In article <bj0lk8$b8h$1@pencil.math.missouri.edu>, President, USA Exile Govt.
says...
+ GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA IN EXILE +
Free Americans Reaching Out to Amerika's Huddled Masses
Yearning to Breathe Free
Via
<prez@usa-exile.org>
September 1, 2003
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Professor A. K. Dewdney's final report below on airborne
cellphone use is critically important good news.
For months many of us have been waiting patiently for someone to
step forward with evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the Rogue
US Government (RUSG) aided and abetted the brutal attacks of
September 11, 2001. Now at last someone has.
RUSG's spin masters have thus far been able to mystify most US
citizens into believing that RUSG was merely inefficient during that
fateful morning nearly two years ago. It will be fun to watch them
try to spin Prof. Dewdney's evidence, which is every bit as firm as
the evidence leading to a conclusion that two plus two are four.
No free jury in any court of law could possibly conclude that
thirteen cellphone calls were made from those airliners while they
were at cruising altitude. No!
I am deeply thankful to Prof. Dewdney for providing all of us
with such a much-needed clarification of what has been the most
influential event in recent decades.
Yours
for all species,
Keith
Lampe, Ponderosa Pine
Transitional President
PS: Can anybody provide an eaddress and/or phone number for Stanley
Hilton? These findings below will be helpful to him in his
class-action litigation on behalf of the families of 9-11 victims.
=======================================================================
The feasibility of using cellphones at high altitude:
'Project Achilles' - Final Report and Summary of Findings
by A. K. Dewdney - 19th April 2003
During the early months of the year 2003, the author conducted three
experiments to determine whether and how well cellphones could be
operated from aircraft. The first flight (Part One) was essentially a
probe of the experimental situation, to acquire some primary data and
to work out a simple, readily implemented protocol. The results of
Part Two (Diamond Katana 4-seater) have already appeared in these
pages. The results of Part Three (Cessna 172-R) appear immediately
below.
Since this completes the suite of experiments, it is appropriate to
summarize the findings and to draw some conclusions. The conclusions
are based partly on the experiments and partly on two other sources.
(See Appendix B at the end of the report.) Expert opinion and
eyewitness testimony are acceptable not only in court, but in certain
scientific inquiries where events are of short duration or
experiments are too expensive or impossible to carry out. Of course,
eyewitness accounts do not carry the same weight as expert opinions
or actual experiments, but the eyewitness accounts quoted below seem
to be both consistent and compelling.
Disclaimer: The companies hired to assist in this experiment, namely
Empire Aviation and Cellular Solutions, both of London, Ontario,
Canada, acted as disinterested commercial parties, with no stake in
the outcome or even knowledge of the purpose of the tests.
-------------------------------------------
Part Three - April 19th 2003
The previous experiment, called Part Two, established a distinct
trend of decreasing cellphone functionality with altitude. It was
conducted in a four-seater Diamond Katana over the city of London
(pop. 300,000), Ontario in Canada, an area richly supplied with some
35 cellsites distributed over an area of about 25 square miles. The
flight path was an upward spiral, punctuated every 2000 feet (abga)
with a level circuit around the outskirts of the city. On each
circuit a fixed number of cellphone calls were attempted by an expert
operator employing a battery of well-charged phones broadly
representative of those on the market both currently and in the year
2001.
(It should be remarked that not only is the cellphone technological
base in Canada identical to its US counterpart, but Canadian
communication technology is second to none, Canada being a
world-leader in research and development.)
The purpose of Part Three was to test the effects of what might be
called "Faraday attenuation" on the strength and success of calls.
The presence of a metallic shell around some electronic devices can
alter their behavior by its ability to attract and store electrons,
especially electromagnetic waves. For this reason, the experimental
craft was switched from the Katana, which is supposed to be
relatively transparent to em radiation, to an aircraft with an
aluminum skin, as below.
Equipment:
* Cessna 172-R (2002) four-seater (Empire Aviation)
* cellphones: C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 (See Appendix A for descriptions.)
Personnel:
* Corey Barrington (pilot - Empire Aviation)
* Darren Spicknell (operator - technician for Wireless Concepts, Inc)
* Kee Dewdney (director)
* Pat Dewdney (ground recorder)
Weather: unlimited ceiling, light scattered cloud at 5,000,
solid/broken 24,000 feet, visibility 12 miles, wind 11 knots from
SSW, air temperature +19 C.
=46or this experiment, we flew the same circular route as we did in
Part Two, The circle centered on the downtown core and took us over
most of the city suburbs. All locations below are referred to the
city centre and are always about two miles distant from it.
Protocol:
At times specified by the director, the operator made a call to a
specified number, stating the code number of the cellphone (1 to 5)
and the altitude. The ground recorder noted whatever was heard and
the time the call was received. At the first two altitudes of 2000,
4000 above ground altitude (abga) each cellphone was used once. At
6000 and 8000 feet abga, each cellphone was used twice only C2, C3,
and C5 were tried, C1 and C4 being hors de combat.
Results with timeline:
time (pm) call no. C# loc. operator recorder
7:05 - started taxi to runway
7:12 - takeoff
7:15 - at 2000 feet (aboveground altitude)
7:17 Call #1 C1 N success clear, slight breakup
7:18 Call #2 C2 W success clear
7:20 Call #3 C3 SW success clear
7:22 Call #4 C4 S success (2 tries) clear
7:23 Call #5 C5 SE success clear
7:27 - climbed to 4000 feet abga
7:28 Call #6 C1 NE success clear
7:30 Call #7 C2 N success clear
7:31 Call #8 C3 NW "success" (frag) no complete word
7:32 Call #9 C4 W failure no ring
7:34 Call #10 C5 SW success clear
7:35 - climbed to 6000 feet abga
7:39 Call #11 C1 SE success clear
7:41 Call #12 C2 E success clear
7:42 Call #13 C3 E success clear, slight breakup
7:44 Call #14 C4 NE failure no ring
7:44 Call #15 C5 NE failure no ring
7:45 Call #16 C1 N failure no ring
7:46 Call #17 C2 N success clear
7:47 Call #18 C3 NW failure no ring
7:48 Call #19 C4 NW failure no ring
7:49 Call # 20 C5 W success clear
7:50 Call #21 C1 W failure no ring
7:51 Call #22 C2 SW failure no ring
7:52 Call #23 C3 SW failure no ring
7:53 Call #24 C4 S failure no ring
7:54 Call #25 C5 S success clear
7:55 - begin climb to 8000 feet abga (cellphones C2, C3 and C5)
7:55 Call #26 C2 SE failure no ring
7:57 Call #27 C3 E failure no ring
7:59 Call #28 C5 E success clear, slight breakup
8:00 - completed climb to 8000 feet abga
8:01 Call #29 C2 NE failure no ring
8:02 Call #30 C3 NE failure no ring
8:03 Call #31 C5 N failure no ring
8:04 Call #32 C2 NW success clear
8:05 Call #33 C3 NW failure no ring
8:07 Call #34 C5 W failure no ring
8:20 - landed at airport
The following table summarizes the results:
altitude (feet) calls tried calls successful percent success
2000 5 5 100%
4000 5 3 60%
6000 15 6 40%
8000 15 2 13%
Note: calls "tried" includes retired cellphones C1 and C4 above the
altitude of 4000 feet where, in the opinion of the cellphone expert,
they would have failed to get through, in any case. Failure to
include them in the count would make the results at different
altitudes non-comparable.
The results of this experiment may be compared to the results from
Part Two where, instead of the Cessna, we used the Diamond Katana:
altitude (feet) calls tried calls successful percent success
2000 4 3 75%
4000 4 1 25%
6000 12 2 17%
8000 20 1 5%
To make the results comparable, however, cellphone C5 was omitted
>from the calculations, since it was not used in the first experiment.
altitude (feet) calls tried calls successful percent success
2000 4 3 75%
4000 4 1 25%
6000 12 2 17%
8000 12 1 8%
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%
The data from the first three altitudes appear to fit an
inverse-linear model of attenuation. In other words, the probability
of a call getting through varies inversely as the altitude, according
to the formula:
Probability of success =3D k/altitude, where k is a constant
It will be noted that the values of k implied by these data, at least
up to 6000 feet abga are remarkably consistent. However, at 8000 feet
the k-value falls precipitously, implying that a different regime may
be in play.
altitude (feet) k-value
2000 1780
4000 1760
6000 1800
8000 720
The expected model of attenuation with distance is of course inverse
squared, a natural consequence of the three dimensions that any
uniform radiation must travel through. Inverse squared attenuation
follows a slightly different pattern or formula:
Probability of success =3D k/altitude=A9=97
To estimate k, it seems reasonable to use the data from 4000 feet and
8000 feet as benchmarks for the calculation of the constant k (not
the same constant as was used in the foregoing analysis, of course.)
At 4000 feet abga the implied k-value if 7,040,000, while at 8000
feet, the implied k-value is 5,760,000. although here again the
k-value appears to drop (indicating that the actual attenuation may
be worse than inverse squared), we use an average of the two
estimates, following our consistent practice of always giving the
benefit of the doubt to the cellphones, so to speak.
Taking an average value of k =3D 6,400,000, we obtain the formula,
Probability of success =3D 6,400,000/altitude=A9=97
Using this formula, we can get a best-case estimate for the
probability of cellphone success from a slow-moving light aircraft,
as summarized in the following table.
altitude (feet) probability of cellphone call getting through
4,000 0.400
8,000 0.100
12,000 0.040
16,000 0.025
20,000 0.016
24,000 0.011
28,000 0.008
32,000 0.006
Private pilots flying light aircraft are nowadays familiar with the
fact that they may use their cellphones to make calls to the ground,
at least if they are not higher than one or two thousand feet. Above
that altitude, calls get rather iffy, sometimes working, sometimes
not. The higher a pilot ascends, the less likely the call is to get
through. At 8000 feet the pilot will not get through at all unless he
or she happens to be using a cellphone with the same capabilities as
C5 (See appendix A.) But even that cellphone begins to fail at 6000
feet.
Calls from 20,000 feet have barely a one-in-a-hundred chance of succeeding.
The results just arrived at apply only to light aircraft and are
definitely optimal in the sense that cellphone calls from large,
heavy-skinned, fast-moving jetliners are apt to be considerably worse.
Conclusions:
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX A: Cellphone types
* C1 - Motorola i95cl - Telus Mike Network - 800 Mhz IDEN
* C2 - Motorola StarTac - Bell Mobility - 800 Mhz Analog
* C3 - Audiovox 8300 - Telus PCS Network - 1.9 Ghz CDMA / 800 MHz
* C4 - Nokia 6310i - Rogers AT&T - 1.9 Ghz GHz GSM. (Tri-Band -
Has an 1.8 GHz and 900 Mhz GSM these are European frequencies)
* C5 - Motorola Timeport 8767 - Bell Mobility - 800 MHz Analog
(CDMA Tri-Mode 1.9 GHz CDMA / 800 Mhz CDMA)
APPENDIX B: Letters
Professional opinions
==========================================================
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 <email on request>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------
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.
=46irst 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>
________________________
Applying Science to Uncover the Truth
Copyright 2003