AviatorDave
The very lack of standard phraseology might have just been what made the controller assume it was someone without RT background trying to mess around.
Except the controller states that he thought the transmission came through a handheld radio. How does mere non-standard phraseology trigger the assumption of a handheld radio in an American controller that spends every day listening to non-ICAO-standard phraseology in a system rife with it? He'd be ingoring 50% of calls if he were, so that's very unlikely. That leaves clarity/tone/volume issues of the transmission causing his suspicion, not it's content.
If the call was made while wearing an O2 mask, which is probable given the nature of the emergency, there's also a high probability the clarity/tone/volume of the message was affected. If rouge calls were on that controllers mind as something to be watchful for, then his predisposition could easily be to make that assumption when hearing an unusual, odd-sounding transmission regardless of its content.
Had the call been made in the standard fashion, it would probably have just triggered the routine drill execution instead of making the controller think about a possible prank.
Only if you believe mere non-standard phraseology in America leads American controllers to believe any transmission containing some as fake.
Why do you and others think that someone who's determined to commit a Federal crime by making rogue transmissions on a handheld from his parked car think he wouldn't also take the trouble to verse himself in standard phraseology and use callsigns/flight numbers they are hearing on freq while breaking in? It's not Top Secret information you know, and the phantom caller could very well be a pilot himself, and well-versed.