My contribution to LoopDLoop's (and Robert Wagner's) analysis of the Claircom/GTE Airfone records.

[Blue_Windows]

Great to see the forum back online. David/Blue_Windows, thank you for your very kind words. Great work archiving my flight 11 posts.

If you don't me asking – You said you had an extended e-mail dialogue with Mr. Wagner in 2014. Did you ever ask how he knew that cellphone companies don't have records of the calls? I've heard this claim made by someone else.

I was watching a director's commentary on a 9/11 conspiracy movie. The producer of that movie, Art Olivier, mentioned that during the Zacarias Moussaoui trial (@57:40 in the commentary), the court subpoenaed the cellphone records of all passengers who made calls (even ones who are confirmed to have made cellphone calls, like Ed Felt who called from the bathroom of United 93) from Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc. and it was found that "none of those calls were made" (according to Olivier), i.e. the cell companies have no record of the calls. I wonder how Olivier knew this too. Did he and Wagner look at some court documents? This is such a significant claim that I can't believe Wagner didn't link a document stating it. I believe it's true, but I'd like something very credible. As far as evidence for this claim goes, we have the 9/11 Commission interview with Deena Burnett mentioning the absence of Tom Burnett's cellphone calls from his phone bill, and the Department of Justice's indirect admission that cellphone calls don't appear on the bills of Flight 77 passengers.

 

[Ramjam]

Amazing stuff from Loopdloop. Is there any breakdown for flight 93, etc. ? I am desperate to find more. Please let me know ASAP if there are any others like this. Thanks.

 

[Blue_Windows]

Amazing stuff from Loopdloop. Is there any breakdown for flight 93, etc. ? I am desperate to find more. Please let me know ASAP if there are any others like this. Thanks.

I've done a "break-down" of sorts above, and also in a paper I recently wrote. It covers many aspects of the calls, including stuff I didn't go into in the OP. I've attached it as a PDF below. I also found this interesting comment (YouTube) but it seems legit:



Note that the person above is talking about a call routing log that isn't publicly released. These aren't to be confused with the Claircom/AT&T phone records or the GTE airphone records, which were released by the Department of Justice to the 9/11 Commission back in 2004. I think a diversion of phone calls to an observation bench (in a private command center?) would make sense. Someone needed to monitor the phone calls so they can be terminated when the drones hit the buildings.

 

[Ramjam]

I've done a "break-down" of sorts above, and also in a paper I recently wrote. It covers many aspects of the calls, including stuff I didn't go into in the OP. I've attached it as a PDF below. I also found this interesting comment (YouTube) but it seems legit:

View attachment 197

Note that the person above is talking about a call routing log that isn't publicly released. These aren't to be confused with the Claircom/AT&T phone records or the GTE airphone records, which were released by the Department of Justice to the 9/11 Commission back in 2004. I think a diversion of phone calls to an observation bench (in a private command center?) would make sense. Someone needed to monitor the phone calls so they can be terminated when the drones hit the buildings.

Just downloaded the PDF and will read it while I am working today. I wish this community were more active and was the way it was back in the day when the original forum was up and this was all a hot topic. I think now in retrospect, 20 years of information gathering and analysis, 20 years of time to go through things with a fine tooth comb, this is still one of the most important topics ever to be discussed and I am on a mission to track down as much detailed information as possible. Whatever else you can share with me as far as phone call logs, passenger info, and your thoughts/opinions/theories on the phone call contents, please do ! I was young when I initially got into this, around 13/14, and now over a decade later I want to review this information again with some clarity and wisdom. Whatever you have and are willing to share, again; please do ! Thank you again for sharing the PDF.

 

[Blue_Windows]

Just downloaded the PDF and will read it while I am working today. I wish this community were more active and was the way it was back in the day when the original forum was up and this was all a hot topic. I think now in retrospect, 20 years of information gathering and analysis, 20 years of time to go through things with a fine tooth comb, this is still one of the most important topics ever to be discussed and I am on a mission to track down as much detailed information as possible. Whatever else you can share with me as far as phone call logs, passenger info, and your thoughts/opinions/theories on the phone call contents, please do ! I was young when I initially got into this, around 13/14, and now over a decade later I want to review this information again with some clarity and wisdom. Whatever you have and are willing to share, again; please do ! Thank you again for sharing the PDF.

You're welcome. I wish the forum were more active too. It'd probably be more active if the old forums were still up.

 

[Mr Robot]

You're welcome. I wish the forum were more active too. It'd probably be more active if the old forums were still up.

Hi David, I enjoyed reading your posts. And I am very happy that you have archived loopDloops findings. If you want to be more active I would appreciate your thoughts about what happened to Betty Ong (or answer me here in your own thread): https://letsrollforums.com/index.php?threads/what-happened-to-the-passengers.39/#post-597

LoopDloop made a very good point about that it all started with Betty Ong's call, the very first connection on 9/11 to the real world.

I stumbled online upon this:

"The US government relied extensively on the conversation that Betty Ong, identified as a flight attendant on Flight 11, allegedly had with ground control which established much of its official hijacking story. However, the very existence of Betty Ong is questionable. No credible evidence exists of her having attended George Washington High School in San Francisco which she supposedly graduated in 1973 or 1974. Revisiting 9/11, Betty Ong, and the Mystery of “Black Betty”

As a matter of fact, if you search the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) you will find that no real person by the name of Ong who was born in 1956, Betty Ong’s alleged birth year, died in 2001. Social Security Death Index | SSDI Records Search

However, it’s also possible that Betty Ong existed and still exists with a new identity given to her by the FBI or CIA after she finished playing her part in the 9/11 deception, which she at first bungled when she stated she was on Flight 12 before correcting herself to Flight 11. The FBI is known to have given people fake identities in the past as part of its witness protection program.

Another person who allegedly confirmed the official hijacking story was Barbara Olson (married to Ted Olson, the Solicitor General for the Department of Justice), who supposedly spoke twice via cellphone or airphone to her husband. However, the FBI was forced to eventually admit that those conversations never actually took place:"

How come the passengers on only one plane were able to defeat the hijackers on 9/11?

Oleg Zachary Kis's answer: You can read fellow Quoran Kim McKay describe how the flight crew on the plane she was flying on 9/11 was able to defeat the remote hijacking attempt of that flight. See her answer to: https://www.quora.com/What-was-it-like-being-on-a-commercial-flight-when-9-11-happen...

www.quora.com

 

[Ramjam]

Just my 2 cents…I believe a few federal agents were on the plane and at some point before they were to start taxiing, the passengers were told they were going to be apart of a drill. I think the flight was emptied out onto a shuttle and brought to a hangar or another nearby location. I believe they had all passengers make recordings for later use and they chose the most salvageable ones to use that day. The phone calls that we have recordings of all seem so fake in retrospect (I believe they are genuine in the matter of that they do exist) but at the time, they seemed like they’d hold up to scrutiny. It reminds me of the way that at the time, early cinematic releases had very simplistic and rudimentary visual and audio effects within, and how at the time, they were satisfactory and maybe convincing, where now we view them and laugh…I think at the time, they were convincing to most…now 20+ years later, I think we can clearly see they’re a rushed attempt at creating “evidence”. Just my thoughts.

 

[Blue_Windows]

Hi David, I enjoyed reading your posts. And I am very happy that you have archived loopDloops findings. If you want to be more active I would appreciate your thoughts about what happened to Betty Ong (or answer me here in your own thread): https://letsrollforums.com/index.php?threads/what-happened-to-the-passengers.39/#post-597

LoopDloop made a very good point about that it all started with Betty Ong's call, the very first connection on 9/11 to the real world.

I stumbled online upon this:

"The US government relied extensively on the conversation that Betty Ong, identified as a flight attendant on Flight 11, allegedly had with ground control which established much of its official hijacking story. However, the very existence of Betty Ong is questionable. No credible evidence exists of her having attended George Washington High School in San Francisco which she supposedly graduated in 1973 or 1974. Revisiting 9/11, Betty Ong, and the Mystery of “Black Betty”

As a matter of fact, if you search the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) you will find that no real person by the name of Ong who was born in 1956, Betty Ong’s alleged birth year, died in 2001. Social Security Death Index | SSDI Records Search

However, it’s also possible that Betty Ong existed and still exists with a new identity given to her by the FBI or CIA after she finished playing her part in the 9/11 deception, which she at first bungled when she stated she was on Flight 12 before correcting herself to Flight 11. The FBI is known to have given people fake identities in the past as part of its witness protection program.

Another person who allegedly confirmed the official hijacking story was Barbara Olson (married to Ted Olson, the Solicitor General for the Department of Justice), who supposedly spoke twice via cellphone or airphone to her husband. However, the FBI was forced to eventually admit that those conversations never actually took place:"

How come the passengers on only one plane were able to defeat the hijackers on 9/11?

Oleg Zachary Kis's answer: You can read fellow Quoran Kim McKay describe how the flight crew on the plane she was flying on 9/11 was able to defeat the remote hijacking attempt of that flight. See her answer to: https://www.quora.com/What-was-it-like-being-on-a-commercial-flight-when-9-11-happen...

www.quora.com

My apologies for not replying sooner. re Betty Ong, her last name can be transliterated from Chinese in several different ways. Another valid spelling is Ng. The black Betty Ong in the yearbook should be a different person. Here's a comment someone wrote below that article:

A search for the name “Betty” on the Spring 1974 list reveals two Bettys:

Bettylou McAteer
Betty Ng

Quick wiki search of surname “Ng”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ng_(name)

Ng is a Cantonese, Shanghainese and Hakka transliteration of the Chinese surnames 吳/吴 (Pinyin transliteration for Mandarin equivalent: Wú) and 伍 (Mandarin Wǔ) meaning “five” or “troops”. In Hokkien (Taiwanese) and Teochew, Ng corresponds to the surname 黃/黄 (Mandarin Huáng) meaning “yellow”; or to 阮 (Mandarin Ruǎn).

The surname is sometimes romanized as Ang, Eng, Ing and Ong in the United States and Ung in Australia.

The Chinese-American flight attendant Betty Ong is most likely "Betty Ng" in the Spring 1974 yearbook.

The Department of Justice, the Claircom/AT&T records and the FBI summary of the phone records from Flight 77 do show two connected phone calls from Barbara Olson to her husband's office. Olson presumably made several other phone calls which didn't connect. The FBI is probably talking about e.g. the 9:14 call and other calls, which indeed did not connect. I don't put much stock in what David Ray Griffin says about the phone calls, since he is prone to mistakes or selectively quoting evidence to help his conclusions (see section 3 in linked article). I remember in one of his books he cited a very racist website for one of his claims, but he didn't note this in the main text. I just had a hunch that something was off. I went to the bibliography, and indeed it was a neo-Nazi/White supremacist website. This was years ago, but the book was either Debunking 9/11 Debunking or The 9/11 Omission Report. So I haven't put much faith in Griffin since then.

 

[Blue_Windows]

As a bonus, I'll share these tables 'n charts to help clarify some points in the OP.

Table 1: I want to make clear that Tom Burnett's first, third and fourth calls to Deena (the first two are presented by GTE Airfone as if they were airphone calls) had his cell phone # on Caller ID, as reported by his wife to the FBI. Burnett's third and fourth calls to Deena are deleted from the records, and I think lately that the column "Manual Entry Ind" is also pretty strange. Why would a customer need to manually enter a card #, if unlocking the phone from the headrest in the first place requires swiping your credit card? Possibly to bill another credit card instead? Hmm...

Chart #2 is a helpful visual aid. Tom Burnett's first cellphone call was @ 35,000 feet, and the second call to his wife @ 9:37:53 was at 38,000 feet.

 

[Ramjam]

As a bonus, I'll share these tables 'n charts to help clarify some points in the OP.

Table 1: I want to make clear that Tom Burnett's first, third and fourth calls to Deena (the first two are presented by GTE Airfone as if they were airphone calls) had his cell phone # on Caller ID, as reported by his wife to the FBI. Burnett's third and fourth calls to Deena are deleted from the records, and I think lately that the column "Manual Entry Ind" is also pretty strange. Why would a customer need to manually enter a card #, if unlocking the phone from the headrest in the first place requires swiping your credit card? Possibly to bill another credit card instead? Hmm...

Chart #2 is a helpful visual aid. Tom Burnett's first cellphone call was @ 35,000 feet, and the second call to his wife @ 9:37:53 was at 38,000 feet.

View attachment 225

View attachment 223View attachment 224

The phone would only come off of the headrest if a card was swiped first ? Would continuing calls from that unit be under that card or could an alternate card # be entered ?