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 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Questions: The Passengers, Cell Phone Calls, And Plane Swapping.

NP1Mike
post Jan 18 2014, 05:53 PM
Post #41





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



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 18 2014, 04:49 AM) *
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...



I concur with your viewpoint, but why is it necessary to repeat your story 5, 6, 7 or more times?

I understood it the first time.

When I read successive posts from a member, I expect to find new information posted. smile.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 18 2014, 10:05 PM
Post #42





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



Sorry NP1Mike,

I was typing too much, and in trying to edit, it got screwed up, and i had to split the posts and add more - so it was a combination of rambling too much and not being good with the forum software editing tool.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 19 2014, 01:07 AM
Post #43





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



Update/Summary


additional reference point.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html


After watching the video documentary linked in the OP - "September 11- The New Pearl Harbor", and looking into this a little further, a number of things become clear.

The official story narrative, as it arose out of the events themselves includes a voluminous account of cell phone calls, like a LOT of them, somewhere in the order of 10-15 minimum.

This is established in mainstream media outlet interviews with victim's loved ones, as well as the FBI documentation of their interviews, where the recipients, presumably the vast majority of them, because the distinction of CELL PHONE CALL is clear and distinct, and there would have been confirmation questions posed in that record..

Flight 11 however differs in the sense that the principal call is that of flight attendant Betty Ong who remained on an alleged airphone for something like 23 minutes if memory serves, a call worth listening to in and of itself in terms of what we've touched on here, more than once as the "bad acting" and canned nature of the reporting of status. In this way the cell phone calls are are very similar, and do not wander much in the vast expanse of possibility in terms of the real world reaction/responses one might expect from such people, instead of always reporting the status of the aircraft, like well it could be anything... anything at all, but they're all consistent in the way and manner of the delivery of the descriptive narrative.

The early story, in regards to the use of cell phones by the passengers as repeated through the MSM and recorded and reported by the FBI - is absolutely filled with the understanding and knowledge of the use of cell phones allegedly made from three of the four flights on September 11th, 2001.

The Moussoui trial, omitted ALL but TWO OF THEM, while the 9/11 Commission Report simply added a mix of cell phone calls and air phone calls without specifying which were which - although one ought to comb the report to see how it's been rendered and if there is any verification, on a particular individual basis, of the use of cell phone calls allegedly made from the aircraft.

The OMISSION of the cell phone record by the Moussaoui trial, with the exception of two - is telling, indicating a conscious omission by awareness of the fundamental problem, as well as an attempt to cover almost the whole of the cell phone record up - which is entirely incongruent with the investigation and reporting of the 9/11 Commission, including the FBI interview oral history, which is much more likely to be reliable as a source of what took place when it happened.

That's a problem, right there in and of itself.


I've come to realize that an entire book could be written by some historian about these cell phone calls, looking at the miriad of data points and questions that arise. It could include:

- Total number of alleged cell phone calls

- Listing of all alleged passengers involve.

- Time of calls

- Aircraft for each, including a corresponding synchronized timeline for each call.

- Duration of each call.

- Status of aircraft for each call made in terms of altitude and speed, where possible (when the transponder of the aircraft was not turned off, although estimates can be made based on last known, and the cockpit narratives.

- Cockpit narratives as per the alleged black boxes - timestamps, synchronization with timelines.

- Content of the calls, which could be catagorized in terms of nature of calls and subject matter..

- Quality of calls.

- Number of dropped calls, if any..


Finally - an effort should be made to try to DISCOUNT some of the reported cell phone calls as alleged air phone calls, say where there was no follow up verification by the FBI to clarify and distinguish if it was a cell phone or not - and knock out the unproven, leaving only the remaining to run through the data point grid.

Everyone has presumed that this issue went away a longgg time ago, but that's not true at all, when it was just a matter of Popular Mechanics and James Meigs saying that they can be made flying at 31,000 feet, and above, on the one hand, and various 9/11 sceptics suggesting otoh that there was some sort of fakery or ruse involving caller ID spoofing and voice simulation technology

and so it was forgotten...

Historians when they get their hands on this kind of data, are going to be asking some serious questions about the validity of the OS as anything more than a public myth..

Regards,

EE


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 19 2014, 01:43 AM
Post #44





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



Question:

Does anyone know how to obtain the email addresses of all the top 9/11 researchers and writers like David Ray Griffin, Graeme McQueen, etc.?

If so, please send them the link to this thread,

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22548

as well as this one here..

http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread...pg1#pid17369451

which deals with the speed of the south tower plane, proving in no uncertain terms that it cannot have been the original flight 175, which took off and reported in - where it might be helpful to do a voice comparison between the reported captain for that flight and the pilot who reported in post wheels off, that would be worth checking... because of what the overall model is suggesting (herding/handling at the airport facility level), where he's not likely to take off with an empty plane, and yet a flight 175 was needed in the air for the swap, which cannot possibly rely on a successful hijacking with boxcutters.. and the there were no images of hijackers even boarding the aircraft. Those guys couldn't cut their way out of a wet paper bag or flown a baby Cessna, so that's out of the question to begin with.



And suggest that they write a new book called maybe something like "9/11 Birds of Prey", dealing with the entire record in regards to the aircraft themselves on the one hand and the cell phone and call record on the other. Such a work would surely peck away at and eat the flesh of Generals as per the book of Revelation with Philip D. Zelikow starring as the false prophet.

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Jan 19 2014, 01:47 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 19 2014, 01:49 AM
Post #45





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



2nd link - didn't work

http:// www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread990280/pg1#pid17369451 (remove space after // and enter into url
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 19 2014, 02:24 AM
Post #46





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



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 19 2014, 12:07 AM) *
Update/Summary


additional reference point.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html


After watching the video documentary linked in the OP - "September 11- The New Pearl Harbor", and looking into this a little further, a number of things become clear.

The official story narrative, as it arose out of the events themselves includes a voluminous account of cell phone calls, like a LOT of them, somewhere in the order of 10-15 minimum.


.... Historians when they get their hands on this kind of data, are going to be asking some serious questions about the validity of the OS as anything more than a public myth..

Regards,

EE



Naw....

You're onto something very important.
Why wait for historians?

You are obviously extremely curious and troubled by these revelations.

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.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 19 2014, 02:44 AM
Post #47





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



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 18 2014, 10:24 PM) *
Naw....

You're onto something very important.
Why wait for historians?

You are obviously extremely curious and troubled by these revelations.

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.



I can't write it, don't have the time, the wherwithall or the will, but i will write a letter and send it to David Ray Griffen and Graham McQueen who i respect the most in terms of academics with the ability to fully investigate such a thing and then write a book on it.

It needs a serious fine combed treatment for the purpose of writing a book.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 19 2014, 02:48 AM
Post #48





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



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 18 2014, 10:24 PM) *


In the interim Mike, check out this thread which contains my research and presentation in regards to the work and research of P4T as it relates primarily to the south tower plane.

http:// www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread990280/pg1#pid17369451 (remove space after // and enter into url)

I did get KCAS confused with EAS in the beginning, but relative to the data, that's fine, because at 700 feet altitude they are the same, and above that 420 KCAS cannot be exceeded at any other altitude to remain within the outer limit of the flight envelope.

Pay no heed to the location of the thread or the opening ADMIN NOTICE: which actually ends up adding more credibility in the final analysis.

It's tangentially relevant to this thread and something that i thought you might enjoy reading..

Best Regards,

EE

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Jan 19 2014, 02:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jan 19 2014, 02:56 AM
Post #49





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



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 19 2014, 05:43 PM) *
and yet a flight 175 was needed in the air for the swap



No plane on flight UA175 hit WTC2 .... the plane was FAKED ... why should we devote ANY time
to cell phones which cannot have ANYTHING to do with whatever Directed Energy Weapon
WAS the real device that brought down WTC2 .... and why FGS do we need to place
ANY credence on any phony fictactious passenger swaps...

There was no plane, therefore there were no passengers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Jan 19 2014, 05:57 AM
Post #50





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



QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 19 2014, 01:56 AM) *
Directed Energy Weapon WAS the real device that brought down WTC2 ....

If directed energy is a possibility, then would it not also be a possibility that some flying object carried a directed energy weapon that was used to zap the external metal framework of the WTC tower thereby weakening that metal just an instant before impact thus allowing that flying object to cut a plane-shaped hole in the side of the tower?

QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 19 2014, 01:56 AM) *
There was no plane, therefore there were no passengers

In my other recent post entitled, "Does The Tapping Of Chancellor Merkel's Phone Offer Some Insight..., into the Events Surrounding 9/11?" at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22549 , I posited that the people on the passenger lists of flights 11, 77, and 175 were real, all right, but those flights were totally fictitious.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jan 19 2014, 12:14 PM
Post #51





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



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Jan 19 2014, 09:57 PM) *
If directed energy is a possibility, then would it not also be a possibility that some flying object carried a directed energy weapon that was used to zap the external metal framework of the WTC tower thereby weakening that metal just an instant before impact thus allowing that flying object to cut a plane-shaped hole in the side of the tower?


Toxic barium-laden chemtrail effects polluting our skies establish that Reagan's Starwars weaponized directed energy is more than a mere "possibility" every damned day of our lives. A flying object could well have carried a DEW to make the hole we saw in the side of WTC1, if it wasn't radar doppler from the mountains of the moon, just as long as we eliminate AA11 from our inquiries

Not only did no curious dog fail to bark in the night as AA11 became a fictactional apocryphal myth on Dubya and Dick's lying lips, but at the exact instant of the appearance of the said hole, a blatant deviation in the whole-earth magnetism was recorded on all six magnetometers 4000 miles away in Alaska. I kid you not.

The object you mention evidently had nothing to do with the pulling Building Seven that Larry said he wasn't flying anywhere near. Pity your flying object wasn't close enough to zap Larry's fat head

QUOTE (paulmichael @ Jan 19 2014, 09:57 PM) *
In my other recent post entitled, "Does The Tapping Of Chancellor Merkel's Phone Offer Some Insight..., into the Events Surrounding 9/11?" at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22549 , I posited that the people on the passenger lists of flights 11, 77, and 175 were real, all right, but those flights were totally fictitious.


I'd hate to be a party-pooper, but there can be zero relevance of cell-phones from/to any Boeing not involved in WTC2 and WTC1 (in that curious order) turning to dust. The cell-phone stuff was a fiarly-fictitious attempt to distract attention from the far-more-difficult question of buildings turning to dust. We don't dare breathe a word about the dustification because any idiot knows for certain "it cannot possible have happened: everybody knows that steel stanchions CANNOT turn to dust"

Yet that question ignores one pesky problem: "everybody" watched in horror as steel turned to dust on telly screens world wide. We all saw with our own eyes 110 stories of skyscraper become a 1000-foot high column of dust in 10 seconds flat

So, why do we find it so damned impossible to admit an all-important fact?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 19 2014, 05:25 PM
Post #52





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



OK, the no planer and DEW theories are OFF-TOPIC, and could be thought of from the "honey pot" perspective to be shameful disinformation intended to distract from the topic at hand.

Plane-shaped holes..? Plane-like objects delivering DEW's? C'mon, get a fricking grip.

I am disgusted by these intrusions in this thread.

FGS what's wrong with some people?!!!

Please do not reply unless you're on topic.

EE
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 19 2014, 05:59 PM
Post #53





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



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 19 2014, 01:44 AM) *
I can't write it, don't have the time, the wherwithall or the will, but i will write a letter and send it to David Ray Griffen and Graham McQueen who i respect the most in terms of academics with the ability to fully investigate such a thing and then write a book on it.

It needs a serious fine combed treatment for the purpose of writing a book.



That's a shame EE.

Personally, I don't think it would be nearly as time-consuming as you make it out to be.
Certainly a book would not be needed to cover the important details that you have outlined earlier in the post.

A few dozen hours of research, sure.
Just get the main points covered and then hand it over to a pro to write a book (if a book is necessary).

BTW I started reading your ATS post that you mentioned and though the material you cover is valid/important, your writing skills leave the reader in a confused trance. sad.gif

Why start off your post with a rambling one paragraph sentence (that doesn't hold together), when two or three sentences at minimum are called for?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 19 2014, 06:02 PM
Post #54





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



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 19 2014, 04:25 PM) *
OK, the no planer and DEW theories are OFF-TOPIC, and could be thought of from the "honey pot" perspective to be shameful disinformation intended to distract from the topic at hand.

Plane-shaped holes..? Plane-like objects delivering DEW's? C'mon, get a fricking grip.

I am disgusted by these intrusions in this thread.

FGS what's wrong with some people?!!!

Please do not reply unless you're on topic.

EE



+1
Absolutely! You beat me to the punch.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 19 2014, 11:01 PM
Post #55





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



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 19 2014, 01:59 PM) *
BTW I started reading your ATS post that you mentioned and though the material you cover is valid/important, your writing skills leave the reader in a confused trance. sad.gif

Why start off your post with a rambling one paragraph sentence (that doesn't hold together), when two or three sentences at minimum are called for?


You're right, i threw it together in a hurry, and i can see that looking back on it.

It's a difficult issue to describe however. Thus since it's hard enough to get one's head around to begin with, better to be concise and clear and not rambling with run-on sentence structure.

Thanks for the feedback.

As to the research i need to bring it to someone else's attention as i don't have the wherwithall to complete the project.

Anyone could do it though, given enough time, but it would also require all the flight path data or whatever we were given by the officials and synchronized timing in relation to the calls which might require some technical prowess in matters of aircraft.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 19 2014, 11:16 PM
Post #56





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



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 19 2014, 10:01 PM) *
You're right, i threw it together in a hurry, and i can see that looking back on it.

It's a difficult issue to describe however. Thus since it's hard enough to get one's head around to begin with, better to be concise and clear and not rambling with run-on sentence structure.

Thanks for the feedback.


No problem.

QUOTE
As to the research i need to bring it to someone else's attention as i don't have the wherwithall to complete the project.

Anyone could do it though, given enough time, but it would also require all the flight path data or whatever we were given by the officials and synchronized timing in relation to the calls which might require some technical prowess in matters of aircraft.


I think it would be a fascinating project.
There are so many different angles to cover.
Just the OS changing from 10-15 cell phone calls from the planes to none, five years later, is a front page headline news story by itself.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 20 2014, 03:44 AM
Post #57





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



test

south tower plane presentation

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread990280/pg1#pid17369451
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 20 2014, 04:09 AM
Post #58





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



ok i've directed this to fellow 9/11 researchers, hopefully it got through and will be taken up as a point of additional research and investigative inquiry.


One thing to note about the cell phone calls, is in terms of their content, which is of a situational reporting style, to a one. In other words, they're all congruent in regards to helping to fill in the narrative later employed by the 9/11 Commission and then the Moussaoui trial.

That in and of itself is highly in-congruent imho, in terms of what would be expected in the real world where there would be a very diverse range of things being communicated that would not be as concerned with what was going on in terms of the hijackers, the fellow passengers and the status of the flight. Sure mention would be made of that info, but the overall content seems to support the contention that it was by design with the intent of creating the narrative.

Then there's the way it was "read" by CeeCee Lyles for example where she flew through it point by point in a rapid fire nonchalant way, her voice breaking only in the final goodbye with an emphasis on the word HOPE when she said that the hoped she would see her husband again. It was like she was making an indirect appeal to her handlers/captors in a bid to save her life, or that's the way it comes across within the larger context and in reading between the lines even as she might have intended when she said "you have to listen to me carefully".

Betty Ong's 23 min seat-back phone call also has a canned bad acting quality to it, as when she reports "i see buildings, i see water".

Anyway, i sure hope this line of investigation and reporting gets to see the light of day beyond that which is contained in the documentary "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor"..

If someone does take it up - if you could please try to get in a few interviews, or more, with the relevant family members who received those calls.

Best Regards,

EE

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Jan 20 2014, 04:11 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 20 2014, 09:38 AM
Post #59





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



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 20 2014, 08:09 AM) *
Betty Ong's 23 min seat-back phone call also has a canned bad acting quality to it, as when she
reports "i see buildings, i see water".


Wasn't that her colleague Sweeney?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 20 2014, 05:00 PM
Post #60





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



re: cell phones and there not being any made from the planes etc.

I am just watching an amateur video 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


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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: 22nd October 2019 - 08:12 AM