41

9/11: 40 phone-calls that changed the world – but were they real? The U.S. government’s 9/11 evidence says not

an extract from the book VOICES: The US Govt’s 9/11 Phone Call Evidence by Rowland Morgan, Investigative Journalist

On March 22nd, 2006, U.S. high-court judges handed down a decision that allowed the release of all 1 the evidence presented in the trial of a hereditarily paranoid-schizophrenic Moroccan named Zacarias Moussaoui. He had been in U.S. custody at the time of 9/11, but U.S. prosecutors claimed he had been an accessory to the plot and threw the book at him, demanding the death sentence. Much of the trial had been held behind closed doors, and avid U.S. mass-media corporations had applied collectively for release of what the judges called “the extraordinary quantity” of evidence presented.

In granting permission, the judges’ first sentence went as follows:

On September 11, 2001, members of the terrorist organization al Qaeda hijacked three passenger aircraft and crashed them into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center towers in New York.” 2

Ironically, the very evidence the judges were releasing contained information that pointed to their own statement being mistaken.

The evidence gave unsourced details of more than 40 telephone calls that over the previous five years the U.S.A.’s war-mongering mass media had spun into a legend of heroism. The human face of the calls had always been a fascinating aspect of the events and sure enough, one of the three U.S. prosecutors in the case had given them prominence during the trial, as the Associated Press reported on April 6th, 2006:

Much of what happened aboard Flight 93 is known because passengers used cell phones in flight to call their loved ones. Earlier in the trial, prosecutor David Raskin transfixed the jury by reading accounts of the last moments of several of the Sept. 11 planes based on cell phone calls by passengers and flight attendants to family members and ground controllers.

This AP report showed that prosecutor Raskin had not studied his own evidence, which claimed only two cellular telephone calls out of some 35 ostensibly heard from Flight 93. It is no wonder that the AP reporter described the jury as “transfixed”, because the deluded prosecutor was describing to them cell phone calls that:

  1. in 2001 people aboard Flight 93 at cruising altitude could not have made for technical reasons;
  2. that the prosecution’s own evidence did not claim happened;
  3. the alleged contents of which constituted inadmissible hearsay.

In the U.S.A. giving false testimony in court, the crime of perjury, is punishable by serving up to 20 months in federal prison.4, the possibility of some cellular calls on other flights nevertheless remained.

The evidence fudged the data, with phone numbers not given, and no computer data supplied that would have automatically been captured by Claircom or Airfone, the phone providers, had they in fact been seatback phone calls. Other voices heard ostensibly via seatback phones (although attributed to cell phones at the time) simulated cell phone calls by their brevity and by being cut off abruptly.5

The telephone data contained more bombshells of which Moussaoui’s prosecutors apparently were unaware:

  • The world-famous 9/11 telephone calls from TV-pundit Barbara Olson to her husband Theodore Olson at his office in the Department of Justice had never occurred.

    (The U.S government’s call data said she made a call but did not get through. This meant that the U.S. Solicitor-General, a key member of the Bush administration, had connived at, or been deluded about, a crucial deception, one that had placed “hijackers” armed with “cardboard-cutters” aboard Flight 77 ostensibly speeding towards the Pentagon.)

  • The world-famous 9/11 in-flight telephone call from Todd Beamer, the one in which an Airfone operator heard him shout the Pentagon’s recruitment slogan “Let’s Roll”, had never occurred.

    (The U.S. government’s fudged data said Beamer had made separate calls in the same second.)

Because the existence of hijackers aboard the rogue planes partly relied on them, the collapse of these two vital telephone calls alone badly damaged the U.S. Government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. What’s more, internal evidence indicated that the evidence in these two vital calls had been fabricated with criminal intent in order to nod at the official story while evading a minimum 30-month prison sentence from the U.S. district court for obstruction of justice. 6

Furthermore, the demolition of these two famous phone calls meant that they had been faked during the events, opening up the possibility that other calls, too, had been fraudulent. The calls that fell under suspicion were those (a minority) that allegedly had mentioned hijackers and their atrocities.

It was not just U.S. federal prosecutors Robert Spencer, David Novak and David Raskin who were implicated. The trial evidence had been arranged at the highest levels. “These are political decisions,” [said] John Zwerling, a criminal defense attorney in Alexandria, Va:

The shots are being called at the very highest level of our government — the president, the vice president, and the attorney general. The prosecutors have to march to their orders, and whether or not they believe in it is irrelevant.”7

Even the venue of the trial was political:

after the [9/11] attacks [sic], the Justice Department decided to make the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia the hub of terrorism prosecutions. There were several reasons for the choice. Virginia juries had a reputation for being sympathetic to prosecutors, the federal court in Alexandria was known for quickly moving cases through its ‘rocket docket,’ and Alexandria lay just across the Potomac from Washington — where prosecutors would have easy access to their colleagues at Main Justice and the myriad federal agencies that would become involved in any trial.”8

Top Department of Justice (DOJ) officials had been involved in constructing the telephone evidence.

Moussaoui’s December 2001 indictment was signed by three officials representing each DOJ arm involved. There was Paul McNulty, the Eastern District of Virginia’s new and politically connected Republican U.S. Attorney (who has since been nominated to the DOJ’s No. 2 spot); Mary Jo White, the outgoing Clinton-era U.S. Attorney in New York whose office had overseen the first World Trade Center bombing and East African embassy bombings [sic]; and Michael Chertoff, the head of the Criminal Division at Main Justice in Washington and a former U.S. Attorney in New Jersey [now head of the vast Homeland Security department]. McNulty has appeared in the courtroom at key stages of the case.” 9

In addition to the manipulation of the official 9/11 story by lawyers, earlier the U.S. mass-media had spun the array of in-flight 9/11 cellular telephone calls so comprehensively that even U.S. prosecutor Raskin believed that they had occurred. He had expounded them to the jury, and the Associated Press had passed on his words to the world.

Yet his Moussaoui trial evidence proved that many of the cell-phone calls had not taken place. The U.S. prosecutor was deluded and the government’s conspiracy theory lay in shreds on the court-room floor. 10

This was in spite of the showmanship used at the trial. For example, prosecutors played to the jury the cockpit voice recording (CVR) alleged to have been retrieved from the mangled and buried wreckage of Flight 93 (that nobody outside the secret state had seen).

Passenger voices were heard shouting outside the cockpit (although normally only the pilots’ voices were recorded). The drama of shouting pilots and their chillingly cool rogue replacements was played out on high-tech equipment:

As jurors heard the cockpit recording Wednesday, they watched a color video showing a transcript, synchronized with the voices and the plane’s instrument readings of its speed, altitude, pitch and headings.

There was no mention of the crucial eight minutes of the recording transcript that were mostly marked “unintelligible”.

No mention of the original view that the CVR recording solved nothing.11

No one explained to the jury how Flight 93’s rogue pilot could have obtained permission from Reagan International airport air-traffic controllers to change the flight plan and fly towards Washington D.C.12

The telephone evidence ruined all the prosecution’s video razz-a-matazz. As 9/11 sceptic David Ray Griffin had written:

If even one of [the] essential claims [in the official story] is disproved, then the official story as such is thrown into doubt. Critics do not need to show the falsity of every essential element in the official account; they need to show only the falsity of one such element.”13

NOTES & SOURCES

1. In spite of the enormous volume of the evidence presented, a certain amount was nevertheless held back from public scrutiny on grounds of security.

2. United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit, No. 06-1301.

3. http://www.ussc.gov/2004guid/2j1_3.htm; for the sentence consult the U.S. federal sentencing table here: http://www.ussc.gov/2003guid/5a.htm.

4. See Endnote 11.

5. Both U.S. prosecutors and media managers knew that cell phones would not work at cruising altitude without the installation of a special pico cell system. Technology expert Omar Maslow told MSNBC Today Show on December 15th, 2004, upon the authorisation of new systems to enable cell phone calls in-flight, that “cell phones do not work over 10,000 feet”.

6. The basic offense level for substantial interference with the administration of justice is 17 points, or up to 30 months. http://www.ussc.gov/2003guid/5a.htm.

7. Witness Flap Casts Doubt on Call for Death in Moussaoui Case, Sarah Kelley and Jason McLure, Legal Times, March 21, 2006, quoted in Law.com. Link: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1142862089177

8. See Note 5.

9. See Note 5.

10. An FBI witness also discounted in court all the Flight 93 cell phone calls but two. “In the back of the plane, 13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls to family members and airline dispatchers, a member of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force testified Tuesday.” By GREG GORDON, McClatchy Newspapers, April 12, 2006. From KnoxNews.com.

11. As expressed by best-selling author Jere Longman in his believer-book “Among the Heroes”, N.Y. Harper Collins 2002.

12. From Co-operativeResearch.com: 9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Requests a New Flight Plan. Shortly before Flight 93 reverses direction and heads east, someone in its cockpit radios in and asks the FAA for a new flight plan, with a final destination of Washington, DC. [ABC News, 9/11/2001; ABC News, 9/14/2001] Jeff Krawczyk, the chief operating officer of a company that tracks aircraft movements, later comments, ‘We hardly ever get a flight plan change. Very unusual.’ [Washington Business Journal, 9/11/2001] Who it is that makes this request is unclear. The hijacker takeover of Flight 93 occurred around 9:28 a.m. September 11, 2001) [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 11], so it is presumably made by one of the hijackers. Twenty-five minutes later the pilot hijacker [sic] will also program a new destination into the plane’s navigational system.”

13. Griffin, 214; see Bibliography

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Danny
Danny

Article makes a lot of claims that phone calls from the aircraft did not happen, where is the actual evidence of that? Where is the evidence that the court decided the Barbera Olsen calls never happened?

bob
bob

Have they found the plane that ‘crashed into the pentagon’ yet???

TFS
TFS

One thing I have never seen asked or answered, and its indicative of the Official Conspiracy Theory and why the Comission NEVER asked Bush and his government to provide all the evidence that they had in the hours after the attack that allowed them to say it was Bin Laden with such speed and authority.

Why is that ‘evidence’ not part of the Comission Report?

TFS
TFS

It’s amazing that in the MSM/Blogosphere one things takes last place in everyones mind.

As an Anti Official Conspiracy Theory or Pro Official Conspiracy Theory we all forget something which is more important than are own views, and probably should be argued for more veciforously.

On that day Friends, Colleagues, Husbands, Wives, Fathers, Mothers, Siblings, Uncles, Aunts etc etc……

They all died.

Maybe instead of being on the other side, maybe the Pro Official Conspiracy Theorists (the HWBonneys of this world) could support those who lost their loved ones and on that day, and those that are still losing loved ones to the dust, by supporting THEIR right to hold people to account.

TFS
TFS

As regards the telephone calls.

1. The commission only has to release all the information it has regarding the cell tower tracking for all the individual phones in question. (should be interesting).

2. I’m a bit fuzzy on this, but didn’t one of the alledged phone calls time with the plane losing height rapidily with the caller showing no evidence of this happening?

Of all the days, where is WH Bonney?

crank
crank

Point 2 is mentioned in Mazzucco’s documentary (phone call discussion starts around 1h 37m).
No phone calls had any noise usual to passenger aircraft flights. None had noise of commotion or panic. Voices were calm and detached. Extreme maneuvers of aircraft, including white knuckle dives, not mentioned in calls. Timings and details completely at odds with official narrative of hijackings.
https://youtu.be/8DOnAn_PX6M?t=5855

TFS
TFS

Cheers

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

“Of all the days, where is WH Bonney?”

Seems to have been absent for some time, unfortunately (but not surprisingly if it’s not just a late vacation but a permanent departure).

crank
crank

An interesting article.
It bears repeating that in 18 years, the Moussaoui ‘trial’ has been the only concerted attempt at prosecuting anyone for anything to do with Sept 11th. They promise a trial of KSM next year, but let’s be honest, we’ve heard that before.
I read a decent book which covered the phone calls evidence (amongst other things), titled ‘Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11′. Griffin’s speculations about voice morphing being a central component of the phone call fakery was arguably one of his weaker lines of reasoning. The phone calls controversy has often been the single evidential thread pulled out of the sceptics’ work (I remember this line from Aaronovitch to Richard Seymour). In the above book, Davidson doesn’t dismiss Griffin’s phonecall theory outright but present’s another – i.e. that at least some of the calls were made from the ground under the false impression that the participants were part of a drill, or possibly through coercion. This was explored briefly in the doc, ‘The New Pearl Harbour’.

Considering the situation that we all find ourselves in on this anniversary, I wonder if OffG will publish any articles which explore another telecommunications controversy on 9/11 – namely that of the Odigo text messaging. This was reported in Haaretz newspaper and elsewhere, yet few have been particularly interested in pushing for the questions to be answered. The text messages should be considered in the context of admitted Mossad spies being arrested in New York on 9/11, clearly with detailed foreknowledge – and FBI reports of them transporting explosive equipment.
Yet consider the juncture of allegations in light of the Labour Party’s recently made statement that,

Other [conspiracy theories] contain further antisemitic claims, such as Israeli responsibility for 9/11 or control of ISIS. These theories ascribe to Israel influence on world events far beyond any objective analysis.

(http://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/No-Place-for-Antisemitism.pdf)
What does ‘objective analysis’ mean in this instance?

crank
crank

Whitney Webb put up this tweet thread which mentions the importance of this latter detail, and how it connects to the Epstein circle through Chertoff and orgs like ‘Carbyne911’ :
https://twitter.com/_whitneywebb/status/1171560248399859712

Mucho
Mucho

To their credit, Off-G did publish an article about the Anthrax attacks surrounding 9/11. This was getting a bit too close to the source, and the article and all comments were deleted. They “pulled” it. They decided to pull. I suspect we can deduce from this why they now continue to promote the dead end, 9/11 for idiots angle (like the phone calls) as opposed to the detailed research which has been done.
For those who want their minds blown, I would head over to YouTube to a channel called The Antedote, hosted by Jeremy Rothe Kushel and Greg McCarron, and listen to their most recent full length show, as Jeremy brilliantly pieces together the links between 9/11, Epstein, JFK/RFK and nuclear weapons, and how the network behind these events is still in existence. A fascinating show, as is most of their output.

crank
crank

That is quite an accusation mucho. Got anything to back it up ?
Challenging 9/11 is still not a ‘safe space’, and OffG deserve admiration for taking a principled stand against wholesale irrationality. That they have not delved deep into the realms of ‘who likely did 9/11 and why’ does not diminish their work of challenging the orthodoxy of the official narrative.
(I second the endorsement of that link by the way. )

Mucho
Mucho

“That is quite an accusation mucho. Got anything to back it up ?”

It wouldn’t open, someone else commented on it at the time on the following article. It is there now to view. I understand why they don’t go deeper. It’s dodgy ground, but ultimately while everyone is focused on whether or not the in flight calls are bogus, we are living in a world where a small group of people are getting away with doing 9/11 and relying on it to expand their sphere of influence. Not really a great marker for years to come.

Mucho
Mucho

…..also, of course, the post 9/11 world is already horrible. Really horrible. Anyone who was there knows how much better things were pre 9/11. It was a better world, no doubt about it. With 5G on the way now, with no resistance, it’s all over. Game over. The ultra fascists are firmly in power and we’re getting this godawful technology rollout as a result

crank
crank

I have been most disturbed not by the crime of 9/11 itself, or that of the cover up, but by the utter failure of the Left to think criticially about it. The groups and inidividuals who are known for taking a stand against imperialism, militarism and war in general, have (with a few exceptions) shown no sign whatsoever of demonstrating any understanding of 9/11. They cannot even respond to the most striking evidential anomalies. They either go to great lengths to avoid the subject altogether or join the bellicose Establishment in deriding any who question the official narrative.
This was so disturbing for me, because all my ‘heroes’ were on the Left. What hope is there if these embattled and principled humanitarians cannot contest the most glaringly obvious and ridiculous lies ?(- ones repeated by known liars !) What is society worth if we cannot reason our way through the absurdities of 9/11 ? Can’t even discuss it for the most part ?
It was only after further reading that I settled upon an explanation which accounted for this failure of the Left. It was only the consideration of Bolyn’s and Barratt’s hypotheses which really took my blinkers off in order to see who did 9/11 and why. Previous to that I thought ‘Israel theorists’ were simply motivated by racism, but in truth they are the only ones with a coherent and factual explanation. I don’t believe they are racist at all.
So when confronted with that knowledge, you have to take the ‘J pill’. Then you read about the deeper history of the Left, and get to understand why ‘conspiracy theory’ has both a very long history, and such bad connotations for Leftwing thinkers.
All of significance that has come to pass since 9/11 was faily predictable. I watched it with a colleague at work on TV. He said, “This will shut down everything”. He was right.
I think you are right. 9/11 cast a shaddow on people’s minds in a way that has become completely normalised now.

Mucho
Mucho

People are hypnotised, under a spell. I totally concur with what you say about the left etc, how they act like children when the subject of 9/11 comes up (Galloway and Chomsky being big players in this field, Craig Murray routinely shuts down debate and has moderators to do this job on his blog), how they are totally neutered in terms of forming any genuine opinions, their instinct to follow the herd goes into overdrive, no discussion allowed. And what are we left with, a totally decimated, Middle East with a toxic legacy we can only cry about, a Western culture reduced to something akin to smouldering plastic. A grim, vile control network directing world policy. Mafia world, vile criminals controlling the food supply. It goes on and on. Oh and a dumbed down, stupid as fuck public to cheer it all on.

crank
crank

Go well mucho.

youmightlike
youmightlike
Junaid

The deployment of mass production of American B61-12 type free-fall nuclear bombs and the modernization of warheads for a ballistic missile. Deadline: why US nuclear bombs will be late

Deadline: why US nuclear bombs will be late

RobG

Just one of many ‘smoking guns’ regarding 9/11 (and by funny coincidence, 911 is the emergency telephone number in the US – duh!) is the anthrax attacks that took place shortly after 9/11.

The psychos rolled out the Patriot Act shortly after 9/11. The Patriot Act, which laid down the legal terms of the American police state, was one of the biggest pieces of legislation in American history – ie, the Patriot Act had to have been prepared before 9/11 (when Bush Jnr. and his fellow nut jobs came to power in 2000). Some legislators baulked at passing the Patriot Act, because it was so extreme and went totally against the American Constitution, and it was these people who were targeted by the ‘anthrax attacks’ (duh!).

It’s all so fecking obvious.

Why can’t many people see the obvious?

RobG

And I could also add that there were thousands of ceramic items in the twin towers. I’m talking about sinks and toilets. Not one piece of this has ever been found, and ceramic is almost indestructible.

There was absolutely nothing left; just dust, from two huge 100-storey towers.

Don’t dismiss what Dr Judy Wood says.

MLS
MLS

Judy Wood’s suggestion of ‘ directed energy weapons’ has been comprehensively debunked by several different scientists.

Her book is aimed at non-scientists and relies on misdirection and unformulated appeals to incredulity. She has to date offered no falsifiable hypothesis, no calculations, nothing that can be defined as real science.

As a scientist she is of course aware of this, but her non-scientific followers are entirely taken in.

mark
mark

It’s very easy to get sidetracked and diverted by matters of detail, but I noticed that fires were still raging at the scene in December, 3 months later. I wondered by they hadn’t been put out. The reason was they couldn’t be. Fires kept breaking out from deep underground and could not be extinguished. Somehow they were generating their own oxygen. Something very strange was happening there. There was a lot of speculation about some exotic weapon being used. It was like someone had blown off the gates of hell. But we’ll probably never know the truth.

RobG

We will probably never know the truth, because there are so many anomalies around 9/11.

One direct thing you can point to is all the people involved in that day (first responders and the public) who are now dying from hideous diseases. I beleive more than 10,000 have already died, and more than 100,000 have serious illness, which in Trump’s America is not a good outcome for these people.

Both twin towers were stuffed full of asbestos, and as such were worthless real estate. Larry Silverstein, who owned the twin towers (known as ‘Lucky Larry’), took out a massive insurance policy shortly before 9/11 happened. Silverstein made billions out of the collapse of the twin towers.

Duh!

I find it depressing that people like me have to keep repeating these facts.

And people like me are continuously banned from so-called progressive web sites, just for stating the truth…

Steve
Steve
Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

“…the Patriot Act had to have been prepared before 9/11…”

H.R. 3162, the USA PATRIOT Act, incorporated provisions of two earlier anti-terrorism bills: H.R. 2975, which passed the House on 10/12/2001; and S. 1510, which passed the Senate on 10/11/2001. Provisions of H.R. 3004, the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, were incorporated as Title III in H.R. 3162.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3162

wardropper
wardropper

Nurnberg might have been a little hasty, but our investigation and prosecution of 9/11 is an appalling exercise in professional foot-dragging.
I imagine the plan is to admit that it was an inside job somewhere around 2069, by which time nobody will even remember it.
I mean, by now you could write an article claiming that my grandmother had caused Pearl Harbor, and, with a little help from the media, 99% of the world would believe it.

Harry Stotle
Harry Stotle

“If even one of [the] essential claims [in the official story] is disproved, then the official story as such is thrown into doubt.” – one item!
From start to finish not a single element stands up to even the most cursory form of scrutiny.

Flight 93 ‘disappearing’ at Shanksville – oh do me a favour.
Although like the Twin Towers officials did mange to find the hijackers passports as well as a note saying ‘Osama did it’.
Oh, and a knife just in case reporters were slightly sceptical about paper items surviving the crash even though no body parts were ever recovered.

Case closed.

Grafter
Grafter

Crash in Shanksville… a total false flag. Re the “phone calls” just not possible at the altitudes quoted. However if you read Wiki on all of the 9/11 government fabrications there is nothing amiss. It all reads like one big fairy tale.

Refraktor
Refraktor

I think there will be a controlled and sanitized release of 911 truth in the near future. The UK press is nowhere near so disparaging of truthers as it once was. I’ve read mainstream articles that as good as admit 911 was an inside job.
There seem to be no sentimentalised documentaries in the lead-up to the anniversary.
All the same I expect a false flag “IRA” atrocity as “No Deal” Brexit threatens.

David
David

Perhaps the UK press realises there is considerable overlap between the “truthers” and thos who believe a no-deal Brexit will bring unicorns?

mark
mark

They will probably blame the Saudis and use it as an excuse for seizing hundreds of billions of Saudi assets.

Vexarb
Vexarb

“at the highest level”

Even if the Bush / Cheney regime had not been the conspirators at this highest level their subequent behaviour still betrayed a clear conflict of interest: they were oil people and oily financiers, and they used the atrocity to take over an oil rich country whose oil and bank the AZC did not own.