Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The quote I provided from a legal website makes it quite clear anyhow.
I can say what I was told on the telephone as long as I can prove the call was made. It would be up to the jury to decide if I am telling the truth or not just as any type of testimony.
Oh, sorry I misread that. For an indictment, there is no such thing as inadmissible evidence. A grand jury can take anything they please into account, and return an indictment based on nothing except whether they think there a snowball's chance in hell of eventually hammering out a conviction. There are absolutely no rules of evidence at all, no cross examination, no legal counsel on behalf of the defendant, not even a court reporter. A grand jury can indict even if they hear no admissible evidence at all, just if they think the circumstances of the case might lead to a conviction.
Still doesn't change the rules about the admissibility of a telephone conversation in court as I provided the quote to prove it.
Besides, those telephone conversations were allowed in his court trial.
And....it still doesn't change the obvious as it pertains to Flight 93:
Recorded voice mails and victim's family members who never knew one another and all live in different places couldn't possibly ALL have decided to concoct the same story and tow the government's line even before ever speaking to a government official when they hung up and called their local police and FBI offices telling them the same damned thing. Explain that one away!
Todd Beamer is the only person who gets several minutes of uninterrupted phone time, but talks only with a complete stranger, the Verizon operator Lisa Jefferson, and never asks to be put through to family or friend who would recognize his voice, and could confirm that it was really him. Nobody that knew his voice heard Beamer speak from the plane.
Mark Bingham calls his mother, and says "Mom, this is Mark Bingham". How do you identify yourself when you call Mom?
Four hijackers, who have already taken over the plane, in possession of boxcutters, with only 33 passengers to watch over, allow them to make 13 cell phone calls. None of them are hysterical, nor even excited, even though the person they are talking to knows that the other three hijacked planes have already taken their passengers to their deaths.. Some even joked. Most calls were quickly and abruptly terminated by the caller.
Aviation and telephony experts have stated that the chances of even one cell phone call getting through from inside an airliner at speed and altitude is slim.
Mediums repeatedly prove that fake voices are believed authentic by people who expect and desire to hear the voice from beyond of a certain loved one. I often get calls from people I know, and I have to ask who it is---voices are expected to sound different on the phone.
I, too, have a problem with the hypothesis that all those calls were rigged so convincingly. But they do sound pretty fishy.
LOL...so you cannot explain how in the world multiple family members who did not know each other and live in different places ALL just happened to call their local police or FBI offices to report the same story, therefore you Google some of the half truths from a 911 Truther site.
Aviation and telephony experts have stated that the chances of even one cell phone call getting through from inside an airliner at speed and altitude is slim.
More bad and incorrect information that gets copied from conspiracy forum to forum - almost all the calls (there were over a dozen I beleive) were made from the airline seat back phones, not cell phones. Those calls are made by easily and quickly sliding a credit card (and thus the charges and usage are a matter of record) and of course are prefectly capable of making calls from 30,000 feet up, over the ocean, etc. I think only 2 calls were made using cell phone, possible because of the low altitude the plane was flying at after hijacked, and certainly dropped out after a few minutes. It is perfectly feasible and understandable that after one person cautiosly called (the hijackers were in first, in all the passengers were shuttled to the rear) that more and more did.
Actually Dd714, 22 airphone calls were made and many more cellphone calls. The transcripts of their conversations are inside the 911 Committee's report. Often, the cellphone calls were dropped and the caller called back making the number higher.
Cellphone do indeed work on aircraft although it is banned by the FAA. Due to the speed and height of the cellphone, it may connect to multiple towers causing a garbled message.
LOL...so you cannot explain how in the world multiple family members who did not know each other and live in different places ALL just happened to call their local police or FBI offices to report the same story, therefore you Google some of the half truths from a 911 Truther site.
Checkmate.
And where, exactly, did you Google the half-truths that have been released by the US government? You can't checkmate with a pawn.
If what I said in my post, whatever my source, was incorrect, please provide the corrected data.
If they did ALL phone he police or the FBI, that in itself would be suspicious---at least to a thinking person like me. If you received a phone call from your wife telling you that she was on a plane that had been hijacked, would a call to the local police be your first order of priority? What, besides a pre-arranged plan, would motivate them ALL, independent of each other, to make perfectly useless and futile phone calls to the local police or the FBI? Unless, of course, they ALL suspected that the calls were not genuine.
Keep it up. You're actually making your position MORE difficult to accept.
Hey KoobleKar...
You'll never convince jtur88. You're talking to someone who for the past 44 months has averaged 15 posts a day! He revels in this stuff.....
I'm not going to play along answering YOUR questions when you've thus far refused to answer my two most basic ones.
a) Why would the government want to cover-up a shoot down when they've already admitted that the order had been given and we know public support would be in their favour if they did.
b) How do you reconcile multiple victim's family members (notice I never said ALL) who never knew each other and livng in differing places calling their local police and/or FBI to tell them the exact same story?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
