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

[andrewkornkven]

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.