Barbara Olson's call from Flight 77 never happened
- Thread starter moghrabi
- Start date
Since it is so rarely actively solicited, I would love to give my input:
My opinion on the 9/11 events in general:
I was in the Canadian Navy when 9/11 happened. It had a drastic effect on my duties during the next two years (I retired in 2003) and a drastic effect on the rest of my life (which I am still living).
For me, the events surrouding 9/11 had a huge impact. I was almost immediately deployed to South-West Asia (we naval folk generally hate to say Afghanistan because...well...we float and therefore have never really been anywhere near there and don't want to take anything away from the Army folk who were there) on Roto 1 (there is a Roto zero - we weren't the first) of Operation Apollo.
My trade within the Navy was that of a NavComm (Naval Communicator). As any Sig (short for Signals - the generic term for those persons within any branch of the military who operate radio equipment and handle message traffic) will tell you, we are privvy to all sorts of information that your general issue soldier/sailor/airperson is not. I spent 6-months sending and receiving conflicting information about events that were transpiring amongst the coalition forces, the Taliban, and whomever else was the interesting that day. Therefore, I have a very, very firm understanding that there is no understanding about the events surrounding 9/11.
I feel the need for this preface because whenever I post something about 9/11 and my involvement in the aftermath, there always seems to be someone who thinks I am purporting to be an expert on the state of the world and those events. This is not the case. What I am purporting, and what I will standy, is that as someone who was in the region almost immediately after these events as part of the coalition forces - I can unequivocally state that anyone who purports to know "the truth" about any of these events is a bullshitter. Period.
Now, as I step off my soap box....my feelings on the article itself:
1. General overall feeling - it reads like a high-school essay. There's something campy about the article. It may have some valid points (or it may not), but the tone with which it was written is not journalistic or professional.
2. It fails to deliver a feeling of 'proof'. For example: the third sentence starts with 'It seems likely that...'. It's way too early in the article to start with 'liklehoods' - the writer (rowland - all in lower case) hasn't established any credbility with me yet. He then goes on to use terms like 'would certainly', "I am not convinced", and this is most perplexing:
I think I get it....she couldn't have made the call from her mobile because they don't work at that altitude and rowland's proof for this is that AA wouldn't be investing in such a system if a passenger could simply pull out their mobile and have at 'er? Is that what he's getting at?
I think most of us can agree that the reason (or at least the reason we're told) that we can't use cell phones on flights is because their frequencies interfere with flight equipment. Therefore, why doesn't rowland think that perhaps AAs system surrounds the remodulation of cell phone signals so that they won't interfere with the equipment? He needs to provide more info or a reference for this 'system' that AA is working on to sell this point to me.
Then
I'm not an aviator, but if the plane just left Dulles, would it already be at the 8,000 feet limit where mobile phones become 'unreliable'?
There's lots more to this article, but to be honest - it has already lost me. The campy writing and flowerly sprinkling of opinion where no credibilty has been offered has bored me with the article.
To me rowland sounds like just another guy with a tin foil hat sitting around a campfire with his friends discussing how no-one has ever been to the moon and what happened to that ship in Area 51.
And that is my 0.02 cents
Aren't you glad you asked?
My opinion on the 9/11 events in general:
I was in the Canadian Navy when 9/11 happened. It had a drastic effect on my duties during the next two years (I retired in 2003) and a drastic effect on the rest of my life (which I am still living).
For me, the events surrouding 9/11 had a huge impact. I was almost immediately deployed to South-West Asia (we naval folk generally hate to say Afghanistan because...well...we float and therefore have never really been anywhere near there and don't want to take anything away from the Army folk who were there) on Roto 1 (there is a Roto zero - we weren't the first) of Operation Apollo.
My trade within the Navy was that of a NavComm (Naval Communicator). As any Sig (short for Signals - the generic term for those persons within any branch of the military who operate radio equipment and handle message traffic) will tell you, we are privvy to all sorts of information that your general issue soldier/sailor/airperson is not. I spent 6-months sending and receiving conflicting information about events that were transpiring amongst the coalition forces, the Taliban, and whomever else was the interesting that day. Therefore, I have a very, very firm understanding that there is no understanding about the events surrounding 9/11.
I feel the need for this preface because whenever I post something about 9/11 and my involvement in the aftermath, there always seems to be someone who thinks I am purporting to be an expert on the state of the world and those events. This is not the case. What I am purporting, and what I will standy, is that as someone who was in the region almost immediately after these events as part of the coalition forces - I can unequivocally state that anyone who purports to know "the truth" about any of these events is a bullshitter. Period.
Now, as I step off my soap box....my feelings on the article itself:
1. General overall feeling - it reads like a high-school essay. There's something campy about the article. It may have some valid points (or it may not), but the tone with which it was written is not journalistic or professional.
2. It fails to deliver a feeling of 'proof'. For example: the third sentence starts with 'It seems likely that...'. It's way too early in the article to start with 'liklehoods' - the writer (rowland - all in lower case) hasn't established any credbility with me yet. He then goes on to use terms like 'would certainly', "I am not convinced", and this is most perplexing:
I think I get it....she couldn't have made the call from her mobile because they don't work at that altitude and rowland's proof for this is that AA wouldn't be investing in such a system if a passenger could simply pull out their mobile and have at 'er? Is that what he's getting at?
I think most of us can agree that the reason (or at least the reason we're told) that we can't use cell phones on flights is because their frequencies interfere with flight equipment. Therefore, why doesn't rowland think that perhaps AAs system surrounds the remodulation of cell phone signals so that they won't interfere with the equipment? He needs to provide more info or a reference for this 'system' that AA is working on to sell this point to me.
Then
I'm not an aviator, but if the plane just left Dulles, would it already be at the 8,000 feet limit where mobile phones become 'unreliable'?
There's lots more to this article, but to be honest - it has already lost me. The campy writing and flowerly sprinkling of opinion where no credibilty has been offered has bored me with the article.
To me rowland sounds like just another guy with a tin foil hat sitting around a campfire with his friends discussing how no-one has ever been to the moon and what happened to that ship in Area 51.
And that is my 0.02 cents
Aren't you glad you asked?
I am very glad I asked HeatSink. I appreciate your input. It is good to see it from that prespective. I never been to the Amy or navy, but is see your point about the boring part. It does however raise some questions. Lets see what other s have in mind.
This is probably just another propaganda bit from the Americanmedia that was used to stir up support for the War On Terror.
I would question the basis of argument also. All four flights had reports of passengers using their cell phones, not just flight 77. What about the man who was speaking to his wife and said, "let's roll" just before allegedly attacking the highjackers.
I fly frequently. Last Monday a passenger left his cell phone on and was quite embarrassed when it began to ring in the overhead storage compartment. We were at 31,000 feet.
I fly frequently. Last Monday a passenger left his cell phone on and was quite embarrassed when it began to ring in the overhead storage compartment. We were at 31,000 feet.