That's what I've always assumed. I think the rest is just romantic embellishment.

Or the person who gained control couldn't fly the plane, or any number of scenarios. What we know is that they were planning to overthrow, and then it landed in the ground.

It's the most likely scenario. I always thought that most people believed it happened that way.

IIRC, the flight recorder showed that the terrorists were alternately diving and climbing in order to knock the passengers off their feet. I could be remembering incorrectly, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio)

You couldn't have done a google search before making a dick of yourself, Jon?

I'm not taking a side in the debate. I'm just making a point.

In other news, LTE will be the next best thing for Cell Phones.

http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/verizon-clarifies-lte-roll-out-plans-spells-out-stricter-handset-requirements/2009-05-18

From what I've been told, it's suppose to be able to provide higher speeds then DSL or Cable.

I have no idea why that should make me feel like a dick so I'm pretty sure you don't have any idea why it should either.

(Bah I had something written up earlier and the internet went down.)

Anyway, Jon`C, you're basing your argument for an event that happened 8 years ago on today's technology. There's debate even now, whether or not a cell phone would work at altitude, and we've advance pretty significantly from where we were in 2001. We're dealing with towers designed to transmit horizontally not vertically, high speeds which force the phone to jump from tower to tower constantly, and not to mention that the plane is flying over rural areas at a time when GSM was in its infancy and coverage was spotty at best in those areas. You honestly think there'd be any chance of a phone connecting under those conditions long enough for the person on the other end to even answer?

Of course you don't. Besides, I wouldn't expect you to feel like a dick...which isn't even what I said. I said you made a dick out of yourself. It doesn't really matter if you feel that way or not. I'm sure you'll now try to spin this and try and say that your comment to Sarn (that I quoted) wasn't as narcissistically sarcastic as it came across to everyone else that read it.

The 35 km operational maximum was codified into the GSM standard back in... what, 1995 or some such? The range is based on the timing algorithm more than any limitation in radio broadcasting.

If anything, more primitive hardware would have more leakage so you'd get a more reliable signal on a plane, not less.



You didn't even read the thread, so get out.

Let's be clear. Jon'C is a dick. But that in no way means that he should feel compelled to research for the purpose of substantiation the argument against his opinion. A clear, concise description of ones opinion along with a link or two to substantiate it comes across as a much stronger rebuttal of anothers opinion than a non-informative post with a link to a general article.

Jon`C: Since you seem to have missed or ignored the point entirely, I'll just post the same thing again, with parts in bold.

Anyway, Jon`C, you're basing your argument for an event that happened 8 years ago on today's technology. There's debate even now, whether or not a cell phone would work at altitude, and we've advance pretty significantly from where we were in 2001. We're dealing with towers designed to transmit horizontally not vertically, high speeds which force the phone to jump from tower to tower constantly, and not to mention that the plane is flying over rural areas at a time when GSM was in its infancy and coverage was spotty at best in those areas. You honestly think there'd be any chance of a phone connecting under those conditions long enough for the person on the other end to even answer?
-----

The hard coded max operational limit for GSM towers really has nothing to do with this conversation, as that range is a horizontal range.

And Wookie, I haven't seen Jon`C posting any links to validate his claims.

Absolutely, however there is a significant difference in the posts. Generally speaking, he is reciting specifications of known standards where the accuracy of his statements would be easy to validate if that was the question this hinged on. The people he is argueing against have nonconventional theories and you linked to a general article to dismiss his statement.

I'm just saying that we should be able to agree that 1) he is a dick and 2) it's not his problem to research the specifics of an oposing view to support the arguments against his own.

Yeah, except his claims are *not* validatable, as he's reciting specifications that are applicable to today, and the event in question happened 8 years ago. Which basically means he's pulling those stats out of his ***, or at best from memory of what it was like to own a cell phone in 2001. (A similar equivilant would be to claim that cars could drive 120mph in 1920, and use a specs page for a new BMW as proof.)

And why shouldn't he research opposing claims? I've been trying to research his, in spite of this retarded slow internet. I just can't find anything conclusive in the context of 2001. And on the contrary, I can find a whole lot of confusion over the subject even based on today's technology, with a general concensus that it's probably possible, but that such a call would be unpractical and very unreliable.

But I do agree with you that he's a dick. >.>

...but Sarn, where's your links?

Sarn, to be honest I was originally commenting on Alco's remarks that he could have googled something rather than just be a dick. The thing that led to that was your link to the general article. When I posted above that was not in reference to any of you substantive posts that followed Alco's post. Really, my comments have nothing to do with the topic at hand and more Alco's criticism. I do think one should look at the opposing references if they're interested enough but Alco was basically saying that Jon'C should have researched the opposing facts in order to discredit his own opinion rather than just learn facts supporting the opposing argument.

edit - You actually came back from Jon'C's comments dismissing your post to further expand your position. Sorry, I guess I can understand why my posts seemed like they were critical of you. They weren't meant to be.

[oops double post somehow]
[well I'll use this to respond to Wookie then who insta-posted]
I wasn't sure if you were talking about me so much or not. But either way, don't worry. I wasn't arguing with you. I was just using you as a means of poking a jab at Jon`C. :p

[and this one's for ECHOMAN]

(and honestly, even the current info on this subject is spotty. For example, I wanted to verify Jon`C's claim of 35km hard coded range for GSM towers, and found several different sites with ranges varying from 25km to 50km (only one said 35, but then I didn't find any number more prevalant than any other). The difference is, I don't decide to just use a number (apparently) arbitrarily, so instead, I just kept it to myself.

Don't they have transceivers on most planes, even in 2001, to amplify cellular signals?

No. They're just beginning to do that on some European airlines with relative success, but it's fairly unheard of for US airlines, and in fact, cell phone use is prohibited during flight. This restriction was apparently put in place originally due to a concern over inadequate shielding of certain electrical components aboard the jets, which could be damaged by the cell phone transmissions. Though most argue now that that's no longer a concern.

Knock this **** off all of you. I'm tired of seeing every thread in which Jon`C posts devolve into a ****storm. It is quite possible to have a conversation with him.

Jon`C: Tone down the attitude. Yes, you have a wealth of knowledge, we get it. However, it's not necessary to tear into someone because someone is factually wrong.

I'm offended. I should be known as the Forums Alcoholic.

I've seen people on planes using cell phones. I cannot be the only one who has seen this. I didn't fly right before 9/11, but I flew in 2002 or 3 for Japan, and saw several cell phone users getting coverage at various points in the 9 hour trip.

While it may be difficult for the scenario to occur, it is useless to scrutinize the minor details about cell phone towers when people have witnessed calls being made on a plane, and we have at least 3 calls directly from that plane. Failing conspiracy theories of made up calls, you're just arguing to argue at this point.

Okay.

Condescension aside, I'll bite:

As previously mentioned, less advanced equipment would suffer from greater inefficiencies. It is the opinion of AT&T that these inefficiencies (leakage) were what allowed the cell phone calls in question. Unfortunately I cannot locate an original press release, but it is referenced quite frequently in 9/11 conspiracy theory websites.

Only two cell phone calls were placed from flight 93, both at 9:58 AM and lasting for no more than 5 minutes because that's when the plane crashed. At the cruising speed of a 757-222 the plane could be within normal range of a GSM tower for about two and a half minutes. It's worth mentioning that they probably weren't operating at the cruising speed because they were, at that time, performing maneuvers to disrupt an attack by the passengers.

The GSM hard coded max operational limit is important because it imposes an artificial limitation to the range of cell phone hardware below that of the transmitter power. Orthogonality does not affect the timing algorithm.

It's true that the United States has been slow to adopt GSM, but this doesn't help your argument. Most carriers still use CDMA which are limited only by transmitter power. CDMA tower spacing in rural areas tends to be 60-80 miles and connecting to a tower 80 miles away isn't unheard-of.

That's strange, would you not have flown straight over the Pacific?

Jon'C, come on, tell the truth. It took you this long to reply because you were furiously researching all that.

I'm sure it couldn't be that you're basically on the opposite side of the clock from us.

I think of this.

Just remember, that even Doctor Doom cried

Not the whole way? I'm not suggesting people were sitting on their cell phones the whole trip, just that people used their cell phones whenever they got signals.

Is it that hard to believe that I saw people using cell phones on a plane? Perhaps there was fan-dangled Japanese receiver technology on the plane and that's the only reason people were using their cell phones, or they were getting signals: My point is that I saw people using phones on planes just after 9/11.

....it was friday night.

i am pretty sure that was how it was portrayed, at least in everything i have seen. even in movies made about it (flight 93) the passengers struggled with the pilot and the pilot purposefully crashed the plane. the passengers were not just trying to prevent the plane from hitting any other buildings. i am pretty sure they wanted to, oh, you know... survive?

According to the black box the terrorists thought the passengers were about to take control of the plane, at least.

having a life is no excuse sir!

hurr.

Anyway, Jon`C, I'll acquiesce because there really doesn't seem to be enough information on the subject to *prove* one way or the other (I'm sure you'll agree if you've tried to do any research yourself). Though, honestly, I still believe the whole thing to be extremely fishy, and doubt seriously the ability of a cellphone in 2001 to hold even a 2 minute connection under those circumstances. Even so, I would like to comment on a couple of your quotes.

is it the opinion of AT&T or is it what the government told them to say? How would an "inefficiency" (your word) allow for GREATER effectiveness and capability? I'm not seeing it.

Ok so lets talk CDMA. First, have you found any evidence to show what carriers the calls were being made from? Cause I haven't. But I'm sure I don't have to tell you that a GSM phone cannot make calls on a CDMA tower and vica verca. Now AT&T Wireless was using GSM so if the press release was theirs, does that mean the service was accredited to them? If so, they're using GSM and CDMA has nothing to do with it. If not, then why should we consider anything their press conference has to say?


What data from the black box suggests this? Because I'm sure those little boxes are pretty advanced, but I doubt they're capable of interpreting terrorists' thoughts.

Lastly, Kirbs: More than likely it was some kind of Japanese technology. Japan is advanced significantly beyond even Eurpoean countries in wireless technology, which in turn are advanced several years beyond American technology. But since you have no further information, we can only speculate.

See, jg? This is why tearing into him is more productive.

I find it curious that someone who is really paranoid about the government would voluntarily chow down on their saltpeter flavored mashed potatoes, but sure.

AT&T is an authority on communications technologies. I assume you found citations from the press release I mentioned? The burden of proof is on you to prove that their statement is inaccurate.

I have seen several references to Verizon Wireless w.r.t the bathroom 911 call. Unfortunately I can't find anything credible either, because the internet is flooded with people who think the gumment wants to take their shotguns away.

The cockpit voice recorder.

Not really. 2.5G/3G (like CDMA2000), pretty much the same junk you can get here. Plans are just cheaper thanks to government oversight, the infrastructure isn't a complete joke like it is here and they have way better market penetration.

yeah, congratulations, Jon`C. You're more stubborn and willing to argue a point you can't prove than I am.

[edit: And they don't put saltpeter in the food. Trust me if they did it might be better for us.

And, I'm not paranoid about the government. Frankly, if they did shoot down the plane, then I say good for them. I'm willing to believe they could have done so and then covered it up, but I still see that as a protection of people, rather than a giant consipracy to steal away America's freedoms.]

I can 'prove' it with reductio ad absurdum.

If those people didn't make those cell phone calls from a plane, that means the government forced the plane to land and forced them to make those calls, and then killed the passengers or currently have them prisoner in some secret facility.

Or, it means the government looked at the list of passengers, found a couple of people they had voice samples for, hired voice actors convincing enough to sound like the person in question (to their own spouse in one case,) and then silenced them somehow. The entire operation being totally redundant given the other 40-someodd calls placed from Verizon airphones.

Ridiculous.