truthaction.org Forum Index truthaction.org
9/11 TRUTH NOW
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

DRG's No-Phone-Calls-From-the-Planes: Another Trap?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    truthaction.org Forum Index -> News and Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
chrisc



Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 1168

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:10 pm    Post subject: DRG's No-Phone-Calls-From-the-Planes: Another Trap? Reply with quote

There is an interesting article on 911Blogger which didn't make the front page, David Ray Griffin Burrows Further Down the Rabbit Hole of No-Phone-Calls-From-the-Planes which asks a good question:

Quote:
What is easier to accomplish, voice morphing numerous calls to spouses and loved ones; or a disinfo campaign bamboozling everyone into believing that a handful of airphone calls were actually made by cell phones?


I have always felt a bit uneasy at over the way the MSM focus on the phones calls when they use footage of DRG, I think this is something the BBC documentary did (or perhaps it was another one?) -- the voice morphing idea always seemed rather far fetched to me.

If the article on 911Blogger is right then the whole issue of the phone calls is another pod-type scenario in waiting...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CV
Admin of Doom


Joined: 11 May 2007
Posts: 186
Location: Maryland

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am inclined to agree that the cell phones issue is another honeypot like no-plane/pod-plane.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nunyabiz



Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well number one the voice morphing has been around for many years and is not far fetched by any means.

http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hy216/VoiceMorphingSeminar.pdf

I fail to see how anyone could believe a word these criminals say, DRG's speculation is FAR more plausible than what the OCT states.
ALL of the calls made sound fishy as hell to me.
We know for a fact that cell phones would not have worked and IF they did then why weren't there more calls made?
Out of 265 people I find it hard to believe only 3-4 had cell phones, try about 80-150 would have.

Odds are slim to none that more than one plane had air phones and there is no proof that I have seen that shows ANY plane had an air phone. For that matter I haven't seen any proof of cell phone calls either.

BUT no matter what the problem with this line of questioning is that there never will be any proof, so it will always be pure speculation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Col. Jenny Sparks



Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 2329

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CV wrote:
I am inclined to agree that the cell phones issue is another honeypot like no-plane/pod-plane.


Don't know if I'd agree it was a "honeypot" in the strict sense of the word, but it does act like one.

That, and the fact it acts as "flame bait"- psycologically re-victimizing the survivors, who are forced to consider that last call wasn't from their familiy member at all, but a CIA actor--forces the debate off track. If this was in a court of law, with sworn testimony and an uncompromised Justice departrment, that would be different.

But, even if true, proving it, without a court of law backing one up, is a Pyhrric victory. And it is unnneccesary to prove official complicity in 911.

I think it's proper place is in the "unanswered questions" catagory, to be brought up at Nuremburg 2, when relevant. But don't lead with it before hand, for God's sake.
_________________
___________________________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
YT



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 4601
Location: California

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nunyabiz wrote:
BUT no matter what the problem with this line of questioning is that there never will be any proof, so it will always be pure speculation.


Exactly why it's not too damn helpful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Hocus Locus



Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 106

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In Loooose Change 1&2

* Mark Bingham says "I'm calling from the Airfone"
* The news article even got the fonetic speling rite.
* They show the words he says.
* They read the words he says.
* They go on to present Professor Dewdney's cell phone piece.

Maybe that's just what happens when you make a movie with no input from anyone over 30? ;-)
That is, except for Professor Dewdney? ;-) ;-)

Quote:
From TESS

Word Mark: AIRFONE
Goods and Services: (CANCELLED) IC 009. US 021 026. G & S: Radio/Telephone Transmitters, Receivers and Interfacers Necessary to Provide Two-Way Telephone Calls from Aircraft Passengers to the Ground.
FIRST USE: June 1975
FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: December 1981
Owner: (REGISTRANT) Airfone, Inc. CORPORATION
DELAWARE Suite 602 2030 M St., NW. Washington D.C. 20036
ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
Register: PRINCIPAL
DEAD
Cancellation Date: June 13, 1990

___
You're watching a ventriloquist named Jerry Etherson, a voice-thrower par excellence. His alter ego, sitting atop his lap, is a brash stick of kindling with the sobriquet 'Willy.' In a moment, Mr. Etherson and his knotty-pine partner will be booked in one of the out-of-the-way bistros, that small, dark, intimate place known as the Twilight Zone.
~Twilight Zone: The Dummy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nunyabiz



Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

and here is how worthless talking about the calls is.

I have seen several "Mark Bingham" transcripts and have never seen him say "I'm calling from the Airfone"

Airfones were only installed on less than 1000 planes total on Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and US Airways.

NONE on American Airlines or any of the other airlines.
So an airfone call was "possible" on UA93 but there were no Airfones on flights 11 or 77.

So if ANY calls were claimed from flights 11 or 77 they were from cell phones only which makes them a LIE.
and if those are fake then how can we believe the rest?

There is just way too much speculation with no proof.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chrisc



Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 1168

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:18 pm    Post subject: Hocus Pocus? Reply with quote

Hocus Locus wrote:
* Mark Bingham says "I'm calling from the Airfone"


However:

Nunyabiz wrote:
I have seen several "Mark Bingham" transcripts and have never seen him say "I'm calling from the Airfone"


There are no google hits for this quote and "Mark Bingham".

So what is the source for this unsubstantiated rumor?


Last edited by chrisc on Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nunyabiz



Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I stand corrected.

I managed to find this from the Toronto Sun which is the only place I can see this quote coming from.

""In an alternate version, he says, “I’m in the air, I’m calling you on the Airfone. I’m calling you from the plane. We’ve been taken over. There are three men that say they have a bomb.” [Toronto Sun, 9/16/2001]"

http://cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=mark_bingham

Apparently all of these are nothing but made up "versions" by whatever reporter decided to write, there is no "transcript" from any tape of anykind from anywhere, which makes it all pure hearsay at best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chrisc



Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 1168

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:38 pm    Post subject: DRG on the new version of Debunking 911 Debunking Reply with quote

Above I said that I have always felt a bit uneasy at over the way the MSM focus on the phones calls when they use footage of DRG but here we have him using more column inches for this aspect of 9/11 than any other... following is a quote from an article by DRG in The Canadian from two days ago about the new edition of Debunking 911 Debunking:

Quote:
I was motivated to put out the Revised and Updated Edition primarily because of new information about the alleged phone calls from passengers on the flights to relatives, through which reports of hijackers on the airplanes reached the public.


He then gone on about the phone calls for several paragraphs... going back to the article that started this thread:

Quote:

The perpetrators decide to frame their Arab enemies by allowing real passengers to make real phone calls relaying their false impression of an Arab hijacking.... (but) Some “bad” information is transmitted via the phone calls as well, such as Burnett’s and Ong’s reports of guns, and the seat numbers given by Ong as well as Madeline Sweeney on AAL11.

Knowing that the phone calls contain devastating information contradicting their official story, those charged with covering up the whole thing commence a campaign of disinformation regarding these phone calls. Led, perhaps, by Mr. Chertoff from his perch in the Justice Department, they utilize friendly contacts within the FBI and media to perpetrate the myth that the phone calls were (impossibly) made by cell phones, not airphones. FBI agents whisper “cell phones” to reporters who dutifully spread the word in innumerable media stories. Those FBI agents, however, never get around to producing evidence of any cell phone calls.

Later, a 21 year old makes a film called Loose Change that strongly implies that since cell phone calls are impossible from airplanes, therefore all the calls are fake.


The conclusion of this hypothesis matches what DRG goes on to say:

Quote:
If the cell phone calls were faked, why should we believe that the reported calls from onboard phones were genuine?


Which seems to add weight to the speculation that the No-Phones idea could be one of the next No-Planes type distraction...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AtomicBomb



Joined: 29 May 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Southern California

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:46 pm    Post subject: Re: DRG on the new version of Debunking 911 Debunking Reply with quote

chrisc wrote:
Above I said that I have always felt a bit uneasy at over the way the MSM focus on the phones calls when they use footage of DRG but here we have him using more column inches for this aspect of 9/11 than any other... following is a quote from an article by DRG in The Canadian from two days ago about the new edition of Debunking 911 Debunking:

Quote:
I was motivated to put out the Revised and Updated Edition primarily because of new information about the alleged phone calls from passengers on the flights to relatives, through which reports of hijackers on the airplanes reached the public.


He then gone on about the phone calls for several paragraphs... going back to the article that started this thread:

Quote:

The perpetrators decide to frame their Arab enemies by allowing real passengers to make real phone calls relaying their false impression of an Arab hijacking.... (but) Some “bad” information is transmitted via the phone calls as well, such as Burnett’s and Ong’s reports of guns, and the seat numbers given by Ong as well as Madeline Sweeney on AAL11.

Knowing that the phone calls contain devastating information contradicting their official story, those charged with covering up the whole thing commence a campaign of disinformation regarding these phone calls. Led, perhaps, by Mr. Chertoff from his perch in the Justice Department, they utilize friendly contacts within the FBI and media to perpetrate the myth that the phone calls were (impossibly) made by cell phones, not airphones. FBI agents whisper “cell phones” to reporters who dutifully spread the word in innumerable media stories. Those FBI agents, however, never get around to producing evidence of any cell phone calls.

Later, a 21 year old makes a film called Loose Change that strongly implies that since cell phone calls are impossible from airplanes, therefore all the calls are fake.


The conclusion of this hypothesis matches what DRG goes on to say:

Quote:
If the cell phone calls were faked, why should we believe that the reported calls from onboard phones were genuine?


Which seems to add weight to the speculation that the No-Phones idea could be one of the next No-Planes type distraction...


I'll put my money on David Ray Griffin being correct. I heard him in person give a detailed talk about this subject and I think it is another smoking gun but it is complicated to go through and therefore many do not want to invest any time figuring it out as David has. As far as it being a setup I have to say I really doubt that and I think it is a bit paranoid to give the perps that much credit to set it up and somehow just know that it would result in a detailed investigation by whoever would look into this in the future and then be an effective trap to spring 6+ years later. What are you suggesting that they did it so they could say years later "AHA SEE THE PHONE CALLS WERE REAL! YOU GUYS ARE ALL INSANE!"? I don't think they have that much forsight and it would not even be effective anyway because all they could do is reviel previously hidden evidence and we could all just say "well in light of the new evidence we withdraw our suspicions about the phone calls". So what that does not discredit us?
_________________
The sleeper must awaken.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nunyabiz



Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree, I happen to think that DRG is 100% correct myself because it is the only theory that makes much sense.
However the only problem is that there is no way to prove or disprove anything about the calls so it is all nothing but speculation.

Therefore I think very little time should be spent on it.

Stick to what can be proven.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hocus Locus



Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 106

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another thing to remember if it's a mix of Airfone and cell is that these people were in atypical situations on planes following atypical flight patterns. Toward the end the planes were completing long descents into Metro areas. Using cell phones on final approach is mostly untested because we defer to 'common sense' and just don't test the rule. Dewdney's piece was dilligent but wasn't even conducted along 9/11 flight paths. For some of the cell calls precise time from company records is not generally known and published, time stamps of answering machines can be off, so there's some slack or uncertainty on true time, therefore altitude and position. But Sweeney for one, if she 'saw buildings', at that altitude her cell phone would clearly see towers.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

for those who haven't seen it, is a well done topic by topic treatment of Loose Change that does an excellent job separating the mysterious and relevant tidbits from some outright tinfoil, some of it kind of tenuous and crude.

It even manages to step lightly in a place where I cannot, the '9/11 disappearance theories' that are taken to absurd extreme to place some families of the victims into an odd and unfair conundrum: rally behind 9/11 by standing behind 'loose change', endorse tinfoil conspiracy. The 'Cleveland landing' and 'telephone calls' in particular show a level of insensitivity that is at once disturbing and at times outright shocking.

And some of the most shocking bits have survived subsequent edits.

___
From too much love of living,
From hope and fear set free,
We thank with brief thanksgiving,
Whatever gods may be,
That no life lives forever,
That dead men rise up never,
That even the weariest river
winds somewhere safe to sea.

~Swinburne
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dicktater



Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 698
Location: Lower Slobovia

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:59 am    Post subject: David Ray Griffin's Response to Cell Phone Criticism Reply with quote

posted by GW at 911b:

"David Ray Griffin wrote the following response to a criticism of his writings and arguments about cell phones."

Formatted. Read it there:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11930
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nunyabiz



Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

excellent rebuttal as always and reinforces why I believe DRG's theory 100% over whom we know for certain are known liars (FBI,CIA,FAA,NORAD, All Bushites etc).

DRG's makes sense and has some evidence to back it up.
The OCT has nothing whatsoever to back it up.

We know that if the plane was above 2000' that making a cell phone call would have been next to impossible.
We know that at least 2 planes did not have airfones because American Airlines doesn't have them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    truthaction.org Forum Index -> News and Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group