Truthers - Let's talk U93 phone calls

tempesta29 said:
Please provide evidence that a cell phone will work at cruising altitude. I've left my phone on during takeoff and witnessed the lost signal far before reaching cruising altitude, not very long after takeoff. Was technology better in 2001?
Click to expand...
Argument from incredulity.
 
tempesta29 said:
Argument from incredulity.
Click to expand...

No, not really. TMD was offering an idea of what might have happened but typical for your kind, he didn't bother to provide evidence that his idea actually happened. All TMD was offer some whacked out made up story about remote control that could have happened. Glenn's assessment would appear to be spot on.
 
tempesta29 said:
Please provide evidence that a cell phone will work at cruising altitude. I've left my phone on during takeoff and witnessed the lost signal far before reaching cruising altitude, not very long after takeoff. Was technology better in 2001?
Click to expand...

It's rather simple really tempesta29....

It's basically an antenna equation.

For a rough calculation you can use the Friis equation assuming no effects like multipath due to reflection or diffraction.....for a cell phone at altitude this can be a decent approximation since the tower will basically be line of sight from the cell phone.

So....you can find what the received power should be for the cellular tower as the receiver and the cell phone handset as the transmitter. You can then do the reverse for the handset....using the tower as the transmitter and the handset as the receiver.

The main factors affecting the receive power at the tower or the handset for a Line of Sight case like flying at altitude will be:

1. The gain of the antennas (this takes into account the directionality of the antennas....an issue truthers often misunderstand)

2. Attenuation due to the body of the aircraft

3. Free space path loss



Truthers often assume that number 3 is what prevents a cellular handset from working at cruising alttitude....this is not true though. The free space path loss, losses due to the body of the aircraft, andthe directivity of the antennas are not the main factors that make it difficult to maintain a signal in an aircraft.

What makes it difficult and causes lots of dropped calls is not a power issue but a NETWORK issue.

There are two factors that cause the Network issue:


1. Altitude
The cellular network is designed with "cells" that have a limited range...allowing frequency reuse on the network. The limited range is obtained by limiting output power and using directional antennas. The range is also limited naturally by obstructions on the ground producing effects like diffraction, reflection, and attenuation. When you are in the air...once the signal gets outside the aircraft you essentially have a free space situation since there are few obstructions between you and the tower. This means that there is the possibility of you connecting to more than one tower simutaneoulsy which could cause all kinds of network issues...not just for you but for users on the ground.

2. Velocity
The cellular network is designed to perform "handoffs" assuming a maximum ground speed of roughly 100 miles per hour. In fact there is a possibility that if you are near a cell edge and are moving too slowly the network can drop the call (I think this issue has been fixed though). Anyway....so the maximum is about 100 miles per hour or so.....when a plane is traveling 300+ miles per hour the network can have issues with the handoffs so you will get dropped calls.


There is also the issue of cell towers having different ranges depending on the density of cells in a particular region....for rural areas the towers output more power to cover a larger area.

Bottom line....connecting at attitude depends on many factors....and you will likely have better luck over rural areas where there are fewer, but more powerful towers.....but even then your call will not likely last more than a few minutes.
 
Last edited:
newton3376 said:
It's rather simple really tempesta29....

It's basically an antenna equation.

For a rough calculation you can use the Friis equation assuming no effects like multipath due to reflection or diffraction.....for a cell phone at altitude this can be a decent approximation since the tower will basically be line of sight from the cell phone.

So....you can find what the received power should be for the cellular tower as the receiver and the cell phone handset as the transmitter. You can then do the reverse for the handset....using the tower as the transmitter and the handset as the receiver.

The main factors affecting the receive power at the tower or the handset for a Line of Sight case like flying at altitude will be:

1. The gain of the antennas (this takes into account the directionality of the antennas....an issue truthers often misunderstand)

2. Attenuation due to the body of the aircraft

3. Free space path loss



Truthers often assume that number 3 is what prevents a cellular handset from working at cruising alttitude....this is not true though. The free space path loss, combined with losses due to the body of the aircraft, combined with the directivity of the antennas is not the main factor that makes it difficult to maintain a signal in an aircraft.

What makes it difficult and causes lots of dropped calls is not a power issue but a NETWORK issue.

There are two factors that cause the Network issue:


1. Altitude
The cellular network is designed with "cells" that have a limited range...allowing frequency reuse on the network. The limited range is obtained by limiting output power and using directional antennas. The range is also limited naturally by obstructions on the ground producing effects like diffraction, reflection, and attenuation. When you are in the air...once the signal gets outside the aircraft you essentially have a free space situation since there are few obstructions between you and the tower. This means that there is the possibility of you connecting to more than one tower simutaneoulsy which could cause all kinds of network issues...not just for you but for users on the ground.


2. Velocity
The cellular network is designed to perform "handoffs" assuming a maximum ground speed of roughly 100 miles per hour. In fact there is a possibility that is you are near a cell edge and are moving too slowly the network can drop the call (I think this issue has been fixed though). Anyway....so the maximum is about 100 miles per hour or so.....when a plane is traveling 300+ miles per hour the network can have issues with the handoffs so you will get dropped calls.

There is also the issue of cell towers having different ranges depending on the density of cells in a particular region....for rural areas the towers output more power to cover a larger area.

Bottom line....connecting at attitude depends on many factors....and you will likely have better luck over rural areas where there are fewer, but more powerful towers.....but even then your call will not likely last more than a few minutes.
Click to expand...

Waffle, waffle, waffle, I don't believe what I am saying, but if I throw in lots of pseudo-technical terms and we all howl in unison, perhaps we will be able to get away it?
 
Last edited:
little grey rabbit said:
Waffle, waffle, waffle, I don't believe what I am saying, but if I throw in lots of pseudo-technical terms and we all howl in unison, perhaps we will be able to get away it?
Click to expand...

Yes, that does indeed sound like what you and your lot perpetuate. Thanks for admitting it. :)
 
little grey rabbit said:
Waffle, waffle, waffle, I don't believe what I am saying, but if I throw in lots of pseudo-technical terms and we all howl in unison, perhaps we will be able to get away it?
Click to expand...

"I don't understand what I am reading, but I suspect it is contrary to my position, so I'll just post some idiotic non response".
 
little grey rabbit said:
Waffle, waffle, waffle, I don't believe what I am saying, but if I throw in lots of pseudo-technical terms and we all howl in unison, perhaps we will be able to get away it?
Click to expand...

Pseudo-technical terms?

No....they are terms from my field of study actually.....although I am not an expert in RF or doing link budget analysis for cell phone networks.

Nevertheless....what I wrote stands and is correct as a general principle.

In real life people do not do these calculations "by hand"....they use modeling and simulation software to calculate expected power levels away from the towers.

A lot more goes into designing the cellular network than what I have described....indeed a lot more goes into an analysis of even a basic two antenna communications link than what I have described.

I do not believe any of the RF experts I know....or any of the guys I know who have worked in the cellular industry would take serious issue with anything I wrote...

If you have an issue technically with something that I wrote....I suggest you either put up or shut up.
 
newton3376 said:
Pseudo-technical terms?

No....they are terms from my field of study actually.....although I am not an expert in RF or doing link budget analysis for cell phone networks.

Nevertheless....what I wrote stands and is correct as a general principle.

In real life people do not do these calculations "by hand"....they use modeling and simulation software to calculate expected power levels away from the towers.

A lot more goes into designing the cellular network than what I have described....indeed a lot more goes into an analysis of even a basic two antenna communications link than what I have described.

I do not believe any of the RF experts I know....or any of the guys I know who have worked in the cellular industry would take serious issue with anything I wrote...

If you have an issue technically with something that I wrote....I suggest you either put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Empirical science trumps theory every time. I have tried to get a cell phone signal in a plane and failed every time. So have others.

Your waffle is nothing more than Jesuitical waffle. You don't believe it yourself.

What specific phone calls from United Airlines 93 HAVE to come from cell phones anyway? Can't you just say they all came from airfones and that any statements to contrary were just mistakes by grieved relatives?
 
little grey rabbit said:
Empirical science trumps theory every time.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what "empirical science" or "theory" even mean.

You do not understand what I posted....and that's okay. I don't expect you to understand all of it. Electromagnetics, RF propogation, Antenna theory, etc are complex topics. I don't fully understand them either. No one does to be honest.

But your statement about "empirical science" versus "theory" is asinine. To repeat a quote I once read....

"Nothing is more practical than a good theory."

Anyway....the "empirical science" agrees with what the theory predicts, so you are....unsurprisingly.....WRONG.

little grey rabbit said:
I have tried to get a cell phone signal in a plane and failed every time. So have others.
Click to expand...

I have tried to get a cell phone signal in flight also.....sometimes I have gotten a signal and sometimes I have not. I've seen people text while in flight...I heard someones phone next to me ring in flight.

Plus there are other accounts of people talking on their cellular phones at crusing altitude. So your argument of "But....but....I tried it and it didn't work....doh...inside jobby job" is stupid.

If you have been following this thread...you would understand that there are two "groups" that historically do not want you to use your cell phone in flight.

1. The FAA for safety reasons.

2. The cell phone companies because they do not want you disrupting their network or being able to make free phone calls.


Notice that #2 is implying that you CAN make a call in flight. Will it work everytime? Nope. Will it work on every route? Nope. Will it work sometimes on certain routes? Yes, absolutely.

little grey rabbit said:
Your waffle is nothing more than Jesuitical waffle. You don't believe it yourself.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what a "Jesuitical waffle" even is....sounds like a personal problem you should get looked at.....

little grey rabbit said:
What specific phone calls from United Airlines 93 HAVE to come from cell phones anyway? Can't you just say they all came from airfones and that any statements to contrary were just mistakes by grieved relatives?
Click to expand...

Actually I dont NEED any of the phone calls to have been from cell phones to argue against 9/11 truth nonsense.

But a few of the calls appear to have been from a cell phone...so there is no reason for me to assume otherwise.

The point is that the argument "it's not possible to make cell phone calls at altitude" is simply incorrect. It doesn't matter who is making the argument or why they are making it.....it is simply wrong.

The cell phones don't make it impossible, the towers don't make it impossible, the distance doesn't make it impossible, and the network doesn't make it impossible.

Real life experiences and the RF theory both agree that it is possible....most cell phone industry experts agree that it is possible....most RF engineers I have personally asked about this (maybe a dozen) agree that it is possible...

So what, exactly, do you think makes it impossible little grey rabbit....what?
 
Last edited:
newton3376 said:
So what, exactly, do you think makes it impossible little grey rabbit....what?
Click to expand...

It gives him the ability to simply hand wave away some more evidence. He doesn't have to "explain" the cell phone calls if he says they're impossible, just like he doesn't have explain plane parts if he says they're planted.

A woo woo circuit breaker, if you will.
 
newton3376 said:
The main factors affecting the receive power at the tower or the handset for a Line of Sight case like flying at altitude will be:

1. The gain of the antennas (this takes into account the directionality of the antennas....an issue truthers often misunderstand)

2. Attenuation due to the body of the aircraft

3. Free space path loss



Truthers often assume that number 3 is what prevents a cellular handset from working at cruising alttitude....this is not true though. The free space path loss, losses due to the body of the aircraft, andthe directivity of the antennas are not the main factors that make it difficult to maintain a signal in an aircraft.

What makes it difficult and causes lots of dropped calls is not a power issue but a NETWORK issue.

There are two factors that cause the Network issue:


1. Altitude
The cellular network is designed with "cells" that have a limited range...allowing frequency reuse on the network. The limited range is obtained by limiting output power and using directional antennas. The range is also limited naturally by obstructions on the ground producing effects like diffraction, reflection, and attenuation. When you are in the air...once the signal gets outside the aircraft you essentially have a free space situation since there are few obstructions between you and the tower. This means that there is the possibility of you connecting to more than one tower simutaneoulsy which could cause all kinds of network issues...not just for you but for users on the ground.

2. Velocity
The cellular network is designed to perform "handoffs" assuming a maximum ground speed of roughly 100 miles per hour. In fact there is a possibility that if you are near a cell edge and are moving too slowly the network can drop the call (I think this issue has been fixed though). Anyway....so the maximum is about 100 miles per hour or so.....when a plane is traveling 300+ miles per hour the network can have issues with the handoffs so you will get dropped calls.


There is also the issue of cell towers having different ranges depending on the density of cells in a particular region....for rural areas the towers output more power to cover a larger area.

Bottom line....connecting at attitude depends on many factors....and you will likely have better luck over rural areas where there are fewer, but more powerful towers.....but even then your call will not likely last more than a few minutes.
Click to expand...
Nice technical summary, newton3376.

newton3376 said:
I do not believe any of the RF experts I know....or any of the guys I know who have worked in the cellular industry would take serious issue with anything I wrote...
Click to expand...
Agreed. If there were even a minor issue with anything you wrote, real experts would explain that technical point without rejecting your main points, which are incontrovertible.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Nice technical summary, newton3376.


Agreed. If there were even a minor issue with anything you wrote, real experts would explain that technical point without rejecting your main points, which are incontrovertible.
Click to expand...

Thanks Clinger.

If there are any in house RF or Cell Network experts who find any errors in what I wrote.....please feel free to correct me.

These are not my focus areas and I am not an expert in either (not an expert in anything really ;)).
 
Last edited:
little grey rabbit said:
Waffle, waffle, waffle, I don't believe what I am saying, but if I throw in lots of pseudo-technical terms and we all howl in unison, perhaps we will be able to get away it?
Click to expand...

You're projecting here. Don't assume that because a concept is beyond your grasp that it's beyond everyone's.
 
twinstead said:
It gives him the ability to simply hand wave away some more evidence. He doesn't have to "explain" the cell phone calls if he says they're impossible, just like he doesn't have explain plane parts if he says they're planted.

A woo woo circuit breaker, if you will.
Click to expand...

Well, I have never managed to pick up a signal with my phone except just prior to touchdown - and for the life of me I can't why telcos would engineer capacity at 30000 feet.

If I wanted to I could find an equally technical argument that says it can't happen, but I am happy with my empirical experience.

Wading through miles of Newton's verbiage we find this
But a few of the calls appear to have been from a cell phone...so there is no reason for me to assume otherwise.
Click to expand...

Which calls exactly?
For example
"In the opposite lavatory, Jeremy Glick, an internet company worker from Hewitt, New Jersey, telephoned Lyzbeth, his wife, on his mobile".
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/watt16.xml

Conclusive enough. However, look elsewhere and we find:

"Jeremy Glick, 31, used a GTE Airfone to call his wife from Flight 93".
www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020911glick911p6.asp
Click to expand...

Why can't we just migrate all calls to Airfones like we did with Jeremy Glick, get rid of this cell phone at cruising altitude nonsense.

So again, what calls precisely do you think were from a cell phone?
 
Last edited:
little grey rabbit said:
Well is there an American here who does know?
Click to expand...
I'm an American. I have been for a very, very long time. My point is that I simply haven't done a study on usage of safes, as I doubt anyone here has done. I suspect, however, that you know this. I suspect you also know that it is irrelevant.


little grey rabbit said:
I mean hunting around houses for hidden wills makes a great plot device in Victorian melodramas, but I would have thought it was rather inconvenient for most people.
Click to expand...
And I know, as opposed to suspect, that you know that this fabrication is complete nonsense.


kblood said:
Normally these situations are difficult enough for loved ones. Do most Americans rely on the last moment phone call to reveal will location and safe combination?
Click to expand...
As you know about this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom