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: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

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]


Do you know what EICAS is? It stands for Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System. It basically monitors the health of the various aircraft systems. It will let you know when something is amiss. For example if equipment has been installed that does not belong there. So right off the bat the aircraft is going to see something is wrong. Now I guess you could modify EICAS so that it will recognize the mods. However this will require even more time in which to accomplish.

In order to accomplish any sort of modification you are going to need a team of engineers and A&P mechanics in which to do it. It's not something you just throw on the aircraft. It's also going to take quite a bit of time in which to do. I've seen mods a lot simpler take a week to accomplish. So when and where are you going to do this? The only time a commercial aircraft is sitting for any length of time is when it's going through a heavy check. Of course they are in the custody of the airline, in this case AA and UAL. In order to believe that the aircraft were modified you would have to believe that both AA and UAL were in on it or they were totally clueless that someone was messing with their aircraft at their own maintenance base.

Now let’s say you do modify it. I'm guessing all you remote takeover people are going to say that this would be accomplished by taking over the autopilot. There's one problem with this, there's a little button on the pilots yoke that once pressed it disconnects the auto-pilot. I can already hear you remote people saying that the NWO would have disabled the button. This would assume that EICAS would not have noticed or the pilots. Then of course if worse comes to worse all you would have to do is pull the circuit breakers for the FCC's and auto pilot servos. And don't forget that the pilots on the 757/767 have a direct link to the flight control surfaces via a good old fashioned cable/pulley system.

And by the way twitchy, nobody in the industry calls it a Fully Integrated Fight Management Computer System. We just call it an FMCS.




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
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.


I fully understand what you guys say about the 757 and 767 not being built for it. Could the flights possibly have NOT been 767's and 757's? Since none of the so-called wreckage fits either, I'd say yes. Unless you can prove that the plane parts found are from the flights they say they were from.

Prove it.

Ignorance indeed. It's bliss isn't it?

[edit on 11/29/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 11/29/2007 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by AMTMAN
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.


I fully understand what you guys say about the 757 and 767 not being built for it. Could the flights possibly have NOT been 767's and 757's? Since none of the so-called wreckage fits either, I'd say yes. Unless you can prove that the plane parts found are from the flights they say they were from.

Prove it.

Ignorance indeed. It's bliss isn't it?

[edit on 11/29/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 11/29/2007 by Griff]


In order to bleieve your little theory you have to believe that AA and UAL were either in on it or totally clueless. Why don't you explain why the wrekage does not fit a 757 or 767. Give us your "expert" opinion in commercial aviation.

< bp0.blogger.com... >



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
here is some info for just that question:


www.911-strike.com...


Read this and it will fill you in on the latest aspects of the greatest likleihoods concerning the ability of the planes to be remotely taken. Most modern ones are: The Lufthansa people took theirs OUT after worries about us mistakenly ' taking ' one of their's and causing trouble.

Joe Vialls has done extensive research into this very phenomenon and if you spend some time reading this, you will see that remote taking is really the only logical answer.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Give us your "expert" opinion in commercial aviation.


Nope. I'm asking for YOURS. You prove it. You're the avionics expert right?



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


You belived a story written by someone who obviously has no idea what he's talking about. Someone who cherry picks info off the web to back up his theory on remote takeover. Here's one clue that told me right away that he is totally lost.

"I recently received some mail from a reader that pointed out another possible problem for the remote control theory. The 777 was Boeing's first true fly-by-wire design. The 757 and 767 apparently used a mechanical linkage with hydraulic power assist."

Someone had to tell him that the 757 and 767 use mechanical linkages for fligth control! That tells me he has no idea as to what he's talking about! Even an amateur avaition hobbyist is going to know a 757/767 is not a FBW aircraft. Another way I caught on that the story was junk is that it uses Eric Hufshmid as a source. As is the story about Lufthansa.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Give us your "expert" opinion in commercial aviation.


Nope. I'm asking for YOURS. You prove it. You're the avionics expert right?


This is absolutely amazing. Vidoe of two aircraft hitting the WTC. Pictures of wrekage at the Pentagon. Both AA and UAL are short a 757 and 767. Yet I'm the one who has to provide proff. Not the guy who says it wasn't a 757 or a 767.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Give us your "expert" opinion in commercial aviation.


Nope. I'm asking for YOURS. You prove it. You're the avionics expert right?


For crying out loud, guys, stop asking for stuff to respond to and start giving us stuff to respond to. Most of these challenges are hollow challenges. Where's the beef, already?

Stop asking other members for a reason to post. POST! Volunteer the goods, already...!



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
This is absolutely amazing. Vidoe of two aircraft hitting the WTC. Pictures of wrekage at the Pentagon. Both AA and UAL are short a 757 and 767. Yet I'm the one who has to provide proff. Not the guy who says it wasn't a 757 or a 767.


Well, first, I'm not the one who says that they were 757's and 767's. You and the official story are. So, it should be pretty easy to prove right?

Then do it. I'll be waiting with baited breath. Not really, because I know you CAN'T prove it.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Stop asking other members for a reason to post. POST! Volunteer the goods, already...!


And again. I am trying to find proof that they were the planes they said they were. If you have information that I don't, I'd appreciate it. If not, then how dare you say that they are. Come on. Prove it and I'll shut up. Til then, you guys are blowing smoke screens out of your ass.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
If you have information that I don't, I'd appreciate it. If not, then how dare you say that they are. Come on. Prove it and I'll shut up. Til then, you guys are blowing smoke screens out of your ass.


Huh?

Griff,
I just wanna see more evidence and less bravado in this thread, that's all.

Thank you for noticing my ass, though...




edit to add the LOL, just in case any mods are still hanging around and might misinterprate...



[edit on 29-11-2007 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
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.



Looking up a sample of your voice is as simple as sending your phone bill to the correct house. Computers do amazing things, one of which is storing and retrieving data.

I'm getting the impression that some people think 9-11-2001 was planned on 9-10-2001.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Thank you for noticing my ass, though...


Thanks for the laugh.

What I'm getting at is that we have no proof that the plane that hit was even Flight 11. Think of PNAC and how they were thinking of switching the flights in mid air.

Is it impossible that the "highjackers" could have been playing along with the games also and let the planes be switched. Only to be shot down over the Atlantic of course.

BTW, I'm just thinking out loud with an open mind. When you close your mind to possibilities, IMO, you give yourself a disservice by not being able to see the bigger picture of the infinite possibilities.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily
I'm getting the impression that some people think 9-11-2001 was planned on 9-10-2001.


I like this. I think you're correct.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Antman finally earned an IGNORE fro me..whew!! Now I do not have to be insulted in my intelligence by his immature and argumentative silliness. If only common sense could be beaten into people, I would have a paddle in one hand and a whip in the other!!



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Eyewitness, you are completely right. This was totally staged. Bad acting, at that. Did you hear the emergency operator ask Ms Gonzales how she had recieved a phone call from a flight attendant? He asked it as if he really couldn't understand how she could even recieve such a phone call, and her answer was, "through reservations". Through reservations? Didn't that bother any of you who are believing this really badly staged lie? There is not an ounce of real physics in any "proof" offered to us by the official 9 11 commission, or anyone involved in it. They hope a post like this at a conspiracy sight would help stop the 9 11 truth movement. and it appears that their bad acting and flimsy lies do work on some.
Picture yourself in this situation. I would be shaking and hyperventalating as I was talking. I would have been saying "oh my god" or something like that. She doesn't even realize that she is supposed to be doing a convincing job, because she is not even trying to fake any truly complex emotions: fear of death, terror at the sight of blood, etc. She was involved in a routine war game and they dug this recording up to try to confuse the truth movement. Didn't work.
Picture yourself in this situation and then ask yourself if this phone call is real.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by Spoodily
Looking up a sample of your voice is as simple as sending your phone bill to the correct house. Computers do amazing things, one of which is storing and retrieving data.

I'm getting the impression that some people think 9-11-2001 was planned on 9-10-2001.


Here's a list of Flight 93 passengers that were not scheduled to be on the aircraft. All of these passengers made phone calls after the hijacking.

Todd Beamer

Lisa Beamer, Todd Beamer's wife: He and I had just gotten back from Italy Monday afternoon, and he decided he wanted to spend some time with the kids that night and have a little more time before he flew out. So he decided to try to crunch his travel in the morning.


Jeremy Glick

Jeremy Glick was a brand new father. His wife, Lyz, had taken their three-month-old baby, Emmy, to her parents’ home while he was away on business.

He was supposed to leave Monday night, but there were problems at the airport: He decided to wait ‘til Tuesday morning.

Lyz Glick, Jeremy's wife: His flight had been rerouted to Kennedy, he had said, and he didn’t feel like getting in to California at 3 a.m., so he figured he would go home and get a good night’s sleep and just catch the first one out.


Lauren Grandcolas

Jack Grandcolas, Lauren's husband: She actually had a publisher interested. It was a book to give women guidance on how they could learn new things in life that would bring them greater self-esteem, courage, and self-confidence.

Her husband, Jack, was still asleep when she called to leave a message just before 5 p.m. Calif. time:

Lauren Grandcolas message: Hey, I just want to let you know I’m on the 8:00 instead of the 9:20.

Good news: She got a standby seat on an earlier flight. Flight 93.

Grandcolas message: So, I get to San Francisco at about 11:00 and I’ll be at the ferry terminal probably a little before 12:00. Okay? I’ll call you then. Bye.
Source

Thomas Burnett

Like Bodley, Thomas Burnett was leaving New Jersey early to be with his family. The
38-year-old San Ramon, Calif., resident was supposed to have flown
out that afternoon on Delta, but switched to Flight 93 to get home to his wife,
Deena, and their three daughters.


Honor Elizabeth Wainio

Since she was scheduled on a flight that stopped in Denver, Colorado, she changed her reservations to a direct flight into San Francisco at the last minute. Wainio was able to borrow a phone from a fellow passenger and contact her stepmother during the attack.


SANDY BRADSHAW

married US Airways pilot Phil Bradshaw cut her flights to the bare minimum -- two two-day trips a month from Newark to San Francisco or to Los Angeles. She was in economy because she'd picked up Flight 93 late in
the planning. Ordinarily, she liked working first class. It was a good fit with her gregarious ways.


Edward Porter Felt

He was on a last minute business trip to San Francisco for BEA Systems. Another employee of BEA Systems
Source.

Even the pilot, Jason Dahl, wasn't originally scheduled for flight 93. That's a whole lot of work for the conspirators to get all their voice samples and figure out the families, the phone numbers, and where they're going to be.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Here's a list of Flight 93 passengers that were not scheduled to be on the aircraft. All of these passengers made phone calls after the hijacking.


When did we start talking about flight 93?

Who is saying that all calls were faked?

Betty Ong would have been scheduled for flight 11 well in advance.

Or did you already forget your posting?


This was a senior crew," she said. "They've been around. A lot of them usually do that flight – go out on Flight 11 and come back on Flight 12 [from Los Angeles]. We all knew them really well."

In fact, a couple of the stewardesses were married to American gate agents at Logan, she says.

"You know, I said goodbye to that crew at the gate," the American employee said. "I was up there talking to the girls who were doing the flight, and the crew walks by and gives us all a wave. They said, 'See you later, we're coming back on [Flight] 12.'

Source

Hmm. Senior crew. Have been around. A lot of them do that flight. Get the picture yet?



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by Griff
When did we start talking about flight 93?

Who is saying that all calls were faked?

Betty Ong would have been scheduled for flight 11 well in advance.

Or did you already forget your posting?


In my reply to Spoodily. I said I was going to challenge the theory of voice morphing with the assumption that all calls were faked. No one protested.

The OP.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Senior crew means that they would react professionally in an emergency, although showing normal human emotions and the inevitable results of adrenalin making the voice higher and the cadence more rapid..worry would be dripping from the phone like melting wax..tones of voice are everything in this life, and yet we hear flat, emotionless repititions of info being relayed from front to back.

Now, pay attention here: Betty keeps saying that no one can go up front because ' WE can't breathe '..Yet the attendant up front in business that is the other person who supposedly called and spoke to the airline did NOT show any signs of breathing issues at all. We hear NONE. We hear NOTHING that would incicate: Stabbings...Mace..Bombs being displayed,,nothing. Just the voices that are relaying the info around. Like telling a story and at the end you see how accurate it stays. Unreal.

If you compare the ALLEGED words of the stew up front with Bettys words, it becomes clear very quickly. Also, remember that the people who were saying that there were such things as ' passkeys ' or ' Boeing Keys ' that are carried by stews and could have been used to storm the cockpits: If that were etrue, we would have heard about some attempt by some crew member to use one. Or one of them would have at least mentioned the ' key ' if it existed, as that would be the only way to gain entry to the cockpit..none of them mentions it at all..no one tries to open the cockpit door..just concerned that they will not answer.

We are faced with certain facts that are insurmountable from the viewpoint of the Official Lie: Are we to believe that in all FOUR cases, ' highjackers ' with few or no real weapons managed to gain access to the cockpits and disable the pilots and stash their bodies up there with them, and all before even ONE pilot among the EIGHT could key his mike button and shout?? Do YOU believe that? How can you? It is a FACT if you believe Betty, because she and the stew up front BOTH have NO clue as to how or when any highjackers eentered the cockpits, and NO bodies of Pilots..and NO live pilots, and mentioned at all.

Just the odds alone are beyond stupid. No bookie would insult anyones intelligence by taking money on odds like that...its robbery.

WHy don't we hear the following" Oh my God!! Please help us..some men took over the cockpit and say they have bombs and want to go somewhere..the cockpit won't answer ( duh, obviously the highjacker now flying the plane is not going to answer it )..but the pilots have not been seen yet.." Or many other scenarios. But NOPT what we hear.

Both ladies sound as if they are acting a part and cooperating in a drill. One of the nice highjackers..the ones that no one saw get into the cockpits, was kind enough to show the girl up front a ' bomb '..wires and all!!How convincing!! No highjacker would alow a close inspection of a bomb, especially if it were a phony..and to allow a hostage to get that close to it..unthinkable. What nonsense!! There is NO way to reconcile the affair without remote taking as the assumption to operate under. Nothing else makes sense.

You have to really examine the words, phrases, pauses..especially the pauses..what is said..HOW it is inflected, the demeanor and tone of voice. the resonance of the voive, the timbre compared to normal and less stressful situations..and all of it points directly to remote taking, whether or not the ' highjackers were aware of it or not. But no one can believe that four cockpits can be taken so fast that not only can no call be sent but no member of the crew be aware of it either..at least until the " REPORTS ' from some unknown and unverified source that ' stabbings ' had occurred,,and that Mace was used,,again no confirmations, just reports..then another stabbing, #5 crew..still no yelling and no emotion.

These people describe stabbing of their fellow crew members as if they were reading off of a stock ticker!! " Uh..our purser is stabbed..9yawn )..ummm, lets see..oh yeah, someone said something about Mace..but WE can't breathheven though we seem to be fine..trust me, we can't breathe..you believe me, don't you guys?? Mom?? Anyone??!!

Does ANYONE believe such drivel as the official story? the sound mind reels at the thought of accepting all, or even a fraction, of these ridiculous assumptions and excuses dressed up as truth..sickening. In my opinion, anyone who listens to the tapes and watches the video and reads the transcripts CANNOT help but walk away KNOWING in your gut that something is WRONG with that scenario. If not we are not likley to agree on much, and with respect I say Bon Voyage..But for those who see it as I do, how incredible is it that people can accept odds beyond the stars and lies and facts? There must be a reason.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join