Phones on a Plane

So now it is a given that cell phones don’t work at cruising altitude on passenger jets. We’re hearing that over and over again about the missing Malaysia Airlines flight. But the very same aviation authorities at the US government claimed that passengers on United Flight 93 were using their cell phones repeatedly from cruising altitude. Perhaps they should get their story straight.

11 Comments.

  • alex_the_tired
    March 16, 2014 7:33 PM

    Ted,
    If I recall correctly, for 9/11 the phones being used were seatback phones, the ones that take credit cards. In either case, the ejecta of “information” being produced by “sources” is so poorly evaluated that it’s hard for even a rational reader to extract any sense from it all. The Malaysian authorities make the Katrina crowd seem like a crack team of highly trained experts.

    I wish I still got the print New York Times so that I could track how much the story changes from day to day and how much isn’t answered.

  • Not only that, Ted, but we’ve got vastly improved cell phone service today over 9/11. Longer range, more coverage, etc. Not that it makes a difference, our mind has already been made up for us.

  • http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93/

    The 9-11 script.

    If only Airphones were used for covert passenger communications, then a satellite connection was required. Plane tracking is guaranteed.

    Personal cell phone evolution in the year 2001 made phone calls from above 10,000 feet functionally impossible.
    http://www.wanttoknow.info/911cellphonecalls

    The Twin Towers were specifically engineered NOT to “accidentally” implode into their own footprints, even if they were impacted by aircraft of the same basic design as the 757.
    http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

    DanD

    • alex_the_tired
      March 18, 2014 7:20 AM

      DanD,

      You’re on the wrong forum for this. The Moon Landings were real. The Towers fell because of structural damage caused by two jumbo jets filled with fuel flying into the towers, causing a fire that weakened the steel beams to the point of collapse. You don’t have to melt steel to render it useless for its purpose of holding a building up.

      If I get to cherrypick like the 9/11 Deluders, I can make anything have been the cause of the towers’ collapse: unicorn piss, leprechaun shenanigans, bad cess from the 145th dimension.

      Big plane hit tower. Massive fire weakened steel beams. Building fall down.

      The government of the United States, for about the past 40 years, has been one of the most corrupt and wicked ones ever. And even before that. The syphilis experiments in Tuskegee went on for 40 years, ending in 1972. People are being waterboarded at Gitmo right now for the “crime” of having been accused by someone who was paid the equivalent of 10 years’ wages.

      The list goes on and on. But this James Bond plot of Dubya and his pals wiring the towers to explode. Seriously. How many people would that require? Under what circumstances?

      People dismiss the crazy notions of the 9/11 Deniers not because they refuse to look at the evidence. They dismiss it because the “evidence” doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

      If you want to talk about this more, please move along to one of the Moon Landings were Fake!!1! boards.

    • Alex;

      None of those aircraft that hit all three skyscrapers were “full of fuel.” I served in the Air Force for more than four years as an aircraft mechanic. I pretty sure that I know quite a bit more than you do about how aircraft operate, and their limitations.

      For a passenger aircraft full of fuel to reach a common cruising altitude of 30,000 feet, it will consume at least one third of its fuel load reaching that altitude.

      Additionally, after those aircraft were “hijacked,” for a considerable distance, they were flown open-throttle at much lower altitudes. this circumstance burns much more fuel than high-altitude flight. Additionally, at least two of the aircraft were only half-full of passengers. Accordingly, they were loaded with appreciably less fuel than a plane that would have been full of passengers.

      Lastly, when both aircraft hit their respective towers (especially the second aircraft) at more than 400 mph, most of the fuel they were still carrying passed completely through the buildings to produce tremendous fireballs on the other side of the Towers. Because of the fireballs that were initiated when the aircraft first hit the buildings, there really was very little fuel left to pool and otherwise provide any significant source of fuel for the consequent remaining fire.
      http://thewe.cc/weplanet/news/americas/us-/911-controlled-demolition-twin-towers-melted-steel-beams-and-molten-iron.html

      Meanwhile Alex, I’m surprised that you are so disingenuous as to try conflating all elements of the 9-11 truth movement with Moon-landing doubters, ad-nauseam. In any honest debate, such a fundamentally dishonest tactic is equivalent to declaring surrender.

      https://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/see-these-richard-gage-911-videos/
      I will readily admit that there are many 9-11 “Truth” Movement websites that are actually “well-poisoners.” The sham film “Loose Change” is one such well-poisoning productions.

      One thing’s for sure however, the U.S. Government’s official conspiracy theory about how those three massive sky-scrapers imploded into their footprints is unmitigated bullshit.

      http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_STF.htm

      DanD

    • Oh yeah, and of the three skyscrapers that imploded on 9-11, only two of them were damaged by aircraft impacts.

      DanD

  • This ranks among the most aggravating issues for me about 9/11. I was watching this happen in real time that day. I remember news reports…I remember my brother’s emails about seeing the Pentagon from his office window, burning. We are told over and over again that the 9/11 truthers have been debunked…yet there is so much about it that I just don’t square with my memory of that day and the few days that followed. This tops the list:

    Next is the Pentagon..not one actual shed of true evidence that it was a plane…I don’t want to see one scrap of a partial window on shockingly manicured lawn, I want to see evidence that a plane hit there.

    Then there are the fact that all of the real time TV reports of that day seem miraculously to be gone…interviews with people in the hospital, etc.

    Next is the miraculous fortune that the ONE plane to be stopped from hitting its target was heading for the White House….

    It drives me NUTS..on the one hand I don’t want to be a fruitcake about this…on the other, sh*t just does not add up.

    • I was sick with the flu that morning, taking meds & trying to sleep it off. My wife woke me up to tell me about the first plane, I didn’t think much about it & went back to sleep. Then she woke me up to tell me about the second.

      There I was, sick, medicated, groggy, half awake and the first words out of my mouth were, “We’re under attack!”

      Yet that didn’t occur to The War President, Vice President, Chiefs of staff, NORAD, or even one of the multi-star generals we’ve got on the public dole? Somebody can fly a big, clumsy, noisy, airliner into one of our most important military installations and nobody even notices it happening?

      If you can buy all that, I’ve got a deal for you. Cash only and small bills, please.

    • That said, I’ve adopted Noam Chomsky’s attitude on the subject. “It doesn’t matter” – American Empire building will continue unabated regardless.

      We know that Team Bush conspired against the American people, got thousands of them killed while killing a million or so of “other people.” We’ve got ’em dead-to-rights on war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yet they’re still walking around free. What difference does another 3,000 dead make?

Comments are closed.

css.php