Typical reversal of burden of proof.Yes Mark, let's cut to the chase. You show the list of which calls were individual cell phone, and which were Airfone. Then show the contract between Airfone and United Airlines, and Airfone and American Airlines with dates covering 9/11/2001
Then we can progress. :mrgreen:
Yes Mark, let's cut to the chase. You show the list of which calls were individual cell phone, and which were Airfone. Then show the contract between Airfone and United Airlines, and Airfone and American Airlines with dates covering 9/11/2001
Then we can progress.
:lamo :lamo :2rofll: :2rofll:
OMG - is there anyone who didn't see that one coming?
1. Play the I could explain it but you wouldn't understand card.
2. Play the avoid answering with the "so many words, so little substance" evasion card.
3. Play the why don't you explain your position (so I don't have to explain mine) card.
4. Disappear for a few days and hope everyone forgets.
How about :no:
I asked you first so stop being your usual rude and evasive self. For about the millionth time, your claim, your burden of proof.
HD will never give a straight answer. His response to Deuce was a strawman response. Also noted he basically accuses a poster of trying to be an expert. Yet, with all of his wave length , faraday cage, laws of physics., he provides no details.
He doesn't know what he is talking about.
Directional antenna arrays favouring the topography of each site.
The challenge with cellular networks in densely populated areas is stopping the signals going too far.*
So HD has that and a couple of other little technical issues going for him.
AKA he is NOT 100% wrong.
Maybe 98% :doh
* For most of the land area of AU we have the opposite problem - too few people scattered over distances so "in the outback" the layout goes for longer range transmission with directional arrays focussed along the highways. Not many people off the highways. Lots of kangaroos but most of them I see don't have iPhones.
...yet!
A variety of laws Deuce, many of them designed into the system by the humans who created it. Also the law as demonstrated by Faraday cages. The airplane fuselage is effectively a Faraday cage.
Further, the system was designed and marketed for pedestrians on the surface of the planet. It was NOT designed for people in airplanes, either GA or airliners.
You should familiarize yourself with how they worked in those days. Handing off from cell to cell, faraday cages represented by cars and airplane fuselage, type and characteristics of wave form and wave length, and a variety of other issues that you have no clue about. Presenting yourself as some sort of expert, implied or otherwise, makes you look really bad.
So, is it the aircraft fuselage that radically changed or are cell phones now capable of penetrating faraday cages? What changed between 2001 and now that makes faraday cages obsolete?
Are you suggesting that cars blocked cell phone calls in 2001 also?
He's wrong because he's using the word "impossible" when he should be using the word "unreliable."
He knows about as much concerning faraday cages as he does aviation.
Ie nada
Yes Mark, let's cut to the chase. You show the list of which calls were individual cell phone, and which were Airfone. Then show the contract between Airfone and United Airlines, and Airfone and American Airlines with dates covering 9/11/2001
Then we can progress. :mrgreen:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?