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


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

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

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Questions: The Passengers, Cell Phone Calls, And Plane Swapping.

EagleEye
post Jan 16 2014, 02:11 AM
Post #21





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 14 2014, 08:27 PM) *
You can understand ANY element of 9/11 when and ONLY when you are finally able
to get your head round one simple fact: ALL 4 PLANES WERE FAKED

Before I get screamed off the topic, if not off the forum, please note I did NOT say FAKE. I said FAKED.

To illustrate: the Pentagon plane WAS no doubt a real airplane, but it was not flying Route AA77
... the official website recorded the fact Route AA77 was canceled on 9/11/2001...
so the Pentagon plane was a decoy... I bet a few pilot readers will have strong views
on whether the pilot of the Airforce Transport plane was a crack ace fighter pilot
or a cracked trainee with more balls than brain....but it must take courage to skim
the roof of the most heavily-guarded building in the world, especially with
the Military Magician scrutinizing you... although you didn't know till later that
the MM was totally distracted with complete dismay that the Navy Seals'
dynamite charges failed dismally and left the building totally intact


AA11 was also officially CANCELED ... as recorded on the BTS website
UA175 officially left the tarmac.... but never landed
UA93 likewise, officially never landed....
that is government info. I could NOT make up such info even if I tried

Yes, your cell phone calls were also ALL FAKED.

But not necessarily FAKE blink.gif



Well, whatever they did with the planes - although i know that there was a 175 in the air reporting with the regular Captain (i presume his identity, then again... how would we know who that was... it's just a voice, so indeed 175 went up for the swap, yet never hijacked, that certainly would make more sense in light of this cell phone evidence.

So you're right, about faking things, including the premise, but not the actual call, of the cell phones, from the ground.

That's got to be, next to aircraft speeds, including "flight 175" - THE most damning, and horrific, of the 9/11 evidence, because the twin towers doing what they did was "unimaginable", but this is personal, the place these people were REALLY calling from.

To create a tear-wrenching narrative.

It's sad alright, but not in the way that the scripters who had the actors act their part, might have ever considered.

The calls cannot be made from high altitude at high speed, now even now, and not on 9/11.

oh God, it's just horrible.

This is by far a worse leak than the Snowden NSA leak regarding domestic spying and a push back against civil liberties, because this is the reason for all that.

And it cannot be denied, beyond a reasonable doubt.

For Sherlock Holmes it would be a no brainer.

This is by far the worst leak and they offered it themselves, in the form of the honey pot, simply because they never imagined for the life of them that we might figure something out that they did not anticipate or presumed to get away with and so it appears that they have, but i don't think so.

The cell phone record is absolutely damning in no uncertain terms for the official story narrative and it's a central part of the narrative itself, you see.

Thus (puffs pipe) we've overcome the honey pot, and demonstrated in incontrovertible terms relative to the official narrative itself, that it's not possible and cannot be believed or accepted, leaving whatever other possibility might remain in terms of the way and the means by which the people were "handled" and presumably silenced to tie up all the loose ends - that lady KNEW it!

Jesus.

This is not good for the official story narrative - the cell phone calls that cannot have taken place unless they took place, from the ground, and a quiet room at that, and not in a plane at all.

Does the United States Government NOT have the power and the capacity to inquire into it's own shenanigans, not publicly, but privately... and integrate the knowledge from what's to be learned - for God's sake and for the sake of the victims, for the sake of truth and justice and what's RIGHT.

My God men what have you wrought?


Lesson learned?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Jan 16 2014, 07:23 PM
Post #22





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



Cell phone records of the 9/11 passengers were obtained in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. The cell phone calls were never made. Many of the relatives of the victims saw the caller ID of the victims on their phones. Deena Burnett saw her husband's number at least three times but the phone company says the calls were never made. Most likely the calls were made in an office somewhere and the caller ID's were spoofed. You can now get the Call Faker app for your phone to spoof calls.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 17 2014, 01:55 AM
Post #23





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 15 2014, 05:42 PM) *
`
The question was do you find it hard to believe that a group of people could get on a number of different planes departing at around the same time and hijack them.



I absolutely find it hard to believe!

One set of hijackers to successfully hijack a plane; very unlikely.
Two sets of hijackers to successfully hijack two planes on the same day; most improbable.
Three sets of hijackers to successfully hijack three planes on the same day; laughable.
Four sets of hijackers to successfully hijack four planes on the same day; chances of happening, one in a billion or less.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 17 2014, 02:01 AM
Post #24





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 14 2014, 10:20 PM) *
Hi all,

I've recently come across what i think is the best researched and the hardest hitting of the 9/11 documentaries, which includes a number of clips from P4T's vids and which references the material here.

Here it is

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (1/3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk



I was made aware of the video a few months ago and bought a copy.
It is one of the best on the subject of 9/11.

There were only a few items that were new to me in the video, but still, I bought it after viewing online to give to family members.

One of the items I was not aware of was the "It's a frame" comment left on the answering machine.
That certainly was chilling!
And, as pointed out, a smoking gun that definitely slipped by the perps.

The questions you ask can't possibly be answered by anyone. Any answer would involve PURE speculation, so I don't know why you keep asking them.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 17 2014, 02:56 AM
Post #25





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 16 2014, 10:01 PM) *
I was made aware of the video a few months ago and bought a copy.
It is one of the best on the subject of 9/11.

There were only a few items that were new to me in the video, but still, I bought it after viewing online to give to family members.

One of the items I was not aware of was the "It's a frame" comment left on the answering machine.
That certainly was chilling!
And, as pointed out, a smoking gun that definitely slipped by the perps.

The questions you ask can't possibly be answered by anyone. Any answer would involve PURE speculation, so I don't know why you keep asking them.


You make a good point. i was just curious if these people were ever in the air, and if there was sufficient time to land and disembark in order for those calls to have been made.

Either way, according to the official story, those cell phone calls could not have been, on the whole, taken collectively, from the altitude and speed they were reported to have been made from, and must therefore have been made from the ground, whereby the callers were offering a scripted narrative which was not their actual circumstance.

I was just curious as to the timing and the window of time involved, which may prove that the cell phone "passengers" never took off that day.

Either way, it's incontrovertible evidence when taken as a whole, that their true situation and obvious predicament involved something other than being on the hijacked aircraft at the time the calls were made.

The somewhat "canned" nature of most of the deliveries of certain bits of information in regards to the hijackers, and the situation, further reveals that the scripts these people were giving was for them being done under false pretense, most likely that they were caught up in a military exercise involving "simulated hijackings", which could explain the tone and style of much of that record in regards to the way the story was delivered and relayed which did not seem to be congruent with the real world situation - and then there's that last lady, who's voice broke only at the end in saying what she seemed to understand implicitly was her final goodbye, and then that fumbling with the phone and the whisper - "it's a frame"

Regardless of which planes took off or were swapped, it doesn't matter, you're right.

What it shows though in incontrovertible terms, as far as i can tell, is that the official story is not true at all in this regard and simply cannot be believed, no matter what the implication of the alternative scenario might be, which must include the handling of these people, in a secure location, on the GROUND.

No need to spoof all the caller ID's or to voicemorph every individuals vocal and language patterning, which inadvertently "feeds the honey pot" with unnecessary information, which, in light of what's proven, is entirely superfluous, and what might be though of as not credible, and as pointed out, unnecessary.

In light of new information, and incontrovertible evidence that cannot be denied, why then lay over it layers of unneeded and unnecessary "conspiracy theory" particularly if that theory would be considered by many if not most to be not credible or believable.

We should never cover up, ourselves, what's clear as day, in this case that the calls were made, and were made from the ground, and they were the real people, caught up in what they must have thought to be a military exercise involving simulated hijacked aircraft perhaps with some of them a little more aware and up to speed on the true nature of their situation than others.

So forgetting about the plane swap element, and whether or not they had sufficient time to land, because that's irrelevant to the fact that the calls can only have been placed, on the whole, from the ground - what else can be deduced?

Except for that whisper, none "spilled the beans" or said anything about being part of an exercise and thus not to worry, so one thing that can be deduced is that they were strongly coached on what to say, and what not to say.

One could imagine i suppose a whole serious of psychological frames or pressure points that could have been used without unduly alarming the callers to the point that they would panic and say the wrong thing.

I had also considered that maybe they were collected on an aircraft at the terminal on the ground and then parked. However, the recipients of the calls remarked at how clear the calls were, and the lack of any background noise. Also, if the people were being handled in a group, whether on a grounded plane or in a room, whatever pretense might have been used could be more apt to fall apart if someone panics, or shouts out, or tries to influence the others around them. Therefore, although this may be speculation, as a type of inductive and deductive reasoning, it's probably fair to assume that they were isolated from one another, or at most in the case of flight 93, handled as a small group ie: when Mark Bingham made his famous "let's roll" comment, albeit at the wrong time in terms of the sequencing of events.

It's ok to speculate and generate hypotheses to a degree, until we begin to undermine, unneccesarily, the very facts that we've uncovered and brought to light.


Regards,

EE
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 17 2014, 03:08 AM
Post #26





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



i meant Todd Beamer
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jan 17 2014, 03:45 AM
Post #27


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 17 2014, 12:55 AM) *
I absolutely find it hard to believe!

One set of hijackers to successfully hijack a plane; very unlikely.
Two sets of hijackers to successfully hijack two planes on the same day; most improbable.
Three sets of hijackers to successfully hijack three planes on the same day; laughable.
Four sets of hijackers to successfully hijack four planes on the same day; chances of happening, one in a billion or less.


even more astounding is that after allegedly successfully hijacking 4 planes full of millionaires and government and or defense contractor employees (and women, children and other "regular" folks), that you would waste all the leverage their lives could gain you, by simply killing them all and attacking a few "symbolic targets". historically hijackers would land somewhere and make demands in trade for their hostages, so the 9/11 hijackers were the most counterproductive hijackers in the history of hijacking! and speaking of who supposedly committed (and planned and benefitted), how about bin laden? 9/11 was literal suicide for him and his alqaida organization. by 9/12 all shit was in the process of gathering needed logistix for it to hit the fan in afghanistan. bin laden had to go into supposed hiding while in short time troops on the ground and missiles from the air destroyed alqaida and took over their opium network. from top to bottom the official story of 9/11 fails even as fiction, the people supposedly behind it gained nothing but their own doom! awfully short-sighted plan the whole thing turned out to be for bin laden, alqaida, and his 19 arabs...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 17 2014, 09:35 AM
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (paranoia @ Jan 17 2014, 08:45 AM) *
even more astounding is that after allegedly successfully hijacking 4 planes full of millionaires and government and or defense contractor employees (and women, children and other "regular" folks), that you would waste all the leverage their lives could gain you, by simply killing them all and attacking a few "symbolic targets". historically hijackers would land somewhere and make demands in trade for their hostages, so the 9/11 hijackers were the most counterproductive hijackers in the history of hijacking! and speaking of who supposedly committed (and planned and benefitted), how about bin laden? 9/11 was literal suicide for him and his alqaida organization. by 9/12 all shit was in the process of gathering needed logistix for it to hit the fan in afghanistan. bin laden had to go into supposed hiding while in short time troops on the ground and missiles from the air destroyed alqaida and took over their opium network. from top to bottom the official story of 9/11 fails even as fiction, the people supposedly behind it gained nothing but their own doom! awfully short-sighted plan the whole thing turned out to be for bin laden, alqaida, and his 19 arabs...


Hi P!

Add to this the success rate of the "hits" on those symbolic buildings.
If one of those aircraft had skimmed one of the towers and was sprayed all over Manhattan I might have bought that bridge. Or if Hani had slightly misjudged the official turn rate for the "final leg" (if I bought the bridge) of the Pentagon attack, bounced off the lawn or struck Route 27, same thing

And the "success" of these 1000000 to one hits (combined with the luck of having a free run in the skies and a defence supposedly with its thumb up its ass) was celebrated nor claimed by anyone.

If this group was so fanatic and had planned so hard to pull off this spectacular, why no shouting from the rooftops? Why no further attacks and instead we have the FBI setting up "sting" operations to pad the numbers out on the "terrorist threat"? "Sting operations" that make up almost all "terrorist" acts on US soil since 9/11.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Jan 17 2014, 09:36 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 17 2014, 03:05 PM
Post #29





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (Art @ Jan 16 2014, 03:23 PM) *
Cell phone records of the 9/11 passengers were obtained in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. The cell phone calls were never made. Many of the relatives of the victims saw the caller ID of the victims on their phones. Deena Burnett saw her husband's number at least three times but the phone company says the calls were never made. Most likely the calls were made in an office somewhere and the caller ID's were spoofed. You can now get the Call Faker app for your phone to spoof calls.


I you watch the latter part of the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

you'll see that for the Zacarias Moussaoui, an attempt was made to cover up and mislead in regards to the cell phone calls.

There's no need at all for voice morphing or caller ID spoofing.

Imho, the cell phone record is one of the most damning indictments of the OS, but one of many.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nonflier
post Jan 17 2014, 04:26 PM
Post #30





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 33
Joined: 13-January 14
Member No.: 7,664



EagleEye,
I started watching that again and this time took particular note of the Popular Mechanics claim that cell phones work at cruising altitude. Knowing PM should be saying the opposite, the thought occurred to me that they may be part of mainstream media with the same owners. And a quick check confirmed it: Hearst! (i.e., NWO). So they have zero credibility in my book.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 17 2014, 06:37 PM
Post #31





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (nonflier @ Jan 17 2014, 12:26 PM) *
EagleEye,
I started watching that again and this time took particular note of the Popular Mechanics claim that cell phones work at cruising altitude. Knowing PM should be saying the opposite, the thought occurred to me that they may be part of mainstream media with the same owners. And a quick check confirmed it: Hearst! (i.e., NWO). So they have zero credibility in my book.


Yep. Corporate whores for the elite's sick and twisted 9/11-related agenda. Cowards and liars. Are they aware of it? Probably.

That's why i'm so pleased to see this latest documentary release.

As a movement, this is the one to buy and re-distribute everywhere, without cessation.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 18 2014, 12:29 AM
Post #32





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 17 2014, 01:56 AM) *
Either way, according to the official story, those cell phone calls could not have been, on the whole, taken collectively, from the altitude and speed they were reported to have been made from, and must therefore have been made from the ground, whereby the callers were offering a scripted narrative which was not their actual circumstance.

I was just curious as to the timing and the window of time involved, which may prove that the cell phone "passengers" never took off that day.

Either way, it's incontrovertible evidence when taken as a whole, that their true situation and obvious predicament involved something other than being on the hijacked aircraft at the time the calls were made.


Something still needs to be worked out. Maybe you can take it upon yourself to investigate.

Everyone except Popular Mechanics knows that the cellphone calls could not have been made at the altitude the planes were flying at.

At the 2006 Moussaoui trial, even the FBI confirmed that no cell phone calls were connected from the planes.

So what needs to be resolved is whether the conversations that took place and the answering machine message(s) that were left were made with cell phones, 'seat back' phones or other phones.

Can we safely rule out cellphones from the planes AND on ground? The FBI would have said cell phone calls were connected if they were.

What phones were used to make these calls and how were the numbers of the cell phones displayed on the phones picking up the calls?

It is still somewhat complicated.

But your scenario of on the ground calls makes the most sense, and in a 'forced' setting.






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 18 2014, 12:37 AM
Post #33





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 17 2014, 08:35 AM) *
Add to this the success rate of the "hits" on those symbolic buildings....

And the "success" of these 1000000 to one hits (combined with the luck of having a free run in the skies and a defence supposedly with its thumb up its ass) was celebrated nor claimed by anyone.



Yes my one in a billion was just the chances of four successful hijackings taking place in one morning.

When you add the chances of the hijackers actually being able to take the planes off auto-pilot and have the skills to fly the planes successfully into their targets (3 of 4) you get something like one in a trillion.

Add the chances that ALL U.S. defence forces would be AWOL the whole time and you are getting into a virtual 0 possibility, IF LEFT TO CHANCE.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Jan 18 2014, 01:43 AM
Post #34





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 17 2014, 03:05 PM) *
I you watch the latter part of the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

you'll see that for the Zacarias Moussaoui, an attempt was made to cover up and mislead in regards to the cell phone calls.

There's no need at all for voice morphing or caller ID spoofing.

Imho, the cell phone record is one of the most damning indictments of the OS, but one of many.

When I make a cell call, Verizon knows which number I called and for how long. They never miss a call. There were about ten people that saw caller ID on their phones but the phone companies said that there are no records of those calls. (There was one call by Barbara Olsen that lasted zero seconds.) So if the caller ID was not faked, how did the victims relatives see the caller ID without the phone companies knowledge?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 18 2014, 03:52 AM
Post #35





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 17 2014, 08:29 PM) *
Can we safely rule out cellphones from the planes AND on ground? The FBI would have said cell phone calls were connected if they were.


Um no, they would not, because any admission to that effect brings in every single one of those calls, which cannot have been made from altitude at speed. They knew it was impossible, so an attempt was made to cover it up, as pointed out in the documentary.

They were forced to admit to a couple of them because in one case the guy was in the lavatory where there's no airphone.

Blatant cover up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 18 2014, 04:01 AM
Post #36





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (Art @ Jan 17 2014, 09:43 PM) *
When I make a cell call, Verizon knows which number I called and for how long. They never miss a call. There were about ten people that saw caller ID on their phones but the phone companies said that there are no records of those calls. (There was one call by Barbara Olsen that lasted zero seconds.) So if the caller ID was not faked, how did the victims relatives see the caller ID without the phone companies knowledge?


Can you provide a cite for that Art, where did you get this info, was it from the Moussaoui trial?

Maybe pressure was applied to the cell phone companies when it was realized that this part of the OS wasn't workable and betrayed this aspect of the operation, and maybe that took place while they were trying to shift the narrative first for the 9/11 Commission Report, and then later the trial of Moussaoui, where the impression they attempted to convey was that all the calls but two were from airphones.

What we're left with are the recipients who say the ID on the call phone accompanied by their loved one's voice offering up the narrative.

There's no need for any ID spoofing or voice morphing to replicate the individuals voice and language patterning, and isn't that just the type of thing that they would want to tangle up the "conspiracy theorists" in...?

Think it through - when they realize the goof they tried to alter the whole record while pointing to air phones being the almost exclusive source of all the phone calls, and i'll betcha when you look into it, one will discover that the only two they claim took place, in spite of all the calls received with ID's, where made at a believable altitude, although from what i can tell watching the documentary - they screwed it all up.

What's the better argument..? What probably most congruent with the truth according to Occam's Razor?

that the ID's were spoofed the voices simulated, or real calls from cell phones on the ground, the people reading narratives as if part of a military exercise of some kind involving "simulated hijacked aircraft", although in at least one case it would appear that the individual making the call and offering up the scripted narrative was well aware of her situation and predicament.

Let's not feed the honey pot, unnecessarily...

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Jan 18 2014, 04:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 18 2014, 04:31 AM
Post #37





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



Let's watch the segment again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk

which according to the resource listing

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/se...e&artid=167

starts here

1.38:35 - The cellphone calls

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


Now, let's think this through for a minute like Sherlock Holmes, no matter what we might have believed at one time about this aspect, even based on extensive research as the case may be.

What's more likely - that the cell phone calls were made, from the ground, as they were, with the appropriate caller ID and PERSON associated with that very phone

- or -

The caller ID's were "spoofed" (which may very well be possible) and the voices of the callers, "simulated" by "voice morphing", including everything about that voice AND language pattern, to create a simulated "clone" of the indivudal.

Now.. (puffs pipe thoughtfully), getting back to the cell phone company or companies (if they reported no calls, so let's assume there's a valid cite for that), as well as the FBI - why on EARTH would they EVER admit for a moment that the bulk of those calls were made from the individual's cell phone?

They cannot.

Therefore, according to the appropriate application of Occam's Razor, although it was seriously hijacked all over the place by the op itself on September 11th, 2001 leaving what i call "honey pots" all over the place for would-be conspiracy theorists or researchers,

The calls were made from the owners of the cell phones from the ground, with a botched cover up (watch the segment again), right there plain as day in the public record, with the one lady delivering the news as if it's nothing, her voice only finally breaking in the final goodbye, and then the whisper.. "it's a frame"

They quite obviously used, to elicit the cooperation of the callers, some sort of pretext or pretense almost certainly a military excercise involving simulated hijacked aircraft with them caught up in it through absolutely no fault of their own, whether they be aerospace civilians who are known entities, or a few regular everyday folk - so they deliver the lines, but are not permitted to tell the truth and that there's nothing to worry about on the part of their loved one as the recipient of that call, under some sort of authority, even by law for example - something, so that they would say only the right things, and not the wrong things in those calls including the one left on the answering machine - and when the people offer up the scripted narrative indeed it sounds canned, or acted out, either in a care free way because they were completely under the "frame" unawares, and bad actors at that, and/or they were simply not the most enthusiastic, having an inkling that by the fact that they cannot say - "but don't worry it's just an exercise" the suspicion that it might indeed be the last call might not be lost on them in the awareness of the frame itself, as scary as that is to consider.

This isn't entire inductive reasoning either wanding aimlessly in the "honey pot" of the unknown, since certain things are known with certainty, from which certain other thing may be deduced from the information contained in the entire data-set.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 18 2014, 04:44 AM
Post #38





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630




That's one heck of a conundrum for the authorities.

And there are more than a few people who would WANT for us to feed this honey pot with misinformation.

It's clear as day however and anyone can visit the website of the trial of whathisname Moussoui.

The documentary fills in the gaps, and what we're left with however horrifying, is equally damning to the official story, since the cell phone calls cannot have been made from altitude and can only have come from the ground in some secure location - where the recipients of those calls all report that they were indeed recieved from that individuals cell phone, with they themselves or that particular person on the other end of the line.

Sure the ID's can be spoofed, but why would they be?

Think it through.

The honey pot can compel us to fill it with pore speculation, because it's just too horrific to deal with, when we ought to only escape it's fundamental trap with simple logic and purely deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning.

There's data here, and a story to tell, capable of stopping short of the unknown based solely on the content and origin of those calls.

It's elementary.

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Jan 18 2014, 04:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 18 2014, 05:38 AM
Post #39





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



According to the documentary the FBI's own files contain the record of the cell phones, as does the public record, with the recipients having received their calls from the person's cell phone with the ID.

This is as damning as every other piece of evidence proving the official story to be a fabrication and a lie.

That it was lied about - is also just as damning, if not even moreso because it reveals - i'm not sure what the legal term is, a guilty motive?

That's terrible, for them.

It's not on us for merely pointing it out.



This post has been edited by EagleEye: Jan 18 2014, 05:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 18 2014, 05:49 AM
Post #40





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



This is even MORE devastating i think than other interpretive pieces of evidence that run contrary to the official story because this was intrinsic to that story or narrative itself, and is part of the story.

So all we're looking at is a botched cover-up, which because of the attempt to cover up itself, reveals itself as a cover up, when the fact is that the calls came in from their cell phones with ID and that person on the other end of the line clear as day with no background noise of any kind, in almost every case that we are aware of the appropriate scripting delivered like that of a bad actor or utterly unconcerned, as if running down certain points point by point in every case describing the situation and not veering from that central narrative as you would expect with different people reacting to such a terrible situation ie: it wasn't congruent with real world real life - hoaxed, but not a "hoax", no voice morphing or caller ID spoofing needed.

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Jan 18 2014, 05:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 15th September 2019 - 04:36 PM