Weird phone call. Flight attendant on 911

I gotta say that I am surprised by the nay sayers who actually believe that it is completely impossible that Betty Ong *might/could be* participating in one of the four war games going on that morning. For anyone who is not sure here are a few links and quotes for you to ponder...

Are civilians used in war games...

Nevertheless, the Pentagon is working hard to develop better games. One new approach is to use real people in the war simulations, as a way to more accurately model human behavior in a real war. By electronically linking troops out on a field exercise with a computer war game back at a headquarters, real ships at sea can pick up computer-generated aircraft on radar, and pilots flying real planes can collaborate with colleagues in simulators. This technique lets real troops interact with weapons that do not yet exist, or fight out the key battle in an otherwise virtual war, thus injecting human variability into the computer models.

www.govexec.com...

Civilian Pilots Provide Target Practice

As his watch ticks toward midnight, Paul Gardella checks the oil on the small Cessna 182 parked on a cold, dark airstrip in Fairfax County. He knows what he soon could be facing: Coast Guard helicopters chasing him. F-16s intercepting him. Ground-to-air missiles tracking his every turn.

That's because Gardella -- a software engineer and former military officer -- is taking on a new role.

Enemy of the U.S. government.

"In the Navy, I was on the other side. I was on the side of the ones that were shooting," he muses.

Gardella, 50, is among a group of pilots who pose as nighttime intruders, penetrating restricted airspace over Washington in drills that take place every few weeks. While area residents slumber, the volunteers allow the U.S. military to practice intercepting them -- or worse.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Also, the fact that on flight 93 the terrorist hijackers took the time to all put red bandannas on seemed odd until you factor that they possibly put them on to represent the "red team" or the offense, while the "blue team" would be the defense or "good guys"

It is well known that al-Qaeda is extremely watchful and patient in target probing and attack selection. Osama bin Laden himself has stressed the prerequisites of reconnaissance, surveillance and rehearsal for an attack by its professional cadre. Al-Qaeda is careful to observe signs of target hardening, which might thwart an attack. In playing the al-Qaeda war game, the offensive Red Team should seek to identify and play the best theoretical move allowed by the defensive Blue Team of Homeland Security. Pre-emptive counter-terrorist action restricts the choice of moves. The available moves may involve taking targets of opportunity, rather than targets of maximum impact.

www.rms.com...

I could mention more oddities concerning the possiblitie of war game participation that day but Ill end with this..

6:30am At Boston's Logan Airport, an argument breaks out over a parking space involving five middle easterners and an unidentified man. When he reports the incident later, police discover a car rented by lead hijacker Mohammed Atta. It contains a pass allowing access to a restricted area of the airport from which two of the hijacked aircraft took off from.

Phil Taylor Anna Gekoski, "Terror in America": Analysis,"News of the world, Sept 16th 2001:Curtis Morgan , David Kidwell, and Oscar Corral, "Prelude to terror", Miami Herrald, Sept 22nd 2001

Also, kinda seems like the hijackers were not concerned at all with attracting attention to themselves. To me at least another fact pointing to the fact that they could have been participating or using there access to the war games.

I would like to add my own observation here and its something I think about whenever someone starts talking about the Betty Ong recording. Firstly I don't think its fake although its not impossible, but the thing that bothers me it that Betty mentions someone has sprayed something in first class, she thinks its mace but could actually be anything and I have a hunch that it was nerve gas. Also just towards the end of the conversation Betty Ong is starting to sound a bit distant don't you think? I wonder if the audio stops there because the last portion was edited out or that was the end of the transmission. Either way, something to think about there. What was sprayed in first class?

There is not a shred of evidence at all that suggest that anything was sprayed anywhere. It is all conjecture, just like the boxcutters. I have heard people claim that the highjackers possessed gas masks and mace and guns and bombs and God knows what else..but no evidence of this has ever been shown or even alleged in a rational way.

Why would highjackers, presumably WITHOUT gas masks ( remember that quite a few of them were singled out for close inspection before boarding, and likley had NOTHING whatsoever on them ) spray some substance around that they too would have to breathe? you would not overcome the pilots with gas unlesss you had gas masks, the real kind,,and there is no evidence that they did. So assuming that the highjackers did NOT have full gas masks, we can safely assume that no gas was used, as it would affect everyone in close quarters, which is everywhere on a plane, and especially in a fight or confrontation at the cockpit.

So, we are left with Betty NOT saying that some guys overcame the cockpit..she says that the cockpit will not answer. The highjackers must have been super swift...so fast and so efficient, in all four cases, that all eight pilots were overwhelmed before even ONE could pres the button and key the mike. Imagine that! Thats some fancy cockpit breach and kill operation and body hauling job, I'll tell you!! Pilots sit forward in seats that slide forward with their body mass down low and forward..it would have been very hard for two highjackers to lift a man, alive and kicking or dead and dripping with blood, out of his position in the cockpit without the plane being knocked of course or some violent motion.

Most pilots would try and throw highjackers around as an instinct, but this happens NOT ONCE among the four jets. Perfect entries, perfect killings and haulings..superhuman strength and speed and luck...OR a remote highjacking. Take your pick. Betty was OBVIOUSLY reading from a script and being coached by someone in the background,,just like the guy who was quoted as asking " This is your son " and giving his last name..that guy,,well, he also was hesitating and turning away from the phone and listening to someone, and when he would come back, he would say " You believe me, don't you Mom "? He asked that several times. WHY in the hell would a highjacked passenger not only give his last name to the woman who birthed him, but also repeatedly asks if she believes him..as if he is telling some incredible tale that is unworthy of belief.

It all stinks and any studious person knows it. Too many quirks. Too many odd events. Too many ' inexplicable anomalies ' unanswered. And, way too many plain and clear examples of the big plan not working out perfectly. this was a major undertaking..the logistics alone were staggering. The fact that there were not many more and glaring examples of the failure of the plan to succeed 100% speaks volumes but only to those who care.

Remote taking is the ONLY way to reconcile all of the quirks of the events, and is in my opinion a fact.

originally posted by Sr911
Are civilians used in war games...


Nevertheless, the Pentagon is working hard to develop better games. One new approach is to use real people in the war simulations, as a way to more accurately model human behavior in a real war. By electronically linking troops out on a field exercise with a computer war game back at a headquarters, real ships at sea can pick up computer-generated aircraft on radar, and pilots flying real planes can collaborate with colleagues in simulators. This technique lets real troops interact with weapons that do not yet exist, or fight out the key battle in an otherwise virtual war, thus injecting human variability into the computer models.

That article mentions absolutely nothing about using civilians. It talks about using humans (soldiers) instead of using the JANUS electronic wargaming system.

The washington post.com article you posted has some details that you forgot to post. Here's a list of some of the things you forgot-

The Civil Air Patrol is an auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force.
All members participating in the exercise are members of the civil air patrol.
All members participating in the exercise are flying civil air patrol aircraft.
All members participating in the exercise are completely aware of what they're doing.
These exercises started after September 11, 2001.

In the RMS.com article you posted, the author refers to Al Qaeda as the red team. Red team usually equals Aggressor. Since the hijackers had on red, that means that they were part of a US wargame?
When US pilots at red flag get in their aircraft with red tail markings and are referred to as The Aggressor Squadron (Red Team), are they considered Al Qaeda now?
If I put on my red Cardinals shirt and I go out and hijack an aircraft, does that mean that I'm part of some secret military operation?

The fourth part you posted, about Mohamed Atta having a parking pass for a restricted area, how does that help prove that 9/11 was an inside job? If it were true.

originally posted by eyewitness86
in all four cases, that all eight pilots were overwhelmed before even ONE could pres the button and key the mike.

Hi there. I see that you are still forgetting to mention that flight 93 got off 2 radio calls. Why do you always forget that?

Most pilots would try and throw highjackers around as an instinct, but this happens NOT ONCE among the four jets.

Most pilots would? Really? Do you have any statistics for that? There's probably been roughly 500 hijackings, can you please show me that most pilots would try to throw around the hijackers.

I would be happy if you could show that 50% would do that. Actually, if you can show me that 10 pilots have tried that, I will admit that 9/11 was an inside job. They must be passenger aircraft, not cargo aircraft and this would've had to happen while they were flying. I'll be waiting here for your response proving that most pilots would try to throw the hijackers around as an instinct.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
There is not a shred of evidence at all that suggest that anything was sprayed anywhere. It is all conjecture, just like the boxcutters. I have heard people claim that the highjackers possessed gas masks and mace and guns and bombs and God knows what else..but no evidence of this has ever been shown or even alleged in a rational way.

Then there must be conjecture about people being stabbed on plane as many passengers have mentioned before eh? No boxcutters? No mace of some kind?

Why would highjackers, presumably WITHOUT gas masks ( remember that quite a few of them were singled out for close inspection before boarding, and likley had NOTHING whatsoever on them ) spray some substance around that they too would have to breathe? you would not overcome the pilots with gas unlesss you had gas masks, the real kind,,and there is no evidence that they did. So assuming that the highjackers did NOT have full gas masks, we can safely assume that no gas was used, as it would affect everyone in close quarters, which is everywhere on a plane, and especially in a fight or confrontation at the cockpit.

You think the hijackers spray mace on themselves? Or just towards the passengers keeping them away from the cockpit. I don't think you shoot yourself on the foot shooting can of RAID on bugs with your face next to it.

So, we are left with Betty NOT saying that some guys overcame the cockpit..she says that the cockpit will not answer. The highjackers must have been super swift...so fast and so efficient, in all four cases, that all eight pilots were overwhelmed before even ONE could pres the button and key the mike. Imagine that! Thats some fancy cockpit breach and kill operation and body hauling job, I'll tell you!! Pilots sit forward in seats that slide forward with their body mass down low and forward..it would have been very hard for two highjackers to lift a man, alive and kicking or dead and dripping with blood, out of his position in the cockpit without the plane being knocked of course or some violent motion.

Wow you think to take on the cockpits with pilots in pre 9/11 it would have to be HULK himself to do these kinds of things.

Most pilots would try and throw highjackers around as an instinct, but this happens NOT ONCE among the four jets. Perfect entries, perfect killings and haulings..superhuman strength and speed and luck...OR a remote highjacking. Take your pick. Betty was OBVIOUSLY reading from a script and being coached by someone in the background,,just like the guy who was quoted as asking " This is your son " and giving his last name..that guy,,well, he also was hesitating and turning away from the phone and listening to someone, and when he would come back, he would say " You believe me, don't you Mom "? He asked that several times. WHY in the hell would a highjacked passenger not only give his last name to the woman who birthed him, but also repeatedly asks if she believes him..as if he is telling some incredible tale that is unworthy of belief.

You expect pilots to throw off the hijackers by resisting? Let me make one thing clear, pilots are expected to not piss off the hijackers. Past history shows that pilots are to give in to hijackers demands, otherwise the passengers would be hurt.

And the call by Mark Bingham to his mother.

Hoglan: I was staying with my brother Vaughan on the morning of September 11th, and, uh, the phone rang.

Bingham (reconstruction): Mom... Mom, this is Mark Bingham.

Hoglan: Once in a while he would say that. He would call up, and he was, he was a young businessman, and used to, used to introduce himself on phone as Mark Bingham, and he was trying to be, uh, strong, and level-headed, and, and strictly business. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham".

If it was on script, the person would say "Hey mom this is Mark", Hoglan would say "no this ain't Mark, he would say this is Mark Bingham. You are a fake!"

How would the faker know?

I don't really care if this is against the TAC to repost something this large because it is possibly the most important article relating to 9-11-2001.

This article, published in early 1999, outlines exactly the tools to perform a 9-11 terrorist attack.
SOURCE

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing

By William M. Arkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, Feb. 1, 1999

"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.

Steiner was hardly the first or last victim to be spoofed by Papcun's team members. To refine their method, they took various high quality recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements. One of the most memorable is Colin Powell stating "I am being treated well by my captors."

"They chose to have him say something he would never otherwise have said," chuckled one of Papcun's colleagues.

A Box of Chocolates is Like War


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most Americans were introduced to the tricks of the digital age in the movie Forrest Gump, when the character played by Tom Hanks appeared to shake hands with President Kennedy.
For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.

"Once you can take any kind of information and reduce it into ones and zeros, you can do some pretty interesting things," says Daniel T. Kuehl, chairman of the Information Operations department of the National Defense University in Washington, the military's school for information warfare.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSYOPS seeks to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.

To some, PSYOPS is a backwater military discipline of leaflet dropping and radio propaganda. To a growing group of information war technologists, it is the nexus of fantasy and reality. Being able to manufacture convincing audio or video, they say, might be the difference in a successful military operation or coup.

Allah on the Holodeck

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentagon planners started to discuss digital morphing after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Covert operators kicked around the idea of creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation. The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab world.
The tape war never proceeded, killed, participants say, by bureaucratic fights over jurisdiction, skepticism over the technology, and concerns raised by Arab coalition partners.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the "strategic" PSYOPS scheming didn't die. What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam, a senior Air Force officer asked in 1990?

According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.

But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources.

And besides, investigators came back, what does Allah look like?

The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions."

War is Like a Box of Chocolates

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voice-morphing? Fake video? Holographic projection? They sound more like Mission Impossible and Star Trek gimmicks than weapons. Yet for each, there are corresponding and growing research efforts as the technologies improve and offensive information warfare expands.
Whereas early voice morphing required cutting and pasting speech to put letters or words together to make a composite, Papcun's software developed at Los Alamos can far more accurately replicate the way one actually speaks. Eliminated are the robotic intonations.

The irony is that after Papcun finished his speech cloning research, there were no takers in the military. Luckily for him, Hollywood is interested: The promise of creating a virtual Clark Gable is mightier than the sword.

Video and photo manipulation has already raised profound questions of authenticity for the journalistic world. With audio joining the mix, it is not only journalists but also privacy advocates and the conspiracy-minded who will no doubt ponder the worrisome mischief that lurks in the not too distant future.
"We already know that seeing isn't necessarily believing," says Dan Kuehl, "now I guess hearing isn't either."

i hear a women that pauses because she is probably looking around and trying to decide what the heck is going on..

All i get from this recording is 8mins and 27 secs of pure hesitation from the only people that might have been able to do something ....very sad.

nobody is really sure 100% whether there were or were not hijackers. Let's not argue about things that no one has 100% solid proof on. There are clues that point both ways, really.... and whether those clues were planted to fit either end of the argument's agenda, no one can say for certain. So nobody can keep pretending to know 100 percent, unless either they were on the planes (which in that case, they are DEAD), or they actually participated in the dirty deed from the inside...and I would not want to be the sorry soul that comes forward top admit that. I'd be gutted for admitting that.

As for the tape recording, it IS suspicious. Did anybody notice when she first said flight twelve, there was someone in the background that also hesitantly said it at the exact same time? So if she was not sure what plane she was on, she looked at someone who knew and they said flight twelve right as she remembered the flight number and said it also....

So wait... we have a flight 12 being hijacked now?

Oh and then all the pauses.... she probably was being told what to say, and was corrected and re-stated that it was flight eleven....

I dunno.... suspicious.... but with my speculation, I can't say 100% that this is a fake, but if it's real, she must have taken some demerol or something before she made the phone call.

And even if she was a professional flight attendant used to things going a bit awry in the air, I'm not sure she ever actually had been in a real life hijacking situation. She was a woman, and women get more emotional than men most of the time, not stereotyping, just stating a general fact... and I'm a guy, and I would be crapping all over myself if a plane I was on was hijacked. I'll admit, I'd be real panicked. So to state that she was just being professional is a big cop out. She doesn't even seem worried in the least bit. She DOES sound bored.

Highly suspicious, and I'm glad you started this thread. It deserves scrutiny...and NOT scrutinizing this would be a disservice to all the family members of 9/11 victims. Stop trying to use guilt trips, people. It doesn't help anyone.

These are the 2 possibilities:

1. It was indeed Betty Ong on the original plane with the passengers. She claims there was pepper spray or something making it difficult to breathe. Perhaps when we lose contact, more gas was used to knock out everyone. The airplane was remotely controledl and landed at an undisclosed location while the "new" plane was also remotely controlled to hit WTC. I also find it surprising that there was no commotion or a "terrorist" walking the aisles.

2. This would need confirmation from Betty Ong's family to confirm if that is actually her voice. I hate to sound conspiratorial, but, based on what we know of the absurd government versions, I don't doubt this was someone else reading from a script. The way in which she says "so and so was stabbed" seems to be too calmed for me to believe it. She is even mentioning that a number of people were stabbed. Wow, she does keep herself composed.

One of the theories was that the original plane was flying normally when another plane with the transponder off approached it. The original plane's transponder was turned off and immediately the new plane turned it on. For any ATC, they would not even see the difference since they would probably have the same transponder numbers. Then the original plane leaves to an undisclosed location, everyone is gassed, more than likely to death. Perhaps the pilot is wearing a mask or it is being remotely controlled. Then the new plane turns their transponder off later and heads to WTC.

I hate to sound insensitive, but, after all we've seen and the absurdities coming from our government, everything I hear as a true version is hard to believe, just like I cannot believe Mohammed Atta's passport was found hours after the crash without any sign of damage. Remember, the passport was probably in his pocket; the airplane went right through WTC, exploded and then the buildings came down. How dumb does the government believe we are to believe that?

By the way, yes, there is no proof to know if there were hijackers or not. I am a pilot. I can also tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for so many airplanes to be commandeered and flown the way they did by single engine student pilots. The Pentagon plane? We only have one single video coming from a gas station when the Pentagon is supposed to be one of the most secured and monitored locations on Earth? They are keeping the other videos away from the public due to national security?

Come on people, wake up! We are mushrooms - always kept in the dark.



[edit on 28-11-2007 by manticore]

originally posted by manticore
2. This would need confirmation from Betty Ong's family to confirm if that is actually her voice.

With the help of Sen. Ed Kennedy from Massachusetts where Betty had lived, the Ong family was finally able to listen to the tape in January 2002 in a conference room at the San Francisco airport.

"I didn't know what to expect. When I heard her words, it was very comforting. We're very proud of her. She was sweet, she would give her heart to you ... but she also had an attitude of don't-mess-with-me. She showed this courage when called upon," said Cathie.

Source.

reply to post by Boone 870



Thank you Boone.... great find.

reply to post by indierockalien


Just in case you missed it on the first page.

This was a senior crew," she said. "They've been around. A lot of them usually do that flight – go out on Flight 11 and come back on Flight 12 [from Los Angeles]. We all knew them really well."

In fact, a couple of the stewardesses were married to American gate agents at Logan, she says.

"You know, I said goodbye to that crew at the gate," the American employee said. "I was up there talking to the girls who were doing the flight, and the crew walks by and gives us all a wave. They said, 'See you later, we're coming back on [Flight] 12.'

You can find the link on the first page also.

Sorry not trying to derail but I think this really really needs attention. Is anyone watching this on Keith Olbermann? Guiliani's Security firm may have protected Kahlid Sheik Mohammed and one of his guys may have helped Him escape from the FBI at one point?

www.villagevoice.com...

reply to post by Stillwatch


You started a thread on this subject three minutes before you posted the topic on this thread. Please don't derail this one.

Also, the fact that on flight 93 the terrorist hijackers took the time to all put red bandannas on seemed odd until you factor that they possibly put them on to represent the "red team" or the offense, while the "blue team" would be the defense or "good guys"

The hijackers wore red bandanas to signify they were on a Jihad
mission (remember those 72 virgins waiting). The rules for jihad
were laid in the Koran and Bin Laden was always careful to get imans
to issue fatwas (religious interpetations on the Koran) to give patina
of legality for his actions.

reply to post by manticore


I agree with everything you said.
spot on.

reply to post by Spoodily


Here is what George Papcun, the inventor of voice morphing, had to say about his technology and 9/11 conspiracies.

I originally developed the technology of voice morphing, the technology by which it is possible to make someone seem to say something they did not say (see www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm ) and coined the phrase. Therefore, I know what would have been required to create such bogus calls. Practical considerations preclude making counterfeit telephone calls in this situation. For example, it is necessary to have samples of the voices of the people to be imitated. In situations like this, where the goal is to participate in an unconstrained conversation, the voice sample must be extensive. I cannot imagine how I might have obtained extensive samples of the voices of the passengers on Flight 93, especially not knowing which of them would call home. Additionally, in this situation it would be necessary to know what someone would say to his or her loved ones under such circumstances. What pet names would be used? What references would be made to children and other loved ones? Do believers actually suppose that the government (or I) listens in to everyone’s pillow talk? In a separate essay, I will cover the technical aspects of voice morphing, which will further demonstrate the implausibility of the scenario set forth by the purveyors of conspiracy theories.

Source. Found at wtc7lies.googlepages.com

She certainly doesn't appear to be scared by what is going on around her, but it could be due to shock.
Because there is an awful lot of evidence to suggest 9/11 was an inside job, I think it's important not to presume this recording is genuine.

reply to post by Boone 870


Boone, thanks. I stand corrected on my theory.