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]

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.

Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.

A lovely mix of latin quotations and personal insults-- but, where's the beef? I mean, what the hell are you talking about? Can you try to make a less stylish argument in terms that we can understand?

I maintain that all the phone calls are real, including Betty Ong's: both the 3.5 minutes we can listen to on the internet and the other 18.5 minutes that, should it ever be released, would probably blow the official story sky high.

I hope you are not yet another person who has not been paying attention, and assumes that because I believe the phone calls are real I therefore endorse the official story. I believe the calls are real and are evidence that the planes were hijacked by real people-- but not by Arabs as per the official story. I believe the planes were hijacked by state-trained professionals who were armed with guns, and who impersonated Arabs so as to frame Arabs for the crime.

Were you paying attention?

Did I challenge the contention that the calls were real? Or did I show that the calls failed to comport with the "official story" much less the available evidence; thereby making said story "false" as a matter of logic?

And per the "paying attention" remark; did you notice how Thomas Kean presented the tapes to the Commission and the audience? "A small portion was removed to spare a family from pain?" Funny how he doesn't mention that the portions redacted came from the middle.

Accordingly, I'm sure you'd love to hear the tape redacted between 8:26, when "Ong reported that the plane was 'flying erratically'" and 8:38 when "Ong told Gonzalez that the plane was flying erratically again.”

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?"

Further, as an attorney, I can assure you that the law doesn't give a damn what either you or I "believe;" only what can be proved. When the prosecution fails to meet its burdens of production and persuasion, e.g. the 911 Commission Report, the court neither grants a presumption of truth in the prosecution's favor nor does it shift the burden of proving an alternative theory on opposing counsel. Nonetheless, in lieu of shifting the burden back to the proponent of the story that you find incredible; you suffer from the delusion that argumentation consists solely of proffering alternative theories and claims as the only means of refutation.

I'm sorry; perhaps I should explain in a "less stylish" manner:

Argumentation is the study of effective reasoning; accordingly, popular conceptions of argumentation as unpleasant and quarrelsome need to be set aside.

To be clear, Arguing is reason giving.

1. Reasons are justifications or support for claims.

2. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving.

3. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or command.

You are capable of forming an argument; are you not? If so, perhaps you could provide some reasons, dare I say an argument, as to why your claims accomplish the task of shifting the burden back to the prosecution?

After all; if you want to see all the evidence, then you'd have to show why the prosecution's claims are not supported by the evidence as given; would you not?

And you don't suppose proving the official story, as based upon the premises set forth, and relied upon, by the 911 Commission, is a metaphysical impossibility somehow shifts the burden (and perhaps suspicion) back onto the proponents; do you?

Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.

P.S. This is not a game; since the penalty for treason and felony murder is death.