Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners, Faked!

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

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?

If you are suggesting that the passengers were taken hostage and forced to go somewhere other than the planes you are opening a can of worms for which there is no evidnce whatsoever. You might as well say they were abducted by Martians.

Fact is the passengers were boarded in the regular way and their dna was identified at the crash sites. So far as air traffic control was concerned there was nothing about the early stages of the flights that appeared abnormal. Where and when do you suppose this hostage taking took place ?

Mark Bingham was very late to catch UA 93; they had to re-open the door for him. His friend Matthew Hale had dropped him off at the airport. A few minutes after Matthew dropped his friend off he received a cell phone call from him while UA 93 was still on the ground. Mark said " Hey, it's me; thanks for driving so crazy to get me here. I'm in first class, drinking a glass of orange juice." Do you suppose that call was under duress ?

reply to post by Alfie1

Mark Bingham was very late to catch UA 93; they had to re-open the door for him. His friend Matthew Hale had dropped him off at the airport.

Mark Bingham also happened to be Gay. Yet he defied every "stereotype" that currently exist (and existed, then and decades earlier, and will likely contiue to exist, in some minds).

I was never 'out' at work, because it wan't anyone else's business. I certainly flew withht a wide variety of fellow pilots, in my career. While sometimes we shared cetain details of family life, there are just CERTAIN areas that you simply don't discuss...

Some were Gay. Many were (apparently) straight....MANY, MANY of were unreadable, but no problem...

For instance, I never asked all of the DIVORCED (multiple times) male pilots about the specifics of their wive's sexual activiites, and how that may have contributed to the failure of their relationships. (OR, their own pecadillos...but, that is another sterotype, IE, the man is always at fault).

I got, more than a few times , a common testerone-fueld joke...."I'm going to skip the divorce, and just find a woman I don't like, and buy her a house."

Such is the level (someimies) of humor, and intellectual discourse.

SO, when faced with a person like that (or one who was a blatant homophobe, or racist, or whatever) the conversation remained mostly on details of our jobs, industry rumors, whatever...

ANYWAY....is there a possibility, even if not stated, that the story of Mark Bingham and his sexual identity is being ignored???

OR, even worse, IS the known fact of his sexual orientation being used, however subtly, to somehow DISCREDIT him?? (And, by association, every other passenger on UA 93???)

I mean, this is valid food for contemplation....because motives of certain advocates of the "conspircy theory" may remain hidden, unless investigated fully.