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

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

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

Beached
post Nov 13 2006, 06:59 AM
Post #1





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



http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....ichael_woodward

I was researching the call allegedly made by Madeline Sweeney to American Airlines flight services and noticed something very strange. She witnesses the hijackers storming the cockpit at least seven minutes after radio contact with AA11 is lost. According to the following report by the Los Angeles Times, Sweeney was relaying the details of the men as they stormed the cockpit.

http://www.webcom.com/hrin/magazine/la-watchlist.html

However, the first call she attempts to make is at 8:21am, which is three minutes after Betty Ong places her call claiming that the cockpit is not responding or answering their phone. According to the 9/11 Commission, Betty's call began at 8:18am.

Betty Ong was working coach and her position placed in the rear jump seat (3R). How could Betty be reporting that the cockpit was not responding and that the "door won't open" before Madeline actually witnesses the storming?

The claim that the passengers were unaware of a hijacking is also suspicious. Even with the coach and first class sections separated by curtains; bearing in mind how noise carries in a confined space such as an aircraft cabin, it is unlikely they would have been unaware of the commotion.

Also, Madeline Sweeney was positioned as working coach with Ong, and so something must have caught her attention to have her investigate the first class cabin. Would none of the passengers in coach have seen what was going on through the sides and beneath the curtain? Would they not have felt that something was amiss by Madeline's body language as she returned from first class?

If as Betty claimed, someone had been spraying mace in first class, it would take more than a mere curtain to keep this within the first class partition. This would have at least made the coach passengers a little wary. Considering repertory problems such as asthma are quite common, it seems strange that no one else would have been affected by the mace. Would the coach passengers not have seen any passengers coming back from business class?

It also seems strange that despite the plane suddenly lurching to the side before making a rapid decent this did not cause the coach passengers to think something was amiss. It's also surprising that none of the coach passengers heard Ong or Sweeney on the phone. Word's like "bomb" and "hijacking" are a surefire way to guarantee mass hysteria aboard a commercial aircraft. Listening to the recording of Betty's call, she's hardly exercising discretion while talking.

Again, the claim that the coach section passengers are still quiet, apparently unaware a hijacking is in progress just prior to the impact is very suspicious. Would none of the passengers have at least taken a look out of the window to see where they were? Wouldn't they think it strange that they were flying at full throttle right into Manhattan?

By carefully analyzing the information Madeline relayed to Michael Woodward, it implies that most, if not all of the hijackers, including the "bomb" and the pilots are in the cockpit. I'm sure a lot of pilots here will agree with me that it is a tight squeeze to fit maybe 3 people inside the cockpit, but 5-7 including a bomb seems to be pushing it a little.

This post has been edited by Beached: Dec 2 2006, 02:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Method
post Nov 13 2006, 09:55 AM
Post #2


..with liberty and justice for all.


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,152
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Orlando, FL
Member No.: 65



Hmm... anyone with more knowledge about this have an opinion?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundControl
post Nov 17 2006, 08:20 PM
Post #3





Group: Banned
Posts: 64
Joined: 7-November 06
Member No.: 212



I wouldn't worry to much about it. I wouldn't worry about dismissing anything we already know is fake. The call is fake, there were no real arab hijackers on the planes anyway. I would agree that the amount of people in the cockpit is impossible and still control the aircraft accurately like they claim they did would be even more unbelievable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Dec 12 2006, 06:06 PM
Post #4





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



QUOTE (Beached @ Nov 13 2006, 06:59 AM)
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....ichael_woodward

I was researching the call allegedly made by Madeline Sweeney to American Airlines flight services and noticed something very strange. She witnesses the hijackers storming the cockpit at least seven minutes after radio contact with AA11 is lost. According to the following report by the Los Angeles Times, Sweeney was relaying the details of the men as they stormed the cockpit.

http://www.webcom.com/hrin/magazine/la-watchlist.html

However, the first call she attempts to make is at 8:21am, which is three minutes after Betty Ong places her call claiming that the cockpit is not responding or answering their phone. According to the 9/11 Commission, Betty's call began at 8:18am.

Betty Ong was working coach and her position placed in the rear jump seat (3R). How could Betty be reporting that the cockpit was not responding and that the "door won't open" before Madeline actually witnesses the storming?

The claim that the passengers were unaware of a hijacking is also suspicious. Even with the coach and first class sections separated by curtains; bearing in mind how noise carries in a confined space such as an aircraft cabin, it is unlikely they would have been unaware of the commotion.

Also, Madeline Sweeney was positioned as working coach with Ong, and so something must have caught her attention to have her investigate the first class cabin. Would none of the passengers in coach have seen what was going on through the sides and beneath the curtain? Would they not have felt that something was amiss by Madeline's body language as she returned from first class?

If as Betty claimed, someone had been spraying mace in first class, it would take more than a mere curtain to keep this within the first class partition. This would have at least made the coach passengers a little wary. Considering repertory problems such as asthma are quite common, it seems strange that no one else would have been affected by the mace. Would the coach passengers not have seen any passengers coming back from business class?

It also seems strange that despite the plane suddenly lurching to the side before making a rapid decent this did not cause the coach passengers to think something was amiss. It's also surprising that none of the coach passengers heard Ong or Sweeney on the phone. Word's like "bomb" and "hijacking" are a surefire way to guarantee mass hysteria aboard a commercial aircraft. Listening to the recording of Betty's call, she's hardly exercising discretion while talking.

Again, the claim that the coach section passengers are still quiet, apparently unaware a hijacking is in progress just prior to the impact is very suspicious. Would none of the passengers have at least taken a look out of the window to see where they were? Wouldn't they think it strange that they were flying at full throttle right into Manhattan?

By carefully analyzing the information Madeline relayed to Michael Woodward, it implies that most, if not all of the hijackers, including the "bomb" and the pilots are in the cockpit. I'm sure a lot of pilots here will agree with me that it is a tight squeeze to fit maybe 3 people inside the cockpit, but 5-7 including a bomb seems to be pushing it a little.

Basic issue with AA11:

Why no passenger noise heard during Sweeney and Ong phone calls?
Why are the two calls so different?
Why was Capt Ogonowski flying such a special operation on 9/11?

Captain Ogonowski clearly made special arrangements to fly morning of 9/11. But which flight, in fact, did he pilot?

Flight Attendant Sweeney's phone call (from 9/11 Commission , quoted in killtown website, with my comments)
'---Sweeney slid into a passenger seat in the next-to-last row of coach....
(she goes to back of plane)
"Michael, this plane has been hijacked," Ms. Sweeney repeated. Calmly, she gave him the seat locations of three of the hijackers: 9D, 9G and 10B. She said they were all of Middle Eastern descent, and one spoke English very well.

(KEY details of seating -- was Sweeney the business class attendant?)

Mr. Woodward ordered a colleague to punch up those seat locations on the computer. At least 20 minutes BEFORE the plane crashed, the airline had the names, addresses, phone numbers and credit cards of three of the five hijackers. They knew that 9G was Abdulaziz al-Omari, 10B was Satam al-Suqami, and 9D was Mohamed Atta -- the ringleader of the 9/11 terrorists.

(that was quick work!! Consider this link: --- now, the FBI knows who to investigate as of 830am... and in fact start to trace the names on their databases)

I continue:
This seems to be very calm work by Ms Sweeney - she shows grace under pressure. She went to the far back of plane, as not to scare passengers by revealing the hijacking operation, or murder. She told AA about the bomb she was shown by hijackers with it's red and yellow wires. She heard hijackers speak. Remembers who spoke good english vs poor english.

Therefore she was close to all of them. She remembers carefully even the seat numbers of at least three of the hijackers, and she not get confused despite maybe witnessing murder, forcing of cockpit, and a bomb. She has training.


Note that Sweeney does NOT appear to mention pepper spray, nor did it the alleged pepper spray or 'mace' apparently disturb her eye's abilities to discern the precise seat location of hijackers.

You would think that pepper spray would foul up vision and breathing in business class - even coach- -- unless she witnessed the precise moment that passengers /hijackers got out of seats -- putting her in danger of getting throat cut, right?.

Her call ends with "I see water.. buildings..oh no." -- is she the ONLY one that thinks the plane is too low? Everyone on board should be screaming at this point, they are flying southward toward Manhattan at altitude much too low.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Dec 12 2006, 06:12 PM
Post #5





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



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!!)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andrewkornkven
post Dec 20 2006, 03:00 PM
Post #6





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



QUOTE (Beached @ Nov 13 2006, 11:59 AM)
I was researching the call allegedly made by Madeline Sweeney to American Airlines flight services and noticed something very strange. She witnesses the hijackers storming the cockpit at least seven minutes after radio contact with AA11 is lost. According to the following report by the Los Angeles Times, Sweeney was relaying the details of the men as they stormed the cockpit.


However, the first call she attempts to make is at 8:21am, which is three minutes after Betty Ong places her call claiming that the cockpit is not responding or answering their phone. According to the 9/11 Commission, Betty's call began at 8:18am.

Betty Ong was working coach and her position placed in the rear jump seat (3R). How could Betty be reporting that the cockpit was not responding and that the "door won't open" before Madeline actually witnesses the storming?


I was also bedeviled by questions about the various phone calls from the four flights, so one day a few months ago I sat down and did an analysis of them, using Paul Thompson's Terror Timeline as a guide.

I was also struck by the anomaly that Sweeney witnesses the cockpit storming several minutes after the plane goes NORDO, the transponder is turned off, and Betty Ong is reporting the cockpit door won't open. I think we should consider the possiblity that there were two hijackings on each plane: a real one, in which the pilots were killed and the cockpit commandeered; and a second, phony one, in which hijackers representing themselves as Arabs made a great show of stabbing people and storming the cockpit. The purpose of the phony hijacking was to give the passengers the impression the hijacking was carried out by fanatical, primitive Arabs, so that some of those passengers would pass that information to the rest of America via their phone calls and the nation would conclude that the whole 9/11 attack was carried out by a particularly vicious band of primitive Arabs who had only knives and boxcutters at their disposal. In this way the Arabs were framed, but such a scenario does not jibe with reality.

It is far more likely that the hijackers were armed with guns. We have very good evidence of this from Tom Burnett's first phone call from UAL93. Here is a synapsis of it from Terror Timeline:

"(9:27 a.m.): Flight 93 Passenger Tom Burnett Calls Wife, Mentions Bomb, Knife, and Gun

Tom Burnett calls his wife, Deena, using a cell phone and says, “I’m on United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. The plane has been hijacked. We are in the air. They’ve already knifed a guy. There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI.” Deena connects to emergency 9-1-1. [ABC News, 9/12/2001; Longman, 2002, pp. 107; MSNBC, 7/30/2002; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001; Toronto Sun, 9/16/2001] Deena wonders if the call might have been before the cockpit was taken over, because he spoke quickly and quietly as if he was being watched. He also had a headset like phone operators use, so he could have made the call unnoticed. Note that original versions of this conversation appear to have been censored. The most recent account has the phone call ending with, “We are in the air. The plane has been hijacked. They already knifed a guy. One of them has a gun. They’re saying there is a bomb onboard. Please call the authorities.” [Longman, 2002, pp. 107] The major difference from earlier accounts, is the mention of a gun. The call wasn’t recorded, but Deena’s call to 9-1-1 immediately afterwards was, and on that call she states, “They just knifed a passenger and there are guns on the plane.” [Longman, 2002, pp. 108] Deena Burnett later says of her husband: “He told me one of the hijackers had a gun. He wouldn’t have made it up. Tom grew up around guns. He was an avid hunter and we have guns in our home. If he said there was a gun on board, there was.” [London Times, 8/11/2002] This is the first of over 30 phone calls by passengers inside the plane. [MSNBC, 7/30/2002] Passengers are told what happened at the WTC in least five of the phone calls. Five calls show an intent to revolt against the hijackers. [San Francisco Chronicle, 7/23/2004]"
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...ay_of_9/11=ua93

That quote from Deena Burnett stuck in my head: "If he said there was a gun on board, there was." She sounds like a credible witness to me. There is, however, more evidence of guns on board the 9/11 flights coming from AAL11. On the day of the attacks, the FAA filed a memo in which they reported a hijacker had shot a passenger in first class. Later, the story was changed, under suspicious circumstances, to say it was a stabbing.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=26626

In addition to these two pieces of good evidence we have the circumstance that on four flights eight pilots were subdued without even one of them being able to send a signal of any kind to anyone that there was trouble. I think we can all agree that this is an unlikely event if the hijackers were armed with only knives.

We can therefore reasonably conclude that the hijackers had guns, and that these were used to shoot the pilots. Why then, even bother with knives or boxcutters? And more curiously, why use those knives to stab female flight attendants? Phone calls from three of the four flights report females being stabbed. What could possibly be the purpose of such a horrific act? The answer is that these stabbings had no functional purpose in the hijacking. Their purpose was purely psychological: to portray the "Arabs" in the most beastial manner possible. Phone calls from all four flights reported that the hijackers were "Middle Eastern looking," which to most Americans means Arab-Muslim. Months later the phone calls from the flights would be recounted for the 9/11 commission. Just when Americans were starting to recover from the trauma of the towers' collapse, that grief would be transformed into a simmering rage against the Muslim world when the stories of the "Arabs" on the planes slashing stewardesses were circulated. That rage was expertly transformed by our leaders into support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is in this way that the "two hijacking" theory ties in with Sweeney's phone call. She was reporting the second hijacking, when a few hijackers, dressed in Arab garb and playing the role to the hilt, made a great show of storming a cockpit that had already been commandeered. Her phone call then was part of the plan, although she did not know that; she was only reporting what she thought she was seeing. Ong, meanwhile, was reporting events related to the first hijacking: the locked cockpit door, the cockpit not answering their phone. These were the results of the first, real hijacking, when a lone gunman slipped into the cockpit, took out both pilots and started working the controls.

(Ong's phone call may also have quite a bit more smoking gun evidence than that. Terror Timeline reports that she named the passenger from seat 9B as one of the hijackers, and an injured passenger in seat 10B. As it turns out, the passenger assigned to seat 9B was not an Arab, but a thirty-one year old Israeli-American dual citizen named Danny Lewin who was a captain in an elite Israeli commando unit specializing in aircraft takeover! Can you believe that? The passenger assigned to seat 10B was Satam al Suqami, who is now considered one of the hijackers according to the official story. How that initial FAA memo managed to switch these two is a mystery.

I have heard reports on the internet that Ong also reported that the passenger from 9B shot the passenger in 10B and also the pilots, but have been unable to corroborate them. The government has only released four and a half minutes of Ong's taped phone call; the remaining 18.5 minutes of the tape remain in the possession of our government.)

Here is the 4.5 minutes of Ong's call that has been released:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm

[Note: anyone interested in reading my full analysis of the phone calls from the 9/11 flights can find it here:]

http://www.911blogger.com/node/4190
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 20 2006, 04:45 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,826
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Didnt get a chance to read your whole post Andy.. but i want to emphasize that i have never had a cell phone work in flight above 3 or 4000 feet. I dont know any pilot that has.

I know one of the calls came from above FL300... i waive the BS flag here.... dont remember exactly which call it was...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andrewkornkven
post Dec 20 2006, 08:19 PM
Post #8





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



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Dec 20 2006, 09:45 PM)
Didnt get a chance to read your whole post Andy.. but i want to emphasize that i have never had a cell phone work in flight above 3 or 4000 feet. I dont know any pilot that has.

I know one of the calls came from above FL300... i waive the BS flag here.... dont remember exactly which call it was...

Note that all the verified cell phone calls-- and by that I mean calls that are known to have been made by cell phones, not airphones-- were made from UAL93 from the time when the transponder was turned off at 9:40 until the crash at about 10:06. At about 10:00 the transponder was turned back on indicating an altitude of 7,000 feet. Thus, the quesion we should be asking is: were cell phone calls possible from an aircraft flying below 10,000 feet over central Pennsylvania in 2001?

The one exception to the above is Tom Burnett's call from the same plane which I referenced in the previous post. That very important call was reportedly made at about 9:27, when the plane was still in level flight at FL350. About this call there are several possibilities:

A. The call was actually made from an airphone but mistakenly reported as a cell call.

B. The call was actually made at a later time, when the plane had descended to an altitude more conducive to cell phones.

C. The call was indeed made by a cell phone at FL350, and was possible because the positioning of nearby cell towers were "just right" at that moment for the call to be made. i.e., the call was a fluke.

D. The call was not really made; it was faked.

I find D. to be the least likely by far. Imagine how difficult it would be to fake, not one, but four calls to a man's spouse; or to get an ordinary person like Deena Burnett to go along with such a lie for the rest of her life. More importantly, the calls themselves are damning to the official story. In the previous post I showed how Burnett's first call indicated guns were on board. Obviously the hijackers tried to conceal the guns from the passengers, and they are not supposed to be part of the official story, as they point to a much larger, more sophisticated conspiracy, with connections in airport security. Why would the conspirators have faked this call referring to guns, then gone through all the trouble of covering it up/censoring it? In addition, some of Burnett's other calls also contain information contradicting the official story. In his third call, at about 9:45, he mentions that the hijackers are talking about crashing the plane into the ground. The official story says that happened as a result of a passenger revolt, which didn't begin until about 10:00. Was that call faked too? No way.

I personally believe A. B. or C. could have happened. I prefer C., since it has never been shown to me that cell phone calls are impossible from FL350. I realize, Rob, that you have never been able to complete a cell call from above 4,000 feet; but have you ever tried to make one at 7,000 feet while flying just east of Pittsburgh? Can we conclusively say that these cell calls were impossible? I don't think so, and Jim Hoffman seems to agree with me:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html

Sometimes I think the film Loose Change has done us more harm than good. I suspect that the reason it has been allowed to have such phenomenal success is that it serves more as disinformation than information. Because of Loose Change many 9/11 truthseekers have it ingrained in their heads that the calls are all faked, and the only evidence seems to be that a few of the callers said awkward things, like "hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham."

My own opinion is that all the calls are real. They do not support the official story but in fact are the best evidence we have of what actually happened in the planes that day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 20 2006, 08:36 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,826
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (andrewkornkven @ Dec 20 2006, 08:19 PM)
The one exception to the above is Tom Burnett's call from the same plane which I referenced in the previous post.  That very important call was reportedly made at about 9:27, when the plane was still in level flight at FL350.  About this call there are several possibilities:

Exactly my point... (sorry Andy.. but i didnt read anything after the word 'possiblility')

And as you know bud.. i dont deal in 'possiblities' unless its based on experience. My experience (and others) tell me its not possible to make a cell phone call from FL350.

I also had a cell phone and been flying long before 2001. wink.gif

But.. i agree that if we are not sure it was from a cell phone.. we need to find out.. and not suggest possiblities.. especially if it a possibility that supports an excuse for the govt story. The govt gets no more help from me making excuses for their story. They need to answer for it.

If it is reported as a cell phone call.. we need to find out if it really was a cell phone call. So far.. its been reported as a cell phone call. I dont make excuses for it. I want answers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 20 2006, 08:38 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,826
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Also keep in mind Barbara Olsens cell phone call (confirmed as being part of the govt story) which contradicts The Common Strategy prior to 9/11 and Burlingame's sister testimony based on Capt Burlingames' character.. (will be in documentary..)

Hint: "He would have NEVER given up his airplane to ANYONE, without being eliminated..."

Barbara tells a different story to her husband Ted... via cell phone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andrewkornkven
post Dec 20 2006, 09:02 PM
Post #11





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



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Dec 21 2006, 01:38 AM)
Also keep in mind Barbara Olsens cell phone call (confirmed as being part of the govt story) which contradicts The Common Strategy prior to 9/11 and Burlingame's sister testimony based on Capt Burlingames' character.. (will be in documentary..)

Hint: "He would have NEVER given up his airplane to ANYONE, without being eliminated..."

Barbara tells a different story to her husband Ted... via cell phone.

Question: what would the Common Strategy have had Burlingame do if there was a gun to his head? I think I showed pretty good evidence that guns were aboard UAL93 and AAL11. They were probably on AAL77 as well.

Another point: the fact that Barbara Olson may have said some things that are suspicious does not necessarily indicate the calls were faked. She may have been lying. She may have been coerced to say what she said by the hijackers. Something may have gone wrong on that flight causing the hijackers to cut off the airphones. They may still have wanted a call to get out reporting "Middle-eastern looking" hijackers and "knives and boxcutters," so they may have put a gun to Olson's head and told her what to say.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 20 2006, 09:11 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,826
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE
"Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters."
CNN - September 12, 2001 Posted: 2:06 AM EDT (0606 GMT)


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

right at the top of the page bud.. ;-)

again.. you're free to make excuses for it... i want answers. I know the Common Strategy prior to 9/11. That isnt it.


"Probably.." and "Possibilities.." and "May have..." dont make it in my world (thank my dad for that! wink.gif).

Those words are better used and littered throughout the 9/11 Commission Report, NIST Report and FEMA.

Cheers!
Rob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 22 2006, 03:36 PM
Post #13


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



Burnett's first phone call was made with a cell phone, there's no doubt. His wife was talking on the phone to another person when she recognized his number knocking on the door.

Here's the most thorough analysis of the case:

http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/fo...ewtopic.php?288

John Doe II has also analyzed the other phone calls. Burnett's call is the most evident to be done with a cell phone, but there are more, like Marion Britton's call.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 27 2006, 12:35 PM
Post #14





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



QUOTE
I was also struck by the anomaly that Sweeney witnesses the cockpit storming several minutes after the plane goes NORDO, the transponder is turned off, and Betty Ong is reporting the cockpit door won't open. I think we should consider the possiblity that there were two hijackings on each plane: a real one, in which the pilots were killed and the cockpit commandeered; and a second, phony one, in which hijackers representing themselves as Arabs made a great show of stabbing people and storming the cockpit. The purpose of the phony hijacking was to give the passengers the impression the hijacking was carried out by fanatical, primitive Arabs, so that some of those passengers would pass that information to the rest of America via their phone calls and the nation would conclude that the whole 9/11 attack was carried out by a particularly vicious band of primitive Arabs who had only knives and boxcutters at their disposal. In this way the Arabs were framed, but such a scenario does not jibe with reality.

It is far more likely that the hijackers were armed with guns...


I found your post to be fascinating, however, I've always found the notion of a real hijacking, with the same men flying the aircraft to be absurd. In fact, the purpose of this thread was to further point out the ridiculous nature of these calls...

Considering the questionable nature of the alleged calls and the absense of any phone records, I have my doubts as to whether any phone calls took place. Furthermore, I feel that recipients claiming to be family members should be treated with caution.

Of the passengers aboard all four flights, only a handful of these allegedly made phone calls, and fewer still called their families. The contents of the calls also amounted to the very flimsy evidence upon which the official account of "Arab hijackers" was based, and in many cases the descriptions of the "hijackers" seemed too contrived.

Therefore, when dealing with the issue of phone calls, we should consider Operation Northwoods. Here the passengers were to be Federal Agents, boarded under carefully assigned aliases. These people would have also been assigned artificial histories, family members, etc. Had Operation Northwoods gone ahead and the documents remained unreleased, we would find ourselves in exactly the same situation as with 9/11 - We would be debating a fictitious scenario aboard a commercial airliner, wondering what became of the passengers.

Now, I'm not saying that all of the passengers/flight crew were fictitious - On the contrary, I believe the majority of these were real, live people. However, I have my reservations as to the true backgrounds of the alleged callers, and wonder if they were even aboard the aircraft in the first place.

This post has been edited by Beached: Dec 27 2006, 06:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andrewkornkven
post Dec 28 2006, 08:31 PM
Post #15





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



QUOTE (Beached @ Dec 27 2006, 05:35 PM)
I found your post to be fascinating, however, I've always found the notion of a real hijacking, with the same men flying the aircraft to be absurd. In fact, the purpose of this thread was to further point out the ridiculous nature of these calls...

Considering the questionable nature of the alleged calls and the absense of any phone records, I have my doubts as to whether any phone calls took place. Furthermore, I feel that recipients claiming to be family members should be treated with caution.

First of all, that the planes were hijacked by real people does not mean that those same hijackers flew the planes to their destinations. We've discussed this possibility on another thread here entitled "Can a 757/767 Be Flown Remotely?" There is no reason the cockpits could not have been rigged for remote control by the hijackers, and the FMCs took over from there.

"ridiculous nature of these calls..."

"questionable nature of the alleged calls..."

"absence of any phone records..."

I really don't know what you're talking about here, and you've given no evidence to back up these assertions. Do you mean to say there are no records of the calls, or that if there are records, they have not been released by the authorities? I think there's a big difference. The government may have refrained from releasing, say, the credit card records from the airphone calls for just that reason: to confuse researchers like yourself.

What about Betty Ong's 23 minute call from Flight 11? You can listen to three and a half minutes of it on the internet. Here's the link:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm

Listen to it. Does it sound fake to you? It sounds completely real to me. Do you really think they found an actress that sounds exactly like her to fake the call, then allowed it to be played in public for all to hear? Wouldn't her friends and loved ones been able to tell the world that that isn't really her? And why do you think the government is sitting on the other 18.5 minutes of the call, if it is fake? Of course they don't let us hear the part where she identifies one of the hijackers coming from seat 9B, which was held by Israeli-trained commando Danny Lewin. I've also heard she reports that the passenger from 9B was shooting passengers and the pilots, but I don't expect the government to let us hear that segment. The point is, why would the conspirators have made such phony calls, then gone through all the trouble of covering them up?

I think what we often deal with with respect to the phone calls is what I call LCD: that stands for Loose Change Disease. This is a condition that results from people who watch the film Loose Change, then decide that everything suggested by the two young producers must be the absolute gospel truth. As far as I am concerned, just about everything in that film works as pure disinformation. That includes not only the suggestions that the calls are faked, but also that FL93 landed in Cleveland; that AAL77 did not hit the Pentagon; that 9/11 was another Operation Northwoods, etc. (By the way, Northwoods never happened; it was just somebody's idea.)

People tell me some of the phone calls are suspicious. I'll tell you what's really suspicious: the huge unimpeded success of Loose Change-- almost as if some people in places of power watched the film being made and decided to promote the film as a means of making sure the 9/11 truth movement will go nowhere. These people knew the basic outline of what happened on 9/11, and they therefore knew the ideas presented on Loose Change would serve to send sincere truthseekers down so many rabbit holes, such as believing that the phone calls made from the planes were faked.

Actually, the 9/11 Commission and the producers of Loose Change have this in common: they both presented a completely superficial examination of the phone calls to lead to their own pre-ordained conclusion. The 9/11 Commission used a few samples of the calls to paint a picture before a gullible American audience of the planes being hijacked by 19 knife-wielding Arabs. They did not deal with Tom Burnett's call from UAL93 convincingly describing guns in the possession of the hijackers. They didn't deal with Ong's call mentioned above. They didn't answer why Amy Sweeney sees the cockpit of AAL11 being stormed seven minutes after the transponder has been turned off.

Likewise, the Loose Change kids also took a superficial sampling of the calls to convince us they are fake. So Mark Bingham said, "hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham," and there was no screaming on Betty Ong's call; and Amy Sweeney said she saw water and a skyline... So what? These anomalies are easily explained, and don't show the calls to have been faked:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/lo...html#phonecalls

It's too bad that many truthseekers assumed from the 9/11 Commission that the phone calls prove an Arab conspiracy. Then, when Loose Change came out, they latched on to the idea that all the calls are faked. The truth is that the calls are all real, but they do NOT support the official story of an Arab operation. We can examine the phone calls for ourselves. There are only about thirty of them. The records of all these calls are available in Paul Thompson's Terror Timeline, which is also available online at the Center for Cooperative Research's website.

What these calls show is that the planes were hijacked by real people who were armed with guns as well as knives. The guns were not meant to be seen by the passengers; the knives were. The hijackers were meant to be perceived by the passengers as bloodthirsty Arab fanatics, and it was intended that this image be transmitted via the phone calls so as to frame Arabs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Dec 29 2006, 09:39 AM
Post #16





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



Normally I'd snap back at someone who responded to me in such an insolent tone, however, like I said before, I found what you had to say fascinating, and I'd like to see where it goes...

Just for the record, I have heard the released 4 mins of Betty Ong's call but am not convinced as to it's authenticity. Remember, this was a recording, and therefore could have very easily been falsified; including the sampling of Betty's voiceprint to be utilized in the recording. Furthermore, the claim that the call went on for 23 mins could be nothing more than a red-herring. However, I also share your sentiments toward Loose Change and the suspicious nature of its success and forthcoming "Final Cut" backed by Hollywood. Let's put the notion that the calls were false on hiatus for now, and focus on your idea...

It's certainly plausible if we consider the involvement of the Israeli Daniel Lewin... we know that the Mossad were involved in 9/11, and the notion that Lewin took part in the hijacking, and later listed as a "victim" illustrates pure evil genius on the part of the perpetrators. Most hardcore Zionists would be willing to give their lives for Israel, and therefore it is not hard to understand why Lewin undertook this as a "kamikaze" operation.

This post has been edited by Beached: Dec 29 2006, 09:47 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Culper721
post Jan 2 2007, 06:06 PM
Post #17





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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 2 2007, 06:19 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,826
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Jan 2 2007, 06:23 PM
Post #19


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



Welcome to the forum Culper721. Great first post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Culper721
post Jan 2 2007, 06:34 PM
Post #20





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



QUOTE (andrewkornkven @ Dec 28 2006, 08:31 PM)
QUOTE (Beached @ Dec 27 2006, 05:35 PM)
I found your post to be fascinating, however, I've always found the notion of a real hijacking, with the same men flying the aircraft to be absurd. In fact, the purpose of this thread was to further point out the ridiculous nature of these calls...

Considering the questionable nature of the alleged calls and the absense of any phone records, I have my doubts as to whether any phone calls took place. Furthermore, I feel that recipients claiming to be family members should be treated with caution.

I think what we often deal with with respect to the phone calls is what I call LCD: that stands for Loose Change Disease. This is a condition that results from people who watch the film Loose Change, then decide that everything suggested by the two young producers must be the absolute gospel truth. As far as I am concerned, just about everything in that film works as pure disinformation. That includes not only the suggestions that the calls are faked, but also that FL93 landed in Cleveland; that AAL77 did not hit the Pentagon; that 9/11 was another Operation Northwoods, etc. (By the way, Northwoods never happened; it was just somebody's idea.)

People tell me some of the phone calls are suspicious. I'll tell you what's really suspicious: the huge unimpeded success of Loose Change-- almost as if some people in places of power watched the film being made and decided to promote the film as a means of making sure the 9/11 truth movement will go nowhere. These people knew the basic outline of what happened on 9/11, and they therefore knew the ideas presented on Loose Change would serve to send sincere truthseekers down so many rabbit holes, such as believing that the phone calls made from the planes were faked.

Actually, the 9/11 Commission and the producers of Loose Change have this in common: they both presented a completely superficial examination of the phone calls to lead to their own pre-ordained conclusion. The 9/11 Commission used a few samples of the calls to paint a picture before a gullible American audience of the planes being hijacked by 19 knife-wielding Arabs. They did not deal with Tom Burnett's call from UAL93 convincingly describing guns in the possession of the hijackers. They didn't deal with Ong's call mentioned above. They didn't answer why Amy Sweeney sees the cockpit of AAL11 being stormed seven minutes after the transponder has been turned off.


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.

Click here for further information on 'Loose Change Disease Redux'

Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: 28th June 2017 - 12:22 PM