"9/11 Hijackers" R based on "cellphone" claims. Debunked.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

The central myth of 9/11 is that bearded baddies of a foreign religion angrily hijacked four planes.
And this is sourced to claims allegedly coming from IMPOSSIBLE TO HAPPEN cellphone calls.

There's no evidence that this happened and lots of evidence that a hoax was manufactured and pinned on merely conceptual patsies, a trick that's been perfected and expanded from LIHOP (Let it Happen On Purpose) in 1941's Pearl Harbor to MIHOP (Make It Happen On Purpose) in 2001's new improved Pearl Harbor.

> The success of any attempted cellphone calls has been totally refuted.
> The shifting-and-dishonest claims of the FBI have been documented along with the cover-up of controlled demolition of three World Trade Center buildings by the NIST, Underwriters Laboratories, Popular Mechanics, and USG-funded academic liars such as the perps at Perdue and Livermore Labs.

And this is why I recently came down hard on 8bitagent with both feet for his umpteenth "hijackers" thread that scorned the 9/11 Truth movement and sowed cover story bs.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=10103

.....
The "Cell Phone Myth" of which he spoke is itself a myth. His critique proved useful, nevertheless, in providing t[he occasion for me to bring out several points:
size=150](1) Reported cell phone calls were central to the creation of the claim that the airliners had been hijacked.
(2) The FBI had actively participated in the creation of this claim.
(3) The FBI, a few years later, renounced its endorsement of high-altitude cell phone calls and thereby had to make changes in its reports about several of the alleged calls---changes that are most obvious with respect to the alleged calls from Tom Burnett and Amy Sweeney.
(4) These changes constitute an implicit admission by the FBI that its original claims about cell phone calls from the planes were false.
(5) This admission should lead us to conclude that the whole story about phone calls was an elaborate fabrication.[/size]

David Ray Griffin is the author of over 30 books, including seven about 9/11, most recently The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, The Cover-Up, and the Exposé.

Furthermore-

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=16924

.....
Conclusion

Although this essay has focused on details, often minute, in merely one aspect of the official account of 9/11, the implications are enormous. Without the widespread assumption that the 9/11 attacks had been planned and carried out by al-Qaeda, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have been possible. With regard to the war in Afghanistan in particular, Michel Chossudovsky has recently emphasized the fact that NATO’s decision to support this US-led war was based on a briefing by Frank Taylor of the US State Department, in which he provided what was called conclusive evidence of al-Qaeda’s responsibility for the attacks.121 Although the contents of Taylor’s briefing have never been made public, the main evidence provided to the general public has consisted of the hijack-describing phone calls reportedly received from passengers and flight attendants aboard the airliners. But when subjected to a detailed analysis, these alleged phone calls, far from supporting the war-justifying story, lead to a very different conclusion: that these alleged calls were faked. This analysis thereby suggests that the entire 9/11 story used to justify the US-led wars is a lie.

If asked which part of the official story can be most definitively shown to be false, I would speak not of the alleged phone calls but of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the official account of which says that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 came down without the aid of pre-set explosives. Given the fact that this theory involves massive violations of basic laws of physics, the evidence against it is so strong as to be properly called proof – as I have recently emphasized in a book-length critique of the official report on WTC 7 in particular.122

Nevertheless, the importance of the evidence against the official account provided by analyzing the alleged phone calls should not be minimized. If the official story is false, then we should expect every major dimension of it to be false – which, as I have emphasized in another recent book, can be seen to be the case.123 It is this cumulative argument that provides the strongest disproof of the official, war-justifying account of 9/11. The evidence that the alleged phone calls from the airliners were faked is an important part of this cumulative argument.124

[mentalgongfu2]

FWIW, I thought of this topic a week or two ago when I saw this:



Which, although difficult to see in this screenshot, shows in the first line of the text to the bottom right of the image "Why no phones on jets?"

Which leads to this:




No claims or endorsements implied, just observations.

[DoYouEverWonder]

By the time the FBI got to the Moussaoui trial and had to present evidence in open court, they dropped most of their claims about the phone calls, including the Barbara Olsen calls. According to the FBI, Olson only made one unconnected call. Big difference between that and the 2 or 3 (depending on which version you read) calls that Ted claims she made to him from the plane. Of these 2 or 3 calls, which could not have been made from a hijacked plane in flight, Barbara supposedly told him that hijackers (she never said anything about them being Muslim or Arab) had taken over the plane using box cutters for weapons. She is the sole source for the 'boxcutter' story and that the hijackers were Muslims, even though Barbara never mentioned it.

But don't let any of these 'facts' get in the way of 8bits and most Americans fantasies about al CIAda.

[AlicetheKurious]

Thanks, Hugh, mentalgongfu2 and DoYouEverWonder. I've been sorely tempted to go back to the many old threads where this and plenty, plenty more has been posted, thoroughly demonstrating that there is no evidence, none, that any hijackers were on those planes. And I actually started. But there was so much important information, and some of it had been posted so many times, that it actually made me feel there was no point in wasting more hours of my life in posting it yet again. People who want to know, will check for themselves, and not only on this board (though there's more than enough just here). Those who don't want to know and can't be bothered to check, but who feel confident that they already know it all, are not worth the trouble, at least in my current state of tiredness.

So thanks, for making me feel less guilty for not stepping up to the plate.

[seemslikeadream]

Thanks HMW

[SanDiegoBuffGuy]

I never quite understood the whole cell phone myth. This isn't like "following the money" or "following the hijackers" which both take some investigation and time. The cell phone thing is like a JFK assasination moment for thinking people. It's right there out in the open for all to see, like someone there saying, "yeah, we pulled this off this fakery and there's nothing you can do about it."

My question is, was the whole myth of the cell phones an intentional "SNAFU" to make the people who even do slight examination of this feel helpless? Another JFK moment?

[Wombaticus Rex]

Great thread, thank you Hugh. I'll be digging into this later tonight.

[barracuda]

I'd say you still have to deal with the phone calls made by Ed Felt and CeeCee Lyles over Shanksville, not to mention the thirty some-odd Airphone calls from the passengers on flight 93. If they can be shown to be genuine, your premise falls apart.

[MacCruiskeen]

I'd say you still have to deal with the phone calls made by Ed Felt and CeeCee Lyles over Shanksville, not to mention the thirty some-odd Airphone calls from the passengers on flight 93. If they can be shown to be genuine, your premise falls apart.

What kind of hijackers would permit and even encourage the passengers to make any phone calls at all? (And why?)

[barracuda]

As far as that hypothetical goes, I would say:

- Hijackers who don't have guns.

- Hijackers who don't have complete control of the passengers and don't really care because they are concerned with the events in the cockpit.

- Hijackers who don't care at all if persons on the ground know what's going on.

- Hijackers who fully intend to crash the planes anyway.

I suppose I could think of a few more, but that should do for now.

[IanEye]

What's up with Betty Ong?

[MinM]

9/11 Phone Calls: David Ray Griffin Continues to Show the Official Story is Untenable - Democratic Underground

The strange case of the 9/11 cell phone calls - Democratic Underground

Flight 93: Cell Call Exposed? - Democratic Underground

[AlicetheKurious]

I'd say you still have to deal with the phone calls made by Ed Felt and CeeCee Lyles over Shanksville, not to mention the thirty some-odd Airphone calls from the passengers on flight 93. If they can be shown to be genuine, your premise falls apart.

So my digging around in old threads hasn't gone completely to waste. I posted about that here:

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... d4b298459a

The Killtown link I included in my post above, contains the following references:

Ceecee Lyle:

"Cee Cee Ross-Lyle, a flight attendant for United Airlines, pictured at left with her two children, Jerome and Jevon, perished when United Airlines Flight 93 crashed outside Pittsburgh Tuesday. Ross-Lyle of Fort Myers, Fla., called her husband, Fort Myers police officer Lorne Lyles, on a cell phone from the plane shortly before it went down." - CBS (09/25/01)

Listen to the message she left on her home answering machine here. (Note the chilling "You did great!" whispered at the end of the call).

Edward Felt:

"A passenger on United Airlines Flight 93 called on his cell phone from a locked bathroom with a chilling message: "We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!" Minutes later the jetliner crashed with 45 people aboard, the last of four closely timed terror attacks across the country.

Minutes before the 10 a.m. crash, an emergency dispatcher in Pennsylvania received a cell phone call from a man who said he was a passenger locked in a bathroom aboard United Flight 93. The man repeatedly said the call was not a hoax, said dispatch supervisor Glenn Cramer in neighboring Westmoreland County.

"We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!" Cramer quoted the man as saying, from a transcript of the call.
The man told dispatchers the plane "was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him," Cramer said." - SFGate/AP (09/11/01)

"Investigators believe Edward Felt may have been in a group of passengers who were herded into the rear of the plane near the bathrooms. From there, at 9:58 a.m., he called 911 on his cell phone and reached an operator in Westmoreland County.

"We're being hijacked. We're being hijacked," he told John Shaw, 29, of Youngwood, as the plane passed over Mt. Pleasant Township.

Shaw spoke to Edward Felt for one minute and 10 seconds, learning that he'd locked himself in the bathroom to make the call. He told Shaw the flight number and explained that the plane was hijacked in mid-flight on its way to San Francisco.
"He was crying...frightened, scared and anxious," said Shaw, who remained on the line until the signal was lost.
For months, Edward Felt wasn't as well-known as some passengers who have been labeled heroes for striking out against the four hijackers. Westmoreland County officials refused to reveal the caller's identity. Shaw was not named until December as the operator who took his call.

Edward Felt was identified in May after his family listened to the cockpit and 911 tapes during a meeting of the families and the FBI in Princeton, N.J. Gordon Felt said he recognized his brother's methodical way of handling things and disagrees with Shaw's characterization." - Pittsburg Live (09/08/02)

"John Shaw did. He stood in front of the set at Westmoreland County's 911 center. He saw the fireball, the smoke, the investment bankers at the window. He heard the phone ring.

"We are being hijacked," the man on the other end said.

He sat down. The man on the line was crying, trying hard to hold himself together. He'd be dead in six minutes.

He talked fast. His name was Edward Felt. F-E-L-T. He was on United Airlines Flight 93. To San Francisco. He had locked himself in the bathroom.

The plane had been hijacked turned an explosion white smoke.
"We're going down," he said. "We're going down." - Pittsburg Tribune-Review (09/11/02)

As I said in my post linked to above, in addition to the extreme unlikeliness that these CELL PHONE CALLS could have been made at the altitudes and speeds the planes were flying at the time, and the fact that no telephone company records have ever been published or even mentioned, documenting those cell phone calls, there's another issue.

With the exception of Ceecee Lyle's call to a recording machine, with the strangely excited whispered "You did great!" at the end (in a male, American voice), many of those who answered the calls did not know the passengers; furthermore, under such terrible circumstances, people making such phone calls would be expected to be highly emotional, and indeed many of the callers were reported to have been crying, screaming, talking more rapidly than usual, etc. In addition, there were reportedly loud background noises, including screams and other people talking. For those who actually spoke to someone with whose voice they were familiar, any incongruities, or differences in tone or pronunciation, etc., would be quickly dismissed and disregarded.

[barracuda]

MinM, the second YouTube video you posted, regarding CeeCee Lyles, is a fine example of why people don't take more responsible research into the events of that day seriously. Now you ask me to arrive at a conclusion where there are not only no hijackers, but maybe no one on the plane at all. And this, on the basis of what sounds to me rather obviously like another female stew comforting the crying CeeCee that she did a great job leaving her last words to her family. What an insulting crock o' "truth".

Alice, if you read my link above, as well as Hugh's OP link by Griffin, you'll find that no one really disputes that the calls made by Felt and Lyle were possible. Not even Griffin:

Did these two calls have something in common that set them apart from the rest of the reported calls that had originally been described as cell phone calls? Yes, they were both, as we saw above, said to have been made from Flight 93 at 9:58, and by that time it had reportedly descended to 5,000 feet.41 In the light of Dewdney’s reports, two successful cell phone calls from a high-speed airliner at 5,000 feet would have still been very improbable, but they would at least have been more likely than such calls from above 25,000 feet, so those two calls could not be so completely ruled out as impossible.

Notice that he disingenuously infers that these calls would be 5000 feet above the ground level altitude of the cel towers without really saying so. But they were not. The planes were 5000 feet above sea level. The nearby cel towers at the time of these calls over Shanksville were located on Appalachian mountain ridges, at near 2500 foot altitudes themselves.

You're going to have to marshal better evidence than that. I don't put it past the FBI to lie for any number of reasons. But if even one of these calls is legitimate, this whole "no hijackers" doesn't hold water.

[Stephen Morgan]

Are you writing off the relevance of the associations of the purported hijackers?

And if they were not the hijackers, how were the planes controlled and why did the government announce these names as the hijackers?

Were the planes remote controlled? "Holographic" or "drones"? Flown by other hijackers? Were the hijackers really innocent passengers? Not even on the planes?

Most of the calls are probably fake and I wouldn't rule out remote controlled aeroplanes or even planes with suicide pilots, but the most likely course of events is a hijacking by those people now claimed to be hijackers, whatever their real names may be, with or without stanley knives. dubious though I am that bacon-eating, stripper loving, coke snorting Atta would sacrifice his life of his own volition.