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  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Questions: The Passengers, Cell Phone Calls, And Plane Swapping.

poppyburner
post Jan 20 2014, 10:23 PM
Post #61





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



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 20 2014, 09:00 PM) *
...from 9/11 on the streets of New York.
Guy comments while watching WTC1 burning: "Cell phones don't even work!"

Heck, they didn't even work on the ground, let alone in the air. smile.gif


'After the attack, the cell phone network of New York City was rapidly overloaded as traffic
doubled over normal levels. Cell phone traffic also overloaded across the East Coast, leading to
crashes of the cell phone network. Verizon's downtown wire phone service was interrupted for days and weeks
due to cut subscriber cables, and to the 140 West Street exchange being shut for days. Capacity
between Brooklyn and Manhattan was also diminished by cut trunk cables.
'

~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication...attacks#Victims
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 20 2014, 11:29 PM
Post #62





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



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 19 2014, 06:24 AM) *
You've outlined all the key aspects that you feel need studying re; the cell phone calls.

Why don't you be the historian?

I for one would appreciate the time and effort you would put into researching this.

I'd be very curious about the results.


This site may interest you:

http://killtown.911review.org/chart.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 21 2014, 12:06 AM
Post #63





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



QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 20 2014, 07:29 PM) *
This site may interest you:

http://killtown.911review.org/chart.html


Wow that's quite the resource - lots of cell phone calls indicated.

I hope to God that someone with the time and the resources and the energy can give this the attention that it deserves as a historical data point.

We also have the alleged FDR and cockpit recordings for 93 and 77 for synchronization with the calls in terms of aircraft status ie: location, speed and altitude.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 21 2014, 12:31 AM
Post #64





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



QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 20 2014, 10:29 PM) *
This site may interest you:

http://killtown.911review.org/chart.html



Thanks Poppy.
Although I don't subscribe to the no-plane theory that killtown espouses, he does have some good info at the link you provided.

No plane for Shanksville? Yes
No plane for Pentagon? Yes.
No plane for WTC1? No.
No plane for WTC2? No.

Please read my post on proof a plane hit WTC2 in the 'Hijackers In Cockpit Before Takeoff?' thread.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 21 2014, 01:05 AM
Post #65





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



No planers are victims of the honey pot, either unwittingly, in the case of "killtown" or knowingly, in the case of John Lear and Morgan Reynolds.

A modified military drone with a hardened structure surely has enough inertia and kinetic energy to break 1/2 inch thick steel, or whatever it's thickness was, even from wing tip to wing tip, as seen in the penetration and holes.

The Pentagon is a type of honey pot by design embedded right into the operation, to minimize damage and loss of life on the one hand and to mess with the "conspiracy theorists" on the other, because a large Boeing was at the scene, according to the eye witness account, but did not impact the wall, and neither was it seen by the cars on the free way surrounding the Pentagon flying over the other side, as those witness would surely have surfaced. And early on - where was the focus of the 9/11 truth movement? In an irreconcilable honey pot of impossibility. Thank God we've moved on from there to the WTC attacks and CD.

Did a plane bury itself in Shanksville in a small crater with wing shapes? It's possible since it was a mine area - but that's just another honey pot to make "conspiracy theorists" appear insane.

We are therefore better off to leave the Pentagon and Shanksville well enough alone - but note how attractive that seems to be for many, as is the no-planer hypothesis in regards to the WTC, which was recorded from every imaginable angle and camera for miles around.

That the research of P4T has attracted the no-planers I think is both disgrace and to be expected.

It requires a strong mind and will to avoid the honey pots of 9/11, but it's a discipline that we would be well served to acquire.

Heck to try to defeat the no-planers, an otherwise decent guy named John Bursill climed into a flight simulator in the middle of the night, flipped the breaker on the overspeed warning and crash logic of the simulator, to basically try to prove that a Boeing 767 can fly at .86 Mach near sea level, never realizing that the Vmo of the Mmo of .86 Mach is 360 knots, where .86 Mach is the max operating limit at 23,000 feet and the max cruising speed at 35,000 feet - so he wasn't even addressing the issue of the Vd/Md in his attempted demonstration!

That's just the kind of thing you get with these apparent impossibilities contained in the 9/11 honey pots, which on the face of them represent another kind of trap for the knee-jerk OS believer, which we almost all of us were at one time, to a person, because after all - who woulda thunk it that the whole thing was an elaborate, murderous HOAX, not because it wasn't real, but in terms of the way it was rendered regarding how it was to be accepted and believed - planes hit, the buildings collapsed, we were attacked!


"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association” – Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research:
“The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.”

I say forget the Pentagon, because what probably happened there, was that either an A3 Sky Skywarrior with a projected hologram envelope of some kind swooped in to hit the building, or, in simultaneity with that strike, a large Boeing overflew the wall and then vanished using adaptive camouflage technology, or some weird combination thereof, which might be why the people at the Marriot hotel were absolutely AGOG when watching the video of the strike before the FBI came and took it away, and the same reason that the strike footage has never been released in spite of a multitude of cameras - leaving only a honey pot for "conspiracy theorists".

Screw the Pentagon and Shanksville - and let's look with great discipline at things that can be proven, which brings us to the south tower plane, the impacts with the north and south tower, and then the destruction of the twin towers and building 7, and, as it turns out, this cell phone call issue - which as a type of honey pot when handled incorrectly breads all kind of nonsense, again to feed it with incredulous nonsense or "outrageous conspiracy theories".

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 21 2014, 01:08 AM
Post #66





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



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 20 2014, 08:31 PM) *
Please read my post on proof a plane hit WTC2 in the 'Hijackers In Cockpit Before Takeoff?' thread.


Very sad you should even have to make that statement around here, imho.

Proof a plane hit WTC2 - is that needed?!!

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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 21 2014, 04:25 AM
Post #67





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



The entire cell phone record, taken as a whole and then even whittled down as much as possible, leaves only one conclusion, especially when taken together with a hard listening of flight attendant CeeCee Lyles leaving that message on her husband's answering machine - the calls were made from the ground under conditions of coercion of some sort.

10 cell phone calls were reported at one time for flight 93 alone.

And when they allegedly "stormed the cockpit" with shouts and the sound of breaking dishes and the roller running into a door, they probably thought they were doing so, in the very enactment with the hope of saving their very lives because in theory if you can take the door, then the plane could be flown by instructions from the ground, thus having the opportunity to land. They were told that the WTC had been impacted, by CeeCee Lyle's call, and thus were aware that there was a corresponding real world situation taking place in real life of which their enactment was it's parallel image - thus lending credence to her whisper "it's a frame" at the end of the voicemail message before a fumbling around with the phone intentionally (something she'd be unlikely to do). Her message is as much a directed plea to her captors/handlers on the one hand, and, a message not only to her husband but also, to us, through him or through the message left - to make it clear as to what really happened.

It's right there in the middle of the public record.

She outsmarted them, imho. That's what i see and recognize clearly in that recording, found half way down the wiki page on the right hand side under her name CeeCee Lyles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

Plug in your headphones, turn up the volume and really really listen hard, within the context presented of the entire cell phone record proving that the calls can only have been made from the ground.

This is the worst thing i've ever discovered in all those years of research, and it goes to the very heart of the official story as per the FBI interviews and even the 9/11 Commission Report.

The cell phone calls.

Faked but NOT fake at all - a play, an enactment, to build a narrative, using people as part of some sort of macabre form of "art" by deception.

The people were led to believe that if they could fake it well enough they would save their lives, somehow.

They were all like - it's time to storm the cabin, gotta go, bye.

Then the sounds of people shouting, a couple of dishes breaking and a roller rolling down the isle towards a door.

On the ground.

That's just the most sick and twisted thing imaginable - to create a "heroic" heart wrenching narrative, scripted right into the operation, from the outset, this poor lady the victim of a terrible "frame" or hoax of which she was AWARE that she was being made to participate in. She figured someone might have a heart in listing to her message very carefully, so that she WOULD get to see him again, but she also did it in such a way that embedded straight into the message was the truth of her situation "it's a frame"

LISTEN to it, as painful as it is to do so in light of everything we know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Jan 28 2014, 04:23 PM
Post #68





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



That's what i see and recognize clearly in that recording, found half way down the wiki page on the right hand side under her name CeeCee Lyles.


"It's a frame." "Sorry."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Jan 28 2014, 07:13 PM
Post #69





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



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 18 2014, 04:01 AM) *
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.

Now I get it. If the phone companies would have gave the defense the records, they would include the location where the calls were made and that may have been extremely embarrassing to the government.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 29 2014, 03:12 PM
Post #70





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



What's interesting about this aspect I've discovered, is that it actually seems to be among the most compelling and persuasive pieces of evidence, for which the duhbunkers have NOTHING to say.

It's also very personal, where the destruction of the twin towers is more in the realm of unimaginable and unfathomable.

And it cuts right to the very crux of the OS, proving in rather no uncertain terms that people were calling from the ground reading scripts.

As a "honey pot" issue - some people are drawn to it and are compelled for strange reasons i can't fathom to fill it with the wrong type of "fakery" ie: ID spoofing and voice morphing - but that totally misses the point in regards to the "faked" nature of these calls.

Also the cell phone record pulls many if not most or even the entire call record - to the ground.

I'm glad that certain researchers are looking into this - may God watch over and protect them, because this is the kind of thing "they" would kill people over.


This is the best and latest research the 9/11 truth movement has put together regarding the calls, but as far as I know it's mostly content oriented and might not have done the deep research that's required as it relates to the cell phone call record.

Hijacking America's Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence

http://www.amazon.com/Hijacking-Americas-M...g/dp/0875869734

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Jan 29 2014, 03:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 29 2014, 04:03 PM
Post #71





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



QUOTE (Art @ Jan 28 2014, 03:13 PM) *
Now I get it. If the phone companies would have gave the defense the records, they would include the location where the calls were made and that may have been extremely embarrassing to the government.


Bingo. That's right. It would be interesting however, to see the record provided by the phone companies, if any.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Feb 10 2014, 08:05 PM
Post #72





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



Since the phone call record for flight 175 is highly suspect (do the research), then all indication is that the passengers involved in making those calls were doing so from the ground reading scripts, as the cell phone record when taken together on the whole supports, even if only a percentage of calls were made from cell phones, because those calls can only have been made from the ground.

Furthermore, in regards to the time and flight path of flight 175, with the pilot reporting in after wheels off time, which was delayed - it does not appear that there would be enough time for a swap, landing and disembarkation of the passengers, and yet there must have been a swap nevertheless.

Therefore i think it's fair to presume that the passengers were not aboard flight 175 when it took off, and thus that the original flight 175 most certainly was flown by another pilot other than either Captain Victor Saracini or First Officer Michael Horrocks.

To support this model of hypothesis, since we have the recording of flight 175's pilot reporting in, it would be interesting if a researcher could find a recording of Victor Saracini's voice for comparison because i'll bet you dollars to donuts that it's NOT match, and that even though it's over the radio that it would be possible to tell whether or not it's the voice of the same person.

I think those pilots of the originating flights were grounded and where needed alternative pilots took over the Captains chair, who then managed the radar swap only to land at an airbase, but God help them and the pilots who would have flown the remote drone aircraft, because i'll bet they would have been considered potential loose ends in the grand scheme of things and are thus no longer with us themselves.

That might make for a shocking piece of research though if the voice comparison demonstrates that the pilot reporting in from 175 wasn't the pilot he was supposed to be..

just a thought..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 11 2014, 05:38 PM
Post #73





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 10 2014, 07:05 PM) *
Since the phone call record for flight 175 is highly suspect (do the research), then all indication is that the passengers involved in making those calls were doing so from the ground reading scripts, as the cell phone record when taken together on the whole supports, even if only a percentage of calls were made from cell phones, because those calls can only have been made from the ground.

New technology — audio avatars.

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 10 2014, 07:05 PM) *
That might make for a shocking piece of research though if the voice comparison demonstrates that the pilot reporting in from 175 wasn't the pilot he was supposed to be..

New technology — audio avatars.

See my prior post: Did The Tapping Of All Phone Calls Include Harvesting Of Voice Samples..., for impersonation of 9/11 inflight phone calls?

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 11 2014, 06:37 PM
Post #74





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



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 10 2014, 07:05 PM) *
To support this model of hypothesis, since we have the recording of flight 175's pilot reporting in, it would be interesting if a researcher could find a recording of Victor Saracini's voice for comparison because i'll bet you dollars to donuts that it's NOT match, and that even though it's over the radio that it would be possible to tell whether or not it's the voice of the same person.


I for one would be extremely interested in finding out the results of a voice comparison if it could be made.

QUOTE
I think those pilots of the originating flights were grounded and where needed alternative pilots took over the Captains chair, who then managed the radar swap only to land at an airbase, but God help them and the pilots who would have flown the remote drone aircraft, because i'll bet they would have been considered potential loose ends in the grand scheme of things and are thus no longer with us themselves.


I don't follow this part.
I always thought that if a drone was used, it wouldn't be piloted, it would have been remote controlled.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Feb 11 2014, 06:58 PM
Post #75





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



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 21 2014, 12:05 AM) *
A modified military drone with a hardened structure surely has enough inertia and kinetic energy to break 1/2 inch thick steel, or whatever it's thickness was, even from wing tip to wing tip, as seen in the penetration and holes.


This was something that I and probably most truthers have struggled with for a long time.
How could planes cut through the buildings so easily.
Even if the steel was 'only' 1/2 inch thick, that would still be a tall order.

Logic would dictate that the planes had to have been modified (something that most truthers and the public in general don't ever consider).

But the buildings would have had to have been modified as well (again, something that most truthers and the public in general don't ever consider).

Only recently did I come to the conclusion that the steel wasn't cut through at all by the planes.
Even a modified plane wouldn't have been able to do that.

BUT... with the bolts removed that were holding the columns together (or even removing some steel beams completely) a modified plane could very easily 'cut through' the steel and slide into the building.
All the plane would be doing was pushing the steel beams away (if they were there), NOT slicing through them!

The visual evidence supports this. You will see steel columns keeping the same pattern that existed at installation time. You won't see steel columns sliced up in the middle etc.

QUOTE
... which might be why the people at the Marriot hotel were absolutely AGOG when watching the video of the strike before the FBI came and took it away,


Can you please provide links to testimony of these Marriot witnesses?
I hadn't heard of this before.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Feb 11 2014, 09:16 PM
Post #76





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 11 2014, 05:58 PM) *
This was something that I and probably most truthers have struggled with for a long time.
How could planes cut through the buildings so easily.
Even if the steel was 'only' 1/2 inch thick, that would still be a tall order.

Well, I didn't want to bring it up, but...

It was not believed that a piece of foam could penetrate the wing of the space shuttle, but experiments with foam being shot at high speed into the wing's material showed that it was, indeed, possible.

A report to this effect can be found at Wikipedia article, "Space Shuttle Columbia disaster."

It's still hard for me to digest an aluminum plane's ability to penetrate steel to it wing tips especially since I have viewed a video of a test crash of a plane having its wings sheared off by wooden telephone poles.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Feb 17 2014, 05:21 PM
Post #77





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



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 11 2014, 05:16 PM) *
It's still hard for me to digest an aluminum plane's ability to penetrate steel to it wing tips especially since I have viewed a video of a test crash of a plane having its wings sheared off by wooden telephone poles.

P.M.


Check out this thread for a possible solution to that issue, which involves a combination of speed and modifications.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22605

There's no need to enter into the domain of no-planer nonsense which is very unhelpful and discrediting to our movement.

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Feb 17 2014, 05:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Feb 17 2014, 05:55 PM
Post #78





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



P.S. This is the reason, in part, that i'm not so enamored with the NRPT (no real plane theory).

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

Other reasons would include the impact sites or more specifically the impact holes in the buildings.

I also believe that Morgan Reynolds, and John Lear have an agenda..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 17 2014, 06:06 PM
Post #79





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 18 2014, 09:21 AM) *
Check out this thread for a possible solution to that issue, which involves a combination of speed and modifications.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22605

There's no need to enter into the domain of no-planer nonsense which is very unhelpful and discrediting to our movement.


What is more unhelpful and movement discrediting than anything I've read in this forum is the fatuous assumption that even a mere-beginner airplane designer/constructor is going to swap 3mm leading edge airfoil aluminum for hardened steel from a WW1 tank shell ... just so that forum surfers can argue idiotic technicalities here online.

If you ever came back down to earth and eliminated all 4 Boeings from your mental equation, you would also eliminate all the evidence that doesn't fit the 9/11 puzzle.

Including cell-phone calls... but I guess admitting that does run the risk of getting back on topic again...

As a matter of curiosity: what was the impact on other evidence of the last time you tried removing the airplanes to see what happens? You have at least attempted the exercise I trust?

I personally have found no evidence that needs an airplane in the picture for an explanation
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 17 2014, 06:24 PM
Post #80





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Feb 18 2014, 09:55 AM) *
P.S. This is the reason, in part, that i'm not so enamored with the NRPT (no real plane theory).

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

Other reasons would include the impact sites or more specifically the impact holes in the buildings.

I also believe that Morgan Reynolds, and John Lear have an agenda..


(1) The impact site in Shanksville was photographed by a Government agency in 1995,
the photograph online for you to check

(2) The impact site at the Pentagon was photographed and videotaped for nearly an hour
before some rogue elements succeeded in getting their gelignite to dry out in the sun long enough
to topple a tiny section of real building. The rest of the hour was a NPSD ... no plane static display.
Nothing happened that wasn't blatant advertising for fire brigandeers to piss off the public.
NO EVIDENCE A PLANE HAD EVEN TOUCHED A BUILDING

(3) The impact site on WTC1 revealed too many dents in sheet aluminum to support Dubya's
apocryphal story about the 19 Arabian Knights chasing the fracking goat

(4) The impact site on WTC2 was rendered utterly implausible by the videos you blindly admire.
Nothing in the still photos taken over the next hour showed any way whatsobloodyever that
anything bigger than a missile could possibly have forced illicit entry into that building, nothing.|

All four planes were pulp fiction.

I also believe that Morgan Reynolds and John Lear have an agenda... as do a sizeable proportion
of US intelligents... an agenda interalia to eliminate dual-citizen Israeli renegades from any US
administration, to get rid of foreign-serving agents placed by nameless higher powers
such as the CIA and M*ss*d

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
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: 14th December 2019 - 08:16 PM