It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Questions swirl over reports that cell phone video captured doomed Germanwings jets final moments

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Exitt
a reply to: khnum
There is NO cell coverage in any airplane while flying in Europe.
Video's and pictures on a memory card or phone memory are the only possibility if they survived the crash of course.




I'll confirm that - even on the airport tarmac before takeoff, you won't get a signal. All that aluminum airframe reflects radio waves. GPS only works from triangulation of local wi-fi routers. The micro-SD or SIM card could have been shielded by the owner and the shell of the mobile phone.


GPS uses signals broadcasted from satellites. The phone receives these signals and triangulates where it is based on those signals from the satellites.
Cell tower triangulation is similar but land based cell towers are the source of the signal.
WiFi router triangulation is called WiPS/WFPS.
Modern cell phones use all three to get a better position.




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Just to say that the alleged video(well a few seconds worth) in question had been upoaded to Liveleak yesterday, but it looks as though it has been removed.

From what I have seen of it, it's what you would expect to see moments before an airline disaster, a lot of scared people with oxygen masks on, apart from being scary it does seem to fit in with the transcript posted earlier in the thread.

Additionally in Response to an RT article I read saying it was fake, from my point of view if it is, then it's a very well done fake.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Why would the oxygen masks be deployed?
It sounds fake now.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
Why would the oxygen masks be deployed?
It sounds fake now.


I would suggest that oxygen would be good for calming the passengers down


Additionally, from the transcript:



10:37 and several seconds A second alarm is set off, audible and visual: “TERRAIN, PULL UP.” Still no reaction from Lubitz. The captain yells: “Open this f… door!”


If the above statement is true then the oxygen masks would be deployed I'd imagine.
edit on -180002015-04-01T20:04:26-05:00u2630201526042015Wed, 01 Apr 2015 20:04:26 -0500 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Um, that's not what he meant.

Who/what deployed the oxygen masks? The frigging pilot? I doubt it. Would he be concerned about the safety of the passengers?

I highly doubt it.

Not sure how the masks were deployed.

Very interesting.

I believe---as do the experienced journalists who watched the video over and over again--that this video is the real deal.

But if those masks were deployed... that's just very interesting.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MRuss

Just typing what I remember from the video and as I said, if it's a fake, it's a good fake, but it looked the real deal to me also

edit on -180002015-04-01T20:14:58-05:00u5830201558042015Wed, 01 Apr 2015 20:14:58 -0500 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

The video is on Youtube. I just watched it. It's really so horrible to see even just a glimpse of this.

I'm not posting the link.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: MRuss
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

The video is on Youtube. I just watched it. It's really so horrible to see even just a glimpse of this.

I'm not posting the link.


I'll assume you think it's real as well then



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: Exitt

originally posted by: bullcat

When I fly on European flights, even budget flights, many have FREE internet wifi on board. I surf a lot when I fly.

Germanwings I believe does not have wifi, unless they added it recently. I know other airlines do have it.


Sir , you better reply immediately with some links and names !!!

This is just my first about free internet on planes and neither you or I wanna go there.


At the moment only eight airlines offer free inflight WiFi: Emirates, JetBlue, Norwegian, Turkish Airlines, Air China, Philippine Airlines, Hong Kong Airlines and Nok Air.




Aer Lingus
Air Berlin
Air France
British Airways
Iberia
Jet Blue
Iceland Air
Lufthansa
Ryan Air - no really, on trial atm

SAS
Norwegian

more and more being added.

Some have a small fee, some are on trial, the others, when they work are free.


Lucky you flying all over the world but no, you are not telling the truth regarding wifi.
Lets take a look at some of the biggest airlines in Europe.

for example, British Airways


On one 747-400 aircraft on the Club World London City flight route (direct flights between New York JFK and London City airports)
Provider: T-Mobile
Price: £8 for 1 hour


Air France


To be installed on 2 Airbus A320s (short and medium-haul flights) from summer 2015.
Provider: Orange


Lufthansa


all long haul fleet aircraft except A380 and Boeing 747-8 (A380 aircraft are gradually being fitted out with Lufthansa FlyNet WiFi)
Provider: Panasonic


If i remember correctly you wrote about flying in Europe and surfing the web, not overseas?

RyanAir...if anyone is interested can go and check their website, the answer is no wifi.



soou



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Exitt

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: Exitt

originally posted by: bullcat

When I fly on European flights, even budget flights, many have FREE internet wifi on board. I surf a lot when I fly.
Germanwings I believe does not have wifi, unless they added it recently. I know other airlines do have it.


Sir , you better reply immediately with some links and names !!!

This is just my first about free internet on planes and neither you or I wanna go there.


At the moment only eight airlines offer free inflight WiFi: Emirates, JetBlue, Norwegian, Turkish Airlines, Air China, Philippine Airlines, Hong Kong Airlines and Nok Air.




Aer Lingus
Air Berlin
Air France
British Airways
Iberia
Jet Blue
Iceland Air
Lufthansa
Ryan Air - no really, on trial atm

SAS
Norwegian

more and more being added.

Some have a small fee, some are on trial, the others, when they work are free.


Lucky you flying all over the world but no, you are not telling the truth regarding wifi.
Lets take a look at some of the biggest airlines in Europe.

for example, British Airways


On one 747-400 aircraft on the Club World London City flight route (direct flights between New York JFK and London City airports)
Provider: T-Mobile
Price: £8 for 1 hour


Air France


To be installed on 2 Airbus A320s (short and medium-haul flights) from summer 2015.
Provider: Orange


Lufthansa


all long haul fleet aircraft except A380 and Boeing 747-8 (A380 aircraft are gradually being fitted out with Lufthansa FlyNet WiFi)
Provider: Panasonic


If i remember correctly you wrote about flying in Europe and surfing the web, not overseas?

RyanAir...if anyone is interested can go and check their website, the answer is no wifi.



soou



yeah and I do use WiFi often. You should pick better airlines, btw ryan air is "trialing" it, sorry to hear you're not chosen to participate. Not that I recommend flying FlyingBare (Ryan Air) anyway.

I am very sure I surf whilst flying in Europe, not my fault you have no access.

last I checked Iceland is in Europe, last I checked Norway is in Europe, same for other places.

Anyway this is not helping this thread.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I quite sure that when cabin pressure drops to a specific level that they are automatically deployed.
Maybe also when decent speed threshold is exceeded causing the warning indicator to sound off they are deployed but, I'm not 100% sure about that senario

a reply to: samkent



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013




If these journalists did in fact take a memory card belonging to the dead, it's not only a criminal act, it's utterly and completely morally reprehensible. These people are disgusting.


More likely the reporters / publications in question paid someone, probably one who was among the first on site who took it from the scene and sold it on...it's a subtle distinction, and still wrong on many levels of course.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Considering they don't even have the FDR (flight data recorder), and yet somehow cell phone video footage survived this...

I want to buy whatever brand of cell phone that is, as mine breaks from normal wear and tear.

Does this not sound like the finding of pristine passports at ground zero?


They have found the FDR - you need to update yourself


Link - Telgraph



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
What happens if you send an email with the video attachment and you are out of cell coverage?
If that phone is returned to a debris hanger with coverage does it then send the email?


If the phone is intact, powered up and then logged onto an open WiFi or a cellular network, it will send, but I seriously doubt any phones were left intact - certainly not enough to operate.

As for the more general question about being able to use your phones on Aircraft - it is allowed. But then you have to have a cellular system in place on the aircraft for it to work at height.

Even if you are low enough to establish a connection with a tower, my experience with using cell phones while moving at speed is erratic, at best. Even on trains (if you're doing 100mph on the train to Birmingham, for example) it seems to not be able to cope with switching from one tower to another quickly. I am forever losing calls that way.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Not at the time the cell phone footage "emerged". The FDR was found at a later date. If you look at the housing that it was in, I'm surprised a cell phone's SD card survived.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Changing your tune a bit - you said "Considering they don't even have the FDR (flight data recorder)" in the present tense, ergo you were saying they do not have the FDR now.

But now its "they didn't have it when the cellphone footage emerged", which by going by the OP article would mean that was the 1st April (another source here). They found the FDR on the 2nd April so while you are technically correct, it is only after changing your assertion about the FDR, so presumably you did go away and look it up to realise your error.

Also, in your original comment, you cast doubt on the veracity of such footage, with a silly comment about wanting that brand of phone, but no one is claiming the phone was intact, which would be daft.

Instead, as it says in the OP, they found a memory chip which is far more likely to survive even if the phone itself is buggered.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

The FDR wasn't found until several days after the supposed video was sent to the papers. On the day he said that they didn't have the FDR yet.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: stumason

The FDR wasn't found until several days after the supposed video was sent to the papers. On the day he said that they didn't have the FDR yet.


Hang on - the crash was on the 24th March, the FDR was found on the 2nd April and the OP article is dated the 1st for the mobile phone footage - but you want me to believe that the footage was found "several days before the FDR"? How does that all stack up in the chronology, Zaph?

If what you said was true, that would indicate they found the footage pretty much instantly? Even the orignal Paris Match article is only dated the 31st March

Pull the other one. I think you're trying to make facts fit your theory, rather than making your theory fit the facts.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

The first media reports surfaced March 31st, which means it was probably found on the 30th. The FDR was found April 2nd. I'd say that's several days before the FDR was found.

Several, as in more than two, but less than five. It was at least two days before the FDR was found when the video was sent to the media, and that's if they didn't sit on it trying to decide what to do with it.
edit on 4/26/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Stretching the definition of "several" there Zaph - barely a full 72 hours between the two and that is assuming your "probably founf on the 30th" is true - it could have been found on the 31st...

Whilst the dictionary definition of "several" is more than two, I think most people would adopt the determiner "few" to describe 3 days. It's the presentation of such information in a post I have an issue with, such as "the footage was found several days before the FDR" which gives the impression it was quite some time, when in actual fact it was found within a week of the crash, which is also "several".

Anyway, I know you've already made your mind up about this, despite all the evidence to the contrary - maybe it's some well-meaning affection towards the pilot community, I don't know. But we've clashed on this topic more than once with you seemingly unaware that the transponders can broadcast a wide variety of information, for example, when I mentioned that the autopilot was manually changed to less than 100ft and you disagreed, saying the transponders couldn't broadcast that information until I pointed you to the evidence of the contrary.

Now the FDR confirms what we already knew from the transponder and you're still in full denial.

For someone who is usually level headed and focussed on facts, it's almost as if you've been possessed by someone else on this topic.
edit on 26/4/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join