9/11 Truth News and Updates

[ProfWag]

And while we're at it, how about watching his full interview rather than the conveniently edited version that you posted:

[ProfWag]

Here's a link to a collection of eyewitnesses:

[ProfWag]

[SydneyPSIder]

[ProfWag]

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

Apparently AA77 airspeed was 460 knots or 530 mph according to the FDR -- allegedly. Although note the problems with the data supplied as described in a preceding post, which is more consonant with a northern flyover that was both too high and off course to knock over any lights or hit the Pentagon.

This is an interesting 45 minute doco prepared by experienced, honest pilots also:

http://www.vimeo.com/6679633

The information supplied in that documentary suggests ProfWag is going to have a very hard time producing any evidence of the safe or possible top speed of a Boeing 757 or 767 being anywhere near 500 mph at sea level.

[SydneyPSIder]

[ProfWag]

[SydneyPSIder]

So you have no evidence of the ability of a 757 or 767 to travel at 500 mph at sea level for any length of time -- especially while pulling difficult control manoeuvres requiring a huge amount of precision -- without falling apart. As the videos scripted by experienced pilots suggest, any attempt to control a jetliner at sea level attempting high speeds could result in destruction of the plane and massive overcorrections in flight, thus missing a narrow target.

Of course some very streamlined jet fighters can do it, they're designed that way. Boeing, on the other hand, design their jetliners for optimal stratospheric flight with very little safety factor for insane speeds at sea level, as of course that is for taking off and landing only. Australia ran the F-111 as the mainstay fighter-bomber for many years, my father (a metallurgist) did some work analysing premature stress cracks in the wings once upon a time.

Although, apparently (!), three or four scrawny diminutive little untrained pilots with 15 accomplices who couldn't have possibly gotten onto jetliners carrying boxcutters or knives according to airport rules have apparently (!) demonstrated perfect control and structural integrity of those planes at insane speeds at sea level! That was certainly one unfortunate way to find out just how good those planes are. Just as it was demonstrated that impossible GSM mobile calls can be made from 20,000-30,000 feet in the air even though we always thought the physics of the antennae and the principles of telecoms and handshaking said that wasn't possible! And funnily enough it's not possible from a plane if you try it now! They sure were lucky that day. Got some recordings too. And, lastly, we always thought steel-framed skyscrapers were solid in a low temperature fire and a collision because of solid civil engineering practices, because every other steel framed skyscraper that has caught fire in history has remained standing, but those WTC buildings just collapsed into dust on the day. What a metallurgical find! It's only a shame they carted all the steel off post haste to recycling yards in GPS-tracked trucks and straight onto ships to China before they could run any tests on the steel girders or examine them closely. And then of course WTC7 collapsed all by itself. Another world first. All three looked and acted like controlled demolitions and there were signs of thermite shearing activity and arcs of molten steel further down the buildings and a line of squib explosions, but that's just random coincidental stuff that resembled that kind of activity, don't worry about any of that. I think the NIST covered it in that fat report somewhere, so nothing to see there. Then there was all that strange 'maintenance' activity taking place in the towers for weeks prior to that.

[ProfWag]

[SydneyPSIder]

[ProfWag]

Sorry Syd, your conspiracy theorist friends have led you astray again. Gawd I wish you'd research non-conspiracy websites.
Above you referenced the following: "According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a “fluke” that so many calls reached their destinations."

Unfortunately, you failed, once again I might add, to include the WHOLE statement from Ms. Graf which stated in its entirety:

"Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes.

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.

“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.”

From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.

Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less.

“They also were digital phones, and there's a little bit more leeway on those digital phones, so it worked,” she said.

It helped that the planes were flying in areas with plenty of cell sites, too. Even United Airlines 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania, was supported by several nearby cell sites, Raney added."
http://connectedplanetonline.com/wirele ... l_contact/

And second, here's this:
Making Calls From The Air


By Brad Smith
September 24, 2001
c 2003, Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
When several passengers aboard the hijacked airliners made calls to family and spouses from their wireless phones on the now-infamous Sept. 11, it came as a surprise to many that the calls actually were completed.

Although airline passengers are warned against using their mobile phones in flight, it's fairly well-known that private airplane pilots often use regular cellular and PCS phones, even if it is illegal. Not quite as well-known, however, is that people have used their wireless phones to make surreptitious calls from the bathrooms of airliners.

The technology is there to support such airborne mobile connections. Take the Colorado company Aircell Inc., which uses FCC-approved equipment for wireless phone service.

But how does a terrestrial technology work in the sky?

First, altitude in itself is not a problem. Earthbound wireless phones can talk to base stations up to 10 miles away, depending on the terrain, while a typical passenger jet flies at an altitude of about six and a half miles. Since cell site antennas are configured to pick up signals horizontally and not from overhead, performance is usually compromised in calls from above. Nevertheless, cell sites can pick up signals from the air from great distances.

Toby Seay, vice president of national field operations for AT&T Wireless, says the technological limits to using a cell phone aboard a plane include the signal strength, potential signal inhibitors and "free space loss" as the signal gradually loses strength. The frequency used can make a difference, too. A signal using an 800 MHz cellular frequency can travel farther than a 1900 MHz PCS signal because of the different propagation characteristics of the two wavelengths.

The biggest problem with a phone signal sent from the air is that it can reach several different cell sites simultaneously. The signal can interfere with callers already using that frequency, and because there is no way for one cell site to hand off calls to another that is not adjacent to it, signals can become scrambled in the process. That's why wireless calls from jetliners don't last long, says Kathryn Condello, vice president of industry operations for CTIA. The network keeps dropping the calls, even if they are re-established later.

The phones on the back of the seats in most airplanes work similarly to a regular wireless phone. The major differences are that the antennas at the ground base stations are set up to pick up the signals from the sky, and there are far fewer stations handing off signals from one to another as a plane crosses overhead.

Also, Seay says, the airplane phones operated by AT&T Wireless and the GTE subsidiary of Verizon Communications send signals through wires to an antenna mounted on the outside of the plane. That is done to prevent interference with the plane's own radio communications, as well as to eliminate signal loss caused by the airplane's metal fuselage.

Syd, please stop posting half-told stories to make it fit your agenda. It's the lazy way out.

[SydneyPSIder]