3292 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Crumar, on 06 November 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Recently is the key word there.  Prior to 2004 when test's were being done on satellite-based air-to-ground cellular service (source: http://usatoday30.us...-aircells_x.htm.) this service was unavailable in 2001.  Passenger’s had to rely on ground cellular towers when using their cell phones, and the on board phones (which is disputed as being installed on flight 77 and on 757's by American Airlines Customer Relations Representative Chad W. Kinder and being disputed by 9/11 Truthers and other skeptics we will get to that in a moment.)  Regardless most news outlets like CNN have it written that Barbara Olsen (one of the hi-jacked callers) had used her cell phone to call her husband.  (Source:  http://edition.cnn.c...a.under.attack/)  "Although officials said the attacks appeared to have been well planned and executed, a passenger on the plane that hit the Pentagon said in cell phone call to her husband that the terrorists were armed with knives and box cutters.

Why is this important you may ask?   I know a lot about cell phones because I was a Tier 2 tech support agent for T-mobile while I was going to University for a number of years in early 2000's and I can tell you at a high rate of speed and altitude a cell phone at that time would cut customers off or rarely if ever even connect.  As the signal bounces to the first tower the plane would be at the 2nd tower or out of range because of its high rate of speed, and the call would get stuck because the signal would still be on the first tower.  If by chance it did the connection would fail after a minute or less because the signal could not travel as fast or reach certain altitudes.  Back then for those who remember when you were driving you would sometimes get static, missed, and dropped calls and it is also why all major phone providers would eventually build their towers near high ways so that there is less dropped calls for their cellular customers while driving.  But remember planes do not travel along highways in a linear fashion and the signal begins to degrade past 2000 ft.  I always fielded complaints from customers once they got on the ground as to why their cell phones would not connect when on a plane at higher than 2000 ft and if they landed while they had their phone on the entire time it would never work.  They usually had to call from someone else’s cell phone or use a land line to fix the problem.   I had to educate them as to how the signal and towers worked and the reason for why they could not get a reduction in their monthly bill for this reason.

I was much higher than 2000 feet when I received those cell phone calls and text messages. In addition, United 93 was at, and below, 5000 feet when those cell phone calls were made and I have posted phone records from the company as well.

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 November 2012 - 05:04 PM.

[Crumar]

skyeagle409, on 06 November 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

I was much higher than 2000 feet when I received those cell phone calls and text messages. In addition, United 93 was at, and below, 5000 feet when those cell phone calls were made and I have posted phone records from the company as well.

Right in your other post you said recently, not in 2001 there is a big difference.  The technology is much different today then in 2001 now we have satellite-based air-to-ground cellular service which was installed in 2004 by American Airlines prior to that they did not have this technology to date if you see the link I posted to USA Today it is dated 2004.

Edited by Crumar, 06 November 2012 - 05:09 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Crumar, on 06 November 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Right in your other post you said recently, not in 2001 there is a big difference.

That is moot because I even posted the cell phone records from United 93 and American 77. Once again, you've allowed yourself to become a victim of those conspiracy websites who love to prey on gullible people.

Sorry about the multiple post.  I hit a bottom and somehow, three empty post suddenly appeared.

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 November 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[Crumar]

skyeagle409, on 06 November 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

That is moot because I even posted the cell phone records from United 93 and American 77. Once again, you've allowed yourself to become a victim of those conspiracy websites who love to prey on gullible people.

Sorry about the multiple post.  I hit a bottom and somehow, three empty post suddenly appeared.

Please educate yourself more on cell phones before posting in this case you are wrong and gullible and are being misinformed.  First of all you are looking at information from 2004 and on to proof your point which I explained to you and posted that the technology changed.  Secondly I already proved to you that people were using cell phones on the flight and not air phones as stated by CNN and other news outlets.  I already explained to you why the possibility of the cell phones working on the planes were unlikely yet you still did not even read precisely what I wrote but instead cherry pick my posts to suit your own agenda.  Learn the facts as I set them out before you then come back to me.  The cell phone records from United and American can be easily fabricated because the FBI were unable to pin point where the calls came from, they don't have a record of which tower the signal was on, they have it listed as unknown and they are only going off voice data to say the calls were made from the plane.  Those calls could have been made from the ground for all we know and there is technology via computers back in 2001 that could duplicate someone's voice too.  The FBI can not prove 100% that those calls came from the airplanes those are the facts.  You can dispute it all you want by showing records and paper trail but that can be fabricated too.  I have said to you and an engineer has said to you that phone calls made from planes in 2001 was highly unlikely to occur for the reasons outlined which I am not going to do so again you can re-read what I wrote above.  If you want to continue to ignore those facts go right ahead but do not make your assumptions as facts because you are not an expert on cell phones.  You are misleading people on that issue and it is wrong of you to do just like when you said 9/11 Truthers do not correct anything they report that is FALSE.  They have identified a contradiction and have said as much and I even posted you a link with supporting evidence to prove that 9/11 pilots did so yet you ignored that and cherry picked other parts of my post


I am starting to see that you are for whatever reason purposely trying to avoid these facts and focus on your points only.  If you want to keep accusing people of something and someone disproves it you better own up to it like I do when I am wrong otherwise everything you start to post can be viewed as you being biased in my opinion.  I have said to you that some things I have posted I need to educate myself better on because you were the expert in that field and I decided to take an objective look at your evidence to see if you could be right and I could be wrong and I said in some cases you could have a point.  But your lack of refusal to at least look at the evidence and read what experts are telling you is in my mind wrong of you to do.  Just because someone tells you something happened from the government does not automatically mean it did.  Look at the evidence from a scientific stand point read what the experts are telling you and not what the government is feeding you and then you will understand what we are telling you.  I know this because I had to deal with thousands of irate customers over the years who all said they could never use their cell phones while flying back in 2001 unless they were on the ground.  Once they were moving at a high rate of speed and if they left the phone on during the flight and then landed most of the time the signal would never reinitialize to the nearest tower and the service would fail.  That is a fact and I am telling you based on my experience and expert opinion that is the case.  If you want to refute it go right ahead you will not change my mind on this because I know what I am talking about.

Edited by Crumar, 07 November 2012 - 04:39 AM.

[RaptorBites]

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

Please educate yourself more on cell phones before posting in this case you are wrong and gullible and are being misinformed.  First of all you are looking at information from 2004 and on to proof your point which I explained to you and posted that the technology changed.  Secondly I already proved to you that people were using cell phones on the flight and not air phones as stated by CNN and other news outlets.

CNN doesn't know the facts as what most CT's would like to state that most of us believe everything the media states.

Which in itself is an attack on the strawman.

The majority of the calls where made by airphones which has already been verified by the airphone company.

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

I already explained to you why the possibility of the cell phones working on the planes were unlikely yet you still did not even read precisely what I wrote but instead cherry pick my posts to suit your own agenda.  

Unlikely, but it does happen.

You have admitted yourself that you had worked for T-mobile as a tier 2 technical support agent.

Do you understand the differences between GSM and CDMA technology?

Or the previous cellular signal used by AT&T prior to migration to GSM?

I am assuming not since your statement conclusively shows you have no clue what you are talking about.

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

Learn the facts as I set them out before you then come back to me.

Your experience with GSM technology has nothing to do with the current use of cellular technology prior to GSM, so no, you did not come with any facts at all.

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

The cell phone records from United and American can be easily fabricated because the FBI were unable to pin point where the calls came from, they don't have a record of which tower the signal was on, they have it listed as unknown and they are only going off voice data to say the calls were made from the plane.  

The ever faithful liar liar pants on fire argument.  Must be an easy one to use when one cannot come up with any explanation right?

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

Those calls could have been made from the ground for all we know and there is technology via computers back in 2001 that could duplicate someone's voice too.'

Any proof that voice duplication technology could have been used back in 2001 that is not easily discernible?

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

The FBI can not prove 100% that those calls came from the airplanes those are the facts.

Nor can you provide evidence that those calls were not made from the planes either.

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

You can dispute it all you want by showing records and paper trail but that can be fabricated too.

Liar liar pants on fire again?  No way to back up your accusations eh?

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

I have said to you and an engineer has said to you that phone calls made from planes in 2001 was highly unlikely to occur for the reasons outlined which I am not going to do so again you can re-read what I wrote above.  

Again unlikely but it did happen, as a matter of fact can happen.

Okay Mr. Cellphone Expert, can you tell me what is the effective range of a Motorola Startac flip phone running on the 800mhz frequency range?  Just so we can be clear, Tmobile/AT&T GSM technology runs off the 850/1900 and at the time was a baby in the mobile industry here in the US at the time.  

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

If you want to continue to ignore those facts go right ahead but do not make your assumptions as facts because you are not an expert on cell phones.

Apparently neither are you.

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

You are misleading people on that issue and it is wrong of you to do just like when you said 9/11 Truthers do not correct anything they report that is FALSE.

You willing to correct your response that cellphones cannot be used at altitude?

http://physics911.net/projectachilles/

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

They have identified a contradiction and have said as much and I even posted you a link with supporting evidence to prove that 9/11 pilots did so yet you ignored that and cherry picked other parts of my post

As sky has already stated, he has found serious misinformation regarding some of the information spewing out of the cesspool called PF911T.

and as I have stated before, Cimino has not retracted a statement regarding his mis-interpretation of the RA reading in his FDR analysis.

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

I am starting to see that you are for whatever reason purposely trying to avoid these facts and focus on your points only.  If you want to keep accusing people of something and someone disproves it you better own up to it like I do when I am wrong otherwise everything you start to post can be viewed as you being biased in my opinion.  I have said to you that some things I have posted I need to educate myself better on because you were the expert in that field and I decided to take an objective look at your evidence to see if you could be right and I could be wrong and I said in some cases you could have a point.  But your lack of refusal to at least look at the evidence and read what experts are telling you is in my mind wrong of you to do.  Just because someone tells you something happened from the government does not automatically mean it did.  Look at the evidence from a scientific stand point read what the experts are telling you and not what the government is feeding you and then you will understand what we are telling you.  I know this because I had to deal with thousands of irate customers over the years who all said they could never use their cell phones while flying back in 2001 unless they were on the ground.  Once they were moving at a high rate of speed and if they left the phone on during the flight and then landed most of the time the signal would never reinitialize to the nearest tower and the service would fail.  

But but but,  you are now ineffectively misleading everyone else in thinking that Tmobile's shared 850/1900 GSM band range with Cingular can be the ONLY service people were using at the time.

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

That is a fact and I am telling you based on my experience and expert opinion that is the case.  If you want to refute it go right ahead you will not change my mind on this because I know what I am talking about.

So being a support agent for GSM technology now makes you an expert in cellular technology including TDMA and CDMA?

BUSTED

Edited by RaptorBites, 07 November 2012 - 05:24 AM.

[RaptorBites]

Insaniac, on 04 November 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

Fire alone cannot melt holes through, and destroy steel skyscrapers and it makes no sense. Sorry. Prove fire destroyed the WTC. Focus on the WTC.

Weakening of the floor trusses were evident in this picture.



Fire weakened the floor trusses causing bowing of the outer steel frame as evident in the picture above.

Thermite is known as a cutting agent which would not show bowing of the outer steel frame.

Insaniac, on 04 November 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

No evidence was found because the US Government got rid of the incriminating evidence. The FBI were blocked from investigating shortly after the attack took place because the Gov didn't want them finding out the truth. Simple. Admittedly, I don't know much about 9/11 but I'm learning more as we speak. If it is indeed true that witnesses heard falling elevators and not bombs, then atleast we have the thermite evidence.

There is no conclusive evidence of any thermite used.

Insaniac, on 04 November 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

Thermite evidence was actually found within air samples anyhow. That isn't up for debate. It's simple fact. That proves fire alone didn't destroy the building. The following video isn't the best of proof, but bear with me, here. Theres a conspiracy at work, and you're blinded to it. 9/11 was an inside job.

Yes, it is up for debate.  Do not try to close your case so quickly.

One of the largest by-products of thermite is aluminum oxide, which in Steven Jone's analysis of the WTC dust shows no significant amount of aluminum oxide to propogate his thermite theory.  

no wonder why BYU outed the poor guy.

[Crumar]

RaptorBites, on 07 November 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

CNN doesn't know the facts as what most CT's would like to state that most of us believe everything the media states.

Which in itself is an attack on the strawman.

The majority of the calls where made by airphones which has already been verified by the airphone company.

You are right because the FBI in the early stages of the investigation mislead the media by initially saying it was cell phone conversations and I will provide you proof of this as you read further on.  That is why there is confusion in regards to what devices were used when calls were made as shown at the United States v. Zacarias Moussaou trial where it clearly states cell phones were used by two passengers a few years later.   (Source :http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200055.html)

Quote

Unlikely, but it does happen.

You have admitted yourself that you had worked for T-mobile as a tier 2 technical support agent.

Do you understand the differences between GSM and CDMA technology?

Or the previous cellular signal used by AT&T prior to migration to GSM?

I am assuming not since your statement conclusively shows you have no clue what you are talking about.

You make an incorrect blanket statement without even backing up your argument with proof that what I said was wrong.  I provided you with a link in detail on the technical aspects of what I was talking about did you even bother to click on it and read it?  Your assumption is incorrect as I understand the technology and how the radio frequencies worked with iHLR and Samson, tools we used to help fix the customers issues.  GSM and CDMA was available in 2001 and I know how each works and it would take to long to explain to you if you want to read up on it you can do so here: http://www.wisegeek....sm-and-cdma.htm

Please go reread what I wrote, I also stated that at a certain altitude (2000ft and higher) the signal begins to degrade.  The link you posted confirms what I have been saying look at the.  The tests were done in 2003, and even the author admits that although some calls went through they were not longer then 1 minute and this was at various altitudes.  Again your source look at the % of cell phone calls getting through. (Your own source: http://physics911.net/projectachilles/)


altitude (feet)  |  probability of cellphone call getting through
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4,000   |  0.400
8,000   |  0.100
12,000 |  0.040
16,000 |  0.025
20,000 |  0.016
24,000 |  0.011
28,000 |  0.008
32,000 |  0.006
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of all the calls that failed, the few that did end up getting a connection the calls disconnected he gives other statistics which anyone can read I will not go in great detail here as it would take to much space.  Also read at the bottom how other people responded and confirmed what I have been writing in regards to cell phone use on planes at altitude and then tell me again how I don’t know what I am talking about.  Your own link proves my findings.

Quote

Your experience with GSM technology has nothing to do with the current use of cellular technology prior to GSM, so no, you did not come with any facts at all.

You do not know my experience I am aware of GSM and CDMA technology and how they work I provided the facts in links because again it would take me to long to write out here.  This stuff is readily available for people to educate themselves on this matter via the internet.  My experience also includes other PDA devices such as Blackberry’s, MDA’s, SDA’s, PalmOne, etc. you get the picture.  Some were on GSM and others on CDMA.  The current technology and evolution of how cellular service is provided has changed in the last 11 years of course the current technology would differ with the current use of cellular phones but we are taking about 2001.  Since you did not read the link I provided earlier here it is again maybe this time you will read it.  http://911review.org...ineer_tech.html  Again just to be clear this is based on 2001 and not 2012 technology I hope that clears that up.

Quote

The ever faithful liar liar pants on fire argument.  Must be an easy one to use when one cannot come up with any explanation right?

Any proof that voice duplication technology could have been used back in 2001 that is not easily discernible?

Nor can you provide evidence that those calls were not made from the planes either.

Liar liar pants on fire again?  No way to back up your accusations eh?

I will be mature about this since you seem to trying to belittle me by trying to portray me as a child.  Here is a link that you should have posted to help your argument and discredit me because I can be objective, study and learn from all sides of an argument what someone like you is trying to say without having to deal with absurd statements.  This person goes into great detail about this entire issue with unbiased objectivity which I find refreshing, something that on this forum is lacking.

http://www.globalres...11-planes/10103

As it is a long and extensive read I urge people to read it and understand the complexity of this issue.  The FBI along with the 9/11 commission report have had problems dealing with this issue and struggled to come up with explanations as outlined by the author and they finally come to the conclusion that a lot of the phone calls were made via airphone and cell phones.

Quote

Okay Mr. Cellphone Expert, can you tell me what is the effective range of a Motorola Startac flip phone running on the 800mhz frequency range?  Just so we can be clear, Tmobile/AT&T GSM technology runs off the 850/1900 and at the time was a baby in the mobile industry here in the US at the time.

Lower frequency means longer wavelength, which in turn means better signal propagation and building penetration.  This is why 800mhz is ideal for cell phone use but a lot of the Motorola Startac models had duel band capability and can switch between bands.  But with that said there are so many factors that come into play when figuring out the optimal range of even a specific cell phone like the Motorola Startac (which has many model numbers under that name over the years).  Based on the Antenna’s dB (Gain) along with the location of the cell tower and if you are inside or outside these figures can fluctuate.  Assuming that you want a figure of the Startac being outside at 800mhz and on the ground the optimal range would be 6 miles or less to be near the cell tower as cell towers are usually placed 6 to 8 miles apart from each other. (source: http://www.geckobeac...ro/glossary.php) The closer to the tower you are the better the reception.  Also here is something on dB (Gain) for those who are interested: http://www.criterion...laboutgain.html

The longer the antenna normally the better the gain value you get and better reception at least back then things have changed though.  That is why you will see after market web sites catering to phones like the Startac to get better reception by adding onto it a better antenna for better Gain but the problem with that is the higher the Gain you have the crappier the reception will be if you are close to the tower.  It works best in remote areas where the cell towers are farther apart.  So you can see so many factors come into play this question you posed is complex.

Quote

You willing to correct your response that cellphones cannot be used at altitude?

http://physics911.net/projectachilles/

There is nothing to correct as I have said in my other post and above that less than 2000ft a cell phone can pick up a cell tower without getting disconnected.  The higher you go the higher the signal begins to degrade and the chance of being disconnected or not connected at all increases as case study you presented showed.  Read all the links I provided for a better understanding plus the link above you posted validates what I have been saying to begin with.  No where did I say you can NOT connect at all period.  I said the conversations can last up to 1 minute depending where you are but it is so rare to connect and get a connection that usually there is a connection failure as indicated by your source.

Quote

As sky has already stated, he has found serious misinformation regarding some of the information spewing out of the cesspool called PF911T.and as I have stated before, Cimino has not retracted a statement regarding his mis-interpretation of the RA reading in his FDR analysis.
But but but,  you are now ineffectively misleading everyone else in thinking that Tmobile's shared 850/1900 GSM band range with Cingular can be the ONLY service people were using at the time.

So being a support agent for GSM technology now makes you an expert in cellular technology including TDMA and CDMA?

BUSTED

I have worked with GSM, CDMA and CDMA2000 and have not worked with TDMA or FDMA and have been out of the industry for years to comment on LTE for the 4G network.   I am not an engineer on cellular technology so no I am not a complete expert on this topic for recent cell phones good for you to point that out perhaps I was not clear enough in that regard.  But with that said we are talking about 2001 which was when I was working on these networks and I have posted expert opinions on this subject matter to further support what I have been saying.   I did not work for other carriers at the time to comment on what their experience was like but considering most use the same type of technology in delivering customers their product via cell towers and radio frequencies of various bands logically it should apply that these other carriers would experience the same problems when dealing with aircraft back in the day.  Although each band has different wavelengths the principle of why they tend to fail the higher you go in altitude still applies because science supports this regardless of wavelength strength.  Trying to be objective in my approach to this debate I will provide another link that supports both our cases.  Here are spokespersons for AT&T and Verizon who have varying interpretations as to what happened on 9/11 and how it affected their customers.  Notice again the contradictions between what the FBI and the 9/11 commission report says and what is being reported by carriers where “numerous calls from wireless phones” were used. (source: http://connectedplan..._final_contact/)

Who would of thought I would of did some of your work for you and help you out odd that.  Well I gave us a lot to read on I hope it was helpful.

Edited by Crumar, 07 November 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Crumar

Outstanding post and outstanding explanations.  And outstanding honesty and courtesy.

Bottom line, in 2001 cellphones went to NO SERVICE above about 1500 feet and speeds of only 120 knots.

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 07 November 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Crumar

Outstanding post and outstanding explanations.  And outstanding honesty and courtesy.

I agree for the most part.  I haven't really been following the thread very much, but Crumar's approach seems genuine and sincere to me in the few posts I've read.  He is still holding onto some incorrect information (like David Ray Griffin for example...  who hasn't the slightest clue what he's talking about), but that is a natural result of putting too much reliance on conspiratorial sources, and nobody can get everything right the first time around.  Despite that, I tip my hat to what looks like an effort for an unbiased approach.

Babe Ruth, on 07 November 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Bottom line, in 2001 cellphones went to NO SERVICE above about 1500 feet and speeds of only 120 knots.

It's a shame that you didn't seem to understand that Crumar doesn't seem to be saying this at all, and that you continue to hold onto this false belief BR.  How many times has the information been spoon fed to you now?  Not only were cell calls at altitude possible in 2001, you've been given documented examples of this actually taking place on numerous occasions.

Welcome back by the way.

[skyeagle409]

Crumar, on 07 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

Please educate yourself more on cell phones before posting in this case you are wrong and gullible and are being misinformed.

Why?! As I have said that my own cell phone worked in flight, which basically slams the door shut of the conspiracist claim that a cell phone won't work in flight. In addition, I have posted examples of where cell phones were used in  flight.

Quote

Calling From 30,000 Feet

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.
“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.”

From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.

Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less.

“They also were digital phones, and there's a little bit more leeway on those digital phones, so it worked,” she said.

It helped that the planes were flying in areas with plenty of cell sites, too. Even United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania, was supported by several nearby cell sites, Raney added.
Despite the numerous calls from wireless phones, it was the hijackers — not interference with the airplane's operating system — that brought the four planes down. Many in the wireless industry question whether wireless devices cause problems on board aircraft after all.

http://connectedplan..._final_contact/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"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."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A 1996 study commissioned by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration looked at thousands of flight records and failed to find a single instance in which equipment was affected by a wireless phone. The study was conducted by RTCA Inc., a nonprofit organization that sets industry standards for airplane electronics.

Plane makers Boeing Co. and Airbus Industrie have bombarded their aircraft with cell-phone frequencies and discovered no interference with communication, navigation or other systems. One likely reason that no problems were found: cellular phones don't operate on any of the frequencies used by airplane systems.

"The airlines are misleading the traveling public," says John Sheehan, who headed the RTCA study and says he has often used his own cell phone in the sky. "There is no real connection between cell-phone frequencies and the frequencies of the navigation" or communications systems. ...

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.911myths....les_at_altitude

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While not exactly reliable, cell-phone calls from airplanes were possible in 2001-even from extremely high altitudes. "Because cell sites have a range of several miles, even at 35,000 feet, that's entirely possible," says Rick Kemper, director of technology and security at the CTIA-The Wireless Association. "It's not a very good connection, and it changes a lot, and you end up getting a lot of dropped calls because you're moving through cell sites so fast."

Paul Guckian, vice president of engineering for cell-phone maker Qualcomm, concurs. "I would say that at the altitude for commercial airliners, around 30,000 or 35,000 feet, [some] phones would still get a signal," he tells Popular Mechanics. "At some point above that-I would estimate in the 50,000-foot range-you would lose the signal." Flight 93 never flew higher than 40,700 feet.

Page 83/ 84, Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics

Edited by skyeagle409, 07 November 2012 - 06:35 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 07 November 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Crumar

Outstanding post and outstanding explanations.  And outstanding honesty and courtesy.

Bottom line, in 2001 cellphones went to NO SERVICE above about 1500 feet and speeds of only 120 knots.

Read post # 2710

[DONTEATUS]

Its like talking to a Wall Sky ! Ive used my cell phone on so many flights Its crazy to think that anyone believes other wise ! B&R needs to go out of Service !

[Crumar]

skyeagle409, on 07 November 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

Why?! As I have said that my own cell phone worked in flight, which basically slams the door shut of the conspiracist claim that a cell phone won't work in flight. In addition, I have posted examples of where cell phones were used in  flight.

It does not slam the door shut because you still haven't told us these calls were made in 2001 and how long your conversations lasted, and how high you were in altitude when this call took place.  Since 2004 as I have explained to you the capability of cell phone use in planes has dramatically increased with installation of satellite to ground technology on commercial aircraft.  So yes in recent times cell phones do work but they rarely did work past a minute in 2001 depending on altitude and rate of speed.

The link you provided which I actually posted earlier above does not say that connections to cell phones were possible it only says that the signal may be picked up by a device even at 35,000 ft and that is a big difference.  If traveling at high altitude and high rate of speed  there is a very small chance that a connection can be made but will lose connection rapidly (within a minute or less) because cell towers were not designed to maintain that signal at high altitudes.  I already provided you proof of this in my earlier post but I guess we have to revisit this.

As both you and I posted the link above http://connectedplan..._final_contact/ it says:

"Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.”

“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.”

This is important because cell towers back then were designed to point in certain directions on land and not up into the atmosphere.  The leakage they are talking about further down in the post is from transmission that can be picked up by the towers depending on weather conditions and if the tower is high enough to capture the signal because of the cone shape signal of certain antenna’s that could possibly go above the mast of the structure to a higher altitude of 1500-2000ft.
  

Edited by Crumar, 08 November 2012 - 05:29 AM.

[Crumar]

DONTEATUS, on 08 November 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

Its like talking to a Wall Sky ! Ive used my cell phone on so many flights Its crazy to think that anyone believes other wise ! B&R needs to go out of Service !

The same applies to you as I posted above, in recent times they do work there is no question about it, but in 2001 it was a different story.

[Czero 101]

Crumar, you may wish to read the following page at 911Myths.com. It goes into a fair amount of detailm, and provides several verifiable sources which unequivocally state that calls from cell phones in aircraft at the time of 9/11 were indeed possible.

911Myths.com - Mobiles at Altitude

Here's a quote from a fairly relevant section of that page:

Quote

The “impossible” claim is most often associated with Professor AK Dewdney, in a study of his own called "Project Achilles". He actually tried making calls at various altitudes, and concluded that "cellphone calls from passenger aircraft are physically impossible above 8000 feet and and statistically unlikely below it". There are reasons to question Dewdney’s conclusions, though. Read more here.
And if you read the Griffin quote carefully, you'll find another important qualification in the mention of airphones. These are seatback phones designed to work at altitude, and testimony at the Moussaoui trial explained that the vast majority of Flight 93 calls (this flight had more calls than any other) were made this way. The list was Lauren Grandcolas (airphone); Mark Bingham (airphone); Joseph DeLuca (airphone); Linda Gronlund (airphone); Jeremy Glick (airphone); Todd Beamer (airphone); Sandra Bradshaw (airphone); Thomas Burnett Jr (airphone and probable cellphone); CeeCee Lyles (airphone and cellphone); Marion Britton (airphone); Honor Wainio (airphone); Waleska Martinez (airphone); Ed Felt (cellphone) (Source). There's no dispute that airphones would have been able to work on 9/11, which only leaves us with a very few calls that can be regarded as "suspicious".
Still, it could be argued that you need only show one call was impossible to expose the truth, so it's worth considering the issue in more detail. Exactly what sort of range can you expect to achieve with a mobile? In principle the distances look impressive:

Quote

In practice, GSM phones cannot be used more than 35 km (22 miles) from a BTS, no matter how strong the signal.
http://web.archive.o...MG20000517S0169

22 miles would be over 100,000 feet. You can’t apply such a simple rule, though, because mobile networks aren’t designed to serve the skies. Others use this quote as an example of professional scepticism.

Quote

According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a "fluke" that so many calls reached their destinations.
http://www.physics91...oneflight93.htm

Although the full quote tells a slightly different story.

Quote

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.
“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.”From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.
http://wirelessrevie...s_final_contact

Below a certain altitude? What might that be?

Quote

When it comes to land and air, the capabilities of a cell phone don’t change. But what makes it possible to use a handheld while in a plane 10,000 feet in the air, and why should it work there when it doesn’t work in your own neighborhood? It all depends on where the phone is, says Marco Thompson, president of the San Diego Telecom Council. “Cell phones are not designed to work on a plane. Although they do.” The rough rule is that when the plane is slow and over a city, the phone will work up to 10,000 feet or so. “Also, it depends on how fast the plane is moving and its proximity to antennas,” Thompson says. “At 30,000 feet, it may work momentarily while near a cell site, but it’s chancy and the connection won’t last.” Also, the hand-off process from cell site to cell site is more difficult. It is created for a maximum speed of 60 mph to 100 mph. “They are not built for 400 mph airplanes.”
http://web.archive.o...ct/sdscene.html

So it may work at 30,000 feet, although only momentarily? Apparently the New York Times agrees:

Quote

Cell phones work on airplanes? Why does the FAA discourage their use? What's the maximum altitude at which a cell phone will work? 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

I do realize that you are not saying it is impossible for the calls to have happened, just that it is exceedingly unlikely, at least that is the impression I am getting from your posts. I think you'll find that if you follow the sources and information provided on the page linked above, that the likelihood is greater than you are professing.







Cz