See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Flight 93: Cell Call Exposed 9/11:"You did great"
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjNB ... com/ceecee-lyles-t17044p2.html
Published: Jul 26, 2008
Author: CanadianVandal
Post Date: 2008-07-26 17:48:52 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1372
Comments: 113
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, *9-11* (#0)
This is a must see video, especially the last 2 minutes. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about cell phones working at altitude in a plane,try it the next time you fly.
Most planes have phones on board these days. What's the source for the audio here?
One note: 'the dome' refers to the capitol, not the wh, from all the other information that I've seen and read.
Did you listen to the last 2 minutes concerning the caller ID information?
Can SkyPhones be caller ID'ed? CeeCee's husband would have recognized her cell number.
Holy ****... of course. Very nice find, thank you. Deuteronomy 32:35
Many will say this audio was faked. Who knows? What is not fake however is the fact that WTC7 was reported by numerous TV networks as having completely collapsed 30 minutes BEFORE it actually totally collapsed. WTC7 is without a doubt the smoking gun of 9/11. Our government did it and some idiot, or genius, leaked the story too soon to the obedient propaganda machine known as the MSM. No further proof is needed that 9/11 was an inside job. Most Americans have yet to see WTC7 collapse and when they do most don't realize it was never hit by a plane and that it came down at around 5:20pm that day. Many hours AFTER the WTC towers has collapsed. And virtually none know it was reported as being totally collapsed up to thirty minutes BEFORE it actually happened on several networks. When people that were skeptical that it was an inside job see this they can no longer reasonably deny that it HAD to be an inside job.
God is always good!
She called from her personal cell phone, according to her then police officer husband.
Thanks.
To much supposition here. Buy none of it.
Lorne Lyles, with sons Justin and Jordan, is recognized in 2002 in the Florida Legislature. His wife, CeeCee Lyles, was a flight attendant on United Flight 93 that crashed as a result of terrorism.
All I can say is "beware of honey pots". IMHO, the best thing to focus on is WTC 7. That to me is the "smoking gun" that blows 9/11 wide open. To this day there has been NO plausible explanation as to why that tower fell into its own footprint. Consider that WTC 3,4,5 and 6 were ALL much more heavily damaged by debris from the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and yet NONE of those buildings fell. Yet somehow, miraculously, WTC 7 just happened to fall in a perfect collapse, into its own footprint, and even with the classic "center goes first" pattern that helps ensure the rest of the building falls IN and not OUT. WTC 7. Focus on that. Hammer on that. Push on that. That is THE smoking gun of 9/11. Eventually the truth will get out. Click here for pics of the other WTC buildings There's some pictures of the other buildings that DIDN'T collapse on 9/11, even though they were MUCH more heavily damaged.
#2. To: honway (#1)
#3. To: honway (#0)
#4. To: buckeye (#2)
Most planes have phones on board these days.
#5. To: buckeye, honway, anyone (#2)
#6. To: honway (#0)
...She made the call from the ground...
"Nothing looks more like a controlled demolition than a controlled demolition." ~ Prof. James Fetzer
#7. To: honway (#0)
#8. To: lodwick (#5)
Can SkyPhones be caller ID'ed?
#9. To: honway (#8)
She called from her personal cell phone, according to her then police officer husband.
#10. To: buckeye (#2)
#11. To: All (#8)
#12. To: honway (#0)
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#13. To: honway (#1) (Edited)
Another smoking gun regarding cellphones is the fact that US Solicitor General Ted Olson contradicted his own story several times concerning whether it was a cellphone or a skyphone that his wife had used to contact him. From Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.3 However, although Ted Olson’s report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined. Olson’s Self-Contradictions Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”4 However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self- contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone. Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse.6 By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7 However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines. American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “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.”8 In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI. Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so- called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone. Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10 And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred. This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11. Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians Ted Olson’s story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.11 According to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.”12 This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even “[t] he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build”13), and that the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents.14 Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: “I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”15 The Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co- pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots.”16 Conclusion The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press. NOTES 1 This essay is based on Chapter 8 (“Did Ted Olson Receive Calls from Barbara Olson?”) of David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008). 2 Tim O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane,” CNN, September 11, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson). 3 This was pointed out in The 9/11 Commission Report, 8. 4 Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September 14, 2001 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html). 5 “America’s New War: Recovering from Tragedy,” Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html). 6 In his “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture,” delivered November 16, 2001 7 I discussed the technical difficulties of making cell phone calls from airliners in 2001 in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 87-88, 292-97. 8 See the submission of 17 February 2006 by “the Paradroid” on the Politik Forum (http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p- 24.html). It is quoted in David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 75. 9 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flight s/P200054.html). These documents can be more easily viewed in “Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights” 10 FBI, “Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic],” “9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11,” 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008, 11 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007). 12 O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane.” 13 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 16 14 Shoestring, “The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?” Shoestring911, February 2, 2008 (http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/02/flight-77- murder-mystery-who- really.html). 15 “In Memoriam: Charles ‘Chic’ Burlingame, 1949-2001,” USS Saratoga Museum foundation (available at http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/chic_remembered.html). 16 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007), 12. 17 Of these two possibilities, the idea that Ted Olson was duped should be seriously entertained only if there are records proving that the Department of Justice received two collect calls, ostensibly from Barbara Olson, that morning. Evidently no such records have been produced. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about cell phones working at altitude in a plane,try it the next time you fly.
Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”2
This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice- morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?
(http://www.fed- soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp),
Olson said that she “somehow managed . . . to use a telephone in the airplane to call.” He laid out this version of his story more fully in an interview reported in Toby Harnden, “She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane,” Daily Telegraph, March 5, 2002 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html ).
(http://911res earch.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).
(http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission- fbi-source- documents.html).
(http://www.9- 11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf).
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#14. To: Elliott Jackalope (#12)
7, the pentagon, and PA - the worst of the scams on 9/11. Hammer them all. Wake up to the truth, mullets.
#15. To: lodwick, honway, wudidiz (#5)
I would need a lot more information than this youtube and the scant reporting done on CeeCee Lyles, and her husband Lorne. I don't know the source of this audio, or whether or not Lorne has proof (like an electronic log of his cell phone captured IDs with dates). It could be a stewardess helping CeeCee make the call and saying "you did great." Or it could be someone next to her saying that about something one of the other passengers had just done. There may be interesting data here, but it needs a lot more scrutiny than this. The mere fact that the video's producers are jumping to all sorts of wild conclusions without more information is also helpful in determining how we should treat this material. On the video's information side bar, I see a link to Info Wars, where anything can become dramatic information with the slightest amount of imagination.
#16. To: buckeye (#15)
Yes you're right, thank you buckeye.
"Nothing looks more like a controlled demolition than a controlled demolition." ~ Prof. James Fetzer
#17. To: wudidiz (#16)
Not a matter of being right or wrong here. And I definitely distrust the official 9/11 story. I want real, hard facts in building the case. That's what it takes to convince the undecided now.
#18. To: buckeye (#15)
Indeed...Too much has been read into something with no basis at all.
It could be a stewardess helping CeeCee make the call and saying "you did great." Or it could be someone next to her saying that about something one of the other passengers had just done.
#19. To: Cynicom (#18)
For busy, if rational people, this kind of hyperbole serves as all the evidence they need that everything was always done on the up and up, and they really should be trusting George W. Bush, the CIA, the FBI, Homeland Security, and (singing now) praise be to Total Information Awareness... If only the Patriot Acts had been there to break down those awful firewalls. And meanwhile, Israel continues to be the main beneficiary, year in and year out, to the American response to 9/11.
Too much has been read into something with no basis at all.
#20. To: buckeye (#19)
Americans need to cut to the very beginning of this thing, not argue about what hit what and why. One person somewhere conceived the operation. Once it was decided upon by a small cast of characters the chances of keeping it secret diminish to near zero. We will NEVER know the originator or his close friends, therefore all that is left to know for us is what did our government intelligence agencies know about it and when. Arguing as whether a bomb or a meteor hit the Pentagon is a waste of time, detracts from what we need to know. Would I bet people somewhere in our government/military had at least some knowledge??? Sure bet.
#21. To: buckeye (#15)
Eyewitness testimony is accepted in court and used to convict people of murder. Lorne is providing eyewitness testimony describing seeing his wife's cell phone number on his caller ID. Do you think he is making this up? You have had an opportunity to see his firsthand account. Do you think the man is lying about seeing his wife's cell phone number on his caller ID?
I don't know the source of this audio, or whether or not Lorne has proof (like an electronic log of his cell phone captured IDs with dates).
#22. To: honway (#21)
I don't know anything about this material, and it's not sourced, referenced, or corroborated in the video. As for the husband, he's an unreliable witness due to the emotional nature of the event. Yet, the video would lead us to the point that we can envision mass shootings on the ground. Don't you see a problem with this kind of material?
#23. To: buckeye (#17)
Yes you're right, thank you buckeye. Not a matter of being right or wrong here. It was mostly your statement here; "There may be interesting data here, but it needs a lot more scrutiny than this." that I was agreeing with.
"Nothing looks more like a controlled demolition than a controlled demolition." ~ Prof. James Fetzer
#24. To: buckeye (#19)
I am not sure you completely appreciate the significance of this audio. The audio includes the time, 9:47 am. At 9:47,according to the flight data recorder information released by the government, United 93 was at 20,000 feet. There is not an honest expert on this planet that will dispute the claim that a personal cell phone will not work at 20,000 feet in an airliner.
#25. To: wudidiz (#23)
Thanks!
#26. To: buckeye, honway (#22)
I envision quick, lethal injections or 'detainment'. God bless their souls.
...the video would lead us to the point that we can envision mass shootings on the ground...
"Nothing looks more like a controlled demolition than a controlled demolition." ~ Prof. James Fetzer
#27. To: honway (#24)
"The U.S. Federal Communications Commission prohibits the use of mobile telephones aboard any aircraft in flight. The reason given is that mobile phone systems depend on channel reuse, and operating a phone at altitude may violate the fundamental assumptions that allow channel reuse to work.[citation needed] Mobile telephones are intentionally designed with low power output. A tower is the center of a "cell" and due to attenuation with distance (inverse square law) cell phone transmissions can usually be received only weakly by towers in adjacent cells, and not at all in cells farther away (non-adjacent cells). This allows the channel used by any given phone to be reused by other phones in non-adjacent cells. This principle allows tens or hundreds of thousands of people to use their phones at the same time in a given metropolitan area while using only a limited number of channels"
#28. To: honway (#24)
How do we know this is not a GTE Airfone call misremembered by Lorne Lyle? Did Lorne manage to document his recollection that it was her caller ID coming up on his phone? Where did the full audio, containing the "you did great" remark, come from? Can we download it from another source? Does Lorne remember that? Does Lorne believe something is wrong with the phone call?
#29. To: wudidiz (#26)
Yes, indeed. I notice that nobody in NORAD was brought up on charges of dereliction of duties. The President hasn't been impeached yet. Israel is still receiving foreign aid from us... Yes, we have a lot of obvious, well-documented problems worth our attention.
God bless their souls.
#30. To: buckeye (#22)
The maker of the video goes beyond provable facts. That should not distract anyone from the fundamental facts. This is in fact a recorded audio received by the husband of CeeCee Lyles, a flight attendant on United Flight 93. A cell phone will not operate at 20,000 ft in an airliner. Lorne Lyles states he saw his wife's cell phone number on his caller ID. The maker of the video goes too far, but that does not change the fundamental facts.
Yet, the video would lead us to the point that we can envision mass shootings on the ground. Don't you see a problem with this kind of material?
#31. To: buckeye (#28)
I did that search before I posted it. It is the real deal. Do the google.
Can we download it from another source?
#32. To: honway (#30)
What facts are those? You don't have any solid evidence here that the call wasn't made from the air. You don't have any evidence here that the caller was coerced to make the call. But you do have hysteria, and a lot of it.
The maker of the video goes too far, but that does not change the fundamental facts.
#33. To: honway (#31)
As I've said, if it's legitimate audio, it doesn't mean that she was being coerced to say what she said.
I did that search before I posted it. It is the real deal. Do the google.
#34. To: buckeye (#32)
It is impossible to make a cell phone call from an airliner at 20,000 feet.
You don't have any solid evidence here that the call wasn't made from the air.
#35. To: honway (#34)
Can you prove that with full documentation, and that it was impossible for CeeCee at the specific times she made calls?
#36. To: buckeye (#35)
I have tested the ability of cell phones to operate on airliners a number of times. They don't work at 20,000 feet.
Can you prove that with full documentation, and that it was impossible for CeeCee at the specific times she made calls?
#37. To: honway (#36)
They don't work at 20,000 feet. I would think it would also depend on the speed of the plane rather than just the altitude.
I have tested the ability of cell phones to operate on airliners a number of times.
God is always good!
#38. To: buckeye (#33) (Edited)
"you did great" whispered lowly. Why whisper when the caller clearly wasn't whispering. There was no reason to whisper "you did great" unless for some reason that person did not want anyone to hear them say that but her. If legit this is another item in the huge pool of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
As I've said, if it's legitimate audio, it doesn't mean that she was being coerced to say what she said.
God is always good!
#39. To: All (#36)
911myths.com/images/f/f8/...nscript_April_11_2006.pdf 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
#40. To: RickyJ (#38)
What do you mean "legit?" How do you know you shouldn't be hearing "you did great" at the end of this recording? Be rational. Show a little care in jumping to your conclusions. There are reasons why we should be concerned, but this video is only a solid demonstration of the irrationality that pollutes the otherwise legitimate 9/11 investigation movement. This whole thread is a testimony to the damage Alex Jones has done to conspiracy research.
If legit this is another item in the huge pool of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
.
.
.
Comments (41 - 113) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest