Those IMPLAUSIBLE & IMPOSSIBLE cellphone calls

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Dat's a seriously funny use of a misquote...

I wish I had said it first.

Can't start a fire without a spark!



ACORN

 

[Mad_Dog_20_20]

Just like YOURS? You really shouldn't describe yourself that way. Grow a brain instead.

"I know you are, but what am I?"

FYP ...

You've made an extremely persuasive argument and I've come to reconsider my originally flawed point-of-view in the matter. You, sir or madam, have given me a great deal of insightful information to think about and I want to thank you profusely for opening my eyes and expanding my perspectives.

Would you have time to be my idol?

 

[Pookie]

If there is, THEN SHOW IT,

Because so far all you've done is spout TOTAL BULLSHIT in support of that lie of yours.

I did. If the people I referenced are lying, then it should be very easy for you to discredit with your scientific evidence. What you've presented so far doesn't say it's impossible. Quite the opposite.

You're the one claiming those I quoted and many others are liars ... even before 9/11 in many cases. Prove it, snookums.

 

[Lovelynice]

I did. If the people I referenced are lying, then it should be very easy for you to discredit with your scientific evidence. What you've presented so far doesn't say it's impossible. Quite the opposite.

You're the one claiming those I quoted and many others are liars ... even before 9/11 in many cases. Prove it, snookums.

As I said, If there is proof (meaning SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that cellphones can successfully make calls from planes flying six miles up at over 450mph), THEN SHOW IT,

Because so far all you've done is spout TOTAL BULLSHIT in support of that lie of yours.

Please back your bullshit and stop dancing around telling lies claiming that you have, when you haven't

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I'm jamming to Steve Miller's, keeponnarockin'mebaybee...

















.

 

[OTownMarine]

As I said, If there is proof (meaning SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that cellphones can successfully make calls from planes flying six miles up at over 450mph), THEN SHOW IT,

Because so far all you've done is spout TOTAL BULLSHIT in support of that lie of yours.

Please back your bullshit and stop dancing around telling lies claiming that you have, when you haven't

For someone accusing others of 'spouting total bullshit', all we seem to get from you is rehashed articles that you ctrl-c ctrl-v'd 10-20-100 pages ago, and the same rehashed demands for 'us' to back up our claims. I've seen several instances as of late where the conspiray theorist crackpots like yourself were on tv(your fearless leaders, standing up for what they 'believe' ) and every time, theyve been knocked off their pedistal and refuted at every turn.... but if you want to continue to believe this bullshit because your life holds no meaning otherwise (sad really) then carry on.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Then, I SAW HER FACE!

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

... not a trace of doubt in my mind!

















.

 

[Pookie]

As I said, If there is proof (meaning SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that cellphones can successfully make calls from planes flying six miles up at over 450mph), THEN SHOW IT,

Because so far all you've done is spout TOTAL BULLSHIT in support of that lie of yours.

Please back your bullshit and stop dancing around telling lies claiming that you have, when you haven't

Don't need it, sweetpea. I've quoted people who say they have made cell phone calls that you insist, without evidence, is impossible. You're the one saying it's not possible. If it's not possible at all, then this should be a slam dunk for you. I mean, after 5 frickin' years, you guys should have plenty of scientific evidence to prove this isn't possible. The one study you have been posting even admits it isn't impossible, just not likely. That's hardly considered "impossible". Heh.

C'mon, LN. Prove me and those I quoted are wrong. Just once. You can do it!

Until then, consider yourself still debunked.

Next.

 

[Lovelynice]

Don't need it, ...

Yes, actually you do. I already replied and destroyed your stupid claims before.

Remember this:

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)

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

NEXT!

 

[Lovelynice]

For someone accusing others of 'spouting total bullshit', all we seem to get from you ..

is a repeat of the evidence and articles and quotes and links and sources, WHICH NONE OF YOU IDIOTS HAS BEEN ABLE TO COUNTER!

although you do all like to pretend otherwise and keep recycling the same ALREADY BLOWN LONG AGO stupid excuses and "talking points"

For example when one of you LIARS tried to pretend that the planes were flying at low altitude because I'd already blown away your bullshit about the cellphones being able to work at high alititude, I only had to cite the following which NONE OF YOU COULD COUNTER!

What height were the planes when the FIRST alleged cellphone calls were supposedly made accoriodng the USA government's official fairytale???

ANSWER;
Between 31,000 and 35,000 feet.

Too high up to make successful cellphone calls,and flying too fast to maintain any connection for more than a few seconds...which doesn't matter because five to six miles up, making a successful cellphone call is IMPOSSIBLE anyway.

Cellular antenna towers don't aim at the SKY moron, they aim to cover the people on the GROUND!


United Airlines Flight 175
United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:

"It pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14."

The Report confirms that by 8:33, "it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet." According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it "deviated from its assigned altitude":

"The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it."

And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.

[Flight UAL 175] "At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cellphone. Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. (Moreover, Hanson's call could have been initiated at least a minute prior to his father Lee Hanson picking up the phone.)

United Airlines Flight 93
According to the 9-11 Commission's account:

"the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.”70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft...."

The Report claims that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report's confirmation of the plane's attitude of 35,000 feet. In other words, the calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost UAL 93’s transponder signal (9.41) and approximately 30 minutes before the crash in Pennsylvania (10.03)

There was no indication from the Report that the aircraft had swooped down to a lower level of altitude, apart from the 700 feet drop recorded at 9.28. from a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. Shortly after the alleged hijacking commences, the passengers and flight crew allegedly began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones.

The alleged call (strangely not mentioned in the Report) by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.

"Local emergency officials said they received a cell phone call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the plane had been hijacked. "We are being hijacked! We are being hijacked!" he was quoted as saying.

Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.

"He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_90401.html


Simple logic;
Impossible to make cellphone calls = faked cellphone calls = the US government LIED.

By all means, keeping pretending otherwise, but your defence of the Official LIES is a failure.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Pookie]

Yes, actually you do. I already replied and destroyed your stupid claims before.

Remember this:

You posted a lot of hand waving, but that's far from evidence or debunking what I posted. But it made for a long post just the same. That's gotta count for something in your guys nut house.

And sweetie, I hate to rain on your crazy parade, but your own "expert" that you presented to "prove" it was impossible said it wasn't impossible.

Hon, you're out of your depth in a puddle.

 

[Lovelynice]

You posted a lot ....

You can do better than that.

Cite a scientific study showing that those cellphone calls were possible.

Come on, stop dawdling with excuses and bullshit and hurry up.

I've already cited plenty to show that they were IMPOSSIBLE, and among the crap that you posted was some anecdote about a guy in a slow-flying, low altitude prop plane.

You didn't cite a single scientific bit of evidence to support your bullshit.

 

[Lovelynice]

you are the one making the accusations, ...

they haven't proven their case yet, neither have you.

When Americans travel overseas, they'll start finding it quite a shock when they learn that internationally the Bush Administrations lies about 9/11 are not believed, nor accepted, by any country outside the USA/UK axis....and very few people internationally even then, including in the mainstream international news media which greets the 9/11 fairytale with utter contempt and open scepticism.

The scepticism is the same as any that people would greet the wild claims of any dictatorship such as North Korea, or Nazi Germany, or the wild propaganda lies of the old Soviet Union

Here's an example;

Largest Swiss Paper Asks
If Bush Was Behind 911
By Elie Peter
9-18-6

ZURICH -- 2,973 humans died with the attacks of 9/11. "Bin Laden" and

"Al Qaeda", the Bush clan cried. The world believed him. In the meantime even scientists doubt the Bush version.

Now, Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel (63) and Daniele Ganser (34) raise hot new questions.

"Something is not correct", says strategy expert Stahel in "World Week", and refers to the "incomplete" official US Government 9/11 Report of 2004.

The university professor confirms his criticism in VIEW:

"Osama Bin Laden cannot be 'the large godfather' behind the attacks. He did not have enough means of communication".

Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon:

"For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World trade center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear."

Raising questions along with Stahel is historian Dr. Daniele Ganser, his colleague at the University of Zurich.

Dr. Daniele Ganser

Dr. Ganser also calls the official US version "a conspiracy theory".

"There are 3 theories, which we should treat equally":

1. "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks.

2. "Let it happen on purpose" - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in order to legitimize a series of wars.

3. "Made it happen on purpose" - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the Pentagon and/or US secret services.

Ganser: "3,000 humans were sacrificed for strategic interests. The more we research, the more we doubt the Bush version. It is conceivable that the Bush government was responsible. Bush has lied so much already! And we already know that the US government planned an operation in 1962 (Operation Northwoods) that was approved by the Pentagon that would have sacrificed innocent US citizens for the government's own interests."

As far as Ganser and Stahel go: "We only ask questions."

Swiss version: http://www.blick.ch/news/ausland/9-11/artikel45057

English Translation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.blick.ch/news/ausla\ nd%2F9-11%2Fartikel45057&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=
UTF-8&oe=UTF-\ 8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

The Official Lies are dying in the light of day, and evidence...


RESULTS OF ONLINE POLLS ABOUT 9/11
http://fawkesfiles.com/graphics/polls/polls_large/believe_conspiracy2.jpg
http://fawkesfiles.com/graphics/polls/polls_large/gov_involved2.jpg
http://fawkesfiles.com/graphics/polls/polls_large/wisconson_teach2.jpg
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/march2006/240306poll1.jpg

You idiots aren't even in the majority on THIS SITE

 

[unregistered]

 

[Pyro Paul]

Study upon the effects of Personal Electronic Devices On air craft.

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/Research/Rvs/Article/EMI.html

specificly

ARSR Summary of Reports, 1986 - June 1994
The following summary prepared by the ASRS was forwarded by Peter Mchugh of the FAA's Office of Aviation Safety, taken from Quick Response No. 271 dated November 30, 1994 (Mch97).

The following synoptic analysis of passenger electronic devices incidents was accomplished by the ASRS staff [at the request of the FAA]:
There were a total of 46 passenger electronic devices related incidents in the ASRS data base covering the period Jan 1, 86 thru June 30, 94. This number is in contrast to the 51,337 full form reports covering all types of incidents reported to the ASRS during the same period.
Passenger electronic devices incidents comprise .08 percent of the total full form reports in the ASRS database. Full form reports receive full analysis processing and include the reporter's narrative as part of the database record.
45 incidents involved passenger carrying operations. 33 of the incidents involved aircraft in the 60,000-300,000 lbs. weight classifications.
33 of the incidents referenced alleged aircraft systems interference from an onboard passenger electronic device. 10 of the incidents referenced alleged interference from an unknown onboard source. The remaining 3 reports make reference to FAA policy about the use of passenger electronic devices.

The breakdown of aircraft systems {reported} affected by passenger electronics devices interference included: nav equipment (37 incidents), aircraft communications equipment (9 incidents), radar altimeter equipment (1 incident) and fly-by-wire throttle controls (1 incident).
21 passenger electronic devices were specifically identified to be the sources of the aircraft systems interference. The reporters noted the interference ceased after the devices were turned off. The identified passenger electronic devices included:
Cell phones (4)
Laptop computers (4)
Portable AM/FM Radio Cassette Players (4)
Portable CD Players (3)
Electronic Games (3)
HF Radio (1)
Heart Monitor (1)
One report cited interference from 23 passengers using AM/FM radio cassette players.
One report cited unknown onboard interference causing ILS signal interference resulting in two missed approaches.
Two reports cited passenger use of cell phone as a cause of dual VOR nav failure.
None of the passenger electronic devices incidents had a critical impact on the safety of the flight.

points are Bolded.
this report was compiled in 1996

Cell phones Can work while on an Airplane.
you are acctually discouraged from using cell phones pre-9/11 because the orginal cell phone bandwith directly interfered with some of the onboard electronics of most planes.

only resently has the bandwith of most phones been lowered which started between 1999-2000. that is because through out the late 90s it was becoming apprent that the high bandwith frequency of the cellphones caused damage to biological beings. from burning/melting of the face as the micro waves are transmited directly into the side of your face to the development of tumors and brain damage because of continual exposure to resonating high frequencies.

the lowering of the bandwith has caused cellphones to have less range but safer use. phone companies try to componsate against this by buying up as many as cell phone towers to get better coverage. (see commercials for cell phone companies promoting their all around network allowing you to connect)



Is It possible to Make a Cell phone call from a jet liner at crusing altitude? yes. it is very possible using a pre-1999 cell phone, the bandwith is of the proper strength and frequency to make the call to a corrosponding tower on the ground.

Where the Cell phone calls during 9/11 possible? Yes, How ever it is highly improbable as there are too many variables to consider and too many unknowns. we do not know the brand of cell phone they where using nor the cell phone company they where with. if they where using Satalight phones yeah they could of connected with their aunt in china with crystal clear quality if they where using a phone made in 2001 it is highly unlikely they would even connect to their own service.

 

[Pookie]

You can do better than that.

Cite a scientific study showing that those cellphone calls were possible.

Come on, stop dawdling with excuses and bullshit and hurry up.

I've already cited plenty to show that they were IMPOSSIBLE, and among the crap that you posted was some anecdote about a guy in a slow-flying, low altitude prop plane.

You didn't cite a single scientific bit of evidence to support your bullshit.

Again, I don't have to. You're doing that for me just fine. I referenced the "scientific" project you posted trying to prove it was impossible, but it said it was possible. Got any more "scientific" projects to post?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Pookie]

^^^^^^^^^
Typical Shill.

Yeah, but I look good at it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Lovelynice]

Again, I don't have to.

again, yes you do.

You want to make a crap and stupidly unbelievable claim that it's possible to make successful cellphone calls from passenger planes flng six miles up at over 450mph (without OBOARD CELLULAR BASESTATION technology which didn't exist until 2004) then you better back your bullshit with a cited SCIENTIFIC STUDY showing it's possible...

not stupid anecdotes about guys in slow moving prop planes at low altitude..


So, hurry up and do it!

 

[Lovelynice]

Study upon the effects of Personal Electronic Devices On air craft.

.....

That's all very nice about how the electronics of a plane are affected by cellphones,
however...

NOTHING IN THAT REPORT MENTIONED A THING ABOUT MAKING SUCCESSFUL CELLPHONE CALLS!

You know, like TALKING TO SOMEBODY, calling them up (without an onboard cellular basestation because that technology didn't exist until 2004) and having a chat for say 25 minutes or so...

It only mentioned that 2 people left their cellphones on, not that they were using them to talk to anybody with. Some people use their cellphone's alarm setting to wake up - making the cellphone ring), others use their cellphones for playing games on them....


Bzzzt! Try again, dear.

 

[ImpWizard]

Yet again, the cellphone calls are shown as being faked.

Australian carrier Qantas plans to start evaluating technology that lets fliers use their cell phones and PDAs during flight early next year.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/12/21/wired.airlines/index.html

It's only possible with an onboard cellular basestation - can't do it otherwise.

 

[Lovelynice]

The govt trolls defending the US govt's lies about 9/11 never did manage to win this argument.