"We Know in 2001 Cell Phones Worked Up To 50,000 Feet and..."

[Ravi]

The first known report:

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL: NEWS: Flight attendant made call on cell phone to mom i...

That was accepted by many people and if I thought it would be worth the time I could link recent posts from your camp saying she used a cell.

The point is that you are arguing that her CELL PHONE call was not possible, but there is no validated evidence that I know of that confirms it was either a CELL PHONE call or an AIRFONE call. THAT makes your argument a moot point.

No it does not make it a moot point. If it was not possible a cell call could be made from that speed and altitude from 77 at 9:12am then we have eliminated one method of contact. Since it wasn't a cell phone then it must have been an airphone. Where are the phone records? That is what you keep ignoring. The CR never proves how the calls were made and to this day, over nine years later, nobody anywhere has ever produced the records showing she or olson called from 77.

What speed and altitude was that?

 

[Gamolon]

The first known report:

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL: NEWS: Flight attendant made call on cell phone to mom i...

That was accepted by many people and if I thought it would be worth the time I could link recent posts from your camp saying she used a cell.

The point is that you are arguing that her CELL PHONE call was not possible, but there is no validated evidence that I know of that confirms it was either a CELL PHONE call or an AIRFONE call. THAT makes your argument a moot point.

No it does not make it a moot point. If it was not possible a cell call could be made from that speed and altitude from 77 at 9:12am then we have eliminated one method of contact. Since it wasn't a cell phone then it must have been an airphone. Where are the phone records? That is what you keep ignoring. The CR never proves how the calls were made and to this day, over nine years later, nobody anywhere has ever produced the records showing she or olson called from 77.

May's parents said the call was made to them from her. You don't believe them? Is that why you want it verified with evidence?

 

[CurveLight]

The point is that you are arguing that her CELL PHONE call was not possible, but there is no validated evidence that I know of that confirms it was either a CELL PHONE call or an AIRFONE call. THAT makes your argument a moot point.

No it does not make it a moot point. If it was not possible a cell call could be made from that speed and altitude from 77 at 9:12am then we have eliminated one method of contact. Since it wasn't a cell phone then it must have been an airphone. Where are the phone records? That is what you keep ignoring. The CR never proves how the calls were made and to this day, over nine years later, nobody anywhere has ever produced the records showing she or olson called from 77.

May's parents said the call was made to them from her. You don't believe them? Is that why you want it verified with evidence?

No it does not make it a moot point. If it was not possible a cell call could be made from that speed and altitude from 77 at 9:12am then we have eliminated one method of contact. Since it wasn't a cell phone then it must have been an airphone. Where are the phone records? That is what you keep ignoring. The CR never proves how the calls were made and to this day, over nine years later, nobody anywhere has ever produced the records showing she or olson called from 77.

 

[Ravi]

No it does not make it a moot point. If it was not possible a cell call could be made from that speed and altitude from 77 at 9:12am then we have eliminated one method of contact. Since it wasn't a cell phone then it must have been an airphone. Where are the phone records? That is what you keep ignoring. The CR never proves how the calls were made and to this day, over nine years later, nobody anywhere has ever produced the records showing she or olson called from 77.

May's parents said the call was made to them from her. You don't believe them? Is that why you want it verified with evidence?

No it does not make it a moot point. If it was not possible a cell call could be made from that speed and altitude from 77 at 9:12am then we have eliminated one method of contact. Since it wasn't a cell phone then it must have been an airphone. Where are the phone records? That is what you keep ignoring. The CR never proves how the calls were made and to this day, over nine years later, nobody anywhere has ever produced the records showing she or olson called from 77.

What speed and altitude was that?

btw, something that looked suspiciously like a phone record was posted on the previous page.

 

[CurveLight]

Ravi, what part of my last post directed to you was confusing? You're a shitbag ****. Period. You displayed that when you claimed cell phones and airphones are the same thing after I proved olson said his wife used a cell phone. **** off.

Airphones used cellular towers and are considered a type of cell phone.

All you have proven is that people can and do get confused about what to call different types of telephones and that journalists can editorialize sloppily.

Olsen stated he didn't know what phone his wife called him from. And in fact, he couldn't know if the calls came through his office switchboard.

What all this proves in your mind is the question of the day. But you are too much of a coward to answer.

You're a useless whiny lying *****.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics. He never supports that claim, but since he said it then it must be true! Unfortunately, the facts do not support his claim. The HC is running its old bullshit "look at 9E" which is really just airwave fodder for people gullible and insecure enough to simply accept what the government says and to not question such stellar publications such as Poopular Mekanics.

Here's some info:

"Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls." (WP,July 27, 2004)

Aviation Week (07/20/04) described this new technology in an authoritative report published in July 2004:

"Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring [July 2004] ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to- ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground. For the test flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, the aircraft was equipped with an antenna in the front and rear of the cabin to transmit cell phone calls to a small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station. This "pico cell" transmitted cell phone calls from the aircraft via a Globalstar satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network"


Needless to say, neither the service, nor the "third generation" hardware, nor the "Picco cell" CDMA base station inside the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11, 2001."
The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls

Wow. There was not a whole lot of buzz about those announcements. How do OCTAs defend the claim cell calls were possible?

I went on about 6 flights between Boston and Nebraska between 2005 and 2006 and my cell signal dropped shortly after take off and didn't come back until after landing and this was the usual for other passengers trying to use their cells as well. Personal experiences aside, there is no evidence cell phones would have been operational on 9/11 from those altitudes and speeds. For flight 77 the first claimed cell call occurred at 9:12 am. According to the flight path by the 9E CR, flight 77 would have been too high and traveling too fast for calls to be possible.

I have no doubt nobody can prove cell phones were capable of conversational operations on 9/11 on flight 77 at 9:12 am. Is there anyone who can prove that was possible? I've provided evidence it was not possible. I anticipate two usual events: the usual dickless whiny wonders of fizzbitch, Snitch *****, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.

I don't think flight 77 was that high in the air at the time, was it?

 

[Fizz]

Ravi, what part of my last post directed to you was confusing? You're a shitbag ****. Period. You displayed that when you claimed cell phones and airphones are the same thing after I proved olson said his wife used a cell phone. **** off.

Airphones used cellular towers and are considered a type of cell phone.

All you have proven is that people can and do get confused about what to call different types of telephones and that journalists can editorialize sloppily.

Olsen stated he didn't know what phone his wife called him from. And in fact, he couldn't know if the calls came through his office switchboard.

What all this proves in your mind is the question of the day. But you are too much of a coward to answer.

You're a useless whiny lying *****.

crybaby.

 

[CurveLight]

That's what I'm asking you!!!!

You are arguing that she couldn't have made a call from a CELL PHONE!!!! I am asking you to provide the link or statement that led you to ask for evidence that she DID make a call from a cell phone.

If it was just that she MADE A CALL, then it is possible that she called from an Airfone and you asking for evidence of a CELL PHONE call or arguing that CELL PHONE calls are not possible at 30,000 is moot.

Period.

I have seen a scan of a record for her call that shows she swiped a credit card to make the call. which would mean an Airfone, but I don't know where that scan was obtained and don;t want to provide it as evidence for proof that it was made from an Airfone because of that reason.

So again, please provide the link or statement that provoked you to come into this thread and argue that CELL PHONE calls are not possible. Who made this statement?

The first known report:

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL: NEWS: Flight attendant made call on cell phone to mom i...

That was accepted by many people and if I thought it would be worth the time I could link recent posts from your camp saying she used a cell.

Here is what I found:
Google Image Result for http://www.911myths.com/images/4/4e/Maycallrecord2.png

As I said, I'm not sure where this was obtained. It clearly show a credit card swipe for the second entry which means an Airfone was used if the paperwork is valid.

Here is hypocrisy in full swing. That is a joke of a site yet it's okay if bullshit sites get used to support the OCT. How about this? How is it possible some anonymous net user got a copy of that receipt but the Commission couldn't get one? The FBI? I've seen that bullshit posted before. Got anything else?

 

[CurveLight]

Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics. He never supports that claim, but since he said it then it must be true! Unfortunately, the facts do not support his claim. The HC is running its old bullshit "look at 9E" which is really just airwave fodder for people gullible and insecure enough to simply accept what the government says and to not question such stellar publications such as Poopular Mekanics.

Here's some info:

"Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls." (WP,July 27, 2004)

Aviation Week (07/20/04) described this new technology in an authoritative report published in July 2004:

"Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring [July 2004] ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to- ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground. For the test flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, the aircraft was equipped with an antenna in the front and rear of the cabin to transmit cell phone calls to a small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station. This "pico cell" transmitted cell phone calls from the aircraft via a Globalstar satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network"


Needless to say, neither the service, nor the "third generation" hardware, nor the "Picco cell" CDMA base station inside the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11, 2001."
The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls

Wow. There was not a whole lot of buzz about those announcements. How do OCTAs defend the claim cell calls were possible?

I went on about 6 flights between Boston and Nebraska between 2005 and 2006 and my cell signal dropped shortly after take off and didn't come back until after landing and this was the usual for other passengers trying to use their cells as well. Personal experiences aside, there is no evidence cell phones would have been operational on 9/11 from those altitudes and speeds. For flight 77 the first claimed cell call occurred at 9:12 am. According to the flight path by the 9E CR, flight 77 would have been too high and traveling too fast for calls to be possible.

I have no doubt nobody can prove cell phones were capable of conversational operations on 9/11 on flight 77 at 9:12 am. Is there anyone who can prove that was possible? I've provided evidence it was not possible. I anticipate two usual events: the usual dickless whiny wonders of fizzbitch, Snitch *****, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.

I don't think flight 77 was that high in the air at the time, was it?

It isn't only the altitude but speed as well. You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph? There are three reasons cell phones didn't work on planes: interference from the aircraft itself, altitude, and speed. The new technology involves putting antennas in the aircraft so they will hold the signal from the towers. That is why seatback phones used satellites. Flight 77's cruising altitude was 35,000 feet and was there when it was hijacked. The hijackers would have stayed at a high altitude to avoid Primary radar detection after turning off the xponder that feeds the Secondary radars that are used by commercial Controllers.

There is no way to definitely confirm the exact altitude and speed but given the data available we know the first call at 9:12 was 25 minutes prior to the crash. Doing the math shows it was well over 15,000 feet going at least 350 mph. I'm low balling those numbers. What is also interesting is where the exact time of 9:12 came from. Without the phone records, how can anyone claim the exact time?

 

[Ravi]

Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics. He never supports that claim, but since he said it then it must be true! Unfortunately, the facts do not support his claim. The HC is running its old bullshit "look at 9E" which is really just airwave fodder for people gullible and insecure enough to simply accept what the government says and to not question such stellar publications such as Poopular Mekanics.

Here's some info:

"Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls." (WP,July 27, 2004)

Aviation Week (07/20/04) described this new technology in an authoritative report published in July 2004:

"Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring [July 2004] ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to- ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground. For the test flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, the aircraft was equipped with an antenna in the front and rear of the cabin to transmit cell phone calls to a small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station. This "pico cell" transmitted cell phone calls from the aircraft via a Globalstar satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network"


Needless to say, neither the service, nor the "third generation" hardware, nor the "Picco cell" CDMA base station inside the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11, 2001."
The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls

Wow. There was not a whole lot of buzz about those announcements. How do OCTAs defend the claim cell calls were possible?

I went on about 6 flights between Boston and Nebraska between 2005 and 2006 and my cell signal dropped shortly after take off and didn't come back until after landing and this was the usual for other passengers trying to use their cells as well. Personal experiences aside, there is no evidence cell phones would have been operational on 9/11 from those altitudes and speeds. For flight 77 the first claimed cell call occurred at 9:12 am. According to the flight path by the 9E CR, flight 77 would have been too high and traveling too fast for calls to be possible.

I have no doubt nobody can prove cell phones were capable of conversational operations on 9/11 on flight 77 at 9:12 am. Is there anyone who can prove that was possible? I've provided evidence it was not possible. I anticipate two usual events: the usual dickless whiny wonders of fizzbitch, Snitch *****, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.

I don't think flight 77 was that high in the air at the time, was it?

It isn't only the altitude but speed as well. You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph? There are three reasons cell phones didn't work on planes: interference from the aircraft itself, altitude, and speed. The new technology involves putting antennas in the aircraft so they will hold the signal from the towers. That is why seatback phones used satellites. Flight 77's cruising altitude was 35,000 feet and was there when it was hijacked. The hijackers would have stayed at a high altitude to avoid Primary radar detection after turning off the xponder that feeds the Secondary radars that are used by commercial Controllers.

There is no way to definitely confirm the exact altitude and speed but given the data available we know the first call at 9:12 was 25 minutes prior to the crash. Doing the math shows it was well over 15,000 feet going at least 350 mph. I'm low balling those numbers. What is also interesting is where the exact time of 9:12 came from. Without the phone records, how can anyone claim the exact time?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It isn't only the altitude but speed as well. You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph?

Maybe you should think about changing your cell phone service. I have no trouble using mine at 60 mph.

 

[Ravi]

265 The records available for the phone calls from American Airlines Flight 77 do not allow for a
determination of which of four "connected calls to unknown numbers" represent the two connections
between Barbara and Ted Olson, although it is believed that all four of these calls represent
communications between Barbara Olson and her husband's office (all family members of the FligAt 77
passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight,
and only Renee May's parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls). The four calls
were at 9:15:34 for one minute, 42 seconds; 915 for four minutes, 34 seconds; 9:25:48 for two minutes,
34 seconds; and 9:30:56 for four minutes, 20 seconds. FBI report, "American Airlines Airphone Usage,"
Sept. 20, 2001.
266 A witness in Theodore Olson's office recalled that at approximately 9:00 A.M., she received a series of
si. to eight collect calls from an unknown caller that did not go through These were followed by a collect
call from Barbara Olson, via an operator, which the witness accepted and transferred to Ted Olson.
According to the witness, this call was followed a few (perhaps five) minutes later by a direct call from
Barbara Olson, which the witness put through to Ted Olson. FBI report of investigation, interview of
witness, September 14, 2001.

This is from the 9/11 Commission staff report. Apparently the airfone records from flight 77 are thought to be Olson's...not Mays. I wonder, would a flight attendant have to make a payment to use an airfone or did they have access to a non-public airfone. If she didn't use her personal cell phone, that is.

 

[Ravi]

It isn't only the altitude but speed as well. You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph?

Maybe you should think about changing your cell phone service. I have no trouble using mine at 60 mph.

I've used mine at 90 mph...but after that I'm too afraid. The speed might affect the radiation that comes out of the phone and harm my brain.

 

[DiveCon]

You're nothing but a dishonest shitbag. You first tried to explain olson's cell phone claim by saying CNN was mistaken. Pay. Attention. You. Dumb. *******. Lying. *****. If airphones and cell phones are the same thing as you claim then how in the hell could CNN have been "mistaken?" You know damn well cell and airphones are two different types of phones.

Your OCTA buddies saw you claim cell and airphones are the same thing and not one of the little bitches had the balls to be honest and call you out on it. I'm not surprised at all because they have proven themselves to cowardly ***** over and over and over. It's almost laughable but this will be a great bookmark showing how dishonest you are.

When you get pwned you simply whine like a little **** and say the op premise is retarded. The good news for you is you are surrounded by lying cowardly bitches who are just like you so you can be sure you can lie as often as you want and they will never call out your bullshit.

Airborne telephones work via one of two methods: cellular and satellite. The first, cellular communications, mimics the technology used by terrestrially based cell phones. After engineers developed strategies that prevented airborne cell phone transmissions from interfering with terrestrial cell phones (changing the polarity of the signals and keeping the signal strength down), the Federal Communications Commission approved the first of what will surely be a wave of airborne cell phones.


AirCell Inc. now offers its AT.01 cell phone system for $3,995. This includes the phone itself, a transceiver, and a low-profile antenna. AirCell's $7,400 AGT.01 cell phone system comes with two transceivers�one for use in airborne communications, the other for use on the ground�making this a dual-purpose telephone. In either application, the methodology is the same: Pilots and passengers make calls by first contacting terrestrial cell phone antennas; then the transmission is shunted along to the recipient via land lines and/or other cell phone transmission antennas. Faxes, e-mails, connection with the Internet, and uplinking of weather graphics and text information can all be performed using the AirCell network. Today's maximum baud rate of the AirCell system�like every other current airborne phone system�is 9,600 baud. However, AirCell expects to see high-speed modems in use within two years.

Notice the date of the article: November 2000

AOPA Online: Future Flight: Communications Revolution

I'm sure the Bush administration planted this information on the internets to fool us all.

You are one stoopid mother ******. Keep dancing.

she just proved you wrong once again, dipshit

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It isn't only the altitude but speed as well. You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph?

Maybe you should think about changing your cell phone service. I have no trouble using mine at 60 mph.

I've used mine at 90 mph...but after that I'm too afraid. The speed might affect the radiation that comes out of the phone and harm my brain.

If you wear a tinfoil hat you'll have no problem.

 

[DiveCon]

I just looked back through the posts again and you worthless ***** are sooooooooo ******* stoopid. Do you not realize how ******* idiotic your complaints are? How dishonest you are? You're a bunch of ******* *****.

more TPP

 

[DiveCon]

Rotfl! Are you ******* serious? You're bitching about "a" and "the?" LOL! Talk about minutia! It doesn't change anything you ******* whiny *****.

I've never denied challenging people to prove May's call could have come from a cell phone at 9:12. Or are you so ******* twisted in your own delusions you think I was saying there was no way May could have called at all? You dumbfuck. I wasn't challenging people to prove she could have called from a seatback phone at 9:12. It was only about using a cell phone. What a ******* idiot! Then you accuse me of being dishonest based on your ******* stupidity! Lol!

You are ******* too stupid for words.

I asked you to provide the link or statement in which someone said that May specifically made a CELL PHONE call that had led you to issue a challenge for people to provide proof it was?

Who is making the claim that May had made her call from A CELL phone that you have to provide evidence that it was not possible?

If you can't provide that, then why the **** did you bring it up? There is no validated evidence that she had made a call from a cell phone or Airfone. So why the **** are you arguing that it's possible or not?!?!?!?

Holy shit you are stupid.

You tried saying that the CR made that claim about cell and you got your ass handed to you about that. To which you posted an apology that you were wrong. So who is making the claim that May's call was made from a CELL PHONE that you are asking us to provide evidence for?

If there is no validated evidence she made a call from a cell or airphone then how did she call her parents?

then you are saying the May's LIED when they called AA to report what they were told when their daughter called them

the evidence is THEY GOT THE CALL

dipshit

 

[DiveCon]

Curve, the 9/11 Troofers Association called and asked me to tell you to stfu...you are actually embarrassing them with your stupidity.

btw...to your OP. The new generation of cell phones with pico cells, etc, were never made because cell phone calls couldn't be made from airplanes. They were made because it was considered unsafe to the airliner in question AND it interrupted service for those on the ground.

It also revealed that some fliers are already making phone calls in defiance of an industrywide ban: Indeed, one to four cell calls were surreptitiously made on each flight studied.

One certainty: Phone use, like use of computers and other electronic devices, will only be allowed when planes are above 10,000 feet, and will be prohibited during takeoff and landing

The Middle Seat: Preparing for Cellphones - WSJ.com

You are unbelievably stoopid. You have achieved divecon status for your dishonesty and stoopidity.

ROFLMAO
you are such a ******* moron

 

[DiveCon]

Ravi, what part of my last post directed to you was confusing? You're a shitbag ****. Period. You displayed that when you claimed cell phones and airphones are the same thing after I proved olson said his wife used a cell phone. **** off.

Airphones used cellular towers and are considered a type of cell phone.

All you have proven is that people can and do get confused about what to call different types of telephones and that journalists can editorialize sloppily.

Olsen stated he didn't know what phone his wife called him from. And in fact, he couldn't know if the calls came through his office switchboard.

What all this proves in your mind is the question of the day. But you are too much of a coward to answer.

these guys focus on minutia and think because they dont get an answer that is satisfactory to THEM, that it is the smoking gun for an inside job

 

[DiveCon]

Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics. He never supports that claim, but since he said it then it must be true! Unfortunately, the facts do not support his claim. The HC is running its old bullshit "look at 9E" which is really just airwave fodder for people gullible and insecure enough to simply accept what the government says and to not question such stellar publications such as Poopular Mekanics.

Here's some info:

"Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls." (WP,July 27, 2004)

Aviation Week (07/20/04) described this new technology in an authoritative report published in July 2004:

"Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring [July 2004] ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to- ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground. For the test flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, the aircraft was equipped with an antenna in the front and rear of the cabin to transmit cell phone calls to a small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station. This "pico cell" transmitted cell phone calls from the aircraft via a Globalstar satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network"


Needless to say, neither the service, nor the "third generation" hardware, nor the "Picco cell" CDMA base station inside the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11, 2001."
The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls

Wow. There was not a whole lot of buzz about those announcements. How do OCTAs defend the claim cell calls were possible?

I went on about 6 flights between Boston and Nebraska between 2005 and 2006 and my cell signal dropped shortly after take off and didn't come back until after landing and this was the usual for other passengers trying to use their cells as well. Personal experiences aside, there is no evidence cell phones would have been operational on 9/11 from those altitudes and speeds. For flight 77 the first claimed cell call occurred at 9:12 am. According to the flight path by the 9E CR, flight 77 would have been too high and traveling too fast for calls to be possible.

I have no doubt nobody can prove cell phones were capable of conversational operations on 9/11 on flight 77 at 9:12 am. Is there anyone who can prove that was possible? I've provided evidence it was not possible. I anticipate two usual events: the usual dickless whiny wonders of fizzbitch, Snitch *****, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.

I don't think flight 77 was that high in the air at the time, was it?

no, it wasnt