As far as I concern you can't make 500mph in a low altitude as the density
of the air is too high so the drag forces are just about too much (that's
why basically airliners goes so high). Also it is not so easy to hit a
target at a very high speed especially that there is no transponder pointing
the way into a building, so the pilot has only a visual contact with the
target (it's not a military aircraft to lock the target :-) )

Anyway, my friend of mine had left her phone switched on during flying over
Europe and lot's of "welcome to our network" texts arrived during the 3 hour
trip, however, it doesn't mean she could've make phone conversations -- but
the aerial signal was definitely there...

Tamas




On 12/4/06, tachyon_1@email.com <tachyon_1@email.com> wrote:
>
> No, this particular part of the discussion was specifically referring to
> Flight 93, which flew at 35,000 feet right until the end when it
> nose-dived
> straight into the ground. The phone logs and flight track confirm that
> the calls would have been during the time the plane was at that cruising
> altitude. However, all legitimate tests and info  I've seen tend to
> indicate that cell phones don't work in airliners at that altitude and
> speed.
> Also, the call logs don't show the expected mid conversation disconnects.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: "Mike Reid"
>   To: "'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'"
>   Subject: RE: [OT] Physics denies official 9/11 report.
>   Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 08:47:55 -0700
>
>
>   You have to take into account the fact that the 911 hijacked planes
>   were
>   flying at much lower altitudes and the closer you get the ground, the
>   slower the planes are flying. The planes that hit the trade towers
>   were
>   near 1000 feet off the ground. So wouldn't cell phones work at lower
>   altitudes? I fly a lot for work and a few times I have turned my cell
>   phone on when we were on approach (gasp, I'm a criminal) to check the
>   time, and I've have signal strength displayed
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On
>   Behalf
>   Of Mike Hord
>   Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 2:40 PM
>   To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>   Subject: Re: [OT] Physics denies official 9/11 report.
>
>   > Thats been valid for my phones from low level vfr through the
>   Rockies
>   > up to about 30,000 ft trying to avoid scratching the paint on them.
>   And
>   > I can give you a list of people who have headset adapters for the
>   phones
>   > to jack into the intercoms in helo's, pistons and turbines. Works
>   even
>   > better for them.
>
>   How fast are you traveling? Even if they could get a signal at high
>   altitudes, could the cell sites track the phone and keep up the
>   stream if the phone is passing through them at, say 500 mph?
>
>   I've wondered about that myself- cell towers are (AIUI) designed to
>   radiate mostly out, but not so much UP. So we have a situation
>   where the planes are flying about two miles above the sites, at some
>   hundreds of miles per hour.
>
>   Not saying it isn't impossible, just surprised that it works. I'd
>   like
>   to
>   see it tried. If I didn't think I'd disappear to a secret CIA prison,
>   I'd
>   try it on my next flight. ;-)
>
>   Mike H.
>
> --
>
> Search for products and services at:
> http://search.mail.com
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
>
>


-- 
unPIC -- The PIC Disassembler
http://unpic.sourceforge.net
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist