Pilots for 911 Truth Airphone Claim - debunked

reply to post by jprophet420


JP,

In the original thread i was quick to judge and made the comment that somehow the order that was posted on the Pilots For 91 Truth Site was doctored.

I was wrong.

So was Pilots for 911 Truth.

The document does NOT show the dates the phones were deactivated. It shows the date the manual was updated.

The newest document shows the work orders that were completed. The document after that shows the dates.

Pilots For Truth along with Dr. Griffin hold on to a theory that most of the calls were made via phone morphing, and that just boils my blood.

Sorry if I seem a little pissy on this thread...but I'll be damned if I sit back and watch people like Rob attempt to take away the last connections theses families had with their loved ones.

CO

[edit on 16-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Hello IWatch....
Rob ask you to come in here and post? God try.

Actually no. I have no clue who Rob is, nor have I ever read any information on his website. I do not take information from other 9/11 websites, nor do use other peoples research and fake documents to prove a point.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Sorry if I seem a little pissy on this thread...but I'll be damned if I sit back and watch people like Rob attempt to take away the last connections theses families had with their loved ones.

This is a classic sign of someone trying to win hearts with sympathy. It doesn't work CaptainObvious, especially when it hasn't been proven that the families or people on board any of the flights are actually real people.

The people in the WTC buildings are real. Yes, God be with the victims and families of those within the buildings.

But, it has yet to be proven that all the people on board the jets were actual REAL people. Before 9/11 have you herd any of the names of the people that were "on the flights"?

How hard would it be to make up a few fictional families and victims?

As harsh and heartless as it sounds, this is where we are supposed to start in the investigation. If you do not have the nerve or guts to touch a subject like that then you sir can not be a crime scene investigator.

Until then, YOU, Captian-not-so-Obvious, have to find your way out of the hole you just dug, and prove that your document that you provided here under the claim that it is "undoctored" is actually NOT doctored.

The burden of proof is on you now. Have fun digging deeper.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by IWatchYou]

Pilots For Truth along with Dr. Griffin hold on to a theory that most of the calls were made via phone morphing, and that just boils my blood.

something we agree upon.

if my wife was involved in something like that i would damn well know if it was her or not, and would want to kill someone who told me it wasnt her when i knew it was.

however the sore thumb here is the guy that called his mom and used his full name. my mom wouldnt fall for that and shes a stoke survivor.

i dont feel that this one call warrants an entire conspiracy either. however when combined with the fact that the calls were originaly billed as cell phone calls, then the story being changed on top of that fact makes me extremely suspicious. i flew a lot in 00-01 and i know for certain cell phones didnt operate at a high altitude, and i know for certain there was a CC phone on the back of every plane i rode in.

Yes, in the very beginning of the 9/11 stories, the government and even the movie "Flight 93" implied that "cell phones" were used because they were secretly calling in to their families, so they do not get noticed by the "hijackers".

It would be a HUGE risk to even reach for the "air phones" when hijackers are watching you with box cutters.

No matter what, the entire story is suspicious, which in itself is proof of some sort of cover up or lie.

Whats even more suspicious is the fact none of the cell phone callers were whispering or using a low toned voice, to not be herd by the hijackers that are supposedly in the jet.

This may sound like a dumb question, but can't we simply find out if ANYONE used a onboard plane phone prior to 9/11?

I mean, either people used them or they didn't? Or am I missing something...

reply to post by IWatchYou


IWatch,

Due to the strictness of this forum, I am unable to tell you what I think of you . However, your post shows your ignorance to what happened to the people on the 4 flights. I assure you that they are real and did in fact die. The disgusting theory you seem to support is simply put... FILTHY. Please don't feel compelled to respond to me as I am not interested in the feces that you are trying to spread.

JP... I understand how you may think that sounds "fishy". At first I said the same thing. I was listing to an interview last week (911) with the same mother who talked about her son... and she explained that he was acting all professional like he always did ...in the hopes she assumed would keep her a little calm. She wasn't being questioned mind you, she was just once again going over the last time she ever spoke to her son.




[edit on 16-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]

reply to post by jprophet420



I flew AA December 11, 2001 and called my son and daughter to assure them I was ok. ( I was on my way to Key West) I called them from the airphone on the seatback.


EDIT to add.. I went to Miami and grabbed a puddle jumper from there to Key West.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by jprophet420

 

I flew AA December 11, 2001 and called my son and daughter to assure them I was ok. ( I was on my way to Key West) I called them from the airphone on the seatback.


EDIT to add.. I went to Miami and grabbed a puddle jumper from there to Key West.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Well, there you go. So what's the big debate? Because they said "cell" phone instead of "plane phone" in the beginning. A lot of people hang on to first impressions on 9/11, and with all the chaos going on you really can't rely on that. I'm talking even after the actual event. Everyone was still trying to put the pieces together.

If you called me on every time I didn't use the right word or phrase when I knew what I meant, then I'd look like like a pathological liar!

Even the guy that said his full name to his mother. He was probably a nervous wreck. I would have been a blithering idiot if I was making what might be my last call to my family.

Well, there you go. So what's the big debate? Because they said "cell" phone instead of "plane phone" in the beginning. A lot of people hang on to first impressions on 9/11, and with all the chaos going on you really can't rely on that. I'm talking even after the actual event. Everyone was still trying to put the pieces together.

because of the level of liablility out there and the level of mistakes that were made regarding the incidents.

i.e. cellphone = airphone
7x7 = cesna = missile
wtc7 = collapsed on BBC = not collapsed on CBS

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Due to the strictness of this forum, I am unable to tell you what I think of you .

But you just did anyway, indirectly, which is still against the rules. But who gives a shart about wtf you have to say anyway? Do you really think I care what you think? Man you sure do put yourself on a pedestal.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I assure you that they are real and did in fact die.

PROVE IT! Oh wait you can't!! Just like you can't prove the documents your presented here today are undoctored LOL. Stop trying to "tippy toe" away from something you can not prove.. that is your only tactic. Avoid, and deny.

Get a life, and a mind of your own.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by IWatchYou]

[edit on 16-9-2007 by IWatchYou]

Does Claircom mean Airfone? Can we get documented conections between your evidence and its originater?

Thanks !

InfinityO'Reilly

Originally posted by IrvingTheExplainer

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by jprophet420

 

I flew AA December 11, 2001 and called my son and daughter to assure them I was ok. ( I was on my way to Key West) I called them from the airphone on the seatback.


EDIT to add.. I went to Miami and grabbed a puddle jumper from there to Key West.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Well, there you go. So what's the big debate? Because they said "cell" phone instead of "plane phone" in the beginning. A lot of people hang on to first impressions on 9/11, and with all the chaos going on you really can't rely on that. I'm talking even after the actual event. Everyone was still trying to put the pieces together.

If you called me on every time I didn't use the right word or phrase when I knew what I meant, then I'd look like like a pathological liar!

Even the guy that said his full name to his mother. He was probably a nervous wreck. I would have been a blithering idiot if I was making what might be my last call to my family.

Agreed. I'm always amazed when people give so much credibility to this nonsense. But I get mad when they krap on the memory of the people who died. This event was as public as they get, what part is so hard to understand?

IWatchYou

You might want to first prove that the people on the planes are actually REAL people, and the victims families are not paid actors/actresses.

You said this earlier in the thread. I will play your game also.

You might want to first prove the people on those planes are actually not REAL people, and the victims families are not paid actors/actresses.

Also, can you prove that the original work order to deactivate the phones is not fake?

reply to post by IWatchYou

OK....Explain the body parts that rescue personel were picking up? They were there..Plenty of video of people talking about it. As I see it...You have the opposing view, so it is up to you to prove your point. Prove there was no one on the plane. Prove they were just actors/actress. Just because no one heard of these people before 9/11, does not mean that they didnt exist. Did someone famous have to be on the plane to make it real? This whole CT is rotten. Real people with children , husbands , wives , mothers , fathers , died that day.

reply to post by Boone 870

I dont think he/they can. It is hard to explain away real people. It alway seems to me that they cry "PROVE IT" when it has been proven time and time again. Yet they bring no proof of their own. It is your argument, you prove it. Bring proof, real proof. Not just some obscure paper work that can be faked by anyone. Prove that there was no Tod Beamer or any of the others on that plane. Bring someone who was actually there that day, stating there was no one on that plane..That there was no aircraft parts there.... There was no body parts...You can't.
Capt O brought a piece of paper, and you attack him crying "ITS A FAKE" yet bring no proof to the table that it is... What has been seen time and time again IS people doctoring video and other things to "prove" that this is some GRAND conspiracyby the goverment. Why? If it is a conspiracy, as you claim, then why are people on the CT side of things faking all of this evidence? They shouldnt have too . The burden of proof is on you to prove that which you claim happened, not others.

Originally posted by six
This whole CT is rotten. Real people with children , husbands , wives , mothers , fathers , died that day.

No. The fact that they died is rotten. We should put our emotions on hold and get to the bottom of the whole thing. If you think the US Govt. has told the whole truth, then I have some Iranian nukes, oh, AND some Iraqi WMD to sell you. Even the chairman of the 9/11 Commission has said we haven't had the full truth. Why don't you put the rather pathetic emotional blackmail on hold and think critically?

Were you aware that the public has been offered NO actual, real-life evidence that would stand up in a court of law? Were you aware that most documentation has been locked away and that we won't see it until January 2009? If even then... Were you aware that the FBI has admitted it has NO evidence to connect Osama Bin Laden with 9/11?

With all those things in mind (and I'm sure you know, that's just scratching the surface!), wouldn't you think that people would think to themselves "now hang on a minute here! If the official story is so cut and dried, why have we been offered no proof except the word of people who have been proven to be liars time and time again?"

Incidentally, this whole thread is misleading. For 3 or 4 years the insistence was that the calls had been made from cell phones. These claims were quite specific; there was no "mistake" in the heat of the moment.

Then, when telecoms engineers came out and said it was flatly impossible for those calls to have been made from cellphones, and when the FAA put its foot in the government's mouth by installing cell booster stations on planes, the story changed. And people are naive enough to believe it - yet again!

It's like the fact that the US Military has given three different stories about what happened on that day, and the vast majority of Americans swallow this whole! They don't even question WHY the story changed, or how the new version is better than the old...

reply to post by TwoSheds


What I said is not emotional blackmail..It is my own opinion Thats it..Thats all
Now a question for you..... If the goverments intention is to give the Big O a trial...A fair trial...Why would they release the evidence that they have against him? This is not a practice that is done. The eveidence should only be released to his defence team, not to the general public, so as to insure a fair trial. It is a trial by jury...not by the public.

Originally posted by six
What I said is not emotional blackmail..It is my own opinion

Originally posted by six
This whole CT is rotten. Real people with children , husbands , wives , mothers , fathers , died that day.

Firstly, you don't think that is emotional blackmail? The whole point of that comment was to say that real people died, and so it is dishonouring their memory by entertaining a "CT" such as this. In other words, "stop talking about this rotten CT because real people died and you're dishonouring their memory" blah blah. That constitutes emotional blackmail, in my book, and is a pretty standard tactic of supporters of the official lies. Put it away and argue facts, not emotion.

Originally posted by six
If the goverments intention is to give the Big O a trial...A fair trial...Why would they release the evidence that they have against him?

Secondly; um, what?! Who is the "Big O"?

Originally posted by six
If the goverments intention is to give the Big O a trial...A fair trial...Why would they release the evidence that they have against him?

Is the Big O going to be put on trial someday?

Last I heard this administration isn't concerned about the Big O.