Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (3084)	9/28/2003 12:16:45 AM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

LL here the specs of the GT300 cell phone: csi-wireless.com note in the performance section: "Maximum Altitude <60,000 feet" that is almost double of the plane's 35,000 feet call

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (3084)	9/28/2003 1:46:08 AM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

re: which makes your Cessna tests irrelevant. I decided to track the prof akd on i-net, I know, I know, but I needed to kill 15 minutes til the program finish. akd is a crackpot. I looked through his prior work and to say that is less than impressive would be giving him way too much credit. He is conspiracy freak. He developed a theory that 9/11 is a cover up and all terrorists are very much alive. The test was done to prove that theory. A number of assumptions was made without any scientific reasoning - that fact is especially funny considering that one of his books was about abuse of mathematics. Here are some of his assumption and procedures: 1)he assumed that reception in larger aircraft should be worse than in a smaller one and hence it is sufficient to run test in small aircraft. The instrument sheilding in smaller aircraft is not as good as in bigger one and as a result smaller craft EM noise is substantially higher. His argument was that in a large industrial building the reception is worse than in an open area. As I already said it is not the same as small vs large aircrafts. 2)he assumed it was sufficient to run 3 tests over the areas that he selected rather than running it closer to where the celular conversation happened. 3) he conducted very limited number of tries with fairly significant sigma. 4) even with small samples he had connections at 8,000 feet and yet he did not push it higher. 5) he tested few cellphones and some of them showed fairly erratic patterns like connecting at 8,000 feet but not connecting at half of that. And yet he did not give it any consideration All in all his results are inconclusive at best and more likely to be made up