In article <ep6g30pmvu5tffbuhutsj1jas90vtbt69a@4ax.com>, Patty Brooks says...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:55:36 GMT, someone named Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers Å.S.Å. <nospam@newsranger.com>, wrote:
URGENT: 9-11 Cellphone Stories Were Lies!
September 1, 2003
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
A few MAJOR flaws in your theory:
1. New York and the beltway have a greater concentration of cell
towers than Ontario, ergo more connections over a greater area.
2. The airplanes took off from Boston, and then were quickly
overtaken, and never really achieved maximum flight Cell phones use
anywhere from .6 to 6 watts of power. It only takes 5 W to reach a
satellite.. If cell phones didn't work on airplanes, why do they offer
them in the seats.
Get a clue.
3. The number of people that used the cell phones exceeded your number
of ONE. If MANY people tried it, even at 60%, you would still have
people making connections.
Piss Poor thinking does not constitute facts, and you have VERY piss
poor thinking.
The only difference is I deal with REAL facts, not made-up ones.
Your "guessing" is what most guesses end up being: WRONG
URGENT: 9-11 Cellphone Stories Were Lies!
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.
====================================================================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 havetrouble 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>
==========================================================
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.
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>
!
Patty
http://www.boysandgirlsclubmiami.com
Proud Recipient
API's Most-Hated Babysitter, 2000, 2001, 2002 & 2003