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.

 

Did Bush really use a cell phone at 40,000 ft

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

In the office areas, Air Force One has access to photocopying, printing, and word processing services, as well as telecommunication systems (including 85 telephones and 19 televisions). There are also secure and non-secure voice, fax, and data communications facilities.
If bush had all this to his disposal why did he have to resort to using his cell phone.
Is it a super secret super long range cell phone or just a good top of the line in use on 911 timeline.

7,800 statute miles (6,800 nautical miles is the fuel range of the vc-25 air force one. but it the plane can also be operated as a military command center in the event of an incident such as a nuclear attack. Operational modifications include aerial refueling capability and anti-aircraft missile countermeasures.

But it seems that Bush came to barksdale to refuel, what is the distance from florida to barksdale to Offutt to washington as a package anyone, please jump in here.
Now what would happen if a nuke war broke out and the president had to run everything with a cell phone?
The normal rate of climb for a 747 is 2000-4000 fpm? BUt is the VC-25 allowed a higher climb rate?
www.erau.edu...
The four engines of a 747 aka VC-25=AirForce One is 50,000 of thrust per engine!
Another way to measure a climb is by the rate (feet per minute) rather than the angle of ascent. The ability of an aircraft to climb in terms of rate is a function of excess power. You may recall from physics that power is defined as the rate at which work is done. Work, you will recall, is a force applied through a distance. To lift a 600,000-pound jet to an altitude of 10,000 feet takes six billion foot pounds of work (600,000 pounds x 10,000 feet). To complete this climb in 10 minutes (or 600 seconds) would require 10,000,000 foot pounds per second of power (6,000,000,000 foot pounds/600 seconds). Thanks to British physicist James Watt, who determined that a horse is capable of producing roughly 550 foot pounds of power per second, we can express this figure in terms of horsepower. In our example, the amount of power required would be a little more than 18,000 horsepower.
Remember that Air Force One climbed for ten minutes at as witnesses inside stated as if almost straight up. So in the end I am assuming by data and information that the Presidents Plane was at 40,000 ft or better when he was using his cell phone. Correct me if I am wrong.







posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   
It could have been a run-of-the-mill Nokia, one of many cellphones still network at high altitudes. When I flew back from Georgia last year, some teenager kept the bathroom occupied for an hour while she chatted away in there.

But if you can't believe that standard cellphones work that high, then entertain for a moment that the President might have access to signal boosters superior to those sold in Wal-Mart.

What are you getting at, anyway?



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
It could have been a run-of-the-mill Nokia, one of many cellphones still network at high altitudes. When I flew back from Georgia last year, some teenager kept the bathroom occupied for an hour while she chatted away in there.

But if you can't believe that standard cellphones work that high, then entertain for a moment that the President might have access to signal boosters superior to those sold in Wal-Mart.

What are you getting at, anyway?


You state something that does not relate to this thread. Do you have any proof the cell phones worked at 40,000 ft. I doubt a teenager keep the bathroom lock for one hour at all. Your statement is very misleading. If you can read please reread the statement to find your answer. The cell phone could not have been used yet you state without any proof that on 911 cell phones worked at 40,000. Were you setting on the ground for a hour and the phones worked or what.



[Mod Note:

**POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ**
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY... ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ
Please read these links.
]

[edit on 3/9/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mondegreen
You state something that does not relate to this thread. Do you have any proof the cell phones worked at 40,000 ft. I doubt a teenager keep the bathroom lock for one hour at all. Your statement is very misleading. If you can read please reread the statement to find your answer. The cell phone could not have been used yet you state without any proof that on 911 cell phones worked at 40,000. Were you setting on the ground for a hour and the phones worked or what.


Insulting people by asking 'if you can read' is quite rude and i'm sure it's against the T&C of this site.

Yes mobile phones do work during flights. A common case happened recently during a flight when a previous passenger had left a phone onboard, mid-flight the phone rang scaring a passenger into thinking it was to trigger a bomb of somesort. Several phonecalls were made during 9/11 from the planes as passengers gave loved ones calls letting them know of their fate.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Yes, they work at that altitude. It's been tested.

Well? I don't know, but calls go through for the entire duration of the flight at times.

Also, Air Force One's communications system isn't a standard cell phone, obviously.


[edit on 3-9-2006 by Johnmike]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
why is it hard to believe?? alot of phones rech satellites bounces off them to the ground just meens that the phone would be closer



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mondegreen
You state something that does not relate to this thread. Do you have any proof the cell phones worked at 40,000 ft. I doubt a teenager keep the bathroom lock for one hour at all. Your statement is very misleading. If you can read please reread the statement to find your answer. The cell phone could not have been used yet you state without any proof that on 911 cell phones worked at 40,000. Were you setting on the ground for a hour and the phones worked or what.


Actually, what I said does relate to this thread. Unless I have misunderstood the gist of your post, it seems you're saying that cellphones do not work at altitude, and you're basing this theory from another CTer's unproven and unverified study. I know for a fact this claim is false, and it's perfectly fair if you choose not to believe my own personal experience. It is common knowledge that passengers have in the past used their cellphones during flight and gotten into trouble for it, as someone here as already brought up. Not to mention the numerous calls made with cellphones from the target planes on 9/11. Try googling "cellphones in airplanes" and see what you get.

Also, you can buy signal boosters from stores like Wal-Mart, which basically stick to the back of your phone like a battery booster and boost your signal. Given that these are cheaply available, it's not outlandish to expect the president to have something a little more powerful.

My original question stands: Out of curiousity, where are you going with this? Not trying to undermine you, just wondering what direction this is heading.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Here we go around the buoy again. Do a search on ATS and read one of the many threads where it has been categorically shown (based on advice from pilots, air traffic controllers, mobile phone operators and a number of personal anecdotes from travellers) that mobile phones work in planes.

Maybe we need to start a list of things that people shouldn't post new threads on...



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Knights

Originally posted by mondegreen
You state something that does not relate to this thread. Do you have any proof the cell phones worked at 40,000 ft. I doubt a teenager keep the bathroom lock for one hour at all. Your statement is very misleading. If you can read please reread the statement to find your answer. The cell phone could not have been used yet you state without any proof that on 911 cell phones worked at 40,000. Were you setting on the ground for a hour and the phones worked or what.


Insulting people by asking 'if you can read' is quite rude and i'm sure it's against the T&C of this site.

Yes mobile phones do work during flights. A common case happened recently during a flight when a previous passenger had left a phone onboard, mid-flight the phone rang scaring a passenger into thinking it was to trigger a bomb of somesort. Several phonecalls were made during 9/11 from the planes as passengers gave loved ones calls letting them know of their fate.


I think you need to read the thread also, If this insults you run to mirthful me, but you not a moderator so do not give orders or belittle me.
I think you highjacking the thread, did all this phone onboard happen before 911 or after, sure the companies upgraded the phone systems after 911.
To the COINTELPRO agents osting here you are not winning your game.
Either post proof or back off.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Yes, they work at that altitude. It's been tested.
Please post proof of the cell phones working at 40,000 ft .
Well? I don't know, but calls go through for the entire duration of the flight at times.

Please post proof of this information of cell phones for duration of flight, remember we are not talking about now, but the day Sept 11, 2001.

Also, Air Force One's communications system isn't a standard cell phone, obviously.

Why would the Air Force one not have a standard cell phone, if its different please post information to enforce your remark.

[edit on 3-9-2006 by Johnmike]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by marcopolo
why is it hard to believe?? alot of phones rech satellites bounces off them to the ground just meens that the phone would be closer


Your post is not hard to read just hard to understand! Why would you state satellites when you should be considering cell towers! Please comeback with more information please, like a College research project, or USAF information Research project of high Atitude use of cell phones!



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Here we go around the buoy again. Do a search on ATS and read one of the many threads where it has been categorically shown (based on advice from pilots, air traffic controllers, mobile phone operators and a number of personal anecdotes from travellers) that mobile phones work in planes.

Maybe we need to start a list of things that people shouldn't post new threads on...
\

Here you go again with writers cramp of the brain. You do a search and comback and post your great scientific information. You prove that Bush used his cell phone at 40,000 ft. You need too post some science reports, so Its been posted here is not proof of anything. Second if your so smart why not read the first post of mine and relate the distance back here, or do the math formula to see the proper climb ratio of the VC-25 and it might get close to the F-16. These are the things you need to read in this thread. Please post proof and sites so that I might followup to make sure your posting good information.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
[Also, you can buy signal boosters from stores like Wal-Mart, which basically stick to the back of your phone like a battery booster and boost your signal. Given that these are cheaply available, it's not outlandish to expect the president to have something a little more powerful.

My original question stands: Out of curiousity, where are you going with this? Not trying to undermine you, just wondering what direction this is heading.

So does your superior stick on the back signal booster have any scientific testing in planes areound Sept 11 2001, If so please post your studies and links to those sites.

It may not be outlandish to expect the president to have something so powerful, what does he ahve so powerful. Please show links to the information. Second, since you are curious does not bespeak of knowledge. Not considering you undermining just moving the thread away from what its intend outcome should be.
What direction is it suspose to go? If you read the first thread and followed the listings, you would see. Since VC-25 is a mystery as to its specs we must then conclude by math what certain capabilities it has.

To lift a 600,000-pound jet to an altitude of 10,000 feet takes six billion foot pounds of work (600,000 pounds x 10,000 feet). To complete this climb in 10 minutes (or 600 seconds) would require 10,000,000 foot pounds per second of power (6,000,000,000 foot pounds/600 seconds). We know that each of its engines produce 50,000 of thrust.Thanks to British physicist James Watt, who determined that a horse is capable of producing roughly 550 foot pounds of power per second, we can express this figure in terms of horsepower. In our example, the amount of power required would be a little more than 18,000 horsepower.
Each engine is using 18,000 pounds of energy to move to 10,000 feet. This leaves 32,000 pounds of thrust as pure power boost, assuming we use this formula we may infer that VC-25 was much higher than 40,000 and climbing at or above a 20 degree angle. Remember bush plane was what lost from radar for two hours at 550 mph that uses about 17 % of its fuel, so why did he stop to refuel at barksdale.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Mobile Review discusses people being punished for using cellphones in flight

[url=http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-12-16-cells-planes_x.htm]USA Today



From USA Today Article linked above
Cell phones usually don't work at high altitudes. When they do, they simultaneously communicate with hundreds of cell towers on the ground, clogging networks.


Study Done by Department Of Engineering of cell use in the air

Techdirt article examining cell phones on planes.

from the above link
The second issue were claims that mobile phones in the sky would connect to so many different cellular towers at once that it would overload phone networks. Again, the fact that many people already do use mobile phones on airplanes without stories of major problems for phone networks suggests this problem has been somewhat exaggerated.


Tech Review examines cellphones on planes

from above link
As the pilot's voice came on, informing us that San Francisco was unapproachable and we were being redirected to Oakland, passengers began making cell-phone calls to their rides -- hiding the phones from flight attendants, of course, since a federal law prohibits cellular calls on an airplane.


There's just a handful from a simple google search.

Regarding the signal booster, "scientific testing around 9/11"? Studies? What, you live under a rock? Stuff like that has been around for years.

Wilson Signal Booster

from the above link
The Wilson Cellular Direct Connect connects directly to your cell phone. This 3 Watt Power Booster can increase your cellular phone coverage up to 50 miles with up to 3 watts of power.



SignalReach


from above link
The signal amplifier reduces problems with signal fades and dropped calls while improving voice quality, service range and access. The power booster enhances the performance of cellular telephones, resulting in wider coverage (up to 25 miles


Regarding what the president's got, sure lemme grab the "top-secret-whitehouse-technology-link" real fast. Oh wait.


Not considering you undermining just moving the thread away from what its intend outcome should be.


There is no clear purpose to this thread, other than you insisting that cellphones do not work in airplanes, which is untrue.


To lift a 600,000-pound jet to an altitude of 10,000 feet takes six billion foot pounds of work (600,000 pounds x 10,000 feet). To complete this climb in 10 minutes (or 600 seconds) would require 10,000,000 foot pounds per second of power (6,000,000,000 foot pounds/600 seconds). We know that each of its engines produce 50,000 of thrust.Thanks to British physicist James Watt, who determined that a horse is capable of producing roughly 550 foot pounds of power per second, we can express this figure in terms of horsepower. In our example, the amount of power required would be a little more than 18,000 horsepower.
Each engine is using 18,000 pounds of energy to move to 10,000 feet. This leaves 32,000 pounds of thrust as pure power boost, assuming we use this formula we may infer that VC-25 was much higher than 40,000 and climbing at or above a 20 degree angle.


You obviously copied and pasted that from somewhere else. This has nothing to do with the topic of cellphones working in planes.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by Astygia]




top topics



 
0

log in

join