Support Independent Journalism!
9/11 Blogger receives no foundational or corporate support other than from the ads below. We depend on your support. Help us cover the news and improve the site by becoming a monthly donor.
Down Payments As Low As $0 877-432-5626
I don't know whether anyone on here is aware of a new answer message. I am not too sure what to make of this. A strong part of me says it's disinfo.
(I can't figure out how to place the clip in the message)
Clicking on the following link will get you to a trial exhibits zip file. Within the zip file there are flash files. Oddly, none of the phone audio files can be played.
Link to trial exhibits
Found this over at 911forum.co.uk
Interesting. A report that suggests the passengers were instructed to call, contra the usual depiction that the passengers snuck calls past the hijackers from their seats.
What would the "al-Qaeda" hijackers have to gain by forcing these calls? Wouldn't the calls increase the chance of at least one plane being intercepted?
IMO,the two most significant items in the video are the interview with Lorne, CeeCee's husband where he confirms the call was made from a cell phone and the pictures of her personal effects. Odd the ID was recovered but the substantial landing gear was not.
U.S. v. MOUSSAOUI Vol. XVII-A
2 Q. The next caller, please.
3 Who is this caller?
4 A. This is CeeCee Lyles. She was a flight attendant for 93.
5 She placed two phone calls, one utilizing the airphone from row 32 6 ABC, and a second she utilized her personal cell phone.
7 Q. And both of those were to her husband, is that correct?
8 A. Yes, sir, in Florida.
9 Q. Okay, we are going to leave
I was disappointed that this video and Alex Jones both have jumped on the quote of the prosecutor in the Gitmo trial.
If they would have read the entire article, they would have seen that the prosecutor was quoting what he had heard that Bin Laden said about the 911 attacks. Initially, I too thought this was an admission by the prosecutor that 93 was shot down. But after carefully reading the article, I understood it was a quote.
I don't believe anything that has or will come out of those trials and I don't believe Bin Laden actually said what the prosecutor said that he said, but the article, although poorly written, indicates that the prosecutor was quoting what he heard that Bin Laden said. This was not the prosecutor acknowledging that flight 93 was shot down.
The RAWSTORY headline was extremely misleading, which may have added to the confusion.
I think RAWSTORY is generally a good source of information, but on this one they initially got it wrong. Later they corrected the headline.
I think we should be accurate even though the whole Gimo trial shit is pure propaganda.
As for the phone call, I don't know what to think at this moment.
There is plenty of evidence without this piece, so I will wait to see what shakes out, if anything.
IMO the importance of whether 93 crashed in a death plunge after a cockpit struggle, or was shot down has been overstated, and i wonder if the disinfo campaign is trying to keep us focused on this. Even if it could be proved there was a shoot down, the authorities could argue that it was justified to protect targets on the ground, and that they lied to keep operational details secret, in the interests of national security etc etc...
If it can be established that the 9/11 Commission and the government lied about what happened to United 93,
then a reasonable person would conclude that everything originating from known liars is suspect. Thus a legitimate investigation into 9/11 would be justified in the minds of all reasonable people..
If United 93 was shot down, it is very important to explore why it was shot down. If it was shot down, was it shot down because passengers had gained control of the aircraft? IMO,such an event would have likely exposed the entire plot for what it was.