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: 8
4
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
First of all, I am reporting you for derailing.

Here you go CO, Report Me for this Post too.




posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Ok, i'll just address this one post since im tired of repeating myself to AMTMANs' diatribes...



Originally posted by AMTMAN
Well Rob if you want to play that game I can point out that he also said that there was no evidence that the air phones were deactivated prior to 9/11.


Well at least you now admit Hotard states the ECO was issued prior to 09/11/2001, contradictory to your paperwork, and not just a "discussion in the Ivory Tower"...... Im glad to see you now finally admit you contradict The PR Rep for American Airlines.


This of course contradicts your claim and “evidence”.


We dont make a claim nor do we claim to have 'proof'. Havent you been reading where i quoted the article?


Here's the score card so far. You have a 23-19-00 dated 1/28/2001.


Correct


I have the TR for 23-19-00 that says that first sentence regarding deactivation did not appear until April 2007.


So, a Temp Revision was issued 7 years after deactivation and 3 years after the phones were removed? Why didnt Chris Christensen or Chad Kinder supply this when we told them about the 757 AMM page on the recorded call? (By the way, you contradict apathoid here, but im saving that one for later..
)


I also have ECO F0871 stating that the Claircom system was being deactivated


The 757 AMM does not reference ECO F0871 as the deactivation order. Underlined in red


dated 3/2002 along with the accomplishment dates all of which were in April 2002. Do you have any documentation to refute any of this?


You have already admitted Hotard, the PR Rep says the deactivation ECO was issued prior to 9/11/2001. Please read our article. It is clear you havent.

By the way.. Chris tried to tell me i didnt have permission to record him also. He changed his tone rather quickly when i told him i dont need his permission (He doesnt know much considering he is a lawyer, not surprised). He certainly could have hung up the phone, but he didnt.

Nor did he (or anyone else at AA for that matter) produce the paperwork you have, when he (they) knew we were going to publish the article with the 757 AMM page. Yet you show up anonymously after the article is published with paperwork that you admit contradicts Hotard.


As for working at AA. So, let me get this straight.. anyone who questions contradictions based on a story told by War Criminals, have killed 100's of thousands based on that story, dismantling our Constitution, might have their employment in jeopardy? Geee... and you'd think so many more people would be speaking out and questioning the conflicts/cover-ups.. :rolleyes: I dont suppose this is the reason for Kinder and Chris clamming up?



Your threats are hollow AMTMAN. It almost seems you are pissed you never made it into the cockpit. I ran across a few mechanics like that. Pity.

Have a nice day..


typo



[edit on 24-9-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex





ISo, a Temp Revision was issued 7 years after deactivation and 3 years after the phones were removed? Why didnt Chris Christensen or Chad Kinder supply this when we told them about the 757 AMM page on the recorded call? (By the way, you contradict apathoid here, but im saving that one for later..
)
[edit on 24-9-2007 by johndoex]


Rob, could you tell me how the maintenance department at Independence Air did revisions of their maintenance manuals? I already know that you have absolutely no clue. Every airline has their own way of doing things. Per the FAR's they can make changes to their manuals as they see fit. In the case of the TR dated April 2007 it's for a non-safety of flight item. Something that can affect the air worthiness of the aircraft is treated differently than something that does not. As for the two people you mentioned my guess is they felt no obligation to give you anything.

Back to the TR, what has your source told you about it? Has he told you its legit or fake? Rather simple question Rob, if you do not answer that is an admission that it’s legitimate



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
"The 757 AMM does not reference ECO F0871 as the deactivation order. Underlined in red"

Rob thank you for displaying your ignorance about AA M&E. ECO F0871 is just the initial deactivation of the system. F0878 is the removal of the components covered by the maintenance manual. That's why it is mentioned.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
"As for working at AA. So, let me get this straight.. anyone who questions contradictions based on a story told by War Criminals, have killed 100's of thousands based on that story, dismantling our Constitution, might have their employment in jeopardy? Geee... and you'd think so many more people would be speaking out and questioning the conflicts/cover-ups.. :rolleyes: I dont suppose this is the reason for Kinder and Chris clamming up?"

Are you trying to tell me that AA is in on the "conspiracy" Rob?



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
"Your threats are hollow AMTMAN."

What threats have I made Rob?

"It almost seems you are pissed you never made it into the cockpit. I ran across a few mechanics like that. Pity."

I know why you said that Rob. You thought that it would piss me off. Actually it had the opposite affect, it bought a smile to my face.

Here's why, by saying that you once again put your ignorance on display for everyone to see. That's becasue every hour of flight time you have you can thank an A&P. So you can thank those mechanics you ran across who never made it into the cockpit for all those paychecks you collected over the years.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Rob:

Question 1
What has your source said about the TR?

Question 2
What has your source said about the accomplishment dates for the ECO's?

Question 3
Have you actually met your source face to face?



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
"As for working at AA. So, let me get this straight.. anyone who questions contradictions based on a story told by War Criminals, have killed 100's of thousands based on that story, dismantling our Constitution, might have their employment in jeopardy? Geee... and you'd think so many more people would be speaking out and questioning the conflicts/cover-ups.. :rolleyes: I dont suppose this is the reason for Kinder and Chris clamming up?"

It's really funny when you start talking about the dismantaling of the Consitution. This coming from the same person who says debunkers should be thown in jail once the "truth" comes out. Or that someone in who does not agree with you should have a bullet put in his brain. Could you show me where the Constitution makes this legal?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AMTMAN
 


**crickets chirping**

I think Rob is hoping this blows over. And it will... another lie will fade into the Pilots4911Lies website.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Questions for Rob:

Repeated:

Question 1
What has your source said about the TR?

Question 2
What has your source said about the accomplishment dates for the ECO's?

Question 3
Have you actually met your source face to face?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
...

and this:

Rob, could you tell me how the maintenance department at Independence Air did revisions of their maintenance manuals? I already know that you have absolutely no clue. Every airline has their own way of doing things. Per the FAR's they can make changes to their manuals as they see fit. In the case of the TR dated April 2007 it's for a non-safety of flight item. Something that can affect the air worthiness of the aircraft is treated differently than something that does not. As for the two people you mentioned my guess is they felt no obligation to give you anything.

Back to the TR, what has your source told you about it? Has he told you its legit or fake? Rather simple question Rob, if you do not answer that is an admission that it’s legitimate



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
There was a lot of talk about "cell phones," as well, right? When someone calls me from a "cell phone" number come in, it's going to be obviously different than from a cell phone. I've done my own experiements on several airlines including Frontier, Southwest, United, Delta, and U.S. Airways. I have had a 0 percent success rate from pretty much any elevation at all after take off. I also had two different cell phone providers, Cingular and T-mobile. Used 3 different phones. The Motorola color V60, Motorola Razor, and I currently have a Blackberry... I distincly remember people calling from cell phones at cruising altitude.


People have trouble from the ground while stationary getting signals. I've had to go out of my house with several modern phones, on metro areas. That's not even talking about moving cars, I've had calls dropped many times while going under 50. Different phones, different companies, low to zero velocities, calls dropped. Now I'm supposed to buy multiple cell phones from airplanes going at 100s per hour, thousands above ground, are getting no drops


I can buy someone making a call, but it will likely drop. Multiple calls without dropping is simply unbelievable. There's a reason they've had to change their stance.

As for the multiple accounts, mods in other forums have banned users with multiple accounts from different ips, but similar posting style, by checking the ip range being within a particular region/country, and even within universities. While it wouldn't prove anything, checking such would at least in part deal with likelyhood of it being a member from either side(say by showing all ips within a certain region or even university/college's ip range).

I also don't know how this thread is still standing, the title is misleading and could be considered a lie, an anonymous doc by an anon poster is no debunking.

PS

I would also like to repost the question a poster made a while back, I think it was in this thread, does the word 'reference' on docs, signal sample documents in the US, or does it not.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by Xenogears]



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Well it's been five months since Rob added this to the air phones story.

"We are currently in the process of analyzing the conflicts and will update this article as more information becomes available"

< pilotsfor911truth.org... >

Considering that Rob has a "source" at AA along with two AA AMT's that are PfT members one would think he could have come up with something by now. The fact that he hasn't should tell all of you something.




top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join