A Very Simple Question

well, i thought i had answers, but they've been rendered implausible....so i'm simply looking for plausible answers now that we can all agree on....

i completely agree that it's impossible for a plane to magically disintegrate, yet photos of a window section, the black box and a perfect red bandana are used as evidence....

i want to know how this happened, i want to know who is trying to fake us out, i want to know who dug that hole, i want to know who faked those pictures, i want to know what happened to all those people on that plane and why they chose to participate in this scheme, i want to know why Tom Burnetts wife is lying about talking to him that morning, i want to know why Mark Binghams mother is lying about talking to him that morning, i want to know why Jeremy Glicks wife is lying about talking to him that morning, i want to know why Linda Gronlunds sister is lying about talking to her that morning, i want to know why Lisa Jefferson is lying about talking to Todd Beamer that morning, i want to know why Honor Elizabeth Wainios stepmother is lying about talking to her that morning, i want to know why Lauren Grandcolas' husband is lying about her leaving a message that morning, i want to know why Eric Peterson is lying about seeing the plane crash and explode, i want to know what really happens when a plane crashes vertically into the earth at over 600 mph, i want to know what happens to all the pieces of a plane when it's jet fuel explodes in that same impact....

i want answers to these questions...that's what i want...

Trust me, he's being sarcastic.

Ok, I see what is going on here.... fuck it, I'm officially out of this thread now, this is fucking rediculous.

will no one answer me? IF YOU CUT ME DO I NOT BLEED?????

I SEEK THE TRUTH!!!! SOMEBODY MAKE A STATEMENT INSTEAD OF ASKING A QUESTION!!!!!

JUST FILL IN THE BLANK!!!!! WHY CAN'T ANYONE HELP ME FIND THE TRUTH?!?!?!


"Flight 93 did not crash as we were told, what really happened was ________________."

All of those people you listed do not have to be lying. There are numerous scenarios in which these people could have called their relatives and Flight 93 still taken out in some other way.

You use indignation in an attempt to refute a very real possibility. I don't know what happened to Flight 93, but there is no photo, video or forensic evidence that proves that it crashed in that ditch in Shanksville.

Here's an interesting example. I'm paraphrasing but the source is easy enough to find.

Mark Bingham's mom gets a call from him. When his mom answers he says, "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." The rest of the call is just as strange. The circumstances with all of the other cell phone calls are equally strange, Ted and Donna Olsen come to mind.

they arent lying, they believe that they talked to them.

when was the last time you referred to your self as frog ball, you know first name last name... with your mother

Hi mom this is "John Smith" you believe me dont you?

Ill bet you have never referred to yourself by first last when talking to your mother.

so if you are for real frog ball, what your saying is you want the investigation re-opened, you dont have to say you think the gov did it.... just that you would like the investigation re-opened to answer these unanswered questions.

so the first possible answer, based on the response by FatesWebb, is that the relatives who took calls from 8 different passengers who were supposed to be on Flight 93 were duped and did not realize that they weren't really talking to loved ones....

thus, the sequence of events is:
passengers exist -> Flight 93 takes off -> airplane disappears -> passengers disappear -> fake passengers call relatives -> fake explosion is created in field -> fake hole is dug in field -> fake photos are created of crash site -> rescue workers are convinced to remain silent about the lack of evidence found -> official story is created

the second possible answer, based on the response by Stickman, is that the relatives really did take those calls but then something mysterious happened to the plane.....

thus, the sequence of events is:
passengers exist -> Flight 93 takes off -> airplane disappears -> passengers disappear -> fake explosion is created in field -> fake hole is dug in field -> fake photos are created of crash site -> rescue workers are convinced to remain silent about the lack of evidence found -> official story is created

this is so awesome to finally have answers! i would say this it 99% conclusive....the only remaining questions are:
- where did the plane go?
- where did the passengers go?
- who created the fake crash site?
- when did they create the fake crash site?
- how were the rescue workers convinced to keep quiet?

i'm gonna go do some research on these questions so that i can finalize that 1% of inconclusiveness.....

you know what else i never did?

- i've never lived in Miami, Riverside, Redlands, Monterey, Los Gatos, Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco or New York City.
- i've never been the CEO if a public relations firm.
- i've never wrestled a gun from a mugger's hand late at night on a San Francisco street.
- i've never run with the bulls in Pamplona.
- and i've never called my mother from a hijacked plane.

i was never Mark Bingham and thus i can't say whether or not Mark Bingham would say such a thing to his mother....or whether or not i would say such a thing in that situation...

but i guess if YOU wouldn't do that, then it totally makes the evidence plausible...

I got bad news for you: you don't know 99% of what happened. I never said I know what happened. The only thing I'm certain of is that Flight 93 did not crash into that ditch.

Stop trying to be slick and put words in my mouth.

or the third scenario is, it was shot down....

nobody would do that, everyones mom knows thier voice. everyone says hi, mom... or at most hi mom its mark.... not hi mom its mark bingham, you believe me dont you mom?

why would you ask your mom if she believes it is you? have you ever called your mom, told her it was you, and then asked her if she believes it is you?????

if you have then you and mark bingham are the first 2 people to ever do that....

i'm not doing that, i'm attempting to provide an alternative scenario to the plane crashing into the ditch, i'm trying to help you out here...

awesome! i believe it!!!!

i just have to figure something out first, i need to figure out who would have known when the plane was going to be shot down so that they could make those 12 fake phone calls BEFORE the shoot down...making them after the shootdown would look suspicious.....

i'm gonna do some research and get back to you....

here is somewhere to start then.... some information on this...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._usatoday/inflightcellphonesworkedgreatintest


Any analysis of the cellphone and "airfone" calls from Flight 93 must begin with some basic, high-altitude cellphone facts. According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a "fluke" that so many calls reached their destinations. (Harter 2001) In the opinion of a colleague of mine who has worked in the cellphone industry, it was a "miracle" that any of the calls got through from altitude. (See the recent proposal to install equipment to make cellphone calls possible from aircraft.) An aircraft, having a metal skin and fuselage, acts like a Faraday cage, tending to block or attenuate electromagnetic radiation. One can make a cellphone call from inside an aircraft while on the ground because the weakened signal is still close enough to the nearest cellsite (relay tower) to get picked up. Once above 10,000 feet, however, calls rarely get through, if ever.

Here is the statement of an experienced airline pilot: "The idea of being able to use a cellphone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast (and thus changing cells too rapidly) for the phone to provide a signal." (AVWeb, 1999)

People boarding aircraft for the last decade or so have all heard the warnings to turn off their cellphones for the duration of the flight. The reasons for this regulation are somewhat mysterious, since the usual explanation, that delicate aircraft electronics might be affected by cellphone signals, is cast somewhat in doubt by the fact that all avionics are shielded from stray electromagnetic radiation. (Spitzer 1987) On the other hand, the FCC had apparently requested that airlines make this rule, owing to the tendency for cell phone calls made from aircraft at lower altitudes to create "cascades" that may lead to breakdown of cellsite operations. (Fraizer 2002)

The cascade problem is more likely at altitudes of 10,000 feet or lower, where reaching a cellsite, although still a touch-and-go matter, is more easily accomplished. However, because of its superior position, the cellphone may reach several cellsites at once. This can create problems, as software that determines which site is to handle the call makes its judgment based on the relative strength of calls. If the call is made from an overhead position, it may well not be able to distinguish relative strength at different cellsites. When this happens it is designed to close off the calling channel, selecting another channel in its place. But the same problem of deciding which cellsite should handle the call also occurs on the new channel, so the new channel is closed, and so on. One by one, in a rapid cascade that would last only seconds, all the channels would be closed, leading to a network-wide breakdown.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, cellphone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8000 feet are essentially impossible, while those below 8000 feet are highly unlikely down to about 2000, where they become merely unlikely. (Dewdney 2003) Moreover, even at the latter altitude (and below), the handoff problem appears. Any airliner at or below this altitude, flying at the normal speed of approximately 500 mph, would encounter the handoff problem (Dewdney 2003). An aircraft traveling at this speed would not be over the cellsite long enough to complete the electronic "handshake" (which takes several seconds to complete) before arriving over the next cellsite, when the call has to be handed off from the first cellsite to the next one. This also takes a few seconds, the result being, in the optimal case, a series of broken transmissions that must end, sooner or later, in failure.

It must also be remarked that the alleged hijackers of the Cellphone Flight were remarkably lenient with their passengers, allowing some 13 calls. However, it would seem highly unlikely that hijackers would allow any phone calls for the simple reason that passengers could relay valuable positional and other information useful to authorities on the ground, thus putting the whole mission in jeopardy.

2. The calls made from United Airlines Flight 93

The following analysis of the actual calls is based on text assembled by four reporters of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (Roddy et al. 2001) The calls were mostly rather brief and it must be borne in mind that, with the exception of two recorded messages, the persons called would not necessarily recollect the exact words which either they or the caller used.

Following a delay in its scheduled departure time of 8:01 am, Flight 93 reached its cruising altitude of approximately 30,000 feet about 40 minutes into the flight. At about this time the takedown would have been initiated. And at about this time, the aircraft was "hijacked," according to several cellphone calls. (Note that at this altitude the calls were flat-out impossible.)

CALL A1: A man claiming to be Tom Burnett called his wife Deena in San Ramon, CA around 9:20 to Deena's best recollection:

Deena: "Are you alright?"

Caller: "No. I'm on United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. The plane was hijacked. We are in the air. They've already knifed a guy. There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI."

CALL B: Just before 9:30 am, a man claiming to be Jeremy Glick called Lyz Glick, who was visiting in-laws in the Catskills of New York state. The phone was answered by Glick's mother-in-law, JoAnne Makely:

JoAnne: "Jeremy. Thank God. We're so worried."

Caller: "It's bad news. Is Liz there?"

The caller went on to describe Arabic-looking hijackers wearing red headbands and carrying knives. One had told the passengers he had a bomb. The caller asked if it was true that planes had been crashed into the World Trade Center. She confirmed this. The caller mentioned that another passenger had heard the news on his/her cell phone.

CALL A2: The man claiming to be Tom Burnett called Deena Burnett again around 9:30 am. As Deena later described his call, "He didn't sound frightened, but he was speaking faster than he normally would." He told her there were hijackers in the cockpit.

Deena: "A lot of planes have been hijacked, but they don't know how many."

Caller: "You've got to be kidding."

Deena: "No."

Caller: "Were they commercial planes or airliners?"

Deena: "I don't know."

Caller: "Okay. I've got to go."

CALL C: A man claiming to be Mark Bingham called Bingham's sister-in-law, Cathy Hoglan, who was being visited by Bingham's mother, Alice. Cathy took the call and handed the phone to Alice with the remark, "Alice, talk to Mark. He's been hijacked."

Caller: "Mom? This is Mark Bingham."

Caller: "I want you to know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb."

Alice: "Who are these guys?

Caller: (after a pause) "You believe me, don't you?

Alice: "Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?

(After another pause the line went dead.)

CALL D: A man claiming to be Todd Beamer on a United Airlines airfone had some trouble getting through to anyone but the Verizon customer service center, where the operator relayed the call to Verizon supervisor, Lisa Jefferson at 9:45 am. (Verizon is a large communications company that has the contract for airfones on United airlines equipment.) The man told Jefferson that the plane had been hijacked, that he could see three hijackers armed with knives, one of them claiming to have a bomb. He described how the passengers had been herded to the rear of the aircraft, guarded by the one with the bomb. He asked the supervisor to call the Beamer family on his behalf.

Caller: "Oh! We're going down. (pause) No. We're okay. I think we're turning around." (It was approximately around this time that the flight, then passing near Cleveland, made a hard left toward Washington, DC.)

CALL A3: The man claiming to be Tom Burnett called Deena Burnett again.

Deena: "They're taking airplanes and hitting landmarks all up and down the east coast."

Caller: "Okay. We're going to do something. I'll call you back."

CALL F1: At 9:47, the answering machine of Lorne Lyles recorded a call that he thought was from his wife, CeeCee. The woman could be heard praying for herself, her family, and even for the souls of the hijackers.

CALL B (cont'd.) State police, talking to Jeremy Glick's mother-in-law, asked her to relay a question to Jeremy. Did he know where his plane was? He didn't know, but said they had changed direction.

Caller: "I need you to be happy and I will respect any decisions that you make."

He told Ms Lyles that the passengers were about to take a vote on whether to take back the aircraft. Should they try?

Lyz: "Honey, you need to do it." They spoke of weapons. The caller joked.

Caller: "I have my butter knife from breakfast."

CALL G: About this time, Phil Bradshaw, husband of flight attendant Sandy Bradshaw, received a phone call from a woman who identified herself as his wife.

Caller: "Have you heard what's going on? My flight has been hijacked. My flight has been hijacked by three guys with knives.

Phil asked her who was flying the plane.

Caller: "I don't know who's flying the plane or where we are. I see a river."

Bradshaw: "Be safe and come home soon."

The caller then explained that she had to go. She planned to prepare boiling water in the galley -- to pour on the hijackers.

CALL H: Sometime after 9:30, Fred Fiumano received a call from someone claiming to be his friend, Marion Britton. The caller was crying, stating that the plane had been hijacked and that two passengers had already been killed. Fiumano tried to console his friend, stating that the hijackers were probably going to take her for a ride. "You'll be alright."

CALL I: Jack Grandcolas in San Rafael, CA, received a call from a woman claiming to be Lauren Catuzzi Grandcolas, his wife. The message, as recorded on his answering machine, was short:

Caller: "Sweetie, pick up the phone if you can hear me. (pause) Okay, I love you. There's a little problem with the plane. I'm fine and comfortable for now..."

She asked Jack to pass along her love for everyone, then passed the airfone to her seat-mate.

Caller: "Now you call your people."

CALL J: Esther Heymann received a call from a woman claiming to be her stepdaughter, Honor Elizabeth Wainio, also Grandcolas' seat-mate.

Caller: "Mom, we're being hijacked. I just called to say good bye."

Heymann: "Elizabeth, we don't know how this is going to turn out. I've got my arms around you."

Wainio said she could feel them.

Heymann: "Let's look out at that beautiful blue sky. Let's be here in the moment. Let's do some deep breathing together." (pause)

Caller: "It hurts me that it's going to be so much harder for you than it is for me."

CALL A4: Once again, just before 10:00 am, Deena Burnett received a fourth phone call.

Caller: "A group of us are going to do something."

Deena: "No, Tom. Just sit down and don't draw attention to yourself."

Caller: "Deena, if they're going to crash the plane into the ground, we have to do something. We can't wait for the authorities. We have to do something now."

Caller: "Pray. Just pray, Deena. We're going to do something."

CALL D (cont'd): The caller who had identified himself as Todd Beamer appears to have remained connected with Lisa Jefferson, the Verizon supervisor, almost to the end of the flight. At this point the caller was reciting the 23rd Psalm from the Bible

CALL F2: The caller identifying herself as CeeCee Lyles finally got through to Lorne Lyles.

Caller: "Babe, my plane's been hijacked."

Lyles: "Huh? Stop joking.

Caller: "No Babe, I wouldn't joke like that. I love you. Tell the boys I love them."

As the couple prayed together, Lorne heard sounds that he would later interpret as passengers preparing a counterattack.

Caller: They're going to force their way into the cockpit."

CALL D (cont'd): Having finished his prayer session with Lisa Jefferson, the caller claiming to be Todd Beamer left the phone connected. Jefferson recalls hearing the now famous rallying cry.

Caller: "Are you guys ready? Let's roll."

CALL J (cont'd): Esther Heymann, who believed herself to be talking with her step daughter, heard her last words.

Caller: I need to go. They're getting ready to break into the cockpit. I love you. Goodbye."

CALL G (cont'd): Phil Bradshaw heard his caller's last words to him.

Caller: "Everyone's running to first class. I've got to go. Bye."

CALL F2 (cont'd): Lorne Lyles recalls hearing the last moments of Flight 93.

Caller: (screams) "They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!

The caller screamed again, said something he couldn't hear, then the line went dead.

3. Operational details

How on Earth could any organization fake the calls I have just described? In the middle of writing this very sentence, I was interrupted by someone calling through the back door of our porch: "Is anybody home?" It was my son who was visiting us from out of town. He had been out with some old friends. I went out to the back porch to greet him.

It wasn't my son at all, but the neighbor next door wanting to borrow our ladder. I marveled that I could have mistaken his voice for that of my son. It has a different timbre and tone, yet the context of expectation overrode my ability to discriminate sounds. One could say that my neighbor faked my son's return without even trying to.

This example proves nothing, of course, but it illustrates a fact that has been used by spiritualists and mediums to beguile clients for hundreds of years. Anxious people, hoping to contact a deceased loved one, would typically report satisfaction with a seance. "I swear, it was my son. There was no mistaking that sweet little voice." The context leads the recipient of such a message actually to hear the loved one. Of course, the tone of voice must be approximately correct. In the case at hand, persons faking phone calls have the further advantage of electronic fuzzing, the tendency for audio lines with very low bandwidth to transmit the human voice somewhat imperfectly. In addition, extreme emotional stress alters the human voice even more markedly, causing the person addressed to make unconscious allowances.

Telephone calls all have low bandwidth which simply means that many of the characteristics of the human voice are simply lost, like an out-of-focus photograph; if you know that the picture taken at the lake last summer was of your sister, you will have no trouble "recognizing her. Yet if someone who somewhat resembles your sister, wearing the same clothes had stood in for your her, you would still "know" that it was your sister.

There are three ways to fake the telephonic voice of any person whatever. First, voices can be mimicked. With a little practice, you or I can sound like a great many people. Second, voices can be synthesized in near real time if one has a recording of the voice being recorded. Software that was already well developed before September 11, 2001, was able to produce a very convincing quote from General Colin Powell of the Joint Chiefs: "I am being treated well by my captors." (Arkin 1999) Moreover, the mimicry is convincing even when played over a high bandwidth device such as a tape recorder.

The third way involves a device called a voice transformer or a voice changer, such devices having been under development for at least a decade. (Ex. Pro 2004) (Spook 2004) (SeeStorm 2004) One speaks into a microphone, the sound pattern is digitized and, in real time the computer within the device produces a signal that is reconstituted as sound, a voice that can be entirely different from your own. Everything you say will be spoken by the synthesized voice and with the same inflections, pauses and emphases. You can transform your voice into that of an old man or a young girl. You can alter the sound of the voice so produced by changing the settings of controls that govern pitch and voice formants, the overtones that make up what might be called the specific "sound" of a particular person's voice.

Of the three methods of faking a particular voice over the telephone, method number three is obviously preferable.

However, it was the content of the alleged cellphone calls that caught the attention of the American public as confirming that the calls had been made as alleged. The caller seemed to know at least a few "personal details" about the person being called. As far as we can determine, these details involved the pet name for one's partner, as well as other commonplace items such as references to "the kids," and so on.

The question therefor arises how the caller could have known these details. There are at least two ways. First, several passengers aboard Flight 77 were undoubtedly frequent flyers. Agents taking the flight on several occasions prior to September 11 would have an ample opportunity to engage numerous fellow passengers in chitchat, meanwhile recording their voices.

"Take this flight often?"

The recordings would contain information about timbre, pitch and other voice characteristics, as well as a wealth of "personal information." the second way is to listen in on phone conversations. In this connection it must be mentioned that the vast majority of telephone calls made every day in the United States pass through the AMDOCS Company billing system, a telephone facility headquartered in Israel which has long been suspected as providing a golden opportunity for anyone with real time access to the calls passing through the AMDOCS system to eavesdrop on conversations. (Curtiss 2003) (WRH 2004)

"Sweetie, would you drop by the store on your way home and pick up ice cream for Jenny and Bobby?"

Of course, the organization involved would have obtained copies of the flight manifests well before the flight or it could have simply eavesdropped on the phone reservation systems for American and United Airlines.

On the fateful day the calling operation would take place in an operations center, basically a sound studio that is equipped with communication lines and several telephones. An operations director displays a scripted sequence of events on a screen so that the voice operators know what stage the "hijacking" is supposed to be at. All calls are orchestrated to follow the script. For example, shortly after the takedown of Flight 77, (See Dewdney 2003b) the first bogus calls from Flight 77 are made.

Other pseudo-events in the script include the first appearance of the hijackers, their announcement, scuffles with passengers, the back-of-the-plane strategy session, and the final rush to the cockpit. It would also include real events such as the aircraft's turn mentioned in Call D.

To supplement the calls with real sound effects, an audio engineer would have several tapes ready to play. The tapes, which portray mumbled conferences among passengers or muffled struggles, replete with shouts and curses, can be played over any of the phone lines, as determined by the script, or simply fed as ambient sound into the control room. Trained operators with headsets make the actual calls, talking into voice changers that have been adjusted to reproduce the timbre of voice for every passenger designated to make cellphone calls.

Each operator has studied tapes for several of the individuals, as recorded on prior occasions of Flight 93, as well as profiles of the individuals, including many items of personal information, obtained by he methods previously explained.

The introductory sentence would carry the hook: "Honey, we've been hijacked!" Thereafter, with the belief framework installed, the operator can react to questions, literally playing the situation by ear, but being sure to include pertinent details such as "Arab-looking guys," "boxcutters," and all the rest. If the contact has been made successfully in the operator's opinion, with the essential information conveyed, it is always possible to terminate the call more or less gracefully, depending on what portion of the script is under execution. "Okay. We're going to do something. I'll call you back." Click.

Operators would have received general instructions about what do to in the course of a call. Although each has been supplied with at least some "intimate" details of the target's life, there would be techniques in place for temporizing or for avoiding long conversations where basic lack of knowledge might threaten to become suddenly obvious, and so on. Three such techniques are praying (from text, if necessary) (Calls D, F1, and J), crying (as in call H), or discussing the other attacks (as in call A2 and B).

In the case at hand, Flight 93, various calls may now be examined as a consistency check. First, it must be noted that the longest call was made by the person who identified himself as Todd Beamer (Call D) to someone whom the real Todd Beamer did not know at all, Lisa Jefferson, a Verizon supervisor. Among the shorter conversations were Calls B, A2 and D.

Early in Call B (Glick), the caller indicates that it is general knowledge among the passengers that other aircraft have been hijacked that morning. Near the end of this conversation, when the caller discusses possible actions against the hijackers, he makes a joking remark:

Caller: "I have my butter knife from breakfast."

This is strange because it implies that the caller had already finished breakfast, whereas meals are not normally served until the aircraft reaches cruising altitude, about the time that the alleged hijacking began.

In Call A2 (Burnett), Deena Burnett describes the other hijackings.

A2 Deena: "A lot of planes have been hijacked, but they don't know how many."

Caller: "You've got to be kidding."

Deena: "No."

Caller: "Were they commercial planes or airliners?"

Here, the caller seems to be temporizing. Not only are hijackings of commercial (i. e., cargo) aircraft extremely rare events, the caller's apparent surprise contradicts the implication of Call B (made earlier) that the other attacks were already general knowledge among the passengers of Flight 93.

Call C, also short, may point to a possible fumble. Was one of the callers asleep at the switch?

Caller: "Mom? This is Mark Bingham."

Caller: "I want you to know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb."

Alice: "Who are these guys?

Caller: (after a pause) "You believe me, don't you?

Caller: "Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?

Alice Bingham attributed the strange introductory sentence to her son being flustered. But if Mark chose his mother to call, over all other people in the world, would he be likely to make such a mistake? Would thoughts of his mother not be uppermost in his mind, no matter what happened in the passenger compartment? A caller can only make such a mistake if he or she is thinking of something entirely unrelated to the reason for the call or the person being called and that can hardly have been the case in the alleged circumstances.

Instead of answering the mother's question, the caller seems uncertain. Mrs. Bingham has just asked "Who are these guys?" and the caller answers with another question. Does she believe his previous sentence? The caller, who may have lost confidence in the call, terminates the conversation (possibly pounding his forehead in silent frustration).

Caller C never called back. Of the 13 phone calls allegedly made from the plane, four were from one caller (A: Burnett), two were from another (F: Lyles), and the remaining seven calls were not repeated. Non-repeated calls would thus represent final exits with either flubbed results or a smooth performance. The repeated calls give continuity to the script, as well as opportunities for myth-building. Here's Todd Beamer, known to friends (and observers) as a kind of go-ahead, take-charge guy. Perfect. He will be the "reason," decided well in advance of September 11, why the plane crashes well short of the White House.

Caller D, the one alleged to be Todd Beamer, apparently had difficulty using his airfone. This could be explained if the telephone used by the caller was not part of the Verizon system. However, the caller could easily access the Verizon supervisory office over an ordinary telephone, explaining that he had been trying to reach someone. Strangely enough, caller D preferred to talk to Lisa Jefferson (asking her to call his loved ones for him), even though he was about to die.

One other cellphone call bears mention. Barbara Olson, a well-known Washington lawyer and, more recently, television political pundit, died aboard American Airlines Flight 77, the aircraft which reportedly struck the Pentagon building. News reports (San Diego, 2001), (BBC, 2001), (Telegraph, 2001) described two calls which Ms Olson made to her husband, Ted Olson, Solicitor General of the United States. The caller said she had locked herself in the lavatory and attempted to place the call to Mr. Olson ten times before the charges were accepted. The first conversation, in which the caller said, "Can you believe this, we are being hijacked," was cut short, for some reason. In a second attempt, the caller described men with boxcutters overpowering the flight crew, then asked, "What do I tell the pilot to do?"

The Olson call is neither less nor more mysterious than the calls previously analysed. In this case it might be asked what advice Ted Olson could possibly have for the pilot (who was allegedly at the back of the plane with the passengers).

The foregoing analyses certainly do not prove that the cellphone operation actually took place. But they clearly demonstrate that all the conversations are consistent with such an operation, along with a sprinkling of tantalizing clues that are more consistent with the operation than actual in-flight calls. That is all one can hope for from such an analysis, even if the alternate scenario is correct or approximately correct.

Under the weight of evidence that the cellphone (not airfone) calls were essentially impossible as described by the Bush White House and the major media on the day in question, we have no alternative but to give serious consideration to the operational possibilities, as outlined here.

References

(Arkin 1999) Arkin W. H. When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing. WashingtonPost.Com. Mon. Feb. 1/99. Retrieved June 10/04 from <public-action.com/911/voice-simulation>

(AVWeb, 1999) Dahler C. 1999. AVWeb letters. Retrieved November 20, 2002 from <http://www.avweb.com/other/avma9910.html>

(BBC, 2001) British Broadcasting Corporation, 2001. Final calls from doomed flights, Retrieved November 3, 2002, from <http://news.bbc.co,
uk/1/hi/world/americas/1539193.stm>

(Curtiss 2003) Curtiss H. Despite Coverup, Israel Caught Spying in Washington Again. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. June 2000. Retrieved June 10/04 from <www.wrmea.com/backissues/062000/ 0006006.html

(Dewdney 2003a) Dewdney A. K. 2003. Project Achilles: parts I, II, III. Physics 911. Retrieved June 10, 2004 from <physics911.org/net/modules/ news/article.php?storyid=6>

(Dewdney 2003b) Op Pearl

(Ex Pro 2004) Voice Transformer. Executive Pro. 2004. Retrieved June 10/04 from <http://www.pimall.com/nais/provoice.html

(Fraizer, 2002) Fraizer J. How do I log on while in flight? North American Network Operators. (June 27 2002)<www.irbs.net.internet/ nanog/0206/ 0907.html>. Retrieved Sept. 3, 2002.

(Harter, 2001) Harter B. Final Contact. Wireless Review (November 1, 2001) <www.wirelessreview.com/ar/wireless_final_contact_2/>. Retrieved Sept. 3, 2002.

(Roddy et al., 2001) Roddy DB, Lash C, Levin S, and Silver JD. Flight 93: Forty lives, one destiny. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Oct 28, 2001. See also <www.post-gazette.com/headlines/ 20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp>, Retrieved August 24, 2002.

(Rudolph 2003) Rudolph G. June 2003. Cellphone experiments in Airliners. Physics 911. Retrieved June 10 from <physics911.org/net/ modules/news/article.php?storyid=6>

(San Diego, 2001) San Diego Union-Tribune. 2001. Author calls spouse from doomed plane. Retrieved November 8, 2002, from <http://www. signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/firstweek/20010912-9999_ 1n12olson.html>

(SeeStorm 2004) VoiceDisguise. SeeStorm. 2004. Rerieved June 10/04 from <http://www.seestorm.com/products/vd.jsp>

(Spitzer, 1987) Spitzer CL. 1987. Digital Avionics Systems, New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

(Spook 2004) Voice Changer. Spook Tech. 2004. Retrieved June 10 from http://www.spooktech.com/teledev/provoicechng.shtml>

(Telegraph, 2001) Harrison, D. 2001. Revealed: the men with stolen identities. The Telegraph. London. September 23, 2001. Retrieved September 29, 2002, from <www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml ?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml>

(WRH 2004) Is Israel Blackmailing America? What Really Happened. Retrieved June 10/04 from <www.whatreallyhappened.com/blackmail.
html> http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm

i know, right?!? me and you wouldn't do that, that's why it's a lie...his mother is obviously a dirty lying whore and she probably kicks puppies when no one's looking...i mean how much money do you think she got for saying that? i bet the <agency that shall remain nameless> gave her some serious cash to sell out her son....

just look at her in this video, can't believe a word of it....can you?

http://www.911myths.com/Hoglan.avi


(still working on that whole fake calls before shootdown evidence...... :btu: )

oh man, that was good reading!!! i am so convinced about the fake calls now....and there's no way i'm ever gonna use one of those airphones on a plane because now i know that i won't really be talking to someone i know, since they don't actually work...

still working on that fake calls before shootdown research....i'll have something soon...

here this may help with the timetable....

when did I say that she lied?

even if the calls were real, it doesnt prove that the plane wasnt shot down.

this is what bogus debunkers do they attack the facts that just dont matter, the easy ones that dont break the conspiracy.... its called a strawman attack....

I didnt say anything except that cellphones in 2001 could not make calls at 600mph and over 10,000 ft. much less 50,000 ft.

awesome! so at 9:58 the fake calls ended and the person behind the fake calls probably contacted his or her leader who then sent an order to the military to shoot down the plane...

this is gold!!!

you didn't say that, I'M saying she's a liar because she claims that he used to say that when he called her...that's just bullshit right? i wouldn't say that and you wouldn't say that and nobody i know would say that and nobody you know would say that so she's gotta be lying, that's all....

wait, come on, i'm confused....

i thought that you implied that the calls were faked here: http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=5930568#post5930568

and since cell phones couldn't make those calls in 2001 then they had to be fake calls..

so i was just trying to figure out who would make those calls with foreknowledge of the shootdown...

it makes sense though that someone had to know that the shootdown was gonna happen and prepare for the fake calls right? i just want to make sure i get this right so i don't run around in circles...

that is if the plane were even shot down.... there is not much evidence either way so who knows what happened. the only thing I am suggesting is that the calls were faked, not that that is something that is anything but something for you to attack, why would it really matter if they arent faked? so what if they were real? so what if there were hijackers on the plane as well.

If you were going to fake a hijacking, why not just setup a real hijacking????

I am only asking questions like you are..... I listened to mrs beamer, and I dont think that she is lying, so, the phone call WAS MADE. but was it real? there is no way of telling for sure..

but really it isnt like this is one of the things that will break the whole inside job theory. why waste your time on the side issue, and easy facts? oh yeah that is all that the myth site bothers on...

for instance the site basically admits that it has no answer for the explosive force, and even goes against the fema reports official numbers basically calling fema a liar, and still can not explain it.

http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html

see myths... it tries to use science it cannot even explain and doesnt even know who wrote it up as well. and admits that pieces weighing hundreds of tons were expelled from the wtc at over 35 miles per hour vertically...

nice debunk NOT! it didnt debunk it, because it cannot debunk it, because it is impossible....

then it attempt to attack the collapse times

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

but it goes against the fema report, the 911 commission report the videos and the seismic evidence in the process. and STILL it is explaining it at 14 seconds which is STILL IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES! so basically it goes against the official story AGAIN, and still doesnt succeed in debunking the point.

lets move on, molten steel... we have seen pictures of this steel, heard the testimony, seen video, and even satellite imagry... so we know it existed... but wait the myth site attempts to debunk the molten metal by claiming it didnt exist. then they basically admit there was molten metal, and try to explain it because hydrocarbons can reach 1800F they say... but what they are not being honest about is this is impossible unless the perfect mixture of fuel and oxygen is provided, such as in a pre mixed mixture, you know like in a torch. where you have to set the oxygen and the fuel to get the blue flame... all of this is still irrellivent because even at 1800 steel wont melt, and it would take a lot longer than we had.... http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html so this time they have resorted to denying what we know is proven, and bending the laws of physics to debunk the molten metal. clearly disinformation tactics.

ok lets look at this one, they are claiming that giuliani had foreknowledge of the attacks.. http://www.911myths.com/html/giuliani_and_the_wtc_warning.html WHICH HE ADMITS TO ON VIDEO. so they dont try and say he doesnt. but what they are leaving out of the story, is he was in wtc7, and was told to leave it before the first building collapsed, that he was TOLD the buildings were going to collapse, and he has admited to that. so if he was told that 10 minutes before the first tower did collapse, then why wre over 300 firemen not also told?

here is another point they just flat out admit is true....
http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html
why is the site called myths if it really doesnt debunk anything????????

another they admit is true
http://www.911myths.com/html/burlingame_and_mascal.html

another one they have to admit, and dont really debunk. why bother..
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho.html

you will also notice that a lot of the daming evidence of the pentagon is simply LEFT OUT of thier analysis...

here they hope you dont read the page...
http://www.911myths.com/html/93_landed_in_cleveland.html

they say there was a retraction, but if you read the page, it doesnt say the whole story was retracted, ACTUALLY the retraction was the source, and A MORE CREDIBLE SOURCE WAS THE CORRECTION, SOME DEBUNKING THAT IS!!! IS THIS A DEBUNKING SITE OR A CONSPIRACY SITE?????

then there is this,
http://www.911myths.com/html/war_games_cover_for_9-11.html
and they ask you where is the evidence for the war games, guess they dont watch CNN or check out congress and senate hearings. because this has been talked about in testimony on the senate floor. kinda debunks thier debunking... also they fail to mention that vigilent guardian was a war game on 9/11/01 that even included the VERY SAME TARGETS and FLYING PLANES INTO SAID TARGETS. of course why would they want to talk about that? the senate has already covered that.... another failed debunking, and leaving out of valuable information hoping that you dont actually know the truth, or watch cspan.....

ok so I am getting very bored of this so far this site has not even made one single valid point, the best it has is the mothers interview you showed me... which doesnt really prove much...

YAWN... the site is a piece of shit, no wonder you decided you would look closer. it doesnt debunk anything....

Damn, I'm sorry I missed all this today. Frogball, you deserve a lot of credit for making these 2 conspiracy buffoons look like the wackos they are. I believe most people just get tired of them just refusing to accecpt the unmistakable proof that some pissed off arabs hijacked some planes to do their jihad crap, and just sort of let them have the last word. After all, what does it matter, they're such a tiny minority consisting of mostly idiots that most of the country laughs at, that sometimes it's not even worth it. But you, are by far the best at making them look foolish. On behalf of all the sane people...thank you.