-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Cellphones From Flight 93
- Thread starter standingfirminChrist
- Start date
emeraldctyangel
New Member
Amen.
Ive never gotten a dial tone on any cell phone Ive ever had.
I dont know how it worked and dont really care but, Ive made at least 10 cell phone calls successfully from inside a plane at crusing altitude and *please note* when I felt like spending 5 dollars a minute, I could use the handy phones in the back of the seats.
From my understanding of the 911 report, a lot of those folks were using those, according to the operators who handle those sorts of calls. There was one passenger who couldnt get a hold of anyone so he talked to the operator and she actually testified.
For those theorists out there, you are starting to sound like the OJ claim of Furhman planting evidence because OJ is black. Do you have any idea of the amount of planning and coordination between God knows how many agencies to make this a government plan?
Id bet out of 10 people who witness something and were placed under a gag order, no matter what the penalty, there would be about 2 who would spill their guts. There is always someone looking for a book deal and 15 minutes of fame, there is usually someone out there who wants to do the right thing. The truth always finds a way and it sustains itself as only truth can, even 2000 and some odd years later...
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
Give us the documentation to support your idea. I have used a cell phone at higher elevations than one mile. If they did not work above 5,000 feet then Denver would be in trouble. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not talking about one mile in elevation. I'm talking about one mile in altitude (off the ground). I'll look for the original test results but I've already given you mine. (Cellphones don't work at all over about 2,000 feet.) Also, remember we're talking about 2nd not 3rd generation cellphones on Sept. 11. That's TDMA not GSM.
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
UUUUHHHHH! Wait a minute. You must be a really good telecommunications engineer. For the life of me, I've never been able to get a "DIAL TONE" on a cell-phone that was operating properly.
</font>[/QUOTE]Then you've never been able to place a cellphone call have you? Dial tone is a generic term for the ability to initiate a call.StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
Well, let's compare technical background. I have a BS and MS (from Stanford) in Engineering. I've worked for Bell Labs (the ones with the Nobel prizes), Bell Communications Research, AT&T Labs, and Cingular. I worked on the original cellular concept back in the late 1970's (invented at Bell Labs) and on several versions since then. I have a broad network systems engineering background both in TDM networks and IP networks. I've designed international TDM in-country networks as well as international VoIP networks. I started my career as an Aerospace Engineer working on the Space Shuttle and Skylab.
Well, let's compare technical background. I have a BS and MS (from Stanford) in Engineering. I've worked for Bell Labs (the ones with the Nobel prizes), Bell Communications Research, AT&T Labs, and Cingular. I worked on the original cellular concept back in the late 1970's (invented at Bell Labs) and on several versions since then. I have a broad network systems engineering background both in TDM networks and IP networks. I've designed international TDM in-country networks as well as international VoIP networks. I started my career as an Aerospace Engineer working on the Space Shuttle and Skylab. </font>[/QUOTE]Great, I worked with a lot of engineers on the Shuttle tell me where you worked out of and I'll see if I know you. Tell me who worked with you. I probably know them.
I'm impressed, but lets deal with facts and figures. I'll continue on below answering your quotes.
Just out of curiousity, it seems like you moved around quite a bit. I was lucky and worked for the same defense contractor for 25 years before going to work for the government at the government's most qualified ordinance safety office and explosives/ammunition school. Its kind of like a second career, but surprisingly my expertise has been very handy in providing electronics technology and safety issues when dealing with susceptability of ordinance and ultra-high-tech electronics in the same 40 acres.
[ April 10, 2006, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
UUUUHHHHH! Wait a minute. You must be a really good telecommunications engineer. For the life of me, I've never been able to get a "DIAL TONE" on a cell-phone that was operating properly.
</font>[/QUOTE]Then you've never been able to place a cellphone call have you? Dial tone is a generic term for the ability to initiate a call. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, well escuse me for not being from AT&T, Sprint, Bell Labs, and what other phone companies? I guess I wouldn't know that "dial-tone" really means "phone-call".
We don't use cell-phones around a 22,000 pound bunker buster, common sense safety says it just might go off.
You know, from the same susceptability problems that you say doesn't exist and there is no rational reason that the signal may get into the navigation of an airplane!
By the way, it was the military who already had very accurate susceptability data for RF to electronic nav and other equipment. For this reason the military was consulted by both the FCC and FAA regarding issues of utilizing electronics onboard aircrafts, but only after one accident had already occurred. Bottom line, that answers the article's conspiracy theory that there was really no reason to turn off electronics in a plane. If you want me to provide dates, directorates and other such, I can, just give me some time. Let me know.
Give us the documentation to support your idea. I have used a cell phone at higher elevations than one mile. If they did not work above 5,000 feet then Denver would be in trouble. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not talking about one mile in elevation. I'm talking about one mile in altitude (off the ground). I'll look for the original test results but I've already given you mine. (Cellphones don't work at all over about 2,000 feet.) Also, remember we're talking about 2nd not 3rd generation cellphones on Sept. 11. That's TDMA not GSM. </font>[/QUOTE]What difference does it make? As long as the altitude is higher than the surrounding area.
What does the method of modulation have to do with this? The frequency is different, but it is even MORE line-of-sight than the 850 Mhz. Band.
Please, explain, in your own words, why EXACTLY, a cell-phone will not work from 20,000 feet?
Also, are you calling me a liar by saying I did not use one more than once from a Lear Jet while traveling across the Middle-eastern and south? If your "theory" that it doesn't work, what happened? By the way, this was within the last six months so don't say the modulation scheme has changed.
gb asked you for documentation of your tests. By the way, trying to dial out on one phone 25 times over PA won't provide any metrics worth reading, with your education, you should be ashamed of even calling that a test. In the military, that would be considered as a non-responsive test.
Who is the Canadian engineer, what equipment did he use and what were his test results. GB has already asked for that data; would you please provide it? Give DATA, if the others don't understand it, I'll put it into plain English for them.
Would you also provide the data that shows the cell-phone system will not work from a theoretical point of view. I look forward to learning something from this.
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
Well, let's compare technical background. I have a BS and MS (from Stanford) in Engineering. I've worked for Bell Labs (the ones with the Nobel prizes), Bell Communications Research, AT&T Labs, and Cingular. I worked on the original cellular concept back in the late 1970's (invented at Bell Labs) and on several versions since then. I have a broad network systems engineering background both in TDM networks and IP networks. I've designed international TDM in-country networks as well as international VoIP networks. I started my career as an Aerospace Engineer working on the Space Shuttle and Skylab. </font>[/QUOTE]Great, I worked with a lot of engineers on the Shuttle tell me where you worked out of and I'll see if I know you. Tell me who worked with you. I probably know them.
I'm impressed, but lets deal with facts and figures. I'll continue on below answering your quotes.
Just out of curiousity, it seems like you moved around quite a bit. I was lucky and worked for the same defense contractor for 25 years before going to work for the government at the government's most qualified ordinance safety office and explosives/ammunition school. Its kind of like a second career, but surprisingly my expertise has been very handy in providing electronics technology and safety issues when dealing with susceptability of ordinance and ultra-high-tech electronics in the same 40 acres.
</font>[/QUOTE]I worked 3 years in Aerospace and then went back to graduate school. I doubt that any of your buddies would know me. I was then at Bell Labs for 8 years when the AT&T divestiture happened. I was told to split off with Bellcore since the guiding principle was to follow your work. I stayed at Bellcore 11 years when things started getting tight and I decided to return to AT&T. All of these are linked by a common pension arrangement. Only recently, when AT&T cut 40% of their force, have I joined Cingular.You know the concept of working for the same company for your entire career is dead. I don't think anybody knows that better that people who used to work for AT&T prior to divestiture (1/1/1984).
Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
What does computer networking REALLY have to do with cell-phones working from planes? Although the cell-phones use data routing (which is entirely different from LANS and WANS--although they may be included on the ground). We need to work through the RF link issue first, because if we are dealing with transmission from an airplane we are talking about signal-to-noise ratios, space and intereference losses and hitting a multitude of ground stations at the same time. This issue is primary. Don't try to confuse people here who have no experience in design engineering.
By the way, that is fascinating that you designed part of the cell-phone system, what parts did you design?
You said that you provided your report or data (I don't remember exctly how you put it), but maybe I missed it. Can you provide it gain? We need signal strengths, fade-margins, S/N+N, theoretical radiation patterns from the back of a typical air-liner. If your data is at a different altitude than the high-jacked plane, then please provide the interpolated theoretical results. As all engineers, we work with metrics, unlike technicians (who do a GREAT job of what they do) we don't rely on making a few phone calls with the same phone and call it a test.
I only told you about me using my cell phone because it WORKED and you said it wouldn't. Therefore, I want you to admit that mine worked and your data must have holes in it, or that I must not be telling the truth---your call.
(I'm not making this a personal issue beyond our qualifications to intelligently discuss it and obviously, from your post, I admit you are---so let's get into the NUMBERS.
If you are going to prove your statement that cell-phones don't work over a certain altitude in aircraft, then you are going to have to provide me with DATA. Not an article based on what an unnamed airline-pilot thinks, an unnamed "spokesperson" -- who, no doubt, has a degree in public relations and not engineering--you and I both know engineers don't usually make good PR folks
This can be a good debate, but now that we've established our qualifictions, lets get down to the data.
Anxiously waiting........
Well, let's compare technical background. I have a BS and MS (from Stanford) in Engineering. I've worked for Bell Labs (the ones with the Nobel prizes), Bell Communications Research, AT&T Labs, and Cingular. I worked on the original cellular concept back in the late 1970's (invented at Bell Labs) and on several versions since then. I have a broad network systems engineering background both in TDM networks and IP networks. I've designed international TDM in-country networks as well as international VoIP networks. I started my career as an Aerospace Engineer working on the Space Shuttle and Skylab. </font>[/QUOTE]Great, I worked with a lot of engineers on the Shuttle tell me where you worked out of and I'll see if I know you. Tell me who worked with you. I probably know them.
I'm impressed, but lets deal with facts and figures. I'll continue on below answering your quotes.
Just out of curiousity, it seems like you moved around quite a bit. I was lucky and worked for the same defense contractor for 25 years before going to work for the government at the government's most qualified ordinance safety office and explosives/ammunition school. Its kind of like a second career, but surprisingly my expertise has been very handy in providing electronics technology and safety issues when dealing with susceptability of ordinance and ultra-high-tech electronics in the same 40 acres.
</font>[/QUOTE]I worked 3 years in Aerospace and then went back to graduate school. I doubt that any of your buddies would know me. I was then at Bell Labs for 8 years when the AT&T divestiture happened. I was told to split off with Bellcore since the guiding principle was to follow your work. I stayed at Bellcore 11 years when things started getting tight and I decided to return to AT&T. All of these are linked by a common pension arrangement. Only recently, when AT&T cut 40% of their force, have I joined Cingular.You know the concept of working for the same company for your entire career is dead. I don't think anybody knows that better that people who used to work for AT&T prior to divestiture (1/1/1984). </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, so I don't know anything about modern career mobility either. I think we've established that I can't use a cell-phone too. So, can we have some data? The burdeon is on you to give me metrics to show that the concept doesn't work. Be my guest..........
I think there was some of both, but not sure--didn't really read all the detail, though I have seen a history channel report. That was a story I haven't followed as close on the details.
Anyway, back to the question: Any data available that shows c phones don't work at 30KF?
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
Here is the data I was looking for.
Project Achilles Report
Part One - Jan. - Feb. 2003
Preliminary low-altitude cellphone experiment
http://guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/cell-phones.htm
Conclusions:
To the extent that the cellphones used in this experiment represent types in general use, it may be concluded that from this particular type of aircraft, cellphones become useless very quickly with increasing altitude. In particular, two of the cellphone types, the Mike and the Nokia, became useless above 2000 feet. Of the remaining two, the Audiovox worked intermittently up to 6000 feet but failed thereafter, while the BM analog cellphone worked once just over 7000 feet but failed consistently thereafter. We therefore conclude that ordinary cellphones, digital or analog, will fail to get through at or above 8000 feet abga.
It should be noted that several of the calls rated here as "successes" were difficult for the Recorder to hear, witness description such as "breaking up" or "buzzy."
Project Achilles Report
Part One - Jan. - Feb. 2003
Preliminary low-altitude cellphone experiment
http://guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/cell-phones.htm
Conclusions:
To the extent that the cellphones used in this experiment represent types in general use, it may be concluded that from this particular type of aircraft, cellphones become useless very quickly with increasing altitude. In particular, two of the cellphone types, the Mike and the Nokia, became useless above 2000 feet. Of the remaining two, the Audiovox worked intermittently up to 6000 feet but failed thereafter, while the BM analog cellphone worked once just over 7000 feet but failed consistently thereafter. We therefore conclude that ordinary cellphones, digital or analog, will fail to get through at or above 8000 feet abga.
It should be noted that several of the calls rated here as "successes" were difficult for the Recorder to hear, witness description such as "breaking up" or "buzzy."
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
This is a better site which contains Part 3 of the study.
http://www.physics911.ca/Dewdney:_Project_Achilles
http://www.physics911.ca/Dewdney:_Project_Achilles
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
This is a test made in a commercial aircraft very similiar to the test I made.
http://www.physics911.ca/Rudolf:_Cellphone_Experiments_In_Airlines
This is the conclusion:
Cell phones traveling in airliners can get a service signal at heights up to some 6,000 ft, but it is not possible to make a connection, at least not while traveling at the usual cruising speed of a normal airliner (500-550 mph). Since in all cases (if at all) connections could only be established well after the pilots have pulled out the landing gear at some 2,000 ft and at a cruising speed of 230 mph or less, it seems safe to conclude that in summer of 2003, no connection could be made with a cell phone from an airliner flying in the U.S. when above an altitude above ground of 2,000 ft (610 m) and when traveling with a speed over 230 mph. Considering the fast descent of the planes and the fact that they kept slowing down as they approached the runway, the height at which a connection could be established might actually be as low as 1,500 ft (457.5 m), and the speed around 200 mph.
It is generally agreed upon that all the airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001, flew at a high cruising speed of 500 mph and more until they crashed. Thus, it seems safe to say that no cell phone of any type could have established any stable connection to any cell site at that speed, no matter which height the planes flew at. This is particularly true for United Airlines flight 93, which did not only fly at high speed but also at a relatively high altitude during the time when the alleged cell phone calls were placed.
http://www.physics911.ca/Rudolf:_Cellphone_Experiments_In_Airlines
This is the conclusion:
Cell phones traveling in airliners can get a service signal at heights up to some 6,000 ft, but it is not possible to make a connection, at least not while traveling at the usual cruising speed of a normal airliner (500-550 mph). Since in all cases (if at all) connections could only be established well after the pilots have pulled out the landing gear at some 2,000 ft and at a cruising speed of 230 mph or less, it seems safe to conclude that in summer of 2003, no connection could be made with a cell phone from an airliner flying in the U.S. when above an altitude above ground of 2,000 ft (610 m) and when traveling with a speed over 230 mph. Considering the fast descent of the planes and the fact that they kept slowing down as they approached the runway, the height at which a connection could be established might actually be as low as 1,500 ft (457.5 m), and the speed around 200 mph.
It is generally agreed upon that all the airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001, flew at a high cruising speed of 500 mph and more until they crashed. Thus, it seems safe to say that no cell phone of any type could have established any stable connection to any cell site at that speed, no matter which height the planes flew at. This is particularly true for United Airlines flight 93, which did not only fly at high speed but also at a relatively high altitude during the time when the alleged cell phone calls were placed.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
StraightAndNarrow: "As I've stated on other threads, cellphones don't work at all at altitudes greater than about 5,000 feet."
Actually, they do.
Actually they did on 9/11 as testimony given by dozens
of people under oath. Unfortunatley you have to check
the records of the US Congress to read these testimonies.
I cannot contact your physica 911
references, StraightAndNarrow.
Maybe the AFA filter won't let me?
Actually, they do.
Actually they did on 9/11 as testimony given by dozens
of people under oath. Unfortunatley you have to check
the records of the US Congress to read these testimonies.
I cannot contact your physica 911
references, StraightAndNarrow.
Maybe the AFA filter won't let me?
I don't know about AFA, but I DO know the Army's NASW filters those conspiracy sites. It certainly helps because we don't have to read junk on conspiracy sites before we realize that the discussion is full of muck. (Sorry for the image, but that describes it pretty well.)
The sad thing is that you cannot beleve nything on that physica911 site. It was entirely set up to provide conspiracy theories. Some of which are mutually exclusive.
Instead of just printing data, they come to false conclusions by skewing that data. Anybody who has studied the least bit in data collection and measurement (statistics or statistical analysis for issues like QA) would know this immediately.
Well, gots ta go to bed. Gots a Greenbelt Lean Six Sigma test tomorrow. Oh, my goodness, that must be a plan to take over the government or something. What does it sound like to you Ed?
The sad thing is that you cannot beleve nything on that physica911 site. It was entirely set up to provide conspiracy theories. Some of which are mutually exclusive.
Instead of just printing data, they come to false conclusions by skewing that data. Anybody who has studied the least bit in data collection and measurement (statistics or statistical analysis for issues like QA) would know this immediately.
Well, gots ta go to bed. Gots a Greenbelt Lean Six Sigma test tomorrow. Oh, my goodness, that must be a plan to take over the government or something. What does it sound like to you Ed?
straightandnarrow, if you are an engineer you should have seen the fault in this report right off the bat. Look at the data that I reprint here:
Do you notice that at 2100 feet the thing is already messing up. Even at 1000 feet it has a 50 percent failure rate.
We have hills that you can drive up on that are 1000 feet. I have been up with a pilot here in Oklahoma in a small plane and he always calls home and other places with his cellphone. I have never seen it NOT work. It works better than on the ground. Mind you he doesn't usually go over 8 or 9 thousand feet, but this data where the phone starts falling off at 1000 feet just shows you that even on a 2000 foot tower the cellphones wouldn't work.
I cannot believe an engineer would even post this data and call it GOOD. My goodness, my house is 600 to 1000 feet above the major part of my county. This data says I shouldn't be able to use the phone between about 30 and 50% of the time.
The base units must really be lousy in Canada. Mercy.
Are you REALLY providing this as data to rebutt my conversation?
Besides, this isn't data anyway, this is four to eight phone calls at each level. Do you call that a sampling?
You're an engineer, aren't you straightandnarrow? If so, give me some calculations that you do yourself. Let's look at some path analysis before you tell me how bad the cellphones in Canada are.
If you can't provide me with any calculations, then I guess I will--if that's what it take to set this issue to rest.
AND, I ask one more time, are you calling me a liar when I say I made several calls from a Lear Jet at 37,000 feet while traveling across a variety of terrain in Southeastern US including over heavily populated Florida and thinly populated Arkansas with its big mountains?
Are you doubting that I did this? and do you have legitimate explaination as to why it worked?
Ed Certainly is right about don't go to Ontario for cellphone coverage, if this data is any indication.
Do you notice that at 2100 feet the thing is already messing up. Even at 1000 feet it has a 50 percent failure rate.
We have hills that you can drive up on that are 1000 feet. I have been up with a pilot here in Oklahoma in a small plane and he always calls home and other places with his cellphone. I have never seen it NOT work. It works better than on the ground. Mind you he doesn't usually go over 8 or 9 thousand feet, but this data where the phone starts falling off at 1000 feet just shows you that even on a 2000 foot tower the cellphones wouldn't work.
I cannot believe an engineer would even post this data and call it GOOD. My goodness, my house is 600 to 1000 feet above the major part of my county. This data says I shouldn't be able to use the phone between about 30 and 50% of the time.
The base units must really be lousy in Canada. Mercy.
Are you REALLY providing this as data to rebutt my conversation?
Besides, this isn't data anyway, this is four to eight phone calls at each level. Do you call that a sampling?
You're an engineer, aren't you straightandnarrow? If so, give me some calculations that you do yourself. Let's look at some path analysis before you tell me how bad the cellphones in Canada are.
If you can't provide me with any calculations, then I guess I will--if that's what it take to set this issue to rest.
AND, I ask one more time, are you calling me a liar when I say I made several calls from a Lear Jet at 37,000 feet while traveling across a variety of terrain in Southeastern US including over heavily populated Florida and thinly populated Arkansas with its big mountains?
Are you doubting that I did this? and do you have legitimate explaination as to why it worked?