An article in the "Travel News and Comment" section of the Times of London yesterday (30-August 2006, but reported on Yahoo news today), by Mark Ferry has the headline:

Ryanair to allow mobile calls at 30,000ft

I will not post the entire article here, please click the headline which is a
link to the article.

An important quote from Ryanair spokesman is "Ryanair will soon enable
passengers to use their mobile phones and electronic communications devices in
the air, just as they do on the ground. That means they will be able to pass on
the good news to workmates, friends and family that they are travelling on
another on-time flight with Europe's most punctual airline."

The importance of this article to the 9/11 truth movement is obvious. 
The simple question is why all the fanfare about this new technology, when calls
from airplanes were obviously not a problem on September 11th 2001??  Who
can ever forget "Hi mom this is Mark Bingham"??

I've tried to post comments raising this question on the Times website to

American Nostalgic Sentiment For The BBC And Misplaced
Trust.

Introduction.

The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), has a unique relationship to and
place in history concerning modern world media. It is an entity which it has reported,
documented, educated and dramatised though it's various media the very world in
which it exists.  It is a national and international broadcasting
corporation established by a royal charter.  The organisation, although
having undergone significant changes due to the new-media technological
revolution, remains a behemoth.  The BBC has adapted continuously
over the decades to remain a leading world news and media source.  It has
diversified into foreign markets aggressively using it's impressive heritage, as
a powerful marketing tool.  Regardless of it's market friendly appearances
abroad, the BBC is still a state owned, state funded media conglomerate. 
The phrase media conglomerate is important, as the BBC exists in radio,
television, internet, and print publications.  The BBC importantly is a
state owned corporation belonging to the worlds 5th largest economy. 
Despite being publicly funded this corporation exists in the free market too,
and raises money across the world, through the sale of it's broadcasts and other
media related materials.  A giant of the media age, disguised often as the
honest broker of world affairs; the BBC is funded by an annual tax of $230 USD,
paid by every household in the UK, and still the corporation is able to sell
broadcasts across the world for even more money!  In 2005 the BBC has the
largest budget of any UK broadcaster with an operating expenditure of £4
billion/$7 billion USD (that's $7000,000,000 US).

An article by Professor James Fetezer (co-founder of 9-11 Scholars for truth ,http://www.st911.org) titled "Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say about Scholars for 9/11 Truth" makes interested reading and is thought provoking considering the treatment of the 9/11 truth movement by Wikipedia, or the unseen hands and minds which control it. Wikipedia claims to be a non-biased searchable knowledge base, a "wiki", that is essentially a website that allows users to easily add, remove, edit available content. Wikipedia is a tremendous source of factual information, however we must always question the information and validate information independently of Wikipedia. If the general public feel that Wikipedia is a great source of "factual" information, you can be assured that the government has also realised and acted on this. If "REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES - Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" is to be taken as a terms-of-reference for all that has transpired since September 11th 2001, then surely the statement "The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict" (page 69), needs to be taken as seriously as the often quoted "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 63).