By Elizabeth Woodworth
A COTO Report Exclusive
Abstract: This essay presents new evidence that further erodes the accepted story of the hijacking of Flight 77 by men with knives and box-cutters. The story of the phone calls from CNN commentator Barbara Olson to her husband, Theodore Olson, then Solicitor General of the United States, was flashed around the world on September 11, 2001, from a CNN interview with Mr. Olson.
This essay closely examines the raw data from the AT&T telephone records, and confirms the work of Dr. David Ray Griffin, who has argued that Barbara Olson’s one attempted call, which was unconnected and lasted “0” seconds, could not have conveyed the hijacker story to her husband.
The essay also includes new information suggesting that the digital technology of the day could have routed the calls that appeared to emanate from Flight 77, from the ground up to the aircraft and back again.
Illuminating information has recently come to light in the form of the raw Claircom (AT&T Wireless) telephone data for AA Flights 11 and 77. 
These records, if authentic, present many doubts to the credibility of the telephone calls widely reported in the media between US Solicitor General Ted Olson and his well-known CNN commentator wife, Barbara Olson, who was allegedly aboard Flight 77.
But first, the significance of these purported Olson calls cannot be over-estimated.
Implications of the official interpretation of the raw telephone data for Flight 77:
Two world-changing perceptions were created by Ted Olson’s reports of the Flight 77 telephone calls he received from his wife Barbara.
First, the CNN interview that carried Ted’s description of Barbara’s calls was broadcast around the world later the same day.  It instantly created dramatic imagery between two credible public figures whose shocking fates were embraced by a TV-centric world as gospel. Like the sensationally memorable collapses of the Twin Towers, the on-air imagery of these two prominent personalities, people known and recognizable almost as friends, was indelibly imprinted on the American psyche.
Second, Barbara’s phone call conveyed the only report from all the flights that the hijackers were armed with cardboard cutters, which carried the following implications:
“Since unlike guns, metal knives and bombs, it was legal for airline passengers on September 11th 2001 to carry aboard box-cutters and plastic knives, the claim that they used such devices to commandeer the planes that destroyed the World Trade Center is a functional fictoid. Not only does it serve to shield the airlines, airports and airport screeners from massive liability from the victims at the World Trade Center, it protects the Bush Administration by diverting attention away from concern that airport security at three Federally-supervised airports was dangerously lax.” 
As Rowland Morgan has remarked, “I think the Olson call(s) were so important that they had to happen.” 
Are the raw data authentic?
The data are part of a leaked government document  that is housed on the document-sharing website, Scribd (www.scribd.com). Because it has seldom been cited in the 9/11 literature, it will be new to many people.
It takes the form of a fax of an AT&T database printout that was received in a Department of Justice office on September 13, 2001. The fax was later forwarded by the US Assistant Attorney General to the 9/11 Commission Counsel on April 26, 2004.
I will treat the AT&T database printout as authentic, for the following reasons:
- It bears the fax imprint, format, font, and page numbers that were typical of fax machines of the day; 
- Its printout has been examined by a former Claircom system designer, who has written (letter of March 25 2011) that “the elements of the call record data listed in the fax are consistent with my recollection of Claircom call records and how Claircom listed that data in reports.” 
- It breaks down the calls into non-user-friendly record segments, typical of databases of the day, according to former Telco IT professional David Brown. 
- If the database printout were a completely forged document, it is difficult to understand what its purpose might have been, for it falls far short of proving that more than one call was completed.
Note that although I believe the database printout itself to be authentic, there is a possibility that it was tampered with, as we shall see below.
What kinds of calls were possible on the Claircom system?
Under normal circumstances the system was designed for a swiped credit card. These calls were designated “swipe and dial” under “Call Type.”
However, after examining the records, the IT executive who designed the system commented: “It looks like some callers used their calling cards to make their calls. Others made the equivalent of 911 emergency calls.”
Notes made on Record 4 (see below) show that it was possible to contact a live operator in the OSPS (Operator Services Position Station) domain, without a card number showing in the card fields at the bottom of the record.
The notes also indicate that collect calls were possible.
Evidently it was possible to bypass the credit card swipe in these ways, by using “Call Type” = “Dial & Dial”.
What do the AT&T primary (raw) records show?
A careful examination of these records shows that they were undoubtedly the primary source of the FBI’s Zacarias Moussaoui trial graphic presentation for seatback calls made from Flights 11 and 77,  as seen in the 2006 public trial exhibits .
Note that the time zones in the primary data reflect the location of the various ground stations, whereas the graphic presentations always presuppose the Eastern Time Zone, which is EDT in September.
Several people with information technology backgrounds  have examined the raw data and agree that each record represents one of the electronic stages in a telephone call; thus it requires several records to track the routing of a completed call. 
These records were reported in clusters on the printout. Each cluster, representing one call, would have a common CSC Call ID , and an identical “Start Time.”
The Moussaoui trial public exhibits identified the callers and recipients of only three calls from Flight 77. Two were allegedly from flight attendant Renee May, and one “unconnected” call of “0 seconds’ was purportedly from Barbara Olson to her husband, US Solicitor General Ted Olson. Only one call from Flight 77 allegedly had any duration – a 158-second call from Renee May to her parents.
Four other lengthy calls, however, were reported as “connected calls to unknown numbers”.  The Department of Justice drew the unlikely conclusion that not only was the famous CNN commentator Barbara Olson the only one of 53 passengers aboard Flight 93 to make any calls at all, but that she in fact made all four of these unknown calls to the office of her prominent husband. 
However, the raw Claircom data shows a strange and unique irregularity in the calls manually numbered 4 through 7 on the Flight 77 faxed report.
Records 4 through 7 represent one call that started at 07:15:34 (09:15:34 Eastern Time), and lasted 102 seconds.  This call was given special attention, with explanatory comments typed into the record  to show that the customer dialed a live AT&T Operator (Operator Services Position Station, or OSPS) and that the “Time is not tracked because OSPS bills.”
Because the customer dialed “0”, the typing implied, there was no “Terminating #” (meaning no recipient) except for “0”. The call was then handed off to the AT&T Operator and the “domain” changed to OSPS. This 102-second call, to be billed via the AT&T Operator, was not traceable to a recipient listed on the raw data report, and there was no credit card number showing on it, so the call, as recorded later on the trial exhibit graphic, was deemed to have been made to an “unknown number”. 
However, if we look further down the raw data list, at Records 8 and 9, we will see the one call, at 07:18:58 (09:18:58), that was directly attributed to Barbara Olson. Again, the call was placed to “0” for Operator in Record 8,
but in this case the call (of “0” seconds) was subject to an “air party disconnect” (see Record 9) before reaching the OSPS Operator domain. Yet somehow it was claimed to have reached a “terminating” number, as seen in Record 9, and that supposed number appears to have been redacted beneath a square vacant box:
On the corresponding publicly released Moussaoui graphic record (shown below), the call for this time shows the Washington DC (202) prefix and the first three digits of a partially blocked-out telephone number, yet the call was said to have been “unconnected”.  If a call is unconnected, would it register a number at all? If not, then this is a contradiction.
Also, why would this number belonging to the Solicitor General, which is a public number, have been blocked out on the Moussaoui Trial graphic?
Finally, why the unknown hand typed “9/11 Personal Privacy”, in a different font to the computer printout, next to the redaction on Record 9?
These contradictions, along with the raw data records for call 4-7 above, on which were written the information that an operator-dialed call would not show time tracking or a recipient number, would suggest that the redacted number on the Olson call may not in fact have been under the redaction, and that the number partially visible on the Moussaoui trial graphic, which was based on the raw data, was contrived.
If we turn our attention to the other three Flight 77 calls to “unknown numbers” on the graphic record, we see one at 09:20:15 for 274 seconds; one at 09:25:48 for 159 seconds, and one at 9:30:56 for 260 seconds. 
On the raw data reports, the 07:20:15 (09:20:15) call, represented by records manually numbered 10-15, was also an Operator-placed call, and did not show any recipient number, or time tracking. Instead, the AT&T Operator’s office, as noted on the (4-7) call, retained these records for billing purposes.
Similarly call 07:25:48 – or 09:25:48 EDT – (manually numbered 16-19) was Operator-dialed and showed no recipient.
And the third call, 07:30:56 – or 09:30:56 EDT – (manually numbered 20-23) was also an Operator-dialed number showing no recipient.
These three Operator-dialed calls are identical in pattern to the call manually numbered 4-7, which had the typed explanations on it. And yet the only identified call, the “Olson” call (Records 8 and 9), manifested the same pattern of calls 4-7 having no record of time tracking, and no credit card charges.
If the number 202-514-XXX shown on the Moussaoui Trial graphic received a telephone call at this time, what is there to prove that it was from Barbara Olson on Flight 77?
It seems unavoidable that the “Olson” call to the “redacted” number (which was operator-dialed) lasted “0” seconds and showed no time tracking, was among the calls placed to unknown numbers, and that there is no way to conclusively link it to Barbara Olson.
It also seems unavoidable that there is no reason to believe that Barbara Olson made calls to any of these unknown numbers. These calls were reportedly placed from different handsets (i.e., CSC Call ID numbers) than the single 09:18:58 call (Records 8-9) that was attributed to her in the Moussaoui trial evidence based on these records.
The last “unknown number call” the 9/11 Commission attributed to Barbara Olson took place from 09:30:56 to 09:35:16, at which time there was an “air party disconnect” shown on the primary record.
However, according to the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) report on Flight 77, at 9:34 AM when the plane was at 7,000 feet and 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon, it began a 330-degree descending right turn, entering a steep spiral dive before crashing into the Pentagon at 9:37:45. 
Yet there was no mention by Ted Olson or his staff of this dramatic change in course, which reportedly took place for a full minute during the alleged telephone call from Barbara. 
What other telephone records could have been consulted?
The Department of Justice allegedly left no stone unturned in its efforts to trace the telephone calls from the 9/11 flights. The findings of the 2004 report, “Department of Justice briefing on cell and phone calls from Flight 77”, were derived from an exhaustive study of the phone records, and from interviews conducted with family members of passengers and crew. 
We must therefore ask why, since the Flight 77 calls were so extensively researched by the DOJ, did the government not report the full details of the “unknown calls”, which could have been obtained through the AT&T operator, where we are told on primary records 4-7 that they would have been billed from?
Or, if the calls were collect, as was indicated as a possibility on the typed notes (“Collect or credit card could have been used”), why were the calls not verified as showing up on the Solicitor General’s account?
This inexplicable failure to report on such obvious aspects of the investigation strongly suggests a cover-up.
Other evidence has been presented to support this possibility.  To cover up questionable calls from Barbara Olson on the primary telephone records, all that was needed to bring them into line with the claim that Olson had called her husband was to insert the redaction square that covered the seemingly non-existent number of the “0-second” call.
The AT&T raw data records above do not verify that Barbara Olson made a call to the Solicitor General’s office – nor has telephone record verification been advanced from other sources.
Until the government produces such routinely kept records, the evidence points to the reported calls to Ted Olson’s office as having come from somewhere else.
Where might the calls have come from?
Three people in the Solicitor General’s office and two AT&T operators reported having had contact with the Olson calls from Flight 77. 
Renee May’s parents also reported receiving a phone call from their daughter. 
How is it possible to reconcile these reports with the lack of substantiating telephone records?
Perhaps we need to look outside the box. The fact that people received these calls does not necessarily mean that the calls were made from Flight 77.
Just as it has come to light in a recent study that over a dozen aircraft were unwittingly transmitting the hijack code (7500) on the morning of 9/11 , it has also come to light that in 2001, “it was theoretically possible to route an [AT&T] call from one location, through a ground site, to an aircraft and then back down to another ground site.” 
If this was possible, then the voice morphing  of two calls from Barbara Olson and one call from Renee May, and routing them from the ground through Flight 77 and back, would not have been out of the question.
It would certainly explain why the billing records were not available.
What about the calls we can actually listen to?
There are only two calls for which public recordings have been released: the first four minutes of the 27-minute Betty Ong call  from Flight 11, and the 45-second CeeCee Lyles voice-mail  from Flight 93.
The CeeCee Lyles Voice-Mail from Flight 93:
Flight attendant CeeCee Lyles was reported to have left voice-mail for her husband Lorne Lyles at their home at 9:47:57 AM.
Though the primary phone records for United Airlines Flight 93, which used the GTE aircraft communications system, are available,  they are much more difficult to interpret than the Claircom records, and the call is difficult to verify there. However, the Moussaoui trial graphic  shows this alleged airphone call, plus a cell phone call. 
The recording of the 45-second voice-mail call was publicly released and may be heard on the Moussaoui trial website.  The call has a studied quality to it, and is unnatural in its choice of words for the circumstances, in that CeeCee says to her husband, “Please tell my children that I love them very much.”
However, according to a news report in late October, 2001:
“After coaxing soft-spoken, handsome police dispatcher Lorne Lyles to join the force in 1997, she married him three years later and made his sons, Justin and Jordan, her own.” 
Though CeeCee had two children of her own, it seems very odd that she would, while calling him “Babe” every few seconds, use this formal wording, to distinguish only her own children – rather than saying “tell the kids” – on what she thought might be her final call to him.
Other reasons to suggest that this phone call was simulated include CeeCee Lyles’ apparently simulated Florida driver’s license that was allegedly found at the crash site of Flight 93. This license was a duplicate, issued in 1997 under her married name to Lyles. However, at that time she was still married to her second husband, three years before she married Lyles in 2000.  That this “duplicate” drivers license was found at all is highly questionable, considering the report of a volunteer fireman at the scene, who saw “debris everywhere, pieces of metal, paper, insulation, wiring, and I just looked around, and no people, and I’m thinking, ‘where are the people?’” 
In summary, if people were at work simulating calls for the September 11th flights, some of these simulations could have been prepared in advance. The fabricators, knowing the routes flown regularly by flight attendants, could have easily captured voice samples for the regular stewards on the four routes, and prepared non-interactive calls for them. Then, on the morning of the 11th, they could have selected the calls prepared for the people who were scheduled for duty that day and used those. If the call was answered, they could cut if off; if it was not answered, it could be left as voice-mail.
The CeeCee Lyles call, which has a scripted, unreal quality to it,  would fit the description of a call prepared in this manner.
The Betty Ong call from Flight 11:
The Ong call  was made at 8:18:47 AM PDT to a remote American Airlines ticket reservation and sales office in Cary, North Carolina, where, instead of being transferred to her flight service department at Logan Airport (which is where her fellow flight attendant Amy Sweeney called), her call was held for 27 minutes by people untrained to deal with an emergency, until 8:45:47, 53 seconds before Flight 11 crashed at 8:46:40 AM.
Additionally, the Ong call, which was the longest and most informative of all the 9/11 calls, was made to an office that would not know or recognize Betty Ong’s voice.
The 4-minute recording is highly questionable in that:
- Ong begins by saying she is on Flight 12, not 11;
- The call is disjointed and confused – almost as if it were non-interactive in places – with Ong giving “replies” unrelated to the questions she is asked, e.g.,
Sadler: “Ma’am what seat are you in?”
Ong: “We’re…we just left Boston we’re up in the air.”
- Ong fails to provide her seat number until asked a fourth time. She says “we can’t breathe in business class”, which is near the front, yet says that she is sitting in her jump-seat at the rear of the plane;
- Ong is inexplicably calm throughout her reports of multiple stabbings and Mace;
- Ong asks someone returning from business class, which people have been stabbed. An unidentified background voice, sounding almost cheerful, says “I don’t know, but Karen and Bobbie got stabbed.”
- Ong refers to the intruders as “they”, but never describes them, or is asked to describe them, and claims that “they” are in the cockpit (apparently all five of them, with the pilots. Three photos of a Boeing 767 cockpit make this claim ludicrous).
- Though Ong later reported that the first class and business class passengers were moved to the rear to coach class, no one seemed to know anything about the hijackers;
- Ong’s reported Mace should have debilitated the hijackers as well as the crew and passengers;
- The passengers are not audible in the background, though they had been plagued by stabbings and Mace, and not one of the 76 passengers was reported as having made a phone call, though there were seatback phones available in AA Boeing 767s in 2001;
Both the pilot and the first officer failed to punch in the hijack code while the intruders were reportedly breaking down the locked cockpit door.
The foregoing oddities and contradictions strongly suggest a fabricated call to the remote and unlikely AA reservations desk by someone using a sample of Betty Ong’s voice. Most of the recording was interactive and therefore probably occurred in real time, but it may not have originated, digitally, from Flight 11.
How the Ong and Lyles Call Irregularities Affect the Olson “Calls”:
In light of the non-interactive sequences in the Ong and Lyle calls, a re-examination of the testimony from Lori Lynn Keyton, the secretary who transferred Barbara Olson’s “hysterical” calls (whereas Ted said that Barbara “did not seem panicked” ) to her husband, seems relevant. Keyton was rushed by the hysteria, cut Barbara off, and put the calls right through. There was evidently no back-and-forth discussion. It was one-sided.
Thus the Olson calls to recipients other than Ted Olson did not have to be interactive, and could have been simulated anytime before 9/11, using readily available voice samples from the famous CNN commentator, and then routed up from the ground into the Flight 77 Claircom system at the strategically required time.
As things stand, the whole question of phone calls from the doomed flights is so fraught with contradictions and impossibilities that it is time to stand back and start asking how digital technology, possibly from within the military or intelligence community, may have been used to subvert our perceptions of what actually happened that morning.
 David Ray Griffin. “Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials,” Global Research, April 2, 2008, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514
 On September 13, 2001, at 09:40, AT&T faxed the raw telephone call data from AA Flights 11 and 77 to an office within the US Department of Justice. These records were forwarded by the Assistant Attorney General, William E. Moschella, to Dan Marcus, General Counsel to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, on April 26, 2004.
The faxed records may be seen at http://www.scribd.com/doc/13499791/T7-B13-Flight-11-Calls-Fdr-Response-From-DOJ-to-Doc-Req-14-Calls-From-AA-11-and-77-and-UA-175-and-93-ATT-Wireless-UA-And-GTE-Airphone-Call-Record
 Tim O’Brien, CNN. “Wife of Solicitor General alerted him of hijacking from plane,” September 12, 2001 Posted: 2:06 AM EDT, http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090206072250/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/
CNN breaking news coverage referring to this interview is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6f8oUiBQas
 Edward J. Epstein. “Fictoid #9: Plastic Knives and Box Cutters,” http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid9.htm
 Email to Elizabeth Woodworth, April 16, 2011.
 See footnote above.
 I myself worked in a government office in 2001 where there was a busy, heavy-duty fax machine. Its faxes bore the identical and very typical fax imprint along the top line, the sender’s telephone number, and the same pagination that is shown on this fax. And faxes, like this one, always started on page 2, with page 1 being the cover letter.
 This person was kind enough to engage in a private email exchange but is still employed in the IT business and prefers to remain anonymous in a public discussion.
 Mr. David William Brown, retired from the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, and author of “An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis: Objects and UML in Plain English,” 2nd Ed., Wiley, 2001, http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471371378.html
 Former Claircom systems designer, letter of March 25, 2011.
 The primary data for United Airlines Flights 93 and 175 were contained in the GTE airphone system database, and were consulted by the 9/11 Commission and the FBI. Their raw material is much more difficult to interpret, and hence I have not attempted to analyze it. It is visible at: The “T7 B13 GTE Phone Records” are available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/26103892/T7-B13-Flight-GTE-Phone-Records-Fdr-Entire-Contents-788.
 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html. These documents can be more easily viewed in “Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights” http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html.
 I am indebted to David Brown, Rowland Morgan, and a former Claircom systems designer, who verified the authenticity of the records, but wishes to remain anonymous. Rowland Morgan, born in Brighton, England, and educated at Cambridge, has written two books on 9/11: Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall: “Flight 93 Revealed: What Really Happened on the 9/11 Let’s Roll Flight?” Carroll & Graf, 2006; and “9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions,” Carroll & Graf, 2005. Morgan is a former weekly columnist for The Independent and The Guardian.
 For example, in the faxed records, for any given call, the CSC no. and “start time” record segments will be the same, but their “EVENT TYPES” will be different. These event types will show such actions as “Handoff Started”, “Handoff Completed”, and “Air Party Disconnect”. The “duration” of the call does not appear until the record segment “disconnect” has been completed. Thus each record is an electronic transmission event within a phone call. http://www.scribd.com/doc/13499791/T7-B13-Flight-11-Calls-Fdr-Response-From-DOJ-to-Doc-Req-14-Calls-From-AA-11-and-77-and-UA-175-and-93-ATT-Wireless-UA-And-GTE-Airphone-Call-Record
 The former Claircom systems designer wrote in a March 25, 2011 email, “I believe the phone location in the aircraft might be coded into the GS/GSC call ID codes.”
 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/exhibit/UnknownCallerAA77.png
 US Department of Justice. Memorandum for the Record. “Briefing on cell and phone calls from Flight 77,” May 20, 2004. http://www.scribd.com/doc/18886083/T7-B12-Flight-93-Calls-General-Fdr-52004-DOJ-Briefing-on-Cell-and-Phone-Calls-From-AA-77-408
 The 102 seconds does not show up until Record 7, when the call was subject to an “air party disconnect”.
 A careful examination of the typed comments shows that they were made within the computer database system that held the records. Note, for example, the identical letters and spacing of the word “Time”, in “Start Time”, on the call record, and “Time is not tracked” on the note.
 National Transportation Safety Board. Flight Path Study: American Airlines Flight 77. February 19, 2002. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf.
 In fact the opposite seems true. Mr. Olson told the FBI on September 11, 2001, that “she didn’t manifest anything about a crash.” FBI. FD-302, Interview with Theodore Olsen (re: phone call from hijacked flight) http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-11-FBI-FD302-theodore-olsen.pdf.
 From the government’s procedural summary below, it seems very strange that the investigators, who went to great lengths to identify the phone call recipients for Flight 77, should have failed to retrieve from AT&T Wireless (which was not bought by Cingular Wireless until October 26, 2004) the recipients of four long Operator-dialed (OSPS) calls from this flight. The information regarding Flight 77 calls reported by the Department of Justice was derived from “a study of all phone records from the flight, an examination of the cell phone records of each of the passengers aboard 9/11 [sic] who owned cell phones, and interviews with those who received calls from the flight, as well as with the family members of other passengers and crew. This work was conducted in support of the U.S. Justice Department’s case against Zacarias Moussaoui.” http://www.scribd.com/doc/18886083/T7-B12-Flight-93-Calls-General-Fdr-52004-DOJ-Briefing-on-Cell-and-Phone-Calls-From-AA-77-408
An “exhasutive study” of the airphone records from Flight 93 was also reported, in a parallel briefing memorandum a week earlier, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/19987615/Mfr-Nara-t7-Doj-Doj-Briefing-on-Ua93-Calls-51304-00217
 Rowland Morgan. “Barbara Olson’s call from Flight 77 never happened,” December 2, 2004, available at http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/305124.shtml
 The FBI interviewed secretary Lori Lynn Keyton, http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-14-FBI-FD302-lori-lynn-keyton.pdf. It also interviewed Olson himself and Helen Voss, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/15072623/T1A-B33-Four-Flights-Phone-Calls-and-Other-Data-Fdr-Entire-Contents-FBI-302s-843. Interviews from AT&T operators Theresa Gonzalez and Mercy Lorenzo, both reporting emergency phone calls, are also included in this long FBI file which contains interviews on phone calls from all the flights.
 Shoestring, “The Many False Hijackings of 9/11,” April 10, 2011, http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2011/04/many-false-hijackings-of-911.html Apparently it is not difficult to hack into the military bands, so the hijack code could have been transmitted from some other source. Note this comment:
RogueKnight12866 July 23, 2010 at 7:17 pm
To finish, I’d likely also 500 KHz and 2182 KHz, which are mediumwave international emergency frequencies for aircraft and marine vessels on the open seas. If you are in trouble, I feel the rules go out the window. I’d do whatever it took to see my passengers survived, even if it meant breaking all the rules and even hacking into the military radio bands. Ref. http://www.rfcommunity.org/radio/private-jet-pilot-on-cb-radio-channel-19/
 Former Claircom system designer, letter of Weds. March 10, 2010, to Rowland Morgan.
 Voice morphing was well established back in 2001. It only needed a good sample of a speaker’s voice, which would have been readily available for CNN commentator Barbara Olson. See University of Cambridge Department of Engineering study, 2002-2004, at http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hy216/VoiceMorphingPrj.html. As early as 1999, voice simulation had been developed by the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, which defines itself as a “premier national security research institution.” See http://www.lanl.gov/about.shtml. The effectiveness of its voice simulation technology was described by William M. Arkin, “When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing,” Washington Post, February 1, 1999, http://www.public-action.com/911/voice-simulation/. Telephone voice changers have been available on the consumer market since well before 9/11.
 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html It is easier to access at: “Betty Ong’s 9/11 call from Flight 11,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icfkIH3j-nk
 This call may be heard on the Moussaoui trial records, but is much more readily accessible at “F93 Attendant CeeCee Lyles Leaves a Message For Her Husband,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUrxsrTKHN4
 The “T7 B13 GTE Phone Records” are available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/26103892/T7-B13-Flight-GTE-Phone-Records-Fdr-Entire-Contents-788.
 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html. It is easier to access at http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/exhibit/CeeCeeLyles.png
 The cell phone call reportedly began at 9:58:00 AM, but no duration was noted on the trial graphic. CeeCee’s husband Lorne Lyles, however, was interviewed about the call (“Flight Attendant Called Husband from Flight 93,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBjgV1plf2M), which he verified as a cell phone call taking place just before ten o’clock. It is strange that the investigators who pursued all of Flight 93’s calls so intensively did not report its duration, even if only approximately.
 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html. It is easier to access at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUrxsrTKHN4.
 “Flight crew: CeeCee Lyles,” Post-Gazette.com, October 28, 2001, http://www.pittsburgpost-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93lylesbiop8.asp
 The following summary concerning the Lyles “duplicate” drivers license found at the crash site has been taken from a British website: “The United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui Prosecution Trial Exhibit # P200069 is the photograph of the driver’s license of CeeCee Lyles which was claimed to be found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where United Airlines Flight 93 supposedly crashed. An examination [of] the CeeCee Ross Lyles driver’s license shows an issue date of 12/02/1997. However, CeeCee L Ross DID NOT have the surname of Lyles in 1997. An examination of her certificate of marriage to Lorne Von Lyles issued in Hillsborough County, Florida, reports the date of marriage to be 05/01/2000. An examination of St. Lucie County marriage records indicates that CeeCee Ross was married to Ademil Danilo Castrillo on 08/14/1994 with a dissolution of marriage filed on 04/23/1999.” http://www.coffinman.co.uk/911_evidence_tampering.htm
Photos of the driver’s license and marriage certificate are available at http://letsrollforums.com/ceecee-lyles-t17044p3.html
 Fifth anniversary CNN special, “Remembering 9/11,” 2006. CNN live interview of Rich King, Shanksville Volunteer Fireman. See “flight 93 eyewitness admits not seeing dead bodies,´ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fU-FyKAL9A
 As one observer commented, “It just makes my ex-detective spider sense tingle. Something isn’t right…the strange diction sounds…off.” http://letsrollforums.com/ceecee-lyles-t17044p2.html
 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html. It is easier to access at “Betty Ong’s 9/11 call from Flight 11,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icfkIH3j-nk
 1) http://www.marthastewardess.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Boeing_767_cockpit.jpg
2) http://www.airliners.net/photo/0247951/ and
 I am much indebted for many of these points to Rowland Morgan, who has provided astute and thoroughly researched analyses for many of the 9/11 phone calls. His e-book, “The 9/11 Phone-Call Evidence,” ©2010, is available at http://www.radiodujour.com/pdf/voices-book.pdf
 To quote from the FBI Keyton interview of September 14, 2001: “Barbara Olsen [sic] was put through and sounded hysterical. Barbara Olsen said, ‘Can you tell Ted …’ Keyton cut her off and said, ‘I’ll put him on the line.’” On the second call, the same cutoff occurred: “Barbara Olsen said, ‘It’s Barbara.’ Keyton said, ‘he’s on the phone with the command center, I’ll put you through.’ http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-14-FBI-FD302-lori-lynn-keyton.pdf