Those IMPLAUSIBLE & IMPOSSIBLE cellphone calls

[welatshaw]

NO, you haven't

That's a myth. Of course you can.

If somebody tells me that a box is full, and I claim that it is empty, and lo behold when I open the box and it is empty then I have proved a negative.

shit-for-brains, you've merely proven that the box is empty.

 

[John Doe]

It's past your bedtime.

Fuck you, commie.

 

[Acanthus]

Check your library or call them up for a copy. I'm also sure that you can use google to find the quote.



NEW technology to make cellphone calls from planes possible - because they weren't before. It's impossible to make cellphone calls from a passenger jet at cruising altitude, and you can't defeat the simple reality that at low altitude, flying at 500mph, the call will ALWAYS be dropped within a few seconds, resulting in the impossibility of minutes-long cellphone calls.

The scientific studies and previously cited and quoted experts confirm this.

You have not yet provided a single link or source to dispute it either.

Therefore, it can only be assumed that you don't have any sources or links, despite days(weeks) to find them, and that your persistence in avoiding citing any is because you are only stalling and making excuses.

Face facts, you lost the argument.

Wrong, safer, not possible.

 

[Lovelynice]

a claim that contradicts someone else's claim isn't a negative.

Then by that logic there are no such things as negative claims.

You're not very smart are you? You should've thought more about your dumb statement before you posted it.

 

[Lovelynice]

Wrong, safer, not possible.

Find the exact quote that specifically states that was ENTIRE AND ONLY REASON for developing the new technology to allow cellphone calls from passenger jets, otherwise you are just bullshitting again.

Which you are, because the article doesn't state what you misrepresent it as stating.

 

[Lovelynice]

You're not reading the thread. The plane never crashed and there were no hijackers, therefore everyone survived.
Dipshit.

KRcummings telling LIES again by pretending that I and other people have said something which we have not...

Common aspects of the Coincidence Theorist

1. Gullibly believes that buildings ALWAYS collapse symetrically into their own footprint, on every occassion.
2. Ignores all scientific evidence and commonsense which disputes (1) above.
3. Believes that winning the lottery four weeks in a row is easy, just like Arab hijackings succeeding in incapacitating the entire crew of a passenger jet before even a single crew member can press in the hijack alert code into any one of the keypads of the airphones or the FMC on the plane, not just once, but four times.
4. Believes that cellphones work in aircraft flying six miles up, in a plane flying at over 500mph, with a continuous long lasting connection - just by sheer luck!.
5. Allots superhuman powers to Arab hijackers, such as being able to incapacitate the entire crew of an aircraft before even a single crew member can type in the hijack alert code at any of several places on the plane, and the Arab hijackers succeed in this every time!
6. Key steps in argument rely on pejoratives, insults, and dodging of scientific studies by the excuse of saying "But this is not supporting the official version, therefore it's wrong!".
7. Complains about the use of 'common sense'; and completely ignores scientifically verifiable facts
8. Constant use of strawman arguments, assigning statements and arguments to the opposing person which have never been stated by said person, simply because these fictions are easier to argue with than what the other person actually said.
9. Ignores any evidence or scientific study which does not support the official version of events.
10. Relies on junk science based on blatantly erroneous and easily disputed statements of alleged fact.
11. Enjoys ZERO credibility whenever they make a statement, because their sources are using junk science as in (10) above.
12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored whenever they do not support the official version of events. In other words, whatever the government says is "right", whatever anyone else says that is contrary to this is "wrong".
13. The coincidences and excuses to support them grow in the telling, and can swell to mind-boggling hallucinatory levels until the likelihood of the official version of events occurring becomes astronomically absurd.
14. The coincidence theorist attempts to use the false ascribing to the other person of more impossible beliefs than their own in order to make their own impossible coincidences seem more likely by comparison.

There you have it. The actions of a 9/11 "Arabs did it" coincidence theorist in a NUT shell.

 

[Lovelynice]

A newspaper piece here,

Damn, there's a lot to back what I stated.

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

 

[Acanthus]

Find the exact quote that specifically states that was ENTIRE AND ONLY REASON for developing the new technology to allow cellphone calls from passenger jets, otherwise you are just bullshitting again.

Which you are, because the article doesn't state what you misrepresent it as stating.

The reason is in an article already linked in this page.

It was believed, and has been disproven, that cellular phones on flights can distrupt navigation.

Maybe if you read links and stopped spamming the same shit over and over, like project achilles which i have told you at least a dozen times now is junk science and a joke.

Go ahead, repost it again though.

 

[Acanthus]

Do you even read your own links you fucking retard?

The Jetblue flight where the guy couldnt get a signal on his cellphone...

"After flying out over the ocean for about three hours to burn off fuel, the Airbus A320 made its final approach."

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

And about the "new technology" i hope its your piss poor english skills misreading the article. It says that the airline will now allow passengers to use cellphones not that they function now and didnt before.

 

[Lovelynice]

The reason is in an article already linked in this page..

If that is true, then quote your evidence and provide the link.

Nobody is going to believe some anonymous troll like you on a porn site unless you can specifically back your claims.

I guess then that you are trying - once again to misrepresent and LIE about what is stated in an article.

 

[Acanthus]

Again from your own links:

"For its part, the FAA is exploring whether modern technology still poses a danger of interfering with aircraft radio and navigation systems.

"If a device could be proven not to interfere with airline systems, we would allow it," said Paul Takemoto, an FAA spokesman."

Thats what they mean by "allow".

 

[Acanthus]

The quote your evidence and provide the link.

Nobody is going to believe some anonymous troll like you on a porn site unless you can specifically back your claims.

I guess then that you are trying - once again to misrepresent and LIE about what is stated in an article.

Your links are flat out retarded and you expect people to believe them, you gonna pull the ones im disproving just by fucking reading them? Which you obviously didnt do.

 

[Lovelynice]

The Jetblue flight where the guy couldnt get a signal on his cellphone...

"After flying out over the ocean for about three hours to burn off fuel, the Airbus A320 made its final approach."

And this proves that cellphones can make calls from passenger planes in what way?

Hmm... it doesn't appear to support your argument does it?

I guess you are now just grasping at straws.

It says that the airline will now allow passengers to use cellphones not that they function now and didnt before.

1) you forgot to link which article you are talking about. So, you're piss poor at debate.

2) If you're referring (at a guess) to the Qualcomm article about them needing to have a cellular basestation on the plane to allow the calls, it makes it's pretty clear that it's impossible to make the cellphone calls otherwise.

 

[Acanthus]

The article only mentions qualcomm technology, that is NOT what is being used on the planes. The planes simply allow cell phone use.

Read your own fucking articles.

And as for the jetblue flight, you retard. Are there cellphone towers over the ocean?

Please, please, get hit by a bus.

 

[Lovelynice]

Your links

What links do you have exactly?

Your opinion of mine matters not at all, since your personal opinion is entirely subjective and can't be accepted as anything more than the spouting of bullshit from a troll on a porn site.

When are you going to post some links and sources? Will I be a grandmother by then? I feel my hair going grey waiting for you to back your bullshit. It seems an eternity has gone by waiting and waiting.

You argue ad inifinitum with excuses and never quote a single source or provide a single link.

 

[Acanthus]

You are dodging what i am saying, why do i need an article to tell that there arent cellphone towers in the ocean?

Why do i need an article to tell you that project achilles doesnt follow the scientific method, nor is the douchebag qualified to make ANY statements about RF signaling?

 

[Lovelynice]

The article only mentions qualcomm technology, that is NOT what is being used on the planes. The planes simply allow cell phone use.

Yes, by having a cellular basestation installed to allow the cellphones to make calls from a passenger plane flying at cruising altitude.

Impossible to make cellphone calls from passenger planes six miles up and flying at over 450mph otherwise.

Or do you... by some miracle ... intend to actually quote one of your own links or sources to dispute this, hopefully before the next century begins.

 

[Acanthus]

Yes, by having a cellular basestation installed to allow the cellphones to make calls from a passenger plane flying at cruising altitude.

Impossible to make cellphone calls from passenger planes six miles up and flying at over 450mph otherwise.

Or do you... by some miracle ... intend to actually quote one of your own links or sources to dispute this, hopefully before the next century begins.

That isnt what the article says, you are inserting your own bullshit.

I dont need to link anything, theres no legwork to be done, im readin the article you posted and commenting on how your interpretation is wrong.

 

[Lovelynice]

You are dodging what i am saying,

I notice you dodge providing links and sources to back your bullshit about cellphones being able to make calls from passenger planes all the time.

Don't try to go off in some tangent, Mr Government Troll.

 

[Acanthus]

I notice you dodge providing links and sources to back your bullshit about cellphones being able to make calls from passenger planes all the time.

Don't try to go off in some tangent, Mr Government Troll.

You are changing the subject, please discuss what i just posted.

You cant rationally think or debate, that is obvious, so lets stay on subject and take this one step at a time.

 

[Lovelynice]

That isnt what the article says,

Then Mr Anonymous Troll on a porn site, you need to actually get off your lazy butt and provide both a link and quotes from the article to specifically to back your bullshit.

Nobody is just going to accept your word for it.

 

[Acanthus]

The Mr Anonymous Troll on a porn site, you need to actually get off your lazy butt and provide both a link and quotes from the article to specifically to back your bullshit.

Nobody is just going to accept your word for it.

It's your link, read it?

 

[Lovelynice]

You are changing the subject,.

The subject on the thread is the impossibility of making cellphone calls from passenger planes at cruising altitude while flying at typical passenger jet speeds.

I haven't changed the subject even once.

Nor am I going to discuss anything that is not DIRECTLY RELATED to that subject.

It seems the person trying to change the subject is you.

 

[Acanthus]

The subject on the thread is the impossibility of making cellphone calls from passenger planes at cruising altitude while flying at typical passenger jet speeds.

I haven't changed the subject even once.

Nor am I going to discuss anything that is not DIRECTLY RELATED to that subject.

It seems the person trying to change the subject is you.

Im commenting on specific links you posted. Using the text within those articles to show how retarded you are.

You cant gather what's going on?

Is there a phone nearby? Do they have hotlines in Japan?

 

[Lovelynice]

It's your link, read it?

Have you? You seem to be unable to find any evidence specifically in the article that says what you try to misrepresent it as saying.