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.

 

Who recorded the cell phone calls from the planes ?

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci
In regards to Flight 93 being shot down -

If the plane was shot down, wouldn't there be a very large amount of debris that was over a very large area? Also, wouldn't the eye witnesses hear the jet/missle/explosion/the other explosion of everything hitting the ground?


Not neccesarily, one of the wings, engines or the tail could have been damaged
sufficiently for the plane to be no longer fly-able and doomed to crash down..
Maybe it lost some parts along the way down.

But also a good point is that people were (supposedly) trying to take over the
plane and it made turns and dives the plane couldnt physically handle. Too
much stress and G-forces could maybe have ripped off the engine or cause
some stuff to tear apart.

Both of the above could be a valid explanation.
The engine weights quite a bit and its mounted on a 'delicate' wing, too much
G-forces and stress could (i think at least) cause it to become unstable or even
break off.
This is probably why fighter jets have their engines at the back under the tail,
maneavurability and G-forces can be maxxed out on them, as you can
imagine an engine hanging under a wing is alot more sensitive to those powers than a fixed engine at the back of a plane....

I dont rule out it was shot down though. Especially reading the stories about
FL77 that hit the pentagon that the plane was "x miles out, do the orders still
stand?" etc..
Appearantly the orders were NOT to shoot them down, maybe the pilot
of the jet in the area of FL93 dis-obeyed orders and shot it down to prevent
it from reaching its destination (white house?)..




posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
Why not ask his Mother?


Nice site...


They do not even say who authored the site... Is it anonymous debunking? Looks like anonymous propaganda to me.


[edit on 17-7-2007 by Pootie]



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Hoglan: Once in a while he would say that. He would call up, and he was, he was a young businessman, and used to, used to introduce himself on phone as Mark Bingham, and he was trying to be, uh, strong, and level-headed, and, and strictly business. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham".


Run this by a shrink (or a detective) and ask how many signs of deception are in this single quote... If this lady plays poker I would love to sit down and take all her loot.

1. Overly explaining the answer.
2. Unnecessary repetition.
3. "...And he was, and he was, and, and".. stumbling, trying to make remember the lie.

I call BS.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
In response to airlines not allowing you to use your cell phones, it is pretty simple. They do not want your radio frequency accidently interfering with their frequencies. Receiving calls is not the problem it is when you make the call and you are sending signals out. Those signals can cross each other. If you interfered with the planes radio transmissions you could have all kinds of problems.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher777
In response to airlines not allowing you to use your cell phones, it is pretty simple. They do not want your radio frequency accidently interfering with their frequencies. Receiving calls is not the problem it is when you make the call and you are sending signals out. Those signals can cross each other. If you interfered with the planes radio transmissions you could have all kinds of problems.


All of the equipment on commercial airliners is shielded from "cell phone" interference.

The frequencies used by cell phones are not even remotely close to the airlines two way frequencies. (FCC) there is no "accidental" interference... as pointed out above, the request for you to not use your cell phone has to do with "cascading" towers and harming the cell network.

Cell phones DO work in airplanes (in my experience) if you are on approach or have just taken off. They DO NOT (in my experience) work at all at cruising altitude or speed.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie

Hoglan: Once in a while he would say that. He would call up, and he was, he was a young businessman, and used to, used to introduce himself on phone as Mark Bingham, and he was trying to be, uh, strong, and level-headed, and, and strictly business. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham".


Run this by a shrink (or a detective) and ask how many signs of deception are in this single quote... If this lady plays poker I would love to sit down and take all her loot.

1. Overly explaining the answer.
2. Unnecessary repetition.
3. "...And he was, and he was, and, and".. stumbling, trying to make remember the lie.

I call BS.



If you can deduce from 15 seconds on screen what her normal speaking style and mannerisms (being interviewed on camera no less) are, and that what you are seeing is a departure from them, you should be playing poker.

And if "they" were going to use whatever technology it is that can recreate someone's voice, at the very least they had a lot of audio from this guy already. This audio would be used to accurately create how he speaks on the phone - not just how his voice sounds but what he says and how he says it and who he says it to.

So in theory, this lady doesn't have to be lying for it to be "fake".

But it's pretty much in line with the three laws of 9-11 conspiracies: anyone that can verify the official story with intimate knowledge must be lying; all physical evidence to the contrary was planted; and all eyewitness accounts consistent with the official story are faulty.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I dont know if you would take mythbusters word for it but they went into a plane and started it up but didnt take off and they ran about every electonic device they could and everything on the plane still worked fine.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete
If you can deduce from 15 seconds on screen what her normal speaking style and mannerisms (being interviewed on camera no less) are, and that what you are seeing is a departure from them, you should be playing poker.


How long does it take a detective, judge, poker player or good shrink to deduce if someone is likely to by lying?



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
most were to homes and they weren't recorded. The few who called there plane's airline got recorded.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
There are also different type of cell phones. Some people mgiht be prepay and some are satellite depending on the service and the need. How else would someone on an airplane over the Atlantic make those oil option trades? Is there anyway that we can determine the type of phones that were used on that day by those who were using 'cell phones". Betty Ong was not the only person to use an airphone.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie

Run this by a shrink (or a detective) and ask how many signs of deception are in this single quote...


Now THAT is a great idea! That would blow the lid off this whole thing! Are you thinking what I'M thinking, Pootie?

You should make an appointment with a psychiatrist so you can show them the video of Bingham's Mother and tell them your analysis. I'm sure they will not only be fascinated by your impressive insights (from a layman no less!) but will concur with your erudite opinions 100%.

From this point it should be simple matter to get the psychiatrist to sign a document definitively affirming Ms. Hoglan's deceptive behavior. At the very least *something* will be certified.

This document could very-well be the "smoking gun" the 9/11 Truth Movement has been seeking. I would not waste another moment.

Be sure to report your success here so you can receive your richly-deserved accolades.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Ok,mr. iattackpeople. I followed your link and it didnt tell me anything. It was a discovery channel promo for the movie about flight 93. And there was no proof that his mother said that. Just some speculation as far as i could see. Like ive been saying from the start, Show me actual families and there direct statements regarding these phone calls. Not second hand accounts. Some argue that these people dont talk about it because it is to painful. Then why is it that others say they have had interviews and the families have stated these things. The link you gave me also has alot of conflicting accounts in there own account. You should read it again. And why is the government covering up the evidence in all 4 cases. I dont believe its to protect the families from getting upset about some hurtful content. Remember, they dont have to watch or hear anything they dont want to. Here is a great example of how our government treats us and the tactics they employ.

www.9-11themotherofallblackoperations.blogspot.com...

a lot to read here. So please read all of it. Thank you again.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by russ1969
Ok,mr. iattackpeople. I followed your link and it didnt tell me anything. It was a discovery channel promo for the movie about flight 93. And there was no proof that his mother said that.


Jesus Christ. You have got to be kidding me.

I'll make this as easy as possible for you, OK?

The video of Bingham's Mother from the page you say doesn't contain it. Click these words to see the video

Did you watch it? Good. Quiz time.

1. Who was the woman shown in the video?

2. What is her relation to Mark Bingham?

3. What did she say in the video? Hint: "Once in a while he would say that. He would call up, and he was, he was a young businessman, and used to, used to introduce himself on phone as Mark Bingham, and he was trying to be, uh, strong, and level-headed, and, and strictly business. 'Mom, this is Mark Bingham'".

4. Does Mark Bingham's Mother being filmed making the above statement constitute a actual family member making a direct statement? Why or why not?


This is a timed quiz. Get busy.



[edit on 17-7-2007 by IAttackPeople]



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
They didnt, because they were never made, they were an invention.

"do you believe me mom? DO you?"



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   


Not neccesarily, one of the wings, engines or the tail could have been damaged


Except that Flight Data Recorder (FDR) which records engine performance,
position of control surfaces, control inputs showed everything was
normal. Both engines were present up until impact and generating thrust,
all the control surfaces were present and control inputs match up with
what the hijackers were doing - rolling the plane violently to try throw the
passengers about to prevent reaching cockpit.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily
They fabricated the calls using technology from this article. The technology was developed at Los Alamos.

Feb. 1 1999 Washington Post article: When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing.

I was told in 1998 or 99 by a co-worker whose father worked for the phone company that the telephone companies record every call made and have them warehoused.


Hello all- Great to be back!

That would be quite a challenge to record, compile, catalogue for future reference, & store the billions of voice recordings from multiple companies generated everyday. Not impossible by a long shot, but quite costly. . .

I have been involved with telecommunication equipment for 20 years. I can only speak with knowledge for land line traffic, but here's the scoop;

Call "records", are recorded, compiled, & stored by the phone companies. The voice recordings are not. The "records", are recorded immediately in the originating, tandem, & terminating offices as soon as the first ringing cycle completes. It's nothing like Hollywood still portrays where you have a bunch of cops sitting around a room watching some techno-prop producing digits from a payphone call the serial killer is using to locate him/her. . . NO! As soon as the originator hears the first ring, the call record is catalogued. Some machines even have the capability of instaneously seeing the originator & terminator of a call.

Phone companies, the government, the military, and anyone else that can otherwise legally/illegally access phone equipment, have the capability of listening & recording voice conversations. . . I cannot get into the specifics beyond this. . . BUT, to record every call would be quite a task. . . More times than not, even though it can be executed with extreme precision, it is done selectively. Calls that originate & terminate within the same machine would be the most difficult . These call scenarios would be the hardest to globally record because you would have to have audio recording equipment located in every office that serves dialtone, AND, have the ability to upload all this data to facilities that could compile, catalogue, & store the audio. Even with all the database lookups that are performed to service "ported" numbers, which are lines that are moved from one phone company to another, and *69, & caller ID services, this wouled be quite a task.

International calls could be handled differently, and may have more capability of being monitored, but I don't have any knowledge in this area.

Calls made via cell, satellite & cable companies may also have more robust monitoring capabilities, but again, I don't have any expertise in this area.

My best guess though is that even though these technologies are more advanced, they are still governed by business. Therefore business will dictate they don't record any audio either unless solicited.

The newest technology, "VOIP", or " Voice Over Internet Protocol ", totally changes the playing field. . . The capabilities of recording everything in this format are exponetinally increased. . . But again, I cannot get into specifics.

2PacSade-



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Well, where is the rest of this interview? You showed me nothing. i have never said there wasnt people on this flight. What i said was they where shot down. And do you know this woman? do you even know anything? My interest is more in the families from the other flights. The whole hero story to me was a diversion tactic made up to get the people pissed off at anyone from the middle east. The government knows that most of the population would show hatred to all muslims and anyone that fit the description. I dont believe that that video you showed me proves anything. so go ahead and blow a gasket. And tell me how a plane hits the ground and there is nothing left of it. And how parts are found up to 8 miles away. I will tell you that the only way in my opinion is that it was blown up in the air and the pieces traveled that far before they landed.i tend to believe credible witnesses. And i believe that the op is asking about who recorded the phone calls. So lets not get to far away from the topic. The only recordings i have heard is from flight 11. And ive made my points and posted links that i think are credible questions pertaining to them. So, Mr. Iattackpeople, If you want to debate anything else look in other threads and see what i wrote. Hopefully you can have a discussion without blowing up about it
And i will post on my time, not yours.Those tactics dont work with me. Ill ignore you and never listen to a word you say if you act like that.
Here are some more links.

www.apfn.net...

here is a detailed link that ive looked at and i would say look at what the official report says about the pnone call made by Todd beamer. It says he was patched in to the F.B.I. The call made from Mark bingham is quite different from what alot of sites are saying.

also look at the bureau of transportation statistics on all 4 planes. It shows flights 11 and 77 not even scheduled to fly that day.

killtown.911review.org...



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by PistolPete
If you can deduce from 15 seconds on screen what her normal speaking style and mannerisms (being interviewed on camera no less) are, and that what you are seeing is a departure from them, you should be playing poker.


How long does it take a detective, judge, poker player or good shrink to deduce if someone is likely to by lying?


Agree with Pootie. . .As long as it takes to see them blink?

2PacSade-



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   


Actually, there is such a thing as a master clock - it's called an atomic clock and is coordinated to Greenwich Mean time. The airplane's clock and the phone company are most likely running on atomic time. Which means a discrepancy between the times IS pretty weird and suspect.


Thats funny, in 20 years of working on the avionics of military aircraft, I have NEVER synchronized an aircraft clock to ANY kind of master clock. But I will bow to your expertise in avionics...which is what exactly?

Actually there is more than one atomic clock, NIST and the US Navy run the "official" clocks for the US.

There is NOTHING weird or suspect in the time differences. Just different systems set differently.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   


Yes, it is absolutely believable that Todd Beamer would talk to a customer service representative, instead of directly to his pregnant wife.


How hard is it to do research......



Beamer tried to place a credit card call through a phone located on the back of a plane seat but was routed to a customer-service representative instead, who passed him on to supervisor Lisa Jefferson


He was trying to call his wife, he couldnt get through.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join