911blogger.com's Specious Article On Faked Calls Options

[9elevened]

needing a bit of explanation, 911blogger.com agrees with the bombs at the WTC theories but disputes the Pentagon theories (mostly propagated by Pilots for 911 Truth) and that outside forces somehow had control of the planes

(whether the planes were the actual airliners or not. There is still no conclusive visual evidence of logos on the WTC planes, and various witnesses in news reports since suppressed such as one shouting "that was not American Airlines" and the Fox employee saying one was a cargo jet).

This is a bit contradictory in that if outside forces placed bombs at the WTC they would have had knowledge of the planes and the plot.

911blogger's refutation articles have become so flimsy that they now block anyone trying to respond to their arguments from posting comments to their articles on their website.

regarding potential faked 911 calls from the planes, they propose their own theory that the hijackers placed "boosting" equipment aboard the planes themselves to allow the cell phone calls they wanted to go through! Which by itself is admitting that otherwise cell phone calls could not have got through.

They dispute the Bingham call, saying that Bingham's mom said he was known for using his full name when responding ("Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham"). Left out is that he had never done this with her before. Also left out is that "Bingham" was actually calling his sister-in-law, where his mother had been visiting, and the sister-in-law put the mother on the phone (if I'm remembering correctly).

Also mentioned is that "some of those who made the cell phone calls only made their reservations the day before 911."

If you remember that Operation Northwoods planned fake lists of fake dead and to parade their "grieving relatives" on national TV, this may be suspicious in and of itself.

Most people who make transcontinental flights don't wait until the day before to make their reservations, and this indicates that a high percentage of proposed cell-phone callers aboard the planes did so, since most of the calls were attributed to back of seat phones. . .

yet an AA spokesman has admitted in a letter that Flight 77 did not have back of seat phones, killing the only alternate method by which "Barbara Olson" could have contacted her husband (calling DOJ collect through the switchboard instead of using her husband's direct numbers)

[onesliceshort]

Check these out:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myp...MM01282001a.jpg

regarding potential faked 911 calls from the planes, they propose their own theory that the hijackers placed "boosting" equipment aboard the planes themselves to allow the cell phone calls they wanted to go through!

Have you a link to that? I gotta see this.

[9elevened]

Have you a link to that? I gotta see this.
[/quote]

http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/news/2011-09-08/erro...calls-were-fake

[9elevened]

http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/news/2011-09-08/erro...calls-were-fake

something changed this to "911blogger bans truth" haha the last time I posted, are their links being banned now? full article below

p.s. Bingham was a frequent flyer on that same flight

The idea that phone calls from passengers on the targeted flights were fake and actually created with voice-morphing technology has been promoted by several "no Boeing" advocates and in particular detail by author David Ray Griffin in his numerous books, talks, interviews, and essays.

The case for the 'fake phone calls theory' as articulated by Griffin has become ever more nuanced and complex as government and airline disclosures have undermined the simplicity of the original set of claims surrounding the calls, and other researchers have pointed out flaws in that case. However, the theory remains rooted in the premise, seemingly calculated to be offensive attack survivors, that the last voices heard from victims on the planes were faked.
Origins

The original form of the fake phone calls theory as promoted by A.K. Dewdney in his 2002 article Ghostriders in the Sky focused on Flight 93, from which passengers reportedly made a score of cell phone calls. It had two major tenets:

Cell phones in aircraft at altitude can't communicate with ground stations, where most of the reported calls would have been at altitude.
Statements reportedly made by passengers had peculiarities suggesting that they weren't genuine.

Dewdney, Mathematical Recreations columnist for Scientific American from 1984 to 1993, gave these arguments a veneer of credibility with his vivid style of writing, and publication of experiments showing limitations of cell phone reception from a light plane in Canada. However, rational examination of both tenets show that they are based on multiple fallacies, foremost being the presentation of a theory as the only explanation for alleged anomalies that in fact have many possible explanations.

For years, "no Boeing" advocates such as A.K. Dewdney, Eric Hufschmid, David Griffin, Jim Fetzer, and the Loose Change filmmakers have used victim Mark Bingham as poster child for the fake calls claims by highlighting his use of his full name in addressing his mother. During his one call from Flight 93 to his mother, Bingham reportedly says "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham". Frequently overlooked in these accounts are the facts that Mark Bingham's mother has a different last name, that she herself relayed the excerpt, and that she has no doubt that the caller was her son. Furthermore, adducing as evidence of fakery perceived anomalies in the reported behavior of people in highly stressful life-threatening circumstances is unscientific at best.

The first tenet appeals to a claim that a key element of the official story was physically impossible. However, even after years of debate, the parameters of cell phone function on the 9/11/2001 flights remain unclear, Dewdney's experiment in Canada notwithstanding.

But even supposing that cell phone calls from cruising altitude were impossible that day, and that there was no other way for the calls to have been legitimate -- such their having been from airphones rather than cell phones -- there is still a logical fallacy in the first tenet that is exposed by a simple thought experiment dubbed the Cell Phone Repeater Hypothesis.
e x c e r p t
title: Phone Calls: Alleged Oddities of Phone Calls from Doomed Flights
authors: Jim Hoffman
The Cell Phone Repeater Hypothesis

To review, the main argument used to support the theory that the cell phone calls attributed to Flight 93 passengers were faked goes like this:
Given that several calls from the jetliner when at altitude were reportedly from cell phones; and that cell phone calls on a plane above 10,000 feet cannot communicate with ground cell stations; it follows that the reported calls were not made by the victims but were faked.

A fatal flaw in this syllogism is exposed by the following simple hypothesis, apparently first published on this page in June of 2009.
HYPOTHESIS:
A self-powered cell phone repeater the size of a shoe box is placed on board Flight 93 within a piece of luggage. The repeater is sufficiently powerful to establish reliable connections with ground stations for several minutes at a time, and forwards all the communications between the cell phones aboard the plane and ground stations. The repeater is programmed to broadcast on a separate encrypted channel a duplicate of all the call data in real time, which is monitored by operatives who have ability to block any of the calls at any time.

Besides being technically straightforward, this method would have afforded the attack planners great benefits with little risk of exposure. Genuine reports of the theatrics of the red-bandanna-wearing bomb-displaying Arabic-looking patsies aboard Flight 93 could be allowed to get through as long as the operatives wanted, adding realism to the hijackings so central to the official account. But the same operatives could "cut the feed" at the moment events took a turn threatening to evince something other than that account.
site: 911research.wtc7.net page: 911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html#overlooked
Devolution

The fake phone calls theory has become increasingly isolated within the community of skeptics, first with the discrediting of the "no-jetliners" claims dovetailing with the fake calls theory, and subsequently with the release of documents finally articulating the government's position that most of the calls were from airphones rather than cell phones. For example, a prosecution exhibit from the 2006 Zacarias Moussaoui trial indicated that only two of the phone calls from Flight 93 were from cell phones, and both were made late in the flight, when the jetliner was at low altitude.

With the first tenet of the fake calls theory undermined by the government's position that most of the calls were from airphones, and its flaws exposed by simple logic, the defense of the fake calls theory has become increasingly convoluted. Undeterred, David Griffin featured the theory in lengthy lectures, essays, and books. Griffin's 2011 essay was the subject of Erik Larson's Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory.
e x c e r p t
title: Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory
authors: Erik Larson
One victim, Linda Gronlund, even left the combination to her safe on her sister’s voice mail. None of the family members who spoke with the passengers, or heard the messages they left, had any doubts it was their loved ones who called. . . some of those who made calls hadn’t booked their flights until the day before 9/11, meaning it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get an adequate voice sample, even assuming the perpetrators could tap anyone’s phone at anytime: Jeremy Glick, Mark Bingham, Honor Elizabeth Wainio and possibly Ed Felt. Some, including Griffin in previous essays, have suggested that Mark Bingham’s use of his full name when speaking to his mother is suspicious. First, it would be very unlikely that persons faking phone calls would introduce an element that would be a red flag to their family and outside observers. Second, Bingham’s mother (who has a different last name: Hoglan) has said that he did this on occasion; is it realistic to think voice-morphing perps learned this idiosyncrasy at the last minute and exploited it, let alone base accusations on it?

[9elevened]

it's actually so poorly written it's kinda hard to tell what "911blogger bans truth" is saying hahaha

throwing up stuff hoping something sticks

it really irks me they won't allow any debate on their website, just like the "enemy"

[A. Syed]

It's Rob Balsamo's brand of humor; have the software automatically change the address to something more reflective of the true nature of the said site, and a way of eliminating direct links between the sites. Another example: if someone links to forums (dot) randi (dot) org, it changes to "govtloyalistsite.org" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[A. Syed]

By the way, I've read Griffin's new chapter rebutting Erik Larson. He exposes Larson for the govt loyalist that he is.

[albertchampion]

i am sort of confused by the convolutions of this thread. you can read everything i have written on this topic. i think they substantiate the accuracy of dewdney's assertions.

you cannot make cellphone calls from a commercial aircraft at any cruising altitude at any normal linear cruising speed today.

let alone ten years ago.

even more to the point, even today that area of pennsylvania is a cell tower desert.

that is all that needs to be said. it cannot be refuted.

the #93 communications are fraudulent.

just as the collision with terrain site is fraudulent.

[onesliceshort]

Wow. Hoffman is the conspiratasty theorist!

He also claimed that SAM missiles and/or explosives in the luggage hold of "Flight 77" were used to enable "penetration" of the Pentagon. Somebody should ask Victronix Ashley what she thinks of her hubby's claims, huh?

These three "old school" threads at LCF throw up a lot of interesting information (which is severely lacking in Vicky's opinion piece - do these guys ever link to anything outside of their tiny minds?).

Skip through the government loyalist gunk and insults. I think it was albert(?) that posted the "workings" and limits diagrams of the cell towers here at the forum once.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...c=2962&st=0
http://s10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=2875
http://s10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=20709

Adam, do you have a link to DRG's response to Herr Erik Larson (*clicks heels*)?

[9elevened]

sorry if confusing. was mainly pointing out 911blogger.com once again avoiding major issues

I believe the phone calls were faked . . .

[rob balsamo]

Wow. Hoffman is the conspiratasty theorist!

Hoffman...lol. Every time i hear his name i laugh.

Check it....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10774882

I wonder if Hoffman still thinks the data we analyzed came through some mysterious "back door". I've asked Wolsey this question many times on Facebook when Wolsey followed me around attempting to debate me, but he ran each and every time when asked. Click the above link to understand.

Hoffman
(IMG:http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/img/Jim-Hoffman.JPG)

[onesliceshort]

Hoffman...lol. Every time i hear his name i laugh.

Check it....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10774882

I wonder if Hoffman still thinks the data we analyzed came through some mysterious "back door". I've asked Wolsey this question many times on Facebook when Wolsey followed me around attempting to debate me, but he ran each and every time when asked. Click the above link to understand.

His site is littered with even more disinfo than his wife accuses others of.

(IMG:http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/6008/hoffmanbomb.jpg)

Apparently Kevin Ryan was using his site for conspiratasty information too in his "12 points" thread at 911Blogger (he also questioned Barbara Olson's alleged call yet Ashley openly dissed DRG on this issue on the run up to the Toronto charade).

(IMG:http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/6656/ryanbomb.jpg)

@9elevened

Oh yeah mate, those links were to reinforce your argument. Additional documented hard proof.

[onesliceshort]

From the "Toronto Hearings" thread at 911blogger

"Q: Do you accept that planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

Graham MacQueen: Large planes obviously hit the World Trade Center. We have them on video. We have many eyewitnesses. The Pentagon is very complicated – let’s not even go there right now."

It sounds like he thinks it was a small plane? And not "many eyewitnesses" at the Pentagon?

Not a good answer.

Victronix

The source is from a newspaper interview (Canada?). Look how they treated McQueen and "truthers" in general, and Ashley hones in on something that the guy didn't even say:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/...article2157340/


Do you know how much grief could have been avoided if certain people had taken the "Pentagon is very complicated" stance?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 11 2011, 06:27 PM

[tit2]

Erik Larson a member of 911blogger.com had written a “Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls" , but he did not notice the unlikely elements of phone calls from Todd Beamer and Jeremy Glick.

According to the summary of passenger phone calls presented at the Moussaoui trial, Beamer's call lasted "3,925 seconds." This would mean it did not end until 10:49 a.m., about three-quarters of an hour after Flight 93 supposedly crashed.

The phone call by Jeremy Glick would not have been interrupted by the crash of the aircraft. Phone call started at 9:37:41. line left open (7,565 seconds). So the call ends at 11:43:46.

This conflicts with the official crash time of 10:03:11 AM.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/...ts/P200055.html

See also:

Todd Beamer's Odd Phone Call and the Silent Crash of Flight 93:

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2007/10/...and-silent.html

Quotes of the author:

“The first thing that was odd about this call is the simple fact that Beamer was able to talk to Jefferson continuously for 13 minutes. In her 2002 book, his wife Lisa Beamer revealed that Jefferson had informed her "it was a miracle that Todd's call hadn't been disconnected." The reason: "Because of the enormous number of calls that day, the GTE systems overloaded and lines were being disconnected all around her as she sat at the operator's station outside of Chicago, talking to Todd. [Jefferson] kept thinking, This call is going to get dropped! Yet Todd stayed connected ... all the way to the end." Very fortunate indeed this was, because if the call had become disconnected there would have been no "Let's roll" slogan for the war on terror”

“Perhaps the oddest aspect of the call is what happened after 9:58, when Todd Beamer put the phone down to join the passenger revolt against the hijackers. Jefferson has recalled: "After he said, 'Let's roll,' he left the phone, and I would assume that's at the point that they went to charge the cockpit. And I was still on the line and the plane took a dive, and by then, it just went silent. I held on until after the plane crashed--probably about 15 minutes longer and I never heard a crash--it just went silent because--I can't explain it. We didn't lose a connection because there's a different sound that you use. It's a squealing sound when you lose a connection. I never lost connection, but it just went silent."

Now how is this possible? Firstly, how could the call have remained connected after the plane crashed? According to the summary of passenger phone calls presented at the Moussaoui trial, Beamer's call lasted "3,925 seconds." This would mean it did not end until 10:49 a.m., about three-quarters of an hour after Flight 93 supposedly crashed. And, secondly, how could there have been silence when the crash occurred?”

Context of '9:59 a.m. September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Passenger Told of WTC Tower Collapse Contradicts Passenger Revolt Timing'

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?...wtccollapsecall

“According to Lyz Glick, as recounted in the book “Among the Heroes,” she is speaking to her husband Jeremy Glick on Flight 93 when he tells her that passengers have been hearing from other phone calls that planes are crashing into the World Trade Center. He asks her, “Are [the hijackers] going to blow this plane up?” Lyz replies that she doesn’t know, but tells him that it is true two planes have crashed into the World Trade Center. He asks her if they’re going to crash the plane into the World Trade Center. She replies, “No. They’re not going there.” He asks why, and she replies that one of the towers has just fallen. “They knocked it down.” The first World Trade Center tower collapses at 9:59 and is seen by millions on television. The book makes clear that this exchange takes place at “almost ten o’clock” —within a minute of the tower collapse. This account contradicts the 9/11 Commission’s conclusion that the passenger assault on the cockpit begins at 9:58, because the tower collapse was definitely at 9:59. Only later in the same phone call does Jeremy Glick mention that passengers are still taking a vote on whether or not to attack the hijackers. He confers with others and tells Lyz that they’ve decided to do so, and then gets off the phone line.”

I do not report, here, the observations of Erik Larson on phone calls from Barbara Olson.

A fact that is little known:

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp...te_911_timeline

“(10:25 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Staff in White House Bunker Learns of Flight 93 Crash; Vice President Cheney Already Thinks an ‘Act of Heroism’ Occurred.

Those inside the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) below the White House learn that an aircraft is down in Pennsylvania. (This turns out to be Flight 93.) Many of the people in the PEOC wonder whether military fighters shot it down.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice later claims that, like her, Vice President Dick Cheney initially thinks, “it must have been shot down by the fighters.

However, Eric Edelman—Cheney’s national security adviser, who is also in the PEOC—will later recall: “The vice president was a little bit ahead of us.… He said, sort of softly, and to nobody in particular, ‘I think an act of heroism just took place on that plane.’ Yet the Pentagon does not confirm that Flight 93 was not shot down until after midday (see (Shortly After 12:00 p.m.) September 11, 2001)

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?...1200noshootdown

And the phone calls from Flight 93 that indicated a passenger revolt took place are only reported later on.”

See: America's Chaotic Road to War:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

Quote:

“Within minutes, there was a report that a plane had crashed in southwestern Pennsylvania-what turned out to be United Flight 93, a Boeing 757 that had been hijacked after leaving Newark International Airport. Many of those in the PEOC feared that Cheney's order had brought down a civilian aircraft. Rice demanded that someone check with the Pentagon. On Air Force One, Bush inquired, "Did we shoot it down or did it crash?" It took the Pentagon almost two hours to confirm that the plane had not been shot down, an enormous relief. "I think an act of heroism occurred on board that plane," Cheney said. Later, reports of cell phone conversations before the plane crashed indicated that some passengers had fought with the hijackers.”

Of course Dick Cheney did not need to know the report of cell phone conversations of the passengers of Flight 93 to know that the crash of Flight 93 was the result of a heroic act of passengers. He knew all details of the false-flag operation of September 11, 2001.

[woody]

Just for copyright reasons - here's the source for the Jeremy Glick/South Tower collapse connection:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ddress=125x6210

Mike Williams of 911myths has covered it, too:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Jeremy_Glick

Lyz Glick has told her story at at least two independent occasions, one time for Jere Longman's book "Among the heroes", another time in a book. Williams' comment:

The fact that there are contradictions in Lyz Glick's accounts, and she admits they're fuzzy - quite understandable given the traumatic nightmare she was going through - shows that we can't use them to deliver some rock-solid, clearly defined timeline. They're simply not that reliable.

[DoYouEverWonder]

Just for copyright reasons - here's the source for the Jeremy Glick/South Tower collapse connection:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ddress=125x6210

Mike Williams of 911myths has covered it, too:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Jeremy_Glick

Lyz Glick has told her story at at least two independent occasions, one time for Jere Longman's book "Among the heroes", another time in a book. Williams' comment:

Bull. People tend to have very clear memories from this sort of traumatic experience. People who are telling the truth will tend to tell the same story over and over. They may add details, with each retelling because more of the memory comes back, but they will usually tell basically the same story in the same order. When the story changes every time they retell it, usually indicates they're making it up as they go along. Telling the truth is always so much easier.

[woody]

Bull. People tend to have very clear memories from this sort of traumatic experience. People who are telling the truth will tend to tell the same story over and over. They may add details, with each retelling because more of the memory comes back, but they will usually tell basically the same story in the same order. When the story changes every time they retell it, usually indicates they're making it up as they go along. Telling the truth is always so much easier.

Yes. Very well said.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)