Those IMPLAUSIBLE & IMPOSSIBLE cellphone calls

Acanthus said:

Im commenting on specific links you posted

Click to expand...

Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the pasthttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/15/MNGUMAC6LB1.DTL

Click to expand...

Lovelynice said:

Not according to this article which refers in passing to the impossibility of making cellphone calls from passenger planes above 10,000ft.



It wasn't safety, it was the impossibility of it without the technology.

Click to expand...

Lovelynice said:

Not according to this article which refers in passing to the impossibility of making cellphone calls from passenger planes above 10,000ft.



It wasn't safety, it was the impossibility of it without the technology.

Click to expand...

Acanthus said:

And again from your own article, it wasnt possible 20 years ago when the rule was made, which was quite a while before 9/11.

Or were we still using cell phones the size of toasters on 9/11?

Click to expand...

phrodeau said:

I don't know about "the shills", but I need to take a break every so often because my sides hurt from laughing so much.

You have done more to bring humor to the memory of those tragedies than anyone else I know. Keep it up.

Click to expand...

phrodeau said:

I don't know about "the shills", but I need to take a break every so often because my sides hurt from laughing so much.

Click to expand...

breakwall said:

If I'm a "shill" for your government shouldn't they be paying me? I take American money at par.

Click to expand...

breakwall said:

If I'm a "shill" for your government shouldn't they be paying me? I take American money at par.

Click to expand...

Byron In Exile said:

Breakwall, you are the shill's shill. The Ne Plus Ultrashill.

If GWB isn't coming to your door to pay you in person and give you a big hug after he kisses the back of your hand, then I'd say there's definitely been a mix up somewhere.

Unless you're a double-shill...?

*squints suspiciously*

Click to expand...

Lovelynice said:

Marion Britton - 13 minutes call from a cellphone
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp

Let's repeat this WOW, A WHOLE THIRTEEN MINUTES!!! Amazing bullshit

What amazingly unbelievable MAGIC CELLPHONES they had on those planes back in 2001 - flying along at 500mph, at a speed where it's impossible for the phone to maintain a connection anyway for longer than a few seconds, and these amazing MAGIC CELLPHONES haven't any problems with reality at all.

Click to expand...

Professional opinions

==========================================================

Dear Sir

I have yet to read the entire [Ghost Riders] article but I do have a background in telecommunications. Using a cell phone on an air craft is next to impossible. The reasons are very detailed, but basically the air craft would run major interference, as well as the towers that carry the signal would have a difficult time sending and receiving due to the speed of the air craft. As well, calling an operator? Well that is basically impossible.

Having worked for both a major Canadian and American provider I had to instruct my staff that operator assistance is not an option. Have you ever tried to use a cell phone in some public buildings? Impossible. There are too many spots that service is voided. Just a tidbit of information to share.

Megan Conley <megan_conley@hotmail.com>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

I am an RF design engineer, having built out Sprint, Verizon and another network in New Orleans. You are absolutely correct. We have trouble making these things work for cars going 55 mph on the ground. If you need another engineer's testimony for any reason, let me know I will corroborate.

my engineering site: http://www.geocities.com/rf_man_cdma/

Brad Mayeux <cdmaman@engineer.com>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anecdotal evidence

==========================================================

Sir,

Yours is the first article I've read which focuses on those dubious 'cell phone calls'. Last month my Wife and I flew to Melbourne, about 1000 miles south of here.

Cell phones are Verboten in Airliners here, but on the return journey I had a new NOKIA phone, purchased in Melbourne, and so small I almost forgot it was in my pocket. I furtively turned it on. No reception anywhere, not even over Towns or approaching Brisbane. Maybe it's different in the US, but I doubt it.

There has to be an investigation into this crime. Justice for the thousands of dead and their families demands it.

Best

Bernie Busch <bbusch@iprimus.com.au>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Prof

I have repeatedly tried to get my cell phone to work in an airplane above 2-3000 feet and it doesn't work. My experiments were done discreetely on [more than] 20 Southwest Airlines flights between Ontario, California and Phoenix, Arizona. My experiments match yours. Using sprint phones 3500 and 6000 models, no calls above 2500 ft [succeeded], a "no service" indicator at 5000 ft (guestimate).

There seem to be two reasons. 1. the cell sites don't have enough power to reach much more than a mile, 2. The cell phone system is not able to handoff calls when the plane is going at more than 400 mph.

This is simply experimental data. If any of your contacts can verify it by finding the height of the Pennsylvania plane and it's speed one can prove that the whole phone call story is forged.

Rafe <rafeh@rdlabs.com> (airline pilot)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings,

I write in praise of your report, as I have felt from day one that the cell phone 'evidence' was perhaps the flimsiest part of the story, and am amazed that nobody has touched it until now.

I'd also like to bring up the point of airspeed, which is what made the cell calls a red-flag for me in the first place. I'm not sure what your top speed achieved in the small plane was, but, in a large airliner travelling at (one would think) no less than 450mph, most cell phones wouldn't be able to transit cells fast enough to maintain a connection (at least, from what i understand of the technology) .. and we're talking 2001 cell technology besides, which in that period, was known to drop calls made from cars travelling above 70mph on the freeway (again, due to cell coverage transits)

Anyway, thanks for shining the light, keep up the good work

Ben Adam

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Professor,

Responding to your article, I'm glad somebody with authority has taken the trouble to scientifically prove the nonsense of 9/11.

I was travelling between two major European cities, every weekend, when the events in the US occurred. I was specifically puzzled by the reports that numerous passengers on board the hijacked planes had long conversations with ground phone lines, using their mobile phones (and not on board satelite phones). Since I travelled every weekend, I ignored the on board safety regulations to switch off the mobile phone and out of pure curiosity left it on to see if I could make a call happen.

First of all, at take off, the connection disappears quite quickly (ascending speed, lateral reception of ground stations etc.), I would estimate from 500 meters [1500 feet approx.] and above, the connection breaks.

Secondly, when making the approach for landing, the descent is more gradual and the plane is travelling longer in the reach of cellphone stations, but also only below 500 meters. What I noticed was that, since the plane is travelling with high speed, the connection jumps from one cellphone station to another, never actually giving you a chance to make a phone call. (I have never experienced this behaviour over land, e.g. by car). Then, if a connection is established, it takes at least 10-30 seconds before the provider authorises a phone call in the first place. Within this time, the next cellstation is reached (travel speed still > 300KM/h) and the phone , always searching for the best connection, disconnects the current connection and tries to connect to a new station.

I have done this experiment for over 18 months, ruling out weather conditions, location or coincidence. In all this time the behaviour was the same: making a phone call in a plane is unrealistic and virtually impossible.

Based on this, I can support you in your findings that the official (perhaps fabricated) stories can be categorised as nonsense.

With kind regards.

Peter Kes <kpkes@yahoo.com>

It must be clearly understood that Prof. Dewdney's tests were conducted in
slow-moving (<150kts) light aircraft at relatively low altitudes (<9000ft
AGL). The aircraft from which the alleged calls were made on 9/11 were
flying at over 30,000 ft at speeds of over 500 MPH.

During a recent round-trip flight from Orange County, CA to Miami, FL (via
Phoenix, AZ), I, personally conducted an unofficial "test" using a brand new
Nokia 6101 cellular phone [NB: 2005 technology]. En route, I attempted
(discretely, of course) a total of 37 calls from varying altitudes/speeds. I
flew aboard three types of aircraft: Boeing 757, 737, and Airbus 320. Our
cruising altitudes ranged from 31-33,000ft, and our cruising speeds, from
509-521 MPH (verified post-flight by the captains). My tests began
immediately following take-off. Since there was obviously no point in taking
along the wrist altimeter I use for ultralight flying for reference in a
pressurized cabin, I could only estimate (from experience) the various
altitudes at which I made my attempts.

Of the 37 calls attempted, I managed to make only 4 connections - and every
one of these was made on final approach, less than 2 minutes before flare,
I.e., at less than 2,000ft AGL.

Approach speeds varied from 130-160 kts (Vref, outer marker), with flap and
gear extension at around 2,000ft (again, all speeds verified by flightdeck
crews). Further, I personally spoke briefly with the captains of all four
flights: I discovered that in their entire flying careers, NOT ONE of these
men had EVER been successful in making a cell phone call from cruising
altitude/speed in a variety of aircraft types. [NB: Rest assured the
ubiquitous warnings to "turn off all electronics during flight" are
completely unfounded. All modern aircraft systems are fully shielded from
all forms of RF/EMF interference (save EMP, of course). This requirement was
mandated by the FAA many years ago purely as a precautionary measure while
emerging advanced avionics systems were being flight tested. There is not a
single recorded incident of interference adversely affecting the performance
of airborne avionics systems.]

Obviously, my casual, seat-of-the-pants attempt at verifying a commonly
known fact can hardly be passed off as a "scientific" test. Ergo, I shall
offer Prof. Dewdney¹s conclusion, excerpted from his meticulously detailed
and documented paper re slow-flying light aircraft at low altitudes.

Nila Sagadevan

Prof. Dewdney:

I do not pretend to be any sort of expert of cellular communications, but I am an electronics engineer and hold both amateur and commercial FCC licenses, so I do have some understanding of the relevant principles of radio communication systems.

I read with interest your analysis of terrestrial contact probabilities via cellphones from aircraft. I believe your conclusions are sound, but would like to comment on an element which you pondered regarding the sort of apparent discontinuity in what seems otherwise to be an inverse-square relation beyond a certain altitude.

Cellphones operate by Frequency Modulation, and as such the (apparent) signal strength is not discernible to the listener because the intelligence is contained only in the frequency and phase information of the signal before demodulation. Hence, the system works pretty well until it is so weak that it is abruptly lost. That is, the system can no longer "capture" the signal. It does not get louder and softer with signal strength -until the signal is below the detection level of the receiver, at which point it is essentially disappears. The cellphone also adjusts the transmit power according to the signal level received at the tower end of the link. Once it is at maximum output, if the signal diminishes beyond some minimum threshold depending on the receiver design, it is lost altogether and not simply degraded in quality. Analogous behavior is experienced with FM broadcast stations; as you travel away from the transmitter the station is received with good fidelity until at some distance it rather suddenly cannot even be received any longer at all.

Additionally, cellphone towers are certainly not optimally designed for skyward radiation patterns. Since almost all subscribers are terrestrial that is where the energy is directed, at low angles.

In summary, if your observed discontinuous behavior is real, and I believe there is technical reasoning for such, the probability of making calls beyond some threshold altitude is not simply predictably less, but truly impossible with conventional cellphones under any condition of aircraft etc. because of the theoretical limits of noise floor in the receiving systems. I think the plausibility of completing the calls from 30,000+ ft. is even much lower than might be expected from extrapolations of behavior at lower altitudes which you investigated.

Thank you for your thoughtful work in this area.

Sincerely,

Kevin L. Barton

Click to expand...

LOS ANGELES The safe landing of a JetBlue Airways plane with faulty landing gear last night ended a drama carried live by television that riveted viewers outside and inside the aircraft... At one point, he said, he tried to call his family, but his cellphone call wouldn't go through.

Click to expand...

Two European airlines will allow passengers late next year to use their own cell phones on commercial flights within western Europe, a Geneva-based technology firm said Tuesday.
TAP Air Portugal and British carrier bmi both have agreed to introduce OnAir's voice and text service for cell phones in separate three-month trial runs, Chief Executive George Cooper said.
The planes _ which will be the first to allow passengers to make and receive calls with their own cell phones while on board _ will give OnAir the chance to assess its service ahead of its general release slated for 2007, he said.
"With both airlines, initially there will be a couple of airplanes _ two or three airplanes _ equipped with this system," Cooper told The Associated Press from Germany. "During that three months, we'll all be evaluating how it's going, what the usage is, how we handle the crew issues and so on."

Click to expand...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - One of life's ironic oases of solitude -- the peace people find amid the roar of a New York City subway -- could soon be gone.
As New York plans to make cell phones work in subway stations, experts say Americans eventually could be connected everywhere, underground or in the air.
"It's technically feasible, both for airplanes and subways," said James Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. "It's the social aspect that's really the most intractable."

Click to expand...

"Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network" because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high, she said. The technology is "difficult now, but it's not something that can't happen in the future."

Click to expand...

FCC set to consider in-flight cell phones. December 15, 2004. Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past -- and whether they'd mess up ground- based communications.

Click to expand...

Lovelynice said:

WHICH MEANS ALL OF THESE CALLS WERE FAKE


CeeCee Lyles: Cell phone. Her husband Lorne Lyles who managed to take her second call reported that he saw her ID therefore we can assume that she used a cell phone. A flight attendant using a cell phone is of course extremely strange given the fact that she should very well know that there are airphones aboard and it is much more likely to come through using this kind of phone. Call 1: Beginning: 9:47, Length: unclear as no indication what she left as a message on her answering machine. But we can assume from the fact that she managed to leave a message that the length was at least: 15’. Call 2: 9:58, Length: 1’ 00’’ (my estimation based on accounts of the call). She got disconnected.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93lylesbiop8.asp
http://election.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/12/national/main310935.shtml

Jeremy Glick, 31, from West Milford, New Jersey, He called his wife, Liz, and in-laws in New York on a cell phone to tell them the plane had been hijacked
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627214.asp



Thomas E. Burnett Jr - Cell Phone 3-4 calls
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-capsules.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetnat3p3.asp

Lauren Grandcolas, her husband said his wife made a quick cell phone call before the plane crashed in Pennsylvania.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-capsules.htm

Sandra Bradshaw - cellphone
http://webcache.news-record.com/legacy/photo/tradecenter/bradshaw21.htm


Marion Britton - 13 minutes call from a cellphone
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp
WOW, A WHOLE THIRTEEN MINUTES!!! Amazing bullshit

Elizabeth Wainio - cellphone
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067652



BARBARA OLSON CALL
On the American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington, television reporter Barbara Olson, 46, locked herself in the lavatory to call her husband, Solicitor General Theodore Olson.

( I guess that Airphone had an extension cord? The cord on an airphone will not reach into the bathroom, this suggests she was using a cellphone. Cellphones in planes dont work over 5-10,000 ft. inside a sealed bathroom would insert an extra 3-6 dB of loss. that means signal quality, which would have been nearly impossibe anyway would have been cut to 1/3 to 1/6th strength. Ted states that the quality of the connection was CLEAR !)
( I would be happy if someone would verify the airphone reach of the cord- to the bathroom on a 757) According to the BBC, she used a cellphone http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1539193.stm


NSA-trained Electronic Warfare specialist Steve Moser goes further, expressing that he has "severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft (Flight 93)". Moser explains: "When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is your cell phone needs to contact a transponder and complete a digital handshake. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to contact a tower, tell the tower who you are and who your provider is, tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and establish that it is in a roaming area, before it passes out of range. It takes 30-45 seconds to do that. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible."


United Airlines Flight 175
United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:

"It pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14."

The Report confirms that by 8:33, "it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet." According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it "deviated from its assigned altitude":

"The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it."

And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.

[Flight UAL 175] "At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cellphone. Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. (Moreover, Hanson's call could have been initiated at least a minute prior to his father Lee Hanson picking up the phone.)

United Airlines Flight 93
According to the 9-11 Commission's account:

"the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.”70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft...."

The Report claims that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report's confirmation of the plane's attitude of 35,000 feet. In other words, the calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost UAL 93’s transponder signal (9.41) and approximately 30 minutes before the crash in Pennsylvania (10.03)

There was no indication from the Report that the aircraft had swooped down to a lower level of altitude, apart from the 700 feet drop recorded at 9.28. from a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. Shortly after the alleged hijacking commences, the passengers and flight crew allegedly began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones.

The alleged call (strangely not mentioned in the Report) by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.

"Local emergency officials said they received a cell phone call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the plane had been hijacked. "We are being hijacked! We are being hijacked!" he was quoted as saying.

Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.

"He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_90401.html


Mark Bingham - Cell Phone

Click to expand...

Lovelynice said:

They weren't referring to the past circa 1980, they were referring to the past circa before 2004 and the new technologies such as having cellular basestations onboard the planes. Without them, no cellphone calls can be made.

Click to expand...

NothingHitMe said:

Despite all the best efforts of these lying mass murdering treasonous bastards - everything from Lying Bush on up to these shills that try to troll and trash the internet forums,, every single day more and more people, all accross the globe, wake up to the fact that 911 was the Devil's lie and it was made in Washington DC and Tel Aviv

Click to expand...

NothingHitMe said:

Devil's lie

Click to expand...

Pookie said:

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/2931/moronnu4.jpg

Click to expand...

LinearMan said:

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l105/linearman/mindHat.gif

Click to expand...

Joaquin1975 said:

"I wear a tinfoil hat"
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/stillhoneymooning/TinFoilhat.jpg

Click to expand...

plasticman33 said:

http://images8.fotki.com/v155/photos/2/292835/1608389/TinFoilHat_puton-vi.jpg

Click to expand...

At other times these wacko conspiracy theorists will mention their tinfoil hats or related articles, clearly signaling to each other "Hey, I'm wearing one too " in a desperate call for emotional support.

Slowlane said:

Damn!!!! I’m still waiting for a decoder RING and the fkn HATS are out already. Stinken' WalMart.

Click to expand...

BlueEyesInLevis said:

Time to adjust that tinfoil beanie again.

Click to expand...

sticky_keyboard said:

Forget Mulder...where's your tinfoil hat?

Click to expand...

linuxgeek said:

ooooo .. aaaa .. now the tinfoil wizard is back to do his round of C&Ps while ignoring all the questions that have been posed.

Click to expand...

NothingHitMe said:

Many of us have noticed that those who promote the Official Conspiracy Theory have the most peculiar fashion sense.

They usually wear tinfoil hats of various kinds. We know this because they frequently post pics of themselves, and their friends and family wearing these "tinfoil" hats.


EXHIBIT A - the real pookie wearing his tinfoil hat


EXHIBIT B - LinearMan wearing his tinfoil hat


EXHIBIT C - Joaquin1975 wearing his tinfoil hat and admitting it's his own


EXHIBIT D - plasticman33 and his relatives wearing their tinfoil hats




At other times these wacko conspiracy theorists will mention their tinfoil hats or related articles, clearly signaling to each other "Hey, I'm wearing one too " in a desperate call for emotional support.

Slowlane complaining that he doesn't have one with the decoder ring like Pookie does


BlueEyesInLevis admitting he's wearing one


sticky_keyboard getting annoyed because a fellow Official "Demarabsdidit" Conspiracy Theorist forgot to wear his tinfoil hat


linuxgeek announcing his arrival while wearing a new tnifoil hat and plans to C&P some spam and nonsense while ignoring all the questions that have been posed

Click to expand...

breakwall said:

more c&p posts.

the last bastion of the desperate online debater.

Click to expand...