It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cleveland Smoking Gun Proves “Arab Hijacker” Calls From United Airlines Flight 93 Were Faked

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 07:24 AM
reply to post by IvanZana


I am showing everyone how many un-true statements you make. I call you on the statements you make and ask that you back them up.

You FAIL every time to back up what you post when I call you on it.

YOU stated that no one would give their names that were involved in the clean-up. I showed you more than 10 names, a couple phone numbers,mailing addresses, and e-mail addresses. Why don't you use them? Why don't you ask them what they clean up?

You won't. I don't know why, but you are not interested in learning what happened. All you want is to hold on to your fantasy.

Why don't YOU answer to these facts as they are presented to you?

posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 10:41 AM
And what does your last post have to do with the research that proved that the alleged transmission from the alleged hijackers did not originate from 'flight 93'?

Nothing. Deal with the real issues and stop letting yourself get too emotionally charged over the inability to understand the facts.

You have failed to prove that flight 93's accidental hijacker and transmission originated from alleged flight 93 and now you have resorted to insults, adhominen attacks, derailing and deflection.


posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by IvanZana

Here is what you wrote:

Funny thing is, you dont have to be an expert to know when people are lying and trying to sell b.s

The names of the people involved in the cleanup and recovery of the cruise missile will not reveal their names for we all know you debunkers will harrass, prank call, and try to discredit. Remember also that these people have families, careers, and credibility they wish to withhold from the public for obvious reasons.

I posted information that refutes your post. I did not derail. I am calling you on a post YOU made here in YOUR thread that YOU started.

You can beg for the mods to step in. Hey, they just might. However it will not change the fact that I have caught you spreading lies and you know it.

posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 12:25 PM
There are two basic assertions here:
(1). The calls were faked based on one source: ""
(2). No investigation was ever conducted into 9-11

Contained within the post are numerous factual errors. One is the passport issue. The OP claims Atta’s passport was found. This is utterly incorrect. This is a basic fact that speaks to the OP’s source, and it’s credibility.

This is one, of many Irreducible Delusions. Please keep in mind a delusion doesn’t mean the OP is insane! Delusions are incorrect beliefs.

Concerning the two main, Irreducible Delusions in the OP:
(1). Taking the source material at pure face value, and not taking into account the massive factual errors contained within it – one source more than six, almost seven, years later supersedes and replaces all the other contradictory evidence? Of course not. This is not science, or an honest attempt at the truth. It’s propaganda.

CT’ers engage in this behavior because the resulting CT is only plausible within a vacuum. If CT’ers are forced to address basic questions around the actual facts, the theory then inflates to account for inconsistencies. This has already happened, in this very thread. The Inflationary Model postulates that the last step in the inflations all CTs go through is including detractors, like myself, as being “in on it”.

The obviously hostile, nasty comments against those that speak against the theory (in this very thread) is evidence of the last step in the Inflationary Model. Think about that. When the thread was presented with hard evidence their assertion(s) are/were wrong their only response has been to personally attack those who disagree with them.

Again, taking the OP’s source material at face value and ignoring the factual errors contained within….the source is but one source.

(2). As said before, this is a staggeringly incorrect assertion. This very forum is overrun with “questions” about the various reports that detail exactly what happened that day. The CT movement lives within the voids contained within these reports. For goodness sake, this thread attempts to offer ‘evidence’ that the investigation(s) concerning what happened and when are wrong.

In conclusion, there is nothing new here. The assertion(s) contained within the OP have been hashed, rehashed, buried, dug up, rehashed some more, kicked, prodded, poked, put to bed, woken up, slapped around and debunked for years.

Honestly guys, because it’s new to you doesn’t mean it’s new – or correct.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 12:36 PM

What are your bedrock, linchpin questions around FLT 93? If these questions were answered and explained, would you consider FLT 93 "solved"? What would it take to bring you peace on this issue?

posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

Hear, hear!! I will personally call you "WellAbovePar" for contributing the most cogent, intelligent post I've had the pleasure to read in a long time. If a Mod doesn't give you some 'applause' then you just slipped their notice for some reason.

I still challenge IvanZana, the OP, to explain the point of this thread, regarding the hijacker's radio calls being faked. If any of you are in the aviation world, and understand what a Cockpit Voice Recorder is, then you would understand my point here. The CVR records several sources simultaneously...including transmissions made by each individual VHF and HF transmitters, as installed on the airplane. To allege that the Arabic radio transmissions, or the heavily accented English, came from another source simply flies in the face of logic and science. But, to those who do not know better, it sounds plausible, at first....and sure makes for a start to a fiction novella....

posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 01:53 PM
Lots of letters but nothing intelligent.

Here is something

It is ridiculous to claim that transmission quality would [or could] drop suddenly from 5/5 to 5/1 because a mythical “hijacker” was “excited”. This crafted radio signal deterioration and loud carrier interference is far more likely to be the work of an unidentified “special effects” department, perhaps hell-bent on making listeners later believe that the suitably distorted “guttural” voice belongs to an “Arab hijacker” trying to steal an American airliner.

So as you can see. The transmission from alleged flight 93 did not originate from the plane but from a undisclosed source. So inconclusion, another official lie has been exposed.

Good job seekers.. pat pat.

posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 01:57 PM

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

What are your bedrock, linchpin questions around FLT 93? If these questions were answered and explained, would you consider FLT 93 "solved"? What would it take to bring you peace on this issue?

I am pleased to announce that NO peace will EVER come to anyone who covers up, lies, aids, and perpatrated 9.11 and other secret crimes.

This issue will reveal itself more and more each day till you can no longer sleep.

So your dreaming in technicolor kiddo.

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by IvanZana

Ivan, do you understand the term 'five by five'??

Did the alleged 'guttural' voice really qualify as a 'five by one'? Have you ever used a microphone? Say, a walkie-talkie? Have you heard the ACTUAL tapes????

Do you realize what happens, on VHF, when two stations attempt to transmit at the same time? Do you also realize that, for a pilot, when you are transmitting you cannot receive at the same time? That's why the equipment is called a 'transceiver'.

Two, or more, pilots can individually tune their audio panels, and can transmit on various transmitters, as selected. Also, one can select what to receive, or not. The receivers always work, (unless you're transmitting)it's just you have to select them to listen to them.

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard regular, professional airline pilots give their 'welcome aboard' PA over the ATC frequency.....some carry on at great lengths, thinking they're sounding great to the passengers...but, as long as he/she is on the frequency, no one else can communicate. Annoys us all, but we laugh, and the pilot in question is red-faced, and buys beers at the next layover, usually.

Hint....get a scanner, listen to aviation ATC, and you'll hear the 'squeal' that happens when two or more try to transmit at the same time. Maybe that's where this alleged 'five-by-one' comes from.....or, just someone not speaking directly into the mic....that's my short answer!! Hope you enjoyed the long answer.

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 11:17 AM
Looks like you missed the point and denied the evidence provided in the 1st post.

I recommend you re-read it before you comment again.

Everything about flight 93 is fake. the calls, the FDR, the evidence, the crash site, some eyewitnesses.

Thanks for your opinion WEED. Subtance free as usual.

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 12:32 PM
reply to post by IvanZana

Why are you dodging me Ivana?

Why have you not listed ONE expert that agrees with you?

Why do you refuse to address the reply to your lying on one of your posts?

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by IvanZana

What kind of word is 'Subtance'??

Once again, and again as claim (lied) that the Flight Data was faked. I have asked you to PROVE that claim....all I get from you is the sound of crickets....or insults, or just repeating of the same lie.

You know nothing about a DFDR nor a CVR, it is obvious. You lie, you repeat the lie, and as I said earlier, throwing a bunch of lies at a wall and hoping one will stick is not a valid way to debate. It is a coward's way to try to 'argue' his/her point....and the veneer is showing thin as ever....

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Its obvious you have failed miserably in these forums to uphold the official story and in actuality your twisted logic has deformed the official story into an unbelievable fairytale which has left you in a state of emotional insecurity and irrrational behaviour patterns which also has become evident in your quality of posts which lacks substance and evidence to back up any of your wild claims.

Defeat is a hard thing to accept.

This is not a debate, its an information session

[edit on 29-7-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 29-7-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 02:28 PM
reply to post by IvanZana

Funny thing is, Ivan, I am not trying to uphold any official story....I just bring up falsehoods, as seen, in order to provide clarity.

AND, this is is a DISCUSSION board (please read the T&C). It is not a podium for one person's unadulterated rants, to go unchallenged, when there is reason for discourse.

And, also as mentioned in the T&C, claims that are unsubstantiated (such as the Flight Recorders are "faked") must be challenged, until quality proof is provided to back those claims.

This site is no one's personal soapbox, sorry if you feel you have exclusive rights.....

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 02:41 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Yawn, bla bla?

You have not offered one shred of evidence to prove any of my threads incorrect.

Now back on topic...

Though the Cleveland controller appears to infer that two distorted radio calls about a "bomb" originate from United Flight 93, this is not actually the case. By repeatedly calling Flight 93, the controller is actually trying to determine whether or not the calls originated from that aircraft.

They are assuming the transmission came from flight 93 bacause they have no way to tell . The transmission could of came from flight 1989 which also had a bomb on board and attempted hijacking and crossed paths with flight 93 or an undisclosed source.

Also, how do we not know that the transmission of a bomb on board was not just the transmissions coming from the live-fly mock hijacked airplanes that were airbourne on the morning of 911. Norad is on tape asking if the attacks are real world or exercise for there was exercises of mock hijackings and crashes on 911.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:30 PM
No comments?

It is possible to conduct reserch and discuss these issues without insulting people and users at ats.

Alot of the information presented in the 911 forums is based on fact.

posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:32 PM
reply to post by IvanZana


Are you going to answer any of your U2U's?



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 09:58 AM
reply to post by IvanZana

Ivan....Delta 1989 did NOT have a bomb onboard! Where did you pull that gem from? apparently don't understand how radiotelephony works, in the aviation world. The controller was repeatedly calling UAL93 because he was getting no response from UAL93. It's as simple as that.

Oh, how I wish I could put you on the jumpseat of an airliner and let you listen in for a few hours...maybe thne you'd begin to understand how ATC communication works in the real world. What you see on TV and in the movies is mostly bullwash. ONE time, I saw a good example, in a was Speilberg, 'Close Encounters'. Very, very accurate, I think they used real controllers and real pilots.

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:49 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 01:13 PM
reply to post by IvanZana

Seems like most of the vidence points to the wargame exercises taking place on 911 were used to cover the actual attacks.

There were multiple wargames taking place aswell as many hijacking exercises using volunteers and unsuspecting civilians aswell as people in the upper echealons.

It is quite possible the calls and tapes we heard from 911 planes were really from the exercises taking place.

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in