COMMENTS:
Calls for airlines are possible given the right technology. In fact Ryanair the low fares airline have just announced that they plan to allow all passengers use mobile phones on all flights in future. They have to modify the planes in some way to make them mobile compatible but they are insisting it is going to happen. So anyone stating point blank that mobile phone calls from airlines is impossible could well be mistaken.
by B_P on Tue Sep 05, 06 7:58am
[+]
^
Sorry that should read calls from airlines ..
by B_P on Tue Sep 05, 06 7:59am
[+]
Voted : Yes - Cell phone calls from airliners are technically possible
911myths . com / html / mobiles_at_altitude . html
...this site discusses this.
If the government introduced these fake phonecalls, don't you think they would have checked to see that it was actually a viable explanation beforehand?
Cell/Mobile phonecalls can be made on planes - depending on a number of circumstances and the situations. Obviously the situation was ideal for those on flight 93, where almost all the calls came from. Obviously it wasn't ideal for those on the other planes.
Anyone who has half a functioning brain and has been on a commercial aircraft in the last ten years would know this is possible. All you have to do is pick up the ultra expensive GTE Airfone in the seat back and place a call. They aren't connected by wire to the ground people! They are cellular based.
Here is part of a press release by the Government Services Agency (GSA):
Washington, DC -- The U.S General Services Administration's Federal Technology Service (FTS), in cooperation with the Federal Supply Service, has announced the award of a contract for discounted use of GTE Airfone cellular services. This multiyear contract will allow the more than 1.4 million American Express Government Travel Credit Card holders to utilize GTE's Airfone's cellular voice, data, and fax services at discounts of up to 50 percent below commercial rates.
The discount applies to domestic and international calls placed aboard GTE Airfone equipped US registered aircraft on routes over the United States and Canada for calls routed over the GTE Airfone North American Terrestrial Network (satellite calls are excluded).
The new communications tool brings value and productivity to all government travelers, allowing them to remain in touch even at 35,000 feet. They will be able to place voice, fax, data calls, check voice mail and even receive calls in flight.
The GTE Airfone seatback handsets are easy to use. Callers need to simply follow the handset display instructions to use the travel card and place the call.
A service launch date is expected in the next several weeks after special billing arrangements have been programmed at GTE Airfone to accommodate the large Government population.
CASE CLOSED.
BTW, that press release was from 1998!!!
"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.” - sandiegometro . com / 2001 / oct / sdscene . html
"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" - slate . com / id / 1008297/
** karma **
** karma **
** karma **
** karma **
more ken:
v
repost:
ken again:
you're WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! you're all liars! WAAAAAAAAAAAH! i'm telling! i'm going to -5 you! WHAAAAAAAAAA !!!!1!!!11!!!one!!!
rerepost:
allow me to play the part of ken for this one:
stop lying you dirty lying liar. you know those calls are impossible. shill. PNAC. lie. pentagon. explosion. impossible. shill. liar.
stop lying you dirty lying liar. you know those calls are impossible. shill. PNAC. lie. pentagon. explosion. impossible. shill. liar.
stop lying you dirty lying liar. you know those calls are impossible. shill. PNAC. lie. pentagon. explosion. impossible. shill. liar.
and lovelyice:
yeah, what i, er, i mean, he said. because i'm totally not him. yeah. i'm tank, uh, no, wait... i'm... coldcir..., no, LOVELYNICE, yeah, that's the one.
I already covered this nonsense, and won - 2 to 1 against calls being possible in 2001.
QUIZ:
IS IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE CELLPHONE CALLS AT CRUISING ALTITUDES?
serious ballot by Ken_from _Dublin
ACTIVE Jul 26,2006 - Mon Apr 20, 09
ANSWER : No, it's utterly IMPOSSIBLE! It's verifiably and scientifically proven that cellphone calls can't be made from a passenger jet flying at cruising altitudes, and the chance of making a successful call at over 450mph is less than 0.006 even at low altitude.
No, it's impossible! 90
Yes, it's possible 47
I rest my case, bye! (o:
PS. The technology for cell phone calls on planes is only being introduced now in 2006 on the Dublin based airliner Ryanair.
translation:
*fingers in ears* LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
No, it's impossible! 90
Yes, it's possible 47
by Ken
How sad, you take the voting results here too seriously. And by the way, how many of those NO votes are from you Ken? I know I have personally witnessed votes on more than one of your ballots climb by 30 votes in less than 90 seconds. And don't deny it, because I called you on it the very moment it happened.
{If the government introduced these fake phonecalls, don't you think they would have checked to see that it was actually a viable ...
by wolf_nipple_chips on Tue Sep 05, 06 9:04am}
No, because they made it up the lies on the spot, and did't check if if was possible FOR CIVILIAN TECHNOLOGY. They just "assumed" it was because they had satellite phones, and thought (like you) that it was the same thing.
and yes the cellphone calls were fake. Searchlght can make up his fairytales all day long, but without any scientific evidence, all he's doing is making up LIES.
on the spot? how do you make up fake cell phone calls with 100 percent accurate voices on the spot?
{ 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.” - sandiegometro . com / 2001 / oct / sdscene . html
by wolf_nipple_chips on Tue Sep 05, 06 9:24am}
Your own evidence, Wolf.
The handoff isn't just "chancy", it's IMPOSSIBLE at that speed. The call can only last a maximum of a few seconds, because there is no time for the handoff to be completed before the aircraft is already out of range and in another cell.
or is it YOU who's making things up on the spot
Cite sources and links with quotes neothe1, as we already know that you are lying.
"I know I have personally witnessed votes on more than one of your ballots climb by 30 votes in less than 90 seconds. And don't deny it, because I called you on it the very moment it happened."
by Jinn_the_Racist on
Yeah - because it was you making a balls of the vote rigging, so sweet to have it backfire on you -
NEVER TRUST A RACIST.
you'll note, murderer, that islam is not a race.
{ The GTE Airfone seatback handsets...
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Tue Sep 05, 06 9:14am}
GTE Airfones are NOT cellphones. They use a very different technology, trying to pretend that since Airfones work that cellphones must work too is just BULLSHIT.
Airfones are part of the IFE built into the plane, they use the plane's own communications system.
The only way a cellphone can make a call from a plane is by use of an onboard cellular basestation - and they didn't exist before 2004 !
But you'll note neoconscript that Jinn is most certainly a racist.
Statement: “Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past.” (San Francisco Chronicle, December 15, 2004)
bewareofthis . info / pagecache / page7756 /
Statement: "FCC set to consider in-flight cell phones. December 15, 2004. Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet - THEY WEREN'T IN THE PAST - and whether they'd mess up ground - based communications . "
bewareofthis . info / pagecache / page7755 /
"Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network" because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high, she said. The technology is "difficult now, but it's not something that can't happen in the future."
gmpcs-us . com / satnews / jan - 5%20 - Boeing . htm
As we all can see, it is only now that Cell Phones are being tested for in-flight calls. Look at the date of that report, it is Monday, July 19, 2004. Why would people be making in-flight cell phone calls on 9/11, 2001, when on 2004, inflight-calls are only beginning to be tested. And this is just the testing stages, the fact that testing only began a few years after 2001, says a lot about the IMPOSSIBILITY that cell phones may have been used in those 9/11 flights.
noun: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
i have yet to see jinn express such things.
but then again, you're a strawman sockpuppet, trying to mock the politically correct liberal stereotype, which means throwing the word "racist" around at every opportunity.
bewareofthis . info / pagecache / page3009 /
LOS ANGELES The safe landing of a JetBlue Airways plane with faulty landing gear last night ended a drama carried live by television that riveted viewers outside and inside the aircraft... At one point, he said, he tried to call his family, but his cellphone call wouldn't go through.
PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS (also mention on the Project Achilles site)
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: geocities . com / rf _ man _ cdma /
Brad Mayeux
Dear Sir
I have yet to read the entire article but I do have a background in telecommunications. Using a cell phone on an air craft is next to impossible. The reasons are very detailed, but basically the air craft would run major interference, as well as the towers that carry the signal would have a difficult time sending and receiving due to the speed of the air craft. As well, calling an operator? Well that is basically impossible.
Having worked for both a major Canadian and American provider I had to instruct my staff that operator assistance is not an option. Have you ever tried to use a cell phone in some public buildings? Impossible. There are too many spots that service is voided. Just a tidbit of information to share.
Megan Conley
(I have their email dresses if you want them)
'...which means throwing the word "racist" around at every opportunity.' (only at racist Jinn and Herr zog, the only two racists on the site - Ken)
By nitwit1
The same way you make a fool of yourself posting spam like 'paste' and 'mirror' ad infinitum all over the website as a poor substitute for your handicap of being too intellectually challenged to be able engage in civilised debate.
{ 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,
by wolf_nipple_chips on Tue Sep 05, 06 9:24am}
That's an assumption not based on facts or scientific studies. As I've just cited, the science says that this claim is wrong. You need a scientific study with cellphones to prove that they can make calls from cruising altitude. Those that I have seen, and the experts that I've quoted, all say it's impossible.
and anecdotes like Searchlight is trying to push are just storytelling. Any troll on the internet can make up a story but you need real scientific studies to prove the claim that cellphones can make calls
"The same way you make a fool of yourself posting spam like 'paste' and 'mirror' ad infinitum all over the website as a poor substitute for your handicap of being too intellectually challenged to be able engage in civilised debate."
i'm just imitating you, murderer. that does limit me somewhat.
{Calls for airlines are possible given the right technology. In fact Ryanair the low fares airline have just announced that they plan to allow all passengers use mobile phones on all flights in future. They have to modify the planes in some way to make them mobile compatible but they are insisting it is going to happen. So anyone stating point blank that mobile phone calls from airlines is impossible could well be mistaken.
by B_P on Tue Sep 05, 06 7:58am}
Yes, you're correct - WITH THE RIGHT TECHNOLOGY - and only with that technology.
They need an onboard cellular basestation. This technology didn't exist before 2004.
by the way, the full quote is:
"but then again, you're a strawman sockpuppet, trying to mock the politically correct liberal stereotype, which means throwing the word "racist" around at every opportunity."
the fact that you cut out "but then again, you're a strawman sockpuppet, trying to mock the politically correct liberal stereotype" proves that it's true.
{1) There are dozens, maybe hundreds of people who received calls from the 9/11 hijacked planes. If this is a lie then they are ALL in on it by Searchlight
ACTIVE Sep 05,2006 - Wed Sep 05, 07 }
No, Searchlight, your little lie doesn't work.
The cellphone calls from the aircraft were in fact impossible, which means they were FAKE. That doesn't logically lead to the people answering those calls being liars either, despite your bullshit claim, because the calls were FAKED, not those who answered those calls.
You must be a fool.
Now, go out and find some REAL SOURCES and REAL EVIDENCE instead of making up stories.
Well thats all sorted out. Glad we are all in agreement.
Simple logic;
Impossible to make cellphone calls = faked cellphone calls = the US government LIED.
and is that really unusual? No, of course not. The Bush Administration seems to LIE about everything. Like the LIES about WMDs in Iraq.
and since they faked the cellphone calls, why not the airfone calls as well? If you read the initial news, nearly all the calls were supposed to be cellphone calls, remember, but then sceptics came out and said "No way!, It's impossible to make cellhone calls from high flying passenger jets". See, even back in 2001, people knew that cellphone calls can't be made from passenger planes at cruising altitude. So, the USA government began to change their story, but they still kept making mistakes. Afterall, these government workers aren't 'smart', if they were then the LIES about WMDs in Iraq wouldn't have been blown. Conspiracies happen; and they get caught out too - like the Iran-Contra scandal, and Nixon's Watergate.
{Glad we are all in agreement.
by Searchlight on Tue Sep 05, 06 3:20pm}
Yes, cellphone calls are still IMPOSSIBLE from planes flying six miles up at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation (I guess you will have to fly Ryanair then).
So, Searchlight, are you going to cite some scientific studies to prove that those cellphone calls were possible or are you going to make up more fairytales without any evidence, without any links, sources, or quotes?
"by the way, the full quote is:
"but then again, you're a strawman sockpuppet, trying to mock the politically correct liberal stereotype, which means throwing the word "racist" around at every opportunity."
the fact that you cut out "but then again, you're a strawman sockpuppet, trying to mock the politically correct liberal stereotype" proves that it's true."
by neothe1
And my full quote in response was -
The same way you make a fool of yourself posting spam like 'paste' and 'mirror' ad infinitum all over the website as a poor substitute for your handicap of being too intellectually challenged to be able to engage in a civilised debate.
"The Bush Administration seems to LIE about everything."
you certainly do
maybe you should be the one named neo, you're certainly far better at dodging than i am.
^^^ see what I mean folks?
I rest my case.
maybe you can explain why posting the word "paste" a thousand times in mockery of you is any different from posting the same bullshit articles and quotes a thousand times?
I've told you now for the millionth billionth time now neothe1 - stop exaggerating!!!
alright then, how about exact details then?
img. photobucket. com/ albums/ v705/ neomp5/ spam1. jpg
img. photobucket. com/ albums/ v705/ neomp5/ spam2. jpg
img. photobucket. com/ albums/ v705/ neomp5/ spam3. jpg
img. photobucket. com/ albums/ v705/ neomp5/ spam4. jpg
img. photobucket. com/ albums/ v705/ neomp5/ spam5. jpg
img. photobucket. com/ albums/ v705/ neomp5/ spam6. jpg
6 times you pasted that exact bit in one ballot alone, and it was just as wrong each time.
every time you spam, i will spam.
religion andpolitics. ytmnd. com/
"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" - slate . com / id / 1008297/
"No, because they made it up the lies on the spot"
LOL.
So they went through the process of scripting, replicating voices, hiring actors and forgot to see if it was actually possible in the first place?
So was this devious, evil master plan thought out on the back of a napkin?
Recreating these phonecalls were not vital to the overall scheme of things, why risk the employment of another set of conspirators (actors, voice technicians etc)? It's illogical.
There is absolutely no point.
They didn't feel the need to produce loads of phonecalls for the other planes, did they?
Clearly there is a lot of evidence to say it is possible to make phonecalls, and perhaps some people don't thinks it's possible.
It's a question of weighing up the evidence. It's not a question of dismissing anything and everything the counters your preconceived view of the events.
The answer lies in the middle. It's possible sometimes, but for other times it isn't.
Rational thought.
{ From this morning's New York Times: ...
by wolf_nipple_chips on Wed Sep 06, 06 4:42am}
You need scientific evidence. Like a scientific study and actual cited experts that specifically state it's possible. Not a newspaper article which not is contradicted by everything else, but when examined is only ASSUMPTIONS. They aren't even good assumptions, as the cellular network antennas are NOT AIMED AT THE SKY, so they can hardly be expected to have the same range as they do on the ground (which is where they are aimed to cover). Also, although the article claims the analog cellphones had a stronger signal, it doesn't back it up with any examples of that. As far as I know, the broadcast is still 3w, and hasn't changed. Most experts told me that it works out at roughly 1 mile range per watt. Most cellular networks have cells between 1-3 miles in radius, so they aren't going to cover more than in the sky either....and keep in mind, they are aiming to cover the main users - ON THE GROUND.
The other problem that you completely ignore (as does Searchlight try to pretend doesn't exist) is the time it takes for the handshake and handoff. Moving at over 450mph, there's simply not enough time for a call to last more than a few seconds, and IT CAN'T LAST LONGER THAN THAT. The plane is into the next cell before the handoff can be completed.
You admit this problem in a previous post;
{It is created for a maximum speed of 60 mph to 100 mph. “They are not built for 400 mph airplanes.” by wolf_nipple_chips on Tue Sep 05, 06 9:24am}
You should read what you posted.
{So was this devious, evil master plan thought out on the back of a napkin?
by wolf_nipple_chips on Wed Sep 06, 06 5:02am}
Probably the cellphone calls idea was thought up in some hurried meeting, with Bush there going "Duh...", and Rumsfeld full of himself (remember how stunned he was when those soldiers in Iraq talked back, and complained about lack of decent armour?). None of them even having a clue that CIVILIAN cellphones can't do those amazing phone calls from passenger planes. You see, these fools were so used to using their military-technology satellite phones that they didn't realise there was a difference. I doubt anyone senior realised this.
Rich, powerful, does not automatically mean 'smart'
and commonsense about mundane things is notoriously lacking in those born into wealth.
{1) There are dozens, maybe hundreds of people who received calls from the 9/11 hijacked planes. If this is a lie then they are ALL in on it by Searchlight ACTIVE Sep 05,2006 - Wed Sep 05, 07 }
No, Searchlight, your little lie doesn't work. The cellphone calls from the aircraft were in fact impossible, which means they were FAKE. That doesn't logically lead to the people answering those calls being liars either, despite your bullshit claim, because the calls were FAKED, not those who answered those calls. You must be a fool. Now, go out and find some REAL SOURCES and REAL EVIDENCE instead of making up stories. We're waiting and waiting and waiting
{he answer lies in the middle. It's possible sometimes, but for other times it isn't.Rational thought. by wolf_nipple_chips on Wed Sep 06, 06 5:10am}
Rational thought; accept the facts. The cellphone calls were impossible and therefore FAKE.
you can't prove that.
funny how the content of the calls themselves has not been brought up.
The opinion of experts...
"Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes.
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."
telephonyonline . com / wireless / ar / wireless_final_contact /
Here is an interesting article about an FCC study into the use of cell phones on planes.
If they were studying the nature of cell communication on board planes, what do you suppose that means?
THEY WORK!!!
"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."
washingtonpost . com / ac2 / wp-dyn / A14290-2003Jun19?language=printer
{THEY WORK!!! "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
by wolf_nipple_chips on Wed Sep 06, 06 2:33pm}
No, that doesn't prove that they work, not does it prove that they can make successful calls. Making a call is a two way system. That little cellphone must also recieve the signals from the ground and be able to make the handshake in time, then the handoff when switching to a new cell. Interference is not the same as making a call.
{From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops....
by wolf_nipple_chips on Wed Sep 06, 06 2:28pm}
Yes, that "certain altitude" is around 2,000 to 3,000 ft. Above that practically no calls can be made. It's not "call quality is not very good", it's effective impossibiity at 30,000ft. Yes, there is leakage, but the antennas are not pointing skyward, the ground is not a giant antenna dish, and the cellphone itself is not a powerful receiver or sender so it's range is limited, and the reception is more of a problem than the receiving for that cellphone (with it's limited ability) than a cellular antenna array. Please remember that not only must the cellphone send, it must also recieve, and even flying low at over 450mph, the cellphone will not be able to both make the handshake and the handoff. The call will last ONLY SECONDS even if it successfully connects and will always drop out because there is no time for the handoff (so,no "minutes-long" cellphone calls; they're impossible too)
So far, you have provided no scientific studies or evidence proving that it's possible for the cellphone to make a call at high altitude (5-6 miles up).
They need an onboard cellular basetstation to do so, and that onboard cellular basestation technology has only been around since 2004 (in testing stage) and only VERY RECENTLY has begun to be installed by some airlines (eg. Ryanair).
The onboard cellular basestation relays the cellphone call by resending the signal (on a different frequency) to a satellite - essentially giving the call the same access as a satellite phone. However, cellphones themselves are NOT satellite phones. If it were possible to make cellphone calls otherwise, then there would be no need for this technology (Searchlight is a fool to claim what he does when he cites no evidence and no sources).
At low altitude, your playing the game of "But it might work" as if a lottery winner could win 4 weeks in a row, particulary for so many alleged cellphone calls. That alone is stretching credibility beyond any rational sense. Add in the impossibility of making a call last more than mere seconds while flying at over 450mph, with a system designed for handling calls from cars on the ground moving at 60-100mph, then it becomes inconcievable, and verifiably impossible. Then you want these cellphones to not only make calls that last impossibly long (no time for the handoff remember), but also at an altitude of 30,000ft - 35,000ft when nobody has scientific evidence of successful cellphone calls being possible above 10,000ft in a slow moving prop-plane, and cited NAMED experts (who I can give you the email addresses for) state unequivocally it's impossible. The scientific studies that I've cited have real statistical evidence of how difficult it is to make a call from a prop-plane at low altitude, and the impossibility of making a call from a passenger plane (the cellphones recieved no signal, they could 'send', but apparently couldn't 'recieve').
Your FCC report talked only about interference, not about making successful calls.
{ou can't prove that. funny how the content of the calls themselves has not been brought up.
by neothe1 on Wed Sep 06, 06 11:53am}
So far, yes I have, repeatedly. You need to argue with some cited facts, quotes, links. wideheadofknowledge can do this, and thatmakes the debate interesting, so why can't YOU, neothe1?
And the alleged calls' content is meaningless if they are not technically possible as being real calls in the first place. It would be like me saying "A mouse flew to Pluto and told my uncle it was made of blue cheese".
Considering how impossible and unbelievable it is for the mouse to fly to Pluto, as well to "talk" about it, why should we go any further and actually care what the mouse allegedly said. My "uncle" could've been tricked.
i don't use "quotes" because reasoning alone defeats you, and that's what i'm good at, but i have yet to see you quote an unbiased source.
{i don't use "quotes" because reasoning ...
by neothe1 on Wed Sep 06, 06 7:55pm}
Really though, you don't use quotes because they don't support your lies and storytelling. As far as reasoning is concerned, well, if you had any brains you wouldn't have been rated down so much in such a short time because you keep spamming. I suspect you've flipped.
the reasoning is airtight, you are lying. but i know you right-wingers have a hard time with reasoning, even more than hard evidence.
neothe1, stop telling LIES
airtight.
Voted : Yes - Cell phone calls from airliners are technically possible
Depends on your cell phone company. :)
Wow, read through all the comments. It appears that no matter what evidence, some people are set on their side of the fence.
The fact is that the plane was flying low over an area with many cell towers. At low altitudes, it "may" be possible to use your cell phone similar to how you can use your cell phone at the top of a skyscraper. It some skyscrapers you can make calls, in others you can't. (Remember, these planes were being taken to lower altitudes to be rammed into buildings, which I might note that cell phones worked at the altitude the buildings rose to.)
My question to the people who say its fake is this: How do you call a person, pretending to be their family member, and do so in such a way where the person believes its real, on such short notice? I would think that people would know if it was their own son on the phone or not.
Next time I go on a plane, I would try leaving my cell phone on to see if it works. But it'd be no use posting the answer here, some of you wouldn't believe the results anyway.
question: exactly how many cell phone calls were there for each plane?
{The fact is that the plane was flying low over an area with many cell towers. At low altitudes, it "may" be possible to use your cell phone ... by Tejan on Mon Sep 11, 06 12:35am}
At low altitudes, with the plane flying at 450mph, a cellphone call can last only a few seconds. There is not enough time for making a successful call longer than that because there is no time for the "handoff" to be completed. The plane is moving too fast, and goes through the "cells" of a cellular network too fast.
This has already been repeatedly mentioned, so your excuses DIE.
{Depends on your cell phone company. :)
by Tejan on Mon Sep 11, 06 12:12am}
No, it depends on whether the plane has an ONBOARD CELULLAR BASESTATION - technology which didn't exist before 2004, and is still so rare that Ryanair might be the very first airline ever to install them on their planes - THIS YEAR!
Without them, making a cellphone call from six miles up and flying at over 450mph is impossible
why don't you just cut the crap and tell us how you manipulated this calculation? perhaps they were actually flying much lower, or much slower, or both, or basestations have a much wider range than you claim, or maybe you'l claim they only recieve from the ground, rather than all directions. which is it? i know loose change used several airfone calls as examples of faked cellphone calls. how did you adjust this one? another plagiarised term paper? aluminum tubes? yellow cake? what is it, bushie?
{My question to the people who say its fake is this: How do you call a person, pretending to be their family member, ...
by Tejan on Mon Sep 11, 06 12:35am}
EASY. Very, very easy. Apart from the usual expectation of distortion in the voice due to the cellphone and stress, the technology to fake a person's voice is common enough that civilians can buy the software. You can even download some versions of voice-faking software for free.
In Japan, we had the "Hi Mom, it's me" scam where without any voice-faking at all, strangers were able to defraud people out of millions of yen by pretending to be relatives in need of money.
Yet another excuse of yours dies.
{Why don't you just cut the crap ...
by neothe1 on Mon Sep 11, 06 9:04pm}
If you want to prove otherwise, neothe1 the lying government shill, you'll need to stop playing games with personal attacks and cite quoted sources and links to refute what I've stated. I've already covered the math and why before on other ballots. I've also cited quotes, links, and sources to support what I state - many times. AS YOU WELL KNOW.
and calling me a "bushie" is just another of your LIES.
By the way, neothe1, your making wacky stories about "Loose Change" means nothing to me, since I have never seen that film.
"and calling me a "bushie" is just another of your LIES."
you support bush. you defend him to the death. you are here fighting for him. what else should i call you?
your arguments are all lifted out of loose change, which is just more government propaganda.
we do not have the technology to fake voices.
fill in the blank:
world trade _____
{we do not have the technology to fake voices.
by neothe1 on Mon Sep 11, 06 10:04pm}
Neothe1, when are you going to learn, NEVER TELL LIES
- because you will ALWAYS get caught.
It was easy to fake someone's voice then, this if from a 1999 article
When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
washingtonpost .com / wp - srv / national / dotmil / arkin020199 . h t m
QUOTE;
"Whereas early voice morphing required cutting and pasting speech to put letters or words together to make a composite, Papcun's software developed at Los Alamos can far more accurately replicate the way one actually speaks."
Now you know how the voices on the "calls" could be faked.
It's not like these were turing tests, these were just normal average people receiving the calls.
You can go to ebaumsworld . com and create one side of a phone call using the soundboards, that the other side would at first believe to be Napolean Dynamite or Al Pacino if you want to. There's even videos of people using the various soundboards to prank call people, some get strung along for several minutes before they realize it's a prank.
Neothe1, you got caught LYING AGAIN. That shouldn't be a surprise.
{you support bush.
by neothe1 on Mon Sep 11, 06 10:01pm}
B U L L S H I T
Neothe1the government shill, you are a LIAR. It appears to be the only thing that you do is LIE.
bushie, if there was technology that could accurately replicate a voice, all voice impersonators in film would be completely out of a job. if it's not good enough for hollywood it's sure as hell not good enough for the CIA/FBI/PNAC/random interchangeable government agency or right wing organisation.
fill in the blank.
{if there was technology that could accurately replicate a voice, ...
by neothe1 on Tue Sep 12, 06 4:28pm}
Yes, there already was back in 1999. I've proven that quite well already.
The voice impersonating technology was ALREADY good enough to fool people in 1999. That's all that was required. To fool people.
First you got caught lying and saying the technology didn't exist, now you try bullshit excuses that don't work.
we do not have voice replication technology sophisticated enough to accurately replicate a voice, much less a specific one.
{we do not have voice replication technology sophisticated enough to accurately replicate a voice, much less a specific one.
by neothe1 on Tue Sep 12, 06 4:59pm}
W R O N G
I've already proven you wrong, neothe1.
When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
washingtonpost .com / wp - srv / national / dotmil / arkin020199 . h t m
QUOTE;
"Whereas early voice morphing required cutting and pasting speech to put letters or words together to make a composite, Papcun's software developed at Los Alamos can far more accurately replicate the way one actually speaks."
It was good enough back in 1999 to do it. Two years later it would've been easy.
RIGHT NOW, you can go to ebaumsworld . com and create one side of a phone call using the soundboards, that the other side would at first believe to be Napolean Dynamite or Al Pacino if you want to. There's even videos of people using the various soundboards to prank call people, some get strung along for several minutes before they realize it's a prank.
Go ahead and try it, and stop LYING
paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste
to thinkthat a SOUNDBOARD is an example of VOICE REPLICATION TECHNOLOGY, you have to be either stupid, or lying. which is it?
fill in the blank already
{to thinkthat a SOUNDBOARD is an example of VOICE REPLICATION TECHNOLOGY, ...
by neothe1 on Wed Sep 13, 06 4:06pm}
To completely IGNORE the quoted sources that I posted and make the B U L L S H I T claim that the technology doesn't exist to FAKE voices shows that YOU are a LYING SHILL.
The fact that YOU, neothe1, are here constantly trying to DEFEND the Bush Administration's LIES shows WHO you really work for.
You just want everyone to IGNORE the evidence that I posted, so up yours I'm posting it again.
It was easy to fake someone's voice then, this if from a 1999 article
When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
washingtonpost .com / wp - srv / national / dotmil / arkin020199 . h t m
QUOTE;
"Whereas early voice morphing required cutting and pasting speech to put letters or words together to make a composite, Papcun's software developed at Los Alamos can far more accurately replicate the way one actually speaks."
Now you know how the voices on the "calls" could be faked.
It's not like these were turing tests, these were just normal average people receiving the calls.
You can go to ebaumsworld . com and create one side of a phone call using the soundboards, that the other side would at first believe to be Napolean Dynamite or Al Pacino if you want to. There's even videos of people using the various soundboards to prank call people, some get strung along for several minutes before they realize it's a prank.
Neothe1, the evidence is not going to go away no matter how long keep playing your LYING games.
paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste
we do not have the technology to replicate voices. it doesn't exist.
now fillin the blank, bushie.
{we do not have the technology to replicate voices. it doesn't exist.
by neothe1 on Wed Sep 13, 06 8:49pm}
YOU WERE ALREADY PROVEN WRONG NEOTHE1
So, since you want LIE and IGNORE THE FACTS, I'll simply post them again.
To completely IGNORE the quoted sources that I posted and make the B U L L S H I T claim that the technology doesn't exist to FAKE voices shows that YOU are a LYING SHILL.
The fact that YOU, neothe1, are here constantly trying to DEFEND the Bush Administration's LIES shows WHO you really work for.
You just want everyone to IGNORE the evidence that I posted, so up yours I'm posting it again.
It was easy to fake someone's voice then, this if from a 1999 article
When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
washingtonpost .com / wp - srv / national / dotmil / arkin020199 . h t m
QUOTE;
"Whereas early voice morphing required cutting and pasting speech to put letters or words together to make a composite, Papcun's software developed at Los Alamos can far more accurately replicate the way one actually speaks."
Now you know how the voices on the "calls" could be faked.
It's not like these were turing tests, these were just normal average people receiving the calls.
You can go to ebaumsworld . com and create one side of a phone call using the soundboards, that the other side would at first believe to be Napolean Dynamite or Al Pacino if you want to. There's even videos of people using the various soundboards to prank call people, some get strung along for several minutes before they realize it's a prank.
Neothe1, the evidence is not going to go away no matter how long keep playing your LYING games.
paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste
maybe while you're in prison for war crimes you'll learn that pasting gains you nothing
^^^ says the fool who OPENLY defends the criminal mass murderers who committed 9/11, and spams ballots with "paste paste paste paste" whenever he LOSES another debate.
We KNOW that you defend the Bush Administration's criminal actions because you, neothe1, go out of your way to make personal attacks on all those who are sceptical of the 9/11 Official Lies, and tell gret big whopping lies in their defence. You're a shill, and a very obvious one.
mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror
things that have been proven:
you are lying
you do so to protect bush
you support bush, passionately
your claims are ALL false.
ah, now i remember which one grassy knoll was. the one i proved was you.
whoops, wrong ballot. hard to tell one from the other when all your comments are the same.
Getting confused with your aliases, neothe1?
We KNOW that you defend the Bush Administration's criminal actions because you, neothe1, go out of your way to make personal attacks on all those who are sceptical of the 9/11 Official Lies, and tell great big whopping lies in their defence. You're a shill, and a very obvious one.
By the way, you STILL have not provided ANY EVIDENCE to show that those cellphone calls were possible.
So, they logically remain FAKE.
** karma **
you've lost, bushie. you've failed. you can't protect them.
stop telling LIES neothe1.
Everyone can read your stupid LIES on ballot 97082 and see where you first started to try that particular game of yours - because you so blatantly and outrageously lied about MrFatNose being Osama bin Laden in that OBVIOUSLY FAKE "confession video" and nobody was going to accept yur lies.
Tank_Girl had NOT posted ballot 98784, but YOU LIED as is already proven and stated that she'd said on that ballot that WTC 1 and WTC 2 had "imploded", since she didn't post on that ballot at all, then she OBVIOUSLY didn't say anything of the kind. YOU then LIED AGAIN and tried to claim that I had stated WTC 1 and WTC 2 had "imploded", and yet again YOU were caught LYING, this time by Meteor7 who pointed out that YOU were playing a strawman argument and attempting to misrepresent what I had stated
We KNOW that you defend the Bush Administration's criminal actions because you, neothe1, go out of your way to make personal attacks on all those who are sceptical of the 9/11 Official Lies, and tell great big whopping lies in their defence. It's CLEAR AS DAY that you are a government shill because you ALWAYS make personal attacks against 9/11 sceptics like me and you ALWAYS try to defend the Official Pile of Utter Bullshit and LIES. You're a shill, and a very obvious one.
By the way, you STILL have not provided ANY EVIDENCE to show that those cellphone calls were possible.
It is a FACT that it's impossible to make cellphone calls from passenger planes flying at cruising altitude six miles up and flying at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which wasn't available prior to 2004 and is still in testing stage), and it's a FACT that cellphone calls from a vehicle moving at over 450mph (even if successfully make the handshake when flying at low altitude) will only last a few seconds since there is no time for the hand-off; the call will ALWAYS drop out in just a few seconds - minutes long cellphone calls are IMPOSSIBLE.
It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint - except with controlled demolitions, and that it is IMPOSSIBLE without a controlled demolition according to the laws of PHYSICS.
It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked.
It's a FACT, that there was NO INFERNO in either of the WTC twin towers. The temperatures of the fires never went above 360C, and apparently were around 250C, which is well below the 550C at which steel only barely begins to lose it's elasticity. Glass melts at 700C - There are no reports of melting glass at the towers, and the glass in the storeys above the fire didn't seem to break so the temperature was clearly way below 700C. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC - Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. Kevin Ryan of UL had cited a similar figure (250C).
It's a FACT that there were hundeds of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings, and that their claims are supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions
** karma **
Project Achilles is not a reliable study.
Different plane, different area(over a populated area), different speed, different altitude, more modern phones.
And it was carried out by AK Dewdney - not exactly an unbiased report.
Anyway, lets for the sake of argument say it is reliable.
In this report it is stated that there a is 1 in 10 chance of people getting through at 8,000.
Firstly, we have no way of corrobrating what exact height the plane was at when all the calls were made. We do know for a fact that when the passengers were preparing to storm the cockpit the plane was at a steady 5,200 feet. Even the laughable loose change says that at 4,000 feet there a 40% chance of making a call.
Secondly, we also have no idea how many people actually tried to call and couldn't getting through.
How do you know there were not 100 hundred attempted phonecalls from that plane? If you couldn't get through, you'd keep on trying. If theres a one in ten chance, then 10 people will get through.
"OBVIOUSLY FAKE "confession video" "
If you bothered to look at the whole video, you would see that most of the time it looks exactly like him. It doesn't surprise me that conspiracy theorists cherry pick this one frame.
^^^^What utter nonsense!
The "Confession" video is obviously a FAKE! Any one looking at the whole thing can EASILY SEE IT IS FAKE.
You sound like Neothe1 spouting huge lies!
You clearly haven't watched the whole thing, Lovelynice.
Again - you are embarrassing yourself.
Lovelynice, here are a few other shots from the same video...
911myths . com / assets / images / Dec13VideoOsama . jpg
911myths . com / assets / images / Dec13PentagonOsama . jpg
911myths . com / assets / images / Dec13PentagonOsama3 . jpg
911myths . com / assets / images / Dec13_OsamaVideoText302 . jpg
...and I see you've kept quiet after my cellphone call comment.
{and I see you've kept quiet after my cellphone call comment.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Wed Sep 27, 06 2:56pm}
That's because it meant nothing. You haven't proven a damn thing. When you can actually cite something taht proves that cellphone calls can be made from passenger planes flying at cruising altitude six miles up and flying at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation, then you MIGHT get somewhere...
So far, you haven't, because it's IMPOSSIBLE anyway. As you well know.
and as to the Osama bin Laden "confession video", yes, I've seen it already and EVERYONE except you shills who has seen it cn recognise it as a very poorly made FAKE. It's a laughably stupid fake too, because it's so obviously not Osama bin Laden.
and I'm not going for your dumb game of "Believe me, not your own eyes" type of nonsense.
{you are embarrassing yourself.
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 26, 06 11:02pm}
You're embarrassing yourself more likely. How long have you had the facial recognition problem? Have you seen any doctors about it? You sound as silly as that liar, neothe1.
"When you can actually cite something taht proves that cellphone calls can be made from passenger planes flying at cruising altitude six miles up and flying at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation, then you MIGHT get somewhere... "
I have already cited AT&T and Verizon on this very possibility - citations you ignored.
FLight 93 was at a steady 5,200 feet when the passenger attempted to retake the plane.
The study you provided says, at 8,000 feet there is a one in ten chance.
Or is Project Achilles rubbish afterall?
Did you enjoy my Osama pictures lovelynice? Looks just like him doesn't it.
{ I have already cited AT&T and Verizon on this very possibility - citations you ignored.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Sep 27, 06 6:06pm}
No, I didn't ignore them, I refuted them. I asked for scientific evidence, such as a scientific study, PROVING that the cellphone calls were possible. You cited a company representative who said it was possible on her assumptions and opinion, but she herself is neither an expert, nor did she nor you refer to any scientific evidence or the opinions of experts.
I already have cited scientific studies and experts.
{FLight 93 was at a steady 5,200 feet when the passenger attempted to retake the plane.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Thu Sep 28, 06 3:18am}
NO, it was at 35,000 feet.
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.
pittsburghlive . com / x / tribune - review / news / s _ 90401. h t ml
Lovelynice, you may wish to have a look at the flight 93 cockpit transcript, released after the Moussaoui trial. 10 minutes after the plane is hijacked, and a good 15 minutes before it crashed, the pilots are heard saying "down, down, down" followed shortly by "seven thousand". Then "up, down, up down".
Proof, that the plane was not at 35,000 all the time.
i . a . cnn . net / cnn / 2006 / images / 04 / 12 / flight93 . transcript . pdf
Lets for the sake of argument say that Project Achilles is reliable.
In the report it is stated that there a is 1 in 10 chance of people getting through at 8,000.
How do you know there were not 100 attempted phonecalls, and only 10 got through? You don't!!
Hello?
( In the report it is stated that there a is 1 in 10 chance of people getting through at 8,000
by wolf_nipple_chips on Tue Oct 03, 06 2:07pm)
But the planes were flying at 30,000 to 35,000ft ! ! !
They were also flying a lot faster, at typical jetliner speeds. If it was possible to make cellphone calls in those conditions than why would Qualcomm spend millions of dollars and years of effort in research and development to make it possible for people to use cellphones from passenger jets? Why would Ryanair bother to install those cellular relay stations on their planes if the calls were already possible?
When the liars can't win the debate, they try spamming the ballot votes instead.
The more they spam this ballot for the choices of (Yes - Cell phone calls from airliners are technically possible) and (This has been possible for ten years), the more it proves that the spammers are liars just like Searchlight, wolf_nipple_chips, Jinn_the_Kafir, and neothe1 (who is a proven liar anyway).
Sorry guys, but you can't show with any kind of scientific evidence that the cellphone calls were possible, and spamming the ballot votes is only further proof that you'd rather cheat.
Watch as the votes for the vote-spammer's voices climb by upto hundreds of votes a day as he tries desperately to compensate for his small mind and flacid impotency.
|
