Those IMPLAUSIBLE & IMPOSSIBLE cellphone calls

[Lovelynice]

I don't need to ?

Your bullshit excuses are dying,.

I can cite links and sources, you can not.

You have repeatedly made claims without anything to back them.

No sources, no links, means you have NOTHING and are just making shit up.

You LOSE.

 

[Lovelynice]

IYou can't prove a negative.

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.

 

[Lovelynice]

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

As I said already, Mr LIAR

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.

 

[Lovelynice]

sipsute

What the hell is that word?

I think you're losing it and getting fazed aren't you...

It's not like you have ever cited any SOURCES to suppport those stories and bullshit that you keep making up.

LOSER

 

[Lovelynice]

BTW, the "sources" you've quoted are bullshit obviously.

I think your bullshit is sinking faster...

So, the San Franciso Chronicle, the Washington Post, Reuters, PC World, and other mainstream news sources which clearly showed in their articles that cellphone calls were IMPOSSIBLE from passenger jets flying at cruising altitudes above 10,000 feet at over 450mph are all "bullshit" according to YOU???

Sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the experts and scientists over your LIES anyday of the week...


SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
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)

WASHINGTON POST
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 (Washington Post, December 9, 2004)

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

REUTERS
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."

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

 

[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?

I figure that this is at least as relevant to the topic as whether steel and concrete buildings can collapse into their own footprint without a controlled demolition.

Let's see you prove your assertion that a person can't make an Airfone call from a bathroom.

 

[ImpWizard]

Let's see you prove your assertion that a person can't make an Airfone call from a bathroom.

That's really the best excuse you can come up with. Bit wimpy isn't it?

Let's see you prove that an airfone cord can reach into the bathroom.

It can't.

That's just you being an idiot.

 

[ImpWizard]

(to stuponfucious)I think your bullshit is sinking faster...

So, the San Franciso Chronicle, the Washington Post, Reuters, PC World, and other mainstream news sources which clearly showed in their articles that cellphone calls were IMPOSSIBLE from passenger jets flying at cruising altitudes above 10,000 feet at over 450mph are all "bullshit" according to YOU???

Sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the experts and scientists over your LIES anyday of the week...


SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
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)

WASHINGTON POST
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 (Washington Post, December 9, 2004)

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

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


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

I noticed that he had no come back.

LOL

 

[Slowlane]

I think your bullshit is sinking faster...

So, the San Franciso Chronicle, the Washington Post, Reuters, PC World, and other mainstream news sources which clearly showed in their articles that cellphone calls were IMPOSSIBLE from passenger jets flying at cruising altitudes above 10,000 feet at over 450mph are all "bullshit" according to YOU???

Sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the experts and scientists over your LIES anyday of the week...


SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
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)

WASHINGTON POST
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 (Washington Post, December 9, 2004)

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

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


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

I think you should read those links. (and try to understand them) They all say cell phone communication is banned and, in essence, that the search for a new technology is on for a SAFER method.

 

[ImpWizard]

I think you should read those links. (and try to understand them) They all say cell phone communication is banned and, in essence, that the search for a new technology is on for a SAFER method.

They also say, and you should read them again, that the technology to make cellphone calls from passenger jets wasn't even possible prior to 2004.

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
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)

WASHINGTON POST
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 (Washington Post, December 9, 2004)

http://www.gmpcs-us.com/satnews/jan-5 -Boeing.htm.

Qualcomm Tests In-Flight Cell Phone Calls With American Airlines
San Diego-based Qualcomm and American Airlines tested a proof-of-concept, CDMA mobile phone system for commercial planes Thursday. Passengers on a flight from Dallas/Forth Worth made telephone calls using a third generation CDMA-based network, connected from the air to the ground by a satellite link. The proof of concept flight included a cellular basestation onboard, which funneled calls and text messages through the Globalstar satellite system.

They needed a cellular basestation onboard the plane to make it possible for the cellphone calls - because it's impossible to make cellphone calls from a passenger jet at cruising altitude flying at 500mph anyway.


Slowlane, you just got caught misrepresenting what is stated on those sources and links.

 

[Slowlane]

They also say, and you should read them again, that the technology to make cellphone calls from passenger jets wasn't even possible prior to 2004.

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
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)

WASHINGTON POST
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 (Washington Post, December 9, 2004)

http://www.gmpcs-us.com/satnews/jan-5 -Boeing.htm.


They needed a cellular basestation onboard the plane to make it possible for the cellphone calls - because it's impossible to make cellphone calls from a passenger jet at cruising altitude flying at 500mph anyway.


Slowlane, you just got caught misrepresenting what is stated on those sources and links.

Your Washington Post quote has no link and so is useless.

Your gmpcs quote is correctly quoted but as I said involves the search for NEW technology.

 

[ImpWizard]

Your Washington Post quote has no link and so is useless.

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

Your gmpcs quote is correctly quoted but as I said involves the search for NEW technology.

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.

 

[Slowlane]

You haven’t posted anything that shows in any way that all the respected scientists, engineers, congressman, and special investigators who think the calls are real are wrong.

A newspaper piece here, a misinterpreted article there and a few sources for conspiracy theorists. Nothing really.

There is no “argument” to lose. Just teasing a couple of people who could benefit from some medication.

 

[John Doe]

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.

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

Obviously you know sweet fuckall about logic or science.

And you have yet to provide an alternative explanation for the events of 9/11.

 

[John Doe]

That's really the best excuse you can come up with. Bit wimpy isn't it?

Let's see you prove that an airfone cord can reach into the bathroom.

It can't.

That's just you being an idiot.

Yes it can. Anyone who has been on a commercial airliner for more than ten minutes can tell you the cord is longer than that. And most of the airfones are right near the front of the passenger cabin, where the bathroom is.

 

[Acanthus]

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?

You didnt say it was, but the douche in project achilles, which youve linked about 15 times now in 2 threads (annoyingly i might add) did imply that its linear by projecting a linear dropoff success rate as the altitude increased.

 

[KRCummings]

Yes it can. Anyone who has been on a commercial airliner for more than ten minutes can tell you the cord is longer than that. And most of the airfones are right near the front of the passenger cabin, where the bathroom is.

The cord on those airfones isn't needed. They can be used without it.
They are there for security. If you were to cut it or pull it out the phone would still work.

 

[John Doe]

The cord on those airfones isn't needed. They can be used without it.
They are there for security. If you were to cut it or pull it out the phone would still work.

If you were to cut it or pull it out you would be in deep shit.

But regardless, whatever the reason for the cord, it needs to be long enough to reach the bathroom if you're going to use the fone in the bathroom without getting bitchslapped by a skywaitress.

Ipso fatso.

 

[KRCummings]

If you were to cut it or pull it out you would be in deep shit.

But regardless, whatever the reason for the cord, it needs to be long enough to reach the bathroom if you're going to use the fone in the bathroom without getting bitchslapped by a skywaitress.

Ipso fatso.

Well, obviously under normal circumstances you wouldn't fuck with it but if you're being hijacked then I'd think you wouldn't give a shit. I didn't read the whole thread because it's just the usual c&p shit from the loonies but I'm assuming that we're talking about passengers using the airfones in the bathroom during the hijacking.

 

[John Doe]

Well, obviously under normal circumstances you wouldn't fuck with it but if you're being hijacked then I'd think you wouldn't give a shit. I didn't read the whole thread because it's just the usual c&p shit from the loonies but I'm assuming that we're talking about passengers using the airfones in the bathroom during the hijacking.

Someone breaking the law and threatening your life doesn't justify disrespecting the cord and the authority of skywaitresses.

and what hijacking?

 

[KRCummings]

Someone breaking the law and threatening your life doesn't justify disrespecting the cord and the authority of skywaitresses.

and what hijacking?

Well, apparently there wasn't a hijacking so I guess if someone broke the cord then they should be prosecuted. I mean, they must still be alive since it never really happened. I'm sure someone could track them down and sue them for destroying private property.

 

[John Doe]

Well, apparently there wasn't a hijacking so I guess if someone broke the cord then they should be prosecuted. I mean, they must still be alive since it never really happened. I'm sure someone could track them down and sue them for destroying private property.

You can't prosecute someone who's dead.

Idiot.

Although I guess you could sue thier estate if they had one.

Dipshit.

 

[KRCummings]

You can't prosecute someone who's dead.

Idiot.

Although I guess you could sue thier estate if they had one.

Dipshit.

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

 

[John Doe]

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

Oh? Then where did it crash and kill everyone onboard including the suicidal Arab hijackers if not an immensely tall symbol of affluence and freedom that is therefore a glaringly obvious target for religious radicals who hate Capitalism then? Huh?

Huh?!

 

[phrodeau]

Oh? Then where did it crash and kill everyone onboard including the suicidal Arab hijackers if not an immensely tall symbol of affluence and freedom that is therefore a glaringly obvious target for religious radicals who hate Capitalism then? Huh?

Huh?!

It's past your bedtime.