United 93, opening old wounds and exposing some truth?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Looger

yep, straight out of my ass.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf

The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern
Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet.

also:

At 9:32, a hijacker, probably Jarrah, made or attempted to make the following announcement to the passengers of Flight 93:“Ladies and Gentlemen:Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining sitting.We have a bomb on board. So, sit.” The flight data recorder (also recovered) indicates that Jarrah then instructed the plane’s autopilot to turn the aircraft around and head east.

75

The cockpit voice recorder data indicate that a woman, most likely a flight
attendant,was being held captive in the cockpit. She struggled with one of the hijackers who killed or otherwise silenced her.

76

Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones.

also:

9:41 Transponder is turned off

so, how much altitude can a plane drop in 4 minutes, well admittedly, quite a bit. but don't cell phones have to be below 10,000 feet to work reliably? i guess it comes down to how far off the ground 93 went in those 4 minutes, i'm honestly not sure how much altitude it had when the transponder was lost.

from your own link,

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...cell_air2.html

Who would want airline passengers to be able to make cell phone calls at 30,000 feet? Another federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission, seems to be the leading backer of the idea.

seems like a lot of research is being done to make cells work at higher altitudes, why bother when dozens of calls worked with networks seven years older?

Cell phones are used at 30,000 feet every day, including then.

Obviously passengers aren't supposed to use their cells, but pilots and airlines are well aware that it happens . . . . hence the debate with real pilots contributing in that CNN link I provided you.

Maybe you should take that poll at the CNN link . . . . . seven per cent say yes, that they've used their cell phone in flight.

After all, 30,000 feet is less than six miles - 10 kilometres - from multiple towers in a saturated area with clear line of sight.

Lastly, a recent Carnegie Mellon Institute survey found that cell phone companies log an average 1-4 calls per commercial airline flight in the northeast USA every day.

http://www.cmu.edu/PR/releases06/060228_cellphone.html

Cowperson, above, has some good FAA links on their policy towards cell phones, they clearly do work at lower altitudes reliably.

Where do you get "lower altitudes" from the links I provided?

If they work at "lower altitudes" then clearly the plane itself isn't the issue - only distance from the tower, as would be the case for any call, and the technology to hand off from one tower to the next are the issues.

Its the latter point where you might have a chance. Otherwise you're toast.

The latter is interesting given the speeds being travelled are obviously a lot faster than your car. My understanding is a cell call from a plane uses more resources than a normal call on the part of the cell company in terms of handing off to other towers.

Here's a company marketing ways to block cell phone calls. Its given up on the airline market because of the impact of the 9/11 calls. Obviously they would be very tech savvy and know a bull**** story if they saw one:

http://www.cell-block-r.com/MSegments.htm

i assume that it's possible that cell phones can interfere with flight controls, which is why the FAA has been leary of their use in the past.

The primary issue appears to be interference with navigation equipment.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Air-traffic controllers and the people who took the phonecalls would have to be in on the scam for it to work, wouldn't they? The stories of the passengers "taking back the plane" came out almost immediately, so there was no time to cook this all up in the aftermath.

How did they convince all those regular people on the ground to pretend they had received a phonecall from that airplane?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Where do you get "lower altitudes" from the links I provided?

i didn't.

i got 30,000 feet, which seems to be some kind of breaking point for cellular communications.

http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/...nal_contact_2/

Calling From 30,000 Feet
Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes.
Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.
“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.”

as far as i know the main impedement to cell call range is trees, hills, etc. so line of sight miles of nothingness shouldn't hurt, obviously. i mean ham operators have talked to the space shuttle.

but the hand-off nature of cellular, plus the speed of the plane, etc. contribute to nearly every cell-phone expert i hear from denoting 30,000 feet as a point at which the calls are very unreliable. this number keeps coming up.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/te...air-cell_x.htm

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.
.

honestly, without the 30,000 feet bugaboo, i'd believe it.

[Hakan]

Back to the original conspiracy theory, there isn't a doubt for me at least that that plane was shot down. I remember the day of the hijackings they had early TV feeds of the farmers field where the plane went down in Pennsylvania. What did you see in the field? Debris. Lots of debris. There was no sign of a smouldering fuselage or anything looking like a plane. Take that with the fact that debris was found all over Pennsylvania and then take teh fact that that feed of the field was pulled after about 45 minutes and has NEVER been shown on TV again.

This isn't something that I'm making up either. I remember that feed clear as day. I remember thinking, that it was odd that there wasn't a burning plane in that field.

Finally, the news came on a Sept 13, the first piece of news about ANY of the hijackings that the passengers of that flight heroically mutinied. Coincidence? Nope, a very obvious deflection of public perception. The government knew that lots of people had seen what I saw. They needed to create a credible story of what happened. This should really be a non-issue, the plane was shot out of the air. Unfortunately, everyone was blinded at teh time by the "lets roll" line.

[Looger]

Hakan,

i think the condition of the plane post-crash has more to do with the angle at which it hit than anything.

a lot of crashes (and footage) take place right by the runway, on approaches and takeoffs, and usually the fuselage is visible and burning.

but a high-angle impact, more than possible from a struggle, would look a lot different than the majority of airline crashes.

shootdown? i'm not ruling it out, but i don't cite the impact site as a deciding factor.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Oh goody! another conspiracy!
yay!
the phone companies are in on it now!

Not all muslims are terrorists no, but the vast majority of terrorists are muslims.

Wonder why that is?

corporate sponsorship.

everyone with a citibank card, take a bow!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Back to the original conspiracy theory, there isn't a doubt for me at least that that plane was shot down. I remember the day of the hijackings they had early TV feeds of the farmers field where the plane went down in Pennsylvania. What did you see in the field? Debris. Lots of debris. There was no sign of a smouldering fuselage or anything looking like a plane. Take that with the fact that debris was found all over Pennsylvania and then take teh fact that that feed of the field was pulled after about 45 minutes and has NEVER been shown on TV again.

This isn't something that I'm making up either. I remember that feed clear as day. I remember thinking, that it was odd that there wasn't a burning plane in that field.

Finally, the news came on a Sept 13, the first piece of news about ANY of the hijackings that the passengers of that flight heroically mutinied. Coincidence? Nope, a very obvious deflection of public perception. The government knew that lots of people had seen what I saw. They needed to create a credible story of what happened. This should really be a non-issue, the plane was shot out of the air. Unfortunately, everyone was blinded at teh time by the "lets roll" line.

Nice on. You come up with that yourself? Of course if you don't "have any doubt" that the plane was shot-down, that means its the truth, eh?

Conspiracy theorists unite; by God, Bush pulled it off himself.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't believe in most of the conspiracy theories, but I also don't buy the official story of United 93.

I believe that the terrorists crashed the plane into the ground because they knew they were being tailed by the air force and would be shot down. The terrorists were probably hoping to take out some building on the ground. All the other stuff about the passenger revolt on the plane, I think is probably an exaggeration of what really happened. Americans needed a heroic tale that day, and United 93 was a chance to create one.

My take.... I think there were probably a few calls made from passengers, but I think they were likely edited in a clever fashion to create a story that the pentagon wanted to tell. The passengers probably died banging on the cockpit door begging for their lives. I know it sounds horrible, but reality is usually pretty horrible. It certainly isn't a Hollywood movie.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Back to the original conspiracy theory, there isn't a doubt for me at least that that plane was shot down.

I guess one could believe that...except for what the actual eyewitnesses had to say about it.

The fate of United Airlines Flight 93, the last of the four hijacked planes to go down in the United States on 11 September, holds no mystery for Lee Purbaugh. He saw what happened with his own eyes. He was the only person present in the field where, at 10.06am, the aircraft hit the ground.
"There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there, right above my head — maybe 50ft up," says Purbaugh, who works at a scrapyard overlooking the crash site. "It was only a split second but it looked like it was moving in slow motion, like it took forever. I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly have survived."

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Back to the original conspiracy theory, there isn't a doubt for me at least that that plane was shot down.

Here's why I doubt that. One of the embarrassing things for the Bush administration is that it took them so long to react to what was happening. The famous "7 minutes" is a damning indictment of the President himself--clearly not knowing what to do. But still worse is that it took the better part of an hour for anyone in the administration to do anything at all, even AFTER they knew what was happening. They DID order the Air Force to shoot down hijacked planes--nearly 20 minutes after United 93 crashed.

To me, this doesn't make them look especially good. If they had reacted fast enough to shoot this flight down, wouldn't they be bragging about it, given everything we know about this administration? The truth--their total incompetence, and complete lack of preparation for any kind of national emergency--is far more embarrassing.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Here's why I doubt that. One of the embarrassing things for the Bush administration is that it took them so long to react to what was happening. The famous "7 minutes" is a damning indictment of the President himself--clearly not knowing what to do.

I'm sure any other President would have jumped up and gone crazy, screaming, yelling, hammering out orders of what to do.

Sheesh.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Going to watch it tonight! Should be good!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm sure any other President would have jumped up and gone crazy, screaming, yelling, hammering out orders of what to do.

Sheesh.

Is it your contention that any president would have been incommunicado for the better part of an hour during a national emergency?

Save the drama for your mama, pal. Saying "sheesh" doesn't win you any arguments.

[transplant99]

Is it your contention that any president would have been incommunicado for the better part of an hour during a national emergency?

Nope.

i WILL contend however that ANY President would be both ushered away from media AS WELL AS take time to get the 1000 or so reports coming in, and at that point disseminate information without making kneejerk reactions.....which is appparently what the masses here expected.

Hate Bush all you want, but no one would of reacted any different...the country was under attack on a day, and at a time, and in a way that NO body could comprend. To assume you, or your favorite radio moron, would of done ANYTHING different is both foolish and bull#####e.

[transplant99]

Save the drama for your mama, pal. Saying "sheesh" doesn't win you any arguments.

Nor do your local paper reviews.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Is it your contention that any president would have been incommunicado for the better part of an hour during a national emergency?

Save the drama for your mama, pal. Saying "sheesh" doesn't win you any arguments.

You have any idea what the Secret Service were doing in those 7 min?

You're using a strawman arguement here. I'm pretty sure any President would have reacted the same way. Only difference being, you love to attack Bush in any which way possible. Therefore it was a mistake for him to stay calm and let the Secret Service figure out the safest, possible way out.

I know a couple people that have worked in the Secret Service and both have said it is virtually impossible to have a route figured out in 7 min, including flight arrangements and such.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

I know a couple people that have worked in the Secret Service and both have said it is virtually impossible to have a route figured out in 7 min, including flight arrangements and such.

Yeah 7 minutes is not a long time to figure that kind of thing out. It's kind of surprising to learn that they didn't have a plan for the boss in case of an emergency though. You'd think they'd plan ahead but I guess not.

Yer right, sitting and staring was no doubt the best course of action.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Nor do your local paper reviews.

No-one's making you read them. If you'd care to enter into, you know--a debate, where you address specific points and try to have an intelligent conversation, I'm game. I'm not, on the other hand, very interested in a flame war. I'm getting a bit too old for those kinds of immature antics.

As for the comment about how long it took the administration to respond. If you watch United 93 (a film I didn't love--but you can at least say that it's meticulous when it comes to the details) you'll see that it isn't just the president. The FAA and the military BOTH attempted to contact the White House in order to receive instructions on how to deal with what both knew was a crisis. They received NO guidance, because that guidance could apparently come only from the President, who was INCOMMUNICADO.

Obviously, no-one could have predicted 9/11. But to say that no-one could have predicted ANY scenario in which the nation's commander in chief would need to be contacted immediately is just silly.

That's not to say that it would have been different with a different president--just that the bureaucracy got caught with its pants down which is neither controversial, nor an indictment of Mr. Bush specifically. The 7 minutes, though it made for good television in Michael Moore's documentary, is irrelevant. And note that this is what I was saying all along:

One of the embarrassing things for the Bush administration is that it took them so long to react to what was happening. The famous "7 minutes" is a damning indictment of the President himself--clearly not knowing what to do. But still worse is that it took the better part of an hour for anyone in the administration to do anything at all, even AFTER they knew what was happening.

I suppose I could have avoided getting flamed if I had added "the 7 munutes is irrelevant." And it is. Nothing substantial could have been done by then anyway. By the time Bush was notified that there was a problem, the bureaucracy had already reacted too slowly.

If it makes people feel better to think that I'm desperate to hate Bush, so be it. I'll admit that I'm not a fan of his. However, I don't think this particular screw-up falls in his lap--just in the lap of his administration. Would another administration have reacted the same way? Maybe. Probably, even. But it doesn't matter, because the onus was on this group, not the Clinton administration, or Bush 41. When you're the one in power, you're the one who gets to take the blame.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I suppose I could have avoided getting flamed if I had added "the 7 munutes is irrelevant." And it is. Nothing substantial could have been done by then anyway. By the time Bush was notified that there was a problem, the bureaucracy had already reacted too slowly.

If it makes people feel better to think that I'm desperate to hate Bush, so be it. I'll admit that I'm not a fan of his. However, I don't think this particular screw-up falls in his lap--just in the lap of his administration. Would another administration have reacted the same way? Maybe. Probably, even. But it doesn't matter, because the onus was on this group, not the Clinton administration, or Bush 41. When you're the one in power, you're the one who gets to take the blame.

I think there's a strong point in what you're saying there. Bush's administration (of which he is in charge) failed to act on intelligence presented to them a month earlier entitled "Al-Queda determined to strike within the US". Maybe they acted on it, maybe we didn't see the reaction. The result of this lack of planning for these types of contingencies, and the lack of resources available in these situations is something the Bush administration should have learned from.

In my mind, Katrina exposed this kind of incompetency clearly. A couple of years after 9-11 you would have figured the Bushies "got" the whole idea of contingency planning. But then when Katrina came by and wiped out New Orleans, we saw that the idea of accountability and contingency planning was in short supply again. To me, NO is a far better example of the Bush administration's cronyish incompetence as they already had the mother of all disasters to learn from (and they didn't).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah 7 minutes is not a long time to figure that kind of thing out. It's kind of surprising to learn that they didn't have a plan for the boss in case of an emergency though. You'd think they'd plan ahead but I guess not.

Yer right, sitting and staring was no doubt the best course of action.

Of course you've worked in the Secret Service and know everything that went on that day. Every flight plan, seating arrangement, snipers, close protection guards, transportation, where Bush was supposed to eat, get to a plane, where Air Force One was, if it was refueled and so on.

Grasping this straw is pathetic. Any President, in that situation would have done the same thing. Had it been a democrat, nobody would be complaining.

Your "hatred" for Bush is obvious. Get a frickin' clue. 7 min is not a long time.