Prof. A.K. Dewdney - The Cell Phone Calls

Dewdney couldn't make it to the Vancouver 9/11 Conference, so he videotaped a short presentation that was played for the conference. You'll notice that he mentions that he is on a Canadian "No-Fly" list. I have sent him an email asking him if he thinks he is on the list due to his 9/11 research, and am waiting for a reply.

Thanks, Tosh!

EDIT: 7-21-2007 Dewdney did respond to my email and advised me that a Canadian Air Transport Security Authority employee told him he would be going on the list. This was due to the fact that pepper spray was found in Dewdney's carry-on. (Dewdney is involved in conservation work that occasionally puts him in close proximity with animals that may force him to use pepper-spray as defense. The pepper spray was forgotten in his carry-on/field-bag.) Dewdney has no way of officially confirming whether or not he is on the list, and therefore, no way of appealing the decision. However, it does not appear to be 9/11-related. -r.

Don't know what to make of this

On the one hand, it seems his anecdotal evidence is generally accurate (and I realize this issue of the cell calls has been debated to death). Some will say his test did not duplicate the events of 9/11 exactly, and therefore can be dismissed. But even if you extend the range of probability, I doubt a call made from above 10,000 feet would have any chance of connecting and/or being sustained.

On the other hand, it is beyond my imagination how the perps could have faked all these cell phone calls in real time. This adds a layer of complexity that I just don't find plausible. It's one thing to fake evidence after the fact; it's quite another thing to fake it (literally) on the fly.

I've not seen a good debate on the cell phone calls yet...

By William M. Arkin
Special to
Monday, Feb. 1, 1999

"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.

Steiner was hardly the first or last victim to be spoofed by Papcun's team members. To refine their method, they took various high quality recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements. One of the most memorable is Colin Powell stating "I am being treated well by my captors."

"They chose to have him say something he would never otherwise have said," chuckled one of Papcun's colleagues.

have you read Debunking 9/11

have you read Debunking 9/11 Debunking yet? debate is pretty much discouraged here now, but i'll just say that i agree with David Ray Griffin on this one. and the Arkin article above is interesting as well. Arkin has always had deep military/intelligence ties and hes written more than one article that indirectly supports 9/11 truth. i wish i remembered the other one. the 9/11 plot was very complex, something Osama and 19 patsies clearly were not capable of pulling off. i believe the perps and their conduits had all bases covered for something so bold and horrific.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Quick correction

Although a few times he mentioned additional anecdotal evidence beyond the experiments he performed, the evidence from the experiments is empirical. The proper course of action for an organization like Popular Mechanics, if they wish to refute his claims, would be to also perform the experiments themselves (That's the "Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment" part). I'm not holding my breath...

Hope to hear more from Prof. Dewdney. And Calum Douglas. And Richard Gage. It's always nice to see some fresh faces from the scientific and academic and professional communities, even when they've been around the web a while.

Sure, it's empirical

in the sense that he physically tested his claims.

But critics point out that he did not test the exact conditions of the flight in question. He used a different plane and flew over different terrain. Personally, I don't think that matters. I agree, as I said, with the fact that cell phones should not work at the altitudes in question. I just can't fathom how multiple calls were faked in real time. I know the technology exists to imitate someone's voice; Loose Change pointed to that a long time ago. However, that's not the issue here. The issue is: How could this technology be employed in real time? How could the perps have samples of certain voices on the morning of 9/11? How did they know these people would be on the flights?

Of course, even as I ask that question I begin to formulate in my own mind how they might have done it. Still, I'm uncertain of this line of inquiry.

without starting a long

without starting a long debate i would just ask, have you seen many of the victims families(from the flights,especially 77) interviewed on tv? how about any at all? im not gonna say they fabricated all of the victims identities or even any but they've already been caught red handed stealing the indentities of at least some people when creating the "hijackers". again i would suggest Debunking 9/1 Debunking. he lays out the phone call issues pretty well. i would also add that a thorough investigation of the backrounds of the victims on the flights has never really taken place. thats important to note. 9/11 was a very sophisticated operation.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Extremely good point

"i would also add that a thorough investigation of the backrounds of the victims on the flights has never really taken place"

It is clear that cellphone calls from several kilometers above the ground would not have been possible. The lady interviewed by Barrett (see below) also made a very good point about the emotional aspect of the alleged calls. Perhaps the "calls" were also needed to enhance the emotional dimension of the attacks, helping people put aside critical thinking.

Investigating who were (or are supposed to have been) on the flights and their families would indeed be important. So that hasn't been done?

the faked calls were crucial

the faked calls were crucial in setting up and sustaining the 9/11 myth in my opinion. i dont claim to know what happened on 9/11 but the lack of victims family members in our media has always nagged at me. investigations into who was on those flights(especially Flight 77) and their backrounds havent really been done, you get little snippets here and there but no real backround. i know if i was a victims family member i probably wouldnt want to talk to the media or anything either, but you would think that by now at least one family would have come forward to talk about their experiences from that day. that has yet to happen. i wonder why?(it cant all be hush money can it? and even if it is, what does that say?)

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Speculation doesn't bring us 9/11 Justice

I personally know for a fact that at least some of the people on those flights were real people. I think this whole "faking death" thing to be rather offensive to the victims. Lets see some real evidence before we speculate to such a high degree. What does this kind of speculation accomplish? How does this bring us 9/11 justice? It only makes us look bad to people who care about evidence--not speculation.

For the record, I'm not saying that NO--they did not fake these people's deaths, but let's see some real research and evidence before making these claims. It should be an easy research project for someone to look into the people on those planes and try to see if these people actually existed. I know for a fact that some of them did. According to news reports, DNA from people on those planes continues to be found to this day. Would they go through the trouble of faking these reports years after 9/11 just so we can believe that there were passengers on those planes? Sounds pretty lame to me. Let's see the evidence.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

i dont doubt that at least

i dont doubt that at least some of the people on some of those flights were real people. i just noted how there has been a strange absence of 9/11 victims family members of people on the flights in our media(ESPECIALLY from Flight 77) . would they go to the trouble of faking reports years after? are you serious? you dont think they would fake evidence/reports etc.? after all this time, after all the lies about 9/11 you find that hard to believe? you even admit they(likely) fake phone calls, they fake passports and other evidence, but this is hard to believe for you? and i think your accusation about speculation being "offensive to the victims" is ridiculous and a little surprising coming from a 9/11 researcher/activist. i would expect and in fact have heard that line from people Like Sean Hannity. talk about lame.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Passengers and the conspiracy method

I care about the family members and victims of 9/11, and that is the reason why I spend as much time as I do researching 9/11, among other important reasons. I just don't see how speculating about fake passenger deaths (without any credible evidence--suspicions aren't enough) helps us accomplish anything. Maybe there are people who disagree with this, but that's my feeling.

I'd just like to see evidence, not open-ended speculation. It is one thing to call evidence fake, it is another to prove it. Most of the fake 9/11 evidence is easily shown to be fake. But, if you start with the assumption that all evidence is faked without proving it, you are simply using what I call the conspiracy method--it assumes all evidence that disproves your hypothesis is worthless.

For example, I could say to you, I know the official 9/11 story is false, therefore all evidence that supports it is false. While that may sound reasonable to you at the moment, I could then turn around and say--well the planes weren't real because that supports the official story. I could say, well all of the evidence used in plane strikes on tv was faked because we "know" the official story is false. "Anything that supports what the government has told us is fake." That's circular logic, and people don't just use it when it comes to "TV fakery."

It's not whether the evidence supports the official story or not--it's is the evidence credible or not? Is there credible evidence? Is there contradictory evidence? How do we judge what is credible evidence? My view is corroborated evidence is the best evidence, and that's how we find out what happened on 9/11. Evidence that is confirmed by other types as well as quantity of evidence is the most compelling, and most trustworthy.

11 features of demolition combined, eyewitness statements of explosions, thermite, dust clouds--that's the strongest case for corroborating evidence that we have on the events of 9/11. This is overwhelmingly compelling evidence because it is corroborated by so many different types of evidence.

weakly corroborated evidence? Passenger DNA from the planes found at ground zero

What basis do we have to determine whether that is legitimate evidence or not? What would convince you that it is real or not real? What could I do to prove to you that it is real?

If you say, well "I'm not going to believe that because it supports the official story, and anything that supports the official story is suspicious" isn't good enough. We need an investigation and there are simply some things we can't get answers to, and the question of what really happened to the passengers is probably one of those areas. I'm not prepared to simply call evidence fake because I THINK it's fake... let's get an investigation to determine that.

I can't really corroborate this evidence--that's true, and I acknowledge that. Personally I would think it is strange for the 9/11 perps to make a newspaper story about passenger DNA just to convince us that the planes that hit the towers were the alleged ones. What reason would they have to keep the passenger alive if they were simply normal citizens? In the Northwoods document, the passengers were agents, and therefore they had a motive to save these lives, but if this wasn't the case on 9/11, what is the motive?

I don't have the answers to these questions. I can only speculate, and where speculation can help lead to the truth it is valuable--where it can't it isn't. What I personally think about the flights is really irrelevant, because I can't prove my opinion. I don't have a clue what happened on those planes besides what I think probably did and did not happen.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

so we should only speculate

so we should only speculate when Arabesque deems it appropriate huh? unbelievable. this is like how you tell everyone to shut up about the Pentagon, even though history and PROOF shows that that "speculation" has brought hundreds of thousands(possibly more) into this movement. you think that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon right? shouldnt we NOT speculate about that until we get an investigation? see the flawed logic there? and again, the whole "your disrespecting the victims" thing was really low. its too bad you said that, thats on record now.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

moot "The Central


"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Kevin Barrett had a pretty

Kevin Barrett had a pretty good discussion on his radio program with Susan Clarke, an environmental health expert and researcher of cell phone technology, about the calls. She has done her own research on cell phone range possibilities, and they also talk about Dewdney's work.

You can hear or download the mp3 at Scroll down to the May 29 entry.

Fred W

This entire "cell phone

This entire "cell phone call" debate has been one gigantic red herring.

The phone calls from the planes were real, in which the passengers described real events taking place on the planes. The planes were indeed hijacked by "Middle Eastern looking" men-- but those men were not al-Qaeda Arabs; they were professional agents of a foreign state who were disguised as and impersonating Arabs for the purpose of framing Arabs. The phone calls were part of the plan: what better way to frame your enemy than to have real people witness a crime committed by you while disguised as your enemy, and then report that mistaken impression to their loved ones in an extremely emotional setting?

The phone calls, then, are real, and they were made with airphones, not cell phones. The claims that some of these calls were made by cell phones are either deliberate disinformation, or are errors.

Keep in mind that the billing records for nearly every single phone call made in this country are all kept by a single company-- an Israeli company called AMDOCS. Israel also happens to be a country with a long history of dressing up its intelligence agents as Arabs and then sending them out to commit horrific terror acts, with the blame falling on Arab "terrorists."

Therefore, none of the evidence produced by AMDOCS can be trusted.

"The Fox News exposé also reported on the near-total penetration of US communications facilities by Israel, through two "private" Israeli telecommunications companies, Amdocs, Ltd., and Comverse Infosys, which, together, handle virtually all the billing records and government wiretaps in the US. Indeed, many of the "art students" not only had "intelligence expertise," but also worked for Amdocs "or other companies in Israel that specialize in wiretapping."" -Justin Raimondo/

Forget about the cell phone debate. The calls were real and were made with airphones. They tell us what happened on the planes: a phony "Arab" hijacking carried out by professional agents who were armed with guns, but used knives on the passengers to promulgate the misconception of Arab savagery and fanaticism.

[P.S. That being said, it is possible that some of the calls were faked-- as opposed to being faked. It is likely, for example, that the real Todd Beumer never got on FL93, and that "his" call-- a 45 minute call to a complete stranger-- was actually made by someone else, either on the flight or on the ground.]

Nice logical fallacy you got going there

" Israeli company called AMDOCS.....
Therefore, none of the evidence produced by AMDOCS can be trusted."

You need to step back and get a grip on Reality and logical and critical thinking.

Unless you just want to use disinformation and such to further whatever agenda it is you are trying to achieve.

But I, for one, will not let you get away with it unchallenged.

(regardless as to what percentage of what you say I believe might be true)

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Forensic 9/11ologist

R( \ )n P( \ )ul 2( \ )08 ==> A Woman's Right To Choose Is Sacrosanct!

I do know that in David Ray

I do know that in David Ray Griffin's book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, he points out the fact that flight 77 didn't even have airphones onboard. If it is physically impossible for the phone calls to be made via cell phone then we can come to the conclusion that they were faked. In my oppinion, that just adds to the ever mounting evidence that points toward total inside job.

I believe that DRG has sinced "expanded" on this...

You can find out more (including MP3's of radio broadcast) at :     (scroll down a bit)


For the full text only article, see...

Hope this helps

Best wishes

Chris and Arabesque

Are invited to continue their discussion over at the thread;