United 93, cell phones and their bills...

[Blender Head]

Are there any cell phone bills for the calls made on United Airlines Flight 93? I looked through debunking911myths but couldn't locate the physical bills. Googling has turned up nothing, and I'm getting desperate. :boxedin:

Any help from the JREF forums would be much appreciated.

[Drudgewire]

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me releasing those to the public might raise a few privacy issues.

[Blender Head]

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me releasing those to the public might raise a few privacy issues.

No doubt there, but some Twoofers I'm conversing with are adament about getting financial proof that the cell phone calls were made.

[Quad4_72]

Are there any cell phone bills for the calls made on United Airlines Flight 93? I looked through debunking911myths but couldn't locate the physical bills. Googling has turned up nothing, and I'm getting desperate. :boxedin:

Any help from the JREF forums would be much appreciated.

Cell phone bills are not publicly available.

[Blender Head]

Cell phone bills are not publicly available.

See, that just fuels the conspiracists. It seems like the Truthers are willing to deny anything they don't see right in their faces.

[LashL]

Are there any cell phone bills for the calls made on United Airlines Flight 93? I looked through debunking911myths but couldn't locate the physical bills


I can't imagine that surviving family members who would have received the bills have any reason to share them with the general public, and even less reason to share them with the lunatics who populate the "truth" movement.

[Mangoose]

Many troofers won't believe something exists unless it is on the internet. No photo of X on the internet = X doesn't exist. Never mind if it is a private record. Doesn't matter. Unless they see if with their own eyes, they won't believe it exists (and often, if they DO see it, they will just say it was planted or is fake).

[Blender Head]

Many troofers won't believe something exists unless it is on the internet. No photo of X on the internet = X doesn't exist. Never mind if it is a private record. Doesn't matter. Unless they see if with their own eyes, they won't believe it exists (and often, if they DO see it, they will just say it was planted or is fake).

I said 'If they were provided you'd claim it was faked' and I got harrassed for saying such a thing.

[rwguinn]

See, that just fuels the conspiracists. It seems like the Truthers are willing to deny anything they don't see right in their faces.
Tell you what.
Why don't you publish your cell phone bill?
And I will absolutely NOT recipocate.
That is private information, and absolutely nobody's business but mine.
It takes a court order for the law to get it, and even then they can't publish it--It can be read into a court record during a trial, but even then, it may not be public.

[Drudgewire]

See, that just fuels the conspiracists. It seems like the Truthers are willing to deny anything they don't see right in their faces.
And yet they scream the loudest about the Patriot Act infringing on their rights. :rolleyes:

[Blender Head]

I can't imagine that surviving family members who would have received the bills have any reason to share them with the general public, and even less reason to share them with the lunatics who populate the "truth" movement.

I have no reason to believe they're doing anything malicious by keeping it private. The Twoofers on the other hand...

[Blender Head]

Tell you what.
Why don't you publish your cell phone bill?
And I will absolutely NOT recipocate.
That is private information, and absolutely nobody's business but mine.
It takes a court order for the law to get it, and even then they can't publish it--It can be read into a court record during a trial, but even then, it may not be public.

There's no contention over a final call made by my family members before their plane crashed.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

See, that just fuels the conspiracists. It seems like the Truthers are willing to deny anything they don't see right in their faces.


Ask them to post their cell phone bills. If they refuse, ask if you can call up their provider and ask for permission to view their bill.

Honestly, though, I don't think they'll get it. People like this are sociopathic. They feel that privacy (amongst other things) is something that only affects them.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I have no reason to believe they're doing anything malicious by keeping it private. The Twoofers on the other hand...


Who cares? Seriously. Do they? Not a chance in hell. They just need fodder for their delusion. Let them have it.

[Drudgewire]

There's no contention over a final call made by my family members before their plane crashed.
If the families don't have a contention and the authorities don't have a contention, that's the end of it. Unless someone in either circle says there's a problem there's no legal, or for that matter practical, reason to let the whole world pore over them.

What if there are calls to a mistress on there, or a million other things that have no bearing on any conspiracy but could dampen their memory? What right do losers on the Internet have to dig into these victims' lives?

[LashL]

I have no reason to believe they're doing anything malicious by keeping it private. The Twoofers on the other hand...

If lunatics in the "truth" movement want to ascribe malice to surviving family members for not seeking out lunatics in the "truth" movement and providing said lunatics with their private documents, they are only demonstrating further their moral vacuity.

I would suggest that surviving family members should not be expected to provide anything whatsoever to lunatics in the "truth" movement because the lunatics in the "truth" movement are, well, lunatics (and also because the vast majority of the population of the free world doesn't even know that the "truther" brand of lunatics even exists).

I don't think you should worry too much about this issue. There is no reason on earth for family members to be harassed or expected to provide personal information such as this.

Moreover, it is not only the personal information of the deceased that would be disclosed by providing the records, but doing so would also intrude on the privacy of every person whose telephone number shows up on the bill.

Expecting surviving family members to do this is a ridiculous proposition, and one that should not be countenanced at all.

[ElMondoHummus]

Blender Head,

Yes, many fantasists deny details until it's placed right in front of them, and even then they simply move to other arguments until they sense an audience who haven't heard "the Classics" so they can pop it out again (Slight derail: One such example is here,

http://media.www.rutgersobserver.com/media/storage/paper822/news/2007/10/09/Observations/Komisaruks.Response.To.The.203.Commentaries.On.The .Rutgers.Observer.Website.Foll-3021704.shtml?reffeature=recentlycommentedstoriest ab%5dnew

... note the date, and the "age" of the arguments. End derail).

But, there's no getting around the fact that the records are not public information. Perhaps if a family member can be convinced to release the records - with anything unrelated redacted via blotting out - then that would be fine, but the question would have to be put to those family members themselves. And if they're not getting the bills - for example, a mother of an adult victim - then they might not have the rights to them and therefore would not be able to produce them. But regardless, it's silly for a truther to bug a realist for evidence he cannot personally put his or her own hands on. The assertions by the family members should be enough, and those are available to anyone.

I don't know if I'd want to get into an argument about proof of cell phone use; it should be enough to debunk the truther assertion that the calls were impossible, and at that point, the contention over whether the calls were really made become an issue between the truther and the people who received the calls (i.e. the 911 operators, and the family members themselves).

But yes, that is an idealized argument, I admit. Trust me, I full well know how much a conspiracy fantasist will dodge and twist arguments, and turn it around on you to prove an issue supported by evidence held or witnessed by others. So it's not an easy task, no. Sometimes it might be best to just let most of that argument go without surrendering the claim that the calls were impossible. That point can be demonstrated as false without needing cellphone records. Then, just concede that you can't "prove" they were made, but they can't prove they weren't. At that point, the burden of proof is back on them, and if they choose to be dishonest by sticking to their own claim that the calls were impossible - or even further, faked - then they're the ones who have to live with the knowledge that they're arguing a position with less demonstrable support than the one they're opposing. What else can you do at that point besides reiterate that the calls were witnessed by 911 operators and family members?

[LashL]

There's no contention over a final call made by my family members before their plane crashed.

There is no contention about final calls made to the surviving family members either, other than the rantings of "truthers" on the internet. That is hardly sufficient cause for the privacy of the deceased, the deceased's family members, and all of those whom the deceased may have had contact with prior to his or her death to be intruded upon.

[Blender Head]

I get flustered and frustrated that Truthers believe people would not know what their loved ones sounded like and acted. It's nonsensical to me and makes my head spin.

[rwguinn]

I get flustered and frustrated that Truthers believe people would not know what their loved ones sounded like and acted. It's nonsensical to me and makes my head spin.
If that flusters and frustrates you, stay well away from the "Stundies" threads...
What you mention is only a microscopic part of what twoofers b'leeve!

[BenBurch]

Its possible that the cellphone companies, who knew very quickly what phones made calls from the doomed jet due to the federal investigation, declined to charge those calls to the decedent. I mean, how would that look if they did send a bill?

[ElMondoHummus]

I get flustered and frustrated that Truthers believe people would not know what their loved ones sounded like and acted. It's nonsensical to me and makes my head spin.


Yes, but that speaks to the detachment from reality that's necessary to believe in some of these fantasies. It really takes someone who can completely abstract any issue to get to the point where such rhetorical yoga isn't thought of as odd.

I've always got the impression that many truthers were really sheltered or detached from many aspects of the real world. That's obviously not true of all of them, but so many whom I've observed - strictly through online posting, I admit - just can't grasp fundamentals of human behavior. Such as the difficulty of keeping a minor, small secret among a small number of individuals, nevermind a huge, societal-level secret as 9/11 supposedly is. Or the difficulty of coordinating even a small number of people towards a mundane goal, such as an office project, nevermind the large numbers that would be necessary to carry out the various aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy fantasies.

Only detachment seems to be conducive to the ability to abstract, then be selective of details in such a way as to accept conspiracy fantasies and not experience any sense of cognitive dissonance. But, there are some who manage to stop and think: The "Ex Truther (http://extruther.blogspot.com/) Mike Metz, the newest poster in these forums, Diagoras, among others.

Anyway, yes, feelings of being flustered, along with bewilderment at the credulity demonstrated, as well as the occasional sense of disappointment are feelings you'll experience. We've all been there, we all go back there.

[Blender Head]

If that flusters and frustrates you, stay well away from the "Stundies" threads...
What you mention is only a microscopic part of what twoofers b'leeve!

I'm well versed in the incredible, non-credible claims of the Truth Movement.

However, this ges to a very personal level as the 'Truth Movement' are calling these familes either complete dupes or complete liars.

[LashL]

However, this ges to a very personal level as the 'Truth Movement' are calling these familes either complete dupes or complete liars.


Members of the inaptly self-named "truth" movement have been doing that for years. They are wrong, of course, but that doesn't stop them from making spurious claims. You would be best served by not lending credence to their spurious claims and by not expecting or asking family members to provide personal information that there is no rational basis whatsoever for them to provide to the nutcases.

[pomeroo]

The key point has already been made. If you could persuade a family member of one the victims to release a phone bill, it would instantly be branded a fake. There are no rational methods available that can falsify unfalsifiable beliefs.

[deep]

Nobody is trying to be a jerk by requesting this sort of stuff, but consider the situation:
cell phones don't work reliably while flying (most of the time).
you can't make collect calls from airphones.
in-flight cell phone calls & collect airphone calls are both integral parts of the OT.It should be obvious why we're asking questions.

With regard to privacy, the records should have been subpoenaed (as they would be in any other murder investigation & subsequent trial). So why wouldn't you protest all the other violations of privacy that occur via subpoena? By not doing that, it sure does look like Yet Another Double Standard (YADS).

[8den]

Nobody is trying to be a jerk by requesting this sort of stuff, but consider the situation:
cell phones don't work reliably while flying (most of the time).
you can't make collect calls from airphones.
in-flight cell phone calls & collect airphone calls are both integral parts of the OT.It should be obvious why we're asking questions.

With regard to privacy, the records should have been subpoenaed (as they would be in any other murder investigation & subsequent trial). So why wouldn't you protest all the other violations of privacy that occur via subpoena? By not doing that, it sure does look like Yet Another Double Standard (YADS).

Because subpoenaed material doesn't automatically enter the public domain?

[CurtC]

In a way, this is like the records of who made the put options trades on AMR and UAL in the days leading up to 9/11. The Truthers think that since they don't have the details, there must be something fishy going on, while the reality is that the government is not allowed (for good reason) to release private financial details of people not suspected of a crime.

Only with the cell phones, it's much more personal.

[BenBurch]

Yeah, it *is* being a jerk to want this stuff.

[Ranb]

Not everyone who makes a call on a cell phone gets a bill. I use a pre-paid cell phone (on the rare occasions when it is turned on) and never get a bill. As far as I know, pre-paid was available in 2001.

Ranb

[MarkyX]

I love how deep44 saying he is just asking questions, but then suggests the flight 93 victims are part of the scam and thus, their phone bills/privacy should be "investigated"

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Many troofers won't believe something exists unless it is on the internet. No photo of X on the internet = X doesn't exist. Never mind if it is a private record. Doesn't matter. Unless they see if with their own eyes, they won't believe it exists (and often, if they DO see it, they will just say it was planted or is fake).

But don't you dare talk about something that might invade *their* privacy (*cough*patriotact*cough*) at which point they become super-anti-invasion-of-privacy... as they go off to harass some 9/11 widow.

[Gravy]

Nobody is trying to be a jerk by requesting this sort of stuff, Perhaps not. To some people that comes naturally.

but consider the situation: cell phones don't work reliably while flying (most of the time).Er, and some of the time they do. I suggest you check the altitudes at which the cell phone calls were made, and I suggest you check how many calls were disconnected before the caller could speak. You may be surprised to find that there is nothing inconsistent about the official version, and you may be surprised to learn that the family members aren't liars.

you can't make collect calls from airphones.It cost nothing to receive operator assistance and have calls transferred in an emergency. You have no idea what you are talking about.

in-flight cell phone calls & collect airphone calls are both integral parts of the OT.Integral? Yes, they are part of the evidence, part of the reality of 9/11 that kooks deny. No rational person has reason to doubt them.

It should be obvious why we're asking questions.Unfortunately it is obvious. You think the family members and investigators are liars.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Nobody is trying to be a jerk by requesting this sort of stuff, but consider the situation:

Hey, mind if I check out your phone records to see if you made any suspicious phone calls?

See? How do you like it now? What right do I have to see your phone/creditcard/etc records? Maybe you're hiding something? I must see them. SHOW THEM TO ME.

Yep. That's me being a jerk. Which is what truthers are being demanding private personal records.

you can't make collect calls from airphones.


Nevermind that some of the conversations were made between passengers and OPERATORS working for the Airfone. Those are free calls ya know.

Let me guess, you'll now bring up super secret voice morphing technology?

[Gravy]

Because subpoenaed material doesn't automatically enter the public domain?The fact that you were able to penetrate such a seemingly inscrutable problem when legions of truthers cannot means you're either a wizard, a genius, or both.

[alexg]

Why SHOULD the families agree to have the cell records released?

To end the doubts? Ha. Whose doubts? A tiny subset of nuts who think that the families were either fooled by voice morphing tech or else were 'in on it'?

If I were a family member I'd stuff the records right down their throats.

Neither the government nor the families need to address the ludicrous doubts of the twoofers. It's only us debunkers who trouble ourselves to walk across the street to leak on their flaming heads and we don't have the phone records to show them.

[ElMondoHummus]

Nobody is trying to be a jerk by requesting this sort of stuff, but consider the situation:

cell phones don't work reliably while flying (most of the time).
you can't make collect calls from airphones.
in-flight cell phone calls & collect airphone calls are both integral parts of the OT.It should be obvious why we're asking questions.

With regard to privacy, the records should have been subpoenaed (as they would be in any other murder investigation & subsequent trial). So why wouldn't you protest all the other violations of privacy that occur via subpoena? By not doing that, it sure does look like Yet Another Double Standard (YADS).


The flights were flying at an altitude where cell phone reception was indeed possible.

Also, it is indeed established that you can make a collect call from an airphone without a credit card. Todd Beamer did exactly that on Flight 93:


"He told me that he had dialed zero to report his plane was being hijacked and he wanted someone to talk to."

-Lisa Jefferson, customer-service supervisor, GTE Service Center, Chicago


http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/09-02/09-10-02/a02wn022.htm

In-flight cell phone calls and collect airphone calls are facts established by witnesses on the ground (family members and call center operators).

[Jonnyclueless]

The other day on my flight another passenger's phone rang while we were in the air.

[lapman]

No doubt there, but some Twoofers I'm conversing with are adament about getting financial proof that the cell phone calls were made.
And this is the biggest hypocrisy of the twoofers. They require absolute physical proof of everything in the "official story." They want aircraft parts with serial numbers, cell phone bills, photos of bodies in airline seats, a clear picture of flight 77, etc. However, they only need somebody to say they heard something that sounded like an explosion as absolute proof of explosives. Tell the twoofers that you want to see a picture of the installed explosives on the columns or an audio recording of the explosive sequence that accompanies all controlled demolitions by explosives. You'll get a barrage of "so-n-so heard an explosion" answers and be told that your a terrible person for contradicting what the "experts" heard or are calling the first responders liars.

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok. I admit that the following link does not establish that this capability existed on 9/11/01. But:

http://www22.verizon.com/airfone/af_customer_service.html


Assistance on the aircraft
Dialing "0" while in-flight will connect you, at no charge, with an Airfone Customer Service Representative. Also, the Help menu on the handset screen gives you step-by-step instructions for using many of the Airfone features. There is also no charge for using the Help menu.


Do we have any evidence that this capability was not available during the events of 9/11? I'd think it would have been available, but that is very much my own opinion, not a statement of fact. Hard evidence in either direction would of course supercede my opinion.

[sleahead]

Ok. I admit that the following link does not establish that this capability existed on 9/11/07. But:


The Wayback Machine is a wonderful thing and goes all the way back to gteairfone.com's FAQs page (http://web.archive.org/web/19980415060212/http://www.gteairfone.com/faq.html#9), where #8 tells us to dial "0" to get the operator.

[T.A.M.]

1. You are right, many truthers feel the only way evidence exists is if they can examine it for themselves, in person, and then only if they feel it wasnt faked or planted.

2. As others have pointed out, it may have been brought forward as evidence in the Moussaoui trial, but the information on it withheld from the public upon request. It may also have been deemed irrelevant to the case against him.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

The Wayback Machine is a wonderful thing and goes all the way back to gteairfone.com's FAQs page (http://web.archive.org/web/19980415060212/http://www.gteairfone.com/faq.html#9), where #8 tells us to dial "0" to get the operator.


Oh! I didn't think of that. Good thinking!

ETA:

Last updated: 6/24/97


Yep. Well before 9/11/01. Unless there's evidence that the procedure changed prior to 9/11/01, then changed back for the present link I posted earlier, then it's safe to say this capacity is established.

[Blender Head]

Thanks guys. Great information here.

[ElMondoHummus]

Thanks guys. Great information here.


You're welcome. Hope it helps. Sure, I know that some fantasists will still keep on wanting the phone bills - as if those can't be faked - but like I said, once the calls are demonstrated to be technically possible, the debate shifts to an analysis of whether the "Airfone" (GTE's spelling) operators and family members are mistaken or lying (or whether we're taking their quotes out of context, like truther claims of "earwitnesses" to bombs in the WTC... but given the testimonies of the operators and family members, good luck with that).

[T.A.M.]

The issue that will now be argued by the truthers is....

"Well getting an operator is not the same as a collect call. You can't make collect calls from the airfone. How come we haven't heard from the operators on all these calls that were made from these flights, hmmmm???"

TAM:)

[A-Train]

Are there any cell phone bills for the calls made on United Airlines Flight 93? I looked through debunking911myths but couldn't locate the physical bills. Googling has turned up nothing, and I'm getting desperate.

Any help from the JREF forums would be much appreciated.

According to the evidence exhibit released for the Moussaoui trial, the number of cell phone calls from UAL93 was exactly one-- that being made by Edward Felt from the lavatory at 9:58.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/calls/Flight93/PhoneCalls.jpg

The remainder of the calls from UAL93 were made by GTE seatback airphones.

[BenBurch]

1. You are right, many truthers feel the only way evidence exists is if they can examine it for themselves, in person, and then only if they feel it wasnt faked or planted.

Interesting. Mystics feel that same need towards Religion. They need a direct and personal revelation. I wonder if there is some similarity here that is useful in understanding this phenomenon?

[T.A.M.]

According to the evidence exhibit released for the Moussaoui trial, the number of cell phone calls from UAL93 was exactly one-- that being made by Edward Felt from the lavatory at 9:58.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/calls/Flight93/PhoneCalls.jpg

The remainder of the calls from UAL93 were made by GTE seatback airphones.

Well technically, CeeCee Lyles made a CELL PHONE CALL at 9:58:00 to 941-274-XXXX, according to the Moussaoui Trial exhibits...

So that would make the EXACT number of cell phone calls from UA93...TWO!

TAM:)

[Bell]

Nobody is trying to be a jerk by requesting this sort of stuff, but consider the situation:
cell phones don't work reliably while flying (most of the time).
you can't make collect calls from airphones.
in-flight cell phone calls & collect airphone calls are both integral parts of the OT.It should be obvious why we're asking questions.

With regard to privacy, the records should have been subpoenaed (as they would be in any other murder investigation & subsequent trial). So why wouldn't you protest all the other violations of privacy that occur via subpoena? By not doing that, it sure does look like Yet Another Double Standard (YADS).

How about, non of the callers commited a sentenceable crime?

YADS?? Yadda yadda by you, more likely.

[T.A.M.]

Here is an interesting bit from an article, that may confuse the picture...


Operators weren't privy to most of the calls, placed to private parties -- mostly loved ones -- by passengers. Beamer, 32, of Cranbury, N.J., was the only passenger who dialed zero for the Airfone operator.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

What gets me though, is why the truthers think it is unlikely that the calls were made from airfones, because it requires a credit card...ya so, who DOESNT have a credit card? and most keep it in their purse, or wallet, which likely most had on them...

A non-issue in this regard it seems to me.

TAM:)

[BenBurch]

My ex worked at Airfone and knew the woman who took the call.

Its a bit ironic that the travel slump that followed 911 was the final nail in the Airfone coffin, but it had been in economic distress for years.

[T.A.M.]

United Airlines Flight 93 – Phone Call Info

Todd Beamer (assigned Seat 10D)
9:42:44
From Row 32DEF calls AT&T (800 225 XXXX) twice, terminated at 0 seconds
9:43:48
From Row 32DEF calls a Residence (609 860 XXXX) once, terminated at 0 seconds
From Row 32 DEF calls a GTE Operator (200 200 XXXX) once, lasts 3,925 seconds

Jeremy Glick (assigned Seat 11A)
9:37:41
From Row 27DEF calls Joanne Makely (518 734 XXXX) once, lasts 7,565 seconds

Mark Bingham (assigned Seat 4D)
9:36:10
From Row 25DEF calls Vaughn Hoglan (408 741 XXXX) once, lasts 5 seconds
9:37:03
From Row 25DEF calls Vaughn Hoglan (408 741 XXXX) once, lasts 166 seconds
9:41:20
From Row 25DEF calls Vaughn Hoglan (408 741 XXXX) once, terminated at 0 seconds
9:41:53
From Row 25DEF misdials (408 741 XXXX) once, lasts 3 seconds

Thomas Burnett Jr (assigned Seat 4B)
9:30:32
From Row 24ABC calls a Residence (925 735 XXXX) once, lasts 28 seconds
9:37:53
From Row 24ABC calls a Residence (925 735 XXXX) once, lasts 62 seconds
9:44:23
From Row 25ABC calls a Residence (925 735 XXXX) once, lasts 54 seconds

CeeCee Lyles (Flight Attendant)
9:47:57
From Row 32ABC calls a Residence (941 274 XXXX) once, lasts 56 seconds
9:58:00
Makes a CELL PHONE CALL to a residence (941 274 XXXX) once

Edward Felt (assigned Seat 2D)
9:58:00
From the airplane lavatory, makes a CELL PHONE CALL to Westmoreland 911

Lauren Grandcolas (assigned Seat 11D)
9:39:21
From Row 23DEF calls a Residence (415 454 XXXX) once, lasts 46 seconds
9:40:42
From Row 23DEF calls Kris Kor / Global (415 492 XXXX) once, terminated 0 seconds
9:41:34
From Row 23DEF calls a Residence (415 454 XXXX) once, lasts 4 seconds
9:42:03
From Row 23DEF calls a Residence (415 454 XXXX) once, lasts 2 seconds
9:42:25
From Row 23DEF calls a Residence (415 454 XXXX) once, lasts 3 seconds
9:42:45
From Row 23DEF calls a Residence (415 454 XXXX) once, lasts 3 seconds
9:43:24
From Row 23DEF calls Vaughn C. Lohec (973 665 XXXX) once, terminated 0 seconds
9:43:44
From Row 23DEF calls V.Nadel (973 665 XXXX) misdial, lasts 7 seconds

Joseph DeLuca (assigned Seat 2B)
9:42:13
From Row 26DEF calls his Parents (908 688 XXXX) once, lasts 14 seconds
9:43:03
From Row 26DEF calls his Parents (908 688 XXXX) once, lasts 130 seconds
9:48:48
From Row 26DEF calls Atwell Haines (973 927 XXXX) once, terminated 0 seconds

Linda Gronlund (assigned Seat 2A)
9:46:05
From Row 26DEF calls Elsa Strong (603 673 XXXX) once, lasts 71 seconds

Sandra Bradshaw (Flight Attendant)
9:35:40
From Row 33DEF calls United Airlines (Speed Dial Fix) once, lasts 353 seconds
9:49:30
From Row 33DEF calls a Residence (336 282 XXXX) once, terminated 0 seconds
9:50:04
From Row 33 DEF calls a Residence (336 282 XXXX) once, lasts 470 seconds

Marion Britton (assigned Seat 12B)
9:49:12
From Row 33ABC calls Fred Fiumano (718 805 XXXX) once, lasts 232 seconds

Honor Wainio (assigned Seat 11F)
9:53:43
From Row 33ABC calls her Parents (410 788 XXXX) once, lasts 269 seconds

Waleska Martinez (assigned Seat 10F)
9:45:37
From Row 34ABC calls Dratel Group Inc. (212 509 XXXX) once, terminated 0 seconds

Unknown Flight Attendant #1
9:35:56
From Row 33ABC calls United Airlines (speed dial fix) once, lasts 4 seconds

Unknown Flight Attendant #2
9:31:14
From Row 34ABC calls United Airlines (speed dial fix) once, lasts 2 seconds
9:32:29
From Row 34ABC calls United Airlines (speed dial fix) once, lasts 95 seconds
9:35:48
From Row 34ABC calls United Airlines (speed dial fix) once, lasts 4 seconds

-----

The above is based solely on the Flash Animation from the Moussaoui Trial.
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200055.html

TAM:)

[BenBurch]

TAM?

That makes me so SAD to read. :( The reason I think these Truther's are so literally evil is that they use those innocent victims in so merciless and mercenary a manner. It literally makes me queasy if I think about it.

-Ben

[T.A.M.]

I know, I debated even putting it up here, but sometimes a post like this makes us ALL realize the human aspect of all this a little bit better.

Now, to remind you the demented evil we are opposing on this subject, take a read, in full, of this article...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/190806shotdown.htm

Here is a little snippet I cringed over...


THE most intriguing of the calls is the one said to have been made by Flight 93’s most famous passenger Todd Beamer, whose ‘Let’s roll!’ phrase became a byword for the victims’ heroism and patriotism.

Beamer’s call was said to have been taken by a telephone supervisor working for the Verizon Corporation, owners of GTE Airfones, the gadgets on the airplane seats.

At the time, Verizon had a contract worth £750million for installing a high-security telecoms package across U.S. government departments, including the Pentagon.

One of its supervisors, Lisa Jefferson, an evangelical Christian like Beamer himself, retains a vivid recollection of her 15-minute conversation with him.

After discovering that she shared her first name with Beamer’s wife, they apparently talked about his two little boys and the new baby on the way, Beamer’s fear that he might not make it home, and his faith.

Faced with the awful prospect of dying on board Flight 93, Beamer supposedly recited the Lord’s Prayer and Psalm 23 with Mrs Jefferson. He also asked her to promise to call his wife. MRS JEFFERSON received a Verizon Excellence Award from her bosses for her handling of the call. To some this may have seemed inappropriate.

She had not taken a recording of it, contrary to convention. She had not gone through the routine questions in her distress-call manual. She had not connected this agitated man to his wife waiting anxiously at home. Nor had she informed his wife subsequently of the call as promised.

Mrs Beamer only learned of her husband’s final call four days later, when a representative of United Airlines got in touch.

She says the United Airlines representative told her: ‘The FBI had been keeping the information private until they’ve had the opportunity to review the material. But now they’ve released it, I have a written summary of the call.’

But later Mrs Beamer learned that the FBI had not kept the call so secret after all. Her husband’s boss at his computer company had already spun the story of Beamer the hero aboard Flight 93 before anyone else knew of his phone call.

As for Lisa Jefferson’s evidence, it was single-sourced, unsubstantiated hearsay of which there was no record. For spooks inside a sprawling empire of wires like Verizon, rigging up a phone call to Lisa Jefferson’s headset would have been simple.

She had no idea what Beamer’s voice sounded like, and she would never hear it again to judge whether he had actually been speaking to her. This year, Lisa Jefferson published a book entitled Called — the story of seeing ‘her life transformed, simply by answering Todd Beamer’s call’.

The blurb added: ‘Jefferson sends a stirring challenge to all of us whether it comes during quiet obscurity or international adversity, we must be prepared to answer God’s call.’

Evangelical Christians throughout America rallied to that call. But one puzzle remains: Todd Beamer’s wife later said she had never before heard of his reciting the Lord’s Prayer in pressure situations. Nor, she added, was Psalm 23 something he often recited.

TODD BEAMER’S ‘Let’s roll!’ phrase became the war on terror’s recruitment slogan.

President Bush had launched the legend in a speech on September 20, 2001 as he declared his unprecedented ‘war on terror’. Beamer’s story of selfless patriotism, according to the President, was a ‘defining moment’ in American history. Alongside President Bush on this occasion was Todd Beamer’s wife Lisa.

Nobody, of course, would begrudge Mrs Beamer her celebrity, given her tragic circumstances. But her presence undoubtedly helped President Bush’s cause.



TAM:)

[BenBurch]

Cringeworthy indeed. The fact that Bush also used the victims is not any reason to doubt the sequence of events. He's a politician, and a particularly dirty one at that, and so of course he used them. As said the scorpion to the frog "It's my nature."

[T.A.M.]

I am doing a lot of reading on Flight 93, in particular the calls. One thing I am having trouble getting my head around are the calls of TOM BURNETT.

At the Moussaoui Trial they list him as making the calls from Row 24DEF (first two calls) and then Row 25DEF (third call), THREE calls are listed...HOWEVER,

1. Many accounts, including his widows testimony, says he made 4 Cell Phone calls...
http://www.tomburnettfoundation.org/tomburnett_transcript.html
2. Many accounts, including the above link from the Tom Burnett Foundation, state he made the calls from a cell phone.

So if he did make them from a cell phone, how would the investigators know what row in the plane he made them from, and if he made them from an airfone, why so many references, legitimate references, describe them as from a cell phone.

TAM:)

[BenBurch]

The cross-examination from that trial might have covered this.

[T.A.M.]

Is the cross examination transcript available at the exhibits?

I also find some parts of the transcript puzzling. I am the furthest thing from a truther, but why in his 3rd call did he state that "They" were planning on crashing the plane into the ground. Why would these arab men be revealing such a plan, and even if it were overheard, why would they have spoken such in English, UNLESS they were telling the passengers this in order to get them to be civil (a threat).

TAM:)

Edit:

Found some
http://cryptome.org/usa-v-zm-031306-01.htm

[Magenta]

I also find some parts of the transcript puzzling. I am the furthest thing from a truther, but why in his 3rd call did he state that "They" were planning on crashing the plane into the ground. Why would these arab men be revealing such a plan, and even if it were overheard, why would they have spoken such in English, UNLESS they were telling the passengers this in order to get them to be civil (a threat).


Doesn't his comment follow from the information just relayed by his wife, rather than something overheard from the hijackers - i.e. he's realised that it's not a "normal" hijacking:

# Deena: Tom, they are hijacking planes all up and down the east coast. They are taking them and hitting designated targets. They’ve already hit both towers of the World Trade Center.
# Tom: They’re talking about crashing this plane. (a pause) Oh my God. It’s a suicide mission…(he then tells people sitting around him)

[BenBurch]

I think its his realization too, unless he heard the hijackers say something to each other.

[T.A.M.]

I would say maybe, but (A) No question mark after "...about crashing this plane.", and (B) He says THEY and THIS, and in the context of the line, that seems to indicated the hijackers and UA93...

but you may be right, he may have been thinking

"They might think about crashing this plane as well", and then expressed this thought, as,

"They're talking about crashing this plane."

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I think its his realization too, unless he heard the hijackers say something to each other.

Ben:

Which brings me back to the question, if he over heard the hijackers say some such, then (A) they could speak English, or (B) he could speak Arabic.

In the end though, I think it was just his realization, but the words, when you examine the minutia of it (I know, first mistake), seem odd...

TAM:)

[BenBurch]

Well, we already know they could speak some English.

Pilots have to.

[T.A.M.]

Well, we already know they could speak some English.

Pilots have to.

I am assuming the pilot, Jarrah, was busy piloting the plane. So unless he came over the loud speaker with it, one of the muscle hijackers had to have said it, if anyone did.

Don't get me wrong here, I am playing Devil's Advocate here. I think in the end, the transcription of the actual call, likely taken from Deena Burnett's memory, is slightly mistaken. It is also possible that the intonation of the words, which we cannot get from a transcript, indicated as you have said, a realization of what is going to happen.

TAM:)

[CptColumbo]

They may also have learned some phrases phonetically.

[T.A.M.]

Here is what may have happened...

1. To keep the crowd under control, the hijackers may have threatened to crash the plane, or, some of the passengers may have over heard such as part of a convo the hijackers had about what to do if they could not reach their target.
2. With this in mind, and hearing the news Deena had just given him, Tom Burnett uttered the words we are discussing now.

TAM:)

[BenBurch]

I am assuming the pilot, Jarrah, was busy piloting the plane. So unless he came over the loud speaker with it, one of the muscle hijackers had to have said it, if anyone did.

Don't get me wrong here, I am playing Devil's Advocate here.

TAM:)

He could have been shouting to them? Not all of these guys were Saudi on that jet if I recall, and their dialect of Arabic might not have been really compatible.

[T.A.M.]

also a possibility

TAM:)