The Real Story of Flight 93
http://911review.org/Wiki/Flight93.shtml
Flight 93 is the flight known to the public as the Flight of
the Heroes, because of the CellPhoneCalls that were alleged
to have been made from the flight, and the story it spins of
the Heros trying to take back control before it crashed in
rural Pennsylvania. We will look at just 2 aspects of that
flight: the cockpit voice recordings, and the witness
accounts of the crash. The main web site is United Flight 93
Crash Theory Home Page - The Real Story of Flight 93
Unlike Flight 77, the NTSB has allowed people to hear the
CVR from Flight 93, although there is something that smells:
it appears that the tape the NTSB played for the families of
the victims ends 3 minutes early: (from Paul Thompson's
Flight 93 timeline)
CLICK FULL REPORT:
http://911review.org/Wiki/Flight93.shtml
====================
Cell Phone Calls
The phone calls from the passengers of the doomed plans
forms the basis of much of what we think we know about the
events of 9/11. We have a lot of problems with a number of
the phone calls allegedly made from many of the doomed
flights, not the least of which is that cell phones don't
work from airplanes at cruise altitudes; see Sept11 Physics
Cell Phones.
For example, the Flight 93 calls report in two instances
that the hijackers wore red bandannas or headbands (see Paul
Thompson's Flight 93 timeline). Red sets of all kinds of
bells in the American mindset: "Better Dead than Red" etc.
But no Muslim man would wear red: green is the color of
Islam, and there is a tradition (Hadith) of the Prophet
Mohammed (on whom be peace) that explicitly deprecates the
wearing of red by men. It sounds to us as if there may have
been a screwup at central casting, or that there are no
Muslims at the NSA. See "Let's Roll!" On United Flight 93 -
The Saddest Lie Of All
In the case of CellPhoneCallsFlight77 there are simply too
many inconsistencies in this story to for it to be credible.
The idea that an ex-military pilot, an ex-Navy Captain and
combat fighter veteran having flown F-4s in Vietnam, would
be standing around the toilet at the back of a plane asking
a Republican political commentator what to do is absurd. It
implies that the pilots were alive, which would mean that
they were herded to the back of an airplane without having
time to punch in a universally agreed upon code into the
transponder to signal a hijacking.
cell phones and 911 the unsolved mystery
http://analysis.batcave.net/cell_phones.html
So were the cell phone calls real ???
Maybe, just not from a plane at 35,000ft. Which is what the
flight maps told us.
So are we to believe the flight maps, or the calls ?
Is the answer here???
Airgames - what do we know about the flight maps from 911 ?
In response to a new article about new pico cells aboard
aricraft,
and comments following i wanted to put something together...
First let me clarify a few points about cell phones on
aircraft, I have heard a few people say that they have heard
a cell phone ringing while they were aboard a flight. This
may not be that uncommon. Though, there
is a big difference between the phone seeing a signal (the
ring) and the ability to connect and hold that call. For a
ring to occur, the phone just has to see the signal, for it
to connect, a whole series of events have to take place. The
phone has to talk back to the cell site (a
handshake), then a traffic channel has to be setup. After
this, the phone does several things. It adjusts its power
accordingly, and looks for other cell sites, or signals it
can hand off to. It keeps a list of the strongest ones and
takes into consideration the signal to noise
ratio (Ec/Io in CDMA). IThese sites have a neighbor list. If
a strong site seen by the phone is not on this list, it wil
not be able to handoff to that site. At several thousand
feet in the air, travelling hundereds of miles an hour, the
sites the phone sees will change very
rapidly, as will the power level coming from those sites.
This, not to mention that the sites may be miles from each
other, and not on the neighbor list of the current site
being used by the phone. This is a problem for engineers,
when a phone is on a hilltop, then dips down below, loosing
the original signal, or if a phone being used in a car
goes behind a building (just a couple of examples).
We have all had dropped calls, this is why.
Media Release - Professor says 9-11 Cellphone Calls
'Impossible'
-----------------
Subject: New story on picocell for onboard GSM, Part 2
A follow up story:
news yahoo
Comment from reader...
This guy pretty much demolishes the claim that cell phones
in general can disrupt a plane's avionics, from the fact
that so many people unwittingly or lazily leave their phones
on, therefore they should be blasting periodically, at
least, at full power to call home to the cell, correct?
Or do most phones once they find themselves "not in service"
stop trying to find a cell until the user forces it to try
again? But, he also makes a claim that he constantly hears
phones ringing in the overhead luggage
bins. However, he doesn't state whether this is at altitude
or while either just on or near the ground. I don't fly very
much anymore, but I never recall hearing a cell phone ring
in the plane once in the air.
And if a large number of cell phones were simply trying to
register (much less have conversations) on a number of cells
due to the increased in flight altitude llowing 'seeing'
more cell antennas, wouldn't this be a
large concern to the cell industry and hence a common topic
of discussion? Or does some cell arbitration housekeeping
function automatically hide this issue?
eweek.com
Question..
Interesting that they don't go into an explanation of why
exactly a picocell is needed (other than to save battery
life) if their 2W max GSM phones can reliably (which they
also don't explicitly assert) connect with the ground
network. Unless, they are depending upon the brief
mention of the possible interference with the plane's
avionics? Otherwise, the only other benefit would be from
transcontinental flights, no small thing, but it seems that
they deliberately left in place the excuses for why
cell calls (at least GSM) could work otherwise.
Interesting too, that they need this jamming mechanism to
block non-roaming phones from searching outside the plane.
Why not just have the picocell accept and register the
non-roaming phone, but prevent it from connecting calls?
My response...
The FCC, not the FAA, is who put the ban on cell phones. The
FAA did have some concerns about them, but then, the FAA
dont have RF engineers to tell them if it is a real threat
or not. I am sure they have hired independent contractors to
determine if there is a danger. As a contractor, they
probabally would say (as I would) that the possibility is
extremely remote, but dont want to sign their name on it.
Why leave yourself open to a lawsuit if you dont have to?
I did an RF study once to determine if we (Sprint) could put
a cell site on a roof of a hospital. I had to take into
consideration the equipment used in the hospital (heart
monitors, diagnostics, MRI, pacemakers etc...).
Then i had to determine how much power was used by the base
station, and total RF out of the base station antennas. The
equipment and antennas were 2 floors above the hospital
equipment. I did all the calculations, and there would be no
effect on the equipment.
The base station equipment puts out 16watts per antenna,
with 3 antennas. If you include all antennas and the gain
from the antennas themselves, this was over 10000 watts. A
cell phone operates at a max of .6 watts max per FCC
guidelines.
snip...
So what Airbus did was magic. They installed a system that
reduces the emissions of the cell phone to such a low level
that they are undetectable by anything except another cell
phone.
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1738&e=1&u=/zd/20040927/tc_zd/135776
My response...
The only way they can do that is to send a signal to the
phone strong enough for the phone to see it as the
overriding siganl. In that case, they are doing the same
thing the phone does. transmitting power.
Ive said it before, there is NO effect on the planes systems
from a cell phone. I dont know that much about the systems,
but mst everything is hard wired, which means stray RF has
no impact comparitavely.
The RF parts on the plane would be the radio, and stuff like
ACARS and transponders. To think a cell phone could
interfere with this is absurd.
Cell phones genereally put out .4watts max
(.6max by the FCC but most cant even get this at peak power
out). They are also on different frequencies, not even close
to cell phones. Your microwave oven interfering with your
cell would be more likely than a cell interfering with
onboard aircraft equipment. A microwave oven is closer in
frequency to your cell than anything on an aircraft.
Equipment used in aircraft, or for that matter, any
equipment meant to transmit or recieve siganls have a front
end. This dis-regards any frequency operating out of band,
and stops it from reaching the equipment. For the equipment
itself, there is a metal box to sheild it
from outside interference.
Quote...
The problem OnAir faces is what to do with a phone which
doesn't have roaming enabled. Such a phone will try to
register itself with the aircraft's picocell, and be
rejected. It would then search for another
service provider's antenna, and normally, would be able to
pick up the (far weaker) signals of other ground-based
cells. To prevent this, a very low-level "noise" signal will
be generated in the aircraft, blanketing the remote cells
www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1650051,00.asp
My response
This again shows that this equipment has to transmit power.
The same fear that we have from cell phones ?
It says a "low level" noise will be generated in the
aircraft. Well, it has to be stronger than the ground
stations that the phone ususally talks to ! Otherwise the
whole premise is defeated.
There is no real way for the engineer at a provider (IE:
Sprint, Verizon etc...) to tell if an anomaly in statistics
comes from an aircraft or not. There are several statistics
we look at, drop calls , failed attempts etc.... many times
i notice the cell site that is near the airport has worse
stats, probabally due to people dropping calls while
taking off, or attempting calls just after being airborne.
Question...
Why not just have the picocell accept and register the
non-roaming phone, but prevent it from connecting calls?
My response...
Well, you cant "regiter" the phone unless it talks to its
home network.
This is needed to provide billing and other info.
A roaming phone will go into a "sleep mode" but it wakes
itself up every couple of mins to "poll" signals and see if
it can connect. When it does this , it starts at low power,
then increases to max power, tries a few times, if it doesnt
see something that will accept the signal, it goes
back to sleep.
Most of those parameters are settable by the engineer, to
some extent.
This is the FCC stance of cellular phones and aircraft
useage.
Note: the mention about Aircell and it not interfering with
ground stations. It says nothing about onboard electronics
of the aircraft...
Aircraft Usage
Section 22.925 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Part 22,
provides that cellular telephones installed in, or carried
aboard airplanes, balloons, or any other type of aircraft,
must not be operated while the aircraft is off the ground.
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."
However, the Commission has granted AirCell, Inc. (AirCell)
and certain participating cellular carriers limited waivers
of Section 22.925, to allow the use of AirCell equipment
while airborne, subject to certain conditions. The AirCell
equipment, which includes a modified cellular mobile
telephone and specially designed aircraft antenna, is
designed to avoid causing significant interference to
terrestrial cellular systems.
Pursuant to appeals filed by certain cellular licensees
opposing the Commission's grant of such waivers, the United
States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected
petitioners' claim that the Commission's
grant of the waivers unlawfully modified their licenses, but
remanded the case to the Commission to further explain
certain of the technical grounds for its decision. See AT&T
Wireless Services, Inc., v. FCC, 270 F.3d 959 (D.C. Cir.
2001). This remand, as well as a separate request by AirCell
to extend the duration of the waivers, are currently pending
before the Commission. Section 91.21 of the FAA rules (14.
C.F.R. 91.21) prohibits the use of (with some exceptions)
portable electronic devices while on board U.S. registered
civil aircraft operated by the holder of an air carrier
operating certificate, or operating certificate, or any
other aircraft operated under instrument flight rules. The
FAA has issued an advisory circular offering information and
guidance for assistance in compliance with Section 91.21.
wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/operations/aircraft.html
RF safty calculator...
my.athenet.net/~multiplx/cgi-bin/rfsafety.main.cgi
Brad
FCC License # PG - GB - 0004xx
www.geocities.com/RF_man_cdma/
Homepage sept 11 terror drill research, video and photo
analysis
http://911index.batcave.net/911.html
