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.
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous
Nooooo. Radiation is transmitted as a point source. To "focus" radiation in a direction it needs to be built like a flashlight, radar gun, or those funny cones on a microwave tower. Then it still radiates in a cone with "weak" leakage in all directions.
What the hell directs or shields cell phone tower signals to restrict the radiation to ground coverage.
The antennas on cell phones transmit in a spherical shape as a point source.
I think science just died a little.....
It's not a question of anything being focused. A radio wave is just very low frequency light.
A vertical antenna is designed to be able "see" light/radio waves coming at it from the horizontal direction. It can't "see" it when it is coming from directly above, or even a very high angle.
Imagine if you had a visor or something on your head that prevents you from being able to see light coming your direction from high angles. I hold up a lamp (which emits light in a somewhat spherical direction), but I am standing above your horizon. You won't be able to see the lamp.
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous
Nooooo. Radiation is transmitted as a point source. To "focus" radiation in a direction it needs to be built like a flashlight, radar gun, or those funny cones on a microwave tower. Then it still radiates in a cone with "weak" leakage in all directions.
What the hell directs or shields cell phone tower signals to restrict the radiation to ground coverage.
The antennas on cell phones transmit in a spherical shape as a point source.
I think science just died a little.....
It's not a question of anything being focused. A radio wave is just very low frequency light.
A vertical antenna is designed to be able "see" light/radio waves coming at it from the horizontal direction. It can't "see" it when it is coming from directly above, or even a very high angle.
Imagine if you had a visor or something on your head that prevents you from being able to see light coming your direction from high angles. I hold up a lamp (which emits light in a somewhat spherical direction), but I am standing above your horizon. You won't be able to see the lamp.
No. If a antenna is not designed to be directional by utilizing shielding and a surface to reflect and focus the radiation, the radiation is transmitted in a spherical pattern.
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous
Nooooo. Radiation is transmitted as a point source. To "focus" radiation in a direction it needs to be built like a flashlight, radar gun, or those funny cones on a microwave tower. Then it still radiates in a cone with "weak" leakage in all directions.
What the hell directs or shields cell phone tower signals to restrict the radiation to ground coverage.
The antennas on cell phones transmit in a spherical shape as a point source.
I think science just died a little.....
It's not a question of anything being focused. A radio wave is just very low frequency light.
A vertical antenna is designed to be able "see" light/radio waves coming at it from the horizontal direction. It can't "see" it when it is coming from directly above, or even a very high angle.
Imagine if you had a visor or something on your head that prevents you from being able to see light coming your direction from high angles. I hold up a lamp (which emits light in a somewhat spherical direction), but I am standing above your horizon. You won't be able to see the lamp.
No. If a antenna is not designed to be directional by utilizing shielding and a surface to reflect and focus the radiation, the radiation is transmitted in a spherical pattern.
That's not true. You can read about it here:
www.astronwireless.com...
An "omnidirectional" vertically mounted antenna means it covers the whole 360 degrees of the horizontal plane, but in most cases its receptivity will drop off the further off of horizontal you go.
It's called the "azimuth".
add:
A vertically mounted antenna is implicitly directional to the horizontal plane because most of its surface area faces the horizontal plane. It simply has a smaller cross section when viewed from any other angle than horizontal. Remember that radio waves are the same thing as light. If something has a smaller cross section from the perspective of you looking at it visibly, then it also has a smaller cross section from the perspective of a radio wave.
Cell phones communicate through cell towers, which are located on the ground but can stretch hundreds of feet into the air. As an airplane rises, it gets further from these towers and eventually moves out of contact range. For efficiency, many towers are designed to direct their signal where its most useful: on the ground, not into the sky above.
The maximum distance at which a phone can still make calls and send texts varies depending on the type of tower and transmitter, but an airplane would have to be no more than 10,000 feet in the air for any cell phones on board to still have a signal, according to Bill Rojas, director of telecom research at IDC Asia Pacific.
It all depends on where the phone is, says Marco Thompson, president of the San Diego Telecom Council. “Cell phones are not designed to work on a plane. Although they do.” The rough rule is that when the plane is slow and over a city, the phone will work up to 10,000 feet or so. “Also, it depends on how fast the plane is moving and its proximity to antennas,” Thompson says. “At 30,000 feet, it may work momentarily while near a cell site, but it’s chancy and the connection won’t last.” Also, the hand-off process from cell site to cell site is more difficult. It is created for a maximum speed of 60 mph to 100 mph. “They are not built for 400 mph airplanes.”
www.sandiegometro.com...
The problem is that with the altimeter still set to 29.92, the FDR should be giving us inaccurate altitudes. Instead, it is giving us exactly the right altitudes.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12
Yes, that's right, get proven wrong and ignore it, as usual. I just proved that the statistics are provided by the airlines to BTS. That means that if the airline doesn't list a flight, then that doesn't prove that it wasn't scheduled.
What have YOU proven lately? Nothing? I didn't think so.
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: Jacobu12
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12
YOU are the one claiming that BTS data can't be altered in any way, and a flight not listed means absolutely that it wasn't scheduled to fly. YOU are the one making the claim, so yes, it is on you to prove it. You make the claim, you have to prove it.
So prove it.
Of course people who believe the official narrative never try to investigate things themselves. Well i don't know how easy it be to prove your theory is correct, it 16 years later and i not a conspiracy researcher. You're a moderator on here? Why are all the people on here Skeptics?
You are stereotyping again. I was really interested in what 9/11 was all about. Then people like you showed me the light on the truth of conspiracists.
You, the government cannot be trusted. Then you use FBI evidence to claim Ted Olson didn't get a call from his wife Barbara from flight 77. Your justification was only citing AT&T network records. While you totally hid:
At least one other person called out to report the hijacking of flight 77 to three people.
There were at least four unknown records of calls from flight 77. Calls not pursued by the FBI.
That operators and Ted Olson's security talked to Barbara.
The only additional information the 9/11 commission got from Ted was box cutters.
Conspiracists like to hide facts, use misquotes, use pseudoscience, use false authority, and use pictures out of context.
Has nothing with the "Offical Narrative."
I liked how you had two to three people correcting you on how far the engines hang down off a 757, and you kept blowing it off like they were stupid. Then you blew it off as if it was a simple mistake on your part. Or was it you buying into a conspiracy site and didn't verify the actual deminsions......
I think you need to get some fresh air. You wrapped up in your believes so much you cant see what's true anymore,
Two clocks stopping at near identical time 9.31 one clock and 9.31 just a few seconds faster then the other clock. Implausible both clocks would stop at identical times and this was a full six minutes+ before the attack.
If the Plane max speed is 493 mph and the Plane at the Pentagon speed is 530mph, do you not see the problem?
originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jacobu12
I think you need to get some fresh air. You wrapped up in your believes so much you cant see what's true anymore,
says the person who cant grasp the simple concept that a clock can be slow.
Two clocks stopping at near identical time 9.31 one clock and 9.31 just a few seconds faster then the other clock. Implausible both clocks would stop at identical times and this was a full six minutes+ before the attack.
this was a reply after you had already mentioned the clocks and someone explained the simple idea that maybe the clocks were not synchronized.
Maybe those clocks were 5 minutes slow.
Obviously this cannot happen, who ever heard of a clock being slow?
originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jacobu12
If the Plane max speed is 493 mph and the Plane at the Pentagon speed is 530mph, do you not see the problem?
No there is no problem with that.
Please answer Zaphods question,
here it is again
"So you're saying, that if I'm driving a car that has a maximum top speed of 70 mph, and I go downhill, it's not going to go over 70 mph?"
originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Jacobu12
Non-pilots cannot appreciate the other factor in the equation, ground effect. Hani The Magnificent was 90knots or move over Vne, and in ground effect, and if he had been just a few feet off he would have missed the building completely.
It's a ridiculous story told about Hani The Magnificent, but humans and especially Americans today love to engage in a willing suspension of disbelief, as long as their government tells them to, time after time after time. For some, endless repetition of a falsehood will have them believe the falsehood.
Two clocks stopping at the same time, is weird.
Lets not forget when first reports start coming in the attack time was placed just after 9.30!
Only days later it got to 9.38. So Eyewitnesses report a attack earlier.
Comparing a car to a commercial airliner is silly.
Plane was exceeding speeds the plane was not designed to fly at.
originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jacobu12
Two clocks stopping at the same time, is weird.
So you don't grasp the idea that clocks can run slow.
OK.
Lets not forget when first reports start coming in the attack time was placed just after 9.30!
yeah, first reports.
I hope you get it.
'First reports coming in'
Only days later it got to 9.38. So Eyewitnesses report a attack earlier.
Yes.
Once the event is looked at it easier to get a bigger picture and supply more accurate info.
When first reports come in when an event such as that happens they are not going to be correct most of the time other than the main thing reported, like a plane crash, an explosion.
The time, how many casualties, etc , etc will be reported but wont be verifiable until the event gets looked at.