Voices Rowland Morgan

Download Voices Rowland Morgan

Post on 21-Sep-2014




1 download

Embed Size (px)


A detailed, well-researched book by British author Rowland Morgan that asks questions regarding the aircraft phone calls recorded on the morning of 9/11.


<p>1</p> <p>VOICES</p> <p>40 phone-calls changed the world that day---but were they real? The U.S. governments amazing 9/11 evidence says not.</p> <p>By Rowland Morgan 2010 All Rights Reserved</p> <p>2</p> <p>EPIGRAPH All times in this book are given in Babylonian mathematics (based on 60), which was invented by Iraqis some 10,000 years before the founding of the United States of America.</p> <p>ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank David Ray Griffin for suggesting this work, Ian Woods and Terry Burrows for prompting the writing of it, and Elizabeth Woodworth, Wayne Prante, Ian Henshall, Robin Hordon, Mark Gaffney, Christopher Bollyn for their contributions. The author acknowledges the dedicated work of Co-operativeResearch.org in assembling its 9/11 timeline, extracts from which are used here in the public interest.</p> <p>3</p> <p>Table of Contents</p> <p>INTRODUCTION ....................................... THE 9/11 IN-FLIGHT PHONE CALLS ..................... VOICES FROM FLIGHT 77 .............................. VOICES FROM FLIGHT 11 ............................ 88 VOICES FROM FLIGHT 175 .......................... 149 VOICES FROM FLIGHT 93 ........................... 191 CONCLUSION ...................................... 269</p> <p>4 FRONTISPIECE: The call evidence (adapted by the author).</p> <p>PHONES by</p> <p>AT&amp;T Claircom. AT&amp;T supplies Pentagon telecoms.</p> <p>5</p> <p>INTRODUCTIONBy 2008, the official story of 9/11 was imploding. An authoritative study of the 9/11 Commission process showed that Commission director Philip Zelikow had been a key White House associate in promoting post-9/11 wars and had collaborated with top Bush aide Karl Rove during the Commissions inquiry.1 Furthermore, the Commission cochairs, Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane, in a New York Times article denounced the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) for obstructing their inquiry and for destroying interrogation records.2 It was shown that nearly all the Commissions evidence of hijacker activities around time of the 9/11 events had come from interrogations that involved physical torture. NBC News analysis shows 441 of the more than 1,700 footnotes in the Commissions Final Report refer to the CIA interrogations [involving torture]. Moreover, most of the information in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of the Report came from the interrogations. Those chapters cover the initial planning for the attack, the assembling of terrorist cells, and the arrival of the hijackers in the U.S. In total, the Commission relied on more than 100 interrogation reports produced by the CIA. The second round of interrogations sought by the Commission involved more than 30 separate interrogation sessions.3</p> <p>6 Knowledge that all the relevant interrogations about 9/11 hjackers involved severe physical torture such as waterboarding crucially tainted the whole official story of hijacker involvement, for as Shakespeare wrote: I fear you speak upon the rack, Where men enforced do speak anything.4 This extraordinary shift brought the status of the 9/11 events into collision with completely unrelated evidence of hijackers arising from about 40 telephone calls allegedly made from the rogue aircraft in question, all of which made mention of the presence of hijackers. These unprecedented in-flight telephone calls received extensive coverage in the U.S. mass media, featuring a chorus of women witnesses who claimed to have received calls from their loved ones. In particular, a stream of dozens of calls from the downed aircraft, Flight 93, formed the narrative of a passenger revolt that passed into Pentagon warmaking propaganda for the assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq. We now face massive cognitive dissonance between the destruction of the official story of hijackers, and the stream of reported distress telephone calls, all of which told of hijackers aboard the rogue aircraft. The telephone calls were essentially the last pillar left standing in the collapsing edifice of the U.S. administrations attribution of the 9/11 events to fanatical foreign attackers. As it happened, the U.S.</p> <p>7 government had provided comprehensive details of the telephone calls in its evidence to the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui. They were enclosed in little-noticed electronic files, and this is an examination of that revealing evidence. Although the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.), working out of the Department of Justice, where the evidence was prepared, backed off nearly all the Flight 93 cell-phone calls,5 the possibility of some cellular calls on other flights carefully was left open by vagueness and deniability. The evidence fudged the data, with phone numbers not given, and no computer data supplied that would have automatically been captured by Claircom or Airfone, the phone providers, had they in fact been seatback phone calls. Other voices heard ostensibly via seatback phones (although attributed to cell phones at the time) simulated cell phone calls by their brevity and by being cut off abruptly.6 The telephone data contained bombshells of which Moussaouis prosecutors apparently were unaware: Two 9/11 telephone calls from TV-pundit</p> <p>Barbara Olson to her husband Theodore Olson at his office in the Department of Justice had never occurred. The U.S governments call data said she made a call but did not get through. This meant that the U.S.</p> <p>8 Solicitor-General, a key member of the Bush administration, had connived at, or been deluded about, a crucial deception, one that had placed hijackers armed with cardboard-cutters aboard Flight 77 ostensibly speeding towards the Pentagon. The 9/11 in-flight telephone call from Todd</p> <p>Beamer, the one in which an Airfone operator heard him shout the Pentagons recruitment slogan Lets Roll, could not have occurred. The U.S. governments fudged data said Beamer had made separate calls in the same second. Because the existence of hijackers aboard the rogue planes partly relied on them, the collapse of these two vital telephone calls alone badly damaged the U.S. Governments 9/11 conspiracy theory. Whats more, internal evidence indicated that the evidence in these two vital calls had been fabricated with criminal intent in order to nod at the official story while evading a minimum 30-month prison sentence from the U.S. district court for obstruction of justice.7 Furthermore, the demolition of these two famous phone calls meant that they had been faked during the events, opening up the possibility that other calls, too, had been fraudulent. All the calls supposedly had mentioned hijackers</p> <p>9 or a hijacking, so the very existence of hijackers then came into question. It was not just U.S. federal prosecutors Robert Spencer, David Novak and David Raskin who were implicated. The trial evidence had been arranged at the highest levels. These are political decisions, [said] John Zwerling, a criminal defense attorney in Alexandria, Va. The shots are being called at the very highest level of our government -the president, the vice president, and the attorney general. The prosecutors have to march to their orders, and whether or not they believe in it is irrelevant.8 Even the venue of the trial was political: after the [9/11] attacks [sic], the Justice Department decided to make the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia the hub of terrorism prosecutions. There were several reasons for the choice. Virginia juries had a reputation for being sympathetic to prosecutors, the federal court in Alexandria was known for quickly moving cases through its rocket docket, and Alexandria lay just across the Potomac from Washington -- where prosecutors would have easy access to their colleagues at Main Justice and the myriad federal agencies that would become involved in any trial.9</p> <p>10 Top Department of Justice (DOJ) officials had been involved in constructing the telephone evidence. Moussaoui's December 2001 indictment was signed by three officials representing each DOJ arm involved. There was Paul McNulty, the Eastern District of Virginia's new and politically connected Republican U.S. Attorney (who has since been nominated to the DOJ's No. 2 spot); Mary Jo White, the outgoing Clinton-era U.S. Attorney in New York whose office had overseen the first World Trade Center bombing and East African embassy bombings [sic]; and Michael Chertoff, the head of the Criminal Division at Main Justice in Washington and a former U.S. Attorney in New Jersey [later head of the vast Homeland Security department]. McNulty has appeared in the courtroom at key stages of the case.10 In addition to the manipulation of the official 9/11 story by lawyers, earlier the U.S. mass-media had spun the array of in-flight 9/11 cellular telephone calls so comprehensively that even U.S. prosecutor Raskin believed that they had occurred. He expounded them to the jury, and the Associated Press passed on his words to the world.11 Yet his Moussaoui trial evidence proved that many of the cellphone calls he brandished had not taken place. The U.S.</p> <p>11 prosecutor was deluded and the governments conspiracy theory lay in shreds on the court-room floor.12 This was in spite of the showmanship used at the trial. For example, prosecutors played to the jury the cockpit voice recording (CVR) alleged to have been retrieved from the mangled and buried wreckage of Flight 93 (that nobody outside the secret state13 had seen). Passenger voices were heard shouting outside the cockpit (although normally only the pilots voices were recorded). The drama of shouting pilots and their chillingly cool rogue replacements was played out on high-tech equipment: As jurors heard the cockpit recording Wednesday, they watched a color video showing a transcript, synchronized with the voices and the plane's instrument readings of its speed, altitude, pitch and headings. There was no mention of the culminating eight minutes of the recording transcript that were mostly marked unintelligible. No mention of the original view that the CVR recording solved nothing.14 No one explained to the jury how Flight 93s rogue pilot could have obtained permission from Reagan International airport air-traffic controllers to change the flight plan and fly towards Washington D.C.15 The telephone evidence ruined all the prosecutions video razz-a-matazz. As 9/11 sceptic David Ray Griffin had written: If even one of [the] essential claims [in the</p> <p>12 official story] is disproved, then the official story as such is thrown into doubt. Critics do not need to show the falsity of every essential element in the official account; they need to show only the falsity of one such element.16 From the destruction of the cellular telephone calls, through the denial of the Olson phone calls, to the demolition of the Beamer Lets Roll call, the evidence knocked the official story flying. No one reasonably could deny any more that the war on terror was based on fabrications: U.S. government evidence, presented in court, proved it. Furthermore, the Moussaoui phone call evidence rested on its own authority. It gave no references for its telephone data. Nowhere is it written: phone data supplied by Verizon Airfone Inc. or phone data from AT&amp;T Claircom Inc.. Clearly, the department of Justice was not able to provide sources for its supposedly authoritative data because of the internal contradictions that exist within its files. Amazingly, the enormously powerful U.S. mind-control media corporations that had petitioned for the release of the evidence completely ignored the explosive telephone information it contained.</p> <p>13</p> <p>Flight 77: BARBARA OLSON-------------------------------------------------------</p> <p>CAPTION: The Barbara Olson call was a news sensation, the first eye-witness account of hijackers aboard the rogue flights, conveyed by the distinguished recipient of two cell-phone calls from her at the department of Justice itself.</p> <p>14 After the report of his call (on ABC TV News on the 14th Sept 2001, for example), apart from a later appearance on Larry King Live, Solicitor-General Ted Olson was rarely heard from again in the U.S.A. An interview he gave in 2002 to the U.K.s Daily Telegraph newspaper did not feature prominently in the U.S. Reporter Toby Harnden wrote his</p> <p>exclusive story She Asked Me How To Stop The Plane which appeared in the U.K. on March 5, 2002, thereafter to be renamed and syndicated as Revenge Of The Spitfire, finally appearing in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday March 23, 2002.17 That story quoted Olson saying: She [Barbara] had trouble getting through,</p> <p>because she wasn't using her cell phone - she was using the phone in the passengers' seats, said Mr Olson. I guess she didn't have her purse, because she was</p> <p>calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy. . . She wanted to know What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?. So, Olson abandoned the cell phone calls claim that CNN and ABC had promoted. Presumably learning later that such calls were unfeasible, he duly converted them into seatback telephone calls18, but this immediately raised a problem, because without a credit card, no call could be initiated on</p> <p>15 a Claircom seatback phone, and if she had borrowed a card, Barbara Olson would no longer have needed to make the collect calls her husband described, just one of which would have been incredible on that day at that particular time anyway, something he acknowledged with his never very easy admission, let alone two. (Furthermore, the transaction would be on record: every scrap of credit information is all archived in a huge data bank located outside of Bethesda, Maryland.19) Olsons original assertion had come in the report issued by CNN, part of $38bn-a-year AOL-Time-Warner20 (as it was then), just a few hours after his bereavement. Citing Olson indirectly, it megaphoned the Barbara Olson voices assertion that it had called on a cell phone, even though such a call would have been an impossible feat in 2001 because no pico-cell technology yet had been installed on American Airlines jets to facilitate their use.21 Invented in Israel, pico-cells started being introduced by airlines after a formal demonstration in 2004: There are many inconveniences to air travel.</p> <p>But if you want to get someplace fast, you'll put up with almost anything - the cramped seats, the big guy sitting next to you, the baby crying in front of you, and - the food.</p> <p>16 But one of the biggest sacrifices - especially in today's fast-paced environment - of not being able to use your cell phone, is quickly becoming history thanks to an Israeli-developed system which enables in-flight cell phone use. American-based pioneer and world leader in CDMA technology, Qualcomm (Nasdaq: QCOM) and its subsidiary Qualcomm Israel teamed with American Airlines last summer to demonstrate satellite-based air-to-ground cellular service. And after two years of development by Qualcomm Israel, American and Qualcomm officials circ...</p>