Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners, Faked!

reply to post by Alfie1

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

Do I hear “pot-calling kettle?”

You lap up every word of D R Griffin, retired theology professor

The only thing “I lap up” is logic, Truth, sciences, and creditable sources to creditable facts. At least you cannot disprove David Ray Griffin his work with creditable sources.

This is some very well researched and documented details, that exposes the lies from the FBI about the onboard phone calls from these hijack planes.
Please read the entire thread before responding. I will be *expecting sources * by those who are debunking David Ray Griffin work.
Please treat everyone with respect even if you disagree with them.

It is pretty much proven those phone calls were faked.

www.globalresearch.ca...

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

Please stay on topic my thread is about David Ray Griffin work.
Do you care to debunk Griffin work?

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...

If you find some files that have been uploaded from anywhere from anyone proof enough for you then, enjoy yourself, however I have a printer and I can make any logo and print any lie that I chose to in fact I can use the same logo on the upload and say this and you will fall for it hook line and sinker as holly gospel truth.


COMMISSION SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD


Event Elsa Strong, 9/11 family member

Type: Conference Call

Date: Jun 23, 2004

Prepared by: impressme

Team: 7
Participants (non- Commission):

Participants ( Commission): John Raidt and Bill Johnstone

Location: GSA conference room

At 2:20 EDT John Raidt and Bill Johnstone phone Elsa Strong at phone number (BLANK) Ms. Strong received a voicemail from sister Linda Gronlund aboard UA#93.

Ms. Strong affirmed that she did talk to Linda Grondlund while Ms. Strong was on a merry go round travelling at an unreasonable speed and lost her phone connecting.

Ms. Stong fell off the merry go round and hit her head and lost memory of Linda Grondlund phone call and could not assist with anymore information.


This document contains neither recommendation nor conclusions of the FBI It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency:

April 15, 2004 12:12 pm

Anyone can make up any BS, pass it on to any website, and call it Truth.
Tell me, are you that gullible.

reply to post by impressme

Please stay on topic my thread is about David Ray Griffin work.
Do you care to debunk Griffin work?

What am I missing here, in a discussion about Griffin, isn't bringing up an alternate viewpoint (by Pancun) ON TOPIC???

Forgive this poor analogy, but say you were in a discussion about Adolph Hitler, and one side used comments by a person who thought Hitler was the most lovable, brilliant and statesman to have ever lived, and if someone else offers up an opposing viewpoint to that assessment of Hitler it's "off-topic"???

Surely, though, the OP can provide sufficient evidence to seal the deal on his point, by showing all of the expert qualifications of Griffin, and just what makes him so knowledgeable as compared to, oh say, someone who has actual bona fides in the fields of voice altering, for example, or any othr technoloigies that are necessary to accomplish this alleged "faking" of the phone calls. It crosses into many other disciplines, I'd imagine, not just the amateurish hack writings of someone out of his depth, but with an obvious personal agenda....

Haha - hilarious stuff!

What I think you should do, Impressme, is get hold of Elsa Strong. It shouldn't be that difficult. Pose as a journalist. You can interview her and really give her a hard time - I mean really stick it to the traitorous b=tch - after all, she's probably being paid to make up lies about a sister WHO NEVER EVEN EXISTED.

Or you could pretend to be a government agent - maybe even her controller. We know from this very thread that it's hard to recognise voices over the phone, so that shouldn't be too tough. Just tell her that you're stopping her check because someone at ATS has worked out that she's A BIG FAT LAIR and watch her squirm. If you record the conversation we might get some truth AND some laughs into the bargain.

Just to let you know, in case you're feeling at all guilty about cheapening someone's pain by inventing insane stories about them, or throwing around wild accusations, that of course it's fine when the Truth Movement laughs at others' bereavement. Especially when they're probably NWO SHILL SCUM.

reply to post by impressme


I have debunked D R Griffin's "work".

It was impossible for supposed perps to obtain intimate personal details sufficient to fool closest relatives in respect of 9/11 passengers who were only booked on their flights last-minute. In fact I would go as far as to say that some personal information could not have been obtained in a month of sundays. e.g. Linda Gronlund's safe combination.

Dr Papcun actually devised the technology for voice morphing and says it would have been impossible to use in respect of UA 93 passengers. Extensive voice samples would have been required and how were they obtained in respect of 9/11 passengers booked last minute?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Alfie1

 

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

Do I hear “pot-calling kettle?”

You lap up every word of D R Griffin, retired theology professor

The only thing “I lap up” is logic, Truth, sciences, and creditable sources to creditable facts. At least you cannot disprove David Ray Griffin his work with creditable sources.

This is some very well researched and documented details, that exposes the lies from the FBI about the onboard phone calls from these hijack planes.
Please read the entire thread before responding. I will be *expecting sources * by those who are debunking David Ray Griffin work.
Please treat everyone with respect even if you disagree with them.

It is pretty much proven those phone calls were faked.

www.globalresearch.ca...

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

Please stay on topic my thread is about David Ray Griffin work.
Do you care to debunk Griffin work?

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...

If you find some files that have been uploaded from anywhere from anyone proof enough for you then, enjoy yourself, however I have a printer and I can make any logo and print any lie that I chose to in fact I can use the same logo on the upload and say this and you will fall for it hook line and sinker as holly gospel truth.


COMMISSION SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD


Event Elsa Strong, 9/11 family member

Type: Conference Call

Date: Jun 23, 2004

Prepared by: impressme

Team: 7
Participants (non- Commission):

Participants ( Commission): John Raidt and Bill Johnstone

Location: GSA conference room

At 2:20 EDT John Raidt and Bill Johnstone phone Elsa Strong at phone number (BLANK) Ms. Strong received a voicemail from sister Linda Gronlund aboard UA#93.

Ms. Strong affirmed that she did talk to Linda Grondlund while Ms. Strong was on a merry go round travelling at an unreasonable speed and lost her phone connecting.

Ms. Stong fell off the merry go round and hit her head and lost memory of Linda Grondlund phone call and could not assist with anymore information.


This document contains neither recommendation nor conclusions of the FBI It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency:

April 15, 2004 12:12 pm

Anyone can make up any BS, pass it on to any website, and call it Truth.
Tell me, are you that gullible.

impressme

Sorry, I have just realised that I did not deal with your hilarious spoof on Linda Gronlund's final voicemail message to her sister.

I understand, from your post on the previous page, that you do not think the plane victims existed.

By way of clarification, can you please let me know whether you think it was just the plane victims who did not exist or all victims ? There were many desperate calls from people trapped in the WTC towers for example.

Again, by way of clarification, can you please let me know whether it is just supposed relatives of these non-existent people who are on the government payroll and to what degree of relationship does that extend ?

Which goverment department and from what budget are these payments made please ? Why would the present administration wish to continue payments , and thereby become complicit, in the gross crimes of the former administration of a different party ?

The last victim we have been discussing was Linda Gronlund. Here is a tribute site for her :-

www.9-11heroes.us...

There are friends, neighbours and business associates there. One posting just says " While clearing out some files I found Linda's BMW business card and remembered that I heard she was a 9/11 victim. Enjoyed meeting her and working with her on a project involving BMW's port facility in California." Would that poster qualify to go on the payroll do you think ? Otherwise why do it for a non-existent person.

It does occur to me that there is an enourmous amount to check out here. Is there any record these non-existent people were ever born ? Did they ever marry, have children, have addresses, did they ever have jobs ? Obviously you have checked all this and come up with zilch.

So, that just leaves me to ask you, how do we know you are not a disembodied brain floating in gelatin with electrodes attached to your temporal lobes feeding you non-stop conspiracy theories ?

reply to post by Alfie1

So, that just leaves me to ask you, how do we know you are not a disembodied brain floating in gelatin with electrodes attached to your temporal lobes feeding you non-stop conspiracy theories ?

This sentence deserves "Honorable Mention" in the thread....which has long lingered, but I will ressurect upon "EDIT' shortly....

This thread is still going? Did he find the phone bill yet?

Calls were made from all of the planes that day. ALL of them. What the majority here is not doing is splitting cell and airfone calls. I read a few of the over referenced s&g's and it is amazing how according to them ALL of the calls are cell calls and there is no distinction.

Originally posted by Alfie1
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.

So Blockbuster is more capable than the Pentagon at gathering information?

Why are you having trouble imagining it? I gave two great examples of people far less capable doing it. What did you miss?

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 ?

Are you asking me to tell you exactly or do I get to keep just guessing at stuff?

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...

I explained how I felt the people could be fooled and never ONCE mentioned even attempting to fake a voice.

WRONG

and


WRONG


I love it when you get all snarky and arrogant, then proceed to refute whatever nonsense you wish to instead of what I actually said.

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

No, he gave what YOU think are credible reasons why faking calls would have been so tough.

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.

Why are you telling me what Impressme answered with. If you are trying to draw a comparison, you are lost as my answers and his are quite DIFFERENT. They are not even close, in fact. Point?

Y

ou 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.

Like I have said a few times in the last few days, when I get attacked by a group of you over the same issue on different threads, I tend to group you all together. My response was to Swampfox on another thread. For that I can apologize but unfortunately, the timestamp still predates impressme's completely unrelated theories so what do we each win?

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

Now you are showing you are super duper slow because I did address this just to shut you up above. Please scroll up a few posts. If you have any issues with my "guesses" let me know but please do not attempt to deny they are there.

Admittedly I'm not hopeful.

This is going to be fun.

I answered your questions here - a FULL DAY AND 2 HOURS BEFORE you whined some more about how I have been avoiding them.



[edit on 1/21/10 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Alfie1
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.

So Blockbuster is more capable than the Pentagon at gathering information?

Why are you having trouble imagining it? I gave two great examples of people far less capable doing it. What did you miss?

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 ?

Are you asking me to tell you exactly or do I get to keep just guessing at stuff?

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...

I explained how I felt the people could be fooled and never ONCE mentioned even attempting to fake a voice.

WRONG

and


WRONG


I love it when you get all snarky and arrogant, then proceed to refute whatever nonsense you wish to instead of what I actually said.

Lillydale

As you know, the Pentagon is a large office, the admin centre of the defence dept. What particular investigative expertise do you think it has ? What section of it would be particularly suited to that role ?

You mention "Blockbusters", I have no idea who they are. Are they a debt collection outfit ? If so, and they are successful, I assume they are efficient at tracking debtors.

Does this mean that they, or the Pentagon, could keep abreast of all the personal details of every family in the US ? All the details which would be taken for granted by family members. How the family members address each other, which may be very different from names. How the cat Fluffy is poorly, how the car needs a service, how that insurance premium should have been paid, how David is a worry and there is that upcoming meeting at the school. All these things and 1000's more, ever changing, and there is some section at the Pentagon ( or Blockbusters ) keeping abreast of it but never wondering why or telling anyone.

But, to go back to Linda Gronlund, no I don't want you to make some silly guess as to how the Pentagon or Blockbusters knew the combination of her safe with her will in it. I would prefer you to recognise that that was very private information which she was only prepared, in tragic circumstances, to divulge to her sister.

If you don't think that voice faking came into it ; how on earth do you think all these close relatives could have been fooled ?

If this thread has demonstrated anything, it is the total absurdity of faking 9/11 plane calls. Impressme is a hopeless case who can only see conspiracy in everything and perhaps you are too,

This is some very well reasurched and documented details, that exposes the lies from the FBI about the onboard phone calls from these hijact planes.
Please read the entire thread before responding. I will be *expecting sources* by those who are debunking David Ray Griffin work.
Please treat everyone with repect even if you disagree with them.

It is pretty much proven those phone calls were faked.

www.globalresearch.ca...

I just love it! The OS story believers can only spill their venom against David Ray Griffin work. Yet, not one single person can “refute” his work. Thirteen pages of name-calling and insults against David Griffin, and the messenger who provided this information. All because David Griffin “pokes holes” in the OS fairytale.

My OP is about David Ray Griffin work that has proved the phone calls were impossible.
If you OS believers cannot Debunk David Griffin work then the casual ATS readers will be “convinces” David Griffin work is right and you debunkers cannot dispute his creditable facts. Then you debunkers have to admit he has proved this part of the OS from the government is now, a proven lie.

Then I think it is far to say, it is now “proven ” the phone calls are all fake.

Originally posted by Alfie1


Lillydale

As you know, the Pentagon is a large office, the admin centre of the defence dept. What particular investigative expertise do you think it has ? What section of it would be particularly suited to that role ?

As you know, you asked me to guess how the PENTAGON pulled it off. I do not believe the PENTAGON pulled anything off. I would believe it was a small cabal within the government. I would also believe they at least have access to the same levels of information as Blockbuster Video. The DMV has more access and look what a low level government op that is.

You mention "Blockbusters", I have no idea who they are. Are they a debt collection outfit ? If so, and they are successful, I assume they are efficient at tracking debtors.

LOL. Either way? If they are debt collectors, you think that they have more information that the government does?

Just to allay any fears. This body that has access to such records and unavailable information is a DVD RENTAL PLACE.

I know, where you come from, debt collectors and video rental stores have more access to my personal information than anyone in the government, right?

Does this mean that they, or the Pentagon, could keep abreast of all the personal details of every family in the US ? All the details which would be taken for granted by family members. How the family members address each other, which may be very different from names. How the cat Fluffy is poorly, how the car needs a service, how that insurance premium should have been paid, how David is a worry and there is that upcoming meeting at the school. All these things and 1000's more, ever changing, and there is some section at the Pentagon ( or Blockbusters ) keeping abreast of it but never wondering why or telling anyone.

Pets often have to be registered or there are at least veterinary records that would be in......YOUR NAME. Easy enough to find. You are just being shortsighted and that is ok. Because you cannot see it, it must not be possible, right? How many people on the phone calls addressed each other in some special coded manner other than their name? Car service? Ever heard of carfax? I can find out about service records for a car, but the government cannot? On and on. I am waiting for that phone call -

'Honeybearsweetysugarpie, our plane has been hijacked and the truck reallllllllly needs to have the oil changed!'

Please play me that one. You offered a list of things that having nothing to do with the reality of the situation and just a cursory glance shows they are wrong.

But, to go back to Linda Gronlund, no I don't want you to make some silly guess as to how the Pentagon or Blockbusters knew the combination of her safe with her will in it. I would prefer you to recognise that that was very private information which she was only prepared, in tragic circumstances, to divulge to her sister.

Seeing as how she appears to no longer be with us...it would seem she did in fact meet with tragic circumstances. I am not sure how that debunks anything as you asked me for guesses. You cannot ask me to guess how the pentagon faked phone calls and then use something else to debunk my guesses. I gave what you asked for. Now you do not like it? Ask me to guess something else specific to what you want to hear and then dismiss that as well. The question was flawed to begin with. I hope this post clears that all up.

If you don't think that voice faking came into it ; how on earth do you think all these close relatives could have been fooled ?

Are you just admitting you are not even reading my posts then?

If this thread has demonstrated anything, it is the total absurdity of faking 9/11 plane calls. Impressme is a hopeless case who can only see conspiracy in everything and perhaps you are too,

Actually, it has proven you are not reading what you are dismissing, you are asking a flawed question and then scoffing at the obviously flawed answer, and you are listing things that have nothing to do with anything that happened to try and prove a video rental chain has more access to personal information that the government that regulates both them and their networks.

Thanks!

reply to post by impressme


impressme

Yours and D R Griffin's ideas have been shot to pieces over recent pages. I know you don't see it but there you go.

1/ No organization on earth could collect and collate all the personal information necessary to fool all the closest relatives of whoever may have chosen to book on a 9/11 flight last-minute.

2/ That personal information included a safe combination given by Linda Gronlund to her sister. How could supposed perps have learnt that ?

3/ Dr George Papcun, who devised the technology of voice morphing, has given his opinion that it would have been impossible to fake voices in the circumstances of 9/11. Extensive samples of voices would have been required.

4/No close relative has ever expressed any doubt that they were talking to their spouse, child, sibling etc.

impressme, you can wallow in your delusions all you want but your case and D R Griffin's is simply untenable.

reply to post by Alfie1

Yours and D R Griffin's ideas have been shot to pieces over recent pages. I know you don't see it but there you go.

Oh, you want to “play the pretend game” it was all proven a long time ago, pages ago, by me, and you just ignored it, and hand wave it, ect….

Well I prove you were wrong pages ago many times over, yet you did not see it, because you are in denial.
Davie Ray Griffin proved the Os is a lie, yet you continue to ignore it, for every rebuttal to your accusations, he tears you to pieces as we all have seen pages ago.

1/ No organization on earth could collect and collate all the personal information necessary to fool all the closest relatives of whoever may have chosen to book on a 9/11 flight last-minute.

But Davie Ray Griffin prove you are wrong, page after pages his work disprove your conspiracies theories repeatedly.

3/ Dr George Papcun, who devised the technology of voice morphing, has given his opinion that it would have been impossible to fake voices in the circumstances of 9/11. Extensive samples of voices would have been required.

Davie Ray Griffin gave his expert opinion that phone calls at high altitudes moving at high speed were imposable.

I love the repeat game this is fun! Just continue to repeat what your expert says and force him as an authority of the subject, until one of us walks away then you win, that’s the game we get to play in here today, am I right? The last time I played this game, I was in first grade but what the heck, I guess we will stoop to whatever level we need to when we have “no evidence” to prove are case, don’t you agree?

4/No close relative has ever expressed any doubt that they were talking to their spouse, child, sibling etc.

Although the contents of Taylor’s briefing have never been made public, the main evidence provided to the general public has consisted of the hijack-describing phone calls reportedly received from passengers and flight attendants aboard the airliners. But when subjected to a detailed analysis, these alleged phone calls, far from supporting the war-justifying story, lead to a very different conclusion: that these alleged calls were faked. This analysis thereby suggests that the entire 9/11 story used to justify the US-led wars is a lie.

If asked which part of the official story can be most definitively shown to be false, I would speak not of the alleged phone calls but of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the official account of which says that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 came down without the aid of pre-set explosives. Given the fact that this theory involves massive violations of basic laws of physics, the evidence against it is so strong as to be properly called proof – as I have recently emphasized in a book-length critique of the official report on WTC 7 in particular.122

Nevertheless, the importance of the evidence against the official account provided by analyzing the alleged phone calls should not be minimized. If the official story is false, then we should expect every major dimension of it to be false – which, as I have emphasized in another recent book, can be seen to be the case.123 It is this cumulative argument that provides the strongest disproof of the official, war-justifying account of 9/11. The evidence that the alleged phone calls from the airliners were faked is an important part of this cumulative argument.124

www.globalresearch.ca...

impressme, you can wallow in your delusions all you want but your case and D R Griffin's is simply untenable.

Alfie1, you can wallow in your delusions all you want but your case and “Dr George Papcun” is simply untenable.

reply to post by impressme

Davie Ray Griffin gave his expert opinion that phone calls at high altitudes moving at high speed were imposable

What part of theology or philosophy makes one an expert in telecommunication technology?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Yours and D R Griffin's ideas have been shot to pieces over recent pages. I know you don't see it but there you go.

Oh, you want to “play the pretend game” it was all proven a long time ago, pages ago, by me, and you just ignored it, and hand wave it, ect….

Well I prove you were wrong pages ago many times over, yet you did not see it, because you are in denial.
Davie Ray Griffin proved the Os is a lie, yet you continue to ignore it, for every rebuttal to your accusations, he tears you to pieces as we all have seen pages ago.

1/ No organization on earth could collect and collate all the personal information necessary to fool all the closest relatives of whoever may have chosen to book on a 9/11 flight last-minute.

But Davie Ray Griffin prove you are wrong, page after pages his work disprove your conspiracies theories repeatedly.

3/ Dr George Papcun, who devised the technology of voice morphing, has given his opinion that it would have been impossible to fake voices in the circumstances of 9/11. Extensive samples of voices would have been required.

Davie Ray Griffin gave his expert opinion that phone calls at high altitudes moving at high speed were imposable.

I love the repeat game this is fun! Just continue to repeat what your expert says and force him as an authority of the subject, until one of us walks away then you win, that’s the game we get to play in here today, am I right? The last time I played this game, I was in first grade but what the heck, I guess we will stoop to whatever level we need to when we have “no evidence” to prove are case, don’t you agree?

4/No close relative has ever expressed any doubt that they were talking to their spouse, child, sibling etc.

Although the contents of Taylor’s briefing have never been made public, the main evidence provided to the general public has consisted of the hijack-describing phone calls reportedly received from passengers and flight attendants aboard the airliners. But when subjected to a detailed analysis, these alleged phone calls, far from supporting the war-justifying story, lead to a very different conclusion: that these alleged calls were faked. This analysis thereby suggests that the entire 9/11 story used to justify the US-led wars is a lie.

If asked which part of the official story can be most definitively shown to be false, I would speak not of the alleged phone calls but of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the official account of which says that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 came down without the aid of pre-set explosives. Given the fact that this theory involves massive violations of basic laws of physics, the evidence against it is so strong as to be properly called proof – as I have recently emphasized in a book-length critique of the official report on WTC 7 in particular.122

Nevertheless, the importance of the evidence against the official account provided by analyzing the alleged phone calls should not be minimized. If the official story is false, then we should expect every major dimension of it to be false – which, as I have emphasized in another recent book, can be seen to be the case.123 It is this cumulative argument that provides the strongest disproof of the official, war-justifying account of 9/11. The evidence that the alleged phone calls from the airliners were faked is an important part of this cumulative argument.124

www.globalresearch.ca...

impressme, you can wallow in your delusions all you want but your case and D R Griffin's is simply untenable.

Alfie1, you can wallow in your delusions all you want but your case and “Dr George Papcun” is simply untenable.

Interesting that you avoided addressing my point 2.

As regards high altitude calls; ever heard of GTE Airfone ?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Davie Ray Griffin gave his expert opinion that phone calls at high altitudes moving at high speed were imposable


What part of theology or philosophy makes one an expert in telecommunication technology?

What part of the 911 commission makes the commissioners the experts on everythin?


[edit on 21-1-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by Alfie1

Interesting that you avoided addressing my point 2.

Interesting that you avoided addressing everyone of my points.

As regards high altitude calls; ever heard of GTE Airfone ?

As regards high altitude calls; ever heard of David Ray Griffin report?

reply to post by impressme


You could be at 100,000 feet and an Airfone would still work.