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

[Gamolon]

Here is what a reputable source says:

Making Calls From The Air




The link is dead (its a 6 year old story and nobody cares except the whackjobs) but here is the link to the mag:

Wireless Week

Here are some other stories about cell phones used in flight:




Scores more at:

Mobiles at Altitude

Everyone who says they can't use cells in the air is simply full of garbage. I've done it numerous times.

This along with 9/11's posted site, PROVES that it is POSSIBLE to make cell phone calls from airplanes.

thats at 15,000 feet,not at 30,000 feet and major difference,that was a cessna,not an airliner.

Doesn't matter. 6,000 feet is 6,000 feet. There are reports of cell phones that have worked on jets.

You lose.

 

[SFC Ollie]

oh yes the good old trusting government agencys who NEVER tell lies to the american people.

This report was done before 9/11. But of course that matters nothing to you, as you believe the government planned the entire thing.

Idiot.

its been proven they did plan the entire thing idiot.

Ravi is not the idiot here. You, who believe our own Government could come up with such a complex plan and make it as stupid as you claim, are the idiots.

 

[Gamolon]

Here is what a reputable source says:

Making Calls From The Air




The link is dead (its a 6 year old story and nobody cares except the whackjobs) but here is the link to the mag:

Wireless Week

Here are some other stories about cell phones used in flight:




Scores more at:

Mobiles at Altitude

Everyone who says they can't use cells in the air is simply full of garbage. I've done it numerous times.

This along with 9/11's posted site, PROVES that it is POSSIBLE to make cell phone calls from airplanes.

thats at 15,000 feet,not at 30,000 feet and major difference,that was a cessna,not an airliner.

And again.

Show me proof of the claims that there were CELL PHONE calls made at 30,000 feet.

You continue to fail at doing this.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

So there's a chance at 20,000 feet? Not impossible?

What about at about 6,000 feet?

read it again.1 out of a 100 is EXTREMELY unlikely. have to be a miracle on the hundreth try to succeed

I say that because if you read at the bottom,some very credible people say yeah,its pretty much impossible to do at even 2,000 feet. those credible people are a commerical airliner pilot and a col usaf pilot.they both said they have tried numerous times at that height and never succeeded,saying the speed of an airliner and the altitude at that height makes it pretty much impossible. but why bother telling YOU that? expert testimonys means diddly shit to you remember?

Really?

Why in their "success summary table" where they combined results from parts 2 and 3 do they come up with 6,000 feet = 30% success????



You also didn't answer the question. How many calls made from those flights were VERIFIED cell phone calls made at 30,000 feet?

Dude those were examples taken from a CESSNA,a much smaller plane moving much slower than a 757 jet does. and it was the 9/11 commission that said the calls were made at 30/000 feet.

 

[Fizz]

again, the whole "did the cell phones work" thing doesnt mean shit unless you are claiming that some or all of the phone calls were never completed. who gives a shit if they were made by airphone or by cell phone?

so who is going to claim that some or all of the phone calls never happened?

any twoofer have the balls to take a stand?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

So there's a chance at 20,000 feet? Not impossible?

What about at about 6,000 feet?

cant be done.read these testimonys.but again expert testimonsy means nothing to you right so what bother?

Dear Sir

I have yet to read the entire [Ghost Riders] 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 <megan_conley@hotmail.com>

———————————————————————————–

Hi,

I am an RF design engineer, having built out Sprint, Verizon and another network in New Orleans. You are absolutely correct. We have trouble making these things work for cars going 55 mph on the ground. If you need another engineer’s testimony for any reason, let me know I will corroborate.

my engineering site: http://www.geocities.com/rf_man_cdma/

Brad Mayeux <cdmaman@engineer.com>

———————————————————————————-

Anecdotal evidence

==========================================================

Sir,

Yours is the first article I’ve read which focuses on those dubious ‘cell phone calls’. Last month my Wife and I flew to Melbourne, about 1000 miles south of here.

Cell phones are Verboten in Airliners here, but on the return journey I had a new NOKIA phone, purchased in Melbourne, and so small I almost forgot it was in my pocket. I furtively turned it on. No reception anywhere, not even over Towns or approaching Brisbane. Maybe it’s different in the US, but I doubt it.

There has to be an investigation into this crime. Justice for the thousands of dead and their families demands it.

Best

Bernie Busch <bbusch@iprimus.com.au>

———————————————————————————–

Hi Prof

I have repeatedly tried to get my cell phone to work in an airplane above 2-3000 feet and it doesn’t work. My experiments were done discreetely on [more than] 20 Southwest Airlines flights between Ontario, California and Phoenix, Arizona. My experiments match yours. Using sprint phones 3500 and 6000 models, no calls above 2500 ft [succeeded], a “no service” indicator at 5000 ft (guestimate).

There seem to be two reasons. 1. the cell sites don’t have enough power to reach much more than a mile, 2. The cell phone system is not able to handoff calls when the plane is going at more than 400 mph.

This is simply experimental data. If any of your contacts can verify it by finding the height of the Pennsylvania plane and it’s speed one can prove that the whole phone call story is forged.

Rafe <rafeh@rdlabs.com> (airline pilot)

—————————————————————————————–

Greetings,

I write in praise of your report, as I have felt from day one that the cell phone ‘evidence’ was perhaps the flimsiest part of the story, and am amazed that nobody has touched it until now.

I’d also like to bring up the point of airspeed, which is what made the cell calls a red-flag for me in the first place. I’m not sure what your top speed achieved in the small plane was, but, in a large airliner travelling at (one would think) no less than 450mph, most cell phones wouldn’t be able to transit cells fast enough to maintain a connection (at least, from what i understand of the technology) .. and we’re talking 2001 cell technology besides, which in that period, was known to drop calls made from cars travelling above 70mph on the freeway (again, due to cell coverage transits)

Anyway, thanks for shining the light, keep up the good work

Ben Adam

——————————————————————————————-

Dear Professor,

Responding to your article, I’m glad somebody with authority has taken the trouble to scientifically prove the nonsense of 9/11.

I was travelling between two major European cities, every weekend, when the events in the US occurred. I was specifically puzzled by the reports that numerous passengers on board the hijacked planes had long conversations with ground phone lines, using their mobile phones (and not on board satelite phones). Since I travelled every weekend, I ignored the on board safety regulations to switch off the mobile phone and out of pure curiosity left it on to see if I could make a call happen.

First of all, at take off, the connection disappears quite quickly (ascending speed, lateral reception of ground stations etc.), I would estimate from 500 meters [1500 feet approx.] and above, the connection breaks.

Secondly, when making the approach for landing, the descent is more gradual and the plane is travelling longer in the reach of cellphone stations, but also only below 500 meters. What I noticed was that, since the plane is travelling with high speed, the connection jumps from one cellphone station to another, never actually giving you a chance to make a phone call. (I have never experienced this behaviour over land, e.g. by car). Then, if a connection is established, it takes at least 10-30 seconds before the provider authorises a phone call in the first place. Within this time, the next cellstation is reached (travel speed still > 300KM/h) and the phone , always searching for the best connection, disconnects the current connection and tries to connect to a new station.

I have done this experiment for over 18 months, ruling out weather conditions, location or coincidence. In all this time the behaviour was the same: making a phone call in a plane is unrealistic and virtually impossible.

Based on this, I can support you in your findings that the official (perhaps fabricated) stories can be categorised as nonsense.

With kind regards.

Peter Kes <kpkes@yahoo.com>


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

It must be clearly understood that Prof. Dewdney’s tests were conducted in
slow-moving (<150kts) light aircraft at relatively low altitudes (<9000ft
AGL). The aircraft from which the alleged calls were made on 9/11 were
flying at over 30,000 ft at speeds of over 500 MPH.

During a recent round-trip flight from Orange County, CA to Miami, FL (via
Phoenix, AZ), I, personally conducted an unofficial “test” using a brand new
Nokia 6101 cellular phone [NB: 2005 technology]. En route, I attempted
(discretely, of course) a total of 37 calls from varying altitudes/speeds. I
flew aboard three types of aircraft: Boeing 757, 737, and Airbus 320. Our
cruising altitudes ranged from 31-33,000ft, and our cruising speeds, from
509-521 MPH (verified post-flight by the captains). My tests began
immediately following take-off. Since there was obviously no point in taking
along the wrist altimeter I use for ultralight flying for reference in a
pressurized cabin, I could only estimate (from experience) the various
altitudes at which I made my attempts.

Of the 37 calls attempted, I managed to make only 4 connections - and every
one of these was made on final approach, less than 2 minutes before flare,
I.e., at less than 2,000ft AGL.

Approach speeds varied from 130-160 kts (Vref, outer marker), with flap and
gear extension at around 2,000ft (again, all speeds verified by flightdeck
crews). Further, I personally spoke briefly with the captains of all four
flights: I discovered that in their entire flying careers, NOT ONE of these
men had EVER been successful in making a cell phone call from cruising
altitude/speed in a variety of aircraft types. [NB: Rest assured the
ubiquitous warnings to “turn off all electronics during flight” are
completely unfounded. All modern aircraft systems are fully shielded from
all forms of RF/EMF interference (save EMP, of course). This requirement was
mandated by the FAA many years ago purely as a precautionary measure while
emerging advanced avionics systems were being flight tested. There is not a
single recorded incident of interference adversely affecting the performance
of airborne avionics systems.]

Obviously, my casual, seat-of-the-pants attempt at verifying a commonly
known fact can hardly be passed off as a “scientific” test. Ergo, I shall
offer Prof. Dewdney¹s conclusion, excerpted from his meticulously detailed
and documented paper re slow-flying light aircraft at low altitudes.

Nila Sagadevan


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

Prof. Dewdney:

I do not pretend to be any sort of expert of cellular communications, but I am an electronics engineer and hold both amateur and commercial FCC licenses, so I do have some understanding of the relevant principles of radio communication systems.

I read with interest your analysis of terrestrial contact probabilities via cellphones from aircraft. I believe your conclusions are sound, but would like to comment on an element which you pondered regarding the sort of apparent discontinuity in what seems otherwise to be an inverse-square relation beyond a certain altitude.

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

Additionally, cellphone towers are certainly not optimally designed for skyward radiation patterns. Since almost all subscribers are terrestrial that is where the energy is directed, at low angles.

In summary, if your observed discontinuous behavior is real, and I believe there is technical reasoning for such, the probability of making calls beyond some threshold altitude is not simply predictably less, but truly impossible with conventional cellphones under any condition of aircraft etc. because of the theoretical limits of noise floor in the receiving systems. I think the plausibility of completing the calls from 30,000+ ft. is even much lower than might be expected from extrapolations of behavior at lower altitudes which you investigated.

Thank you for your thoughtful work in this area.

Sincerely,

Kevin L. Barton


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

Sincerely,
Brad Taylor


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

© 2003-2010 S.P.I.N.E. Login

Wow.

Read the summary tables from your own posted sight for parts two and three. Then they even COMBINE the test results at 6,000 feet.

It is proven, from their test results that it IS possible. Here is a quote from the site you posted:

Analysis

Since the (1.5 mm) skin of the Cessna appears to have made little difference to the outcome of the experiment, the data of Parts Two and Three may be combined, as follows, to produce more reliable figures for the battery of test phones that were used in the experiment:
altitude (feet) calls tried calls successful percent success
2000 9 8 89%
4000 9 4 44%
6000 27 8 30%
8000 35 3 9%

See the 6,000 feet? See the 30% to the right? You have successfully debunked your own claim.

yeah at 6000 feet it may work,but pretty much impossible at 30,000 feet which is the commissions claim. you posted that article that said they may work at 30,000 feet momentarily,the momemtarily they are conviently leaving out more than likely is just a few seconds since the probability to a cell phone wortking at 20,000 feet is 1 in a hundred.not very good odds. why did you bring up 6,000 feet in the beginning anyways when the commission said the calls were made at 30,000 feet? that was why curvelight mentioned that was because they said they were made at 30,000 feet.

also its so obvious they are lying about the calls being made in the fact that they said mark bingham made a call to his mom and said-hello mom,this is your son mark bingham.yeah like a son is really going to call his mom and say his full name. if you believe that one,that i got some real estate in russia i need to sell you.and since you clingo to the theory that the fires caused the towers to collapse,I have no doubt you would buy that house from me.

 

[Ravi]

read it again.1 out of a 100 is EXTREMELY unlikely. have to be a miracle on the hundreth try to succeed

I say that because if you read at the bottom,some very credible people say yeah,its pretty much impossible to do at even 2,000 feet. those credible people are a commerical airliner pilot and a col usaf pilot.they both said they have tried numerous times at that height and never succeeded,saying the speed of an airliner and the altitude at that height makes it pretty much impossible. but why bother telling YOU that? expert testimonys means diddly shit to you remember?

Really?

Why in their "success summary table" where they combined results from parts 2 and 3 do they come up with 6,000 feet = 30% success????



You also didn't answer the question. How many calls made from those flights were VERIFIED cell phone calls made at 30,000 feet?

Dude those were examples taken from a CESSNA,a much smaller plane moving much slower than a 757 jet does. and it was the 9/11 commission that said the calls were made at 30/000 feet.

Link?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

This report was done before 9/11. But of course that matters nothing to you, as you believe the government planned the entire thing.

Idiot.

its been proven they did plan the entire thing idiot.

where was this? i must have missed it.

in severl of terrals threads.of COURSE you missed it,your a disinformation agent troll sent here to post lies and bullshit. i wont live that one down where he showed you that pic of that empty hole and you responded telling him he needs glasses,that there WAS debris there. honestly you been reading and beleiving in far too many posts of candy corn boys.

 

[Ravi]

Really?

Why in their "success summary table" where they combined results from parts 2 and 3 do they come up with 6,000 feet = 30% success????



You also didn't answer the question. How many calls made from those flights were VERIFIED cell phone calls made at 30,000 feet?

Dude those were examples taken from a CESSNA,a much smaller plane moving much slower than a 757 jet does. and it was the 9/11 commission that said the calls were made at 30/000 feet.

Link?

Oh, never mind, I know you are lying.

In the report, 30,000 appears in two sentences:

In addition, muscle hijacker Banihammad came to the United
States after opening bank accounts in the UAE into which were deposited the
equivalent of approximately $30,000 on June 25, 2001.

Since 9/11, the FBI has recruited and processed more than 30,000 translator applicants.This
has resulted in the addition of nearly 700 new translators.

In the report, thirty thousand doesn't appear at all.

You're a fool.

 

[candycorn]

its been proven they did plan the entire thing idiot.

where was this? i must have missed it.

in severl of terrals threads.of COURSE you missed it,your a disinformation agent troll sent here to post lies and bullshit. i wont live that one down where he showed you that pic of that empty hole and you responded telling him he needs glasses,that there WAS debris there. honestly you been reading and beleiving in far too many posts of candy corn boys.

Are you going to respond to the AT&T spokesperson saying the calls were possible?

Are you going to respond to the fact that the FAA bans use of Cell Phones and the logic of banning something that doesn't work?

Are you going to respond to how Avery and Tarpley are making fun of Mark Bingham's phone calls at the same time other whackjobs like you are saying they couldn't have taken place?

Are you ever going to pick one conspiracy theory about anything and stick ot it or are you just flat out anti-9/11 Commission Report regardless of the alternative?

I know you're too much of a pile of shit to respond but then again, I'm not telling anybody anything they already don't know; including yourself.

 

[Fizz]

its been proven they did plan the entire thing idiot.

where was this? i must have missed it.

in severl of terrals threads.of COURSE you missed it,your a disinformation agent troll sent here to post lies and bullshit. i wont live that one down where he showed you that pic of that empty hole and you responded telling him he needs glasses,that there WAS debris there. honestly you been reading and beleiving in far too many posts of candy corn boys.

no matter how many times you claim its empty it wont make it come true. there are airplane parts in the hole. i guess you need glasses too..... you ******* moron.

WHAT THE **** IS THIS ?

A ROCK?!!!!!

 

[Ravi]

they said mark bingham made a call to his mom and said-hello mom,this is your son mark bingham

His mother said that...and she said he made the call from the Airphone. I suppose this must mean she is also part of the conspiracy.

Fucktard.

 

[Gamolon]

yeah at 6000 feet it may work,but pretty much impossible at 30,000 feet which is the commissions claim.

I have asked you numerous times to provide links to these claims and you cannot come up with them. Where is it stated in the CR that calls were made at 30,000 feet? As Ravi has pointed out to you, 30,000 (or 30000) does not show up anywhere in the CR in connection with cell phone calls.

So again, why are you arguing about 30,000 foot cell phone calls in the CR when there are no statements concerning them?

you posted that article that said they may work at 30,000 feet momentarily,the momemtarily they are conviently leaving out more than likely is just a few seconds since the probability to a cell phone wortking at 20,000 feet is 1 in a hundred.not very good odds.

Why again are you arguing about 20,000 or 30,000 feet? Where was this stated again in the CR?

why did you bring up 6,000 feet in the beginning anyways when the commission said the calls were made at 30,000 feet? that was why curvelight mentioned that was because they said they were made at 30,000 feet.

You want to know why I am asking about 6,000 feet? Here goes creampuff. Watch and learn. The only two verified calls from CELL PHONES that I could find was from Edward Felt at 9:58 am. The plane elevation at that point was between 7000 and 6400 feet. Another call from CeeCee Lyles waa also made at 9:58 am when the plane was at an altitude between 7000 and 6400 feet. Since altitude of an airplane is measured from sea level, you need to subtract the land elevation from the altitude as cell towers would not be constructed at sea level. Since the elevation in that area of PA is around 980 feet, we get between 6,020 and 5420 feet for ground elevation with a cell tower on it.

Maybe you should also pull your head out of your ass and learn reading comprehension. Here is Curvelight's quote concerning his claim that the CR stated anything about cell phone calls:

You're absolutely correct about the final report as it does not definitively provide proof how the calls were made nor where they came from. I apologize for claiming the CR said May's calls came from a cell. I believe I had read that regarding one of the Hearings but it was not included in the final report.

also its so obvious they are lying about the calls being made in the fact that they said mark bingham made a call to his mom and said-hello mom,this is your son mark bingham.yeah like a son is really going to call his mom and say his full name. if you believe that one,that i got some real estate in russia i need to sell you.and since you clingo to the theory that the fires caused the towers to collapse,I have no doubt you would buy that house from me.

You mean even when his mom said that this was normal for him? That when he was in "business mode" he would say that whenever he called her before?

What a dope.

 

[DiveCon]

oh yes the good old trusting government agencys who NEVER tell lies to the american people.

This report was done before 9/11. But of course that matters nothing to you, as you believe the government planned the entire thing.

Idiot.

its been proven they did plan the entire thing idiot.

you believe that and your calling HER the idiot

how ironic
dontcha think

 

[DiveCon]

Dude those were examples taken from a CESSNA,a much smaller plane moving much slower than a 757 jet does. and it was the 9/11 commission that said the calls were made at 30/000 feet.

Link?

Oh, never mind, I know you are lying.

In the report, 30,000 appears in two sentences:

In addition, muscle hijacker Banihammad came to the United
States after opening bank accounts in the UAE into which were deposited the
equivalent of approximately $30,000 on June 25, 2001.

Since 9/11, the FBI has recruited and processed more than 30,000 translator applicants.This
has resulted in the addition of nearly 700 new translators.

In the report, thirty thousand doesn't appear at all.

You're a fool.

typical lying troofer

 

[CurveLight]

where was this? i must have missed it.

in severl of terrals threads.of COURSE you missed it,your a disinformation agent troll sent here to post lies and bullshit. i wont live that one down where he showed you that pic of that empty hole and you responded telling him he needs glasses,that there WAS debris there. honestly you been reading and beleiving in far too many posts of candy corn boys.

Are you going to respond to the AT&T spokesperson saying the calls were possible?

Are you going to respond to the fact that the FAA bans use of Cell Phones and the logic of banning something that doesn't work?

Are you going to respond to how Avery and Tarpley are making fun of Mark Bingham's phone calls at the same time other whackjobs like you are saying they couldn't have taken place?

Are you ever going to pick one conspiracy theory about anything and stick ot it or are you just flat out anti-9/11 Commission Report regardless of the alternative?

I know you're too much of a pile of shit to respond but then again, I'm not telling anybody anything they already don't know; including yourself.

The at+t spokesperson in no way said what you're trying to claim you lying ****.


The FAA doesn't handle telecommunications you jackass. That is the FCC. The FAA regulates all other wireless gizmos like ipods and dvd players.


Having a ban on cell phones doesn't mean it's because you could talk to someone. Cell phones are constantly sending emissions and the claim by the FCC is those emissions could cause interference. Even with all the evidence showing cell phones were not capable of success you jackasses work soooooooo hard to deny the information. It must get exhausting defending the OCT when so many facts are not backing your claims up. Oops. You guys have never cared about that, so it doesn't matter.

 

[CurveLight]

yeah thats a very good point.Here this link puts to rest that it was impossible to use cell phones at 30,000 feet back then.As it says in that link,to make a cell phone call at altitudes of just 20,000 feet you barely had a one in a hundred chance of succeeding,same today.

So there's a chance at 20,000 feet? Not impossible?

What about at about 6,000 feet?

Here is what a reputable source says:

Making Calls From The Air




The link is dead (its a 6 year old story and nobody cares except the whackjobs) but here is the link to the mag:

Wireless Week

Here are some other stories about cell phones used in flight:

...we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight.
Traveling on Delta Flight 1989 on 9/11

The pilot departed San Jose, California, on a cross-country flight to Sisters, Oregon. He obtained a standard preflight weather briefing. Visual flight was not recommended. Cumulus buildups were reported to the pilot. The pilot indicated that he may be overflying the cloud tops. He did not file a flight plan. The pilot's wife was driving to the same location and they talked by cell phone while en route. When the pilot failed to arrive at the destination a search was started. According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent. Radar was lost at 11,800 feet. Witnesses reported seeing the aircraft descending near vertically out of broken clouds with the engine at full power. When the aircraft was found, the right outboard wing panel from about station 110 outboard was missing. About a month later the outer wing panel was found. Analysis of the failed structure indicated a positive overload of the wing and the horizontal stabilators.
Aircraft Accidents and Incidents - TENNANT, CALIFORNIA 96023 Wednesday, July 17, 1996 2:15 PM PDT

Scores more at:

Mobiles at Altitude

Everyone who says they can't use cells in the air is simply full of garbage. I've done it numerous times.

Lol....what a ******* joke of a site. There is no laughable limit you jackass can reach because you will post anything to defend your bullshit.

 

[CurveLight]

Another point is that airborne cell phone signals confuse the cell phone system. the cell phone companies do not want airborne cell phone use.

yeah thats a very good point.Here this link puts to rest that it was impossible to use cell phones at 30,000 feet back then.Of course ollie,fizz and candy corn troll boy will blatantly ignore this and post the most absurd crap like they always do to try and save face in their posts.

Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001

listen, you dumbfuck. dont accuse me of saying things i dont say.

my point is that it doesnt matter what anyone's opinion of whether cell phones worked on flight 77 or not.

Renee May called her parents and they called American Airlines at her request. it doesnt matter if that was by an airphone or a cell phone (and whether that cell phone worked or not). the call clearly happened. i'm not arguing whether cell phones worked one way or the other because it is pointless.

you may as well be arguing what color the phone was. it obviously doesnt matter what color the phone was as long as the phone call was made.

******* hypocrite. You're always putting words in others' mouths to compensate for your stoopidity.

 

[Fizz]

curve, are you going to offer an alternative way all these phone calls were made or are you simply going to claim they never happened and everyone is lying?

we'll be waiting for your answer one way or another.......

 

[DiveCon]

curve, are you going to offer an alternative way all these phone calls were made or are you simply going to claim they never happened and everyone is lying?

we'll be waiting for your answer one way or another.......

the infamous "they" faked those calls