Muslim researcher explains how 9/11 was made

You still need to provide evidence to support your claim that cellphone calls were made from UA93 at 10,000m.

You haven't done this.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Because it's a WEAPONS GRADE GUIDANCE SYSTEM!!!1!. It must be better, right?

Of course, it takes weapons grade stupidity to make the claim in the first place so I guess using a weapons grade component only make sense...

Of course what our truthy friend here doesn't know is that a Tomahawk missile (and therefore by default its guidance system) is autonomous after being launched so his whole idea about the planes being controlled one at a time is ludicrous to say the least.
Click to expand...

It's not difficult to modify the system to make ON eart/launched sense be switchable by any satellite communication system. A specially designed system will not be stopped by such an easy signal.
 
alienentity said:
Which calls and by whom? You need to support your claim.
Click to expand...

9:27, Tom Burnett, a passenger on board Flight 93, calls his wife Deena Burnett at their home in San Ramon, California. She looks at the caller ID and recognizes the number as being that of his cell phone. She asks him if he is OK, and he replies: “No, I’m not. I’m on an airplane that’s been hijacked.” He says, “They just knifed a guy,” and adds that this person was a passenger.

At that time, the plane was at about 10000m altitude.
 
Last edited:
mehmetin said:
Some calls were made by their cellular phones, the wife recognised the phone number of her husband, they did not use airphone. So, this phone call was computer made.

In practice, all phone calls had to be made by voice changing software. If one phone call is fake and computer made, all phone calls should be computer made. That's also consistent with all crew and passengers gassed. In other words, phone calls are NOT evidence.
Click to expand...

You haven't provided evidence, you're just making another claim. Here's evidence which contradicts what you're claiming:

Airphone records, available publicly show that Tom Burnett used:
Airphone, Row 25 9:44:23 Duration:54 seconds Call to: Residence
Airphone, Row 24 8:30:32 Duration: 28 seconds
Airphone, Row 24 9:37:53 Duration: 62 seconds

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19987615/Mfr-Nara-t7-Doj-Doj-Briefing-on-Ua93-Calls-51304-00217

Since you've incorrectly claimed he made calls from his cellphone, your premise is also incorrect. Airphones are designed to work at altitude. Tom Burnett used them.
It doesn't matter what his wife thinks about the phone he used. Nor have you provided even a quote and link to support your claim.
 
mehmetin said:
9:27, Tom Burnett, a passenger on board Flight 93, calls his wife Deena Burnett at their home in San Ramon, California. She looks at the caller ID and recognizes the number as being that of his cell phone. She asks him if he is OK, and he replies: “No, I’m not. I’m on an airplane that’s been hijacked.” He says, “They just knifed a guy,” and adds that this person was a passenger.

At that time, the plane was at about 10000m altitude.
Click to expand...

Tom Burnett made some 4 calls, and it was also possible there were only 3 or as many as 5. The calls were likely a mix of his cell phone and the airphone.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Tom_Burnett#Cellphone_or_airfone

More to the point, your assertion of Cell phones not working at 10,000 feet is a tad 'wrong'. Cell phones can operate as high as 30,000 feet, but not reliably. Older cell phones might even operate as high as 50,000 feet.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mobiles_at_altitude

I'd say you are overstating their impossibility.
 
mehmetin said:
9:27, Tom Burnett, a passenger on board Flight 93, calls his wife Deena Burnett at their home in San Ramon, California. She looks at the caller ID and recognizes the number as being that of his cell phone. She asks him if he is OK, and he replies: “No, I’m not. I’m on an airplane that’s been hijacked.” He says, “They just knifed a guy,” and adds that this person was a passenger.

At that time, the plane was at about 10000m altitude.
Click to expand...

You've again provided no source for this claim. This is not evidence, since you will not provide verifiable sources.

Besides, you've double-debunked yourself, as you are using the wife's statement as hard evidence. She also says she talked with her husband, so she must have done so. You think she wouldn't recognize her own husband? LOL

Either you use the wife's statement or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

You're a very poor researcher.
 
According to records, '35 airphone calls and two cell phone calls' were made from flight 93.

Even if one of those cell calls were made from high altitude (one of them clearly was made from low altitude) it cannot discount all the other airphone calls to a variety of locations from a variety of people including crew, on the flight.
That is a ludicrous premise.
http://www.911myths.com/images/f/f8/Moussaoui_Trial_Transcript_April_11_2006.pdf
 
mehmetin said:
Tomahawk control system contains the GPS and all required software HW to fly the plane with required precision. Only the servos controlling the wing surfaces shouldbe changed to put bigger ones.

Consider that.
Click to expand...
lol. Why do you need larger actuators and servos for controlling the control surfaces when the standard ones fitted , designed by Boeing to do the job, do the job perfectly well?

You are an ignoramus with regard to aircraft. You just don't know it. You just make things up in your head and believe that because you don't know any better. It's called talking crap - bull***t.
 
Whatever ridiculous premise you are trying to support (with no evidence), the fact is that the cockpit voice recorder was recovered and clearly identifies a hijacker making announcements to the passengers
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/12/flight93.transcript.pdf

'Jarrah, "Ladies and gentlemen: here the captain, please sit down and keep remaining seating. We have a bomb on board. So sit.'

A flight attendant being held captive is heard pleading, "Please, please, don't hurt me". "I don't want to die, I don't want to die" followed by one of the hijackers saying in Arabic: "Everything is fine. I finished."


'Jarrah instructed the autopilot to turn the plane and head east at 09:35:09
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/us/13moussaoui.html?_r=1
 
kookbreaker said:
Tom Burnett made some 4 calls, and it was also possible there were only 3 or as many as 5. The calls were likely a mix of his cell phone and the airphone.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Tom_Burnett#Cellphone_or_airfone

More to the point, your assertion of Cell phones not working at 10,000 feet is a tad 'wrong'. Cell phones can operate as high as 30,000 feet, but not reliably. Older cell phones might even operate as high as 50,000 feet.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mobiles_at_altitude

I'd say you are overstating their impossibility.
Click to expand...


one point.....he said 10000 meters not feet, ie about 35,000ft
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
I'm telling you that your theories are 100% wrong.

Consider yourself debunked!

Edit: Known Truther Erik Larson is against the "fake phone calls" theory:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-10/critique-david-ray-griffin-s-911-fake-calls-theory#comments

Taken from my thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6883959#post6883959
Click to expand...

In the first post, I asked to forget all other truthers. I do not support DRG. That link debunks DRG.

The computer production of all phone calls is possible, including the voice, their contents, the live communication with answers which could be related to the discussed subjects with the families. All those information were available to the perpetrators.
 
mehmetin said:
In the first post, I asked to forget all other truthers. I do not support DRG. That link debunks DRG.

The computer production of all phone calls is possible, including the voice, their contents, the live communication with answers which could be related to the discussed subjects with the families. All those information were available to the perpetrators.
Click to expand...

Nonsense and utterly insulting to the family members who received the phone calls. The idea of 'computer production' phone calls has not merely been debunked, but disgraced.
 
mehmetin said:
In the first post, I asked to forget all other truthers. I do not support DRG. That link debunks DRG.
Click to expand...

Your argument and his argument are the same thing. It is hard for us to 'forget all other truthers' when you dredge up their old crap and present it as your own.
 
alienentity said:
You haven't provided evidence, you're just making another claim. Here's evidence which contradicts what you're claiming:

Airphone records, available publicly show that Tom Burnett used:
Airphone, Row 25 9:44:23 Duration:54 seconds Call to: Residence
Airphone, Row 24 8:30:32 Duration: 28 seconds
Airphone, Row 24 9:37:53 Duration: 62 seconds

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19987615/Mfr-Nara-t7-Doj-Doj-Briefing-on-Ua93-Calls-51304-00217

Since you've incorrectly claimed he made calls from his cellphone, your premise is also incorrect. Airphones are designed to work at altitude. Tom Burnett used them.
It doesn't matter what his wife thinks about the phone he used. Nor have you provided even a quote and link to support your claim.
Click to expand...

These sentences comes from the web site I found : "She looks at the caller ID and recognizes the number as being that of his cell phone." She is his wife. His cellular phone number was used fro the communication. Such communication is impossible by the actual cell phone, but it's possible by internet call. I also listened her testimonies later on their web site.

About these events, the US government produced too many lies and fake evidence. They are able to produce other ones. So everything should be checked.

Whatever it is, all these phone calls could be produced by computer. That's 100% sure. So these calls are not reliable evidence.
 
mehmetin said:
In the first post, I asked to forget all other truthers. I do not support DRG. That link debunks DRG.

The computer production of all phone calls is possible, including the voice, their contents, the live communication with answers which could be related to the discussed subjects with the families. All those information were available to the perpetrators.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight, you said: "I do not support DRG. That link debunks DRG."

Then you turn around and say: "The computer production of all phone calls is possible, including the voice, their contents, the live communication"

You're contradicting yourself.

If you don't support DRG, then your theory about faked phone calls is irrelevant.
 
kookbreaker said:
More to the point, your assertion of Cell phones not working at 10,000 feet is a tad 'wrong'. Cell phones can operate as high as 30,000 feet, but not reliably. Older cell phones might even operate as high as 50,000 feet.
Click to expand...

The groudn antennas are directed to be horizontgal. That's for energy consumption reduction and increasing the sensibility of the ground phones. I also tested by accident; a cellular phone remained open while crossed several countries. It received the frist text message on landing. It received no one message while crossing many countries.

All that proves, the cellular phones could not work.

Watever it is, these calls could be generated by computer.
 
mehmetin said:
The groudn antennas are directed to be horizontgal. That's for energy consumption reduction and increasing the sensibility of the ground phones. I also tested by accident; a cellular phone remained open while crossed several countries. It received the frist text message on landing. It received no one message while crossing many countries.

All that proves, the cellular phones could not work.

Watever it is, these calls could be generated by computer.
Click to expand...

But what about the airphones that are in the planes themselves? Did you test the airphones?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom