Sunday, August 06, 2006

"None of these Calls Could Have Taken Place"

I previously discussed some of the evidence arising out of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. This is one of the more interesting exhibits. It is a detailed flash presentation (28MB) which lists data on all 4 flights, includings details on all the passengers (including the hijackers) and what seat they were in.

Someone tell Jim Fetzer, who still insists the hijackers did not appear on any passenger lists. Included in this presentation are also details on every phone call made during the flight. This is important because we can compare this information (entered into court records under penalty of perjury) with the speculation included in Loose Change.

In Loose Change, Dylan and Co. display quotes from the following phone calls:










Marion Britton, Flight 93
Tom Burnett, Flight 93
Jeremy Glick, Flight 93
Lauren Grandcolas, Flight 93
Linda Grondland, Flight 93
Peter Hanson, Flight 175
Brian David Sweeney, Flight 175
Honor Wainio, Flight 93
CeeCee Lyles, Flight 93
Barbara Olson, Flight 77

He then discusses phone calls made by Betty Ong, Madeleine Sweeney, and Mark Bingham. After talking about this for several minutes, he then dismisses all of 13 of these calls:

But to be honest, none of that matters. Why? Because none of these calls could have taken place.
Why could they have not taken place? Well because according to Dylan, some computer science professor, while circling above Ontario in his Cessna decided cell phone reception is poor on airplanes. Now one could certainly argue that his methodology, which was not conducted with the equipment, or at the geographic location of the flights was poorly done.

But to be honest, none of that matters.
Why? Because everyone of the calls cited in Loose Change was made with an Airfone.

For example Marion Britton called at 9:49 from the Airfone in row 33ABC. Jeremy Glick called at 9:37 from 27DEF. Betty Ong, Madeleine Sweeney, and CeeCee Lyles were all flight attendents, and were obviously quite familiar with the use of Airfones. In fact, in this flash presentation you can listen to the recording of the phone calls made by Ong and Lyles.













So when the Loosers claim that "none of these calls could have taken place", what they actually meant to say was, "there is strong evidence showing everyone of these phone calls did take place". Maybe they will get it right in "Loose Change: The Final Weak Attempt at the Truth"?

Don't count on it.

47 Comments:

At 06 August, 2006 10:47, Blogger shawn said...

Yeah, the rule of thumb with these people is to assume exactly the opposite of what they say. It's almost always the case.

 
At 06 August, 2006 11:25, Blogger Alex said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 06 August, 2006 11:26, Blogger Alex said...

My question is, why can't they get one single detail right?

Must be a conspiracy.

 
At 06 August, 2006 11:46, Blogger Democrat said...

Can the government at least get the NORAD part right instead of deliberately putting lies in the report and not telling anybody about their second thoughts on those stories?

 
At 06 August, 2006 11:48, Blogger shawn said...

Can the government at least get the NORAD part right instead of deliberately putting lies in the report and not telling anybody about their second thoughts on those stories?

Continue to grasp at straws.

 
At 06 August, 2006 12:09, Blogger Richard said...

Back on topic, can you guys admit that you couldn't be more wrong about the phone calls?

 
At 06 August, 2006 13:10, Blogger vatoshredder said...

Can you please provide sources/links to stories that specifically say all the calls were made from airfones?

 
At 06 August, 2006 13:10, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Are you kidding. They wouldn't be loyal truthers if they did that. No, instead, they will say that despite the evidence being entered in a court of law, that it is all govt faked.

I guarantee that is what they will say.

I mean Killtown is still arguing the pic of the damage to SW corner of WTC 7 is doctored, even though it was an exhibit at the Moussaoui trial.

 
At 06 August, 2006 13:12, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

The link is the flash presentation.

If you look at it, they give the seat the passenger was assigned to, but then they have a row where the call came from...How would they know the call was from that particular row, unless it was made from the AIRFONE from that row. If it was made from a cellphone, they would have NO F&*KING IDEA WHAT ROW.

 
At 06 August, 2006 13:17, Blogger James B. said...

Can you please provide sources/links to stories that specifically say all the calls were made from airfones?



Did you even bother reading the post?

 
At 06 August, 2006 13:18, Blogger shawn said...

Did you even bother reading the post?

They never do.

 
At 06 August, 2006 14:14, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like, hey man I mean READ? ha ha ha ha - like pictures man, pictures, like when Ol'Dylan went to the museum in Albany, last week, and there was a picture of black boxes, like man I didn't bother to like read 'cause like there was a picture! Then like later, they told me it was like, and example, man I had to eat my hat and everything, but its ok 'cause the blog got fixed so it lookes like I'm never wrong!

 
At 06 August, 2006 14:54, Blogger AbrashTX said...

I know the practitioners of the 911 Denial mystery cult are beyond help, but have y'all been able to convince any uninformed folks or fence-sitters that the conspiracy claims are hogwash? (My guess is that that type of reader isn't likely to leave comments.)

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:11, Blogger 911coverup said...

Do you still believe the Bush administration had received multiple warnings preceding 9/11 that an attack in manahattan was imminent and yet failed to prevent the attacks due to incompetence?

Let me see you try and debunk these real, actual quotes then...

"I was sitting there thinking about it. It was a clear day, there was no weather problem-how in hell could a plane hit the World Trade Center?" -Dick Cheney's alleged reaction to first impact in NYC.

"What a horrible accident!" -W. Bush, who then later suggested the pilot may have had a heart attack.

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:12, Blogger 911coverup said...

"Hi Mom...this is Mark Binham"

:)

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:19, Blogger undense said...

Do you still believe the Bush administration had received multiple warnings preceding 9/11 that an attack in manahattan was imminent and yet failed to prevent the attacks due to incompetence?

Do you still believe the Bush admin is so incompetent yet they somehow pulled off this grand plan flawlessly, but somehow left a few clues that only pimple-faced high-school kids and twitch-ridden professors prone to conspiracy theories could discover and divine as the "truth?"

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:22, Blogger 911coverup said...

That doesn't answer my question.

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:27, Blogger Richard said...

I don't see the point in debunking those quotes, what's to debunk. When I first heard that a plane hit the WTC I thought it was an accident to. Both of their reactions are totaly valid.

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:31, Blogger shawn said...

"Hi Mom...this is Mark Binham"

:)


Yeah, let's mock the dead some more (it doesn't matter what you believe, he was on the plane).

That doesn't answer my question.

Actually it answered it completely. Somehow this administration pulled off the grandest hoax in world history yet they can't plant WMDs in Iraq, can't make Iraq work without civil unrest, and can't get most of America giving them a faovrable review.

Can you name another time when a group of men hijacked a bunch of planes and crashed them into landmarks? Come on, wrack the ten brain cells you have left.

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:31, Blogger apathoid said...

911coverup, please point me in the direction of one of those 67 intercepts you claimed took place.

Were you lying?

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:32, Blogger shawn said...

When I first heard that a plane hit the WTC I thought it was an accident to.

We turned on the TV in my class about ten seconds before the second plane hit, and until we saw it happen, we thought it was an accident, too.

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:32, Blogger 911coverup said...

But did you receive any warnings that an attack on lower manhattan was imminent?

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:32, Blogger shawn said...

Were you lying?

None of them can make a comment without lying.

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:33, Blogger default.xbe said...

Do you still believe the Bush administration had received multiple warnings preceding 9/11 that an attack in manahattan was imminent and yet failed to prevent the attacks due to incompetence?

notice how even you chose to describe simply as "an attack" not an "attack involving planes intentionally crashed into buildings"

pre-911 when someone said "terror attack" carbomb was probably the first thing that comes to mind for 99% of the population

therefore bush and cheneys initial assertions that it was an accident are perfectly valid

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:34, Blogger apathoid said...

Actually it answered it completely. Somehow this administration pulled off the grandest hoax in world history yet they can't plant WMDs in Iraq, can't make Iraq work without civil unrest, and can't get most of America giving them a faovrable review.

Or manage to use some Iraqi names for the hijackers...or put hijackers on a manifest, oh ...wait a minute. They are on the manifests...nevermind.

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:37, Blogger default.xbe said...

Or manage to use some Iraqi names for the hijackers...or put hijackers on a manifest, oh ...wait a minute. They are on the manifests...nevermind.
well they put together fake manifests after it turned out they forgot to put the hijackers on in teh first place, but in doing so they forgot several other passengers

heck if the whole conspiracy is true the bush probably will pull some hge attack right before the 2008 election, he'll probably blow up the whitehouse, but forget to make sure hes not in it at the time

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:38, Blogger 911coverup said...

Default, you've just proved your ignorance. You don't even know what types of warnings the Bush administration had received.

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:40, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I mean that is the key isnt it.

The premise that these grand masters of the false flag, can successfully complete this enormous false flag operation, but can't slip a few bombs with chemical weaponheads, or a few viles of anthrax, into Iraq....now, more than ever before in my life, I am laughing at the silliness of the assertion.

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:41, Blogger default.xbe said...

Default, you've just proved your ignorance. You don't even know what types of warnings the Bush administration had received.
warnings are recieved every minute of every day, theres no doubt in my ind that is someone had called up FBI headquesters and said "hey, we're gonna hijack a plane and crash it into the WTC" someone along the chain of command would have laughed and dismissed it

on a limited budget its very difficult to decide what warnings to heed and which can be dismissed, unfortunately foresight is NOT 20/20

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:42, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

911coverup...now I know you will likely sidestep the question with another "Well then how do you explain...", but for a moment, think about it, and then explain...how could these people, who just carried out the greatest false flag ever, not have the power or ability to plant some WMDs in Iraq...come on man.

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:46, Blogger shawn said...

Everyone's a Monday morning (although in this case it'd be Wednesday morning) counterterrorist.

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:47, Blogger apathoid said...

911coverup, so I can assume that you were lying when you said NORAD made 67 intercepts of civil aircraft over the US, in less than a year no less??
Or did you just read that off of some obscure conspiracy site and swallow it without chewing?

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:48, Blogger 911coverup said...

Well they did get into Iraq. The propaganda operation prior to the invasion of Iraq surely was a success wasn't it?

Do you ever think that the civil war in Iraq is exactly what the bush administration want to happen?

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:54, Blogger 911coverup said...

If you think the Bush administration did a sloppy job of covering up the fact there were no WMDs in Iraq, then how come you don't see the obvious sloppiness in the coverups of 9/11 by the bush adminstration?

I don't get you people sometime.

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:59, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

My point is you say they have pulled off this huge flase flag op, that 70% of the public still believe is the truth, yet they couldn't do something a million times more simple, like plant a few WMD, so that Bush and company could stay there for ever, and keep high approval ratings, and provide a tremndously strong tie to iraq and the "war on terrah!"

 
At 06 August, 2006 15:59, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

You don't get us because we think logically

 
At 06 August, 2006 16:08, Blogger shawn said...

then how come you don't see the obvious sloppiness in the coverups of 9/11 by the bush adminstration?

...there isn't any evidence that they committed 9/11. That's why we bring up why they didn't plant WMDs in Iraq.

And why do they want civil unrest in Iraq? It ruins the whole "taking over the world" retardedness.

 
At 06 August, 2006 16:30, Blogger apathoid said...

Do you ever think that the civil war in Iraq is exactly what the bush administration want to happen?

No, it hadnt crossed my mind because its utterly and completely moronic.

If you think the Bush administration did a sloppy job of covering up the fact there were no WMDs in Iraq, then how come you don't see the obvious sloppiness in the coverups of 9/11 by the bush adminstration?

Dont hurt yourself Geggy. Exhibit 2 that CTers have something wrong upstairs(anything Nessie says is exhibit 1)

 
At 06 August, 2006 16:42, Blogger shawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 06 August, 2006 16:42, Blogger shawn said...

No, it hadnt crossed my mind because its utterly and completely moronic.

That made me laugh so hard my sides hurt. So true.

 
At 06 August, 2006 19:52, Blogger CHF said...

911coverup,

tell me about the 67 intercepts, dude.

 
At 06 August, 2006 20:23, Blogger undense said...

That doesn't answer my question.

Sure it does. If you answer my question with any honesty whatsoever it answers your question completely as well.

That's why you nor any of the other CTs will touch that question with a 10' length of thermite-coated rebar.

 
At 10 August, 2006 07:06, Blogger Tempestuous said...

All that you 911 goosesteppers do is insult and name call like little babies in a playpen. Why don't you loose the baby sarcasm and just speak with the 911government-version-deniers. Step out of your leather boots for once and think like and independent WHIG.

 
At 11 August, 2006 10:14, Blogger Tempestuous said...

Looking for aetheists a/k/a secular humanists for an article concerning your stances on conspiracies---911, et al. This is absolutely fascinating..

 
At 16 January, 2007 17:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course GWB should have known an attack by Al Qieda was imminent. That is what Richard Clarke was trying to tell him. But old GB was too busy cutting brush down at the ranch and planning how to get star wars going again. Read Clarke's book, he knew exactly who it was the instance it happened.

But the Bush administration plan 9/11? NO.... That is the delusion of the conspiracy theorist. Real dumb shits who can't understand the science and facts of what happened and justify their steadfast ignorance with the idea they hate Bush and so he must have done it.

Well so what, I hate Bush too, but I know bullshit when I see it. Be it liberal or conservative bullshit, it still smells the same, and only a fool would step in it.

 
At 16 January, 2007 17:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looking for aetheists a/k/a secular humanists

There is a difference and I think you will find most atheist like my self not at all fooled by the truthers.

Conspiracy theories like religion require a certain amount of gullibility

 
At 14 July, 2007 17:11, Blogger Cognito said...

"Conspiracy theories like religion require a certain amount of gullibility"
Depends on the theory. If you mean the official one about 9/11 attacks co-ordinated out of a cave in Afghanistan, I would agree with you.
As for the most plausible other theory, I'm undecided, short of accepting it had to be an inside job. How much Bush knew - difficult to judge. What is abundantly clear is that he wasn't acting as either President or Commander in Chief on the day and was neither impeached, taken to task - not even questioned about this. His first big lie of the day was in his Address to the Nation "Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans." That this was untrue is beyond dispute, because we have the video footage that shows he did nothing immediately after the first attack but go to Emma Booker Elementary School and listen to children doing spelling exercises. Even after the second attack he did nothing but continue to listen to children doing spelling exercises.

That old chestnut about why didn't they plant evidence of WMD in Iraq is based upon a misunderstanding of what 9/11 was. As puppets of the corporate industrial complex the government's role in this is PR. They just have to sell the war on terror and smooth over any awkward questions. They sell the WMD lie and that's enough to get the war started. Once started it will be almost impossible to stop. Military bases are built in Iraq and a compliant government installed. Mission accomplished. It's much easier to fake the intelligence than actually fake the evidence. How do you plant WMD in Iraq? Think about it. Whether it's nuclear or chemical it has to have a delivery system to pose a threat to other nations. So special ops plonk it down in the desert and the government says "look what we found!". "Oh yes? Let's see", say the international weapons inspectors. "Why didn't we spot this when we were combing the country all those years? Where are the weapons factories that produced this? Wait a minute - where was this made?" Bush, Blair and Co. knew there weren't any WMD before they launched the attack and sure, it was rather inconvenient for them, but from the perspective of those who pull their strings it didn't matter. If your salesman takes a fall for selling a lemon, no sweat. You appoint another one. As it happens, none of the salesmen were sacked for this particular offense.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home