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]

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.