Actually, that wasn’t the only “call” shown in the records. There are 5 calls that weren’t specifically identified to any one person.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Please have the courtesy to click the link, where these questions are answered.
Well, I did. Besides the horrific layout, it does not say how you believe a cell phone couldn’t be used at on a plane.
The technology for that wasn’t developed until 2004. That’s not in the article but is what now known. To call someone from a plane at 30,000 feet and have a conversation is just about impossible, in 2001. That’s possibly why his wife’s phone didn’t work.
It was quite possible. Stop spreading disinformation .
Why’d the wife’s phone not work?
Read the link. The phones work but calls are frequently dropped.
The guy claims he spoke to his wife, yet FBI records show she never got through. Do Solicitor General’s do stuff like that, lying and such? Oh wait, a lawyer appointed by Clinton (I think). Of course…
Was the FBI recording his phonecalls?
Show me the records. Not a conspiracy site but the actual records.
[/quote]
How about the US court?
http://coop.vaed.uscourts.gov/moussaoui/flights.zip
All that this really means is that the guy embellished, like Hillary. Its only one event. Trouble is that its one of many.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Please have the courtesy to click the link, where these questions are answered.
Well, I did. Besides the horrific layout, it does not say how you believe a cell phone couldn’t be used at on a plane.
The technology for that wasn’t developed until 2004. That’s not in the article but is what now known. To call someone from a plane at 30,000 feet and have a conversation is just about impossible, in 2001. That’s possibly why his wife’s phone didn’t work.
It was quite possible. Stop spreading disinformation .
Why’d the wife’s phone not work?
Read the link. The phones work but calls are frequently dropped.
The guy claims he spoke to his wife, yet FBI records show she never got through. Do Solicitor General’s do stuff like that, lying and such? Oh wait, a lawyer appointed by Clinton (I think). Of course…
Was the FBI recording his phonecalls?
Show me the records. Not a conspiracy site but the actual records.
How about the US court?
http://coop.vaed.uscourts.gov/moussaoui/flights.zip
All that this really means is that the guy embellished, like Hillary. Its only one event. Trouble is that its one of many.
[/quote]
What is that link downloading?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Please have the courtesy to click the link, where these questions are answered.
Well, I did. Besides the horrific layout, it does not say how you believe a cell phone couldn’t be used at on a plane.
The technology for that wasn’t developed until 2004. That’s not in the article but is what now known. To call someone from a plane at 30,000 feet and have a conversation is just about impossible, in 2001. That’s possibly why his wife’s phone didn’t work.
It was quite possible. Stop spreading disinformation .
Why’d the wife’s phone not work?
Read the link. The phones work but calls are frequently dropped.
The guy claims he spoke to his wife, yet FBI records show she never got through. Do Solicitor General’s do stuff like that, lying and such? Oh wait, a lawyer appointed by Clinton (I think). Of course…
Was the FBI recording his phonecalls?
Show me the records. Not a conspiracy site but the actual records.
How about the US court?
http://coop.vaed.uscourts.gov/moussaoui/flights.zip
All that this really means is that the guy embellished, like Hillary. Its only one event. Trouble is that its one of many.
[/quote]
Like I said, and is part of the same record you’re using, there are 5 unidentified calls (as in these they couldn’t be attributed specifically to any one person}, 4 of which were connected for varying lengths of time. Two other calls were credited to Renee May, and one to Barbara Olson. Any number of the 5 remaining calls could be ones Olson made.
Edit: So, look for a second here. The only conspiracy is by those trying to fill some empty hole in their lives, or make a buck, by playing half ass internet sleuth with a tragedy. It’s pretty disgusting that people make these kind of implications based on crappy “research.” Or, even worse, deliberately present half truths and lies to make their case.
-
Cell phones did work. This is documented before 2001 even rolled around. Yes, already documented before 2001.
-
4 other connected calls. Any, or all, of which could be have been made by Olson.
So again, some truther did crap research, probably regurgitating what he’s read on some other “truth” site. Or, simply lied, so they could be the object of praise from a bunch of 9-11 “truth” cult followers.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The point is that Olson claims his wife called him (twice). But cell phones don’t work (in 2001) at that height. Then, the plane she was on didn’t have seat plane-to-ground phones. How’d she call him? The terrorists would have stopped her.
The call(s) didn’t originate from that plane.[/quote]
Yes they did. They worked just fine. They transmit at a quarter watt, and it only requires a watt to get the signal to a satellite. They only issues are EMI with the plane’s nav equipment and using multiple cell antennas due to the fact that you may be equidistant to many stations as opposed to just a few.