Those IMPLAUSIBLE & IMPOSSIBLE cellphone calls

[KRCummings]

What's the deal with these idiots from Japan and Australia?
Are they really that dumb or is this all just an act? I'm starting to believe they are all really that dumb.
At least I can understand why someone from Japan might be so stupid. I mean with the radiation and all from that ass-whoopin' they got.

 

[Lovelynice]

Why are you even bothering to pretend that a 13 minute cellphone call from a plane at cruising altitude is anywhere near plausible???

Come on, shills, explain this...

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.

and tell me why everyone with a brain disagrees with you...

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

 

[KRCummings]

If they had cell phones in 1945 do you think the Capt. of the Enola Gay might have used it?
You know, to let the folks back home know about the good news.

 

[breakwall]

is it just me, or are Lovelynice's posts starting to look repetitive?

 

[KRCummings]

You've never been on a plane before, the airphone cord is not long enough to reach INSIDE the bathroom.

You know that the airfone is cordless, right? Yes, of course you do because you are so wise and knowledgable. I'm sure that your mention of the cord not being long enough was simply a sarcastic response since someone as wise as yourself would surely know that the airfone can be taken anywhere and used. Yes, that must be it.

 

[Fabala]

Interesting...

According to Wikipedia, cell phone use has dramatically decreased the use of Airphones in the past several years...

AirFone handsets were gradually extended to include one unit in each row of seats in economy. The service was always priced extremely high--$3.99 per call and $4.99 per minute in 2006--and has seen less and less use as the ready availability of cellular telephones has increased. In an FCC filing in 2005, the agency noted that 4,500 aircraft have AirFone service, and quoted Verizon AirFone's president stating in a New York Times article that only two to three people per flight make a call.

 

[Slowlane]

is it just me, or are Lovelynice's posts starting to look repetitive?

And bigger. I don’t even have the regular sized decoder ring yet and already I need a bigger one.

 

[phrodeau]

You've never been on a plane before, the airphone cord is not long enough to reach INSIDE the bathroom.

Got documents to prove that?

Can you come up with JUST ONE example of an airplane bathroom too far away for an Airfone to reach?

 

[KRCummings]

Got documents to prove that?

Can you come up with JUST ONE example of an airplane bathroom too far away for an Airfone to reach?

If you have phone sex on an airfone in an airplane bathroom does that mean you are a member of the Mile High Club?

 

[Lovelynice]

You know that the airfone is cordless,

show me then a photo from a 757 passenger jet of a cordless airfone circa 2001 please.

Nevertheless CELLPHONE calls from passenger jets flying six miles up at 450mph are impossible.

as these experts have stated, and I repeatedly supported with adequate sources and links which none of you shills have been able to counter.


PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS (also mention on the Project Achilles site)

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: geocities . com / rf _ man _ cdma /

Brad Mayeux


Dear Sir

I have yet to read the entire 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

(I have their email dresses if you want them)

 

[Lovelynice]

Interesting...

According to Wikipedia, cell phone use has dramatically decreased the use of Airphones in the past several years...

Ah yes, wikipedia, the encyclopedia that any idiot can edit...
http://xs204.xs.to/xs204/06305/wikipediajoke1.jpg



Do you have a credible source? Because it's well known that CELLPHONES are not able to successfully make calls from passenger jets six miles up and flying at over 450mph.

They need newer technology which did not exist until 2004,and is still extremely rare.

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 MAGIC CELLPHONES 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.


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.

 

[phrodeau]

Still waiting...

Got documents to prove that?

Can you come up with JUST ONE example of an airplane bathroom too far away for an Airfone to reach?

And it's enlightening to see that you consider the family members of flight 93's victims to be idiots.

 

[Lovelynice]

I'm not the FAA. Their report reads nothing like your ...

Isn't it odd that you can't post any links or relevant quotes to prove that claim of yours.

Where as I can post numerous links from news sites, science sites, and reports to back what I have stated repeatedly.

Cellphones can't make successful calls from passenger jets flying six miles up at over 450mph, and they can't maintain a call for longer than a few seconds when flying low at over 450mph either.

 

[Lovelynice]

Still waiting...And it's enlightening to see that you consider the family members of flight 93's victims to be idiots.

It's enlightening that you would insult them by implying such a thing. I certainly would not. They are VICTIMS of a crime. Please stop insulting them in this way. You should be ashamed of yourself and ashamed of your attempts to defend the mass murderers and those who ordered those mass murders and covered up for them.

Can you feel that noose getting closer as the Official Lies fall apart. Don't you feel disgusted with yourself, or a little afraid when you consider that it's always the little fish that get tossed to the wolves first when the topguys try to dodge that noose? All your posts in their defence will be used against you one day. There's always a cache file copy of posts somewhere, and there are millions of people hunting down the evidence of the criminals and their shills.

You don't really believe that other people aren't helping me on this site, do you?

In any case, the cellphone calls were faked. Since the cellphone calls were impossible, there is no other explanation.

Faking a phone call from a relative is easy...

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

It was easy to fake someone's voice back in those days too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

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



Or would you prefer to believe in Magic Arabs.

 

[Acanthus]

Thaat's because it doesn't need to mention that 35,000 - 700 = 34,300ft

Did you fail math?

We are also talking about the height at which the CELLPHONE calls began - a height at which it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to besuccessfully made,
and the SPEED does not make it any easier. They remain impossible when yu consider bullshit lies about cellphone calls lasting 25 minutes on a passenger jet flying at over 450mph!

The guy doing the "experiment" (junk science) extrapolated the numbers, didnt give his exact location for the experiements, didnt have a craft capable of the velocity or altitude he extrapolated the numbers for.

Distance is not a linear drop off for signal for cell phone usage.

Take a cell phone and stand right next to a tower and check your signal, youll have 1 or 2 bars.

Go a mile in any direction, youll have 5.

Go 5 miles in any direction, then you have curvature of the earth and other obstruction issues, your signal depletes.

To imply that SPEED causes problems with a signal that is an order of magnitude faster than the top speed of the plane is odd.

And the "cellphone technician" they quote in your article is a damn joke, "we have trouble making cellphones work at 65mph"... lmao.

 

[John Doe]

Just for the record, Wikipedia is a marginally better source than Penny Arcade cartoons.

And yes, The Australians and Japanese are idiots.

 

[Lovelynice]

To imply that SPEED causes problems with a signal that is an order of magnitude faster than the top speed of the plane is odd..

To imply that SPEED does not cause a problem with the time consumed in the cellphone making it's "handshake" with the nearest cellular antenna tower before it's out of range is absurd.

To imply that I claimed that speed affected the signal itself is one of your attempts at misrespresentation and it just DIED.

 

[John Doe]

To imply that SPEED does not cause a problem with the time consumed in the cellphone making it's "handshake" with the nearest cellular antenna tower before it's out of range is absurd.

To imply that I claimed that speed affected the signal itself is one of your attempts at misrespresentation and it just DIED.

you do know that radio signals travel at the speed of light, don't you?

 

[Lovelynice]

Distance is not a linear drop off for signal for cell phone usage.

I didn't say it was.

You do realise that signals weaken with distance don't you? They don't stay at the same signal strength the further away you go.

What you described works only when going from one cellular network antenna "cell" to another. When you leave the "cell" and keep going, without passing through or entering another "cell" the signal drops off, as the range is only around 3 miles. Not 5 miles as you pretend, because the cellphone only transmits 3 watts.

In innercities, each "cell" is often only 1 mile.

Now, if you have a problem with what I've posted, and ALL MY LINKS AND SOURCES, perhaps you can get around to posting a few SOURCES AND LINKS TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN BULLSHIT.

Or is that too difficult for a shill like you?

 

[Lovelynice]

you do know that radio signals travel at the speed of light, don't you?

That's irrelevant as we are not talking about the SPEED OF THE SIGNAL, we are talking about the SPEED OF THE HANDSHAKE.

The later takes quite a lot of time, and travelling at over 450mph in a pasenger jet at LOW altitiude, the cellphone call can only last 6-8 seconds before being cut-off due the lack of time for a new handshake to be completed. (and at cruising altitude 5 to 6 miles up, it's IMPOSSIBLE)

Why aren't you able to post any links to support your bullshit? I guess because suddenly you want to pretend that you're cellphone communications engineer, but I have yet to see any qualifications from you.

However, I at least have the LINKS AND SOURCES from experts to support my statements.

You're still sinking...

 

[John Doe]

That's irrelevant as we are not talking about the SPEED OF THE SIGNAL, we are talking about the SPEED OF THE HANDSHAKE.

The later takes quite a lot of time, and travelling at over 450mph in a pasenger jet at LOW altitiude, the cellphone call can only last 6-8 seconds before being cut-off due the lack of time for a new handshake to be completed. (and at cruising altitude 5 to 6 miles up, it's IMPOSSIBLE)

Why aren't you able to post any links to support your bullshit? I guess because suddenly you want to pretend that you're cellphone communications engineer, but I have yet to see any qualifications from you.

However, I at least have the LINKS AND SOURCES from experts to support my statements.

You're still sinking...

I never claimed I was a communications expert of any kind? Are yous aying you are?

But it really doesn't take an expert of any kind to figure this shit out. Just some high school math and physics.

Anyway, why do I need links to disprove a bullshit claim that hardly anyone believes in the first place?

 

[Lovelynice]

The guy doing the "experiment"

Yes, it was a scientific experiment.

Are you a scientist qualified to dispute what he stated? No?
Do you any SOURCES to quote from to dispute his experiment results? No?

Gee whiz, you don't have much to back you up do you?!

Oh, by the way, there were TWO scientific studies done, not just one. If you looked carefully,you would also notice the numerous quotes from mainstream news sources stating that cellphone calls were IMPOSSIBLE from passenger jets prior to 2004.

Do you have any SOURCES to dispute them? No?

What kind of shill are you then? A lazy dumb one, I think.

 

[Lovelynice]

I never claimed I was a communications expert of any kind

That's nice. Which means that you need to quote some SOURCES which you haven't done. I've posted numerous sources, you haven't.

Now hurry up and do so, loser.

 

[John Doe]

That's nice. Which means that you need to quote some SOURCES which you haven't done. I've posted numerous sources, you haven't.

Now hurry up and do so, loser.

I don't need to disprove something you haven't even proven yet. You can't prove a negative. BTW, the "sources" you've quoted are bullshit obviously.

Are you a scientist qualified to sipsute what anyone else has said here? No? then why does anyone else need to be?

 

[ChauvanistPig]

Where was Andrea Yates on 9/11?