Phone Calls Analysis
Phone Call Analysis
I believe it is vital for 9/11 truth seekers to move beyond demonstrating that “the government lied,” or “the government’s story cannot be true.” The people want to know what actually happened, and it is up to provide them with a workable theory consistent with the known facts. With this idea in mind I embarked upon an exhaustive examination of the phone calls made from the planes on 9/11. For this investigation I have relied upon Paul Thompson’s Terror Timeline.
What I have found is that all the phone calls are real. They describe real events taking place on the planes as described by the persons making the calls to the best of their ability and knowledge. It would have been very difficult to fake a phone call to a loved one, or even to a stranger, and that was not done– although some of the information from the phone calls detrimental to the official story was deleted, distorted, or simply ignored by the government and a compliant media. Deletion is of course much easier than fabrication.
The phone calls were not only allowed by the conspirators. They were probably encouraged as they helped to maximize the horror and shock felt by the nation, which of course paved the way to fulfill the conspirators’ goals. They also performed the vital function of apparently identifying the hijackers as “Middle Eastern looking,” and having come from seats on the airplane supposedly occupied by Arabs.
At the same time, the calls form a body of authentic, reliable evidence for those of us seeking the truth. This is in contrast to much of the “evidence” we have to work with, such as the surviving cockpit voice recorder from Flight 93, which was confiscated and possessed by the authorities for some time, and thus may have been tampered with. In trying to solve the 9/11 puzzle, the phone calls are a good place to start– along with the most important analytical tool of all which is an understanding of Zionist methods, goals, and past practices.
Stabbing of Stewardesses
The stabbing of numerous female flight attendants is reported by multiple phone callers on three of the four flights. (FL77 is the exception, though Barbara Olson does tell her husband the hijackers are armed with “knives and box cutters.”) These horrific events certainly occurred; the question is why. From the standpoint of Arab hijackers, what functional purpose would be served by stabbing stewardesses? The stabbing of a large, aggressive looking male in First Class might be understandable, but why females? If the point of the stabbings was to gain access to the cockpit, then we would have to believe that the pilots either did not hear the blood-curdling screams that would have inevitably followed, or that all the pilots involved– at least six and probably eight– heard them but chose not to report them to air traffic control. Even more curiously, flight attendant Amy Sweeney call to reservation agent Mike Woodward indicates that she is witnessing the stabbings and storming of the cockpit of FL11 at least seven minutes after radio contact had been lost and the plane had changed course. Why would you start stabbing stewardesses after the pilots have already been dispatched? Was the storming of the FL11 cockpit that Sweeney witnessed a bit of play-acting on the part of the hijackers?
From an Arab hijacker standpoint then, the stabbings are totally illogical. For those of us who are acquainted with the Holy Book of Jewish Terror, however, they make perfect sense. With the pilots dead from a couple of quick head shots from a silencer-equipped handgun, the hijackers donned their Arab headdresses and started putting on a grisly show. The purpose of stabbing females was to maximize the shock and horror of the event, and it was fully intended that this horror be relayed by innocents like Sweeney and Betty Ong via phone calls from the back of the plane. Years later, when the nation was just beginning to recover from the shock of the collapse of the WTC buildings, the revelations of these phone calls and the specter of stabbed stewardesses would help transform prevailing emotion of grief into a simmering, homicidal rage directed against the presumed ethnic and religious group of the hijackers. That rage would be funneled into the ongoing prosecution of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Middle Eastern Looking” Hijackers
It is by now clear that the real hijackers were Israeli commandos disguised as Arabs. None of the phone callers identified the hijackers as Arab, but the term “Middle Eastern” is used numerous times.
Jeremy Glick on FL93 calls his wife and describes the hijackers “as Middle Eastern- and Iranian-looking... three of them put on red headbands, stood up, yelled, and ran into the cockpit.” [Terror Timeline, p.424]
The question we have to ask ourselves is how many Americans can differentiate a dark-skinned Israeli from an Arab. What we do know is that Israelis have been committing terrorist acts, while dressed as Arabs, since at least 1946, when Menachem Begin and his Irgun gang dressed up as Arabs and planted bombs hidden in milk containers in the King David Hotel. The resulting blast killed 91 persons, most of them British. The Israeli nation’s opinion of such behavior can be gauged by the fact that Begin was later elected prime minister.
Guns on Board
One of the most important calls was from Tom Burnett on FL93 providing evidence that the hijackers had guns:
Tom Burnett calls his wife, Deena, using a cell phone and says, ”I’m on UAL93 from Newark to San Francisco. The plane has been hijacked. We are in the air. They’ve already knifed a guy. There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI.” Deena connects to emergency 911.... Note that original versions of this conversation appear to have been censored. The most recent account has the phone call ending with, “We are in the air . The plane has been hijacked. They already knifed a guy. One of them has a gun. They’re saying there is a bomb onboard...” The major difference from earlier accounts, is the mention of a gun. The call wasn’t recorded, but Deena’s call to 911 immediately afterwards was, and on that call she states, “They just knifed a passenger and there are guns on the plane.” Deena Brunett later says of her husband: “He told me one of the hijackers had a gun. He wouldn’t have made it up. Tom grew up around guns. He was an avid hunter and we have guns in our home. If he said there was a gun on board, there was.” [Terror Timeline, p.409]
(It is also possible that Betty Ong’s call also mentioned a gun, but that phrase has been deleted from the recording or is part of the call not made available to the public.)
I find this persuasive evidence that the FL93 hijackers were armed with guns; and if they had them the hijackers on the other flights undoubtedly had them as well. The guns served the purpose of dispatching the pilots quickly, and their presence explains why none of the eight pilots were able to send any message whatsoever to ATC of the attacks. The guns were meant to be concealed, however, while the knives were advertised. This is in keeping with the stage-drama of primitive Arabs carrying out the attacks.
In this respect the guns on the planes are analogous to the explosives placed in the WTC buildings. These instruments were vital in carrying out the operation successfully, but their use was to be concealed. Why not have the official story that the al-Qaeda hijackers placed the bombs in the buildings, and that they sneaked guns onto the planes as well? Because getting a gun onto a plane is no simple matter, and neither is mining three buildings for demolition. To discerning minds the guns on board would inevitably point to the Israeli company, ICTS, that handled security at all three airports. Likewise, the planting of explosives in the WTC building would inevitably bring scrutiny to the security operation there, and to its owner Larry Silverstein and his Zionist connections.
Knife-wielding hijackers would bring to mind fanatical Muslims; guns on airplanes and explosive-mined buildings would point to ICTS and Silverstein, which would then point in the direction of Tel Aviv.
Like the phone calls, the utterances of the hijackers from the cockpit onto the ATC radio frequencies are reliable evidence. They were heard by other pilots on the same frequency, and also by numerous controllers, so we can conclude that they were not faked, or fabricated later.
FL11: “We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport...” “Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.” Then, later: “Nobody move, please, we are going back to the airport. Don’t try to make any stupid moves.” And finally, “We have some planes” again. (Terror Timeline notes that this last transmission was apparently a played back recording of the same phrase spoken before. p. 306.)
FL93: From Terror Timeline, p. 410: “Someone, presumably pilot Jason Dahl, is overheard by controllers as he shouts ‘Mayday!’.... Then there are more sounds of screaming and someone yelling, “Get out of here, get out of here.” Then the voices of the hijackers can be heard talking in Arabic. The words are later translated to show they are talking to each other, saying, ‘Everything is fine.’”
Later from FL93: “Ladies and gentlemen, here is the captain, please sit down. Keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb aboard.” Later still: “Hi, this is the captain. We’d like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb on board. And we are going to turn back to the airport. And they had our demands, so please remain quiet.”
The transmissions are supposedly inadvertent, and are of two types. The first is that of a pilot who, intending to talk to his passengers,instead presses the wrong button and ends up broadcasting on the frequency. The second, as in the “Mayday” exchange on FL93, occurs when the microphone is accidentally left “keyed” after a normal transmission. I can tell you from many years working in an air traffic control environment that both of these inadvertent transmissions occur– but they are quite infrequent. I find it incredible that so many of these transmissions were broadcast from four flights. I believe these broadcasts were intentional elements of the Arab hijacker stage-drama being performed by the Israeli commandos doing the actual speaking. Look at the phraseology used: we have some planes, keep remaining sitting, here is the captain, they had our demands... The pigeon English is so consistent, so studied, that it seems to have been scripted. We almost expect one of the hijackers to say “we apologize for our bad English, but what do you expect from a bunch of Arab nutjobs?”
As for the keyed mike capturing the “struggle” in the cockpit of FL93, it should be noted that this transmission occurred one minute after Tom Burnett told his wife “The plane has been hijacked.” Burnett was perhaps the only caller who witnessed the real hijacking, using guns, before the commencement of the staged cockpit storming captured by the (deliberately) keyed microphone.
A Workable Scenario
So we now have a realistic scenario of the hijackings that comfits with the hard evidence we have, which is the phone calls and the frequency transmissions. Our scenario even shows how these calls and transmissions were vital elements of the conspirators’ scheme:
Three or four Israeli commandos assume the identities of the Arab patsies, board the planes, and sit in the Arabs’ seats. One of them is slipped a silencer-equipped gun by a Mossad operative working for the Israeli security firm ICTS. The gunman, probably American looking and acting, approaches the cockpit during the flight and introduces himself to the pilots as a fellow pilot– which he may actually be. He is invited to sit in the jump seat. At the right moment, he pulls the gun and makes two head shots. Knowing the plane’s FMC (Flight Management Computer) will continue to pilot the plane, he calmly puts on an Arab headdress and walks back to the cabin.This is the signal for two dark-skinned accomplices, already dressed as Arabs, to pull their knives and swing into action. There is a lot of shouting, stewardesses are stabbed, a phony bomb is produced, passengers are herded to the back of the plane, a cannister of mace is released in business class, and a great show is made of storming a cockpit that contains two dead pilots.
Now the passengers are safely in the back of the plane, where they are allowed to, or even encouraged to, make their phone calls. Passengers from the front of the plane who may have seen too much are knifed, Burnett being the lucky exception. The gunman returns the cockpit to make the bogus transmissions in pigeon English.
At this point we must consider alternate conclusions to the plot. In the first version, the hijackers fly the planes kamikaze-style to precision strikes at their intended targets. In the second version, which I consider more likely, the hijackers take a few moments to insert computer cards into the FMC which program the flight to its final destination. With the passengers in the back and a curtain concealing the hijackers’ movements, they lock the cockpit doors, strap on parachutes, and jump out one by one. Being professionally trained commandos, the jumps are practically routine; they have made many training jumps from identical Boeing airplanes, the characteristics of which they now know like the backs of their hands.
The jumpers refrain from pulling their chutes until the last possible moment, before landing safely in rural areas along each of the respective flights. Mossad crews on the ground, disguised as tourists, use homing devices worn by the jumpers to quickly locate them and whisk them away in ordinary looking automobiles. All these events occur before the media begins reporting possible hijackings are in progress.
FL93 Cockpit Recorder
In devising the above scenario, I was continually flummoxed by the events I thought had occurred on FL93 before it was shot down. We know from the phone calls that some of the male passengers, whom we’ll call the heroes, were planning to rush the cockpit. After that assault began, however, we must rely on the plane’s Cockpit Voice Recorder to learn what happened. I wondered, if the hijackers had guns, what could explain the desperate struggle recorded on the CVR? Couldn’t they just have shot the heroes? The CVR recordings also invalidate the parachute theory, since the hijackers were still in the cockpit, fighting off the heroes, until the final seconds when they idiotically yelled, “Allah o Akbar!” before entering Paradise.
After anguishing over this evidence for a few days, I realized something that should have been apparent all along. The CVR from FL93 is not hard evidence, like the phone calls and frequency transmissions. It is junk evidence. The recording was seized by the authorities on the crash scene. From there it was passed into the hands of God-knows-who before finally being played privately, years later, for victims’ families, some of whom immediately suspected it had been tampered with:
“Some of the relatives are keen to find out why, at the peak of this struggle, the tape suddenly stops recording voices and all that is heard in the last 60 seconds or so is engine noise. Had the tape been tampered with?” -New York Observer 6/17/04 as quoted in Terror Timeline p.445
The transcripts contain other whiffs of fakery. According to one account, one of the heroes says “I’m injured” during the height of the struggle. I can think of a lot of things I might say on a doomed flight, after being shot or stabbed during a desperate fight, but “I’m injured” is not one of them. Undoubtedly this phrase came from the same screenwriter’s workshop that gave us “keep remaining sitting,” and “here is the captain,” etc.
Thus the heroic struggle for the cockpit probably never happened. When Cheney, in his underground bunker, surrounded by his neocon ghouls, learned from Deena Burnett’s phone calls that the passengers were planning a takeover, he made the decision to shoot down. The danger was not that the passengers would take the cockpit and successfully land the plane– which may have been impossible due to the programmed FMC– but that they would pry open the door and find.... an unoccupied cockpit, and that they would be able to report that news via phone calls.
Theories: Kamikazes versus Parachutes
It has always been considered a possibility that the real hijackers could have been Israelis on a suicide mission. The objection is that it would seem to be difficult to find highly skilled operatives willing to give up their lives. If they were suicides, we have to wonder why they passed up the opportunity to transmit some final disinformation, such as “Osama Rules!” in the seconds before crashing.” All the transmissions from the planes stopped at least eleven minutes, and perhaps longer, before the termination of the flights.
The parachuting from the planes would seem to present the obvious risk of being spotted on the way down, or perhaps getting stuck in a tree, etc. On the other hand, it would explain the long circuitous routes over rural and wilderness areas taken by all four flights. The FMC could have been programmed to fly precisely over an area where parachutists are a common sight.
Jim Hoffman’s site and Americans’ Blind Spot
I’ve always considered Jim Hoffman’s site to be the gold standard for 9/11 research, and with good reason. His attack scenario had me mesmerized to such a degree that for many months I assumed it to be reality. In that scenario, Hoffman substitutes the use of automatically released poisonous gas on board the planes to do the job that was actually done by humans. Elsewhere in the site, however, Hoffman correctly assesses the theory that the cell phones are faked as disinformation. He tacitly admits that the calls are real, but makes no attempt to reconcile them with his attack scenario.
I don’t think Hoffman is a disinformationalist or a gatekeeper of any kind. He is a typical American, and an American engineer to boot. Yankees have always been obsessed with technology, while our relatively isolated geography has left us mostly blind to the ways of the world. Americans are prone to believe that most people of the world are deep down good folks, especially the people of the Promised Land whom the Good Book calls the Chosen People. So Hoffman has evil technology doing the deeds that were actually done by evil Israelis.
The above essay attempts to construct a theory of what happened on the planes based on the evidence provided by the phone calls and frequency transmissions. By having a theory of what happened and of who did what we can present to skeptics a more compelling case than just proof that the government lied. I invite others to challenge my thesis. I would also like to hear comments about the parachute scenario.