Remembering 911

Revealing what you consider proof.

 

Why do that grazers love to avoid the question as to why the flight attendant chose to make her last words left on her husbands answering machine. "Its a frame"
Why did those phones stay connect for almost an hour after the airplane crashed into the field in Pa. since they run off the airplanes electrical system.
Why did the one call come from a cell phone and show the position as in the bathroom.
Why did the 9/11 Commission Report exclude the phone numbers of where the phone calls came from but only where the call went to. Do you think that caller ID was outside their technical capability?
min. 1:44 video 1. http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167
Do you not think that every person on the plane would be wanting to use the airplane phone if they were hijacked and that was the only phone that was working?
Why are they still to this day trying to block an investigation into the cause of tower 7 from being done and why was it not done as standard procedure then.
"HighRiseSafetyNYC.org Sept. 29, 2014

Today We Filed Suit to Reverse the City’s Fraudulent Determination on Our Second Petition

Read our filing and letter to Justice Wooten.

Dear Supporters,

On September 4, 2014 the High-Rise Safety Initiative submitted a second petition containing over 33,000 signatures to override the City Council’s lack of action on our first petition. The second petition secures our place on the November 4th ballot if it contains at least 15,000 valid signatures, assuming we also win the pending lawsuit regarding the petition’s legality, where we still have not received a decision.

This past Wednesday, the City Clerk certified only 7,343 out of 33,366 signatures in the second petition as valid, leaving us 7,657 shy of the 15,000-threshold.

A Determination that Reeks of Fraud

Given the dramatic difference in the percentage of invalidated signatures, 57% on the first petition compared to 78% on the second petition, it was immediately apparent that the City Clerk and the Board of Elections had determined to wrongly invalidate thousands of signatures — and in so doing, disenfranchise thousands of voters — in order to keep the High-Rise Safety Initiative off the ballot.

Sure enough, when the City finally provided a copy of its notations, we saw that the percentage of signatures invalidated because the signer was allegedly “not registered” had skyrocketed from 43% on the first petition (28,404 out of 65,597) to 73% on the second petition (24,523 out of 33,366).

With the help of several volunteers, we then reviewed a sample of 663 signatures invalidated because the signer was allegedly “not registered.” We found that 43% were in fact registered voters; their signatures had been marked “not registered” without rhyme or reason. If that rate held for all 24,523 signatures marked “not registered,” it would mean that the City wrongly invalidated some 10,653 signatures, nearly one third of the people who signed the second petition, and it would put us well over the 15,000-threshold.

This Must Not Stand

Earlier today we filed suit to have the City’s fraudulent determination reversed and sent a letter to Justice Wooten, the judge presiding over our case, to advise him of the second suit. With only four days until the October 3rd cutoff to have ballot submissions finalized, there simply isn’t enough time for us, or the court, to review the City’s notations in their entirety. But the numbers already speak for themselves. As we will argue this week, there is surely enough evidence to conclude that the City did not review the petition objectively and in good faith, and its determination should therefore be annulled.

We will keep you posted as this issue and the lawsuit regarding the petition’s legality unfold this week. Once again, we thank you for your incredible support of our efforts."
.

 

Revealing your inability to understand basic information. Even in 2011 the tests were redone and cell phone could still not connect 10 years after 9/11.
"1. ANTENNAS - All antennas are characterized by what is known as a "lobe pattern." The lobe pattern or area the antenna is designed to serve is a result of it's physical shape and other factors. The best omni-directional antenna is that of the single element antenna, or single dipole antenna such as is used on all cell phones. This has a circular lobe pattern. Note that this is not the same antenna used on cell towers. Directional antennas are widely used in TV and radio to maximize a service area. A receive and transmit radio frequency (RF) pattern of any directional antenna is a roughly eliptical shape, or egg shape. An example are AM radio towers, which may use other towers near them. These other towers can be grounded to act as reflectors and direct service to a nearby city. The FCC determines when and where antenna directional technology can be used, and by which stations. Reflecting antennas can also be used to prevent interference with other stations. Cell tower antennas use a specially designed directional antenna which incorporates a reflector. This reflector is carefully designed to create a directed radiation pattern directed over a large 2 dimensional area. These reflectors work very much like the reflector you see in a floodlight. Directional antenna characteristics are what divides a geographic region into cells. Any given antenna type has the same receive and transmit lobe pattern. Today you can see that most all visible cell towers have a triangular pattern of antennas. This clearly shows that the 360 degree area around a cell tower is divided up into three groups of antennas, with each group facing one of three directions. Each antenna group lobe pattern slightly overlaps the other. The FCC determines the effective radiated power in watts of any transmitter, including cell tower antennas. Therefore, every watt must be used efficiently for best signal quality (such as it is.) Cell tower antenna design dictates that only a VERY small amount of RF is radiated vertically up into the air, as this is considered lost RF energy. 2. AIRPLANES - An airplane is made of aluminum alloy. It is NOT transparent RF frequencies, but instead acts as a shield. Sections of the plane made of carbon composite will greatly attenutate or even stop all cell phone signals, as this is also conductive material. Only when a cell phone has "line of sight" with a cell tower, can a talk connection take place. And such a talk connection can only take place THROUGH A WINDOW ON THE PLANE, because the body of a plane cannot pass the signal from a cell phone. 3. Cell tower antennas use power levels of 100 watts or more and group of antennas can have power levels of 800 watts. However, a pocket cell phone only transmits an RF signal of less than 1 watt, with many phones transmitting just .4 watts. No phone call can be made until the cell tower receives this tiny signal and establishes a channel with the phone by assigning the phone a frequency to talk on. This basic procedure takes place on both digital and analog cell phones. Only the older, bigger bag phones can output up to 4 watts of power, which almost no one uses anymore. In conclusion we have: A. A plane moving at more than 500 MPH B. Plane windows acting as small aperatures for a cell phone RF signal. This forces the cell phone antenna to become highly directional, but without any increase in gain. There is no gain because plane is not a reflector or resonant cavity tuned to cell frequencies. C. The cell phone is rapidly moving past cell towers that may or may not be in line with the side of the plane. If a tower happens to be in line with the side of the plane when it turns, such a connection will not last but few seconds, if at all. D. The pocket cell phone signal of less than 1 watt must be received before the call can be placed. E. Cell antennas have a weak signal lobe above them, making establishing a connection with a phone unlikely. So, how could a phone call be made ? "

 

Conspiracy theorists always believe they are right and anyone who disagrees is a "grazer". They cherry-pick "facts", assume what they want to believe is true and then bootstrap their theories on that house of cards.

You are, of course, assuming that is both an authentic recording and that she said "frame" not "fake".

 

Correct. They take ALL of the facts, and find one portion that doesn't "seem right" to them, and they just pick apart at that one issue. Then they totally forget about all the other supporting evidence, and just assume the conspiracy they've created is correct. It's a mental illness. You can't reason with these people...they don't use facts.

 

Avoiding the questions that I have presented leaves no one with any other conclusion but that you don't want to believe what the facts tell us. I don't want to disrupt your illusion but to continue to call these facts theories is niave. At least admit to yourself that you really don't want to know that the story fed to you is impossible.
The message clearly says "frame" and is not even possibly a mix up of its a fake. Plus even if it were possible how would calling it a fake be any better than its a frame?
If you dislike being called a grazer the logical solution would be to lift your head out of the tall grass.
Now answer the questions.

 

My facts are very clear to any thinking person. It was impossible for these 9 phone calls to come from an airplane 17,000 - 33,000 ft in the air in 2001. Explain what about that confuses you?

 

"Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network, because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high."

Washington Post, 12/9/04



"Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past."

San Francisco Chronicle, 12/15/04

 

The first cell phone call from 25,000 was done by the CEO of Qualcomm in 2004.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2004-07-16-jet-phones_x.htm

"FORT WORTH (AP) — With television cameramen hovering, Qualcomm chief executive Irwin Jacobs sat in the front row of coach and made one of the first legal cell phone calls from a commercial jetliner.


Qualcomm Inc. chief executive Irwin Jacobs, right, gets chatty on an American Airlines plane.
By Donna McWilliam, AP

After chatting with a telecom industry lobbyist for a few minutes, Jacobs pronounced the technology behind the airborne phone call a success, although adding that it will be improved over the next couple years.

Jacobs and a group of reporters were aboard an American Airlines jetliner Thursday as it took off from Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport for a demonstration of Qualcomm's cellular technology at 25,000 feet.

The flight required special clearance from the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission, which ban the use of electronic devices abroad planes because of fear they would interfere with navigation systems and cellular networks on the ground.

"It's pretty cool," said Monte Ford, American's top technology official......"

Please explain how these 9 phone calls were made from an airplane in flight 3 years earlier than the first successful cell phone call from an airliner?

 

That's what I thought. All I hear is grass chomping.

 

Still curious about your explanation?

 

No one is responding because there's more evidence that it was a terrorist attack then you're crazy conspiracy. Move on, you lost. Go start a thread about how handsome you think Vladimir Putin is in tight jeans.

 

Agreed, which is why I rarely engage them unless thoroughly bored. However, even then, it's just to dispute their "facts" and alert others that there are, indeed, some sane people on the Internet.

 

I never said it was or wasn't anything and I didn't conspire to do anything in regards to 9/11. You seem confused again. Please be more specific about your "proof" sense all of it has proven impossible.

 

You still haven't explain how the first successful cell phone call happened by Qualcomm CEO in 2004 but 9 peoples families received calls from "people on the plane over three years earlier. Explain it genius.

 

The proof is that two airplanes hit the world trade center, sending them to the ground after a while. It's on video. That's the proof. In fact, there were thousands of people looking up who saw it happen the 2nd time as well.

The burden of proof lies on you to PROVE that false. Your wacky theories don't do so. They just focus on one PART of the event, and you can't even DISPROVE it.

 

I never said planes did or didn't hit the towers, Quit changing the subject and answer the questions that you claim are all explainable.

 

The event was a terrorist attack. The burden of PROOF lies on you to PROVE otherwise. Posting links to people's theories doesn't do anything. Prove it wasn't an Al Qaeda terrorist attack.

 

No you claim to know what happened and I continue to dismantle your theories. I, as a tax payer spent over 20 million dollars to the NIST to prove what happened and they failed to come up with a plausible explanation and you bought it hook line and sinker.
You can't prove that something didn't happen, but you can prove that it was impossible for something to have happened. Continue grazing.

 

I don't "claim to know what happened". We know what happened. A terrorist attack happened, and it's YOUR job to prove otherwise. You have PROOF, then stop deflecting and provide it. Your hilarious theories do nothing.

 

You seem to be logic disabled. You cant prove something didn't happen. You can prove, as I have done over and over for you that what you believe is impossible. For example the undisputed cell phone calls that 9 family members received from an air bourn plane when the first cell phone call from 25,000 ft didn't happen for another 3 and a half years. Explain your claim that I have proven impossible or admit that you are wrong and be a man.

 

The person with a wild conspiracy is calling someone illogical.....Oh the irony.

 

So I will take that as you have no idea what the explanation is but have retreated to "I know you are, but what am I" liberal , ineffective tactics.
I graciously accept your defeat. Dismissed.

 

???? Cell phones were in planes BEFORE 9/11 and who told you the plane was at 25,000 feet. And cell towers have a range of over 30 kilometers.

 

Try to keep up.

"Posted 7/16/2004 6:47 AM Updated 7/16/2004 8:40 AM
Qualcomm Inc. chief executive Irwin Jacobs, right, gets chatty on an American Airlines plane.
By Donna McWilliam, AP

After chatting with a telecom industry lobbyist for a few minutes, Jacobs pronounced the technology behind the airborne phone call a success, although adding that it will be improved over the next couple years.

Jacobs and a group of reporters were aboard an American Airlines jetliner Thursday as it took off from Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport for a demonstration of Qualcomm's cellular technology at 25,000 feet.

The flight required special clearance from the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission, which ban the use of electronic devices abroad planes because of fear they would interfere with navigation systems and cellular networks on the ground.

"It's pretty cool," said Monte Ford, American's top technology official.

Ford said he called his wife, secretary and friends in Paris and Madrid and pronounced the quality of the links good, although he acknowledged the international connections weren't quite as good as domestic ones.

Reporters were given phones with code division multiple access, or CDMA technology, and a few minutes to make and receive calls. Qualcomm commercialized the CDMA technology used in wireless network equipment and licenses system software to cell phone makers.

Connections from the plane were generally good, although some calls were dropped. Sound quality was about the same as a regular cell call on the ground, other than the loud background noise on the MD-80 jet.

There was a delay of about one second in the voice communications, like that encountered when using a satellite phone, which interfered with natural conversation. The delay was caused by the way voices are digitally transmitted in so-called packets from the airplane to the ground.

Also, the caller could not hear the phone ringing on the other end, which caused at least one reporter to hang up while the person on the other end was shouting into the receiver.

Jacobs said San Diego-based Qualcomm would spend the next two years testing whether electronic signals interfered with the jet's avionics system. He also said the technology would be improved and the one-second delay would be shortened.

Eventually, air travelers should be able to make calls, download movies and do all sorts of other things with wireless devices aboard jetliners, he said.

"My guess is we will see the same kind of uses that you have with cell phones on the ground — maybe even more because you're confined to a seat for some time in a plane," Jacobs said.

The cooperation between Qualcomm and American is not exclusive. Qualcomm is talking to other carriers around the world about testing CDMA phones on their jets, and American may talk to other telecommunications companies, officials said.

Qualcomm's CDMA technology is one of a few standards used worldwide to convert voice into digital form for transmission over a wireless network.

American would have an important advantage over competitors if it could become the first U.S. carrier to allow cell phone use on most of its planes, Ford said.

Several years ago, American installed seatback phones, which could be used with a credit card, on many of its planes but ripped them out except in some Boeing 777s and 767s on international routes.

"People found those phones expensive to use and not necessarily convenient," Ford said. "They waited to get on the ground to make calls with their cell phones."

The seatback phones use FAA-approved technology that doesn't interfere with jet navigation systems. Airlines generally charge about $4 a minute plus a $4 access charge.

Even before Thursday it was widely known that cell phones will sometimes work on jetliners. Some travelers use them surreptitiously. On Sept. 11, 2001, several passengers aboard hijacked airliners called loved ones.

However, the FAA and the airlines ban them because they fear that the signals could interfere with navigational equipment. The FCC bans their use from planes because the signals reach many cell-phone towers and have been shown to disrupt cellular networks. "