# "We Know in 2001 Cell Phones Worked Up To 50,000 Feet and..."



## CurveLight (Feb 21, 2010)

Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics.  He never supports that claim, but since he said it then it must be true!  Unfortunately, the facts do not support his claim.  The HC is running its old bullshit "look at 9E" which is really just airwave fodder for people gullible and insecure enough to simply accept what the government says and to not question such stellar publications such as Poopular Mekanics.  

Here's some info:

"Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls." (WP,July 27, 2004)

Aviation Week (07/20/04) described this new technology in an authoritative report published in July 2004:

"Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring [July 2004] ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to- ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground. For the test flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, the aircraft was equipped with an antenna in the front and rear of the cabin to transmit cell phone calls to a small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station. This "pico cell" transmitted cell phone calls from the aircraft via a Globalstar satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network"


Needless to say, neither the service, nor the "third generation" hardware, nor the "Picco cell" CDMA base station inside the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11, 2001."
The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls

Wow.  There was not a whole lot of buzz about those announcements.  How do OCTAs defend the claim cell calls were possible?

I went on about 6 flights between Boston and Nebraska between 2005 and 2006 and my cell signal dropped shortly after take off and didn't come back until after landing and this was the usual for other passengers trying to use their cells as well.  Personal experiences aside, there is no evidence cell phones would have been operational on 9/11 from those altitudes and speeds.  For flight 77 the first claimed cell call occurred at 9:12 am.  According to the flight path by the 9E CR, flight 77 would have been too high and traveling too fast for calls to be possible.  

I have no doubt nobody can prove cell phones were capable of conversational operations on 9/11 on flight 77 at 9:12 am.  Is there anyone who can prove that was possible?  I've provided evidence it was not possible.  I anticipate two usual events:  the usual dickless whiny wonders of fizzbitch, Snitch Bitch, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 22, 2010)

Bimpety-bump-bump


----------



## Shorebreak (Feb 23, 2010)

I can't say that I agree with the above claims. Flight 93 was flying at very low altitude for a long enough timeframe that it's definitely possible that some passengers were able to make a telephone call. Also, in 2001 nearly all airlines had an Airphone in each row. 

I don't know all of the technical details or evidence that may be available to suport or deny cell phone claims - meaning prospective evidence that actual cell phone calls were made from the cells that the flights passed through - but I do know that it's possible that some people who received phone calls were under the impression that the call was placed via cell phone, when in fact the calls may have been placed by Airphone.

So there's certainly room for question here, considering that claims were made that passengers made cell phone calls when in 2001 it was nearly impossible to make a cell call from an airplane at cruising altitude. But with so much room for confusion or error, this "question" has no meat behind it until we can see the technical records that either support or refute the claims.

It's definitely a concern that needs clarification but it's not something that you can hang your hat on as evidence of a conspiracy. If you really want to post some dirt do some research on Dave Frasca and some of the material that he systematically buried in order to keep the hijackers off the radar. Take a look at what Coleen Rowley had to say about that. 

Then take a look at who the White House assigned earlier in 2001 as the final authority on responding to airline hijackings. 

There's much more meat in the unquestionable actions of our senior leadership than there is in many of the specualitve events that may have occured while the attacks were unfolding. From a prosecutors persepective I'd build my case on top of an irrefutable foundation of documented activities that were conducted in the months leading up to 9/11.

By the time we started into events that unfolded on the actual day of the attack, every juror in the house would be fully aware of how the environment was prepared to enable the attackers to be successful, but they'd also be aware of documented motive, opportunity, and pre-planning for the official response to the attacks.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 23, 2010)

Seatback phones.  Give it some thought.


----------



## JenyEliza (Feb 23, 2010)

I have a telecom background.

I can confirm for you that cell phones, CDMA, GSM or iDen, would NOT work on ANY standard aircraft not equipped with a basic "repeater" type base station.  Especially NOT in 2001, since.....

As pointed out in the snippets you posted, that kind of air-to-ground mobile technology was only in the proof-of-concept stage around 2004/5, IIRC.  Up until the actual in flight testing, all the industry had was a LOT of white papers wriitten by pencil-head, pocket protector Network Engineers.

That's it.

My most recent background is in Wireless Tech Support for both 3 and 4G devices.

You can take my word for it, or not.  

That is all.

Jen


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics.



Some guy?

Do you happen to have a link to this quote or the person's name?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

Shorebreak said:


> I can't say that I agree with the above claims. Flight 93 was flying at very low altitude for a long enough timeframe that it's definitely possible that some passengers were able to make a telephone call. Also, in 2001 nearly all airlines had an Airphone in each row.
> 
> I don't know all of the technical details or evidence that may be available to suport or deny cell phone claims - meaning prospective evidence that actual cell phone calls were made from the cells that the flights passed through - but I do know that it's possible that some people who received phone calls were under the impression that the call was placed via cell phone, when in fact the calls may have been placed by Airphone.
> 
> ...




I don't know about the other flights.  I specifically cited flight 77 because at 9:12 it was at cruising altitude (about 30,000 ft) yet it is claimed a cell call was made from a flight attendant.  It's so bizarre the guy from popular mechanics actually claimed cell phones would work up to 50,000 feet.  I'm also not citing this as proof positive of a conspiracy theory.  This is just a piece in the puzzle and the "meat" of this question is looking at the fact there is no hard evidence any call from 77 was made.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics.
> ...




It was David Coburn who works for PM.  Here's a bitch session link about the "documentary" by the Hist Channel.

"For instance Davin Coburn made the preposterous statement that in 2001 cell phone technology would work at 50,000 feet."
Right Wing Nut House  9/11 TRUTHERS GUT PUNCHED BY HISTORY CHANNEL


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 23, 2010)

JenyEliza said:


> I have a telecom background.
> 
> I can confirm for you that cell phones, CDMA, GSM or iDen, would NOT work on ANY standard aircraft not equipped with a basic "repeater" type base station.  Especially NOT in 2001, since.....
> 
> ...



My cell phone has an Aircraft mode option.  Not sure what it does as I have never tried it.

Cell phone useage on airliners cause the airliners guidance system to lock on to the tallest structures/objects around.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Seatback phones.  Give it some thought.




Seatback phones don't have anything to do with the op.  However, it is encouraging that even after looking for evidence about cells working that high and fast the best you can come up with is an immediate distraction.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> JenyEliza said:
> 
> 
> > I have a telecom background.
> ...



That option shuts down all transmission capabilities so you can use non-data features and be in compliance with the law.  Otherwise, you could be asked to turn your phone completely off.

That does not mean cells worked on planes in flight.  It only means it was a precaution regarding possible data transmission corruption between cells and avionics.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

Here's another thought.  How many people have experienced dropped calls while walking? Driving?  If you can lose a signal moving 50mph on the ground then what makes anyone think it would work at 30,000+ feet moving at 450+ mph?


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > JenyEliza said:
> ...



thanks.  I always just turned mine off when I flew.
I goubt if I will fly any more so it does not matter to me.


----------



## JenyEliza (Feb 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > JenyEliza said:
> ...




Exactly.  What it means is that in airplane mode, rather than turn your phone off completely it will only sort of be turned off.  You cannot use your phone in flight to make/place calls, access the internet, download email or documents, etc in airplane mode.

However, you CAN use your phone to access games like pac-man and other smartphone apps and features that don't require transmission capabilty or internet access.

In otherwords, it makes your phone a semi-brick, but keeps you in compliance with FCC and NTSB rules.

Hope this helps.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 23, 2010)

JenyEliza said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



thanks, why didn't they label it Pacifier mode?  For the cell phone junkies.


----------



## JenyEliza (Feb 23, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> JenyEliza said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Cell phone junkies live in denial---just like any addict.  

You go labeling it "Pacifier Mode", they have to admit they're addicted to their Crackberry.  

See?


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 23, 2010)

JenyEliza said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > JenyEliza said:
> ...



Ahh yes marketing....


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> JenyEliza said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Saliva kills circuit boards......


----------



## candycorn (Feb 23, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> JenyEliza said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



I wish there was a pacifier mode for some people on message boards.  LOL


----------



## JenyEliza (Feb 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > JenyEliza said:
> ...



This is true.....

And water/saliva damage is NOT covered under replacement warranty coverage by ANY provider---ATT, Verizon, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, MetroPCS, etc etc etc.

So, you suck on your phone, you're screwed!  

Just say NO and put it away for the flight.


----------



## JenyEliza (Feb 23, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> JenyEliza said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Yes.  Marketing.

You think a Crackberry Addict is gonna buy a phone for a few hundred bucks that has a "Pacifier Mode" instead of "Airplane Mode"?  

Somehow I don't think that will make them feel all smug and important using their smartphone on a plane, ya think?


----------



## candycorn (Feb 23, 2010)

> Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes.
> 
> Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.
> 
> ...



Final Contact

It's pretty obvious that AT&T--a leader in phone technology--will be thought of as being "in on it" by the conspiracy whackjobs.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 23, 2010)

JenyEliza said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



I saw a commercial for a water resistant cell phone yesterday.  I forget the company though.

Mil Specs they called it.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 23, 2010)

What range do cell towers have? Anyone have any links?


----------



## candycorn (Feb 23, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> What range do cell towers have? Anyone have any links?



I haven't looked too much for links just now but I recall hearing that the range is different in cities versus rural towers.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

candycorn said:


> > Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes.
> >
> > Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.
> >
> ...




That quote from AT+T is in the OP link.  You could have saved yourself some googling time by reading it but this helps prove you are not interested in information...which is why you didn't read the OP link.  Why would anyone claim AT+T is "in on it?" Your link, which is in the OP link, does not support the OCT.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > What range do cell towers have? Anyone have any links?
> ...



Rural towers have weaker signals.  There are some idiots out there who have tried to claim the calls on the planes were possible due to lack of interference of being in the sky......ugh.  Idiots.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

JenyEliza said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



I bought the extra insurance, which covered water, and it was well worth it.  After paying the $50 deductible when mine got wet I got an extra accessory kit with a new case, battery, adapters, and set of headphones.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 23, 2010)

I hate to break it to you but your premise is wrong.



A NASA report from *2001*[6] summarizes "14 years of incidents reported by pilots to the ASRS" of interference caused, or suspected to be caused, by passenger electronic devices. *Mobile phones were the most frequently identified source of interference*, with laptop computers a close second. In no cases were the affected avionics found to be defective upon later testing. Degrees of correlation or confidence were not among the data summarized in the report.
Mobile phones on aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

Ravi said:


> I hate to break it to you but your premise is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I've already stated many phones have a plane mode due to interference with avionics so....how....exactly does your wiki link respond to the premise?


----------



## Fizz (Feb 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Seatback phones.  Give it some thought.
> ...



you have a lot of fucking nerve calling the seat back phone comment a distraction. your entire thread is a "distraction".....

Renee May called her parents at 9:12. the call lasted for several minutes. she instructed her parents to call American Airlines and report the hijacking and gave her parents the phone numbers.

Renee May's parents DID call American Airlines and reported the hijacking BEFORE the plane hit the pentagon.

unless you are claiming all this did NOT happen then the entire thread is a "distraction" as it doesnt matter how the call was made. it obviously was made. it doesnt matter how strong cell phone signals are or if cell phones were used at all. the phone call was made, jackass.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




The 9E CR says the call was made with her cell phone.  I forget the schedule?  Is this the week you guys don't care what the 9E CR says?  Or is this a week where you say it is accurate?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The 9E CR says the call was made with her cell phone.  I forget the schedule?  Is this the week you guys don't care what the 9E CR says?  Or is this a week where you say it is accurate?



Can you please tell me what page of the CR that statement is on? I did a search for "Renee" and "cell phone" and find no statement about Renee making the call from her cell phone.

Here's the link to the CR I used. Maybe you can find it *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf*


----------



## Fizz (Feb 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



are you claiming the call was not made?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 23, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The 9E CR says the call was made with her cell phone.  I forget the schedule?  Is this the week you guys don't care what the 9E CR says?  Or is this a week where you say it is accurate?
> ...


It doesn't say cell phone.



> At 9:12, Renee May called her mother,Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said
> her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the
> rear of the plane. She asked her mother to alert American Airlines. Nancy May
> and her husband promptly did so.



Regardless, the premise is stupid. It is possible to make cell phone calls from aboard flights...coverage might be bad and/or spotty but they are possible to an extent.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 23, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Whenever you ask him to take a stand, he runs.  That tells you ALL you need to know about curvelight.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 23, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Curvelight? Did you make this up or are you looking at another version of the CR?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 23, 2010)

Helloooo??? Curvy????


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




You say the premise is "stupid" but you have not presented any evidence to back up your claim cell calls were plausible.....especially at 30,000 feet.  The op presents evidence it is not a reasonable assumption.  What else you got?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 23, 2010)

> Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on *analog networks*, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.


Communications - New Perspective on the Issue of Cell Phone Use in Planes - NYTimes.com


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

Ravi said:


> > Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on *analog networks*, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.
> 
> 
> Communications - New Perspective on the Issue of Cell Phone Use in Planes - NYTimes.com



Are you fucking serious?  Please tell me you posted that azz a joke.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Did you make up the statement that the CR said Renee made the call from her cell phone? Yes or no?


----------



## JenyEliza (Feb 23, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> JenyEliza said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



That would mostly likely be Sprint Nextel or Boost (a wholly owned company of Sprint Nextel).

The handset you saw was probably manufactured by Motorola for Boost or Sprint Nextel to use on the iDen network.  

They have several versions built to MilSpecs, that are available to contractors, builders, welders, tradesmen, mechanics, and other regular members of the public whose occupation or just plain harsh treatment of their device requires a really TOUGH phone that can withstand battlefield conditions.

Those phones are nearly indestructible.  They're made that way purposefully.  They're good phones.  You can't kill 'em.

But there's a hitch: They're usually very expensive unless you sign a long-term contract (ie, 2 years).


----------



## JenyEliza (Feb 23, 2010)

Ravi said:


> > Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on *analog networks*, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.
> 
> 
> Communications - New Perspective on the Issue of Cell Phone Use in Planes - NYTimes.com



There are NO analog cell phone networks currently in operation.   The last analog networks were taken down several years ago.

Just FYI.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2010)

During 1989 through 1991 the US Army fielded a new telecommunications system. It was called MSE or Mobile Subscriber Equipment. It was basically a Cellular telephone network.

I never used it to talk to anyone in a plane but the phones did work in helicopters. Up to 15 Kilometers in any direction. I would guess up is a direction. 

Anyway my bet is that the civilian cell networks grew from much of the military technology.

Those phones should work from aircraft if there are towers available. Key word here being should.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > > Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on *analog networks*, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.
> ...


No joke. Perhaps you should do a little research next time before you embarrass yourself...like you've done twice in this thread already.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 23, 2010)

JenyEliza said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > > Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on *analog networks*, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.
> ...


Really? hahahahaha! You silly twit, they existed on 9/11.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> During 1989 through 1991 the US Army fielded a new telecommunications system. It was called MSE or Mobile Subscriber Equipment. It was basically a Cellular telephone network.
> 
> I never used it to talk to anyone in a plane but the phones did work in helicopters. Up to 15 Kilometers in any direction. I would guess up is a direction.
> 
> ...


Black helicopters?


----------



## JenyEliza (Feb 23, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> What range do cell towers have? Anyone have any links?



Depends on who owns the tower, what type of technology it supports (ie, iDen, CDMA, GSM, WiMax, etc).

Generally speaking, you need to understand the basic way these towers work.  They "ping" from one tower to another, so to speak.  You place a call and it hits the nearest tower, when you reach that tower's end range, it automatically hands you off to the next closest tower, and you "ping" that tower, and so on and so forth as you travel (normally this is terrestrial travel, not air travel, at least until the technology became available to use cell phones from the air, which IIRC was not until well after 2001).

-------------------
WiMax towers cover an entire city, they transmit data traffic only and provide 4G access to the internet that is lightyears faster than cable, satellite or DSL.  It can be used from a moving car with a mobile device and laptop, from a park with a laptop, from home, or just about any other place you can think of.  

iDen would tend to have a fairly long reach with PTT (push to talk), ranging over most metropolitan areas of larger cities.

GSM has shorter range (a mile or maybe two per tower), but broad reach (in terms of being able to use your handset here and abroad).

CDMA would have the longest reach, but would still only be a few miles (3-5 miles per tower).

These are just estimates I recall off the top of my head.  Could do some research, but I'm not a big conspiracy nut.  

I just have a Telecom background and find it terribly difficult to believe that in *2001* cell phones were in use on *any* aircraft AND able to place and hold calls on the terresterial network without a repeater or other specialized equipment installed on the aircraft to facilitate handling the voice traffic.  

As a Telecom specialist, as far as I am concerned, it was NOT possible in 2001.

Ya'll can take my word for it, or not.   I don't care.


----------



## JenyEliza (Feb 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> During 1989 through 1991 the US Army fielded a new telecommunications system. It was called MSE or Mobile Subscriber Equipment. It was basically a Cellular telephone network.
> 
> I never used it to talk to anyone in a plane but the phones did work in helicopters. Up to 15 Kilometers in any direction. I would guess up is a direction.
> 
> ...



While it is true that the military has collaborated with private sector Telcom firms on handset development and technology development, as far as I know the MSE is ONLY available to military personnel.

I am unaware of ANY commercial Telcom which provides cell phone access to private commercial customers on MSE.

The available commercial networks in the USA are:  iDen, CDMA, GPRS and GSM.

MSE is NOT available to the general public.


----------



## JenyEliza (Feb 23, 2010)

Ravi said:


> JenyEliza said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I am aware of that you stupid dolt.

I was simply pointing out that they no longer exist for the chronically stupid in this thread.

Some of the stupidity I've seen here in this thread is bordering on comic book material.

MSE for civilians.    ROFLMAOPIMP!

Oh.  My.  Gawd.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2010)

JenyEliza said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > JenyEliza said:
> ...



I didn't say that a civilian would have access to MSE, I said or meant to be understood as saying that civilian cell networks could have been designed after or used some of the military technology, Same as in many things we take for granted. 

Like I wouldn't know that civilians cannot access military systems? Please.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> During 1989 through 1991 the US Army fielded a new telecommunications system. It was called MSE or Mobile Subscriber Equipment. It was basically a Cellular telephone network.
> 
> I never used it to talk to anyone in a plane but the phones did work in helicopters. Up to 15 Kilometers in any direction. I would guess up is a direction.
> 
> ...




Key phrase: piss poor extrapolations do not lead to explanations.

There have already been links posted explaining why cell phones don't work on aircraft and definitely not up to 50,000 feet as claimed by poopular mekanics.


----------



## groupthink (Feb 23, 2010)

more conspiracy BS...   just believe the official story and shut the hell up.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



If that's the best you can do then.....thanks for stopping by.  The op link has much more verifiable information showing in flight calls at cruising altitude would have been nearly impossible.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

groupthink said:


> more conspiracy BS...   just believe the official story and shut the hell up.




Oh man.  You're a genius! (follow the sheep follow the sheep)


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> JenyEliza said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




Your guess work on this is a waste of time as we already know in flight cell calls were not feasible, especially at 30,000 feet.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The 9E CR says the call was made with her cell phone.  I forget the schedule?  Is this the week you guys don't care what the 9E CR says?  Or is this a week where you say it is accurate?
> ...




You're absolutely correct about the final report as it does not definitively provide proof how the calls were made nor where they came from.  I apologize for claiming the CR said May's calls came from a cell.  I believe I had read that regarding one of the Hearings but it was not included in the final report.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 23, 2010)

JenyEliza said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > > Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on *analog networks*, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.
> ...



in 2002 the FCC decided to abandon the analog cell phone network in 2008. cell companies were no longer required to provide an analog signal starting in february 2008.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



and the point of all this is what, exactly? 

are you claiming that Renee May never called her parents? Her parents never called american airlines on the numbers renee may gave them?

are the May's lying?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 23, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



The point is simple:  there is no hard evidence proving calls from 77 were made.  That is an indisputable fact.  I don't know why you think so little of the Mays you would suggest they are lying but I don't care.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



fact #1
Renee May called her parents. 

fact #2
May's parents called american airlines on the number provided by renee.

sir, that is hard evidence unless you are claiming the Mays did not receive the phone call and they did not call american airlines. i am not the one suggesting they are lying. by claiming there is no evidence of phone calls you are the one claiming they are lying.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Of course it does...if you're a troofer. If you are capable of rationality, not so much.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Amazingly the same question was being asked of him weeks ago.  He didn't answer then; not answering now.  Speaks volumes for his "command" of the subject.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You're so fucking stoopid you don't realize your "#1" fact is taking a #2 all over your inability to analyze and you clearly don't know what hard evidence means.

You're also such a lying shitbag you accuse me of saying there were no phone calls.  I never made that claim so is this another case of you being dishonest or is your stoopidity rising to the surface?  You trying to pull another pathetic fdr move?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Keep lying you whiny bitch.  Every time you do it reminds me why assholes like you are a waste of time.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




The only evidence you presented was the opinion of one college professor.  I've provided info from the phone companies themselves as well as airlines.  But you keep on repeating the claim cell calls would have worked at 30,000 feet on 9E.  It's more evidence your camp will hold on for dear life to the most ridiculous claims to maintain your denial.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Curve,

You are arguing two points here. 

The first being the statement made by Coburn from Popular Mechanics that "in 2001 cell phone technology would work at 50,000 feet".

Your second claim is that cell phones would not work at 50,000 feet. These two claims may be totally unrelated as I can find only two VERIFIED instances of "cell phone" calls that were made. The others are not specified and may have been made from Airfones which were located in the seat backs of many seats. Some actually verify Airfone.

One cell phone call was made by Edward Felt at 9:58 am. The plane elevation at that point was between 7000 and 6400 feet. Well below that 50,000 foot ceiling in your first claim making it quite likely that he could have connected to a cell tower.

Another call from CeeCee Lyles waa also made at 9:58 am when the plane was at an altitude between 7000 and 6400 feet.

Here is a link to calls made, some with descriptions *9-11 Research: Phone Call Detail*

So what other calls do you have information on that were validated as being from cell phones that you are arguing about not being able to be made at 30,000 or 50,000 foot altitudes?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 24, 2010)

Further information.

From what I can gather (I am no expert and anyone can correct me if I am wrong), indicated altitude of a plane is determined from sea level. Actual height above is the altitude minus the elevation of ground a that particular point. The ground elevation in the area of the plane was about 980 feet above sea level.

That makes the actual height of the plane between 6020 and 5420.

Can anyone verify the above?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2010)

Ravi said:


> I hate to break it to you but your premise is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



wiki is hardly  a reliable source for information,they can type in anything they want to there.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2010)

JenyEliza said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > What range do cell towers have? Anyone have any links?
> ...



thank you for your valuable imput.great to hear this coming from someone objective such as yourself who is obviously not into conspiracys and knows what they are talking about..


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2010)

JenyEliza said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > JenyEliza said:
> ...



thats how these DOD agents that have penetrated these boards  like Gomer Pyle Ollie post. Great point you made earlier.just because the MILITARY had it available,doesnt mean it was available to the general public back then.


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 24, 2010)

Another point is that airborne cell phone signals confuse the cell phone system.  the cell phone companies do not want airborne cell phone use.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Another point is that airborne cell phone signals confuse the cell phone system.  the cell phone companies do not want airborne cell phone use.



yeah thats a very good point.Here this link  puts to rest that it was impossible to use cell phones at 30,000 feet back then.As it says in that link,to make a cell phone call at altitudes of just 20,000 feet you barely had a one in a hundred chance of succeeding,same today.

Of course ollie,fizz and candy corn troll boy will blatantly ignore this and post the most absurd crap like they always do to try and save face in their posts.Their posts are so ignorant and stupid even Jeny said so and she never even visits the conspiracy section so she hardly has an interest in conspiracys.Even people like her can see what stupid morons these trolls here are.lol.

Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 24, 2010)

JenyEliza said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > What range do cell towers have? Anyone have any links?
> ...



So, even if you were just over a mile out from a tower in an airplane, there is no possible way a cell phone would connect to your knowledge?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> yeah thats a very good point.Here this link  puts to rest that it was impossible to use cell phones at 30,000 feet back then.As it says in that link,to make a cell phone call at altitudes of just 20,000 feet you barely had a one in a hundred chance of succeeding,same today.



So there's a chance at 20,000 feet? Not impossible?

What about at about 6,000 feet?


----------



## Fizz (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Another point is that airborne cell phone signals confuse the cell phone system.  the cell phone companies do not want airborne cell phone use.
> ...



listen, you dumbfuck. dont accuse me of saying things i dont say.

my point is that it doesnt matter what anyone's opinion of whether cell phones worked on flight 77 or not.

Renee May called her parents and they called American Airlines at her request. it doesnt matter if that was by an airphone or a cell phone (and whether that cell phone worked or not). the call clearly happened. i'm not arguing whether cell phones worked one way or the other because it is pointless. 

you may as well be arguing what color the phone was. it obviously doesnt matter what color the phone was as long as the phone call was made.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I hate to break it to you but your premise is wrong.
> ...


Even a link to a NASA report. Oh, wait...I forgot NASA was in on the conspiracy.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> JenyEliza said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


You're applauding her for not knowing analog systems were in wide use on 9/11? Funny.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 24, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Another point is that airborne cell phone signals confuse the cell phone system.  the cell phone companies do not want airborne cell phone use.


Exactly. It was never that cell phones weren't usable aboard flights...it was that they caused too many problems.


> The FCC bans in-flight use because cell phones can communicate with more than one cell tower when in the air. This could lead to disruption of service for cell phones on the ground, which use only one tower at a time.
> 
> But the commission thinks cell phone technology has advanced far enough in recent years to minimize such disruption of ground service. Yesterday, the FCC voted to consider lifting its ban, and it will begin taking comments from businesses and travelers over the next few months.


FCC Considers Cell Phone Use On Airplanes (washingtonpost.com)


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 24, 2010)

I am not sure on this but I think that digital cell phone towers radiate their signal in a horizontal direction not in an omnidirectional manner.  This is based on my knowledge of radio wave porpagation and looking at the design of cell tower antennas.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 24, 2010)

Ravi said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > JenyEliza said:
> ...



he's just here as a paid twoofer cheerleader.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> yeah thats a very good point.Here this link  puts to rest that it was impossible to use cell phones at 30,000 feet back then.As it says in that link,to make a cell phone call at altitudes of just 20,000 feet you barely had a one in a hundred chance of succeeding,same today.



9/11, can you provide the link or some other evidence that claims a CELL PHONE call was placed AT 30,000 feet?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > yeah thats a very good point.Here this link  puts to rest that it was impossible to use cell phones at 30,000 feet back then.As it says in that link,to make a cell phone call at altitudes of just 20,000 feet you barely had a one in a hundred chance of succeeding,same today.
> ...



read it again.1 out of a 100 is EXTREMELY unlikely. have to be a miracle on the hundreth try to succeed

I say that because if you read at the bottom,some very credible people say yeah,its pretty much impossible to do at even 2,000 feet. those credible people are a commerical airliner pilot and a col usaf pilot.they both said they have tried numerous times at that height and never succeeded,saying the speed of an airliner and the altitude at that height makes it pretty much impossible. but why bother telling YOU that? expert testimonys means  diddly shit to you remember?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2010)

Ravi said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



oh yes the good old trusting government agencys who NEVER tell lies to the american people.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > yeah thats a very good point.Here this link  puts to rest that it was impossible to use cell phones at 30,000 feet back then.As it says in that link,to make a cell phone call at altitudes of just 20,000 feet you barely had a one in a hundred chance of succeeding,same today.
> ...



I'll try and find that but really all you got to do is read Griffins book debunking the 9/11 debunking.that book has overwhelming evidence in it  that it was an inside job.unlike the 9/11 coverup commission,Griffin did research. Again dont see why you want me to bother with it though  since you live in this fantasy world that explosives did not bring down the towers.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 24, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > yeah thats a very good point.Here this link  puts to rest that it was impossible to use cell phones at 30,000 feet back then.As it says in that link,to make a cell phone call at altitudes of just 20,000 feet you barely had a one in a hundred chance of succeeding,same today.
> ...



Here is what a reputable source says:

Making Calls From The Air 




> By Brad Smith
> September 24, 2001
> c 2003, Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> When several passengers aboard the hijacked airliners made calls to family and spouses from their wireless phones on the now-infamous Sept. 11, it came as a surprise to many that the calls actually were completed.
> ...



The link is dead (its a 6 year old story and nobody cares except the whackjobs) but here is the link to the mag:

Wireless Week

Here are some other stories about cell phones used in flight:


> ...we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight.
> Traveling on Delta Flight 1989 on 9/11





> The pilot departed San Jose, California, on a cross-country flight to Sisters, Oregon. He obtained a standard preflight weather briefing. Visual flight was not recommended. Cumulus buildups were reported to the pilot. The pilot indicated that he may be overflying the cloud tops. He did not file a flight plan. The pilot's wife was driving to the same location and they talked by cell phone while en route. When the pilot failed to arrive at the destination a search was started. According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent. Radar was lost at 11,800 feet. Witnesses reported seeing the aircraft descending near vertically out of broken clouds with the engine at full power. When the aircraft was found, the right outboard wing panel from about station 110 outboard was missing. About a month later the outer wing panel was found. Analysis of the failed structure indicated a positive overload of the wing and the horizontal stabilators.
> Aircraft Accidents and Incidents - TENNANT, CALIFORNIA 96023 Wednesday, July 17, 1996 2:15 PM PDT



Scores more at:

Mobiles at Altitude

Everyone who says they can't use cells in the air is simply full of garbage.  I've done it numerous times.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


This report was done before 9/11. But of course that matters nothing to you, as you believe the government planned the entire thing.

Idiot.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 24, 2010)

Why would the FCC and the FAA ban cell phone use on airplanes if it wasn't possible to begin with?

Oh, yeah...it's a conspiracy!


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Really?

Why in their "success summary table" where they combined results from parts 2 and 3 do they come up with 6,000 feet = 30% success????



You also didn't answer the question. How many calls made from those flights were VERIFIED cell phone calls made at 30,000 feet?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2010)

Ravi said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



its been proven they did plan the entire thing idiot.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



You're arguing the point, so I'd like to see where you are getting the information to make the original claim.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > yeah thats a very good point.Here this link  puts to rest that it was impossible to use cell phones at 30,000 feet back then.As it says in that link,to make a cell phone call at altitudes of just 20,000 feet you barely had a one in a hundred chance of succeeding,same today.
> ...



cant be done.read these testimonys.but again expert testimonsy means nothing to you right so what bother?

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

-

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>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It must be clearly understood that Prof. Dewdneys tests were conducted in
slow-moving (<150kts) light aircraft at relatively low altitudes (<9000ft
AGL). The aircraft from which the alleged calls were made on 9/11 were
flying at over 30,000 ft at speeds of over 500 MPH.

During a recent round-trip flight from Orange County, CA to Miami, FL (via
Phoenix, AZ), I, personally conducted an unofficial test using a brand new
Nokia 6101 cellular phone [NB: 2005 technology]. En route, I attempted
(discretely, of course) a total of 37 calls from varying altitudes/speeds. I
flew aboard three types of aircraft: Boeing 757, 737, and Airbus 320. Our
cruising altitudes ranged from 31-33,000ft, and our cruising speeds, from
509-521 MPH (verified post-flight by the captains). My tests began
immediately following take-off. Since there was obviously no point in taking
along the wrist altimeter I use for ultralight flying for reference in a
pressurized cabin, I could only estimate (from experience) the various
altitudes at which I made my attempts.

Of the 37 calls attempted, I managed to make only 4 connections - and every
one of these was made on final approach, less than 2 minutes before flare,
I.e., at less than 2,000ft AGL.

Approach speeds varied from 130-160 kts (Vref, outer marker), with flap and
gear extension at around 2,000ft (again, all speeds verified by flightdeck
crews). Further, I personally spoke briefly with the captains of all four
flights: I discovered that in their entire flying careers, NOT ONE of these
men had EVER been successful in making a cell phone call from cruising
altitude/speed in a variety of aircraft types. [NB: Rest assured the
ubiquitous warnings to turn off all electronics during flight are
completely unfounded. All modern aircraft systems are fully shielded from
all forms of RF/EMF interference (save EMP, of course). This requirement was
mandated by the FAA many years ago purely as a precautionary measure while
emerging advanced avionics systems were being flight tested. There is not a
single recorded incident of interference adversely affecting the performance
of airborne avionics systems.]

Obviously, my casual, seat-of-the-pants attempt at verifying a commonly
known fact can hardly be passed off as a scientific test. Ergo, I shall
offer Prof. Dewdney¹s conclusion, excerpted from his meticulously detailed
and documented paper re slow-flying light aircraft at low altitudes.

Nila Sagadevan


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prof. Dewdney:

I do not pretend to be any sort of expert of cellular communications, but I am an electronics engineer and hold both amateur and commercial FCC licenses, so I do have some understanding of the relevant principles of radio communication systems.

I read with interest your analysis of terrestrial contact probabilities via cellphones from aircraft. I believe your conclusions are sound, but would like to comment on an element which you pondered regarding the sort of apparent discontinuity in what seems otherwise to be an inverse-square relation beyond a certain altitude.

Cellphones operate by Frequency Modulation, and as such the (apparent) signal strength is not discernible to the listener because the intelligence is contained only in the frequency and phase information of the signal before demodulation. Hence, the system works pretty well until it is so weak that it is abruptly lost. That is, the system can no longer capture the signal. It does not get louder and softer with signal strength -until the signal is below the detection level of the receiver, at which point it is essentially disappears. The cellphone also adjusts the transmit power according to the signal level received at the tower end of the link. Once it is at maximum output, if the signal diminishes beyond some minimum threshold depending on the receiver design, it is lost altogether and not simply degraded in quality. Analogous behavior is experienced with FM broadcast stations; as you travel away from the transmitter the station is received with good fidelity until at some distance it rather suddenly cannot even be received any longer at all.

Additionally, cellphone towers are certainly not optimally designed for skyward radiation patterns. Since almost all subscribers are terrestrial that is where the energy is directed, at low angles.

In summary, if your observed discontinuous behavior is real, and I believe there is technical reasoning for such, the probability of making calls beyond some threshold altitude is not simply predictably less, but truly impossible with conventional cellphones under any condition of aircraft etc. because of the theoretical limits of noise floor in the receiving systems. I think the plausibility of completing the calls from 30,000+ ft. is even much lower than might be expected from extrapolations of behavior at lower altitudes which you investigated.

Thank you for your thoughtful work in this area.

Sincerely,

Kevin L. Barton


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr Dewdney 
I too can verify that on a private charter airline, Champion Air, which was a 737-300, I believe that is correct or it might have been a 727-300. But regardless of that, we took off from Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport at 0735 in July of 2003. As we were taxiing to the run way the pilot told us to please turn off all electronic equipment, i.e. Cell Phones, Laptops, etc. I did so, but shortly after take off and before the pilot said we could use our electronic equipment I thought I would call my mom and let her know we were in the air. We had not been off the ground for more than 2 minutes. I would guess between 2000 and 5000 ft. I was using at the time one of Motorolas top of the line phones, a V60t. My cell phone carrier is Cingular which is quite a widespread carrier as you probably know, I had absolutely no signal at all. Since we were flying to Cozumel, Mexico I kept trying and watching for a signal until we got out past the coast line of Texas, when then I knew for sure I wouldnt get a signal again until we landed in Cozumel. Again in June 2004 we flew out of DFW, same airline, same type of plane, and the same thing occurred. This time I left my phone on from take off and up until it lost the signal. Again we couldnt have been more than 2000 to 3000 ft. off the ground. I lost the signal and never again got a signal until the plane landed in Cozumel. I find it highly unlikely that anyone could have used a cell phone on 9/11/01 at above 2000 feet. 

Sincerely,
Brad Taylor 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ive been using Nokia phones with automatic nationwide roaming, and Cingular before it was Cingular and long before 9/11. I confess to having turned my cell phone on while flying commercial airlines several times prior to 9/11, just to see if signals were available. At 2,000 feet the phone went totally flat. No calls out or in were ever possible. Of course all these stories are anecdotal, but according to cell phone engineers who have cared to comment have stated that commercial aircraft fly far too fast and far too high to expect that folks on flight 93 ever managed to get a call out on their own phones. Theyve said that the towers cant transition or hand over private cell phones fast enough. I hope we can hear from other ATPs on this subject. 
George Nelson (Col. USAF ret.) 

© 2003-2010 S.P.I.N.E.             Login


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 24, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



This along with 9/11's posted site, PROVES that it is POSSIBLE to make cell phone calls from airplanes.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



i just posted it for you and like i just said,griffins book has some incredible facts in it.Like the saying goes,can only lead a horse to the water-griffins book,cant do anything about it though if the horse-you in this case,wont drink the water.griffins book. but again,i dont know why i bother with you a guy who refuses to believe in the experts that demolitions brought down the towers.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Wow.

Read the summary tables from your own posted sight for parts two and three. Then they even COMBINE the test results at 6,000 feet.

It is proven, from their test results that it IS possible. Here is a quote from the site you posted:



> 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
> ...



See the 6,000 feet? See the 30% to the right? You have successfully debunked your own claim.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



You posted nothing. Go find me facts somewhere that PROVES the calls that were made from the flights were CELL PHONE calls made at 30,000 feet. 

You can't do it.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Here is a quote from 9/11's own linked website.



> 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
> ...



30% success rate at 6,000 feet. You just blew your own "can't be done" statement above out of the water with you OWN post.



Brilliant!


----------



## Fizz (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



where was this? i must have missed it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



thats at 15,000 feet,not at 30,000 feet and major difference,that was a cessna,not an airliner.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Doesn't matter. 6,000 feet is 6,000 feet. There are reports of cell phones that have worked on jets.

You lose.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Ravi is not the idiot here. You, who believe our own Government could come up with such a complex plan and make it as stupid as you claim, are the idiots.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



And again. 

Show me proof of the claims that there were CELL PHONE calls made at 30,000 feet.

You continue to fail at doing this.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Dude those were examples taken from a CESSNA,a much smaller plane moving much slower than a 757 jet does. and it was the 9/11 commission that said the calls were made at 30/000 feet.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 24, 2010)

again, the whole "did the cell phones work" thing doesnt mean shit unless you are claiming that some or all of the phone calls were never completed. who gives a shit if they were made by airphone or by cell phone?

so who is going to claim that some or all of the phone calls never happened?

any twoofer have the balls to take a stand?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




yeah at 6000 feet it may work,but pretty much impossible at 30,000 feet which is the commissions claim. you posted that article that said they may work at 30,000 feet momentarily,the momemtarily they are conviently leaving out more than likely is just a few seconds since the probability to a cell phone wortking at 20,000 feet is 1 in a hundred.not very good odds. why did you bring up 6,000 feet in the beginning anyways when the commission said the calls were made at 30,000 feet? that was why curvelight mentioned that was because they said they were made at 30,000 feet.

also its so obvious they are lying about the calls being made in the fact that they said mark bingham made a call to his mom and said-hello mom,this is your son mark bingham.yeah like a son is really going to call his mom and say his full name. if you believe that one,that i got some real estate in russia i need to sell you.and since you clingo to the theory that the fires caused the towers to collapse,I have no doubt you would buy that house from me.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


Link?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



in severl of terrals threads.of COURSE you missed it,your a disinformation agent troll sent here to post lies and bullshit. i wont live that one down where he showed you that pic of that empty hole and you responded telling him he needs glasses,that there WAS debris there. honestly you been reading and beleiving in far too many posts of candy corn boys.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 24, 2010)

Ravi said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


Oh, never mind, I know you are lying.

In the report, _30,000_ appears in two sentences:


> In addition, muscle hijacker Banihammad came to the United
> States after opening bank accounts in the UAE into which were deposited the
> equivalent of approximately $30,000 on June 25, 2001.
> 
> ...


In the report, _thirty thousand_ doesn't appear at all.

You're a fool.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



*Are you going to respond to the AT&T spokesperson saying the calls were possible?

Are you going to respond to the fact that the FAA bans use of Cell Phones and the logic of banning something that doesn't work?  

Are you going to respond to how Avery and Tarpley are making fun of Mark Bingham's phone calls at the same time other whackjobs like you are saying they couldn't have taken place?   

Are you ever going to pick one conspiracy theory about anything and stick ot it or are you just flat out anti-9/11 Commission Report regardless of the alternative?  

I know you're too much of a pile of shit to respond but then again, I'm not telling anybody anything they already don't know; including yourself.*


----------



## Fizz (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



no matter how many times you claim its empty it wont make it come true. there are airplane parts in the hole. i guess you need glasses too..... you fucking moron.

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS ?

A ROCK?!!!!!


----------



## Ravi (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> they said mark bingham made a call to his mom and said-hello mom,this is your son mark bingham


His mother said that...and she said he made the call from the Airphone. I suppose this must mean she is also part of the conspiracy.

Fucktard.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> yeah at 6000 feet it may work,but pretty much impossible at 30,000 feet which is the commissions claim.



I have asked you numerous times to provide links to these claims and you cannot come up with them. Where is it stated in the CR that calls were made at 30,000 feet? As Ravi has pointed out to you, 30,000 (or 30000) does not show up anywhere in the CR in connection with cell phone calls.

So again, why are you arguing about 30,000 foot cell phone calls in the CR when there are no statements concerning them?



9/11 inside job said:


> you posted that article that said they may work at 30,000 feet momentarily,the momemtarily they are conviently leaving out more than likely is just a few seconds since the probability to a cell phone wortking at 20,000 feet is 1 in a hundred.not very good odds.



Why again are you arguing about 20,000 or 30,000 feet? Where was this stated again in the CR?



9/11 inside job said:


> why did you bring up 6,000 feet in the beginning anyways when the commission said the calls were made at 30,000 feet? that was why curvelight mentioned that was because they said they were made at 30,000 feet.



You want to know why I am asking about 6,000 feet? Here goes creampuff. Watch and learn. The only two verified calls from CELL PHONES that I could find was from  Edward Felt at 9:58 am. The plane elevation at that point was between 7000 and 6400 feet. Another call from CeeCee Lyles waa also made at 9:58 am when the plane was at an altitude between 7000 and 6400 feet. Since altitude of an airplane is measured from sea level, you need to subtract the land elevation from the altitude as cell towers would not be constructed at sea level. Since the elevation in that area of PA is around 980 feet, we get between 6,020 and 5420 feet for ground elevation with a cell tower on it.

Maybe you should also pull your head out of your ass and learn reading comprehension. Here is Curvelight's quote concerning his claim that the CR stated anything about cell phone calls:


CurveLight said:


> You're absolutely correct about the final report as it does not definitively provide proof how the calls were made nor where they came from.  I apologize for claiming the CR said May's calls came from a cell.  I believe I had read that regarding one of the Hearings but it was not included in the final report.





9/11 inside job said:


> also its so obvious they are lying about the calls being made in the fact that they said mark bingham made a call to his mom and said-hello mom,this is your son mark bingham.yeah like a son is really going to call his mom and say his full name. if you believe that one,that i got some real estate in russia i need to sell you.and since you clingo to the theory that the fires caused the towers to collapse,I have no doubt you would buy that house from me.



You mean even when his mom said that this was normal for him? That when he was in "business mode" he would say that whenever he called her before? 

What a dope.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


you believe that and your calling HER the idiot

how ironic
dontcha think


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


typical lying troofer


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

candycorn said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




The at+t spokesperson in no way said what you're trying to claim you lying fuck.


The FAA doesn't handle telecommunications you jackass.  That is the FCC.  The FAA regulates all other wireless gizmos like ipods and dvd players.


Having a ban on cell phones doesn't mean it's because you could talk to someone.  Cell phones are constantly sending emissions and the claim by the FCC is those emissions could cause interference.  Even with all the evidence showing cell phones were not capable of success you jackasses work soooooooo hard to deny the information.  It must get exhausting defending the OCT when so many facts are not backing your claims up.  Oops.  You guys have never cared about that, so it doesn't matter.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...




Lol....what a fucking joke of a site.  There is no laughable limit you jackass can reach because you will post anything to defend your bullshit.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...




Fucking hypocrite.  You're always putting words in others' mouths to compensate for your stoopidity.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 24, 2010)

curve, are you going to offer an alternative way all these phone calls were made or are you simply going to claim they never happened and everyone is lying?

we'll be waiting for your answer one way or another.......


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> curve, are you going to offer an alternative way all these phone calls were made or are you simply going to claim they never happened and everyone is lying?
> 
> we'll be waiting for your answer one way or another.......


the infamous "they" faked those calls


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



The only reason I titled this with the 50,000 foot quote was to show how unbelievably biased and dishonest poopular mekanics has become on the issue.  That claim is so unbelievably laughable it's like the OCTA version of alex jones.  PM was trying to say since phones were usable up to 50,000 feet (which we know is complete bullshit) that means nobody should ever question if cell calls were made from any of the 4 planes because none flew higher than 40,000 feet.  So my first point is this:  when ridiculous claims have to be made to defend a position that is inherent evidence the position is highly questionable.

My second point is there is no hard evidence calls from 77 were made.   The first and most consistent reports were the calls being made by cell phones.  Olson changed his story a couple of times from cell to seatback phones. The problem there is how would he have known either way?  Since someone else simply transferred the call to him he would have no way of knowing how his wife called so why did he state it was a cell phone, collect call, or seatback?  His seatback claim is also dubious because there is a lot of evidence showing seatbacks were non-operational on 9E on 757s.  A common response to that is showing pics of phones on the seats.  That makes about as much sense as pointing to cars in a junkyard and claiming since there are cars there they must be operational.  

The clincher is the FBI, nor anyone, in over 8 years has been able to provide hard evidence calls from 77 were made.  This is something OCTAs dismiss instead of respecting the weight of that anomaly.  The airline, phone company, FBI, and Dept of Justice all failing to provide evidence of the calls is pretty damn amazing.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Another point is that airborne cell phone signals confuse the cell phone system.  the cell phone companies do not want airborne cell phone use.



They do want in flight service which is why they developed the picocell to make voice/data services available on planes.  The companies who do not want cell service are the airlines and phone companies that charge fucking $6 a minute for an in flight call.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> curve, are you going to offer an alternative way all these phone calls were made or are you simply going to claim they never happened and everyone is lying?
> 
> we'll be waiting for your answer one way or another.......



I'm offering the facts.  You should try it some time.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > curve, are you going to offer an alternative way all these phone calls were made or are you simply going to claim they never happened and everyone is lying?
> ...



you are offering facts proving what? the phone calls were not made? clearly they were.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




I don't know which flop this best represents:

Poor analytical skills

Desire to accept the OCT without question

Or both?

When available facts provide for more than one reasonable direction it is best to not get lost in assumptions.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

There is an aspect to the calls I've not seen discussed.  The hijackers had obviously done research to execute their plans so knowing they were planning to fly 77 into the Pentagon, which means infiltrating the world's most heavily guarded airspace, why would they let two people on 77 make phone calls?  Those calls could have alerted air defenses to intercept so is it reasonable to assume the hijackers would simply let passengers the opportunity to ruin their mission?  

They knew turning the xponder off would at best buy them some time but in no way make the 757 invisible heading towards the pentagon.  They also knew New York would have been attacked roughly the same time they hijacked 77.  It doesn't make sense they would let anyone make a call.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> There is an aspect to the calls I've not seen discussed.  The hijackers had obviously done research to execute their plans so knowing they were planning to fly 77 into the Pentagon, which means infiltrating *the world's most heavily guarded airspace*, why would they let two people on 77 make phone calls?  Those calls could have alerted air defenses to intercept so is it reasonable to assume the hijackers would simply let passengers the opportunity to ruin their mission?
> 
> They knew turning the xponder off would at best buy them some time but in no way make the 757 invisible heading towards the pentagon.  They also knew New York would have been attacked roughly the same time they hijacked 77.  It doesn't make sense they would let anyone make a call.


first i would like to see your proof to back that one up


----------



## Fizz (Feb 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



so now you are saying the phone calls never happened? is that correct?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


no, i dont think he is taking a stand there at all

about the only thing he seems to take a stand on is calling anyone that doesnt follow along with his bullshit OCTA's


----------



## Modbert (Feb 24, 2010)

I wonder what the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are going to do another nine years down the road when people on message boards still aren't buying their bullshit.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2010)

Dogbert said:


> I wonder what the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are going to do another nine years down the road when people on message boards still aren't buying their bullshit.


the same thing they do now

but they will call people something other than bush/obama dupes


----------



## Modbert (Feb 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> the same thing they do now
> 
> but they will call people something other than bush/obama dupes



Well I'm still waiting for Mexico to be invaded by China according to Terral. I'm assuming they're swimming.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2010)

Dogbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > the same thing they do now
> ...


or his N1H1 bio-weapon to deploy

or basically ANYTHING he has predicted come to pass


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



No that is not what I said.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > There is an aspect to the calls I've not seen discussed.  The hijackers had obviously done research to execute their plans so knowing they were planning to fly 77 into the Pentagon, which means infiltrating *the world's most heavily guarded airspace*, why would they let two people on 77 make phone calls?  Those calls could have alerted air defenses to intercept so is it reasonable to assume the hijackers would simply let passengers the opportunity to ruin their mission?
> ...



I don't give a fuck what a prick troll like you wants.  You're a fucking worthless runt.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



looks like you just caught him lying again!!


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

Dogbert said:


> I wonder what the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are going to do another nine years down the road when people on message boards still aren't buying their bullshit.




If you followed the issue at all you would know questioning the OCT is not a fringe camp and it's getting larger as more info is dispersed.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are going to do another nine years down the road when people on message boards still aren't buying their bullshit.
> ...



proof please.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



The whackjobs are fine until you ask them to define their argument; then they run like the little bitches that they are.  Unfortunately, they are much like the tea party crowd.  I say unfortunately because I have respect for them by and large; they aren't harassing widows at Ground Zero, they aren't making fun of true American heroes.  Then again, you don't see any of these tea party types burning their Medicare cards on the steps of the courthouse; do you?  

Truthers don't get a sniff because their act is played, it's tired, and benttight is just another lump of shit in the toilet.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


LOL figures you cant back up your bullshit


----------



## candycorn (Feb 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > There is an aspect to the calls I've not seen discussed.  The hijackers had obviously done research to execute their plans so knowing they were planning to fly 77 into the Pentagon, which means infiltrating *the world's most heavily guarded airspace*, why would they let two people on 77 make phone calls?  Those calls could have alerted air defenses to intercept so is it reasonable to assume the hijackers would simply let passengers the opportunity to ruin their mission?
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkSbo5WIogc]YouTube - Taking off: Reagan National Airport, Flying over Pentagon.[/ame]

Further proof at just how full of shit your boy is.  What you don't see are the SAMs they fired at the jet I suppose.  I know, I know, the video is a plant just to make twoofers look stupid.  I feel that it may be too late for that since you all have done a pristine job of making your own selves look stupid.  
                   ​
*CHECKMATE BITCH!!!​*


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Dogbert said:
> ...



Why?  You're so fucking dishonest that when you were shown the poll saying 1/3 suspect an inside job you actually tried to claim people were citing incompetence.......even though the poll asked nothing but conspiracy questions.

Your only interest here is to ridicule those you disagree with.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Only a dumbass like you would make ridiculous assumptions then claim victory off your own illusions.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


LOL
you do it all the fucking time, dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Figures you commit another false dilemma fallacy....and are too stoopid to understand how.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




.....ummmmmm....that is part of your fantasy world.  

Let me explain this for you simpletons.  A most heavily guarded area does not mean nobody is ever in that area.  Ft. Knox is one of the most heavily guarded bases.....does that mean nobody ever drives on it?  The same principle applies to airspace.  It doesn't mean no planes ever fly in that airspace.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


because i didnt
dipshit
prove your claim


----------



## Fizz (Feb 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you claimed your group was getting larger. where is your proof it is growing?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


so, you have no actual facts that its the most heavily defended airspace in the world

just as i thought, just like everything else you post, you pulled it out of your rectal cavity


----------



## candycorn (Feb 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Ahh, I see, the phantoms guarding this "world's most heavily guarded airspace" can  tell a hijacked plane just by looking at it.

Has he accused the May family of lying yet or is he still too much of a chickenshit to answer a question?  I'm sure his parents were very upset when they found out they didn't have a son.  LOL.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I have said several times I've never accused the mays of lying so why are you lying you fucking shitbag?  You've even quoted my posts when I've answered but now you want to claim I've never answered?  Thass a great example of your dishonesty.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


you have IMPLIED that they are lying


----------



## candycorn (Feb 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Typical twoofer; just won't take a stand on anything.  Stays in the middle of the road...with the long line painted yellow like the streak down her back.  I just laugh at her and thank goodness that I was born with backbone.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



That's the false dilemma you dumbfuck.  You're so fucking stoopid it's about time for you leave another neg rep comment......bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Never implied they were lying.  Thass your dumbass repeating the art of stoopid assumptions.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I have taken a stand but your typical dishonesty overrides everything.  Isn't it about time you lick fizz's shit off of divecon's dick to clean it before you bend over for him?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Who the fuck cares if a lying weasel shit stain like you believes it or not?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


no it isnt, you dipshit


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


what stand have you taken except to call anyone in touch with reality an OCTA'r


----------



## Fizz (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I have said several times I've never accused the mays of lying so why are you lying you fucking shitbag?  You've even quoted my posts when I've answered but now you want to claim I've never answered?  Thass a great example of your dishonesty.



so now that we agree that the Mays are not lying and they actually received a phone call from their daughter aboard flight 77 what is the point of arguing about how well cell phones work at 50,000 feet?

considering that the official government stance is that airphones were used, as stated in the moussaoui trial, what is your point?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You're such a worthless bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I have said several times I've never accused the mays of lying so why are you lying you fucking shitbag?  You've even quoted my posts when I've answered but now you want to claim I've never answered?  Thass a great example of your dishonesty.
> ...




I never said it is a fact they got a call from their daughter from 77 and you know that but you are such a dishonest dickwad you will lie every chance you get if you think it will help your position.  

Show us the phone records from the Commission Report proving calls from 77 were made.  Since you guys always claim it was a full investigation I'm sure it will be no problem to produce the CR's evidence of the phone records.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




There has never been a full investigation into 9E.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



the phone records arent in the commission report. neither is a receipt for atta's underwear. it doesnt mean he wasnt wearing any.

you cant have it both ways...... either you believe the mays are lying and never got a phone call from their daughter or they actually did.

so which is it?


----------



## Fizz (Feb 25, 2010)

taken from prosecution evidence here....
U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


more projection
you troofers could be a case study


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


if you claim there were no calls made, then you IMPLY they are lying
dipshit


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


the 9/11 comission report didnt include Atta's underwear?????
i'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED i tell ya
we need a NEW investigation


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


 You'd be more convincing if you admitted your mistakes.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You're so stoopid.  I never said no calls were made you ignorant fool.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




you really do post a lot for someone that never says anything....


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I don't care what you think.  You're the dumbass that posted an opinion from a professor and ignored what the phone companies themselves think.

You guys are so fucking transparent it isn't funny.  You don't know how to address what I said about the hijackers letting people make calls so you obsess over the "world's most heavily guarded airspace" phrase to ignore the real point.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You whine too much.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> taken from prosecution evidence here....
> U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia




That's not a phone record.  Do you know what one looks like you dumb fuck?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Let's go over this again. In your OP you said this:



CurveLight said:


> For flight 77 the first claimed cell call occurred at 9:12 am.  According to the flight path by the 9E CR, flight 77 would have been too high and traveling too fast for calls to be possible.
> 
> I have no doubt nobody can prove cell phones were capable of conversational operations on 9/11 on flight 77 at 9:12 am.  Is there anyone who can prove that was possible?  I've provided evidence it was not possible.  I anticipate two usual events:  the usual dickless whiny wonders of fizzbitch, Snitch Bitch, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.



You have provided direct evidence to refute the claim that cell phone calls were made at 9:12 am from glight 77. This means you are calling anyone who claims to have made a call at this point a liar BECAUSE, per your EVIDENCE, it was not possible.

Correct? Or are we misunderstanding you yet again? If we are, please clarify what point you are trying to make with you above quote.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


The hijackers were stoopid and/or their intent was to terrorize so the phone calls were allowed.

You don't care what anyone else thinks...fine, then stfu you certainly aren't convincing anyone but your choir.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Since you sucked atta's dick in a bar I respect your opinion on whether or not he was a fan of underwear.  Did you keep a pair of his to make a pillow case?  Is that why you place his underwear on the same level of importance of 9E victims and evidence of what happened?

Thank you for admitting the CR is incomplete and since it does not have the phone records it does not support its own claims with hard evidence.

As for the Mays, you idiots really need to learn the meaning of the fallacy of a false dilemma.  But as I pointed out months ago, you're so simple minded you live in a bipolar world.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > taken from prosecution evidence here....
> ...



Where's your proof that cell phone calls could not have been made at 9:12 am from flight 77? 

You keep providing us with quotes and links that discuss 30,000 and 20,000 feet. Was flight 77 at 30,000 or 20,000 at 9:12 am.? What altitutde WAS it at Curvelight?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Is there anyone claiming they made a call with a cell from flight 77?  I thought they were all dead?  

Anyone who claims successful cell calls were made from 77 around 9:15am is going to have a tough time providing evidence it could or did happen.  We already know the CR doesn't have an ounce of hard evidence proving any calls from 77 were made.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You mean you don't know what the CR says?  The OP link answers your question.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > taken from prosecution evidence here....
> ...



where did i say its a phone record? you fucking moron!!!!


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




The hijackers were stoopid:   how did they manage to hijack so many aircraft simultaneously and hit their targets?  If they were so stoopid how did they succeed?

The hijackers allowed the calls:  hmmm....and only two people wanted to contact loved ones?  (Also, as I've already pointed out...the calls risked failure of their mission)

As for trying to "convince" anyone....that is a waste of time.  Only fools believe they can change anyone's mind.  I'm simply analyzing the information.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Since you sucked atta's dick in a bar I respect your opinion on whether or not he was a fan of underwear.  Did you keep a pair of his to make a pillow case?  Is that why you place his underwear on the same level of importance of 9E victims and evidence of what happened?
> 
> Thank you for admitting the CR is incomplete and since it does not have the phone records it does not support its own claims with hard evidence.
> 
> As for the Mays, you idiots really need to learn the meaning of the fallacy of a false dilemma.  But as I pointed out months ago, you're so simple minded you live in a bipolar world.



i'll leave the gay fantasies to you since you obviously know more about homosexual behaviour.

it supports its claims with witness testimony. Renee May's parents say they received a phone call from their daughter. they then called american airlines on the number provided by renee. the call clearly happened. your repeated denials that calls could be made from flight 77 are absurd. 

please tell me why you think the 9/11 commission report would publish each and every piece of evidence they looked at? please tell us all why you think a phone record which would include the phone number of a 9/11 victim should be published.

once again you will evade any questions posed to you. please state if you believe renee may called her parents or if you believe they are lying.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You posted it in response to a request for phone records.  Why did you post it and what is it einstein?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Since you sucked atta's dick in a bar I respect your opinion on whether or not he was a fan of underwear.  Did you keep a pair of his to make a pillow case?  Is that why you place his underwear on the same level of importance of 9E victims and evidence of what happened?
> ...



Who brought up Atta's underwear you cocksucking coward?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Being stupid doesn't mean you can't be a suicide bomber. You seem to think people act in predictable ways...they do not. That they do not doesn't mean that the US government is responsible for 9/11 and all your whining aside...you're a POS insinuating these victims and their families are liars.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Who brought up Atta's underwear you cocksucking coward?



i did. why? is wearing underwear now a sign of being gay? please let me know because i dont want anyone to think i am gay because i have underwear on right now.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



i posted it because it was accepted in a court of law as evidence of a phone call. i never said it was a phone record, you fucking moron. in fact, i didnt say anything about it. i just posted it.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I never insinuated the families are lying.  Thass your dumbass making assumptions to fill the void of your intellectual abilities.  No wonder you jackasses simply accept what Bush said.  You're some truly dumb people and you are a waste of time.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



well if you think they are not lying about receiving phone calls from their loved ones on board the flights then you agree that the phone calls happened, right?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


I get it now. He thinks someone in the government made the phone calls and pretended they came from the victims...and the Government operatives managed to fool the husbands and mothers of the victims.

He's totally


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Really?  Show that from the trial.  Do you know what a "stipulation" is in a court case?  How is it they were able to state the exact duration, down to the second, without a phone record?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You think you can speak for what others think?  Fucking arrogant dumbasses like you are a joke.  Since you're too dumb to understand basics do you really think you're qualified to put words in someone else's mouth?  Or does labeling people you disagree with as crazy give you the comfort needed to wade through your own darkness of ignorance?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Keep trying to put words in my mouth bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Who brought up Atta's underwear you cocksucking coward?
> ...



You claimed to have intimate knowledge that atta was wearing underwear.  Why would you even be thinking about his underwear you sick bastard?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Here's another example of your collective inability to analyze info.  Why is it so many of you assume my pointing out the fact there are no phone records automatically assuming I'm implying it was a government inside job?  The reason is simple: you live in a bipolar world of black and white and are unable to use any imagination.  Stop trying to make your conclusions fit neatly around the facts because it isn't working.

Ponder this you little einsteins:  one does not have to believe it was either all terrorists or all an inside job.  Here's another aspect to consider:  the hijackers were not the only criminal organization in the world with a motive to attack.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



i never claimed to have intimate knowledge of his underwear. i didnt even claim he was wearing it or wasnt. i said not having a receipt for it doesnt prove he wasnt wearing any. it parallels your insinuation that phone calls didnt happen because the phone records werent available to the public.

 i know thats much too complicated for a twoofer like you to understand so the next logical step for you is to make gay comments and show your lack of intelligence.

thanks for taking the bait and amusing us all ever so slightly for a few fleeting seconds.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




So....when are you going to explain why you are obsessing over his underwear?  Or are you upset swallowing his jizz didn't give you his child?


----------



## Fizz (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you are the person obsessing over his underwear. i brought it up once and you simply cant stop thinking about it and asking questions about it and making gay comments.

thanks for proving what a fag you are.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> For flight 77 the first claimed cell call occurred at 9:12 am.



Please provide a link for this. I want to see the actual claim that someone is making that a CELL PHONE call was made at 9:12 from flight 77. 

Should be easy since you obviously have it handy and are arguing that it is not possible.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 25, 2010)

I just can't help but laugh every time I see that people believe there are AA units around the pentagon.... LOL I bet they believe there are hidden Quad 50's at the White house too.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Here's another example of your collective inability to analyze info.  Why is it so many of you assume my pointing out the fact there are no phone records automatically assuming I'm implying it was a government inside job?  The reason is simple: you live in a bipolar world of black and white and are unable to use any imagination.  Stop trying to make your conclusions fit neatly around the facts because it isn't working.
> 
> Ponder this you little einsteins:  one does not have to believe it was either all terrorists or all an inside job.  Here's another aspect to consider:  the hijackers were not the only criminal organization in the world with a motive to attack.


Really...so who then do you think was responsible and in cahoots with our government?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > For flight 77 the first claimed cell call occurred at 9:12 am.
> ...


There isn't one. 

From the 9/11 Report:



> At 9:12, Renee May called her mother,Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said
> her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the
> rear of the plane. She asked her mother to alert American Airlines. Nancy May
> and her husband promptly did so.56
> ...


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Feb 25, 2010)

Even most Troofers have dropped the cell phone conspiracy theory. The phones did work and they were the real voices of passengers. This one should just be dropped. It just doesn't help the Troofer cause.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

I'd like to know where this "quote" came from ... it only exists on this message board.


*We Know in 2001 Cell Phones Worked Up To 50,000 Feet*

Google


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Right, so where is Curvelight getting the statement that it was made CELL PHONE at 9:12 am? That's what I am curious about. 

Maybe it's another "I was mistaken" excuse like the "30,000 foot cell phone call" that was supposedly in the CR.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> I'd like to know where this "quote" came from ... it only exists on this message board.
> 
> 
> *We Know in 2001 Cell Phones Worked Up To 50,000 Feet*
> ...



I looked for that also. Couldn't find it either.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 25, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Even most Troofers have dropped the cell phone conspiracy theory. The phones did work and they were the real voices of passengers. This one should just be dropped. It just doesn't help the Troofer cause.



If we're using "not helping the troofer cause" as a barometer of whether or not they should comment, I would submit that they should all shut the hell up as nothing ever written has actually helped the "cause."


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > For flight 77 the first claimed cell call occurred at 9:12 am.
> ...



It is in the O
P link.....not to mention several news reports right after the events......


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to know where this "quote" came from ... it only exists on this message board.
> ...




I already posted the link for that too.  How many times do I need to re-post the same links to the same info?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


The OP link is wrong. Whoever wrote the OP link has editorialized. Notice that the 9/11 Commission's statement DOES NOT back up what the OP claims.



> On flight AA 77, which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, the transponder was turned off at 8:56am; the recorded altitude at the time the transponder was turned off is not mentioned. According to the Commission's Report, cell calls started 16 minutes later, at 9:12am, twenty minutes before it (allegedly) crashed into the Pentagon at 9.32am:
> _" [at 9.12] Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane."_​


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


The link you posted merely shows some other blowhard making the claim that someone said cell phones work up to 50,000.

Where is the source? Oh, right...there isn't one. 

You really are an idiot.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> I'd like to know where this "quote" came from ... it only exists on this message board.
> 
> 
> *We Know in 2001 Cell Phones Worked Up To 50,000 Feet*
> ...



That is what David Coburn of Popular Mechanics claimed in response to troofers pointing out cell calls would not have happened at cruising altitude and speed.
rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/08/21/911-truthers-gut-punched-by-history-channel/

That's the second time I posted the link.  He said it on the HC's bullshit documentary about 9E.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Really? I'm an idiot because I'm pointing out what David Coburn stated on the History Channel?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Right. So I clicked on the link you provided and read the paragraph about Flight 77's calls. Here isthe quote from that link:


> American Airlines Flight 77
> 
> American Airlines Flight 77 was scheduled to depart from Washington Dulles for Los Angeles at 8:10... "At 8:46, the flight reached its assigned cruising altitude of 35,000 feet."
> 
> ...



The only part I see that mentions CELL calls is this statement from the quote above: 


> *According to the Commission's Report*, cell calls started 16 minutes later



To which you even admitted that there was no mention of cell calls in the CR:


CurveLight said:


> You're absolutely correct about the *final report as it does not definitively provide proof how the calls were made nor where they came from*.  I apologize for claiming the CR said May's calls came from a cell.  I believe I had read that regarding one of the Hearings but it was not included in the final report.



So why are you continuing to post bogus information that you yourself have admitted to being incorrect?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



That could be because during hearings cell phones were stated, as well as several news reports.  I do agree the article is incorrect to state the 9E CR states it was a cell phone as the Report fails to provide any evidence of what kind of phone was used.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



So what's the point of this thread then? Since we have established that all your other claims in the OP are based on incorrect information, is the only thing left to discuss the statement from Coburn as being correct or incorrect?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




I'm not "continuing" to post bogus info.  I'm pointing out Olson claimed his wife called on a cell and several news reports were may and olson both used cells.  The CR fails to mention any of that as well as provide any actual evidence of the calls themselves.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




There is no hard evidence of the calls.  The "50,000 feet" comment was to help show how biased PM has become about the issue.  How many times do you need this repeated?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics.  He never supports that claim, but since he said it then it must be true!  Unfortunately, the facts do not support his claim.  The HC is running its old bullshit "look at 9E" which is really just airwave fodder for people gullible and insecure enough to simply accept what the government says and to not question such stellar publications such as Poopular Mekanics.
> 
> Here's some info:
> 
> ...



They do have phones on planes that you can call to the ground from.  Next.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



If I may...

She deals in trivia because she is, in fact, a trivial person.  Either the calls took place or they didn't.  She won't say if she thinks they did or did not so she has no opinion on the matter.  Yet here we are at how many pages, how many posts, how many denials?  

If you're interested in trivia, she's the one to go to; if not, just know that is all you'll get from her.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You're pointing out that OLSON claimed his wife called on a cell? Changing your claim now in mid-debate? 

Tell you what. I'm a forgiving person. Please go back through this thread and give me one quote from you that specifically states you were talking, at any point in this thread, about the Olson call.

I'll wait here...


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



So you think the calls WEREN'T made or are you undecided?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Not changing anything.  Take a look at the op and show where I said it is only about may?  Did I even mention renee may in the op?  If you wrongly assume the op is only about may then that is your fault.  The op is about the calls from 77.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Show me where you you were EVER discussing Olson's call in this thread. And yes, you DID mention May's call specifically by using the time of 9:12 am and flight 77. Following is your original quote. I highlighted every instance in which you make mention of a specific phone call in your OP. See if you can follow along.


CurveLight said:


> Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics.  He never supports that claim, but since he said it then it must be true!  Unfortunately, the facts do not support his claim.  The HC is running its old bullshit "look at 9E" which is really just airwave fodder for people gullible and insecure enough to simply accept what the government says and to not question such stellar publications such as Poopular Mekanics.
> 
> Here's some info:
> 
> ...



Did you get that? Three instances where you SPECIFICALLY use a call from flight 77 at 9:12 am. Now please quote me where you were discussing Olson's call in that original post.

I'll wait here.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

Curvelight, 

Even the damn link you provided in the OP refers to the May call as:


> " [at 9.12] Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane."



Olson's call occurred at somewhere between 9:16 am and 9:20 am. THAT is even in your linked article:


> At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. [using an airphone]



And notice you even got the Olson claim wrong. Your article you posted even says the Olson call was made from an Airphone (Airfone), not a CELL PHONE.

Why are you making all these mistakes?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I'm pointing out Olson claimed his wife called on a cell...



Just so you understand where you fucked up, I'll post it again. Either you can't read or you change information around to make it support your views.

*The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls*

The article that you link to clearly states that Olson's call was made from an Airphone:


> At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. *[using an airphone]*



Yet you claim that it was made from a *CELL PHONE*

How'd you mess that one up?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Are you serious?  Because I point to the first claimed time of a cell call that somehow means the op is endemic to May only?  Wtf?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pointing out Olson claimed his wife called on a cell...
> ...




Please try to keep up.  It was ted olson who made the cell phone and airphone claims.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Are you serious?  Because I point to the first claimed time of a cell call that somehow means the op is endemic to May only?  Wtf?



What other phone call happened at 9:12 am and on flight 77?!?!?!

You fucking mentioned it three times in your OP for Christ's sake as an example of a call that couldn't have happened. Then you you get your ass handed to you, where you had to admit not ONCE, but TWICE that your information was incorrect, you add Olson's call into the mix.

You even fucked THAT one up as you link you provided as proof to back your claims mentions that the Olson call was made from an AIRPHONE and not a CELL PHONE!


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No, YOU keep up. The article you posted as proof to back your claims says Olson's wife made the call from an AIRPHONE, not a cell phone.

Get it right for once.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

So basically Curvelight,

Your OP has been boiled down to Coburn's statement concerning the 50,000 foot claim. All the other bullshit has been proven incorrect because you can't provide ANY verified claims that calls were made from CELL PHONES and not AIRPHONES and that you admitted twice that your information garnered from other sources was NOT correct in the first place.

Do I have this correct?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




I specifically pointed out Olson changing his story by quoting you.....but you want to claim I never talked about Olson?  Okay.


(your post)
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2038894-post68.html


(my response)
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2040868-post121.html

What other distractions do you have in mind?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



So why are you arguing that cell phone calls from planes are next to impossible when there is no proof whatsoever that the calls you reference to as not being possible were made from either cell phones or airphones?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> So basically Curvelight,
> 
> Your OP has been boiled down to Coburn's statement concerning the 50,000 foot claim. All the other bullshit has been proven incorrect because you can't provide ANY verified claims that calls were made from CELL PHONES and not AIRPHONES and that you admitted twice that your information garnered from other sources was NOT correct in the first place.
> 
> Do I have this correct?



No where near correct.

1. Popular Mechanics claimed on the HC documentary cell phone technology in 2001 allowed for cell phones to work on planes up to 50,000 feet.  

2.  First reports from the media, and ted olson himself, is the calls from 77 were made via cell phone.

3.  Olson changes his story several times between his wife calling him from a cell phone, direct airphone, then collect calls from an airphone.

4.  There is no evidence proving seatback phones on 77 were operational.  In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence, including a maintenance manual from AA, showing the seatback phones were not operational on their 757s in Sept 01.

5.  The CR fails to include any of this information in its final report.  It simply states the calls were made but provides absolutely no hard evidence.

6.  The airline, phone companies (either cell or airphone), credit card companies (a cc is needed to even activate a seatback phone), the FBI, nor the DOJ, can provide a single piece of hard evidence showing calls came from flight 77.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



The article cited what the CR stated for it's final report.  There are a plethora of sources showing Olson kept changing his story and the CR simply claims she called from an airphone with no hard evidence.  Hearsay evidence is all the CR uses.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




Because the first reports were claiming it was cell phones.  Until it got pointed out that was not plausible.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Are you serious?  Because I point to the first claimed time of a cell call that somehow means the op is endemic to May only?  Wtf?
> ...



Again....I pointed to when the FIRST call was made.  Who the hell would twist that into saying the op is only about the FIRST call?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> 3.  Olson changes his story several times between his wife calling him from a cell phone, direct airphone, then collect calls from an airphone.



I get it now. It's ok for YOU to change your story and admit mistakes, but nobody ELSE can right?



CurveLight said:


> You're absolutely correct about the final report as it does not definitively provide proof how the calls were made nor where they came from.  I apologize for claiming the CR said May's calls came from a cell.  I believe I had read that regarding one of the Hearings but it was not included in the final report.





CurveLight said:


> That could be because during hearings cell phones were stated, as well as several news reports.  I do agree the article is incorrect to state the 9E CR states it was a cell phone as the Report fails to provide any evidence of what kind of phone was used.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Because you made mention of the call at 9:12 am AND flight 77 THREE TIMES as an example of a call that wouldn't have worked!!!

What the fuck do you not understand?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > So basically Curvelight,
> ...


Please provide a link to the pertinent information on the History Channel. All you have provided is quotes from people posting comments on a blog claiming this statement about 50,000 feet was made.

Also, where are your quotes of what exactly Mr. Olsen said about the phone calls?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

I see.  I'm responsible for your assumptions.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I mean seriously. If I made a claim and then pointed out a specific instance THREE times as proof that the total claim was correct, why wouldn't you argue against my example? Especially when you found my SPECIFIC example to be incorrect? Your example was bogus because there is NO proof that it was made from a CELL PHONE.

You so, trying to validate your claim that cell phone usage from 50,000 feet is not possible by using the call from 9:12 am on flight 77 and INSINUATING that it was made from a CELL PHONE (even though you have no proof) is bullshit.

Get it now?


----------



## candycorn (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 3.  Olson changes his story several times between his wife calling him from a cell phone, direct airphone, then collect calls from an airphone.
> ...



You get the feeling that it takes Curvelight something like 45 minutes to order a burger?  I'm glad she makes them quicker than that.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

I read the various things that Ted Olsen said about phones. It is apparent he never knew if his wife called from a cell phone or an airphone and was merely speculating. She called him at work, and apparently had to go through the office switchboard to speak to him.

A really funny link I found claimed that 757s didn't have airphones and as evidence the conspiracist linked to a forum post authored by someone with the screen name [FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]the Paradroid 

I see what happens here. These nuts read something and because someone wrote it and they want to believe it they take it for the truth.

There is probably someone on another forum linking to CurveLight's posts as examples of facts.


[/FONT]


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




Coburn said it on the HC documentary and I've looked for the video but won't waste anymore time on it.  Anyone who has watched the whole documentary knows he said it....which is why there are several links pointing out what he said.

As for olson, plenty of sources:

Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Well, she has to make sure she doesn't fuck up anymore. She has to pick her words CAREFULLY now so as not to have admit any more mistakes.

God forbid that we start to compare her to Olson and how THAT story changed so many times...


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> I read the various things that Ted Olsen said about phones. It is apparent he never knew if his wife called from a cell phone or an airphone and was merely speculating. She called him at work, and apparently had to go through the office switchboard to speak to him.
> 
> A really funny link I found claimed that 757s didn't have airphones and as evidence the conspiracist linked to a forum post authored by someone with the screen name [FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]the Paradroid
> 
> ...




Then show us seatback phones on AA 77 were operational.  

As for olson, he claimed it as fact and not speculation but good job trying to cover up for him.  The DOJ could have easily proved where the call came from if it produced its phone records for that morning.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I read the various things that Ted Olsen said about phones. It is apparent he never knew if his wife called from a cell phone or an airphone and was merely speculating. She called him at work, and apparently had to go through the office switchboard to speak to him.
> ...



So are you going to admit that you three examples of Renee May's calls were bogus proof to back your claim that cell phone calls could not have been made since there is no PROOF her calls were made from a cell phone?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I read the various things that Ted Olsen said about phones. It is apparent he never knew if his wife called from a cell phone or an airphone and was merely speculating. She called him at work, and apparently had to go through the office switchboard to speak to him.
> ...


CNN reported that he said cell phones...but they didn't quote him so it is more than possible that CNN was mistaken.

And later in his interview with Brit Hume he clearly stated that he didn't know what phone she called him from.

Somehow I'm not surprised that you won't find the portion of the video about 50,000 feet...I am now positive that it doesn't exist.

Great job building up a conspiracy out of nothing.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> I read the various things that Ted Olsen said about phones. It is apparent he never knew if his wife called from a cell phone or an airphone and was merely speculating. She called him at work, and apparently had to go through the office switchboard to speak to him.
> 
> *A really funny link I found claimed that 757s didn't have airphones and as evidence the conspiracist linked to a forum post authored by someone with the screen name *[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]*the Paradroid*
> 
> ...



Just to highlight the idiocy out there on the internets, this is what I was talking about above.

In this silly blog, Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials

is the statement:



> [FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AAs website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.8[/FONT]


When you click on the notation [FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]8 you discover that the source of this "fact" about the passenger seat phones is this:
[/FONT]





> [FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]
> [/FONT][FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]See the submission of 17 February 2006 by the Paradroid on the Politik Forum (http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p-24.html). It is quoted in David Ray Griffin, _9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press_ (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 75. [/FONT]


TFF!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> I read the various things that Ted Olsen said about phones. It is apparent he never knew if his wife called from a cell phone or an airphone and was merely speculating. She called him at work, and apparently had to go through the office switchboard to speak to him.
> 
> A really funny link I found claimed that 757s didn't have airphones and as evidence the conspiracist linked to a forum post authored by someone with the screen name [FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]the Paradroid
> 
> ...



That's a scary thought.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



As I am positive that the means of transmission were very important given the circumstances of the call.  Every thing she brings up is pure trivia.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> I read the various things that Ted Olsen said about phones. It is apparent he never knew if his wife called from a cell phone or an airphone and was merely speculating. She called him at work, and apparently had to go through the office switchboard to speak to him.
> 
> A really funny link I found claimed that 757s didn't have airphones and as evidence the conspiracist linked to a forum post authored by someone with the screen name [FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]the Paradroid
> 
> ...


well, if its on the internet, it MUST be true, right


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 25, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


more like minutia


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




I did not use May's call as evidence cells from high altitudes are not possible.  The op link uses several sources from phone companies pointing out it is not reasonable or even plausible cell calls in 01 could be made from high altitudes.  

There are several reports saying may's call was made from a cell.  Why do you ignore that?  The CR never even attempts to prove where the calls came from so if we are to understand how the calls were made we have to look at what facts support what media was used.  

There are also OCTAs on here who have also claimed may used a cell so don't try to claim it is a troofer fantasy it was claimed may used a cell phone.

I've also repeatedly explained one reason for the 50,000 foot quote is to show how unbelievably biased Poop Mechanics is about that day.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




CNN didn't quote olson?  Are you serious?  That is your explanation?  Once again it is proven when OCTAs don't like contradictory information they dismiss it with absolutely nothing.  

Your statement you are positive the 50,000 foot quote doesn't exist shows how your agenda is also a blind fold.  I don't care if you believe it or not because even if I wasted more time to dig up the transcript or found the video clip it wouldn't make any difference.  You would find some way to dismiss it as you white washed the CNN article.  Or are you saying you would admit PM is obviously biased if you saw the clip?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Let's put your "CNN was mistaken" to bed.  Olson said it on Larry King:

"OLSON: We are -- we segued back and forth between expressions of feeling for one another and this effort to exchange information. And then the phone went dead. I don't know whether it just got cut off again, because the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well, or whether that was the impact with the Pentagon."
CNN.com - Transcripts

That confirms CNN correctly quoted him on 9/11 and he repeats the claim she used a cell on 9/14 as shown with the LK transcript.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I read the various things that Ted Olsen said about phones. It is apparent he never knew if his wife called from a cell phone or an airphone and was merely speculating. She called him at work, and apparently had to go through the office switchboard to speak to him.
> ...



That is stark naked rank hypocrisy.  The CR says calls from 77 were made but provides no hard evidence and you accept it without question.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



people receiving the phone calls is evidence enough for me that they were made. especially when the phone calls triggered a further chain of events such as the call by the May's parents to american airlines. 

if you had any evidence at all that the calls were not made then i would consider your claims. so far you are simply full of shit.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




You never "consider" anything that does not support the OCT.  The fact there are no phone records is strong evidence but you ignore that because you have to.  Otherwise you would come dangerously close to intellectual honesty and we know you are deathly allergic.  Your camp doesn't even begin to offer an explanation why five separate major entities have been unable to produce the records.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


ummm...airphones ARE cell phones.  The guy doesn't know what phone she called him from, he can only speculate.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


You were wrong about the 9/11 Commission stating a cell phone was used by Renee May...it's quite possible you are wrong about the 50,000 quote. But you aren't interested in knowing yourself, which is pretty damn strange.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


What does that have to do with the bogus "proof" used by this troofer? Nothing.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I watched the dickhead say it on the HC and I've seen the documentary at least 3 times.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



So after I prove Olson said it was a cell phone you want to claim airphones are cell phones.  What a fucking shitbag you are.  Thank you for giving another great example of OCTA's affinity for ignoring facts and making painfully obvious ridiculous claims......airphones are cell phones.  Holy fuck.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Mobile or wireless would be a better term...but a lot of Americans call non-land line phones cell phones. 

As I stated way up the thread...your premise is retarded.

Come back when you have some proof of whatever it is you are trying to prove while at the same time being afraid to say whatever it is you are trying to prove.



I'm still trying to figure out what 9E means and what OCTA means...though I've no doubt it is some conspiracy theorist jargon.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 25, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Curvelight never actually takes a direct stand on anything. 

9E = 9-11

OCTA - Original Conspiracy Theory something or other.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> [
> You never "consider" anything that does not support the OCT.  The fact there are no phone records is strong evidence but you ignore that because you have to.  Otherwise you would come dangerously close to intellectual honesty and we know you are deathly allergic.  Your camp doesn't even begin to offer an explanation why five separate major entities have been unable to produce the records.



this is where you lose people, jackass. what the fuck makes you think that because call records have not been published on the internet they therefore dont exist? 

in order for you to claim "the fact that there are no phone records" you need to prove there are no phone records. you havent dont that.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 25, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



the "O" is "Official"

the "A" means either "agent" or "apologists"
haven't quite seen him define his stupid acronyms

and who really needs to shorten 9/11??????


----------



## Fizz (Feb 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> and who really needs to shorten 9/11??????



morons that have trouble counting past 10


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You're nothing but a dishonest shitbag.  You first tried to explain olson's cell phone claim by saying CNN was mistaken.  Pay.  Attention. You. Dumb. Fucking. Lying. Bitch.  If airphones and cell phones are the same thing as you claim then how in the hell could CNN have been "mistaken?"  You know damn well cell and airphones are two different types of phones. 

Your OCTA buddies saw you claim cell and airphones are the same thing and not one of the little bitches had the balls to be honest and call you out on it.  I'm not surprised at all because they have proven themselves to cowardly ***** over and over and over.  It's almost laughable but this will be a great bookmark showing how dishonest you are.  

When you get pwned you simply whine like a little **** and say the op premise is retarded.  The good news for you is you are surrounded by lying cowardly bitches who are just like you so you can be sure you can lie as often as you want and they will never call out your bullshit.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




You are such a worthless ignorant bitch.  The phone records aren't even in the Commission Report you fuckwad.  It's not that they haven't been published "on the internet" you dumbfuck.  They haven't been presented anywhere!  Not in the CR.  Not at Moussaoui's trial.  They have not been produced anywhere.

Then you claim I have to prove a negative.  You don't even understand basic logic.  But, even in your glorious fucking stupidity you fail to acknowledge I have shown there have never been phone records produced anywhere.  

The burden of proof is on your camp you bitch.  Good job on ignoring Ravi's claim cell and airphones are the same thing.  Just another example of how dishonest you lying ***** prove to be on a regular basis.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > and who really needs to shorten 9/11??????
> ...




Thanks for showing again you little whiny ***** look for any stoopid thing to bitch about.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I did not use May's call as evidence cells from high altitudes are not possible.  The op link uses several sources from phone companies pointing out it is not reasonable or even plausible cell calls in 01 could be made from high altitudes.



Yes you did!!! Are you fucking blind?

You SPECIFICALLY point out the call that was made at 9:12 am on flight 77. That is May's call. Then right after that you continue to write the statement that you have provided evidence that it was not possible. Here is the specific part of your quote yet again:


CurveLight said:


> *I have no doubt nobody can prove cell phones were capable of conversational operations on 9/11 on flight 77 at 9:12 am.  Is there anyone who can prove that was possible?  I've provided evidence it was not possible.*



You specifically state above that you have provided evidence that the call made at 9:12 am from flight 77 was not possible. You even go on to challenge people, once again referencing the call made at 9:12 am on flight 77, to provide evidence that it WAS possible:


CurveLight said:


> I anticipate two usual events:  the usual dickless whiny wonders of fizzbitch, Snitch Bitch, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.



Do you see that? A challenge to people to provide evidence that the call at 9:12 am from flight 77 was technologically possible. Was this another Curvelight that wrote this???

This is getting ridiculous already.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





> Airborne telephones work via one of two methods: cellular and satellite. The first, cellular communications, mimics the technology used by terrestrially based cell phones. After engineers developed strategies that prevented airborne cell phone transmissions from interfering with terrestrial cell phones (changing the polarity of the signals and keeping the signal strength down), the Federal Communications Commission approved the first of what will surely be a wave of airborne cell phones.
> 
> 
> AirCell Inc. now offers its AT.01 cell phone system for $3,995. This includes the phone itself, a transceiver, and a low-profile antenna. AirCell's $7,400 AGT.01 cell phone system comes with two transceivers&#65533;one for use in airborne communications, the other for use on the ground&#65533;making this a dual-purpose telephone. In either application, the methodology is the same: Pilots and passengers make calls by first contacting terrestrial cell phone antennas; then the transmission is shunted along to the recipient via land lines and/or other cell phone transmission antennas. Faxes, e-mails, connection with the Internet, and uplinking of weather graphics and text information can all be performed using the AirCell network. Today's maximum baud rate of the AirCell system&#65533;like every other current airborne phone system&#65533;is 9,600 baud. However, AirCell expects to see high-speed modems in use within two years.


Notice the date of the article: November 2000

AOPA Online: Future Flight: Communications Revolution

 I'm sure the Bush administration planted this information on the internets to fool us all.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




You are one stoopid mother fucker.  Keep dancing.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I did not use May's call as evidence cells from high altitudes are not possible.  The op link uses several sources from phone companies pointing out it is not reasonable or even plausible cell calls in 01 could be made from high altitudes.
> ...


I think we've thoroughly debunked Curvy's nonsense and highlighted his inability to be intellectually honest.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




You truly are one stupid bitch.  I didn't cite may's call as evidence cell phones wouldn't work at that altitude.   That would be circular logic.  I cited evidence from different phone companies pointing out a cell call from that altitude and speed was not plausible.  I challenged people to provide evidence a cell call from that speed and altitude was technologically possible.

Don't keep changing my terms either.  I clearly said "cell call." Don't embarrass yourself more by trying to change my claim to saying simply a "call."


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I challenged people to provide evidence a cell call from that speed and altitude was technologically possible.



BULLSHIT!!! You are such a dishonest bitch! You SPECIFICALLY ask for people to provide evidence that the call made at 9:12 am on flight 77 was possible. Nowhere do you ask for evidence of "A CALL". You specifically ask for the 9:12 am call on 77 which was May's call. 

I have never seen such backpedaling in all my life. You do this quite often. When people provide evidence that you are full of shit, you start trying to find loopholes to get out of your bullshit. Just likje in this thread.



CurveLight said:


> I anticipate two usual events:  the usual dickless whiny wonders of fizzbitch, Snitch Bitch, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing *the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.*



See that enlarged, bolded, quote from you? "the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am"?????


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I challenged people to provide evidence a cell call from that speed and altitude was technologically possible.
> ...



You are soooooooooo fucking stoopid.  What is it you do not understand?  Are you bitches so desperate you look for any possible fucking thing to whine about?

Lemme spell it out for you again you dumbass.  There were many claims May called from a cell phone and that call was at 9:12 so I challenged people to provide evidence a cell call at 9:12 would have been possible.  I provided evidence it was not possible.  What are you so confused about you ignorant twat?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

I just looked back through the posts again and you worthless ***** are sooooooooo fucking stoopid.  Do you not realize how fucking idiotic your complaints are?  How dishonest you are?  You're a bunch of fucking *****.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Lemme spell it out for you again you dumbass.  There were many claims May called from a cell phone and that call was at 9:12 so I challenged people to provide evidence a cell call at 9:12 would have been possible.  I provided evidence it was not possible.  What are you so confused about you ignorant twat?



What a dishonest fuck you are!!! You have been caught CHANGING words yet again to try and weasel out of your bullshit when caught.

Here is your quote above:


CurveLight said:


> ...I challenged people to provide evidence *a* cell call at 9:12 would have been possible...



Here is your OP quote:


CurveLight said:


> ...fizzbitch, Snitch Bitch, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing *the* cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.



See the words in red you witless fuck? Switching the words "a" with "the" changes the entire meaning of the statement. Using the word "a" means "any". Using the word "the" implies a specific.

Examples:
Give me "a" football. Means, give me a football, I don't care which one.
Give me "the" football. Means give me a certain football. A specific one.

You made a direct request for people to provide evidence that THE call from 9:12 am on flight 77 was possible. THAT call was May's. No way around it.

The fact that you changed the wording around in your two posts between "a" and "the" PROVES all the more that you're nothing more then a dishonest twat and that you can't admit when you're wrong. You'd rather discreetly change shit around in hopes that people won't notice.

What a fucking used douche you turned out to be.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lemme spell it out for you again you dumbass.  There were many claims May called from a cell phone and that call was at 9:12 so I challenged people to provide evidence a cell call at 9:12 would have been possible.  I provided evidence it was not possible.  What are you so confused about you ignorant twat?
> ...



Rotfl!  Are you fucking serious?  You're bitching about "a" and "the?"  LOL!  Talk about minutia!  It doesn't change anything you fucking whiny bitch. 

I've never denied challenging people to prove May's call could have come from a cell phone at 9:12.  Or are you so fucking twisted in your own delusions you think I was saying there was no way May could have called at all?  You dumbfuck.  I wasn't challenging people to prove she could have called from a seatback phone at 9:12.  It was only about using a cell phone.  What a fucking idiot!  Then you accuse me of being dishonest based on your fucking stupidity! Lol!


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You are fucking too stupid for words.

I asked you to provide the link or statement in which someone said that May specifically made a CELL PHONE call that had led you to issue a challenge for people to provide proof it was? 

Who is making the claim that May had made her call from A CELL phone that you have to provide evidence that it was not possible?

If you can't provide that, then why the fuck did you bring it up? There is no validated evidence that she had made a call from a cell phone or Airfone. So why the fuck are you arguing that it's possible or not?!?!?!?

Holy shit you are stupid.

You tried saying that the CR made that claim about cell and you got your ass handed to you about that. To which you posted an apology that you were wrong. So who is making the claim that May's call was made from a CELL PHONE that you are asking us to provide evidence for?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




If there is no validated evidence she made a call from a cell or airphone then how did she call her parents?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

Curve, the 9/11 Troofers Association called and asked me to tell you to stfu...you are actually embarrassing them with your stupidity.

btw...to your OP. The new generation of cell phones with pico cells, etc, were never made because cell phone calls couldn't be made from airplanes. They were made because it was considered unsafe to the airliner in question AND it interrupted service for those on the ground.


> It also revealed that some fliers are already making phone calls in defiance of an industrywide ban: Indeed, one to four cell calls were surreptitiously made on each flight studied.





> Inflight cellular calls cause other problems, too. Since calling from high up in the air can tie up a big chunk of capacity, wireless users on the ground can be blocked from service. The FCC had banned cellphone use on planes because of this problem. But now communications companies are unrolling new technology to address that issue. Some companies are preparing to equip airplanes with "pico cell" cellular antennas that will allow as many as 100 cellphones at a time to work without disrupting cell service on the ground.





> One certainty: Phone use, like use of computers and other electronic devices, will only be allowed when planes are above 10,000 feet, and will be prohibited during takeoff and landing


The Middle Seat: Preparing for Cellphones - WSJ.com


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



That's what I'm asking you!!!!

You are arguing that she couldn't have made a call from a CELL PHONE!!!! I am asking you to provide the link or statement that led you to ask for evidence that she DID make a call from a cell phone.

If it was just that she MADE A CALL, then it is possible that she called from an Airfone and you asking for evidence of a CELL PHONE call or arguing that CELL PHONE calls are not possible at 30,000 is moot.

Period.

I have seen a scan of a record for her call that shows she swiped a credit card to make the call. which would mean an Airfone, but I don't know where that scan was obtained and don;t want to provide it as evidence for proof that it was made from an Airfone because of that reason.

So again, please provide the link or statement that provoked you to come into this thread and argue that CELL PHONE calls are not possible. Who made this statement?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Curve, the 9/11 Troofers Association called and asked me to tell you to stfu...you are actually embarrassing them with your stupidity.
> 
> btw...to your OP. The new generation of cell phones with pico cells, etc, were never made because cell phone calls couldn't be made from airplanes. They were made because it was considered unsafe to the airliner in question AND it interrupted service for those on the ground.
> 
> ...




You are unbelievably stoopid.  You have achieved divecon status for your dishonesty and stoopidity.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



The first known report:

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL: NEWS: Flight attendant made call on cell phone to mom i...

That was accepted by many people and if I thought it would be worth the time I could link recent posts from your camp saying she used a cell.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

To recap



CurveLight said:


> Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics.  He never supports that claim, but since he said it then it must be true!  Unfortunately, the facts do not support his claim.  The HC is running its old bullshit "look at 9E" which is really just airwave fodder for people gullible and insecure enough to simply accept what the government says and to not question such stellar publications such as Poopular Mekanics.



This quote appears to be a lie. No where can it be found and repeated requests for a link to the quote are ignored or whined about as too much trouble.



> Here's some info:
> 
> "Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls." (WP,July 27, 2004)
> 
> ...


 Again, this technology was to solve problems with perceived danger to aircraft and the fact that cell phone use from the air disrupted calls on the ground. You can't exactly disrupt calls on the ground if cell phones aren't working in the air, can you, peabrain?



> Needless to say, neither the service, nor the "third generation" hardware, nor the "Picco cell" CDMA base station inside the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11, 2001."
> The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls


Irrelevant. People making calls on 9/11 weren't concerned about jamming phone transmissions on the ground.


> Wow.  There was not a whole lot of buzz about those announcements.  How do OCTAs defend the claim cell calls were possible?


People don't get excited over non news and others misinterpretations...hence, no buzz.



> I went on about 6 flights between Boston and Nebraska between 2005 and 2006 and my cell signal dropped shortly after take off and didn't come back until after landing and this was the usual for other passengers trying to use their cells as well.


Irrelevant. Not that we'd believe you to begin with.


> Personal experiences aside, there is no evidence cell phones would have been operational on 9/11 from those altitudes and speeds.


More importantly, there is no evidence that cell phones wouldn't have been operational


> For flight 77 the first claimed cell call occurred at 9:12 am.


Untrue. There is no claim that this call was a cell phone call. 





> According to the flight path by the 9E CR, flight 77 would have been too high and traveling too fast for calls to be possible.


Again, untrue. There is no evidence cell calls can't be made from high altitude. There is also evidence that the plane was at a lower altitude during the period. Barbara Olsen told her husband they were by a residential neighborhood, for one. Also, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, it was unknown what the plane's altitude was when those calls were received.



> I have no doubt nobody can prove cell phones were capable of conversational operations on 9/11 on flight 77 at 9:12 am.


 Irrelevant.


> Is there anyone who can prove that was possible?


Irrelevant


> I've provided evidence it was not possible.


Again, untrue. You've provided no evidence of this whatsoever.


> I anticipate two usual events:  the usual dickless whiny wonders of fizzbitch, Snitch Bitch, Diveass, and Candyass will do nothing but try to distract and nobody will provide actual evidence showing the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12am was technologically possible.


There is no need to provide evidence that the cell call from flight 77 at 9:12 was possible or not since we don't know if it was a cell call.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


The headline doesn't match the story. More sloppy editorializing.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Ravi, what part of my last post directed to you was confusing?  You're a shitbag ****.  Period.  You displayed that when you claimed cell phones and airphones are the same thing after I proved olson said his wife used a cell phone.  Fuck off.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




Must be why the very first line in the story said May used a cell phone eh?  You're such a fucktard.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi, what part of my last post directed to you was confusing?  You're a shitbag ****.  Period.  You displayed that when you claimed cell phones and airphones are the same thing after I proved olson said his wife used a cell phone.  Fuck off.


Airphones used cellular towers and are considered a type of cell phone.

All you have proven is that people can and do get confused about what to call different types of telephones and that journalists can editorialize sloppily.

Olsen stated he didn't know what phone his wife called him from. And in fact, he couldn't know if the calls came through his office switchboard.

What all this proves in your mind is the question of the day. But you are too much of a coward to answer.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The point is that you are arguing that her CELL PHONE call was not possible, but there is no validated evidence that I know of that confirms it was either a CELL PHONE call or an AIRFONE call. THAT makes your argument a moot point.


----------



## Paulie (Feb 26, 2010)

Wow look at Rav getting all heated and involved in a 9/11 discussion.

I don't think I've seen you put this much effort into a topic around here.

Why do you care so much Rav, what's your personal connection to this?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Wow look at Rav getting all heated and involved in a 9/11 discussion.
> 
> I don't think I've seen you put this much effort into a topic around here.
> 
> Why do you care so much Rav, what's your personal connection to this?


I don't, really. I've got a wicked cold and my mind isn't up to much else this week besides smacking around troofers.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Here is what I found:
*Google Image Result for http://www.911myths.com/images/4/4e/Maycallrecord2.png*

As I said, I'm not sure where this was obtained. It clearly show a credit card swipe for the second entry which means an Airfone was used if the paperwork is valid.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



No it does not make it a moot point.  If it was not possible a cell call could be made from that speed and altitude from 77 at 9:12am then we have eliminated one method of contact.  Since it wasn't a cell phone then it must have been an airphone.  Where are the phone records?  That is what you keep ignoring.  The CR never proves how the calls were made and to this day, over nine years later, nobody anywhere has ever produced the records showing she or olson called from 77.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


What speed and altitude was that?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



May's parents said the call was made to them from her. You don't believe them? Is that why you want it verified with evidence?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



No it does not make it a moot point.  If it was not possible a cell call could be made from that speed and altitude from 77 at 9:12am then we have eliminated one method of contact.  Since it wasn't a cell phone then it must have been an airphone.  Where are the phone records?  That is what you keep ignoring.  The CR never proves how the calls were made and to this day, over nine years later, nobody anywhere has ever produced the records showing she or olson called from 77.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


What speed and altitude was that? 

btw, something that looked suspiciously like a phone record was posted on the previous page.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi, what part of my last post directed to you was confusing?  You're a shitbag ****.  Period.  You displayed that when you claimed cell phones and airphones are the same thing after I proved olson said his wife used a cell phone.  Fuck off.
> ...




You're a useless whiny lying bitch.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics.  He never supports that claim, but since he said it then it must be true!  Unfortunately, the facts do not support his claim.  The HC is running its old bullshit "look at 9E" which is really just airwave fodder for people gullible and insecure enough to simply accept what the government says and to not question such stellar publications such as Poopular Mekanics.
> 
> Here's some info:
> 
> ...














I don't think flight 77 was that high in the air at the time, was it?


----------



## Fizz (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



crybaby.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




Here is hypocrisy in full swing.  That is a joke of a site yet it's okay if bullshit sites get used to support the OCT.  How about this? How is it possible some anonymous net user got a copy of that receipt but the Commission couldn't get one? The FBI?  I've seen that bullshit posted before.  Got anything else?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics.  He never supports that claim, but since he said it then it must be true!  Unfortunately, the facts do not support his claim.  The HC is running its old bullshit "look at 9E" which is really just airwave fodder for people gullible and insecure enough to simply accept what the government says and to not question such stellar publications such as Poopular Mekanics.
> ...



It isn't only the altitude but speed as well.  You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph?  There are three reasons cell phones didn't work on planes:  interference from the aircraft itself, altitude, and speed.  The new technology involves putting antennas in the aircraft so they will hold the signal from the towers.  That is why seatback phones used satellites.  Flight 77's cruising altitude was 35,000 feet and was there when it was hijacked.  The hijackers would have stayed at a high altitude to avoid Primary radar detection after turning off the xponder that feeds the Secondary radars that are used by commercial Controllers.  

There is no way to definitely confirm the exact altitude and speed but given the data available we know the first call at 9:12 was 25 minutes prior to the crash.  Doing the math shows it was well over 15,000 feet going at least 350 mph.  I'm low balling those numbers.  What is also interesting is where the exact time of 9:12 came from.  Without the phone records, how can anyone claim the exact time?


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> It isn't only the altitude but speed as well.  You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph?




Maybe you should think about changing your cell phone service. I have no trouble using mine at 60 mph.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

> 265 The records available for the phone calls from American Airlines Flight 77 do not allow for a
> determination of which of four "connected calls to unknown numbers" represent the two connections
> between Barbara and Ted Olson, although it is believed that all four of these calls represent
> communications between Barbara Olson and her husband's office (all family members of the FligAt 77
> ...


This is from the 9/11 Commission staff report. Apparently the airfone records from flight 77 are thought to be Olson's...not Mays. I wonder, would a flight attendant have to make a payment to use an airfone or did they have access to a non-public airfone. If she didn't use her personal cell phone, that is.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't only the altitude but speed as well.  You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph?
> ...


I've used mine at 90 mph...but after that I'm too afraid. The speed might affect the radiation that comes out of the phone and harm my brain.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


she just proved you wrong once again, dipshit


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 26, 2010)

Ravi said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



If you wear a tinfoil hat you'll have no problem.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I just looked back through the posts again and you worthless ***** are sooooooooo fucking stoopid.  Do you not realize how fucking idiotic your complaints are?  How dishonest you are?  You're a bunch of fucking *****.


more TPP


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


then you are saying the May's LIED when they called AA to report what they were told when their daughter called them

the evidence is THEY GOT THE CALL

dipshit


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Curve, the 9/11 Troofers Association called and asked me to tell you to stfu...you are actually embarrassing them with your stupidity.
> ...


ROFLMAO
you are such a fucking moron


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi, what part of my last post directed to you was confusing?  You're a shitbag ****.  Period.  You displayed that when you claimed cell phones and airphones are the same thing after I proved olson said his wife used a cell phone.  Fuck off.
> ...


these guys focus on minutia and think because they dont get an answer that is satisfactory to THEM, that it is the smoking gun for an inside job


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics.  He never supports that claim, but since he said it then it must be true!  Unfortunately, the facts do not support his claim.  The HC is running its old bullshit "look at 9E" which is really just airwave fodder for people gullible and insecure enough to simply accept what the government says and to not question such stellar publications such as Poopular Mekanics.
> ...


no, it wasnt


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


I tried that but the cops kept pulling me over because the sun reflecting off of it was causing other motorists to crash.


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


What a waste of brain power though...with a few notable exceptions, the troofers are mostly pretty smart people...but damn do they like to delude themselves.


----------



## Terral (Feb 26, 2010)

Hi Curve:



CurveLight said:


> *"We Know in 2001 Cell Phones Worked Up To 50,000 Feet and..."*      Well, that was the claim from some guy working for Popular Mechanics. He never supports that claim, but since he said it then it must be true! Unfortunately, the facts do not support his claim. The HC is running its old bullshit "look at 9E" which is really just airwave fodder for people gullible and insecure enough to simply accept what the government says and to not question such stellar publications such as Poopular Mekanics ...



The question about whether cell phones work or do not work at 50,000 feet is totally irrelevant to 'the' 911Truth. AA11 and AA77 were canceled on 9/11 (link) and Flights 93 and 175 both landed in Cleveland (story). Anyone capable of blowing the *9/11 Inside-Job Cover* (Global Guardian Wargames from my "What Happened On 9/11" Topic) was murdered by the *FBI/CIA* (al-CIA-duh) and assigned seats on two canceled flights and two flights that landed in Cleveland on 9/11. Raytheon Missiles were used in all the 9/11 attacks 'and' *Raytheon employees were murdered on 9/11* (story from my Blog Entry) 'and' given seats on these flights! 

There were 'no' cell phones used on 9/11 by any of these inside-job victims! They were all already DEAD before the FBI assigned them seats on the manufactured flight manifests! Every time you bring up the 'cell phone' nonsense, then you are adding credibility to the Official Govt Cover Story LIE ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## Ravi (Feb 26, 2010)

Terral said:


> Hi Curve:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I tried to tell him that the 911 Troofer Association wanted him to stfu.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

Ravi said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


I'm convinced it is caused by some chemical imbalance or deficiency in their brains
don't know what it is exactly, but MOST troofers(like Terral)believe MULTIPLE different conspiracies


----------



## Fizz (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> It isn't only the altitude but speed as well.  You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph?



you can lose a cell phone signal walking too. does this mean you are walking too fast? 

this is the most moronic fucking claim you have ever made!!!!!


----------



## Fizz (Feb 26, 2010)

Terral said:


> Hi Curve:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



holy shit.... even fucking moronic twoofers no longer claim the cleveland landings and the flight cancellations, you fucking moron. its already been thoroughly debunked.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 26, 2010)

Ravi said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



That's just their excuse to take from you what is the ONLY line of defense against the microwave thought control machines.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't only the altitude but speed as well.  You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph?
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't only the altitude but speed as well.  You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph?
> ...


no kidding
i never knew you could out run a radio signal
LOL
whoda thunk it


----------



## candycorn (Feb 26, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*Can you prove there are radio signals?  Theres nothing in the Commission Report about whether the telecommunication satellites had recently been serviced by the Space Shuttle, the expertise of the "pilots" who are all of the sudden doing space walks to fix satellites, what type of sattellites they were, etc...

Fuck...can you even prove there are satellites?  Have you ever seen one?  
Didn't thinkso snitchwitch, switchnitche, stitchclip or whatever the hell he calls you.

Now keep in mind, I'm not saying there are not satellites, just that the CR didn't mention that there were Satellites on 9T, 9E, or 9Tw.  

*


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


thats liability he calls that
LOL
but he seems to have favs for all of us


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't only the altitude but speed as well.  You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph?
> ...



Learn how to read.  I didn't say I lose the signal at that speed.  I only said "you can," as in general users, can lose their call from that speed.  You ignored the point of the example.  Why is that?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


except for in your deluded world, you seem to think the reason it "can be lost" is due to the speed, and not the fact they drove out of the cell towers RANGE
the speed had absolutely NOTHING to do with losing the signal, but the fact it took them OUT OF THE RANGE OF THE TOWER

at altitude, that wouldnt be as much of a factor because you would be in range of several towers at the same time


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 26, 2010)

Radio waves move at nearly the speed of light depending upon local conditions.

V=C/N
V= velocity
Where c is the speed of light
N is the refractive index

Can't believe I remember that stuff.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Ravi said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




Where did olson say he didn't know what kind of phone she used?  I'm aware of five times he stated the type of phone:

9/12 CNN: cell phone

9/14 Hannity and Colmes:  had to be an airplane phone because she called collect

9/14 Larry King:  he said signals from cell phones on planes were weak.

9/16 Memorial Lecture:  airplane phone

3/5/02 Daily Telegraph:  "She had had trouble getting through, because she wasn't using her cellphone, she was using the phone in the passengers' seats," 
Http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html

Your claim he viewed cell phones as airplane phones is proven wrong. He makes a clear distinction between cell phones and airplane phones.

Your claim he said he didn't know what kind of phone is also bullshit.


Speaking of delusions, that would be you.  When shown he said it was a cell phone to CNN you accused CNN of misquoting him.  When I proved your misquoting claim was false you then tried to make the claim cell phones are airphones.  If that's true how did CNN "misquote" him?  You made the distinction between the two with that ridiculous claim.

Another delusion is claiming the ban on cell phones on planes is proof cell phones would always work.  The ban exists because cell phones are constantly emitting a signal searching for a tower connection.  The fear is those emissions would cause avionics interference.  It had nothing to do with the claim cell phones were operational for calls.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Terral said:


> Hi Curve:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


.


I brought up the 50,000 foot quote to prove the bias from Poopular Mechanics.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Curve:
> ...


so, you agree with terral?
are you actually making a stand on SOMETHING?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't only the altitude but speed as well.  You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph?
> ...




Thank you for helping prove cell drops can happen when walking on the ground.  If there are connection problems while walking what do you think happens in a plane at 20,000 feet moving 400+ miles per hour?

You also just proved your stoopidity and dishonesty.  Again.  I never said speed was the only factor.  Interference from structures, altitude, and speed all contribute to dropped calls.  I'm pretty sure you will continue to lie and say I claimed speed was the only factor.  You're so fucking dumb.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


my GAWD you are stupid


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



Now I see why you usually just post stoopid one liners.  When you try to debate you embarrass yourself.
  Altitude does matter because cell phone towers do not emit up into the atmosphere.  They are terestial which means they transmit horizontally and not vertically.  That is explained by the phone companies in the op links. You're such a fucking idiot.

Like fizzbitch, you ignore the fact I already said being out of range can be a reason.  There are three common reasons for lack of service and only one needs to be present to prevent service you fucking whiny cockturd.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 26, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



And it looks to be a downward spiral of stupidity as well.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...




You dumbfuck.  All I did was state why I brought up the 50,000 foot quote from PM.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


ROFLMAO
you are a fucking idiot and you prove it once again
you clearly know NOTHING about radio broadcasting


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


but since you ignored all the rest of his bullshit, one has to assume you AGREE with it
its the same thing you do when you dont see anyone point out others mistakes
which i HAVE multiple times and will do again when i see them before they are corrected
you, however wouldnt take on another troofer no matter how fucking asinine the post was


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


doesnt it


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 26, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




You're one of the dumbfucks that claimed May used a cell phone.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


no, he has said it doesnt matter what she used


----------



## Ravi (Feb 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


>





> HUME: You don't know whether it was on a regular cell phone or one of those    air phones?
> OLSON: No, I don't. I first of all assumed that it must have been on the airplane    phone, and that she somehow didn't have access to her credit cards. Otherwise,    she would have used her cell phone and called me.


He didn't know. He was unsure. In the end the fact that they were collect calls and the fact that there were records of four calls being made from the inflight phone made him decide that the were made from inflight phones.


----------



## KissMy (Feb 27, 2010)

My cell phone regularly worked over 50 miles from towers & in jet airplanes in 2001. I could talk for a few minutes at a time before going out of tower range at cruse speed near 30,000ft. Once I called costumer care to complain about reception at the Mark Twain Lake in Missouri were I spent summers & they told me I was over 50 miles from the tower I was using in Columbia, MO. I know the locals there were using towers that were that far off also.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




As usual.....your pathetic camp tries to cover up for each other's dishonesty and stoopidity.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 27, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




You are such a useless lying dickhead.  Like I said before, you're nothing but a whiny **** and you proved it again you fucking coward.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 27, 2010)

KissMy said:


> My cell phone regularly worked over 50 miles from towers & in jet airplanes in 2001. I could talk for a few minutes at a time before going out of tower range at cruse speed near 30,000ft. Once I called costumer care to complain about reception at the Mark Twain Lake in Missouri were I spent summers & they told me I was over 50 miles from the tower I was using in Columbia, MO. I know the locals there were using towers that were that far off also.




Rotfl!  You didn't expect anyone to believe this did you?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Do you think anyone is surprised by you telling more lies you shitbag diaper diver?


----------



## KissMy (Mar 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > My cell phone regularly worked over 50 miles from towers & in jet airplanes in 2001. I could talk for a few minutes at a time before going out of tower range at cruse speed near 30,000ft. Once I called costumer care to complain about reception at the Mark Twain Lake in Missouri were I spent summers & they told me I was over 50 miles from the tower I was using in Columbia, MO. I know the locals there were using towers that were that far off also.
> ...



I don't know what others believe. I am only stating facts. In 2000 many local farmers & I used Nokia 5120 & 5185 cell phones in Perry, MO 63462 using AT&T / Cingular Service. There were no towers around there back then. We would use Automobile mounted booster antenna in bad spots. But without booster antenna we could talk up to 60 miles in high open areas. I do not care what the specs say. The phone company also could not believe it when they discovered how far they worked.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 2, 2010)

KissMy said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...




Thass total bullshit.  Someone had their info wrong......60 miles from the nearest cell tower......rotfl!


----------



## candycorn (Mar 2, 2010)

KissMy said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



*I made several calls from the air on an old motorola phone that I had.  Both prior and post 9/11.  

Some went through, some did not.  This is a bizarre subject--i.e. why do you think the airlines don't want you using your cell phones if they are useless from the air?  

Just as an aside, with the transponders turned off, there seems as though there'd be less interference from the aircraft since there isn't something else transmitting within a few feet of you.  Just a thought.  *


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 2, 2010)

candycorn said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


my old CDMA phone had signal much better than my new "smart phone"(3g)


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 2, 2010)

candycorn said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



This has been covered you fucking dumbass.....cell phones are transmitters....it doesn't matter if you could actually talk on your phone.....it would still send transmissions that would try to link with a tower.  That is why many phones have the "Airplane Mode" feature.  When you turn that on it stops emitting the signal thus allowing you to use non-data linked programs so you would not have to turn your cell phone off.

Your comment about the xponders being turned off was the equivalent of you saying:

"I'm REALLY FUCKING CLUELESS on this subject!"

(now watch some dishonest asshole purposefully misquote me.....)


----------



## Againsheila (Mar 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



gee, that wasn't a biased article at all......

Did anybody consider they might have been using satellite phones?  Wouldn't those have worked?


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 2, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




The link wasn't to an "article" but welcome to another episode of OCTAs Can't Keep Up!  The seatback phones were satellite phones so yes....if they were using those phones they would have worked.   For flight 77 nobody has ever been able to produce phone records coming from that flight.   On a side note....last night I tried doing a flight history search for N644AA in the BTS and RITA and not much was popping up.


The dude from Poopular Mekanics claimed it was known in 2001 cell phones worked on planes up to 50,000 feet.  I pointed that out as a great example of how biased PM has always been about 9E.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 2, 2010)

KissMy said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



It's called skip.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 2, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


i have a Nokia E71x, with updated software, and it doesn't have this "airplane" mode


----------



## candycorn (Mar 2, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



The LX600 I have (stop giggling) has such a mode.  It has worked from airplanes too.  Airplanes in flight.  The premise that there is no way a phone call can be made from a plane is just another stupid assed claim from fry mommy.  G'night.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 3, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


lol
well, all i can say is what i have had as experience
my Nokia E71x wouldnt work on the last flight i took
was very disappointed too
all i can give thanks for it the plane had direct tv to watch, so i wasnt bored on that long cross country flight
lol


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 3, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Why keep lying you shitbag?  Oh thass right.....you guys never call each other out when you lie so it's awwlllll good!


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




You are one STOOPID mother fucker!

"If the "Advanced" option is not available, this indicates
the device is or was recently in "Flight" Mode. Please
deactivate "Flight" mode..."
Http://www.wireless.att.com/answer-center/main.jsp?t=solutionTab&solutionId=KB101470


"Phone profiles
Yes
Number
Flight mode
Silent mode
Speakers
Speaker Phone"
Nokia E71x detailed information (Phone Arena)


Gee gomer.....do you think it's possible "Flight mode" is the same thing as "Airplane mode?"


YOU ARE SUCH A FUCKING RETARD!!


----------



## candycorn (Mar 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



*I remembered the SUV I rented to drive back East for the Holidays had that XM Radio.  I was so impressed that I had it put in my car.  Anyway, one of the mornings I was listening to CSPAN radio just to see what it was about.  They had a panelist on there and were taking calls.  Of course one of the twoofers called up and I loved how the panel just treated him like he had a mental illness which, obviously, they all do.  

Anyway the guy comes on and of course whines about not being taken seriously.  One of the panelist--in a way that was more tactful than I would have prescribed--suggested that perhaps he should re-evaluate his position to at least be one of causing only polite laughter rather than belly chuckles.  The host moved on quickly but it was fun to hear the total rejection of these losers by CSPAN.*


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 3, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




It's really sad when you have to try to make yourself feel better by broadbrushing ignorant statements.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


it wasnt listed in my options, dipshit

hey dipshit
that is not what you claimed, its OFFLINE
it wasnt what you said


----------



## candycorn (Mar 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


*
Sort of lets you know how valuable her time is when she can read the owners manual--not to her phone but to YOUR phone.  I guess the lunch rush is over?*


----------



## Ravi (Mar 3, 2010)

Airplane mode was invented so you could use your phone's tools while flying but you couldn't make phone calls from it while flying. 

Most airlines these days won't even let you use your cell phone in airplane mode.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 3, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


no shit
LOL
when i flew, i just shut it off, like the attendants ASKED everyone to, during takeoff and landing


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 3, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Airplane mode was invented so you could use your phone's tools while flying but you couldn't make phone calls from it while flying.
> 
> Most airlines these days won't even let you use your cell phone in airplane mode.


they do except for takeoff and landing


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You're too fucking stoopid to know your own phone but you try to debate 9E?  What a fucking dumbass!


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 3, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I didn't read the manual you dumb ****.  It was worth the 30 second google search to reveal (yet again) how pathetically stoopid you shitwads are.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


shithead, i siad my phone doesnt have a "flight" mode, and it doesnt
dumbfuck


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


and it proved YOU wrong shithead


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




That isn't what you said you dumb fuck.  You said said it doesn't have the "airplane mode" I referenced so I posted the links proving it does have that airplane mode you stoopid useless ****.  Seriously, you guys just keep proving over and over and over how unbelievably fucking dumb you are.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


it doesnt have an "airplane" mode either dipshit
it has an "offline" mode
you proved that yourself, numbnutz


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




ROTFL!!!!!  YOU STOOPID BITCH!!!!!  AIRPLANE MODE IS OFFLINE MODE!!!!! 

It doesn't matter if a specific phone states airplane, flight, or offline because they are different terms for the same fucking thing....lol.....you are one STOOPID ****!


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you are the fucktard that thought it made enough of a difference you had to look it up
LOL
you are fucking pathetic


and news for you, OFFLINE is not "airplane" or "flight"
they are different words that mean different things


----------



## Fizz (Mar 3, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you do realize that cell phone companies customize the software in the phones, right? 

no. you're a dumbfuck. you probably didnt.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 3, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


he thinks "offline" is the same thing


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I looked it up because you claimed your nokia didn't have the airplane mode I pointed out and I proved that it does showing you are TOO FUCKING STOOPID to even know your own phone......you don't even know how to use a cell phone but you want to talk about the Towers and 757 airliners..........ROTFL!!!! Fucking dumbass!


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




The airplane mode is hardwired into cell phones you fucking ignorant ****.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




You just love to keep proving how STOOPID you are.  Take a look you dumbfuck: 

"- use offline mode for airplanes"

Gee......do you think there is a slight chance that is the airplane mode you dumbfuck?  Then there is:

"Offline mode: play your media without interfering with nearby electronics"
[ame]Http://wireless.amazon.com/Nokia-E71x-Phone-Black-AT/dp/B0027A7XWE[/ame]

Rotfl!  Thank you for continuing to prove how fucking STOOPID you are!


----------



## Ravi (Mar 4, 2010)

*Flight mode* is a setting available on many cell phones and other electronic devices that, *when engaged, disables many of the device's signal transmitting functions  thereby disabling the device's capacity to place or receive calls or text messages* while still permitting use of other functions that do not require signal transmission (e.g., games, built-in camera, MP3 player). The name is derived from the fact that it permits the user to operate the device while on board a commercial aircraft while in flight, where the operation of cell phones and other devices that send or receive signals is generally prohibited due to the potential impact on aircraft avionics and the potential for interference with ground cell networks. Other names include *airplane mode*, *offline mode*, and *standalone mode*. FM Receiver, Bluetooth, wireless LAN antenna and GPS should still be operative if the phone is so equipped. Nevertheless certain airlines specifically prohibit the use of devices with a 'Flight mode' at all times.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Me too.  During the flight, me and others regularly use the phones.  It has been like that since I started traveling back in my 20's (late 90's)


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Ravi said:


> *Flight mode* is a setting available on many cell phones and other electronic devices that, *when engaged, disables many of the device's signal transmitting functions  thereby disabling the device's capacity to place or receive calls or text messages* while still permitting use of other functions that do not require signal transmission (e.g., games, built-in camera, MP3 player). The name is derived from the fact that it permits the user to operate the device while on board a commercial aircraft while in flight, where the operation of cell phones and other devices that send or receive signals is generally prohibited due to the potential impact on aircraft avionics and the potential for interference with ground cell networks. Other names include *airplane mode*, *offline mode*, and *standalone mode*. FM Receiver, Bluetooth, wireless LAN antenna and GPS should still be operative if the phone is so equipped. Nevertheless certain airlines specifically prohibit the use of devices with a 'Flight mode' at all times.




Divedick and fizzbitch will still find a way to ignore the facts.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 4, 2010)

You continue to ignore the fact that airplane mode is to keep people from making phone calls while airborne.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Ravi said:


> You continue to ignore the fact that airplane mode is to keep people from making phone calls while airborne.




This has already been explained you dumb fuck.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



HAHAHAhahahahhaahaha!!!!! 

i knew you were too fucking stupid to understand!!!!

phone profiles arent "hardwired" into the phone, jackass. its software!!! 

you really are a fucking moron.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I didn't say phone profiles are hard wired you fucking idiot. 

A profile is what you use to customize your phone you dumb ****.

As you can see from the amazon link the "offline mode" is standard on a nokia e71x but you are desperately lying to try and hide your own ignorance again.  When you gonna threaten to come see me like you did with Christopher you child raping fat ass useless whiny bitch?  Are you still pissed off the pics of dead bodies from 9E aren't sold as "porn?"  You're a sick little monkey licker who does nothing but lie and whine.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



hey dumbfuck....

YOU are the jackass that said its hardwired when i said that some phone companies customize the software.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > You continue to ignore the fact that airplane mode is to keep people from making phone calls while airborne.
> ...


Your opinion of reality is not a fact...it's just your misguided idiocy.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I never said profiles are hardwired you FUCKING REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER!!!!!!


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




Lol....you're the dumb **** that didn't know why the flight mode exists and you still don't know.   Like you didn't know what bush said..........


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Divedickhead bitch is too embarrassed to post again after getting schooled on his own fucking phone....lol...what a bunch of fucking losers!


----------



## Fizz (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Divedickhead bitch is too embarrassed to post again after getting schooled on his own fucking phone....lol...what a bunch of fucking losers!



he's probably got you on ignore because you are like a little 10 year old screaming for attention any way you can get it.

you're so fucking stupid that you say i'm a registered sex offender but dont even know my name. 

you are a complete waste of time...


----------



## Ravi (Mar 4, 2010)

400 posts later and CL still can't even prove the authenticity of her title quote.

*"We Know in 2001 Cell Phones Worked Up To 50,000 Feet and..."*


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Divedickhead bitch is too embarrassed to post again after getting schooled on his own fucking phone....lol...what a bunch of fucking losers!
> ...




Show where I said "profiles" are hardwired you lying cowardly ****.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



i said phone companies customize the software..... you replied it is hardware. you obviously dont have a clue what you are talking about.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Ravi said:


> 400 posts later and CL still can't even prove the authenticity of her title quote.
> 
> *"We Know in 2001 Cell Phones Worked Up To 50,000 Feet and..."*




It has been show you ignorant ****....just like why airplane mode exists and that bush explicitly said the "first building."  How fucking stoopid can you be?


----------



## Ravi (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > 400 posts later and CL still can't even prove the authenticity of her title quote.
> ...


No. It hasn't. 

You are wrong about airplane mode...

So far you've been right about exactly one thing...the Bush quote.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You can't show where I said profiles are hardwired because I never said that you lying fuck.  The nokia e71x comes with the Offline mode hardwired you dumbfuck.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph?



Wait, wait, wait.

I just saw this.

Are you saying that the reason you lose a cell phone call when going 60 mph is because of the speed?????


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




I really don't give a fuck if a **** like you believes it or not......how does that feel?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You didn't. you said:


CurveLight said:


> The airplane mode is hardwired into cell phones you fucking ignorant ****.



So you are saying that "airplane mode" is NOT a function of the software, but a function of physical electrical components only?


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph?
> ...




No you dumbfuck but thanks for playing........


----------



## Ravi (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Pretty happy, actually.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





Is that how you respond when you make stupid statements?

And yes, it IS what you are claiming.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




I'm saying it comes standard on that nokia phone so when divedick said it wasn't on his phone I posted a link proving that it is there because that is how they are manufactured.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Tell you what. I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself.

Please explain what you meant by:


CurveLight said:


> ]You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph



What exactly are you claiming is the reason you lost the call in the above statement???? I'll wait here for your answer. This should be good.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




If that makes ya happy.....


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



It should because it means you don't have to admit again when you fuck up.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Hardwired does not mean "standard software configuration". 

Idiot.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




Do you know why dropped calls happen while driving?  If you do then you don't need it explained.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




Does it come standard on that phone or not? If it does then you are desperately nitpicking as usual you cocksucking retarded bitch.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



where are you getting the info that "offline" mode is hardwired? are you talking out of your ass again?

where are you getting the info that "offline" mode is the same as "airplane" mode.... because browsing through AT&T's customer support forum it looks like "offline" mode means no data is sent over the network, saving you data charges,  but you can still make phone calls.

how do you think you put the phone in different modes if not through SOFTWARE which can be, and often is, customized by the wireless provider? are you claiming that each phone has a button that puts it into airplane mode? because that is what "hardwired" means, ass cowboy.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

"Although preventing interference with the plane's onboard systems is the most well-known reason for such bans, the more important concern with cell phones is interference with cell phone networks on the ground, which cannot handle phones at high relative altitudes and moving at airplane speeds."
Flight Mode definition (Phone Scoop)


----------



## Fizz (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> "Although preventing interference with the plane's onboard systems is the most well-known reason for such bans, the more important concern with cell phones is interference with cell phone networks on the ground, which cannot handle phones at high relative altitudes and moving at airplane speeds."
> Flight Mode definition (Phone Scoop)



so the problem is that the phones work and they create problems for the towers.

got ya.

thanks....


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



So you can't show where I said "profiles" are hardwired.  Thanks for your admission you whiny ****.

Oh, and I already posted the info for the nokia E71x saying you use "Offline mode on airplanes."  You fucks are a waste of time.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Yes I do fuckstick.

I deal with Blackberries and cell phones all the time where I work. It's not the 60 mph speed you are traveling at that causes you to drop your call. It's the signal. If I get to a point between two towers where the signal cannot be properly handed off to the next tower, the signal is dropped. Distance from the towers is the issue, not speed.

If I get into a deadzone where the signal cannot reach my phone such as a basement or the middle of a school, then signal is dropped.

I can WALK to an area with poor signal reception or into an area where a tower cannot be reached to lose a signal. 

If I walk away from my wireless router and lose it's signal on my laptop after a few minutes, is it because I was WALKING TOO FAST???

Now traveling at 400 mph may play a roll in handoffs to towers and not giving enough time to establish that, but not a 60mph.

So again. What where you implying by this quote as to the reason for losing the call mentioned? I'll wait here again.


CurveLight said:


> ]You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > "Although preventing interference with the plane's onboard systems is the most well-known reason for such bans, the more important concern with cell phones is interference with cell phone networks on the ground, which cannot handle phones at high relative altitudes and moving at airplane speeds."
> ...




You are sooooooo fucking stoopid


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



You sure you aren't there out of charity?  You know.....like a down low intern program for dumbfucks like you?  You just reinforced my whole point and are too fucking dumb to realize it.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No stupid. Hardwired does not mean standard. I can't help it if you use words that you THINK you know the meaning to in order to explain yourself. 

Get a dictionary.

Hardwired means "physical components". Not software.

You fucked up again.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Speed has nothing to do with losing a call at 60 mph.

You fucked up AGAIN!!


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

Here Curve.

Let me slow down a bit for you so you can see how stupid your statement was. You were comparing a cell phone call made at 60 mph dropping to a call made at 400 mph and dropping and saying that speed has to do with both calls dropping

The call dropped at 400 mph DOES have to do with speed.

The call at 60 mph had NOTHING to do with speed.

Do you get it now dumbass? Let's see you long it takes to sink in.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



what are you claiming is hardwired then? here is your chance to explain yourself. hardwired means something is physically wired from one thing to another. so explain what is getting wired to what when we were talking about profiles.

i see you are already starting to bail out the way you typically do by claiming "we are a waste of time" once you are caught once again being WRONG.

(sucks to be you, i bet)


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




I never said it was speed alone on the ground you dumbfuck.  The signal has to be passed between towers and as you said, it's the distance between the towers, not necessarily your speed.  So if you are driving at 60 mph what do you think happens to the ratio of signals being passed between towers when DISTANCE is the factor you fuckwad?  When you are moving at 60 mph you are not stationary.....just like when you are walking....so when you change the distances between the towers by being on the move you increase the chances of a dropped call....which also has to do with interference you einstein.  What else you got?


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Lol.....so you accuse me of bailing by pointing out you lied when I said profiles are hardwired?  What a stoopid bitch.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 4, 2010)

Wasnt the point whether or not calls were made on 9/11?  Pretty obvious they were since this bullshit has gone on for 400 posts or so; quite a long time for a yes or no question.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Really? Can you show me in this quote of yours where you say it could be something in addition to speed at 60 mph? You directly blame speed and then go on to comapre it to 400 mph.


CurveLight said:


> It isn't only the altitude but speed as well.  You can lose a cell signal driving at 60 mph so how feasible is it to hold a signal at 400 mph?


----------



## Fizz (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



we were talking about profiles. you claimed something is hardwired. now is your chance to explain what you meant if not profiles. otherwise, its certainly reasonable to assume you meant profiles were hardwired.

so where is your explanation of your hardwired claim stating what was hardwired to what if not a profile? i see you ducked the question the first time.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


 Maybe if you slow down to 50 mph the distance between towers will change.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Admit you fucked up already. It's ok.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I never said it was speed alone on the ground you dumbfuck.


It just gets better and better folks.

Does your quote above say that SPEED is a PART of a dropped call on the ground? You are therefore saying that 60 mph plays a part in losing a call.

IT DOES NOT!!!

What do you not under-fucking-stand where you fucked up. You specifically mention speed on the ground as a part of the cause of dropping calls.

PERIOD.

Traveling at 60 mph has nothing to do with dropping a call. I can walk and drop a call. I can ride a bike and drop a call. So you saying that speed is a PART of the problem when traveling at 60 mph on the ground is WRONG. It's DISTANCE and INTERFERENCE on the ground.

Holy shit! I think the definition of "backpedal" should just show Curve's picture.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

Curve, you're really doing well in this thread. In here alone you've managed to fuck up the following:

1. You made the false claim that the CR referenced cell phone calls made at 30,000 feet to which you admitted to being incorrect.
2. You claimed that the "airplane mode" is hardwired into certain phones. Wrong.
3. You claim that when traveling at 60 mph, speed is PART of the reason cell phone calls are dropped. Wrong.
4. You try and use May's cell phone call as proof that cell phone calls where not possible, yet there is no proof that her call was MADE from a cell phone.

What else are you going to screw up in this thread?


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I never said it was speed alone on the ground you dumbfuck.
> ...




Speed is not the cause but it does play a role while driving or flying you fucwad.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Not when driving, you twat. IT PLAYS NO ROLE WHATSOEVER. 

If you think it does, please explain how. This should be a winner.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> Curve, you're really doing well in this thread. In here alone you've managed to fuck up the following:
> 
> 1. You made the false claim that the CR referenced cell phone calls made at 30,000 feet to which you admitted to being incorrect.
> 2. You claimed that the "airplane mode" is hardwired into certain phones. Wrong.
> ...




1.  True-the point was the CR never proved the calls were made from 77.

2.  True-I should have said they are manufactured that way, are built that way, it comes standard, etc.  It doesn't change the point the airplane mode is on the nokia e71x.

3.  Traveling at 60 mph can play a role in dropped calls because when your position is changing, just like when walking, the signals can be dropped due to interference and relay problems.

4.  I never used May's call to prove calls from planes can't happen.  I posted the link in the OP citing different companies pointing out cell calls from high altitudes in planes are extremely rare, if at all.


What else do you want to whine about you useless fucking bitch?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> 3.  Traveling at 60 mph can play a role in dropped calls because when your position is changing, just like when walking, the signals can be dropped due to interference and relay problems.?



WTF?????



Position changing has nothing to do with speed you moron. I can crawl, walk, run, and drive a car at 60mph, and lose the call at the SAME FUCKING POINT. It's distance and location not speed you idiot.

Holy fuck are you stupid. I can see why you have issues.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 4, 2010)

I do believe Curvy actually thinks the distance between towers changes depending on the speed of the cell phone user.

Maybe he thinks there is a time warp or worm hole that allows dead zones to somehow become live.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> 4. * I never used May's call to prove calls from planes can't happen.  *I posted the link in the OP citing different companies pointing out cell calls from high altitudes in planes are extremely rare, if at all.



You didn't? What does this next quote mean from your OP?


CurveLight said:


> I have no doubt nobody can prove cell phones were capable of conversational operations on 9/11 on flight 77 at 9:12 am.  Is there anyone who can prove that was possible?  I've provided evidence it was not possible.



You said you provided evidence that it WAS NOT POSSIBLE!!!! "IT" meaning the call at 9:12 am on flight 77 WHICH was May's call.

What was the purpose of referencing her call at 9:12 am on flight 77?


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




If you are driving at 60 mph and there is a dead spot 5 miles down the road do you think you would reach that same dead spot in the same time while walking you dumbfuck?


----------



## Fizz (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



HAHAHahahaha.. it becomes more dead if you are travelling at 60mph than walking?


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 3.  Traveling at 60 mph can play a role in dropped calls because when your position is changing, just like when walking, the signals can be dropped due to interference and relay problems.?
> ...



Position changing has nothing to do with speed?  So if you drive a car at 60 mph for an hour in a straight line you would be in the same position as someone who started walking at the same time? Lol...what a dumb fucking bitch!


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




You are too fucking dumb.  No it does not become more dead.  It's not even worth explaining it to you.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 4. * I never used May's call to prove calls from planes can't happen.  *I posted the link in the OP citing different companies pointing out cell calls from high altitudes in planes are extremely rare, if at all.
> ...



How many times does it need to be explained to you?  How the fuck can you be this stoopid?  The links in the OP prove a cell call could not happen at a high altitude and speed, which is where 77 was at 9:12am you ignorant fucking ****.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



dead spots are dead spots. speed has nothing to do with it.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Nobody said speed causes a dead spot you dumb bitch.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



i'm sorry, jackass. please point out where i said they did.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Your own post you lying ****......

"dead spots are dead spots. speed has nothing to do with it."


You can keep playing your games......


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 4, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


wow, you REALLY suck at this
he was saying they DIDNT come into play, asshole, not that they DID


----------



## Fizz (Mar 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



his english comprehension really sucks.... its a common problem with him.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Learn how to use your own phone before posting you useless ****.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Who said speed causes dead spots for you to state speed has nothing to do with dead spots you whiny coward?


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2010)

You get dumber by the day...you still can't even admit that airphones and cell phones are both two-way radios and are considered cell phones. 



> In Britain, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) found that between January 2000 and August 2005 up to 20 incidents of aircraft malfunction were linked to the use of mobile phone


Howstuffworks OMG, the CAA must be part of the plot to blow up the twin towers...they are planting false information on the internets.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Because you're saying speed on the ground is part of the reason calls are dropped which is NOT true.

Deadspots are deadspots now matter and don't change. Speed does not have anything to do with deadspots. I hit a deadspot on my way home from work everyday whether I'm going 10mph, or 45 mph. Same place. 

You claiming that a speed of 60 mph is part of the reason calls are dropped is pure bullshit which is what he was saying.

A deadspot is a deadspot. It will always be there. 

SPEED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Ravi said:


> You get dumber by the day...you still can't even admit that airphones and cell phones are both two-way radios and are considered cell phones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Even olson distinguished between cell phones and airplane phones you dumb fucking snot.  It is common knowledge cell phones and airplane phones are understood as two different types of phones, even if the technology is exactly the same, and it isn't.  You tried to change Olson's words by claiming when he talked about "cell signal" coming from planes he was talking about the airplane phone.  Even after I proved five times he claimed to know what kind of phone his wife used you ignored that, literally.  You're fucking retarded.

For the last time you ignorant skanky slut:  cell phones emit transmissions that are claimed to interfere with the avionics on a plane and that is independent of calls being operational.  Meaning, if your cell phone is on normal mode it is always emitting a signal, regardless if you can make a call or not.  You don't have to be talking on your phone for it to cause interference because even if you can't connect to a tower the phone is still emitting a signal.  Do you understand now you fucking useless bitch?


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2010)

ah, but it said USE of a mobile phone. USE isn't a phone sitting passively. USE is USE. 

As to Olson, he was confused at first until he realized his wife called him collect...then he realized she had use the airplane's mobile phone and not her personal mobile phone. Any mischaracterization of his words is yours and yours alone.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Thank you for proving my point.  Dead spots are generally stationary as you pointed out by saying:

(posted by gamolickdick)
"I hit a deadspot on my way home from work everyday whether I'm going 10mph, or 45 mph. Same place."

Keep in mind I did NOT say speed CAUSES dropped calls.  Speed only increases your chances of hitting those deadspots.  If you leave from work at 5pm and drive 60 mph, at what time would you hit that deadspot?  The next day you leave from work at 5pm but you walk instead of drive.  Would you hit that same deadspot at the same time by walking? No.  Why?  Speed!  The faster you are moving the more likely it is to hit deadspots.  Why is that so fucking hard for you dumbasses to understand?  Speed does not cause deadspots but only exposes you to hitting more of them.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Ravi said:


> ah, but it said USE of a mobile phone. USE isn't a phone sitting passively. USE is USE.
> 
> As to Olson, he was confused at first until he realized his wife called him collect...then he realized she had use the airplane's mobile phone and not her personal mobile phone. Any mischaracterization of his words is yours and yours alone.



Holy fuck you are stoopid!  If your phone is on in normal mode that means it is in use because it is constantly emitting a radiowave whether you are talking or not!  That is what the airplane mode changes.  It stops the radiowaves from being emitted so you don't have to turn your phone off to use other features like media.  Holy fuck you are STOOPID!

As for Olson, I already posted the FIVE times he claimed to know what phone his wife used but yo keep on ignoring those facts because it helps show how fucking scared to death you are.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Holy fuck are you just spewing stupid today!



Let's look at a part of your quote shall we?


CurveLight said:


> Speed only increases your chances of hitting those deadspots.



Are you fucking serious? Did you just write that?!? Speed INCREASES my chances of hitting those deadspots? If there is a deadspot 10 miles from my house I will hit that deadpsot whether I drive 10 mph or 60 mph. I'll hit it 100% of the time NO MATTER WHAT SPEED I AM GOING AT!!!!! It's just that I'll hit it sooner. 

What a moron. My place of work is a stationary building. I drive there 5 days a week. Are you saying that the faster I drive, it will better my chances of getting to the building to work?????

You are too stupid for words!!!!!


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2010)

Hey, retard...the VAST MAJORITY of cell phones did not have airplane mode on 9/11 or the period covered by the CAA so your point is invalid.

The phones were in use, that means they were being used...and most cell phones in that time period had one use...to call someone.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


 I just spit my coffee.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 5, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Sorry!!!



She just made my signature "Hall of Fame"...


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




You are thick headed.  No you dumbfuck I'm not saying driving faster on the same route increases your chances of hitting deadspots.  Let's try another example and see if you can keep up.  Here are the parameters:

Distance: 120 miles on a highway

Person A: traveling in a car at 60 mph

Person B: walking 

Deadspots on that stretch of road:  12, at equal distances.

Time:  2 hours

Person A starts driving the same time Person B starts walking and at the end of the two hour period both people stop.  Did they pass through the same number of deadspots? No.  They could not have.  Why?  The person driving canvassed 120 miles of distance passing through all 12 deadspots while in the same time frame the person walking would have only traveled about 16 miles and could not have possibly passed through all 12 deadspots the driver went through.  Hence, driving at 60 mph increases your chances of passing through deadspots versus walking at 8 mph.  

If you don't get it by now you never will.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Hey, retard...the VAST MAJORITY of cell phones did not have airplane mode on 9/11 or the period covered by the CAA so your point is invalid.
> 
> The phones were in use, that means they were being used...and most cell phones in that time period had one use...to call someone.




Holy shit you are dumb.  You do not have to be using your phone for it to send a radio signal.  If you turn your phone on normal mode and set it down on the kitchen table and leave, guess what?  The phone is still emitting radiowaves while nobody is even using it you dumb fuck.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, retard...the VAST MAJORITY of cell phones did not have airplane mode on 9/11 or the period covered by the CAA so your point is invalid.
> ...


But it isn't IN USE.  I think I'll take the CAA's word that the phones were in use over yours.

Question: If a cell phone travels at 60 mph how much time is required for said cell phone to become convinced that George Bush is responsible for 9/11?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



What a fucking COMPLETE moron. And I do mean COMPLETE. You are not increasing the CHANCES of hitting a deadspot. You are increasing the NUMBER of deadspots that you will hit. 

Let's try this.

Person A drives at 90 mph and person B drives at  25 mph. Both start at point A. They are both going to travel the same route to get to Point B. The route they take will have them pass through 3 cities before reaching the final destination of Point B.

City A
City B
City C

Person A and Person B will both pass through City A, B, and C, no matter WHAT speed they are going. The CHANCES of both of them passing through Cities A, B, and C are 100%. Person A, going 25 mph has a 100% of passing through all three cities. Person B has 100% chance of passing through all three cities. 

Do you see your fuckup yet?

Answer me this. 

Let's say you and I leave Point A to go to Point B and use the same exact route. Along that route there are 10 deadspots. You leave Point A going 90 mph and I leave going 20 mph. We both arrive at the Point B, but at different times. What are the chances that you and I hit the 10 deadspots going from Point A to Point B?

If you hit all ten deadspots going 90 mph (for 100%), you are saying that may chances of hitting all ten deadspots are less than 100% because I went slower?

Now if you went beyond Point B to Point C, and that route had a further 5 deadspots, while I stayed at Point B, you would hit 5 more than I did. Not because of your speed.

Damn! I can't believe I have to break this down like I'm talking to a 1st grader.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Gamolickdick, you are beyond pathetic.  Only a fucking moron wouldn't be able to understand a person walking for two hours in the same direction of someone driving for two hours at 60 mph would not cover as much distance therefore would not hit the same number of deadspots.  What. A. Fucking. Dumbass.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolickdick, you are beyond pathetic.  Only a fucking moron wouldn't be able to understand a person walking for two hours in the same direction of someone driving for two hours at 60 mph would not cover as much distance therefore would not hit the same number of deadspots.  What. A. Fucking. Dumbass.


What point are you trying to make with all this silliness anyway?


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



It doesn't have to be "in use" for the phone to emit radio signals.  Gamolickdick knows this as well but is so biased he won't point out you are flat out wrong.  You people are worthless.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


The report said the phones were in use.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




We are talking about what airplane mode does you dumb ****.  Telling people to turn off their phones is not evidence cell phones could be used to make calls as you and other dumbfucks have tried to claim.  If you walk into a basement (or any other area) where you cannot make a call your phone is still emitting a radio signal that can interfere with other electronic equipment.  You even posted the wiki article stating what the airplane mode does and you still don't get it you painfully stoopid mother fucker.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2010)

The report says the phones were _in use_. In use means they were being used to make calls...


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Ravi said:


> The report says the phones were _in use_. In use means they were being used to make calls...




You are beyond help you lying skank.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 5, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolickdick, you are beyond pathetic.  Only a fucking moron wouldn't be able to understand a person walking for two hours in the same direction of someone driving for two hours at 60 mph would not cover as much distance therefore would not hit the same number of deadspots.  What. A. Fucking. Dumbass.
> ...



Just trying to see how many times a hair can be split I suppose.
If there was any question about whether or not calls could be made from any of the 9/11 planes, this thread would have ended about on page 2.  Obviously they can be made--Ive done it--and there is no debate about it...all this jibberish about towers, 60mph car movements, etc... is just silly assed window dressing.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 5, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



be nice to curvelight. he seems to be the last completely moronic twoofer that still doesnt realize how completely idiotic most of his arguments are. we are running out of things to laugh out now that terral and christphera dont post as much. even they were smart enough  start realizing they dont make much sense. 

so curvelight is the last moron that makes me laugh. dont be too hard on him.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolickdick, you are beyond pathetic.  Only a fucking moron wouldn't be able to understand a person walking for two hours in the same direction of someone driving for two hours at 60 mph would not cover as much distance therefore would not hit the same number of deadspots.  What. A. Fucking. Dumbass.





I am truly convinced that you are a moron. 

And here is where the old switcharoo comes into play for Curve. Now that she's been shown to have made a totally idiotic statement, she'll try and change what she meant so as not to look like an ass.

Too late.

The problem for you is that we are talking about leaving a point and arriving at a destination. So no matter how fast you are going, you still hit the same number of deadspots from Point A to Point B.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 5, 2010)

ravi said:


> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> > ravi said:
> ...



42


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


hey dipshit, YOU being wrong about the modes on my phone doesnt equal ME not knowing how to use my phone
grow a fucking brain


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


YES, you did you liar


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2010)

I think I posted this before, but it bears repeating.


> Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.


AFTER THE ATTACKS - COMMUNICATIONS - AFTER THE ATTACKS - COMMUNICATIONS - New Perspective on the Issue Of Cell Phone Use in Planes - NYTimes.com

Most cell phones in use on 9/11 were either analog or a combination of analog/digital. 

I suppose it is possible that the New York Times was trying to cover up for the Bush Administration by printing this story...but somehow I doubt it.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You're still trying to lie your way out of this?  Lol....you said your phone doesn't have an airplane mode and I proved it does........so keep dancing bitch and learn how to use your phone before posting again.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolickdick, you are beyond pathetic.  Only a fucking moron wouldn't be able to understand a person walking for two hours in the same direction of someone driving for two hours at 60 mph would not cover as much distance therefore would not hit the same number of deadspots.  What. A. Fucking. Dumbass.
> ...




You are such a lying bitch.  My original point was speed can play a role in dropped calls but you want to change it to:


"So no matter how fast you are going, you still hit the same number of deadspots from Point A to Point B."

I never said you wouldn't hit the same number of deadspots between points A and B you lying fuck.  Look at my example you dumb ****.  The person driving for 2 hours would travel much farther than the person walking thus would hit more deadspots.  Why? Speed you dumbfuck!


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Speed doesn't play ANY role in dropping calls. 

Case closed.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Bentdick is just so stupid, doesn't know when to quit. And I bet I've only seen half his posts about this stupid shit. As if any of it even makes a difference, even if he were right.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



What you describe is a function of DISTANCE not SPEED.

If two people traveled at the same speed, but the other person went 10 miles farther, they would hit more of the deadspots. 

NO SPEED NEEDED!!!! I just proved you wrong in one easy sentence.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you are such a fucking LIAR
you proved it has OFFLINE mode, which i never said it didnt, dipshit
it does NOT, however, have a "flight" mode
while they might be similar and could possibly be used for the same purpose, it does not change the FACT my phone does NOT have a "flight" mode like i said
now continue to be a dishonest piece of shit and claim it has something you have already proven it DOESNT


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Ravi said:


> I think I posted this before, but it bears repeating.
> 
> 
> > Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.
> ...




First, I never claimed it is impossible to make cell calls from planes.  I pointed out calls from 30,000 feet are about as likely as divedick admitting he didn't know his nokia e71x comes standard with an airplane mode.  Moreover, the hypocrisy here is a fucking riot.  If a college professor says something you think supports the OCT you accept it as gospel.  The NYT cites a college professor for his ridiculous claim on cell phones on planes and you simply swallow it like any other OCT dick placed in front of your mouth.  Do you shitbags ever really look at how fucking ignorant and hypocritical you are or are you too much in love with your fear?

More hypocrisy......if a college professor says something that you


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2010)

Ravi said:


> I think I posted this before, but it bears repeating.
> 
> 
> > Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.
> ...



Practically speaking, this means an analog cell phone would work at 52,800 feet. So....even though we don't know if the Popular Mechanics dude made the quote in the OP (since Curvelight can't find a credible link to it), if he did make the quote he was correct.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Did you learn how to use your cell phone yet bitch?  If not, you shouldn't be posting.  Pop quiz!  Does your nokia e71x have an airplane mode? Yes or No?


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




Holy fuck you are DUMB and DISHONEST!  My example was a function of speed you lying ****.  That is why Person A drove for 2 hours at 60 mph and Person B walked for 2 hours in the same direction.  Or are you desperate enough to try and claim someone can walk for 2 hours and travel 120 miles like a person driving at 60 mph for two hours?

You sure as hell know how to keep embarrassing yourself Gamolickdick!


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


hey, dipshit, HE isnt the one that said he had a Nokia E71x
and it STILL doesnt have an "airplane" or "flight" mode
it has an OFFLINE mode as you posted from the AT&T site
so you continue to lie


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


speed still has ZERO bearing on it, dipshit

and you take the cake on the bolded


----------



## Fizz (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



no you didnt. cell companies customize software. you dont know what modes were available on his phone without knowing who he bought his phone from.

explain to us again how airplane mode is hardwired!!


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


actually, mine is from AT&T
and it DOES have the offline mode
however it still doesnt have a "flight" or "airplane" mode like HE claimed
what he is trying to do is claim that offline is the same thing
but, it isnt
it can be used in a similar fashion but it is not the same

when he made the claim that all cell phone has this mode, i looked in my phone, and it was not there
my phone has a ton of modes i never use, that doesn't make me wrong, it makes him a dipshit that is stuck on minutia and proves me right that thats all the fucking traitorous moronic troofers only do such


----------



## Fizz (Mar 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



just out of curiousity, i want to see if what was on one of the forums is right. can you make a call when it is in offline mode?


----------



## candycorn (Mar 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


No.


Fizz said:


> he seems to be the last completely moronic twoofer that still doesnt realize how completely idiotic most of his arguments are.


He knows; he's just an attention whore.



Fizz said:


> we are running out of things to laugh out now that terral and christphera dont post as much.


Thats true.  EOTS is a shadow of her former self, CD is an afterthought, 9/11rimjob is just cannon fodder at this point.  Terral is right on the edge and Chriss went over a long time ago.  CL is just about the only one providing targets at this point.



Fizz said:


> even they were smart enough  start realizing they dont make much sense.


Yeah they started with nothing and ended up pretty much the same way.



Fizz said:


> so curvelight is the last moron that makes me laugh. dont be too hard on him.



Okay.  Can I still ask what is the point about planes and calls and all of that shit?


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2010)

I don't know if you can make phone calls in offline mode on that phone but you can use wi-fi...so it isn't the same thing as airplane mode.

Curvy strikes out yet again.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




All you OCTAs look the same to me.  The proof is YOU ARE SO FUCKING STOOPID you actually try to claim your phone doesn't have an airplane mode by referencing the.......airplane mode!  ROTFL!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



All anyone needs to read is my sig with your fucked up statement. That's it.

Keep backpedaling twat. You're really good at it.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I already posted the links showing the nokia E71x comes standard with the airplane mode you ignorant lying cocksucking coward.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




Lol.....so basically you keep on lying.....lol....what a fucking useless bitch!


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Nope. It comes with offline mode which allows wifi access. If it came with airplane mode it would be called airplane mode.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 5, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


the dipshit just continues to keep lying


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 5, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You are a stoopid skanky slut.  The fucking site says to use Offline mode while on an airplane so it won't interfere with other electronics.  You even posted the wiki link that points out the flight mode is called the Airplane, Flight, or OFFLINE mode depending on the manufacturer.  You fucks are so pathetic.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Looks like wiki was wrong. 

Google is your friend. Wifi is usable on this phone in offline mode.

STRIKE!


----------



## Fizz (Mar 5, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



and according to the AT&T customer support forum you can still make calls in offline mode. offline mode just shuts off your data connection to the network. i wouldnt call that a reliable source since its a forum (we can all see how reliable curve is!!) but if true it means that once again curve is caught lying by saying offline mode is the same as airplane mode.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




You fucking dicklicks are so pathetic.  Pwning you dumbasses is so easy it's becoming boring.

"Nokia E71x

TUTORIALS


Turn on/off flight mode:

1. Press Menu (LEFT SOFT key).

2. Scroll DOWN and RIGHT to Settings and press the Center select key.

3. Scroll LEFT to Profiles and press the Center select key.

4. To turn off wireless coverage, scroll UP to Offline and press the Center
select key.

5. Highlight Activate and press the Center select key.

6. To exit, press Exit (RIGHT SOFT key) and Back (RIGHT SOFT key) until
you reach the Home screen.

7. You can also change profile modes by holding down the POWER key.
For this example, press POWER, scroll DOWN to Normal, and press the
Center select key to turn wireless coverage back on.

8. At the prompt, select Yes (LEFT SOFT key) to change the profile.

9. Done!"
AT&T Device Simulator



Since you can change modes with the Power key.....what do you think that means you dumbfuck?  The Power key is hardwired.  

Hahahaha........you fucking ignorant twats!


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 6, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




You are the one that posted the wiki article you fucking slut.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


you can also change modes with the profiles in settings
and i actually have profiles in a shortcut icon on my desktop(hint: that is a user programable option)

but since you dont actually know my phone, you are not expected to know that


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 6, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...





You are pure human shit.  You been screaming you don't have a flight mode and when it's proven you do your only response is to lie and dodge.

This is why your group is a bunch of crybaby hypocrites because we can ALL see you fucked up but hey, since it was a Troofer that proved you wrong it's awwwwwllll good!  Holy fuck you are useless.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


it still doesnt have a "flight" mode, dipshit, and no amount of you claiming it does will ever make that the truth


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 6, 2010)

Okay here is the info for you that proves Curvelight knows what he is talking about and all you 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists are just plain talking out of your ass.In david ray griffins book Debunking The 9/11 Debunking,an anwer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.He goes on to talk about Dewdneys experiements with a cell phone on airplanes.He says-On the basis of experiments with various kinds of cell phones in a single engine plane,he reached the following conclusions.successful calls were for the most part possible under 2,000 feet.Between 2,000 and 8,000 feet,they were highly unlikely.Above 8,000 feet,they were extremely unlikely.At 20,000 feet,Dewdney concluded,"the chance of of a typical cell phone call making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. The probability that TWO callers will succeed is less than one in  ten thousand." The likelihood of nine successful calls at that altitude,he says would be "infinitesimal," which in operational terms,means "impossible" 

so there you have it,the facts prove its impossible to make a cell phone call at over 30,000 feet so this discussion no longer needs to go on especially since the commission said NINE calls were made at that altitude.When Gam was saying earlier to me that its not impossible to make a cell phone call at 20,000 feet when I said the chances were one in a hundred-extremely odd chances,lol,well that was making ONE cell phone call.with two or more calls being made,"and remember there were NINE." Chances diminish to less than one in TEN thousand.lol. and like I just said,at 30,000,he called the chances to being "INFINITESIMAL" meaning impossible. thats why there is a pilots for truth site cause the best pilots in the world have said its impossible but like i said many times before,to you Bush dupes,their voices dont matter since demolition experts opinions dont matter to you either.lol.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 6, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Okay here is the info for you that proves Curvelight knows what he is talking about and all you 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists are just plain talking out of your ass.In david ray griffins book Debunking The 9/11 Debunking,an anwer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.He goes on to talk about Dewdneys experiements with a cell phone on airplanes.He says-On the basis of experiments with various kinds of cell phones in a single engine plane,he reached the following conclusions.successful calls were for the most part possible under 2,000 feet.Between 2,000 and 8,000 feet,they were highly unlikely.Above 8,000 feet,they were extremely unlikely.At 20,000 feet,Dewdney concluded,"the chance of of a typical cell phone call making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. The probability that TWO callers will succeed is less than one in  ten thousand." The likelihood of nine successful calls at that altitude,he says would be "infinitesimal," which in operational terms,means "impossible"
> 
> so there you have it,the facts prove its impossible to make a cell phone call at over 30,000 feet so this discussion no longer needs to go on especially since the commission said NINE calls were made at that altitude.When Gam was saying earlier to me that its not impossible to make a cell phone call at 20,000 feet when I said the chances were one in a hundred-extremely odd chances,lol,well that was making ONE cell phone call.with two or more calls being made,"and remember there were NINE." Chances diminish to less than one in TEN thousand.lol. and like I just said,at 30,000,he called the chances to being "INFINITESIMAL" meaning impossible. thats why there is a pilots for truth site cause the best pilots in the world have said its impossible but like i said many times before,to you Bush dupes,their voices dont matter since demolition experts opinions dont matter to you either.lol.


david ray griffin is just another delusional dipshit, like you, rimjob


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 6, 2010)

all of that material that I just quoted can be found on page 87 of his book that you can easily access at your local library if you dont want to buy it.But we all know you 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists wont read the book since it doesnt go along with your version of events. He lists his resourses on where he got that information in the book as well.Unlike the 9/11 coverup commission,griffin investigated 9/11 and did not omit evidence,facts and witness testimonys in his book like they did.

The last thing it goes on to state in that book on that page is this as well which is also very important.That in later experiments,he found out than in a TWIN engine airplane,there was an even lower and more definite cutoff point.In the single- engine aircraft,"the success rates had decayed from 75 percent at 2,000 feet to 13 percent at 8,000 feet." But in the twin-engine aircraft,"the success rate decayed from 95 percent at 2,000 feet to 44 percent at 5,000 feet,10 percent at 6,000 feet and 0 percent at 7,000 feet."This finding supported his earlier earlier hyposis that "the larger the mass of the aircraft,the lower the cutoff altitude." Like I said earlier,these alleged cell phone calls were obviously voice morphed.I mean are you going to be retards and believe that Mark Bingham made a cell phone call and said to his mom-Mom this is Mark Bingham.give me a fucking break.Nobody in the world goes around calling their mom saying their first and last name.hahahahahahaha get with the program.

the reason cell phones were banned back then is not because they worked at altitudes over 20,000 feet but because UNDER 2,000 feet the chances were good of working then which of course could seriously disrupt the path of take off and cause a crash since at THAT altitude they CAN work.lol.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 6, 2010)

I just took you to school Ditzcon Bush dupe.eat shit Ditz.lol.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I love their logic,wiki as i said before is the WORST reliable source for information,they can trype in ANYTHING they want to there.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



your claim wasnt that the power key was hardwired, you fucking moron!!! your claim was that airplane mode was hardwired. 

nice way to backpedal. you certainly are very good at retreating. you must have had lots of practice running away in high school (if you made it that far). are you French by any chance?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 6, 2010)

oh like routine, what I just said to Ditzcon applies to you as well agent Fizz.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 6, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> oh like routine, what I just said to Ditzcon applies to you as well agent Fizz.


and you are important how?


----------



## Fizz (Mar 6, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> oh like routine, what I just said to Ditzcon applies to you as well agent Fizz.



thanks for your insightful and thought provoking post.:sarcasm:

now go shave your legs Mr. Cheerleader.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 6, 2010)

great pic of yourself agent fizz.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 6, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> great pic of yourself agent fizz.



that was a very 4th grade comeback. i guess we now know your education level.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 6, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




It's the tutorial directly from AT&T and you still ignore it because you are an absolute fucking ****.  

How is this related to 9E?  It's simple: you OCTA fucks are so fucking predictable in your arrogance, ignorance, and hypocrisy that even for something as simple as a phone mode you, as a group, cannot be honest even when you are proven wrong.  In short, if pathetic losers like divedick can't admit something so silly them what are the chances of honesty on a topic as significant as 9E?


----------



## Fizz (Mar 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



and the tutorial said to put it into "OFFLINE MODE" you fucking moron!!


----------



## Ravi (Mar 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Since you can change modes with the Power key.....what do you think that means you dumbfuck?  The Power key is hardwired.


Well, duh...if the power key wasn't hardwired the phone wouldn't work.

Boy, do you look stupid. Everyone knows you said flight mode was hardwired.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Since you can change modes with the Power key.....what do you think that means you dumbfuck?  The Power key is hardwired.  You're so fuxxing dumm you need that explained......if you can change the mode through a hardwired button it means that mode is hardwired as well you ignorant bitch.   Like I predicted....you bitches refuse to admit when you are wrong and you don't say shit to divedick when it's proven his phone has a Flight mode.  When you gonna have another melt down and threaten to come see me like you did with Christophera you punk twat?  You're a pussy and you still get your ass beat so you talk tough on the 'net.....typical loser.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 6, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Since you can change modes with the Power key.....what do you think that means you dumbfuck?  The Power key is hardwired.
> ...


this is a laugh riot
we should have to pay for entertainment of this caliber


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


but the power key is not the ONLY way to change the mode

and my phone does NOT have a "flight" mode, it has an "OFFLINE" mode
you even posted the proof and you STILL get it wrong


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 6, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Since you can change modes with the Power key.....what do you think that means you dumbfuck?  The Power key is hardwired.
> ...




Lol....you STOOPID BITCH!  If you can enter Flight Mode through a hardwired button that means the mode is hardwired as well you fucking lying pussy.


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 6, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Having more than one way to turn on Flight Mode does not negate the fact you can do it through a hardwired button you dumb fuck!  

What is the name of the TUTORIAL from AT+T?

TURN ON/OFF FLIGHT MODE

TURN ON/OFF FLIGHT MODE

TURN ON/OFF FLIGHT MODE

TURN ON/OFF FLIGHT MODE

Rotfl!  Keep embarrassing yourself you fuxxing cocksucking pussy.


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 6, 2010)

How many years is clownlite going to be kept busy with airplane/flight/offline mode?

Tune in tomorrow for the on-going saga...........


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


i'm not embarrassed at all
you proved what i said was 100% correct'


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 6, 2010)

911 truthers should be known by the company they keep.

Iran's Ahmadinejad: Sept. 11 attacks a 'big lie' - Yahoo! News

"Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday called the official version of the Sept. 11 attacks a "big lie" used by the U.S. as an excuse for the war on terror, state media reported."


That's right folks, Ahmadinejad, besides being a mental midget, an anti-semite, a self-declared enemy of the USA and Israel, and just an all 'round bad guy, is also a truther.

makes you wonder about the rest  of the truthers doesn't it?
Well wonder no more, they are all treasonous scum, just like the pentagon shooter.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



this is the dumbest argument in the world and you've already been proven wrong about a dozen times.

here goes even more proof of how dumb you are.

_"f you can change the mode through a hardwired button it means that mode is hardwired as well you ignorant bitch."_

no jackass. thats not what it means at all. if i press enter to send an email does it mean my email is hardwired? 

go read step 8 of your tutorial and then tell us all if a prompt is software or hardwired.


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 6, 2010)

Here is one that could keep clownlite busy for weeks;

My wife has one of those 'touchscreen' phones. I maintain that since it has no buttons, and since the screen is kinda soft, that it has no hard-wired airplane mode!


----------



## Ravi (Mar 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


Nope. It simply means that someone programmed the phone to react in a certain way when you push a certain button.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 6, 2010)

Ravi said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


i bet he thinks his "start" button in windows is hard wired too


----------



## RadiomanATL (Mar 6, 2010)

Tell me more about this "airplane mode".

If I hit a button on my phone, it turns into an airplane? This could be SO useful when combined with the camera function.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 6, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> all of that material that I just quoted can be found on page 87 of his book that you can easily access at your local library if you dont want to buy it.But we all know you 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists wont read the book since it doesnt go along with your version of events. He lists his resourses on where he got that information in the book as well.Unlike the 9/11 coverup commission,griffin investigated 9/11 and did not omit evidence,facts and witness testimonys in his book like they did.
> 
> The last thing it goes on to state in that book on that page is this as well which is also very important.That in later experiments,he found out than in a TWIN engine airplane,there was an even lower and more definite cutoff point.In the single- engine aircraft,"the success rates had decayed from 75 percent at 2,000 feet to 13 percent at 8,000 feet." But in the twin-engine aircraft,"the success rate decayed from 95 percent at 2,000 feet to 44 percent at 5,000 feet,10 percent at 6,000 feet and 0 percent at 7,000 feet."This finding supported his earlier earlier hyposis that "the larger the mass of the aircraft,the lower the cutoff altitude." Like I said earlier,these alleged cell phone calls were obviously voice morphed.I mean are you going to be retards and believe that Mark Bingham made a cell phone call and said to his mom-Mom this is Mark Bingham.give me a fucking break.Nobody in the world goes around calling their mom saying their first and last name.hahahahahahaha get with the program.
> 
> the reason cell phones were banned back then is not because they worked at altitudes over 20,000 feet but because UNDER 2,000 feet the chances were good of working then which of course could seriously disrupt the path of take off and cause a crash since at THAT altitude they CAN work.lol.



So you are now calling Mrs Bingham a liar. Why don't you go tell her to her face that she didn't talk to her son that morning. Present all your "proof" to her and see just what she has to say to you about it.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 7, 2010)

His mom said when he was in "business mode" he talked like that.

For all you know he was autistic you piece of garbage.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 7, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> all of that material that I just quoted can be found on page 87 of his book that you can easily access at your local library if you dont want to buy it.But we all know you 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists wont read the book since it doesnt go along with your version of events. He lists his resourses on where he got that information in the book as well.Unlike the 9/11 coverup commission,griffin investigated 9/11 and did not omit evidence,facts and witness testimonys in his book like they did.


So every person who gave testimony on 9/11 is in his book?  Every one?  I'm doubting it.  For example, did they quote the stories of those who say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon?  Or planes hit the towers?  You seem to indicate that didn't happen.  So you believe only "some" of what is stated?  



9/11 inside job said:


> The last thing it goes on to state in that book on that page is this as well which is also very important.That in later experiments,he found out than in a TWIN engine airplane,there was an even lower and more definite cutoff point.In the single- engine aircraft,"the success rates had decayed from 75 percent at 2,000 feet to 13 percent at 8,000 feet." But in the twin-engine aircraft,"the success rate decayed from 95 percent at 2,000 feet to 44 percent at 5,000 feet,10 percent at 6,000 feet and 0 percent at 7,000 feet."This finding supported his earlier earlier hyposis that "the larger the mass of the aircraft,the lower the cutoff altitude." Like I said earlier,these alleged cell phone calls were obviously voice morphed.I mean are you going to be retards and believe that Mark Bingham made a cell phone call and said to his mom-Mom this is Mark Bingham.give me a fucking break.Nobody in the world goes around calling their mom saying their first and last name. get with the program.



Here is his mom in her own words:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z96MZOZyilo]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: Cell Phone Calls not Faked[/ame]

Any comment on why she would be in on the death or her own son?  Any comment on the lady that gave a combination to a safe in her closet--how'd they "voice morph" that you piece of shit?  

This is why the world hates you.  I hope your name does become public at some point.  I hear Kansas is disgusting in every season but after you're long dead and buried, I will make it my personal mission to have my dog take a piss on your grave after you're long buried.  It will be precisely what you're doing today you piece of garbage.


----------



## wnettles (Jun 5, 2011)

As any good electrical engineer or technician knows, the antenna arrays that comprise a cell phone tower lend themselves to horizontal distribution of the signal quite efficiently.   As a result of the extremely narrow half power beam width of the antenna's radiation pattern, the signal that would be available at an altitude of, say, 50,000 feet above the tower is just about zero.   

That's not to say some fluke skip reflection of the signal could not occur in, say, 1 out of 1,000,000 attempts to contact an active cell of the correct carrier for the particular cell phone that is employed in such an attempt, but, success would be about as close to impossible as it gets. 

The military, however, does have the capability to do this.   It takes some very specialized equipment with hyper sensitivity and digital noise cancellation, as well as, directional cell tower location and directional tracking of the signal source, a special tranceiver that is programmable to not drop the cell due to obfuscation of the signal by water vapor (cloud) density, and many other variables.   It can be done and it has been done, but, not by common cell phone that you carry around in your pocket.

If you don't believe the experts in the field of communications that have stated this to you, then, charter your own Lear or Cessna and take it up to 50,000 feet with your test cell phones and try it out for yourself.


----------



## wnettles (Jun 5, 2011)

I personally believe that Mrs. Bingham actually does believe that the voice on the other end of the conversation was her son.  She really does.   I do not fault her for that.  I can understand the desire to hear the voice of her son one last time.   I know that I would.


----------



## Patriot911 (Jun 5, 2011)

Another truthtard sock puppet digging up ancient threads to prove what dumbshits they are.  

Of course, since this is a new sock puppet, they can try to get away with pretending they didn't know none of the cell phone calls were made at 50,000 feet, especially since airliners don't fly that high.  And of course, the fact the majority of calls were made on airphones, not cell phones is another fact this shithead will conveniently ignore.  

The truthtards are truly getting extremely desperate!


----------



## candycorn (Jun 5, 2011)

wnettles said:


> I personally believe that Mrs. Bingham actually does believe that the voice on the other end of the conversation was her son.  She really does.   I do not fault her for that.  I can understand the desire to hear the voice of her son one last time.   I know that I would.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jun 5, 2011)

It was my understanding that the phone calls wer coming from the phones installed in the planes.    In 2001 most airlines had very expensive phone service activated by credit card on every seat in the plane.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 6, 2011)

CurveLight said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



That 60 miles by road is about 40 miles as the crow flies. Those older cell phones can go that far.

Cell site Wiki


> The maximum range of a mast (where it is not limited by interference with other masts nearby) depends on the same circumstances. Some technologies, such as GSM, normally have a fixed maximum range of 35 kilometres (22 mi), which is imposed by technical limitations. CDMA and IDEN have no built-in limit, but the limiting factor is the ability of a low-powered personal cell phone to transmit back to the mast. As a rough guide, based on a tall mast and flat terrain, it is possible to get between 50 to 70 km (30&#8211;45 miles). When the terrain is hilly, the maximum distance can vary from as little as 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) to 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) due to encroachment of intermediate objects into the wide center fresnel zone of the signal. Depending on terrain and other circumstances, a GSM Tower can replace between 2 and 50 miles (80 km) of cabling for fixed wireless networks.



What is the Range of a Single Cell Site?


> CDMA and iDEN have no built-in limit, but the real limiting factor is really the ability for your feeble little cellphone to transmit back to the site. As a gross estimate, based on a tall site and flat terrain, it is possible to get between 50 and 70 kilometers. When the terrain is hilly, the maximum distance can vary from as little as 5 to 10 km to about 40 km.



*If you fly by or over a tower that gives you 45 miles on each side or 90 miles across. Flying at 500MPH / 90 miles gives you 0.18hr or 11 minutes of talk time on a CDMA, TDMA, IDEN, AMPS or D-AMPS Cell Phone.*


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 6, 2011)

CurveLight said:


> Bimpety-bump-bump



So the Government PAID the grieving people to LIE about receiving calls? They faked the taped calls?

They got a Secretary of the Government to lie about his wife calling him?

How exactly did they convince these people to lie?

And perhaps you can explain where all the people from those flights are?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jun 6, 2011)

wnettles said:


> As any good electrical engineer or technician knows, the antenna arrays that comprise a cell phone tower lend themselves to horizontal distribution of the signal quite efficiently.   As a result of the extremely narrow half power beam width of the antenna's radiation pattern, the signal that would be available at an altitude of, say, 50,000 feet above the tower is just about zero.
> 
> That's not to say some fluke skip reflection of the signal could not occur in, say, 1 out of 1,000,000 attempts to contact an active cell of the correct carrier for the particular cell phone that is employed in such an attempt, but, success would be about as close to impossible as it gets.
> 
> ...



22 years in the US Army Signal Corps, my last Platoon (I was the Platoon Sergeant) ran a Cellular Phone network that would cover half the state of Ohio. You are full of shit.


----------



## jbranco254 (Jul 8, 2011)

Unless the aircraft in question was a F-15E, U-2, or even the retired SR-71, Im going to raise the bull shit flag that anything works at 50,000, much less the standard CFM or RR engines powering those planes that day. Yes, as a pilot, I have had a signal at od times. I fly from Madrid to Rome, to Malta twice a week. At one point right after you are feet dry over Italy, you briefly get 3 or 4 bars on a Blackberry. And sometimes, my phone will vibrate saying I got a new text in the middle of a flight. But if you think about it, 32,000 feet, a very typical cruise altitude for a short hop in Europe, is only 5 or 6 miles up. You get a signal on flat land for 6 miles on the ground, so why not up?


----------

