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: 4818
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.
#41. To: honway (#36)
That is an incomplete proof. It offers little in the way of scientific evidence with respect to this case. It is further diluted by the fact that you are trying to support your case with your own evidence. Links posted to this thread sourcing independent evidence that cell phones never work at high altitude would be useful, possibly, if we agree that she was at high altitude during that phone call, which would take a whole different set of proofs to validate.
I have tested the ability of cell phones to operate on airliners a number of times.
#42. To: buckeye (#40) (Edited)
Did you watch the video? Did you see her identification found at the crash site totally intact? Did you know not even the plane was left that intact nor any passengers? It is stretching credulity to believe that somehow her identification and paper items in her pocket survived when no person or piece of the plane that big did. No, this is not the smoking gun the 9/11 truth movement should tell people about first, WTC7 is, but if all information in this video is correct it defintely is another piece of evidence of an inside job.
This whole thread is a testimony to the damage Alex Jones has done to conspiracy research.
God is always good!
#43. To: RickyJ (#42)
The video is useless as a vehicle for persuading anyone rational to reconsider his opinions about 9/11, so tainted it is with hysteria and leading conclusions. The discovery of personal effects around the WTC site is also suspicious. So what, we have some valid concerns tucked in with a huge dose of hysteria. Guess what? This video has just illustrated to anyone not considering 9/11 as a suspicious event that 9/11 truthers are irrational, illogical, and prone to succumb to the vilest type of propaganda. Who wins? Not the truth. Truth combined with lies is still in the service of lies.
#44. To: buckeye (#40)
And what did Alex Jones have to do with the production of this piece?
This whole thread is a testimony to the damage Alex Jones has done to conspiracy research.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
#45. To: Original_Intent (#44)
The user links back to his site. Jones has covered material on the cell phone issue before. (And: flight 77.)
Flight 93: Cell Call Exposed
http://www.infowars.net/articles/july...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_A...
Honors
#29 - Most Discussed (Today) - News & Politics
#21 - Top Favorites (Today) - News & Politics
#45 - Top Rated (Today) - News & Politics #89 - Top Favorites (This Week) - News & Politics
thanks!
#46. To: buckeye (#45)
Alex Jones is not the only, nor the first, to explore the liklihood that the cell calls are fraudulent. A couple of experiments have been run - low budget affairs since the government is not going to shoot holes in their own cover story. There are several factors that suggest the liklihood of the cell calls being made is unlikely: 1. The low power of a cell phone transmitter which has to push the signal through the metal skin of the aircraft - which will attenuate the signal. 2. The distance from any cell tower at 20,000 feet combined with signal attenuation. 3. The speed of the aircraft which would make it difficult, at best, to be able to complete the "handshake" protocols with a tower before being out of its range. No handshake = no connection = no call. While I won't go so far as to say it is impossible the calls were made as billed it nevertheless strikes me as being about as likely as winning the Power Ball two weeks running.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
#47. To: Original_Intent (#46)
Unfortunately, your haunches don't really offer any proofs in a scientific sense. It would help to have some engineering studies to back up these notions, but it's illegal to test wireless phones in the air. So we definitely don't have any solid proof here that the plane wasn't where the official time line indicated it was. The hasty conclusions exposed in this video, and the following hysteria seen right here on this thread become poison pills to serious efforts to research 9/11. With hyperbole coming over the airwaves day in and day out, the Alex Jones audience is not given any real semblance of research rigor through his own examples, and the exhortation to "do your own research" means very little to the typical Alex Jones listener. This phenomena is about as destructive as it gets to the process of uncovering the truth about 9/11. No reputable analyst would want to be associated with his form of populist analysis.
...it nevertheless strikes me as being about as likely as winning the Power Ball two weeks running.
#48. To: RickyJ (#42)
This is where common sense really should take over. The Marriott Rewards card and the ID endures the crash, but the substantial landing gear does not. Is there an idiot on this planet that would believe that? Did you watch the video? Did you see her identification found at the crash site totally intact?
#49. To: All, *9-11* (#48)
Number 48 submitted for your consideration.
#50. To: honway (#48)
The government presents "evidence" and you accept it at face value? What conclusions would you like to reach from this government "evidence?" The same goes for a lot of the other material Alex Jones and his merry band of investigators unearth. What sort of focus is there on the sources of the material, and who leaks/publishes/releases/broadcasts it?
#51. To: honway, buckeye (#49)
I have witnessed large aircraft crashes, with fires and explosions. It was common to find all sorts of personal items scattered around, perfectly normal.
#52. To: Cynicom (#51)
That's a good point, and it only serves to illustrate the sad fact that we're being encouraged to reach sweeping conclusions before we know really a good dealabout the evidence cited.
#53. To: honway, buckeye (#30)
I'm part of the LIHOP crowd and this audio tells me nothing. A flight attendant who is trained to be calm in the face of complete panic and chaos is able to place a call to her husband. Listen to that again and again without the help of the video and you can hear the panic in that woman's voice even though she is projecting calm. If I were in her shoes and had one last call to make to my spouse, mark it down and take it to the bank, my words would almost be identical to hers attempting to project calm in a sea of chaos.
This is in fact a recorded audio received by the husband of CeeCee Lyles, a flight attendant on United Flight 93.
"What began in Russia will end in America."- 1930, Elder Ignatius of Harbin, Manchuria.
#54. To: buckeye (#40)
I've often wondered if that isn't his sole purpose.
This whole thread is a testimony to the damage Alex Jones has done to conspiracy research.
#55. To: Ncturnal (#54)
Motivations are hard to fathom. I would welcome a more circumspect approach from him, in any case. His popularity comes with responsibility.
#56. To: honway, all (#48)
This is where common sense really should take over. The Marriott Rewards card and the ID endures the crash, but the substantial landing gear does not. Is there an idiot on this planet that would believe that? An airplane, and all its passengers, are 'vaporized,' but some pieces of plastic and paper are found intact? Please, people, get a grip.
Did you watch the video? Did you see her identification found at the crash site totally intact?
#57. To: lodwick (#56)
Same thing happens with someone's passport from the WTC attacks. Odd, yes. But neither situation proves that the people on flight 93 were on the ground when CeeCee made her call.
#58. To: buckeye (#57)
Buck - I guess that you've flown, sometime. How would you ever know that you were headed anywhere? Especially if you were going along at 550mph? At which speed your cell phone could never make, or keep, a connection? Just my take, and belief on this scam.
#59. To: lodwick (#58)
I don't know. That's the point. We have to know things before we start suggesting the kinds of conclusions inferred here, namely that CeeCee was on the ground when her husband (allegedly) says he was told over the phone that she was in the air. We really don't have all the facts before us in this matter. Knowing things and wondering about them are very different matters. When people start drawing massive conclusions with a scant amount of information, that's dangerous. What's the point of leading people to believe that the plane was on the ground when the calls were supposedly made? Hysteria. Is hysteria a useful sentiment at a time like this?
#60. To: honway (#48)
Where's her purse? Her ID and "pocket litter" would be inside a wallet inside a purse. Women don't just carry their license in their back pocket, after all.
The Marriott Rewards card and the ID endures the crash, but the substantial landing gear does not.
Powered By Sex Toy Shop
#61. To: Cynicom (#51)
Usually it's common to find seats, bodies, and parts of the fuselage, too, even if the plane hits the side of a mountain at 600 mph. But not in Shanksville.
It was common to find all sorts of personal items scattered around, perfectly normal.
Powered By Sex Toy Shop
#62. To: Indrid Cold (#61)
At Shanksville given the very small impact pattern, that is understandable. I do not recall reading what was found there.
#63. To: buckeye, *9-11* (#22) (Edited)
www.historycommons.org/en...nett&printerfriendly=true 9:27 a.m. September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Passenger Tom Burnett Calls Wife Using Cell Phone; Reports that His Plane Has Been Hijacked Tom Burnett, a passenger on board Flight 93, calls his wife Deena Burnett at their home in San Ramon, California. (Longman 2002, pp. 106-107) She looks at the caller ID and recognizes the number as being that of his cell phone. She asks him if he is OK, and he replies: “No, I’m not. I’m on an airplane that’s been hijacked.” He says, “They just knifed a guy,” and adds that this person was a passenger. ------------------------------------------------------------- According to Deena Burnett, her husband called her on a cell phone at altitude. This was a physical impossibility. It was so significant, the government lied to cover it up. The government claimed Burnett used an Airphone. Who would you believe? The wife of the man on the plane or the government that has a history of lies concerning events of mass murder like Waco and the OKC bombing? If she saved the cell phone bill or could get the records, that would indeed be a smoking gun, since the government is on record in the Moussaoui trial claiming the call came from a GTE Airphone.
As for the husband, he's an unreliable witness due to the emotional nature of the event.
#64. To: honway (#0)
Quick questions, honway. What was the length of time of her recorded cell phone call to her husband? During that period of time, approximately how many miles would Flight 93 have traveled? I think the answers to those further backs up your judgment that her use of the cell phone was impossible - in the aircraft anyway.
#65. To: Fred Mertz (#64) (Edited)
CeeCee's call was 41 seconds. I will try to find out the speed from the FDR data. My rough estimate is that she traveled about 3.8 miles. As far as Tom Burnett's calls, according to the government there were three: Comparing the reported times to the government released FDR data,we have: 9:30 .......28 seconds.......35,000 feet 9:37........62 seconds.......39,000 feet 9:44........54 seconds.......24,000 feet. I will search for the FDR data concerning the speed, but at 35,000 feet and 39,000 feet, a normal range for ground speed would be in the range of 400 to 480 mph,depending on the winds. An interesting thing from CeeCee's call is prior to and during the call the aircraft descended from 40,000 feet to 20,000 feet in about 7 minutes,according to the FDR data. That descent rate is more than is normally used. The reason I mention that is there is no way a flight attendant would not recognize the plane was in a descent and to flight attendants, a descent like that would mean they were about to land and the flight was about to be over. She did not mention that in the message and that was very odd,imo.
What was the length of time of her recorded cell phone call to her husband? During that period of time, approximately how many miles would Flight 93 have traveled?
#66. To: honway (#0)
In case you're wondering why I posted the info on Barbara Olson's supposed phone call, I was implying that her call could ALSO have been made from the ground, as suggested here in regards to the CeeCee Lyles call. It is VERY interesting, to me at least, that her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, changed his story from her calling on a cell phone to a sky phone and then back to cell phone call, yet the FBI says that there were NO calls at all. It would mean that either Olson is lying, or the FBI is. Either case PROVES that there is complicity here on the part of the government.
"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
#67. To: honway (#65)
Thanks. I guesstimated that the distance would have been much further but I was incorrect.
#68. To: FormerLurker (#66)
Thanks for the information filled post. The information in the article and links is very significant,imo. Thanks again.
#69. To: honway (#68)
You're very welcome my friend, and thank YOU for posting this article.
"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
#70. To: All (#68)
www.vaed.uscourts.gov/not...tion/flights/P200055.html
#71. To: All (#70) (Edited)
Original source: Prosecution Trial exhibit
U.S. v. Moussaoui trial
#72. To: Cynicom (#51) (Edited)
Yes, and also finding parts from the landing gear and/or wheels is normal. What is not normal is the landing gear vaporizing. The gear is designed to support 198,000 lbs contacting the runway at 700 feet per minute. It is very substantial and would not vaporize on impact.
It was common to find all sorts of personal items scattered around, perfectly normal.
#73. To: honway (#72)
It's also not normal to find the engines over a mile away. The claim is they bounced! LOL! Also parts of the plane were found over a very large area. That flight was shot down. The "crash scene" more than likely was just a separate explosion which produced a hole in the ground. There was no evidence of any plane there whatsoever. Flight 93 or some plane was shot down, but I doubt the passengers were on board. 9/11 was totally scripted, everything went as planned except for the early leak about WTC7 collapsing.
What is not normal is the landing gear vaporizing.
God is always good!
#74. To: All (#72)
www.post-gazette.com/head...0011230flight931230p3.asp Around Thanksgiving, Jerry and Beatrice Guadagno of Ewing, N.J., received word that their son Richard's credentials and badge from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had been found by the FBI at the crash site. "It was practically intact," Richard's sister, Lori, said of the credentials, which were returned in their wallet. "It just looked like it wasn't damaged or hadn't gone through much of anything at all, which is so bizarre and ironic.
#75. To: RickyJ (#73)
That's true. I am often surprised at how the "that's normal" crowd deal with facts like that, claims of engine's bouncing great distances.
It's also not normal to find the engines over a mile away.
#76. To: honway (#71) (Edited)
When she says "there's three guys, they've hijacked the plane" her tone is almost sing-song, not believable at all. She seems to realize this immediately and so the next thing she says is she's "trying to be calm", or maybe it's the next thing on a list she has. The impression I get is she was not completely prepared to leave the message but wrote a list of things to say, and she had a last minute discussion about the list with other people there before calling, which discussion ended up generating rough notes on the list or mental notes. One of the last-minute changes apparently was to emphasize that she's on the plane (said three times), which comes right after "listen to me carefully". I'm guessing the starting list is just a goodbye-type list with nothing about the plane or any "hijackers".
#77. To: honway (#71)
Sounds like another woman says "sorry" in a high-pitched voice at the very end, with a very strong NYC- type accent.
#78. To: nobody (#77)
I didn't notice that before. Yes, someone says sorry.
Sounds like another woman says "sorry" in a high-pitched voice at the very end, with a very strong NYC- type accent.
God is always good!
#79. To: RickyJ, all, *9-11* (#78)
Anybody familiar with getting a name changed on a driver's license? Do you get a new issue date with a new license or do you keep the original issue date? Any newlyweds out there? 
#80. To: honway (#71)
To me it doesn't sound like "you did great" as much as "you did stray".
#81. To: All (#79)
#82. To: All (#81)
The government maintains Tom Burnett made 3 GTE Airfone calls. www.tomburnettfamilyfound...omburnett_transcript.html The Tom Burnett Family Foundation maintains Tom made four cell phone calls. Who are you going to believe? Did the family make up the transcripts?
#83. To: All (#82)
Transcript of Tom’s last calls to Deena 6:27 a.m.( pacific time) First cell phone call from Tom to Deena * Deena: Hello 6:31 Deena calls 911 6:34 The phone rang in on call waiting, Tom’s second cell phone call. * Deena: Hello 6:45 a.m. Third cell phone call from Tom to Deena * Tom: Deena 6:54 a.m. Fourth cell phone call to Tom to Deena * Deena: Tom?
* Tom: Deena
* Deena: Tom, are you O.K.?
* Tom: No, I’m not. I’m on an airplane that has been hijacked.
* Deena: hijacked?
* Tom: Yes, They just knifed a guy.
* Deena: A passenger?
* Tom: Yes.
* Deena: Where are you? Are you in the air?
* Tom: Yes, yes, just listen. Our airplane has been hijacked. It’s United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. We are in the air. The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, they are telling us there is a bomb on board, please call the authorities. He hung up.
* Tom: They’re in the cockpit. The guy they knifed is dead.
* Deena: He’s dead?
* Tom: Yes. I tried to help him, but I couldn’t get a pulse.
* Deena: Tom, they are hijacking planes all up and down the east coast. They are taking them and hitting designated targets. They’ve already hit both towers of the World Trade Center.
* Tom: They’re talking about crashing this plane. (a pause) Oh my God. It’s a suicide mission…(he then tells people sitting around him)
* Deena: Who are you talking to?
* Tom: My seatmate. Do you know which airline is involved?
* Deena: No, they don’t know if they’re commercial airlines or not. The newsreporters are speculating cargo planes, private planes and commercial. No one knows.
* Tom: How many planes are there?
* Deena: They’re not sure, at least three. Maybe more.
* Tom: O.K….O.K….Do you know who is involved?
* Deena: No.
* Tom: We’re turning back toward New York. We’re going back to the World Trade Center. No, wait, we’re turning back the other way. We’re going south. * Deena: What do you see?
* Tom: Just a minute, I’m looking. I don’t see anything, we’re over a rural area. It’s just fields. I’ve gotta go.
* He hung up.
* Deena: Tom, you’re O.K. (I thought at this point he had just survived the Pentagon plane crash).
* Tom: No, I’m not.
* Deena: They just hit the Pentagon.
* Tom: (tells people sitting around him “They just hit the Pentagon.”)
* Tom: O.K….O.K. What else can you tell me?
* Deena: They think five airplanes have been hijacked. One is still on the ground. They believe all of them are commercial planes. I haven’t heard them say which airline, but all of them have originated on the east coast.
* Tom: Do you know who is involved?
* Deena: No
* Tom: What is the probability of their having a bomb on board? I don’t think they have one. I think they’re just telling us that for crowd control.
* Deena: A plane can survive a bomb if it’s in the right place.
* Tom: Did you call the authorities?
* Deena: Yes, they didn’t know anything about your plane.
* Tom: They’re talking about crashing this plane into the ground. We have to do something. I’m putting a plan together.
* Deena: Who’s helping you?
* Tom: Different people. Several people. There’s a group of us. Don’t worry. I’ll call you back.
* Tom: Hi. Anything new?
* Deena: No
* Tom: Where are the kids?
* Deena: They’re fine. They’re sitting at the table having breakfast.
They’re asking to talk to you.
* Tom: Tell them I’ll talk to them later
* Deena: I called your parents. They know your plane has been hijacked. * Tom: Oh…you shouldn’t have worried them. How are they doing?
* Deena: They’re O.K.. Mary and Martha are with them.
* Tom: Good. (a long quiet pause) We’re waiting until we’re over a rural area. We’re going to take back the airplane.
* Deena: No! Sit down, be still, be quiet, and don’t draw attention to yourself! (The exact words taught to me by Delta Airlines Flight Attendant Training).
* Tom: Deena! If they’re going to crash this plane into the ground, we’re going to have do something!
* Deena: What about the authorities?
* Tom: We can’t wait for the authorities. I don’t know what they could do anyway.
* It’s up to us. I think we can do it.
* Deena: What do you want me to do?
* Tom: Pray, Deena, just pray.
* Deena: (after a long pause) I love you.
* Tom: Don’t worry, we’re going to do something.
* He hung up
#84. To: honway, *9-11* (#79)
I believe you just found another smoking gun in the 9/11 case! Good work. I still think WTC7 is the ultimate smoking gun, but this now qualifies as one too IMO.
God is always good!
#85. To: honway (#79)
The only problem with this is you have to wonder why they made a new card up when they could have just used her old one. She would have had it on her I assume.
God is always good!
#86. To: Cynicom (#51)
And also perfectly normal to find whole (or mostly whole) bodies still strapped into seats, fuselage, tail section, landing gear, etc, lying all over the crash scene.
I have witnessed large aircraft crashes, with fires and explosions. It was common to find all sorts of personal items scattered around, perfectly normal.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
#87. To: honway (#79)
This one has a "Duplicate" date of 06/25/01 on the right hand side.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
#88. To: Critter (#87)
My hunch is there is a reasonable explanation for the issue date on the license. From the State of Florida website: # Replacement Licenses * Florida law requires residents, within 10 days of changing their name or address, to obtain a replacement license. The fee is $10. The incorrect license must be surrendered to the Division. ---------------------------------------------------- The question is does the replacement license come with a new issue date in Florida? Maybe the duplicate date is used on a replacement license for a name change.
This one has a "Duplicate" date of 06/25/01 on the right hand side.
#89. To: Critter (#87)
From the Florida Driver's Handbook Name Change (US Citizens) You must bring a court order, marriage certificate or divorce decree to a driver licenses office to prove your name change. Documents must be original or certified copies. Duplicate License If your driver license is lost, stolen or destroyed, apply for a duplicate immediately. At your driver license office you will need to: * Show your identification.This one has a "Duplicate" date of 06/25/01 on the right hand side.
* Sign under oath that your license has been lost or stolen.
* Pay the duplicate license fee ($10.00). You may also apply for a duplicate license by internet at http://www.gorenew.com.
#90. To: RickyJ (#84) (Edited)
I think it's a bit subjective, I can't see anything conclusive in this, but here we are, back to talking about the "hijackers", which I've noted before can be a distraction. Maybe the most interesting thing to me is he asks his wife twice, one time each in two different calls, "Do you know who is involved?" Strange question. "They" had no accents? "They" never spoke to the passengers? Yet he also said "They’re talking about crashing this plane into the ground." It suggests "they" had no accents. Why would "they" be goading the passengers into action with talk "about crashing this plane into the ground" anyway, if "they" already claimed "they" had a bomb? Talk about sending mixed messages with opposite effects.
I believe you just found another smoking gun in the 9/11 case!
#91. To: Critter, *9-11* (#89)
It appears to me if a woman lost her license and wanted a new license with her married name on it, she might receive a duplicate license with the original issue date and the new name. This has been resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks for the reply.
#92. To: honway (#63) (Edited)
There are an infinite number of possible untruths, and motivations for the untruths, within these official reports. I don't trust the official 9/11 stories, but I'm apt to also distrust people who use hysteria to gain attention, to secure agreement, and to fan fires of discord. There's a reason for the hysteria, and at its root it is unhelpful. I remember a huge amount of propaganda being distributed around the Internet that seemed to link the OKC bombings to Iraq, right around the end of the UN sanctions. We still don't know what really happened there, not for sure. But people were persuaded both to support the 'crack down' on militias and the Iraq war, and the escalated 'war on Islamic terrorism' because of it.
Who would you believe? The wife of the man on the plane or the government that has a history of lies concerning events of mass murder like Waco and the OKC bombing?
#93. To: honway (#83)
That's the money quote to me. He was a passenger, right?
* Tom: We’re turning back toward New York. We’re going back to the World Trade Center. No, wait, we’re turning back the other way. We’re going south.
#94. To: nobody (#90)
The Jews don't have to make sense. Nobody in the MSM would dare question them.
Why would "they" be goading the passengers into action with talk "about crashing this plane into the ground" anyway, if "they" already claimed "they" had a bomb? Talk about sending mixed messages with opposite effects.
God is always good!
#95. To: Fred Mertz (#93)
That's another oddity. Also, he also wants to know what airline companies are involved. I can't see the point in asking that at all.
#96. To: honway (#83)
* Tom: They’re talking about crashing this plane. (a pause) Oh my God. It’s a suicide mission…(he then tells people sitting around him) * Deena: Who are you talking to? * Tom: My seatmate. Do you know which airline is involved? ???? (scratches head)
* Deena: Tom, they are hijacking planes all up and down the east coast. They are taking them and hitting designated targets. They’ve already hit both towers of the World Trade Center.
#97. To: Fred Mertz (#93)
He was a passenger, right? It is difficult to figure out what the truth is here. You point out some real eye openers. The wife claims the calls are from a cell phone, the government claims the calls are from a GTE Airfone. If it was a cell phone, it is impossible the call was made from an airplane at 35,000 feet plus, but that is where the government claims the plane was at the time of the call.If it was a cell phone, then we are left with some difficult questions and no easy answers.
That's the money quote to me.
#98. To: Fred Mertz (#93)
what do you mean, Fred?
That's the money quote to me.
Do You Know What Freedom Really Means? Freedom4um.com
#99. To: nobody (#96)
i agree with you, nobody. that is puzzling. it seems unlikely to me that tom would think to ask his wife about what airlines are involved. why would that matter when you're in a life/death situation?
Do You Know What Freedom Really Means? Freedom4um.com
#100. To: Fred Mertz (#93)
He was a passenger, right? He could easily see the direction they were heading by looking outside the windows. That quote doesn't prove anything.
That's the money quote to me.
God is always good!
#101. To: nobody (#95) (Edited)
Well if you were shorting a stock you would want to know the MSM reported the airline you shorted as being involved in the 9/11 attacks, wouldn't you? Also he might have thought it was a security breach of a certain airline and not all of them. It is not really a bad question to ask, just one that most people wouldn't think to ask under the circumstances. But then again he should know what airline he is on. Unless of course he wasn't on any plane at the time of this call.
Also, he also wants to know what airline companies are involved. I can't see the point in asking that at all.
God is always good!
#102. To: honway (#97)
Older analog phones would work at those altitudes. The question is what kind of phone did the guy have, digital or an old analog? The answer to that question would solve whether or not that call could have been made from a plane at that altitude.
If it was a cell phone, it is impossible the call was made from an airplane at 35,000 feet plus,
God is always good!
#103. To: honway (#0)
Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
#104. To: RickyJ (#102)
Is there any data to support the claim that an analog phone would work at 35,000 feet traveling at around 450mph?
Older analog phones would work at those altitudes.
#105. To: All (#104)
. "Cell tower antennas use power levels of 100 watts or more and group of antennas can have power levels of 800 watts. However, a pocket cell phone only transmits an RF signal of less than 1 watt, with many phones transmitting just .4 watts. No phone call can be made until the cell tower receives this tiny signal and establishes a channel with the phone by assigning the phone a frequency to talk on. This basic procedure takes place on both digital and analog cell phones. Only the older, bigger bag phones can output up to 4 watts of power, which almost no one uses anymore." . Plane windows acting as small aperatures for a cell phone RF signal. This forces the cell phone antenna to become highly directional, but without any increase in gain. There is no gain because plane is not a reflector or resonant cavity tuned to cell frequencies. . The cell phone is rapidly moving past cell towers that may or may not be in line with the side of the plane. If a tower happens to be in line with the side of the plane when it turns, such a connection will not last but few seconds, if at all. The pocket cell phone signal of less than 1 watt must be received before the call can be placed. Cell antennas have a weak signal lobe above them, making establishing a connection with a phone unlikely."
#106. To: Kamala (#103)
January 2003 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES RESPONSIBLE FOR 911 FAILURES PROMOTED (another smoking gun, imo)
Do You Know What Freedom Really Means? Freedom4um.com
#107. To: Kamala (#103) (Edited)
Great information. Thanks for the post.The article below ties in with the Saudi visa program. I think most American's are completely unaware that some of the first al- qaeda training camps were on U.S. soil and administered by the CIA. http://www.opednews.com/articles...pringmann-080725-269.html THE MISTAKE DEPARTMENT After airplanes flew into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, The Los Angeles Times reported that 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers got their U.S. visas from the American Consulate General at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, a consulate where I had served as chief of the Visa Section. What The Los Angeles Times did not report was what I had told their Washington, D.C. bureau after reading the story: (1) that the Jeddah Consulate was not a State Department post but an intelligence services operation; (2) that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) routinely demanded (and got) visas for sleazy characters with no ties to either their home country or Saudi Arabia; (3) that these vile people were terrorists recruited by U.S. intelligence officers along with Osama bin Laden, then a CIA asset. With the help of non-State Department officials, i.e., Consul General, Jay Philip Freres (retired and living in Clearwater, Fla.), the head of the Political/Economic Section, Eric L. Qualkenbush (retired and living in Findlay, Ohio), the Political Officer, Henry Ensher (currently assigned to D.C. and living in McLean, Va.), a Commercial Officer, Paul Arvid Tveit (retired and also living in McLean, Va.), the Chief of the Consular Section, Justice (given name) Stevens (whereabouts unknown), and a "part-time" Consular officer, Andy Weber (last seen on the PBS program "Bio-Terror"), they were sent to America for training in blowing things up and shooting things down. Afterwards, they were sent on to Afghanistan to murder Soviet soldiers. It seems pretty clear that they and people that they had trained are now pursuing their own goals (and most likely U.S. foreign policy interests) in helping destabilize Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Their next target may be Iran.
One Example of Why American Foreign Policy is a Disaster
by
J. Michael Springmann
#108. To: christine (#98)
The passenger knowing the destination of his airplane is the WTC in NYC...and within a few seconds he figures out that he's now heading south. Those two items don't make sense to me.
what do you mean, Fred?
#109. To: RickyJ (#100)
Was his aircraft above the clouds? Did he have a compass? I agree he could possibly tell a general sense of direction from the sun, not a specific destination.
He could easily see the direction they were heading by looking outside the windows.
#110. To: honway (#104)
From this morning's New York Times: "According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles." Is there any data to support the claim that an analog phone would work at 35,000 feet traveling at around 450mph?
www.slate.com/id/1008297/
God is always good!
#111. To: RickyJ (#101) (Edited)
He knows what airline he's taking, he identifies it to her earlier. I also noticed he doesn't ask which airlines (plural), but which airline (singular), which makes even less sense, if that's possible in this context. I get a slight impression he's trying to cut her off to stop her from saying something that might mess with his script.
Well if you were shorting a stock you would want to know the MSM reported the airline you shorted as being involved in the 9/11 attacks, wouldn't you? Also he might have thought it was a security breach of a certain airline and not all of them. It is not really a bad question to ask, just one that most people wouldn't think to ask under the circumstances. But then again he should know what airline he is on. Unless of course he wasn't on any plane at the time of this call.
#112. To: honway (#107)
rigorousintuition.ca/boar...c1d066e83fe3eaa92444ff0eb
Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
#113. To: Kamala (#112)
CIA Stalked Al Qaeda in Hamburg Seeking informant, agency tried in 1999 to recruit associate of 9/11 hijackers in Germany by John Crewdson The Chicago Tribune November 17, 2002 HAMBURG, Germany -- Nearly two years before the Sept. 11 hijackings, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency began persistent efforts to recruit as an informer a Syrian-born Hamburg businessman with links to Al Qaeda and the key hijackers, the Tribune has learned. The CIA's attempts to enlist Mamoun Darkazanli were initiated in late 1999, at a time when three of the four Hamburg students who would later pilot the hijacked planes were first learning of the hijacking plot at a training camp of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Darkazanli, 44, has acknowledged knowing the three pilots, Mohamed Atta, Marwan Al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, with whom he attended the same radical Hamburg mosque, Al Quds, and shared several friends in this city's sizable but insular Muslim community. No evidence has ever emerged that American intelligence was aware before Sept. 11, 2001, of Al Qaeda's plot to hijack U.S. commercial jetliners and crash them into buildings, despite what congressional investigators have described as several potential missed opportunities. But the disclosure that the CIA was seeking to turn Darkazanli into a spy during the time the initial hijacking plans were being laid represents the earliest and deepest set of U.S. intelligence footprints outside the hijackers' window. In December 1999 the CIA representative in Hamburg, posing as an American diplomat attached to the U.S. Consulate, appeared at the headquarters of the Hamburg state domestic intelligence agency, the LFV, that is responsible for tracking terrorists and domestic extremists. According to a source with firsthand knowledge of the events, the CIA representative told his local counterparts that his agency believed Darkazanli had knowledge of an unspecified terrorist plot and could be "turned" against his Al Qaeda comrades. "He said, `Darkazanli knows a lot,'" the source recalled. Darkazanli's name had first surfaced the year before in the U.S. investigation of Al Qaeda's 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people and injured thousands. One of those later convicted of conspiracy in that case was Osama bin Laden's former personal secretary, a naturalized U.S. citizen named Wadih El-Hage, whom prosecutors accused of personally delivering bin Laden's order for the embassy bombings to Al Qaeda operatives in Kenya. As part of his duties for bin Laden, El-Hage helped fashion a skein of fictitious Sudanese companies that Al Qaeda allegedly used as fronts for its terrorist activities. One such company was Anhar Trading, of which El-Hage was managing director, and whose business cards bore the address of the Hamburg flat Darkazanli shares with his German-born wife. Around the same time, Darkazanli's name had popped up in connection with another alleged Al Qaeda figure, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, a 44-year-old Sudanese who is in jail in New York awaiting trial in the embassy bombing case. Salim, also accused by federal prosecutors of attempting to help bin Laden obtain enriched uranium for use in a nuclear weapon, was arrested in Munich in September 1998 at the request of the United States. Investigators learned that Salim, a resident of the United Arab Emirates, held an account at a Hamburg bank. The co-signatory on the account was Mamoun Darkazanli, whose home number had been programmed into Salim's cell phone. Germans resist request The Americans began pressing the Germans to arrest Darkazanli, a naturalized German citizen who moved to Hamburg from Syria in 1982, and extradite him to the U.S. The Germans countered that they had no evidence to warrant an arrest. "Nobody could prove terrorism," one German investigator said. "In general, the American colleagues feel more persons should be arrested. Hundreds! But the problem is you have to prove this is intentional planning of criminal activities." At the insistence of the U.S., the Germans opened an investigation of Darkazanli that included occasional surveillance. One of those involved described how Darkazanli, certain he was being followed, walked down the street while looking backward over his shoulder. But the investigation did not include more costly and time-consuming electronic surveillance, and a German investigator conceded that, before Sept. 11, his agency considered Al Qaeda a lower priority target than Hamburg's radical Turks and neo-Nazis. By the end of 1999 the Darkazanli investigation had produced little of value. The Americans were saying that if the Germans couldn't put Darkazanli behind bars, they wanted to turn him into their informer. The LFV representatives explained to the CIA man, who had been in his post less than six months, that German law forbids foreign intelligence services, including those deemed to be "friendly," from conducting operations or recruiting informers inside German borders. Any attempt to recruit Darkazanli on behalf of the CIA would have to be made by operatives of the LFV. In early 2000, around the time the hijacking pilots were returning to Hamburg from Afghanistan, an LFV agent casually approached Darkazanli to ask whether he was interested in becoming a spy. Darkazanli replied that he was just a businessman who knew nothing about Al Qaeda or terrorism. When the Germans informed the CIA representative that the approach had failed, the man refused to accept their verdict that Darkazanli was not recruitable. "He was not happy," one source said. "He kept saying, `It must be possible.'" When the LFV asked for information it could use to counter Darkazanli's claims that he knew nothing about terrorism or Al Qaeda, the CIA demurred. What the LFV got instead was a CIA textbook lecture on the recruiting of agents. As it happened, at the end of January 2000, Darkazanli had met in Madrid with Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, the accused Al Qaeda leader in Spain, who is from Darkazanli's hometown of Aleppo, Syria. The meeting, monitored by Spanish police who were watching Yarkas, included some suspected Al Qaeda figures. But if the CIA was aware of the Madrid meeting, it hadn't told the LFV, whose second attempt to recruit Darkazanli fared no better than the first. By the late summer of 2000, Atta, Al-Shehhi and Jarrah had departed Hamburg for Florida, where they were learning to fly single-engine airplanes. Left behind in Hamburg, allegedly to handle logistical and administrative chores for the hijacking operation, were Atta's roommates, Said Bahaji, Ramzi Binalshibh and Zakariya Essabar. All have since been charged with conspiracy in the events of Sept. 11. Darkazanli knew Bahaji, whose wedding he had attended at Al Quds mosque. A videotape made at the wedding, confiscated by police in a post-Sept. 11 search of Bahaji's apartment, includes a harangue by Binalshibh on the holy war against the "enemies of Islam." Intensifying its efforts to turn Darkazanli into an informer, a frustrated CIA abandoned the Hamburg LFV and took its case directly to federal German intelligence officials in Berlin. "Another attempt by the Americans to get somebody to recruit Darkazanli," one source said. Whether yet another approach was made to Darkazanli by the federal domestic intelligence service, the BFV, could not be determined. Darkazanli did not respond to a registered letter from the Tribune requesting an interview. Immediately after Sept. 11, however, American intelligence operatives and FBI agents descended on Hamburg in force. According to a senior German intelligence official, the FBI undertook its own surveillance of Darkazanli. Turning blind eye That surveillance would have been illegal under German law. But with the horror of more than 3,000 deaths at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field dominating the world news, the Germans looked the other way. "I don't judge it," the senior official said. Darkazanli's name first surfaced publicly two weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when the "Mamoun Darkazanli Import-Export Company" appeared on the Bush administration's initial list of individuals and organizations suspected of involvement in terrorism. The company is evidently defunct. No incorporation records for the company are on file at the Hamburg courthouse, and sources said it had not done enough business over the years to support Darkazanli and his wife. When the German federal prosecutor, Kay Nehm, announced an investigation into possible money laundering by Darkazanli and his company on behalf of Al Qaeda, the news that Darkazanli was in trouble spread quickly through Al Qaeda's network. In Madrid, Spanish police listening in on Imad Yarkas' cell phone overheard a conversation in which Abu Nabil, the leader of a Syrian extremist organization known as the Fighting Vanguard, warned Yarkas that Darkazanli had caught the "flu" that was going around. To the reporters who flocked to his apartment in a well-kept Hamburg neighborhood, Darkazanli admitted having known Atta, Al-Shehhi and Jarrah as fellow worshipers at the downtown Al Quds mosque. But Darkazanli declared that he knew nothing about terrorism or the Sept. 11 plot. The bank account he shared with Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, Darkazanli told the Los Angeles Times, had been opened in March 1995 to facilitate Salim's attempted purchase of a commercial radio transmitter. Darkazanli said he hadn't seen Salim since the transmitter deal fell through a few months later. Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Darkazanli had been brought in for questioning by the German federal police, and his apartment thoroughly searched. The police, Darkazanli said, had found nothing. His inclusion on the Bush administration's list of designated terrorist entities was just "a big misunderstanding." A few days after Darkazanli's police interview, detectives questioned Mohamed Haydar Zammar, another Syrian-born Hamburg resident who has since acknowledged encouraging Atta, Al-Shehhi and Jarrah to make their fateful visit to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Asked whether he knew Darkazanli, Zammar replied: "Yes, I know him well. He is a friend who I have known for a long time." Police later learned that it was one of Zammar's brothers, Abdulfattah, who had driven Darkazanli to the Madrid meeting with Spanish Al Qaeda leader Yarkas in January 2000. The absence of documents in Darkazanli's flat was partly explained on Oct. 31, 2001, when a young Serbian immigrant with a record of convictions for burglary walked into the fortress-like headquarters of the Hamburg police. The man presented astonished detectives with a bag full of documents that appeared to have been taken from Darkazanli's files. After accepting the purloined documents, the police arrested the man for burglary. According to the burglar's story, he had discovered the documents stashed in a small summer house outside Hamburg that he had broken into. He had first gone with the documents to the U.S. Consulate in Hamburg, where it had been suggested that he take them to the police. But when police asked the burglar to show them the house where he had found the documents, he couldn't locate it. "We all thought, `CIA,'" one German investigator said. Relations improve The CIA representative in Hamburg, who was recalled to Washington in July, declined to comment last week. Since the arrival of his successor, relations with the CIA are described by German intelligence agents as "more collegial." Darkazanli's lawyer, Andreas Beurskens, said he had advised his client not to speak with the media until the police investigation is complete. But as the Sept. 11 investigations on both sides of the Atlantic have progressed, more links have emerged between Darkazanli and Al Qaeda. One is the disclosure that Darkazanli received at least $16,000 from Mohamed Kaleb Kalaje Zouaydi, a wealthy Spanish-Syrian arrested in Madrid in April and accused of funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations. Another is the discovery by German investigators that Darkazanli was previously employed by Abdul-Matin Tatari, an Aleppo-born textile exporter in Hamburg whose links to the Sept. 11 hijackers are under investigation by German police. Police sources say they have expanded the Darkazanli investigation to include his business transactions over the years. In view of what the expanded investigation was producing, one source said, "the situation for Darkazanli might become more complicated." Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune
Great link. More dots.Thanks.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest