Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Why would the government fake a cell phone call from a passenger locked in the bathroom on Flight 93 who referred to an explosion and smoke from the plane (before the government got there to confiscate the tape and shut people up)?

There is little merit to the 1st claim. The operator who took the 911 call denied that the passenger said that. Ron you know that we’ve been over it already.

Yes, we've been over it, and I wouldn't bring it up again if it had no merit. Which has more credibility, the operator's supervisor's statement on the day of the call about what was said, or the operator's denial, days or weeks later, after the FBI had been around? Why would the supervisor lie about the call? He had no reason to. Why would the operator lie later, post-FBI visit(s)? The answer is obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Some other info to consider. Before 911, the only intercept by NORAD over the continental US was of Payne Stewart's jet. All other intercepts had been over international waters. That is what they trained for. Further, the intercept of Stewart's jet took over an hour and 15 minutes. Even then, the jet was intercepted not by an armed jet used for air defense but instead by and unarmed jet that was already airborne for another unrelated mission and diverted. The air defense jets got there much later.

Before 9-11, the only intercept by NORAD over the continental US was of Payne Stewart's jet. All other intercepts had been over international waters."

Between September 2000 and June, 2001, there were 67 scrambles/intercepts by NORAD, according to a joint statement released by FAA and NORAD on August 5, 2002. This was further reported the next week by the AP. The same sources stated that in the calendar year 2000, there were 129 scrambles/intercepts. FAA/NORAD estimated that 80-85% were of domestic planes flying in the continental U. S. There is evidence that an intercept took place in the skies near Fresno, California, in the week before 9-11.

Further, the Boston Globe, in an interview published 4 days after the attacks, quoted Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, NORAD spokesman as saying that "its fighters routinely intercept aircraft." Snyder then goes on to describe NORAD's graduated response--wing-waggling, overpass, tracer rounds--to an intercepted plane.

All info I've seen still indicates that all intercepts before 911 were offshore. That info indicates that the 67 intercepts all happened offshore in international waters. Do you have a source for this intercept near Fresno? Or a source that states where these planes are that are "routinely intercepted"?

Here's another viewpoint

http://www.911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would the government fake a cell phone call from a passenger locked in the bathroom on Flight 93 who referred to an explosion and smoke from the plane (before the government got there to confiscate the tape and shut people up)?

There is little merit to the 1st claim. The operator who took the 911 call denied that the passenger said that. Ron you know that we’ve been over it already.

Yes, we've been over it, and I wouldn't bring it up again if it had no merit. Which has more credibility, the operator's supervisor's statement on the day of the call about what was said, or the operator's denial, days or weeks later, after the FBI had been around? Why would the supervisor lie about the call? He had no reason to. Why would the operator lie later, post-FBI visit(s)? The answer is obvious.

Ron you forgot or ignored that Gordon Felt the brother of Mark Felt (the person who made the call) heard the tape and said there is no mention of smoke or an explosion. Oh yeah the tape was altered

Why would Cramer make such a thing up? Perhaps he was an attention seeker, what about all the people who have made dubious statements (including confessions) regarding the JFK assassination. There are also numerous attention seeking liars tied to 9/11

- Mike Bellone the supermarket manager and Ground Zero volunteer who dressed up like a fireman before audiences and told them he was the “NYFD safety director” at Ground Zero”

- Lalo Chavez – Who claims he served in the USAF and was deployed to Kabul airport September 16, 2001 which was before the US invasion let alone the capture of the Afghan capitol or the reopening of it’s airport.

- The guy (I can’t remember his name) who claims he is a pilot and Amtrak electrical engineer in Washington D.C. and that he saw a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon but only came forward 5 years later, never held a pilot’s license, isn’t a licensed engineer in DC, Maryland or Virginia, and whose own son and other truthers say he is an attention seeking xxxx.

The fact that Cramer at first made it sound like he took the call makes the attention seeker hypothisis seem likely. Also he made his statement a few hours after the fact. Later after John Shaw, who took the call, contradicted him he said he read off a transcript. There are many things about Cramer’s version of the call that don’t make sense. How could Felt see smoke if he was locked in the bathroom? For example. Are we to believe that on the day one of the biggest emergencies they ever faced the 911 people took timeout to prepare a transcript? And then not retain a copy for theirown use? Are we to believe that everyone or most people Westmoreland Co. 911 know what happened but are silent?

Before I go any further I’d like to ask the people who think the plane was shot down some questions:

- How fast do you think the plane was flying? If you don’t want to venture to guess a specific speed do you think it was flying fast or slow?

- Who do you think was flying?

- What time do you think the plane crashed 10:06 or 10:03?

I won’t answer my first question so as not to bias answers by others and of course think one of the hijackers probably Ziad Jarrah was flying and take no position as to the crash time.

I would also like to see Wallace back his claims about intercepts.

Len

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron you forgot or ignored that Gordon Felt the brother of Mark Felt (the person who made the call) heard the tape and said there is no mention of smoke or an explosion. Oh yeah the tape was altered

Of course the tape was altered if the FBI confiscated the tape and got Shaw, his supervisor, and the Pittsburgh newspaper to change their stories.

Why would Cramer make such a thing up? Perhaps he was an attention seeker
Perhaps. The fact is you have no way of knowing if Cramer was an attention seeker. I have no reason to think he was not simply doing his job.
How could Felt see smoke if he was locked in the bathroom?

Maybe the bathroom had a window, or maybe he saw the smoke before he went into the bathroom.

Are we to believe that on the day one of the biggest emergencies they ever faced the 911 people took timeout to prepare a transcript?
For a call that important, yes. Or the "transcript" could have been handwritten notes. Have you seen it?
And then not retain a copy for theirown use?

If they changed their stories, I doubt they would keep copies to prove themselves liars.

Are we to believe that everyone or most people Westmoreland Co. 911 know what happened but are silent?

I have no idea how many people of Westmoreland County 911 know what. But it is obviously important to you that the supervisor was lying. I have no such need for him to be lying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would the government fake a cell phone call from a passenger locked in the bathroom on Flight 93 who referred to an explosion and smoke from the plane (before the government got there to confiscate the tape and shut people up)?

........

The fact that Cramer at first made it sound like he took the call makes the attention seeker hypothisis seem likely. Also he made his statement a few hours after the fact. Later after John Shaw, who took the call, contradicted him he said he read off a transcript. There are many things about Cramer's version of the call that don't make sense. How could Felt see smoke if he was locked in the bathroom? For example. Are we to believe that on the day one of the biggest emergencies they ever faced the 911 people took timeout to prepare a transcript? And then not retain a copy for theirown use? ...........Len

I don't know who Shaw and Cramer are, but after all the planes were on the ground on 9/11, and the days activity slowed down, FAA technicians (radar and communications operators) who were on duty that morning (in either Boston or New York and maybe both) were taken aside and debriefed. They were asked questions and orally supplied an account of what happened that day on an acoustical cassette tape.

The FAA official who took the tape acknowledged to the 9/11 commission that he destroyed the tape - physically breaking the plastic and disposing it in the trash.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know who Shaw and Cramer are

Shaw was a 911 dispatcher in PA who took the cell phone call from Felt in the bathroom of Flight 93. Cramer was Shaw's supervisor, who told the AP later that day what Felt told Shaw, which included hearing an explosion on board and seeing smoke from the aircraft.

The FBI came and confiscated the tape, Cramer was told to stop talking, and Shaw later said the call included nothing about an explosion and smoke. This was confirmed by "the tape" that the FBI played for Felt family members.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron you forgot or ignored that Gordon Felt the brother of Mark Felt (the person who made the call) heard the tape and said there is no mention of smoke or an explosion. Oh yeah the tape was altered

Of course the tape was altered if the FBI confiscated the tape and got Shaw, his supervisor, and the Pittsburgh newspaper to change their stories.

No, one changed their story. Shaw never said Felt said anything about smoke or an explosion, Cramer AFAIK never recanted, as to the newspaper changing their story I don’t know what you are talking about.

Why would Cramer make such a thing up? Perhaps he was an attention seeker

Perhaps. The fact is you have no way of knowing if Cramer was an attention seeker. I have no reason to think he was not simply doing his job.

And you have no way of knowing if Shaw was pressured to lie by the FBI, we’re both speculating. You asked why he would lie and I gave a plausible answer. Do you believe James Files? What about the other confessed shooters and participants or those who claimed to have heard confessions or overheard the conspirators? I don’t think it’s possible to construct a coherent version of what happened that day 1963 if you accept all of them. Obviously some of these people are attention seekers like the 9-11 attention seekers I mentioned. As I said his making it seem like he took the call gives weight to the attention seeker theory.

How could Felt see smoke if he was locked in the bathroom?

Maybe the bathroom had a window

That’s you’re famous ironic sense of humor at work, right?

or maybe he saw the smoke before he went into the bathroom.

“He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where” not conclusive but this makes it sound like he saw the smoke while in the bathroom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we to believe that on the day one of the biggest emergencies they ever faced the 911 people took timeout to prepare a transcript?

For a call that important, yes. Or the "transcript" could have been handwritten notes. Have you seen it?

AFAIK no one ever saw it, the only person who said there was one is Cramer. Why would they specially prepare a transcript unless asked to? Who would ask them other than the FBI?

And then not retain a copy for theirown use?

If they changed their stories, I doubt they would keep copies to prove themselves liars.

No one changed their story, only Cramer said Felt mention smoke and an explosion,

Are we to believe that everyone or most people Westmoreland Co. 911 know what happened but are silent?

I have no idea how many people of Westmoreland County 911 know what.

Cramer, Shaw and whoever prepared the transcript, if there ever was one, would know, it’s hard to believe they wouldn’t have discussed it with their colleagues before the FBI showed up.

But it is obviously important to you that the supervisor was lying. I have no such need for him to be lying.
But you have a need for Shaw to be lying and the tape to be altered and numerous people at the 911 center to be keeping quite and the local FBI office to be in on the cover up by seizing and altering the tape, a transcript to have been prepared and Cramer to have read it that day before the press and Feds showed up. Let’s apply Occam’s Razor!
Shaw was a 911 dispatcher in PA who took the cell phone call from Felt in the bathroom of Flight 93. Cramer was Shaw's supervisor, who told the AP later that day what Felt told Shaw, which included hearing an explosion on board and seeing smoke from the aircraft.

The FBI came and confiscated the tape, Cramer was told to stop talking, and Shaw later said the call included nothing about an explosion and smoke. This was confirmed by "the tape" that the FBI played for Felt family members. .

To be fair you should have said Cramer claimed (alleged) that he was told to stop talking and that Felt mentioned smoke and an explosion to Shaw.

Also you have yet to answer my questions; I’d be especially interested to hear your answers.

Len

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also you have yet to answer my questions; I’d be especially interested to hear your answers.

Which questions? I'm spending no more time on this. As you say, we're both speculating, since neither one of us know what happened to Flight 93. Arguing about the Felt phone call is therefore a typical waste of time on the subject of 9/11.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cellphone calls CANNOT BE MADE from an airliner in flight at high altitude and high speed. Period.

AirPhone (seatback) calls CAN BE MADE, but require a credit card number for charging purposes.

No records have been produced of AirPhone calls being made from any of the flights. Thus, no

such calls were placed, because the records would have been produced.

Bottom line:

All reports of phone calls being made from the four airliners ARE NECESSARILY FALSE.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also you have yet to answer my questions; I’d be especially interested to hear your answers.

Which questions?

From a previous post of mine on this thread (#45)

Before I go any further I’d like to ask the people who think the plane was shot down some questions:

- How fast do you think the plane was flying? If you don’t want to venture to guess a specific speed do you think it was flying fast or slow?

- Who do you think was flying?

- What time do you think the plane crashed 10:06 or 10:03?

I won’t answer my first question so as not to bias answers by others and of course think one of the hijackers probably Ziad Jarrah was flying and take no position as to the crash time.

Jack - the authenticity (or lack there of) of the cellphone calls is off topic on this thread. Perhaps you should start a new thread and present your evidence there. I debated the Felt call with Ron because Cramer’s version has been presented as evidence that flight 93 was struck by a missile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner
Also you have yet to answer my questions; I’d be especially interested to hear your answers.

Which questions?

From a previous post of mine on this thread (#45)

Before I go any further I’d like to ask the people who think the plane was shot down some questions:

- How fast do you think the plane was flying? If you don’t want to venture to guess a specific speed do you think it was flying fast or slow?

- Who do you think was flying?

- What time do you think the plane crashed 10:06 or 10:03?

I won’t answer my first question so as not to bias answers by others and of course think one of the hijackers probably Ziad Jarrah was flying and take no position as to the crash time.

Jack - the authenticity (or lack there of) of the cellphone calls is off topic on this thread. Perhaps you should start a new thread and present your evidence there. I debated the Felt call with Ron because Cramer’s version has been presented as evidence that flight 93 was struck by a missile.

Sorry its taken me a while to reply, pressure of work. For Ron, and Len. here's?where I got the information on the marina eyewitnesses.

Len, to the best of my knowledge(which isnt saying much)

1,According to the same eyewitnesses the plane crashed about twenty seconds after it passed overhead, they were two-two and a half miles from the crash site, sounds pretty fast to me.

2,No way of knowing for sure. Its possible that Todd Beamer and the others could have rested control from the hijackers, or the fight for control was still ongoing, as I say, no way to be absolutely sure. One thing we do know, it was chaos up there.

3,According to several Seismologists, "Flight 93 crashed at 10:06:05, give or take a couple of seconds" not much help I know.

Steve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fleegle, Brant and Delasco, about two and a half miles from the crash site describe hearing engines screaming, and hearing an explosion, followed by a fireball,and then debris, lots of debris, some on fire, crawshing into the lake. Now, unless their lying, this explosion must have been either internal or external, as nobody has ever claimed that the terrorists were carrying explosives it must therefore have come from an external source, nothing else makes any sence.
1,According to the same eyewitnesses the plane crashed about twenty seconds after it passed overhead, they were two-two and a half miles from the crash site, sounds pretty fast to me.

Just some quick math - Covering 2.5+/- miles in 20+/- seconds = 400mph - 500mph (2.5mi in 20 sec = 450mph)

Typical cruise speed @35,000 feet = 530mph

All evidence at the crash site indicates that United 93 impacted at a significant speed.

Just an opinion with no facts to back it up - I find it difficult to believe that if the plane has suffered significant damage due to an explosion, say loss of an engine, it would still be able to maintain 400+ mph.

To play devils advocate, if they were in a steep dive @ 600+ mph prior to an explosion, then slowed down in that last 2.5 miles prior to the crash, 400+ mph average speed over 2.5 miles is plausible.

Unfortunately, this info provides nothing conclusive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner

Thanks for doing the math Steve. I was pretty certain that if I left the question hanging, some brainy Guy would do all the hard work for me. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...