View Full Version: Detailed Analysis Of Official Phone Call Data

Loose Change Forum > Flight 93 > Detailed Analysis Of Official Phone Call Data


Title: Detailed Analysis Of Official Phone Call Data
Description: huge contradictions


John Doe II - March 11, 2007 10:10 PM (GMT)
Very interesting as we have no more than three different times when the passenger attack happened based on official an undisputable data

http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/foru...wtopic.php?4134


Following the findings of Andre II concerning the discrepancy between the official presentation and all accounts we do have of the Burnett calls.
http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/foru...wtopic.php?3755
I decided it would be worth the time to analyse in detail the flash animation of the phone calls that was presented at the Moussaoui trial.
http://coop.vaed.uscourts.gov/moussaoui/flights.zip
Keep in mind this is no testimony but official evidence.
First of all the animation clearly states that all 35 airphone calls and the two cell phone calls (Felt and Lyles) came from the rear of the plane (between row 23 and 34).
This leads to some very important conclusions:
The huge differences between the different calls (number of dead people, if pilot and co-pilot lies dead on the ground, if bomb visible, if a hijacker guards the passengers, presence of a gun etc) cannot be explained by different visibility.
See: “UA 93: Too many contradictions”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...dress=125x23179
http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/foru...iewtopic.php?24

Moreover it has already been shown that many details challenge that passengers were actually herded to the back of the plane (has to be updated in view of it explosive potential to destroy the presented evidence). Only Beamer mentions reseating of passengers. But strangely 27 in the back and 10 in the front. This is exactly how many people are sitting in these sections at take off.
No other call mentions the reseating (though all passengers who phoned have officially changed their seat).
Why is there one group around Burnett and another around Beamer/Glick organizing the attack? Why don’t they work together? Burnett is in row 24/25 but apparently has no contact to Glick two rows behind him while Glick has contact to Beamer being no less than 5 rows behind him.
Even stranger is the complete absence of any mentioning of Greene who was a pilot. He was sitting originally in row 27. This is exactly the row where Glick is supposed to sit after being herded to the back!

Here now the calls:


Grandcolas, Lauren:
8 Calls from 23DEF
Only one call (left a message) has been in the news. In fact she made 8 calls!
Four calls to her husband have been disconnect after 4, 2, 3 and 3 seconds. She also made one misdial lasting seven seconds. Two calls terminated upon connection (to Kris Global and Vaughn C. Lohec). First call (to husband) happened at 9:39. The last at 9:43. Afterwards she apparently didn’t try again.


Bingham, Mark:
4 Calls from 25DEF.
First call at 9:36:10 to his mother lasted only 5 seconds. This is never mentioned.
His known call to his mother lasts 166 seconds. Contrary to all accounts that placed the call at 9:44 or 9:45 it officially happened at 9:37:03.
Please note that accounts of this call state:
“After the call ended Alice Hoglan’s brother turned on the news and they saw the WTC and the news of the Pentagon just came in.”
This is hardly impossible.
At 9:41 he tries again to phone his mother. Call is terminated upon connection.
At 9:41:53 he tried again but misdialled. Call lasts 3 seconds. Whom did he phone and why didn’t he talk?
Why didn’t he try after 9:41 anymore?


DeLuca, Joseph:
3 calls from 26DEF
1. At 9:42:13 he phoned his parents. Call lasted 14 seconds.
2. At 9:43:03 he phoned his parents again. He talked to his dad. Call lasted 130 seconds. The only information we have of his call is that he stated that terrorists would be aboard.
3. At 9:48:48 he phoned Atwell Haines. Call was terminated upon connection.


Gronlund, Linda:
1 call from 26DEF (next to DeLuca)

At 9:46:05 she phoned Elsa Strong. The call lasted 71 seconds. Accounts of her call state that she phoned at 9:53. In the call she told her sister that the passengers were aware of the attacks in New York!


Glick, Jeremy:
1 call from 27DEF

At 9:37:41 he called his mother-in-law. Line was left open and call lasted 7,565 seconds. (Question: If caller hangs up or phone breaks apart: Does the line remain open?)


Beamer, Todd:
4 calls from 32DEF

Three calls were terminated upon connection.
At 9:42:44 he phoned AT&T.
Strangely again at 9:42:44 he does his second unsuccessful attempt to AT&T.
At 9:43:48 he phoned home. Again call terminated upon connection.
Strange again: The very same second he phones GTE operator. The line is left open. The call lasts 3,925 seconds.
Please note that most accounts state that he phoned the GTE operator as he didn’t want to alarm his wife who was pregnant.
[Observer, 02.12.01]

Bradshaw, Sandra:
3 calls from 33DEF (behind Beamer)

1. At 9:35:40 she phoned Speed Dial Fix of UA. Calls lasts 353 seconds. Absolutely nothing is known of this call.

2. At 9:49:30 she phoned home. Call terminated upon connection.

3. At 9:50:04 she phones home again. The call lasted 470 sec. This call has been reported: “Sandy Bradshaw, who was trained never to spill hot coffee on a paying customer, slipped into the airplane's galley and began filling pitchers with boiling water. (...)"Everyone's running to first class," Sandy Bradshaw told her husband. "I've got to go. Bye."
Therefore the passenger attack took place around 9:57:50. And with the exact certitude of an atomic clock is puts the start PRIOR to 9:57:54 (when Bradshaw’s call ended).
This matches perfectly the transcript of the CVR
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191520,00.html
But we know from Glick’s call that Glick still was on the phone at 9:59 when his wife saw the WTC collapse.
So, how can this be reconciled??


Burnett, Tom:
Three calls from 24ABC and 25ABC (opposite to Mark Bingham).
1. 9:30:32 (his wife noted 9:27. This was also the time reported everywhere in the news). Call lasted 28 seconds. While Deena Burnett explicitly said that she saw the ID of her husband’s cell phone the official document claims he always used an airphone. Burnett says: “The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, they are telling us there is a bomb on board”. Jarrah’s announcement to the passengers was one minute after Burnett ended his first call. And why does Beamer (32nd row) and Glick (27th row) describe the bomb which Burnett apparently doesn’t see?
2. At 9:37:53. Call lasted 62 seconds. Again the contradiction between Deena Burnett’s clear statement that she saw the ID of her husband’s cell phone and the official claim that an airphone was used. Again a contradiction also concerning the exact time. Deena Burnett noted 9:34 (again the famous three minutes discrepancy for UA 93).
Burnett describes that he helped the wounded passenger. Burnett officially is in the rear of the plane. Why is it always assumed that the dead passenger is Mark Rothenberg? This assumption was based on the fact that he was the only first-class passenger who didn’t do a phone call. But as most passengers are in the back of the plane the dead one could have been many others.
And Burnett at the end says: “We're turning back toward New York. We're going back to the World Trade Center. No, wait, we're turning back the other way. We're going south.”
This matched perfectly the time given by Deena Burnett (9:35) but according to the official document it is now 9:38. But at 9:38 the flight path shows that UA 93 didn’t change direction at all for three minutes. There was no change of direction at 9:38. Either the official time is wrong, the flight path is wrong or Tom Burnett is having hallucinations.
3. At 9:44:23. Call lasts 54 seconds. Again the contradiction which kind of phone was used. Already in this call Burnett talks of a group of people that are going to do something.

Please note that the fourth call at 9:54 in which Burnett explains that they are going to attack the cockpit is not mentioned at all in the official document that mentions so many phone calls that were even terminated upon connection!
(Thanks to Andre II)

Lyles, CeeCee:
(32ABC)
1 call from 32ABC (opposite to Beamer) and 1 cell phone call.
1. At 9:47:57 she phoned her husband and leaves a mess age on the answering machine. Call lasted 56 seconds.
2. At 9:58:00 she uses her cell phone to call her husband (why not an airphone?) Unfortunately the length of the call isn’t mentioned.
Here a detailed account of her phone call:
"Babe, my plane's been hijacked," she said.
"Huh? Stop joking," he said.
"No babe, I wouldn't joke like that. I love you. Tell the boys I love them."
The pair prayed. In the background, Lorne Lyles could hear what he now believes was the sound of men planning a counterattack.
"They're getting ready to force their way into the cockpit," she told him.
(…)
CeeCee Lyles let out a scream.
"They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!" she said. Lorne Lyles heard a scream. Then his wife said something he couldn't understand. Then the line went dead.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/2001...mainstoryp7.asp
This clearly puts the beginning of the passenger attack AFTER 9:58:00 (the beginning of the call but as the call ends with this remark it postpones likely around 9:59). But Sandra Bradshaw screams that everybody is running into first class BEFORE 9:57:54.
It is also in clear contradiction to the transcript of the CVR where the alleged hijackers in the cockpit remark the beginning of the attack at 9:57:55.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191520,00.html
So, we do have NO LESS THAN THREE times of when exactly the passenger’s attack began. And all three times are in itself not in question.


Britton, Marion:
A phone call from 33ABC
At 9:49:12 she phoned Fred Fiumano. The call lasts 232 seconds.
“Fiumano heard a lot of yelling and screaming, and the line went dead.”
But officially the line wasn’t disconnected.


Wainio, Honor:
1 call from 33ABC (neighbour of Britton).
At 9:53:43 she phoned her parents. The call lasted 269 seconds. While the official animation insists it was an airphone Wainio herself talked of a cell phone that she had borrowed from her neighbour.


Flight attendant:
Row 33ABC. Neighbour of Britton and Wainio.
At 9:35:56 a flight attendant phoned Speed Dial Fix of UA for 4 seconds.
Why did the call only last 4 seconds? It is not noted that the line was disconnected.
The phone worked perfectly for Wainio and Britton.


Martinez, Waleska:
1 call from 34ABC
At 9:45:37 she tried to phone Dratel Group but her call was terminated upon connection.
Why was the call terminated? The phone worked perfectly for the unknown flight attendant.


Flight attendant:
3 calls from row 34 (neighbour of Martinez)
1. At 9:31:14 she phoned Speed Dial Fix of UA but the call lasted only two seconds. But no mentioning that the call was disconnected.
2. At 9:32:29 she phoned again Speed Dial Fix of UA. This time the call lasted 95 seconds. Why is it still unknown who this flight attendant was?
The call mentions the hijacking, that one alleged hijacker has a bomb strapped on and another was holding a knife on the crew. Strangely the flight attendant apparently fails to mention the killing of one passenger.

3. At 9:35:48 she phoned again Speed Dial Fix of UA. This time the call only lasted 4 seconds.


Felt, Edward:
1 call with his cell phone

The call officially took place at 9:58:00
Although the length of the call has been specified in the press as 72 seconds the official animation doesn’t mention it.
The animation states that Felt phoned from the bathroom in the rear of the plane (though it is completely beyond me how they can know which bathroom he used).
So far it always had been assumed he slipped into a bathroom in first class in order to do a phone call. This was already a bit strange as he phoned exactly at the time when the passengers are supposed to have attacked the cockpit. If he was in the rear of the plane it is even less understandable why he went into the bathroom. Right next to the bathroom was CeeCee Lyles phoning home with her cell phone at the very same time. Why hide in a bathroom?

All in all the official animation gives 35 airphone calls and only 2 cell phone calls.
This corresponds to this statement:

”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. Several learned that hijackers had already flown other planes into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon near Washington, D.C.”
http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/news/story/1...-15061766c.html

The official animation and this testimony strangely don’t count Burnett’s fourth call.
And Why does the animation not mention Andrew Garcia’s phone call who left only one word on the answering machine of his wife?

And especially why do we have three very different times of the beginning of the passenger’s attack based on the phone calls?


Zaphod 36 - March 13, 2007 06:47 PM (GMT)
Hi John Doe,

some relatives of the passengers, who has heard the CVR tape, were telling the tape suddenly stopped recording voices at peak of the fight.

Some of the relatives are keen to find out why, at the peak of this struggle, the tape suddenly stops recording voices and all that is heard in the last 60 seconds or so is engine noise.
Source(Google Cache)
If the tape was cut at the end, this could explain the 3-Minutes-discrepancy and the errors in time of the phone calls.
What was happening in the silent last 60 seconds. I didn`t heard about that before.

There is more in this article:
Ed Ballinger, the flight dispatcher for United Airlines that morning, was the last human being to talk to the cockpit of Flight 93. He had 16 flights taking off early that morning from the East Cost to the West Coast. When UnitedÌs Flight 175 began acting erratically and failed to respond to his warnings, he began banging out the same enigmatic message to all his planes: "Beware of cockpit intrusion."
Flight 93, the last of the hijacked planes, called him back and said "Hi, Ed. Confirmed."


Flight 175 began acting erratically at around 8:40(?). This warning could happened even before Flight 93 was taking off(official time).
This was not mentioned by the Commission Report.

John Doe II - March 15, 2007 07:56 AM (GMT)
Hi Zaphod,

indeed the missing three minutes are important.
But apparently the CVR recorded six minutes of attack. That means if the attack occured only after the WTC collapsed at 9.59 (as Glick's call seems to prove) then the recording lasts until 10.06. So there would be no three minutes left of the recording. Mayye a few seconds. Please note that family members who heard the recording in 2002 described the end of the recording clearly differently from what is noted in the official transcript years later.
But in any case your well taken point fails to explain why there are THREE different times (based on hard and official facts) for when the passengers started to attack.

Zaphod 36 - March 15, 2007 05:16 PM (GMT)
I have a question about the length of Jeremy Glicks and Todd Beamers call.
The animation shows that the length of Glicks call was 7565 seconds and the length of Beamers call was 3925 seconds. On both calls the line was left open. Does this mean the line was left open even after the crash?

John Doe II - March 16, 2007 10:03 AM (GMT)
Yes, Zaphod, that's the way I understood it.
Though I'm amazed that telephone companies measure the length of phone calls until BOTH phones have been hung up. I mean the crash of UA 93 should have cut the phone line even if Glick and Beamer didn't hang up...

Zaphod 36 - March 16, 2007 12:56 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
I mean the crash of UA 93 should have cut the phone line even if Glick and Beamer didn't hang up...

Yes, the crash would have cut the phone line for sure. This is a strong indication that Flight 93 was NOT crashing.
Glicks phone line left open for 2:06:05 hours! According to his brother in law Glicks call begins before 9:30. Then the call must hung up around 11:30. Even if Glick had started his call shortly after departing Newark, the line should have been cut.
Beamers phone line left open for 1:05:25 hours. If the beginning time of 9:43:48 is true, then the call must hung up at 10:49.

This "Hang-Up-Times" are after 10:45. As we already know, Flight X was landing around 10:45.
Do you think its possible, that the SWAT-Team hung up the phones after "storming" Flight 93 at the Cleveland Airport?

A question about Tom Burnetts call:
He mentioned TWO times that the hijacker want to crash the plane:

They’re talking about crashing this plane. (a pause) Oh my God. It’s a suicide mission…(9:34)
They’re talking about crashing this plane into the ground. We have to do something. I’m putting a plan together.(9:45)

Source

Was Burnett able to understand arab language?
If not, why should arab hijackers talk about crashing the plane in english?(According to the CVR the hijackers spoke arab to each other)
Could it be that the hijacker were english-speaking people?

John Doe II - March 19, 2007 09:54 PM (GMT)
Very good point about Burnett understanding Arab.
I guess people would say the alleged hijackers talked English. But then why does only Burnett mentions this (nonetheless for the passengers extremely shocking detail?).
This leads straight to a central question:
According to the official documentation all passengers doing phone calls were in the back of the plane. within a few rows. So, how can one explain that all phone call refveal extreme contradicting accounts. Contradicting even in the most basic description of what was going on?

For your question concerning the end of the phone calls:
I don't know. I could only speculate.
I prefer simply to insist that we do have here once and again a clear cut contradiction in the official story. Which can't be explained by the different watches of the phone caompany. The most logical explanation is that these phone calls didn't come from the same place. I'm happy to see ANY other explanation that doesn't leave the most basic rules of logic aside!

A-Train - March 31, 2007 07:51 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (John Doe II @ Mar 19 2007, 09:54 PM)

According to the official documentation all passengers doing phone calls were in the back of the plane. within a few rows. So, how can one explain that all phone call refveal extreme contradicting accounts. Contradicting even in the most basic description of what was going on?


Great work, John Doe II

I have also spent countless hours examining the records of the phone calls from the planes, and trying to reconcile them with the evidence produced by the government at the Moussoui trial. Here are some of my essays on the subject:

http://911blogger.com/node/4190
http://911blogger.com/node/5679
http://911blogger.com/node/5583

Let me just throw off a few of my opinions and stray thoughts and see how you react to them. I believe that if we can sift through these calls, and discern which of them are real, and which are manufactured, we can crack the case of what happened on the planes on 9/11.

Where did the government get its evidence of the phone calls that it presented at the Moussoui trial? Did it ever provide a source for its evidence? Let us keep in mind that nearly all records of most phone calls made in the US are kept by the same Israeli company, AMDOCS.

QUOTE
The Fox News exposé also reported on the near-total penetration of US communications facilities by Israel, through two "private" Israeli telecommunications companies, Amdocs, Ltd., and Comverse Infosys, which, together, handle virtually all the billing records and government wiretaps in the US. Indeed, many of the "art students" not only had "intelligence expertise," but also worked for Amdocs "or other companies in Israel that specialize in wiretapping."

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j030802.html


However, many of the accounts of the phone calls made before the release of this government ought also to be viewed with suspicion. For example, who exactly was it who initially told us that many of these calls were made from cell phones? Was it the government, or the media? I think it is most likely that most if not all of these calls were indeed made with airphones. What a tremendous waste of time and energy we truthseekers have spent trying to figure out if cell phone calls are possible from the air. In the end, it really doesn't matter, because all of these calls could have been made from airphones and probably were.

Regarding Deena Burnett's claim that the calls from Tom were on a cell phone-- did she really make this claim? She looked at her caller ID and said, "it's Tom," but does that necessarily show the call was from a cell phone? Maybe the caller ID showed the same designator as it did before when he called from an airphone. I believe he did make three or four calls from an airphone, and his calls are genuine. He asserted the hijackers had guns, which is a hugely crucial piece of evidence that contradicts the official story. The guns show this was a professional job by an intelligence agency, not a job by amateurs or fanatics. It also explains why the pilots were so quickly and efficiently dispatched.

So I'd say Burnett's calls were real, as were the other calls made to loved ones that would have been difficult to fake. But what about Todd Beamer's call, and Glick's reporting "Iranian looking" hijackers. Beamer chooses not to call his pregnant wife and instead calls a stranger and talks for 45 minutes, none of which is taped. Was it really Beamer making that call? Another suspicious aspect of his call is that it is the only one that states the presence of the hijackers still on the plane to the very end. The only other evidence of the hijackers still being on the plane in the last 10-15 minutes of the flights-- for all four flights!-- is the CVR from UAL93, which we all agree is suspect. Did the hijackers exit the planes, perhaps with parachutes, after rigging the cockpits for remote control, while a phone Todd Beamer made the call to Lisa Jefferson from a remote locale?

What do Jeremy Glick and Todd Beamer have in common? Both worked for companies owned by persons with very close ties to the state of Israel.


QUOTE

Todd Beamer worked for Oracle Corporation. Larry Ellison has been the CEO of Oracle since Oracle was created in 1977.

Source: Ellison's biography on the Oracle website
http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pressro … lison.html


Also, at the time of the 9/11/2001 attacks, Ellison owned 70% of an Israeli company called Quark Biotech.

Source: 9/3/2001 article in Fortune magazine
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ … /index.htm


Furthermore, Ellison has tried to profit from the attacks. In the few days after the attacks, Ellison called for the creation of the national identification card for the United States and offered to help build the data system behind it.

Source: 2/1/2002 article in GovExec.com (the online version of Government Executive magazine)
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/020102ti.htm


Thus, Todd Beamer worked for a man who had ties to Israel and who has tried to profit from the attacks.

http://proxify.com/p/011010A1000110/687474...f69643d33363735


QUOTE
Jeremy Glick started working for Giga Information Group either at the same time as Glick's 1996 wedding or at some point before the wedding. Glick worked for Giga Information Group until 2000.

Source: http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/2 … kbiop8.asp


Giga Information Group was founded by Gideon Gartner in 1995, and Gartner was the Chairman and CEO of Giga from 1995 to 1999.

Source: http://www.proactivityinc.com/company/governance.htm


Furthermore, according to an article in the July 3, 1989, issue of the Austin American-Statesman newspaper, Gideon Gartner was born in Israel. I discovered this article in the database known as Factiva, which is available in some public libraries.


Thus, Jeremy Glick spent years working for a man who was born in Israel.


(Thank you, Eagle54)

Furthermore, Beamer was supposed to fly out of Newark on Sept. 10, but a fire delayed his departure one day. Was the fire arson, intended to delay him so he would end up on UAL93? And was it really him who boarded the plane under his name? Had Beamer been groomed to be the perfect American hero, fighting the terrorists on board UAL93?

Was Glick's call genuine, reporting dark-skinned hijackers? Was Glick really fighting the hijackers as was Tom Burnett?




* Hosted for free by zIFBoards