Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Cheney: Another attack coming

72 posts in this topic

Posted

Then how do you explain the cell phone calls?

Cell phones of that time didn't work in airplanes at altitudes of over 8000 feet or at high rates of speed...

Last time I checked, an airplane had to fly pretty fast to remain in flight.. and 8000 feet is very very low....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The Technology of Wireless Transmission

The Report conveys the impression that cell phone ground-to-air communication from high altitude was of reasonably good quality, and that there was no major impediment or obstruction in wireless transmission.

Some of the conversations were with onboard air phones, which contrary to the cell phones provide for good quality transmission. The report does not draw a clear demarcation between the two types of calls.

More significantly, what this carefully drafted script, fails to mention is that, given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet:

"Wireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They speculate that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground" ( http://www.elliott.org/technology/2001/cellpermit.htm

Expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry casts serious doubt on "the findings" of the 9/11 Commission. According to Alexa Graf, a spokesman of AT&T, commenting in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks:

"it was almost a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations... From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude" ( http://wirelessreview.com/ar/wireless_final_contact/ )

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Planes always crash in the middle of a field leaving no debris, guys. Come on.

The debris issue is irrelevant.

I spent a few years of my life studying air to air combat and how missiles perform.

The F16s that supposedly shot it down would have been carrying guns and the Aim 9L Sidewinder. Sidewinders carry a relatively small warhead. They are designed to hit another fighter's engine, and take it out. They could not blow up a Commercial jet in midair. The sidewinder would hit the plane, take out the engine, and it would crash to the ground. Thats how they work.

The AMRAAM might be able to blow up a commercial airliner, but at that time, it was only carried on F15s and there were no f15s around.

The point is that had it been shot down, it still would have crashed into the ground. In fact, had it crashed, it likely would have gone in nose first and a bit slower, so the odds are if it had been shot down, there would have been more debris.

Instead, when it came in it was probably going full power at a higher rate of speed, so that the debris was more scattered.

But you guys feel free to believe a bunch of internet wingnuts instead of the experts like the ones that popular mechanics got together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah, and nobody pulls Popular Mechanics' strings....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't. I think that was some newsperson trying to jump the gun on everyone else.

newsperson? it was a live press conference, rumsfeld announced to cameras that the plane was shot down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The debris issue is irrelevant.

I spent a few years of my life studying air to air combat and how missiles perform.

The F16s that supposedly shot it down would have been carrying guns and the Aim 9L Sidewinder. Sidewinders carry a relatively small warhead. They are designed to hit another fighter's engine, and take it out. They could not blow up a Commercial jet in midair. The sidewinder would hit the plane, take out the engine, and it would crash to the ground. Thats how they work.

The AMRAAM might be able to blow up a commercial airliner, but at that time, it was only carried on F15s and there were no f15s around.

The point is that had it been shot down, it still would have crashed into the ground. In fact, had it crashed, it likely would have gone in nose first and a bit slower, so the odds are if it had been shot down, there would have been more debris.

Instead, when it came in it was probably going full power at a higher rate of speed, so that the debris was more scattered.

But you guys feel free to believe a bunch of internet wingnuts instead of the experts like the ones that popular mechanics got together.

This is, I'm assuming, that you're speculating only 1 missile was used, yes? Had multiple missiles from multiple jets been the case, would this all remain the same, do you think? Before you poo-poo the idea that such force would be used, remember both Trade Center towers had been hit as well as the Pentagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Cell phones of that time didn't work in airplanes at altitudes of over 8000 feet or at high rates of speed...

Last time I checked, an airplane had to fly pretty fast to remain in flight.. and 8000 feet is very very low....

The plane was flying low. That's why the cell phones were used. That's why the plane crashed immediately after they said "Let's roll."

It's something Chuck Norris would have done. You would have just cussed and pretended that was acting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The plane was flying low. That's why the cell phones were used. That's why the plane crashed immediately after they said "Let's roll." .

As documented by the film "Flight 93," right? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"Against All Eniemies" by Richard Clarke is worth a read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As documented by the film "Flight 93," right? :lol:

And where do you conspiracy theorists get YOUR info? Hmm? Hmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And where do you conspiracy theorists get YOUR info? Hmm? Hmm?

Donald Rumsfeld?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites