In-flight cell phones 'worked great' in test

[midwayer]

The race is on to enable airline passengers to make and receive cell phone calls in flight.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2004-07-19-aircells_x.htm

How enlightning

[physioex]

1. I hate to say this...

But this is pointless right now. Al-Qaeda is much more "entreprenurial" organziation than to try the same thing again. Like the Commision says expect newer and bolder thing. Hijacking airplanes and ramming them into buildings is soo 2001.....

And I noticed today in the news, there is little or not talk about stoping the seeds of terrorism in terms of the report.....

[Ameridansk]

2. Again more proof the 9/11 calls were bogus

I've lived in the land of the cell phone (Japan) for 6 years and have always known that you can't use cell phones on planes (at least until they created this new technology). Not only have I never been able to get reception on my phone while flying, a couple of my students (I teach English) are flight attendants, and it's simply common knowledge that cell phones can't work when you're going that fast at a cruising altitude.

Thanks, for posting this.

[2Design]

5. phones on the planes....where you use your credit card....

[finecraft]

6. This article mentions both kinds of phones being used

This is from the NY Times article today about flight 93:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/22/politics/22CND-FLIG.html?hp

"Once the hijackers were in control, they knew that passengers were using cell phones and seat-back phones to call the ground "but did not seem to care," according to the report. Yet clearly what the passengers learned in those phone calls inspired their counterattack on the cockpit."

[Ameridansk]

9. Ted Olsen said Babs called collect. . .

from a seat back phone. Yet another impossibility.

[vincent_vega_lives]

31. Well then you should have informed the idiots who cooked up this plot

about the cell phones.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/911.flight.93/index.html

The report says at least 10 passengers and two crew members contacted family, friends or others on the ground.

[Ameridansk]

36. Hey newbie. . .

oh, wait, you're not new. You've already been tossed once (at least). Anyway, why don't you comment extensively on the original article? Why is this new technology needed?

Posting all the articles that were full of shit in the first place (the point we're all making) ain't no argument.

[vincent_vega_lives]

40. He skip

wy don't you get a clue about the impossible to use cell phones?

http://www.privateline.com/Cellbasics/cellphonesairlines.html

[finecraft]

3. I'll admit it....I'm confused

How did the people on the 9/11 flights call their spouses and such on their cell phones if the "race is on to enable airline passengers to make and receive cell phone calls in flight"? Was it because the planes were flying at a lower altitude than normal during the hijackings and the passengers personal cell phones could still transmit with the ground towers? Or was it for some other reason? Help me out here please.

[objection]

11. Safety

has for a long time now been the impediment.

Calls from aircraft are known to affect electronic instruments.

[tngledwebb]

15. Also confusing...

Not easy to say how this might have been done. Only 2-3 possiblities, as previously discussed: 1. All calls faked,( maybe never even heard by the authorities, or ATC, maybe we can have a listen to the audio tapes one day) to fool the public into buying the hijackers w/boxcutters and the 'Let's roll' stories, or 2. some, but not all calls may have been real, yet somehow got through even though the technological bugs have yet to be worked out, or 3. the calls were real, and there really are no problems using cell phones on planes at all. The 9/11 report will most likely have a have a detailed technical analysis of this issue.

[Ameridansk]

17. "Detailed technical analysis"

That is FUNNY!

Welcome to the show, webb!

[NecessaryOnslaught]

20. 9/11 report & detailed technical analysis...

in the same sentence- Now that is funny.

Almost as funny as NIST and detailed technical analysis.

[lefty_mcduff]

4. But weren't there dozens of in-flight cell phone calls

on 9/11? Put this in the "things that make you go hmmmmm" category.

[objection]

12. There many calls.

How many were from airfones and how many were from personal cell phones is not so clear. Much of the reporting of this may have been carelessly presumptuous.

[vincent_vega_lives]

32. Yes they all called from their resort veranda in the Canaries.

Thats where Flight 11 is!

[lefty_mcduff]

47. It is?

One of the tin foil hatter points was that cell-phones don't work from airplanes due to the speed, various cells, etc. And here is an article that details how the technology that worked so well on 9/11 won't be available for you and I for four more years. I found that interesting.

Not sure what you mean about Flight 11, though I have a feeling you're attempting to be clever.

[vincent_vega_lives]

51. Lefty

Yeah I was just jokeing about Flight 11.

I am not one of those CTs who espose things like "the engine parts in the Pentagon are too small to be from a 757!" or "It is simply impossible to make a cell phone call from an airliner" when some simple research will show both claims false.

http://www.privateline.com/Cellbasics/cellphonesairlines.html

You can make them but they are distruptive to both the aircraft's avionics and the cell system. Hence they are banned.

[loathesomeshrub]

7. Ok I flew about a month ago. I turned on my cell phone for a moment. I had

a signal. I cant tell you how high we were - I think we were pretty far up. But I was really worried about interference, and I turned it back off very quickly. I did this because I had read posts about this before and wanted to see for myself

[Ameridansk]

10. When cruising. . .

you've got nothing to worry about with interference of plane communications systems.

You can often get a signal reading but the problem is with cascading. You won't get a clear connection and you will disrupt the services of others. This is why you see the line "The FCC must be convinced that the new technology won't disrupt cell systems on the ground" in this article.

[Ameridansk]

8. Let this be a lesson. . .

. . .for anyone who doesn't understand how massive the PR campaign is/was to convince Americans of the BIGGEST LIE YET. Anyone and everyone who flies a lot, and carries a cell phone (often Republican types), would know that the phone calls by cell phone on the plane are basically impossible.

And when you consider that damn near every bit of "info" we have about what happened on the planes came from those bogus cell phone calls (not any black boxes) you may begin to understand that these unfortunate Muslim men who we SEE NOW clearing security were not hijackers!

[objection]

13. So what were they up to then?

What, in terms of innocent business, was Mohamed Atta doing in Portland and on Flight 11?

Did you ever see a convincing explanation?

[Ameridansk]

16. Who said they were on Flight 11?

The ONLY thing we know about Atta on 9/11 is that he was in Portland, Maine that morning. That makes it far LESS likely that he was on Flight 11. What kind of "mastermind" would have his "ringleader" rely on a connecting flight to get to the plane he is eventually going to hijack? What if it is delayed and he can't catch flight 11? Anyone who has much experience with flying knows how often flights are delayed. Go to any airport and look at the arrivals board. Chances are, about 20-25 percent will be delayed.

We can assume that he nearly did miss the connection, as they say his bag didn't make it on the plane.

<snip>
Atta's suitcase did not make it aboard the doomed jetliner and was recovered by FBI investigators in Boston, Massachusetts, Ashcroft said.
<snip>
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/28/inv.document.terrorism/

We know a lot about what they did in Portland. Check the time line:
http://www.yenra.com/terrorists-in-maine/

They have their last supper at Pizza Hut? Does that make sense to you?

They are both seen at ATM's the night before. How much cash do they need when they are going to commit suicide the next day?

What the hell do you think Atta was buying at Wal-Mart? Did he need to by his box cutter at the last minute? He was that unprepared? This "ringleader" was able to pull off 9/11? Hell, the flight from Portland was even on a different airline! MORE POSSIBLE DELAYS!

For that matter, why not hijack the plane from Portland?

What were they doing in Portland? Perhaps you you ask the FBI and the CIA what they pay their patsies to do.

[Abe Linkman]

18. ATTN: bolo, merc, VV et al. What's the PR position on all this?

Ameridansk raises some very important questions.

Please give us your take on the points raised...with SUBSTANTIVE responses to the points in the message. NO fair claiming they've all been answered before or any other slip-slidin', craw daddyin', BS.

[vincent_vega_lives]

28. More from the peanut gallery

Any Ideas of your own Abe? Oh I get it, just empty opinions and rote regurgitation.

You know what they say about opinions, doncha Abe?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

42. So now "controvercial" is controvercial?

WOW, slice and dice.

[objection]

21. The gate agent & the security checkpoint

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24596

[Ameridansk]

22. Have you even read this?

Who told us all these details?

From your article, first two paragraphs:

>>"The suspected ringleader of last week's terrorist assault came close to missing his American Airlines flight out of Boston and showed up at the gate perspiring, says an American Airlines employee at Logan International Airport.

The gate agent who checked in Mohamed Atta and gave him his boarding pass told the FBI that she remembers him showing up for Flight 11 late, his face covered with sweat, the source says."<<

Who is "the source"? Why the definite article, "the"? We've read the all of the article so far, and no source has been mentioned. If it was the gate agent herself, there would be no need to write "the source says". The gate agent is the subject of the freaking sentence!! Is English your first language?

Note the last paragraph (where all the juiciest details are in a planted story):

>>"An American spokeswoman in Dallas would not comment on the developments, stressing that all American employees have been ordered not to talk to the press."<<

A-HA!! We now know that NONE of this information came from anyone at American Airlines. So who planted the story? The FBI of course, or perhaps their friends in the CIA.

Ever hear of Operation Mockingbird?

Get together whatever money you're paid (you are employed aren't you?), and buy a clue.

[tngledwebb]

27. the quoted source

is World Net Daily, a paragon of (extreme right) journalistic excellence. But you shouldn't trust everything you read on the web, some reporters may have a middle-of-the-road right wing agenda. I would stick to more reliable sources like CNN or the NYT, or the CIA itself.

[Ameridansk]

23. Regarding the security checkpoint

Funny thing about them, Argenbright Security.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/30/rec.logan.argenbright/?related

>>"Besides Logan and O'Hare, Argenbright provides security at several other major airports, including Philadelphia International Airport, Newark International Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport."<<

They were employed at all three airports involved in 9/11. We have the makings of a little conspiracy!

Atta came in on US Airways, right? get this:

>>"In Boston, Argenbright is used by US Airways, Delta, Delta Shuttle and America West."<<

It does also say this however:
>>" The two flights that were hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center September 11 originated at Logan, although Argenbright was not under contract to provide security for either of the airlines involved -- American Airlines and United Airlines."<<

But the folks at the checkpoint must not have been American Airlines folks anyway, as we learned this in your article:

>>"An American spokeswoman in Dallas would not comment on the developments, stressing that all American employees have been ordered not to talk to the press."<<

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24596

[LARED]

24. I don't think so

They were employed at all three airports involved in 9/11. We have the makings of a little conspiracy!

Argenbright Security provided (before the gov stopped doing business with them) security for 40-percent of the nation's airport security business.

[Abe Linkman]

25. If so, then we have the makings of a BIG conspiracy.

40% of the nation's airports used Argenbright? Wow! Osama got some very long strings he was able to pull from the 9-11 HQ Cave. That's what you meant, right?

[vincent_vega_lives]

30. I seriously doubt that is what he meant Abe,

only a seriously deranged person would come to that concussion.

[Ameridansk]

35. You want some more conspiracy, Abe?

Of course, you know about this, the lease that made Larry Silverstein the luckiest developer in history:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/BUSINESS/asia/09/12/aust.westfield.biz/

<SNIP>

WTC leased to Silverstein, Westfield

<SNIP>
Silverstein Properties president Larry Silverstein said in July when he took the lease in partnership with Westfield America CEO Peter Lowy that it had been a career ambition to own the World Trade Center.

Lowy called it a thrill to invest "in this great city".
In a statement Wednesday, Westfield Holdings said the company was shocked at the events in the U.S. It said of the 10 Westfield staff working in the building, one of its executives was unaccounted for.
It also said Westfield America Trust's investment in the retail component of the World Trade Center was "fully insured for both capital and loss of income."

"The insurance cover includes acts of terrorism," it said.
<SNIP>

However, guess where seemingly harmless Westfield also finds itself:

http://www.westfield.com/corporate/retailer/us/airportretail/

<SNIP>
Westfield currently manages the retail concessions at:
§ Boston-Logan International Airport
§ George Bush Houston Intercontinental Airport
§ Newark International Airport
§ Orlando International Airport
§ Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
§ San Antonio International Airport
§ Washington Dulles International Airport
<SNIP>

Wait a minute! That’s every airport involved on September 11th!

Even Reagan National where the remotely flown passenger jet, that everyone saw spiraling down toward the Pentagon just before the missile was fired causing the explosion everyone assumed was caused by the plane, landed.

Notice the one runway on this map pointing at the Pentagon:



The plane would have been headed right for that runway if by chance it had not hit the Pentagon. It could have landed there in seconds after passing over the Pentagon while everyone's attention was on the explosion and all the noise. How many eyewitnesses said it looked like the plane was coming in for a routine landing? A bunch.
How could any plane use that runway without flying directly over the Pentagon?

Did you know that the FBI believed there was another hijacking attempt on 9/11 that they foiled? It was from San Antonio (where Westfield is also present).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1551873.stm

<SNIP>
The authorities also believe they may have foiled an attempt to hijack a United Airlines flight from San Antonio in Texas to Denver, Colorado.
<SNIP>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,601430,00.html

<SNIP>
As the largest investigation in criminal history entered its second week, the bureau said it was considering whether a fifth suicide hijacking was foiled by the cancellation of a flight from Boston to Los Angeles.

American Airlines flight 43 was cancelled at the last minute last Tuesday because of technical problems. The FBI is using passenger lists in a bid to track down passengers with Arab names who did not fly on when commercial flights resumed last week.

There is also growing evidence that a sixth attack was planned, and that a cell of terrorists was intending to hijack a flight due to leave San Antonio last weekend.
<SNIP>

Here’s a little fun fact. On September 11th, Westfield only controlled 6 airport retail plazas.

Their plaza at George Bush Houston Intercontinental Airport is a new addition, given to them in 2003!

http://www.houstonairportsystem.org/news/?id=112

You can also see this (I hope) from this archived thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4781&forum=DCForumID35&archive=yes

The other airport is in Florida, but there aren't any connections between Bush and Florida I can think of, however.

Still, whole lotta coinky-dinks, ay?

[LARED]

44. Abe, read carefully

I said they have 40-percent of the nation's airport security business not 40% of the nations airports.

I know this may be a foreign concept to you, but I'll give it a whirl anyway.

It was implied that because Argenbright supplied security to all three airport involved in 9/11 there exists a high probability that there was a conspiracy afoot. Well if those were the only airports they provided security for, it would have the appearance of something interesting.

But since Argenbright provides security at many airports in addition to those involved with 9/11 the idea that this is interesting quickly becomes a trivial fact.

But hey, trivial non-material facts seem to fascinate the CT crowd, so have fun.

[Ameridansk]

26. C'Mon there, Captain Contrarian!

This is all you have to say? There is so much more to talk about on this thread and this is all you say? Nothing to say about the article on which this thread is based?

All you can do is nitpick about this one setence of mine?

Besides, you're telling me that Argenbright is a very large coporation? That only makes it MORE likely that they have the type of Fascist leanings needed to be involved in 9/11.

Why would the government (are they the ones employing them?) stop doing business with them?

Perhaps they have something less than a spotless history?

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2001/10/08/daily55.html

<SNIP>
Argenbright Security fined $1 million, put on probation

An Atlanta company hired criminals to man security checkpoints at Philadelphia International Airport even after being fined last year for inadequately checking employees' backgrounds, The Associated Press reported.
<SNIP>

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/04/inv.ohare.arrest/

<SNIP>
That move followed by less than a year guilty pleas by three Argenbright managers who admitted breaking FAA rules. They allowed untrained employees -- some with criminal backgrounds -- to operate airport checkpoints, the managers said.
<SNIP>

Wow man, thanks for stopping by.

[LARED]

43. Sure thing Ameridansk

The thread is about a company that is trying to introduce in-flight cell phone service.

Help me out here. Why is that material to anything? Before you go off about cell phones calls not being possible on 9/11, just forget about it. Cell phones work with varying success in flight. That is not disputable. This company is working with the FAA to provide cell service designed to work in-flight.

Presently using a cell phone in flight is banned because there is aircraft safety concerns. Also cell phones in flight try to connect with multiple cells, creating problems for the cell. This also creates difficulty in maintaining a good connection. The service the articles is talking about is designed to work around those problems

Why would the government (are they the ones employing them?) stop doing business with them?

They were doing a lousy job? As you aptly pointed out. Is this a trick question? Is there a point?

[MercutioATC]

46. The reason the government stopped doing business with them:

Airport screeners (most of them, anyway) were made Federal employees employed by the Department of Homeland Security. There simply wasn't the need for as many private security personnel.

[vincent_vega_lives]

29. So what does make sense?

They have their last supper at Pizza Hut? Does that make sense to you?

That our government conspired to crash the planes into the Towers and Pentagon for some insane reason. That makes more sense.

Sorry, none of these "issues" even remotely raises resonable doubt.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[k-robjoe]

45. Dulce was on to this

on a thread a while back.
And now others seem to pick up on it :

" According to USAIR the flight LEAVES Portland @ 6:20 Am and ARRIVES @ 7:45 ( Is this correct? ) (...) Fligh 11 is scheduled to leave at 7:45 every morning. If Atta was planning on making that flight he wouldn't have caught a flight that arrives at the departure time for flight 11.
Flight 11 did leave on time. Here are the transcripts published by the New York Times:
7:45:48 -- Ground Control 1: American eleven heavy boston ground gate thirty two you're going to wait for a Saab to go by then push back. (...)
If this is true, then there is no way Atta could've been on Flight 11. (...) "
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1538

On edit : Some of the times given here are mistaken, not...?

[objection]

48. USAIR?

How did USAIR get into this?

[k-robjoe]

49. How did USAIR get into this?

I don´t know. I´m kind of assuming that the people on the link I gave got this part wrong. ( Hence the questions "Is this correct?" and "Some of the times are mistaken, not...?" )

You seem to know more about this than I do. So if you can set things straight, please do.
Meanwhile they keep digging at it, thinking they have got it right. Today it reads :

"With regard to arrival and departure times...I called USAIR and those are the correct times."

[objection]

50. Reports I saw

cited a Colgan Air flight at 6.00 a.m.

Do Colgan Air not confirm that the flight took place?
I also recall that witnesses on the plane saw the suspects.
Except then to understand that some people are hell bent on causing confusion how can there possibily be any doubt about it?

[k-robjoe]

52. Believe you are right

I think the confusion is there because Colgan didn´t report the flight to the BTS.
And then there´s been quite a bit of confusion in the news reports apparently, news sources reporting differently.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

19. Probably looking for a new stripper girlfriend...

...and a better supplier for his pork chops, As most religious fanatics do early upon a Tuesday morn'.

http://www.madcowprod.com/mc6012004.html

[vincent_vega_lives]

33. Impossible?

Tell me what the difference is between a cell phone call from the ground and an aircraft at 35,000 feet?

http://www.privateline.com/Cellbasics/cellphonesairlines.html

[vincent_vega_lives]

34. More untruths...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/911.flight.93/index.html

[tngledwebb]

14. Cell phones

This timely and interesting article makes no mention of how easy it was to use cell phones on 9/11. And of course American Airlines should be in the vanguard of this exciting new technolgy!