Wednesday, 31 July 2019

'Flight 11' - Still in the Air After It "Allegedly" Crashed On 9/11 - UPDATED!

By Mark Conlon


This is an updated version of an article I posted on 8th October 2018, showing that American Airlines 'Flight 11' (AAL 11) was still in the air after it "allegedly" crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. It appears from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) communications recordings that AAL 11's last known coordinates were located 5.77 miles away from the North Tower after the crash.

Some debunkers have tried to distort this fact by saying it was mixed-up with American Airlines 'Flight 77' (AAL 77). This isn't correct, as the tail number: N334AA is reported in the Air Traffic Control (ATC) communications and shows it was AAL 11 and not AAL 77 as suggested. AAL 11 was heading towards JFK Airport which is off-course from the World Trade Center's North Tower. 


AAL 11's last known coordinates were (40'38N 074'03W) which locates AAL 11 - 5.77 miles away from the North Tower after its alleged crash at 8:46 a.m. It says in the ATC communications that it was heading towards the Washington area. See below:


In this short video I made using FAA and NORAD communication recordings I include the relevant communication segments which I edited together to present here.

Official explanations for this evidence...

In the aftermath of 9/11 the scramble of Langley Fighters has been described by the Defence Department as a response to the hijacking of AAL 77, or United 93 (UAL 93), or some combination of the two. Yet the report of AAL 11 heading towards Washington as the reason for the Langley Fighter Jets to be scrambled is not just reflected on the taped conversations at NEADS, but in taped conversations at FAA centres, on chat logs compiled at NEADS and NORAD, and other records.

In reality at 9:24am when fighter jets were scrambled from Langley, NEADS wasn’t even aware that AAL 77 or UAL 93 were hijacked. Why did the Defence Department lie about this?

Shortly after 9/11, a time-line provided by senior Defence Department officials to CNN will state, NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley in order to “head to intercept” AAL 77.

Major General Larry Arnold, the CONR commander, will give a different explanation. He will tell the 9/11 Commission, “we launched the aircraft out of Langley to put them over top of Washington DC, not in response to AAL 77, but really to put them in a position in case UAL 93 were to head that way.” Major Nasypany will tell the 9/11 Commission that the real reason for the Langley jets are scrambled and directed toward Baltimore area is to position them between the reportedly southbound AAL 11 and Washington, as a “barrier cap.” It seems NORAD deliberately misled Congress and the 9/11 Commission by hiding the fact that the Langley scramble takes place in response to the report that AAL 11 is still airborne. 
From my own perspective after studying the official data/evidence, neither of these accounts can be true. 


Emergency Transmitter Locator went off over two minutes before American Airlines ‘Flight 11’ allegedly crashed into the World Trade Center..? 

Again the official evidence tells a different narrative which supports the case that AAL 11 didn't crash into the North World Trade Center due to the 'Emergency Transmitter Locator' going-off over two minutes before AAL 11 "allegedly" crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. 

The Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) are emergency transmitters that are carried aboard most general aviation aircraft in the U.S. In the event of an aircraft accident, these devices are designed to transmit a distress signal on 121.5 and 243.0 MHz frequencies. ELTs are mounted aft in the airplane, and designed to be triggered upon impact or may be manually activated using the remote switch and control panel indicator in the cockpit. Activation of the ELT triggers an audio alert, and 406-MHz ELTs transmit GPS position for search and rescue. [Emergency Locator Transmitters – AOPA]. https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/aircraft/aircraft-operations/emergency-locator-transmitters 

AAL 11 hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m. and 40 seconds. [9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 7.] 

However, two and a half minutes earlier, David Bottiglia, an air traffic controller at the FAA's New York Center, received an important message from one of the planes in the airspace he was monitoring. At 8:44 a.m. the pilot of U.S. Airways Flight 583 told Bottiglia: "I just picked up an ELT on 121.5. It was brief, but it went off." (121.5 megahertz is an emergency frequency that ELTs are designed to transmit their distress signals on.) A minute later, about 90 second before AAL 11 hit the WTC another plane in the New York Center's airspace reported the same thing. The pilot of Delta Airlines Flight 2433 told Bottiglia: "We picked up that ELT, too. But it's very faint." [Transcript of United Airlines Flight 175] - https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/16/national/transcript-of-united-airlines-flight-175.html 

According to author Lynn Spencer, "several" facilities picked up the ELT signal around this time.  [Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 50.] 

Peter McCloskey, a traffic management coordinator at the New York Center, later recalled that the ELT had gone off "in the vicinity of Lower Manhattan." [Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York Air Route Center Interview With Peter McCloskey." 9/11 Commission, October 1, 2003] 

And, around the time AAL 11 hit the WTC, a participant in an FAA teleconference stated, "We got a report of an ELT in the area that (the radar track for Flight 11) was in." (Before it disappeared from radar screens, the track for AAL 11 had indicated the plane was about 20 miles from New York's JFK International Airport). [9/11 Air Traffic Control Transcript] https://www.scribd.com/document/13484898/9-11-Air-Traffic-Control-Transcript 

However, while an ELT went off two minutes before AAL 11 hit the WTC, it appears that no ELT went off at the time of the crash itself. 

United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m. and 11 seconds. But, as with the first crash, an ELT was activated in the New York area several minutes before this plane hit the tower. At just before 8:59 a.m., over four minutes before the Flight 175 crash, the pilot of Flight 583, who had reported the ELT signal before the North Tower was struck, told David Bottiglia at the New York Center that he had noticed another ELT going off. The pilot said, "I hate to keep burdening you with this stuff, but now we're picking up another ELT on 21.5." As with the previous crash, although an ELT went off minutes before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower, it seems that no ELT went off at the time of the crash itself. Also no ELT went off either with United Airlines Flight 93. 

The strange evidence of emergency locator transmitter signals being broadcast in the New York area before the World Trade Center towers were hit raises serious questions about the official account of the 9/11 attacks. If ELTs had been activated, this should have been at the times the planes hit the towers, not several minutes beforehand. But while a number of air traffic controllers mentioned the ELT signals in their interviews with the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 Commission Report offered no explanation for this anomalous evidence. Many questions remain unanswered. For example, were the sources of the ELT signals ever determined? Or were they from somewhere else? And were the transmitters themselves ever found? After all, according to the FAA, "In most installations the [ELT] is attached to the aircraft structure as far aft as practicable in the fuselage; or in the tail surface, in such a manner that damage to the beacon will be minimized in the event of a crash impact." http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgNPRM.nsf/0/ae86aa83c819fdbd86256819006c1c0f!OpenDocument 

We clearly need to know a lot more, since a proper investigation of these emergency signals could help determine what exactly happened on September 11, and point toward those really responsible for perpetrating the terrorist attacks. 

Thanks for reading and caring...

 

Monday, 22 July 2019

American Airlines 'Flight 77' Data Discrepancy With "Official" Departure Gate (SKYGATE 9/11 Film)

By Mark Conlon

This is a short segment from the Pilots For 9/11 Truth - SKYGATE 9/11 film. This video shows how American Airlines - Flight 77's departure was from a different departure gate at Dulles Airport. This is similar to the gate issues with passengers boarding American Airlines 'Flight 11', which I discussed in a previous blog post.  




The Latitude/Longitude coordinates reflect departure gate other than reported. Is this a possible aircraft swap before they even left the ground?


Thanks for watching and caring!



Saturday, 13 July 2019

9/11 War Games

By Mark Conlon


I wanted to bring attention to a good video made by James Corbett regarding the "war games" taking place before, during and after 9/11. I don't agree with a couple of assumptions made by James though regarding the "phantom" Flight 11. However he does an excellent job overall highlighting the training drill exercises taking place before, during and after 9/11. Also the "official" lies that were told to the 9/11 Commission.


Little did we know at the time, 9/11 was not a normal day of blue sky aviation. On the contrary, it was one of the busiest days in the history of American aviation, a dense forest of live fly exercises, drills, simulations, fake radar injects and utter confusion. And that was before the attacks even began. This is the story of 9/11 that you didn't watch unfold on your TV that fateful day in 2001. This is the story of the 9/11 War Games.

Thanks for watching and caring!

Monday, 24 June 2019

Revealing Facts About Simon (Shack) Hytten's Background

By Mark Conlon

In September 2013 I posted a blog showing how Markus Allen (a 'video fakery' promoter) put-out a disinformation video claiming the Michael Hezakhani video had a CGI glitch in it when the plane's wing passed behind a building in the forground of the Hezrakhani video. This turned-out to be false, and I demonstrated why in this blog post. Following-on from that in January and July 2014 I also had to write two more blogs showing how Markus Allen's other two claims were false about the Michael Hezarkhani video, where he claimed buildings were missing, and the location where Michael Hezarkhani took his video didn't exist. I thoroughly showed how this was disinformation.

In the video I have posted below shows a revealing exchange between Markus Allen and Simon (Shack) Hytten, the maker of the "disinformation" film September Clues. Shack admits to having done work for the European Space Agency? And also did paid work for NASA? This also coupled with the fact his father worked for the UN, and Simon's brother was sponsored by the brother of Osama Bin Laden.
My thoughts...

My personal believe is, this exchange between Markus Allen and Simon Hytten (Shack) is a carefully staged interview between two "controlled opposition" characters. The purpose being to seemingly make Simon Hytten's (Shack) background and family connections known in the public domain.

More importantly both Markus Allen and Simon Hytten (Shack) have promoted disinformation claiming that all the 9/11 videos are complete "fakery" thus casting serious doubts in peoples mind regarding the 9/11 video evidence record, which is a 'Psychological Operation' which is carried out to help conceal the 'image projection' technology which was used to project a plane in the sky in the 'Flight 175' videos. Please read my September Clues analysis blogs, where I demonstrate why the September Clues film is disinformation.

Thanks for reading and caring!

Friday, 14 June 2019

Last Toppling of September Clues - Part 1 & 2 - New Videos By 'Conspiracy Cuber'


By Mark Conlon


Here's two new videos produced by 'Conspiracy Cuber', a 9/11 researcher who has conducted new analysis into the "disinformation" film - September Clues produced by Simon (Shack) Hytten. It is well worth watching them.

Part One:
 

Part Two:


Thanks for watching and caring!


Friday, 7 June 2019

Did Passengers Board A Different American Airlines ‘Flight 11’ On 9/11...?


By Mark Conlon


After 18 years, the question of when the passengers of American Airlines 'Flight 11' (AAL 11) boarded onto the airplane is still lacking any conclusive answer. The 9/11 Commission Report did not produce an answer, however it created more questions based-on the "official" boarding data evidence. When studying the American Airlines record, SABRE information for AAL 11, on September 11, 2001, the boarding times from the American Airlines system are approximate only, for AAL 11, which indicates that some passengers boarded after the airplane had pushed back from the gate. Also See American Airlines (AAL) response to the 9/11 Commission's February 3, 2004, requests, March 15, 2004. (9/11 Commission Report, note 9 of Chapter 1).

The possibility of any passengers boarding AAL 11 after it had moved-off the gate is impossible. The explanation given by the 9/11 Commission was: the boarding times are "approximate only". This implies, as though the actual boarding times were spaciously rounded-up by the 'American Airlines SABRE' system which records and processes the passenger boarding data. The fact that AAL 11 pushed-back at 7:40 a.m. the 9/11 Commission claims: if a passenger passed the gate at 7:37 a.m. (before the push-back), the system would have logged the boarding time as 7:50 a.m. (or 8:00 a.m. or the time after the push-back). This time gap does not equate, demonstrating the 9/11 Commission's explanation being far from concise and conclusive. It does not stand-up under serious scrutiny.

The cited note indicates that the 9/11 Commission sent a request to American Airlines on February 3, 2004, which was answered at March 15, 2004. It was not until 2009 that this response was released to the public. See below: 

American previously has provided the Commission with documents that indicate the approximate times that passengers boarded AA Flights 11 and 77 and the approximate check-in times at the main ticket counters at the respective airports. These documents are Kean Commission Bates numbers 004658-004675 (Flight 77) and 004483-004518 (Flight 11) and are from American's Electronic Gate Reader ("EGR") records. The EGR records do not provide the exact time of individual passenger check-in, the check-in location (ticket counter vs. departure gate), or the identification of the check-in agent.

The EGR system for a particular flight is manually initiated by the gate agent usually several hours prior to boarding. The initiation of the EGR system is done at the discretion of the gate agent. At initiation, the system downloads information for the flight, such as the names of all passengers holding reservations, check in status, seat assignment (if pre-reserved), booking class, and destination city.

Following system initiation, the EGR system "polls" the Sabre passenger reservation system for any updates to this data. Prior to the start of boarding, the updates occur at approximately 15-minute intervals and provide a "snapshot" of any changes in information since the last update. For this reason, the ticket counter check-in times from the EGR system reflect only "approximate" times. During actual boarding of the flights, the "polling" process occurs more frequently, at approximately 15-second intervals. The EGR records the time that a passenger's boarding pass goes through the EGR and, provides an accurate record of when the passenger boards the aircraft.

So the boarding times are recorded accurately, with an uncertainty of plus or minus 15 seconds. If a passenger passed the gate at 7:37:48, the SABRE system would round-up the time to 7:37:50 or 7:38:00, but certainly NOT a time after 7:40 (the official push-back of AAL 11). While the system checks the passenger's reservation status every 15 minutes only, it does not create minute-long gaps between actual and recorded boarding time. The 9/11 Commissioners have completely ignored this difference. Why does their report imply that the inaccurate boarding times are inherent of the SABRE system if American Airlines declares in plain language that the system "provides an accurate record of when the passenger boards the aircraft"?

At 7:31 a.m. Wail Al-Shehri and Waleed Al-Shehri boarded American Flight #11. At 7:39 a.m. Atta and al Omari embarked on the aircraft and al Suqami boarded at 7:40 a.m. (PLACEHOLDER: THESE TIMES, WHICH ARE PULLED FROM AA'S SABRE RESPONSE SYSTEM, NEED FURTHER VERIFICATION BECAUSE THAT REPORT HAS SOME OTHER PASSENGERS "BOARDING" AFTER THE FLIGHT HAD PUSHED BACK). Page 9 of 60 - FO B4 Commission Meeting 3-30-04 Fdr- Tab C- 3-25-04 Working Draft- Narrative 2- The Terrorist Hijackings of September 11 166 | Aircraft Hijacking. https://www.scribd.com/document/15121435/FO-B4-Commission-Meeting-3-30-04-Fdr-Tab-C-3-25-04-Working-Draft-Narrative-2-The-Terrorist-Hijackings-of-September-11-166

Please note: This is not 100% correct: At 7:40 a.m. AAL 11's doors were closed. The actual push-back occurred at 7:45 a.m. as documented by the radio transcript between Boston Tower and Flight 11. However, this inaccuracy doesn't matter for the subject.

The need for further enquiry expressed in this paper is not reflected in the 9/11 Commission Report, which was released three months later. The (too late) boarding is confirmed by two passengers of AAL 11 - (Albert Filipov and Richard Ross) as well as flight attendant Amy Sweeney. They called their spouse from the airport to tell her/him that the flight was delayed. Furthermore, there are conflicting reports of the gate where AAL 11 started from. Apparently the passengers embarked on an airplane at gate 26, not at gate 32 as claimed by the 9/11 Commission.

Conflicting accounts regarding the departure gate of AAL 11...
There are conflicting accounts regarding the departure gate of AAL 11. Some sources say it was Gate 26, some say Gate 32. The 9/11 Commission Report was published half a year later and presented (which I believe) is confirmation for the oddities at Boston Logan Airport. In the footnotes we learn that some of the passengers of AAL 11 boarded the plane after the push-back! See below:

9. See TSA report, "Selectee Status of September 11th Hijackers," undated. For boarding and seating information, see AAL record, SABRE information on Flight 11, September. 11, 2001.These boarding times from the American system are approximate only; for Flight 11, they indicated that some passengers "boarded" after the aircraft had pushed back from the gate. See AAL response to the Commission's February 3, 2004, requests, March. 15, 2004. Chapter I, note 9

6. For Flight 11, two checkpoints provided access to the gate. The second was opened at 7:15 A.M. The FAA conducted many screener evaluations between September 11, 1999, and September 11, 2001.At the primary checkpoints, in aggregate, screeners met or exceeded the average for overall, physical search, and X-ray detection, while falling below the norm for metal detection. No FAA Special Assessments (by "red teams") were done at Logan security checkpoints during the two years prior to September 11, 2001. See FAA briefing materials, "Assessment and Testing Data for BOS, EWR, and IAD," Oct. 24, 2001.  Chapter I, Note 6




There was only one security checkpoint for Gate 32 (the gate according to the 9/11 Commission). However, this is very interesting - Gate 26 has to be entered through a different checkpoint. The airplane at Gate 32 was in fact N334AA, the "official" AAL 11. Its flight path (even the taxi path at the airport) is well documented until about 8:40 a.m. Therefor from 7:45 a.m. to 8:40 a.m. the airplane's position is correctly reflected by the "official" narrative. After 8:40 a.m. however, things become very different. N334AA seems to have passed east of NYC, crossing Long Island and turned west over JFK airport, before finally vanishing from the radar scopes, which is documented in the "official" NORAD communication recordings.

There is NO evidence that any regular passengers (besides some of the "special" ones) boarded this airplane. The majority of the passengers certainly boarded an airplane at Gate 26. It is not clear whether this airplane pushed-back from the gate at all ?

Flight 11 - Not scheduled to fly on 9/11, myth or fact...?
The idea that AA11 and AAL 77 was not scheduled to fly on 9/11 was discovered by the late Gerard Holmgren. This idea was also explored in James Fetzer’s 2007 book - The 9/11 Conspiracy, "The Scamming of America". Chapter 6, Page 144, titled - Some Holes in the Plane Stories, was written by Professor Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter. They state, "both American Flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled that day" and they give a footnote at the end of the chapter.

The "unknown" statistic logged in relation to AAL 11 on 9/11 in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) system data-base is often used as proof they never took-off on 9/11, yet there are other instances showing the same statistic of "UNKNOWN" during the year of 2001 involving AAL 11. AAL 11 appeared as a regular flight between Boston Logan International (BOS) and Los Angeles (LAX). I have copied and pasted below data from BTS system relating to all Tuesdays since July 3, 2001 to September 4, 2001. The BTS system returns "UNKNOW" along with the usual 00:00 data for September 4, 2001 and July 10, 2001. Also, there is no data at all available for August 7, 2001. (I have created the row because the system does not return anything at all for that date). In all other instances AAL 11 appears to have flown on all Tuesdays before 9/11. I don't think we can conclude that AAL 11 was not scheduled to fly on Tuesdays, or read too much into the listing where the data system returns a listing of “UNKNOW” as this also occurs in other instances before September 11, 2001. See below: 

Detailed Statistics Departures
Airport: Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH - Logan International (BOS)
Airline: American Airlines (AA)

Carrier Code Date (MM/DD/YYYY) Flight Number Tail Number Destination Airport Scheduled Departure Time Actual Departure Time Scheduled Elapsed Time (Minutes) Actual Elapsed Time (Minutes) Departure Delay (Minutes) Wheels-off Time Taxi-out Time (Minutes) Delay Carrier (Minutes) Delay Weather (Minutes) Delay National Aviation System (Minutes) Delay Security (Minutes) Delay Late Aircraft Arrival (Minutes)


AA 07/03/2001 11 N306AA LAX 07:45 07:52 366 350 7 08:04 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AA 07/10/2001 11 UNKNOW LAX 07:45 00:00 366 0 0 00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AA 07/17/2001 11 N301AA LAX 07:45 07:59 366 369 14 08:20 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AA 07/24/2001 11 N303AA LAX 07:45 07:49 366 367 4 08:11 22 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AA 07/31/2001 11 N305AA LAX 07:45 08:09 366 351 24 08:25 16 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AA 08/07/2001 11 N/A LAX N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AA 08/14/2001 11 N305AA LAX 07:45 07:41 366 378 -4 07:57 16 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AA 08/21/2001 11 N305AA LAX 07:45 07:46 366 361 1 08:09 23 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AA 08/28/2001 11 N321AA LAX 07:45 07:44 366 356 -1 07:56 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AA 09/04/2001 11 UNKNOW LAX 07:45 00:00 366 0 0 00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

  
  • AA 07/10/2001 11 UNKNOWN LAX 07:45 00:00 366 0 0 00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
  • AA 08/07/2001 11 N/A LAX N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
  • AA 09/04/2001 11 UNKNOWN LAX 07:45 00:00 366 0 0 00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).

A more plausible explanation for the AAL 11 “UNKNOWN” data listing in the system could be the fact that ‘Flight 198’ was the same plane as ‘Flight 11’ tail number N334AA, which is a pendulum flight with Flight 11, and Flight 198 being the inbound flight to Boston Logan International Airport (BOS) from San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and did indeed arrived at Gate 32 and was the same airplane tail number N334AA. There are statements of people working at the airport who clearly confirm this. 

DATE CARR. TAIL_No FL_No ORIG DEST CRS_DEP DEPART TAX_OUT W/OFF W/ON TAX_IN CRS_ARR ARRIV CANCLD DVERTD AIR_TIME
AA 09/10/2001 198 N334AA SFO 06:24 06:03 334 314 -21 05:52 11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).

Flight 198 arrived at 6:03 a.m. on 9/11. The reason it is listed under 9/10 is because it departed on that day. Obviously if a flight departs from the west coast in the evening and arrives at the east coast the next day, the arrival day is noted in the BTS database on the same day as the departure day therefor the day before. This is also the reason that you don't find arrival data for Flight 198 on 9/11 - there was no Flight 198 arriving at 9/12. This was the last tracked flight for N334AA before becoming the infamous Flight 11 on September 11, 2001. This has caused much of the confusion among 9/11 researchers, but it is definitely true. Check it with other west-east coast flights.

It definitely needs further investigation regarding the 'Flight 11' passengers boarding gates, as I am not convinced that all the passengers boarded at gate 32 as claimed by 9/11 Commission.
 
Thanks for reading and caring!


Tuesday, 4 June 2019

The 9/11 Airplane Cell-Phone Calls (Short Video)

By Mark Conlon


This short video explains why it was impossible in 2001 for the nine FBI reported cell phone calls to have been made from the jetliners in flight. Prior to 2004 cell phone calls from fast high flying aircraft were impossible because of the technology then in use. If the cell phone calls could not have been made from the planes in flight the "official" story is false.
In 2004 Qualcomm Incorporated announced in a July 15, 2004 press release: "American Airlines and Qualcomm Complete Test Flight to Evaluate In-Cabin Mobile Phone Use" https://www.qualcomm.com/news/release "Qualcomm Incorporated and American Airlines today successfully demonstrated in-cabin voice communication using commercially available CDMA mobile phones on a commercial American Airlines aircraft. The proof-of-concept demonstration flight originated out of the Dallas/Fort Worth International airport. During the approximate two-hour flight, passengers were able to place and receive phone calls and text messages on their mobile phones. 'We are pleased to have worked so closely with American Airlines to complete this proof-of-concept demonstration for the in-flight use of 3G CDNA technology,' said Dr. Irwin Jacobs, chairman and CEO of Qualcomm."

On 9/11, people receiving cell calls "allegedly" from the hijacked aircraft reported the unusual clarity of the calls, as if they were calling from the next room. However, cell phone calls in the Qualcomm demonstration, "was about the same as a regular cell call on the ground, other than the loud background noise on the MD-80 jet." http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/w
This lack of background noise could make one wonder if those cell calls were really being placed from?

"The Race To Allow Airborne Cell Phone Use" (Oct 1, 2004) - http://www.aviationtoday.com/2004/10/ "Several companies are racing toward a solution that combines satellite communications and onboard networks, from mid-2006, passengers should be able to begin using their own mobile phones for calls and text messaging. This service will be provided via the well-established Inmarsat constellation of geostationary satellites."

My Thoughts...

At this moment in time from my own research, I believe the phone calls were made from the ground, and not from any of the airplanes. I shall explain more about what I think the evidence indicates in future blog posts, however I do now think some passengers and flight attendants were part of the training exercises taking place that morning simulating hijacked airplanes.


Thanks for watching, reading and caring...