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 )

Something Very Suspicious Amy Sweeney's Call Logs

poppyburner
post Dec 8 2013, 01:38 AM
Post #1





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



Apologies for the incorrigibly-mistyped title.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'AMERICAN AIRLINES LOGAN AIRPORT, BOSTON'.

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by poppyburner: Dec 8 2013, 01:43 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
bmead
post Jan 18 2014, 09:38 PM
Post #2





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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'AMERICAN AIRLINES LOGAN AIRPORT, BOSTON'.

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





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

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

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

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

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

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


Hi where can i find that info please, not that i don't believe it, i do but i need the original source document for a piece i am doing thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 18 2014, 11:42 PM
Post #3





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



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


Hello again bmead smile.gif

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


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

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





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 19 2014, 04:10 AM
Post #4





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



+ http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Madeline...s#Phone_records
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 23 2014, 02:47 PM
Post #5





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



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



Hello again poppy, http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Madeline...s#Phone_records was helpful, but a quick question, has this forum established why one of the answer supervisions is saying wed 31 1969?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 24 2014, 01:03 AM
Post #6





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



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


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


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

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

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

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


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



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

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


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

This post has been edited by poppyburner: Jan 24 2014, 01:05 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 24 2014, 11:05 AM
Post #7





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



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

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

Page 006 of their own .pdf Airfone record compilation: http://www.911myths.com/images/c/c3/Team7_AirfoneRecords.pdf
seemingly evidences the 06:25:20 A.M. (8:25:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time) call, attributed to Sweeney; with the officially
claimed duration of 107 seconds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 25 2014, 08:21 PM
Post #8





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



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

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

And what exactly does Answer supervision mean


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 26 2014, 12:40 AM
Post #9





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



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

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

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

*Ong's dialogue starts in mid-sentence.

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

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


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

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

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


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

*48 seconds before the North Tower's impact.

Therefore, I don't know that the phone system's possible destruction, had much to do with the termination of those calls.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 26 2014, 09:50 AM
Post #10





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



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

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

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

*Ong's dialogue starts in mid-sentence.

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

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


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

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

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


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

*48 seconds before the North Tower's impact.

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



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

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

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

OFFICIALLY

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


Is that correct so far as the official story?

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

I believe from the transcripts seen, there is a loop of parts of that call, meaning it was longer than 4 minutes or it was shorter than that. If it was longer, then parts were cut and looped to match the 4 minute recording time, if it was shorter then there was a reason it was cut before the full four minutes and the loop was created to give the impression of four minutes. I will be producing the analysis in due course if i am correct. But i need to check i am right with my supposition on what the official line was
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Jan 27 2014, 06:36 AM
Post #11





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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I'm correct, then it's imo probable, that: Ong's call was censored, the cabin noise was phony and played live.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 27 2014, 09:05 AM
Post #12





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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



The transcripts are messed up with the wansley requested playback differing from later released audio.
Anyhow, also i not that Minter the initial recipient of Ongs call, can't find her emergency button, so she calls Sadler who can and does record, then Gonzalez is patched in, she does not ask if the call is being recorded nor does she say she pressed her own emergency button. She should have, if patched on the line have been as able to record Ong as Sadler and she IS recorded herself but Ong isn't
Doesn't add up going to have run through the connections and hand overs again
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SeekingC40
post Feb 16 2014, 01:15 AM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 6-February 14
Member No.: 7,701



I hate to butt in here but while we are on the subject of these calls I was just reading the timeline on History Commons and I noticed there was a delay in Ray Scott joining in on the phone because according to Minter:
"She will say that after he arrived at her desk, she gave Scott her headset. However, he was unable to use it as it has an earpiece that was custom-made for Minter. Scott therefore had to go away and get his own headset,
and is only able to join the call with Ong after returning to Minter’s desk "

This is extremely odd sounding to me because I've worked in call centers and never once did I have trouble getting an earpiece in or on (depending on if its in ear or on ear set) and never once have I ever been offered a custom made one.
It makes no sense as to why he would not bring his own headset in an emergency if apparently they are so special. I'm unclear on what type of phone system was being used but this seems strange as based on what's known about Gonzalez
participation in the call it mentions she is holding a phone to both ears (Minter, Sadler and Ong on one and American Systems Operation on the other) so Scott should have been able to pick up a handset without disconnecting the call to listen in at Minter's desk, so what the heck was he doing while he was away?
it also mentions Gonzalezes ENTIRE call to the Systems Operation Center is recorded but does not say at what end the recording was made on while Ong's line gets 4 minutes allegedly.

There are other problems to because apparently no one hit a transfer button, they were all using conference and patching people in. The call could have been easily transferred from Minter or Sadler's phone to Gonzalez who could have patched in the Operations Center and thus recorded the whole call.
while also saving what had already been recorded by Sadler.

There is no excuse that the phone system was not set up to transfer calls and there is no way the system had a 4 minute default recording time. My point is for there being atleast 2 managers involved in the call there should never have been that many people connected the way it is described.
the call scenario is either engineered or fabricated. I can't say for sure because I wasn't there but based on my experience in call centers this is off.

The thing I have always found suspect is that Ong is quoted as saying "The cockpit’s not answering, somebody’s stabbed in business class, and I think there’s Mace, that we can’t breathe.… I think we’re getting hijacked." (Yep "that we cant breathe?")

According to the story the people in coach think it is a medical emergency in the front. So all the people moving back to get away from the mace who must have seen the alleged stabbings don't trigger any alarm bells for the people in coach who must also smell the mace?

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...=nydia_gonzalez

Just had to get that off my chest I guess...Here's hoping for the truth someday.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Feb 16 2014, 08:58 PM
Post #14





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



QUOTE (SeekingC40 @ Feb 16 2014, 05:15 AM) *
According to the story the people in coach think it is a medical emergency in the front. So all the people moving back to get away from the mace who must have seen the alleged stabbings don't trigger any alarm bells for the people in coach who must also smell the mace?


From the 'Historical Documentary' Last Hour of Flight 11 (@ 35:28):

QUOTE
"Until September the 11th 2001, cabin crews were trained in the event of a hijacking, to MAINTAIN CALM among the passengers.
The flight attendants use a cover story that this is ALL just a medical emergency.
It's possible that the passengers evacuated from First and Business, who witnessed the attack, go along with this in order to prevent to the spread of panic."


yes1.gif The renowned self-control, of the responsible common man.



This post has been edited by poppyburner: Feb 16 2014, 09:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SeekingC40
post Feb 16 2014, 09:46 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 6-February 14
Member No.: 7,701



I guess maybe I should have reworded that, I wouldn't expect a flight crew or other passengers to create a stir of panic. You are right that the crew would maintain order and professionalism at all times. I personally am just surprised that if others on the flight were aware of what was happening in the front that the only calls came from flight attendants. That there were no other cell calls from passengers to family, even short ones while ducked behind a seat or from a lavatory where no one else could hear, sense obviously cell calls at altitude are possible according to the flight 93 story.

This subject is always touchy for me because people died but the mystery is who, where and how. I really, as sad is this may sound would like to believe things happened as the "official story" goes but I can't no way, which calls into question everything in the calls. I still maintain the details surrounding the calls in my opinion is suspect.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- poppyburner   Something Very Suspicious Amy Sweeney's Call Logs   Dec 8 2013, 01:38 AM
- - Obwon   My biggest problem with this calls is, as I under...   Dec 8 2013, 12:36 PM
|- - NP1Mike   QUOTE (Obwon @ Dec 8 2013, 11:36 AM) Need...   Dec 8 2013, 01:58 PM
|- - Obwon   QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Dec 8 2013, 12:58 PM) I ...   Dec 8 2013, 09:56 PM
|- - tumetuestumefaisdubien   QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Dec 8 2013, 06:58 AM) I ...   Jan 27 2014, 08:20 AM
- - poppyburner   I must add this crucial caveat to my earlier post:...   Dec 11 2013, 02:53 AM
|- - poppyburner   A possible scenario has occurred to me: Sweeney c...   Jan 5 2014, 11:40 PM
|- - poppyburner   Problem - the line could be engaged: 'Nunez i...   Jan 9 2014, 08:47 PM
- - bmead   QUOTE (poppyburner @ Dec 8 2013, 05:38 AM...   Jan 18 2014, 09:38 PM
|- - poppyburner   QUOTE (bmead @ Jan 19 2014, 01:38 AM) Hi ...   Jan 18 2014, 11:42 PM
|- - poppyburner   + http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Madeline...s#P...   Jan 19 2014, 04:10 AM
||- - bmead   QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 19 2014, 08:10 A...   Jan 23 2014, 02:47 PM
||- - poppyburner   QUOTE (bmead @ Jan 23 2014, 06:47 PM) Hel...   Jan 24 2014, 01:03 AM
||- - poppyburner   'These are the three connected calls...' ~...   Jan 24 2014, 11:05 AM
||- - bmead   Hi poppy, sorry to keep coming back to you but sin...   Jan 25 2014, 08:21 PM
||- - poppyburner   I suppose that Answer Supervision, indicates the t...   Jan 26 2014, 12:40 AM
||- - bmead   QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 26 2014, 04:40 A...   Jan 26 2014, 09:50 AM
||- - poppyburner   A scan of Ong's 1620 second call record, can b...   Jan 27 2014, 06:36 AM
||- - bmead   QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 27 2014, 10:36 A...   Jan 27 2014, 09:05 AM
||- - poppyburner   QUOTE (bmead @ Jan 27 2014, 01:05 PM) The...   Jan 27 2014, 08:00 PM
||- - SeekingC40   I hate to butt in here but while we are on the sub...   Feb 16 2014, 01:15 AM
||- - poppyburner   QUOTE (SeekingC40 @ Feb 16 2014, 05:15 AM...   Feb 16 2014, 08:58 PM
||- - SeekingC40   I guess maybe I should have reworded that, I would...   Feb 16 2014, 09:46 PM
|- - bmead   QUOTE (poppyburner @ Jan 19 2014, 03:42 A...   Jan 20 2014, 06:51 PM
- - Obwon   If these calls had happened in real time, the way...   Feb 16 2014, 10:07 AM
- - Obwon   QUOTE (Obwon @ Feb 16 2014, 09:07 AM) If ...   Feb 16 2014, 10:09 AM


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: 18th August 2019 - 09:47 AM