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.

 

Professional Pilot Instructors Discuss Airliner Approaches

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
A few comments on the posts above: The Betty Ong tape DOES sound phony and flat and rehearsed, can anyone say she sounds frightened or stressed? And recall the tape of " I see water and buildings!!"? That is as believable as an alien saying " I see stars, and planets !!". It was a script and I believe that a big part of the game was a staged ' play ' on board that was part of the ' drills ' going on. The people on board were happy to play the game for ' national security ',etc. and did not know it was far from a game.

And the passenger who called his Mom and used his last name and asked over and over if she really believed him; give me a break. Why not tell her his SS # and a physical description of himself as well so 'Mom" would KNOW for sure it was her only son..this stinks to high heaven and is not credible.

Also, guns used in a cockpit? Please. No proof of a gun at all, and to hit the windshielf would cause decompression and a chaotic scenario for all people up front. No way. Tear gas? then the ' highjackers ' must have also smuggled gas masks on board also, right? That way they would not be affected by the tear gas...hmmm. nonsense.

Also, not much has been said about navigation; where did they get a flight engineer or the ability to plot a perect trajectory and hit the targets ( excepting 93, shot down or whatever..please tell me how these pilots who could not rent a Cessna were able to perform intensely professional maneuvers at all..impossible.

Thank you Mr. Lear for the diagram, it shows clearly that it is ridiculous to believe that all four planes could possible have had the cockpits evacuated without ONE being able to squawk the code, no way. And to believe that the pilots witnessed flight attendants being killed is silly; how could two pilots up front with a locked door see anything? And if they did see a brutal attack, they would be LESS likely to just turn the planes over to highjackers to fly; no way would any pilot do that.

I really cannot understand how ANYONE could possible believe the govt. story on this: If there were only 50 ' anomalies ' associated with this event, one might give some thought to the official story, but with hundreds of anomalies and no proof given to support the ' official' claims, there is NO way that anyone can believe that this happened the way the govt. says. It just staggers the intelligent mind when people gloss over the hard facts and make suppositions based on fantasy.




posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Your information was proven wrong in regards to the seatback phones. I believe the memo that the pilots for truth received was doctored. So, with all respect, the ridiculous suggestion is the person that sent the false memo to the pilots for truth.



Originally posted by grassyknoll7
I'm kind of curious are you an expert in doctored paperwork?


I am not at all. But the document was shown to have been photoshopped and dates blackened out. In addition a member at another forum had an on going dialog with a member of AA media:


(June 27, 2007)

*** I am doublechecking with my maintenance folks so I give you accurate data.

(June 29, 2007)

***,engineers at our primary Maintenance & Engineering base in Tulsa tell me that they cannot find any record that the 757 aircraft flown into the Pentagon on 9/11 had had its seatback phones deactivated by that date. An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time.

That doesn't make much sense. The engineers said that they couldn't find a record of flight 77's seatback phones deactivation but they deactivated the phones on the 757 fleet before or on 9/11? Flight 77 was part of the 757 fleet it wasn't required to turn off it phones even though there was an order? That order was issued for 757 planes.

It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected.

How did they know they were working, did they test out the phones while they were on the plane? Just because there is no entry doesn't mean they weren't turned off.

(Who is John Hotard?)

I am a manager in the Corporate Communications department of American, meaning I deal with media.














posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by grassyknoll7
That doesn't make much sense. The engineers said that they couldn't find a record of flight 77's seatback phones deactivation but they deactivated the phones on the 757 fleet before or on 9/11? Flight 77 was part of the 757 fleet it wasn't required to turn off it phones even though there was an order? That order was issued for 757 planes.


They got the order to do so. That does not mean that it gets done right then and there. As the orders get completed, they get cleared. There was no record of that order being cleared.


Originally posted by grassyknoll7How did they know they were working, did they test out the phones while they were on the plane? Just because there is no entry doesn't mean they weren't turned off.


First of all, records show that there were calls made on flight 77 that day. You can choose like Mr. Lear does to dismiss this as fake.

Mr. Hotard answers your question...its not because they tested them. There was no entry in the aircrafts records that stated
they were in fact turned off.


Pilots For 911truth obtained a falsified memo that was intentionally doctored. I'm not saying they are responsible for doctoring it, they possibly could have been the victims of a prank.












[edit on 8-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by grassyknoll7
That doesn't make much sense. The engineers said that they couldn't find a record of flight 77's seatback phones deactivation but they deactivated the phones on the 757 fleet before or on 9/11? Flight 77 was part of the 757 fleet it wasn't required to turn off it phones even though there was an order? That order was issued for 757 planes.


They got the order to do so. That does not mean that it gets done right then and there. As the orders get completed, they get cleared. There was no record of that order being cleared.


Originally posted by grassyknoll7How did they know they were working, did they test out the phones while they were on the plane? Just because there is no entry doesn't mean they weren't turned off.


First of all, records show that there were calls made on flight 77 that day. You can choose like Mr. Lear does to dismiss this as fake.

Mr. Hotard answers your question...its not because they tested them. There was no entry in the aircrafts records that stated
they were in fact turned off.


Pilots For 911truth obtained a falsified memo that was intentionally doctored. I'm not saying they are responsible for doctoring it, they possibly could have been the victims of a prank.


Thank you for the response.

I hope you don't get offended by this(A Joke). CaptainObvious has been promoted to MajorNoS**t









[edit on 8-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Being a skeptic in here, you gotta have thick skin.

Mr. Grassyknoll, you asked the questions. I supplied you with an answer that I researched.

We you satisfied with it?



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Being a skeptic in here, you gotta have thick skin.

Mr. Grassyknoll, you asked the questions. I supplied you with an answer that I researched.

We you satisfied with it?



Well sort of. But again thank you for the response. Yes you and I are satisfied. You need a vacation. Lighten up.

[edit on 7/8/2007 by grassyknoll7]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Dude...I just got back from the beach! I'm totaly chillin...crackin open some Corona's ...





posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
As with those who thought we fabricated the NTSB information, they think we fabricated the 757 AMM page... lol

When your information is that good and the only argument that can be used against it is "Its FAKE!", it means the information must be REALLY good. In other words.. we want you to say its fake.


I assure you CaptOvious, the 757 AMM page is not fake, Chad Kinder is not fake, Chris Christensian in AA Legal Dept is not fake.

But hey Mr "Skeptic", if you want to buy into JREF Conspiracy Theories.. .be my guest.

Funny how Ron Weick (known liar and the one who contacted "John Hotard") does not want to give us his contact information... But you "skeptics" such as CaptObvious, believe his story after reading one post... Too funny.

We'll get ahold of John ourselves and record him as we have done with everyone else. This story is not over by a long shot. Stay tuned folks (you too CaptFakery)..lol

Rob



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by CaptainObvious


Your information was proven wrong in regards to the seatback phones. I believe the memo that the pilots for truth received was doctored. So, with all respect, the ridiculous suggestion is the person that sent the false memo to the pilots for truth.



Page from American Airlines Boeing 757 Maintenance Manual deactivating seat back phones dated January 28, 2001:






Here is the page from the American Airlines Maintenance manual. The proprietary information has been removed.

You will note that under the General heading, A. The first line says the Passenger Telephone system was deactivated by ECO F0878. (An ECO is an Engineering Change Order.)

The top left date 01/28/07 refers to the software revision date used to read this document on American Airlines Computer system.

The 757 Aircraft Mainentance Manual page is found in the lower right. The page of the manual is 23-19-00-0 and is dated 01-28-2001.

Work order ECO-F0878 dated prior to this date could not be located.

The ECO's were located and were dated mid and late 2002 which order the removal of the phone system. However, none dated prior to the above 757 AMM as noted.

"Replacement" refers to major maintenance events being done on aircraft that requires full removal of phone system. Phone Company Personnel only are allowed to remove/re-install full system until removed permanently. However, the phones were deactivated (no service) during this time according to above 757 AMM.




This is an email from Chad Kinder, Customer Relations, American Airlines. Mr. Kinder is employed by American Airlines in Customer Relations and sent this email in response to the question about the seat back phones on American Airlines Boeing 757's:


Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting Customer Relations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to assist you.

That is correct we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.

However, the pilots are able to stay in constant contact with the Air Traffic Control tower.

Mr. XXXXXXXX, I hope this information is helpful. It is a privilege to serve you. This is an "outgoing only" email address. If you 'reply' to this message by simply selecting the reply button, we will not receive your additional comments. Please assist us in providing you with a timely response to any feedback you have for us by always sending us your email messages via AA.com at www.aa.com...

Sincerely,
Chad Kinder
Customer Relations
American Airlines





CaptainObvious, the issue of the deactivation of the seatback is complex. American Airlines has a very fine line to walk. If you are going to engage in a debate about the authenticity of this American Airlines Maintenance Manual page 23-19-00-0 I strongly encourage you have your facts checked and that you are not going to introduce heresay evidence unless you specifically introduce it as 'heresay' or your 'opinion'.

I have posted this American Airlines Maintenance Manual page is so that those who are reading this thread can become familiar with it.

Please start out by showing where this American Airlines Maintenace Manual Page (it is not a memo as you so state) has been doctored.

Then continue by explaining and supporting your comment:


So, with all respect, the ridiculous suggestion is the person that sent the memo to the pilots for truth. (sic)



Thanks.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
John,

It's been photoshoped and has dates blacked out. Please explain why!



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Page from American Airlines Boeing 757 Maintenance Manual deactivating seat back phones dated January 28, 2001:





why is the date in the upper left blacked out??..right below AMERICAN AIRLINES INC.

Claircom telephone System - description and operation..... this page just says how the phones operated...and gives refrence to the orders that deactivated them and the ones that removed them...

and the REV number also says that this page could have been added between this change and the original.....

and the ALL down at the bottom means that ALL planes have the same system....

p.s....what does the AA and the TR standfor?

[edit on 8-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret


why is the date in the upper left blacked out??..right below AMERICAN AIRLINES INC.


Date in upper left is login date and time that could be traced back to source.




and the REV number also says that this page could have been added between this change and the original.....


The "REV" date upper left is the revision date of the computer software used to read this page on the computer network.


and the ALL down at the bottom means that ALL planes have the same system....


Almost correct. "ALL" means that the above page effects "ALL" planes in the 757 fleet. ETA: Hence the word, "EFFECTIVITY".


p.s....what does the AA and the TR standfor?


AA i think is American Airlines.. i'd have to double check..

But the TR stands for Temporary Revision.

Later pages/revisions did surface with the same language that was permenant, however omitted things like describing the system, and i believe omitted some system components. Our source gave us the earliest page as requested and as noted above with 1/28/2001.


If anyone can find the same page above with same exact wording, feel free to post it unredacted (since some of you claim we are hiding something), with your name.. as we have.

CaptObvious, Lear described why some language was redacted, please read his obvious post.



[edit on 9-7-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
One factor that says a lot is the fact that the alleged call from Barbara Olsen, wife of a Repug bigshot, was made COLLECT from a seatback phone, according to her husband. Collect calls could NOT be made from a seatback phone; a credit card is required before any connection could be made. Olsen said that his wife must have borrowed a credit card since she did'nt have hers to use. Sure, a well known businesswoman did not have a credit card in her purse...and the passenger who ' loaned ' her one surely was a generous sort to let someone else call their family in an emergency instead of themselves...riiiight.

And OF COURSE NO records from the phone company showing these calls ever took place to the numbers alleged. How obvious!

And the other ' cell phone ' calls simply had the luck to be the only ones known to have worked at high altitudes and through many zones where a drop out would have happened for sure. Listan close to the call from Beamer, he sounds just like Ong; a script in hand and a Fed standing there supervising the ' games ; being played. I really believe that passengers were told on board, after takeoff, that there was an ' opportunity ' for them to help the govt. by play acting a highjack scenario by making calls,etc. What else can account for the strange conversations and pauses we hear?

I may be wrong but the calls, all of them had strange cadences and phrases and a halting but calm manner; it reads like a script to me. I believe that there were NO phones working that day and that if any got out is was a fluke, like the guy who said he was in a restroom and heard a loud BANG qnd saw white smoke, probably from the missle that hit.

Oh, George and Dick, we a tangled web you weave when first you practice to decieve..too many anomalies, too many impossibilties, too many cover-ups. When will the people take the blinders off?



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
CaptObvious, Lear described why some language was redacted, please read his obvious post.


I did, and I ask again why was this document photoshoped? This was pointed out in another forum and never answered.

Please everyone, take the document and place it on your desktop and right click on it. Then OPEN WITH ... use a word program. On the first line of the text you will see:


Adobe Photoshop 7.0 2007:6:21 13:40:05

Now, Im not a professional, but can someone tell me why this document needed to be photoshoped??



[edit on 9-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Please everyone, take the document and place it on your desktop and right click on it. Then OPEN WITH ... use a word program. On the first line of the text you will see:


Adobe Photoshop 7.0 2007:6:21 13:40:05

[edit on 9-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]


i am a doubter of this piece...however i dont see what you're talking about.....

my doubt of the accuracy (not the credibility) stems from
1. the rev change number

2. the fact that it only refrences the order to take out the phones but doesnt say it itself

3. the rev date is exactly 6 years different from the page number



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Please everyone, take the document and place it on your desktop and right click on it. Then OPEN WITH ... use a word program. On the first line of the text you will see:


Adobe Photoshop 7.0 2007:6:21 13:40:05

Now, Im not a professional, but can someone tell me why this document needed to be photoshoped??



CaptObvious,

I used photoshop to box the red line around the date in the lower right, the red line under the pertinent sentence, and for the redacted boxes to protect proprietery information and our source.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

For someone who names himself the Capt [of] Obvious, you sure have a hard time at spotting the obvious.

lol

As everyone has been asking you which you fail to answer...

Is Chad Kinder "photoshopped", is AA Legal Dept "photoshopped"? Are the recordings i have of them "fabricated"?

Need phone numbers?

You're such a Conspiracy Theorist Capt Obvious.


typos


[edit on 11-7-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   
John,

Thank you for clearing up the photoshop that you used to make the red line. If you read my post, i did state it as a question and I appreciate your answer.

There are a few other things that were noticed about this page that have been brought up on several different sites. I was wondering if you can address them. I apologize if you already have:

1. The date on the top for the software version (Jan 28/2007) coincidentally matches up with the date at the bottom (1/28/2001), leaving open the possibility that the last number was changed. This is a 1-365 chance. What is also interesting about these dates is that they are both on a Sunday.
2. The date at the very top is blacked out. See you should black out the name of the source, but blacking out the DATE? Thats what this is all about!! ???
3. This document does not actually deal with the deactivation of the phones, those documents are mentioned as ECO F0878, F1463, and F1532, which conveniently were not found.
4. This document lays out the operation of the phones, which would seem pretty pointless if it were produced after the phones had been deactivated and\or removed.
5. The date in question "01/28/2001" is faded, and different in appearance than the entire rest of the document.
6. Right above the date, the word "Page", appears as "Pace" with the bottom of the letter "g" having been cut off for some reason, as if it were cut off during an editing operation.Right around where you admittedly photoshopped the document.

I have a question about the section of the webpage on pilotsfor911truth.com:

You raised this point


Morgan and Henshall’s point that, if the Department of Justice had actually received these calls, the FBI, which is part of the DOJ, could have easily produced the records, and yet, according to The 9/11 Commission Report, the FBI’s report about this issue, which is entitled “American Airlines Airphone Usage,” makes no mention of any DOJ records.22

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The 22 at the end is in refrence to a foot note which reads:


22 This FBI report on phone usage from AA 77 refers merely to four “connected calls to unknown numbers.” The 9/11 Commission commented: “The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of [these four calls] represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband’s office” (The 9/11 Commission Report, 455 n. 57). The fact that the Commission speaks merely about what the FBI and the DOJ “believe” indicates that they produced no records to prove the point.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

You actually did not continue with the note from that page.

57........(all family members of the Flight 77 passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight, and only Renee May's parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls).The four calls were at 9:15:34 for 1 minute, 42 seconds; 9:20:15 for 4 minutes, 34 seconds; 9:25:48 for 2 minutes, 34 seconds; and 9:30:56 for 4 minutes, 20 seconds. FBI report, "American Airlines Airphone Usage,"

www.9-11commission.gov...

As you can see that the only other family memebers that received calls were Rene May and she made two calls with only one connecting. The second call was for 2 minutes and 38 seconds. Both to her parents and both prior to the 4 calls listed above.

house.911research.wtc7.net...

Just thought I would add that little bit of information that were not added into the footnotes.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Also, not much has been said about navigation; where did they get a flight engineer or the ability to plot a perect trajectory and hit the targets ( excepting 93, shot down or whatever..please tell me how these pilots who could not rent a Cessna were able to perform intensely professional maneuvers at all..impossible.

This is the biggest problem I have with this. How DID they know where they were? Convenient it was a clear day, and not cloudy/foggy. Hmmm.....

@JL: Thanks for posting the tech docs on the aircraft. I'll have to take your word on the authenticity for now.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
1. The date on the top for the software version (Jan 28/2007) coincidentally matches up with the date at the bottom (1/28/2001), leaving open the possibility that the last number was changed. This is a 1-365 chance. What is also interesting about these dates is that they are both on a Sunday.


Feel free to call American Airlines to ask that question and to get your own page. Or if you know a mechanic at American, perhaps that can get one for you. Email us if you need phone numbers.


2. The date at the very top is blacked out. See you should black out the name of the source, but blacking out the DATE? Thats what this is all about!! ???


The name of the source is not on page. The date and time of login is blacked out as to protect any possible track back to source (didnt i explain this before?)



3. This document does not actually deal with the deactivation of the phones, those documents are mentioned as ECO F0878, F1463, and F1532, which conveniently were not found.


Please re-read the footnote(s) carefully at bottom of this page...
pilotsfor911truth.org...
Then read it again.


4. This document lays out the operation of the phones, which would seem pretty pointless if it were produced after the phones had been deactivated and\or removed.


Agreed. The subchapter is a chapter describing the system as its always been in the AMM. There was a TR (Temporary Revision) added to that subchapter noting the system has been deactivated. Later revisions of same subchapter became more permanent and started to omit language such as system description. The reason they do this is to save on paperwork from what i understand. It also makes sense to not revise a whole chapter when they only need to add two sentences initially. Hence the "TR" note.. initially.


5. The date in question "01/28/2001" is faded, and different in appearance than the entire rest of the document.


See reply to question 1


6. Right above the date, the word "Page", appears as "Pace" with the bottom of the letter "g" having been cut off for some reason, as if it were cut off during an editing operation.Right around where you admittedly photoshopped the document.


See reply to question 1



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
You raised this point


Morgan and Henshall’s point that, if the Department of Justice had actually received these calls, the FBI, which is part of the DOJ, could have easily produced the records, and yet, according to The 9/11 Commission Report, the FBI’s report about this issue, which is entitled “American Airlines Airphone Usage,” makes no mention of any DOJ records.22

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The 22 at the end is in refrence to a foot note which reads:


22 This FBI report on phone usage from AA 77 refers merely to four “connected calls to unknown numbers.” The 9/11 Commission commented: “The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of [these four calls] represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband’s office” (The 9/11 Commission Report, 455 n. 57). The fact that the Commission speaks merely about what the FBI and the DOJ “believe” indicates that they produced no records to prove the point.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

You actually did not continue with the note from that page.

57........(all family members of the Flight 77 passengers and crew were canvassed to see if they had received any phone calls from the hijacked flight, and only Renee May's parents and Ted Olson indicated that they had received such calls).The four calls were at 9:15:34 for 1 minute, 42 seconds; 9:20:15 for 4 minutes, 34 seconds; 9:25:48 for 2 minutes, 34 seconds; and 9:30:56 for 4 minutes, 20 seconds. FBI report, "American Airlines Airphone Usage,"

www.9-11commission.gov...

As you can see that the only other family memebers that received calls were Rene May and she made two calls with only one connecting. The second call was for 2 minutes and 38 seconds. Both to her parents and both prior to the 4 calls listed above.

house.911research.wtc7.net...

Just thought I would add that little bit of information that were not added into the footnotes.


Please quote in context... the next paragraph goes on to state...


That conclusion is, in any case, starkly contradicted by evidence about phone calls from Flight 77 presented by the US government at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006.28 Far from attributing all four of the “connected calls to unknown numbers” to Barbara Olson, as the 9/11 Commission suggested, the government’s evidence here attributes none of them to her, saying instead that each of them was from an “unknown caller.” The only call attributed to Barbara Olson, moreover, is an “unconnected call” to the Department of Justice, which was said to have been attempted at “9:18:58” and to have lasted “0 seconds.” According to the US government in 2006, in other words, Barbara Olson attempted a call to the DOJ, but it did not go through.29 The government itself has presented evidence in a court of law, therefore, that implies that unless its former solicitor general was the victim of two faked phone calls, he was lying.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join