3292 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Crumar, on 09 November 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

Skyeagle, you wrote a lot but you STILL haven't answered the question I asked of you why are you avoiding it?  You made a pretty strong statement above and I asked you for your personal evidence that you have yet to reply to, did you just think I would forget?

You implied that cell phones don't work in flight above 2000 feet, but my own cell phone worked in flight to the point that I had to turn it off.

Quote

I am not asking you to reply using other people sources, you said that it was you that made calls not the sources so tell me when you made the calls, how long your conversation lasted and what year they were made in (specifically if it was in 2001) along with altitude, speed, and flight of the location.  Also if it was a commercial fight or if it was some other form of non commercial plane you were on.  I am very interested in finding this information out thank you.

I didn't have long conversations on the cell phone because I was too busy doing such things as flying the plane, which didn't have a working autopilot, while looking out for other aircraft whose pilots sometimes failed to update their altimeters to the current setting for the location I was flying over, which sometimes resulted in their aircraft flying near my altitude, and navigating, so I simply told the callers I would call back. I also noticed that I was receiving text messages, which I didn't respond to until after I landed. This has been occurring off and on for many years because I simply forgot to turn off the phone before the flight.

I have posted those references for a particularly good reason, which shows that cell phones did work temporarily in flight back in 2001, but you also have to remember that the majority of calls were made on Airfones, not cell phones.

[Babe Ruth]

Crumar

Thanks again for all the technical stuff, most of it over my head.

But I am a HAM radio guy, and radios have long been a hobby.

I would like to mention that, as you already know and have mentioned, the microwave band is very directional.  The cell systems designed and built in the 80's and 90's were for people on the ground.  Thus, the directional antennae are oriented to that purpose.  The term "cell" refers to the ideal hexagonal design of each "cell", and that in the earlier systems, many of the cells were not hexagonal because there were not enough towers to form a hexagon.

I did not know that the satellite interface systems were introduced in 2004, though I was aware about 3 or 4 years ago that they did exist.

There are after-market systems available that allow a cell phone to be used in private aircraft, and all it does is allow the cellphone audio to be fed and controlled into the aviation headset the pilot is wearing.  I have never used one.

Even in a low and slow helicopter, the biggest difficulty is actually being able to hear the cellphone audio because of the ambient noise.

There are so many other facts that contradict the OCT that the lies of the cell calls is a minor one indeed.

[DONTEATUS]

Next time your on a flt,coast to coast try your cell phone at 35k feet.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 09 November 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

There are so many other facts that contradict the OCT that the lies of the cell calls is a minor one indeed.

On the contrary, it has been shown that cell phones have been used in flight and even cell phone experts have stated that cell phone use in aircraft is not impossible.

[skyeagle409]

DONTEATUS, on 09 November 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

Next time your on a flt,coast to coast try your cell phone at 35k feet.

9/11 conspiracist have had each of their claims refuted with facts and evidence and despite no evidence, continue to claim there was a government 9/11 conspiracy.

It has been shown that 9/11 conspiracist are not interested in real evidence because they have actually claimed that certain videos and photos proved their case while they were unaware those videos and photos were deliberately doctored.

They were also unaware that cell phones have been used in flight before the 9/11 attacks and that cell  phone experts have stated that cell phone calls from aircraft were in fact, possible during the 2001 time frame.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 November 2012 - 03:23 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Insaniac, on 08 November 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

Like the Media, who are owned by the Government? lmao.

I think you've got that the wrong way round.

[Crumar]

skyeagle409, on 09 November 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

You implied that cell phones don't work in flight above 2000 feet, but my own cell phone worked in flight to the point that I had to turn it off.

I can’t believe this is still being thrown around by you of all people.  Reread the posts I made I did not imply that they don't work past 2000ft I said the signal degrades and calls get dropped if they somehow connect.  The phone still may have a signal but that does not mean a connection can be made and even if it does show it has a signal over time as you travel it will eventually lose signal as it get stuck on a tower I already explained this to you and this was also further verified by a professor who did a study on this very issue and was posted not by me but by someone else.  You preach physical evidence and being open minded when viewing each side of the story yet you are not doing so here at all you are biased plane and simple.

Quote

I didn't have long conversations on the cell phone because I was too busy doing such things as flying the plane, which didn't have a working autopilot, while looking out for other aircraft whose pilots sometimes failed to update their altimeters to the current setting for the location I was flying over, which sometimes resulted in their aircraft flying near my altitude, and navigating, so I simply told the callers I would call back. I also noticed that I was receiving text messages, which I didn't respond to until after I landed. This has been occurring off and on for many years because I simply forgot to turn off the phone before the flight.

I have posted those references for a particularly good reason, which shows that cell phones did work temporarily in flight back in 2001, but you also have to remember that the majority of calls were made on Airfones, not cell phones.

Yes you keep posting references that I provided, and have noted that there are contradictions to their stories.  I understand you were flying the plane at the time but you can still answer the questions I posed to you after you are done flying the plane you would remember some of these things.  Again you're STILL avoiding answering the full question, so to me you are starting to seem like you are either covering something up or lying.  Why can't you answer simple questions when put forth to you?  I asked you what year were these phone calls placed that is the most important thing out of everything I asked you and after asking you 3 TIMES now you still refuse to answer that question.  All your answers are vague, you will not provide your altitude, plane you were using, service provider of your phone, speed of travel, etc.  The only thing that you did provide which is telling was that you were not on the phone long enough for it to drop as you traveled; which would indicate your calls were short as you were "flying the plane" the quote is your own words not mine.

I will post the findings once again by a professor who has done the physics and mathematical probabilities of what we are talking about yet again so you can review it.  Then I am going to post the responses to refute the claims you are making by engineers and people who have done the same tests and have given their names not hiding or being evasive but precise which you refuse to be Skyeagle.  So let us begin shall we.

Test was done by Professor A.K. Dewdney http://physics911.net/projectachilles/

The author (Professor Dewdney) has not placed his university affiliations below his name, as the research described here was not conducted with any university facilities or supported by university-administered grants. He currently holds the titles of Professor Emeritus of Computer Science and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the University of Western Ontario, as well as Professor of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo.

So now that we got his credentials out of the way after he did all his tests lets look at his conclusion.

A.K Dewdney said:

Conclusions

It cannot be said that the Faraday attenuation experiment (Part Three) was complete, in the sense that the operator normally held the phone to his ear, seated in a normal position. This meant that the signals from the test phones were only partially attenuated because the operator was surrounded by windows that are themselves radio-transparent.  Although we cannot say yet to what degree the heavier aluminum skin on a Boeing 700-series aircraft would affect cellphone calls made from within the aircraft, they would not be without some effect as windows take up a much smaller solid angle at the cellphone antenna. Signals have a much smaller window area to escape through, in general.  As was shown above, the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. To calculate the probability that two such calls will succeed involves elementary probability theory. The resultant probability is the product of the two probabilities, taken separately. In other words, the probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand. In the case of a hundred such calls, even if a large majority fail, the chance of, say 13 calls getting through can only be described as infinitesimal. In operational terms, this means “impossible.”

At lower altitudes the probability of connection changes from impossible to varying degrees of “unlikely.” But here, a different phenomenon asserts itself, a phenomenon that cannot be tested in a propellor-driven light aircraft. At 500 miles per hour, a low-flying aircraft passes over each cell in a very short time. For example if a cell (area serviced by a given cellsite) were a mile in diameter, the aircraft would be in it for one to eight seconds. Before a cellphone call can go through, the device must complete an electronic “handshake” with the cellsite servicing the call. This handshake can hardly be completed in eight seconds. When the aircraft comes into the next cell, the call must be “handed off” to the new cellsite. This process also absorbs seconds of time. Together, the two requirements for a successful and continuous call would appear to absorb too much time for a speaking connection to be established. Sooner or later, the call is “dropped.”
This assessment is borne out by both earwitness testimony and by expert opinion, as found in Appendix B, below. Taking the consistency of theoretical prediction and expert opinion at face value, it seems fair to conclude that cellphone calls (at any altitude) from fast-flying aircraft are no more likely to get through than cellphone calls from high-flying slow aircraft.

A. K. Dewdney,
April 19th 2003

Below his conclusions other people have done similar tests here take a read.

Brad Mayeux said:

Hi,

I am an RF design engineer, having built out Sprint, Verizon and another network in New Orleans. 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 (he gives his e-mail here but I must delete it as it is against the rules of this forum to post this information if you want it you can look at it at the link)

Rafe said:

Hi Prof

I have repeatedly tried to get my cell phone to work in an airplane above 2-3000 feet and it doesn’t work. My experiments were done discreetely on [more than] 20 Southwest Airlines flights between Ontario, California and Phoenix, Arizona. My experiments match yours. Using sprint phones 3500 and 6000 models, no calls above 2500 ft [succeeded], a “no service” indicator at 5000 ft (guestimate).
There seem to be two reasons. 1. the cell sites don’t have enough power to reach much more than a mile, 2. The cell phone system is not able to handoff calls when the plane is going at more than 400 mph.

This is simply experimental data. If any of your contacts can verify it by finding the height of the Pennsylvania plane and it’s speed one can prove that the whole phone call story is forged.
Rafe <e-mail provided> (airline pilot)

Peter Kes said:

Dear Professor,

Responding to your article, I’m glad somebody with authority has taken the trouble to scientifically prove the nonsense of 9/11.  I was travelling between two major European cities, every weekend, when the events in the US occurred. I was specifically puzzled by the reports that numerous passengers on board the hijacked planes had long conversations with ground phone lines, using their mobile phones (and not on board satelite phones). Since I travelled every weekend, I ignored the on board safety regulations to switch off the mobile phone and out of pure curiosity left it on to see if I could make a call happen.

First of all, at take off, the connection disappears quite quickly (ascending speed, lateral reception of ground stations etc.), I would estimate from 500 meters [1500 feet approx.] and above, the connection breaks.
Secondly, when making the approach for landing, the descent is more gradual and the plane is travelling longer in the reach of cellphone stations, but also only below 500 meters. What I noticed was that, since the plane is travelling with high speed, the connection jumps from one cellphone station to another, never actually giving you a chance to make a phone call. (I have never experienced this behaviour over land, e.g. by car). Then, if a connection is established, it takes at least 10-30 seconds before the provider authorises a phone call in the first place. Within this time, the next cellstation is reached (travel speed still > 300KM/h) and the phone , always searching for the best connection, disconnects the current connection and tries to connect to a new station.
I have done this experiment for over 18 months, ruling out weather conditions, location or coincidence. In all this time the behaviour was the same: making a phone call in a plane is unrealistic and virtually impossible.
Based on this, I can support you in your findings that the official (perhaps fabricated) stories can be categorised as nonsense.

With kind regards.

Peter Kes <e-mail provided>

Nila Sagadevan said:

It must be clearly understood that Prof. Dewdney’s tests were conducted in
slow-moving (<150kts) light aircraft at relatively low altitudes (<9000ft
AGL). The aircraft from which the alleged calls were made on 9/11 were
flying at over 30,000 ft at speeds of over 500 MPH.
During a recent round-trip flight from Orange County, CA to Miami, FL (via
Phoenix, AZ), I, personally conducted an unofficial “test” using a brand new
Nokia 6101 cellular phone [NB: 2005 technology]. En route, I attempted
(discretely, of course) a total of 37 calls from varying altitudes/speeds. I
flew aboard three types of aircraft: Boeing 757, 737, and Airbus 320. Our
cruising altitudes ranged from 31-33,000ft, and our cruising speeds, from
509-521 MPH (verified post-flight by the captains). My tests began
immediately following take-off. Since there was obviously no point in taking
along the wrist altimeter I use for ultralight flying for reference in a
pressurized cabin, I could only estimate (from experience) the various
altitudes at which I made my attempts.
Of the 37 calls attempted, I managed to make only 4 connections – and every
one of these was made on final approach, less than 2 minutes before flare,
I.e., at less than 2,000ft AGL.
Approach speeds varied from 130-160 kts (Vref, outer marker), with flap and
gear extension at around 2,000ft (again, all speeds verified by flightdeck
crews). Further, I personally spoke briefly with the captains of all four
flights: I discovered that in their entire flying careers, NOT ONE of these
men had EVER been successful in making a cell phone call from cruising
altitude/speed in a variety of aircraft types. [NB: Rest assured the
ubiquitous warnings to "turn off all electronics during flight" are
completely unfounded. All modern aircraft systems are fully shielded from
all forms of RF/EMF interference (save EMP, of course). This requirement was
mandated by the FAA many years ago purely as a precautionary measure while
emerging advanced avionics systems were being flight tested. There is not a
single recorded incident of interference adversely affecting the performance
of airborne avionics systems.]
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 (no e-mail provided)

Brad Taylor said:

Dear Dr Dewdney

I too can verify that on a private charter airline, Champion Air, which was a 737-300, I believe that is correct or it might have been a 727-300. But regardless of that, we took off from Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport at 0735 in July of 2003. As we were taxiing to the run way the pilot told us to please turn off all electronic equipment, i.e. Cell Phones, Laptops, etc. I did so, but shortly after take off and before the pilot said we could use our “electronic equipment” I thought I would call my mom and let her know we were in the air. We had not been off the ground for more than 2 minutes. I would guess between 2000 and 5000 ft. I was using at the time one of Motorola’s top of the line phones, a V60t. My cell phone carrier is Cingular which is quite a widespread carrier as you probably know, I had absolutely no signal at all. Since we were flying to Cozumel, Mexico I kept trying and watching for a signal until we got out past the coast line of Texas, when then I knew for sure I wouldn’t get a signal again until we landed in Cozumel. Again in June 2004 we flew out of DFW, same airline, same type of plane, and the same thing occurred. This time I left my phone on from take off and up until it lost the signal. Again we couldn’t have been more than 2000 to 3000 ft. off the ground. I lost the signal and never again got a signal until the plane landed in Cozumel. I find it highly unlikely that anyone could have used a cell phone on 9/11/01 at above 2000 feet.

Sincerely,
Brad Taylor (no e-mail provided)

George Nelson said:

I’ve been using Nokia phones with automatic nationwide roaming, and Cingular before it was Cingular and long before 9/11. I confess to having turned my cell phone on while flying commercial airlines several times prior to 9/11, just to see if signals were available. At 2,000 feet the phone went totally flat. No calls out or in were ever possible. Of course all these stories are anecdotal, but according to cell phone engineers who have cared to comment have stated that commercial aircraft fly far too fast and far too high to expect that folks on flight 93 ever managed to get a call out on their own phones. They’ve said that the towers can’t transition or hand over private cell phones fast enough. I hope we can hear from other ATPs on this subject.

George Nelson (Col. USAF ret.) (no e-mail provided)

As you can see the testimony of other people contradict what others have been saying.  Now that we got that cleared up I hope I understand that air phones were used by a lot of the people on the hi-jacked planes.  Tell me why hi-jackers would allow them to use these devices?  I read in detail the other links that ascertain that air phones were indeed used but that took the investigating officials to come to this conclusion years later as indicated by them going back and forth with the evidence that was provided.  The FBI has some credit card transactions to indicate this was the case what took them so long to find it?  To me it just seems convenient for them to finally come to that conclusion but I will not call them lairs but I will say there is a lot of contradictions to this story for me anyways.  That does not mean all evidence presented by the FBI is fabricated all I am saying is in this particular instance some things do not add up based on records provided by investigating bodies and by those outside the investigation who understand the technology.

Edited by Crumar, 10 November 2012 - 08:46 AM.

[Crumar]

Babe Ruth, on 09 November 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

Crumar

Thanks again for all the technical stuff, most of it over my head.

But I am a HAM radio guy, and radios have long been a hobby.

I would like to mention that, as you already know and have mentioned, the microwave band is very directional.  The cell systems designed and built in the 80's and 90's were for people on the ground.  Thus, the directional antennae are oriented to that purpose.  The term "cell" refers to the ideal hexagonal design of each "cell", and that in the earlier systems, many of the cells were not hexagonal because there were not enough towers to form a hexagon.

I did not know that the satellite interface systems were introduced in 2004, though I was aware about 3 or 4 years ago that they did exist.

There are after-market systems available that allow a cell phone to be used in private aircraft, and all it does is allow the cellphone audio to be fed and controlled into the aviation headset the pilot is wearing.  I have never used one.

Even in a low and slow helicopter, the biggest difficulty is actually being able to hear the cellphone audio because of the ambient noise.

There are so many other facts that contradict the OCT that the lies of the cell calls is a minor one indeed.

Hi Babe Ruth,

This quote may be of interest to you as it explains further in regards to radio and cell singles.  Thanks for posting the above I appreciate it.

(source http://physics911.net/projectachilles/)

Keven L. Barton said:

Prof. Dewdney:

I do not pretend to be any sort of expert of cellular communications, but I am an electronics engineer and hold both amateur and commercial FCC licenses, so I do have some understanding of the relevant principles of radio communication systems.
I read with interest your analysis of terrestrial contact probabilities via cellphones from aircraft. I believe your conclusions are sound, but would like to comment on an element which you pondered regarding the sort of apparent discontinuity in what seems otherwise to be an inverse-square relation beyond a certain altitude.

Cellphones operate by Frequency Modulation, and as such the (apparent) signal strength is not discernible to the listener because the intelligence is contained only in the frequency and phase information of the signal before demodulation. Hence, the system works pretty well until it is so weak that it is abruptly lost. That is, the system can no longer “capture” the signal. It does not get louder and softer with signal strength -until the signal is below the detection level of the receiver, at which point it is essentially disappears. The cellphone also adjusts the transmit power according to the signal level received at the tower end of the link. Once it is at maximum output, if the signal diminishes beyond some minimum threshold depending on the receiver design, it is lost altogether and not simply degraded in quality. Analogous behavior is experienced with FM broadcast stations; as you travel away from the transmitter the station is received with good fidelity until at some distance it rather suddenly cannot even be received any longer at all.

Additionally, cellphone towers are certainly not optimally designed for skyward radiation patterns. Since almost all subscribers are terrestrial that is where the energy is directed, at low angles.
In summary, if your observed discontinuous behavior is real, and I believe there is technical reasoning for such, the probability of making calls beyond some threshold altitude is not simply predictably less, but truly impossible with conventional cellphones under any condition of aircraft etc. because of the theoretical limits of noise floor in the receiving systems. I think the plausibility of completing the calls from 30,000+ ft. is even much lower than might be expected from extrapolations of behavior at lower altitudes which you investigated.

Thank you for your thoughtful work in this area.

Sincerely,

Kevin L. Barton

Hope that helps you understand a bit more thanks.

Edited by Crumar, 10 November 2012 - 08:40 AM.

[Czero 101]

Regarding Dewdney and his studies:

911Myths.com - AK Dewdney and Project Achilles

Skipping straight to the end...

Quote

Whether his results are "optimal" is open to question, as we've seen, however here he is suggesting there's a 1 in a hundred chance of success of making a call. So how do we get to "impossible"? Like this:

Quote

As was shown above, the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. To calculate the probability that two such calls will succeed involves elementary probability theory. The resultant probability is the product of the two probabilities, taken separately. In other words, the probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand. In the case of a hundred such calls, even if a large majority fail, the chance of, say 13 calls getting through can only be described as infinitesimal. In operational terms, this means "impossible."
http://www.physics91...ectachilles.htm

What Dewdney is saying is that the probabilites must be multiplied together. If the chance of you winning a basic prize on the lottery is one in ten, for instance, then the probability of you winning twice with two tickets is 10 x 10 = 1 in 100.

When we're dealing with unrelated and independent events, like the lottery tickets, this is correct. But the phone calls were not independent, they relied on precisely the same set of circumstances. If a 9/11 plane were in the right position, in relation to a powerful base station, for the calls to take place, then it was in the right position for everyone on the plane (who had a mobile which could use that base station). At any given moment, either all this group of people could get through, or none of them. Therefore the chance of 2 people getting through remains close to 1 in 100, even with Dewdneys flawed conditions, not the 1 in 10,000 he claims.

As to why the hijackers would "let the passengers use those devices" (the Airfones), given the following:

1. There were only 5 hijackers on three of the aircraft  - Flights 11, 77 and 175 -  and 4 on Flight 93 versus the substantially higher number of passengers on those aircraft
2. According to what was reported by people making those calls, the hijackers seemed to be more concerned with keeping passengers and crew away from the front of the aircraft than keeping them from using the Airfones,
3. Airfones are located in seatbacks throughout the aircraft - typically as few as one per row of seats, or as many as one per individual seat depending on seating class.

Why do you think the hijackers would have even tried or have been able to stop people from using the Airfones or their cell phones...?

I'm not professing to have any insight into their mindset, but why would they care since their plan was to destroy the aircraft and kill everyone on board anyway? Its not like the phone calls could have stopped them from what they were planning....








Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 10 November 2012 - 09:12 AM.

[Crumar]

Czero 101, on 10 November 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Regarding Dewdney and his studies:

911Myths.com - AK Dewdney and Project Achilles

Skipping straight to the end...



As to why the hijackers would "let the passengers use those devices" (the Airfones), given the following:

1. There were only 5 hijackers on three of the aircraft  - Flights 11, 77 and 175 -  and 4 on Flight 93 versus the substantially higher number of passengers on those aircraft
2. According to what was reported by people making those calls, the hijackers seemed to be more concerned with keeping passengers and crew away from the front of the aircraft than keeping them from using the Airfones,
3. Airfones are located in seatbacks throughout the aircraft - typically as few as one per row of seats, or as many as one per individual seat depending on seating class.

Why do you think the hijackers would have even tried or have been able to stop people from using the Airfones or their cell phones...?

I'm not professing to have any insight into their mindset, but why would they care since their plan was to destroy the aircraft and kill everyone on board anyway? Its not like the phone calls could have stopped them from what they were planning....








Cz

Thanks for the post Cz that makes a lot of sense.  But regardless if it is 1-100 or 1-10000 the fact is a call can be eventually made but as I have said the call will in most likely hood have disconnected within a minute back in 2001 because of altitude, high rate of speed, distance from cell tower etc.  You guys get the point by now I am sure what bugs me is posters here using 2012 technology to say calls could be made back in 2001 at all altitudes with posts like "Try to use a phone on a plane now" argument.  Please do not confuse the two the technology was much different in 2001 then in 2004 and onwards.  Now the problem is why did the FBI initially say it was cell phones and then switched to air phones later in their investigation?  That is what I am wondering the most because they had every news outlet report in the early stages of the investigation that it was cell phones and not air phones that were used and a few people on the forums are saying that the media was misinformed and did not know their facts.  Well of course they were that is the problem in the beginning at least.  As for the hi-jackers I can see why they would focus on the cockpit area vs. the back of the plane it makes sense.  Anyway something to think about thanks for posting, have a great day.

Edited by Crumar, 10 November 2012 - 01:46 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Thanks for all that Crumar.  Kevin Barton makes excellent points, and reminded me of another phenomenon I noted regarding cell phones and altitude and airspeed.

I noticed back around 2005 that if I left the phone on while flying on a longer flight, an hour or more, my battery would lose strength much more quickly.  I thought that one reason for that might be that the unit was using more power searching for communication with a tower that it could not find.  While in NO SERVICE mode, it seemed to use more power trying to find a ground station to talk to, and not finding such a station, it consumed more power.

Anyway, in addition to the physical impossibility of the 11 September phone calls, the "conversations" offered as evidence had a strange quality about them, coming across as unnatural or staged, between the parties.

[skyeagle409]

Crumar, on 10 November 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

I can’t believe this is still being thrown around by you of all people.

It is all very simple. You have implied that cell phones could not have been used in flight, but facts and evidence have shown that it was not only possible in 2001, but that cell phones have been used in that time frame.

Read it, and understand what is being presented.

Quote

Final Contact

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.

http://wirelessrevie...s_final_contact


Mobiles on aeroplanes

QUESTION: Can we receive a mobile signal while travelling in an aeroplane?

ANSWER : Mobile phones can receive signals while travelling in an aircraft, provided the base station range allows. Territory covered with GSM network is divided into hexagonal cells. The covering diameter of each hexagonal cell may be from 400 m up to 50 km, which consists of base station that provides communication-receive and transmission, and antennae.

http://www.hindu.com...03100110300.htm

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

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.washingto...anguage=printer

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

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

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

Why the cell phone ban?

The cell phone ban went into effect in 1991, mostly to eliminate the possibility that cell phone calls on airplanes would interfere with cell conversations on the ground, as well as with the airplane's radio communications.

The FCC cited effects of "frequency re-use," which is a fundamental cell phone principle that's helped mobile phones proliferate worldwide. The signal from a cell phone doesn't go on forever; the energy to propel it dissipates after a number of miles, and it dissipates more quickly if it bounces off buildings, hills and other obstacles. This allows the same frequencies to be re-used by operators in different markets sometimes just a few miles apart.

A cell phone signal falling to Earth from a phone aboard a plane encounters no significant obstacles to slow it down, so it's strong enough to reach the ground and find a network on its particular frequency. But if the airwaves belong to a different operator, there's likely to be "noise" and other forms of interference for everybody, the FCC believes.

The 1991 ban hasn't kept people from using their cell phones while in flight, whether it's to secretly scroll through office e-mail, or to respond to far more dire circumstances, as was the case with Chicago resident Matthew Downs on Sept. 11, 2001

http://news.cnet.com..._3-5727009.html

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

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://web.archive.o...llp0622-01.html

Now once again, where does i say that cell phone calls from aircraft were impossible? Once again, you've allowed yourself to become a victim of those conspiracy websites.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 November 2012 - 10:04 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 10 November 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

Thanks for all that Crumar.  Kevin Barton makes excellent points, and reminded me of another phenomenon I noted regarding cell phones and altitude and airspeed.

I noticed back around 2005 that if I left the phone on while flying on a longer flight, an hour or more, my battery would lose strength much more quickly.  I thought that one reason for that might be that the unit was using more power searching for communication with a tower that it could not find.  While in NO SERVICE mode, it seemed to use more power trying to find a ground station to talk to, and not finding such a station, it consumed more power.

Anyway, in addition to the physical impossibility of the 11 September phone calls, the "conversations" offered as evidence had a strange quality about them, coming across as unnatural or staged, between the parties.

On the contrary, cell phone records have been posted, and remember, the majority of calls were made from Airfones, not cell phones.

[skyeagle409]

Crumar, on 10 November 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Yes you keep posting references that I provided, and have noted that there are contradictions to their stories.

What it is, you have fallen victim to those conspiracy websites since it has been well-known that cell phones have been used in aircraft during, and prior to the 2001 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 November 2012 - 10:49 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

skyeagle409, on 10 November 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

On the contrary, cell phone records have been posted, and remember, the majority of calls were made from Airfones, not cell phones.

That cellphone records have been posted mean everything to you Sky, but to me they mean that there is a certain probability that, again, the federal government is making stuff up, rather like you did in showing me that video of an F-18 hitting a building.

Fake evidence is an old tactic employed by those attempting to deceive, and deception is what the events of 11 September were all about.  Deception and destruction of certain financial records evidence.