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.

 

Weird phone call. Flight attendant on 911

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
The fourth part you posted, about Mohamed Atta having a parking pass for a restricted area, how does that help prove that 9/11 was an inside job? If it were true.


Well, if it doesn't show that there were more involved than just 19 highjackers, I don't know what does. How else did he get the pass? The internet?

Also, who signed Sahker Hammad's basement level pass?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

www.freerepublic.com...

911review.org...




posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by manticore
just like I cannot believe Mohammed Atta's passport was found hours after the crash without any sign of damage.


Just an FYI, it wasn't Atta's passport. It was Satam Al Suqami's.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


So, do you believe that Bill Gates knows every single in and out of Windows Vista? He is the inventor of windows after all right?

"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed. "

Really Bill?

"We will never make a 32-bit operating system. "

Again. Really? Is it such a stretch that the inventor might not be the most informed? Just possibly?



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Hey i'm sorry Boone, Griff, and everyone else honestly I am. I really don't want to derail this thread. I have lurked here for years and almost never posted but this needs to be said. No one seems to be thinking clearly about this.

If I have to get banned to get people to start talking about this then that really sucks but seriously, we are still arguing about burnt passports and airplane cellphone calls when it comes out that a member of Giulianis security firm tipped off the organizer and mastermind of the 9/11 attack itself that the FBI was about to sweep him up. Stop worrying about minutia, focus on the bigger picture. Not to say this stuff isnt important but sometimes it seems like we cant see the forest through the trees on these boards. I always hear people complain that the MSM doesnt question 9/11 enough. Well Keith Olbermann and the Village Voice have thrown us a bone. Lets take it.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Check this software out. It can change any voice into any language in real time. There are examples of it in use in the upper right portion of the page, one audio and one video.
www.voxonic.com...


Voxonic has developed proprietary patent-pending software, which transforms voices, making it possible to replicate any person's voice in any language.

Voxonic applies its "Voice Models" to transform speech from one person to another. All we need is a one-time, fifteen-minute sample of your voice. With that we will be able to present you saying what you want in the language of your choice.


www.washingtonpost.com...

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.


Audio samples are very easy to get, especially if someone puts a microphone to their mouth and uses it to transmit their voice to a receiver. This would be the case in telephone or radio communication. If they were Amish or never used modern forms of communication I could see why the idea of faking their voice might seem silly.

George Papcun is playing dumb and knows very well the potential of what he helped develop. He's also a professional secret keeper, he was working out at Los Alamos you know...



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



Also, the fact that on flight 93 the terrorist hijackers took the time to all put red bandannas on seemed odd until you factor that they possibly put them on to represent the "red team" or the offense, while the "blue team" would be the defense or "good guys"


The hijackers wore red bandanas to signify they were on a Jihad
mission (remember those 72 virgins waiting). The rules for jihad
were laid in the Koran and Bin Laden was always careful to get imans
to issue fatwas (religious interpetations on the Koran) to give patina
of legality for his actions.



So why were they eating pork and getting lap dances in bars? Trying to keep a patina of religious fervor about themselves? Hmm? What nonsense!! Those highjackers were patsies trained at secure US military bases as CIA stooges to be used in ' training ' and ' undercover ' work for the US Government. There is a wealth of proof of the conduct of the ' highjackers before 9-11..with Israeli Mossad tailing them everywhere they went to insure the plan went off correctly. Recall the admission on Israeli TV from the Mossad agents that CHERTOFF deported without any questions after they were arrested for dancing and celebrating the event?

They said on TV that the were there ' to record the event '. That means they had foreknowledge. The US Consulate in Saudi Arabia changed the policy and let the guys in...the US trained them in planes well enough to make the story of them flying huge commercial jets seem palatable to the average dumbed down American watching Fox news..and the shadow government ( now out of the shadows and in the spotlight ) remotely took the planes and pulled off the events seen.

If the ' highjackers ' really acted out at all, and if they used red kerchiefs over their faces..it may have been because they were told they were going to be landing and making demands..or that the training would require it..or any other number of excuses..that would assure them they would live. I do NOT believe that those men believed that they were on a suicide mission..none of it fits if true: The passports and such left behind..and many other ' anomalies too detailed to go into now.

But never believe that the highjackers were devoted Islamasists ready to give all for Allah: They were no doubt told this was a mission they would survive and be handsomely rewarded for: As it turns out, they got to meet Allah prematurely anway..so regardless of what happened that day, the patsies and stooges..and some Rayethon folks as well..simply had to bite the bullet for God and country...at least according to the PNAC way of seeing things.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Someone asks you a question and you go off on this tirade. There should be a medication out there that can treat this.


And of course someone asks a legitimate question and gets labled nuts. This phone recording has always been in question.


Called into question by who?

The funny thing is if Betty had gotten the flight number right and had a more panicked sound to her voice there would be people here saying she read from a script.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by AMTMAN]

[edit on 29-11-2007 by AMTMAN]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by eyewitness86




Betty Ong is reading from a script, sure as the sun rises. listen closely to her inflections and cadence and the hesitations..she is obviously being told she is playing the war games for that day and simulating a highjackiong.

The whole tape is proof that the whole thing was staged. Listan again..does this sound right? Does it sound like a woman seeing what she is reporting? No way.


Thanks for the post eyewitness86, I agree. I have flown many thousands of hours and have heard many hundreds of flight attendants on the interphone.

I have listened to the tape and read the transcript. This is a script. A fantasy. A hoax. Betty Ong may have said these words but they are not true. I could post twenty or thirty errors in this tape. But you know what? I'm not going to bother.

If those who want to believe the hoax, the PsyOp, be my guest.

To those of you who feel more qualified than I to comment on the Betty Ong tape, help yourself.

But from a retired professional pilot's point of view this is a hoax. A PsyOp.


I keep hearing from people like eyewitness86 that this a a hoax. I've also seen him the statement that the aircraft were takenover remotely. When I ask him to give details on how this was done I really don't get much of a reply. That's becasue when it comes to aircraft he has no idea as to what he's talking about. Since you used to fly why don't you tell me how a remote takeover worked.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Remote taking is the ONLY way to reconcile all of the quirks of the events, and is in my opinion a fact.


So your opinion is a fact? That statement makes no sense at all.

And would please tell me how this remote takeover occured. I'm ugessing you have no idea since your knowledge of aircraft is limited to Microsoft Flight Sims.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 



So why were they eating pork and getting lap dances in bars? ......Those highjackers were patsies trained at secure US military bases as CIA stooges to be used in ' training ' and ' undercover ' work for the US Government. ......


please provide proof for this entire statement. Thank you



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 

Yeah, sure, whatever. I am always amused at dimwitted attempts to cast inquisitive fellow Americans as " a few fries short of a happy meal".

Juvenile rambling stab at becoming the next Rush, eh?

I'm more curious why she talked to some low level operator instead of being patched to the FBI.

This WAS supposed to be a hijacking, so she talks to an operator??

Moreover, it ties into the question of why the FAA supervisor grabbed the ATC recordings and ripped them up without being ARRESTED for Destroying EVIDENCE.

I mean, the official conspiracy theory is a hijacking by foreign terrorists, yes?

SO, WHY WASN'T HE ARRESTED? Supposedly, it was evidence of a hijacking.

Or WAS IT?



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
And would please tell me how this remote takeover occured. I'm ugessing you have no idea since your knowledge of aircraft is limited to Microsoft Flight Sims.

You're quite prone to throwing personal insults aren't you? Are you implying that a remote take over of an aircraft is impossible, I'd love to see you say that.
Have you ever heard of a Fully Integrated Flight Management Computer System? Soft Walls? Fully Programmable GPS-Based Navigation Systems? Ground Based Control Inputs? Fully Autonomous Flight Capability? Computerised Pilot Assistance/Override? Flight Control Rotor Actuation System? Remote take over... American AWAK aircraft are said to have the capability to do just that. And I don't even fly a plane...

[edit on 29-11-2007 by twitchy]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Yes, it would be a great relief, had Betty Ong had been family to me, that anyone trying to uncover EXACTLY what occurred that day to my loved one would be ridiculed by you.

Closure, what?

Wanna tell me again why the original report AA put out had Betty stating one of the first class passengers in seat 10b "has shot the passenger" in seat9a?

NO? Gee, go figure.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by AMTMAN
 


Interesting: This is the third time in two days, on three different websites/blogs that I have read the line "off the deep end" used against someone trying to uncover the events of 9/11/01.

One would almost suspect a memo went out on how to go on the attack.

Wanna scan and let us all read it?



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by AMTMAN
And would please tell me how this remote takeover occured. I'm ugessing you have no idea since your knowledge of aircraft is limited to Microsoft Flight Sims.

You're quite prone to throwing personal insults aren't you? Are you implying that a remote take over of an aircraft is impossible, I'd love to see you say that.
Have you ever heard of a Fully Integrated Flight Management Computer System? Soft Walls? Fully Programmable GPS-Based Navigation Systems? Ground Based Control Inputs? Fully Autonomous Flight Capability? Computerised Pilot Assistance/Override? Flight Control Rotor Actuation System? Remote take over... American AWAK aircraft are said to have the capability to do just that. And I don't even fly a plane...

[edit on 29-11-2007 by twitchy]


I work on commerical aircraft for a living. So why don't you educate me on how this remote takeover worked.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Atta was seen by many eyewitnesses on Sun Cruz gambling boats in Florida the weeks before the hijacking, drinking and gambling. Duly reported by AP throughout msmland. And who owned these boats? One Jack Abramoff. Ring a bell, Captain Oblivious?


Some of the "hijacker's" driver's licenses had home addresses on Homestead Air Force base. One of the early victims of being Silenced By Fascists In America was the removal of a Major that taught FOTC classes, and stated two of the hijackers attended his school. On base, in California. Only to get transferred and silenced.

And no, I won't do your leg work for you, if you wish to dispute that statement, fine. Unacknowledged facts are still facts.

You won't silence me.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by AMTMAN
 


And exactly what would be your position "working on commercial jets" that would make you an expert denier of Global Hawk reality, eh? Like Boeings haven't been remotely flown...are you living in the 1940s?

Good grief, go back into the kitchen and cook some crappy airline food, would ya?



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Obviously to anyone who comprehends the English language, what I meant was that I believe that it is a fact. Simple. You may not believe it is a fact. OK. But what is so unusual about a person proclaiming something to be factual? I never said or imnplied that anyone else was bound to believe as I do, thus your atention to this is curious, given the importance of the subject.

Anyway, if you have been reading on ATS for very long SURELY you would come across the MANY threads and videos explaining the technology of remotely taking a plane. I have posted it here many times, but since you are a anovice at all this I will give you one to read..IF you read it all you will have some idea as to what remote taking is and how it works.


www.geocities.com...


Its a long read but if you are really totally unfamiliar with the facts then this will give you a start. try Googling " Remote control highjacking ' and you will find a lot to read. The ability has been there for a while, and the military and civilians that ran it did so quite well. The bad guys have access to technology that we are not allowed to see or hear about..until many years later.

If you try and square al of the anomalies about the highjackings WITHOUT the remote taking possibility, you run up against some insurmountable obstacles..try it and see.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
I work on commerical aircraft for a living. So why don't you educate me on how this remote takeover worked.

Ok so since you must have a working if not profound knowledge of the flight systems in question here, why don't you educate me on how you come to the conclusion that a remote take over is impossible given those I listed in my previous post?

Edit: By the way, that was a Yes Or No question...
I'll ask you again...

Originally posted by twitchy
Have you ever heard of a Fully Integrated Flight Management Computer System? Soft Walls? Fully Programmable GPS-Based Navigation Systems? Ground Based Control Inputs? Fully Autonomous Flight Capability? Computerised Pilot Assistance/Override? Flight Control Rotor Actuation System?


[edit on 29-11-2007 by twitchy]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AMTMAN
 


"The funny thing" is you acting like you KNOW what unspecified anonymous people will say BEFORE they say it.

Got any clues about the Super Bowl winner in your crystal ball, madame?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join