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: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Yo man are you going to authentificate your source or are you going to go on about aprons and cups? I dont like anyone profiting out of what happened either BUT THIS IS NOT THE TOPIC BEING DISCUSSED.

Remeber the airphones? The document you have yet to authentificate? Should be easy, when you think about it. Either that, or change the topic title. Or can i pull a document out of my ass with "proof" that silverstein signed off the order for WTC7 being pulled and start a thread with an exaggerated title?




posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Azrophale...sorry but if you read the posts on the first couple pages you will see that Rob is the one that has connections with AA as he claims to have friends there. If that is true, why can't he just get this document validated?

Think! ok... he finds out it is REAL. It makes him the spreader on false news. His website goes kaput and he looses $$. Do you not see his motive here???

If his sources are as credible as he claims, he should not have a problem shutting me up by faxing a copy of the work order to his friends. If you dont want to believe its legit... IGNORE THE THREAD!!

Lets look at the past 5 pages of this thread.... check out the names:

IWATCHYOU: Created on 9/11/07 BANNED

TwoSheds: Created 9/17/07 5 out of his first 6 posts are here. Havent heard from him since.

Oneone : created 9/19 has made 2 posts. ALL here.

CaptainObvious (CLONE): Made one post here and was banned

Am I wrong is thinking in only the first 5 pages of this thread we have 4 questionable names a little odd? All attempting to discredit me??



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Rob-I went to your web site to find the new information that you mentioned and I couldn't find it. Am I just missing it? If so, will you post a link for me?

AMTMAN posted this referring to ECO FO878


Actually it does not contradict the documentation in question. What Rob B fails to realize is that the date the boys in the ivory tower decided to discontinue air phones and when it was actually carried out are two different things. Like any large corporation, especailly an airline, there is a decision making process involved.

Is he correct? What I mean is, is there a time lapse between issuing the work order and the work order being completed?

Does FO878 cover all American Airlines 757's?



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Boone it's not "new" information. Rob posted it a few months ago, and it does NOT prove that they were removed. Oh, and make sure you pick up a nifty PilotsFor911Truth Tote bag for all your back to school needs!!



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Back on Topic:

Airline grounds in-flight phone service

By Sam Ames
Staff Writer
Published: February 6, 2002, 4:20 PM PST


American will stop the service by March 31 and then take steps to remove the phones from its airplanes.

www.news.com...



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Does Claircom = and or own Airphone? I don't see the connection between your thread title and this document with "Claircom phone systems" on it.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 


Airphone... I was using a sort of generic term. Like.. Kleenex or Q-Tip. Sorry for the confusion.

ETA... Dio was awesome back in my head bangging days.... I heard he is back with Sabbath.

[edit on 20-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Yes i do find it odd that users have been banned and there was a clone in this thread. Very odd indeed. But im not one to draw conclusions. Vendetta...maybe?

Anyhoo. I think this is the update he is referring to.


Update 09/18/07: A new document has emerged on the internet through an anonymous source which orders the phones deactivated dated March 2002. This new document is not referenced in the above 757 AMM page as the deactivation order. The document contradicts American Airlines Customer Relations Representative Chad Kinder, American Airlines Public Relations Representative John Hotard who states the deactivation order was issued prior to 9/11/2001 and of course the above 757 AMM page. We are currently in the process of analyzing the conflicts and will update this article as more information becomes available.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Now it would seem like the next course of action for you CO, would be to contact these personnel and verify this. Im sure you could find them or their offices/numbers on the net. Hopefully now, i dont look like an ejjit when someone turns around and says this was posted already...



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


CaptainObvious recently made a thread compairing Alex Jones to Hitler.I think if their is any disinfo going around it's coming from this guy.And I say this having watched the forum for years.

There is no way UA could have made these up huh?Why would it be so hard to take a new form and write what you want to write on it.You tell him to back up his proof,well back up yours.How do you know for 100% the goverment did'nt contact UA and tell them every single pen mark to put on the paper?

You can't and either can he.So don't get so hell bent like you got something going on when in fact you cannot prove 100% that your info is in fact the truth.

And this is one tiny tiny issue inside the truth movemtn.For you to mock the truth movement over one tiny tiny detail is absured/funny.And I'm not even the holographic plane guy,I'm the guy who thinks they knew it would happen and let it happen to make some money and get oil.Wich i still think was a smart move,except for the whole lying to all of America and the world.That's a pretty dumbass move.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by Project_Silo]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Something must have happened to those people, calls or not. What happened to them?



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Silo
I'm the guy who thinks they knew it would happen and let it happen to make some money and get oil.Wich i still think was a smart move,except for the whole lying to all of America and the world.That's a pretty dumbass move.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by Project_Silo]


I concur, this "you can't handle the truth" crap we get from our own government is belittling every sacrifice made by our troops on the ground in the "War on Terror".



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Rob-I went to your web site to find the new information that you mentioned and I couldn't find it. Am I just missing it? If so, will you post a link for me?


bottom of page




AMTMAN posted this referring to ECO FO878


Actually it does not contradict the documentation in question. What Rob B fails to realize is that the date the boys in the ivory tower decided to discontinue air phones and when it was actually carried out are two different things. Like any large corporation, especailly an airline, there is a decision making process involved.

Is he correct? What I mean is, is there a time lapse between issuing the work order and the work order being completed?


That is not correct. AMTMAN proposes the deactivation order was "discussed" in the Ivory Tower prior to 9/11/2001 and it is his contention this is what Hotard means when he said the ECO was issued prior to 9/11/2001. However, John Hotard clearly states that he checked with his maintenance facility in Tulsa to get accurrate information and clearly states the "Engineering Change Order to deactivate the phones was issued by [Sept 11, 2001]" (if this information was discussed in the "Ivory Tower", why did Hotard check with Tulsa MX for the ECO?) however it is their "contention" that AA77 did not have the phones deactivated by that time since they cannot find any record stating as such. Pretty much what we state in our article sans any "contention". Matter of fact, we also state in our article that we do not consider our information as "proof". (unlike some of the strawman arguments you see in this thread).

" Although we believe our evidence that they did not have such phones is very strong, we cannot yet claim to have proof;" (bottom of page)

After we worked on this information for several months trying to get verification/confirmation either way through American Airlines Chad Kinder and legal dept, informing them we were going to publish the article, we hit nothing but brick walls. An anonymous internet poster shows up on the web roughly 2 days after we publish our article with a "deactivation order" dated March 2002.

Why did American Airlines legal dept and/or Chad Kinder not provide this same document when they knew we were going to publish the article based on Kinders' email stating no phones and the 757 AMM page? They were both extremely anxious to help initially, but for some reason stopped talking (all recorded).

The anonymous internet posters' paperwork directly contradicts John Hotard, the PR Rep for American Airlines, Chad Kinder, Customer Relations for American Airlines, and the 757 AMM page which does not reference ECO F0871 as the deactivation order, rather ECO F0878.

We were unable to find the deactivation order dated prior to 9/11/2001 or dated prior to the 757 AMM page (as noted in our article). AA Legal Dept were not willing to go on record stating the "phones were active" nor did they follow up on their promise to get confirmation.

An anonymous internet poster would have some believe that a page dated 2001 was issued a Temp revision 7 years later and 3-4 years after the phones had already been removed.




Does FO878 cover all American Airlines 757's?


The 757 AMM page covers all 757's. That is what the "ALL" at bottom illustrates. The 757 AMM page references ECO F0878 as the deactivation order which you can see in the above link underlined in red.


Hope this helps...



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Am I wrong is thinking in only the first 5 pages of this thread we have 4 questionable names a little odd? All attempting to discredit me??


Yet you're not as skeptical towards the hundreds of "coincidences" in the official theory. Just saying. One man's reality is another's CT.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



Griff... lmfao... I was thinking the same thing as I was typing !!


I didn't say it was a "fact" ... i asked if I were wrong in thinking that way. Go back and look how many people made their first ATS posts here...and no where else. That is odd..IMO

Back on topic. No one commented about the statement i presented from the press release? Interesting. It has the dates right on it.

Could I get the document verified? I will have to know who could do this. Thats why since Rob claims to have connections I asked him to verify it for me. He refuses to!

Does ANYONE see a problem here? This guy has the ability to shut me up in the matter of minutes. (if he indeed has legit contacts ) By showing a flasified work order from the "skeptics" would make us look worse.. woudn't you think?

Rob can do this with a couple clicks of his mouse and refuses!

WHY?

I wont harp on all the other issues this man has, but he is dishonest and makes money off the tragedy on 9/11.

I wont be back until tonight...so have fun



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Could I get the document verified? I will have to know who could do this. Thats why since Rob claims to have connections I asked him to verify it for me. He refuses to!


Could it be that you started a thread suppossedly "debunking" his website? I really don't feel it is his responsibility to verify your document. Especially after the way you've been treating him here. For one, calling him a liar.


Rob can do this with a couple clicks of his mouse and refuses!


He's already stated that they are stonewalling his investigation. How would he get veryfication then? Since you are for the official story and AA is for the official story, I'd imagine they would talk to you over Rob.

Question. Have you even tried to verify your document?


but he is dishonest and makes money off the tragedy on 9/11.


And all the polititions and their cronies who are lying their nads off and making a killing are A-OK with you? Guilliani for one. Care to look into how much he gets paid for just speaking about 9/11?



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Does ANYONE see a problem here? This guy has the ability to shut me up in the matter of minutes. (if he indeed has legit contacts ) By showing a flasified work order from the "skeptics" would make us look worse.. woudn't you think?

Rob can do this with a couple clicks of his mouse and refuses!


CaptObvious, we're working on it (unlike you). Did you not see the update we posted?

And what will be your reaction when and if i tell you that no such document exists in the AA database?

You going to tell me AMTMAN is your god? Do you believe AMTMAN over John Hotard?

CaptObvious, its Obvious you dont have a leg to stand on and cherry pick anything in order to discredit.

Unfortunately for you, people (with numerous credentials and experience in the aviation industry) know me by name. .as a person. Others know you as an internet persona who spends most of his time with people who you think are nuts on ATS, takes any document over the web as gospel as long as it supports War Criminals, and prefers to remain anonymous because you think the boogieman is coming to get you.

CaptObvious, you're a joke..lol



typo


[edit on 21-9-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
CO, you cannot debate facts, you cannot authenticate your source, so elect to derail your own thread through cherrypicking BS internet exchanges that were typed out at a Super Bowl party in attempts to discredit, you misquote complete audio tracks you post which were a call for a debate.

You cry and whine like the best of em...

Let us know when you find the update on our site. You too AMTMAN...

By the way, Craig Ranke and Aldo also know our source. They have tossed back beers with him. Have you done the same with AMTMAN? Know his name? Can you stick to topic?

Feel free to email if you would like to have a recorded debate. However, i have a feeling you would rather cower behind your screen derailing your own thread with frivilous BS due to the fact you cannot authenticate your source.

Hope your foot tastes good after that bet...


Have a great night... i can be reached via email or snail mail... address is above. I dont cower behind my screen.


Wow Rob, you updated your site on this issue Tuesday. What took you so long? You have known of this since July, the story at SLC was posted on Friday. How long does it take your "source" to find this information? Unless you can come up with documentation showing that the air phones were deactivated prior to 9-11 you have lost this one.

As for your source it's really irrelevant if you know his name or not. When it comes right down to it we have to take your word that you know his name. The fact is that he is wrong just as you are wrong. The evidence shows this to be true.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0ne0ne
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


CaptainObvious, you have just lost ALL creditability.

You first start a thread with unverified data, and claim it to be "undoctored" and imply it is real. Then, because you have found that your data is invalid, and not an acceptable form of evidence, you attack someones personal life.



First of all could you please tell me who has "verified" Rob's data? Second could you show me where Rob has proven that the data posted of SLC is invalid?



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
. As i have said before, your cherry picking is very unbecoming and predictable. Then again, you defend war criminals.. and derail your own thread since you cannot authenticate your source... typical shill.


ok.. enough fun with the shill for tonight... enjoy your night behind your screen...
typo

[edit on 20-9-2007 by johndoex]


Simply amazing, you accusing someone of cherry picking their information. That's exactly what you did with 23-19-00.

Other than your word what do you have to authenticate your source?



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
AMTMAN, why do you contradict John Hotard who states he contacted Tulsa and Tulsa told him that the Engineering Change Order for deactivation was issued prior to 9/11.

This was not a "decision made in the Ivory Tower" as you contend. Hotard clearly states the deactivation Engineering Change Order was issued prior to 9/11.

Why did you show up 2 days after our article was published with your claims, yet refused to have an interview with me to post on our front page disputing the documents posted?

Why did Chris Christensen of AA Legal Dept not want to go on record nor able to provide the same document as you prior to publishing our article? AA Legal and American Airlines googled my name and clammed up after. It was fun to watch. AMTMAN shows up two days after with a document stating the deactivation not even referenced in the 757 AMM page as the deactivation order.

AMTMAN, why will you not give James or Pat your name? Our source has given us his...

Why are you, an anonymous internet poster able to produce this document which contradicts Hotard, but AA Legal dept was not able to do the same in the months prior to publishing our article? Remember, AA Legal said they were willing to help.. its all recorded.

Wanna dance AMTMAN?




top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join