----- Forwarded message from nila@truepennymedia.com -----
    Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:45:00 -0800
    From: Nila Sagadevan <nila@truepennymedia.com>
Reply-To: Nila Sagadevan <nila@truepennymedia.com>
Subject: Re: "Let's Roll" Indeed
      To: Jim Fetzer <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

Jim,

You certainly may. You might wish to include George Nelson's response as well:

For what it's worth, I recently flew a Cherokee 140, VFR, from Point Royal, Virginia to Lawrenceburg, Tennessee at 4500 to 6500 feet. Using a 6340 Nokia, which has both the old and new transition technology. I was unable to make even one connection during the entire trip. The phone register markings showing reception and transmission quality never appeared over 2,000 feet, and much of the time I was flying over Interstate highways where most of the cell towers are located. I was surprised that Prof. Dewdney was able to get any connections at all on his flights.
 

> From: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:36:30 -0600
> To: Nila Sagadevan <nila@truepennymedia.com>
> Cc: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>
> Subject: Re: "Let's Roll" Indeed
> 
> Nila,
> 
> I would like to post this in the "Resources" section of S9/11T's web site.
> Is that OK?  This is simply excellent work.  Very powerful and revealing.
> 
> Jim
> 
> Quoting Nila Sagadevan <nila@truepennymedia.com>:
> 
>> Fellow SPINE (Scientific Professionals Investigating Nine-Eleven) member,
>> A.K. Dewdney, is professor of mathematics at the University of Waterloo,
>> Ontario. Upon conducting a series of exhaustive tests using a variety of
>> cell phones on several general aviation aircraft, he has written a paper on
>> the subject entitled, ³Project Achilles²
>> (http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm).
>> 
>> It must be clearly understood that Prof. Dewdney¹s tests were conducted in
>> slow-moving (<150kts) light aircraft at relatively low altitudes (<9000ft
>> AGL). The aircraft from which the alleged calls were made on 9/11 were
>> flying at over 30,000 ft at speeds of over 500 MPH.
>> 
>> During a recent round-trip flight from Orange County, CA to Miami, FL (via
>> Phoenix, AZ), I, personally conducted an unofficial ³test² using a brand new
>> Nokia 6101 cellular phone [NB: 2005 technology]. En route, I attempted
>> (discretely, of course) a total of 37 calls from varying altitudes/speeds. I
>> flew aboard three types of aircraft: Boeing 757, 737, and Airbus 320. Our
>> cruising altitudes ranged from 31-33,000ft, and our cruising speeds, from
>> 509-521 MPH (verified post-flight by the captains). My tests began
>> immediately following take-off. Since there was obviously no point in taking
>> along the wrist altimeter I use for ultralight flying for reference in a
>> pressurized cabin, I could only estimate (from experience) the various
>> altitudes at which I made my attempts.
>> 
>> Of the 37 calls attempted, I managed to make only 4 connections ‹ and every
>> one of these was made on final approach, less than 2 minutes before flare,
>> I.e., at less than 2,000ft AGL.
>> 
>> Approach speeds varied from 130-160 kts (Vref, outer marker), with flap and
>> gear extension at around 2,000ft (again, all speeds verified by flightdeck
>> crews). Further, I personally spoke briefly with the captains of all four
>> flights: I discovered that in their entire flying careers, NOT ONE of these
>> men had EVER been successful in making a cell phone call from cruising
>> altitude/speed in a variety of aircraft types. [NB: Rest assured the
>> ubiquitous warnings to ³turn off all electronics during flight² are
>> completely unfounded. All modern aircraft systems are fully shielded from
>> all forms of RF/EMF interference (save EMP, of course). This requirement was
>> mandated by the FAA many years ago purely as a precautionary measure while
>> emerging advanced avionics systems were being flight tested. There is not a
>> single recorded incident of interference adversely affecting the performance
>> of airborne avionics systems.]
>> 
>> Obviously, my casual, seat-of-the-pants attempt at verifying a commonly
>> known fact can hardly be passed off as a ³scientific² test. Ergo, I shall
>> offer Prof. Dewdey¹s conclusion, excerpted from his meticulously detailed
>> and documented paper re slow-flying light aircraft at low altitudes:
>> 
>> 
>> Conclusion [Project Achilles]:
>> 
>> ³Cell phones traveling in airliners can get a service signal at heights up
>> to some 6,000 ft above ground level (AGL), but it is not possible to make a
>> connection, at least not while traveling at the usual cruising speed of a
>> normal airliner (500-550 mph). Since in all cases (if at all) connections
>> could only be established well after the landing gear has been extended at
>> some 2,000 ft AGL and at a cruising speed of 230 mph or less, it seems safe
>> to conclude that in summer of 2003, no connection could be made with a cell
>> phone from an airliner flying in the U.S. when above an altitude above
>> ground of 2,000 ft (610 m) and when traveling with a speed over 230 mph.
>> Considering the fast descent of the planes and the fact that they kept
>> slowing down as they approached the runway, the height at which a connection
>> could be established might actually be as low as 1,500 ft (457.5 m), and the
>> speed around 200 mph.
>> 
>> ³The reason why a connection could only be established at some 1,500 ft
>> above ground despite the fact that a signal was present already at some
>> 6,000 ft may be that the speed of the traveling aircraft was too high at
>> higher altitudes. It seems safe to say that the speed must be under 230 mph
>> in order to establish a stable connection, a speed which an airliner can
>> reach only while in a landing configuration, I.e., with landing gear, flaps
>> and slats extended.
>> 
>> ³It is generally agreed upon that all the airliners that crashed on
>> September 11, 2001, flew at a high cruising speed of 500 mph and more until
>> they crashed. Thus, it seems safe to say that no cell phone of any type
>> could have established any stable connection to any cell site at that speed,
>> no matter which height the planes flew at. This is particularly true for
>> United Airlines flight 93, which did not only fly at high speed but also at
>> a relatively high altitude during the time when the alleged cell phone calls
>> were placed.²
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The following are a few of the responses to Prof. Dewdney¹s paper:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I am an RF design engineer, having built out Sprint, Verizon and another
>> networks in New Orleans. You are absolutely correct. We have trouble making
>> these things work for cars going 55 mph on the ground. If you need another
>> engineer's testimony for any reason, let me know I will corroborate.
>> 
>> my engineering site: http://www.geocities.com/rf_man_cdma/
>> 
>> Brad Mayeux <cdmaman@engineer.com>
>> 
>> ____________________
>> ________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Professor,
>> 
>> Responding to your article, I'm glad somebody with authority has taken the
>> trouble to scientifically prove the nonsense of 9/11.
>> 
>> I was travelling between two major European cities, every weekend, when the
>> events in the US occurred. I was specifically puzzled by the reports that
>> numerous passengers on board the hijacked planes had long conversations with
>> ground phone lines, using their mobile phones (and not onboard satellite
>> phones). Since I traveled every weekend, I ignored the onboard safety
>> regulations to switch off the mobile phone and out of pure curiosity left it
>> on to see if I could make a call happen.
>> 
>> First of all, at take off, the connection disappears quite quickly
>> (ascending speed, lateral reception of ground stations etc.), I would
>> estimate from 500 meters [1500 feet approx.] and above, the connection
>> breaks.
>> 
>> Secondly, when making the approach for landing, the descent is more gradual
>> and the plane is traveling longer in the reach of cellphone stations, but
>> also only below 500 meters. What I noticed was that, since the plane is
>> traveling at high speed, the connection jumps from one cellphone station to
>> another, never actually giving you a chance to make a phone call. (I have
>> never experienced this behaviour over land, e.g. by car). Then, if a
>> connection is established, it takes at least 10-30 seconds before the
>> provider authorises a phone call in the first place. Within this time, the
>> next cellstation is reached (travel speed still > 300KM/h) and the phone,
>> always searching for the best connection, disconnects the current connection
>> and tries to connect to a new station.
>> 
>> I have done this experiment for over 18 months, ruling out weather
>> conditions, location or coincidence. In all this time the behaviour was the
>> same: making a phone call in a plane is unrealistic and virtually
>> impossible.
>> 
>> Based on this, I can support you in your findings that the official (perhaps
>> fabricated) stories can be categorised as nonsense.
>> 
>> With kind regards.
>> 
>> Peter Kes <kpkes@yahoo.com>
>> __________________________________
>> _______________
>> 
>> 
>> Sir,
>> 
>> Yours is the first article I've read which focuses on those dubious 'cell
>> phone calls'. Last month my Wife and I flew to Melbourne, about 1000 miles
>> south of here.
>> 
>> Cell phones are Verboten in Airliners here, but on the return journey I had
>> a new NOKIA phone, purchased in Melbourne, and so small I almost forgot it
>> was in my pocket. I furtively turned it on. No reception anywhere, not even
>> over Towns or approaching Brisbane. Maybe it's different in the US, but I
>> doubt it.
>> 
>> There has to be an investigation into this crime. Justice for the thousands
>> of dead and their families demands it.
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Bernie Busch <bbusch@iprimus.com.au>
>> ____________________
>> _________
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Prof
>> 
>> I have repeatedly tried to get my cell phone to work in an airplane above
>> 2-3000 feet and it doesn't work. My experiments were done discretely on
>> [more than] 20 Southwest Airlines flights between Ontario, California and
>> Phoenix, Arizona. My experiments match yours. Using sprint phones 3500 and
>> 6000 models, no calls above 2500 ft [succeeded], a "no service" indicator at
>> 5000 ft (guesstimate).
>> 
>> There seem to be two reasons. 1. the cell sites don't have enough power to
>> reach much more than a mile, 2. The cell phone system is not able to handoff
>> calls when the plane is going at more than 400 mph.
>> 
>> This is simply experimental data. If any of your contacts can verify it by
>> finding the height of the pennsylvania plane and it's speed one can prove
>> that the whole phone call story is forged.
>> 
>> Rafe <rafeh@rdlabs.com>   (Pilot)
>> _____________________
>> _______________
>> 
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> I write in praise of your report, as I have felt from day one that the cell
>> phone 'evidence' was perhaps the flimsiest part of the story, and am amazed
>> that nobody has touched it until now.
>> 
>> I'd also like to bring up the point of airspeed, which is what made the cell
>> calls a red-flag for me in the first place. I'm not sure what your top speed
>> achieved in the small plane was, but, in a large airliner traveling at (one
>> would think) no less than 450mph, most cell phones wouldn't be able to
>> transit cells slowly enough to maintain a connection (at least, from what i
>> understand of the technology) .. and we're talking 2001 cell technology
>> besides, which in that period, was known to drop calls made from cars
>> travelling above 70mph on the freeway (again, due to cell coverage transits)
>> 
>> Anyway, thanks for shining the light, keep up the good work
>> 
>> <email on request>
>> ____________________
>> _____________
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
 
 
 

----- End forwarded message -----