Those IMPLAUSIBLE & IMPOSSIBLE cellphone calls

[phrodeau]

That's nice, and it doesn't mean much because the ORIGINAL article from Popular Mechanics was THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED as a pile of strawman arguments, nonsense, and outright lies.

POPULAR MECHANICS 9/11 ARTICLE DEBUNKED
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html

Nooooo, the article in PM was misunderstood by people who don't know much about mechanics.

PM published subsequent articles specifically dumbed down so every skeptic could understand them. Have you read them yet?

 

[Fagin]

Nooooo, the article in PM was misunderstood by people who don't know much about mechanics.

PM published subsequent articles specifically dumbed down so every skeptic could understand them. Have you read them yet?

Still not "dumbed down" enough for comprehension.

 

[Pookie]

Every post to a lovelynice thread is a wasted post, even this one.

Your post still has some perv value.

 

[Pookie]

Nooooo, the article in PM was misunderstood by people who don't know much about mechanics.

PM published subsequent articles specifically dumbed down so every skeptic could understand them. Have you read them yet?

The picture book edition is supposed to come out soon.

 

[garbage can]

It is without doubt that at cruising altitude you cannot use a cell phone...I tried it.

But AJ is right, what about at 3000 feet? 2000? it is quite likely that after taking over they dropped the flight level to somewhere under 5000 feet. I think the cell handoff issue is interesting, I dunno whether the speed of the plane prevents handoff between cells.

I checked airborne cell phone service a few months ago, when the pilot was announcing altitude. At 10,000 feet, I had service. At 20,000 feet, I had "no service available".

 

[phrodeau]

I checked airborne cell phone service a few months ago, when the pilot was announcing altitude. At 10,000 feet, I had service. At 20,000 feet, I had "no service available".

Ah, but what would it have been in 2001?

 

[Lovelynice]

Ah, but what would it have been in 2001?

the same or worse.

When are you "Arabs Did It" loonies going to cite some scientific studies to prove your nutty claims that cellphone calls are possible from passenger planes flying six miles up at over 450mph (without an onboard cellular basestation - technology which DIDN'T EXIST prior to 2004)???

Hmmm???

We've all been waiting with INCREASING SCEPTICISM.

 

[Lovelynice]

Nooooo, the article in PM was ...

No , the article was simply a pile of bullshit, crap, nonsense, LIES, and strawman arguments.

Just like the book which only recycles the same bullshit which hasn't improved any.

POPULAR MECHANICS 9/11 ARTICLE DEBUNKED
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html

 

[Lovelynice]

I checked airborne cell phone service a few months ago, when the pilot was announcing altitude. At 10,000 feet, I had service. At 20,000 feet, I had "no service available".

You were actually pretty lucky to even get that. Most airline crews report that they lose service above 2,000ft.

10,000ft has generally been accepted by experts as near the maximum possible. (as I mention on the very first post of this thread).

None of the government shills have ever been able to cite a scientific study to show that those cellphone calls were possible. Ever!

 

[phrodeau]

(Edited)
None of the government shills have ever been able to cite a scientific study to show that those cellphone calls were possible. Ever!

1. You can't prove that, because you have no proof of any government shills.

2. You wouldn't recognize a scientific study if it collapsed onto your footprint.

 

[Lovelynice]

1. You can't prove that, because you have no proof of any government shills..

NothingHitMe cited plenty of evidence. See his posts and his threads.

Looks like YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN!

2. You wouldn't recognize a scientific study if it collapsed onto your footprint.

Apparently YOU CAN'T, because you fools who promote the USA government propaganda in defence of the G W Bush Administtrations LIES have NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, been able to cite any scientific study showing that successful cellphone calls are even REMOTELY POSSIBLE from a passenger jet flying at over 20,000ft at a speed of over 450mph without an ONBOARD CELLULAR BASESTATION (technology which didn't exist until 2004 and which only just come out of the prototype stage and is still RARE)

Face facts. You people have told so many lies in defence of your employers with NOTHING TO BACK YOUR BULLSHIT for so long, that most people don't believe you (or your USA govt lies) anymore.

 

[Sean]

Six miles up or 20000 feet? When I went to school, six miles was 31000+

 

[dolf]

she is called lovely nice but her thread has no porn.

 

[Lavared]

Not even kitty fluff, only boring old pictures of buildings and ugly people in airport security lines.

Get out of this crazy thread, Dolf, and go party like it's your birthday!

 

[Pookie]

Those plausible and possible cellphone calls ...

From this morning's New York Times: "According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles."
http://www.slate.com/id/1008297/

An FCC study in 2000 found that cell-phone use aboard aircraft increases the number of blocked or dropped calls on the ground. That's because at high altitude, cellular signals are spread across several base stations, preventing other callers within range of those base stations from using the same frequencies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14290-2003Jun19?language=printer

Downs, a software salesman, learned of the terrorist attacks while on a commercial flight returning home from South America. The captain explained that "terrorist attacks on airplanes" meant they were making an emergency landing. People on board using cell phones soon discovered the true nature of the day's events.

"We found out from people using their phones that the World Trade Center was hit, and some unspecified area in Washington," Downs recalls.
http://news.com.com/Cell+phones+to+take+flight+-+page+2/2100-1039_3-5727009-2.html?tag=st.next

...we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight.
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/1989_9_11_travel.html

The pilot departed San Jose, California, on a cross-country flight to Sisters, Oregon. He obtained a standard preflight weather briefing. Visual flight was not recommended. Cumulus buildups were reported to the pilot. The pilot indicated that he may be overflying the cloud tops. He did not file a flight plan. The pilot's wife was driving to the same location and they talked by cell phone while en route. When the pilot failed to arrive at the destination a search was started. According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent. Radar was lost at 11,800 feet. Witnesses reported seeing the aircraft descending near vertically out of broken clouds with the engine at full power. When the aircraft was found, the right outboard wing panel from about station 110 outboard was missing. About a month later the outer wing panel was found. Analysis of the failed structure indicated a positive overload of the wing and the horizontal stabilators.
http://www.aircraftone.com/aircraft/accidents/20001208X06269.asp

Although many airplanes have public "air phones," passengers flinch at the fee of $6 per minute. (Airlines get a cut of the profits, which casts suspicion on why airlines want to keep cell phones turned off in the air.) Despite government regulation, or perhaps because of it, chatting above the clouds on a cell phone has proved irresistible for some. I've seen passengers hunkered in their seats, whispering into Nokias. I've watched frequent fliers scurry for a carry-on as muffled ringing emanates from within. Once, after the lavatory line grew to an unreasonable length, I knocked on the door. A guilt- ridden teenager emerged. She admitted that she'd been in there for half an hour, talking to her boyfriend on a cell phone.
http://www.caa.co.za/Public/Air Rage/docs/cellp0622-01.html

People have been communicating wirelessly from the main cabin since there have been wireless devices (never mind those overpriced satellite phones). A few years ago, I reported that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was looking the other way while air travelers were firing up their personal digital assistants (PDAs) in-flight and checking e-mail. I have personally used a cell phone on a plane, and I have flown next to people who have used their cell phones, particularly when they are over a populated area or flying at a lower altitude. What is new is that the FAA appears ready to sanction equipment designed to send and receive wireless signals onboard.
http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusin...ications/flying_with_cell_phones_5_myths.mspx

There's a lot more at this link:

http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

Consider yourself debunked, LN.

 

[Pookie]

He also allegedly called from a cellphone....again an impossibility.

Of course, his wife didn't speak to him personally, so who has a clue who was really pretending to be him? His wife can't say "I heard my husband", because she didn't personally speak to him, neh?

But Todd Beamer didn't call from a cellphone. He called from an airphone. How do we know this? Because he talked to Lisa Jefferson, a Verizon Airfone operator.

Can't you conspiracy nutjobs get anything right, LN?

Consider yourself debunked ... again.

 

[Lovelynice]

Those plausible and possible cellphone calls ..

remain IMPOSSIBLE unfortunately.

You didn't cite a single scientific study PROVING that cellphones could actually make successful calls from passenger planes flying above 20,000ft at over 450mph.

Look again through what you posted.

NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Try again dear.


1) From this morning's New York Times: "According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success ,,,

EVIDENCE BY SCIENTIFIC STUDY TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM? = NONE

2) An FCC study in 2000 found that cell-phone use aboard aircraft increases the number of blocked or dropped ...

WHICH PROVES NOTHING ABOUT MAKING SUCCESSFUL CELLPHONE CALLS.

3) Downs, a software salesman, learned of the terrorist attacks ...

TOTALLY ANECDOTAL AND MEANS NOTHING, besides he's talking about 2nd-hand passed-on information, and neither is he credible, nor the source which he doesn't mention.

4) The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests...

NO EVIDENCE THAT THE MAN WAS DOING ANYTHING MORE THAN RECORDING A VOICE MESSAGE ON HIS OWN PHONE, and this reflects the same insane paranoia as that in which people get called potential arab hijackers simply because they have a good tan.

5) The pilot departed San Jose, California, on a cross-country flight to Sisters, Oregon...

NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY RELEVANT, SMALL SLOW-FLYING PROP-PLANE! which is nothing at all like a HIGH-FLYING PASSENGER JET MOVING AT 500MPH!

6) I've seen passengers hunkered in their seats, whispering into Nokias...

AGAIN, MERE ANECDOTAL GARBAGE OF NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER!

7) I have personally used a cell phone on...

AGAIN, MORE ANECDOTAL GARBAGE OF NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER

Pookie, what part of the term SCIENTIFIC STUDY don't you understand?
NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, have you idiotic LIARS working for the USA government been able to cite any scientific study showing that successful cellphone calls are even REMOTELY POSSIBLE from a passenger jet flying at over 20,000ft at a speed of over 450mph without an ONBOARD CELLULAR BASESTATION (technology which didn't exist until 2004 and which only just come out of the prototype stage and is still RARE)

NEXT!

 

[Lovelynice]

But Todd Beamer didn't call from a cellphone.

Link? Source? Quoted article???



what evidence do you have that it was even Todd Beamer when the Verizon Operator didn't know him, never met him, and wouldn't know him from a bar of soap?

ANYTHING TO BACK YOUR BULLSHIT????

 

[Pookie]

remain IMPOSSIBLE unfortunately.

You didn't cite a single scientific study PROVING that cellphones could actually make successful calls from passenger planes flying above 20,000ft at over 450mph.

I haven't seen a scientific study proving they couldn't. Your AK Dewdney's "Project Achilles" is hardly a conclusive valid scientific study either. It's ripe with problems. A little bit about it ...

Dewdney is making calls within a short distance of the city centre, then. It's unclear how many mobile phone base stations would be within this area, but he describes it as "richly supplied", and that would make sense. Networks must install more base stations in a populated area because each one can only support so many simultaneous calls; the higher the surrounding mobile-using population, the more base stations you need.

There's a consequence to this, though, as Ericsson spell out.

"Each base station can only serve a limited amount of users at a time. As the number of mobile phone users grows more base stations are needed. When there are shorter distances between base stations and mobile phone users, however, less output power is needed to communicate."
http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/co...English/EN_factsheet_basestations_R1_2005.pdf


In other words, base stations in urban areas use less power, and therefore have a shorter range, than those out in the country.

There's much more at this link ...

http://www.911myths.com/html/ak_dewdney_and_project_achille.html

So hand wave all you want, cupcake. You've not shown cell phone calls weren't possible. So, yes. The calls were plausible and possible ... and happened.

 

[Pookie]

Link? Source? Quoted article???



what evidence do you have that it was even Todd Beamer when the Verizon Operator didn't know him, never met him, and wouldn't know him from a bar of soap?

ANYTHING TO BACK YOUR BULLSHIT????

Are you going to claim Lisa Jefferson wasn't an Airfone operator? I would think someone so well versed in "the truth" could at least get something right.

From a few of the numerous articles on the web ...

The Verizon Airfone operator was the last person to talk to United Flight 93 passenger Todd Beamer before he and other passengers rushed the cockpit to try to take the plane back from hijackers. She listened as he talked about his family, his fears and his faith, and she prayed the Lord's Prayer and the 23rd Psalm with him.
http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020911jefferson0911P6.asp

Verizon Airfone Supervisor Lisa Jefferson Recognized for Her Outstanding Performance and Humanitarian Spirit
http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2002/page.jsp?itemID=29721512

What evidence (read: not speculation) do you have that it wasn't Todd Beamer?

 

[Lovelynice]

Are you going to claim Lisa Jefferson wasn't an Airfone operator?

Where's your EVIDENCE that Lisa Jefferson KNEW Todd Beamer and could identify his voice from that of the garbage collector down the street?

Like I said, and many others have said, she wouldn't know him from a bar of soap.

It could've been ANYONE on that call pretending to be a "Mr Todd Beamer"

and when are you going to provide SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE with an actual SCIENTIFIC STUDY to prove that cellphones can make successful calls from passenger jets flying six miles up at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation, technology which didn't exist before 2004???

It's very clear that YOU HAVE NOTHING

 

[OTownMarine]

It's very clear that YOU HAVE NOTHING

It's very clear YOU have nothing- nothing rolling around in that conspiray theorist dome of yours. You really lead a sad, sad, life ... I'd almost pity you if I didn't despise you and your ridiculous banter so much. Die. Just... die. Thx.

 

[phrodeau]

NothingHitMe cited plenty of evidence. See his posts and his threads.

Looks like YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN!





Apparently YOU CAN'T, because you fools who promote the USA government propaganda in defence of the G W Bush Administtrations LIES have NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, been able to cite any scientific study showing that successful cellphone calls are even REMOTELY POSSIBLE from a passenger jet flying at over 20,000ft at a speed of over 450mph without an ONBOARD CELLULAR BASESTATION (technology which didn't exist until 2004 and which only just come out of the prototype stage and is still RARE)

Face facts. You people have told so many lies in defence of your employers with NOTHING TO BACK YOUR BULLSHIT for so long, that most people don't believe you (or your USA govt lies) anymore.

I'm certain that I did cite a scientific study showing that it was possible. It was quite a few pages back, though. Sometime after I first pointed out that the things called "cellular basestations" are all on the ground or in towers.

 

[Pookie]

Where's your EVIDENCE that Lisa Jefferson KNEW Todd Beamer and could identify his voice from that of the garbage collector down the street?

Like I said, and many others have said, she wouldn't know him from a bar of soap.

It could've been ANYONE on that call pretending to be a "Mr Todd Beamer"

and when are you going to provide SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE with an actual SCIENTIFIC STUDY to prove that cellphones can make successful calls from passenger jets flying six miles up at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation, technology which didn't exist before 2004???

It's very clear that YOU HAVE NOTHING

I didn't think you had anything other than paranoid speculation. Cell phone calls have been made for years on planes at various altitudes. Even your Dewdney doesn't claim what you do. Even with his seriously flawed "project", he admits that calls above 8000 feet are not impossible. He states that conditions have to be optimal, which according to his "study" would have not been over a city. You're the one now claiming it's impossible. When you have some real conclusive scientific evidence (read: not speculation), get back with us. Paranoia just don't cut it, buttercup.

So, until you provide convincing evidence otherwise, those phone calls were plausible and possible ... and happened.

Consider yourself debunked ... yet again.

Next.

 

[Lovelynice]

Cell phone calls have been made for years on planes at various altitudes.

Yes, various altitudes from anything below 10,000ft and in MUCH SLOWER planes.

Let's see you provide REAL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES to prove that cellphones can make successful calls from above 30,000ft while flying at over 450mph.

You have yet to cite any.

The only person being debunked is YOU and your very silly excuses (you even tried passing off a slow-moving prop-plane as being equivalent to a jet! )

Pookie, you and the other shills like you on this site, are a bunch of losers. You BORE me.