This is the only coverage I could find that isn't the Daily Mail.
And this is the BBCs explanation.
How did that work out?
And Mueller's odd behaviour: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/09/10/robert-mueller...
So why do you think it's impossible?
I'm not entirely sure how that would've worked, even today having a phone call from low altitude is pretty hard jets are pretty decent Faraday cages and the speed is just as much of a problem as the altitude.
There is a difference between having the cellphone pining a tower or even managing to get a short data packet from time to time and having an uninterrupted phone call.
I don't think there 9/11 was a "conspiracy" I think there was just a lot of random information that amplified to conspiratorial levels.
No they aren't, you can make calls perfectly fine from inside a jet, 4g reception works too, you're even allowed to do this until takeoff now.
> The maximum distance at which a phone can still make calls and send texts varies depending on the type of tower and transmitter, but an airplane would have to be no more than 10,000 feet in the air for any cell phones on board to still have a signal,
If the plane offered cell connectivity itself it's another matter entirely. Those planes sure did not.
My point being, that the streets could act like canals for the heat, concnetrating the heat. Just a guess, perhaps mathematically irrelevant.
Fire has many 'exceptions', and can be influenced my many different variables and situations.
To quote a much more authoritative Europhysics article that subsequently came out (and which I since put at the head of my answer):
> ... The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion [that a steel frame building collapsed from a fire], fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. ...