• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Sept 11 Conspiracy?!?!

Viper Driver said:
If you let other people do your thinking (and talking) for you, then you truly are a sucker. While you're out Googling, try "Occam's Razor" for the reasons why this video doesn't make any sense.

No offense, but aren't you doing the same thing as him? You may not be "googling," but I'm sure you're banking on some internet source as being reliable. I don't think its fair to criticize him for "letting other people do your thinking" when in reality, you're doing the same. (Unless you wrote the 9/11 Commission Report) :biggrin:
 
ViperDriver: Why has the government refused to release the tapes they confiscated?

Obviously your answer will be that you do not know. But use your imagination. You are an intelligent individual. Come up with some possible reasons for why they would have FBI agents seize these tapes, instruct employees at both locations to not speak of the incident, and then refuse to release the tapes in the 5 years since.

In the 5 years since, I know several researchers who have put in numerous requests for these 2 surveylance tapes, and all requests have been denied citing "national security".

Remember that they are surveylance tapes taken from hundreds of yards away. So they only show the outside of the plane and Pentagon from a far distance. So what could be on these tapes that if released, could threaten national security?

Obviously the tapes show something that they do not want to public to see. The Bush administration absolutely loves to remind people of the 9/11 attacks. Their failure to publicly use these videos of the plane slamming into the Pentagon speaks volumes.
 
Eric5273 said:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html

Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

Is this the gas station that's referred to when the Pentagon crash footage was released back in May?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

CNN.com said:
The video requested by Judicial Watch was taken from security cameras at the Pentagon, the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, and Virginia Department of Transportation traffic cameras.

Conspiracist Website said:
The pentagon's gas station

The NEXCOMM/CITGO-gas station is the last place over which the plane flew before crossing the highway and diving onto the Pentagon. Jose Velasquez, the employee at this station heard the plane, just by the station, then saw the explosion on the Pentagon. Within the minutes after it, he said, FBI came in the station and took the video before he could even see it. Read witness account.

Not sure if it's been released and I can't find the government website where they officially released the videos.
 
ABhagat said:
No offense, but aren't you doing the same thing as him? You may not be "googling," but I'm sure you're banking on some internet source as being reliable. I don't think its fair to criticize him for "letting other people do your thinking" when in reality, you're doing the same. (Unless you wrote the 9/11 Commission Report) :biggrin:

Um, there is an absolutely gigantic difference between what I am doing and what "he" is doing. "He" posts a link to a video with some very outrageous claims in it, yet the author of the video is anonymous. Conversely, there are plenty of peer-reviewed papers out there from REAL EXPERTS with REAL NAMES, who explain things quite well. Unless the entire engineering/aviation world is in on the conspiracy and we're fooling all of you, I think that anyone truly interested in finding out the truth (or, more specifically, what ISN'T true) would have no problem nowadays separating the wheat from the chaff.

Conspiracy nutjobs out there seem to think that one web page is as credible as another, no matter what the source is. You see, I've talked to the experts, and I would probably qualify as an expert myself on the aviation side of things. I've done my research, I've looked objectively at the conspiracy theories (which were actually hatched on some message boards before the sun set on 9/11/01) and there has yet to be any real evidence to back up their kooky claims.

For the life of me, I seriously have no idea how anyone of sound mind still believes all of this b.s.. I hate to say it, but I chalk it up to either laziness or "selective illiteracy" where people only read things that agree with their pet theories. I've been running my own message board dedicated to conspiracy theories for over six years now, and I see the same behavior out of "true believers" in other conspiracies as well.

Oh and Eric, you're still on my ignore list, but I read your message anyways to see if you still believe this crap. Yep! Wow, truly a "true believer."

If you were the government, why would you release a videotape that graphically shows the deaths of hundreds of people? Especially considering the fact that the ONLY reason to release it would be to appease the pro-conspiracy folks, who are a tiny minority and would probably not accept the video as authentic anyways. There is plenty of evidence out there to show that a 757 did indeed hit the Pentagon. There's not really any reason to release the footage IMHO, especially when it will probably end up on an Islamic web site in the form of a Bin Laden propaganda film just like the other images from 9/11 have been.

I find it funny how Al Qaida have admitted to the 9/11 plot for some time now, yet you people still keep looking at the Bush adminstration for signs of a conspiracy.
 
Malibu Rapper said:
Is this the gas station that's referred to when the Pentagon crash footage was released back in May?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html


Not sure if it's been released and I can't find the government website where they officially released the videos.

No. The video released was from a camera at the Pentagon. And they did not even release a "video". They released a few frames. I watched it. I did not see anything but a big blur that could have been anything.

The problem is that the camera was too close, and was aimed at the side of the building. So it did not capture the plane approaching the building. It only captured the impact. Since the plane was travelling so fast, the impact just looks like a huge blur.

BTW, I am not of the belief that a missle hit the Pentagon. I surely do think it was a plane. There are plenty of eye-witnesses who said they saw a plane. I know you do not take much stock in eye-witnesses, but I do. Plus all the telephone polls that were knocked down. But it would not surprise me if it was a different plane -- a drone of some sort.

There is no way that lousy novice of a pilot was able to make a 270 degree turn at 400+ mph while rapidly decending and dive head-on into the Pentagon without so much as grazing the lawn. It was a 757, not a F-16. A much more believable explanation is that it was a drone. You may ask what then happened to Flight 77? Maybe it's in the middle of the Atlantic. Who knows....

If the 5 Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Military all were sure they could pull off the "switcharoo" back in 1962, then I'm pretty sure they could pull it off 39 years later. :wink:
 
Again, I'm not with or against the conspiracy, I just see this as tragic event of terrorism. So please don't flame on my following question.

Why do the photo's show the poles bent the opposite way of the building? And if the plane was able to hit the poles then it would be low enough to blow the cars away because of how fast it was flying. Yes or no? and please give details.

Again, i'm only asking to hear both sides.
 
I'm not letting the net do my thinking. I simply observed what was presented, did my own fact searching, and drew my own conclusions.

The points you attached are weak.

Lets talk about this airplane going through an 8 foot steel wall on the other side of the building...oh but no body parts, no titanium left, no nothing left.

Lets talk about the airport that they landed in Ohio being shut down by the FBI just prior to landing (now that is random no?)

Talk about the 400% and 1100% increase in short selling in American Airlines stock just before the attack (day 2 and day 1 before) - involving 100's of millions of dollars.

Phone call from Ms. Rice advising someone '...not to get on the airplane.'

People making cell phone calls from the airplane at 32,000 feet. Three years later, AA is spending millions to get technology into planes to allow cell phone calls from this height. Wait, why do they need to spend millions if eveyone in 2001 could make those phone calls already....

Osama wearing a gold band (against his religion) and writing with his right hand (he's left handed) in the video where he admits 'I did it'. (not to mention it doesn't look like him).

Engineer that worked on the project to provide the steel to the twin towers, disputed other reports that the steel could have melted by 1100 degree burning jet fuel when it takes 3000 degrees to melt the metal.
- then gets fired for his statements.

Gravity would have pulled free falling steel from the height of the twin towers down to the ground in 8.4 seconds. The entire building fell in just 10 seconds. Doesn't see like it had a little help from an explosion in the basement. NUMEROUS reports of an explosion inside the basement.
(it's okay to belive the eye witnesses saw an airplane, but not okay to belive they hear explosions from inside the building at ground level.)

Inaccurate list by the media of the innocents involved. Only some of the parties on the planes ever made it to the compensation list.

There is motive: money-billions of it, a presidential election, the pharmaceutical industry, oil and gas industry...


The list just goes on and on and on.

I watched the video completed open minded. I was like a lot of Americans still are: saw some burning buildings, heard some screaming, saw a bunch of crying, witnessed America pull together...and belived it was all because of foreign terrorists.

It seems the nay sayers, the TRUE AMERICANS, can't seem to stomach a few documenatries (let alone watch the entire thing). I saw lots of legitimate questions raised, and not many, if any answers given.

Am I glad I sleep in America? You bet. Is it my right to ask a few questions when I don't feel things add up? Sure. Should the terrorist still be stopped? Absolutely.
 
FrEsHaZzBuRu said:
Again, I'm not with or against the conspiracy, I just see this as tragic event of terrorism. So please don't flame on my following question.

Why do the photo's show the poles bent the opposite way of the building? And if the plane was able to hit the poles then it would be low enough to blow the cars away because of how fast it was flying. Yes or no? and please give details.

Again, i'm only asking to hear both sides.

First off, if you are asking these questions on an NSX forum, you're already way behind. For aviation-related questions, why not get off your tush and ask someone on an aviation-related message board? Sorry to single you out, so I'll broaden the brush stroke a bit......there are quite a few folks who've posted on this thread who would rather keep their heads in the sand and listen to the conspiracy peddlers than actually ask the tough, logical questions from real, credible experts.

As for your question about the poles, I can't find any indication of the poles being bent backwards. From what I've seen, the poles that were hit were indeed knocked in the direction of the flight path.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/020.html

Also, if the poles were somehow knocked in the opposite direction, how would that alter your views on the alleged conspiracy?

And your question about the wake turbulence is valid, but realize that the plane was overhead for a fraction of a second, and in a descent which means that it probably wasn't making a lot of lift to generate the wake vortices sufficient enough to overturn automobiles. As for the thrust of the jet engines, I believe that there's a Mythbusters episode out there that would probably rule out the jet engines doing much damage to the vehicles as well.
 
Viper Driver said:
First off, if you are asking these questions on an NSX forum, you're already way behind. For aviation-related questions, why not get off your tush and ask someone on an aviation-related message board? Sorry to single you out, so I'll broaden the brush stroke a bit......there are quite a few folks who've posted on this thread who would rather keep their heads in the sand and listen to the conspiracy peddlers than actually ask the tough, logical questions from real, credible experts.

I only asked on this forum because this thread was about it, and also the only two forums i am registered to (as well as interested in) are NsxPrime and Honda-Tech.

Viper Driver said:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/020.html

Also, if the poles were somehow knocked in the opposite direction, how would that alter your views on the alleged conspiracy?


Thanks. My view would not change, either way. I already pointed out that i have no stand in this controversy; I believe it is terrorism, but i keep my mind opened to possibilities. Our government isn't perfect or always truthful.

Viper Driver said:
And your question about the wake turbulence is valid, but realize that the plane was overhead for a fraction of a second, and in a descent which means that it probably wasn't making a lot of lift to generate the wake vortices sufficient enough to overturn automobiles. As for the thrust of the jet engines, I believe that there's a Mythbusters episode out there that would probably rule out the jet engines doing much damage to the vehicles as well.

I understand what you are saying here. Basically, on the runway, an aircraft would create the most lift to get off the ground, than in flight (takes more work to get the plane moving than to keep it moving).



I still would recommend anyone who hasn't seen the video to watch it completely; only to realize there is always room for error. We as American's have the right to question, even if the actual is face value, at least we'd know both sides (fiction or not).

Theories lack physical analysis which is why i can't believe the video, but it's good to take an opposed look at every situation.

Also, in addition to that video, here are the statements that contradicts all the info from the video. Just putting out both sides to take a look at.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
 
Last edited:
johnny010 said:
I'm not letting the net do my thinking. I simply observed what was presented, did my own fact searching, and drew my own conclusions.

The points you attached are weak.

Hoo, boy. As if this wasn't the hypocirtical statement of the year. Your entire post is all accusation with nothing to back any of it up!


Lets talk about this airplane going through an 8 foot steel wall on the other side of the building...oh but no body parts, no titanium left, no nothing left.

It's 8 feet of concrete, not steel, and much of the thin-skinned aluminum plane and the soft human contents inside were indeed vaporized upon impact. It's been shown over and over online, but here's a video of an F-4 Phantom hitting a concrete barrier at 500 miles per hour.

Click Here


Lets talk about the airport that they landed in Ohio being shut down by the FBI just prior to landing (now that is random no?)

What airport was shut down, and what aircraft landed there? Do you have something to back this claim up?

Talk about the 400% and 1100% increase in short selling in American Airlines stock just before the attack (day 2 and day 1 before) - involving 100's of millions of dollars.

Already been disproven......

Snopes link
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.


Phone call from Ms. Rice advising someone '...not to get on the airplane.'

Sorry, can't even find a conspiracy link to that. Got some documentation of this?


People making cell phone calls from the airplane at 32,000 feet. Three years later, AA is spending millions to get technology into planes to allow cell phone calls from this height. Wait, why do they need to spend millions if eveyone in 2001 could make those phone calls already....

Let's see, 32,000 feet (which isn't the altitude Flight 93 was at, by the way) is a little more than five miles above the ground (at sea level) Do you mean to tell me that you are supposed to lose reception on your cell phone if you are further than five miles away from the nearest cell tower? Hmmm....I've been four times that distance from my provider's towers and still been able to talk on my phone. Maybe you should look into getting a new service provider.

Osama wearing a gold band (against his religion) and writing with his right hand (he's left handed) in the video where he admits 'I did it'. (not to mention it doesn't look like him).

Well, none of us will ever know the truth on this one. However, Al Qaeda has admitted to the 9/11 attacks since then, so who cares? Here is but one example....

Al-Quaida claims responsibility for 7/7 and 9/11

"Al-Zawahiri described the 7/7 attacks as "a slap to the policy of British Prime Minister Tony Blair" and called the attacks a response to the UK's foreign policy "just as 9/11 was a response to America's".

Engineer that worked on the project to provide the steel to the twin towers, disputed other reports that the steel could have melted by 1100 degree burning jet fuel when it takes 3000 degrees to melt the metal.
- then gets fired for his statements.

Got supporting evidence to back up the claim that he was fired, including a name and contact info?

By the way, steel weakens at temperatures far less than 3000 degrees.

Here's some light reading by actual experts that should keep you busy:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Gravity would have pulled free falling steel from the height of the twin towers down to the ground in 8.4 seconds. The entire building fell in just 10 seconds. Doesn't see like it had a little help from an explosion in the basement. NUMEROUS reports of an explosion inside the basement.
(it's okay to belive the eye witnesses saw an airplane, but not okay to belive they hear explosions from inside the building at ground level.)

Once the collapse was initiated, there was not much that could slow the collapse of the building down. Look at videos of the collapse of each building, and there is absolutely no indication of the floors underneath the impact zone collapsing prior to them being pulverized by the top section of the building falling. If there were bombs going off in the basement, the entire building would have started to fall rather than just the top section.

Again, there is yet to be one credible structural engineer come forward to dispute the official explanation as to why the towers fell. Care to address this?


Inaccurate list by the media of the innocents involved. Only some of the parties on the planes ever made it to the compensation list.

Well, I can't really recall the media being all that accurate, anyways. Why is this supposed to be an exception?


There is motive: money-billions of it, a presidential election, the pharmaceutical industry, oil and gas industry...

Yeah, and and we're all raking it in now, aren't we? We've got the pipeline built across Afghanistan, and there's plenty of oil to go around! Oh wait, maybe not......

By the way, how in the heck is the pharmaceutical industry profiting from this?

It seems the nay sayers, the TRUE AMERICANS, can't seem to stomach a few documenatries (let alone watch the entire thing). I saw lots of legitimate questions raised, and not many, if any answers given.

Have you even read this thread? Are you blind? There are plenty of answers here, and on another thread that Eric5273 decided to take off-topic....
NOT Going to Disneyland

Good evening.
 
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

When I asked Nasypany about the conspiracy theories—the people who believe that he, or someone like him, secretly ordered the shootdown of United 93 and covered it up—the corners of his mouth began to quiver. Then, I think to the surprise of both of us, he suddenly put his head in his hands and cried. "Flight 93 was not shot down," he said when he finally looked up. "The individuals on that aircraft, the passengers, they actually took the aircraft down. Because of what those people did, I didn't have to do anything."
 
Educate yourselves.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

As a brother firefighter to the 343 that died that day, and the hundreds that are slowly dying due to the respiratory illnesses resulting from that day, it absolutely DISGUSTS ME that people would try to turn September 11th into a political football, going even so far as to claim our administration would have a part in that. I don't care WHERE you fall on the political spectrum, if you believe that you have a screw looser than Pat Buchanan.


A select portion addressing the idea of explosives:

Popular Mechanics said:
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.






Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.


"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
 
Eric5273 said:
A much more believable explanation is that it was a drone. You may ask what then happened to Flight 77? Maybe it's in the middle of the Atlantic.

Actually, a more believable explanation is that AA flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. I know that sounds like crazy talk, but if you look at 'all the new evidence' that has come to light... I think I might be on to something here.:wink:

The drone theory is creative, perhaps you should write a script and send it off to Mel Gibson so we can all enjoy a sequel to Conspiracy Theory. The 'drone' you speak of was a full size commercial carrier complete with an American Airlines paint job and passengers making cell phone calls that were relayed through Northern Virginia cell phone towers. Since I know more than one eye-witness, I don't need the media to verify the paint job claim. And to those who doubt that cell phones work in flight, in 2002 I successfully made a call on my cell phone while in flight during a family emergency. As long as you are close enough to a cell tower they will work. As to being in the middle of the Atlantic, you would have needed a satellite phone for that one back in 2001. In addition, there are scores of air traffic radar towers (civilian and govt) that somehow missed a full sized commercial jet flying out over open water and then going down. Even small planes like JFK Jr's are accurately tracked offshore.
 
Back
Top