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.

 

BETTY ONG / FLIGHT 11 Was A Mock Hijacking Exercise.

page: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Is there not some kind of phenomina called "echeloning" that occurs to cell calls made from altitudes?
I think theres is a problem that developes with the signal, and it somehow stacks up mulitples of itself because the cell phone is in line of sight with too many ground stationed cell towers?Thus the call multiplies itself and becomes unintelligable?
I read this somewhere in relation to the feasability of the calls (by their timing)that the aircrft were at that altitude(10+ thousand?)

The calls were very strangely worded too as i recall....as if someone else were impersonating the callers identity.....one i recall says something like hello mom, this is (first name-middle name-last name)Now who calls their mom and when she answers says hello mom this is george elliot smith or whatever?(almost as if someone was reading an id card.)

Very fishy ....and we already know that software is available to mimic peoples voices into the phone while another speaks the words.
The whole cell phone business has always smelled rotten,especially the heroic "shanksville suicide charge".
"Lets Roll" indeed!
The president made such heavey capital out of that, it couldnt have been better if it was scripted!(which it sounded like from the get go.)

Separately,the emergency service operators seemed to me to be so damnably inefficient,and slow.....as if they were all on valium or some other tranquilizer.....why did they ask such stupid and inane questions?
I realise that reception may have been intermitent, but the whole conversation from the emerg end seemed rather unprofessional to my ears.

Perhaps we can gather the actual calls somehow, and reproduce them here...?
The cell phone calls like so many of the other details of 9/11 are more indicative of a set piece than real people in real life.
BERGLE




posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Amazingly enough, the flight manifest and boarding record shows that Mohammed Atta boarded Flight 11 that day. But of course, you, someone who wasnt there that day, had nothing to do with checking in or boarding the passengers, know he wasnt on there......



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   


I think theres is a problem that developes with the signal, and it somehow stacks up mulitples of itself because the cell phone is in line of sight with too many ground stationed cell towers?Thus the call multiplies itself and becomes unintelligable?


When flying over a densely populated (with cell towers) this is true. However, for Flight 93 at least, the towers were much further apart (rural area) and in several cases the literal mountains they were located on, put them within a few thousand feet of Flight 93's altittude, which drastically cuts down on the "multiple" cell tower issue.




The calls were very strangely worded too as i recall....as if someone else were impersonating the callers identity.....one i recall says something like hello mom, this is (first name-middle name-last name)Now who calls their mom and when she answers says hello mom this is george elliot smith or whatever?(almost as if someone was reading an id card.)


Ah yes, Mark Bingham's phone call to his mom shows up again......Now how come its so easy for me (and Boone and several others) to find examples of Mark Bingham's friends and family saying that is how Mark started his phone calls....and so hard for the conspiracy folks to find the same examples???

His mom, his friends and his business associates have all said that he NORMALLY started his phone calls, "Hi, this is Mark Bingham......"




Very fishy ....and we already know that software is available to mimic peoples voices into the phone while another speaks the words.


Yes, provided that you have adequate samples of their voice to begin with. Problem is, at least four of the people that made calls that day, were not scheduled to fly on those flights. They showed up, the gate agent said, "I have a seat on an earlier flight.........." So for your software mimicking to work, you would have to have the "bad guys" find out who the unscheduled passengers were, find enough samples of their voices, find the appropriate numbers, program the computers and make the calls.....all in a couple hours???? Not likely.




Separately,the emergency service operators seemed to me to be so damnably inefficient,and slow.....as if they were all on valium or some other tranquilizer.....why did they ask such stupid and inane questions?


And you are a qualified emergency service operator facing a situation completely unlike anything youve ever seen before????



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I have mentioned this before...Seth McFarlane, the creator of 'Family Guy', was booked on AA11 that morning. He missed the flight due to a hangover. God bless alcohol!!



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I am far from alone in wondering how people are pre-scheduled to fly out on flights not scheduled per BTS.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Then do some research into the airline's press releases about expanding services



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
....and then do some research on regulations governing the deregistration of destroyed planes.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


I have. Your statement means absolutely nothing in regards to 9/11. Registry numbers for airliners destroyed in accidents are rarely pulled in a timely manner.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Swampfox,

You raise a good point. Let's forget (try, at least) about 9/11 for a bit, and investigate how many other destroyed airframes were taken off the specific airlines' rosters...

I won't go into a litany of crashed airplanes here...but from, say, 1985 to 2000...in the USA alone, we can find examples of 'hull losses' from aircraft accidents. We should investigate how the insurance companies pay on claims, and how these claims affect each airline's Annual Report, and stock price....and how the 'hull loss' of each event was recorded on the balance sheets...

Now, we can compare behaviors pre-9/11, with behaviors post-9/11, and see if there is a difference. Any takers?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 



....and then do some research on regulations governing the deregistration of destroyed planes.


Do you mean the tail numbers or the aircraft frame number?

Tail numbers and frame numbers are completely different from one another.

Think of it like this. An aircraft frame number is the same as your car's VIN, an aircraft tail number is like a personalized license plate. The license plate/tail number belongs to you and it is assigned to your VIN/frame number.

If you go out and total your car/airplane the VIN/frame number is gone forever. Those identification numbers will never be used again. Just like a personalized license plate, the aircraft tail number still exist and is registered to you. You can transfer that number/plate to the next vehicle you buy, let it expire and allow it to be used by someone else, or (in the case of aircraft tail numbers) keep paying the registration fee so that the number stays assigned to you specifically.

Which is exactly what United Airlines has done with the tail numbers assigned to the two aircraft they lost on September 11. Apparently, American Airlines let the registration expire on the two tail numbers that were assigned to the two aircraft they lost on September 11 and a fellow from Maryland snatched them up and they have not been assigned to any aircraft as of yet.

At the airport I used to work at, a pilot I knew went through three different airplane's in a two-year period and he had the exact same tail number on all three aircraft. No worries, he didn't crash any of them, he owned a charter service and kept upgrading aircraft.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Uh hello?

A 9/11 passenger was reported shot!

1) how does a gun get on board?
2) a shooting changes the entire box cutter scenario
3) The person reported shot was an elite Isreali Commando?

A gun going off, passengers supposedly shifting about the plane in panic?

Hey Weed Wacker, think you'd radio back to coach asking WTF was that noise or why is the tale end of my plane suddenly dragging,

Not even a peep to ATC as a gun goes off?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by scrapple
 


Well, scrapple...only you seem to think there was a gun...unless you have a reference to what you are trying to claim.

About a few dozen people moving in the cabin from fore to aft will change the CG a teeny bit...when the A/P is engaged the elevator trim will handle it...if you are hand flying you would hardly notice it.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
BBC interviewed the FBI after they discovered and confirmed 7 alleged hijackers were found alive after 9/11/01. The FBI spokesperson agreed a "mistake" had been made. When the insignificant error, of a name only, was recently corrected by BBC, all else was left standing as is. After that insignificant correction, BBC interviewed the FBI again. They never retracted they made a "mistake", and instead said they were "confident 19 people were involved". It started out as 18 fed to the media, and the next day the media reported 19 instead.

Translation - The FBI simply did not care if the alleged correct 19 were identified. Which also proves they never did have any DNA, or any other proof of their false allegations against 19 people's names and faces, and whose names and faces they did not care were correct. as long as they could feed the media 19 Arab looking names and faces within 48 hours of 9/11/01. And, thus, falsely attach them to bin Laden, whose name repeatedly appeared within a short few hours on 9/11/01, and were branded into people's brains though false.

I have no doubts they were running subliminals all day long on 9/11/01, before any events actually took place. People would never know they were seeing them though they were.

In essence, it began, in 9/2001, unraveling into tinsel strands, blowing in the wind, for the FBI's false reports included in the "official" report.

www.iraqtimeline.com...

"9/11 hijackers misidentified

September 23: Supposed 9/11 hijacker Waleed al-Shehri, named by the FBI as one of the 19 men aboard the four suicide flights, turns up alive and well in Casablanca, Morocco. Al-Shehri, who came forward after his name and photograph were published in the world media, says he had nothing to do with the attacks, and is a victim of misidentification. The identities of at least three other suspects named by the FBI as hijackers are now in doubt along with al-Shehri, who says he has been a pilot with a Saudi Arabian airline and is currently training in Morocco. Another suspect, Abdulaziz Al Omari, is also alive. Al Omari, an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, says he lost his passport in Denver while studying there, and says it is possible one of the hijackers used his passport to identify himself. A third named hijacker, Saeed Alghamdi, has been interviewed since the attacks; a fourth, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive. FBI Director Robert Mueller now acknowledges that the identities of several of the suicide hijackers is now in doubt. (BBC)"


Here is some real irony. Atta is alleged to be the pilot of alleged Flight 11, had no pilot license, and went disappearing. His father told BBC to check with MOSSAD for his whereabouts before and after 9/11/2001.

There is Waleed al-Shehri, someone with an actual pilot license issued in Saudia Arabia, and he is not listed as flying any planes, particularly alleged flight 11, on which he was alleged to have board that non-scheduled flight on 9/11/2001. Good thing, because if they think they have a lotta 'splainin' to do over Atta, they have a whole lot more 'splainin' to do over a falsely accused man still flying planes for an Saudi airline after 9/11/01.

The following states some alleged hijacker allegedly shot someone on alleged Flight 11 not scheduled to fly out on 9/11/2001:

www.welfarestate.com...

Trust me or not, those faces can just as easily be Israeli as Arab or African (tribe of Dan) or Central Asian (India/Pakistan). Only the names have been falsely changed to protect MOSSAD.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Orion, that has been debunked so many times on this board, listing media, foreign government statements and other items that DO verify that the 19 hijackers are all DEAD as of 9/11/01.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scrapple
 


Well, scrapple...only you seem to think there was a gun...unless you have a reference to what you are trying to claim.



Do you stand by the above statement Captain - considering this thread only?

Could another member posting or stalking chime in here as to the fact that I am the only person referencing the report of a gun on board.




[edit on 18-1-2008 by scrapple]

[edit on 18-1-2008 by scrapple]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scrapple
 


Well, scrapple...only you seem to think there was a gun...unless you have a reference to what you are trying to claim.

About a few dozen people moving in the cabin from fore to aft will change the CG a teeny bit...when the A/P is engaged the elevator trim will handle it...if you are hand flying you would hardly notice it.


Actually let me make my question clearer. As a Captain with experince would you dismiss anything that your flight crew reports to you relative to a flight.

For example someone may call forward and say a passenger is choking, and then another may call up and say a person is bleeding. In either case are you going to dissmiss either report? Why should we regarding the supposed evidence from the crew of this flight - is all I am getting at.





[edit on 18-1-2008 by scrapple]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Somehow the pilots with the most barrier between them and the reported hostilites (still true - even if flimsy) with the easiest access to radio comms didnt get a peep out. Not to mention two trained professionals, not one.
"Did you notice that noise Capt?"

Yet airphones and (I need to check this) cell phone comms made from open seats and gallies along 100+ foot space - by two offical crew members are the only real method by which we must assess the OP's official Story!



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by scrapple
Do you stand by the above statemen Captain - considering this thread only?

Could another member posting or stalking chime in here as to the fact that I am the only person referencing the report of a gun on board.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by scrapple]


You are not the only one. I supported your statement with a website link stating the same, and indicated it stated someone used a gun. Yet, alleged Betty Ong knew nothing about any gun per what has been released on tape.

A question for those so engrossed in clinging to the "official" reports. From where or whom did any alleged shooting reports originate between 9/11/2001 and today? Don't pass it off to your opponents. We have enough on our plate to unravel, without falsifying reports never originally made, unless buried in the "official" reports, and supported by those adamantly clinging to them.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by scrapple
 


Yes scrapple,

On a normal flight when there is a medical emergency in the cabin we would be notified. My company contracted with another company called 'MedLink', in Phoenix, AZ. They would be contacted with one of the airphones onboard. AND, the FAs would have requested assistance already from any MD, DO or even an EMT or nurse who might be onboard.

Point is, though, in regards to AA11...passengers were injured at roughly the same time the Flight Deck was compromised. The bad guys had control. Five determined, vicious a**holes working together, something never encountered before in hi-jacking scenarios we were taught.

THAT is the lesson from that day. Consider this...there was no security at airports in the 1960s. Then, in the 1970s, the first hi-jackings began...for some reason, it was to go to Cuba (go figure!).

I am trying to tell you that the history of 'air piracy' was usually for extortion, for a political agenda, or was just a crazy. THAT is now changed, n'est pas?

I remember with fondness when airline crew, in uniform, didn't have to be subjected to the humiliation of X-ray and metal detectors. But THAT changed when one disgruntled (the opposite of 'gruntled'??) ex-employee of PSA (an airline in California, later merged with USAir) committed suicide by bypassing security with his ID (his SECOND ID, the one that they didn't know he had when they took away the other ID when they fired him...see, you tell your boss you lost your ID, they give you a new one...now you have two. You get fired, turn one in...see?) and shot the pilots, and crashed the airplane. Look it up, it was a flight operated by PSA, LAX-SFO, it was a DeHavilland Dash 8...sorry I don't know the flight#.

ANYway....this was back in the late 1980s.

Now, Pandora's box has been opened, and security will be tight, and will continue to tighten. It is the way it is...

*edit spelling*




[edit on 18-1-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Why do you keep giving the impression the alleged pilots were all incompetent on every alleged plane? From where are you getting that impression to give it? Because that is what you and others keep saying, weedwhacker. All the plural you, on your side, have done nothing but promote the "official" reports, and criticize anyone else not agreeing with the plural you.

You personally sound just like some FAA spokesperson giving false reports of pilot error - when pilots were not the problem - the plane or FAA control was. We have documented cases of airlines and FAA control to CYA and getting caught doing it.




top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join