Weird phone call. Flight attendant on 911

Originally posted by AMTMAN
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.

There's always going to be people of that sort. But, you guys just automatically call us crazy and "twoothers" when we question the official story.

And IMO this is a legitimate question.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
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

Here are a few proofs, since you asked. The first is a direct interview with Atta's girlfriend. Then more articles. read and weep, Capt.

www.freerepublic.com...

and here is a whole list of quotes verifying that these guys loved strip clubs and coc aine and were NOT fanatics but CIA stooges. How many slaps to the head does it take to get an Official Story believer to wake up? How many HUDREDS of ' inexplicable anomalies ' can be tolerated before one retches? read this list:

www.911myths.com...

Still think that Saudi religious crazies just happened to get very very extremely supernaturally LUCKY that day? Or are the plain facts enough?

Originally posted by AMTMAN
I work on commerical aircraft for a living.

And you didn't know that they can and do remote control planes?

On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet.

www.pentagonresearch.com...

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

Go ahead and watch the videos at that NASA site. You might learn a thing or 2.

Ok. here is the transcript . I am posting it and also the site it is on..at the bottom.

www.mishalov.com...

And from that site: "This is the transcript of flight attendant Betty Ong's call to an American Airlines operations desk on an emergency line on September 11, 2001



Operations: What's the number of your seat?

Ong: OK. I'm in the jump seat right now. That's 3R.

Q: What is your name?

A: My name is Betty Ong. I'm No. 3 on Flight 11.

Q: OK.

A: And the cockpit is not answering their phone. There's somebody stabbed in business class, and we can't breathe in business. Um, I think there is some Mace or something. We can't breathe. I don't know, but I think we're getting hijacked.

Q: Can you describe the person, that you said someone is shot in business?

A: I'm sitting in the back. Somebody's coming back from business. If you can hold on for one second here, they're coming back.

Our No. 1 got stabbed. Our purser is stabbed. Nobody knows who stabbed who. We can't even get up to business class right now because nobody can breathe. Uhhh, our No. 1 is stabbed right now.

(garbled) Our No. 5, our first-class passenger, er, our first-class galley flight attendant and our purser have been stabbed. And we can't get into the cockpit. The door won't open.

Q: This is operations. What flight number are we talking about?

Q: At this point we are talking about Flight 12.

Q: Flight 12. OK.

A: No, we're on Flight 11 right now. This is Flight 11.

Q: This is Flight 11. I'm sorry, Nadine.

A: Boston to Los Angeles.

Q: Yes.

A: Our No. 1 has been stabbed, and our 5 has been stabbed.

Q: Can anybody get up to the cockpit? Can anyone get up to the cockpit?

A: We can't even get into the cockpit. We don't know who's up there.

Dial tone "" DONE.

Simply amazing. Betty has NO idea if they are being highjacked or not!! Read the words. I THINK we MAY be getting highjacked?? What? With the cockpit not responding and ' reports ' of a purser being stabbed ( although Betty never claims to see anything herself), alleged ' mace ' in business, etc. But what about this ' breathing ' business? Examine that a moment. Betty keeps saying that WE cannot breath, but she is breathing fine and we hear NO choking or gasping in the background, just other voices, seemingly reporting WHAT THEY ARE TOLD FROM UP FRONT !! get it now?

All second hand and all a role playing game. betty says some VERY odd things for a veteran stew: Just read it and listen to it. She is merely repeating what she was told..she never shows any real fear for her safety, as if there were no ' highjackers ' tending to the rear of the plane..and it takes her a monumental amount of time to figure out that MAYBE they are getting highjacked!! I would love to play Clue with her if it takes that much obvious danger and death to get me wondering WHY it is all happening.

AND, the biggest part of all this: This is quite significant:

Betty and the people who are reporting to her from the front were NOT AWARE of any highjackings!! they had no clue. It is as if the ' highjackers ' dematerialized on one side of the cockpit door and rematerialized on the other with ' boxcutters ' in hand. No one noticed the takeover!! Has this happened before? Never!! Unreal. To think that a couple og highjckers could silently take a plane is stupid. And, think about this little factoid:

If they could not get the cockpit to open, the highjackers and the pilots would ALL have to stil be in the cockpit together!! There is no other way. If the pilots were killed or convinced to leave their seats (yeah, right ), the highjackers would still have to remove and stash the bodies, and there is NO WAY POSSIBLE for two grown mens bodies to be stashed in the cockpit while the seats are taaken by the highjackers. No way. Where did they stash thye pilots? If they had killed and thrown them out, the crew would have seen the bodies and gotten word back to Betty; But instead what do we hear about:

" WE can't breath in business".." WE can't breath.."..Mace.. BUT remember that no one was showing any disgns of any respiratory issues during the call at all. She did not say " THEY ' or " THEM ' while referring to the people who could not breath, she said WE , and included herself, as if reading from a script which included the speaker as being included in those affected by the ' mace ' or whatever..see my point?

None of the syntax is right..the cadence and lack of quavering in the voice..the common total ignoring of the phone while talking to someone who presumable was getting orders from the front of the plane. But the crew had NO IDEA about the highjacking!! How could that be? No pilots thrown out..no one reported assaulting the cockpit. Reports of ' mace' but no verification and NO coughing, gagging or screaming or crying or praying..It sounded for all the world like a training exercise and thats is what Betty and all the rest were told was happening. they were told to play along exactly as scripted and follow the lead of the ' Agent ' that was directing it, either on board or remotely.

But for Pete's sake, people..just READ the words and if you have any doubts as to this, keep reading and listening and sooner or later it will dawn on you: This ain't right!!

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.

I tend to agree, but lets just say the Betty recording is real. She says she can't get into business class because someone sprayed something like mace (nerve gas i think). Of course this would put off the hijackers and their ability to fly, that was my one of my first thoughts and I was actually hinting at automated hijacking in my previous post. Additionally she mentions someone has been stabbed but they don't know who. If indeed this was an automated hijacking then gassing the passengers via the ventilation system or planting nerve gas packets somewhere in business class would explain how they could easily subdue the crew and pilots a like then remote pilot the plane, and like i said previously it sounded to me like Betty was becoming rather distant just toward the end of the audio - right before they cut it. But was she right about someone getting stabbed? If so that would imply the presence of someone in on the actual hijack operation. Very strange. Just doesn't fit the picture exactly, if there was no report of a stabbing it would of strengthened the case for automated hijack, unless we can think of how that person got stabbed. Perhaps the suicidal hijackers were planted on the plane as a secondary measure - a scapegoat for the truth of what really happened onboard these planes.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by Insolubrious]

Am I confused or were some of you saying that Betty said it was Flight 12 and then the above transcript and supported link shows that she did not say this was Flight 12 at all?

I admit to not listening to the first audio tape but I'm going by the post responses and the latest info from eyewitness.

originally posted by Griff
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?

Why do you assume that someone else would have had to be involved for Atta to get a pass? The article doesn't specify what kind of pass it was or how to obtain one.

Is it the type of pass that anyone can get or was it the type of pass that only a commercial rated pilot could get? There are several accounts of Atta being at Logan in the weeks prior to September 11. Maybe he obtained the pass while scouting out the airport to learn how the security procedures worked. I think it's a pretty far stretch to reach the conclusion that Atta was helped out by other people without knowing the details of the pass found in the car.

One other thing, I can't find any reference to the car being in the restricted area on the morning of September 11.

originally posted by Griff
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?

I would be surprised if Bill Gates is capable of using Vista!

But, I don't remember Bill Gates claiming that he invented Windows Vista. If one of his software engineers that actually designed it stated that the system couldn't do this or that, I would believe him.

reply to post by Spoodily


I'm challenging this theory on the assumption that all the phone calls were faked. That would mean everyone from all the flights would have had their voices recorded for 10 to 15 minutes for the software to be able to work properly.

Can you imagine how much time and effort it would take to record samples of all the voices heard that day? How would the perpetrators know what numbers to call and who would be answering the phones. If no one answered the phone, how would they know what other numbers to call and who would be entering them?

It seems highly improbable to me.

Originally posted by Boone 870
I think it's a pretty far stretch to reach the conclusion that Atta was helped out by other people without knowing the details of the pass found in the car.

You make a fair point about that pass. And I'll admit, I have no idea about said passes and such.

Did you read the links about "Rocky" Hammad? There are people sitting in jail right now due to them helping the known terrorists obtain false documentations.

On Dec 4th, Herbert Villalobos, 35, pleaded guilty to helping two Sept. 11 hijackers illegally obtain Virginia identification cards
www.timesunion.com...

On February 1st Victor M. Lopez-Flores "pleaded guilty to falsely certifying that hijackers Abdul Aziz Alomari and Ahmed Alghamdi were Virginia residents" and received a 27-month prison sentence from U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee.
www.phonebusters.com...

originally posted by eyewitness86

So why were they eating pork and getting lap dances in bars?

Why didn't they have beards on their faces? Why weren't they wearing traditional Islamic clothing?

I'll answer those questions for you. Because they were supposed to blend in with the Christians in the infidel land!

Doesn't the Quran prohibit the murder of women and children? I guess the hijackers forgot about that also.

reply to post by Boone 870


So it's ok for a devout Muslim to eat pork to blend in? Even though it is against Islamic law?

Where does it say in the Koran that killing infidel women and children is forbidden?

originally posted by alupang
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.

Wow! If it's true, that is very incriminating. But, you have made a couple mistakes with that statement.

They weren't ATC tapes. The FAA manager recorded six different air traffic controllers recollections that were working the day of of the attacks. The recordings happened several hours after the attacks and the air traffic controllers all volunteered to do so. The recording was made to assist the controllers with their written statements to the FBI.

The 9/11 commission interviewed all six controllers involved with the tapes and found nothing nefarious.
The FAA employee that destroyed the tape was not the same employee that made the recordings.
The tapes were destroyed almost 3 months after they were made.
The FAA employee that destroyed the tapes was suspended without pay.

Washington Post article linked from wtc7lies.googlepages.com

originally posted by alupang
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 might as well be saying that the hijackers were NWO Flying Monkey Cyborg Ninja's. Deny Ignorance.

my problem with the Betty Ong recording: where were the five hijackers during this call? She states "And we can’t get into the cockpit, the door won’t open" and later "Nobody can call the cockpit. We can’t even get inside." So they were trying to get into the cockpit door but it wouldn't open. So that means all five hijackers must have been in the cockpit, otherwise, wouldn't the hijackers who weren't in the cockpit prevent them from trying to get in? And since she didn't even mention the pilots that must mean they were in there too. That would be 7 people in the 2 (or 3) person cockpit. It is possible but why? Flight 93, from passenger phone calls, had hijackers outside the cockpit...why would the hijackers do something completly different between these two flights? In fact from Amy Sweeney's call from the same flight the hijackers didn't have any contact with the passengers in coach as the passengers "were under the impression there was a routine medical emergency in first class." The three other flights the hijackers supposedly herded the passengers into the back. (Also, how come there's no mention of "mace" on flight 77 and 93?) Why would the hijackers have different plans for each flight?

This recording is only the first 4 minutes out of a 20 minute call but you would think they would have asked Betty (or Amy Sweeney) about the pilots...but when you read the 911 Commission Report there is no mention of what happened to them at all. (From the 911 Commission Report: Flight 175 both pilots are killed, Flight 77 Barabara Olsen asks what she should tell the pilot to do (I assume he was at the back of the plane), Flight 93 captain and first officer possibly dead) Betty and Amy's calls are two of the longest continuous calls made from all the planes that day, yet we have no idea what happened to the pilots on Flight 11. Strange.

originally posted by Griff

So it's ok for a devout Muslim to eat pork to blend in? Even though it is against Islamic law?

Where does it say in the Koran that killing infidel women and children is forbidden?

According to Atta's religious sect it was. There beliefs allow them to have unmarried sex if it helps them blend in. His belief system was called Takfir.

I can't show you exactly, but the Prophet Mohammed said that killing women and children was forbidden even during wartime unless they spoke directly against Islam.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by AMTMAN
I work on commerical aircraft for a living.

And you didn't know that they can and do remote control planes?

On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet.

www.pentagonresearch.com...

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

Go ahead and watch the videos at that NASA site. You might learn a thing or 2.

And where exactly did I say that? Seems you are putting words in my mouth.

What I have said is that the whole idea of a remote takeover on 9-11 is a fantasy. I already know about the NASA tests and aircraft like the Global Hawk. The problem is that people like you in your ignorance do not take into account some very important points. One, the Global Hawk was built from the ground up with remote control in mind. The 757/767 was not. Two that 707 you like to point out was heavily modified for remote control. It took a team of engineers and a lot of manhours to accomplish this.

reply to post by NIcon



My friend, you make many salient points. I personally believe from all available evidence as of now that the things that were reported from front to back were on a script. Otherwise we have to believe some incredible things. If the crew did not get a response from the cockpit and could not get in..that pretty much KILLS the theory that has been floating around about the highjackers having access to a ' Boeing Key ' which was alleged to be used by some crew in the rear. We do NOT hear anything about the ' key ' being demanded to gain entry, now do we?

The crew is stumped..as if the pilots WENT TO SLEEP, but something was flying the plane. Remote is what I believe. It answers all the dilemmas.The words are unusual also: read it again: Betty is repeating what the front is saying. The front was just as stumped as the rear as they too were unable to arouse the cockpit..no wonder they had to assume that ' maybe ' they were being highjacked!! No one saw anything happen and there was NO disturbance before the inability to reach the cockpit.

Originally posted by eyewitness86

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?

Your wrong, it was the Canadians. Well at least according to this guy.

< www.youtube.com... >

blogs.salon.com...

You have to read down and thru this to get the gist of it.


This is a site that goes into detail about the crew member up front who was feeding Betty Ong her info. This fills in a part of the puzzle.

This lady supposedly called and told the ONLY tale of the entire event..the only person to allege a bomb and mace and killings, despite STILL unable to figure out about the cockpit: NO PILOTS mentioned whatsoever!!Not once. The girls assume that someone must be taking control of the cockpit, although NO MENTION was made of anyone seeing anyone else get into the cockpit. Since we have nbot heard the alleged tape, we cannot know if it is real..or if it is manufactured.

I firmly believe that the whole scenario was a staged Game and that the crew was saying what they were supposed to, doing their part. their voices COULD have been recorded and morphed, yes. But the simplest answer is still sensible, and likley: The crew and passengers were told they were lucky enough to play the parts of a plane being highjacked!!

Either that or there were no highjackers, or if there were, they were unable to do anything other than watch as the remote control took them to their fates. There are many issues still to be resolved, for sure. But in my mind Betty Ong was no way anything but playing along..and the other lady up front as well.They HAD to speak the wwords that would provide the talking points and attention getting headlines: BOMBS!! MACE!! boxcutters!! Mean old Saudi's!!Someone had to plant the seeds of weapons being used , even though no proof of that exists and quite a few of the highjackers were singled out for close scrutiny at the airports and no doubt had NOTHING on them.

The illusion is enough..just the words spoken from a script was enough. No proof needed. Just another part of the play; important because of the controversy about the cockpits being taken at all..and silently at that..without the crew seeing it..can't you smell that smell?

The lady says she ' saw ' a bomb..actually saw the wires. She also goes into detail about the supposed injuies but in a remote and detached sort of way: No names..like for friends known and worked with..just numbers..no real emotion in the words either, very factual, and not making any sense when you consider the fact that ALL of the crew members that call the ground all say that the big puzzlement is them not being able to contact the cockpit: Never is an actual taking discussed, or the ' killings ' of anyone seen..just alluded to. Too odd.