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: 12
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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.


Just exactly which part would you really like explained? Please be specific and I would be happy to give you a guess at each little part.




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


Oh, as far are YOU can work it out. Please forgive me for scoffing at your lack of substance. I did not realize that you were going to whip out the all too valuable 'The way I see it' argument.


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.


Wow. Well that was a nice try. You sure did use lots of words and stuff. I am sorry that it is still wrong and my analogy stands just fine in the face of what you worked out.




posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Man, you are the king of misdirection. There is no reason for this thread to still be here. Multiple people have posted facts that are backed up with real information.

For any of you to state that there was no way to make an air call in 2001 you are either too young or mentally challenged. I am trying to be politically correct here and not call you bat# crazy.

I asked this eariler and no one said anything. How did executives make calls from planes during this time? Was there no technology there? It has been around since the 1980's.

Maybe this can help.

en.wikipedia.org...

I remember air phones travelling in business or first class pre 9/11 so I know for a FACT they were there. I saw it, with my own eyes, a phone in a seat. It was not new technology in 2001.

You are confusing plane/ground communication with cell communication of which there were only TWO known cell calls on 93 minutes before crashing which in diagrams show place them under the 9k limit of FCC restriction of cell use on planes. This is common sense.

The biggest thing that should be looked at is the incompetence of the FAA and why it took so long to let the military know.


[edit on 19-1-2010 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Man, you are the king of misdirection. There is no reason for this thread to still be here. Multiple people have posted facts that are backed up with real information.


Well, that would be queen but I see ya. Hi there. I get it. You are all descending upon me now in an attempt at character assassination. I find it interesting that in two days, everyone from respected foes to known trolls have take the time to post a little something just about how little they like me. Sticks and stone, sweets!


For any of you to state that there was no way to make an air call in 2001 you are either too young or mentally challenged. I am trying to be politically correct here and not call you bat# crazy.


Speaking of misdirection... Thanks for not calling me names. What part do you have trouble with? The airline claiming not to have airphones on that plane seems to be a big hole in the story. Not one of you has successfully refuted the questions around Ted Olsen.


I asked this eariler and no one said anything. How did executives make calls from planes during this time? Was there no technology there? It has been around since the 1980's.


Different planes.


Maybe this can help.

en.wikipedia.org...

I remember air phones travelling in business or first class pre 9/11 so I know for a FACT they were there. I saw it, with my own eyes, a phone in a seat. It was not new technology in 2001.


You were on AA77? I was on a plane with propellers a few yards from my face. I saw it. I know for a fact that is how it was built. This does not apply to all planes at that time.


You are confusing plane/ground communication with cell communication of which there were only TWO known cell calls on 93 minutes before crashing which in diagrams show place them under the 9k limit of FCC restriction of cell use on planes. This is common sense.

The biggest thing that should be looked at is the incompetence of the FAA and why it took so long to let the military know.


[edit on 19-1-2010 by esdad71]


Hmmmm. So you begin by accusing me of misdirection and use it to rant against the thread as a whole? If any of you ever get in the mood to back up your personal attacks, I do welcome them. My profile is open for comments.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


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



Where is your creditable proof that these people are real?
Can you prove that these people are not paid to be a family of an allegedly crash victim?
Can you prove the FBI did not staged all the phone calls.
You want people to believe in something that has already been proved impossible.
The proof is the FBI knew Barbra Olsen never made any phone calls from the plane, yet they continued to push this lie even to the 911-commission report. One has to ask one’s self why all the lies?

Looks like the OS is full of lies and changed stories, I mean how many version do you OS believers need for one event?



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Why didn’t Ted Olsen provide the phone bill to the FBI showing that Barbra Olsen called? Why not let the whole world see a copy of the phone bill, so there would not be any conspiracy theories. Because there is no record, nothing, nada, they lied to sell their false flag and blame it on a foreign nation, so they could get their war of greed.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
The phone calls being faked doesn't surprise me one bit, but then again I believe the whole thing was faked anyway. I hope one day this could all be brought to light but I doubt it ever will. If the rest of America was wide awake, the demand for the truth would be unstoppable. There is just too much evidence to go against the official story.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale



Just exactly which part would you really like explained? Please be specific and I would be happy to give you a guess at each little part.



Okay. Third time. Last time.

Alfie wrote

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 ?

You said that such knowledge would only be held by the perpetrators, but that you were willing to provide a guess.

So far you have failed to do so. But once more: do go ahead.






Oh, as far are YOU can work it out. Please forgive me for scoffing at your lack of substance. I did not realize that you were going to whip out the all too valuable 'The way I see it' argument.


What, so because this is "the way I see it" it's necessarily wrong? I hate to break it to you, but almost every argument proceeds from the way its proponent "sees it".

Anyway, you're squirming in an attempt not to have to answer. How is what you are claiming substantively different to this? How does my argument not stand, other than because you don't happen to like it? Do you have anything at all to back up what you say?


Wow. Well that was a nice try. You sure did use lots of words and stuff. I am sorry that it is still wrong and my analogy stands just fine in the face of what you worked out.


How else would I conclude something? By not working it out?


And my apologies for wasting "words" on you. I'll use smoke signals or semaphore next time.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
I notice that impressme has at least attempted a guess at how such seemingly impossible feats were accomplished.

The victims who were called were paid by the government to pretend that they had lost loved ones, who didn't exist in the first place.

Do you ascribe to this notion Lily?



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I notice that impressme has at least attempted a guess at how such seemingly impossible feats were accomplished.

The victims who were called were paid by the government to pretend that they had lost loved ones, who didn't exist in the first place.

Do you ascribe to this notion Lily?


Well, thanks for following along as I have already addressed this specifically. I am sorry if I did not call it directly to your attention.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
You've ducked it again. Are you going to respond to what I've written or just keep squirming?

Go on, have a guess. Or you can just tell me that you agree with impressme.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
And by the way, it seems highly unlikely that you've already addressed this specifically given that impressme's extraordinary remarks come after anything you've written.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Actually, many of the survivors and families after 9/11 refused the money and wanted answers. Alot of those people were those who lost loved ones on 93.

The OP has in no way been able to prove that the calls were faked and a few of us have provided detailed information from the MOussaui trial yet it is all just grouped into the OS BS bucket.

The main argument of the OP is that the technology was not there and they could be faked.Why and how? Neither of these have been answered it is just implied and the OP states that is how he thinks it happened with, as usual no proof.

What would it take to show you that an airline passenger, in 2001, could make an air-phone call from a plane? I am laughing at the fact that many of you feel the technology was not there.

I also find it hilarious that you are trying to say that since you do not have a ohone bill that is cannot be proven. The fact that you think it could be proven by a phone bill leads me to believe that maybe some of you do not believe the conspiracy as much as you say.

WHy not call Airfone, a subsidary of Verizon, and see what they say...



Airfone is a brand of air-ground radiotelephone service offered by Verizon. Airfone allows passengers to make telephone calls in-flight. It was originated by John D. Goeken (who also founded MCI Communications and FTD) in the 1970s. Western Union purchased a fifty percent share in Airfone in 1981 and sold to GTE in 1986 for $39 million cash[1]. Delta Air Lines offered the United States's first public air-to-ground telephone system with Airfone.


Hmmmm...designed on the 70's and sold a few different times in the 80's. SEperate the cell calls from the airfone calls and it all fits. Why is this so difficult for some of you to see.

Family of those passengers that day recieved calls from loved ones. I would love for one of you to face to face tell them that their child/husband/brother/wife/sister is still alive and see the reaction you get. They all sat in a room and listened to what was the final moments of a loved ones life and you trivialize it with jacked up data, delusion and conjecture.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71


Family of those passengers that day recieved calls from loved ones. I would love for one of you to face to face tell them that their child/husband/brother/wife/sister is still alive and see the reaction you get.


Then try suggesting that they are themselves paid to lie about calls from non-existent family members. That might get them going a bit, as well.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Originally posted by esdad71
Actually, many of the survivors and families after 9/11 refused the money and wanted answers. Alot of those people were those who lost loved ones on 93.


Perhaps, they did not refuse the money, because they were already “paid” for playing their part.
BTW, why would these people want “answers”?
You are an OS believer, you have all your answers, and you know the government does not lie, so why on earth would anyone want answers. According to you, all the question has been answer truthfully.




[edit on 20-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You've ducked it again. Are you going to respond to what I've written or just keep squirming?

Go on, have a guess. Or you can just tell me that you agree with impressme.


LOL


And by the way, it seems highly unlikely that you've already addressed this specifically given that impressme's extraordinary remarks come after anything you've written.


Um...can you scroll back a little? See my post about being called out on a phone call for not sounding like yourself? See if you can find it. Here is a hint: it comes BEFORE you claimed I did not address it, yet again.

Nice that you accuse me of ducking when you are obviously just ignoring my answers because you do not like them. I explained in great detail what I felt about how a phone call was faked. I asked you specifically what other parts you would like to explain. I claimed I would address each and every one as soon as you tell me what it is you want to know.

You ignored my response about faking phone calls and have not told me what else you need to know. There is no ducking. I am waiting for you to catch up. Please make me go back, find the quotes, and show them to you. I find a great deal of entertainment value in showing people words that are on a page they can easily read themselves.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


You said that such knowledge would only be held by the perpetrators, but that you were willing to provide a guess.

So far you have failed to do so. But once more: do go ahead.





OK, apparently you are a very special person. Different sentences in different posts seems to be a little hard for you to work out. Responding to me in different threads and then denying it in another is a neat trick as well.

Let me shut you up.

Blockbuster and the student loan people have had no problem finding out where I work and who I am related to. They were doing this pre-9/11 with some ease. I would have to guess that the Pentagon can do the same but maybe even a little faster.

I also stated that it was pretty easy to fool a loved one. Many of us have heard "Why doesn't it sound like you" and none of us had the advantage of being on a hijacked airplane at the time.

There are my guesses...again.

If you need anything more specific, I asked 3 times now for that. Now you can get over your little crusade.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


You said that such knowledge would only be held by the perpetrators, but that you were willing to provide a guess.

So far you have failed to do so. But once more: do go ahead.





OK, apparently you are a very special person. Different sentences in different posts seems to be a little hard for you to work out. Responding to me in different threads and then denying it in another is a neat trick as well.

Let me shut you up.

Blockbuster and the student loan people have had no problem finding out where I work and who I am related to. They were doing this pre-9/11 with some ease. I would have to guess that the Pentagon can do the same but maybe even a little faster.

I also stated that it was pretty easy to fool a loved one. Many of us have heard "Why doesn't it sound like you" and none of us had the advantage of being on a hijacked airplane at the time.

There are my guesses...again.

If you need anything more specific, I asked 3 times now for that. Now you can get over your little crusade.


Lillydale

I just cannot imagine why you would suppose that the Pentagon should be so quick and speedy at coming up with the intimate details of family life, pet names and other modes of address, and where family members are to be found at any given moment.

Linda Gronlund called her sister from UA93 and left a message. At the end she told her sister where her will was in a safe in a closet and gave the combination. Would this be something the Pentagon would know about ?
Which part of the Pentagon deals with these matters ?

So far as faking voices goes you might be interested in seeing these comments from Dr George Papcun, father of voice morphology :-

911guide.googlepages.com...



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



So far as faking voices goes you might be interested in seeing these comments from Dr George Papcun, father of voice morphology :-


We are not interested in seeing someone comments that is his or her opinions, that you are despreatly pushing as facts.
Perhaps, someone opinions are facts to you, but you are not speaking for the rest of the world.


Linda Gronlund called her sister from UA93 and left a message. At the end she told her sister where her will was in a safe in a closet and gave the combination.


Really? Who is Linda Gronlund sister? Dose anyone have this woman name?
I would love to see this sister phone bill? You are only parroting a story nothing more.





[edit on 20-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Alfie1
 



So far as faking voices goes you might be interested in seeing these comments from Dr George Papcun, father of voice morphology :-


We are not interested in seeing someone comments that is his or her opinions, that you are despreatly pushing as facts.
Perhaps, someone opinions are facts to you, but you are not speaking for the rest of the world.


Linda Gronlund called her sister from UA93 and left a message. At the end she told her sister where her will was in a safe in a closet and gave the combination.


Really? Who is Linda Gronlund sister? Dose anyone have this woman name?
I would love to see this sister phone bill? You are only parroting a story nothing more.





[edit on 20-1-2010 by impressme]


impressme

I don't know about impressing me but the degree of handwaving you resort to does stagger me.

You lap up every word of D R Griffin, retired theology professor, but you dismiss the views of Dr George Papcun, who actually devised the technology of voice morphing, as being "someones comments".

So far as Linda Gronlund is concerned, her sister is Mrs Elsa Strong. This is a note of her contemporary interview with the FBI :-

www.scribd.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Oh dear Lily, you're in a twist all over again.

- I've asked four times for your response to Alfie's questions. I've reprinted it for you twice. And you've ducked it every time. I'll ask a fifth time:

Alfie wrote

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 ?

In other words he gave credible reasons why faking the calls would be nigh on impossible.

I asked you to respond to this, and you replied that such knowledge would only be held by the perpetrators, but that you were willing to provide a guess. Which you then repeatedly failed to do.

Impressme stepped in with an idea at 19-1-2010, 6:40 PM, which was that

these people [are] paid to be a family of an allegedly crash victim

which, while in my opinion ludicrous and distasteful, does at least have the benefit of logical consistency.

You responded that you had already replied to this specifically, but given that you made that post at 20-1-2010 5:38 AM, and it was your first since Impressme's, that's impossible. Unless of course you'd responded to it telepathically, or on some other website of which I am unaware.

I asked you if you agreed with his idea, and if you have a response to Alfie. And now I'm asking again.

Admittedly I'm not hopeful.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join