"We Know in 2001 Cell Phones Worked Up To 50,000 Feet and..."

[CurveLight]

Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics. He never supports that claim, but since he said it then it must be true! Unfortunately, the facts do not support his claim. The HC is running its old bullshit "look at 9E" which is really just airwave fodder for people gullible and insecure enough to simply accept what the government says and to not question such stellar publications such as Poopular Mekanics.

Here's some info:

"Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls." (WP,July 27, 2004)

Aviation Week (07/20/04) described this new technology in an authoritative report published in July 2004:

"Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring [July 2004] ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to- ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground. For the test flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, the aircraft was equipped with an antenna in the front and rear of the cabin to transmit cell phone calls to a small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station. This "pico cell" transmitted cell phone calls from the aircraft via a Globalstar satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network"


Needless to say, neither the service, nor the "third generation" hardware, nor the "Picco cell" CDMA base station inside the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11, 2001."
The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls

Wow. There was not a whole lot of buzz about those announcements. How do OCTAs defend the claim cell calls were possible?

I went on about 6 flights between Boston and Nebraska between 2005 and 2006 and my cell signal dropped shortly after take off and didn't come back until after landing and this was the usual for other passengers trying to use their cells as well. Personal experiences aside, there is no evidence cell phones would have been operational on 9/11 from those altitudes and speeds. For flight 77 the first claimed cell call occurred at 9:12 am. According to the flight path by the 9E CR, flight 77 would have been too high and traveling too fast for calls to be possible.

I have no doubt nobody can prove cell phones were capable of conversational operations on 9/11 on flight 77 at 9:12 am. Is there anyone who can prove that was possible? I've provided evidence it was not possible. I anticipate two usual events: the usual dickless whiny wonders of fizzbitch, Snitch Bitch, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.

 

[CurveLight]

Bimpety-bump-bump

 

[Shorebreak]

I can't say that I agree with the above claims. Flight 93 was flying at very low altitude for a long enough timeframe that it's definitely possible that some passengers were able to make a telephone call. Also, in 2001 nearly all airlines had an Airphone in each row.

I don't know all of the technical details or evidence that may be available to suport or deny cell phone claims - meaning prospective evidence that actual cell phone calls were made from the cells that the flights passed through - but I do know that it's possible that some people who received phone calls were under the impression that the call was placed via cell phone, when in fact the calls may have been placed by Airphone.

So there's certainly room for question here, considering that claims were made that passengers made cell phone calls when in 2001 it was nearly impossible to make a cell call from an airplane at cruising altitude. But with so much room for confusion or error, this "question" has no meat behind it until we can see the technical records that either support or refute the claims.

It's definitely a concern that needs clarification but it's not something that you can hang your hat on as evidence of a conspiracy. If you really want to post some dirt do some research on Dave Frasca and some of the material that he systematically buried in order to keep the hijackers off the radar. Take a look at what Coleen Rowley had to say about that.

Then take a look at who the White House assigned earlier in 2001 as the final authority on responding to airline hijackings.

There's much more meat in the unquestionable actions of our senior leadership than there is in many of the specualitve events that may have occured while the attacks were unfolding. From a prosecutors persepective I'd build my case on top of an irrefutable foundation of documented activities that were conducted in the months leading up to 9/11.

By the time we started into events that unfolded on the actual day of the attack, every juror in the house would be fully aware of how the environment was prepared to enable the attackers to be successful, but they'd also be aware of documented motive, opportunity, and pre-planning for the official response to the attacks.

 

[candycorn]

Seatback phones. Give it some thought.

 

[JenyEliza]

I have a telecom background.

I can confirm for you that cell phones, CDMA, GSM or iDen, would NOT work on ANY standard aircraft not equipped with a basic "repeater" type base station. Especially NOT in 2001, since.....

As pointed out in the snippets you posted, that kind of air-to-ground mobile technology was only in the proof-of-concept stage around 2004/5, IIRC. Up until the actual in flight testing, all the industry had was a LOT of white papers wriitten by pencil-head, pocket protector Network Engineers.

That's it.

My most recent background is in Wireless Tech Support for both 3 and 4G devices.

You can take my word for it, or not.

That is all.

Jen

 

[Gamolon]

Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics.

Some guy?

Do you happen to have a link to this quote or the person's name?

 

[CurveLight]

I can't say that I agree with the above claims. Flight 93 was flying at very low altitude for a long enough timeframe that it's definitely possible that some passengers were able to make a telephone call. Also, in 2001 nearly all airlines had an Airphone in each row.

I don't know all of the technical details or evidence that may be available to suport or deny cell phone claims - meaning prospective evidence that actual cell phone calls were made from the cells that the flights passed through - but I do know that it's possible that some people who received phone calls were under the impression that the call was placed via cell phone, when in fact the calls may have been placed by Airphone.

So there's certainly room for question here, considering that claims were made that passengers made cell phone calls when in 2001 it was nearly impossible to make a cell call from an airplane at cruising altitude. But with so much room for confusion or error, this "question" has no meat behind it until we can see the technical records that either support or refute the claims.

It's definitely a concern that needs clarification but it's not something that you can hang your hat on as evidence of a conspiracy. If you really want to post some dirt do some research on Dave Frasca and some of the material that he systematically buried in order to keep the hijackers off the radar. Take a look at what Coleen Rowley had to say about that.

Then take a look at who the White House assigned earlier in 2001 as the final authority on responding to airline hijackings.

There's much more meat in the unquestionable actions of our senior leadership than there is in many of the specualitve events that may have occured while the attacks were unfolding. From a prosecutors persepective I'd build my case on top of an irrefutable foundation of documented activities that were conducted in the months leading up to 9/11.

By the time we started into events that unfolded on the actual day of the attack, every juror in the house would be fully aware of how the environment was prepared to enable the attackers to be successful, but they'd also be aware of documented motive, opportunity, and pre-planning for the official response to the attacks.

I don't know about the other flights. I specifically cited flight 77 because at 9:12 it was at cruising altitude (about 30,000 ft) yet it is claimed a cell call was made from a flight attendant. It's so bizarre the guy from popular mechanics actually claimed cell phones would work up to 50,000 feet. I'm also not citing this as proof positive of a conspiracy theory. This is just a piece in the puzzle and the "meat" of this question is looking at the fact there is no hard evidence any call from 77 was made.

 

[CurveLight]

Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics.

Some guy?

Do you happen to have a link to this quote or the person's name?

It was David Coburn who works for PM. Here's a bitch session link about the "documentary" by the Hist Channel.

"For instance Davin Coburn made the preposterous statement that in 2001 cell phone technology would work at 50,000 feet."
Right Wing Nut House 9/11 TRUTHERS GUT PUNCHED BY HISTORY CHANNEL

 

[uscitizen]

I have a telecom background.

I can confirm for you that cell phones, CDMA, GSM or iDen, would NOT work on ANY standard aircraft not equipped with a basic "repeater" type base station. Especially NOT in 2001, since.....

As pointed out in the snippets you posted, that kind of air-to-ground mobile technology was only in the proof-of-concept stage around 2004/5, IIRC. Up until the actual in flight testing, all the industry had was a LOT of white papers wriitten by pencil-head, pocket protector Network Engineers.

That's it.

My most recent background is in Wireless Tech Support for both 3 and 4G devices.

You can take my word for it, or not.

That is all.

Jen

My cell phone has an Aircraft mode option. Not sure what it does as I have never tried it.

Cell phone useage on airliners cause the airliners guidance system to lock on to the tallest structures/objects around.

 

[CurveLight]

Seatback phones. Give it some thought.

Seatback phones don't have anything to do with the op. However, it is encouraging that even after looking for evidence about cells working that high and fast the best you can come up with is an immediate distraction.

 

[CurveLight]

I have a telecom background.

I can confirm for you that cell phones, CDMA, GSM or iDen, would NOT work on ANY standard aircraft not equipped with a basic "repeater" type base station. Especially NOT in 2001, since.....

As pointed out in the snippets you posted, that kind of air-to-ground mobile technology was only in the proof-of-concept stage around 2004/5, IIRC. Up until the actual in flight testing, all the industry had was a LOT of white papers wriitten by pencil-head, pocket protector Network Engineers.

That's it.

My most recent background is in Wireless Tech Support for both 3 and 4G devices.

You can take my word for it, or not.

That is all.

Jen

My cell phone has an Aircraft mode option. Not sure what it does as I have never tried it.

That option shuts down all transmission capabilities so you can use non-data features and be in compliance with the law. Otherwise, you could be asked to turn your phone completely off.

That does not mean cells worked on planes in flight. It only means it was a precaution regarding possible data transmission corruption between cells and avionics.

 

[CurveLight]

Here's another thought. How many people have experienced dropped calls while walking? Driving? If you can lose a signal moving 50mph on the ground then what makes anyone think it would work at 30,000+ feet moving at 450+ mph?

 

[uscitizen]

I have a telecom background.

I can confirm for you that cell phones, CDMA, GSM or iDen, would NOT work on ANY standard aircraft not equipped with a basic "repeater" type base station. Especially NOT in 2001, since.....

As pointed out in the snippets you posted, that kind of air-to-ground mobile technology was only in the proof-of-concept stage around 2004/5, IIRC. Up until the actual in flight testing, all the industry had was a LOT of white papers wriitten by pencil-head, pocket protector Network Engineers.

That's it.

My most recent background is in Wireless Tech Support for both 3 and 4G devices.

You can take my word for it, or not.

That is all.

Jen

My cell phone has an Aircraft mode option. Not sure what it does as I have never tried it.

That option shuts down all transmission capabilities so you can use non-data features and be in compliance with the law. Otherwise, you could be asked to turn your phone completely off.

That does not mean cells worked on planes in flight. It only means it was a precaution regarding possible data transmission corruption between cells and avionics.

thanks. I always just turned mine off when I flew.
I goubt if I will fly any more so it does not matter to me.

 

[JenyEliza]

I have a telecom background.

I can confirm for you that cell phones, CDMA, GSM or iDen, would NOT work on ANY standard aircraft not equipped with a basic "repeater" type base station. Especially NOT in 2001, since.....

As pointed out in the snippets you posted, that kind of air-to-ground mobile technology was only in the proof-of-concept stage around 2004/5, IIRC. Up until the actual in flight testing, all the industry had was a LOT of white papers wriitten by pencil-head, pocket protector Network Engineers.

That's it.

My most recent background is in Wireless Tech Support for both 3 and 4G devices.

You can take my word for it, or not.

That is all.

Jen

My cell phone has an Aircraft mode option. Not sure what it does as I have never tried it.

That option shuts down all transmission capabilities so you can use non-data features and be in compliance with the law. Otherwise, you could be asked to turn your phone completely off.

That does not mean cells worked on planes in flight. It only means it was a precaution regarding possible data transmission corruption between cells and avionics.

Exactly. What it means is that in airplane mode, rather than turn your phone off completely it will only sort of be turned off. You cannot use your phone in flight to make/place calls, access the internet, download email or documents, etc in airplane mode.

However, you CAN use your phone to access games like pac-man and other smartphone apps and features that don't require transmission capabilty or internet access.

In otherwords, it makes your phone a semi-brick, but keeps you in compliance with FCC and NTSB rules.

Hope this helps.

 

[uscitizen]

My cell phone has an Aircraft mode option. Not sure what it does as I have never tried it.

That option shuts down all transmission capabilities so you can use non-data features and be in compliance with the law. Otherwise, you could be asked to turn your phone completely off.

That does not mean cells worked on planes in flight. It only means it was a precaution regarding possible data transmission corruption between cells and avionics.

Exactly. What it means is that in airplane mode, rather than turn your phone off completely it will only sort of be turned off. You cannot use your phone in flight to make/place calls, access the internet, download email or documents, etc in airplane mode.

However, you CAN use your phone to access games like pac-man and other smartphone apps and features that don't require transmission capabilty or internet access.

In otherwords, it makes your phone a semi-brick, but keeps you in compliance with FCC and NTSB rules.

Hope this helps.

thanks, why didn't they label it Pacifier mode? For the cell phone junkies.

 

[JenyEliza]

That option shuts down all transmission capabilities so you can use non-data features and be in compliance with the law. Otherwise, you could be asked to turn your phone completely off.

That does not mean cells worked on planes in flight. It only means it was a precaution regarding possible data transmission corruption between cells and avionics.

Exactly. What it means is that in airplane mode, rather than turn your phone off completely it will only sort of be turned off. You cannot use your phone in flight to make/place calls, access the internet, download email or documents, etc in airplane mode.

However, you CAN use your phone to access games like pac-man and other smartphone apps and features that don't require transmission capabilty or internet access.

In otherwords, it makes your phone a semi-brick, but keeps you in compliance with FCC and NTSB rules.

Hope this helps.

thanks, why didn't they label it Pacifier mode? For the cell phone junkies.

Cell phone junkies live in denial---just like any addict.

You go labeling it "Pacifier Mode", they have to admit they're addicted to their Crackberry.

See?

 

[uscitizen]

Exactly. What it means is that in airplane mode, rather than turn your phone off completely it will only sort of be turned off. You cannot use your phone in flight to make/place calls, access the internet, download email or documents, etc in airplane mode.

However, you CAN use your phone to access games like pac-man and other smartphone apps and features that don't require transmission capabilty or internet access.

In otherwords, it makes your phone a semi-brick, but keeps you in compliance with FCC and NTSB rules.

Hope this helps.

thanks, why didn't they label it Pacifier mode? For the cell phone junkies.

Cell phone junkies live in denial---just like any addict.

You go labeling it "Pacifier Mode", they have to admit they're addicted to their Crackberry.

See?

Ahh yes marketing....

 

[CurveLight]

That option shuts down all transmission capabilities so you can use non-data features and be in compliance with the law. Otherwise, you could be asked to turn your phone completely off.

That does not mean cells worked on planes in flight. It only means it was a precaution regarding possible data transmission corruption between cells and avionics.

Exactly. What it means is that in airplane mode, rather than turn your phone off completely it will only sort of be turned off. You cannot use your phone in flight to make/place calls, access the internet, download email or documents, etc in airplane mode.

However, you CAN use your phone to access games like pac-man and other smartphone apps and features that don't require transmission capabilty or internet access.

In otherwords, it makes your phone a semi-brick, but keeps you in compliance with FCC and NTSB rules.

Hope this helps.

thanks, why didn't they label it Pacifier mode? For the cell phone junkies.

Saliva kills circuit boards......

 

[candycorn]

thanks, why didn't they label it Pacifier mode? For the cell phone junkies.

Cell phone junkies live in denial---just like any addict.

You go labeling it "Pacifier Mode", they have to admit they're addicted to their Crackberry.

See?

Ahh yes marketing....

I wish there was a pacifier mode for some people on message boards. LOL

 

[JenyEliza]

Exactly. What it means is that in airplane mode, rather than turn your phone off completely it will only sort of be turned off. You cannot use your phone in flight to make/place calls, access the internet, download email or documents, etc in airplane mode.

However, you CAN use your phone to access games like pac-man and other smartphone apps and features that don't require transmission capabilty or internet access.

In otherwords, it makes your phone a semi-brick, but keeps you in compliance with FCC and NTSB rules.

Hope this helps.

thanks, why didn't they label it Pacifier mode? For the cell phone junkies.

Saliva kills circuit boards......

This is true.....

And water/saliva damage is NOT covered under replacement warranty coverage by ANY provider---ATT, Verizon, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, MetroPCS, etc etc etc.

So, you suck on your phone, you're screwed!

Just say NO and put it away for the flight.