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.

 

Flight 93 Phone Calls: Voice Morphing, Staged, or Real?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Please offer your evidence in this thread that proves that the calls made from Flight 93 were Staged or Voice morphed.

Flight 93 – The Phone Calls


Because the departure of Flight 93 was delayed, the passengers were the only ones out of the four flights who had the time to understand what was going on. They knew the rules of the game, they knew their fate. They wanted to try to do something; anything to save themselves or the others that were targeted.

Knowing that they were going to die was sort of a double edged sword. On one side you know there isn’t hope. You pray to your God to accept you into His kingdom, for it to be quick, painless, and that your family will be okay. On the other side, you have the possibility to contact those you love to say one last good-bye. Try to tell them how much you loved them and not to worry too much. You are the one about to die a horrific death, yet you want to consol your loved ones that are worrying.

The phone calls made from flight 93 are the most damaging evidence to the 9/11 Truth Movement. 35 calls were made by seat back phones on Flight 93. 2 were made by cell phone. These calls ranged from zero minutes to over an hour.

Here are just a few

Sandra Bradshaw- flight attendant. She made three calls. Her first call was to UA. The next two were to her home where she spoke to her husband.

Todd Beamer – passenger made three calls. The first two did not connect, but the third was left open as he spoke with Lisa Jefferson.


We both just talked about them landing their plane safely, he gave me personal information regarding him and his family.



Her account can be found here:
www.beliefnet.com...


Tom Burnette Passenger

Read the transcript of his calls here:
www.tomburnettfoundation.org...

Lauren Grandcolas

Lauren arrived at the airport early on September 11, 2001, allowing her to board this flight which was earlier than her originally scheduled flight.

She made calls to her husband who was sleeping and left a message on the answering machine.

en.wikipedia.org...

Jeremy Glick Passenger

Spoke with his mother-in-law briefly and then spoke with his wife for a while.


The bottom line: Many calls were made, some from people that were not scheduled to be on that flight. They spoke with loved ones and talked of the hijackers and what they were planning. If you think otherwise, please offer your proof here!





edit on 29-1-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I actually believe the passengers made those calls.
My problem is that i dont think they were on the actual flights that were used in the attacks.
I think they were switched.
I dont know what happened to the passengers or their flights.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56
I actually believe the passengers made those calls.
My problem is that i dont think they were on the actual flights that were used in the attacks.
I think they were switched.
I dont know what happened to the passengers or their flights.


So, your theory was that the passengers were all coached on what to say. There was a script ready and waiting for them to read?

So, in about 48 minutes, (Take-off was at 8:42, hijacked at 9:28, first call was made at 9:30) the plane was re-routed to a remote location where the passengers were forced to make phone calls to their families reading them scripts. Oh, and then they had to have some sort of soundtrack during the last calls as there were many different noises heard.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
The Truthers wrote thousands of articles about how it was impossible for all those calls to have been made by cell phones because cell phones don't work at the flight altitude or because of the speed of movement between cell towers by an aircraft.
The vast majority of those writers were apparently never on an airplane because they appeared to be unaware that those aircraft have phones attached to the back of the seats in every row. Swipe with your credit card and you are good to go. They are not "cell" phones and they work just fine.
But hey. The Truthers like other conspiracy theorists never let facts get in the way of their narrative. You know, kind of like how "fire can't melt steel". Anyone who has watched a blacksmith at work knows that steel softens quickly and looses much of its strength at open air forge temperatures.
Go up a hundred plus stories and there is always a good wind. Break all the windows, toss lots of jet fuel, add all the office furniture and office supplies as combustibles and you will absolutely get forge-like conditions sufficient to soften steel very easily. It is for this reason that steel girders are supposed to be well sprayed with fireproof insulation. Yeah, like building builders don't cut corners on costs -- that never happens.
You want to know the REAL 9/11 conspiracy? It was to cover up the bad building codes. See the real problem is this. The truss seats that held up the floors were not considered structural elements -- because they only had to hold up ONE floor. And they were not spayed with fireproofing. A truss seat looks like this:



All you need is forge temperature fire to soften that steel, and once one floor collapsed on the floor below -- those truss seats had to hold the weight of two floors! When that collapsed the next set of truss seats had to hold three floors!

So the whole thing pancaked.

So there was an after the fact conspiracy. To suppress the information that basically every American high rise is a death trap once a big fire catches hold high enough in the building that fire suppression cannot reach the fire.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
The plane didn't crash, so who cares?


I do have one comment though about this:




What a coincidence that as soon as the plane allegedly drops low, cell phone calls are allegedly made and no more seatback phones. Hmm.

What's the odds on that one?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56
I actually believe the passengers made those calls.
My problem is that i dont think they were on the actual flights that were used in the attacks.
I think they were switched.
I dont know what happened to the passengers or their flights.


Your hypothesis is completely impossible unless you are invoking the supernatural.

As has been pointed out already, the first passenger call, Tom Burnett to his wife, was immediately after the hi-jacking at 0928. We know the hi-jacking wasn't before that because there were communications between the regular flight crew and Cleveland ATC prior to that. So there was absolutely no time for any switch.

Any switch would also make nonsense of all radar and air traffic control information that morning ; not to mention visual sightings by other aircraft. And you can't just put down a Boeing 757 in a field; it needs 6500 feet of runway.

Your hypothesis would also suppose that UA 93's flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder were faked.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Or they had tried the cellphones but made no connection. And then they made a connection when the plane came lower.

You'd be able to explain away anything if it didn't fit your theory. I wonder how you explain the passenger who gave the code to their safe during one of the calls? Or the ones who were only on the flight at the last minute? I'm sure you'll find a way. But it'll be amusing to see how.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Originally posted by Sick Sigma :
So, your theory was that the passengers were all coached on what to say. There was a script ready and waiting for them to read?

So, in about 48 minutes, (Take-off was at 8:42, hijacked at 9:28, first call was made at 9:30) the plane was re-routed to a remote location where the passengers were forced to make phone calls to their families reading them scripts. Oh, and then they had to have some sort of soundtrack during the last calls as there were many different noises heard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------
What are you on about ?
Did i say that was my theory?......No. So you just make one up for me.
You asked a question....I answered it.
Simple as that !



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Yeah, his theory didn't contain any detailed conclusions or logic! How dare you try to interpose some into what is obviously a faith-based opinion.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ATH911
 


Or they had tried the cellphones but made no connection. And then they made a connection when the plane came lower.

So those two passengers just keep trying over and over and over again to make a cell call not getting a connection while witnessing other passengers were making seatback phone calls with no problems and their light bulbs never went off to think to just use the seatback phones??? Yeah, that makes sense.



I wonder how you explain the passenger who gave the code to their safe during one of the calls?

Don't know, don't care. How does the alleged phones calls prove one way or the other that a plane crashed, or not?


Or the ones who were only on the flight at the last minute?

And there were a LOT of those passengers. What were the odds on that one too?!



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
What a coincidence that as soon as the plane allegedly drops low, cell phone calls are allegedly made and no more seatback phones. Hmm.

What's the odds on that one?


Since your own charts shows that it happened, the odds on that one are 100%



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ATH911
What a coincidence that as soon as the plane allegedly drops low, cell phone calls are allegedly made and no more seatback phones. Hmm.

What's the odds on that one?


Since your own charts shows that it happened, the odds on that one are 100%

Love those logical fallacies!



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Don't know, don't care.


Exactly , because you don't want to know about , and you don't care about , anything that contradicts your perverted view of reality .



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



What a coincidence that as soon as the plane allegedly drops low, cell phone calls are allegedly made and no more seatback phones. Hmm.


If I am in a life-or-death situation , I would rather use my cell-phone , than any other phone . Why ? Because I would be hoping that whoever I was trying to call , would recognize the number and take the call , whereas , if I was calling from a number they didn't recognize , or if it showed up as "unknown caller" , they might not be as likely to take the call .

I do not answer calls whose numbers are blocked , or when it says unknown caller .

Sometimes you just have to think about these things , instead of assuming there is a conspiracy in everything .



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Love those logical fallacies!


So do I. You posted all this information proving that people made cell phone calls and then you turn around and ask what the odds are that people made cell phone calls. The odds are by your own definition 100%

Let's cut to the chase here. You're not asking what the odds are that people were making cell phone calls. You're asking because you want to manufacture innuendo of impropriety without actually coming out and saying it, so when you're taken to task for how badly you're stretching in saying this is proof of some grand conspiracy you can feign indignation and say that's not what you really said. Little children behave in this way.

If this is not what your point was, then please enlighten me.
edit on 29-1-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd

If I am in a life-or-death situation , I would rather use my cell-phone , than any other phone . Why ? Because I would be hoping that whoever I was trying to call , would recognize the number and take the call , whereas , if I was calling from a number they didn't recognize , or if it showed up as "unknown caller" , they might not be as likely to take the call .

And how would you know they all of a sudden would connect through when all the time previously they didn't?!?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



So those two passengers just keep trying over and over and over again to make a cell call not getting a connection while witnessing other passengers were making seatback phone calls with no problems and their light bulbs never went off to think to just use the seatback phones???


Why don't you take another look at the list YOU posted ? One of those callers DID use a seatback phone , about 11 minutes before using their cellphone .

Another flaw in your argument , is that most people have numbers stored in their cellphones , a lot of people have numbers stored on speed-dial , others have one-touch dialing .

Try doing THAT from a seatback phone .

Use your head , not your emotions .



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ATH911
Love those logical fallacies!


So do I. You posted all this information proving that people made cell phone calls and then you turn around and ask what the odds are that people made cell phone calls. The odds are by your own definition 100%

That info isn't mine, nor do I necessarily agree with it. I just had a comment about it.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



And how would you know they all of a sudden would connect through when all the time previously they didn't?!?


Do you actually consider that to be a valid question ?


Here's a little clue for you ... If at first you don't succeed , try again .

How much quicker would it be to try to call someone on speed-dial , than it would be to go through the process of using a seatback phone ? Chew on that .



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd

Why don't you take another look at the list YOU posted ? One of those callers DID use a seatback phone , about 11 minutes before using their cellphone .

Even better! If she was using a seatback phone before knowing it worked, how did she know to use her cellphone all of a sudden and coincidently right before the flight supposedly ended???


Another flaw in your argument , is that most people have numbers stored in their cellphones , a lot of people have numbers stored on speed-dial , others have one-touch dialing .

Try doing THAT from a seatback phone .

You mean like Cee Cee Lyles was doing?



Use your head , not your emotions .

Pfff, you skeptics should talk.
edit on 29-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join