From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
911 cell phone calls impossible
An experiment was conducted to see if cell phones can work in airplanes.
An experiment was conducted to see if cell phones can work in airplanes. The experiment found that the percent of success rate of contact was:
89% at 2,000 feet
44% at 4,000 feet
30% at 6,000 feet
9% at 8,000 feet
Flight 93 was flying at 35,000 feet.
A connection would have been impossible.
See:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F55D42416
*
89% at 2,000 feet
44% at 4,000 feet
30% at 6,000 feet
9% at 8,000 feet
Flight 93 was flying at 35,000 feet.
A connection would have been impossible.
See:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F55D42416
*
For more information:
http://www.memes.org/
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Sigh. Come on, folks. This ain't an issue.
Go look at the transcripts and reviews yourself. This is about the Barbara Olson call:
"But it is at this juncture that we finally have the terminal error. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.
It gets worse. On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network. Under these circumstances the passengers’ seat phone on a Boeing 757 is a much use as a plastic toy.
Perhaps Ted Olson made a mistake and Barbara managed to borrow a credit card from a fellow passenger? Not a chance. If Barbara had done so, once swiped through the phone, the credit card would have enabled her to call whoever she wanted to for as long as she liked, negating any requirement to call collect.
Sadly perhaps, the Olson telephone call claim is proved untrue. Any American official wishing to challenge this has only to subpoena the telephone company and Justice Department records. There will be no charge originating from American Airlines 77 to the US Solicitor General."
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/lies911/lies.htm
And there are no calls on the cell phone records either.
And there are no calls on the cell phone records either.
---------
How do you know?
In any event, what is your point? That Mrs Olsen didn't talk to Mr Olsen on the plane that morning? Why do you care?
And yet some people continue to claim that the US Government-Mossad-Jewish Cabal-Masonic=Opeus Dei-MI-5 conspiracy is the only one that meets the Occam's Razor test?
I am more and more convienced that all this wild eyed, deeply earnest sophomoric postulating is part of a trolls plan to discredit the left.
And yet some people continue to claim that the US Government-Mossad-Jewish Cabal-Masonic=Opeus Dei-MI-5 conspiracy is the only one that meets the Occam's Razor test?
I am more and more convienced that all this wild eyed, deeply earnest sophomoric postulating is part of a trolls plan to discredit the left.
quote:
=======================================
Five Men Detained As Suspected Conspirators
Eight hours after terrorists struck Manhattan's tallest skyscrapers, police in Bergen County detained five men who they said were found carrying maps linking them to the blasts. The five men, who were in a van stopped on Route 3 in East Rutherford around 4:30 p.m., were being questioned by police but had not been charged with any crime late Tuesday.
However, sources close to the investigation said they found other EVIDENCE LINKING THE MEN TO THE BOMBING PLOT. "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like THEY'RE HOOKED IN WITH THIS. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."
Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected EXPLOSIVES. The FBI seized the van for further testing, authorities said.
Bergen Record, September 12, 2001 (copy)
http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2001/bergenrecord09601.html
========================================
Thanks in advance, "Georgina"....
None of these so called strawmen have been fabricated by me. Are there any here that you have not already seen in print somewhere? If so which ones? Oh, I may have added Opeus Dei but I did see a claim on Masonic influence believe it or not.
Motive? That's too big a word for a simple comment, I hve no motive.
Point? Yes, I thought my point was clear. I you can't see it, re-read my last sentence.
I am not sure what you are asking 'Already Published".
I have not fabricated any strawmen. I have seen each of these theories or stories or plots published before by other people. Which ones are new to you?
Thanks for adding another twist/strawman. These masterminds were able to shut up the Bergan police so that the actual evidence linking the van-people to WTC was never leaked.
My motive? I have no motive, that's a bit too strong a word.
My point? If you can't see it I suggest you re-read my last sentence in my previous post.
Okay.... the 'airphones' use credit cards.
Could it be the media describes them as 'cellphones' because the average viewer is too damn stupid to be able to equate 'airphone' with an 'airplane installed communications device that works a lot like a cellphone, but isn't cell based like Verizon'?
Folks - let's face it, sometimes the media is just plain lazy and will use something that they'll be sure that everyone will recognize.
Airphone? Wha' dat?
Cell phone? Yeah, I know what that is!
NEVER expect precision from the media - and you won't be disappointed. Expect laziness, expect inaccurate reporting, expect them to simplify things - but don't expect them to toss words out that the audience won't be immediately familar with.
============================
So what you [the initiator of this thread?] are saying is that the same organization that set up these
1) dummy hijackings using robot planes,
2) planted explosives in the WTC,
3) warned the 'jews',
4) set up cameras in cooperation with Mossad all around the greater New York (but not DC) area,
5) faked the camera shots at the Pentagon,
6) made the DC plane itself vanish,
7) yanked all AF planes from the sky except the one which shot down the PA plane,
8) planted wreckage in DC without being photograhed,
9) planted cars in Boston,
10) set up a false trail of pilot training for arabs still in arabia,
11) silenced air traffic control in US and Canada to not reveil the real plane movements that day,
~~~ and, well, I imagine quite a deal more, ~~~
faked these cell phones and either hide Mrs. Olsen or killed her and has her husband cooperate and ditto with the other callers and yet even with all this high tech
12) (and Nessie was floating the idea of an electro-magnatic ray gun for a while),
13) deep cover planning the government couldn't even doctor some phone bills to make a simple cover for the phone calls?
14) And yet some people continue to claim that the US Government-Mossad-Jewish Cabal-Masonic=Opeus Dei-MI-5 conspiracy is the only one that meets the Occam's Razor test?
=========================================
I recognize the legitimacy of several of your irrelevant strawmen - though most of 'em are new to me. I counted fourteen!
Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion of technical matters concerning the cellphone (land-based short-range cellular transmitters)--not airphone (satelite)--calls reported to have been made on September 11, Georgina?
If you would rather discuss a broad range of evidence that was already published refuting the official conspiracy theory, I've already published a special easily-digested thread full of relevant and convergent extracts - here:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1643303.php
Why are your statements facts and these statements "strawdogs"?
Oh, when counting don't forget the one you added to this thread about the police covering up the arrest of a van directly related to the WTC.
I
However, we must remember too that just because the government lies doesn't mean it always lies or that all it says are lies.
One can be blinded just as much by NOT believing anything as in beleiving everything.
Already Published's 'website'(?) actually added quite a few other 'strawdogs' to the debate. Some I haven't heard in fact such as having a C-130 follow close behind the DC plane and guide it into the building. A bit of a contrast from the other theory that no plane hit the building. This reinforces the 'robot plane' theory. The fact that there was a military helicopter flying around the Pentagon was another shock. I do remember seeing a picture of a standard Pentagon VIP Huey labelled a 'black helicopter' near the alledged crash site but don't remember all the fuss about a military helicopter actually being near the Pentagon during work hours.
I am courious as to which ones of the above has he not heard of?
What about others such as the photos of a rocket lke object flying over NYC into the WTC? Had he seen those pictures?
The picture of satan in smoke on the building?
====================
I'm sorry. Which of these are brand new to you again? Which have you never heard before? Why are your [?] statements facts and these statements "strawdogs"? [strawmen]
====================
Since the purpose of a strawman is to harp on a distraction, I shall not answer your question.
I'd prefer your attendance to the substance of the author's article and/or subsequent responses on an individual contributor basis, or acceptance of my invitation to discuss the broader issues on my "Conspiracy Nuts and Bolts thread" - as hyperlinked above.
Cheers.
QUOTE:
Since the purpose of a strawman is to harp on a distraction. UNQUOTE
This statement of yours is pretty damning evidence supporting the point I made in my first message.
These theories distract through thier weight - so damn many of them in a never ending stream. By focusing on the fringe/extreme 'every-single-thing-said-by-Bush-is-a-lie' conspiracies, the plausable but a bit less sexy than robot planes theories are passed by.
It is interesting that someone who speciallizes in these 9-11 things is aware of only 7 or less of the stories I listed. Sounds like a lack of research.
isn't near as 'satisifying' to the conspiracy nut.
Any way to vote this thread as the most idiotic one on Indymedia right now?
No one is really arguing that there wasn't a conspiracy.
Its just that your conspiracy (the one u just mentioned) makes sense.
Saying that the US governement (a) delibrately destroyed the WTC using various weird means llke robot planes and (b) was able to pull off this stunt that would have involved a very large cast is not.
Do you really think that the govt could successfully execute AND KEEP SECRET an activity like this when, as has been pointed out, the very simple iran contra issue involving a very small number of people leaked like a sieve?
People are people and people talk. That is the most obvious flaw in the Jewish-tele-thon-to-skip-out-before-the-plane-hit story.
I think Georginie has a valid point sometimes. It sure seems the weirdest guys pop up (like Published Already - boy, there is a guy with no day job) and present stuff so jaw dropping silly that I'm embarassed to raise any questions at all.
Saying there were no 'cell phone' calls from the planes because cell phones won't work at altitude, ignoring the 'airphones' that are on almost every plane, wouldn't seem to be...
verifiable from several sources...
agreed on by everyone...
and more of a matter of erroneous nomenclature than an attempt to hide something.
Seems to me it's just the news services confusing airphone and cellphone more than anything else...
She [Barbara] had trouble getting through, because she wasn't using her cell phone she was using the phone in the passengers seats. I guess she didn't have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy. She wanted to know What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?
"
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight77.html
There are two possibilities.
1. The cellphone actually worked (its a microwave signal and altitude matters less than distance from a cell tower). 30,000 feet up is actually better than 30,000 feet away from a cell tower on the ground since there is less likely to be anything in the way. Cell towers are also not all of the same strength; in cities the cell size is small wheras in rural areas the cell size is large. If you are high enough above a city you might not get calls since the cell size in small, whereas if you were directly over a rural tower you might get a call. Of course if you tried to test this you probably would be less likely to get a call in a rural area since a lot of the country isnt covered. But that argues more against the test you are talking about being conclusive than that a cellphone call from his plane was impossible.
"Mobile phones work by transmitting radio waves to cellular towers. These towers vary in the area they cover and can receive nearby mobile phone signals from distances as short as 1.5 to 2.4 km (1.0 to 1.5 mi) to distances as long as 48 to 56 km (30 to 35 mi). The area a tower can cover is referred to as a cell; the towers within these cells are networked to a central switching station, usually by wire, fiber-optic cable, or microwave. "
http://www.ebuyguru.com/BuyingGuide.asp?categoryID=29&articleID=75
2. There is also the possibility that Mark used the planes phone and it was mistaken to be his cellphone by his mother (who as I recall isnt proBush and wouldnt have reason to make things up). Did he say he was calling from a cellphone during the short call? If not why is this an issue since the media wouldnt be lying it could be that his mother was mistaken and just guessed it was a cellphone.
Most conspiracy theories like this are based off a mixture of misinterpreted data and paranoia. "There is no wind on the moon" gets turned into "the moon landing was staged" since there are photos of a flag waving; its a logical conclusion based off some science but it ignores that a flag could have been waving for reasons other than wind. In this case the science used isnt even that strong; 30,000 feet is well within the range that a cellphone can communicate with a celltower (45 km would be 147,637.80 ft so if plane was within 25 miles of a cell tower in a rural area the cellphone would have worked).
Another half baked 9-11 theory loudly touted as something that has already been published and even more smoke is blown between the truth and the people.
I don't think the truth about 9-11 is as sexy as all this exotic 'conspiracy' stuff but I do believe there are some serious issues to address. All this stuff and the 'trailing C-130' nonesense does a fine job of keepiong attention distracted.
Creative elipses are fun, aren't they, Gerorgina?
Also, you placed "strawdogs" in quotation marks, even though I didn't deploy the term - it was your creation. The correct terminology for the fallacy you are so desperate to perpetuate on this thread--a thread discussing the plausibility of land-based cellular telephony systems being used to place calls from commmercial jetliners on September 11--is called a "strawman".
A strawman is composed by a fraud, assigned to the victim, then attacked as if it were the victim's own argument - just as you have done 14 times on this thread!
Georgina - can we discuss G3 cell-phone transmission specifications?
But the phone could NOT be used at all without first letting it access a credit card and as her husband has also said, she did no have her purse on her. Without her credit card she couldn`t have made even a collect call because the phone wouldn`t have worked.
http://www.digitalsword.co.uk/flight77.htm
How does someone like 'Georgina' benefit from cutting down a theory about cell phones? She wouldn't go on and on like this is she didn't stand to benefit in some way. But how?
When the average person hears a conspiracy theory that they consider ludicrious they simply make a rude comment and move on. When people can't let go of it, we have to ask why they persist - what do they gain? Do they really believe in the government so much that they must crush any possible questioning of the government story? If so, why are they cruising around on imc? Why aren't they at home watching NASCAR is they're so smug about the fabricated story of the Bush Admin.? Afterall, they have no real need to debunk these theories if all they are is conspiracy.
What's your story Georgina? Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than to refute details about cell phone calls on 9-11?
I think one of the things that's interesting is that reputable scientists are starting to get onboard with taking apart the official story. This is a huge threat to those who put that story out. When a scientist who teaches at a major university and is widely published over a period of decades starts doing some simple experiments regarding things like the cell phone calls, people start to listen, and wonder. It can no longer be relegated to just 'nuts.'
Conspiracy theories are like crying wolf. There are real things happening out there, the more obviously flaky conspiracy theories Lefties believe in the less the population bothers to listen.
This phone thing is so clearly garbage that one wonders how anyone started this thread in the first place. It doesnt take more than a few Google searchs or a drive in a rural area to confirm that many cellphones work over 30 miles from a cell phone tower. One doesnt have to be an expecrt on microwaves to put two and two together and realize that there is no force that causes microwaves to go better horizontally than vertically. A single test by someone (who probably endangered the flight he was on since cellphones can cause interference with flight instruments) is put forward as proof when it means little. I can drive 50 miles on a backroad and at some point lose cellphone reception but all that proves is that there is no reception where I went not that 50 miles down any road will result in no reception.
The conspiracy theories about 9/11 have helped the proWar side MUCH MUCH more than they have helped the antiwar side. When Bush openly lies about something like Iraq, how is one to get this information out and differentiate it from all of the lefty conspiracy theories based on pseudoscience. When the general public hears any theory comming from the far left they automatically assume its just paranoid babbling.
Could that be what actually brought the plane down?
The Bush and Reagan connections to Bin Laden are real. This cellphone conspiracy, conspiracies about radio controlled planes, conspiracies about Israeli involvement in 9/11 and conspiracies about the Pentagon not getting hit cover up real information with enough bullshit to keep any sane person away.
Perhaps all of these conspiracy theories are part of some conspiracy to bury the trurh under truckloads of manure? :P
Swiss investigators believe that mobile phone interference may have helped cause last year's crash of Crossair flight LX498, which went down shortly after takeoff from the Zurich airport, killing all 10 passengers on board.
A Slovenian flight on the way to Sarajevo made an emergency landing last month after the cockpit fire alarm went off. Investigators say a cell phone left turned on in the luggage compartment triggered the erroneous warning.
To the frustration -- if not incredulity -- of airplane passengers, whose only option to communicate with someone on the ground is airplane seat-installed phones, the aviation industry touted these incidents as more proof that cell phone use in flight is dangerous.
"Beyond a shadow of a doubt, (handheld devices) can interfere under very precise circumstances," said John Sheehan, who headed an RTCA study showing that portable electronic devices could interfere with a plane's navigation and communication systems.
Rules and regulations are increasingly at odds with social, political and economic phenomena. On one hand, there are passengers who would like to see all portable electronic devices banned because they find them annoying -- even the ticking away at a laptop computer's keyboard, said U.S. Rep. John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tenn.). The use of laptop computers is generally allowed for the duration of flight and airplane-seat installed phones can be used any time.
"It's sort of like smoking," Duncan said in a July hearing on whether PEDs really pose a safety hazard to passengers. "When people ask, 'Do you mind if I smoke,' most people are too polite to tell them that they are, even though they hope secretly that they will not smoke. And in the same way, people really find people next to them, or near them, using laptop computers to be an annoying nuisance, too."
Because more people than ever before own cell phones (and are using them everywhere they go), and there are more flights -- and capacity flights -- than ever before, there are also more people wanting to use their cell phones during flights than ever before.
What's more, many of the reasons are unclear, especially since many airlines have FAA-approved, seat-installed cell phones of their own. It costs about $3 a minute to make an in-flight call in the United States; a 20-minute call costing $60 doesn't exactly make company accountants jump for joy.
"I question (the prohibition of cell phones in flight) because they have a telephone if you pay for it," said Larry Murphy, vice president of sales and marketing for Flying Food Group.
Besides, Murphy says, "In private jets you can use your own phone."
Then why are cell phones and other wireless devices not allowed during flights? This question is a growing concern because of the increase of business-purpose flights, when many passengers face pressures to maintain constant contact with the ground.
Both the airline industry and the Federal Communications Commission ban the use of cell phones aboard commercial flights. But they do it for different reasons, reasons which are contradictory and scientifically unsubstantiated, critics say.
Safety is the main concern, which Federal Aviation Administration officials say is reason enough for the ban. And there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, they argue, to strongly suggest that wireless devices can interfere with aircraft instruments.
The FAA used the findings of the RTCA, an independent aeronautics adviser, to justify the ban, although it leaves enforcement up to the airlines. The RTCA's three studies, published in 1963, 1988 and 1996, say handheld devices (excluding cell phones) should be banned during "critical phases of flight," which the airlines have interpreted as takeoffs and landings.
The studies don't include "intentional transmitting devices" such as cell phones and two-way pagers, because the organization did not receive the devices from the cell phone industry, planes from the aviation industry and funding to conduct the study. The RTCA works on a "volunteer basis so we had to rely on these people for the free use" of their equipment, Sheehan said.
The FAA recommendation doesn't extend to private jets, which have different rules.
The FCC has its own cell-phone ban, but it has nothing to do with airplane safety. The FCC says signals emitted by phones in the air could occupy multiple cell towers on the ground and cause interference with calls on the ground. This interference might even allow analog cell phone users to listen to others' conversations on the ground.
However, no study has been conducted to prove this. What's more, the ban does not extend to SprintPCS and AT&T wireless phones because of an FCC "oversight," according to a former FCC engineer.
SprintPCS and AT&T wireless phones use a different frequency than other cell phones. The oversight might imply that a user of either phone could use them in flight, but most, if not all, airlines adhere to FAA guidelines and prohibit all mobile phones anyway.
"You try to write the rules so that they cover everything," said Dale Hatfield, a former FCC engineer who is now telecommunications program director at the University of Colorado in Boulder. "Since the FAA has its own rules, there's not a lot of pressure to fix that."
Airlines generally abide by the FAA's recommendation, but what they don't tell passengers is that no agency -- not even the RTCA -- has come up with definitive evidence of portable electronic devices interfering with a plane's instruments.
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,41177,00.html
So for all you crazy conspiracy theorists, do you think the FCC made this rule to cover up 9/11?
I mean since you think cell calls from planes are impossible, what other reason could there be for such a rule by the FCC?
"The effects of crying wolf" sums up my interest in this. I am tired of being treated like an Elvis is alive believer whenever I question the US government role in9-11. All these theories that are in CONSPIRACY NUTS and bolt and the many that CNB admits to have never heard of seem to come up in response.
It there is any vested interest in conspiracy debunking its in NOT having it debunked so that Bush ties to Bin Laden are always linked to the secret C-130 and the fabricated cell phone stories.
Sorry about not getting your Strawmammals straight. When I was in training in Langley to relentlessly attack these stories I was auditing the "Debunking UFO Anal Probe Story" class when the dictionaries were passed out.
I did find this interesting statement on the same site. This opens even more possiblities.
QUOTE:
By Spring 2004, an invasive mind control technology known as a "Frequency Fence" is slated for implementation onto global society. This Frequency Fence is a bio-neurological, electromagnetic induced form of mind control which will block your higher sensory abilities. A literal "perceptual harness" or "mental prison" will be built around you without you even knowing it is happening, and the scariest part is, your five senses will not alert to you that anything is wrong.
It cannot be said that the Faraday attenuation experiment (Part Three) was complete, in the sense that the operator normally held the phone to his ear, seated in a normal position. This meant that the signals from the test phones were only partially attenuated because the operator was surrounded by windows that are themselves radio-transparent.
Although we cannot say yet to what degree the heavier aluminum skin on a Boeing 700-series aircraft would affect cellphone calls made from within the aircraft, they would not be without some effect as windows take up a much smaller solid angle at the cellphone antenna. Signals have a much smaller window area to escape through, in general.
As was shown above, the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. To calculate the probability that two such calls will succeed involves elementary probability theory. The resultant probability is the product of the two probabilities, taken separately. In other words, the probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand. In the case of a hundred such calls, even if a large majority fail, the chance of, say 13 calls getting through can only be described as infinitesimal. In operational terms, this means "impossible."
At lower altitudes the probability of connection changes from impossible to varying degrees of "unlikely." But here, a different phenomenon asserts itself, a phenomenon that cannot be tested in a propellor-driven light aircraft. At 500 miles per hour, a low-flying aircraft passes over each cell in a very short time. For example if a cell (area serviced by a given cellsite) were a mile in diameter, the aircraft would be in it for one to eight seconds. Before a cellphone call can go through, the device must complete an electronic "handshake" with the cellsite servicing the call. This handshake can hardly be completed in eight seconds. When the aircraft comes into the next cell, the call must be "handed off" to the new cellsite. This process also absorbs seconds of time. Together, the two requirements for a successful and continuous call would appear to absorb too much time for a speaking connection to be established. Sooner or later, the call is "dropped."
This assessment is borne out by both earwitness testimony and by expert opinion, as found in Appendix B, below. Taking the consistency of theoretical prediction and expert opinion at face value, it seems fair to conclude that cellphone calls (at any altitude) from fast-flying aircraft are no more likely to get through than cellphone calls from high-flying slow aircraft.
A. K. Dewdney, <br> April 19th 2003
The author has not placed his university affiliations below his name, as the research described here was not conducted with any university facilities or supported by university-administered grants. He currently holds the titles of Professor Emeritus of Computer Science and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the University of Western Ontario, as well as Professor of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo.
http://www.physics911.org/911/index.php/docs/15
It cannot be said that the Faraday attenuation experiment (Part Three) was complete, in the sense that the operator normally held the phone to his ear, seated in a normal position. This meant that the signals from the test phones were only partially attenuated because the operator was surrounded by windows that are themselves radio-transparent.
Although we cannot say yet to what degree the heavier aluminum skin on a Boeing 700-series aircraft would affect cellphone calls made from within the aircraft, they would not be without some effect as windows take up a much smaller solid angle at the cellphone antenna. Signals have a much smaller window area to escape through, in general.
As was shown above, the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. To calculate the probability that two such calls will succeed involves elementary probability theory. The resultant probability is the product of the two probabilities, taken separately. In other words, the probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand. In the case of a hundred such calls, even if a large majority fail, the chance of, say 13 calls getting through can only be described as infinitesimal. In operational terms, this means "impossible."
At lower altitudes the probability of connection changes from impossible to varying degrees of "unlikely." But here, a different phenomenon asserts itself, a phenomenon that cannot be tested in a propellor-driven light aircraft. At 500 miles per hour, a low-flying aircraft passes over each cell in a very short time. For example if a cell (area serviced by a given cellsite) were a mile in diameter, the aircraft would be in it for one to eight seconds. Before a cellphone call can go through, the device must complete an electronic "handshake" with the cellsite servicing the call. This handshake can hardly be completed in eight seconds. When the aircraft comes into the next cell, the call must be "handed off" to the new cellsite. This process also absorbs seconds of time. Together, the two requirements for a successful and continuous call would appear to absorb too much time for a speaking connection to be established. Sooner or later, the call is "dropped."
This assessment is borne out by both earwitness testimony and by expert opinion, as found in Appendix B, below. Taking the consistency of theoretical prediction and expert opinion at face value, it seems fair to conclude that cellphone calls (at any altitude) from fast-flying aircraft are no more likely to get through than cellphone calls from high-flying slow aircraft.
A. K. Dewdney, <br> April 19th 2003
The author has not placed his university affiliations below his name, as the research described here was not conducted with any university facilities or supported by university-administered grants. He currently holds the titles of Professor Emeritus of Computer Science and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the University of Western Ontario, as well as Professor of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo.
http://www.physics911.org/911/index.php/docs/15