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.

 

Question on "the cell phone call" and 911 plane attacks?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Here's the thing with the whole theory about the planes not being passenger planes. I don't buy it because it is to complicated to bother doing when the gov't could do an attack a lor more easily then that.
First they'd have to have agents on the orginal passenger planes, then those agents would have to take over the plane and fly them to a location specified. Then somewhere at the same time the supposed non-passenger military planes would have to take their place so that they could fly into the towers. Also would not air traffice control see that the orginal passenger planes were flying off course and headed and landed somewhere else? and unless the suppossed miltary planes had some kind of cloaking or something , would not the air traffic controllers see them on their screens also? First it seems that it could not be pulled off and if it could be pulled off it seems like a lot of work when govt. agents could have more easily just have planted bombs in key locations to kill people (it would not have to be at the WTC).
Also why would the gov't fly a plane into their main homebase the Pentegon.
I can but any of the above.
I think if our Gov't "was" invovled it was to the extent that they knew the attacks were going to happen and did nothing about it so they could have more miltary power in the Middle East and go about doing whatever they want like they are doing now over there. And they could have other reasons they let the attacks happen (if they even knew they were going to happen that is).




posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GREGNOW
Here's the thing with the whole theory about the planes not being passenger planes. I don't buy it because it is to complicated to bother doing when the gov't could do an attack a lor more easily then that.


This is a problem that I have with the idea as well. I don't yet see how switching the planes would be critical to the operation's execution, but this doesn't excuse why Flight 175 looked the way it did from beneath.


Also would not air traffice control see that the orginal passenger planes were flying off course and headed and landed somewhere else? and unless the suppossed miltary planes had some kind of cloaking or something , would not the air traffic controllers see them on their screens also?


There were military wargames going on at the time that interfered with the FAA's and NORAD's response to the events as they were unfolding. Of the at least 4 or 5 wargames going on, the only one that's really been confirmed is the excercise involving planes being flown into buildings. Another excercise, though, has been claimed to have been an excercise involving fake blips inserted on FAA radar. This would be some common obstacle to throw at the pilots during the excercises, and would simultaneously confuse the FAA and NORAD and prevent them singling out actual course deviations, or even plane switch-offs.

Another theory, known as "Bumble Plane," also holds that if planes were indeed switched, during the wargames, for example, one plane would simply have to fly over another so that their radar blips would overlap and beyond that point it would be hopeless to tell the two apart from radar alone.

Again, I'm not convinced the planes really were switched, because such an idea would raise more questions at this point than it would answer. Maybe some were switched, maybe they weren't. There are other, more obvious errors with the official story. Nonetheless, the view of the bottom of Flight 175 intrigues me.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Can you not tell the different between a commercial aircraft and Flight 175 in that pic? Look at the wings. The engines are similar, but that's about it. Look at the wings especially and see whether they match more a 767 or a 777. If it was a 777, it would likely not have been in the possession of commercial airlines at the time for obvious reasons, ie the fact that it would entail the planes had been switched.

[edit on 3-8-2005 by bsbray11]


Where on earth did you get that idea?? United flew their first passengers on a 777 in 1995. You really think there wouldn't have been enough of them in srevice by 2001 for them to have used one on 9/11?? The 200-300ER made their first flights in 2003, there is NO WAY they could have released the regular version, come up with the design, modify, and fly an ER version in 2 years or less. Not to mention the fact that it's easy to verify that Flight 175 was a 767 when it took off. Anyone with ANY knowledge of planes watching the impacts would easily be able to tell the difference between a 767 and a 777.

The 777 program was launched in October 1990 with an order from United Airlines. In June 1995, United flew its first 777 in revenue service. More information on 777-200/-200ER...

www.boeing.com...

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Just a little aside note. I've used my cellphone a few times while in the air. On one trip from LA to Vancouver I realised I'd forgotten some papers on my desk, so I called the office and had my receptionist fax the documents to the hotel I'd be staying at. I figured I could pick up the papers on my way to a meeting that was scheduled about an hour after I was scheduled to arrive. I called around 15 minutes after takeoff, so I would assume we were already at 20,000+ feet.

I've also made calls while flying near New York at around 10,000 feet while decending into LaGuardia ATC space, and have made calls near Minneapolis (NorthWest's main hub) from the air. These are all NOT using the onboard phones (which are a rediculous $5/minute) but using my Samsung digital cellphone. I've also switched on my phone out of curiousity during a flight to see if there was a signal, quite often there is. You used to be allowed to use cellphones on flights, but they changed it to "no use of electronics during take off or landing" and then to "no use of cellphones once we've closed the doors". I used to log around 65,000 miles in flights each year due to my job, and have a fair amount of experience as far as what works and what doesn't work. I also know if you schmooze up the right flight attendant you can charge your laptop battery in the gally.


Cellphones do work above 2500 feet, you just need to be near a tower. And, of course, you have to break the rules...



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GREGNOW
Where on earth did you get that idea?? United flew their first passengers on a 777 in 1995. You really think there wouldn't have been enough of them in srevice by 2001 for them to have used one on 9/11?? The 200-300ER made their first flights in 2003, there is NO WAY they could have released the regular version, come up with the design, modify, and fly an ER version in 2 years or less. Not to mention the fact that it's easy to verify that Flight 175 was a 767 when it took off. Anyone with ANY knowledge of planes watching the impacts would easily be able to tell the difference between a 767 and a 777.

The 777 program was launched in October 1990 with an order from United Airlines. In June 1995, United flew its first 777 in revenue service. More information on 777-200/-200ER...


Wow. Congrats on totally misunderstanding my post, and then just further confirming what I was trying to say!


Though, on the point about anyone watching the impacts being able to tell the difference, I might add that the pic I posted was from actual footage of Flight 175 hitting the tower, so we have an even better opportunity to look than those who were actual witnesses. I can post an additional graphic showing where exactly the pic was taken if you want.


Originally posted by bsbray11
If it was a 777, it would likely not have been in the possession of commercial airlines at the time for obvious reasons, ie the fact that it would entail the planes had been switched.


Reread that until what I meant sinks into your skull.

[edit on 3-8-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Lets face it the planes were real. If not where are all the missing folks, vanished, not a real reality. Cell phones do work in short durations on most flights , have tried it myself. Wouldn't be good for more than the short details of a highjack. "Bad guys on board, gonna kill all people ulesss we do xxxxxx"

Is there going to be a long detailed conversation no not likely. A satellite phone maybe but that is not the story being presented. This cannot be real information unless it is a a seatback "airphone" service offered in planes back then but not very often on the planes I fly on for work (USAir, Sputhwest).



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Well indeed yet another conspiracy to bust.

First of all, if this had been a government plot, there's no way they could have done 4 planes all at once, they aren't that smart.


Second of all, everyone in this country seems to think that our "highly trained" ex-military people can take out anyone they want to armed or not. The reality is that desperation can always overcome training when surprise is used. The pilots were certainly not anticipating an attack. I doubt we even train our pilots for this possibility (before 9/11). It would be pretty easy to cut someone's throat if you were fast enough. These terrorists had trained for 10 years for this moment. These people live to kill and live to die ... our soldiers live to fight but then to come back home to their families. It's a completely different mentality. These people are psychopaths, like mass murderers and rapists. They are willing to do the unthinkable. They caught us all by surprise, admittedly.

Thirdly, I have not yet seen or heard any evidence that the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down by the F-16's. The problem was that we did not have planes close enough to scramble that fast. It took several hours before the word came back to NORAD, and by that time it was too late. That's been changed, now we are so nervous that we've already scrambled F-16's twice when a little cessna has veered of course and over White House air space. They even evacuated Dick Cheney ...

No I don't buy this ...




posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
BSPRAY11, for some reason the quote you answer about the 777's says it was from me, but it was not. I don't know why it says it's quoted from me, it was from Zaphod58.

also i find the bottom of 175 intriguing as well, there may be something there (looks like missles underneath it, you know?). I still can't buy the plane switching thing though.

[edit on 4-8-2005 by GREGNOW]



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GREGNOW
BSPRAY11, for some reason the quote you answer about the 777's says it was from me, but it was not. I don't know why it says it's quoted from me, it was from Zaphod58.

also i find the bottom of 175 intriguing as well, there may be something there (looks like missles underneath it, you know?). I still can't buy the plane switching thing though.

[edit on 4-8-2005 by GREGNOW]


Oops, heh. Sorry.


This is why:

When I respond to a specific post, I might click the 'quote' button so that their quote is already there, with name and everything. When I respond to more than one post, and want it to say who it's from, I just copy and past the bit in italics and then replace the username. I did something funky on that post, though, but likely it was some brain fart I had along those lines. Sorry mate.


But yes, it was supposed to say "Originally posted by Zaphod58."



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
don't you think the hijackers would've tried to stop people using their phones? or were they all in the cockpit?



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
If you look at the pics of UA 175 just before it hits the building, you can find several obvious differences between the Triple and the 767, that show it's a 767 and not a Triple. The most obvious is the tail section. The Triple vertical fin is taller and thinner at the top than the 767 vertical fin. The fuselage is much wider than a 767, the engines are noticeably bigger, and the nose is blunter. The flight that hit the WTC was a 767. Most importantly, WHY would they change ONE flight to a 777, and not the others? The only ones that had, and still have 777s are the airlines. The military and government have not, and as far as I know are not planning to buy any Triples. They have 2 747s, and several 757s and that is all they plan on having for at least the next several years.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   

If you look at the pics of UA 175 just before it hits the building, you can find several obvious differences between the Triple and the 767, that show it's a 767 and not a Triple. The most obvious is the tail section. The Triple vertical fin is taller and thinner at the top than the 767 vertical fin. The fuselage is much wider than a 767, the engines are noticeably bigger, and the nose is blunter. The flight that hit the WTC was a 767.


I don't even have to describe how completely one-sided and biased that is. You have conveniently left out many details that suggests it's neither a commercial 767 nor a normal 777.



From what I see, the engines of Flight 175 match a 767, but the wings and the bottom of the fuselage matches a 777. The more I look at those funny things on the bottom, the more I reconsider the notion of something(s) being attached, as well. What exactly was the argument against that again?


Most importantly, WHY


No, "why" is hardly important at all at this stage of our investigation. We don't know what these guys did or did not do in regards to orchestrating the events of 9/11, and we cannot read their minds. I've already stated that I don't know why they would need to do this. I've also stated I'm not completely convinced the flights were switched. But "why" is most certainly not the most important issue to focus on when examining evidence.


The military and government have not, and as far as I know are not planning to buy any Triples.


They would not have had any Stealths, as far as you would've known, either, until they were officially announced to the public. If they needed, for some reason, a 777 or some other aircraft for 9/11 that they did not have at the time, how hard would it be for them to quietly obtain one? This is not a very convincing argument, to say none are on record as far as you know.

[edit on 4-8-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   
There are structural similarities between the 767 and the Triple, but there is no way that a 767 engine is going to get a Triple in the air, and up to the speed it was going at impact. The 767-200 engines produce 48,000 pounds of thrust, and the plane has a max take off weight of 395,000 pounds. The Triple EMPTY weighs in at 305,000 pounds already, and has a max take off weight of over 500,000. If the engines in those pictures match a 767, then there's no way it can be a Triple. And again, anyone who witnessed the impacts, that knows anything at all about commercial plane identification would have been able to tell the difference between a Triple and a 767. I remember watching the videos, and what I saw was a 767.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Speaking of planes or lack of this is new to me Phoenix Air




If the government is as clean as a whistle over 9/11, explain why it wants to put Phillip Jayhan in a nice, neat little package and dump him into the Fox River? Explain why government hacks have harassed him, broke into his apartment, pilfered his car and generally made him look over his shoulder every time he leaves his McHenry, Ill, home?

Explain why they tap his telephone, send undercover agents to debrief him and crash his web site every chance they get? Explain why they want to shut him up when all he wants to do is find out the truth?

And being a man of his word, Jayhan has expanded his 9/11 truth-finding mission to almost every aspect of the complex one day assault on the WTC, The Pentagon and the mishap over Shanksville, Penn., including detailed documentation of many inconsistencies of the official story.

“We also believe that Phoenix Air had a part in 9/11,” said Jayhan. “Phoenix Air is owned by Mossad and is the only company in America to have four planes outfitted with electronic warfare (EW) equipment. We believe these planes were used to create the false blips on the radar screens of the four aircraft.”

Another area of concern now occupying Jayhan’s time is the research he uncovered showing that Flight 11 and Flight 77, two of the alleged hijacked planes, never even existed in airline flight records on the morning of 9/11.

“I have found that both of those flights never existed on 9/11 but were strangely on the airline flight lists the day before and the day after,” said Jayhan. “Also I have found out that many – too many – of the passengers on all the four airliners never were even entered on the Social Security Death Index. And what about Flight 93? I have found that not even one of the families have ever applied for 9/11 compensation monies. Why?”

Jayhan, however, doesn’t stop with a general look at the passenger list, but picks out one especially suspicious passenger, Daniel Lewin, listed as killed, but who also was a confirmed Israeli commando.

“So here we have an Israeli commando traveling as a U.S. citizen on the same hijacked plane with the supposed Arab terrorists,” adds Jayhan. “Lewin was not only with Israeli intelligence but head of Akamai Industries, an Israeli internet routing company that received a two-hour advance warning of the WTC attacks.
www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com...

Phillip Jayhan's Wedsite www.letsroll911.org...



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Pheonix Air flies Lear 35s and Gulfstream 1s for the military. They tow targets for live fire training, and do electronic warfare training for the USN. I've never heard anything about them being owned by Mossad, but they are a training company for the US and other countries.

www.phoenixair.com...

Sorry, but whoever wrote that article lost any credibility with me when he said this......
“Nothing crashed or was shot down over Shanksville. Debris was dumped from the white C-130, which also flew over the Pentagon. A bomb was detonated in the Shanksville field, providing a pre-planned imprint to make it looked like a jet crashed and this is obvious since no jet fuel or plane parts were ever found on the property.”

There were probably a dozen eyewitnesses that WATCHED the plane fly overhead, and at least a couple that saw it diving, or inverted, followed shortly by an explosion.
[edit on 4-8-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 4-8-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There are structural similarities between the 767 and the Triple, but there is no way that a 767 engine is going to get a Triple in the air, and up to the speed it was going at impact. The 767-200 engines produce 48,000 pounds of thrust, and the plane has a max take off weight of 395,000 pounds. The Triple EMPTY weighs in at 305,000 pounds already, and has a max take off weight of over 500,000. If the engines in those pictures match a 767, then there's no way it can be a Triple. And again, anyone who witnessed the impacts, that knows anything at all about commercial plane identification would have been able to tell the difference between a Triple and a 767. I remember watching the videos, and what I saw was a 767.


First, maybe I should clarify my statement that the engines appeared the same. If you notice how they taper, they taper more like a 767. If you look at their width, and it may be hard to determine accuracy without knowing the exact distance at which these photos were taken, it seems as though there is substantial deviation from a 767 in that respect. I wouldn't know what this suggests; I'm just calling it as I see it. You still haven't admitted there being any difference between the 767 and Flight 175, even though there are glaring inconsistencies that stare you right in the face.

I would appreciate a fair discussion of this, so as to fully explore the possibilities here. You're not really providing this, Zaphod. It's as though you're more here to simply try to dispell anything I might say, when there are freaking obvious differences between all three of the photos used in that graphic. Maybe you should consider what exactly it is you seem to feel you are denying here: ignorance, or me.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
I might be a little more open to a fair discussion, if it wasn't for the fact that everytime I brought up a point in any conspiracy thread, I was told it was wrong, or stupid, and that I was sheeple. Honeslyt though, I really don't see the discrepancies. I remember watching the videos which clearly showed a 767 impacting the tower. I've been around Triples and 767s for years and have seen the differences in them, and can tell them apart.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Zaphod don't worry. You're right, they're wrong and they all know it. It's part of their inability to prove squibs, explosions, and fires being too cold --that turns them to "maybe it was a 777" next week it will be a modified 747... and the week after it will be a Global Hawk.

Seriously, don't let it worry you. Guys like bsbray will add opinions, insults, and utter nonsense to any thread but will never add any factual information, or any observations grounded in science. And should you ever refute their fantasy opinions with 100% factual science, they will try to brush it off like it has no value in their conversation (even though it 100% destroys their whole idea) I strongly suspect it's because many of the facts are above the level of comprehension by some of them.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Zaphod don't worry. You're right, they're wrong and they all know it. It's part of their inability to prove squibs, explosions, and fires being too cold


Ironically, these are the very things that you could not disprove to begin with. Static air pressure causing those squibs?


I also find it ironic that CatHerder calls me a troll.
Huge egos can be very ugly things, eh? But I suspect he'll get over himself some day.




Ok, Zaphod.. here are where I see differences between Flight 175 and a normal 767.

A) Do wings on United Airline's 767s usually deviate like this from plane to plane? I wouldn't know, but I find it odd that there would be no standard if that's the case. Different models, or what?



Anyway, there's the first thing I noticed.

B) The engines' widths don't seem to maintain their proportion from plane to plane. Unless they use different engines for different models, I don't understand why this should be the case, either.

C) Does it not appear as though the bottom of Flight 175 flattens out here? Look at the outline of the bottom of the fuselage here and compare it to the normal 767. There's a clear change in the fuselage's contour.

D) I don't even know what the hell D is, but I can tell you that the picture of the normal 767 does not have it (or the second one behind it, either). Again, this is a subject I wouldn't know much about. Just calling it as I see it and wondering why it's so. You have to admit there is a difference here, though.

At any rate, since you saw no differences, there are four that I spotted. I don't know why they are different, but they are, nonetheless. This is why I say I would appreciate a more open and honest discussion here.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
A- Depends on the position of the aileron on that side of the wing. Ailerons move opposite of each other to cause the wing to lift or fall, causing a turn. If the plane was in the process of turning at the time, one aileron may be down, causing it to appear different.

B-There were at least two, possibly three different types of engines available for the 767. It was up to the airlines which engine type they went with.

C/D- How can you see ANYTHING there. I even tried blowing up the picture and I can't see anything but shadow under the bottom of the fuselage.

When you find a better picture than this, then I'll be happy to have an objective discussion about it. From this picture though, it's hard to see any differences on the fuselage.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join