Poll: Do you think the thirty or so calls made from the planes on 9/11 are real or faked?

It is suggested in the film, Loose Change, that phone calls from airplanes are impossible and therefore that the phone calls made on 9/11 from the airplanes must have been somehow faked. Since then the research by K. Dewdney arguing against the possiblity of cell phone calls has been called into question. Also, it should be noted that Loose Change/Dewdney did not address the possibility of airphone calls, which make up the majority of the calls made on 9/11.

After studying the records of the calls in detail, I have come to the conclusion that the phone calls are indeed real. I have found that they do NOT support the official story of 19 knife-wielding Arabs, but in fact are our best evidence of what really happened on the planes.

What do you think? Were the calls real or faked? Please participate here:

Take my poll!


I leave open the possibility that they were faked -- most cell phones aren't that accurate on the ground, let alone 35,000 feet in the air -- but I don't think it benefits 9/11 Truth to forward that opinion. It is best to remain agnostic on this point, for two main reasons.

(1) We have better evidence to prove government complicity, so we don't HAVE to touch this question.

(2) The follow-up questions to such an accusation always lead to unchecked speculation ("So, where are the passengers, if it wasn't Flight 93 that crashed?").

Let's begin with questions and evidence that are best able to achieve one thing: another investigation of 9/11. We don't have to prove what really happened; we only have to introduce reasonable doubt surrounding the official story.

agreed agnostic but

Faking the calls involves a whole massive, separate and unnecessary operation to set up false identities and/or false relatives who play the role for the rest of their lives - and for what? It's a ridiculous and risky extra that serves no substantive "value-added" function for the presumed conspirators. (You could script victim and hero propaganda without needing to make up the calls.)

The flimsy attacks on Mark Bingham for supposedly using his full name with his mother (according to her report - as reported by a reporter) show where this ends up: making Loose Change & Co. look both stupid and heartless. And the rest of us get tagged by association, unfair as that is, since the media is all-too-happy to equate 9/11 skepticism and truth movement with LC2.

Dewdney's experiment showed that cell calls were nearly impossible - in Ontario, not the Northeast corridor or even rural PA, which he didn't test. This is like dipping your toe into the Arctic and drawing a conclusion about the temperature of all oceans. Anyway, we don't know definitive altitudes for the 9/11 flights and MOST of the calls appear to be from airphones.

Staying purely with speculation on a blog, it doesn't seem at all ridiculous to doubt the veracity or indeed existence of calls by Barbara Olsen to Theodore Olsen (first to be reported - establishing the "Middle Eastern hijackers" - by none other than the White House counsel who had been lead lawyer for Coup 2000 and who later argued before the Supreme Court that the government has a right and in fact duty to lie for reasons of state) -- and by Todd Beamer to an operator, given the propaganda function of this particular call and its contradictions with other Flight 93 calls.

But absent subpoena power you're still whistling out your ass, even if it's a logical melody.

Excellent commentary,

Excellent commentary, Nicholas. Sometimes I think the Loose Change film was the biggest dose of disinformation out there, especially as it relates to the phone calls. The phone calls are the best evidence we have of what happened on the planes, but Avery & Bermas have managed to ingrain it in everyone's heads that these calls are impossible-- which they obviously aren't.

Ironically, both the 9/11 Commission and Loose Change presented the phone calls in a half-baked, superficial manner. The 9/11 Commission presented them superficially to lead us to the false conclusion of a hijacking by 19 knife-wielding Arabs. Avery & Bermas similarly presented their equally superficial analysis leading to the false conclusion that cell phone calls cannot be made from planes. ( They didn't deal with the obvious fact that most of the calls were made by airphones, not cell phones.)


I don't agree with your disinformation comment. It is my opinion that the guys from Loose Change were young and naive and may have made some statements that have later proved to be questionable. Everything I have seen of these guys shows them to be dedicated to their mission, flawed though it may be. Besides, this is the film that opened the eyes of millions, myself included. And for that they have my respect.

my take

i personally think some of the calls were real, some were fake. Let's keep in mind though, that the only recording is of betty ong's call i think. we don't know specifically which calls were made from cell phones, which from airphones. we don't know the altitude of the planes in many cases. they made it pretty hard to disprove, except for the fact that the popular mechanics guy is retarded and uses the counter argument that cell phones work from over 30,000 feet. so this argument is easy to disprove, but they will change their argument later to illustrate this incomplete information.

when i looked into a phone call that related to something i was researching, i looked a bit into Amy Sweeney's call (i think that was her name, on AA 11 if i remember correctly). she was the one that said "i see buildings, water, etc.". i think that she actually did phone in and talk to someone, then explained that the plane began a rapid descent. then AA 11 landed at Stewart. then there's a gap in the call log. then they fake her last call about the buildings, water, oh my god bit. so the first part was real, then there was a gap, then the last call was fake. this could have been done for all the calls. some might have been real, some fake. if you look at the CBC coverage, they debunk the official cell phone story. anyways, that's my two cents.

andrewkornkven's posts smack of disinfo to me. Furthermore,

"Loose Change" is about 90% provable fact & 10% educated guesses.

2004 providing systems for cell phone use

Here is an article from 2004.

why would they need this if they worked so well then?


Since the planes were drones or were being remote-controlled,

the phone calls were a phony ploy to support the "goverenment story."

Your outlook is very common

Your outlook (simuvac's) is very common in the truth movement, but mine is different. First of all, virtually all the cell phone calls were made from UAL93 after that aircraft had turned off its transponder. When the transponder was turned on minutes before the crash, it was at 7,000 feet. Thus it can be reasonable assumed that the plane was at about 7,000 feet or so when those calls were made; I don't think anyone disputes that calls can be made at that altitude.

The one exception is Tom Burnett's very important first call from that same flight. That is the call where he convincingly describes guns in possession of the hijackers-- a crucial piece of evidence. This call apparently was made by a cell phone when the plane was at 35,000 feet. However, it has never been shown to me that cell phone calls are impossible at this altitude, only that they are unlikely.

I think it is important not only that we prove government complicity, but that we also try to figure exactly how 9/11 was carried out, and by whom. At some point we have to deal with the reality that there is going to be no new investigation by our government. I think the behavior of the new Democratic majority shows that. The people want to know exactly who did this and how, and we have to figure that out for them, or they will continue to be apathetic.


I remember that Betty Ong

I remember that Betty Ong said that on Flight 11 passengers had been stabbed. A gunshot with a silencer could appear the same as a stab wound....

Betty Ong also reported that

Betty Ong also reported that one of the hijackers came from seat 9B, which was assigned to a former Israeli-trained commando named Danny Lewin. I have also heard reports that she also reported that this passenger was shooting passengers and the pilots, but I have been unable to corroborate those reports. Of course, we can't find out by listening to the tape because our government is keeping 18.5 minutes of that recording under lock and key.

It would appear, however, that Ong's call, like Tom Burnett's from UAL93, reports guns in the possession of the hijackers as well as knives. On the day of 9/11, the FAA filed a report stating that one of the passengers had been shot by one of the hijackers. Later that report was "corrected" under suspicious circumstances. Here is the link:


"our government is keeping

"our government is keeping 18.5 minutes of that recording under lock and key" -- This is very unsettling. We're allowed to listen to four minutes of Betty Ong and we think we know the whole story? Who are we kidding?

Another part of the Betty Ong tape I found fascinating was that the passengers could not breathe... there was some kind of gas. Listen to the tape yourself and you'll know what I mean. Could terrorists smuggle such a gas device through security and aboard the plane to subdue the passengers? No way.

"Could terrorists smuggle

"Could terrorists smuggle such a gas device through security and aboard the plane to subdue the passengers? No way."

It would have been no problem if they were in cahoots with airport security. There were three airports involved in 9/11: BOS, EWR and IAD. Security at all three of these airports was contracted out to the same firm, International Consultants for Targeted Security (ICTS).

ICTS is an Israeli-owned company.

Agreed. I personally

Agreed. I personally believe, based on the tape, that some kind of gas was let off on the plane to subdue the passengers so that they posed very little threat. Do you get the same impression from the recording?

Yes I do. My theory is that

Yes I do. My theory is that the gas cannister was set between the cockpit area and the coach section where the passengers had been herded on all four flights. A passenger revolt is something the conspirators would have expected, and this gas formed an impenetrable barrier.

The hijackers were safe from the gas because they were either wearing gas masks, or had crammed into the cockpit and closed the door.

My overall theory is here:


That's the finest

That's the finest explication I have seen. I hadn't seen your post before.

Headbands = Deception

It's a reasonable

It's a reasonable hypothesis. But we have to keep our minds open to other ideas too.

Take it somewhere else

"For those of us who are acquainted with the Holy Book of Jewish Terror,"


Don't you mean, "for those of us blinded by our bigotry"?

I don't rule out the possible involvement of Israeli intelligence; in fact, it seems to be present at several points in the 9/11 story. But I draw the line with nonsense like, "Holy Book of Jewish Terror." Why can't you make a sensible case based on the facts without dropping obviously bigoted phrases like that?

I tend to think you're

I tend to think you're right, and you're not the first person to say that. I should have used more diplomatic language. I should have said, "those of us who are who are familiar with the history of Israeli-Zionist terror attacks such as King David Hotel, Sabrat & Shatila, and the USS Liberty.


The wording in Ong's call is absurd. It sounds like a script

from a practice drill.

I am undecided on the issue,

I am undecided on the issue, but I had the exact same impression when I listened to the Ong audio -- it sounded as though she were reading from a script. Was she doing so that morning, thinking it was part of a drill, or had she recorded it earlier as part of a drill?

I just couldn't get past how blah she sounded -- it didn't even sound like a panicked or alarmed person trying to hold it together.

I don't have a thesis here -- just a nagging impression.

No, it wasn't a script and

No, it wasn't a script and it wasn't part of any drill. She was doing the best she could to keep her composure in an extremely stessful situation. She was a fortysomething year old with many years experience as a flight attendant for a major airline. She was an intelligent and world-traveled person. The fact that she didn't completely fall apart like a sorority girl in this situation does not suggest the call was fake.

How do you know?

How do you know?

How do I know? Was it part

How do I know? Was it part of her "script" to identify a hijacker from seat number 9B, which was assigned not to an Arab but to an Israeli-trained commando named Danny Lewin? Was it part of her script to say that this passenger was shooting other passengers and the pilots? And if it was a script, then why is it necessary for the government to now withhold 18.5 minutes of the recording five years after the event? If it were a script, wouldn't they be able to release it all? Why would parts of a script contain information so damning to the official story that they have to cover it up?

And speaking of covering things up, was Tom Burnett's call reporting guns in the possession of the hijackers part of some script? Why would they have put that into a script and then gone through so much effort to cover it up?

Since when do privately employed airline flight attendants participate in government drills involving hijackings and reading off a script? I've never heard of such a thing, have you? Wouldn't they have to be afraid that she'd tell a friend or relative about the whole thing? And where did she develop such top-notch acting skills? Her voice sounds pretty nervous and real to me. Does Betty Ong have acting experience?

The real question is why do so many people feel they have to do backflips and pirouettes to somehow show that these obviously real calls are faked. It is because we have all been brainwashed to believe the following equation:


This equation is wrong! The phone calls, when looked at in detail, do not support the official story of 19 Arabs with knives. Instead, they tell the real story of professionally trained hijackers with guns, who were impersonating Arabs for the purpose of framing Arabs. Most of what went on in the planes was a show, to convince the passengers they were being hijacked by Arab fanatics, so that these passengers would pass that false impression along to the rest of us via the phone calls. Thus, far from being faked, the phone calls were actually part of the plan.

Andrew, I already said I'm


I already said I'm not wedded to any one scenario here, I was just sharing an impression.

However, simply for the sake of argument, what you laid out above doesn't preclude a scripted scenario. In fact, the anomolies and excised parts COULD suggest that it was a script given to her that morning as part of an airline hijacking drill, and that real-world events as they transpired required tweaking the script to fit the details as they became known. As to whether or not airline employees participate in hijacking drills, I have no idea, but it seems plausible -- and it doesn't sound as if you have authoritative info on that either.

I agree with you that this is not a leading bit of evidence and that it is not worth spending a lot of time on. However, in my experience when talking PRIVATELY to friends, reminding them that they have never gotten cell phone reception in the northeast corridor shortly after take-off (and showing the article from last year which said that airlines are installing cell antennae to remedy the situation) has persuaded them to look at all the rest. Each person's point of entry is different.

Again, I'm not sure why you are so vehement here...I don't have a dog in this fight.


"reminding them that they have never gotten cell phone reception in the northeast corridor shortly after take-off"

In my experience, reception is lost within a few minutes after takeoff and does not return until a few minutes before landing (close to large metropolitan cities).

I've talked about this issue with a senior mobile phone testing specialist, who doesn't think mobile phone calls really are possible at high altitude and especially when the location is moving fast, as in an aeroplane.

FYI, Tom Burnett called wife w/ cell above 30,000 ft twice

andrewkornkven wrote:
"Thus it can be reasonable assumed that the plane was at about 7,000 feet or so when those calls were made; I don't think anyone disputes that calls can be made at that altitude.
The one exception is Tom Burnett's very important first call from that same flight... This call apparently was made by a cell phone when the plane was at 35,000 feet."

Sorry, but you're wrong. Tom Burnett (allegedly) called his wife (at least) twice using his cell phone at altitudes between 30,000 and 40,000 ft.

That's a tough thing to

That's a tough thing to determine. Burnett's second call was at 9:34. Jim Hoffman's website reports that the transponder was turned off at 9:30, meaning that the altitude of the plane when the second call was made would be unknown. However, The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson reports the transponder was turned off at 9:40. Here is an excerpt:

"When Flight 93 is over Youngstown, Ohio, Stacey Taylor and other Cleveland flight controllers see it rapidly climb 6,000 feet above its assigned altitude of 35,000 feet and then rapidly descend. The plane drops so quickly toward Cleveland that the flight controllers worry they might be the target. Other accounts say the climb occurs around 9:35 a.m. Controllers continue to try to contact the plane but still get no response. [Guardian, 10/17/2001; USA Today, 8/13/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]"

Notice the phrase "other accounts," indicating that it is not certain when the plane did what. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence that one or two of these calls may have been completed at an altitude above 30,000 feet.

Please explain this then...

9/11 commission staff statement No. 17
The text as submitted to the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

June 17, 2004

Between 9:34 and 9:38, the controller observed United 93 climbing to 40,700 feet and immediately moved several aircraft out of its way. The controller continued to try to contact United 93, and asked whether the pilot could confirm that he had been hijacked. There was no response.


I'm not trying to argue with

I'm not trying to argue with you. Whether Burnett made two calls to his wife at this altitude or one is not relevant to the overall theme. I still maintain that these calls and all the calls are real, but that they DO NOT validate the official story of 19 Arabs with knives.

Yes, but it's documented the government said he made the calls

You originally stated that there was only one, and that's why I corrected you.

And according to all the information I've read on the subject of cell calls being made at altitudes above 10,000 ft (let alone 30 + thousand ft), it's next to impossible to get a connection. Burnett reportedly made at least TWO successful calls above 30,000 using a cell phone. Sorry, but I don't believe those calls could have been made at those altitudes on 9/11/01. It's just more proof the government's story is BS. You should acknowledge that and move on.


New cell phone technology allows call from flights?
What about all those 9/11 calls?

”Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network, because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high.”

Washington Post, 12/9/04

“Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past.”

San Francisco Chronicle, 12/15/04

NOT agnostic here. Since I believe the planes that struck the

towers were drones, & the Pentagon was struck by a drone or a missile, I believe the phone calls were fake. A few of them, like Betty Ong's & Mark Bingham's, sound like scripts being read as part of the wargame exercises going on that day.

"Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham. You believe me, don't you Mom?"

I certainly don't.

Drones & most/all ficticious passengers. Read "Operation

Northwoods" of 45 years ago.

We have better evidence

This is a good discussion to have in a forum like this from an investigative standpoint. However, as far as presenting a body of evidence to the public, I would agree with option #1 and stop right there.

  1. We have better evidence to prove government complicity, so we don't HAVE to touch this question.

Your Poll does not included all of the possibilities

There were tests done regarding cell phones in existence during 2001. I would have to go back and dig out the resluts because I don't recall them offhand. The results proved the improbabability of calls making connections from various altitudes and the result was something like 1 in 1,000 calls would have made connections.
I do not know what "airphones" you are seeking a response to but the is always the chance that a real call could have been intermigled in with the faked calls.

You left out the option of a mixture of faked and real.

"Falsehood is never so successful as when she baits her hook with truth and mno opinions so fatally mislead us as those that are not wholly wrong." - Charles Caleb Colton.

the problem for lies in the

the problem for lies in the the fact that we have no audio of most of these calls. As far as i remember there is only one single audio clip from a stewardess talking about how a flight attendant was stabbed and how there is a gas filling up the plane. This is the only audio i can recall hearing.

the rest is based on

-hearsay evidence
-speculation on meaning
-memory during a tragedy

to me this type of evidence is totally baseless, especially when it is weaved together selectively to form a fair tale.

to make a judgment that the phone calls is fake is a step ahead of where the analysis should come in. We HAVE NOT heard them period. Once we do then we can make a fair judgment.

I posted this two weeks

I posted this two weeks ago:

This afternoon I flew from Chicago to St. Louis and didn't forget to test my cell phone.

I kept my phone on as we took off and within 30 seconds my bars were disappearing. Three minutes into the flight -- not a very high altitude, certainly no more than 10,000 feet -- I attempted a call to my brother. When I landed, I called him and asked him if he had received a call from me at 5:26 shortly after I took off and he said no.

After ten minutes, I had no connection whatsoever.

The passengers aboard Flight 93 were flying over rural Pennsylvania, whereas I was flying very low over urban Chicago. In my opinion, the idea that they could maintain clear cellular communication on that flight is questionable. I have Verizon, so I don't know if any other carriers have better connections. But the fact that I couldn't even establish a connection over Chicago at less than 10,000 feet puts the Flight 93 story seriously in question, at least in my mind.

Good points. But remember,

Good points. But remember, some of the calls coming from UAL93 were made from airphones, which obviously are possible. Todd Beumer's "let's roll call," for example. His call reports the same things going on in the plane as do the cell phone calls-- namely, the plans for a passenger revolt.

Todd Beamer and the Red Bandanna

The problem, if you will, with Beamer's "let's roll" call is not where it was allegedly made from but how it was received. We have only the testimony of a GTE Airphone operator, remember, because she didn't record the call for some reason.

Again, I will remain agnostic because I think several possibilities are at least plausible. I won't deny, however, that there are suspicious circumstances surrounding these calls.

If forced to speculate, I would say UA93 probably happened the way the Commission says it happened, except it was shot down not rescued by the passengers. I find the red bandanna more difficult to believe than the cell phone calls. How does this fabric survive unscathed, when the head it was allegedly wrapped around was incinerated? And why would Muslims wear red bandannas when green is the color of Islam? Red is, what, the crips? And why would they need bandannas AT ALL? What, so they themselves could distinguish hijackers from passengers?

"And why would Muslims wear

"And why would Muslims wear red bandannas when green is the color of Islam? Red is, what, the crips? And why would they need bandannas AT ALL? What, so they themselves could distinguish hijackers from passengers?"

Very good point. My belief is that they wore them to convince the passengers that they were Arabs, so the passengers would relay that impression to the rest of us via their phone calls. I believe this was the modus operandi on all four flights.

The hijackers were not Arabs, but were impersonating Arabs so as to frame Arabs. They wore the red headbands for the same reason they slashed female flight attendants and made frequency transmissions in too-obvious broken English: So that they would come across as savage Muslim fanatics and in that way convince Americans that it was an Arab attack.

Unfortunately, it worked perfectly, and that is why we are waging wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Sorry, I don't follow you.

Sorry, I don't follow you. I don't see how wearing a red bandana would make someone assume they were Arabs. I'd assume they might be Indians(American), without any other cues; modern American Indians wear bandanas, not Arabs.

I'm not being sarcastic; I'm just saying I wouldn't assume a vaguely swarthy looking person with a red bandana was an Arab. In fact, a red bandana would make me consider the person non-Arab; bandanas are very American West, not Middle Eastern.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Actually, the word "Arab"

Actually, the word "Arab" was not used on any of the phone calls. The phrase used was "Middle Eastern looking," which they undoubtedly were. They may indeed have been Middle Eastern-- but not Arab or Muslim.

Hamas (Palestinian) militants are known to wear green headbands. (Of course, I'm not suggesting the hijackers were Palestinians.)

Okay, but this is a red

Okay, but this is a red bandana(on flight 93). Do we know of any group over there who wears RED bandanas like this?

Sorry if I've been out of some loop...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Yes, and like I said, why

Yes, and like I said, why bother wearing matching anything?

How does that work exactly? "OK, guys, open your luggage and grab your matching Crips bandannas!" Imagine the delay caused by these four guys wrapping bandannas around their heads!

The bandannas bug me like the harness of bombs the terrorists are strapping in the filmed versions of Flight 93. All we know is that, according to the overheard cockpit messages, the terrorists threatened to use bombs. We have no idea if they actually had bombs with them. But that didn't stop several films from depicting guys strapped with belts of bombs.

I guess it bothers me that unconfirmed details have become entrenched mythology. Unfortunately, some people have responded to this in reactionary ways, like creating their own intricate mythology based on little more than hearsay.

I've just found another

I've just found another photo that goes one step beyond the one I posted above. Here you see another "Hamas militant" with his green bandana. Only if you look closer, you notice a Star of David tattoo on his neck. It seems this is an Israeli soldier, disguised as a West Bank militant, putting on a show for the Western cameras, portraying Muslim fanaticism for the American couch potatoes.



This picture sums it all up quite well.

Star of David found in Islam

According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Star of David (or King Solomon's Seal) does not belong solely to Judaism, and was only adopted by Judaism relatively late in its history.

"The legend of King Solomon's Seal, of the wondrous signet ring which he received from heaven, is common to Judaism, to Christianity and to Islam. King Solomon's Seal, whose base is on the ground and whose tip reaches heaven, symbolizes a harmony of opposites, whose significance is manifold as much as it is multi-cultural. It reflects the cosmic order, the skies, the movement of the stars in their spheres, and the perpetual flow between heaven and earth, between the elements of air and fire. The Seal, therefore, symbolizes super-human wisdom and rule by divine grace."


"Today, the hexagram is known as the "Star of David" and is seen as the definitive symbol of Judaism the term is even used in Islamic countries. There is a degree of confusion about its origins, name and associations. In Europe, the pentagram is usually known as King Solomon's Seal, while the hexagram is known as the Star of David; and it is often assumed that this was always the case. However, the evidence points to the gradual evolution of the hexagram from a Roman cosmological symbol to a religious and magical symbol which was not specifically connected to one religion or people. Research suggests that both motifs were used by different religions and that the clearest meaning of the hexagram is associated with magical techniques to ward off evil forces."

I think the bandanas are a

I think the bandanas are a dead giveaway.

One counter-argument could be, though, that they used them to identify each other so that they wouldn't get confused.

Me agnostic, too

I think this discussion has parralels to "what hit the Pentagon". We all feel very strongly about what we believe and, most of us have very good reasons for believing what we do.

However the fact all evidence has not been released into the public domain compels us to speculate. There is only so much independent research we can do because our resources are limited.

I agree with your agnostic position, simuvac, and I share your doubts. Like rollo points out, the clairity of these calls is highly suspicious. But until we have a new investigation or have more evidence released to the public, we're arguing in circles.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

2 airliners had already slammed the towers, the Pentagon had

been struck by something, but the GTE airphone operator didn't record Todd Beamer's phone call to her???And she didn't patch him in with the FAA or FBI or something???

Here's an interesting link about Flight 93 & the bandannas:

My son tried

calling me from 35 thousand feet when returning home from christmas vactaion..You guessed it......................NO SERVICE

I'd just like to say what a

I'd just like to say what a civilized comments forum where we can disagree without sounding like crazy people, even in self-defense. I'd forgotten what it was like...

Let's enjoy it while it lasts, chums.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

so im a little confused why

so im a little confused why is everyone so caught up in this facet of 9/11. We have not head a SINGLE audio clip of a phone call from those planes except from a stewardess who gave an extremely different account of what happened from the rest of any of the reported phone calls. All of those people who claimed to get phone calls WANT to believe the official fairy tale. They will do any mental gymnastics they can to convince themselves their sons and daughters died for a noble cause, and that includes parroting and misconstruing information their loved ones gave them over the phone.

my point is that the phone calls are absolutely meaningless because we have no actual evidence to prove their existence, context or meaning. This type of evidence would never hold up in any type of court of law unless there existed audio recordings of each phone call in question.

I disagree with almost

I disagree with almost everything you say in this post, v'hoax. Of course we don't have any recordings of the calls; do you normally record your phone calls?

Betty Ong's call is not "extremely different" from any of the other calls. I've found it perfectly consistent with the rest of them. Her report of which seats the hijackers came from differs from Amy Sweeney's on the same flight. That may be because Sweeney's call was made into a transcript by Mike Woodward, who took the call, with the "help" of a few FBI agents. Ong reports the seat of Israeli commando Danny Lewin; Sweeney (allegedly) doesn't. I know who I believe.

Do you really believe all the recipients of the calls are misconstruing what they heard? That's a lot of ordinary people to cooperate in such a hoax.

The phone calls are anything but meaningless. We have a preponderance of evidence that they are real. They are the best evidence we have of what happened on the planes. Study them and find out for yourself.

"Do you really believe all

"Do you really believe all the recipients of the calls are misconstruing what they heard? That's a lot of ordinary people to cooperate in such a hoax."

no but what i am asking is do we have any physical evidence that such conversations took place. Now please dont think i am making the assertion that these people are lying, i am not saying that. What i am saying is from a scientific imperical perspective these do not count as pieces of evidence. the only phone call i would consider relevent evidence is Betty Ong's.

"The phone calls are anything but meaningless. We have a preponderance of evidence that they are real. "

hearsay evidence and possibly (at best) times the calls took place from phone records. how is this a "preponderance" of evidence?
Is it in the same way Christians have a preponderance of evidence that God exists?
I want physical or audible proof, not the words of a widowed or traumatized individual from a call miles in the sky.
not saying i want proof so that ill believe the official story, i want proof so i can draw my own conclusions as an individual because i am generally agnostic about a lot of things not just 9/11.

can you understand my reasoning for REALLY wanting to hear these rather than trusting somebodies word? Maybe you can argue im not a very trusting person, that would be accurate to an extent but i don't think its that off base of me to call into question phone calls WE have NEVER heard.
to me it just makes the whole debate moot

Depends when you ask them

The Loose Change boys keep on changing their minds.

Caller: I want to know how it is possible that somebody could fake a telephone call with one of their relatives.

Bermas: Well we go through it, I mean the voice morphing technology has been there since '99, and we don't think that all of the phone calls were totally faked, we believe that there were airfone calls, we think that those were legitimate. But we just point out the impossibility of cellphone calls from cruising altitude.


Whoever knew the truth was so flexible?

"Whoever knew the truth was

"Whoever knew the truth was so flexible?"

ask Fema, NIST, 9/11 commission , they have over 5 revised explanations for what happened that day and i expect many more to come.

the fact is voice morphing technology is very old but its 100% speculation to say that the phone calls were voice morphed. A piece of audio hardware invented in 1989 called KYMA was capable of audio spectral cross fading (morphing between two sounds like you morph between a photograph of someones faces) . ATT&T developed speech synthesizer technology in 2003 that sounds almost indistinguishable from actual human speech. The technology exists but saying anyone has used it for a purpose like faking phone calls from a plane is totally speculative.

To me its a pointless argument. What evidence does ANYBODY have besides hearsay of any of these phone calls' content? The only phone call recorded from any hijacked plans on 9/11 was from a stewardess to a 911 emergency operator i believe and was cutoff very quickly.

Are there any other recordings of phone calls? if so i must have missed them because i am only aware of one.

if there only is one why is anybody having a serious debate about this issue? Are we to believe the traumatized victims families verbatim accounts of the phone calls they received? Absolutely no court of law would accept that as evidence

"To me its a pointless

"To me its a pointless argument. What evidence does ANYBODY have besides hearsay of any of these phone calls' content? The only phone call recorded from any hijacked plans on 9/11 was from a stewardess to a 911 emergency operator i believe and was cutoff very quickly." -videohoax

You're wrong twice. And I wish you'd stop posting so much on my blog until you learn some facts.

An eyewitness account is not hearsay; it is valid evidence in a court of law, varying according to the degree of reliablity of the eyewitness. The people who received these calls are credible witnesses.

No, Betty Ong's call was not "cut off quickly." Learn something before you post. She talked for 23 minutes until the plane crashed. The government has only released 4.5 minutes of that call and has withheld the rest.

"An eyewitness account is

"An eyewitness account is not hearsay;"

an eyewitness account is not via telephone.

look it up on the dictionary

eye·wit·ness /n. ˈaɪˌwɪtnɪs, ˈaɪˈwɪtnɪs; v. ˈaɪˌwɪtnɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. ahy-wit-nis, ahy-wit-nis; v. ahy-wit-nis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
1. a person who actually sees some act, occurrence, or thing and can give a firsthand account of it: There were two eyewitnesses to the murder.
–verb (used with object)
2. to view with one's own eyes: to eyewitness a murder.

"She talked for 23 minutes until the plane crashed. The government has only released 4.5 minutes of that call and has withheld the rest."

thats what i meant by cutoff quickly, 4.5 minutes is all ive heard out of the whole call

"The people who received these calls are credible witnesses."

no they are forms of hearsay evidence quite literally, let me help you out with your long lost friend, the dictionary

“Hearsay evidence can be thought of as:- any statement made otherwise than by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings, which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated.”

Recorded Calls

Not true, there are at least two recorded calls publicly available not to 911 operators. You guys might want to try doing some research some time, I am tired of always having to correct you.


"You guys might want to try

"You guys might want to try doing some research some time, I am tired of always having to correct you."

nice Ego there partner. Sorry for having inconvenienced you. try being a little less condescending next time you post

Not ego, standards

I just find it amazing what passes for research in the truther community. Some guy on here did a post including the "blue tarps at the Pentagon" the other day for God's sake. Truthers with PhDs conduct research with standards that would have got me flunked in high school.

"I just find it amazing what

"I just find it amazing what passes for research in the truther community"

i try, but probably don't spend as much effort as some other people including yourself.

"I am tired of always having to correct you."

curious when you have you corrected me before?

These alleged calls don't prove or disprove anything about 9-11

I heard Professor Key Dewdney on Keven Barrett's gcnlive show of yesterday. I have exchanged a few emails with Professor Dewdney, so if someone wants to write him about his research on cell phone calls from planes, he probably would reply and discuss cordially. This man is brilliant and honorable and he gave very intelligent reasons why he is sure no regular cell phone calls were made from Flight 93.

The main and important parts of the official story, that is the official lies telling how the twin towers came down, have been proven false, and eventually someday proving that the cell phone calls were a big faked, albeit less important, facet of the official story adds nothing to the established falsity of the main parts of the official government story of 9-11.

The holders of 99 percent of the evidence are the chief suspects so it will be impossible to every find out the facts about the phone calls or even the real facts of what really did happen that day with all four of the flights. I also do not see how we will ever be granted a true independent investigation, and even if we were, who would do the choosing of the panel and what are our chances of getting a truly independent investigation?

There are just way way too many anomalies and questions connected to every tiny little facet of every little thing that happened on 9-11. I find it highly improbable that the cell phone calls part of the story is free of serious anomalies and questions when everything before and after and around them were just loaded with questionable, illogical circumstances.

I can only keep calling for an independent investigation and keep praying for truth and justice to somehow prevail.

For me personally, I just do not have respect or patience with people who refuse to become involved in this 9-11 truth effort, and that of course applies to our whole federal administration and legislature. To me, people who do not accept that the official story is false and who do not try to become active in some way to get the truth are liars themselves.

There is a show on History Channel starting right now, 8:p.m central time about 9-11 so will go watch that now, just to assess the latest History Channel disinformation.

Blessings from Dachsie in Austin.

Truth and Justice, Our Purpose, Destroyed by Our Own Ignorance

You know what makes me sick and tired of this so called movement, the people who have claim they are a part of it yet love to run it into the ground.Focusing on the evidence and pointing out that the events of 9/11 are inconsistent and full of lies demanding a real investigation is the message to be pushed. Judgement on how, what, where, why and how is stupid and pointless. I really cant stand the fighting and name calling or treatment of different groups who think there were no planes, or nukes, or planes and blah blah. This movement is not a fashion statement, it is not a trend, pretending you know what you are talking about or using this to act intelligent hurts the reality of what true truthers are doing. You are the close minded morons you bitch about, open minds dont judge. being a skeptic doesnt mean coming to your own conclusion and claiming it fact. If we want to revolutionize our corrupt and stolen system and the crimes which those who stole it have committed against its own people, stop trying to solve, prove, or figure out how exactly 9/11 was carried out. Stop judgement and bickering like you have all the answers unless you have evidence 100%. focus on the evidence we have, that the gov.'s story has lies, holes, and contradictions. Focus on the science. Disinfo agents and all that paranoid garbage shows how unstable the movement is, i mean with the actual evidence there shouldnt be any discussion or any attention towards anything but that factual evidence. If this kind of crap continues the consider any real truth dead and its not at the hands of disinfo agents or no planers. Its at the hands of close minded morons trying to look open minded and seriously need to listen or read their own ignorant bitching. Lets our shit together, excuse my french. wake up.

planes on 9/11

I have just a couple of comments/questions. I would appreciate answers from those of you who have researched 9/11 for some time and know more detailed information in this area:

First of all, I would like to know what the protocol is for allowing passengers to use Airphones. How many Airphones are typically on a passenger plane, and is it feasible that during a highjacking a flight attendant would allow the phone to be given up to a passenger to phone a relative, rather than the flight attendant staying with an emergency operator? I'm sure there are guidelines for this. If the Airphones are not to be used by passengers in an emergency, then we can safely say that calls by passengers were on cell phones. To that end, here is some updated info on cell phone usage...it is an impossibility at this point in time:


I apologize for the next question which goes to Andrew and his original October post...can pilots parachute out of the cockpit? I don't recall ever seeing an exit door to the cockpit...is there one?

As to the highjackers being Israeli commandos...I don't think this viewpoint is antisemitic. Israel is not a religion. If we can trace the highjackers to Israel, than so be it. Is it possible that the highjackers were led to believe that their mission was to land the planes at designated airports, but then the planes were overtaken by remote control and slammed into the towers? Maybe the highjackers were patsies...

Also, what of the news that FL93 landed safely in Cleveland? How could that possibly be a mistake in the midst of several highjackings? Surely they checked this flight over and over, deciding to make the call that it had landed safely to a major news source. Was the plane swapped? I have seen so many pictures (esp. from this web site) of plane crashes, even into mountains, and they look like plane crashes...nothing at all like Shanksville.

Why was Hopkins Airport in Cleveland evacuated? What was the purpose? And why on foot?

Thank you for your

Thank you for your thoughtful questions. I don't know how many airphones were on the planes, but I think there were quite a few. I highly doubt the flight attendants were enforcing any protocol during the hijackings, given the circumstances. Remember, flight attendants were stabbed on each flight. Furthermore, we know most of the calls were made by airphones because we have credit card information to prove it.

I strongly urge you to reconsider your belief that cell phone calls are impossible from airplanes. This is a myth that has been devastating to the 9-11 truth movement. It has steered researchers away from the phone calls and the valuable insights that can be gained by investigating them. The phone calls are the best evidence we have of what went on in the planes; and they do not-- repeat DO NOT-- validate the official story.

Regarding the parachutes: we do not have any proof that the hijackers bailed out of the planes with parachutes. This is just a theory and should be treated as such. There are numerous exit points from a 767/757 from which such jumps could have been made, including the cockpit windows which can be opened. Here is a link to another thread where an associate of mine has done some research into this question:

(post #55887)

The point is, if these were professional, state-trained commandos, they would have practiced and prepared for such jumps from the exact same planes, and with the assistance of technicians and flight engineers. It wouldn't have been like you or me trying to do such a maneuver.

The story about FL93, like all plane-swapping theories, is a bunch of bunk. Here is a link to Jim Hoffman's highly respected site where he explains where this bunk came from and then totally de-bunks it:


The crash of FL93 was different from most other crashes because the plane was going extremely fast when it impacted. This may have been by design of the hijackers-- or more likely the pilot flying the plane by remote control. The goal was to destroy all evidence on board. There may also have been a bomb on board in a suitcase that was detonated right before the crash for the same purpose-- evidence destruction.


Thanks for answering my questions...the whole thing is an incredible mystery...some of the dots connect, some of them don't. One thing I am certain of is that our government (along with others) was most definitely behind this hideous act. It took me a long time to believe it, but I would rather be on the side of an ugly truth than a pathetic lie that has hurt so many people. Thanks again Andrew!

You have what?

you say - "we know most of the calls were made by airphones because we have credit card information to prove it."

Could you please post this information (copy of records)

I was not aware such records existed.

I do not have copies of the

I do not have copies of the credit card information. That would presumably be confidential. Todd Beumer's call was from an airphone:

9:45 a.m.: FBI Listens as Passenger Todd Beamer Describes Flight 93 Take Over Plan Todd Beamer. Todd Beamer. After having some trouble getting authorization to use an Airfone to call his family, passenger Todd Beamer is able to speak to Verizon phone representative Lisa Jefferson, with the FBI listening in. He talks for about 15 minutes.

What's your point? Why are you fighting so hard against these phone calls? It is perfectly reasonable to believe that these airphone calls could have taken place. So why are you demanding proof of them? Is it because you've been convinced that the phone calls as a whole are the basis of the official story? I can assure you, the phone calls DO NOT validate the official story. They actually contradict it. I urge you: Stop fighting the phone calls! They are not the enemy!

All Aboard!

There is absolutely no proof that any of these men..... or any of the passengers for that matter... boarded any of these planes....

They have video of the security check point and to tell you the truth.... I'm not fully convinced that the people described in that video are even who they imply that they are..... and shouldn't we have video of every one of the hijackers by now.... not just a select few.

My point is.... they checked in... at least Atta checked in with maybe one other..... buying a 4500 dollar ticket to be sure to draw attention to himself.... (Hey! look at me!)..... then he went through security.... got it on video.

But did they board any plane?.... there is no evidence.... he could have very easily walked out the back door where no cameras would catch him..... just walk right out..... and no one would have been the wiser..... another reason for the expensive ticket... the spectacle..... the guy at the ticket counter would definitely give this guy a second look... right down to the color of his shoelaces...... good show Atta... looking angry.... like the devil.... if they did search him.... I guarantee he was clean.

These planes were remote controlled.... ALL planes are remote controlled... the pilots are simply there for emergency purposes.... in case they have to deviate from the pre-programmed flight path.

The planes that hit the WTC were programmed to do so..... not hard to do.... the program could have been created using an advanced flight simulator and then the flight targeting aided by a homing beacon...... altitude speed trajectory direction....BOOM!

these planes flew directly over several military installations..... not possible for typical flights.... and definitely not OK for flights which may be hijacked... they have procedures for these instances.... Hijacked planes are one thing... but if they are flying over military installations.... that's two strikes... plane had already flown into the WTC... that's strike #3!!!


We know that they have the technology to easily fake phone calls..... Easily!

All they have to do at this point is release the phone and credit card statements..... they can easily provide this info.... if a cell phone call went through.... the cell carrier will have record of the call..... who was called and how long the call lasted... as well as the location that the call was made from based on the cell station tha the call was routed through..... EASY!!!

Airphones require credit cards or I believe that there is a way to bill it to your another number but that process is very involved..... Credit cards are the easiest way to use those phones..... so a credit card would have been billed to use an airphone..... with that you should also be able to see who was called.... the time and duration of that call....etc.


Ted Olson said that his wife used someone elses credit card to make the call from the airphone..... although he originally said she callled from a cell phone...... If she used someone elses card.... they wouldn't be able to check her credit card record for the charge... but how long would it take to find out whose card she used?

If she used an airphone there should also be some record of where the call came from.... based on the same technology the cell phone uses.... the call would have had to of been routed through a ground based station.... giving a general location for the origins of the call. You would think that the call record would verify that the call was made from the named plane??

IF the calls were real.... THEN prove it..... EASY!!!

phone statements are handled by Amdocs

And I'm not gonna say what middle-eastern country THEY'RE based in, or what Carl Cameron's censored Fox News report on illegal Israeli activities and espionage in the US had to say about that company.

So let's not put much stock in phone records.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


That's an interesting point,

That's an interesting point, RT. I never knew the phone statements were handled by Amdocs. I assume that is an Israeli company?

I'll have to look into that. What a great method of disinformation: simply make the records disappear, then let the Truth community take that as "proof" that the calls were never made.

Cameron's report should be required viewing

Amdocs is indeed an Israeli company, and handles billing for most of the major phone companies. The pre-9/11 illegal activities involved illegal wiretaps placed on American law enforcement phones, info from which was used to thwart investigations into Israeli organized crime drug operations stateside. Those who insist that we focus on Israel out of bigotry know full well that we do no such thing. We are fighting for the integrity of our nation in the face of a failure of leadership, leadership that very likely has been victimized by illegal surveillance and blackmail. Yes, a big chunk of the problem is homegrown, like the CIA and NSA, but some of it is hybrid, like the Department of Homeland Security under Michael Chertoff--a dual Israeli-American citizen.

The stuff is just so shocking and blatant, but once you get over the smear tactics, you don't feel at all like a bigot despite their best efforts to make you feel slimy. Most Jewish people are as clueless as others, and would be just as shocked as we are to find out what has been done by these rogue American and Israeli criminals.

Both America and Israel need to clean house and begin a process of reconciliation with the world's people. Only then can we all band together against the elites who lord it over all of us.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Excellent post, RT. Have

Excellent post, RT. Have you read The Terror Enigma, by Justin Raimondo?  I read it a few years ago but have forgotten most of it.  I think he mentioned Amdocs.  Also, Cameron's report, and an excellent summation of the Lavon Affair.  I'll have to sit down and re-read it.

Yeah right, prove it--

Yeah right, prove it-- that's easy for the government to do, but not me. They have the evidence; I don't. What you have to understand, JJ, is that they do not have an incentive to prove the calls are real. They'd rather sit on the evidence, and let truthers like you operate under the false impression that the calls may be fake.

It's just like the government "proving" that AAL77 did indeed hit the Pentagon. They probably have the proof, but why should they give it to us? The 9-11 Truth movement is laboring under two huge bits of disinformation:

A. That something other than AAL77 hit the Pentagon.

B. That the phone calls from the planes are not real.

The government could disprove both these if they wanted to. But they have every incentive to sit on the evidence and laugh at us as we grope about in the dark.


You really think that if they had the proof that they would want to give us a lack-there-of in order to cause a frenzy the scale of the 9/11 Truth Movement?

Have you noticed where this movement is going right now? We certainly are not going anywhere!

They know we are knocking on their front door.... they are attempting anything they can to thwart us..... if they had the proof.... we have laid out the silver platter


All we want is honesty.

All we want is the TRUTH!

We are not asking for much ...... if they had it.... You tell me the reason why they would wish to fuel our fire????

because now we are going much deeper into their world in order to get it all on them..... the dirt gets dirtier the deeper we dig..... now they have started something that even the proof in their punch will not quench. Why would they wish to wake a beast that they had put to sleep several years ago?

Tell US!