My cell phone did ring at 4000 ft in a small single engine plane over 
Wisconsin. But I could not maintain a connection long enough or well 
enough to actually carry on a conversation.

Mark

Tony Smith wrote:
>>> A quick rummage around Google didn't turn up the flight 
>>>       
>> data recorder 
>>     
>>> info, but that's not too unsurprising.  It might be out 
>>>       
>> there somewhere.
>>     
>>> Since the plane was equipped with GTE airfones, the cellphone 
>>> works/doesn't work question is a moot point.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> Well, it's still valid if the actual call(s) were claimed to 
>> have been made on cellphones, not airfones.......
>>     
>
>
> True, but 'he called me from the plane' implies neither airfone or cell.
> How would the receiver know?  Easy enough to check from the telephone
> records.  Which happened.
>
> It seem all of those in business class made calls (airfones) and some of the
> rest used cell phones.
>
> Both worked.
>
> The 'conspiracy' is that no calls were made from the plane.  A pretty lame
> one that doesn't have any follow-up (ok, then what?), but anyway.
>
> Anyone got a flight planned shortly & feels like putting it to the test?
> Can cell phone calls be make 10km in the air?  I can't see why not.
>
> As for the 'building don't fall down like that claim', how many 47-story
> building collapses have there been?  After a 7 hour fire?  How many
> 110-story buildings have had planes smack into them?
>
> Just because the professor stating the question is a smart guy doesn't mean
> he's not nuts.  Linus Pauling was a Nobel-prize winning smart guy, and he
> turned into an orange flavoured froot loop.
>
> Look like the Mythbusters are going to have to torch a 47-story building and
> see what happens.
>
> Tony
>
>   
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist