Madeline Sweeney's Phone Call, Something strange Options

[Beached]

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, 03:37 PM

[Culper721]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong!


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


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

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

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

Grab a pair of dividers and confirm it for yourself.

Finally, Treason is committed by people; not countries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like I said; this is not a game.