they don't wish to be "seen".
((((CRICKETS))))
Hey Askel, do you think a person who believes that no plane hit the Pentagon is certifiably insane?
My sister's old roommate was there at the Pentagon that day and my cousin was called in and spent the day assisting at the site.
The most interesting "local" statements of all being the exchange among the ATC and the pilots who watched the puff of smoke in the sky where 93 used to be.
This is all such bull$hit. I fail to see how in God's name everyone expects us to have the wherewithal and backbone to fight a two-front war and let God sort out the collateral damage we do with our Daisy Cutters as we pound third-worlders to death if we can't admit our boys are fully capable of shooting down a stinking passenger plane intending yet another late-breaking strike on the nation's capital or some other heavily populated target.
Who's saying that those on board didn't try to take over the plane? What was said is that there are indications that the plane was shot down in spite of that. The pilot would have had no way of knowing what was going on onboard Flight 93.
But when weighed against actual kook-theorists and their cottage industry of anti-anything-government (not to mention monetary profit), I'm with the educated & reasoned percent of the population.
So anyone that disagrees with you is an uneducated, irrational, greed motivated kook? I find that to be a very shallow argument, and is based solely on your own personal opinion with little or no basis in fact. Just because some people seek the truth does not make them kooky, irrational, less educated than you, and has no correlation to greed.
Air navigation is a bit out of my league. But applying critical thinking, with a long experience in surface navigation; I'll make an educated guess.
Air navigation rules, much like her older sister, surface navigation rules; are for safety and apply for all military, commercial, and civilian users of USA air space. Chances are the US DOT has them on-line. Rules logically include assigned ATC radio frequencies, transponder use, navigation lights and traffic separation schemes, such as specific altitudes for direction traveled. On the night of 9/11, the only aircraft over Chicago where the military types, with functional navigation lights.
From my experience with radar, transponders paint a significant picture on radar. The 9/11 hijackers secured transponders, which made it very difficult for ATC'ers to follow four relatively huge radar blips.
Perhaps you missed my post #20? Shoot down was not unthinkable, but embarrassingly impossible.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post #13 re-affirms the statement. Although I never saw that photo before, the photo is consistent with the pilot's stories.
The Mirror owns a printing press and buys its ink by the barrel. Unfortunately, those facts may give an illusion of credibility; but those facts alone do not make a left wing agenda driven publisher's information trustworthy.
Cheers.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post #13 re-affirms the statement. Although I never saw that photo before, the photo is consistent with the pilot's stories.
The photo in post 13 appears to have been taken some time after the crash, as there is no fireball. It is also some distance from the crash site. Needless to say, it is also quite possible that the image has been doctored, as there does appear to be editing artifacts in the image. Enlarging the image without resampling should provide even pixalation, whereas this image indicates uneven pixalation with pronounced dropoffs, especially in the areas in the top left portion of the image proceeding from the cloud of smoke.
The Mirror owns a printing press and buys its ink by the barrel. Unfortunately, those facts may give an illusion of credibility; but those facts alone do not make a left wing agenda driven publisher's information trustworthy.
Whatever the agenda of the messenger, the facts remain the same. It is simply a matter of wanting to know the truth. Typical in these situations where the truth is not out in the open, there are those that resort to ad hominem arguments in order to challenge the credibility of the information presented. I doubt those eyewitnesses that actually saw the events unfold are leftists, and I doubt that they are trying to embarrass the administration. They are simply reporting what they saw.
For your information, military jets do not need to wrap themselves in "tinfoil" to avoid being seen on radar. First of all, they can set their transponders to where they don't respond to civilian transponder interrogation. Secondly, they carry electronic countermeasures that allow them to evade detection on military radar. Civilian radar is much less sophisticated than military radar, accordingly, is much easier to fool.
Air navigation rules, much like her older sister, surface navigation rules; are for safety and apply for all military, commercial, and civilian users of USA air space.
Under ordinary conditions, true. Not true when an aircraft is on a combat mission under wartime rules. I'd say that morning of September 11, 2001, our fighter aircraft guarding Washington DC were operating under wartime rules.
Chances are the US DOT has them on-line. Rules logically include assigned ATC radio frequencies, transponder use, navigation lights and traffic separation schemes, such as specific altitudes for direction traveled. On the night of 9/11, the only aircraft over Chicago where the military types, with functional navigation lights.
Once we were no longer under attack, I'm sure the rules reverted back to normal.
From my experience with radar, transponders paint a significant picture on radar. The 9/11 hijackers secured transponders, which made it very difficult for ATC'ers to follow four relatively huge radar blips.
Commercial airliners carry a transponder which identifies their altitude, airspeed, and identifying information. Military aircraft are equipped with transponders that function that way in normal conditions, but in a combat mode, they operate in a different mode using classified frequencies. They would not show up on civilian radar.
You are welcome to your opinion. In my opinion, given the facts presented in this thread, no reasonable fire science novice would agree.
Whatever the agenda of the messenger, the facts remain the same. It is simply a matter of wanting to know the truth. Typical in these situations where the truth is not out in the open, there are those that resort to ad hominem arguments in order to challenge the credibility of the information presented. I doubt those eyewitnesses that actually saw the events unfold are leftists, and I doubt that they are trying to embarrass the administration. They are simply reporting what they saw.
Get ten people to witness anything, you'll get different, but reasonably identical versions of the event. Some are very detail oriented, others incredibly vague. However, there are very evil people in a world that can produce one Saddam Hussein. In that huge spectrum of in-between, many irrational people will always hate, and try to kill YOU, because YOU are the USA. The USA fills prison death rows with people of the same stripe. Further down that spectrum we have leftists; they despise us because as free people, we prosper.
Now I understand why this place is called the "Smokey Backroom." :)
For your information, military jets do not need to wrap themselves in "tinfoil" to avoid being seen on radar. First of all, they can set their transponders to where they don't respond to civilian transponder interrogation. Secondly, they carry electronic countermeasures that allow them to evade detection on military radar. Civilian radar is much less sophisticated than military radar, accordingly, is much easier to fool.
So why would a military pilot, in friendly skies, need to do this?
Under ordinary conditions, true. Not true when an aircraft is on a combat mission under wartime rules. I'd say that morning of September 11, 2001, our fighter aircraft guarding Washington DC were operating under wartime rules.
Would you mind sharing your source of this information with me?
Once we were no longer under attack, I'm sure the rules reverted back to normal.
Perhaps you are wrong? Maybe the threat condition was maintained up until commecial air traffic resumed? From there, perhaps the threat condition gradully ratched down to what we now know as our current "yellow" threat condition?
Commercial airliners carry a transponder which identifies their altitude, airspeed, and identifying information. Military aircraft are equipped with transponders that function that way in normal conditions, but in a combat mode, they operate in a different mode using classified frequencies. They would not show up on civilian radar.
Would you mind providing a source for that information?
I guess it was a waste of money to spend all that cash on the design of the Stealth Bomber, since a switch can make it invisible to "military radar" - what a dope that guy is!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.