Curious...were the airphone calls faked too?

[Lovelynice]

Check this out...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fjfOfe5DTNg&mode=related&search=Vendetta 911

Very revealing of how the 9-11 con-job works

Have any of you real people out there noticed how KRcummings, phrodeau, BlueEyesInLevis, catfish, linuxgeek, and the other shills (mostly just obvious alts) have NEVER, not even ONCE, managed to cite a single occassion with any kind of evidence when steel & concrete tower buildings had collapsed at near free fall speed into their own footprint - except with CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

And that is exactly how the WTC towers were taken down, and none of the "Arabs did it" lunatics and liars have ever managed to show otherwise.


It is enough to know that the buildings fell too fast, seismic traces do not match the collapse times, evidence was illegally destroyed, the patriot act passed in an anthrax storm originating from american military labs, the president saw something on TV that was never on TV, the vice president mentioned that the terrorists used missiles, and that flight 93 was shot down by a missile, institutionalised torture, omnipotently sweeping police powers, 'protest zones', etc....

all just coincidence, sure, sure, sure...like anyone is going to believe obvious shills and political spin.

And this is so plainly a controlled demolition, it blows all their bullshit excuses away
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif

You can read through this entire thread, and they have only BS and excuses and crap, but nothing real. They aren't even smart shills - they're MORONIC ones who keep using the same scripts.










Two months before Sept 11, 2001, the USA's FAA and Boeing ordered the 757-200 passenger jets Air-to-Ground Telephone systems to be DEACTIVATED

Vol. 66, No. 133
Wednesday, July 11, 2001 (continued)
For Further Information Contact:
Stephen S. Oshiro, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and
Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Ave, SW, Renton,
Washington 98055- 4056; telephone (425) 227-2793; fax
(425) 227-1181.
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200 Series
Airplanes Modified by Supplemental Type Certificate
SA1727GL
Action: Final rule.
Summary: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness
directive (AD), applicable to all Boeing Model 757-200
series airplanes modified by Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) SA1727GL, that requires deactivation of the air-to-
ground telephone system approved by that STC. This action
is necessary to prevent the inability of the flight crew to
remove power from the telephone system when necessary.
Inability to remove power from the telephone system during
a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability
to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or
cabin. This action is intended to address the identified
unsafe condition.
Dates: Effective August 15, 2001

http://www.frequency-management.aero/news/newsletters/PT_08_01.pdf


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200 Series Airplanes
Modified by Supplemental Type Certificate SA1727GL
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
EXCERPTs
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to all Boeing Model 757-200 series airplanes modified by
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA1727GL, that requires
deactivation of the air-to-ground telephone system approved by that
STC. ...

Explanation of Change to Final Rule
Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule states that ``no person shall
install an [in-flight entertainment system (IFE)] system in accordance
with STC SA1727GL * * *'' The FAA finds that, where we used the generic
term ``IFE system,'' we should have used the more specific term ``air-
to-ground telephone system.'' Therefore, we have revised paragraph (b)
of this final rule for clarity.

Spares
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
an air-to-ground telephone system in accordance with STC SA1727GL,
on any airplane.
....
Effective Date (e) This amendment becomes effective on August 15, 2001.
http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/documents/fr/01/jy/11/fr11jy01-3.html

 

[Daqusa]

Someone's tin-foil beeny has come loose.

 

[Lovelynice]

Explanation of Change to Final Rule
Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule states that ``no person shall
install an [in-flight entertainment system (IFE)] system in accordance
with STC SA1727GL * * *'' The FAA finds that, where we used the generic
term ``IFE system,'' we should have used the more specific term ``air-
to-ground telephone system.'' Therefore, we have revised paragraph (b)
of this final rule for clarity.

The IFE system on the 767s was also supposed to be deactivated from August 17 2001, with 18 months to comply.
It's mentioned on this document;
http://www.frequency-management.aero/news/newsletters/PT_08_01.pdf

 

[plasticman33]

All the directive indicates is an engineering modification to the system that allows the flight crew to deactivate the system in case of an unusual emergency basically fire in the cabin. It does not deactivate the system and never did.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

All the directive states is a modification to the system that allows the flight crew to deactivate the system in case of an unusual emergency basically fire in the cabin. It does not deactivate the system and never did.

Quit interferring with her delusional paranoic fantasies!

 

[plasticman33]

Quit interferring with her delusional paranoic fantasies!

Awww, I'm sorry. OK lovelynice continue with your paranoia.

 

[huskie]

Quit interferring with her delusional paranoic fantasies!

the world is flat.... we never walked on the moon.... and global warming is gonna kill us all soon and it's ALL Bush's fault!! He planned it this way....

 

[koalabear]

Explanation of Change to Final Rule
Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule states that ``no person shall
install an [in-flight entertainment system (IFE)] system in accordance
with STC SA1727GL * * *'' The FAA finds that, where we used the generic
term ``IFE system,'' we should have used the more specific term ``air-
to-ground telephone system.'' Therefore, we have revised paragraph (b)
of this final rule for clarity.

The IFE system on the 767s was also supposed to be deactivated from August 17 2001, with 18 months to comply.
It's mentioned on this document;
http://www.frequency-management.aero/news/newsletters/PT_08_01.pdf

Damn! You found out. The calls were made from the same studio where they filmed the moon landing!

 

[catfish]

The IFE system on the 767s was also supposed to be deactivated from August 17 2001, with 18 months to comply.
]

So the FAA issues a directive that had to be complied with in the next 18 months, apparently a non life threatening directive, less than a month from 9/11 and you are making the leap that the airfone calls were fake because they couldn't be working because of this directive?

 

[catfish]

Damn! You found out. The calls were made from the same studio where they filmed the moon landing!

You weren't supposed to say anything!!!

 

[Lovelynice]

All the directive states is a modification to the system that allows the flight crew to deactivate the system in case of an unusual emergency basically fire in the cabin. It does not deactivate the system and never did.

Then why does it say this;


As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
an air-to-ground telephone system in accordance with STC SA1727GL,
on any airplane.

If it was still allowed, then why disallow any future installation?

What I'm more curious about, did some of those planes on 9/11 have this modification already? And which ones? If they did, then did the modification interfere with the use of the airphones to send a hijack alert via the ACARS (as some United Airlines planes had set up)? It would possibly also explain why the hijack alert "squawk" was never sent.

Kind of like what happens with software updates, one modification to fix a problem stuffs up something else and creates another problem instead.

So the FAA issues a directive that had to be complied with in the next 18 months, apparently a non life threatening directive, less than a month from 9/11 and you are making the leap that the airfone calls were fake because they couldn't be working because of this directive?

We don't know how life threatening. Maybe they didn't either.

 

[huskie]

Damn! You found out. The calls were made from the same studio where they filmed the moon landing!

no... that one was destroyed years ago to cover up the evidence! DUH!!!... gosh...

 

[koalabear]

no... that one was destroyed years ago to cover up the evidence! DUH!!!... gosh...

Damn! I'm always the last to know!

 

[huskie]

Damn! I'm always the last to know!

yup... I should'a told ya either... now I gotta kill ya. sorry

 

[Lovelynice]

http://strawandclover.com/strawandclover_web.jpg

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

So the FAA issues a directive that had to be complied with in the next 18 months, apparently a non life threatening directive, less than a month from 9/11 and you are making the leap that the airfone calls were fake because they couldn't be working because of this directive?

Hey! She learned it all from the Krastner-Woody School of Keepers Of Obscure Knowledge AND Not United To Sanity

 

[linuxgeek]

While I agree shrub's administration has done some fairly out of line things with the power granted as a result of the 9/11 attack, I am wondering how someone can question WTC buildings falling when it happened with thousands of direct witnesses and millions of indirect witnesses. If a person can't grasp that it takes fire to shape steal and therefore fire can change its shape so it can no longer perform its intended function, that is an educational issue.

This just sounds like more propoganda & rhetoric grasping at emotional issues to try and further the creator's agenda.

 

[Lovelynice]

The implausibility of those phone calls...

First the cellphone calls...
Project Achilles

and

I found the listed professional opinions very interesting...

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

To be honest, I doubt that cellphones were used during 9/11 and I seriously highly doubt that cellphones can be effectively used in airplanes in the past years such as during the 9/11 era. If cellphone calls were being made in those planes during 9/11, then how come it is only now that cellphone inflight calls are being legalized?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p02s02-ussc.html

Furthermore, our doubts are reinforced against the official story because the following source states that Study Warns Cell Phones Could Cause Airliner Crashes, and why lifting a ban on Cell Phone calls in planes remains a hard decision thatthe Government would have to decide upon. :

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/03/cell_phones_planes.html

Look here http://www.gmpcs-us.com/satnews/jan-5 -Boeing.htm. As we all can see, it is only now that Cell Phones are being tested for in-flight calls. Look at the date of that report, it is Monday, July 19, 2004. Why would people be making in-flight cell phone calls on 9/11, 2001, when on 2004, inflight-calls are only beginning to be tested. And this is just the testing stages, not the official legalization of their usage.

The fact that testing only began a few years after 2001, says a lot about the implausibility that cell phones may have been used in those 9/11 flights. The only twisting of words going on is from the pro-government story advocates' side of the debate, since they fail to recognize this simple simple illogical hole in the official story. The fact that the pro-government story advocates presistently refuse to see this simple illogical hole and continue to deny it, is cause for suspicion.



Statement: 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 (Washingotn Post, December 9, 2004)

Another link:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/15/MNGUMAC6LB1.DTL

Statement:“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.”(San Francisco Chronicle, December 15, 2004)

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page3009/

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.

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page2923/

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."

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page5226/

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."

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page7755/

"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."

http://www.bewareofthis.info/pagecache/page7756/

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.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121399,00.asp
"In-Flight Cell Phone Systems Gain Altitude"

Study done about cell phone usage
http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/phonecalls.html
Holes in phone calls

Some calls lasted as long as 25 minutes! WOW!!

They must have been using some great phones back in 2001!

Think it's impossible to con strangers into thinking that you're a relative - even pretending to be their son?

Check out the "Hi Mom, it's me" scam.
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/features/archive/news/2005/06/20050608p2g00m0fe008000c.html

By the way, it was easy to fake someone's voice then.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

Now you know how the voices on the "calls" could be faked.

It's not like these were turing tests, these were just normal average dimwits receiving the calls.

Caller: "Mom? This is Mark Brigham." (Who in hell calls their own mother and introduces himself by his own full name?!)

Caller: "I want you to know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb."

Alice: "Who are these guys?

Caller: (after a pause) "You believe me, don't you?

Caller: "Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?


This "conversation" could fool just about anyone who wasn't intentionally trying to detect whether it was a computer or a person. It's not like he answers her question, he just responds with something vague.

A person claiming to be Todd Beamer, talked to GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson
“Todd Beamer placed a call on one of the Boeing 757's on-board telephones and spoke for 13 minutes with GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife said.......(The Pittsburg Channel, 1.38pm, September 16, 2001). Why would Beamer prefer to talk to a stranger than to someone in his own family? Again we have a LONG phone, and again the mythical terrorists did nothing about it. Notice that his wife, Mrs Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone call from her husband PERSONALLY, but was later “told” by an operator that her husband had "allegedly" called. No evidence at all that it really was Todd Beamer making the call.

Lisa Jefferson certainly wouldn't know who was really on the phone would she? She'd never met the man before, had she? She wouldn't have a clue if it was really Todd Beamer or the pizza guy!


The Betty Ong call is a really strange one. It seems whoever the woman was that was trying convince the operator that she was on a hijacked plane wasn't coached too well. She kept flubbing the script;

MALE VOICE: Which flight are you on?

BETTY ONG: Flight 12.

FEMALE VOICE: Okay, but what seat are you sitting in? What’s the number of your seat?

BETTY ONG: Okay, I’m in my jump seat right now.

FEMALE VOICE: Okay.

BETTY ONG: At 3R.

(OOPS, there was NO SEAT '3R' ON THAT PLANE!)

The woman doing the masquerading flubbed it by not keeping their story straight.

The phone call begun "minutes after 8 am", originally it was stated that the call lasted nearly 40 minutes and ended at 8:46; so we can conclude Betty rung up at about 8:08-8:10. But then sceptics said "Hey, that's BEFORE the hijacking began!", so the official story changed later, then they said it was 8:21 when Betty Ong made her call.

And they still expected everyone to gullibly believe that these mythical hijackers were just going to sit around and let somebody chatter away for a whole 25 minutes?!



You can go to www.ebaumsworld.com and create one side of a phone call using the soundboards, that the other side would at first believe to be Napolean Dynamite!. There's even videos of people using the various soundboards to prank call people, some get strung along for several minutes before they realize it's a prank.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/napoleondynamite-prank1.html

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/jackblack-prank2.html

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/alpacino-prank1.html

But the idiot on the other end of the line can have a conversation with a series of pre-recorded phrases and words played by some "controller" who chooses which phrase to use so it appears to fit with what the other person is saying.

(I've been told that the Pacino one is the best. The guy on the other end of the line gets really angry at a series of recordings.)

 

[Lovelynice]

double post

 

[huskie]

I think it's time we see you naked....

 

[koalabear]

Is there a record for the most copy and paste in one thread?

 

[linuxgeek]

As long as a cellular phone can contact a cellular tower which will service it, it can make a call. All banning their use on the plane does is give the crew a legal means to require someone to stop using an interferring device.

The problem with using a cellular phone, and many other oscillator based devices (cell phones, computers, FM radios, etc), is the oscillator they use internally to function has the potiential, and at some frequencies will, cause interference with the on board radio based devices of the jet. Some of the affected devices are used for navigation.

 

[linuxgeek]

Is there a record for the most copy and paste in one thread?

if there is, I probably have it for the Hurricane threads of 2004 & 2005.

 

[plasticman33]

LOL, I have never seen such a lack of understanding over simple engineering directives. STC SA1727GL was supplimental to STC SA7019NM-D, which required a simple switch to be installed to enable the crew to remove power from the IFE system in case of fire. STC SA1727GL, subsection b, was only issued to change IFE to include the phone system to be covered by the same safety switch.

Now simply because you don't understand engineering, it has become a conspiracy?? Good God!!

 

[Sean]

if there is, I probably have it for the Hurricane threads of 2004 & 2005.

Not a chance. Busybody had that one sewn up ages ago.