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.

 

Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners, Faked!

page: 10
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


And the documents from which his testimony came from, were introduced into court (and accepted) as evidence. Had it not been valid, then it would have rightfully been stricken. It wasnt.




posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Too bad for you that the transcript on that site, matches word for word the transcript found in the court files and those files obtained through the FOIA.

But I forgot.....once again you are claiming 'they lied'



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


And the documents from which his testimony came from, were introduced into court (and accepted) as evidence. Had it not been valid, then it would have rightfully been stricken. It wasnt.



You really do not know much about law, courts, and how all of that stuff works so you should probably just give this line up. Each of your posts on the topic has only served to make me less confident in your ability to educate anyone on anything.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


And the documents from which his testimony came from, were introduced into court (and accepted) as evidence. Had it not been valid, then it would have rightfully been stricken. It wasnt.

Swampy
I am not going to beat this horse to death with you.
The evidence rooms across America and the courts of the world for that matter are choked
off with evidence either submitted by the prosecution or the defense.
The fact remains that the FBI agents statement is still just hearsay.
The agent did not call or receive a call from anyone.
The people who were supposedly called or made calls were not there to testify
Mute point. Better yet they had absolutely nothing to do with Zac M.
and were only a side show.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


And you have already admitted that you arent going to go through all the PDF files associated with the subject. So, when you have gone through all of them and have a better understanding, get back to me. Until then, you trying to lecture me on anything....is quite humorous.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


I see. So you think Zachy was innocent. Thank you for that information.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
David Ray Griffin



On November 27, 2009, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Fifth Estate program aired a show entitled “9/11: The Unofficial Story,”1 for which I, along with a few other members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, was interviewed. In the most important part of my interview, I pointed out that, according to the FBI’s report on phone calls from the airliners provided in 2006 for the Moussaoui trial, Barbara Olson’s only call from Flight 77 was “unconnected” and hence lasted “0 seconds.” Although this Fifth Estate program showed only a brief portion of my discussion of alleged phone calls from the 9/11 airliners, its website subsequently made available a 22-minute video containing this discussion.2

Shortly thereafter, a portion of this video, under the title “David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Cell Phone Calls: Exclusive CBC Interview,” was posted on You Tube,3 after which it was posted on 911 Blogger.4 This latter posting resulted in considerable discussion, during which some claims contradicting my position were made. In this essay, I respond to the most important of these claims, namely:

1. The FBI has not admitted that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners on 9/11 were impossible.

2. There is no evidence that some of the reported 9/11 phone calls were faked.

3. American Airlines’ Boeing 757s, and hence its Flight 77, had onboard phones.

4. The FBI’s report on phone calls from the 9/11 airliners did not undermine Ted Olson’s report about receiving phone calls from his wife.

The four sections of this essay will respond to these four claims in order.

1. The FBI on the Possibility of High-Altitude Cell Phone Calls in 2001

I have suggested that the FBI’s report to the Moussaoui trial in 2006 implied its acceptance of the argument, made by some members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners would have been impossible, or at least virtually so. One critic, however, said: “The FBI hasn’t admitted anything about the possibility of making cell phone calls at 30,000 feet.”5 It is true that the FBI has never explicitly stated that such calls are impossible, or at least too improbable to affirm. But its report for the Moussaoui trial, I have argued, implies an acceptance of this view.

My argument for this claim involves three points: (1) Immediately after 9/11, the FBI had described, or at least accepted the description of, about 15 of the reported calls from the airliners as cell phone calls. (2) In 2003, a prominent member of the 9/11 Truth Movement argued persuasively that, given the cell phone technology available in 2001, calls from high-altitude airliners would have been impossible. (3) The FBI report for the Moussaoui trial affirmed only two cell phone calls from the airliners, both of which were from United Flight 93 after it had descended to 5,000 feet. I will expand on each of these three points.



www.infowars.com...


Good read


[edit on 18-1-2010 by blankduck18]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Again, over and over, proof is given, real proof, but you dismiss it. You guys are putting your faith in people who shift the truth for effect.

FACT - Cell calls could be made from planes in 2001
FACT - Of the 30 plus call made from 93 only 2 were cell phones
FACT - Both cell calls came in the last few minutes under a 10k ceiling
FACT - There is audio from a dead passenger that she left for her husband minutes before the crash
FACT - DL from a victim that was on board and killed who left the message


These are all facts. You cannot deny them. You can CHOOSE not to believe them but it is showing the ignorance of someone who is some wanting to find the truth.

They were not faked. I mean, if you do not have the technology to make a call how are they going to 'fake' a call and why? Makes no sense. Why put another thing into the mix that could not go right. If the government is so incompetent HOW could they have pulled off 9/11. This is the thing that has always puzzled me.

The truthers/non OS view that The government is a bunch of retards but they could pull of the greatest terror attack in history and there is NOT ONE leak.


How in gods name is you saying it showing proof? The calls weren't possible then according to AT&T. Cell phones did not get a signal at 30k feet in 2001 no matter what you say. What kind of antena were they using if it could happen? where was it pointed? AS i mentioned there was only omni directional and directional antennas, and unless it was a directional antenna pointed at the sky, it wouldnt have a chance of working.

The audio that she left for her husband was at cruising altitude if you bothered to listen, and the caller ID said it was her cell phone.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


And you have already admitted that you arent going to go through all the PDF files associated with the subject. So, when you have gone through all of them and have a better understanding, get back to me. Until then, you trying to lecture me on anything....is quite humorous.


I also said that if you were actually interested in the truth, you would point out the needles I am supposed to be looking for in the haystack provided. It really just seems like you want me to be busy, not finding the truth. I asked more than once for specific names and statements but you refuse to do so. I want the truth and you claim that you gave it but I need to find it, then tell me not to lecture you.

This is an internet board. I no more have the ability to lecture you here than you have to be lectured. I wish people had a little tag under their avatar that shows their level of English comprehension.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
One of the many questions I have about the Barbara Olsen calls is how did the FBI determine the number called was 202-514-2201 on the 9:18:58 call? If we look at the released record at www.911myths.com... the Terminating # is 0, just like the four other questionable calls.

Are we missing some records here? How'd they know that number was dialed?

I assume the Terminating # field is where they get this because it's listed on the Ong and Sweeney calls: www.911myths.com... and www.911myths.com...

If it's a 0 because it was unconnected, then where did they get the information of what number was called and who placed the call? And if that's so, why are all the other ones 0, too?

Or does the 0 mean they called the operator like it's implied in the 7:15:34 call record?

Also, how'd they determine the length of the calls? All the duration entries are listed as 0. I think we're missing some records here.....

Edited to add: In fact if we look at Renee May's unconnected call at 7:11:24, it still seems to have put the number dialed in the Terminating # field. www.911myths.com...

[edit on 18-1-2010 by NIcon]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 



Originally posted by NIcon
One of the many questions I have about the Barbara Olsen calls is how did the FBI determine the number called was 202-514-2201 on the 9:18:58 call? If we look at the released record at www.911myths.com... the Terminating # is 0, just like the four other questionable calls.


There is no way the FBI got the number of Barbara Olsen call if there was no connection. Furthermore, without any connection, how would the FBI even know Barbara Olsen even tried to make a phone call? They would not. This is made up, because Ted Olsen is a very import man who worked in the Bush administration, the foolish FBI made up a lie hopping Americans would believe them, as if we lost someone very important to the Bush administration, a government officials wife.

Please believe in our lies, the thinking FBI thought, if you do not then you are unpatriotic, and do not question 911.

911Myths is a proven “disinformation website” stay away from it, it primarily tries to supports the OS.


[edit on 18-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
This is made up, because Ted Olsen is a very import man who worked in the Bush administration, the foolish FBI made up a lie hopping Americans would believe them, as if we lost someone very important to the Bush administration, a government officials wife.

Please believe in our lies, the thinking FBI thought, if you do not then you are unpatriotic, and do not question 911.


The FBI should learn how to lie from the master.

(imagine playing poker with this guy)

George Bush asked about prior knowledge of 911



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
There is no way the FBI got the number of Barbara Olsen call if there was no connection. Furthermore, without any connection, how would the FBI even know Barbara Olsen even tried to make a phone call? They would not.

impressme, that's the point I was trying to make and was looking to get a response from the people who link to 911myths as some sort of proof of something about the Olsen calls. If the people who post the links can't answer simple questions about what they link to, then hopefully they won't link to it in the future. If they can answer it, great, maybe I'll learn something. I don't see why I should avoid it, rather than pointing out the holes in their "conclusive" evidence.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


I see. So you think Zachy was innocent. Thank you for that information.


I think I am begining to like you. Just for the rubber band man in ya.
You could almost make someone think that I me Donny said Zac was innocent.
What you should have I said was that I said, he had NOTIN to do with the calls. Hand me down my walkin cane, hand me down me down my hat.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Well, I guess I would have to talk to AT&T about that, since they are the ones that provided that information to the FBI. So, while her call may not have connected to her husband's office, appearantly it at least connected to the network.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


And when you are handed a document, loaded with needles, you plead that you are too tired or whatever, to go through the document. Several of those files contain tons of information that would further demolish some of the main beliefs of the "truth" movement. And you either do not read them or you wave them off.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


And when you are handed a document, loaded with needles, you plead that you are too tired or whatever, to go through the document. Several of those files contain tons of information that would further demolish some of the main beliefs of the "truth" movement. And you either do not read them or you wave them off.


Anyway. Stop making things up. If you need to lie to make your point, perhaps you need to rethink your stance. I never waved anything off. I clearly stated that I was even still looking through the garbage pile that is those PDFs. The only thing I said was that anyone interested in spreading the truth would be helpful. You made your stance clear. Unfortunately so have I and you attempt to mis-characterize me is duly noted. From now on, try supplying my own words in quotes when attempting to tell lies about me. It will make it harder to lie when you have the real words to work with.

I said I was still going through the PDF. I did not wave it off, as much as I would like to. I get it. You gave me garbage so that I would wave it off so you could claim I am not looking for the truth. Sorry but I have not done that for you.

If you have something a little more clear and concise and easier to read, that would be awesome. Names and quotes would be great. Until then, I will keep looking through this mess but you cannot tell me I dismissed it when I did not.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 





How in gods name is you saying it showing proof? The calls weren't possible then according to AT&T. Cell phones did not get a signal at 30k feet in 2001 no matter what you say. What kind of antena were they using if it could happen? where was it pointed? AS i mentioned there was only omni directional and directional antennas, and unless it was a directional antenna pointed at the sky, it wouldnt have a chance of working.


You have a problem with reading comprehension?

It was ststed that the cell phone call from Cee Cee Lyles was made at
END of flight when plane was at altitude of 7-8000 ft. She had made two
call - one on air fone, other (the last one) on her cell phone.


Now according to math I learned in school 8000 ft is not 30,000 ft.



Flight attendant CeeCee Lyles also made a call using a GTE airphone, at 9:47 a.m.[15], leaving a message on their answering machine. She made a second call home at 9:58 a.m. using her cell phone, this time with her husband, Lorne, answering the phone. She told him of the hijacking and of her love for him and their boys.[16][17][18][19]





Trial exhibit, Zacarias Moussaoui

Flight Crew: CeeCee Lyles, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 28, 2001.

Laughlin, Meg (September 7, 2006) "Facing a world without CeeCee", St. Petersburg Times.

Caldwell, Alicia (September 10, 2002) "A tragic loss; a final gift, St. Petersburgh Times



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join