Air France to fly world’s first aircraft with inflight mobile phone system (http://iagblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/air-france-to-fly-worlds-first.html)
The OnAir service will allow Air France travellers to use their own GSM mobile phones and GPRS-enabled devices such as the BlackBerry or Treo, to make and receive voice calls or to send and receive SMS messages or emails during the flight without harmful interference to the aircraft navigation systems.
I found this on my travels on the internet , I am not a technical buff by any means , and I always believed that you couldnt use your cell phone from the Aircraft because of the interference this technology would generate .

Now the official story of 9-11 rests on the fact that cell phone calls said to have been made from the hijacked aircraft whilst in flight . This article confirms that cell phones require special equipment to be installed on planes in order to work while in flight.

maybe you should have read this before posting http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/03/03/phones.mail/index.html :D

or how about this http://mobileoffice.about.com/cs/ontheroad/f/cells_airplanes.htm

i believe it is for safety purposes and NOT because the wont work, also calls were made from phones provided ON the planes too.

he he he.


......................NEXT.


I am not a technical buff by any means

we could figure that out.

maybe you should have read this before posting
Your links just validate what I wrote in my post :confused: and I always believed that you couldnt use your cell phone from the Aircraft because of the interference this technology would generate .
he he he.
Yeah whatever mate .
we could figure that out.
Read this .
Mid-2003 discussion on phone calls from planes (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:8RyF_702dKoJ:www.aldeilis.net/aldeilis/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcontent%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D 342+Cell+phones+in+planes+dont+work+over+5-10000+ft.+inside+a+sealed+bathroom+would+insert+an +extra+3-6+dB&hl=en&gl=nz&ct=clnk&cd=3)
Cell phones in planes dont work over 5-10,000 ft. inside a sealedbathroom would insert an extra 3-6 dB of loss. I am a cell phoneengineer and design cellular systems, that means signal quality, whichwould have been nearly impossibe anyway would have been cut to 1/3 to1/6th stregth.

Has anybody on this site used there cell phone on a plane a 30,000 ft?

the reason cellphones dont work is because of their distance from signal towers.
on this one im going to have to side with brian foley.

please ban brian foley.

Brian Foley wrote:

Your links just validate what I wrote in my post

no they dont at all, if they do past a single line of text frome either of those links that validate what you wrote.

this is frome one of the links,

The FCC (Federal Communication Commission) prohibits use of personal cell phones while inflight. This ruling applies only to commercial carriers. If your company has a private plane then you can use your cell phone while inflight.

BOTH my link state (quit obviously) their use is banned because of interferance with nav equipment which wouldnt have been a priority.

Brian it is a fact that signals can get through at airliner altitudes not 100% successfully (sp) BUT everyone today carries a cell phone so maybe during the duration of the hijacking of all the planes 30 people tried to use them and a few were connected.

in addition we dont know the altitudes these planes were at the whole time the were being flown erratically DO WE? however a child would conclude that these planes at some points were far below the limits of cell phone capabilities.

Honestly it does not take a genuis to prove you "discovery" wrong....sorry dude.

as i stated (which you ignored) a flight attendant used an onboard phone (they do work btw, thats why they are there- AND IT WAS recorded)-

you are denying the obvious on all counts relating to these hijackings, which is ok here but in the real world people will think your an idiot...thats all.

_________________---

dont bring a knife to a gunfight. ;)

i would rather say:
"bring a brain to an intellectual discussion".

you are wrong, and foley is right. thats all there is to it. god, i feel sick saying that.

please ban brian foley.

you are wrong, and foley is right.

so you say it is impossible to use cell phones on airplanes?

I regularly use my cell phone from small aircraft, and it works best at lower altitudes. Higher than 5,000' service gets progressively spottier, to the point of being almost useless above 10,000- especially over metropolitan areas. It seems like the fewer towers in range, the better.

During the 9-11 drama, passengers may have had better cell service because they were sadly riding along on low-level attack missions, just as the hijackers were trained (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=30590) to do.

so you say it is impossible to use cell phones on airplanes?

read hypewader's post.

read hypewader's post.

no kidding, thats what my posts stated.

Once again, some calls were made on the phones provided on the plane- so does it really matter??

Im still waiting for Brian to come up with an explination to what happened to all the people who were supposed to be on those planes.

They called and talked to their loved ones- so if they were not on a plane, then they pretended to be on a plane?? That just doesnt make any sense. Brian, get help.

The passengers on Flight 93 did use cell phones because of the location they used a variety of towers. I can confirm that 35 miles out from the crash site the plan was very low. It was a wonder that it cleared the Laurel Mountain. The now famous "Lets Roll" call connected to the then GTE center at Johnsontown PA what is less known is that one of the passengers was on the phone with a 911 operator and supervisor when the plane crashed.

An exhilarating ride, especially from up front. Have you ever gone 500 knots along the treetops? I call it going ape shit and it's hard to describe. Some say "HOOOOAH!" and others whispered "la'illa'ilahuilullah, wa muhammederrasoolulah".

But there's no difference. Not like there is adifference between civilian flight school curricula at Huffman Aviation (cessna 172s) and, let's just say, Dhahran Airbase ( F-15Es).

It also happens to be the only way in which these Arabian Knights of Flying Death learned to do the highly technical stick-and-rudder moves that they did. 3-for-3. But too uproarious a story for any media.

Do you think there is not media arm-twisting going on? The truth is out there, between the hideiously arm-twisted and the simply twisted.

Out: ...there.

Has anybody on this site used there cell phone on a plane a 30,000 ft?

Good god - the Towers and the Pentagon were 30,000 feet in height?

It's no wonder they came down when those planes crashed into them.

Geoff

I found this on my travels on the internet , I am not a technical buff by any means , and I always believed that you couldnt use your cell phone from the Aircraft because of the interference this technology would generate .

Now the official story of 9-11 rests on the fact that cell phone calls said to have been made from the hijacked aircraft whilst in flight . This article confirms that cell phones require special equipment to be installed on planes in order to work while in flight.

Again - it's a safety issue, not a functional issue. I've called people from cell phones on planes (oooh evil me) and it works. Even a fucking Motorola manages. Could you possibly conceive of the fact that the Eastern seaboard is loaded with towers?

I agree that Foley is not a technical buff by any means.

Geoff

I don't understand why you always look for the excuses (yes I'm using the word excuse) Geoff, it seems like you won't take anything at face value. Instead you exagerrate the possibilities sooo much that any possible resolution becomes impossible.

Towers don't have an unlimited range of reception, and had a call been made.. the speed of the plane would cause such a fast roaming that I doubt the carrier could communicate roaming protocols fast enough.

Once again, some calls were made on the phones provided on the plane- so does it really matter??
I even wrote a thread about that guy phoning from the plane a saying he saw a flashing light outside the plane . Now I am not so sure .
Im still waiting for Brian to come up with an explination to what happened to all the people who were supposed to be on those planes.
Were those phone calls made ? Seriously wouldnt hijackers taken all those cellphones off them ?
They called and talked to their loved ones- so if they were not on a plane, then they pretended to be on a plane?? That just doesnt make any sense. Brian, get help.
Your right it doesnt make any sense especially when you consider that the link I gave comes from a airline pilots website and they are discussing the fact that you now have technology to make such calls .
The passengers on Flight 93 did use cell phones because of the location they used a variety of towers. I can confirm that 35 miles out from the crash site the plan was very low. It was a wonder that it cleared the Laurel Mountain. The now famous "Lets Roll" call connected to the then GTE center at Johnsontown PA what is less known is that one of the passengers was on the phone with a 911 operator and supervisor when the plane crashed.
I dont believe that " lets roll " story one bit I say that plane was shot down .
Instead you exagerrate the possibilities sooo much that any possible resolution becomes impossible.
Yeah , LOL so accurate .

I don't understand why you always look for the excuses (yes I'm using the word excuse) Geoff, it seems like you won't take anything at face value. Instead you exagerrate the possibilities sooo much that any possible resolution becomes impossible.

Face value? Now I shouldn't be critical? You're making generalizations here about me that I could as easily do for you! Look, when you start taking things at face value - say, about two planes crashing into towers - let me know. I'm basing my positions on actual data here, and I haven't the foggiest how you can say I'm looking for excuses or "exaggerating possibilities".

Towers don't have an unlimited range of reception, and had a call been made.. the speed of the plane would cause such a fast roaming that I doubt the carrier could communicate roaming protocols fast enough.

RRRGH - they CAN, I've bloody DONE it (...a mistake, I admit. Didn't even think about what I was doing, tired.). Even a fucking Motorola can keep up, apparently.

Geoff

Were those phone calls made ? Seriously wouldnt hijackers taken all those cellphones off them ?

How? Would they have even had enough time? Cell phones are small and easy to hide. And why? Who could they have called who would have helped?

Your right it doesnt make any sense especially when you consider that the link I gave comes from a airline pilots website and they are discussing the fact that you now have technology to make such calls .

SAFELY

I dont believe that " lets roll " story one bit I say that plane was shot down .

Unsubstantiated opinion from someone who hates Yanks. No bias there.

Geoff

Good god - the Towers and the Pentagon were 30,000 feet in height?

It's no wonder they came down when those planes crashed into them.

Geoff

Please Geoff, this just makes you sound stupid and we all know that's not the case.

Geoff, have you ever made a cell phone call on a plane moving at 500 KPH? 30,000 feet? That was the question I asked.

Can a plane be tracked with the transponder turned off?

[Geoff, of late you seem to have change countrys. I was under the impression you were American. Of late you've been using "mate", "Yanks", and did I see wanker in one of those post?
Location:
Undisclosed Locationsville, Whersitania, Dar al-Harb - then again - I just assumed....
]

Geoff, have you ever made a cell phone call on a plane moving at 500 KPH? 30,000 feet? That was the question I asked.

How does that relate to the case? Were the planes that high or not?

Can a plane be tracked with the transponder turned off?

Tracked by what? Radar? I would imagine so.

[Geoff, of late you seem to have change countrys. I was under the impression you were American. Of late you've been using "mate", "Yanks", and did I see wanker in one of those post?
Location:
Undisclosed Locationsville, Whersitania, Dar al-Harb - then again - I just assumed....
][/QUOTE]

Is it only Americans living in America at the moment?

Frankly, we use the terms "mate" and "Yanks" extensively in Dar-al-Harb.

You're right, though, you did see a wanker in one of those posts. ;)

We are going to get transcripts of this, you know- That is, some of the CVR transcripts edited for brutality.

Which I think should not be censored. If more of the American public understood whom we are dealing with, they could be isolated in a fortnight.

Because these people are sinisterly outstanding. Everywhere. If you can approach people diplomatically, there remains the "six degrees of separation" rule. Which in reality is x to the y to the not to reason why, if you have influence.

Welcome to the Orient Express, America. Next is the part when we sodomize you. But we are honest people, telling you before, during and after what occurs. Foreign policy inspired in Gitmo, you Friki Amriki.

The Muslim War (Shi'a rebellion if you prefer) is going to rock our energy world, and deservedly so: I can see it coming. Can you?

I remember those crazy streets of Dar-al-Harb
Where our motto is "Ahlan, wa Sahlan"- ya himaarb.

No oil for you, Shayteebi.
Can you hear me now, habeeby?

The Muslim War (Shi'a rebellion if you prefer) is going to rock our energy world, and deservedly so: I can see it coming. Can you?

Glory be the day.
We'll wake the fuck up - no other choice will do that.

Hay , cell phones work on line of sight, and even a 1/2 w. will have a unexpedly long range at any altitude above 1000 ft. agl. and the altitude of these aircraft was aproxametly 1000 to 1500ft agl. during these attacks. I also have used cell phones on comercial flights, and was cleared by the flight attendents, the only ristriction I was informed of was during take off and landing, and this was signaled by the pilot over the intercom.

ps; aircraft can be tracked with out transponder signal, we did it all the time against enemy aircraft, transponder only identify's your aircraft to ground control, or for IFF purposes so your own people hopefully don't shoot you down when your are coming home from a strike.

It is illegal to turn on a cell phone aboard an airliner from takeoff to landing, Buffalo Roam. You may be confusing cell phones with "portable electronic devices"(Ipods, gameboys, laptops), which are prohibited only during the takeoff and landing of airline flights. Only while the aircraft is on the ground can a flight attendant legally "clear" you to use a cell phone aboard an airliner.

This is all confusing, especially once you learn the truth that cell phones have never been shown to present any navigational or communications interference issue aboard aircraft. Sometimes audio amplifiers do pick up their pinging for new towers (Bzzzt-bzt-bzt-bzt-bzt-bzt), as they do various other noisy-rf things.

Something else brought this particular ban. Airlines and the FAA have a deep relationship. It seems very easy for behind-the-scenes interests to impose almost anything on the general public, if it can be proclaimed a safety measure.

The cell phone ban provided the airlines with an exclusive new revenue stream with flight-phones. The ban was never an honest safety measure. Eventually this swindle will be publicly realized. But as in war, when we are lined up to become passengers, psychological techniques are deliberately applied that make many meek and unquestioning. We don't want to feel foolish as a people (in inflight cell usage and war) so we procrastinate in admitting having been hoodwinked for as long as possible. What a pity and a waste.

"aircraft can be tracked with out transponder signal"

That's known as "Primary RADAR"- like the little blips on the screen in old war movies. Primary Radar is often de-selected from controller screens, because of clutter it can induce. With primary radar there is no single-source altitude information, because only distance and azimuth (direction from the antenna) is detected. Primay radar is more susceptible to dropouts because of weather or terrain between the radar and the aircraft being tracked. Aircraft can be tracked with primary, but not nearly as well, and as you mentioned, discreet codes provide for airraft identification, and IFF during hostilities.

Hyperwaders then how do explane the fact that we in tracking enemy aircraft who most definatly do not want to give you a transponder signal, ( it would be like turning on a torch in a empty ocean) can get alttitude and range informaition to vector fighter, and missles to the interception point, I can, it very simple your azmuth radar and bearings radar form one leg of a triangle, add a little geometry, and vouela! you have alttitude and range, and then measure speed of angle change and you get speed of target! they have been doing this since WWII (with paper and pensil) to now with computer assist, any more Q's

Did I try to deny triangulation? No, I was only pointing out that the thousands of aircraft being shepherded around our skies are not tracked by primary radar; Transponders are essential, because primary radar has drawbacks that transponders obviate.

Even IFF has evolved to the point where it can under specific circumstances be accomplished with no aircraft equipment installed. Not even a transp. Think about that one.

Here's your first clue: Look up at the sky. Smile and wave! In other words, it is child's play for the US Govt to track any aircraft continuously from takeoff to landing, using classified orbital sensor platforms.

Hyperwader what is your real life expearence with radar tracking of aircraft, pray tell, that makes you the sole expert? mine comes from being in the military, now retired 25 years, and this was technology that was availably then and I do beleave the technology has vastly improved since then. And you have even proved my point by your own words that IFF can be accomplished with out transponders onboard the aircraft, with computer assist if you know the point of orgin you can track and identify any aircraft you wish and then tell the system to continue to track, this information I got from a friend in Air Traffic Control, And this dosn't require satellite tracking. Also ATC very seldom uses primary radar alone, it's use as I understand it, is more as a base line to back track when nessary? Most radar now days is micro wave frequnce and with computer enhansment can accomplish these functions from one antenna, arn't computers wonderful? and no I'm not confuseing cell phones with other electronic equipment, and beside the flight crew was not in controal of the aircraft, and if I was aborde a aircraft that had just been hijacked I would definitly be trying to let someone know about it, also the crew had already tripped the transponder code siginaling a hijacking wich automatically targets the aircraft on the radar screen.

No Brian they wern't shot down, by the time the avalably fighters were scrambled all hijacked aircraft were down, the U.S. no longer kept a 24hr fighter CAP over the contintal United States, under Clinton this was suspended as a cost saving mesure for the goverment! under President Bush it has been reinstated, I wonder how much money Clinton save for us? I think the numbers were in the negative.

In the 1950s, we maintained a high state of ready pilots and aircraft for interception of Soviet ones. Times have changed long since then- and before Clinton came along. There was no fighter CAP over the entire USA when Clinton was elected.

But during his term, the national deficit was eliminated, and the Bush Administration plunged us into debt like never before- So I don't quite understand your meaning.

There is no national fighter CAP now, although certain political installations do have ADIZ. For the rest of the country right now under Bush, there is little difference in terms of actual ready-to-intercept-the-bad-guys interceptors. With our mideast troubles, there currently are thousands less interceptors and crews available to defend US borders, because they have been stretched to the breaking point in terms of foreign deployment.

If you take a little time to comprehend the area involved, you will understand that a contiguous fighter CAP defending comprehensively against foreign and domestic threats is not feasible. Yes, we can scramble aircraft, but no they are not sitting in readiness to scramble anything anywhere in the US. Yes, we can see a lot: The DoD is enjoying a revolution in sensory technology.

I'm aware of this because I've been around some, and I read some. I do have military background from the Cold War years (apparently we served together chronologically) and I'm a pilot. Out of curiousity and as an instructor, I've spent some time at both civilian and military ATC consoles, learning from controllers as they work.

It seems as if you are trying to make some other point, but I don't know what it is. I've carefully read your posts here. Have you done the same with mine, Buffalo Roam?

Hay Hypewaders, yes I do , and I enjoy them immensley, I feel that we are not to far apart in this discusion, Sorry about the Q's about your quall's, but to many time I have found that the people I'm talking to are a bunch of high school/ college kids with no experance, and practical knowledge, were did you serve, me I'm retired army, UH-1-H qualified, Vietnam 1970-71 -72, 1st Cav, 2nd Armor, 25th Infantry Div, 6th Air Cav Brigade, Texas, Germany, Hawii, Korea, we may have crossed pathes, I'm new to computers so if you know how to get me your email I would be happy to make friends, fiughting men need to take care of one another, If you ain't Cav you ain't shit, go get em, the Buffalo"

ps: I finally translated you call sign, like fishing?

Yes! I now live near the East Branch of the Delaware/Western Catskills. But no, not cav: I was a Navy submariner, where we proclaimed that there were 2 types of fighting men: Submariners, and targets. I'm less boisterous now. That's very cool that you flew Hueys.

I was stationed out of Spain, for sorties in the Med and Black Sea, 1980s.

No Brian they wern't shot down, by the time the avalably fighters were scrambled all hijacked aircraft were down, the U.S. no longer kept a 24hr fighter CAP over the contintal United States, under Clinton this was suspended as a cost saving mesure for the goverment! under President Bush it has been reinstated, I wonder how much money Clinton save for us? I think the numbers were in the negative.
I believe it was shot down .
Sept. 11 crash still shrouded in mystery (http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/280304_crash.html)
The debris field spanned about 2.5 square kilometres of wooded area. Victim recovery efforts were hampered because most of the salvageable human remains were in the treetops.
Especially when you consider the area the wreckage was spread over and that human remains were found in tree tops indicates a mid air explosion .

Brian Foley,
I am sure that you believe what you have read but I know of no one in the area of the crash site which was an open field that had been stripped mine a few years before that think that the plane was shot down.

I believe it was shot down .

So now we know it wasn't, at least.

Especially when you consider the area the wreckage was spread over and that human remains were found in tree tops indicates a mid air explosion .

Remains, planes, and bits of both bounce and get thrown around quite a bit when 250 tons hits the ground.

No sale.

Geoff

Brian Foley,
I am sure that you believe what you have read but I know of no one in the area of the crash site which was an open field that had been stripped mine a few years before that think that the plane was shot down.
I cant argue with you as may know people in that area , but I have collected since that day certain news articles this one was from the 12th read what eyewitnesses say .
Day of Terror: Outside tiny Shanksville, a fourth deadly stroke (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp)
"Witnesses reported eerie sounds from the aircraft as it fell. Some people heard an explosion, and others heard sputtering."

" Some witnesses reported that the plane was flying upside down for a time before the crash; others said they heard up to three loud booms before the jetliner went down. "

"We confirmed that with him several times and we asked him to repeat what he said. He was very distraught. He said he believeD the plane was going down. He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him."
Remains, planes, and bits of both bounce and get thrown around quite a bit when 250 tons hits the ground.
Bodies bouncing into trees over a 2.5 km2 area , yaeh right .
No sale.
No prizes given here .

I cant argue with you as may know people in that area

LMAO - lookie me! I'm an Illuminati!

Or am I? We don't exist, you know.

Please do collect your "certain news articles". With what air CAP exactly did they shoot the plane down?

Bodies bouncing into trees over a 2.5 km2 area , yaeh right .

Yes, you pathetic git. Tell you what: you try and prove that can't happen, ok?

No sale.

Geoff

LMAO - lookie me! I'm an Illuminati!

Or am I? We don't exist, you know.

Please do collect your "certain news articles". With what air CAP exactly did they shoot the place down?



Yes, you pathetic git. Tell you what: you try and prove that can't happen, ok?

No sale.

Geoff
Ah shut up ! I was originally communicating with candy and mountain roam , not you , when you interjected . I couldnt care less what you regard as a no sale .

Having a cell phone would be nice. Frankly, on 11 September 2001, I'd have rather had my gun. Everyone could call and say good bye to loved ones, but no one could do anything about it.

Ah shut up ! I was originally communicating with candy and mountain roam , not you , when you interjected . I couldnt care less what you regard as a no sale .

Again with the abuse?

Communicating with mountain and candy...mountain wasn't on that thread.

So, again: no sale.

Geoff

"Everyone could call and say good bye to loved ones, but no one could do anything about it."

Of course they could, and of course we could. Passengers aboard UAL 93 acquired the information we have- that the hijackings were being crashed into symbolic targets, and this changed their collective behavior- It was the day hijacking in the USA ended, barring all government measures.

From flight 93 on, hijackers must subdue the entire complement, which for even one airliner is a much more intricate operation than the 9-11 operation was. With this paradigm shift, the coming attacks obviously would not follow the 9-11 script, regardless what the US government should do.

This particular aspect of 9-11, and the way it has largely gone unnoticed, is to me indicative of a national psychosis.

The last 5 years have involved officialdom conspicuously closing the airline barn-door long after the cows were out- Because the US govt wants the American people to artificially feel protected by them, when the simple truth is that an open society is by nature vulnerable to angry outsiders.

These are conclusions that are healthy for the United States. But they are suppressed, because we are suffering under leadership that has been exploiting our fears, and deliberately confusing us. If American security and standard of living are to be preserved, we have got to move these charlatans aside, and learn to better understand and cope with the world before we are marginalized.

Agreed.

Geoff

because we are suffering under leadership that has been exploiting our fears, and deliberately confusing us.

i just dont agree. how are fears being exploited? confusing how?

as you said free societies are vulnerable but the when a free society is sniped at on a weekly basis is too late to wake up.

when was the last terror attack on american soil, alejandro?
we arent sniped at on a weekly basis.
in fact, it hasnt happened again since september 11, 2001.

i would even wager that all the anthrax scaring was perpetrated BY the government in order to cement the fear that the events on september 11 put so strongly into our psyches.

when was the last terror attack on american soil, alejandro? we arent sniped at on a weekly basis. in fact, it hasnt happened again since september 11, 2001.

i wouldnt be so sure about that, anyway-

were not gonna take it! :)

when was the last terror attack on american soil, alejandro? we arent sniped at on a weekly basis. in fact, it hasnt happened again since september 11, 2001.

i wouldnt be so sure about that, anyway-

were not gonna take it! :)- dont know much about Isreal or the politics there but some things just arent right.

Right on target Hypwaders, if im going to die I will die for my own reasons not some raghead fanitic's!
As a asside SSN or SSBN? wich class, and I always heard that 350 men left on a crusise, and 175 couples came back?

we refrain from ethnic slurs here, buffalo.

Having a cell phone would be nice. Frankly, on 11 September 2001, I'd have rather had my gun.

16 shot 22cal. :) might be a good bet.

we refrain from ethnic slurs here, buffalo.

I always heard that 350 men left on a crusise, and 175 couples came back?
thats not an ethnic slur :rolleyes:

Hay devil, Hypewaders, by being in service is a brother to me, this is a very old joke between service people, and is taken in jest, and given in jest, I'm waiting for Hypewaiders to come back with some joke that the navy has about the army, or better yet the Marines and I will (Laugh) because I know he is being friendly as people in the service are between each other. Like brothers we will fight and tease each other, and if a outsider attacks one of us we will all turn on him and kick his butt and go back and have a beer together!

How delicious!
Someone who is calling for the banning of another member of this forum wants to teach forum etiquette to others.
Don't you just love hypocrisy.

Candy, did you have some comment about the possibility of cellphone communication from the hijacked aircraft? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Geoff

It is not a possibility but a reality that the people on Flight 93 were in phone contact.
The then GTE operator who took the "let's roll" phone call is a real person who really did work as an operator.
The call from Flight 93 to a 911 center was real. I know people who have spoken with both the supervisor and the operator that took the call. They do not discuss the actual content of the call. The tapes were impounded by the FBI.

It's good that we can generate some agreement on the likelihood of people calling on cells. I know that were I in their position, I would have.

Geoff

You have to understand that this is a rural mountain area so things were happening over a wide area. The plane was being radar tracked out of Johnstown/Cambria County airport. The "let's roll" call was received at the GTE center in Johnstown. Johnstown tower was requesting other aircraft to be on the look out for a missing plane presumed down. The plane crashed in Somerset county where people who saw the crash were telephoning Somerset county 911 to get the local volunteer fire department to respond. Being a small volunteer fire department they had to call for back-up from all the other small volunteer departments even from adjoining counties. The way into the crash site is a narrow twisting country road that made it difficult for the outside help to navigate. The local TV station did get in right on the heels of the local fire department; they had good access to the area until the FBI arrived and made them move back. The people on the plane had been on the phone with the 911 center in yet another county. So it was really chaotic over a wide area until the various groups could be co-ordinated.

How delicious!
Someone who is calling for the banning of another member of this forum wants to teach forum etiquette to others.
Don't you just love hypocrisy.

there is a reason noone talks with you.

perhaps is has something to do with the word "sockpuppet"?

please ban brian foley