Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners: Response to Questions Evoked by My Fifth Estate Interview by Prof David Ray Griffin
On November 27, 2009, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Fifth Estate program aired a show entitled “9/11: The Unofficial Story,”1 for which I, along with a few other members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, was interviewed. In the most important part of my interview, I pointed out that, according to the FBI’s report on phone calls from the airliners provided in 2006 for the Moussaoui trial, Barbara Olson’s only call from Flight 77 was “unconnected” and hence lasted “0 seconds.” Although this Fifth Estate program showed only a brief portion of my discussion of alleged phone calls from the 9/11 airliners, its website subsequently made available a 22-minute video containing this discussion.2
Shortly thereafter, a portion of this video, under the title “David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Cell Phone Calls: Exclusive CBC Interview,” was posted on You Tube,3 after which it was posted on 911 Blogger.4 This latter posting resulted in considerable discussion, during which some claims contradicting my position were made. In this essay, I respond to the most important of these claims, namely:
1. The FBI has not admitted that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners on 9/11 were impossible.
2. There is no evidence that some of the reported 9/11 phone calls were faked.
3. American Airlines’ Boeing 757s, and hence its Flight 77, had onboard phones.
4. The FBI’s report on phone calls from the 9/11 airliners did not undermine Ted Olson’s report about receiving phone calls from his wife.
The four sections of this essay will respond to these four claims in order.
1. The FBI on the Possibility of High-Altitude Cell Phone Calls in 2001
I have suggested that the FBI’s report to the Moussaoui trial in 2006 implied its acceptance of the argument, made by some members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners would have been impossible, or at least virtually so. One critic, however, said: “The FBI hasn't admitted anything about the possibility of making cell phone calls at 30,000 feet.”5 It is true that the FBI has never explicitly stated that such calls are impossible, or at least too improbable to affirm. But its report for the Moussaoui trial, I have argued, implies an acceptance of this view.
My argument for this claim involves three points: (1) Immediately after 9/11, the FBI had described, or at least accepted the description of, about 15 of the reported calls from the airliners as cell phone calls. (2) In 2003, a prominent member of the 9/11 Truth Movement argued persuasively that, given the cell phone technology available in 2001, calls from high-altitude airliners would have been impossible. (3) The FBI report for the Moussaoui trial affirmed only two cell phone calls from the airliners, both of which were from United Flight 93 after it had descended to 5,000 feet. I will expand on each of these three points.
Reported Calls Originally Described as Cell Phone Calls
Approximately 15 of the reported phone calls from the four airliners were described at the time as cell phone calls. About 10 of those were from Flight 93. For example:
• A Washington Post story said: “[Passenger Jeremy] Glick's cell phone call from Flight 93 and others like it provide the most dramatic accounts so far of events aboard the four hijacked aircraft during the terrifying hours of Tuesday morning, and they offer clues about how the hijackings occurred.”6
• A Newsweek story about United 93 said: “Elizabeth [Honor] Wainio, 27, was speaking to her stepmother in Maryland. Another passenger, she explains, had loaned her a cell phone and told her to call her family.”7
• According to the FBI’s interview of Fred Fiumano, a close friend of UA 93 passenger Marion Britton, she called to tell him about the hijacking and then gave him the number of the phone she was using. Since this was not the number of her own cell phone, Fiumano assumed that Britton, who was traveling with a colleague from work, “had borrowed a cell phone.”8
• Reporting that UA 93 flight attendant Sandy Bradshaw had called her husband from United 93, the Greensboro News & Record, besides speaking of their “cellular phone conversation,” also reported that she had told her husband that “many passengers were making cell phone calls.”9
• A story about Deena Burnett, who reported receiving three to five calls from her husband, Tom Burnett, said: “Deena Burnett clutched the phone. ... She was at once terrified, yet strangely calmed by her husband's steady voice over his cell phone.”10
Two calls from United Flight 175 were also originally described as cell phone calls:
• A BBC story said: “Businessman Peter Hanson, who was with his wife and baby on the United Airlines flight 175 that hit the World Trade Center, called his father in Connecticut. Despite being cut off twice, he managed to report how men armed with knives were stabbing flight attendants.”11 An Associated Press story said that “a minister confirmed the cell phone call to Lee Hanson.”12
• A Washington Post story said: “Brian Sweeney called his wife Julie: ‘Hi, Jules,’ Brian Sweeney was saying into his cell phone. ‘It's Brian. We've been hijacked, and it doesn't look too good.’”13
It was widely reported, likewise, that two people had made cell phone calls from American Flight 77. One of these was flight attendant Renee May, about whom a story’s headline read: “Flight Attendant Made Call on Cell Phone to Mom in Las Vegas.”14
The other reported cell-phone caller from Flight 77 was CNN commentator Barbara Olson, wife of Theodore “Ted” Olson, the US solicitor general. On the afternoon of 9/11, CNN put out a story stating that, according to Ted Olson, his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77.”15 Olson, who reportedly told the FBI the same day that he did not know “if the calls were made from her cell phone or the telephone on the plane,”16 went back and forth between these two positions in his public statements.17 He even endorsed the onboard phone version in what seem to have been his two final public statements on the issue, made to the Federalist Society on November 16, 2001, and to London’s Daily Telegraph on March 5, 2002.18 But these statements of the alternative version went virtually unnoticed in the American press, as shown by the fact that, a year after 9/11, CNN was still reporting, with no public contradiction from the FBI, that Barbara Olson had used a cell phone.19
Finally, there were reportedly two connected cell phone calls from American Flight 11, both made by flight attendant Madeline “Amy” Sweeney. The 9/11 Commission Report later stated:
“[Flight attendant] Amy Sweeney got through to the American flight Services Office in Boston but was cut off after she reported someone was hurt aboard the flight. Three minutes later, Sweeney was reconnected to the office and began relaying updates to the manager, Michael Woodward. . . . The phone call between Sweeney and Woodward lasted about 12 minutes.”20
An affidavit from the FBI agent who interviewed Woodward that same day stated that, according to Woodward, Sweeney had been “using a cellular telephone.”21
It is likely that, except for the Olson case and one or two others, the newspapers got the information for their stories primarily from the FBI, which gave the impression of supporting the people’s claims that they had received calls from cell phones. This was the case, as we have just seen, with regard to the reported calls from Amy Sweeney. With regard to Deena Burnett, the FBI report said:
“Starting at approximately 6:39 a.m. (PST), Burnett received a series of three to five cellular phone calls from her husband. . . . Approximately ten minutes later Deena Burnett received another call from her husband. . . . Approximately five minutes later she received another cell phone call from her husband.”22
With regard to Lee Hanson, the FBI report said: “He believed his son was calling from his cellular telephone.”23
It is clear, therefore, that the FBI was not publicly raising objections to – and even appeared to be endorsing - the notion that there were several cell phone calls from the 9/11 flights, even though these flights were reportedly at quite high altitudes when the calls were received. In the report presented to the Moussaoui trial by the FBI in 2006, however, this apparent endorsement would disappear – probably because of limitations on what cell phones could do.
Cell Phone Limitations
Given the cell phone technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were virtually – and perhaps completely – impossible. And yet many of the reported cell phone calls occurred when the planes were above 25,000 or even 40,000 feet24 and also lasted a minute or more – with Amy Sweeney’s reported call even lasting for 12 minutes.25
Three problems have been pointed out: (1) The cell phone in those days had to complete a “handshake” with a cellsite on the ground, which took several seconds, so a cell phone in a high-speed plane would have had trouble staying connected to a cellsite long enough to complete a call. (2) The signals were sent out horizontally, from cellsite to cellsite, not vertically. Although there was some leakage upward, the system was not designed to activate cell phones at high altitudes.26 (3) Receiving a signal was made even more difficult by the insulation provided by the large mass of an airliner.
Well-known Canadian scientist and mathematician A. K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American, reported early in 2003 on experiments showing that these difficulties would have rendered impossible at least most of the reported cell phone calls from the 911 airliners.27 His experiments involved both single- and double-engine airplanes.
Dewdney found that, in a single-engine plane, successful calls could be counted on only under 2,000 feet. Above that altitude, they became increasingly unlikely. At 20,000 feet,
“the chance of a typical cellphone call making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred.... [T]he probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand.”
The likelihood of 13 successful calls, Dewdney added, would be “infinitesimal.”28 In later experiments using a twin-engine plane, which has greater mass and hence provides greater insulation from electronic signals, Dewdney found that the success rate decayed to 0 percent at 7,000 feet.29 A large airliner, having much greater mass, would provide far more insulation – a fact, Dewdney added, that “is very much in harmony with many anecdotal reports ...that in large passenger jets, one loses contact during takeoff, frequently before the plane reaches 1000 feet altitude.”30 Dewdney concluded, therefore, that numerous successful cell phone calls from airliners flying above 30,000 feet would have been “flat out impossible.”31
Such calls would become possible only several years later. In 2004, Qualcomm announced a successful demonstration of a fundamentally new kind of cell phone technology, involving a “picocell,” that would allow passengers “to place and receive calls as if they were on the ground.” American Airlines announced that this new technology was expected to be commercially available in 2006.32 This technology, in fact, first became available on commercial flights in March 2008.33
In light of the fact that the 9/11 attacks occurred many years before this technology was available, the FBI faced a serious problem.
The FBI’s Revised Public Position
(For the rest of the essay, including the footnotes and sources, click here.)
- Adam Syed's blog
- Login to post comments
DRG
As usual, DRG makes the Tweeting, American Idol watching, Facebook, MSM and Fundation Fund educated public look silly with his measured intellectual reason.
Fake Calls and flyovers
It didn't take long to see quotes like this in the DRG article...
"An affidavit from the FBI agent who interviewed Woodward that same day stated that, according to Woodward, Sweeney had been “using a cellular telephone.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20100...
He uses this as his "evidence"...
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents/fbiaffidavit9.htm
Let's be honest. The reason DRG and others want desperately to believe that the calls were "fake" is because they don't want to believe there were really hijackers. Well, to bad. That's how they were sure they could get away with it. And the notion makes no sense.
Let's take a look at some original FBI reports....
"WOODWARD was unsure whether SWEENEY was on the on-board phones or a cellular telephone):"
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-14-FBI-FD302-michael-woodward2.pdf
"Before the plane crashed, SWEENEY stated thatAA flight
attendant, BETTY ONG, was in the last row of the coach section
talking to someone on the air phone."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-14-FBI-FD302-michael-woodward2.pdf
"During the call MICHAEL WOODWARD, AA Flight Services
Manager, Boston, told her that he received a telephone call from AA flight 11. The caller was flight attendant AMY SWEENY. According to WOODWARD, SWEENY's call came from either a cell telephone or an air phone on the aircraft."
"The call from SWEENY was initially received by EVY NUNEZ,
manager on duty at AA Boston. NUNEZ became very distraught early in the conversation; WOODWARD took over the call from NUNEZ."
"SWEENY told WOODWARD that the flight had been hijacked and
the number one flight attendant had been stabbed. The number one flight attendant was in the first class section of the aircraft. The
number five flight attendant had also been stabbed in the business class section of the aircraft. According to SWEENY, the number five attendant's injury was not life threatening. SWEENY also relayed that one hijacker cut the throat of a passenger in business class. That passenger was believed to have died as a result of his wound."
"SWEENY believed there were three hijackers in the business
class section of the aircraft. All three hijackers were of Middle
Eastern decent. At least one of the hijackers spoke English very well. The hijackers occupied seats number 9B, 9E, 9G, and 10C."
"Sometime after 8:00 AM, <>told him that two flight attendants had been stabbed and were administered oxygen."
"Shortly thereafter, the AA flight attendant AMY SWEENEY
called on the airphone from Flight 11 and stated the flight had been hijacked. SWEENEY told WOODWARD the #1 attendant (KAREN MARTIN) and the #5 attendant (BOBBY ARUSTIGUE) has been stabbed. SWEENEY also stated that a business class passenger was stabbed and a doctor and nurse were caring for him. SWEENEY stated that three (3) hijackers gained access to the cockpit and the flight crew could not gain access or communicate with the pilots or the cockpit.
"The hijackers were sitting in seats 10B,9C, and 9G or 9D
and 9G. SWEENEY described the hijackers as three Middle Eastern males. One of the males spoke good English and another spoke poor English."
"As the conversation continued, SWEENEY told WOODWARD the
gentleman in business class is not going to make it because his
throat is slashed and he is bleeding severely. She said that she did not think the captain was flying the plane. SWEENEY described how they were flying low over the water, then said "OH my God" and the call was terminated."
"Before the plane crashed, SWEENEY stated that AA flight
attendant, BETTY ONG, was in' the last row of the coach section
talking to someone on the air phone."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-American-Airlines.pdf
And here is what ONG the other flight attendant was saying on that airphone call....
"the individual who placed the call was a Flight Attendant named BETTY. BETTY further identified herself as being Flight Attendant Number 3 on AA Flight 11. Flight Attendant Number 3 was the AA designation for the attendant who serviced the coach section of the plane and was typically stationed in the rear of the aircraft. BETTY (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) (LNU) was questioned as to> appeared to be dead. Flight Attendant Number 1 was stabbed and in serious condition. Flight Attendant Number 1 had been placed on oxygen. Flight Attendant Number 5 had also been stabbed, but was not described as being in serious condition. <>listened as BETTY relayed that a passenger who was seated in 10B was currently in the cockpit. This passenger's name was provided and phonetically reported as SAMIR AL ASAQUAMI."
whether there were any injuries. BETTY stated the individual who was seated in 9B, further described as <
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-betty-ong.pdf
"I'm the Operations Specialist on duty at the time and
I would say at approximately 8:20, one of our
employees received a phone call from, from a flight
attendant on one of our flights. She answered the
call through our International Resolution Desk who in
turn hit the emergency button and at that time I
started listening on a call. The flight attendant's
name was BETTY ONG and she was relaying to us what
was happening on the aircraft."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-betty-ong-tape.pdf
Calls from the AIRPHONES. Yea, it sure makes lots of sense to put thru "fake calls" almost immediatly in order to notify officials of the attacks, as soon as possible...BTW here is another AIRPHONE call .....
"BINGHAM then said, "I'm on a flight from Newark to San
Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane, and they say they have a bomb. I'm calling you from the air phone."
"......."You've got to believe me. It's true."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-19-FBI-FD302-mark-kendall-bingham2...
Here is a real "kooky" idea.....how about we stop pointing fingers at the victims of the attacks and say "you guys were all fooled, you just think you talked to your loved ones, that was fake", and you witnesses and victims at the pentagon....you were all fooled, you just think you saw a plane fly into it, you were fooled, it was fake."
This is complete nonsense that discredits and marginalizes.
whatever you say, but
I don't think Hani Hanjour was piloting the plane to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon was not impacted by a Boeing. As to the rest, although there may have been hijackings, perhaps even simulated hijackings which either went live or were diverted, we just don't know what took place, but I also do not think those were the hijacked aircraft which impacted the Twin Towers either. We just don't know what took place. We DO know they blew up the twin towers killing thousands whereby the plane impacts were a ruse to sell a fake cause as to their total destruction not long thereafter.
Anyway, you won't find me shilling for the official story or trying to guard that Big Lie. There are some however, who do so knowingly, but who, unlike the vast majority of Americans, have done much of the research and have access to the information, all of which proves that the official story about 9/11 was a lie and a ruse - shame on them..!
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...
You say: "The reason DRG and
You say: "The reason DRG and others want desperately to believe that the calls were "fake" is because they don't want to believe there were really hijackers."
Where is your support for this statement? I do not perceive any desperation to believe anything in any of DRG's arguments. I read his piece and found it relevant, well-argued, and convincing, as far as it goes--even DRG says in his conclusion: "If asked which part of the official story can be most definitively shown to be false, I would speak not of the alleged phone calls but of the destruction of the World Trade Center..."
You say: "Here is a real "kooky" idea.....how about we stop pointing fingers at the victims of the attacks..."
I find this argument very weak. Firstly, it is a common and specious argument used against 9/11 truth in general. Secondly, I do not believe DRG is doing that. Thirdly, 9/11 is everybody's business. And fourthly, wouldn't you want your murder or the murder of your loved one fully investigated? I am 100% certain that I would and that I would never argue against anyone, especially on emotional grounds, for pursuing the truth wherever it might lead.
I favor a full and open discussion of the phone issue and all other reasonable 9/11 issues. I am fine with people taking different positions on the matter, but do not agree with the two positions of yours mentioned above.
DRG again says it very well: "...the importance of the evidence against the official account provided by analyzing the alleged phone calls should not be minimized. If the official story is false, then we should expect every major dimension of it to be false..."
At the very least, DRG's work in this area has provided very strong evidence that there must be an independent investigation if we want to find the truth.
________________
JFK on secrecy and the press
Offensive theory backed up by no evidence
Alvin R said..."You say: "The reason DRG and others want desperately to believe that the calls were "fake" is because they don't want to believe there were really hijackers."
"Where is your support for this statement?"
Why don't you ask DRG if he thinks there were hijackers on the planes for your answer.
Alvin R said...."You say: "Here is a real "kooky" idea.....how about we stop pointing fingers at the victims of the attacks..."
"I find this argument very weak. Firstly, it is a common and specious argument used against 9/11 truth in general."
No kidding, I wonder why?
Alvin R said.."Secondly, I do not believe DRG is doing that."
He is doing exactly that, except in the case of Mr Olson in which he flat out called him a liar.
Alvin R said.."Thirdly, 9/11 is everybody's business."
So?
Alvin R said.."DRG again says it very well: "...the importance of the evidence against the official account provided by analyzing the alleged phone calls should not be minimized. If the official story is false, then we should expect every major dimension of it to be false..."
So, 9/11 didn't happen on 9/11? And Planes weren't involved? This is nonsense.
Alvin R said..."At the very least, DRG's work in this area has provided very strong evidence that there must be an independent investigation if we want to find the truth."
Very strong evidence that going on wild goose chases, chasing after silly theories that have no evidence behind them yea.
Are you aware that the reason for saying the "calls are fake" is because the calls prove there were hijackers. That means if just one call is real the whole "fake calls fairytail goes out the window".
Explain to the forum your evidence that Betty Ong's Airphone call is fake.
Besides, the whole notion of "you can't make calls on cell phones" is BS anyway. The airlines tried to convince people it was "dangerous" and the real reason is they want you to use airphones because it makes them more money.....
How come cell phones sworked in 1996?......
"The pilot departed San Jose, California, on a cross-country flight to Sisters, Oregon. He obtained a standard preflight weather briefing. Visual flight was not recommended. Cumulus buildups were reported to the pilot. The pilot indicated that he may be overflying the cloud tops. He did not file a flight plan. The pilot's wife was driving to the same location and they talked by cell phone while en route. When the pilot failed to arrive at the destination a search was started. According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent."
http://www.aircraftone.com/aircraft/accidents/20001208X06269.asp
How come people flying on planes on 9/11 could use their cell phones on other planes, but according to DRG they can't on the planes that were hijacked? Explain that one......
"Downs, a software salesman, learned of the terrorist attacks while on a commercial flight returning home from South America. The captain explained that "terrorist attacks on airplanes" meant they were making an emergency landing. People on board using cell phones soon discovered the true nature of the day's events."
"We found out from people using their phones that the World Trade Center was hit, and some unspecified area in Washington," Downs recalls.
http://news.cnet.com/Cell-phones-to-take-flight---page-2/2100-1039_3-572...
Useing cell phones on planes is nothing extraordinary.....
"Over the course of three months in late 2003, we investigated the possibility that portable electronic devices interfere with a plane's safety instruments by measuring the RF spectrum inside commercial aircraft cabins. What we found was disturbing. Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations,
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed
They prefer you not use cell phones...not because you can't.....
"Sunday, July 22, 2001
But a study commissioned by the FAA in 1996 failed to find a single instance in which equipment was affected by a wireless phone. Nevertheless, electricity from cellular phones can, in theory, interfere with aircraft systems. For this reason, Boeing and the FAA support the FCC ban."
It's because they want your money......
Sunday, July 22, 2001
"Although many airplanes have public "air phones," passengers flinch at the fee of $6 per minute. (Airlines get a cut of the profits, which casts suspicion on why airlines want to keep cell phones turned off in the air.)"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/0...
How come people used cell phones 2 months before 9/11, and other passengers used them on 9/11, but if someone on the hijacked plane used one it's suddenly suspicious? Because the whole theory is BS is why...
Sunday, July 22, 2001
"I've seen passengers hunkered in their seats, whispering into Nokias. I've watched frequent fliers scurry for a carry-on as muffled ringing emanates from within. Once, after the lavatory line grew to an unreasonable length, I knocked on the door. A guilt- ridden teenager emerged. She admitted that she'd been in there for half an hour, talking to her boyfriend on a cell phone."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/0...
"In 1999, oil worker Neil Whitehouse refused to switch off his mobile phone on a British Airways flight. When a cabin attendant advised him to turn off the unit because it could interfere with navigation systems, Whitehouse replied, "Why? Are we going to get lost?"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/0...
Published: July 7, 1999
"There is no indication of when -- or if -- cell phone use might ever be allowed on airlines in flight. Though no airline official likes to discuss this, on-board telephones available at airline seats generate revenue that is lost when customers use personal phones."
"On the subject of cell phones, Singapore Airlines, a popular carrier among business travelers, said yesterday that starting July 15 it would offer free cell phone rentals in Singapore for two days to economy-class passengers holding round-trip tickets. Customers must pay only the normal air-time charges for using the phones while in Singapore."
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/07/business/business-travel-some-airlines...
Posted on ZDNet News: Oct 5, 1999
"The airlines are misleading the traveling public," says John Sheehan, who headed the RTCA study and says he has often used his own cell phone in the sky. "There is no real connection between cell-phone frequencies and the frequencies of the navigation" or communications systems."
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-95986.html?legacy=zdnn
How come one or two of these calls didn't show up on the phone bill.....here's your answer.......
"The cellular signal from the air is also especially strong, since it is unimpeded by buildings or other ground clutter. That often means it can jump on a frequency already in use on the ground, causing interruptions or hang-ups. And airborne cellular calls are sometimes free because the signal is moving so fast between cells that the software on the ground has difficulty recording the call, says Bentley Alexander, a senior engineer at AT&T's wireless unit."
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-95986.html?legacy=zdnn
How come cell phones could be used in 1999, and even on 9/11 but not on the hijacked flights? Because the whole theory is BS and is backed with zero evidence.......
Oct 5, 1999
"Carr, a pilot, says he regularly used his cell phone while flying on commercial planes in the late 1980s. He says he is convinced the airline ban was, and is, "bogus" and not founded in science."
"Sheehan, who is also a certified pilot, notes that cell phones are regularly used on private and corporate planes "thousands of times every day" without incident. He says he has dialed from the air on many occasions. When asked whether cell phones should be included among the list of devices such as laptop computers that are now permitted above 10,000 feet, he says "that would be OK. It's not a problem."
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-95986.html?legacy=zdnn
"We found out from people using their phones that the World Trade Center was hit, and some unspecified area in Washington," Downs recalls."
http://news.cnet.com/Cell-phones-to-take-flight---page-2/2100-1039_3-572...
"but we were on the Delta flight [1989], the one out of three 8am flights departing Logan that did not get hijacked. Instead, we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight"
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/delta_flight_1989_9_11/travel...
Not.
Your anecdotal, third-party testimonies are hollow.
I have tried to make calls from commercial airlines at all portions of the flight. Yes, I am unruly. But the fact is, I was never able to hold a connection to a tower (far less would be a connected phone call) for more than 30 seconds in the initial take-off phase, and that quickly that tapered off to zilch by the time we reached even 20,000 ft. Surprisingly, for short moments (1-3 seconds) bars would appear on the phone while near cruising altitude, but those were like the desert islands in a vast sea of silence.
You try it, and then tell me how convincing the story of the girl on her cellphone for half an hour in the bathroom sounds. More likely, she had constipation but really didn't want to share that news to explain her length of time in the can, and fell back on a ground-level excuse to cover her embarrassment.
And the other stories are equally lacking in credibility and proof. I have NEVER heard anyone's cell phone ring on a plane in all my flying. Have you?
Go ahead and try to prove your own stories true. Call me from 45,000 ft and prove me wrong. You won't be able to do it.
The Old reliable comeback...
It's all Fake!
Got it.
Then I get outed...
EyeOnTheBall said..."Go ahead and try to prove your own stories true."
Yup, you caught me red handed, those are all my stories that I planted before 9/11 on websites I made up. Shhhh don't tell anybody.
A little bit of night music
Cass Sunstein to the rescue:
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/
An Alternative Hypothesis Regarding Passenger Phone Calls
...
...
Despite hearing over and over again about how emotional the passenger phone calls were, that has never been what I've heard. Instead, I've heard very flat affect, sometimes sounding even bored, sometimes as if there was someone urging them on / coaxing them on in the background.
There's not one that I've heard (granted, I haven't heard them all) that sounds right to me. If I were on one of those airplanes and called someone I loved, trust me, you'd hear panic, error, horror, in my voice, even if controlled due to my function as a flight attendant. The recording I've heard have never passed the smell test for me.
I've also not been convinced that the voices have been faked. While I accept that the technology to do so exists, if I wanted to convince a nation to be afraid and I was faking those conversations, every one of them would be dripping with high emotion, drama and pathos. Those that I've heard don't come close.
Awhile ago, I arrived at an alternative theory and sent it off to a a group at that time part of the movement. I never received a reply or heard or read another word about it since. I also don't recall hearing or reading anything by anyone else postulating this general idea. If I were rewriting this now (I can't, I'm too busy), there might be some things I'd change regarding where this might have been done. But, despite minor details, I hope someone will read this and seriously consider the general idea here.
Don't toss the baby out with the bath water. Focus on my general contention and see whether you think any of it has any merit. If so, take it where you will - or not. My goal here isn't to get PERSONAL feedback, critiques, etc. This is for the overall community to discuss if there's any merit to it. If you don't think so, don't waste your time replying.
I'm just tossing it out as a general idea and this post seemed the perfect place to do it.
Here it is...
An Alternative Hypothesis Regarding Passenger Phone Calls
If all the passengers landed in Cleveland and were taken to a military hanger where cell phones could be used, why not have told them at some point that they were part of a simulation (sim) important for national security - part of the large disaster drill that we now know was going on.
Before they were all moved from 3 planes to 1 plane, they may have been told that the government was sorry that they couldn't be told before they boarded the plane. It just had to be kept secret to make it most realistic. Besides, hijacked passengers never know beforehand. They would also, of course, be told that it was to help the the country (and the airlines) prepare for a national emergency. It was their duty and an honor to participate. They might even have been shown something "proving" that there were disaster exercises in progress.
They ALSO would have been told that their families and the airlines already knew about the simulation and were themselves participating. In other words, don't worry about frightening anyone when you call them or not getting to your destinations on time, they already know that. We'll see that you get to where you're going immediately after the simulation is complete.) All of you - and your families and the official ground airline contacts -are like you, all playing parts.
Then they would have given them a hypothetical scenario (somewhat different specifics for each palne), one in which their plane was hijacked by Islamic-looking people with box cutters, etc, sitting in row x, y, z and that a flight attendant and a passenger had already been stabbed and killed OR the hijackers are now in the cockpit and you're going to storm it with other passengers OR their plane was about to be slammed into a building, etc. The common detail they was that they were going to die ... so say what you would say and talk like this would be the last time you were talking to these people.
Again, don't worry about them, they're all in on it. Just say what you would actually say if the situation was completely real. And hey, you guys and your families are true patriots to take a couple hours out of your day to help you, your loved ones, your fellow citizens stay safe. Your country salutes you!
I'm no idiot, yet for as strange as this scenario sounds AFTER 911, BEFORE 911 I might actually have believed what I was being told and have gone right along with it. If the fake set-up were run well (and we know that wouldn't have taken much, having since learned what the cabal is capable of ) there is probably no reason why I wouldn't have believed it all and glady helped out. Also, weren't there a lot of military, etc. on those 1/3 filled orginal flights. If they all stood up and said, yes, that's what's going on, it would only have added to the believability.
This kind of scenario would explain why all the phone calls would be so clear (were made on the ground in Cleveland) and why almost all of them sounded so unusually calm to those receiving the calls and messages ( and to me later hearing them!). The passengers believed it was a role play because that's what they were told.
The passengers may have been told that there would be a trial run of these phone call role plays on the ground ( in Cleveland), after which they would be part of the actual exercise in the air (with a fighter escort at some point?), just as there might be in a real situation. After the trial run on the ground (clear actual cell phone calls) they would have boarded a plane again (another plane? remote controlled? windowless? ...as in, sorry, but for something like this, you can't know where we're taking you... secured areas, you know)
Like Operation Northwoods, the military people ,etc., wouldn't get back on the plane. UNlike O.N. some people WOULD be on the doomed plane. What do you tell passengers about that - about so many not getting back on? They were needed only to reassure the passengers in flight about the on-going exercises, the need for their help and participation in them, etc. Now that you all know what's going on and the roles you're going to play once air born, these guys will be staying. ( Where are they now? Do we really even know exactly who they actually were??) B. Olson?... Maybe she was killed, her husband was getting tired of her or needed the insurance money or to sacrifice her would help his career, or maybe he was pressured to get her to go or she's in the witness protection program... OR is living in the same place that Ken Lay is living after he "died" where Bernie Madoff will join them, when he "dies."
I would like to think that those who planned these murders might have shown at least some mercy by allowing these people not to know "what hit them." This would have been done by allowing the passengers at some point to actually replay the sim in the air "for real." They may have been told that they had to pretend using non-working phones this time because cell phones didn't actually work at that height and the flight crew phones ...
But, what these people would not have known - even at the last second - was that the sim was no sim, it actually was "for real" - at least to the extent that all the passengers would - and did - die. shot out of the sky near Indian Lake, Pennsylvania or out over the ocean. (maybe just all their luggage transferred to a separate plane was blown up near Indian Lake. )
There were no Muslim hijackers, that's for sure
Mokeyboy, you raise many good points. I also found the voices of the passengers to be eeriely bored. A flight attendant, I believe it was Betty Ong, calmly relates about a co-worker being stabbed. If it were real, she would have been terrified, and she wasn't.
Another good point: if they were faked, they could've hired professional actors who would have conveyed raw emotion. That didnt' happen.
Seems like a strong possibility that the calls were made from the ground, but not necessarily from Cleveland. They could have boarded the passengers and then made an announcement of a mechanical difficulty, saying that the passengers would be taken by bus to another plane. Instead they are taken to a remote hanger.
How they got them to make those calls, I don't know. I have to disagree with you about passengers calmly accepting that their plans were disrupted for a military exercise. People could be heading to a wedding or a funeral, or to see a dying parent, and be extremely upset to be delayed several hours. It's also hard to imagine how any military exercise would require cell phone calls to family members. What possible military or training purpose would that serve?
I don't think the military passengers are alive. There were a high number of people with top secret security clearances on flight 77 who were involved in remote control aviation technology. They could be the guys who planned it, who needed to be eliminated so they could never talk about what they did.
There are so many suspicious things about the passengers. I've read that there seem to be very few family members of the passengers. We only hear about family members of those who died in the towers. I wonder if all these passengers really existed.
Before anybody jumps in, no, I don't bring up any of these ideas when talking to someone who still believes the OCT. I discuss these things only with those who might be able to add something of value to my understanding of the day's events.
my response
DRG is responding to these articles and the resultant discussion:
“David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Cell Phone Calls: Exclusive CBC Interview,” 911Blogger.com, December 19, 2009 (http://www.911blogger.com/node/22192 ).
jimd3100, “‘Fake’ Phone Calls? What The Evidence Shows,” 911Blogger.com, December 22, 2009 (http://911blogger.com/node/22214)
I have long been skeptical of the faked phone calls claims, and so I'd largely ignored the material on them until DRG's CBC interview, as I was focused on other research and used other evidence in my activism. When DRG's CBC interview was published at 911blogger, I looked around to see if anyone had debunked the claims, and came across SCL's articles. I briefly examined their arguments and the evidence, which seemed compelling. I then cited SLC's articles (without active links) at 911blogger- to illustrate the point that, not only was the 'no seatback phones/faked calls' claim contradicted by other evidence, the claim was being used against the 9/11 truth movement. After reading Griffin's current essay and doing more research, I'm still unconvinced that there's good evidence that the seatback phones were inoperable, or that the calls from Barbara to Ted Olson (or any the other calls) did not happen.
DRG spends the first 2 parts of his essay on the reports of cell phone calls, and posits that the most plausible explanation is they were faked. I still find it more plausible that the reports were mistaken. In any case, 'proof' the calls were faked is not provided.
In Part 3, DRG cites 4 pieces of evidence to support his theory that AA 77 didn't have operable cell phones on 9/11.
1) DRG quotes AA rep Chad Kinder saying, “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”
Notice Kinder says, "we do not have", not 'we did not have'. Then he asserts the passengers used their cell phones. It may be that Kinder simply didn't bother to check whether or not AA 757's had phones on 9/11; certainly his present tense statement doesn't support the notion that he actually did. He may not have researched the question, and simply spoke from belief, perhaps having been misled by the numerous MSM reports about cell phone calls.
In Balsamo's follow up interview with Kinder, Kinder could not recall having written the emails "over a year earlier", but said, “That sounds like an accurate statement." In other words, at the time of follow up he wasn't sure; his quoted statement "sounds like" it's accurate. I wouldn't call Kinder's statement 'strong evidence' for faked calls- it may simply be misinformation.
pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html
2) DRG: "The second new piece of information, supplied by Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, was a page from the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM), which was dated January 28, 2001. The first sentence of this page states: “The passenger telephone system was deactivated by ECO FO878.”
ECO FO878 has not been produced, only a document which refers to it. A date at the bottom of this document says 1/28/2001, but for some reason 2 fields in the top left next to the word "Date:" have been blacked out. The only explanation given for this is, "Proprietary information has been removed." Really? Dates are "proprietary information"?
pilotsfor911truth.org/AA757AMM.html
DRG acknowledges that the claim this document evidences a prior to 9/11 deactivation would seem to be contradicted by "A document, dated March 13, 2002, which was provided by someone using the alias AMTMAN, and which purports to be an American Airlines ECO (Engineering Change Order) for the deactivation of the telephone circuit breaker and toggle switch for B757s.101"
This document was published by SCL and was provided by an unnamed person; the person who supplied the document to Balsamo is also unnamed. Griffin doesn't challenge the authenticity of the SCL document, and while noting that the credibility of neither source can be verified, states that "the purported AMM page is consistent with the testimony of Customer Service Representative Chad Kinder, pilot Ralph Kolstad, and Public Relations Representative John Hotard, the purported ECO provided by AMTMAN is contradicted by the testimony of all of these past and present AA employees."
I've already pointed out that Kinder may be incorrect, there's no evidence that he actually researched the question, and he may have simply given an answer he believed was correct. Hotard's statement actually reinforces the claim that seatback phones were operable on 9/11, and that ECO FO878 didn't result in immediate deactivation of seatback phones on all AA 757's- see the following:
3) DRG: "The following statement of American Airlines Public Relations Representative John Hotard: “An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time [9/11/2001].” Following this statement, Hotard emphasized that photographs showing seatback phones in American 757s after 9/11 would not prove anything, for this reason: “We did two things: issued the engineering change orders to disconnect/disable the phones, but then did not physically remove the phones until the aircraft went . . . in for a complete overhaul.”97"
However, Hotard also says: "It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected." For some reason, DRG left this statement out, even though it's in the source he cites:
forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2730356&postcount=378
4) DRG cites as his 4th piece of evidence a statement by PFT member Cpt. Ralph Kolstad; “[T]he ‘air phones,’ as they were called, were . . . deactivated in early or mid 2001. They had been deactivated for quite some time prior to Sep 2001.” In response to a question about this statement, he added: “I have no proof, but I am absolutely certain that the phones were disconnected on the 757 long before Sep 2001. They were still physically installed in the aircraft, but they were not operational.”98"
So Kolstad's and Hotard's statements contradict each other, but in Hotard's case he cites "that aircraft's (AA 77) records." Kolstad, in emails to DRG and Balsamo which don't appear to be available online, refers to air phones being "disconnected on the 757 long before Sep 2001" in what is probably a general statement about the fleet. However, it's not clear from what DRG quotes that he's referring specifically to American Airlines, though that's the only fleet that's relevant. Kolstad's member page at PFT says, "B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines", but doesn't say when he worked for AA:
pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
In his statement to Patriots Question 9/11, Kolstad says, "One of the best books available, published about one year later, is David Icke’s book Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster. It has some tremendous research and analysis in it."
patriotsquestion911.com/Statement%20Kolstad.html
Personally, I question the credibility of someone that says something like that; David Icke maintains the world's powerbrokers are reptilian humanoids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke
In Part 4 DRG examines the alleged calls from Barbara Olson to Ted Olson. DRG spends a great deal of energy analyzing different elements and scenarios, but still doesn't provide proof the calls didn't happen. One notable section is where he takes issue with jimd3100's explanation for why there were connected calls without a record of who called;
jimd3100: “If you use a credit card and pay yourself you dial the number yourself and a record from the airphone is then made. She did that once and it didn't go through...you have the one recorded call, and the number dialed from the airphone. The others were made collect and therefor [sic] the operator dialed the number not the person using the airphone therefor [sic] the number called is unknown (not dialed on the airphone) but the time the airphone was used is known and recorded.”
DRG: "There are two problems with this explanation. First, as we already saw, only one of the calls from Barbara Olson reportedly received by her husband’s office came through an operator. The other one, Lori Keyton said, was a direct call. Second, it is simply not the case that collect calls made through operators leave no record. (Without a record, how would the phone company know whom to charge for the calls?) So this explanation is about a wrong as an explanation can be."
Re the first problem; jimd3100 and I have both suggested the reason for the direct call is the collect call operator was probably well aware of the attacks by this time, and rather than waste time in a life-or-death situation, simply connected the call for Barbara Olson. We don't have proof this happened, but it's plausible, and there's no proof it didn't happen, either.
Re the second problem; of course, the phone company has records for collect calls. If the FBI got them, they haven't been made public, afaik. What has been made public are FBI 302's, including one of an interview w/ AT&T operator Theresa Gonzalez who said that, "Mercy Lorenzo, also an operator with AT&T, received a call from a female passenger on flight 77 requesting to be transferred to telephone number 202-514-2201. The female passenger advised the plane was being hi-jacked. Hi-jackers were ordering passengers to move to the back of the plane and were armed with guns and knives. Lorenzo indicated the pilot might not yet be aware of the take over of the plane."
http://911blogger.com/node/22214
So, I'm not at all convinced about the fake phone calls claim. There isn't solid evidence for it, there's evidence that contradicts it, the claim is used to tarnish the 9/11 Truth Movement, and I won't promote it.
__________________________
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
long essay and long response, so who to side with?
After reading both, I have to say that DRG has done as conclusive a job as possible in showing that with regard to AA 757's, there were no operational on-board phones on 9/11.
As DRG writes:
At the end of our joint article, Balsamo and I wrote: “Although we believe our evidence that they did not have [functioning onboard] phones is very strong, we cannot yet claim to have proof; evidence to the contrary might still emerge.” While repeating that statement today, I would add that, given the new statements by John Hotard and Ralph Kolstad, combined with the fact that in the intervening years no proof to the contrary has emerged, the evidence is even stronger now. The evidence is very strong, therefore, that Barbara Olson could not possibly have made calls from Flight 77.
Loose Nuke, you use pure speculation to try and cast doubt over some pretty hard facts. For example, you said (speculation bolded):
1) DRG quotes AA rep Chad Kinder saying, “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”
Notice Kinder says, "we do not have", not 'we did not have'. Then he asserts the passengers used their cell phones. It may be that Kinder simply didn't bother to check whether or not AA 757's had phones on 9/11; certainly his present tense statement doesn't support the notion that he actually did. He may not have researched the question, and simply spoke from belief, perhaps having been misled by the numerous MSM reports about cell phone calls.
NOT ONLY do you engage in speculation to attempt to cast doubt on DRG's point, but you didn't quote the actual question to which Chad Kinder responded, which was:
“[O]n your website . . . there is mentioned that there are no seatback satellite phones on a Boeing 757. Is that info correct? Were there any . . . seatback satellite phones on any Boeing 757 . . . on September 11, 2001?”
So in other words, when Kinder responded, he knew already that the meat of the question was "were there any seatback phones on AA 77 on 9/11" (as also exemplified by his response). One would surmise, therefore, than Kinder checked up on this fact before responding. This is a more logical surmising than the totally unsupported contention that Kinder "may not have researched the question, and simply spoke from belief, perhaps having been misled by the numerous MSM reports about cell phone calls" as you say. It is also a logical surmising that Kinder, who as a top spokesman for American Airlines, would be quite intimately familiar with the overall facts about AA's own aircraft, and long before 9/11, too. This is much more logical than the inference that he was not only wrong about his own stock, but was essentially told what to believe by the MSM.
The fact that Kinder's denial of seatback phones on 9/11 is not incorrect is confirmed by the mutual corroboration of the 757 AMM document dated January 28, 2001, and Capt. Ralph Kolstad.
As far as Hotard goes, yes he does contradict Kolstad and Kinder in that he believes that AA77 seatback phones were working, and in doing so, maintains his allegiance to the official story, but he does acknowledge that the order had already been issued to deactivate them, and his singular belief is contradicted by the multiple statements of the other two gentlemen, plus the AMM document.
You basically try and discredit Kolstad by referencing the fact that he's fond of David Icke - which is of course a convenient way to discredit by association and cast doubt on his credibility.*
*Ironically, Lloyde England followed David Icke also, as evidenced by the book on the seat of his taxi. Yet it is considered blasphemous by some to suggest that Lloyde's 9/11 testimony might not be credible. Oh the irony. But I digress.
What's the truth, and what's important?
Adam Syed spends the majority of his comment focusing on my comments re: Chad Kinder, which i acknowledged as speculation by using the qualifiers "may be" and "may not have", etc. Speculation can be useful, but it's important to not confuse speculation with fact. I proposed a possible explanation for Kinder's assertion re: cell phones being used on AA 77, and noted his choice of words, "we do not have" (present tense) is out of place in response to a question about an event 5 years before. While speculating himself, Adam implicitly acknowledges the lack of evidence that Kinder did check, saying "One would surmise, therefore, than Kinder checked up on this fact before responding." Also, without evidence, Adam refers to Kinder as "a top spokesman for American Airlines", but DRG refers to him as "Customer Service Representative Chad Kinder". A typical role for a CSR is in a customer service call center- there's nothing wrong with being a CSR, but it's not accurate to refer to a CSR as a "top spokesman").
In addition, Kinder's claim, as Adam notes, is contradicted by John Hotard, who, as "Public Relations Representative", speaks for American Airlines. And in Hotard's case, he references specific records, stating that "there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected", thus "It is our [American Airlines] contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working". DRG quotes Hotard's statement that the ECO had been issued prior to 9/11, but this doesn't prove the service was disconnected. DRG omits Hotard's statement that there's no entry in the records indicating service was disconnected, and Hotard's statement that AA contends the phones were working.
Of the 3, Kinder, Hotard and Kolstad, Hotard is the only one who references specific records, records which don't show the phones being disconnected. Kolstad makes a general claim that the phones were disconnected on "the 757", and as I noted, it's not clear when he started and stopped working for AA, and he does not make any claim to specific knowledge about AA 77, and even notes that he can't "prove" it's so. That he admits he cannot prove this adds to his credibility. Kolstad refers to David Icke's 9/11 book as "One of the best books available"; this does not mean he is incorrect in his statement about phones being disconnected, but it causes me to doubt his judgment.
Adam notes that Icke's book was photographed in the back seat of England's cab; if it wasn't left there by someone else and if England believes Icke is credible, i likewise would question his judgment. And now England believes he was in a different location than where photos place him, his cab and the light pole. But in addition to the photos, there are witnesses who saw England at that location. There's no proof that either Kolstad or England are intentionally deceiving the public, despite CIT characterizing England as "the first known accomplice" and a "demon". It's also worth noting that CIT promotes the faked calls theory.
__________________________
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Listen...
To my interview with Cheri Roberts.
Edit: Does someone have a problem with this interview? It's being voted down.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Self Evident Observations
Look, this isn't very difficult to understand. If 9/11 was an 'inside job' then it was an operation that counted on ensuring that it succeeded. As such, the use of real hijackers on those four flights would be ruled out for obvious reasons (one such reason being the possibility of the pilots and or passengers pummeling the hijackers, preventing them from gaining control of the aircraft).
The same goes for the origins of the four aircraft. They did NOT originate from civilian airfields for, again, obvious reasons (such as mechanical breakdowns, flight cancellations, flight delays, a belligerent passenger on the runway, an ill passenger on the runway, etc).
Exactly why the 9/11 Truth Movement doesn't seem to grasp the above is beyond me.
The bastards who carried out 9/11 would need to control for unforeseen complications as best they could. As such, a successful mission necessitates the above self evident observations.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Because they are not so evident..
"Look, this isn't very difficult to understand.."
Of course it is, hence the entire purpose of 911blogger and the entire 9/11 Truth movement. If it were that simple to understand, the perps would have already been convicted and jailed by now.
"As such, the use of real hijackers on those four flights would be ruled out for obvious reasons.."
How so? I would venture that it would make more sense to put hijackers on the planes as patsies. This gives credibility to the narrative and people on the planes are calling in (via air phones, cell phones, whatever means is capable.) and reporting there are real hijackers. My gut instinct tells me that the planes were taken over by remote control while the real hijackers had no idea of their fate. They behave like there will be a standoff for some trade or something. This way the actions of anyone on the plane won't matter. The perps need only control two things this way; the flight of the plane and any communications coming from it. Even as Jesse Ventura concludes the hijacker pilots were already at the controls on the ground. If true, they probably did not know their fate either, but were used because it was certain they would not know how to override the remote controls.
"The same goes for the origins of the four aircraft. They did NOT originate from civilian airfields for, again, obvious reasons.."
How is this so obvious? If anything, the use of switched planes (as suggested in the Operation Northwoods Scenario or as you are implying here) presents an entire myriad of problems. Namely, what to do with all the passengers and the planes themselves after the switch. Kill each one afterward? That's complicated and messy. Much could go wrong here. The planes were spread out all over the northeast so how does one get them all in one place to take care of all these loose ends?
If there was to be a switched plane scenario, it likely would be flight 77. That flight had to somehow breach the pentagon's defenses and execute extreme turns and dives. Not quite the job of a 757 passenger jet. The role of Charles Burlingame on that flight cannot be overlooked in my opinion. There were many passengers on this flight from defense companies, military, and of course Barbara Olsen. I may be wrong but I think this flight also had the fewest passengers. A review of each passenger and their connections may provide some more insight to see if its plausible, but like anything regarding 9/11, could be a lot of work on an far out hunch.
"Exactly why the 9/11 Truth Movement doesn't seem to grasp the above is beyond me"
Because we are trying to work with facts in which to draw feasible conclusions. With exception of the controlled demolition hypothesis, there are very few facts to draw upon here and grasping on to any old theory out there, as we have learned, can be very detrimental to our message.
Like any crime, the only person or persons with the full knowledge of what happened and why are the planners and perpetrators of said crime. All any of us can do is speculate on the best evidence possible and leave our minds open for any new developments.
Peace all, together in truth
dtg
==================================================================================
"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."
- Douglas MacArthur
Patsies & Airfields
dtg86,
patsies are great, assuming the aircraft got off the ground in the first place. Of course, the bastards who planned the operation would have to HOPE that the planes got off the ground (see my comment above for reasons why the planes might not get off the ground) in order to use the patsies in-flight. However, the bastards who carried out 9/11 did not include HOPE within their proposed plan!
There wouldn't have to be switched planes. As I informed the 9/11 Truth Movement last month, Flight 93 had already landed at Cleveland (due to a bomb threat) around the time Flight 11 crashed. The passengers didn't know they were on Flight 93 when it landed at Cleveland because it flew under a different flight number. That means those passengers said to have boarded Flight 93 at Newark, didn't!
On a military airfield all foreseeable and unforeseeable obstacles to the success of the operation can be controlled for. Security is another problem that can be controlled.
Again, my points are self evident.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
What proves conclusively
What proves conclusively that flight 93 landed on Cleveland?
My Article on Flight 93 & My Source
Vesa,
my article titled "One of Our Aircraft Isn't Missing" at www.DNotice.org.
The information that Flight 93 landed under a different flight number, however, comes from a source. That information is not in my article for two reasons:
1. it is hearsay information; and
2. the information came to me over a year after I wrote the article on Flight 93.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
"This gives credibility to the narrative"
dtg86: "I would venture that it would make more sense to put hijackers on the planes as patsies. This gives credibility to the narrative and people on the planes are calling in (via air phones, cell phones, whatever means is capable.) and reporting there are real hijackers. My gut instinct tells me that the planes were taken over by remote control while the real hijackers had no idea of their fate. They behave like there will be a standoff for some trade or something. This way the actions of anyone on the plane won't matter. The perps need only control two things this way; the flight of the plane and any communications coming from it."
I agree this is a plausible, even likely, scenario. And the need to have real passengers making real phone calls may even be the reason seatback phone service was working on the flights. On 9/11, it was not possible to determine what specific plane a radio transmission came from- or even if the reported transmissions came from the planes. It may be the hijackers strange broadcasts were inserted by another party. It seems more likely that real passengers were making the reported calls though- if they (and the patsies) believed they were part of a real hijack, they would be convincing. Voice morphing the calls and having faked conversations with families would be very difficult to pull off, even if it was technically possible. Another indication the calls were real is the reports of hijackers having guns; these reports, even though they made their way into FBI 302s, were later simply dismissed out of hand as false, by the 9/11 Commission.
__________________________
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
psuedo-hijackers?
I have a difficult time reconciling the 'real hijacker' theory with the magic passport, the pristine bandana, the 'left behind' luggage etc. -- all strong indicators of evidence planting. To this I would also add the absence of airport security videos and the bizarre behavior of the alleged hijackers prior to the event. It would seem more efficient to have a few trained professionals engage in a pseudo-hijacking while promising them a means of egress, than to bank the whole operation on a bunch of flunkies who could screw up at any turn. Israeli commandos, for instance, could easily impersonate Arabs and have been known to do so in the past. As I recall (and correct me if I'm wrong) an Israeli security company actually handled security for the airports in question.
In any case, I don't think all this speculation helps our cause. I'm surprised DRG has focused so extensively on the cell phone calls and "voice morphing" when he himself cautioned against spinning elaborate theories in the absence of hard evidence.
"our cause..."
See my comment below about research vs. activism.
many possibilities and few answered questions
planted evidence, which seems likely in the examples you mentioned, doesn't exclude patsies being on board. And as dtg86 noted, they may have been led to believe they were part of a different kind of plot, perhaps a 'hijack and trade hostages for demands' scenario. At the same time, it's possible that professionals, including Israeli commandos, were posing as hijackers- and they may not have known they were going to die, either. The somewhat specific report about Daniel Lewin, IDF, being shot on AA 11 was dismissed as false by the 9/11 Commission, but I'm unconvinced- a full investigation, by independent people, with public oversight, is needed.
According to the 9/11 Commission Report in Chp 1, the security checkpoint for UA 175 in Boston was managed Huntleigh USA (20), which was the US co. owned by ICTS, the Israeli co. The other flights were handled by Globe Security and/or Argenbright Security. I've seen the article at WRH (and it's source links) that claims one Israeli company handled all the security at all 9/11 airports, and it doesn't back up the claim, other than to demonstrate that Huntleigh was owned by ICTS.
According to the Commission, not all of the checkpoints had video cameras, which seems 'lax', to say the least, if true. The security footage on the web does not have a date stamp or mark identifying the checkpoint, which is very strange.
Danse: "In any case, I don't think all this speculation helps our cause."
I think the main problem is that people are promoting speculative claims as if they're established fact. Speculating about possibilities can lead to useful insights and inquiries.
__________________________
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
...
Thanks for the info re: Airport security.
It seems like a lot of different scenarios are possible here, from pseudo-hijackers to patsies to war games switched live to all of the above. It is precisely because we don't know how the operation unfolded that it is irresponsible to aggressively push a theory like "voice morphing", which I actually think is among the least plausible explanations, and certainly one of the most offensive.
Rather than theories
about faked calls or 'voice morphing' which have big drawbacks and little payoffs, I 'd prefer to focus on the more solid and 'undebunkable' evidence which has far more promise. We know the buildings were demolished and we know where the Pentagon was hit, both of which imply RC. I think that's fair-- the fact that not only specific targets were successfully hit, but specific parts of the buildings, implies that the planes were under RC, regardless of who was in the cockpits. I wouldn't deny hijackers, but suggest that this would mean they're patsies.
Point to the planted evidence. Point to Hanjour. Point to the 3 contradictory Atta's bag stories. Point to the 3 NORAD stories.
Reinforce the motives of the NeoCon cabal.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine becomes the PNAC Agenda....
Made possible by the Zelikow Psy-Op.
Just a reminder
2.25 seconds of officially recognized free fall of WTC7 trumps all.
YES!
If you had a choice of telling a naive person about the phone calls, or the fall of WTC7, which would you choose?
There is research and there is activism.
This site exists for both purposes.
Of course, I don't discuss the phone calls with a newbie. But I won't hesitate to talk about it with someone who has already commenced their journey down the rabbit hole and for whom there's no turning back.
Why presume that just because this subject is being discussed, that the people discussing would make it the first thing with which they approach people?
We are all pushing for that "new investigation." And much citizen investigating has been indeed occurring, even without the advantage of things like subpoena power, etc. that an official investigation would be afforded. The current investigation into the phone calls is a prime example.
But
are you promoting a new investigation, or yourself?
I did not know what a sockpuppet was until JG provided the link below. Is it true, or not?
Simple question. Answer?
You still don't know what a sock puppet is
A sock puppet is when someone has more than one identity on a site. That is not something Adam has done. Anonymity and sock puppetry are not the same thing. Many people remain anonymous on WTC Demolition because Reprehensor banned anyone who posted over there. The new mods are not quite so wtcd phobic.
Many people use anonymous user names, such as Loose Nuke, Rancho Truth, YT, Arabesque, jimd3100, Victronix, Col Jenny Sparks...big surprise, I know, but those are not their real names.
warning to commenters re off topic posts
The subject of this thread is DRG's article and related issues; please leave commentary on personal issues out of this thread.
If someone posts an article regarding sockpuppets and their use in disrupting 9/11 truth sites, then there could be a full and productive discussion.
__________________________
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Yes, he has
and the people you mentioned dont use different aliases to go around bad mouthing people and organizations while promoting themselves.
You've got a real knack for sticking up for some interesting people.
________________________
The key to successful truth actions lies in not insulting your target audience or promoting speculation as hard fact.
Just because I know something doesn't mean I talk about it!
Some people just aren't very curious. They know that wtc7 fell at freefall speed and that's all they want to know. Luckily we have people like David Ray Griffin who care enough to probe into all aspects of 9/11 and has fit many of the puzzle pieces together in a way that makes sense.
Since there will never be a truly impartial objective investigation, we curious ones do our own research. As for you non-curious ones, why are you on this thread? If it doesn't interest you, just go do whatever does interest you.
It would be like me going on a site devoted to football and posting "Football is so stupid! How can you care about men in tight pants throwing a ball around? You are wasting your time!" The person wasting their time on this thread is the one trying to prevent other people from thinking, exploring, researching and learning.
Yes, I get it, wtc7 fell at freefall speed. But there's more to 9/11 than that single fact.
May I politely and sincerely ask you to explain
exactly what you "get" when you say "Yes, I get it, wtc7 fell at freefall speed."
With all due respect, I don't think you actually understand the simple, irrefutable, physics and the inevitable conclusion that a real understanding would lead you to.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I would appreciate a clear explanation of exactly what you "get."
Controlled demolition. Inside job.
.
Thank you
Precisely
The reported calls were
The reported calls were received unless those who reported them lied.
Are there recordings of them? Why would anyone at home record an incoming call?
Assuming that the calls were received:
1. they were faked and could have been originated from any location, any phone - see #3
2. they might have been made from the actual people on their phones but not on the plane - they were making the calls under duress and told what to say.
3. they are created with voice sampling and then some sort of voice morphing technology using the actual cell phones or other phones (is this possible???)
What we can be sure of is that the supposed cell phone call did not come from the planes at the elevations and locations we were told.
This could mean that the calls were made from other planes or location... see #1,2 & 3
Possible scenarios:
Passengers were loaded on to some plane which never took off - or a plane that landed shortly thereafter where the calls were made (a military airstrip?) These were not the planes which hit the towers. The actual flights might have been flown under remote control with no passengers into the twins. Or military planes with similar profiles were used to remotely fly them into the twins.
The passengers were "disposed of" on the ground or loaded on to a plane which was exploded over Shanksvillle.
I assume that the control towers would have witnessed the flights taking off, taxiing and so forth. If this can be verified and they were boarded then they had to fly to somewhere. Once airborne they could have be remotely controlled and flown into the twins or the pentagon - hit or flyover) or flown to a military base. What bases were close to Logan, Newark and Regan?
Can RADES data be inserted into ATC radar screens? If so, all the RADES data is suspect. I believe that insertion WAS possible at the time and used for training drills, as witnessed by the comment "Is this real time or exercise?" If RADES data can be inserted, then we cannot rely on it for ANY of the flight information.
This would leave the air towers as eye witnesses to the flights taking off and if they confirm this, that is where reliable evidence ends.
Witnesses saw airplanes strike the twins and fly toward the Pentagon and reported seeing a plane in PA. Where there witnesses in those ares which observed NO planes and were 'watching"? If they come forward they one could conclude that all the eyewitnesses to "planes" were plants. It seems rather obvious that planes were witnessed by hundreds if not thousands so there were planes. Identifyng them becomes the issue. As far as I can tell there is no positive ID of any of the planes involved in the 9/11 events.
Black boxes presumably could have been precorded with data and placed in the planes which would strike the buildings, or placed in the wreckage or simply substituted when they were "examined". How do we know that there was no switcheroo with the black boxes? It certainly would have been easy for "federal" investigators to do a switcheroo at any stage in the recovery or analysis process. Guys shows up with FBI credentials and pick up evidence. FBI states no black bpxes were revcovered because the fake FBI took them away... or the real FBI recovered them and they were plants which would have revealed another conspiracy and were told to keep it on the QT.
The long and short of this discussion is that it is ALL SPECULATION because so little of the evidence is RELIABLE.
I think the researchers should be working
with local law inforcment, Fed prosecuters, or some law fighting professional to uncover this. Otherwise it will never go anywhere.
My questions are...
How many times has this been discussed before on this site? How many times has it been discussed on other sites? How much time have these discussions taken away from better, more productive activites? At what point do people admit that they don't know what happened on 9/11, and therein lies the whole problem?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Griffin's essay
is a direct response to the essay by jimd3100 which was posted here.
You, Jon, treated Jim's essay as the definitive rebuttal to Griffin as exemplified by this comment of yours.
Please send this to Dr. Griffin, and ask that he no longer promote this faulty information. Thanks.
And Loose Nuke, in support of Jim's essay, said "I've emailed DRG to make him aware of this article, and invited his response."
And you also said you'd be "interested" to hear a "rebuttal to the rebuttal," assuring me that Jim's essay was a "true rebuttal" and that anyone who doesn't accept it refuses to admit they're wrong.
Now that Griffin has produced his response, you're throwing your hands up and pleading for the discourse on this subject to be dropped.
Please.
I've seen you say before, "I'm not Richard Gage.... [etc]..... My name is Jon Gold and I do my own thing."
Please extend that courtesy to others. If this avenue of inquiry doesn't suit you, hit the back button on your browser and participate in a thread that is more to your liking. It's as simple as that.
Jon, nobody is forcing you to be here
If you make faulty statements, you should be gracious enough to apologize and retract them when their absurdity is made plain. First you ask for a rebuttal, and now that it's been provided, you say "don't even bother talking to me." Where is your gratitude?
Adam Syed and David Ray Griffin are sincere truth seekers, and we are fortunate that they share the results of their investigations with us. You hamper the forward march of truth when you imply that the cell phone calls are not a legitimate topic for discussion. You seemed to think it was a good topic when jimd3100 brought it up, so what has changed?
Sheila...
Have you seen the new Peace of the Action website that I helped to create? I spent some time on it these last few nights. Time that I would have been prevented had I decided to take part in another debate about another theory that has many contradictions to it. I wonder how many other people spend their time here debating about a theory rather than do something much more positive elsewhere? If you think I am not a "sincere truth seeker" and "hamper the forward march of truth" (about a topic that has been debated since the first time David Ray Griffin brought up "voice morphing" in one of his presentations... what was that? YEARS ago?), then I have to say good night to you because you can't please all of the people all of the time. Unless of course you have a multitude of sock puppets.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.
Cell Phone Repeater Hypothesis
I don't know if this has been posted around on here yet, but it won't hurt to post again if so.
The Cell Phone Repeater Hypothesis
To review, the main argument used to support the theory that the cell phone calls attributed to Flight 93 passengers were faked goes like this:
'Given that several calls from the jetliner when at altitude were reportedly from cell phones; and that cell phone calls on a plane above 10,000 feet cannot communicate with ground cell stations; it follows that the reported calls were not made by the victims but were faked.'
A fatal flaw in this syllogism is exposed by the following simple hypothesis, apparently first published on this page in June of 2009.
HYPOTHESIS:
A self-powered cell phone repeater the size of a shoe box is placed on board Flight 93 within a piece of luggage. The repeater is sufficiently powerful to establish reliable connections with ground stations for several minutes at a time, and forwards all the communications between the cell phones aboard the plane and ground stations. The repeater is programmed to broadcast on a separate encrypted channel a duplicate of all the call data in real time, which is monitored by operatives who have ability to block any of the calls at any time.
Besides being technically straightforward, this method would have afforded the attack planners great benefits with little risk of exposure. Genuine reports of the theatrics of the red-bandanna-wearing bomb-displaying Arabic-looking patsies aboard Flight 93 could be allowed to get through as long as the operatives wanted, adding realism to the hijackings so central to the official account. But the same operatives could "cut the feed" at the moment events took a turn threatening to evince something other than that account.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html
See also on that page:
Technical Challenges of the Faked Calls Theory
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html
9/11 Was A Military Style Operation, Therefore....
Victronix,
there are two flaws with the cell phone repeater hypothesis:
1. Flight 93 landed at Cleveland airport around the time Flight 11 crashed into the north tower (see my article "One of Our Aircraft Isn't Missing" at www.DNotice.org); and
2. since 9/11 was a military style operation that means the four aircraft used took off from military airfields, therefore there were no hijackers on those aircraft (the planners of 9/11 would have quickly voted down any scenario of real hijackers on real commercial flights because of the high possibility that the passengers/crew would subdue the hijackers. Can't have that.).
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC