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 )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Madeline Sweeney's Phone Call, Something strange

Culper721
post Jan 2 2007, 08:04 PM
Post #21





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 210
Joined: 2-January 07
Member No.: 396



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Jan 2 2007, 06:19 PM)
Welcome to the forums Culper!

stop by the Welcome forum and introduce yourself... great first post.. (may want to cut down on the caffeine though.. wink.gif)


Cheers!
Rob

Thanks, but it was more of a copy and paste from something I wrote almost a year ago.

And one can never have too much caffeine.

BTW, did you ever plot out the ATC transcript for AAL11, as released in the NY Times, on a chart?

You'd be amazed at what you'd uncover:

See: "NEED RADAR HOLE FLIGHT PATH PICTURE SANS DRONE FLIGHTS"

http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/foru...viewforum.php?7

N.B.

I found out a few months later, from an NTSB accident report, that AAL 11 was ordered to turn “direct to Chester” earlier before the hijacking; this reduces the discrepancy in the angle of turn from 20 degrees right to the actual turn taken to hit the radar gap, but fails to explain everything else making the official story completely unbelievable.

As the administrator you have my email; feel free to contact me if you want to see the full magilla; chart board and all.

SIYOM,

Bob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 2 2007, 08:19 PM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Thanks..

we're wrapping up AA77 now.. and most likely moving onto UA93 next.. after that will be AA11. Stick around as i'll definitely want to consult with you...

Rob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Culper721
post Jan 2 2007, 09:03 PM
Post #23





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 210
Joined: 2-January 07
Member No.: 396



Okay, but remember that Flight 11 was the lead plane and also the flight with the most (contradictory) information.

Also, Flight 77 falls within the Las Vegas/Pentagon maxim: "What happens in the Pentagon; stays in the Pentagon." IOW, only the JAG has jurisdiction and an implicit mandate to keep any inquiry from turning into a media circus and or endangering actual national security.

Per the rest of the air ballet on 9/11:

8:14 Flight 11 is hijacked; Flight 175 takes off.

8:39 Flight 11 and Flight 175 nearly meet; Flight 77 deviates from its path.

8:46/47 Flight 11 crashes; Flights 175 and 93 meet each other

8:51 Flight 77 makes last radio contact; Flight 175 deviates from its assigned altitude

After being hijacked within six seconds, Flight 11 headed straight towards one of the two primary radar gaps on the east coast; arriving seven minutes later and turning off its transponder at the precise time of hitting the cusp of a primary radar gap. It then continued for another six minutes, on its north westerly course away from target for a total of 13 minutes before turning south.
Flight 77 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage and within a tri-section of weak radar coverage. It also passes through the largest hole in primary radar existing at the time.

United Flight 175 switched off its transponder right next to United Flight 93.

Flight 93 not only switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage; but it
made its U-turn back within a tiny westerly peninsula of the radar gap.

Thus the question "Who provided the alleged hijackers with the radar gap information as well as the timing and ability to exploit same?"


SIYOM,

Bob

P.S.

Did anyone ask the former Boston Controller who were the "federal law-enforcement officials, who arrived at the flight-contol facility minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0913/p1s2-usju.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 2 2007, 09:34 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Culper, check your PM's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andrewkornkven
post Jan 2 2007, 09:51 PM
Post #25





Group: Newbie
Posts: 52
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 105



QUOTE (Culper721 @ Jan 2 2007, 11:34 PM)
Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio

"The burden is upon he who affirms; not he who denies."

If you think you can 'poison the well' by mere reference to a single film with a crappy soundtrack; you are sadly mistaken.

Since truth is the agreement between knowledge and its object; it would appear that the only way the official accounting of the phone calls could ever agree with the available evidence is for someone to redefine the term "truth." 

Apparently word problems are not your forte

I sure hope you're not another person peddling tranquility over the truth for the mere fact that you can't stomach that the penalty for treason is death by the felon's noose.

Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.

A lovely mix of latin quotations and personal insults-- but, where's the beef? I mean, what the hell are you talking about? Can you try to make a less stylish argument in terms that we can understand?

I maintain that all the phone calls are real, including Betty Ong's: both the 3.5 minutes we can listen to on the internet and the other 18.5 minutes that, should it ever be released, would probably blow the official story sky high.

I hope you are not yet another person who has not been paying attention, and assumes that because I believe the phone calls are real I therefore endorse the official story. I believe the calls are real and are evidence that the planes were hijacked by real people-- but not by Arabs as per the official story. I believe the planes were hijacked by state-trained professionals who were armed with guns, and who impersonated Arabs so as to frame Arabs for the crime.

This post has been edited by andrewkornkven: Jan 2 2007, 10:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 2 2007, 10:13 PM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (andrewkornkven @ Jan 2 2007, 08:51 PM)
I believe the planes were hijacked by state-trained professionals who were armed with guns, and who impersonated Arabs so as to frame Arabs for the crime.

Andy, this is the third time i have asked you to source your claims with facts. You have yet to do so. Please refrain from posting frivilous opinion without sourcing your claims.

Again, there are two CELL PHONE calls (verified according to govt reports) that took place ABOVE FL230 and FL350 respectively (i have yet to research the remainder of calls... but i will). I know your cell phone may work in the tower (or center underground), but i have NEVER had a cell phone work above 5,000 feet, nor do i know any pilot/flight crew who has had one work, before or after Sept 11.

You keep posting the same claim (read: opinion) but you never back it up with facts or source. Please try to do that in the future. I wont remind you again.

Thanks
Rob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andrewkornkven
post Jan 2 2007, 10:46 PM
Post #27





Group: Newbie
Posts: 52
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 105



QUOTE (Culper721 @ Jan 2 2007, 11:06 PM)
Unless “routine medical emergencies” consist of stabbings, mace sprayings forcing passengers and flight attendants to the rear of the plane, completely ignored by silent calm passengers who don't talk to each other for 25 minutes, the official story (of Flight 11 and the entire 911 plot) becomes a metaphysical impossibility five minutes before AAL11 impacts the North Tower.

I totally agree that the official story is metaphysically impossible. That being said, you make a lot of assumptions in your analysis. Are you sure there were 21 "witnesses" from first and business class? I hope you're not including the hijackers themselves in this count! Anyway, you cannot assume that every single passenger herded into the back of the plane witnessed the stabbings and cockpit storming.

I agree that some of them did witness the violence and hijacking. But they were probably ordered by the hijackers to remain silent as they were sent to the back of the plane. Given the circumstances, they probably thought it wise to obey. They probably considered it their best strategy to keep calm and quiet while they assumed the plane would eventually land somewhere as do most hijackings.

The point is that the fact that the passengers in coach with Betty Ong were quiet and calm does not prove her call is fake. Loose Change would have us believe that because the other passengers were not screaming their heads off while she was talking, we should assume her call is bogus. That idea, like just about everything else presented in Loose Change, works as disinformation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Culper721
post Jan 2 2007, 11:40 PM
Post #28





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 210
Joined: 2-January 07
Member No.: 396



QUOTE (andrewkornkven @ Jan 2 2007, 08:51 PM)
QUOTE (Culper721 @ Jan 2 2007, 11:34 PM)
Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio

"The burden is upon he who affirms; not he who denies."

If you think you can 'poison the well' by mere reference to a single film with a crappy soundtrack; you are sadly mistaken.

Since truth is the agreement between knowledge and its object; it would appear that the only way the official accounting of the phone calls could ever agree with the available evidence is for someone to redefine the term "truth." 

Apparently word problems are not your forte

I sure hope you're not another person peddling tranquility over the truth for the mere fact that you can't stomach that the penalty for treason is death by the felon's noose.

Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.


A lovely mix of latin quotations and personal insults-- but, where's the beef? I mean, what the hell are you talking about? Can you try to make a less stylish argument in terms that we can understand?

I maintain that all the phone calls are real, including Betty Ong's: both the 3.5 minutes we can listen to on the internet and the other 18.5 minutes that, should it ever be released, would probably blow the official story sky high.

I hope you are not yet another person who has not been paying attention, and assumes that because I believe the phone calls are real I therefore endorse the official story. I believe the calls are real and are evidence that the planes were hijacked by real people-- but not by Arabs as per the official story. I believe the planes were hijacked by state-trained professionals who were armed with guns, and who impersonated Arabs so as to frame Arabs for the crime.


Were you paying attention?

Did I challenge the contention that the calls were real? Or did I show that the calls failed to comport with the "official story" much less the available evidence; thereby making said story "false" as a matter of logic?

And per the "paying attention" remark; did you notice how Thomas Kean presented the tapes to the Commission and the audience? "A small portion was removed to spare a family from pain?" Funny how he doesn't mention that the portions redacted came from the middle.

Accordingly, I'm sure you'd love to hear the tape redacted between 8:26, when "Ong reported that the plane was 'flying erratically'" and 8:38 when "Ong told Gonzalez that the plane was flying erratically again.”

NYDIA GONZALEZ: "Yeah, she’s just saying that they have. They’re in coach. What’s going on, honey? Okay, the aircraft is erratic again. Flying very erratically. She did say that all the first class passengers have been moved back to coach, so the first class cabin is empty. What’s going on on your end?"

Further, as an attorney, I can assure you that the law doesn't give a damn what either you or I "believe;" only what can be proved. When the prosecution fails to meet its burdens of production and persuasion, e.g. the 911 Commission Report, the court neither grants a presumption of truth in the prosecution's favor nor does it shift the burden of proving an alternative theory on opposing counsel. Nonetheless, in lieu of shifting the burden back to the proponent of the story that you find incredible; you suffer from the delusion that argumentation consists solely of proffering alternative theories and claims as the only means of refutation.

I'm sorry; perhaps I should explain in a "less stylish" manner:

Argumentation is the study of effective reasoning; accordingly, popular conceptions of argumentation as unpleasant and quarrelsome need to be set aside.

To be clear, Arguing is reason giving.

1. Reasons are justifications or support for claims.

2. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving.

3. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or command.

You are capable of forming an argument; are you not? If so, perhaps you could provide some reasons, dare I say an argument, as to why your claims accomplish the task of shifting the burden back to the prosecution?

After all; if you want to see all the evidence, then you'd have to show why the prosecution's claims are not supported by the evidence as given; would you not?

And you don't suppose proving the official story, as based upon the premises set forth, and relied upon, by the 911 Commission, is a metaphysical impossibility somehow shifts the burden (and perhaps suspicion) back onto the proponents; do you?

Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.

P.S. This is not a game; since the penalty for treason and felony murder is death.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 2 2007, 11:44 PM
Post #29



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



yep.. i like this guy already.... thumbsup.gif

Culper.. what type of law do you practice?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Culper721
post Jan 3 2007, 12:09 AM
Post #30





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 210
Joined: 2-January 07
Member No.: 396



QUOTE (andrewkornkven @ Jan 2 2007, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE (Culper721 @ Jan 2 2007, 11:06 PM)
Unless “routine medical emergencies” consist of stabbings, mace sprayings forcing passengers and flight attendants to the rear of the plane, completely ignored by silent calm passengers who don't talk to each other for 25 minutes, the official story (of Flight 11 and the entire 911 plot) becomes a metaphysical impossibility five minutes before AAL11 impacts the North Tower.


I agree that some of them did witness the violence and hijacking. But they were probably ordered by the hijackers to remain silent as they were sent to the back of the plane. Given the circumstances, they probably thought it wise to obey. They probably considered it their best strategy to keep calm and quiet while they assumed the plane would eventually land somewhere as do most hijackings.



"They were probably ordered by the hijackers to remain silent as they were sent to the back of the plane??"

Where do you get the luxury of the foregoing presumption?

BETTY ONG: And the cockpit is not answering their phone. And there’s somebody stabbed in business class. And there’s . . . we can’t breathe in business class. Somebody’s got mace or something.

MALE VOICE: Can you describe the person that you said -- someone is what in business class?

BETTY ONG: I’m sitting in the back. Somebody’s coming back from business. If you can hold on for one second, they’re coming back.

BETTY ONG: Okay. Our number 1 got stabbed. Our purser is stabbed. Nobody knows who is stabbed who, and we can’t even get up to business class right now cause nobody can breathe. Our number 1 is stabbed right now. And who else is . . .

MALE VOICE: Okay, and do we . . .

BETTY ONG: and our number 5 -- our first class passengers are -- galley flight attendant and our purser has been stabbed. And we can’t get into the cockpit, the door won’t open. Hello?

MALE VOICE: Yeah, I’m taking it down. All the information. We’re also, you know, of course, recording this. At this point . . .

FEMALE VOICE: This is Operations. What flight number are we talking about?

MALE VOICE: Flight 12.

FEMALE VOICE: Flight 12? Okay. I’m getting . . .

BETTY ONG: No. We’re on Flight 11 right now. This is Flight 11.

MALE VOICE: It’s Flight 11, I’m sorry Nydia.

BETTY ONG: Boston to Los Angeles.

MALE VOICE: Yes.

BETTY ONG: Our number 1 has been stabbed and our 5 has been stabbed. Can anybody get up to the cockpit? Can anybody get up to the cockpit? Okay. We can’t even get into the cockpit. We don’t know who’s up there.

MALE VOICE: Well, if they were shrewd they would keep the door closed and --

BETTY ONG: I’m sorry?

MALE VOICE: Would they not maintain a sterile cockpit?

BETTY ONG: I think the guys are up there. They might have gone there -- jammed the way up there, or something. Nobody can call the cockpit. We can’t even get inside. Is anybody still there?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 3 2007, 12:19 AM
Post #31



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (andrewkornkven @ Jan 2 2007, 09:46 PM)
But they were probably.......

they probably......... 

They probably..........

You have anything else to offer except 'probably' Andy?

I have asked you numerous times to back up your claims.. 'probably' doesnt cut it around here.. (except if perhaps you are quoting the NIST or 9/11 Commission Report as those reports use those type of words repeatedly).

As i have said.. reminders for you to produce source and facts of your claims will no longer be of value.. so perhaps you would like to keep an eye on your warning meter...

Rob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Jan 3 2007, 05:13 AM
Post #32





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Jan 3 2007, 05:19 AM)
As i have said.. reminders for you to produce source and facts of your claims will no longer be of value.. so perhaps you would like to keep an eye on your warning meter...

Rob

thx Rob

That was about time !!!


This thread reminds me a lot of the time short before the LC-Titanic hit the iceberg...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Jan 5 2007, 12:54 PM
Post #33





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE (andrewkornkven @ Jan 3 2007, 01:51 AM)
QUOTE (Culper721 @ Jan 2 2007, 11:34 PM)
Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio

"The burden is upon he who affirms; not he who denies."

If you think you can 'poison the well' by mere reference to a single film with a crappy soundtrack; you are sadly mistaken.

Since truth is the agreement between knowledge and its object; it would appear that the only way the official accounting of the phone calls could ever agree with the available evidence is for someone to redefine the term "truth." 

Apparently word problems are not your forte

I sure hope you're not another person peddling tranquility over the truth for the mere fact that you can't stomach that the penalty for treason is death by the felon's noose.

Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.

A lovely mix of latin quotations and personal insults-- but, where's the beef? I mean, what the hell are you talking about? Can you try to make a less stylish argument in terms that we can understand?

I maintain that all the phone calls are real, including Betty Ong's: both the 3.5 minutes we can listen to on the internet and the other 18.5 minutes that, should it ever be released, would probably blow the official story sky high.

I hope you are not yet another person who has not been paying attention, and assumes that because I believe the phone calls are real I therefore endorse the official story. I believe the calls are real and are evidence that the planes were hijacked by real people-- but not by Arabs as per the official story. I believe the planes were hijacked by state-trained professionals who were armed with guns, and who impersonated Arabs so as to frame Arabs for the crime.

Andy, the problem with your theory is that it is based largely upon the calls of Madeline Sweeney and Betty Ong; both of which contradict each other. Now, I know the Mossad had a large hand in 9/11, and thus no one else could welcome your theory more than I. However, aside from Daniel Lewin, do you know of any other state-trained professionals aboard Flight 11, or any of the other 3 aircraft?

This post has been edited by Beached: Jan 5 2007, 12:59 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andrewkornkven
post Jan 5 2007, 01:52 PM
Post #34





Group: Newbie
Posts: 52
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 105



QUOTE (Beached @ Jan 5 2007, 04:54 PM)
Andy, the problem with your theory is that it is based largely upon the calls of Madeline Sweeney and Betty Ong; both of which contradict each other. Now, I know the Mossad had a large hand in 9/11, and thus no one else could welcome your theory more than I. However, aside from Daniel Lewin, do you know of any other state-trained professionals aboard Flight 11, or any of the other 3 aircraft?

Beached, Sweeney's and Ong's phone calls only contradict each other on the issue of the particular seats that the hijackers came from. Ong's recorded phone call has one of the hijackers coming from the seat occupied by Danny Lewin. Sweeney's call was not recorded, but was made to American Airlines employee Mike Woodward, who later sat down with FBI agents to work out a transcript of the call.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...ay_of_9/11=aa11

Is it possible that these agents "corrected" Woodward, or persuaded him that it was extremely unlikely that a prominent, successful "American" businessman (at that time his Israeli background may not have been known, even to the FBI agents) would have shot the Arab, and that the opposite probably happened? I really do not know; but since Ong's phone call was recorded, and is now obviously being suppressed by the authorities, I will assume that her report is more believeable than Sweeney's.

As to my "theory," it is based not only on these two calls but all the known reliable evidence of what went on in the planes. That would include not only the other 28 or so calls, but also the frequency transmissions made from the cockpit by the hijackers. (See link below) The origin of this thread is Sweeney's report of a cockpit storming seven minutes after the transponder was turned off. Some people see this as evidence that all the calls are faked. To me, it is evidence that we should consider the possiblity that this cockpit storming was a show, designed to convince the passengers that the plane was being hijacked by knife-wielding Arabs, so that they would transmit that information via their phone calls and in that way have the effect of framing Arabs for the attacks.

No, I don't have any proof that there were other Israeli commandos like Lewin on the other flights, but that doesn't mean they weren't there. We know these were well planned and coordinated operations, a hallmark of the Isrealis; we know they had guns on board from Tom Burnett's first phone call-- and that security at all three airports was controlled by an Israeli firm called ICTS; we know the nation of Israel benefitted immensely from 9/11; we know the Israelis have a history of false-flags against their Arab enemies; and we know Lewin was on board and was an Israeli commando....... All this adds up to the fact that we should consider the possibility that the hijackers themselves were Israeli agents. I'm not saying they were, only that we should consider it.

Note: have you ever listened to the recording of the transmissions from the cockpit of AAL11 by the hijacker? Here it is:

http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi.../061704-12s.htm

I am no expert on accents, but some have said this is a distinct Israeli accent. Now I know that can't be proved; but it should be investigated.

Finally, Beached, I would like to thank you for taking a serious look at my ideas on this thread, even if you don't necessarily agree with them.

This post has been edited by andrewkornkven: Jan 5 2007, 01:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Jan 5 2007, 03:26 PM
Post #35





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE
I am no expert on accents, but some have said this is a distinct Israeli accent. Now I know that can't be proved; but it should be investigated.


It's interesting that you mention this transmission... I too listened to this recording a while back and thought it had a "gutteral" sound to it, not unlike an Israeli accent. The same goes for the transmissions received by ATC from Flight 93, which were claimed to be from Ziad Jarrah. I'm no expert on accents either, but neither of these sounded remotely Saudi or Egyptian, etc.

Also, it is possible that other commando's like Lewin were aboard the aircraft even though this has never been made public. The fact that their names did not appear on the manifest does not refute this claim. After all, if we had to go by the latest edition of the alleged manifests, Mark Bingham is no longer aboard Flight 93...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...0&#entry7009513

I must say that the claim by some people that the scenario you suggested could not have happened is based upon a false positive. Simply because there is little evidence to support this, does not necessarily mean that it could not be true; merely that it is largely theoretical. I think it is a possibility that we should at least consider as it certainly has an air of plausibility about it, and helps to answer the question of how the flight crew became incapacitated, thus preventing them from interfering with the FMCS. Also, as Madeline Sweeney's call was made via an Airphone, there is no technical reason as to why her phone call could not have taken place.

9/11 was in every way consistent with an Israeli false flag operation in both the planning and the manner in which it was carried out. If we consider the involvement of Israeli owned businesses and the Israeli influence in our government (especially the FBI) then it is not hard to understand how the Israelis could not only pull off an operation of this magnitude, but also get away with it. It's the old trick... if you want to be sure you won't be caught, then become a crimefighter! Therefore, they can easily control what evidence is released into the public domain, and also destroy/fabricate compromising documents/records etc. After all, the story of the 5 dancing Israeli's only surfaced because these men didn't count on the swift closure of the Holland Tunnel, where their van was pulled over and searched by the local police. In this case, by the time the FBI took charge, the story had already been documented by countless mainstream publications.

From the time I've spent researching, I've learned that alot of the theories considered more "out there" such as pods, blue screens, holograms etc have been put forth mostly by people who could be considered "friends of Israel". I know that's something of a euphemism, but I think everyone get's my drift. In other words these theories, while certainly more appealing, are intended to focus attention away from Israel and solely onto George Bush and the US Military.

This post has been edited by Beached: Jan 13 2007, 12:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Culper721
post Jan 12 2007, 08:08 AM
Post #36





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 210
Joined: 2-January 07
Member No.: 396



QUOTE (andrewkornkven @ Jan 5 2007, 12:52 PM)
QUOTE (Beached @ Jan 5 2007, 04:54 PM)
Andy, the problem with your theory is that it is based largely upon the calls of Madeline Sweeney and Betty Ong; both of which contradict each other. Now, I know the Mossad had a large hand in 9/11, and thus no one else could welcome your theory more than I. However, aside from Daniel Lewin, do you know of any other state-trained professionals aboard Flight 11, or any of the other 3 aircraft?

Beached, Sweeney's and Ong's phone calls only contradict each other on the issue of the particular seats that the hijackers came from. Ong's recorded phone call has one of the hijackers coming from the seat occupied by Danny Lewin. Sweeney's call was not recorded, but was made to American Airlines employee Mike Woodward, who later sat down with FBI agents to work out a transcript of the call.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...ay_of_9/11=aa11

Is it possible that these agents "corrected" Woodward, or persuaded him that it was extremely unlikely that a prominent, successful "American" businessman (at that time his Israeli background may not have been known, even to the FBI agents) would have shot the Arab, and that the opposite probably happened? I really do not know; but since Ong's phone call was recorded, and is now obviously being suppressed by the authorities, I will assume that her report is more believeable than Sweeney's.

As to my "theory," it is based not only on these two calls but all the known reliable evidence of what went on in the planes. That would include not only the other 28 or so calls, but also the frequency transmissions made from the cockpit by the hijackers. (See link below) The origin of this thread is Sweeney's report of a cockpit storming seven minutes after the transponder was turned off. Some people see this as evidence that all the calls are faked. To me, it is evidence that we should consider the possiblity that this cockpit storming was a show, designed to convince the passengers that the plane was being hijacked by knife-wielding Arabs, so that they would transmit that information via their phone calls and in that way have the effect of framing Arabs for the attacks.

No, I don't have any proof that there were other Israeli commandos like Lewin on the other flights, but that doesn't mean they weren't there. We know these were well planned and coordinated operations, a hallmark of the Isrealis; we know they had guns on board from Tom Burnett's first phone call-- and that security at all three airports was controlled by an Israeli firm called ICTS; we know the nation of Israel benefitted immensely from 9/11; we know the Israelis have a history of false-flags against their Arab enemies; and we know Lewin was on board and was an Israeli commando....... All this adds up to the fact that we should consider the possibility that the hijackers themselves were Israeli agents. I'm not saying they were, only that we should consider it.

Note: have you ever listened to the recording of the transmissions from the cockpit of AAL11 by the hijacker? Here it is:

http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi.../061704-12s.htm

I am no expert on accents, but some have said this is a distinct Israeli accent. Now I know that can't be proved; but it should be investigated.

Finally, Beached, I would like to thank you for taking a serious look at my ideas on this thread, even if you don't necessarily agree with them.

Wrong!


The phone calls contradict the story provided within the first chapter of the Commission Report.


Legally, the (ghost & actual) writers of the "official story" have propounded a theory and explanation (most notably for AAL11) that is a metaphysical impossibility.

Legally, the credibility of the official story terminates at the 8:41am mark.

Didn't any of you pilots notice the map drawn for AAL11 is the only one with an extended border along CT and MA of approximately 5-7 nautical miles?

Grab a pair of dividers and confirm it for yourself.

Finally, Treason is committed by people; not countries.

I don't give a damn about the Saudis, Mossad, CIA, FBI or any other agency.

I simply know that there has never been a proffering of evidence to sufficient indict anyone for the event; much less a ham sandwich.

I also know that the flight paths of all the planes were perfectly calendared & synchronized to exploit the gaps in primary radar on the most vulnerable day in this country; i.e. during massive amounts of exercises and drills scheduled for that morning.

And that leads us back to "What would Arnold have said to Washington if he succeeded in allowing the Brits to slaughter the troops at West Point?"

Arnold: "I guess they got lucky?" "It was a failure of imagination?"

Does anyone think that Washington would have dismissed Tallmadge's information regarding Arnold's suspicious actions before and after the (hypothetical) loss of West Point by calling Tallmadge a "Conspiracy Theorist?"

Or would Washington be listening to Tallmadge whilst tying a hangman's noose for his dear friend Benedict Arnold?

Like I said; this is not a game.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Jan 14 2007, 09:18 PM
Post #37





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



Well-put, Culper.

I think the Sweeney and Ong calls deserve very careful scrutiny.

Why Ong's RECORDED call must be redacted is hard to figure out. Certainly the given reason (sparing pain?) sounds a bit bogus.

Certainly, the possibility that the transponder was turned off (813am) before the cockpit was stormed(observed by sweeney @820am) is already difficult one to explain.

The phone calls from AA11, and the other AA11 data (radar track, transponder turned off at a narrow radar shadow) certainly FAIL to establish a credible story of a verifiable real, hijack. Too much that does not make sense.

But if AA11 is NOT a real hijack, then what could Sweeney and Ong be describing?

I do not know. We will never know with certainty. It's enough to demand those that would explain the event defend their story.

full stop.

Another interpretation of AA11 phone calls and radar data that makes 'sense' of both is pasted below, (old LC forum transfer) -- and for those who read Vanity Fair, recall Major Kev Nasypany's thought, upon being told that there was a hijacked plane AA11 that the FAA want tracked, he thought 'well, we are having a wargame simulation, but the hijack's not supposed to be scheduled for another hour'

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=6996[I]

This post has been edited by JackD: Jan 14 2007, 09:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
v2rot8
post Jan 16 2007, 05:52 PM
Post #38





Group: Guest
Posts: 22
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 22



QUOTE (JackD @ Dec 12 2006, 11:12 PM)
Betty Ong's call. Betty made her calls from the over-wing jumpseat 3R. She specifies her location. We forgive her for referring to the flight as "12" which was the west to east name of AA11, normally turning into AA12. A sign of confusion due to hectic events. Or good acting. Ong's call highlights the pepper spray which prevents access and breathing into business class: "We can't breathe..." But Ong does not mention the bomb that Sweeney emphasized. (Are these attendants really on the same flight?) More curious, how is that that passengers in coach class are said to be under impression that there is simply a medical emergency in first class -- and thus are calm. So the passengers are not bothered by the pepper spray? Does spray stay neatly only in business class?

And how can assume that NO passenger saw or suspected that there are at least 2 murdered : passenger in 9B, and the plane's "number 3 - the purser" -- you can SEE seat 9B from coach class -- there is a good sight-line -- the killing and blood could not be hidden from passengers. They would see all and talk and be very, very nervous.

No passenger is freaking out and yelling close to Betty Ong's call that I can hear. You hear details of which flight she is on, that this is hijacking, in her call, but you hear little other background noise - where are the other attendants calling out to passengers to keep calm.

Oddly Betty herself, after relaying quickly the key details to AA in Cary, North Carolina -- she stays on phone 23 min --- she does not INSIST to return to duty -- hang up. Why does she not return to keep order, and calm, in passenger cabin.

Would not a flight attendant be concerned about her professional duty to the safety of the passengers? Why so long on the phone? Does American Airlines teach their Stewardesses "in case of hijacking, proceed to nearest airphone in 3R, and stay on the phone as long as possible. Do not communicate with other flight attendants. Do not drag wounded out of business class and give first aid." Her actions on phone seem unexplainable. She maintains professional calm but not professional actions. We need to know the training manual that american airlines uses to train steward crew to respond to hijack, pre 9/11.

Consider also that the 9/11 commission only released a few minutes of her 23 minute call. what else did she say? why conceal it?

(remember for now that the 'wounded' passenger in 9B was none other than the problematic Daniel Lewin... israeli defense forced trained anti-hijack anti-terror commando... what are the odds? ...I leave him out, too complicated!!)

I'll try to be brief, but as some on this board know, I'm a flight attendant for American Airlines.

AA has several configurations of the 767. We have the 767C-200, the 767C-300ER, the 767-200ER, the 767N-300ER and the reconfig. 767C-300ER. American Airlines enjoys keeping us busy with having to re-learn all this crap for our annual training...but I digress.

The 767-200 version has 6 exits. 3R is all the way in the back, it is not a window exit. It is a door by the very back galley. Amy Sweeney was on the phone with the manager on duty in Boston. Betty Ong was on the phone with SOC, I believe. I thought the aircraft was the 767-200 that day, but I'll have to check.

Pre-9/11, we were trained to, above all, keep the cabin calm. In other words, keep the passengers quiet. Why? 'Cause we don't want any friggin' heroes f*ckin things up! Screaming, hysterical passengers are few and far between. Only a very small percentage of people actually get hysterical. A large majority of passengers simply go into shock. Have you ever been in shock after an accident? I have. I pretty much just sat there in a state of stupification and disorientation.

The purser was dying or dead, two flight attendants were trying to give her oxygen, two were on the phone (Betty and Amy/Madeline), the remaining flight attendants were maintaining service and trying to keep order.

Amy (Madeline) and Betty were reporting only what they alone either saw, or were told by other flight attendants.

There were not many passengers on board that day. With the engine noise, you could easily sit on the airphone and talk without anyone hearing you.

As far as the Daniel Lewin, "Mr. Anti-Terrorist, Hi-jacker know it all", passenger: If some nut sitting next to you whips out a box-cutter and slits your throat all within a split second, none of that crap will help you out, now will it?

The SOC and flight service has access to passenger names AND, we always have what's known as a PIL onboard. If we know your seat number, we know your name. We also know if you are an AAdvantage member, need a wheelchair, have a special meal or need special assistance in case you are blind, deaf, disabled or whatever. The list also comes in handy when passengers are misbehaving. Hehehehehe.

Oh, and the pepper spray/mace. The cockpit has the ability to control the air quality in the cabin. We have had spills in the cabin that were strong smelling (fingernail polish and such), and we called the cockpit and they flick some switches to try and help the smell dissipate.

Betty didn't insist on returning to her duties because she was able to give out other details via the phone, which is more important. And as stated earlier, there were other flight attendants who were maintaining order, reassuring passengers, etc.

I'm not sure where the Cary, North Carolina fits into this because the command center is in DFW.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
v2rot8
post Jan 16 2007, 06:06 PM
Post #39





Group: Guest
Posts: 22
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 22



QUOTE (Culper721 @ Jan 2 2007, 11:06 PM)
May I ask how ANYONE is able to read past the 8:41am mark in Chapter 1 of the official report without concluding the entire story is metaphysically impossible?

"Truth is the agreement between knowledge and its object."

-- Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur. -- One absurdity begin allowed, an infinity follow.

On AAL11...you have 21 people; 21 witnesses to a hijacking to be precise.

You have 7 witnesses from First Class and 14 witnesses from Business Class all huddled into Coach after witnessing stabbings, mace spraying, the bomb that Sweeney described, and the uh... oh yeah... the hijacking.

So, tell me, how were "passengers in coach ... under the impression that there was a routine medical emergency in first class?"

BETTY ONG: ...my name is Betty Ong. I’m number 3 on Flight 11.

MALE VOICE: Okay.

BETTY ONG: And the cockpit is not answering their phone. And there’s somebody stabbed in business class. And there’s . . . we can’t breathe in business class. Somebody’s got mace or something.

BETTY ONG: Okay. Our number 1 got stabbed. Our purser is stabbed.

According to Sweeney, this would be the two first-class flight attendants, Barbara Arestegui and Karen Martin.

TIMELINE 820 SWEENEY PHONE

BETTY ONG: Nobody knows who is stabbed who, and we can’t even get up to business class right now cause nobody can breathe. ...

XXXXXX---CROSS OUT BUSINESS CLASS ON THE SEATING CHART---XXXXXXX

Commission Report:

"At 8:21, one of the American employees receiving Ong's call in North Carolina, Nydia Gonzalez, alerted the American Airlines operations center in Fort Worth, Texas, reaching Craig Marquis, the manager on duty. Marquis soon realized this was an emergency and instructed the airline's dispatcher responsible for the flight to contact the cockpit."

MALE VOICE: American Airlines emergency line, please state your emergency.

NYDIA GONZALEZ: Hey, this is Nydia at American Airlines calling. I am monitoring a call in which Flight 11 -- the flight attendant is advising our reps that the pilot, everyone’s been stabbed.

MALE VOICE: Flight 11?

NYDIA GONZALEZ: Yep. They can’t get into the cockpit is what I’m hearing.

NYDIA GONZALEZ: Have you guys gotten any contact with anybody? Okay, I’m still on with security, okay, Betty? You’re doing a great job, just stay calm. Okay? We are, absolutely.

MALE VOICE: Okay, we’re contacting the flight crew now and we’re . . . we’re also contacting ATC.

NYDIA GONZALEZ: Okay. It seems like the passengers in coach might not be aware of what’s going right now.

...

MALE VOICE: Who’s helping them, is there a doctor on board?

NYDIA GONZALEZ: Is there a doctor on board, Betty, that’s assisting you guys? You don’t have any doctors on board. Okay. So you’ve gotten all the first class passengers out of first class?

MALE VOICE: Have they taken anyone out of first class?

NYDIA GONZALEZ: Yeah, she’s just saying that they have. They’re in coach. What’s going on, honey? Okay, the aircraft is erratic again. Flying very erratically. She did say that all the first class passengers have been moved back to coach, so the first class cabin is empty. What’s going on on your end?

XXXXXX---CROSS OUT FIRST CLASS ON THE SEATING CHART---XXXXXXX

N.B. If the passengers in First Class were forced to the rear of the plane, and it wasn’t possible to breathe in Business Class, we're left with 21 witnesses from First & Business Class now in Coach. The same passengers who allegedly witnessed a bomb and bomb threat (Sweeney et. al.); the stabbings of the two first-class flight attendants, Barbara Arestegui and Karen Martin, the mace spraying and the storming of the cockpit. These passengers, rubbing their eyes (and possibly some with blood spattered clothes) are now ALL in Coach.


CIRCLE COACH on your diagram boys and girls, because that's where all the witnesses are.

Problem?

All the witnesses and regular coach passengers magically become deaf dumb and blind for the entire 25 minute ride down to New York.

The plausible story ends five minutes before impact:

Commission Report:

“At 8:41 am, Sweeney told Woodward that passengers in coach were under the impression that there was a routine medical emergency in first class. Other flight attendants were busy at duties such as getting medical supplies while Ong and Sweeney were reporting the events.36"

Unless “routine medical emergencies” consist of stabbings, mace sprayings forcing passengers and flight attendants to the rear of the plane, completely ignored by silent calm passengers who don't talk to each other for 25 minutes, the official story (of Flight 11 and the entire 911 plot) becomes a metaphysical impossibility five minutes before AAL11 impacts the North Tower.

The 767-200 seats either 121 passengers or 128 currently. There were not many people aboard that day. My experience is that passengers are pretty much oblivious to me, and I'm the damn flight attendant!

I've had medical emergencies where a passenger died on board (First class) and I was doing CPR. We were on the ground with ALL of the passengers on a 757. When we finally took off, I had a passenger who was seated in the back ask me why we were delayed, "what was the deal?"

Hello?!!!! A person DIED! On the floor, sprawled out and dead..the plane was filled with over 160 people, yet, some had no clue that some old dude with cancer died. Even though we had him stretched out on the floor in First Class. MmmmmKay?

Don't assume that passengers are aware individuals, 'cause honey, nothing could be further from the truth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andrewkornkven
post Jan 16 2007, 06:40 PM
Post #40





Group: Newbie
Posts: 52
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 105



Wow. Thanks for that information, v2. I've been trying to figure out what happened in the planes that day, and your knowledge of the cabins of the two planes involved could be very helpful. Please go to this link, which refers to Betty Ong's call:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidenc...11/BettyOng.jpg

Can you tell me, is there an airphone located in the back of the plane (767-223ER), not associated with any row of seats? Is that the phone Ong made her call from? The diagram isn't clear.

There was also a call made from the bathroom of UAL93 (different plane, 757-223) by Edward Felt. Could this call have also been made from such a back airphone?

Thank you. I'll have a lot of other questions in the future for you as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th November 2019 - 12:35 PM