Those IMPLAUSIBLE & IMPOSSIBLE cellphone calls

[phrodeau]

Yes, you really should stop lying, shill.

The attempts to dodge the evidence that the official "Arabs did it" conspiracy theory is utter nonsense aren't working.

The facts remain unchanged, without a cellular basestation onboard a passenger jet, it is impossible to make a successful cellphone call while flying six miles up at 500mph.

None of you have been able to show otherwise.

I did.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-501431-2.html?tag=st.next

The FCC's concern about air-to-ground cellular interference is real enough. From high in the sky, a cell phone acts like a sponge, sucking capacity out of the cellular sites that carry calls. For ground users, cell phones communicate by connecting to one cell site at a time; from the air, because of the height and speed of an aircraft, the phones often make contact with several sites at once. If allowed, this would limit call capacity, which would mean less revenue, says Howard Sherry, chief wireless scientist at Telcordia Technologies Inc., formerly the research arm of the Baby Bell telephone companies, in Morristown, N.J.

The cellular signal from the air is also especially strong, since it is unimpeded by buildings or other ground clutter. That often means it can jump on a frequency already in use on the ground, causing interruptions or hang-ups. And airborne cellular calls are sometimes free because the signal is moving so fast between cells that the software on the ground has difficulty recording the call, says Bentley Alexander, a senior engineer at AT&T's wireless unit.

Another thing - the plane's speed might be relevant if it's flying low to the ground. The higher the plane, the less the speed matters. The tower's reception area is spherical or cardioidal, so it's wider at greater heights.

 

[NothingHitMe]

Another thing - the plane's speed might be relevant if it's flying low to the ground. The higher the plane, the less the speed matters. The tower's reception area is spherical or cardioidal, so it's wider at greater heights.

provide the math proving your alleged point, otherwise it means nothing.

You'll need scientific studies and cited expert opinions as well.

 

[NothingHitMe]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-...tml?tag=st.next

There was nothing there.

We were unable to find the page you requested.

If you arrived here by typing a URL, please make sure the spelling, capitalization, and punctuation are correct, then reload the page by hitting the Enter or Return key on your keyboard.

You have landed on a 404 error page -- the result of a broken link. The information you were seeking may be available on ZDNet, but it is not at the location specified. If you were looking for a specific product, recent news story, or general topic, you may find it by entering one or more key words in our search engine above.

Your other options are: return to the ZDNet home page, contact Customer Service, or click your browser's Back button to return to the previous page.

 

[phrodeau]

There was nothing there.

Try this one.

http://www.panix.com/~dictum/news/telecom/Cell_phones_on_planes.html

 

[NothingHitMe]

Try this one.

http://www.panix.com/~dictum/news/telecom/Cell_phones_on_planes.html

Already read that a long time ago. It's related to the study of a plane crash caused by the malfunctions in the electrical systems of the plane. They had thought it was cellphones and/or laptops that caused it.

However, it doesn't have any details showing that cellphones can make calls from passenger jets at cruising altitude. In other words, it doesn't support your defence of the official conspiracy theory that requires those calls on 9-11 to have been possible.

 

[phrodeau]

Already read that a long time ago. It's related to the study of a plane crash caused by the malfunctions in the electrical systems of the plane. They had thought it was cellphones and/or laptops that caused it.

However, it doesn't have any details showing that cellphones can make calls from passenger jets at cruising altitude. In other words, it doesn't support your defence of the official conspiracy theory that requires those calls on 9-11 to have been possible.

It's a Wall Street Journal article, nothing more.

Sort of like the quotes posted above. They are nothing more than what they claim to be. For example:

... 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...

 

[NothingHitMe]

REMEMBER THESE EXPERT OPINIONS?
(they're on the first post of this thread)

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. (about Dewdney's analysis) 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>

(So where are your cited expert opinions?)

and this?

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 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...MNGUMAC6LB1.DTL

 

[phrodeau]

Expert or shill, who knows?

Storytelling about how highly qualified they are, without being able to provide any evidence to support their claim to qualifications is another popular shill tactic.

 

[breakwall]

REMEMBER THESE EXPERT OPINIONS?
(they're on the first post of this thread)

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. (about Dewdney's analysis) 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>

(So where are your cited expert opinions?)

and this?

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 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...MNGUMAC6LB1.DTL

speaking of tired old arguments.

They must be getting really bored re-hashing the same old tired and discredited tactics from the pages of their official shilling manuals. Talk about a dead-end job.

How's your dead-end job working for you?

 

[Lovelynice]

speaking of tired old arguments.

Yes, you still are unable to provide any sources or links to show that cellphone calls are possible from planes flying six miles up at over 450mph.

That may be a tired old argument, but I'm getting tired of the excuses of you shills trying to pretend that impossible things happened - when they obviously did not. And the cellphone calls are still fake.

 

[phrodeau]

Well, I'm getting tired of seeing you claim something is impossible, when the links you cite claim it's "next to impossible".

 

[Acanthus]

Yes, you still are unable to provide any sources or links to show that cellphone calls are possible from planes flying six miles up at over 450mph.

That may be a tired old argument, but I'm getting tired of the excuses of you shills trying to pretend that impossible things happened - when they obviously did not. And the cellphone calls are still fake.

Where is your evidence that the planes were over 30000 feet in the sky after the transponders were disabled?

 

[breakwall]

Yes, you still are unable to provide any sources or links to show that cellphone calls are possible from planes flying six miles up at over 450mph.

That may be a tired old argument, but I'm getting tired of the excuses of you shills trying to pretend that impossible things happened - when they obviously did not. And the cellphone calls are still fake.

Nope. They occured.

But you keep massaging that data. First it was 6000 feet. Then 10,000. Now it's all of a sudden over 30,000.

You're a joke.

 

[phrodeau]

Yes, you still are unable to provide any sources or links to show that cellphone calls are possible from planes flying six miles up at over 450mph.

That may be a tired old argument, but I'm getting tired of the excuses of you shills trying to pretend that impossible things happened - when they obviously did not. And the cellphone calls are still fake.

http://www.panix.com/~dictum/news/telecom/Cell_phones_on_planes.html

Mr. Sheehan, who is also a certified pilot, notes that cell phones are
regularly used on private and corporate planes "thousands of times
every day" without incident. He says he has dialed from the air on
many occasions. When asked whether cell phones should be included
among the list of devices such as laptop computers that are now
permitted above 10,000 feet, he says "that would be OK. It's not a
problem."

 

[Acanthus]

Don't know — I looked at the report again, and after it says that UA 93 was at 35,000 and then descended 700 feet, it doesn't mention the plane's altitude again. It might have descended further or it might not have, but there's nothing about it in the report.

The transponders were disabled, they had no flight data other than whats on the recorders.

 

[Byron In Exile]

http://www.panix.com/~dictum/news/telecom/Cell_phones_on_planes.html

Thanks, Phrodeau. Interesting.

 

[Byron In Exile]

The transponders were disabled, they had no flight data other than whats on the recorders.

But wouldn't the flight data recorder have recorded the plane's altitude continuously?

 

[Acanthus]

But wouldn't the flight data recorder have recorded the plane's altitude continuously?

Yes, but that data isnt released to the public afaik.

 

[Fat_lot_of_good]

http://www.panix.com/~dictum/news/telecom/Cell_phones_on_planes.html

Mr. Sheehan, who is also a certified pilot, notes that cell phones are
regularly used on private and corporate planes "thousands of times
every day" without incident. He says he has dialed from the air on
many occasions. When asked whether cell phones should be included
among the list of devices such as laptop computers that are now
permitted above 10,000 feet, he says "that would be OK. It's not a
problem." http://www.panix.com/~dictum/news/telecom/Cell_phones_on_planes.html

He's talking about using cellphones on small planes at lower altitude, most probably.

It's not clear otherwise what altitude he's talking about using them at, plus it's already known that cellphones can't make calls above 6000-7000ft as many airline staff would tell you, and this is also mentioned repeatedly in Lovelynice's informative posts.(supported by experiments and cited experts)

It doesn't prove your case because "Mr Sheehan" is not clear about the altitude or the type of aircraft.

 

[Acanthus]

He's talking about using cellphones on small planes at lower altitude, most probably.

It's not clear otherwise what altitude he's talking about using them at, plus it's already known that cellphones can't make calls above 6000-7000ft as many airline staff would tell you, and this is also mentioned repeatedly in Lovelynice's informative posts.(supported by experiments and cited experts)

It doesn't prove your case because "Mr Sheehan" is not clear about the altitude or the type of aircraft.

I can find a couple quotes that say the apocolypse is coming this year.

Does that mean "many people who go to church" believe armageddon is this year?

 

[NothingHitMe]

The point made; Fat_lot_of_good destroying yet another of the shills' excuses and misrepresentations

He's talking about using cellphones on small planes at lower altitude, most probably.

It's not clear otherwise what altitude he's talking about using them at, plus it's already known that cellphones can't make calls above 6000-7000ft as many airline staff would tell you, and this is also mentioned repeatedly in Lovelynice's informative posts.(supported by experiments and cited experts)

It doesn't prove your case because "Mr Sheehan" is not clear about the altitude or the type of aircraft.

The shills response, flipped out wackiness because the shills fucked up again and got caught

I can find a couple quotes that say the apocolypse is coming this year.

Does that mean "many people who go to church" believe armageddon is this year?

Acanthus, there is no doubt, you are one of the dumbest tinfoil hat wearers on this site. Only slowlane and KRcummings are dumber. Sadly, you've deluded yourself that you're smart.

 

[Acanthus]

I took you off of ignore to read that troll post, lmao, back on you go.

 

[NothingHitMe]

Zhou's calculations in his simulation of the WTC twin towers collapses just got smacked on a mainstream physics site at lunchtime today- he doesn't get the one million dollar prize money either! LOL

 

[phrodeau]

He's talking about using cellphones on small planes at lower altitude, most probably.

It's not clear otherwise what altitude he's talking about using them at, plus it's already known that cellphones can't make calls above 6000-7000ft as many airline staff would tell you, and this is also mentioned repeatedly in Lovelynice's informative posts.(supported by experiments and cited experts)

It doesn't prove your case because "Mr Sheehan" is not clear about the altitude or the type of aircraft.

Lovelynice cited people claiming to be experts, and so have I.

Maybe one group is nothing but shills. My article is from October 1999. When was LN's produced?

 

[NothingHitMe]

Lovelynice cited people claiming to be experts, and so have I.

You misrepresented what your quoted "expert" stated.

Mr Sheehan didn't state anything about the altitude of the planes, the tyoe of planes, the size of the planes, or whether any of those planes were passenger jets flying 5-6 miles up at 500mph.

Because of this, your article is worthless. It proved nothing except the possibility that some people used cellphones on small private planes and corporate jets at lower altitude, yet all other quoted experts, experiments, and media reports run counter to what you are claiming.

You have a problem with that, then find a better article and read it in full next time.