Betty Ong's 9/11 Call from AA11 Was a FAKE!
Jeremy Miller
one-half years after the 9/11 attacks, a telephone call from a flight
attendant aboard doomed flight AA11 should come to light.
This telephone conversation doesn't exactly make perfect sense.
Flight attendant Betty Ong knows but doesn't know what is going on in
the plane's cockpit. She is most certainly aft of the business class
cabin not even being able to get as close to the cockpit as that
cabin. Ong claims that something like mace had released into the air
of the business class section by terrorists.
Well, this alone should raise some doubts. If a mace bomb had, in
fact, been released on the late model jetliner of AA11 with
state-of-the-art ventilation/air-recirculation systems, then the mace
would have rapidly been drawn into the ventilation system either to
1.) be recirculated throughout the whole plane (with the exception of
the cockpit which has its own separate air supply); or 2.) be captured
by the sophisticated air filters/purifiers.
The T.V. commentator stated that there was passenger panic during Ms.
Ong's telephone call, yet there were no audible signs of this in the
background of the call.
The call in question was placed to an American Airlines reservations
center of all places. Now, why should this raise some suspicions?
Well, first off, why in the world, when time was of the essence, would
a flight attendant in a crisis situation call the reservations number
which answers with a talking computer which puts the caller through a
lengthy maze of computerized menu choices? Why would a flight
attendant take the risk of calling one of several American Airlines
res centers WHICH A COMPUTER SELECTS and where the first human to
answer would probably not know Ms. Ong from Adam and would probably
dismiss the call as a crank?
Wouldn't it make much more logical sense for Betty Ong to call her
flight attendant supervisor at her home base? Ong, as a flight
attendant, should know that phone number by heart. The supervisor
would know Ms. Ong, her current assignment and her current
whereabouts.
Well, from a standpoint of government conspirators, it would be
preferable for Ms. Ong to have called a res center where calls are
routinely recorded "to insure quality service." This is how the
existence of the tape recording is justified. If Ms. Ong called her
flight attendant supervisor, questions would be raised as to why the
call was recorded when such recording is *not* standard procedure for
calls between F/A's and their supervisors.
Furthermore, it would behoove conspirators to claim that Ms. Ong's
call went to an unidentified reservation call center. With there being
upwards of a dozen such call centers and with the call center in
question being unidentified, then the reservation workers in, say,
Hartford, CT can't say, "Hey, we were here on 9/11, and if such an
inauspicious call came in, then we'd *know* about it!" Ditto for the
res workers in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Juan, etc. But as things
stand now, the workers in Hartford just say, "Oh, that call must have
gone to Chicago." Similarly for the workers in L.A., San Juan, etc.
Ms. Ong reports that two senior flight attendants has been stabbed.
Now, what is the probability of this being true? I say that the
probability is very small because 1.) stabbing of key people on-board
results in valuable bargaining chips being lost; and 2.) stabbings
would set off a riotous counter-attack by the passengers thus running
counter to the hijackers' objective to maintain order so that a
critical mission could be successfully carried out. (Just consider
what happened on 9/11 flight #93 which crashed in Pennsylvania.
Consider what happened on the Long Island Railroad a number of years.
A guy went on a rampage shooting dead many people, yet even he was
jumped and wrestled to the floor by passengers.)
However, mental images of murderous hijackers work in the interests of
governmental conspirators who want to incite intense hatred against
the [make-believe] hijackers. (BTW, the planes that struck buildings
on 9/11 were operated by remote control.)
Another thing that really bothers me about Ms. Ong's alleged call is
that the person who received it claimed to have been on the line with
Ms. Ong for TWENTY-THREE MINUTES before the connection was lost. I've
worked in white collar office environments for many years, and what
typically happens when a call of urgency comes in is that a supervisor
(or even an overly pushy co-worker) will just rush over and grab the
handset (or headset, as the case may be) and commandeer the call way
from the person who originally took it. So 23 minutes' duration is not
credible. 23 seconds would be more like it.
Go Fig
Miller <jay...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The call in question was placed to an American Airlines reservations
> center of all places. Now, why should this raise some suspicions?
> Well, first off, why in the world, when time was of the essence, would
> a flight attendant in a crisis situation call the reservations number
> which answers with a talking computer which puts the caller through a
> lengthy maze of computerized menu choices?
Have you ever called 911 from a cell phone ?
jay
Thu Jan 29, 2004
mailto:go...@mac.com
Simon Elliott
>Have you ever called 911 from a cell phone ?
What happens in the US when you make an emergency call from a cell
phone?
In the UK, GSM phones have to be able to make emergency calls even when
locked, and any phone can use any network to make emergency calls. Of
course, there are still plenty of remote areas in the UK were there is
no coverage at all, in which case you're stuffed!
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/
Ed
> The call in question was placed to an American Airlines reservations
> center of all places.
Well, to answer just one of the items in this message, the call was
placed to the American Airlines Operations Center, not Reservations
Center. Those are two different things.
Ed
Greg P.
Also, didn't the call come from one of the airplane phones - not a
cell phone - hard to call 911 from one of those, I'd imagine...
Mike Ward
news:c15e12c4.04012...@posting.google.com:
How much is the Bush adminstration paying you to spread your lies? :)
Mike
me
> one-half years after the 9/11 attacks, a telephone call from a flight
> attendant aboard doomed flight AA11 should come to light.
I did. I came up with several answers. Most of them have to
do with things like, sensitivity to family, with holding information
for investigative reasons, that kinda thing. Remember, it only
"came to light" to you. You really have no idea who has known
about it and for how long.
>
> This telephone conversation doesn't exactly make perfect sense.
Neither did what was going on, and we only know so much about
what was going on.
>
> Flight attendant Betty Ong knows but doesn't know what is going on in
> the plane's cockpit. She is most certainly aft of the business class
> cabin not even being able to get as close to the cockpit as that
> cabin. Ong claims that something like mace had released into the air
> of the business class section by terrorists.
>
> Well, this alone should raise some doubts. If a mace bomb had, in
> fact, been released on the late model jetliner of AA11 with
> state-of-the-art ventilation/air-recirculation systems, then the mace
> would have rapidly been drawn into the ventilation system either to
> 1.) be recirculated throughout the whole plane (with the exception of
> the cockpit which has its own separate air supply); or 2.) be captured
> by the sophisticated air filters/purifiers.
Yeah, so. You don't know how much of this stuff was sprayed.
You don't even know what it was. It could have been a minor amount
directed at few people. The dissipation of it could have caused
minor irriatation in alot of folks, and helped increase the anxiety
level in the aircraft.
>
> The T.V. commentator stated that there was passenger panic during Ms.
> Ong's telephone call, yet there were no audible signs of this in the
> background of the call.
You presume panic means yelling and screaming. Panic can be
"frozen in fear" too. Not to mention that the phone ain't exactly
an omnidirectional device and there is a fair amount of white noise
in the back ground. Conversations a few feet away can often not
be audible to the human ear, much less a cheap phone receiver.
>
> The call in question was placed to an American Airlines reservations
> center of all places.
My understanding was it was an OPERATIONS center.
[snip]
> Ms. Ong reports that two senior flight attendants has been stabbed.
> Now, what is the probability of this being true? I say that the
> probability is very small because 1.) stabbing of key people on-board
> results in valuable bargaining chips being lost;
bargaining for what? They had control of the aircraft. They
were done bargaining.
> and 2.) stabbings
> would set off a riotous counter-attack by the passengers
No, they don't. They do now but then everyone thought
you were suppose to be compliant and just "do what they say".
> thus running
> counter to the hijackers' objective to maintain order so that a
> critical mission could be successfully carried out. (Just consider
> what happened on 9/11 flight #93 which crashed in Pennsylvania.
> Consider what happened on the Long Island Railroad a number of years.
> A guy went on a rampage shooting dead many people, yet even he was
> jumped and wrestled to the floor by passengers.)
There was more than "on guy" and they were stabbing folks who
resisted. It takes time for folks to decide to combat that and
they need to believe they have little other choice, such as
the decision that Flight #93 came to.
[snip]
> Another thing that really bothers me about Ms. Ong's alleged call is
> that the person who received it claimed to have been on the line with
> Ms. Ong for TWENTY-THREE MINUTES before the connection was lost. I've
> worked in white collar office environments for many years, and what
> typically happens when a call of urgency comes in is that a supervisor
> (or even an overly pushy co-worker) will just rush over and grab the
> handset (or headset, as the case may be) and commandeer the call way
> from the person who originally took it. So 23 minutes' duration is not
> credible. 23 seconds would be more like it.
The supervisor was monitoring the call. The person who answered
it is paid to handle these calls.
Yaofeng
Garbage deleted.....
Now tell us what conspiracy theory you come up with? September 11
never happened, or the terrorists were any other group but the Aqaeda?
mellstrr
"me" <ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:73af7090.04012...@posting.google.com...
> jay...@hotmail.com (Jeremy Miller) wrote in message
news:<18eb683c.04012...@posting.google.com>...
> > Right off the bat you should be questioning why, after almost two and
> > one-half years after the 9/11 attacks, a telephone call from a flight
> > attendant aboard doomed flight AA11 should come to light.
>
> I did. I came up with several answers. Most of them have to
> do with things like, sensitivity to family, with holding information
> for investigative reasons, that kinda thing. Remember, it only
> "came to light" to you.
Oh, really? You've known about it for awhile, then?
> You really have no idea who has known
> about it and for how long.
Well, unless you're privvy to some sort of "special inside track", then
neither do you.
Bottom line? We only know what The News has told us. And some of us think
it's the most ridiculous fantasy ever spun for public consumption. I'm still
laughing at the whole notion that a minor-league fire caused a 40-odd story
skyscraper to perfectly fall in on itself...(psst! ya wanna buy a grail?
I've got one over here...)...
The same people who spun that fantasy may very well have spun the "Ong"
story. I don't know for sure, and I can't prove it. I can only say that the
credibility of these particular storytellers (The Big American Press
Conglomerati) has been questionable for some time. So it is quite natural to
question the origin, the veracity, and the timing of this particular piece.
> > <snip>>>
>> If a mace bomb had, in
> > fact, been released on the late model jetliner of AA11 with
> > state-of-the-art ventilation/air-recirculation systems, then the mace
> > would have rapidly been drawn into the ventilation system either to
> > 1.) be recirculated throughout the whole plane (with the exception of
> > the cockpit which has its own separate air supply); or 2.) be captured
> > by the sophisticated air filters/purifiers.
>
> Yeah, so.
Yeah, SO??? Is that all you've got?
Pathetic. A legitimate point is made, and all you can do is flap your hands
around, saying "So what?"
<snip>
mellstrr--"Denial: Not Just A River In Egypt"
Alan Hope
>Right off the bat you should be questioning why, after almost two and
>one-half years after the 9/11 attacks, a telephone call from a flight
>attendant aboard doomed flight AA11 should come to light.
But it didn't come to light after two years. I have here articles from
the Boston Globe on 23 November 2001 and USA Today on 13 August 2002,
as well as an ABC report from 18 July 2002. All of them tell the story
of Betty Ong. See:
http://tinyurl.com/2wmby
http://tinyurl.com/2z2th
http://tinyurl.com/2nzeb
>This telephone conversation doesn't exactly make perfect sense.
>Flight attendant Betty Ong knows but doesn't know what is going on in
>the plane's cockpit. She is most certainly aft of the business class
>cabin not even being able to get as close to the cockpit as that
>cabin. Ong claims that something like mace had released into the air
>of the business class section by terrorists.
>Well, this alone should raise some doubts. If a mace bomb had, in
>fact, been released on the late model jetliner of AA11 with
>state-of-the-art ventilation/air-recirculation systems, then the mace
>would have rapidly been drawn into the ventilation system either to
>1.) be recirculated throughout the whole plane (with the exception of
>the cockpit which has its own separate air supply); or 2.) be captured
>by the sophisticated air filters/purifiers.
What's the problem with that?
>The T.V. commentator stated that there was passenger panic during Ms.
>Ong's telephone call, yet there were no audible signs of this in the
>background of the call.
TV commentators can be wrong.
>The call in question was placed to an American Airlines reservations
>center of all places. Now, why should this raise some suspicions?
>Well, first off, why in the world, when time was of the essence, would
>a flight attendant in a crisis situation call the reservations number
>which answers with a talking computer which puts the caller through a
>lengthy maze of computerized menu choices? Why would a flight
>attendant take the risk of calling one of several American Airlines
>res centers WHICH A COMPUTER SELECTS and where the first human to
>answer would probably not know Ms. Ong from Adam and would probably
>dismiss the call as a crank?
She was calling from a seatback GTE Airfone. Presumably all options
were not open to her.
>Wouldn't it make much more logical sense for Betty Ong to call her
>flight attendant supervisor at her home base? Ong, as a flight
>attendant, should know that phone number by heart. The supervisor
>would know Ms. Ong, her current assignment and her current
>whereabouts.
>Well, from a standpoint of government conspirators, it would be
>preferable for Ms. Ong to have called a res center where calls are
>routinely recorded "to insure quality service." This is how the
>existence of the tape recording is justified. If Ms. Ong called her
>flight attendant supervisor, questions would be raised as to why the
>call was recorded when such recording is *not* standard procedure for
>calls between F/A's and their supervisors.
>Furthermore, it would behoove conspirators to claim that Ms. Ong's
>call went to an unidentified reservation call center.
It wasn't unidentified. She called the reservations centre in Raleigh,
NC, and spoke to Vanessa Minter, who patched in security manager Nydia
Gonzales. Craig Marquis was the manager on duty.
>With there being
>upwards of a dozen such call centers and with the call center in
>question being unidentified, then the reservation workers in, say,
>Hartford, CT can't say, "Hey, we were here on 9/11, and if such an
>inauspicious call came in, then we'd *know* about it!" Ditto for the
>res workers in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Juan, etc. But as things
>stand now, the workers in Hartford just say, "Oh, that call must have
>gone to Chicago." Similarly for the workers in L.A., San Juan, etc.
But we know exactly who took the call, and where.
>Ms. Ong reports that two senior flight attendants has been stabbed.
>Now, what is the probability of this being true? I say that the
>probability is very small because 1.) stabbing of key people on-board
>results in valuable bargaining chips being lost; and 2.) stabbings
>would set off a riotous counter-attack by the passengers thus running
>counter to the hijackers' objective to maintain order so that a
>critical mission could be successfully carried out. (Just consider
>what happened on 9/11 flight #93 which crashed in Pennsylvania.
Obviously 1) they didn't care and 2) you're wrong.
>Consider what happened on the Long Island Railroad a number of years.
>A guy went on a rampage shooting dead many people, yet even he was
>jumped and wrestled to the floor by passengers.)
Eventually. He didn't have the opportunity to run the train into a
skyscraper first, though, did he?
>However, mental images of murderous hijackers work in the interests of
>governmental conspirators who want to incite intense hatred against
>the [make-believe] hijackers. (BTW, the planes that struck buildings
>on 9/11 were operated by remote control.)
Oh. Any evidence, by any chance?
>Another thing that really bothers me about Ms. Ong's alleged call is
>that the person who received it claimed to have been on the line with
>Ms. Ong for TWENTY-THREE MINUTES before the connection was lost. I've
>worked in white collar office environments for many years, and what
>typically happens when a call of urgency comes in is that a supervisor
>(or even an overly pushy co-worker) will just rush over and grab the
>handset (or headset, as the case may be) and commandeer the call way
>from the person who originally took it. So 23 minutes' duration is not
>credible. 23 seconds would be more like it.
This is just rubbish. Whatever happens in the "white-collar
businesses" you worked for, it's not what happens everywhere, and it's
not what happened here. I dare say airline personnel are trained not
to snatch the phones out of other staff's hands in crisis situations.
I'd certainly hope so.
Is that all you've got?
--
AH
Go Fig
<si...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Go Fig <go...@mac.com> writes
> >Have you ever called 911 from a cell phone ?
>
> What happens in the US when you make an emergency call from a cell
> phone?
It ring and rings and rings.
In my state calls are diverted to the State Police. Phones in the U.S.
can always dial 911, newer ones have location service for 911 and a fee
base service for users to located other users that have agreed to be
located by you.
Many regions are adopting other 3 digit dial codes to relieve 911 from
critical, but not emergency calls.
jay
Fri Jan 30, 2004
mailto:go...@mac.com
EAC
it's, then what is the big fuss all about anyway?
Even if it's true, then why we should all make a big fuss about it
anyway? None of our business, none of our concern.
EAC
> Now tell us what conspiracy theory you come up with? September 11
> never happened, or the terrorists were any other group but the Aqaeda?
9/11 happened, and Al-Qaeda's leader were paid to play as the scape
goat but not direcetly involved with 9/11.
Of course 9/11 could be just a made up thing using the same techniques
to made movie. And considering most people in the world probably won't
visit New York and/or Washington D.C. , it might as well be a big
publicity stunt to them.
Alan Hope
>Jeremy Miller goes:
>>Right off the bat you should be questioning why, after almost two and
>>one-half years after the 9/11 attacks, a telephone call from a flight
>>attendant aboard doomed flight AA11 should come to light.
>But it didn't come to light after two years. I have here articles from
>the Boston Globe on 23 November 2001 and USA Today on 13 August 2002,
>as well as an ABC report from 18 July 2002. All of them tell the story
>of Betty Ong. See:
[snip]
I'm wondering why Jeremy Miller hasn't responded to this
incontrovertible refutation of his claim. He claims it's been more
than two years and no mention of this call until now; I provide a
two-year-old reference to the very same call.
You'd think he'd be rushing to thank me for putting him right. But no
sign of him anywhere, unless he unaccountably trimmed at-c from his
reply.
Does Mr. Miller have anything to say to my post? Or is he skulking in
a hole somewhere, wondering where he went wrong?
News of any sightings gratefully received.
--
AH
Brian
Two weeks ago when we were in NYC, there still seemed to be a
difference in the skyline from before. And I guess my HS classmate
isn't really dead and will be at the reunion in a few months.
mellstrr
"Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:5jsn101l7tdvejt7f...@4ax.com...
> Alan Hope goes:
> >
> [snip]
>
> I'm wondering why Jeremy Miller hasn't responded to this
> incontrovertible refutation of his claim. He claims it's been more
> than two years and no mention of this call until now; I provide a
> two-year-old reference to the very same call.
>
I'm wondering why you haven't responded to some of the other posts in the
thread?
mellstrr
FSIA
> Right off the bat you should be questioning why, after almost two and
> one-half years after the 9/11 attacks, a telephone call from a flight
> attendant aboard doomed flight AA11 should come to light.
The only reason we are hearing it NOW is because of the hearings..only
LE and the family had heard the tape until then.
Alan Hope
>> [snip]
Any reason why I should?
--
AH
Sarah Monroe
One does wonder why Bush made such a big deal out of the "Let's Roll" guy,
though, complete with having the guy's wife sit with Laura Bush at his next
State of the Union speech but nothing was said about this young lady.
Gms
mellstrr
Sure! There's been lots of facts thrown around, many of which would make for
lively discussion. Yet you seem to be all hung up on only one in particular.
Coincidentally, it's turned out to be a non-fact, where a poster made a
mistake, and doesn't want to admit it. Why must you go on about it in a
second post? He knows it was wrong, and so do the rest of us. Yet you seem
unable to let that go, choosing instead to toot your own horn.
Do you think that somehow, that makes you look smarter than everybody else?
It doesn't. And since we're all now aware of that, you can pick another fact
to discuss, and we can all move on.
mellstrr--unless, of course, you're one of those folks that likes to hold a
grudge or something...
mellstrr
"Sarah Monroe" <gmsp...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:401D1270...@bellsouth.net...
> Alan Hope wrote:
>
> > Alan Hope goes:
> >
> > >Jeremy Miller goes:
> >
> > >>Right off the bat you should be questioning why, after almost two and
> > >>one-half years after the 9/11 attacks, a telephone call from a flight
> > >>attendant aboard doomed flight AA11 should come to light.
> >
> > >But it didn't come to light after two years.
It's being played up after two years, though, isn't it?
> > [snip]
> >
> > I'm wondering why Jeremy Miller hasn't responded to this
> > incontrovertible refutation of his claim. He claims it's been more
> > than two years and no mention of this call until now; I provide a
> > two-year-old reference to the very same call.
> >
> > You'd think he'd be rushing to thank me for putting him right. But no
> > sign of him anywhere, unless he unaccountably trimmed at-c from his
> > reply.
> >
> > Does Mr. Miller have anything to say to my post? Or is he skulking in
> > a hole somewhere, wondering where he went wrong?
Funny, we could say the same about you, couldn't we?
> >
> > News of any sightings gratefully received.
>
> One does wonder why Bush made such a big deal out of the "Let's Roll" guy,
> though, complete with having the guy's wife sit with Laura Bush at his
next
> State of the Union speech but nothing was said about this young lady.
That's a good point. So is this one, made to a webmaster at a popular
website:
" Let's not forget the rather inexplicable fact that these guys were
supposedly onboard despite not being shown on any passenger manifest. Given
that no commercial airliner will take off without first submitting an
absolutely accurate list of every passenger in every occupied seat, you
can't help but question the validity of these tapes. Curiously, there isn't
a single Arab name on any of the manifests on the planes involved and every
other name is accounted for. So just who is it that this stewardess is
talking about?
Think of it this way: Crews go through all kinds of training,
including what to do in the event of a hijacking. They are told they have
certain options available to them, including getting in touch with company
officials via the airphones. Let's say that the stewardess we heard went
through such an exercise and in the course of it, rehearsed a call to the
appropriate people. These exercises are quite dramatic theater, the
participants being required to summon up an appropriately emotional response
in order to give the scene verisimilitude. Someone with access to recordings
of these exercises could simply patch a recording of a stewardess known to
be on the flight into the appropriate radio frequency. It would seem utterly
realistic to the operator listening in, right down to her not responding to
questions asked or having expected responses cued up and ready to respond.
Remember also that none of the "hijackers" appear in any recorded
video at any of the airports the planes left from and that adds up to a lot
of security cameras they somehow avoided. No mention of any of them in any
of the manifests."
Fascinating. Go ahead, someone chime in here and say that "training
tapes" like the ones described above don't actually exist, that they're
destroyed as soon as they've been utilized in a training class or two.
mellstrr
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
>news:8rvp10hnofdu1vevt...@4ax.com...
>> mellstrr goes:
>> >"Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
>> >news:5jsn101l7tdvejt7f...@4ax.com...
>> >> Alan Hope goes:
>> >> [snip]
>> >> I'm wondering why Jeremy Miller hasn't responded to this
>> >> incontrovertible refutation of his claim. He claims it's been more
>> >> than two years and no mention of this call until now; I provide a
>> >> two-year-old reference to the very same call.
>> >I'm wondering why you haven't responded to some of the other posts in the
>> >thread?
>> Any reason why I should?
>Sure! There's been lots of facts thrown around, many of which would make for
>lively discussion. Yet you seem to be all hung up on only one in particular.
I responded to the initial post in this thread, as far as it reached
me. The OP started by stating that Betty Ong's call had just been made
known. I gave three sources to disprove that, one of them only two
months after 9-11. As far as I'm concerned, that shoots him out of the
water, but I did go on and address another couple of points.
He hasn't resurfaced to admit he was wrong about that first point. I
find that odd.
Just as odd, frankly, is your apparent concern that I haven't been
participating enough in this thread. I'm one of those, I should
perhaps explain, who posts when he feels like it, or when he has a
point he'd like to make. If that's not suitable to you, and you'd like
me to keep up some kind of quota, let me know the details, and I'll do
my best to fit your requirements in to my "busy schedule".
>Coincidentally, it's turned out to be a non-fact, where a poster made a
>mistake, and doesn't want to admit it. Why must you go on about it in a
>second post? He knows it was wrong, and so do the rest of us. Yet you seem
>unable to let that go, choosing instead to toot your own horn.
It wasn't just a mistake, mate, it was the basis of his whole fucking
post. Didn't you bother to read it?
I'll give you a bit of free advice: you concern yourself with the
things you post about, and why, and how often, and I'll do the same at
my end, okay? I don't know who you are, and I care even less, so I'm
not really up for taking your advice, right?
>Do you think that somehow, that makes you look smarter than everybody else?
I think your posts are doing that for me, frankly.
>It doesn't. And since we're all now aware of that, you can pick another fact
>to discuss, and we can all move on.
Have you anything on the thread topic to say at all, or is your
hard-on for me your one and only motive for posting? I'll tell you
now, before you embarrass yourself further: you're not my type. You're
not going to get anywhere. Look for someone else to flirt with.
>mellstrr--unless, of course, you're one of those folks that likes to hold a
>grudge or something...
I can be persuaded. Want to try me?
--
AH
age...@justicemail.com
wrote:
>That's a good point. So is this one, made to a webmaster at a popular
>website:
Yeah, Melanie, let's count the lies.
> " Let's not forget the rather inexplicable fact that these guys were
>supposedly onboard despite not being shown on any passenger manifest.
Lie #1. The lists of victims printed in the media did not represent
the "passenger manifests". And they were just that, list of the
victims. The hijackers names were left off because they were the
perpetrators.
<snip>
> Think of it this way: Crews go through all kinds of training,
>including what to do in the event of a hijacking. They are told they have
>certain options available to them, including getting in touch with company
>officials via the airphones. Let's say that the stewardess we heard went
>through such an exercise and in the course of it, rehearsed a call to the
>appropriate people. These exercises are quite dramatic theater, the
>participants being required to summon up an appropriately emotional response
>in order to give the scene verisimilitude. Someone with access to recordings
>of these exercises could simply patch a recording of a stewardess known to
>be on the flight into the appropriate radio frequency. It would seem utterly
>realistic to the operator listening in, right down to her not responding to
>questions asked or having expected responses cued up and ready to respond.
Not a lie, but wishful speculation for the conspiracy theorist.
> Remember also that none of the "hijackers" appear in any recorded
>video at any of the airports the planes left from and that adds up to a lot
>of security cameras they somehow avoided.
Lie #2. According to testimony before the 9/11 commission (given last
Tuesday), the five hijackers of Flight 77, which took off from Dulles
where shown passing through the security checkpoint. Neither New York
or Boston had operating video equipment at their checkpoints.
>No mention of any of them in any of the manifests."
Repeat of lie #1.
Not bad, Melanie, three paragraphs, with two lies and a wildeyed
speculative theory.