Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Mobile Devices

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: Mobile phones may soon be used on planes -New Scientist

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 26 Jun 2007, 15:20:22

Can I get a truther....any truther....to admit one thing?

There should be no debate about AIRPHONES ... millions and millions of calls have been made from planes to ground via Airphones.

Can we agree on that?

YES...then the validity of the 9/11 calls made from the hijacked planes via AIRPHONE are therefore beyond dispute, right?


CHEERS! 8)
Last edited by Plantagenet on Tue 26 Jun 2007, 15:22:56, edited 1 time in total.
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Mobile phones may soon be used on planes -New Scientist

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 26 Jun 2007, 15:27:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ferrelgiraffe', 'I') repeat.
Are you saying that only airphones were used?

And I am not a truther, I just know some things are impossible, and it doesn't jibe.



No, of course not. I'm just trying to find a point of agreement.

Some 9/11 calls were made from Airphones. And the technological ability of Airphones to call from a plane to the ground is beyond question, right?

So the Airphone calls from the hijacked jets are technologically feasible, right?

Right? Right? [thats the sound of crickets chirping where the normally disputatious truthers are..........] 8)

8)
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Mobile phones may soon be used on planes -New Scientist

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 26 Jun 2007, 15:58:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ferrelgiraffe', 'c')ell phone calls ....


Yes...what about the AIRPHONE calls? The AIRPHONE technology works fine. Millions and millions and millions of AIRPHONE calls have been made planes to the ground, so there should be no issue with the 9/11 AIRPHONE calls from the hijacked planes.

The AIRPHONE calls DID originate from the planes. The phone company records even indicate the AIRPHONE calls came from AIRPHONES at the back of the planes, precisely where the terrorist hijackers had herded the passengers after they took over the flights. :evil:
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Mobile phones may soon be used on planes -New Scientist

Unread postby CrudeAwakening » Tue 26 Jun 2007, 18:33:55

I don't think anyone disputes that many of the calls were made on airphones.

But some were reportedly made on cell phones, which I believe is the issue under discussion here.
"Who knows what the Second Law of Thermodynamics will be like in a hundred years?" - Economist speaking during planning for World Population Conference in early 1970s
User avatar
CrudeAwakening
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue 28 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Mobile phones may soon be used on planes -New Scientist

Unread postby TWilliam » Tue 26 Jun 2007, 21:23:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CrudeAwakening', 'B')ut some were reportedly made on cell phones, which I believe is the issue under discussion here.


Yes, thank you, that is the point at issue here. No one has been saying anything about airphones not working, Plant's attempts to imply otherwise notwithstanding.

The point is this: the likelyhood in 2001 of even a single hand held cellular phone successfully completing, much less maintaining a connection with a ground based telephone long enough to carry on any kind of conversation, was virtually nil. Technology to do so was not present at that time. The odds against nine of them doing so are so astronomically high as to be, for all intent, uncomputable. These twits can argue otherwise all they want, the fact is, it wasn't possible, not at any altitude.

Now then, because we know, with well beyond a reasonable degree of certainty, that these nine hand held cellular phone calls could not have occurred at the air speed and altitude claimed in the 9/11 Commission Report, the reasonable conclusion to draw is that either a) there were no calls received from hand held cellular phones and the 9/11 Commission is lying, or b) that said calls were made by unknown persons on the ground. Either way, we are being lied to about them, which therefore makes it an absolutely reasonable assumption that the airphone calls are also likely a lie.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Mobile phones may soon be used on planes -New Scientist

Unread postby Carlhole » Tue 26 Jun 2007, 23:10:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'A')lso, some calls from the hijacked planes were made using Airphones. The repeated claims from the "truthers" that calls from Airphones to the ground (the Air-Ground phones built into seat backs on planes) are impossible are absurd and untrue.


No one ever has made such a claim, fool!

Else, why would the airlines have airphones in the first place?

What are you, whacked?
Carlhole
 

Re: Mobile phones may soon be used on planes -New Scientist

Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 27 Jun 2007, 00:27:14

The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Michel Chossoduvsky', '[')b]The Technology of Wireless Transmission

...The [911 Commission] Report conveys the impression that cell phone ground-to-air communication from high altitude was of reasonably good quality, and that there was no major impediment or obstruction in wireless transmission.

Some of the conversations were with onboard air phones, which contrary to the cell phones provide for good quality transmission. The report does not draw a clear demarcation between the two types of calls.

More significantly, what this carefully drafted script fails to mention is that, given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet:

"Wireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They speculate that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground ( http://www.elliott.org/technology/2001/cellpermit.htm

Expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry casts serious doubt on "the findings" of the 9/11 Commission. According to Alexa Graf, a spokesman of AT&T, commenting in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks:

"it was almost a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations... 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" ( http://wirelessreview.com/ar/wireless_final_contact/


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..According to the 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...."

At least ten cell calls are reported to have taken place on flight 93.

The Report confirms 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)

"At 9:41, Cleveland Center lost United 93’s transponder signal. The controller located it on primary radar, matched its position with visual sightings from other aircraft, and tracked the flight as it turned east, then south.164 "

This suggests that the altitude was known to air traffic control up until the time when the transponder signal was lost by the Cleveland Center. (Radar and visual sightings provided information on its flight path from 9.41 to 10.03.)

Moreover, 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:


This is a pretty good, well-researched and documented article that was written in Augst of 2004. It discusses cell phone calls and airphone calls made from all the hijacked planes on that day.

At the time of this writing, The 911 Commission Report was claiming that at least ten cell phone calls had been made - two of them towards the end of Flight 93's flight, presumably at an altitude below 5,000 feet. This is in accorance with the movie Flight 93 and all other news articles, TV programs and other accounts of that day.

Since, then, the official story has changed with regard to cell phone calls on Flight 93. This happened during the Moussoui Trial. Because of the persistent criticisms that cell phone calls from altitudes above 8,000 feet were extremely improbable, the government backed off its multiple cell phone call claims (multiple successful cell phone calls above 8,000 feet would have been astronomically improbable!). The official story now only claims that the last two calls were made from cell phones.

Read the full article to review information about the other flights' cell phone and airphone call detail.
Last edited by Carlhole on Wed 27 Jun 2007, 01:15:11, edited 1 time in total.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Mobile phones may soon be used on planes -New Scientist

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 27 Jun 2007, 01:05:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', ' ')the likelyhood in 2001 of even a single hand held cellular phone successfully completing, much less maintaining a connection with a ground based telephone long enough to carry on any kind of conversation, was virtually nil. Technology to do so was not present at that time



Thats not true. Do the math.

GSM phones in 2001 had a maximum range of ca. 40 miles.

Once a plane was low enough for a cell phone to connect, the connections from the low-flying plane to a cell tower would be "line-of-sight"... and thats as good as it gets. Such connections might be even better then from a car, since there would be no buildings or hills moving in and out of the way.

Even more interesting, if the plane was going 400 miles/hour it would cover about 6-7 miles per minute....that means that since a 2001 GSM phone had a range of ca. 35-40 miles, it would be possible to use one cell tower for 6-10 minutes....more then enough to make the short calls that occurred on 9/11 without even switching to another tower. With a successful switch, the time available for cell phone calls becomes even longer.

The cell phone calls, like the Airphone calls, were made by brave passengers, and are important records of how the hijackings were carried out by the Al Qaida terrorists. :evil:
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Mobile phones may soon be used on planes -New Scientist

Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 27 Jun 2007, 02:48:40

[url=http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html]Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?

An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones[/url]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PilotsFor911Truth.org', 'b')y David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo

Prefatory Note: When we, in this jointly authored article, need to refer to only one of us, the appropriate initials---DRG or RB--are used.

06/26/07 - Did American Airlines 77---the flight that, according to the official conspiracy theory about 9/11, struck the Pentagon---have onboard phones? This question is relevant to the possible truth of the official theory, because Ted Olson, who was then the US Solicitor General, claimed that his wife, Barbara Olson, called him twice from this flight using an onboard phone.

He did, to be sure, waver on this point. CNN, which mentioned in a story posted just before midnight on 9/11 that Barbara Olson had used a cell phone to call her husband, reported in a more extensive treatment, posted at 2:06 AM (EDT) on September 12, that Ted Olson had told it that his wife “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77.”1 But on September 14, Olson said on Hannity & Colmes (Fox News) that she had called collect and therefore must have been using the “airplane phone”---because, he surmised, “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”

...

The claim that she must have called collect because she did not have her credit card, however, does not make any sense, because a credit card is needed in order to activate a passenger-seat phone.8 If she did not have a credit card, therefore, she could not have used a passenger-seat phone, whether to call collect or otherwise.9

By settling on this version of his story, nevertheless, Olson at least appeared to make defensible his claim that the calls occurred. We say this because of the extremely strong evidence that her reported calls could not have been made on a cell phone, given the cell phone technology in 2001. Cell phone calls from an airliner were, as DRG has argued extensively elsewhere, generally possible only if it was flying slowly and low,10 but Barbara Olson’s first call, according to the 9/11 Commission, occurred “[a]t some point between 9:16 and 9:26,”11 when the plane was flying too fast and too high for cell phone calls to have been possible. According to the Flight Data Recorder information released by the National Transportation Safety Board, the plane at 9:16 would have been over 25,000 feet, which is far too high (as well as too fast: 281 knots [324 mph]), while at 9:26 the plane would have been flying at 324 knots (370 mph), which is much too fast (as well as still too high: almost 14,000 feet).12 By settling on the claim that his wife used an onboard phone instead of a cell phone, Ted Olson avoided this problem.

...

But was a call from an onboard phone even possible? In 2004, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, [doing research for their book]having asked American Airlines whether their “757s [are] fitted with phones that passengers can use,” received this reply from an AA spokesperson: “American Airlines 757s do not have onboard phones for passenger use.” To check on the possibility that Barbara Olson might have borrowed a phone intended for crew use, they then asked, “[A]re there any onboard phones at all on AA 757s, i.e., that could be used either by passengers or cabin crew?” The response was: “AA 757s do not have any onboard phones, either for passenger or crew use. Crew have other means of communication available.”13
..


This a brand new article - longish, very detailed but very good.
It discusses the likelihood of there being airphones onboard Flight 77 at all.

I didn't know this until now, but apparently the government now also claims that the cell phone/airphone call from Barbara Olsen to Ted Olsen NEVER HAPPENED!!

Also, Ted Olsen has consistently maintained that Barbara had had to call him collect because "she didn't have any credit cards on her". Well, you can't make a collect call from an airphone!

It's the kind of thoroughgoing, detailed analysis of events that I wish were more prevalent when it comes to 911 reporting in general.


'She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane'

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('by Toby Harnden
The Telegraph
March 5, 2002', 'U')S Solicitor General Ted Olson's wife, Barbara, was the first victim of the September 11 terrorist attacks to be named. He tells Toby Harnden of her bravery during her final call from the hijacked plane - and of his determination to fight back.

...

Ted Olsen is the man who argued in the Supreme Court for the winning side in the Bush versus Gore case that decided the presidential election in 2000. As a result, Olson's Democratic opponents in the Senate came close to blocking his nomination as the Bush administration's chief courtroom advocate. Soon, he will be defending Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to hand over documents to Congress as part of the investigation into the Enron scandal, and he will have to do so without his staunchest ally.

...

That morning, a nightmare began to unfold in the room where we are now sitting. "Someone rushed in and told me what had happened. I went into the other room, where there's a television," Olson says. "It went through my mind, 'My God, maybe - Barbara's on an airplane, and two airplanes have been crashed', you know."

Then his secretary told him that Barbara was on the line. "My first reaction when I heard she was on the phone was relief, because I knew that she wasn't on one of those two airplanes." But Barbara then explained calmly that she had been herded to the back of the Boeing 757 she was on, along with the other passengers.

"She had had trouble getting through, because she wasn't using her cellphone, she was using the phone in the passengers' seats," says Olson. "I guess she didn't have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy."

He was able to tell her about the World Trade Centre attacks before the line went dead, then he called his departmental command centre to let them know another plane had been hijacked. The phone rang again and it was Barbara.

"She wanted to know, 'What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?' I tried to find out where she thought she was - I wanted to know where the airplane was and what direction it was going in, because I thought that was the first step to being able to do something.
Last edited by Carlhole on Wed 27 Jun 2007, 03:34:51, edited 3 times in total.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Mobile phones may soon be used on planes -New Scientist

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 28 Jun 2007, 04:33:47

How fast do radio waves from cell phones travel?

--at the speed of light

Do jets go fast enough to cause delays or otherwise affect the transmission of radio waves from cell phones?

--No. The speed of the jet is too small to have effect on the radio waves.



[smilie=wav.gif] [smilie=wav.gif]
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Mobile phones may soon be used on planes -New Scientist

Unread postby Narz » Thu 28 Jun 2007, 14:42:24

How about wireless internet on planes?
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
User avatar
Narz
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2360
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)

Re: Mobile phones may soon be used on planes -New Scientist

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 29 Jun 2007, 02:12:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ferrelgiraffe', 'R')EFEREE CALL: Purposeful red herring on speed of light!

....It takes longer for a signal to set up and connect than it takes for the plane to fly 20 miles out of range.....




Nope.

Thats where the speed of light part comes in.

The radio waves sent out by cell phones travel at the speed of light. Whether the cell phone is on a plane or in a car doesn't matter....the velocity of the car or plane is negligible compared to the radio wave speed, so the cell towers "see" them as essentially the same kind of signals.

When a car drives from the area of one tower to another, the computers in the towers switch them. Same with a phone on a plane. There is no difference, except a car might spend a long time in one tower's area, and cell phones broadcasting from a low-flying plane might need to be recalculated and switched by the network every 5-10 minutes or so. It takes the computers running the cell phone tower network milliseconds, not 5-10 minutes, to figure out where the greatest signal strength is from a cell phone and shift the call to that tower. 8)
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Mobile phones may soon be used on planes -New Scientist

Unread postby patrick_b » Sun 08 Jul 2007, 05:38:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'D')on't be silly....of course cell phones work inside planes. Take a plane flight some time and when the stewardesses tell you its OK try out your phone... you'll find that your phone works great when you are still inside the plane.
Also, you don't have to be on the ground to use a cell phone. There is nothing magical about being on the ground....the key thing is whether or not you are in range of a cell tower.
CHEERS! 8)


Aha, good joke...

By the way the problem is not about being on the ground, but:
1) Like mentioned on a further post, a plane fuselage is an almost perfect shield for electromagnetic waves, except where the is a window. Radio communications done by the pilots happens either through an antenna placed outside the plane or in its nose (that is in plastic)...
2) The speed of a commercial airplane makes it almost impossible to properly establish a link. Being in contact with an antenna on the ground is not enough. It's also necessary to conduct a procedure in order to communicate using the GSM (or other) protocol. Establishing a connection takes several seconds before real data can be transmitted. In a plane, a cell phone (admitting there is a radiowave link) would not have enough time to establish a link with any ground station...
User avatar
patrick_b
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon 11 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron