Your responses seem to all be kneejerk reactions to defend a reality you've chosen to accept without question. It's also pretty clear that you've done little to no research on the events in question. Given your participation in this particular mailing list and your responses related to on topic subjects, I think you're far from stupid, and in fact quite capable of advanced levels of higher reasoning, logic application and problem solving. However you seem to be letting emotion completely bleock you from bringing those advanced skills to bear on this problem. I'll give a few responses to show this per point below. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Smith" To: "'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'" Subject: RE: [OT] Physics denies official 9/11 report. Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 18:59:19 +1100 > 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. > > > 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. Y'know, the more I read, the more I think the disbelievers are nutters. 35000 feet is about 10km. CDMA phones do about 70km, analog about the same, newer digital about 35km. That's in Australia. (Sorry about the metric folks, do your own conversions to the old-fashioned stuff.) Farmers & country folk like CDMA for obvious reasons. Not many towers in outback Oz. Could a phone connect from up there? Can't see why not. This is not theory or even a hypothesis. There's no reasoning as to why or supporting facts. Just a statement. As far as I can see, the flight DATA recorder hasn't been released, the VOICE one was. So the altitude of the plane at any point can't be confirmed. 35000, 25000, 15000, take your pick. Every aircraft in the US is tracked throughout it's flight. These tracks are recorded and available for review. I even mentioned this in myself in a previous post that pointed out that per all sources, including the tracking data and the NTSB report, flight 93 never went below 32,000 feet until it's nosedive. I'd assume the hijackers would fly relatively low, but that's just my opinion. Why? There's no logic to this assumption. If you are a hijacker, diverting a commercial flight for terror purposes and taking it a long distance, then clearly you would want to keep up the appearance of being a legitimate flight for as long as possible. You'll recall that not long before 9-11, golfer Payne Stewart's private jet had lost cabin pressure, killing all on board. The plane continued on autopilot until it ran out of fuel. It aws noticed as soon as it left it's flight plan course and was immediately intercepted and followed by military jets who attempted contact and prepared to shoot it donw if it appeared to threaten a populated area. Given this information, the terrorists would already know the US response to an unresponsive aircraft deviating from flight plan. Therefore, the obvious plan would be to avoid suspicion and mimic a legitimate flight plan. Anyway, most of the reports say the while altitude varied wildly, it was at 35000 feet before contact was lost. (That means eyewitness reports of it flying level then diving are a bit suspect.) Which reports? The only ones I can reacall are reports of the last minutes of the flight as it headed for the ground, before that it clearly stayed on flight plan and altitude. Most of the reports indicate the calls were short, and/or people made multiple short calls. That's consistent with the phone dropping out, or threats from hijackers (apparently they didn't care). They are consistent with passengers having to avoid being detected using them, however, none of the transcripts or testimony of those called indicate calls being cut off. This is especially interesting as in any other situation we all expect there to be phoen dropouts. In a building, or car, etc. Certainly you would expect at least an equivalent amount of drop-outs in high altitude, high-speed aircraft. And here's the kicker... The plane was equipped with GTE Airfones anyway! We don't need no stinking cell phones! Again, this has been covered. Call records, and testimony of those on the receiving end of the calls clearly indicate many of the calls were from the victim's cell phones. These would only be in first or business class, and all but one passenger there made a call (the exception was dead). Gotta buy me some shares in tin-foil companies! Tony You can see the Flightexplorer data for Flight 93 here: http://www.aviationnow.com/media/images/news/wtc/ual93final.gif http://www.avweb.com/other/ual93_2_full_sequence.gif You can see that not only does it not go below 35,000 feet it actually climbs over 40,000 at one point. It also is moving pretty fast, just under 600mph at some stretches. Over 500 for the rest. There seems to be this continued promotion of the idea that these (or other) hijackers are disorganized and stupid. This is not true. The groups supposedly involved are intelligent, most ivy league graduates, extremely well funded, and clearly patient. They spent up to 12 years in the US, waiting, training, and learning to fly. -- 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