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: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted 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??? Yeah, that makes sense.


You're not even looking at your own evidence! Ms Lyles had already made an airfone call, so no, she hadn't just been trying her cell over and over.

And there are myriad reasons why they might have gone to their cell phones. They could have been moved away from seats with airfones, or been trying them aditionally and just managed to get through as the plane lowered. You're determined to see suspicion where no rational person would.



Don't know, don't care.


Brilliant! I didn't know how you were going to get out of it, but this really takes some beating. "Don't know". Ooookay. Thanks for playing.


How does the alleged phones calls prove one way or the other that a plane crashed, or not?


They are contributory evidence. They help fill in the picture of what happened, and they show that the passengers tried to storm the cabin. They correspond to the fdr and the cvr. This is why conspiracy theorists are so keen to judge them false.

Come on, this is room one stuff.




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


Were there? How many? I bet you've got no idea, nor do you know how many would be average. Anything is automatically suspicious to you because you're convinced of your conclusion.




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
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 .

You mean how Cee Cee Lyles allegedly successfully used a seatback phone to call her husband before she all of a sudden knew to try her cellphone which wasn't connection before, according to your logic?
edit on 29-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
That info isn't mine, nor do I necessarily agree with it. I just had a comment about it.


So in other words, you're asking a question based upon the presumption that the material you're posting is factual, and now you're saying you don't necessarily agree with your own material. Talk about logical fallacy.

You were caught red handed at attempting to manufacture innuendo dropping to promote your conspiracy claims and the stunt blew up in your face. You know that and so do I.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



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???


It simply amazes me that someone has to walk you through this .

Consider this ...

The first time she went to make a call , she actually LOOKED at her cellphone before dialing , and saw she had no signal , so she used the seatback phone instead . Hmmm , that sounds pretty logical , if you think about it .

The next time , she LOOKED at her cellphone and saw that she had a signal , so she used it this time , as she PROBABLY , MOST LIKELY , had the number stored IN HER CELLPHONE , and used speed-dial .

My god , is it that hard for you to use critical thinking skills ?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

So in other words, you're asking a question based upon the presumption that the material you're posting is factual

I'm just pointing out something I find odd about it. It seems too convenient how all of a sudden when the alleged plane allegedly falls below a certain altitude, two cell phone calls were made when the same chart shows LOTS of seatback phone calls made and attempted and ZERO cell calls. You do understand the concept of "too perfect," right?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Well, since Cee Cee was in the galley boiling water and
Mr. Felt was in the bathroom.... Would be kinda hard for them to use the seatback phones......



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd

The first time she went to make a call , she actually LOOKED at her cellphone before dialing , and saw she had no signal , so she used the seatback phone instead . Hmmm , that sounds pretty logical , if you think about it .

The next time , she LOOKED at her cellphone and saw that she had a signal , so she used it this time , as she PROBABLY , MOST LIKELY , had the number stored IN HER CELLPHONE , and used speed-dial .

So she was only one of two people on the plane who were smart enough to do that, constantly looking at their cell phones to see if it had reception?

Also, kinda of a coincidence NO phone calls were still going or made when the plane was allegedly starting to flip over. That would have been GREAT evidence for you skeptics to use to prove that!



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Reread your file. It clearly states that two calls were still connected upon impact with the ground.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ATH911
 


Well, since Cee Cee was in the galley boiling water and

Didn't know that. Link?


Mr. Felt was in the bathroom.... Would be kinda hard for them to use the seatback phones......

Wow, he must of had an exceptionally strong cell phone to pick up reception from there. I don't even think my cell phone in 2001 could do that from inside a plane's bathroom still on the tarmac!



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ATH911
 


Reread your file. It clearly states that two calls were still connected upon impact with the ground.

Did any of those calls indicate the plane was flipping?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
No offence, but you're absolutely getting your proverbials handed to you here.

How can you possibly say it "looks odd" that two cell phone calls connected when it became possible for them to do so? Think of it in reverse. If there had been cell phone calls earlier you would immediately be crying foul, but now because the evidence fits the "official story" you're saying it's 'too perfect'.

And you think it strange that they tried their cells at all? They were about to die for god's sake! It's just possible they were trying to redial constantly!

Essentially your argument is that the evidence is a good fit for what is alleged to have happened, and that strikes you as odd. It's poor stuff.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

How can you possibly say it "looks odd" that two cell phone calls connected when it became possible for them to do so? [/quote
How many seatback phone calls were made after those only two cell calls?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
I'm just pointing out something I find odd about it. It seems too convenient how all of a sudden when the alleged plane allegedly falls below a certain altitude, two cell phone calls were made when the same chart shows LOTS of seatback phone calls made and attempted and ZERO cell calls. You do understand the concept of "too perfect," right?


No, actually, "too perfect" would be that noone would be wasting their time with idiotic schemes like faking a crash site in the middle of nowhere for no discernable reason to begin with. They would have flung it into a building like they did with their three other planes.

We can speculate all day over such things, but nonetheless the fact remains that the reason why the passengers switched from the seat phones to cell phones died with the passengers of flight 93 so we will never fully know. The whole reason why you're even arguing over such esoteric details is becuase you know you don't have a microbe of any actual tangible proof so you have to resort to wallow in "seems too convenient" and "too perfect" innuendo dropping to keep your conspiracy claims alive. You know that and so do I.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Why are you asking? You know the answer.

And why would the lack of seatback calls be suspicious. The plane crashed at that point!

Now what would be suspicious would be a call from a time after the crash. But you don't have that do you? Once again the evidence fits the OS.
edit on 29-1-2011 by TrickoftheShade because: typo



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ATH911
 


Well, since Cee Cee was in the galley boiling water and

Didn't know that. Link?


Sandra Bradshaw told her husband this. I'm not sure if CeCe was involved in the boiling water. But, she did say this to her husband:


"We're all back here getting hot water together and getting ready to take over the plane,"





Mr. Felt was in the bathroom.... Would be kinda hard for them to use the seatback phones......



Wow, he must of had an exceptionally strong cell phone to pick up reception from there. I don't even think my cell phone in 2001 could do that from inside a plane's bathroom still on the tarmac!


Using your Playskool phone wouldn't have worked properly anywhere, ATH911. Try looking at what the altitude was when he did connect.
edit on 29-1-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I believe the phone calls are real, evidence says they are real.
Now do I believe there is a conspiracy still? Hell yeah. Without a doubt. Not with the phone calls but with the whole 9/11 event. Lack of and false evidence has led me to believe this, along with too many inconsistencies with the whole story. If it was a cut and dry terrorist attack I doubt there would be so much evidence to suggest otherwise coming to light lately...
Oh well I'm just another crazy "truther" anyway!



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by strawberry91
I believe the phone calls are real, evidence says they are real.
Now do I believe there is a conspiracy still? Hell yeah. Without a doubt. Not with the phone calls but with the whole 9/11 event. Lack of and false evidence has led me to believe this, along with too many inconsistencies with the whole story. If it was a cut and dry terrorist attack I doubt there would be so much evidence to suggest otherwise coming to light lately...
Oh well I'm just another crazy "truther" anyway!


So does this means you don't think it's "too perfect" that people on flight 93 were using an airphone one moment and then a cell phone the next?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
even if those calls were real, and i believe that they were, there is no reason to question the whole of the 9/11 truth movement just based on that...Flight 93 has a lot of different ideas and rumors floating around about it, and there are also sorts of different factions with different ideas about what happened that day, but debunking one group's claims about phone calls doesnt have anything to do with the fact that a missile hit the pentagon, or other less arguable aspects of that day...the art of conspiracy theory is not to prove what happened, but rather what DIDNT happen, and to go from there...as such, 9/11 truthers should stick more to the less debatable facts when dealing with people whose minds are so controlled by propaganda that they cant see the truth staring them in the face...so all you debunkers who think that disproving one piece of 9/11 theory means the whole truth movement is flawed need to take a long hard look at whether attacking insignificant aspects of far-from-unanimous truther ideas is really going to accomplish anything besides making yourself feel better...



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
if you do not believe the flight 93 calls then i would have to say you have no faith in america. those were the biggest heros on 9/11 and for them to be belittled and called fake, well thats just not what america stands for, america stands for the heros and the individuals that protect our country and give their lives doing so. the brave souls of 93 saved our capital.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Something I cannot prove, because the technology is still most likely classified, but I'm not under any sort of legal block to disclose it..

I company called Lanier Office Products used to make a special item for the FBI called real time voice to telephone speech synthesizer...

It was about as big as large desktop printer and connected to the telephone and had a microphone to speak into...

The FBI could call anyone they wanted on the phone with this unit connected and get a sample of their voice...

This would then allow the person speaking using the device to push a button, and then begin talking to the person they called, in that persons own voice..

They usually would covertly get a sample of a target voice and then feed it into the unit and then call that target's associates in order to set up some deception..

They could call that persons own mother and she would truly think it was her son on the line..

I have seen and had this thing demonstrated to me back in 1984 about.. It freaked me out then...

Not saying this is the case, but with anyone's voice sample recording, they could call some senator's wife and speak to him and he would belive 100% it was his wife... The machine would process any voice and convert it in real time to sound like the target intended, and with very small latency..

And this was 1984..

They could have planned to call a lot of folks to fool them and no one would ever know...\

This tech is still never been released into public realm to this day, just try and find it.

Hopefully they won't come looking for me, but like I said, I never signed any agreement not to talk of it like other people had to do..


Cheers



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join