Jesse Ventura - Fake Phone Calls Claim DEBUNKED!!!

[TruthMakesPeace]

>Make sure your tests are as what happened on 9/11 . Where the planes were below 25,000 feet and as often as low as 10,000 feet.
Good question. I'll send you the links to the videos of my experiments where you can see out the window and make an estimate of the altitude. For future tests, anyone have suggestions on the best way to measure altitude from within a pressurized passenger jet?

 

[beachnut]

It is not debunked. No one has shown that cell phone calls can be made reliably from passenger jets at cruising altitude. It is a simple experiment. I have tried calling on over 10 flights now, and have never been able to connect once the plane has leveled. I use Verizon, which has good nationwide coverage. Plus the technology has advanced since 2001. You can check experiments on YT. Experimental evidence is the basis of knowledge.
The call to Kent Gibson was an excellent idea, and well done. He is an expert yet said he could not voice morph on the spot, working at his studio. So you have made me more skeptical of the VM hypothesis.
However, Kent indicated that with time, he could fool at least one mother. Let's keep in mind that Kent does not have unlimited funds, years to prepare, a large staff, and the latest super computers. But you-know-who does. So we cannot completely rule VM out.

Cell phones can work, but the seat back phones were used and the voice morphing is the most moronic lie to come from 911 truth as they disrespect those who died on 911 to make up idiotic delusions.

As for voice morphing? LOL, you can sample a persons speech and get very close to the person, Hollywood can do it, I worked on technology which we used in the early 80s to identify speech, and the same technology works in reverse; use samples of speech to recreate new speech. But voice morphing was not used on 911 in some delusions you and 911 truth have made up out of ignorance.

I can rule out VM on 911, if you can't you have problems with reality, and it shows. My goodness you are stuck on Thermite and other moronic lies, you can't rule out anything due to some unknown bias.

 

[grandmastershek]

>Make sure your tests are as what happened on 9/11 . Where the planes were below 25,000 feet and as often as low as 10,000 feet.
Good question. I'll send you the links to the videos of my experiments where you can see out the window and make an estimate of the altitude. For future tests, anyone have suggestions on the best way to measure altitude from within a pressurized passenger jet?

Here's an idea. Write Richie Gage and ask him to start begging for money to do a proper study on cell phones. Rent a jet, go the right altitude and follow the flight path, bring a bunch of phones. I am sure pilots for twoof will volunteer.

 

[JohnG]

It is not debunked. No one has shown that cell phone calls can be made reliably from passenger jets at cruising altitude. It is a simple experiment. I have tried calling on over 10 flights now, and have never been able to connect once the plane has leveled. I use Verizon, which has good nationwide coverage. Plus the technology has advanced since 2001. You can check experiments on YT. Experimental evidence is the basis of knowledge.
The call to Kent Gibson was an excellent idea, and well done. He is an expert yet said he could not voice morph on the spot, working at his studio. So you have made me more skeptical of the VM hypothesis.
However, Kent indicated that with time, he could fool at least one mother. Let's keep in mind that Kent does not have unlimited funds, years to prepare, a large staff, and the latest super computers. But you-know-who does. So we cannot completely rule VM out.

Being ideologically incapable of believing anything "the man" says sure forces you to adopt some absurd counter-theories, doesn't it? As counter-theories go I guess LIHOP just isn't perverse, evil and sexy enough for most Truthers, though.

Even if real time voice morphing had been a flawless technique back in 2001 it still would have been a ridiculously risky (not to mention silly) scheme. Real life is not like Mission: Impossible.

 

[Justin39640]

Being ideologically incapable of believing anything "the man" says sure forces you to adopt some absurd counter-theories, doesn't it? As counter-theories go I guess LIHOP just isn't perverse, evil and sexy enough for most Truthers, though.

Even if real time voice morphing had been a flawless technique back in 2001 it still would have been a ridiculously risky (not to mention silly) scheme. Real life is not like Mission: Impossible.

It really is like a giant pissing contest on who can come up with the wildest idea. Based on that, the "Vicsims report" was inevitable. I cringe to think what could be next.

If truthers stuck to the arguably more difficult to prove/disprove LIHOP theories, I think that they (while not proving LIHOP) may have uncovered some of those things the administration didn't want out there (to save face, not cause they're murderers).

MIHOP was a godsend to Bush and co. It totally distracted from any real wrongdoings in trying to cover up ineptitude. Maybe South Park was onto something there lol.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Cell phone tests from jets

start begging for money to do a proper study on cell phones. Rent a jet, go the right altitude and follow the flight path, bring a bunch of phones.

There are some simple tests if you Google "cell phones 9/11" such as:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJk8qdrv6AM

 

[beachnut]

There are some simple tests if you Google "cell phones 9/11" such as:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJk8qdrv6AM

Wow, the cell phone worked. Cool.

 

[slyjoe]

Wow, the cell phone worked. Cool.

You actually made it through all that crap? I'm impressed.

 

[TJM]

There are some simple tests if you Google "cell phones 9/11" such as:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJk8qdrv6AM

As research into the myth of inoperable cell phones on aircraft at altitude, that video is absolutely worthless.

As Dave Rogers already pointed out, cellular technology has changed since 2001, when the industry standard was analog, which was phased out in 2008. Digital phones (GSM, CDMA and their variants) don't behave like an analog phone would. Testing a modern digital phone like a Blackberry and comparing it to what happened on 9/11 is absurd at best.

And I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC the majority of the in flight calls were made from the GTE AirPhones, not personal phones.

This article from 1999 explains why the FCC banned cell phones on commercial aircraft. It was due to safety and (big surprise) economic concerns.

From high in the sky, a cell phone acts like a sponge, sucking capacity out of the cellular sites that carry calls. For ground users, cell phones communicate by connecting to one cell site at a time; from the air, because of the height and speed of an aircraft, the phones often make contact with several sites at once. If allowed, this would limit call capacity, which would mean less revenue, says Howard Sherry, chief wireless scientist at Telcordia Technologies Inc., formerly the research arm of the Baby Bell telephone companies, in Morristown, N.J.

The cellular signal from the air is also especially strong, since it is unimpeded by buildings or other ground clutter. That often means it can jump on a frequency already in use on the ground, causing interruptions or hang-ups. And airborne cellular calls are sometimes free because the signal is moving so fast between cells that the software on the ground has difficulty recording the call, says Bentley Alexander, a senior engineer at AT&T's wireless unit.

ETA: I don't suppose you've bothered to ask yourself why the FCC would ban a device that doesn't work in the first place.

 

[TruthersLie]

Of course he hasn't... that is like asking if a fire can't affect a steel structure why would they mandate that all buildings have fireproofing?

 

[USAFMXOfficer]

It is not debunked. No one has shown that cell phone calls can be made reliably from passenger jets at cruising altitude. .

The typical Truther leap on this one.

At what altitude was United 93 when the two cell calls were made?

[Hint: It WASN'T cruising altitude]

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The typical Truther leap on this one.

At what altitude was United 93 when the two cell calls were made?

[Hint: It WASN'T cruising altitude]

Even if it was refuted, that doesn't change the fact that a number of those calls were made from GTE airfones. Not personal cell phones.

(Cue truther dance to DRG's disproven claim about those airfones being removed... )

 

[USAFMXOfficer]

Even if it was refuted, that doesn't change the fact that a number of those calls were made from GTE airfones. Not personal cell phones.

On U93 - 35 Airfone and 2 Cell Phone. The cell calls were made at an altitude of 5,000 feet.

 

[slyjoe]

On U93 - 35 Airfone and 2 Cell Phone. The cell calls were made at an altitude of 5,000 feet.

And within range and Doppler of various cell sites.

(Cue truther dance about altitude, range and Doppler.)

Sorry - forgot about Doppler. Too much math for them.

 

[JackDaniels]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

After 9/11, cellular experts said that calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they were surprised that they lasted as long as they did. They said that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground.[134] Alexa Graf, an AT&T spokesperson said it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.[135] Other industry experts said that it is possible to use cell phones with varying degrees of success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights.[136] Marvin Sirbu, professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University said on September 14, 2001, that "The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight."[136]

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, 13 passengers from Flight 93 made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (twenty-two confirmed air phone calls, two confirmed cell phone and eight not specified in the report). According to Debunk911myths.org, all but two calls from Flight 93 were made on air phones, not cell phones, and both calls lasted about a minute before being dropped.[137] Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that Flight 93 was supported by several cell sites.[135] There were reportedly three phone calls from Flight 11, five from Flight 175, and three calls from Flight 77. Two calls from these flights were recorded, placed by flight attendants Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong on Flight 11.

 

[JackDaniels]

ETA: I don't suppose you've bothered to ask yourself why the FCC would ban a device that doesn't work in the first place.

Assume they don't work. Why would the FCC ban them? Possibly because passengers might try to use them anyway, and the resultant microwaves might interfere with onboard electronics.

 

[dafydd]

Tom is the funniest troll. He should get some kind of lifetime achievement award.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

I have spoken with my wife on my cell phone at an altitude of perhaps 3,000 feet, which would be close to the altitude of the people on planes who spoke with loved ones prior to the crash.

Don't the 9-11 Truthers claim it is ridiculous that five guys with box cutters could overpower and kill two pilots? The only way we know about the box cutters is from phone calls from the planes. How do the Truthers get their box cutter knowledge if they deny phone calls from the planes?

 

[JohnG]

Don't the 9-11 Truthers claim it is ridiculous that five guys with box cutters could overpower and kill two pilots? The only way we know about the box cutters is from phone calls from the planes. How do the Truthers get their box cutter knowledge if they deny phone calls from the planes?

The Truth Movement: Not really thinking things through for almost a decade.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This may not help with the question of altitude, but a rather odd thing happened yesterday that indicates to me that the range of cellphones is a very much more complex issue than can be determined by a simple experiment.

I was on a beach in the south-east of England, with my cellphone in my pocket. My phone's a few years old, but not 2001 technology. The cliffs around the beach cut off line-of-sight view of any cellphone masts, so normally I'd expect little or no cellphone coverage. A minute or so after walking on to the beach, I received an international roaming automated text welcoming me to Belgium. The only reasonable explanation is that the phone was able to communicate with a cellphone mast in Belgium more clearly than any in England, and so the network registered that I was in Belgium. The key point, though, is that the nearest point in Belgium was over 35 miles away. I've been on the same beach with the same phone many times before, and never had the same message, so something odd in the atmospheric conditions may have been the cause.

So, I can deduce two things from this.
(1) Depending on conditions, current day cellphones may be able to communicate with base stations tens of miles distant.
(2) A single experiment at a single time isn't a very good way to find this out.

Dave