The 9/11 Deception and False Flag Terror, Terence Smart [best fiction novels to read .TXT] 📗

‘The most famous of the reported calls were from CNN commentator Barbara Olson to her husband, US Solicitor General Ted Olson. According to CNN, he reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by . . . hijackers [armed with] knives and cardboard cutters.”

Although these reported calls, as summarized by Ted Olson, did not describe the hijackers so as to suggest that they were members of al-Qaeda, such descriptions were supplied by calls from other flights, especially United 93, and from which about a dozen cell phone calls were reportedly received before it crashed in Pennsylvania.

There was, however, a big problem with these reported calls. Given the technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were not possible, and yet these calls, some of which reportedly lasted a minute or more, reportedly occurred when the planes were above 30,000 or even 40,000 feet. This problem was explained by some credible people, including scientist A.K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American.

An even more serious difficulty is presented by the case of Deena Burnett, who said that she had received three to five calls from her husband, Tom Burnett. She knew he was using his cell phone, she reported to the FBI that very day and then to the press and in a book, because she had recognized his cell phone number on her phone’s Caller ID. We cannot suppose her to have been mistaken about this. We also, surely, cannot accuse her of lying.

Therefore, if we accept the FBI’s report, according to which Tom Burnett did not make any cell phone calls from Flight 93, we can only conclude that the calls were faked and that Deena Burnett was duped. Although this suggestion may at first sight seem outlandish, there are three facts that, taken together, show it to be more probable than any of the alternatives.

First, voice morphing technology was sufficiently advanced at that time to make faking the calls feasible. A 1999 Washington Post article described demonstrations in which the voices of two generals, Colin Powell and Carl Steiner, were heard saying things they had never said.

Second, there are devices with which you can fake someone’s telephone number, so that it will show up on the recipient’s Caller ID.

Third, the conclusion that the person who called Deena Burnett was not her husband is suggested by various features of the calls. For example, when Deena told the caller that “the kids” were asking to talk to him, he said: “Tell them I’ll talk to them later.” This was 20 minutes after Tom had purportedly realized that the hijackers were on a suicide mission, planning to “crash this plane into the ground,” and 10 minutes after he and other passengers had allegedly decided that as soon as they were “over a rural area” they must try to gain control of the plane. Also, the hijackers had reportedly already killed one person. Given all this, the real Tom Burnett would have known that he would likely die, one way or another, in the next few minutes. Is it believable that, rather than taking this probably last opportunity to speak to his children, he would say that he would “talk to them later”? Is it not more likely that “Tom” made this statement to avoid revealing that he knew nothing about “the kids,” perhaps not even their names?

With regard to the reported 12-minute call from Amy Sweeney to Michael Woodward, an affidavit signed by FBI agent James Lechner and dated September 12 (2001) stated that, according to Woodward, Sweeney had been “using a cellular telephone.” But when the 9/11 Commission discussed this call in its Report, which appeared in July 2004, it declared that Sweeney had used an onboard phone.

Further evidence that the calls were faked is provided by timing problems in some of them. According to the 9/11 Commission, Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 as a result of the passenger revolt, which began at 9:57. However, according to Lyzbeth Glick’s account of the aforementioned cell phone call from her husband, Jeremy Glick, she told him about the collapse of the South Tower, and that did not occur until 9:59, two minutes after the alleged revolt had started. After that, she reported, their conversation continued for several more minutes before he told her that the passengers were taking a vote about whether to attack. According to Lyzbeth Glick’s account, therefore, the revolt was only beginning by 10:03, when the plane (according to the official account) was crashing.

A timing problem also occurred in the aforementioned call from flight attendant Amy Sweeney. While she was describing the hijackers, according to the FBI’s account of her call, they stormed and took control of the cockpit. However, although the hijacking of Flight 11 “began at 8:14 or shortly thereafter,” the 9/11 Commission said, Sweeney’s call did not go through until 8:25.47 Her alleged call, in other words, described the hijacking as beginning over 11 minutes after it, according to the official timeline, had been successfully carried out.

Multiple lines of evidence, therefore, imply that the cell phone calls were faked. This fact has vast implications, because it implies that all the reported calls from the planes, including those from onboard phones, were faked. Why? Because if the planes had really been taken over in surprise hijackings, no one would have been ready to make fake cell phone calls’ - David Ray Griffin is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. He has published 34 books, including seven about 9/11, most recently The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up.

"The official story is false. Why is the official theory an outrageous conspiracy theory? Because every one of the major elements in it can easily be shown to be false." - Professor David Ray Griffin.

In other words the 9/11 Commission’s script on the cell phone conversations is fabricated. According to the American Airline and Qualcomm, the technology for cell phone transmission at high altitude was only available aboard commercial aircraft in 2006. This is an inescapable fact.

It is reasonable to assume, then, that cell phone calls were made from the ground, either by the person said to have called or a voice synthesizer widely thought to be available at the time.

Another important detail is that two Israeli companies Amdocs and Comverse InfoSys, (now called Verint), manage just about every aspect of the US telephone system. Amdocs is responsible for billing and records for almost all phone calls in the US. Cameron states: Amdocs has contracts with the 25 biggest phone companies in America, and more worldwide. The White House and other secure government phone lines are protected, but it is virtually impossible to make a call on normal phones without generating an Amdocs record of it.

According to declassified data obtained by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, a data parameter known as “CI” recorded no movements from the cockpit door throughout the flight. Simply put, this means that no one could have gotten inside the cockpit during the flight. No one could have hijacked it. In fact, the 9/11 Commission in their report acknowledges that no air traffic controllers identified Flight 77 as a hijacked plane while it was airborne.

U.S. Solicitor General, Ted Olson, who first claimed that his wife Barbara, a passenger on AA Flight 77, (Pentagon crash), called him with her cellphone but he later changed his story and claimed she made her calls on an air phone. If it was the truth you wouldn’t need to change your story.

The difficulty for the switch to the air phone version is that there is official testimony from FBI interviews with the recipients of calls from the 9/11 passengers that the calls came from cell phones, not air phones in at least nine cases. Recipients of calls reported that they could tell from their caller IDs that the calls came from cell phones. This testimony was so definitive that the government and debunkers alike were forced to acknowledge that in two cases the calls were made from cell phones.

The reason cell phone calls from cruising airplanes were impossible in 2001 was because a cruising aircraft at 30,00 - 35,000 ft., travelling at 500 mph will pass beyond the range of the ground cellphone tower before the electronic connecting procedure, known as the "handshake" can be completed.

Ted Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters

The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.” According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Who was Ted Olsen? He represented presidential candidate George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore, and subsequently served as U.S. Solicitor General in the Bush administration. Olson was Legal Counsel to President Reagan during the Iran-Contra Affair. Also one of Ted Olsen’s high-profile clients in the 1980s was Israeli Jew Jonathan Pollard, who had been convicted of selling government secrets to Israel. Pollard pleaded guilty to spying for and providing top-secret classified information to Israel. He was sentenced to life in prison for violations of the Espionage Act. So Ted Olsen is close friends with George Bush and has links to Israel and he is the one who said his wife called him from a cell phone and that the hijackers had box cutters. What complete B.S, total fiction?

Mrs. Olson’s alleged cell phone call to her husband was employed by the administration and the 9/11 Commission as partial proof that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife. In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?

Barbara Olsen was a famous CNN reporter, but before that, she was born Barbara Kay Bracher of Jewish parents (another Sayanim), educated at Yeshiva University School of Law, and hired by the legal firm WilmerHale, of which Jamie Gorelick, a future member of the 9/11 Commission, was also a member, and whose clients include powerful Israeli firms like Amdocs, a digital communication company charged with spying for Israel in the United States. So we have both the Olsen’s connected to Israel. One being Jewish and the other working for Israel in trying to get their number one spy of the hook.

In more than one instance the time of the phone call doesn't match up with the government scenario of when they were hijacked.

An example is the case of Todd Beamer, a passenger on UA 93, whose widely reported "Let's roll," battle cry, as reported by Lisa Jefferson, a GTA Air phone operator, decisively established in the public mind, the scenario of the passenger uprising that supposedly caused his plane to crash near Shanksville.

According to the 9/11 Commission the hijacking took place at 9:28. His call to Lisa Jefferson was connected at 9:43, but the contents of his call different to the official narrative. Beamer stated that the plane was about to be hijacked by three individuals with knives including one with a bomb strapped to his waist. Jefferson estimated that the call lasted 7 minutes before the hijackers entered the cockpit. This would have been at about 9:50, but according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the hijacking took place at 9:28. How could Beamer be describing events that are supposed to be happening in front of his eyes, when in fact they had already happened 20 minutes before? How could they be preparing to take control of the flight when they had already been in the cockpit for 15 minutes?

Everyone who made phone calls spoke in a calm voice and no one on the receiving end of those calls heard the aircraft noise or panicked passengers in the background.

I mean come on, without those MobileCell phone calls, we would have never known about the nineteen Arabs, box cutters, Allahu Akbar, and all the other nonsense. A couple of passengers or flight attendants from each of the four "hijacked" planes on 9/11 called to various airline