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: 11
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

well either AT&T has more records which they didn't turn over to the FBI or the FBI has more records or...something else. Sure hope the FOIA request that got all these documents wasn't for ALL the phone records as there is clearly something missing or.... something else.

But they made these determinations for some reason. I found why they concluded that Barbara made all those calls in this file: 911myths.com... (page 25)

"While there was no direct evidence with respect to the "unknown calls" interviews with recipients (especially Lori Keyton who was answering the phone in Ted Olson's office on 9/11), plus interviews of family members of other Flight 77 passengers, has lead to the conclusion that all of these unknown calls were from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office."

To me that's not very rigorous logic. Who says the calls had to have been made to family members? What about other close relations? So to me it's not proven Barbara made all those calls. But that also still doesn't explain where they determined how long the calls lasted. If there's no direct evidence of these calls where'd the call durations come from?

Also FROM WHAT HAS BEEN RELEASED I found four other possiblities for either all the calls or just some of the calls in this file you linked to: Hopefully this link works

1.(pg 21 of 73) Someone received a stressful voice message at about 9:10 which is a good match for flight 77. Don't see any more information about this call.

2.(same pg 55 of 73) Someone got a message from her "sweetheart" "just before the incident." What does it mean "just before the incident"? It was reported at 7:50 that same night, so was it referring to just before the crash or to just before the plane was hijacked? How'd they determine this? Don't see any more information about this call.

3.(same, pg 57 of 73) Todd Reuben left a message on someone's answering machine. Is this the same as the above one? or is this a separate call?

4.(page 63 of 73) It seems Ted Olson received voice mail at his old law firm that he thought important enough to report to the investigators. Did it have something to do with flight 77? Where's the report about this phone call? Was it Barbara? Don't know anything from this information.

So how'd they rule these calls out? I don't have a clue.

So to me their case is pure mud until they come clean with more information. I would have to put a lot of trust in the FBI to believe their version of events at this point.

Edited to fix the second link.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by NIcon]




posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Also, while I'm still thinking about this. Could they have determined that the 9:18:58 call was Barbara Olsen calling through to the Mercy Lorezo in this document. That's the only way I can see them getting the phone number. This document doesn't state that the call was actually transferred successfully. In fact it seems from it that Mercy and Barbara had a conversation of their own. But there's no mention if the call went through to the office. Is that how they matched the number to the call? But ALSO it doesn't mention that Mercy got a name from the caller. So how did they match Barbara to the 9:18:58 call? Where's their report of their interview with Mercy? Their case really is complete mud.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
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'




Well swampy what do you say about this? I got more.

FBI Seeking to Pay Telecoms to Store Records for Years and ...
Jul 18, 2007 ... FBI employees in the Communications Analysis Unit, which analyzes phone records for investigators, sent more than 700 "emergency letters" to ...

www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/07/fbi-unit-that-l/ - Similar



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Well it looks like the FBI has shot itself in the foot. Especially where it comes to this thread. There is no way the OP wasn't
RIGHT ON!



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Are the FBI on board with the "OS" or not. They seem very confused for an organisation that is supposed to be one of the key players behind the 9/11 cover up.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

In my view they crippled their own epistemology either intentionally, through PTS, through bias, a false sense of nationalism, out of ignorance, or from direct influence of their superiors.

Or they're either holding more or pretending to hold more information to further the myth that the FBI is omniscient. The myth of omniscience is a great way to try to keep everyone in line. They learned that from the KGB... or the KGB learned that from the FBI..but I'm digressing.

Or the third option I suppose could be, they did the absolute best which they were capable, which really scares the bowel movements out of me.


Edited: bowl should be bowel

[edit on 19-1-2010 by NIcon]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I think the proposal that the 9/11 calls from planes were all faked is ludicrous on ludicrous and can only drive the truther movement further to the fringe. It just doesn't make any sense and is completely impossible.

Why would perps, who must have been experts in state of the art communications, embark on faking something which some of you say was impossible ?

Why would perps go to the enourmous trouble and risk of faking something like this when it would have raised no surprise if nothing was heard from the aircraft in the circumstances ?

Could reasonable perps have expected to maintain multiple conversations with spouses, parents, siblings and never put a foot wrong ? What could have been the gain set against that huge risk ?

Finally, it was impossible. We are on page 11 and no-one has been able to give a credible explanation as to how perps faked voices and had sufficient personal details to hand to fool closest relatives in respect of passengers who were only booked on 9/11 flights last minute.

The more you look into the possibilities the crazier it gets. Of those who made calls from UA 93 Tom Burnett switched from flight 91 which left 1hr 20 mins later that morning. Jeremy Glick was only on UA 93 because of problems at the airport the night before. ( not only were the supposed perps able to fake his call a few hours later but they knew to catch his wife at the in-laws .) Mark Bingham was on UA 93 because he missed his flight the day before. He barely caught UA 93 and was so late he was not on the passenger manifest. ( no problem for the perps though apparently, who also knew his mother would be at her brother's and not home.) Tod Beamer should have left for SF night before but changed plans to see children. Lauren Grandcolas was booked on Flight 91 but car service got her to the airport so early she was able to switch to 93. Sandy Bradshaw (flight attendant ) was not rostered for UA 93 but swapped with a colleague. Ed Felt was on a last minute business trip.

So, how did the perps do it ?



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Could reasonable perps have expected to maintain multiple conversations with spouses, parents, siblings and never put a foot wrong ? What could have been the gain set against that huge risk ?


I am not sure you are paying attention. When you have Ted Olsen changing his story 4 or 5 times and people using their full names in casual conversation with a loved one. These would be some of those feet. You are offering the false (they never could have done it so perfectly) argument. They didn't. That is why we are curious about it.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Alfie1
Could reasonable perps have expected to maintain multiple conversations with spouses, parents, siblings and never put a foot wrong ? What could have been the gain set against that huge risk ?


I am not sure you are paying attention. When you have Ted Olsen changing his story 4 or 5 times and people using their full names in casual conversation with a loved one. These would be some of those feet. You are offering the false (they never could have done it so perfectly) argument. They didn't. That is why we are curious about it.


Perhaps you could let me have the names of the relatives who received the calls who think they were duped ?



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Perhaps you could let me have the names of the relatives who received the calls who think they were duped ?


Misdirect much? As soon as you show me where I ever stated any such thing.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Alfie1
Perhaps you could let me have the names of the relatives who received the calls who think they were duped ?


Misdirect much? As soon as you show me where I ever stated any such thing.


Lillydale

Please tell me how the perps could fake voices and have intimate details to hand to fake calls from UA 93 passengers who did not know themselves that they would on that flight until the morning of 9/11 and how the perps knew that some of the closest relatives to be called were not at their home addresses that morning. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Lillydale

Please tell me how the perps could fake voices and have intimate details to hand to fake calls from UA 93 passengers who did not know themselves that they would on that flight until the morning of 9/11 and how the perps knew that some of the closest relatives to be called were not at their home addresses that morning. Thank you.


I believe I have already stated this.

Explain how they built the pyramids. It must not be true if you cannot explain how it happened, right? It is not that hard to fool a loved one. Other than that, you are asking me for inside information only the perps would have. Can you explain to me exactly how Ewings Carcoma works. I mean exactly. I lost a loved one to it but perhaps you can fix all that and make it not true by admitting you cannot explain it fully.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
One can advance some pretty solid ideas for how the pyramids were built.

One might find it harder to work out how the perpetrators accomplished the magic tricks outlined by Alfie above. Indeed one might - like yourself - find it impossible.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Alfie1
Lillydale

Please tell me how the perps could fake voices and have intimate details to hand to fake calls from UA 93 passengers who did not know themselves that they would on that flight until the morning of 9/11 and how the perps knew that some of the closest relatives to be called were not at their home addresses that morning. Thank you.


I believe I have already stated this.

Explain how they built the pyramids. It must not be true if you cannot explain how it happened, right? It is not that hard to fool a loved one. Other than that, you are asking me for inside information only the perps would have. Can you explain to me exactly how Ewings Carcoma works. I mean exactly. I lost a loved one to it but perhaps you can fix all that and make it not true by admitting you cannot explain it fully.


OK, so you can't answer any more than anyone else. You really think it is that easy to fool a wife/husband, brother/sister, mother/father.

Does it not occur to you that the simplest explanation is that fake phone calls is a load of baloney ?



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
One can advance some pretty solid ideas for how the pyramids were built.


I was not asked to advance a theory. I was asked to explain exactly how it was done. Are you reading?


One might find it harder to work out how the perpetrators accomplished the magic tricks outlined by Alfie above. Indeed one might - like yourself - find it impossible.


This is a joke, right? Because some people can guess at how the pyramids were built, that makes it different? There are plenty of guesses as to how this was pulled off as well. Sorry but they are the same. People can guess all they like. They can NOT explain exactly how they were built.

I was asked to explain exactly how they were built. I see what you are trying to do and it is a poor attempt at best. Your logic is lacking and your comparison only works when you change the variables you want to change.

WRONG!

try again.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

I was not asked to advance a theory. I was asked to explain exactly how it was done. Are you reading?


It doesn't really matter what you were asked. I'm interested in what you claim. Your analogy is that

Because I cannot explain how the pyramids were built (and yet they clearly exist) then other things for which there is no plausible explanation can also exist.

Which is confused, at best.




There are plenty of guesses as to how this was pulled off as well.


Care to outline some? Because you ducked the question when Alfie asked it before. In fact your response was



you are asking me for inside information only the perps would have.


So you didn't even hazard a guess at how they would pull off what amounts to a series of almost impossible feats. But do go ahead. Or point out where others have tried.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Lillydale

I am afraid you are just demonstrating typical truther mentality. You cannot begin to explain how supposed perps could have faked calls in respect of last-minute 9/11 passengers but you cling to the concept because that is what you want.

The concept that the calls were not faked is simple, accords with all the facts, and does not require supernatural powers.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Lillydale

I am afraid you are just demonstrating typical truther mentality. You cannot begin to explain how supposed perps could have faked calls in respect of last-minute 9/11 passengers but you cling to the concept because that is what you want.


No....you are subscribing to typical debunker mentality parlor tricks. Because I cannot explain to you how something happened, it must not be true. Real life does not work that way. I already showed you how. The proof is in your lack of refutation of said proof. Thank you for that. The reason I believe it is possible is because I know it is perfectly possible to get a list of names, find out their closest loved ones and fake a phone call. It is not all that hard for me to do if I so chose and I do not have the resources the Pentagon does.

The only thing I could not personally replicate is the time frame but then again, I am not the Pentagon. I am sure they can get this info a little more quickly than I can since I know I can get it at all.

You are stuck on last minute changes that for all you know, they initiated to begin with. If you can prove the calls were real, awesome. This thread seems to be quite lengthy and that has yet to happen so...I am sketchy.

Either explain to me exactly how they built the pyramids or just admit they do not exist and you simply believe they exist because you want to. I am sorry that you poor logic works on you as well as me.


The concept that the calls were not faked is simple, accords with all the facts, and does not require supernatural powers.


All the facts? Which facts? The no seat phones being on those planes at that time making the seat phone calls impossible? Ted Olsen changing his story MANY times? These the facts you are speaking of?



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

It doesn't really matter what you were asked. I'm interested in what you claim. Your analogy is that

Because I cannot explain how the pyramids were built (and yet they clearly exist) then other things for which there is no plausible explanation can also exist.

Which is confused, at best.


Care to outline some? Because you ducked the question when Alfie asked it before. In fact your response was


My response was to not suggest that I know exactly how this was pulled off. I avoided pretending I knew how something was done when I do not. You seem to be on a different path.




So you didn't even hazard a guess at how they would pull off what amounts to a series of almost impossible feats. But do go ahead. Or point out where others have tried.



Interesting. You did not even attempt to explain how my analogy is confused at best. You want guesses, I can give you guesses. I was not asked for guesses. I am asking how my analogy is confused at best though.

Funny how you do not seem to see the need to stand up to the same standards you wish to hold me to.

I offered no guesses when I was not asked for guesses. I did nothing wrong.

Twice now you told me my analogy was flawed and failed to explain why.

I gotcha! Thanks.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
You want guesses, I can give you guesses.


Yes please. That's what I've asked for. But fine, I'll ask again - how did the perpetrators carry out what Alfie shows above? A guess is fine.




Twice now you told me my analogy was flawed and failed to explain why.



Your analogy, as far as I can work it out is (as I wrote above)

Because I cannot explain how the pyramids were built (and yet they clearly exist) then other things for which there is no plausible explanation can also exist.

First, we can see that the pyramids exist. I've visited them. So we know that they were built somehow.

We do not know for a fact that the 9/11 phone calls were faked. Because they ("fake 9/11 calls") are not a physical object that we can clearly and irrefutably experience, then the fact of their absolute existence cannot be accorded the same empirical weight as "The Pyramids".

It's thus eminently reasonable to ask questions of how - if they were fake - they might realistically have been carried out. And when the answer to that question is "I don't know" (your response) or "it's almost impossible" (mine) then we can fairly surmise that they probably didn't occur. The impossibility of them happening trumps the sketchy physical evidence and hearsay on which that you base your faith in their fakeness.

In essence you're claiming that because the calls are definitely fake then the impossible could have happened to make this so. I prefer a more level-headed attitude to evidence.




top topics



 
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join