Is this the extent of the recordings from the "black box" on Flight 93?
Does the black box record only what is occurring in the cockpit?
There was attempted communication with Cleveland.
There was mention of a bomb.
Conveniently, Flight 93 is reported as having landed in Cleveland due to a bomb scare.
If cells phones don't work at high altitudes according to Quaalcom until 2006, why was it that the passengers on these four hijacked flights were able to make calls from their cell phones?
Was there an attempt by a family member to call any of the passengers?
Were they successful?
Where did these passenger phone calls originate from?
Were certain passengers forced under threat to make calls with specific details to enact a hijacking?
Did any of the calls drop-off?
Was the connection clear?
Excerpt from above link:
In the eyes of public opinion, the cell phone conversations on the Arab hijackers is needed to sustain the illusion that America is under attack.
The "war on terrorism" underlying the National Security doctrine relies on real time "evidence" concerning the Arab hijackers. The latter personify, so to speak, this illusive "outside enemy" (Al Qaeda), which is threatening the homeland.
Embodied into the Commission's "script" of 911, the narrative of what happened on the plane with the Arab hijackers is therefore crucial. It is an integral part of the Administration's disinformation and propaganda program. It constitutes a justification for the anti-terror legislation under the Patriot acts and the waging of America's pre-emptive wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.
How do we know cell phones don't work at high altitudes?
We are prohibited from using them in flight.
Our phones are powered off while in flight so we don't even know if we can receive a call.
Cell phone calls were made.
That is a fact.
If Qaalcom states that cell phones do not operate at high altitudes, why when did they operate?
Were these planes sitting on the ground?
Why would hijackers allow passengers to use their cell phones?
Did these planes leave their respective airports and fly to a military intallation where these hijackings were simulated?
As far as Flight 93.
Did they want this to be the heroic hijacking?
The one that Americans would look upon and, in the face of tragedy, feel patriotic about the passengers on board who attempted to overtake the plane?
Is this why Flight 93 was reported as having strayed and a struggle onboard?
Donald Rumsfeld is a disinformation agent, too, you know.
They all are.
They sent up an interceptor to show military strength, but by this time it was too late.
Too little, too late!
They've supplied three scenarios to muddy the waters about Flight 93, but most importantly Flight 93 is the EVIDENCE they needed to convince America that "terrorists" were on board the flights and hijackings occurred.
A struggle ensued on Flight 93 and due to the heroic efforts of Americans, the White House was spared is the message they wanted to send.
But, you see.
Most Americans understand that our government didn't spare us on 911 and, so therefore, what they thought they would gain from Flight 93's struggle backfired on them.
They thought WE would look upon these passengers on Flight 93 as having saved our country by preventing this flight from hitting the White House.
They didn't understand the resolve of the American people and the transparency of their evil ways.