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.

 

A CHILLING Phone Call

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I think a great deal of what was fed to us about ALL of 911 is BS. I do think the plane was shot down. I dont know about the empty planes theory. REASON BEING...

I have an aquantance (cant say we were close enough to be friends but we had close dealings with each other). He was tending to his job not just a few hundred yards (yeah, he got "dusted" pretty heavy) from the wtc. His friend was in either 6 or 7 (cant remember).

the friend was on the phone when the first plane hit and was away from that facing side. He thought there was some heavy construction or the like going on. After a time, he became annoyed at the noise and havoc going on while he was speaking and went to the window to see what was up...

He described it as "hell on earth". There were body parts of a magnitude that he said it was "raining meat". He said for the time, he didn't think it would stop. Very surreal. He freaked out and ran into a door frame and knock his self out. His friends got him up and out. He and my friend survived and got out of dodge.

Did the carnage come from the plane, building or both? Dont know. Never will.

What was said at the end of the phone call? sounds like "time to pray".
I also would like to know when cell phones had a "reciever" to hang up with? That was a hung up phone if i ever heard one-very distinct sound.

Short of finding all perps, putting them against the wall and them confessing....we will NEVER know the total truth.




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
"She actually made two calls. One from her GTE Airphone @9:47 and then one from her cell phone @9:58. The first call was the one that went to the answering machine. At around 9:58 she reached her husband via cellphone:"

She makes two calls within a minute with two different phones, approximately eight to nine minutes before the plane impacting the ground. Why did she use two different phones? Would this not have drawn more attention to her? Did she attempt to call the airline carrier (United) to alert them of the situation prior to or after calling her husband? As a competent trained police officer for six years, certainly calling United and providing them with notice and as much details as possible about the hijacking should have been top priority and instinctive to her.

www.flight93memorialsfb.com...

"In six years with the Fort Pierce, Fla., Police Department, she'd worked her way from patrol officer to detective and was respected for her willingness to tackle fleeing criminals. Slated for promotion to sergeant, Lyles augmented her income by moonlighting at a hospital and power plant, providing a comfortable life for her sons, Jerome Smith and Jevon Castrillo. But last fall, after Lorne spotted an ad for job openings on a United Airlines web site, CeeCee walked away from police work and, on Oct. 11, 2000, fulfilled a lifelong goal. "She'd always wanted to be a flight attendant so she could travel,"

She walks away from a career in law enforcement, where she was a quick riser ("slated for promotion to sergeant") to become a flight attendant? Does that strike anyone else as being a rather odd career change? What is the salary of a police sergeant compared to a flight attendant? How many mouths did she have to feed? What types of retirement benefits do cops get? What types of retirement benefits to flight attendants get?

"The other thing that is really odd is to casually say '3 guys hijacked the plane'...she was a former police woman and detective. Surely your cop instincts if this were real would be to say 3 arab looking men, and describe them, what the weapons were...and especially if one had a bomb strapped to him...that does not make sense."

And you know why this is even more odd? Because the official story has a total of four hijackers for United Flight 93, not three, as claimed by Mrs. Lyles.

www.9-11commission.gov...

A six year police officer slated to be promoted to sargeant and a first hand witness to the hijacking was unable to get the number of hijackers correct? If she wasn't able to get this number correct, how did the after the fact investigators who were not on the plane get the number correct? The initial hijacking occurrence began approximately thirty minutes before the two calls to her husband. One can surmise this was plenty of time to view the number of hijackers and telephone United to place them on notice.

Has it been proven that she knew about the WTC impacts (which she mentions in the first call) from other passengers? Who were these other passengers? Who notified these other passengers of the two planes slamming into the twins previously on that morning?

"In the background, Lorne Lyles could hear what he now believes was the sound of men planning a counterattack. "They're getting ready to force their way into the cockpit," she told him. ... CeeCee Lyles let out a scream. "They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!" she said. Lorne Lyles heard a scream. Then his wife said something he couldn't understand. Then the line went dead."

www.911myths.com...

The above conversation with her husband also raises some questions. How was her husband able to hear the voices of the "let's roll" guys planning the counterattack, since it states that his wife was seated at the rear of the plane? If you are planning something like that, why would you speak so loudly that a phone would pick up your voice? Where were these passengers situated?

Finally, there were only 38 passengers aboard a cross country morning flight on an airplane which had a seating capacity of 190. It doesn't seem to me you can stay in business as a carrier with those kinds of passenger numbers.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   
The first thing that came to mind was she sounded too cold to be in that situation.

But then again, how does any of us know how we'd act in such a situation unless we ourselves are in it?

Interesting audio, heart breaking at the end.



Peace,
FK



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TSOM87
Well IMO she doesn't sound like shes on a High jacked plane. Also you would think knowing that you where going to crash into the World Trade center you would have at least some panic in your voice while everyone else is going nuts on the plane. Weird!

I know if i had to make that sort of call to my family i would be in so much panic that my family would think its a prank call. Then again thats me.

Tsom87
What are you talking about?? The passengers had absolutely no idea that the hijackers were going to crash the plane, let alone fly it into the World Trade Center. If the people on board thought for even a moment that the plane would intentionally be crashed, especially into a civilian target like the WTC, then they would have stormed the cockpit like the brave passengers of Flight 93 did after they heard of the three crashes in NYC and DC.

And by the way, what exactly does a person on a hijacked plane sound like? Do you have a lot of experience hearing the phone conversations of typical hijacking victims? The fact is that you and the rest of us know absolutely nothing about this woman or how she would react and respond in such a situation. You keep acting as though the passengers knew they were all going to be killed when in reality they likely thought the plane was returning to the airport (as Mohammad Atta announced on his hijacked flight, not sure if it was this one). When the plane was hijacked the passengers naturally assumed that the plane would be flown and landed somewhere and the terrorists would make some kind of demands as has happened numerous times in the past. At that point, a commercial airliner had never been hijacked and then intentionally flown into a target. No one had ever hijacked a commercial airliner with the intention of destroying it. If they wanted to destroy the plane then they would just put a bomb in their luggage or take control of the flight and immediately crash it. You also need to remember that flight attendants are trained to always remain calm or at least give the appearance of being calm in emergency situations so that the passengers do not panic.

The bottom line here is that so many of you 9/11 Truthers are so desperate to find evidence supporting an assertion which you have already made your mind up about, that you will grasp at straws and take any little thing and make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Now before I am attacked by the Truthers and accused of being an employee of the federal government or simply a blind idiot who believes the official story, I should let you all know that I am neither. I happen to find many elements of the official story of 9/11 to be fishy. I want answers and I want to know the truth. With so much about the attacks still unknown to us, it would be foolish to emphatically state that it either was a legitimate terrorist attack or that it was carried out by elements of our own government, or any of the other theories involved.

Let me also say that I don't mean to pick on TSOM87. This post is really a reply to all of the people who are acting like this is a big piece of convincing evidence. TSOM87's post just happened to irk me because he/she stated things that are factually inaccurate as though they were true. If you're going to take sides in the 9/11 debate then at least have the sense to do your homework before you make foolish comments



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by jprophet420

Thats amazing, because the caller ID reported her cellphone number.


Well, you are 1/2 correct


She actually made two calls. One from her GTE Airphone @9:47 and then one from her cell phone @9:58.

The first call was the one that went to the answering machine.

At around 9:58 she reached her husband via cellphone:


"Babe, my plane's been hijacked," she said.

"Huh? Stop joking," he said.

"No babe, I wouldn't joke like that. I love you. Tell the boys I love them."

The pair prayed. In the background, Lorne Lyles could hear what he now believes was the sound of men planning a counterattack.

"They're getting ready to force their way into the cockpit," she told him. ... CeeCee Lyles let out a scream.
"They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!" she said. Lorne Lyles heard a scream. Then his wife said something he couldn't understand. Then the line went dead.


So, please keep in mind that the call via cell phone was able to connect due to the altitude of the plane at that time.

Thank you Jp, I hope that assisted you.

-Dr. P

Unfortunately for the OS the reason the cell phone call was physically impossible was because of the velocity of the plane, not the altitude.

In 2001, all cell phones were 2g. There was not enough time to connect the call and switch it effectively.


The downsides of 2G systems, not often well publicized, are:
In less populous areas, the weaker digital signal may not be sufficient to reach a cell tower. This tends to be a particular problem on 2G systems deployed on higher frequencies, but is mostly not a problem on 2G systems deployed on lower frequencies. National regulations differ greatly among countries which dictate where 2G can be deployed.
Analog has a smooth decay curve, digital a jagged steppy one. This can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. Under good conditions, digital will sound better. Under slightly worse conditions, analog will experience static, while digital has occasional dropouts. As conditions worsen, though, digital will start to completely fail, by dropping calls or being unintelligible, while analog slowly gets worse, generally holding a call longer and allowing at least a few words to get through.
While digital calls tend to be free of static and background noise, the lossy compression used by the codecs takes a toll; the range of sound that they convey is reduced. You'll hear less of the tonality of someone's voice talking on a digital cellphone, but you will hear it more clearly.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Well i listened to it again and she said ''i've heard that theres been a plane flown into the world trade center''. I picked it up wrong, i thought she said ''i've heard that we are been flown into the world trade center''. It was the first time i listened to it. I also went back and looked at the plane she was on.

What you said does make sense and i agree with you.

Tsom87



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"She actually made two calls. One from her GTE Airphone @9:47 and then one from her cell phone @9:58. The first call was the one that went to the answering machine. At around 9:58 she reached her husband via cellphone:"

She makes two calls within a minute with two different phones, approximately eight to nine minutes before the plane impacting the ground. Why did she use two different phones? Would this not have drawn more attention to her?


Hmm, 9:47 to 9:58 is 11 minutes, not 1 minute.

Perhaps she was, at 9:58, not near the Handset phone, and realising they were not heading back to the airport and that things were looking more likely she would not see her family again, and given that passengers were now panicked and starting to group together in order to storm the cockpit, she tried again to call her husband, using her mobile?

Perhaps someone else was on the handset?

We will never know.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Unfortunately for the OS the reason the cell phone call was physically impossible was because of the velocity of the plane, not the altitude.

In 2001, all cell phones were 2g. There was not enough time to connect the call and switch it effectively.


The downsides of 2G systems, not often well publicized, are:
In less populous areas, the weaker digital signal may not be sufficient to reach a cell tower. This tends to be a particular problem on 2G systems deployed on higher frequencies, but is mostly not a problem on 2G systems deployed on lower frequencies. National regulations differ greatly among countries which dictate where 2G can be deployed.
Analog has a smooth decay curve, digital a jagged steppy one. This can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. Under good conditions, digital will sound better. Under slightly worse conditions, analog will experience static, while digital has occasional dropouts. As conditions worsen, though, digital will start to completely fail, by dropping calls or being unintelligible, while analog slowly gets worse, generally holding a call longer and allowing at least a few words to get through.
While digital calls tend to be free of static and background noise, the lossy compression used by the codecs takes a toll; the range of sound that they convey is reduced. You'll hear less of the tonality of someone's voice talking on a digital cellphone, but you will hear it more clearly.


Can you explain that ? I don't see any reference in the quoted text you provided that would suggest 'velocity' is a factor in 2G connectivity. In fact the quoted text states how digital and the compression used often lose signal (dropouts) as opposed to Analog which would hold the signal longer but at a degraded quality.

Which part of it is supposed to describe the speed at which a mobile phone is traveling prevents it from connecting to a cell ?




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Because the distance between towers would not allow a 2g phone to connect to a tower at cruising speed. The connection protocol lasted longer than the plane would be in range. If it did connect the quality would be terrible as per the article. The call was not dropping packets.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Can someone please pitch shift this woman's voice down an octave or 2 and post edited version on this thread please.

It does sound to me that someone is saying it's a fake.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by mtok7]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by mtok7]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Gaudeamus
 


Well, yeah...I see that. But maybe they were not his children?

Who knows?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13

Originally posted by TSOM87
Well IMO she doesn't sound like shes on a High jacked plane. Also you would think knowing that you where going to crash into the World Trade center you would have at least some panic in your voice while everyone else is going nuts on the plane. Weird!

I know if i had to make that sort of call to my family i would be in so much panic that my family would think its a prank call. Then again thats me.

Tsom87
What are you talking about?? The passengers had absolutely no idea that the hijackers were going to crash the plane, let alone fly it into the World Trade Center. If the people on board thought for even a moment that the plane would intentionally be crashed, especially into a civilian target like the WTC, then they would have stormed the cockpit like the brave passengers of Flight 93 did after they heard of the three crashes in NYC and DC.



Did you even listen to the call?

She said she heard that planes were flown into the Trade Towers. (how she knew that,beats me, another 9/11 miracle I guess).

Anyway it's common knowledge that the passengers on 93 KNEW the plane was gonna be used as a missile, hence the whole made up "Let's Roll" story. I mean it's sounds alot more heroic (to most people) than when Rumsfeld slipped up and said 93 was shot down.

Personally, I disagree; If they actually told the truth, that they shot 93 down, it would lend a tad bit of credibility to the OS. At least Norad coulda said "Hey we at least got one." But they wen't with the "Let's Roll" fairy-tale to keep thier hands completely clean.

But I mean 93's passengers knew about the other attacks, thats why they "supposedly" stormed the cock-pit and crashed the plane on purpose.

I mean have you been under a rock for the last 8 years? No offense.

Either way all the phone calls released were either scripted, and/or impossible with 2001 cellular technology. Well public Technology at least. Hmmm, maybe this woman was given a super cell phone military issued, with 20 years advanced tech?

Perhaps she thought it was a drill, they were running numerous scenarios EXACTLY like this, then it turned live. That raises some flags as well.

I'm sorry at this point. official story believers sicken me. (that was not directed at the person I quoted, just all the sheep. I mean I understand the schills on this board and they have a job to do. But they probably laugh at the sheeple, and think, I can't believe ANYONE bought this.

C'mon 5 frames of CC from the Pentagon, the most camera covered, secure building in the free world. Aside from underground stuff. I mean really, time to WaKE up! They are stripping our rights bit by bit, and we need to start using our heads.

All the while they laugh. Oops, "No nukes over there." GW says, "Maybe they're under here.", as his cronies laugh it up. Yea that takes a really SICK indivdual to joke about something that cost so many innnocent lives.

Anyhow, back to the topic at hand, the BS phone calls.

oh and don't give me the "you don't know how you'd react crap", I WOULD NEVER say Hi Mom, and give her my /our last name, that is so unbelievably rediculous. How Anyone thinks that he really did that, and there's even a 1% reason for him to do it, is.....well, I don't even know.

Then he even goes on to say "You believe me Mom.....,right?"

Not to mock the dead, but "I" personally don't believe you..., sorry.



[edit on 20-10-2009 by Nola213]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
There are a few things that I find confusing about this phone call.
If the call was made from a GTE Airphone that is located on the back of a airline seat then..........

***CeeCee must've been sitting down.

***The woman who whispered at the end of the call must've been sitting next to her.

***If the woman was a fellow passenger being hijacked, why is this whispering woman not shouting and carrying on OR normally speaking into CeeCees phone to leave messages for her family too??

****Why doesn't this whispering woman use her own phone? Why the whispering, why not talk aloud like CC??

***Why is this womans whisper as loud as, if not louder than CeeCee's talking voice??? This woman would've had to have leaned over CeeCee to whisper this into her phone. Why would she do this?

***There is no way a whisper from someone sitting next to CC would be picked up so clearly by CeeCees phone UNLESS the woman took the phone from CC specifically to whisper this. Why would she do this?
OR the woman was practically sitting on top of CC and had her ear as close to the phone as CC for her to be able to whisper this so quickly and loudly straight after CC had finished speaking.

**** Also , if there are 3 hijackers on the plane why is CC NOT WHISPERING herself so as not to be overheard or put her life in jeopardy in case the hijackers caught her on the phone??

There is no way CC could be standing making this call or the hijackers would see her and this woman. From what I've seen the telephone line isn't long enough to enable a call while standing anyway.

***Neither CC OR the whispering woman sounded panicked nor did they say anything like....I have to make this call quick in case the hijackers see me ....

*** Why did this womans whisper get caught on tape and yet the screaming and yelling passengers were hardly heard??

***It's not like this woman said ...quick they're coming...or something similiar to get CC off the phone in a hurry.

The same points still stand IF this call was made from CCs cell phone. (Although the phone being put back in the cradle sound eliminates this anyway).....
This woman would've had to have been on top of CC for her whisper to be this loud.

Just some points I have while trying to imagine the proximity of this woman to CC and the phone and why she would be this close. Why she wouldn't say anything herself .....

My conclusion is that for the whisper to be this loud, the whispering woman said the comment from a remote phone over CCs phone line and that in all probability CCs call wasn't made from an Airphone but a business type phone that had multiple lines.




[edit on 20-10-2009 by Flighty]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Flighty
 



Originally posted by Flighty

***Why is this womans whisper as loud as, if not louder than CeeCee's talking voice??? This woman would've had to have leaned over CeeCee to whisper this into her phone. Why would she do this?

***There is no way a whisper from someone sitting next to CC would be picked up so clearly by CeeCees phone UNLESS the woman took the phone from CC specifically to whisper this. Why would she do this?
OR the woman was practically sitting on top of CC and had her ear as close to the phone as CC for her to be able to whisper this so quickly and loudly straight after CC had finished speaking.


"...CCs call wasn't made from an Airphone but a business type phone that had multiple lines."



Very good questions, and you have answered your own question. The "minder" was on some type of conference call - when multiple people can talk/listen on the same line. I suspect the minder was not even at the same location as CC and the others.

This also accounts for why you cannot hear other panicked passengers in the background.

It is easy to fake a call to make it look like it is coming from a specific number (ie. CC's cell phone number).

It amazes me that there are people that cannot accept that cell phone calls from a commercial airliner in flight was a technological impossibility back then. This alone is the smoking gun.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
So dozens of cell phones worked on 3 planes long enough to explain the situation and say goodbye to family? And the people on flight 93 got information about the crashes? from more cell phone use? I thought that cell phone and internet coverage on planes was new technology, like within the past 2 years. Were they on some sort of super high tech military plane? Seriously, someone explain all these calls from the planes, I really don't get how that happened.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
To me that voice at the end sounds the same as her voice, only in a wisper. Perhaps shes simply telling herself she did great staying calm enough to say what she wanted to say.
The real question i have is, how in sam hill did she hear about "other planes crashing into the world trade center" while stuck on a plane in mid flight? Only way thats possible is the hijackers for whatever stupid reason (and it would have to be a stupid reason) told the passengers about the other planes. IMO not only is there no reason to tell them about that but it seems like in doing so you would create a hostel situation where the passengers feel thay have nothing to loose and would rise up and be heros. I for one can say that if i were in a situation where i knew i would die if i sat back and let it run its course id want to stop it at all cost. so logic tells me eather the hijackers were really stupid (doubtful because thay were able to pull off the hijacking) or its fake.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by WorldObserver
 


The voice saying "You did great' was emapthetic, it did not have a negative resonace to it as best I could hear with the music dubbed in.

It could have been a friend or fellow passenger being hyjacked. The woman calling could have said to others, "I dont want to call my family, I dont want the last words they hear from me to be a desperate goodbye filled with my emotions"

If you love your family, that would make sense.

The woman who whispers, "You did great" could be confirming that she did accomplish her goal of not scaring her family, her children with her last words.

I also do not think that the woman purposefully left the phone on because it sounded as if she was struggling to simply hang up through shaking hands.

As for pre knowledge of the other hyjackings, the terrorists could have easily told the plan to everyone onboard because they knew that the plane was going to go down anyway, a scare tactic?

I am not implying that it is not as this video claims, just sorting out the facts of what it could have been without the emotion of what I want to believe really happened that fateful, horrible day.

RIP.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by jprophet420

Thats amazing, because the caller ID reported her cellphone number.


Well, you are 1/2 correct


She actually made two calls. One from her GTE Airphone @9:47 and then one from her cell phone @9:58.

The first call was the one that went to the answering machine.

At around 9:58 she reached her husband via cellphone:


"Babe, my plane's been hijacked," she said.

"Huh? Stop joking," he said.

"No babe, I wouldn't joke like that. I love you. Tell the boys I love them."

The pair prayed. In the background, Lorne Lyles could hear what he now believes was the sound of men planning a counterattack.

"They're getting ready to force their way into the cockpit," she told him. ... CeeCee Lyles let out a scream.
"They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!" she said. Lorne Lyles heard a scream. Then his wife said something he couldn't understand. Then the line went dead.


So, please keep in mind that the call via cell phone was able to connect due to the altitude of the plane at that time.

Thank you Jp, I hope that assisted you.

-Dr. P


I just want to say that in my place of work, I can see how very easy it would be to call a cell phone from a landline (under guise of the airphone number) when it's certain the recipient will not answer. And so the next call just uses the cellphone number as cover (from the landline). And landlines can be materialized and evaporated like that. The CIA are pros at landlines. There is still no proof anyone was actually in the air.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Headshot
Well, it could be someone on the flight with her telling her she did great in staying strong through the phone call.

This is jumping a bit, clutching at straws if you will. I'm as big a conspiracy theorist as the next guy, but this is easy to write off.


And her cell phone working at that altitude?

And her belongings surviving, when nothing else did, where were her bones, teeth or one shoe even?

Permanent nap time here



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join