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.

 

Pilots for 911 Truth Airphone Claim - debunked

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
After searching the ATS Threads, I was unable to find the thread where the airphones were discussed.

www.pilotsfor911truth.org... claims:

In their detailed article here: pilotsfor911truth.org...

They have evidence that the airphones were removed prior to 911.


Besides learning about and confirming this letter from Kinder, we also obtained another piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that passengers on AA 77 could not have used onboard phones. One of RB’s colleagues sent him a page from the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM) dated January 28, 2001. This page states that the passenger phone system for the AA 757 fleet had (by that date) been deactivated.24 According to the 757 AMM, in other words, the onboard phones had been deactivated at least seven and a half months prior to 9/11.


The ECO mentioned by Balsamo (FO878), is the order to actually physically remove the components. This does not however mean the airphones were removed from that aircraft at this time.

The folks over at Screwloose change were able to obtain the original ECO (FO8710) Which is to deactivate the airphones.
screwloosechange.blogspot.com...





As you see, these undoctored documents (besides personal information) show that the airphones were not deactivated until March of 2002.


[edit on 15-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
hmm, calls originaly billed as cell phone calls, then debunked, then billed as airphone calls, then counter-debunked.

interesting.

i would also like to point out that the writing on this order is in 2 handwritings and 2 inks.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 



Well call UA . The form came from them. Nice reach though



Oh, the form was filled out on 3 different dates...that may explain the two different inks. I'm not sure if two different techs filled this out



[edit on 15-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Wondering why those from Pandoras Box and Pilots for Truth have no comment? Are they going to retract their claims?



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Wondering why those from Pandoras Box and Pilots for Truth have no comment? Are they going to retract their claims?


Capt Obvious, you may want to read the comments at SLC as the paperwork supplied above contradicts John Hotard, AA PR Rep.

Here, i'll help you...



Here are the facts

-Hotard says there was a deactivation order issued prior to 9/11/2001 according to Tulsa MX facility. But no record of AA77 having the phones deactivated (pretty much what we state in the article).

- 757 AMM page dated 01/28/01 says ECO F0878 was the order which deactivated the phones. ECO F1463 and F1532 were the orders to remove the phones. (I dont think anyone disputes the authenticity of the 757 AMM page anymore, although AMTMAN and Pat still refuse to post it)

- Chad Kinder says in an email the phones were deactivated on AA77 and that all pax used cell phones. When asked to confirm his email, Chad replied, "It sounds like an accurate statement, let me check the FAQ database in which we pull all our replies to FAQ's". Anxious to help at initially, following up with Chad on the subject, he refused to talk and handed us over to AA Legal Dept. (all recorded)

- AA Legal Dept refused to go 'on record' saying AA77 had active phones on board. They replied they will find out for us. They have not followed up or returned calls. Again, recorded.

- Anonymous AMTMAN shows up on the web with paperwork that contradicts all of the above, doesnt give his name to Pat (as our ource has done for us), and you people lap it up like puppies eating peanut butter...

I think that about sums it up... enjoy your weekend all..



But hey, if you want to take the word of an anonymous poster on the net feeding information to an extreme biased blog like SLC (who also do not know the person in which this paperwork came from).. be my guest.

We'll continue to think critically and question all the information.


Funny how you claim our paperwork is "faked", but if an anonymous poster on the net offers paperwork in support of the govt story.. you dont feel the need to question it.

Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org

added statement from SLC comments as it seems CaptObvious cannot spot the obvious..


[edit on 16-9-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Rob ~

Perhaps one day you will see that you are wrong and retract your fantasy from your site. I trust you have obtained a copy of this Maintenance Work order and sent it off to your connections that you claim to have? I'm sure they are more than able to verify it's authenticity. (or lack there of)

I look forward to your findings.

Sincerly,
CO



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   
CaptObvious,

It is clear you will accept anything that supports the govt story no matter the source even if it came from the net without a real name behind it. Yet slander those with accusations of "fakery" who do put their real name on their work if it does not support the govt story. Your bias is extreme and clear.

Further, anytime you want to address the fact that John Hotard, PR Rep from American Airlines says the deactivation order was issued prior to 9/11/2001 (and puts his name on that statement), which contradicts your paperwork above obtained from an anonymous source through the internet... let us know. However, i think you already have made up your mind and will find anything to back up your preconceived notions, even if from an anonymous internet source which contradicts John Hotard himself. You will go further to mislead your readers that we have not commented on the blog entry at SLC when in fact anyone who reads the comment section will clearly see we have commented more than once.

You bias is extreme. Your deception is clear.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
You bias is extreme. Your deception is clear.


Rob,

Is it safe to assume that you already sent a copy off to John Hotard for varification? (sice you had no reply to my last post)Again, I look forward to his respose.

I have not mentioned SLC but as a source for my infomation. I assure you at this time I am not nor have I ever been a member there nor have I ever posted there. I do read the blogs there from time to time. If I find information that this forum may find interesting, I will post it.

Please let me know when you get your verifiaction for the Maintenance Work Order.

CO
EDIT TO TRIM QUOTES

[edit on 16-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I have not mentioned SLC but as a source for my infomation.



From the Original post

Originally posted by CaptainObviousThe folks over at Screwloose change were able to obtain the original ECO (FO8710) Which is to deactivate the airphones.
screwloosechange.blogspot.com...


I'll refrain from comment on your "obvious" contradictions.






New comment i posted on SLC just now...


So to sum up...

AMTMAN, an anonymous internet poster offers paperwork to SLC which contradicts the statement made by John Hotard, PR Rep from American Airlines, who states the deactivation order was issued prior to 9/11/2001.

I explain this to Pat over the phone. Pat understands and updates his blog to read "[He] may have jumped the gun.."

JamesB comes along and posts the same paperwork Pat received back in July from anonymous AMTMAN in a rehash of Pats' blog entry.

JamesB realizes "AMTMAN" paperwork contradicts John Hotard and makes the excuse "Hotard must be mistaken" after Hotard himself explains to Ron (another so-called "critical thinker") that they are "doublechecking with my maintenance folks so I give you accurate data".


JamesB elects to believe the anonymous internet poster "AMTMAN" and makes excuses for the PR Rep of American Airlines saying "He must be mistaken".

You people call yourselves Critical Thinkers?


I know what most of you are thinking. CaptObvious is not very good at spotting the obvious and may be set up as controlled opposition with arguments that are weak. However, i assure you, i have no idea who CaptOvbious is, nor have we asked him to contradict himself and/or offer weak arguments/misleading posts (as seen in his "why havent they commented?") to strengthen our work.

eta: "Why no comment?" - classic... keep up the good work CaptObvious..lol



[edit on 16-9-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Hey Cap, your credibility is shot until you tell me how your email turned out.


Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I may have been reading about the CIA operative on the OTHER Bin LAden thread. sorry.

I believe the Federal Building they are refering to is the Pentagon. I could be wrong. I will e-mail them on Monday though .

from here... www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Rob ~

You are not making sence. Throw all these names around from SLC and JREF... I don't care. Post your replys to "Pat" and the others over there. Just answer me one question.....

HAVE YOU SENT A COPY OF THE WORK ORDER TO YOUR CONTACT AT THE AIRLINES?

Answer the question. If not... why?

If this comes up as a fraud, I will be the first to apologize to you and the others at your fantasy website.

Oh.. one more thing...do you agree with Dr. Griffin that the phones cals that were made were due to "voice morphing?" I doubt I will get a response to the question either.

Thanks,

CO



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by 11Bravo
 


First of all, I am reporting you for derailing. As I posted at the Pentacon forum, if you wish to contact me, there is a U2U function.

To answer your question, as I stated the FBI sent me back a sort of "auto reply" message and I have not bothered with a follow up. I no longer have it as I used my work e-mail to contact them and deleted it a couple months ago.

Again, if you want to further this conversation, please U2U me or bump the thread where the coversation originated from.

Thanks



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Capt Obvious, you mislead your readers, you accept paperwork after the fact from anonymous sources on the net, you accuse others of "fakery" when it doesnt support your bias. It appears you have such a reputation.

Im done with you. I feel like im engaging in conversation with a stubborn 15 year old.


Keep an eye on our site for updates regarding this issue.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Capt Obvious, you mislead your readers, you accept paperwork after the fact from anonymous sources on the net, you accuse others of "fakery" when it doesnt support your bias. It appears you have such a reputation.

Im done with you. I feel like im engaging in conversation with a stubborn 15 year old.


Keep an eye on our site for updates regarding this issue.


I rest my case... thanks Rob for answering the question I posted not once but THREE TIMES... you will not submit the document for verification because if it comes back legit....your entire fantasy will be proven JUST that.

And please don't patronize the members of ATS by stating that I have missled them.. The vast majoirity of them know when they smell a lie.



[edit on 16-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
And please don't patronize the members of ATS by stating that I have missled them.. The vast majoirity of them know when they smell a lie.
[edit on 16-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]



Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Wondering why those from Pandoras Box and Pilots for Truth have no comment?



Originally posted by johndoex
You will go further to mislead your readers that we have not commented on the blog entry at SLC when in fact anyone who reads the comment section will clearly see we have commented more than once.



Originally posted by 11bravo
Hey Cap, your credibility is shot


I agree Bravo..

Hey Cap, the paperwork was already supplied here. It states the phones were deactived by ECO F0878. The page is dated 01/28/01....

Oh.. thats right. .you think that page is fake, but will believe any page that turns up after the fact from an anonymous internet source.. as long as it supports the govt story.

Perhaps AMTMAN is worknig for us? To prove the bias and double standard used by those who believe in the govt story? Hmmm.. ready for a big fall CaptObvious?

Feel free to contact Hotard yourself. Nah.. you wouldnt want your fantasy ruined now would you?

Ok.. now im done with you. If you want to see this information fully addressed. Keep an eye on our site and comments sections where you mislead your readers by saying "[there] isnt any comment!"..

lol.. what a joke.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Rob?

You need to prove that the document is fake. You know the guy, YOU submit it.

Keep posting over and over and over what I said...waste of bandwith if you ask me.

You have the power and the connections to verify this document and you have refused to submit it. You sir are the one that is shown not telling the truth.

Any comment on the voice morphing Rob? No? I didn't think so.

Let me know when your contact has validated the document.

Cheers,

CO



[edit on 16-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
As you see, these undoctored documents (besides personal information) show that the airphones were not deactivated until March of 2002.


This is the most pathetic weakest link in your entire post...

"undoctored documents", LOL, you had to throw that line in there so people would believe you right? Well sorry man, you posted that in ATS and you are going to have to provide 100% proof that those documents are not doctored.

Until then everything you said absolutely holds no water what so ever.

So...I highly suggest you don't ever post here again until you can prove that the document is not doctored.

Looks like you dug yourself a deeper hole this time.


Originally posted by CaptainObvious
You need to prove that the document is fake. You know the guy, YOU submit it.


Actually, that is YOUR job. You presented this document as 100% undoctored and legit, now it is up to YOU to prove it. Rob has contacted Hotard personally, and that holds way more creditability then a scanned document from an anonymous source.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by IWatchYou]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Any comment on the voice morphing Rob? No? I didn't think so.


Now you are derailing your very own thread, and I am reporting YOU. How dare you mix someone's theory with your thread that has nothing to do with it. This is a straw man tactic. You point fingers at one of MANY theories just because it gives the illusion that you are correct? Or what? Why would you try to discredit someone by talking about a THEORY that has nothing to do with this document that you present as real??

Your intentions are so clear to us all. You are trying to fog the air, and discredit people with deception.

You might want to first prove that the people on the planes are actually REAL people, and the victims families are not paid actors/actresses.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by IWatchYou]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by IWatchYou
 


Hello IWatch....

Rob ask you to come in here and post? God try. Maybe Rob will tell you why he wont verify the Work Order! All he has to do is make a phone call, send a fax, or write an e-mail. He can't do that.

As far as phone morphings...yeah... I will explose them for the fraud that they are if they try to tell the people who spoke to their loved ones just prior to their murders...that they were talking to a computer or other voice contraption. It's a disgrace and disgusts me to see that people like the above entertain that slop.

I don't care what you think of me or my credibility. I am honest and if I make a mistake, I will be sure to admit it. So far, there was a documented work order that was submitted to another site...if it's fake.. I will appologize. If you don't think its authentic..please feel free to prove it.

Thanks again,

CO



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
either way its the order to shut off the breaker not terminate the service. this document does not prove that the airphones were operational on flight 77 in any case.

however the captian went farther in his research than most are willing to do, and i respect that.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join