Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edward Felt's phone call

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 02:17 AM
Original message
Edward Felt's phone call
Edward Felt's phone call from Flight 93 was one of the first to be reported and alredy in the news on 911.

"We got the call about 9:58 this morning from a male passenger stating that he was locked in the bathroom of United Flight 93 traveling from Newark to San Francisco, and they were being hijacked," said Glenn Cramer, a 911 supervisor.
"We confirmed that with him several times and we asked him to repeat what he said. He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down. He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where.
"And then we lost contact with him."

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2 ...

There are three reasons why this phone call is very special, different from all other call from Flight 93 and highly important:
Before it has to be pointed out that Glenn Cramer who made all the statements right after 911 was the 911 supervisor but it was John Shaw who was the dispatcher and actually took the call of Edward Felt.
Cramer monitored the call after Shaw alerted him that it was about a hijacking in progress.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011207dispatche ...

1.) Edward Felt mentions an explosion. This was widely reported right after 911 based on direct quotes from Glenn Cramer.
But later the mentioning of smoke and an explosion was denied: e. g.

A male passenger, Edward Felt, did call from the bathroom of the plane, but never mentioned an explosion or puff of smoke, said John Shaw, the dispatcher who took the call. Didn't happen, he said. Felt's wife, who heard a tape of the call, corroborated Shaw's story.
(Among the Heroes, p. 369)
(New York Times, 3/27/02)

2.) This 911 dispatch tape is sized by Agents on the day of 911.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2 ...

The phone call only lasted 78 seconds.
http://www.postgazette.com/nation/20020911shaw0911p9.as ...

The supervisor who took the call has been gagged by the FBI.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid= ...

The call lasted only 78 seconds so what else can possibly be on this tape that explains the seizing of it?
Jere Longman who denied the existence of the explosion claim gives some further details of the call which only helps to make the call even more strange:

Following procedure, Shaw asked for the passenger's name and cell phone number. The passenger identified himself as Edward Felt.
(Among the Heroes, p. 271)
But still on December 6, 2001 the caller is not identified:
The passenger, whose name is not being released.
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/News/1106952/detail ...
(New York Times, 3/27/02)

Another detail given by Longman:
Once he seemed to grow impatient with the dispatcher, but he kept his cool under the circumstances. We're going down, we're going down.
(p. 275) (This detail is contained in other newspaper accounts, too).
But the Commission Report doesn't mention any loose of height for Flight 93 at that time of his call.

Ed seemed at one moment to be peering out of the bathroom, as if checking to see what was going on. (...) many voices were audible, but none that could be picked out. (p. 275)

Not only do all the details of the phone call make a duration of only 78 seconds unlikely but especially striking is that neither Edward Felt mentions the ongoing counterattack of the passengers nor is it to be heard when he is supposed to peer out of the bathroom.

In one of the rare interviews of John Shaw he states:
He told me he locked himself in the bathroom, he gave me the flight number and the tail number , everything he possibly could, and that the plane had been hijacked
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/News/1106952/detail ...
How did Felt know the tail number of Flight 93?

3.) Let's talk about Felt's behaviour
With an ongoing hijacking and a terrorist surveilling the passengers with a bomb around his waist etc it seems to be an understandable and even clever behaviour to look for a moment and sneak into the bathroom in order to alert the FBI. That might be also the reason why Felt's behaviour never strikes out as highly bizarre.
But it is very bizarre. Especially if one compares it to the behaviour of other passengers. But it's not about judging Felt as a hero or a coward. There are several reasons why his behaviour in the concrete situation of 9:58 on Flight 93 appears very, very, very strange:

There is no hijacker surveilling him. Since one minute the counterattack of the passengers is already underway. So why does Felt go into a bathroom to phone? And even more why the need to lock himself? The call was disconnected because he used his cellphone. Why didn't he use the available airfone like so many other passengers?

And as his call was disconnected at 9:59 why didn't he try then an airfone?

It makes very much sense to alert the FBI. But basically EVERY passenger has done this already. Why now? And why didn't he phone before as basically EVERY passenger?
Why doesn't he loose a word about the ongoing counterattack?
If for whatever reasons he decided not to participate in the attack why doesn't he want to see if the others are successful?

He was sitting 2D next to three hijackers. Why didn't he mention and describe them?
How can he see the smoke outside the airplane? Does a bathroom have a window?
How could he have known the tail number of the flight?
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/News/1106952/detail ...


How can one explain Felt's behaviour?
What about the explosion?
Why is Glenn Cramer gagged?
Why is the recording confiscated and not yet publicly released?



There are still more oddities concerning Felt's call to come!
Right after 911 all accounts stated that the passenger who phoned from a restroom of UA 93 at 9:58 said that he saw smoke and he mentioned an explosion.
Until March 27, 2002 his identity wasn't revealed (only one newspaper account identified the passenger but as Mark Bingham!). The same article that revealed that it was Edward Felt who phoned stressed as well that he didn't mention any explosion:

"Earlier reports have said that a previously unidentified passenger, Edward Felt of Matawan, N.J., said in a 911 call from a restroom that he saw a puff of smoke and heard an explosion, leading some to cite this as evidence that the plane was shot down by the military to prevent it from crashing into sensitive targets. But the 911 dispatcher, John Shaw, and others who have heard the tape, including Mr. Felt's wife, Sandra Felt, say he made no mention of smoke or an explosion when he said, 'We're going down.'"
(New York Times, 3/27/02)

So everything seems clear. But now have a look at the next article please:
Sandra Felt listened to the tape on April 18, 2002 just before joining all the family members to listen to the CVR of UA 93:

"And so, before they joined the other relatives to hear the cockpit voice recorder tape, Edward's widow, Sandy, his brother, Gordon, and his mother, Shirley, were led to a small conference room at the Princeton Marriott Forestall Village Hotel, where they were joined by two FBI agents and a victim-assistance counselor.
Sitting around a polished wood table, the agents handed each of the Felts a typed transcript of the 911 call, and then played it.
Ed's call was made at 9:58 a.m. In a conversation with dispatchers lasting about one minute, he spoke in a quivering voice saying, "We are being hijacked. We are being hijacked."
He went on to describe an "explosion" that he heard, and then white smoke on the plane from an undetermined location. "

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020421flight930421...

It's clear in this article that Sandra Felt listens for the first time, that she listened twice to it and that she mentions the explosion! While the New York Times article quotes Sandra Felt indirectly the Pittburgh Post-Gazette quotes her directly.
So bizarre bizarre: We've one account that Sandra Felt listened to the tape and didn't hear the "explosion" (March 27, 2002) Then we've another account with a lot of direct quotes from Sandra Felt stating clearly that she listened to the tapes for the first time on April 18, 2002 and that she heard "explosion".

I made a Lexis-Nexis research and didn't find any article that identified Felt and stated if there was an explosion or not.
Only a web research had the following result:

"Sandra Felt has heard Flight 93 tapes made when her husband and 39 other passengers and crew battled with four hijackers. Some believe the Americans decided to crash the jet rather than let it be used as a missile to hit another Washington landmark.
"I heard my husband's voice. He was very calm in the face of death," she said. The government has refused to give her a copy or transcript of the tape at this time.
She disputes a 911 supervisor's Sept. 11 account of the conversation between Felt and Shaw in which the supervisor said Felt said he saw smoke after an explosion.
"

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/terrorism/on ...

But here again this is not a proof as it contains a completely wrong description: All accounts agree (direct quotes from Glenn Cramer and John Shaw as well) that Felt was everything but calm. ("he sound as if he was crying" Among the Heroes, p. 271)

So, what's going on here?
When did Sandra Felt hear the tape and what did she hear?
Did Edward Felt really not mention an explosion and why is Glenn Cramer gagged?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Great compilation and information.
The only thing that I can figure to explain this is that Felt was on a different plane from the others who called from flight 93. And Felt's plane WAS shot down.

John Doe II-- didn't you have a post on flight 93 going in two different directions around Shanksville?

The other possibility is that the call was faked somehow. But somehow I like the idea of two different flight 93's better.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I just found a tidbit suggesting two flight 93's
"In contrast, controllers at the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center had much more warning that something was wrong. Those controllers, who handled American Airlines Flight 77, which dived into the Pentagon, knew about the hijacking of the first plane to crash, even before it hit the World Trade Center, those involved said. That was more than an hour before they watched another hijacked plane, United Flight 93, cross their radar screen on its way to the Pentagon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/national/13AVIA.html?...

According to the official story, flight 93 was never near Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center. So what did these controllers see?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. Good observation

This must be the mysterious fifth plane on its way to Washington:

The Secret Hijacking

Unfortunately, the source for the picture's gone. But here's a former version of the Fifth Plane's path (aka Radio Hijacker plane, aka Lost Plane, aka Flight X)

Image

In Mike Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" you can find confirmation that Washington controllers had indeed "Flight 93" (actually the Fifth plane) on their screens. He quotes from Leslie Filson, "Air war over America":

Lt. Col. Phil Thompson, who was now the acting SOF: "We were taking calls from the Secret Service and Washington Center", he recalls, "we have a special relationship with the Secret Service and know these guys by name and face...they were worried about Flight 93."


See also here:


Did Flight 11, Flight 93 and Flight 175 'survive'?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Actually I got that finding from your article on the secret hijacking!
I don't really understand that map with the fifth plane, but it is interesting.

By the way, I really like your idea that when the hijackers made an announcement to the passengers they transmitted it over the radio on purpose as part of a ruse.

The same thing happened with flight 93, as a matter of fact. I think this must mean something important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Borg Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. Great compilation John Doe !
Some remarks:

* How did the information reach us? Edward Felt used the usual emergency number 911 by using his cell phone.
* Location: Westmoreland County (Greensburg) and a locked bathroom of a plane.
* Date and time (9:58).
* Additional information: Tail number, white smoke and (probably) an explosion.
* No information about hijhicking and hijhickers.
* Profession of Mr. Felt: A kind of encoding programmer.


Some questions:

* Which number you would call in case of emergency ?
* In which situation it is possible to notice a plane tail number ?
* Another expression for white smoke ?
* Figure out the communication by cell phone sitting in a plane !


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I don't understand your last two questions-- do you have something
in mind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Borg Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. White smoke...
in this context is a kind of gas (e.g. teargas or worse).

The subject cell phones in airplanes is a very special one. Thinkible are are only two situations, calls per cell phone are possible: landing or starting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.
The tear gas idea is intriguing. Actually, Mrs. Felt said she thought her husband was crying at one point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. And why is there confusion
over the simply fact
when Sandra Felt heard the tape
and what she heard on the tape?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. The simplest explanation is there is a cover-up and Mrs Felt has been
persuaded to follow along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Yes, but
the first account that even identifies Felt for the first time is by the New York Times (Jere Longman). He writes she listened and she didn't hear the mentioning.
But a few weeks later there is an article about the CVR of UA 93 and family members listening to it and here Sandra Felt is quoted DIRECTLY and stated she listened twice (and for the first time - sic) the recordings of her husband's phone call and that he mentioned a bomb.
So, we actually have an article that claims she listened and heard nothing and we've a later article where she herself states that a bomb was mentioned.
How is this contradiction explainable and why is the version official that she didn't hear anything. Just because of Longman's book?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Probably has to do with the NYTimes vs the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The first is an official news organ that is undoubtedly subject to pressures from the government to cover-up certain stories. The second is a smaller local paper that can get away with telling the hard truth more easily.

NYTimes: "But the 911 dispatcher, John Shaw, and others who have heard the tape, including Mr. Felt's wife, Sandra Felt, say he made no mention of smoke or an explosion when he said, 'We're going down.'"

It is also possible that this article is doing a very fine parsing of words, i.e. playing word games. That is, Felt could have made some "mention of smoke or an explosion"-- but he didn't say it at the same time he said "We're going down."

Thus, when the article says "he made no mention of smoke or an explosion when he said, 'We're going down.'", it is technically accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. Newark to San Francisco
I didn't realize any of the hijacked flights took off from Newark. Is that correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yes-- flight 93 officially left from Newark. That was the delayed one--
it left the latest of the four 9/11 flights and about 45 minutes late overall. (God bless Newark efficiency) Which is why the passengers supposedly were able to find out what was happening and revolt against the hijackers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
10. Brilliant as usual
:applause:

Another serious blow to the Flight 93 official story. This story has so many holes, you can't even see it anymore.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-20-05 03:17 AM
Response to Original message
16. My guess is that the whole "911 call" was staged as a first onion layer
cover story. This was the first disconnect -- along with the "they've got a bomb" reports of 9/12.

The idea was that if evidence leaked that Flight 93 was shot down or that the crater "crash" was faked, they'd go to the "terrorists blew the plane out of the sky" theory as the first onion layer.

However, mass media hit the "93 heroes" story so hard and so continuously that they were able to add rather than peel off onion layers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-05 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
17. How many of these calls were supposed to be on cell phone vs plane phone
Physics site said cell phone calls couln't have happened.
http://www.physics911.org

was this call on the plane system?
Is the physics site wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Borg Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-21-05 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Excuse me
the physical link of that website is wrong (advertising)! Can you give a better one ?

I agree that wireless communication (by cell phone) is impossible. But the connection of the Felt - call had been interrupted. This fits to the assumption, the plane stood still on the ground at that time (9:58).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Try this one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-05 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
19. So: Who is lying? NYT or PPG?
And btw since around 9:45 the passengers were all left to themselves:

"about midway through the tape, one of the hijackers said to another, "Let the guys in now," apparently referring to other terrorists entering the cockpit". (Among the Heroes, p. 291)

So, why does Ed Felt wait till 9:58? Wait till the attack has already started for one minute and then locks himself inside the toilet to call with his cell phone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-05 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Why indeed!

Great spot John Doe II!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-05 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Questions
still stand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-30-06 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Does nobody really care
what Edward Felt really said?
What's to be heard on the recording?
Who is lying?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
21. :Kick:
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-05 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
23. And in view
of all the other analyses of other phone calls
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 18th 2019, 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC