Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)
So, nobody said the word Souls on any of the pages you put up, at least none that I read - and that signifies that there really were no "passengers" as we think of it.
Jim

I will add this Jim, I work at an airport, I've worked in aviation in various capacities for almost 25 years. We don't say souls. I have never heard anyone ever say souls in all that time. It's not part of the lexicon. The correct parlance, with regards to persons travelling on aircraft, is 'passengers', or 'pax' for short.

Edit:

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)
I for one don't buy the whole idea of a stew calling reservations in an emergency. They have to have a hotline, tollfree number on that system, if there was a system and it was all not just made up.

I don't know if you read it all Jim but you need to. The flight attendants were using cellphones connected to a Claircom box. It was not possible to place a call through that system that required a payment - only 1-800 numbers were accessible. This is why Betty Ong phoned the 1-800 reservations number for American Airlines, and Amy Sweeney used Sara Low's phone card, with its 1-800 number, to connect to AA Flight Services at Logan.

[Jim_Duyer]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)
So, nobody said the word Souls on any of the pages you put up, at least none that I read - and that signifies that there really were no "passengers" as we think of it.
Jim

I will add this Jim, I work at an airport, I've worked in aviation in various capacities for almost 25 years. We don't say souls. I have never heard anyone ever say souls in all that time. It's not part of the lexicon. The correct parlance, with regards to persons travelling on aircraft, is 'passengers', or 'pax' for short.

Edit:

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)
I for one don't buy the whole idea of a stew calling reservations in an emergency. They have to have a hotline, tollfree number on that system, if there was a system and it was all not just made up.

I don't know if you read it all Jim but you need to. The flight attendants were using cellphones connected to a Claircom box. It was not possible to place a call through that system that required a payment - only 1-800 numbers were accessible. This is why Betty Ong phoned the 1-800 reservations number for American Airlines, and Amy Sweeney used Sara Low's phone card, with its 1-800 number, to connect to AA Flight Services at Logan.

https://simpleflying.com/why-atc-com...souls-onboard/ Why Are People Onboard Aircraft Referred To As 'Souls' In ATC Communications?

ATC sometimes uses "Souls" instead of "People On Board," but the latter is more accurate and avoids confusion.
The term "Souls" has nautical origins and was used to count passengers and crew on aircraft.
"Souls" may still be used in aviation, but "People On Board" is now the preferred term to avoid confusion and miscommunication. NOW IT IS PAX, BUT IN 2001?
According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Air Traffic Control (ATC) handbook, the correct ATC communication is to say "People On Board." Despite this, ATC controllers sometimes continue to use the term "Souls" when communicating with aircraft. AFTER POLITICALLY CORRECT RAISED ITS HEAD, ITS PASSENGERS NOT SOULS.

The word "Souls" is also used in nautical phraseology

Regarding the number of people onboard an aircraft, the term "Soul" was used to count the total number of people onboard - in other words, the number of passengers and crew. The word can be traced back to the great sailing ships of the 18th century. Back then, many ships were lost at sea, and the missing dead sailors were called lost souls, reflecting how dangerous being at sea was and the fine line between life and death.

I'VE ALSO HEAR IT USED BY FAA INVESTIGATORS OF PLANE CRASHES. [caps used to differentiate, not call attention, sorry]

AND YES, I read till my eyes almost bled. But the idea I was putting forward is simple - if you are a stew or crew of an aircraft, as part of your contingency planning, wouldn't they have an 1-800 number to call direct to the security team, in the event that they either used this box system or they did not have a credit card handy? 1-800-IM-IN-TRBL or similar?

[Denise/Dizi]

WOW, that is a LOT of effort right there!

I just wanted to mention, I have read it all, but over the course of a few days, I may be mixing a lot up, so please bear with me..

The post where the two went to gate 32, to check on the flight 11/12 fiasco, and the one where they found the plane empty? Somewhat lines up with Woodward suggesting he boarded a plane and spoke to stewardesses. (And remembers them by name), yet he never mentions any passengers either, only crew...

And then there is the suggestion that everyone who was injured was "crew" and only one passenger was killed... And if I remember properly, he was IDF? Perhaps airlines flight security?

So all in all, we really have a plane with a manifest with plenty of passenger names... Yet no interactions with any of them, other than to suggest they don't know anything, yet the circumstances they describe suggest they would have known something was amiss... We have only crew every being heard from at all, not even in the background when all of this was supposedly playing out... And they're no longer in business or first class, and have all been moved to "Coach"...

OR? Did they exit the front of the plane at the time the people were stabbed?? (While still at the gate?) Or get out of the rear, by way of coach? It just seems too obvious SOMETHING was happening that they were all aware of. And with the attendants MIA on phones, it just makes no sense as it is being portrayed.

A full plane, supposedly, unaware the plane was hijacked? The same plane, with all of the uninjured crew - hiding in the back on phones, or being treated by a non existent medical team in the front , and they didn't notice anything after at least half an hour? And where was the doctor and nurse on the manifest or list of deceased? Did no one get up to use the restroom and ask what was going on? Surely by then they would have been getting flight instructions... drinks, but nothing?

And Ong, getting her information from others? From who? If those left alive are all in the back of the plane with her, or up in the front injured and unable to walk as they're on oxygen... ? The unaware seemingly mute passengers?

It suggests the plane was still at the gate when the violence happened. And WHY would they be calling for medical on the ground, if the plane had already taken off? Looping tapes could account for this...

And where did the medical finally come from, and how did they get onto a plane that had already taken off? Unless the injured crew were already taken off the plane...

It seems odd that they claim the Dr. and nurse were helping the victims, but again they also claim they are not aware in the coach section, so that means the Dr. and nurse would have to be helping the injured in the business class or first class, while it is supposedly full of pepper spray or mace as well...

So many unanswered questions... UNLESS the takeover happened while it was still on the ground, and they unloaded the plane at the gate, leaving the hijackers in the cockpit with the dead crew members, while they emptied the plane... And they make it seem as if the IDF guy was killed while in his seat... As the passenger directly behind him supposedly killed him... When he could have been up trying to stop them from getting in the cabin, with the two stabbed...

It explains why the one call suggested they were at the gate, when she called in the hijacking... "But now they're in the air". Perhaps those few left on the plane were unable to get off before the hijackers actually got away from the gate.

It certainly would create a major issue for the airlines if they were so busy trying to empty the plane, that they made no attempts to block it in, if indeed it was taken over at the gate, and they allowed it to fly away. At one point the hijacker was claimed to have been telling the pilot if he didn't make a turn, he would be killed, which means he didn't kill the pilot before takeoff, and perhaps THAT was why they let it take off. To attempt to save the flight crew.

I think the takeover happened at the gate... the crew was potentially hurt trying to stop it.. and once they couldn't get into the cockpit they hurriedly emptied the plane of as many people as possible, leaving the crew to exit last...

It would explain the confusion later, as a result of them trying to cover for allowing the plane to leave... And it would explain why the tapes were all messed up and looped and didn't match...

Is it a coincidence that Ong's ring was found after an entire tower fell to the ground? A silver one at that, which is very soft as far as a ring metal.. especially after a building collapsing around it! What would be the chances they could even identify it as hers?

I just find it strange WHO they noted in the tapes.. Mostly crew, having never spoken about any of the supposed passengers. Outside of the one.. And the medical crew that wasn't on board COULDN'T have tended to anyone, if the plane was in the air... Unless those people were removed from the plane.. Because the loop shows they didn't have medical staff on board, yet they also said they were being tended to by a Dr. and nurse..

THAT makes zero sense. Unless they weren't on the plane when they were tended to.

[Jim_Duyer]

I agree with Denise - the ring is certainly a fish out of water. The sheep have little control of how and when they do the things that start wars. And we can blame it on our ancestors as well. None of them told me not to go in during Vietnam, even though they knew how rotten WWII and Korea were.
From everything so far it seems that Occam is telling us the flight never left, or at least not with passengers.
It would be interesting to find a whistle-blower in the Legal Dept or Accounting, at either AA or their auditing CPA group, to see if checks were cut and to whom, in regard to those who "perished". By law there should also have been checks cut to the Arabs on board - since they had not been convicted of anything in a court of law. And the FAA dept keeps track of hulls and when they are retired from service or not. Perhaps some kind souls will come forward.

Perhaps Ong's ring had a marking engraved - if this is found I've been hijacked.

[Denise/Dizi]

I forgot to even add that they have no record of it taking off either.. Which really just adds more weight to what I am thinking...

I am still applauding all the research done by Mark "Star Mariner"... Just a ton of effort

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)
ATC sometimes uses "Souls" instead of "People On Board," but the latter is more accurate and avoids confusion.

I get you now Jim; this term "souls on board" may be used loosely as a phrase in some scenarios (usually post 'incident' or 'disaster' - i.e. the plane went down with 134 souls on board) but the international standard when formally referring to the passenger count is "persons on board". Passengers and pax is used informally every day, especially in speech; on paper the correct terminology is 'persons on board'. I guess you might hear 'souls on board' in the US sometimes (as shown in the source you provided), but in the UK where I am and where's the CAA - Civil Aviation Authority - is in charge, not the FAA, 'souls' is a term you won't generally encounter.

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)
wouldn't they have an 1-800 number to call direct to the security team, in the event that they either used this box system or they did not have a credit card handy? 1-800-IM-IN-TRBL or similar?

I agree, you would think so, and you certainly would post-9/11. But at the time, hijackings were exceedingly rare (virtually non-existent). A we're-being-taken-over-by-terrorists-hotline probably wasn't a feature of domestic passenger planes. I have no idea what their training was for scenarios this unusual. Calling flight services or the reception desk might have been the best they could do in the circumstances, or perhaps the only number they knew by heart.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Denise/Dizi (here)
I am still applauding all the research done by Mark "Star Mariner"... Just a ton of effort

To clarify, this is not my research. I have merely collected it together for presentation in this thread. The credit goes to loopDloop, a once member of Let's Roll Forums - which I call officially defunct. The site once hosted thousands of priceless research threads. All of them have been scrubbed. I had to use waybackmachine to fish this one out of the memory hole.

[Jim_Duyer]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)
ATC sometimes uses "Souls" instead of "People On Board," but the latter is more accurate and avoids confusion.

I get you now Jim; this term "souls on board" may be used loosely as a phrase in some scenarios (usually post 'incident' or 'disaster' - i.e. the plane went down with 134 souls on board) but the international standard when formally referring to the passenger count is "persons on board". Passengers and pax is used informally every day, especially in speech; on paper the correct terminology is 'persons on board'. I guess you might hear 'souls on board' in the US sometimes (as shown in the source you provided), but in the UK where I am and where's the CAA - Civil Aviation Authority - is in charge, not the FAA, 'souls' is a term you won't generally encounter.

Posted by Jim_Duyer (here)
wouldn't they have an 1-800 number to call direct to the security team, in the event that they either used this box system or they did not have a credit card handy? 1-800-IM-IN-TRBL or similar?

I agree, you would think so, and you certainly would post-9/11. But at the time, hijackings were exceedingly rare (virtually non-existent). A we're-being-taken-over-by-terrorists-hotline probably wasn't a feature of domestic passenger planes. I have no idea what their training was for scenarios this unusual. Calling flight services or the reception desk might have been the best they could do in the circumstances, or perhaps the only number they knew by heart.

Thank you. And thanks for all of your hard work.

[Denise/Dizi]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

To clarify, this is not my research. I have merely collected it together for presentation in this thread. The credit goes to loopDloop, a once member of Let's Roll Forums - which I call officially defunct. The site once hosted thousands of priceless research threads. All of them have been scrubbed. I had to use waybackmachine to fish this one out of the memory hole.

I think I speak for all when I say Thank You for gathering it all and presenting it to us.. But I respect the acknowledgement of loopDloop.

A service to everyone... Most definately

[Kryztian]

Another phone call on a different flight that should raise some eyebrows is the call between Barbara Olson of Flight 77 (Dulles to LAX, but supposedly crashed into the Pentagon) to her husband Theodore "Ted" Olson, both because the conflicting stories told about the call and because both of them are prominent figures in Washington DC politics.

There were only two passengers on Flight 77 who made phone calls. One was a flight attendant and the other was Barbara Olson, who phoned her husband, Ted, Solicitor General of the U.S., twice. This is where we get the story of the hijackers herding the passengers to the back of the plane using knives and box-cutters:

Olson said that his wife had reported that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane” by hijackers armed with “knives and cardboard cutters.” The pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a big, athletic man, of whom his brother said: "I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane." According to the Olson story, however, they did not kill him but took him, along with his co-pilot and the rest of the flight personnel, as well as all the passengers, to the back of the plane. Is it plausible that these 60-some people, led by Chic Burlingame, would not have easily overpowered three or four rather small hijackers --- Hani Hanjour and perhaps one other hijacker would have been in the cockpit---armed with knives and box-cutters? If this does not qualify as an absurd conspiracy theory, what would?

from David Ray Griffin: http://911blogger.com/node/8408

It wasn't clear whether or not the Boeing 757 had airphones or not, and Ted Olson's story seems to have varied to match whatever the current thinking about that matter was.

One problem with the story about this call is that Barbara Olson was the only person on the plane who allegedly used a seat-back phone to call someone. There were, in fact, only two people altogether from this flight who allegedly made any calls, the other one being flight attendant Renee May, who supposedly used a cell phone to call her parents. Moreover, Barbara Olson reported, according to her husband, that all the passengers and crew members had been herded to the back of the plane. Yet we are supposed to believe that none of the other people, seeing Barbara Olson make two phone calls, grabbed one of the other seat-back phones to make their own calls. We are also supposed to believe that no one else, while seeing Renee May use her cell phone, decided to use their own cell phones to call someone. This scenario is extremely implausible.

Another problem with Ted Olson’s story is that he has repeatedly changed his claim about the means his wife used to make the calls. Three days after 9/11, Olson suggested on one TV show that the call was made on a seat-back phone. Then, on another show that same day, he suggested that his wife had used her cell phone. Six months later, he returned to his first story, saying: “She wasn't using her cellphone, she was using the phone in the passengers' seats. . . . [S]he was calling collect.” One would think that the details of this call---his final conversation with his wife before she died---would have been burned so indelibly into his memory that he would not have said different things at different times.

from David Ray Griffin: http://911blogger.com/node/8408

Despite the extreme sketchiness of this story, the Smithsonian has monumentalized it by putting Ted Olson's Nortel phone in it's collection as a 911 artifact. At least we know the technology used at one end of the phone conversation.

Some interesting facts about Ted Olson from his Wikipedia page:

• He was an attorney representing the Reagan Administration in the Iran-Contra affair.
  
  
• He represented Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard and attempted to have his case declared a mistrial.
  
  
• He represented George W. Bush in the Supreme Court Bush vs. Gore case, which ended the 2000 election recount
  
  
• In 2002, he argued at the Supreme Court in the Christopher v. Harbury and successfully one a case that argued that the government has a right to give our false information.
  
  
• He represented the Koch brother in the Citizen's United case to argue that corporations have a right to spend as much money on elections as they want.
  
  
• He has continued to be a spokesman for the big, powerful, secretive state that needs to protect us from little people in the shadows with guns that are threatening our wonderful democracy.
  

I remember seeing him interviewed around 2015 or so about his work get the same-sex marriage issue to the supreme court (He was for it - I guess he was not entirely conservative!) The interviewer (was it Larry King again, I don't remember) went off on a tangent and asked him about the phone call from his then wife of flight 77. He clearly was not happy about the question and would not say much about the matter. Perhaps he was annoyed that the interview was going off topic. Perhaps he wasn't happy about the topic shifting into a sensitive or traumatic subject. Or perhaps he knew that this story was so full of holes and contradictions and that there was nothing further he could say to pull to make sense of it.

Some interesting points about Barbara Olsen:

• She was the third of Ted Olson's four wives.
  
  
• She was a conservative TV commentator, and she was on the flight to LAX because she was going to be on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect show.
  
  
• She was a fierce critic of Bill and Hillary Clinton and had authored the book Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton and The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House. The latter was published a month after her death. ¿Perhaps Hillary had something to do with bringing that flight down?

The story of Barbara Olson's phone call, Time Picayune, September 12, 2002
https://www.baylor.edu/content/servi....php/89470.pdf

Larry King interviews Ted Olson, April 14, 2004
https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/lkl...-14/segment/00

Ted Olson twenty years later on Fox News
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/remember...olson-does-too

David Ray Griffin - Ted Olson's sketchy story about the phone call
http://911blogger.com/node/8408

Ted Olsen's Nortel phone in the Smithsonian
https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/nmah_1004498

[Mike]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by Denise/Dizi (here)
I am still applauding all the research done by Mark "Star Mariner"... Just a ton of effort

To clarify, this is not my research. I have merely collected it together for presentation in this thread. The credit goes to loopDloop, a once member of Let's Roll Forums - which I call officially defunct. The site once hosted thousands of priceless research threads. All of them have been scrubbed. I had to use waybackmachine to fish this one out of the memory hole.

Still quite a project for you. Much appreciated.