IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Something Very Suspicious Amy Sweeney's Call Logs

poppyburner
post Dec 8 2013, 12:38 AM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



Apologies for the incorrigibly-mistyped title.

Here are all the five 9/11 Airfone calls, officially attributed to American Airlines' Flight 11's flight attendant, Madeline Amy Sweeney:

0 [seconds] Unconnected 08:22:24 617-634-XXXX [A failed call]

0 [seconds] Unconnected 08:24:00 617-634-XXXX [A failed call]

107 [seconds] 08:25:20 617-634-XXXX [Anonymous, fast-talking, female, flight attendant from Flight 12. Answered by Evelyn Nunez - a passenger service agent for American Airlines.]

43 [seconds] 08:29:25 617-634-XXXX [Anonymous, female, flight attendant from Flight 11. Answered by James W. Sayer - an American Airlines flight attendant & temporary staffing assistant to the flight service manager.]

793 [seconds] 08:32:39 617-634-XXXX [Madeline Amy Sweeney from Flight 11. Again answered by Sayer, then authenticated by her friend of ten years: Michael Woodward. An American Airlines Manager of Flight Services.]

~ http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/USCour...011%20Calls.swf

Note: the last four digits of the number that she supposedly called, are redacted, and that according to the link above, every call was allegedly to:

'AMERICAN AIRLINES LOGAN AIRPORT, BOSTON'.

Similarly, in the publicly-available phone records for these (three connected) calls; one finds that the 'Terminating' field (which I assume means the number called) printed immediately under the ten-digit 'Originating', is totally redacted:





- With the somewhat clarifying annotation: 'AA LOGAN[/gan]-BOStON' handwritten beside it.

Now, you may be reading this thinking: oO(Well, maybe they don't want to publicly divulge an employee-only phone line; which is fair enough.)

But, in the FBI's September 14th 2001 document for the aforementioned Michael Woodward; this nugget transpires:

'Woodward was one of three managers on duty in the AA office. ...All of the flight attendants are given the MOD [Manager on Duty] office numbers where Woodward works as manager. Woodward stated there are two telephone lines coming into the MOD office which are 617-634-5352 and 617-634-5351'

~ http://www.scribd.com/doc/18775594/T7-B10-...el-Woodward-372

Does this possibly signify, that AT&T Claircom, might be in possession of a potentially-damning file; which proves that at least one of those calls was made to a secondary phone line in the same office?

This post has been edited by poppyburner: Dec 8 2013, 12:43 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Dec 8 2013, 11:36 AM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 610
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



My biggest problem with this calls is, as I understand it, when a flight is reported as skyjacked, the people on the ground who receive such information, should have immediately notified NORAD or some government agency, before engaging in prolonged conversations. Needless to say that, once the call disconnected, that person should have begun making notifications, and not stand by waiting to see if the caller would try to reconnect.

I can't buy all these notification troubles and failures. I'm pretty sure that airlines consider skyjacked aircraft to be a pretty darned serious matter. Serious enough that authorities be notified with haste, and that the authorities have the means to receive emergency calls, no matter what the circumstances.

I envision that emergency response authorities have phone that are dedicated for the purpose of receiving emergency notices and nothing else. As a lay person, that's what I would do, and I'd make sure that control towers and flight managers had these numbers and be admonished to call them at the first sign of trouble. Because these aircraft travel so fast time is of the essence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Dec 8 2013, 12:58 PM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 668
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Obwon @ Dec 8 2013, 11:36 AM) *
Needless to say that, once the call disconnected, that person should have begun making notifications, and not stand by waiting to see if the caller would try to reconnect.

I can't buy all these notification troubles and failures. I'm pretty sure that airlines consider skyjacked aircraft to be a pretty darned serious matter. Serious enough that authorities be notified with haste, and that the authorities have the means to receive emergency calls, no matter what the circumstances.


I would take this to another level.

Time of Sweeney's calls: ~ 8:25 a.m.

Did the call recipients notify authorities immediately (NORAD etc.) or not? Plenty of time to send fighter jets.

Yes, they did; their duty was done.
No they did not; they were disciplined (on record) and blamed publicly for the crash into WTC1.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Dec 8 2013, 08:56 PM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 610
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Dec 8 2013, 12:58 PM) *
I would take this to another level.

Time of Sweeney's calls: ~ 8:25 a.m.

Did the call recipients notify authorities immediately (NORAD etc.) or not? Plenty of time to send fighter jets.

Yes, they did; their duty was done.
No they did not; they were disciplined (on record) and blamed publicly for the crash into WTC1.

-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

I find it vexing in the extreme the way they play off that it was no big deal to make
notifications, as if the only thing these people could do was try to stay in touch
and gather information about the unfolding events. When we know from
the various documentaries over the years that these notifications of officials
like Norad are must do's that are extremely sensitive protocols.

These people of all people knew that the small window of time, when anything
could be done would be closing fast. They had training and protocols and yet
all they did was continue to chat as if there was nothing else to be done.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Dec 11 2013, 01:53 AM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



I must add this crucial caveat to my earlier post:

'Sayer will answer the phone when Sweeney contacts the flight services office again at 8:32 a.m., but he will pass the call on to Woodward. It is unclear whether all the information that Sayer describes to the FBI, about the problems on Flight 11, is given to him by Sweeney in the current [08:29:25 a.m.] call [e.g. 'Flight 11'], or if she provides some of it to him in the 8:32 a.m. call. [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9/11/2001, pp. 7-8; 9/11 Commission, 1/25/2004 pdf file; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 11 pdf file]'

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...(_amy_)_sweeney


FYI, all of the aforementioned three connected calls, were seemingly ascribed to the flight attendant Sara Low's father's calling card. And unlike the latter two calls, the first of which (the fast-talking "Flight 12" call), ended with a: 'Ground Party Disconnect' (rather than an: 'Air Party Disconnect').

http://www.911myths.com/images/c/c3/Team7_AirfoneRecords.pdf

Imo, also worth considering:

'Following the first call from the flight attendant, another call came through which was answered by [REDACTED] another AA Manager.' ~ NUNEZ's FBI interview, http://www.911myths.com/images/1/19/Team1A...ndOtherData.pdf

And perhaps the better-known:

'“The American Airlines FAA Principal Security Inspector (PSI) was notified by Suzanne Clark of American Airlines Corporate Headquarters that an on board flight attendant contacted American Airlines Operations Center and informed that a passenger located in seat 10B shot and killed a passenger in seat 9B at 9:20 a.m.

“The passenger killed was Daniel
Lewin, shot by passenger Satam Al Suqami. One bullet was reported to have been fired.”


http://www.wnd.com/2002/03/13044/#Xo4bII2uQLyc6hRl.99
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 5 2014, 10:40 PM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



A possible scenario has occurred to me:

Sweeney could have agreed to cooperate in a hijack simulation exercise, conducted in a locked,
window-less, Logan Airport jet bridge; calling American Airlines' nearby Logan Airport office's
line one:

617-634-5351 (a male stranger would probably have had to have intercepted the call
to her friend Woodward, then relayed the manager's speech to her, in his own voice).

Meanwhile: unbeknownst to her, another call would be made from a Coach-class Airfone, aboard
American Airlines' Flight 11, to a near-identically numbered line two, in the same office:

617-634-5352.

Which would be secretly answered and eventually terminated, at approximately the same time as
hers; so that when the (N334AA) plane's AT&T phone logs are published, the Logan office staff
would be able to verify most of the number called, the caller's at least likely identity, call: start
time and duration; from what would appear to be the allegedly hijacked aircraft.

None of the call recipients would be able to cry foul, because the last four digits are (as I've shown)
consistently redacted.

Tragically, after the exercise's end, Sweeney would be fatally-gassed by an obscured, inaccessible, carbon
monoxide canister.



This post has been edited by poppyburner: Jan 5 2014, 10:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 9 2014, 07:47 PM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



Problem - the line could be engaged:

'Nunez is busy making a phone call, so Sweeney’s call is answered by James Sayer, a staff
assistant.
' ~ History Commons.

There'd perhaps need to be a (near-guaranteed free) third phone line, in a neighbouring office.

Unsurprisingly, 617-634... seems to be a common Boston/Logan, landline prefix-area code:

Dollar Rent A Car: 617-634-0006
Verizone switchboard(?): (617) 634-6097
Host International: (617) 634-6000
American Airlines Federal Cu, 200 Terminal B # 3153: (617) 634-5525
American Airlines Inc, 18 Terminal C # A: (617) 634-5190

QUOTE (poppyburner)
Which would be secretly answered and eventually terminated, at approximately the same time as
hers;


I should have cited the aforementioned, third manager in that office; whose name is redacted.


No windows in 2012.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 18 2014, 08:38 PM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 1-May 13
Member No.: 7,380



QUOTE (poppyburner @ Dec 8 2013, 05:38 AM) *
Apologies for the incorrigibly-mistyped title.

Here are all the five 9/11 Airfone calls, officially attributed to American Airlines' Flight 11's flight attendant, Madeline Amy Sweeney:

0 [seconds] Unconnected 08:22:24 617-634-XXXX [A failed call]

0 [seconds] Unconnected 08:24:00 617-634-XXXX [A failed call]

107 [seconds] 08:25:20 617-634-XXXX [Anonymous, fast-talking, female, flight attendant from Flight 12. Answered by Evelyn Nunez - a passenger service agent for American Airlines.]

43 [seconds] 08:29:25 617-634-XXXX [Anonymous, female, flight attendant from Flight 11. Answered by James W. Sayer - an American Airlines flight attendant & temporary staffing assistant to the flight service manager.]

793 [seconds] 08:32:39 617-634-XXXX [Madeline Amy Sweeney from Flight 11. Again answered by Sayer, then authenticated by her friend of ten years: Michael Woodward. An American Airlines Manager of Flight Services.]

~ http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/USCour...011%20Calls.swf

Note: the last four digits of the number that she supposedly called, are redacted, and that according to the link above, every call was allegedly to:

'AMERICAN AIRLINES LOGAN AIRPORT, BOSTON'.

Similarly, in the publicly-available phone records for these (three connected) calls; one finds that the 'Terminating' field (which I assume means the number called) printed immediately under the ten-digit 'Originating', is totally redacted:





- With the somewhat clarifying annotation: 'AA LOGAN[/gan]-BOStON' handwritten beside it.

Now, you may be reading this thinking: oO(Well, maybe they don't want to publicly divulge an employee-only phone line; which is fair enough.)

But, in the FBI's September 14th 2001 document for the aforementioned Michael Woodward; this nugget transpires:

'Woodward was one of three managers on duty in the AA office. ...All of the flight attendants are given the MOD [Manager on Duty] office numbers where Woodward works as manager. Woodward stated there are two telephone lines coming into the MOD office which are 617-634-5352 and 617-634-5351'

~ http://www.scribd.com/doc/18775594/T7-B10-...el-Woodward-372

Does this possibly signify, that AT&T Claircom, might be in possession of a potentially-damning file; which proves that at least one of those calls was made to a secondary phone line in the same office?


Hi where can i find that info please, not that i don't believe it, i do but i need the original source document for a piece i am doing thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 18 2014, 10:42 PM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



QUOTE (bmead @ Jan 19 2014, 01:38 AM) *
Hi where can i find that info please, not that i don't believe it, i do but i need the original source document for a piece i am doing thank you


Hello again bmead smile.gif

Just click on the included links above (I just tried them; they're working).


Btw, while I'm back here: the other day, I found another version of the FBI's aforementioned
'two telephone lines' document, but with both phone numbers redacted!:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14094215/T7-B17-...Entire-Contents
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 19 2014, 03:10 AM
Post #10





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



+ http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Madeline...s#Phone_records
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 20 2014, 05:51 PM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 1-May 13
Member No.: 7,380



QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 19 2014, 03:42 AM) *
Hello again bmead smile.gif

Just click on the included links above (I just tried them; they're working).


Btw, while I'm back here: the other day, I found another version of the FBI's aforementioned
'two telephone lines' document, but with both phone numbers redacted!:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14094215/T7-B17-...Entire-Contents


Many thanks Poppy. This forum is very helpful. Thanks again
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 23 2014, 01:47 PM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 1-May 13
Member No.: 7,380



QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 19 2014, 08:10 AM) *



Hello again poppy, http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Madeline...s#Phone_records was helpful, but a quick question, has this forum established why one of the answer supervisions is saying wed 31 1969?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 24 2014, 12:03 AM
Post #13





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



QUOTE (bmead @ Jan 23 2014, 06:47 PM) *
Hello again poppy, http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Madeline...s#Phone_records was helpful, but a quick question, has this forum established why one of the answer supervisions is saying wed 31 1969?


'Answer Supervision
The off-hook indication sent back to the originating end when the called station answers.'


~ http://www.geneonet.com/Vector_Graphics/Telecom/TellibrA.htm

Note, that the call's duration is '0'.

That curious date, also appears in Flight 77's Barbara Olson's alleged call's log:

'...explanatory comments typed into the record...to show that the customer dialed a live AT&T
Operator (Operator Services Position Station, or OSPS) and that the “Time is not tracked because
OSPS bills.”'


~ http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-what-the...ls-at-all/26594



'If you’ve ever had the date on a cell phone, iPod, or computer software mysteriously switch to
December 31, 1969, you may have thought it was simply random. However, the answer to this
question is a bit of computer trivia.

Unix, the computer operating system used on most servers, workstations and mobile devices, was
launched on January 1, 1970, making that date its “epoch date.” What this means is that time
began for Unix at midnight on January 1, 1970. Time measurement units are counted from the
epoch so that the date and time of events can be specified without question. If a time stamp is
somehow reset to 0 and displayed in local time, users will see December 31, 1969 — the day
before Unix’s creation.'


~ http://mentalfloss.com/article/26316/why-d...ecember-31-1969

This post has been edited by poppyburner: Jan 24 2014, 12:05 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 24 2014, 10:05 AM
Post #14





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



'These are the three connected calls...' ~ 911myths.com

I don't know how that statement can be true, given the duration is 0.

Page 006 of their own .pdf Airfone record compilation: http://www.911myths.com/images/c/c3/Team7_AirfoneRecords.pdf
seemingly evidences the 06:25:20 A.M. (8:25:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time) call, attributed to Sweeney; with the officially
claimed duration of 107 seconds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 25 2014, 07:21 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 1-May 13
Member No.: 7,380



Hi poppy, sorry to keep coming back to you but since you seem to be a font of knowledge i am grateful and have another question, in those calls you showed, Sweeneys termination number is hidden. For Betty Ong http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Betty_Ong_call

The terminating number IS shown but it is different to the originating.
Now it doesn't say originating/terminating number so i am a little unsure maybe you can clarify.
However as i see it, if they are numbers -suggested by the fact that Sweeney and Ongs are exactly the same (although one may expect a difference if they were separate phones, but lets say they just have the originating code/number for the plane.) Anyway if the terminating number is different to originator-that suggest the other end terminated the call. Whereas it would seem sense that if the plane was destroyed, that the call terminated at the end it was made, especially since the operators were not aware of a destruction instantly, as evidenced by them saying "i think we lost her" for Ong that would suggest not that they can't hear her-since at the start we heard "are you there" "can you hear me" so they didn't just hang up. That suggests there would be a minute or two between the cessation of the call and since the news of it was not public until 8.49 at the earliest. They must have kept that line open at least one minute

And what exactly does Answer supervision mean
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 25 2014, 11:40 PM
Post #16





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



I suppose that Answer Supervision, indicates the times when Ong's & Sweeney's calls were answered.

Which would mean that Ong's call, actually started at 08:20:01 A.M.

Rendering the official transcript's annotated timestamps, even more* false: http://www.911myths.com/images/5/54/Team7_...ht11Calls.1.pdf

*Ong's dialogue starts in mid-sentence.

Imo, 'Ground Party Disconnect' (as opposed to 'Air Party Disconnect') would denote the recipient having terminated the call.

I gather that the 'Terminating' number, is that which was dialed; with 'Originating', being the phone line which did the dialing.


'...her[Ong's] call was held..., until 8:45:47, 53 seconds before Flight 11 crashed at 8:46:40 AM.'

~ http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-what-the...ls-at-all/26594

'Call Suddenly Cut Off - Woodward then hears what he will describe as “very, very loud static on the other end” of the line. [ABC News, 7/18/2002] After a short time, the line goes dead.
...
The call between Sweeney and Woodward lasts “approximately 12 minutes” and ends at around 8:44 a.m., according to the 9/11 Commission. [9/11 Commission, 2004, pp. 4; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 11, 14 pdf file] But according to a summary of phone calls from the hijacked flights presented at the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the call began at 8:32 a.m. and 39 seconds, and lasts 13 minutes and 13 seconds, meaning it ends at 8:45 a.m. and 52 seconds.* [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006]'


~ http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...(_amy_)_sweeney

*48 seconds before the North Tower's impact.

Therefore, I don't know that the phone system's possible destruction, had much to do with the termination of those calls.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 26 2014, 08:50 AM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 1-May 13
Member No.: 7,380



QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 26 2014, 04:40 AM) *
I suppose that Answer Supervision, indicates the times when Ong's & Sweeney's calls were answered.

Which would mean that Ong's call, actually started at 08:20:01 A.M.

Rendering the official transcript's annotated timestamps, even more* false: http://www.911myths.com/images/5/54/Team7_...ht11Calls.1.pdf

*Ong's dialogue starts in mid-sentence.

Imo, 'Ground Party Disconnect' (as opposed to 'Air Party Disconnect') would denote the recipient having terminated the call.

I gather that the 'Terminating' number, is that which was dialed; with 'Originating', being the phone line which did the dialing.


'...her[Ong's] call was held..., until 8:45:47, 53 seconds before Flight 11 crashed at 8:46:40 AM.'

~ http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-what-the...ls-at-all/26594

'Call Suddenly Cut Off - Woodward then hears what he will describe as “very, very loud static on the other end” of the line. [ABC News, 7/18/2002] After a short time, the line goes dead.
...
The call between Sweeney and Woodward lasts “approximately 12 minutes” and ends at around 8:44 a.m., according to the 9/11 Commission. [9/11 Commission, 2004, pp. 4; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 11, 14 pdf file] But according to a summary of phone calls from the hijacked flights presented at the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the call began at 8:32 a.m. and 39 seconds, and lasts 13 minutes and 13 seconds, meaning it ends at 8:45 a.m. and 52 seconds.* [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006]'


~ http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...(_amy_)_sweeney

*48 seconds before the North Tower's impact.

Therefore, I don't know that the phone system's possible destruction, had much to do with the termination of those calls.



I suppose the only real test is to destroy a phone making a call and see from subsequent records which end is then listed as terminating the call.

I saw on the Betty call that it says started at 18 mins past billed from 19 min past but is cut short.

You can correct me if i am wrong but since i just moved into the phonecalls i want to be correct.

OFFICIALLY

Ong calls, the call lasts 25 mins appx. The first four minutes only are recorded. The rest is just the operations centre personnel


Is that correct so far as the official story?

I have not seen a call record of Bettys call that covers 20+ minutes only a brief 2 minute one, if that is correct then surely there should be a 2 minute recording too?

I believe from the transcripts seen, there is a loop of parts of that call, meaning it was longer than 4 minutes or it was shorter than that. If it was longer, then parts were cut and looped to match the 4 minute recording time, if it was shorter then there was a reason it was cut before the full four minutes and the loop was created to give the impression of four minutes. I will be producing the analysis in due course if i am correct. But i need to check i am right with my supposition on what the official line was
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 27 2014, 05:36 AM
Post #18





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



A scan of Ong's 1620 second call record, can be found on page 007 here:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Te...foneRecords.pdf

The 'Terminating #'[-number] field, does feature American Airlines' Reservations number: 8004337300

Which is the same to this day: http://www.aa.com/i18n/utility/internation...honeContact.jsp

If I have confused: Air/Ground Party Disconnect, with Terminating; then where is the number that she was calling, listed?

Her call's 'Start Time', is given as 08:18:47 A.M. (perhaps when the ringing started), but is actually answered 1 minute and 14 seconds later.
Coincidentally:

'...Pete Zalewski, the air traffic controller handling the flight, later says the transponder is turned off at 8:20 a.m.'

~ http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp...ay_of_9/11=aa11

I believe that the original Ong recording, was longer than the official 4-minute version; because its abbreviated opening explanitory sentence, mentions no crucial flight number; tacitly-prompting Winston Sadler to naturally ask for it, which he predictably does, then a strangely-chorused and uncharacteristically succinct "FLIGHT 12." speech recording is promptly triggered (consecutively followed by a similarly provident and unconvincing "Yes." sample).

If I'm correct, then it's imo probable, that: Ong's call was censored, the cabin noise was phony and played live.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 27 2014, 07:20 AM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,125
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Dec 8 2013, 06:58 AM) *
I would take this to another level.
Time of Sweeney's calls: ~ 8:25 a.m.
Did the call recipients notify authorities immediately (NORAD etc.) or not? Plenty of time to send fighter jets.

The fighters were actually in place, there were two out of McGuire AFB (they took off at about the time the "AA11" took off), possibly with tanker plane, in the air south of Long Island less than 50nmi from Manhattan, being in position to intercept both "AA11" and "UA175", yet for some reason they've made a trip to northermost Maine instead and haven't turned back before 5gon attack happened. One of the two fighters which didn't transpond at all later even switched to military squawk and patrolled NY, long after the attacks. (This very much reminds me about the other Andrews fighters formation and their trip to the North Carolina).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 27 2014, 08:05 AM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 1-May 13
Member No.: 7,380



QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 27 2014, 10:36 AM) *
A scan of Ong's 1620 second call record, can be found on page 007 here:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Te...foneRecords.pdf

The 'Terminating #'[-number] field, does feature American Airlines' Reservations number: 8004337300

Which is the same to this day: http://www.aa.com/i18n/utility/internation...honeContact.jsp

If I have confused: Air/Ground Party Disconnect, with Terminating; then where is the number that she was calling, listed?

Her call's 'Start Time', is given as 08:18:47 A.M. (perhaps when the ringing started), but is actually answered 1 minute and 14 seconds later.
Coincidentally:

'...Pete Zalewski, the air traffic controller handling the flight, later says the transponder is turned off at 8:20 a.m.'

~ http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp...ay_of_9/11=aa11

I believe that the original Ong recording, was longer than the official 4-minute version; because its abbreviated opening explanitory sentence, mentions no crucial flight number; tacitly-prompting Winston Sadler to naturally ask for it, which he predictably does, then a strangely-chorused and uncharacteristically succinct "FLIGHT 12." speech recording is promptly triggered (consecutively followed by a similarly provident and unconvincing "Yes." sample).

If I'm correct, then it's imo probable, that: Ong's call was censored, the cabin noise was phony and played live.



The transcripts are messed up with the wansley requested playback differing from later released audio.
Anyhow, also i not that Minter the initial recipient of Ongs call, can't find her emergency button, so she calls Sadler who can and does record, then Gonzalez is patched in, she does not ask if the call is being recorded nor does she say she pressed her own emergency button. She should have, if patched on the line have been as able to record Ong as Sadler and she IS recorded herself but Ong isn't
Doesn't add up going to have run through the connections and hand overs again
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th November 2017 - 01:59 PM