Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners, Faked!

reply to post by impressme


DP removed.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by impressme


Ah yes, the evening would not be complete without a truther making a silly comparison. The Commission had a staff of investigators that did the majority of the work....talking to the witnesses, compiling the evidence etc.....

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

It is against ATS, T&C rules, to “SPAM” on the ATS threads.
By repeating the same posts

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

You have no scientific proof that this is true, and this is only your opinion, nothing more.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Ah yes, the evening would not be complete without a truther making a silly comparison.

Ah yes, the evening would not be complete without a OS believer making a silly comparison.

The Commission had a staff of investigators that did the majority of the work....talking to the witnesses, compiling the evidence etc.....

It still doesn’t make them experts.

Why is it that the truth movement or the anti OS always hangs their argument on the words on one person. Like this guy. He has a degree in theology so I am not sure how that applies to knowing whether or not cell phones or airfones worked that day.


However, the 9/11 Commission, which is actually called the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and it was research into WHY it happened and how we got there.

The Commission interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents, including some closely-guarded classified national security documents. The Commission also relied heavily on the FBI's PENTTBOM investigation. Before it was released by the Commission, the final public report was screened for any potentially classified information and edited as necessary.

Did your man have this? Access to all of this? The ability to interview this many people? The answer is no.

We have shown, with multiple links, that airfone technology was there as well as the time and altitude of the cell calls on 93. You keep waiting on that phone bill and boost Mr Alex Jones web hit count...

Just. Wow.

Lily thinks that the government can find out someone's safe code. That the government can learn intimate details about absolutely anybody in a matter of minutes.

Blockbuster and the student loan people have had no problem finding out where I work and who I am related to.

This is seriously your answer? I honestly thought you were joking

But just to be sure I'll try to explain why the fact that a DVD store can find out where you live doesn't mean that the Pentagon can discover your safe code, your pet name for your third daughter and your favourite type of jam in half an hour.

These people - Blockbuster, student loans, whoever - have significant amounts of time on their hands. Plus they don't have to find out much that's not a matter of public record. Did they discover where you lived, plus some handy highly personal details in half an hour?

Oh except, we're of course dealing with the Pentagon. They obviously have superpowers, or omniscience or something.


Impressme is, if anything, even more off the rails.

Can you answer Alfie's point 2 above? Can you show that Linda Gronlund is a phantasm, a government invention? I bet you can't. In fact, you prove that you can't by ignoring it.

And Lily, don't flirt with the implications of your insinuations. It isn't "putting words in your mouth" to suggest that if you think the calls were faked then Linda Gronlund is probably an invention. You almost admit it above. At least Impressme has the courage to go through with the implications of his argument - even if they are completely batty.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Just. Wow.

Lily thinks that the government can find out someone's safe code. That the government can learn intimate details about absolutely anybody in a matter of minutes.

Blockbuster and the student loan people have had no problem finding out where I work and who I am related to.

This is seriously your answer? I honestly thought you were joking

I guess you would have to since I never mentioned safe codes huh?

But just to be sure I'll try to explain why the fact that a DVD store can find out where you live doesn't mean that the Pentagon can discover your safe code, your pet name for your third daughter and your favourite type of jam in half an hour.

Ummmm....I told them where I lived. I never once reported my change in jobs to them. They harassed me at work. In fact Blockbuster was sued for harassing people at places Blockbuster should not be calling. WORK, NOT HOME - TRY TO KEEP UP.

These people - Blockbuster, student loans, whoever - have significant amounts of time on their hands. Plus they don't have to find out much that's not a matter of public record. Did they discover where you lived, plus some handy highly personal details in half an hour?

Since you did it twice, I will just end this with you right here. You honestly think that a video store has more time and concern over a three dollar late fee than say...covering up murder of thousands of people? Nice logic.

ANYWAY, LET ME SAY THIS ONE MORE TIME - WORK NOT LIVE.

Since you cannot even follow my written words enough to have this conversation, it is obviously a waste of my time to engage with you. I said work, not live. Now I have rammed that into your head. Think on it. Read what I have ACTUALLY written and see if you do not want to try again with the words I really used. Until then, argue with someone else if you just want to make up things they said.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by impressme

 

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

There is one major things that will get in the way of that, Swamps. If the plane has NO AIRPHONES ON IT, then chances are pretty good you will not be able to make any airphone calls from it.

reply to post by Lillydale


And yet, the airline itself, says that there WERE airfones on those two aircraft.

With the exception of your pet AA CSR that is.

Originally posted by Lillydale
I guess you would have to since I never mentioned safe codes huh?

No. But think about it for a second - they would have had to find it out because they mentioned it.

I seriously don't think you understand the implications of your claims sometimes. Just because you don't mention some aspect of what happened doesn't mean that it disappears.

It is a fact that the safe code was mentioned.

It is a fact that you believe the call was fake.

Therefore it is a fact that you think that whoever faked the call was able to find out the safe code.

You honestly think that a video store has more time and concern over a three dollar late fee than say...covering up murder of thousands of people? Nice logic.

No. I said they had more time, not more concern (although great piece of hypocrisy - putting words in my mouth). You've misunderstood. Again. So I'll explain again.

The DVD store can spend as long as it wants to get your work address, which is not a particularly difficult task.

The Pentagon had to discover highly personal details about people who they didn't know were going to be on the flights in about half an hour. Even with huge resources you must concede that this is probably impossible.

Perhaps you'd like to offer a method by which they might have accomplished this. A guess even.

ANYWAY, LET ME SAY THIS ONE MORE TIME - WORK NOT LIVE.

Since you cannot even follow my written words enough to have this conversation, it is obviously a waste of my time to engage with you. I said work, not live. Now I have rammed that into your head. Think on it. Read what I have ACTUALLY written and see if you do not want to try again with the words I really used. Until then, argue with someone else if you just want to make up things they said.

I'm loving the method you use to get out of discussions. It makes you sound so... creditable.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Lillydale
I guess you would have to since I never mentioned safe codes huh?

No. But think about it for a second - they would have had to find it out because they mentioned it.

I was asked to guess and I am being attacked for not being precise enough? I never claimed I knew how they pulled it all off. There are lots of crimes that happen that people have no clue how they were pulled off. It does not mean they did NOT happen.

I seriously don't think you understand the implications of your claims sometimes. Just because you don't mention some aspect of what happened doesn't mean that it disappears.

LOL. No kidding. You also understand that just because my guess does not answer every question you have, it does not make whatever you want to believe automatically true. The OS has more holes in it than my 'guess' does so I am still ahead.

It is a fact that the safe code was mentioned.

I did not argue with that. I never offered a guess as to how. Getting a safe code really does not seem all that difficult. You do know that safes are broken into all the time, right? Some times it is done with a stolen safe code. Could anyone in the government have access to information that a petty thief could get his hands on? I would guess yes.

It is a fact that you believe the call was fake.

Is that a fact? I think I see the problem here. You put words into everything you read in order to make them say something more than they actually do. This seems to be getting in the way of your fact-checking. The fact is that I know what we were told about that day was a lie. That is the only fact you got on what I BELIEVE. As for the phone calls being faked, it is a question. I am still allowed to have questions right?

Therefore it is a fact that you think that whoever faked the call was able to find out the safe code.

Sorry but you just offered up x+y=z by incorrectly assuming what "y" was. Guess what that does to your "z."

No. I said they had more time, not more concern (although great piece of hypocrisy - putting words in my mouth). You've misunderstood. Again. So I'll explain again.

Which words did I put in your mouth again? "Concern" when you meant "time." This is why I say things for you. I do not want you trying to guess what I mean. Apparently spelling it out for you does not work either. I just worked with what you gave me.

Yup, they had more time. Point? I would think if a video rental store can afford to let just one employee work full time on finding my place of work within a week, then the people in our government can do it a little faster. After all, I have to have taxes taken from my check by the government so they already know where I work. I think you are really overlooking the vast difference in resources here.

The DVD store can spend as long as it wants to get your work address, which is not a particularly difficult task.

But they did it in less than 5 days. They did not take months, or years to do it. How many people do you think they had working on it round the clock? Hint: 2-3 employees in the store at any one time. Think they had a whole team in the back finding out just where I work? Surely there are other delinquents to chase down and since they were going out of business slowly, they hardly had extra cash to toss at finding my 3 dollars. You do see how spending endless hours and infinite cash to track down 3 dollars would make no sense, right? Obviously they did it with little effort or they would have just left a message at my house. You are assuming something about a place you know nothing of and telling me they have more time and resources than the United States government. Maybe you should learn a little something about the company and what they do before assuming so much since it was all horribly wrong given any standard train of logic.

'We can pay 10 guys 8 bucks an hour a day forever until we find that 3 bucks!!!!'

OK.

The Pentagon had to discover highly personal details about people who they didn't know were going to be on the flights in about half an hour. Even with huge resources you must concede that this is probably impossible.

You are hung up on the Pentagon and that was a setup last time. It would be foolish to think the Pentagon was behind 9/11 or in charge of finding out personal information. There are agencies for that already anyway.

Perhaps you'd like to offer a method by which they might have accomplished this. A guess even.

LOL. Hmmmm, somehow my last guess got turned into "facts" that were not true. What are you hoping for this time?

I'm loving the method you use to get out of discussions. It makes you sound so... creditable.

Getting out of it? I have been here discussing all along. I was simply correcting you. Since I said WORK and not LIVE several times, I found it simply foolish to think I could have any kind of constructive conversation with someone who cannot get simple words right when written down for them, over and over and over.

There is a point. If you cannot read what I say, how can I trust you to be able to read anything? Aside from that, you are trying to argue with me based on what you MIS-read. That is why I point that out. If I were trying to get out of anything, I would not be responding to you. See how that works?

p.s. "Creditable?" What is that supposed to even mean?

TLDR.

I got to the bit where you said that actually you don't think the calls are faked and then I stopped reading.

I guess my work here is done.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
TLDR.

I got to the bit where you said that actually you don't think the calls are faked and then I stopped reading.

I guess my work here is done.

IS "TLDR" supposed to refer to me? Care to explain yourself. Is my name hard for you? You can just hit "reply to." If you are not talking to me, I apologize. Before you pat yourself on the back too hard - I never said they were not faked either. I most certainly said that I doubt what we have been told. I lean towards fake. I guess you still have some work to do.

reply to post by Lillydale


So you don't have an opinion. You "lean towards" some stance or other.

Whatever, basically. You may fool yourself that you're keeping an open mind. In fact you're just refusing to commit because it allows you to carry on arguing what would otherwise be an obviously ridiculous position. As such you are basically trolling.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
TLDR.

I got to the bit where you said that actually you don't think the calls are faked and then I stopped reading.

I guess my work here is done.

IS "TLDR" supposed to refer to me? Care to explain yourself. Is my name hard for you? You can just hit "reply to." If you are not talking to me, I apologize. Before you pat yourself on the back too hard - I never said they were not faked either. I most certainly said that I doubt what we have been told. I lean towards fake. I guess you still have some work to do.

Lillydale

You say that you "lean towards fake" but I haven't seen a shred of a reason on this thread to suggest they were.

On the contrary, in 14 pages, no truther has been able to answer basic questions as to how this supposed faking could have been carried out.

The way you "lean" therefore just seems to be a matter of unsupported bias.

Apart from the fact that it seems highly improbable that supposed perps would embark on the extraordinarily difficult and risky procedure of trying to fake phone calls when it would have surprised no-one if no calls had been made. Indeed, many people are busy claiming it wasn't possible anyway. No-one can give answers to these questions:-

How was it possible for perps to obtain the detailed personal information necessary to fool the close relatives of those passengers who only joined 9/11 flights last minute ? This includes, for example, people who switched from Flight 91 to 93 on the morning of 9/11. That information included in one case a safe combination and in other cases the location and telephone number of the close relative who was away from home that morning.

Dr Papcun, the originator of voice morphing technology, has said that it is impossible to fake someones voice without extensive examples to hand. ( How could anyone think otherwise ?) and how were they available in respect of last minute passengers ?

All you have offered is that Blockbusters can find out where you work if you are late with their dvd. Hardly in the same league as keeping tabs on the intimate details of everyones family life in the US is it ?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by impressme

 

Sorry, guy --- this has already been thoroughly beaten to death, and the only thing David Griffin is doing that's "new" is hoping no one will notice that he's lying, and distorting the facts.

www.debunk911myths.org...

Timeline

9:30:32 - Thomas Burnett Jr, 28 seconds, call to his wife

9:35:40 - Sandy Bradshaw, 5 minutes, 53 seconds (353 seconds), call to United Airlines

9:37:03 - Mark Bingham, 2 minutes, 46 seconds (166 seconds), call to his mother

9:37:41 - Jeremy Glick, line left open (7,565 seconds)

9:37:53 - Thomas Burnett Jr, 62 seconds, called his wife

9:39:21 - Lauren Grandcolas, 46 seconds, call to her husband, left a message.

9:43:03 - Joseph DeLuca, 2 minutes, 10 seconds (130 seconds), called his parents

9:43:48 - Todd Beamer, line left open (3,925 seconds), spoke with GTE operator, Lisa Jefferson.

9:44:23 - Thomas Burnett Jr, 54 seconds, called his wife

9:46:05 - Linda Gronlund, 1 minute, 11 seconds (71 seconds), called her sister, Elsa Strong.

9:47:57 - CeeCee Lyles, 56 seconds, called her husband from an airphone.

9:49:12 - Marion Britton, 3 minutes, 52 seconds, called a friend, Fred Fiumano

9:50:04 - Sandy Bradshaw, 7 minutes, 50 seconds (470 seconds), call to her husband

9:53:43 - Honor Wainio, 4 minutes, 29 seconds (269 seconds), call to her parents

9:58:00 - Ed Felt, 911 call to Westmoreland County dispatcher (see also cell phones about this call)

9:58:00 - CeeCee Lyles called her husband with her cell phone (see also cell phones about this call)

www.debunk911myths.org...

There you have the truth, NOT the baloney made up by Mr. Griffin.

The link mentioned to "see also cell phones" is the one up above.


"impressme", I am sorry you are barking up so many wrong trees, so diligently.

BUT, it is the nature of this so-called 'truth movement' to completely get it wrong, each and every time. Sometimes (maybe) entirely sincerely, but I can't help but wonder if there isn't a profit motive behind some of this tomfoolery.

I am reminded of a certain poster's incredible assertion regarding Boeing 767 tankers having been used --- that was shown to be false, since they did NOT exist in 2001. Too many such instances, and all for naught.

How do you know these people weren't all taken hostage prior and forced to make these calls from other places all the while being told that if they didn't they would be shot and if they did they would be ok....this would involve other organizations...

Not saying that is what happened but you seem to be 100% of what happened.....how can you be?

reply to post by LucidDreamer85

How do you know these people weren't all taken hostage prior and forced to make these calls...

Well...for just one instance, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, a number of passengers on United 93 boarded at the very last minute.

(I personally have experience with such occurences, having been the sort to arrive late....and as a pilot, whether when working, or just non-revving, have seen it much more often than most of you realize, from your experiences as an infrequent (I assume) airline traveller).

Mark Bingham, for example, from UA 93 was very last-minute (and I think he was a non-rev, travelling on a non-rev "pass" due to his mother's employment status with the airline.

So, it is difficult to imagine the scenario you have suggested...

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85


How do you know these people weren't all taken hostage prior and forced to make these calls from other places all the while being told that if they didn't they would be shot and if they did they would be ok....this would involve other organizations...

Not saying that is what happened but you seem to be 100% of what happened.....how can you be?

You can't. But you also can't be 100 per cent certain that, say, Senegal exists. You see it on maps, you can read about it. You can either assume that the weight of evidence suggests its existence, or decide that almost everyone else in the world is having you on.

Alright, this is a slightly ridiculous reply. But with the calls from the 9/11 planes one would need some pretty spectacular reason to believe they were faked in some way because

- voice morphing or calls by actors would be very hard to do (almost impossible, given some of the info the callers had)

- if you're the perps and 9/11 is wholly fake, why bother? Why open up potential ways for you to be discovered?

- a scenario like you envisage above would require enormous manpower. A whole other bunch of people who might spill the beans on your conspiracy

With this in mind, and no really credible evidence that the calls are fake, I tend to take the line that they probably happened. One is of course free to think differently, but it leads you into some pretty odd areas.