Gag Order

[GregoryUrich]

There was no explosion and smoke.

Besides, in the minutes after that call was made, the plane still managed to climb from 5000ft to 10000 ft. Even if you wanted to believe in an explosion, it had no effect whatsoever.

What is your theory on why ABC reported it?

 

[Loss Leader]

The person who took Felt’s call is not allowed to speak to the media. [Mirror, 9/12/2002]

This Mirror story's claim of a gag order is entirely unsourced. I know of no mechanism by which the FBI can prevent a person from talking about what they witnessed. The Mirror story being in conflict with what I know about the workings of the US justice system, I will require more evidence before giving credit to this assertion.

 

[ref]

What is your theory on why ABC reported it?

Maybe for the same reason AP reported it: Glen Cramer.

"For example, in the days following the crash, the Associated Press interviewed Glen Cramer, a Westmoreland County emergency services supervisor, who told AP and other news agencies that he had read "off a transcript" that minutes before the crash a passenger, David Felt, had called and told the dispatcher that he had he had heard an explosion and that there was white smoke in the pane.

But in a phone interview, Felt's younger brother Gordon, who was played the 911 tape by the FBI when he went to hear the cockpit recordings in a special event for the victims' families, said, "There was no mention of white smoke or an explosion." Also, the dispatcher who took the call, John Shaw, confirmed that Felt had mentioned neither bomb nor white smoke. "It never happened," he stated".
[URL]http://web.archive.org/web/20041101190530/http://www.pittsburghpulp.com/content/2002/11_28/news_cover_story.shtml[/URL]

John Shaw? Yes, it turns out he's the one who actuallly took the call. Glen Cramer was just his supervisor at the time. Use Google to search for "John Shaw" "Flight 93" and you get the real story, which isn't suspicious at all:

The morning of Sept. 11, Shaw was taking a break and walking across the room toward a TV when a phone rang and he picked it up. There was a man on the other end.

"He told me he locked himself in the bathroom ... his plane had been hijacked," Shaw said.

"He was crying, frightened, scared, anxious," Shaw said. "There was absolutely no doubt" that he was telling the truth about the hijacking.

"I told him to stay calm," Shaw said. "It was a last-ditch effort."

Shaw got as much information as possible from the man before the jet was out of range and the connection was broken.
[URL="http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011207dispatcher1207p3.asp[/quote"]http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011207dispatcher1207p3.asp[/URL]

http://www.911myths.com/html/explosion_and_smoke.html

 

[sleahead]

I don't know if anyone considers "The Mirror" a reliable source..

No, I don't think anyone does.

 

[Disbelief]

How does your link prove anything? He isn't asked about a gag order or explosions.

Wouldn't the fact that he is actually talking to the media kind of make the whole gag order issue moot?

 

[Skibum]

The person who took Felt’s call is not allowed to speak to the media.

That's not a gag order. That would be a typical policy for a dispatcher to not be allowed to speak to the media about calls they take.

 

[beachnut]

What is your theory on why ABC reported it?

Do you know how many errors are in the news? What is the theory? They got the story wrong. They messed up. Just like you did when you signed the pack of lies petition of the 9/11 truth. That is the theory.

 

[T.A.M.]

Personally I would want to hear proof from Cramer, or the FBI, stating as was ALLEGED, that in fact he has been but under a "Gag Order" by the FBI. Anything less, could be as said, a simple policy of his work, or a suggestion from the FBI that he should keep quiet about it, perhaps done prior to the Moussaoui trial.

TAM

 

[Jonnyclueless]

It would seem that ABC reported the explosion and white smoke on 9/11/2001. I don't know if anyone considers "The Mirror" a reliable source but they report the gag order.

From "The Complete 9/11 Timeline"

9:58 a.m. September 11, 2001: Ed Felt Said to Describe Explosion and White Smoke from Bathroom Call
Edward Felt. [Source: Family photo]A man dials emergency 9-1-1 from a bathroom on the plane, crying, “We’re being hijacked, We’re being hijacked!” [Toronto Sun, 9/16/2001] The operator reports, “He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him.” [ABC News, 9/11/2001; ABC News, 9/11/2001; Associated Press, 9/12/2001] One minute after the call begins, the line goes dead. [Pittsburgh Channel, 12/6/2001] Investigators believe this was Edward Felt, the only passenger not accounted for on phone calls. He was sitting in first class, so he probably was in the bathroom near the front of the plane. At one point, he appears to have peeked out the bathroom door during the call. [Longman, 2002, pp. 193-194, 196] The mentions of smoke and explosions on the recording of his call are now denied. [Longman, 2002, pp. 264] The person who took Felt’s call is not allowed to speak to the media. [Mirror, 9/12/2002]
Entity Tags: Edward Felt
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

And now look at ABC's source. It's that same obscure UK tabloids that EVERYONE else uses for this story and that tabloid does not provide any source.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. EVERY report of this comes from that same unreliable tabloid, no matter who it is repeating it. If Larry King comes and reads that article, it's still coming from the Daily Mirror.


If someone wants to do real research (as the 911 dispatcher will not respond) they should contact the Mirror and ask where they got their info from.

 

[Calcas]

Personally I would want to hear proof from Cramer, or the FBI, stating as was ALLEGED, that in fact he has been but under a "Gag Order" by the FBI. Anything less, could be as said, a simple policy of his work, or a suggestion from the FBI that he should keep quiet about it, perhaps done prior to the Moussaoui trial.

TAM

Exactly. He could have said something as innocuous as "I've been asked not to talk about it" and TC turns it into a gag order issued by the FBI.

Perhaps he simply doesn't WANT to talk about it with some CT nut so he uses that as an excuse? Or, perhaps his attorney suggested he not talk about it.

There are a dozen reasons. NONE of which are an official gag order issued by a court of law.

 

[CosCos]

Glenn Cramer is under a gag order. You have presented nothing to the contrary.

Stop poisoning the well.

hehehe for some reason this reminded me of "this one goes to 11!"

 

[BigAl]

There was no explosion and smoke.

Didn't the cockpit voice and data recorders survive?

The CVR would record any explosion or missile/gun impact (not to mention the "Oh S***" comments of the crew) even of the airplane systems didn't record any damage on the data recorder.

If the data recorder didn't record anything wrong, IMO, it is hard to say that that any pre-crash damage caused the plane to crash.

None of the guns or missiles on our fighters can make a 757 disintegrate and that's not what happened, anyway. Lots of aircraft have been hit by air-to-air weapons and flown long enough for the crew to try lots of things and sometimes survive.

Boeing jets have sustained lots of damage and landed under crew control.

 

[SDC]

That's not a gag order. That would be a typical policy for a dispatcher to not be allowed to speak to the media about calls they take.

In fact, I would think that there are many confidentiality/ privacy issues every day in a dispatcher's job.

I work in a fair-sized public institution, but due to bad publicity we've had in the press over certain things, as well as to normal institutional desires not to air all its dirty laundry much less share normal dealings, the standing order is not to talk to the press. Refer it to the chief's level or PR. This has been my professional experience since I was fresh-faced, a matter of 30 years. And my wife is in a similar position; I just read a memo she'd brought home, instructing staff how to deal with questions about a lawsuit. (Basically, refer it to the chief or to the PR dept.)

This is another case of the trutherians refusing to recognize that, for any number of reasons, they can't get at the people and the "answers" they want. Well, too damned bad. It's like being on a jury; they always tell you, don't discuss this case with anyone, including your nearest and dearest. Welcome to the world!

 

[Calcas]

In fact, I would think that there are many confidentiality/ privacy issues every day in a dispatcher's job.

I work in a fair-sized public institution, but due to bad publicity we've had in the press over certain things, as well as to normal institutional desires not to air all its dirty laundry much less share normal dealings, the standing order is not to talk to the press. Refer it to the chief's level or PR. This has been my professional experience since I was fresh-faced, a matter of 30 years. And my wife is in a similar position; I just read a memo she'd brought home, instructing staff how to deal with questions about a lawsuit. (Basically, refer it to the chief or to the PR dept.)

This is another case of the trutherians refusing to recognize that, for any number of reasons, they can't get at the people and the "answers" they want. Well, too damned bad. It's like being on a jury; they always tell you, don't discuss this case with anyone, including your nearest and dearest. Welcome to the world!

I've worked for the Federal govt, the State govt, and several large corporations in a mid-level mgmt position. The "don't talk to the press" policy has been in place everywhere. You simply kick it upstairs to someone in a position, and authorized, to do so.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Here is some help with your issue...

If this is discussed elsewhere on the board forgive me as I am a recent member. On the Loose Change forum I've been going back and forth recently with "Terrorcell" on the subject of Edward Felt's phone call from United Flight 93. He claims that there has been a gag order placed on John Shaw, the operator who actually took Felt's call, and on Glenn Cramer, the supervisor. "Terrorcell" goes on to imply that he contacted Shaw and Cramer directly and that is his source for the gag order claim. I asked him to provide me with their contact information and he referred me to this board and then made an odd comment that I could be "that inbred troy from west va" for all he knew and he wouldn't provide with their contact information. I have no idea what the troy remark is supposed to mean but that's beside the point. Anyone's help in this matter of this supposed gag order would be appreciated.

The relevant article is cached here.
According to the story, there was a gag order placed on Glenn Cramer.

The original story was located here. Questions Persist About Flight 93

January 24, 2003
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&siteid=50143

Sorry, I can't help you with the contact information but I hope the above helps.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Didn't the cockpit voice and data recorders survive?

The CVR would record any explosion or missile/gun impact (not to mention the "Oh S***" comments of the crew) even of the airplane systems didn't record any damage on the data recorder.

If the data recorder didn't record anything wrong, IMO, it is hard to say that that any pre-crash damage caused the plane to crash.

None of the guns or missiles on our fighters can make a 757 disintegrate and that's not what happened, anyway. Lots of aircraft have been hit by air-to-air weapons and flown long enough for the crew to try lots of things and sometimes survive.

Boeing jets have sustained lots of damage and landed under crew control.

There is a 3 minute discrepancy in the cockpit recorder. This could have been the time frame where the pilots are making the oh **it comments.

"THE FINAL three minutes of hijacked United Flight 93 are still a mystery more than a year after it crashed in western Pennsylvania - even to grieving relatives who sought comfort in listening to its cockpit tapes in April.
A Daily News investigation has found a roughly three-minute gap between the time the tape goes silent - according to government-prepared transcripts - and the time that top scientists have pinpointed for the crash.
Several leading seismologists agree that Flight 93 crashed last Sept. 11 at 10:06:05 a.m., give or take a couple of seconds. Family members allowed to hear the cockpit voice recorder in Princeton, N.J., last spring were told it stopped just after 10:03.
The FBI and other agencies refused repeated requests to explain the discrepancy.
Aviation experts said there could be several explanations for the gap.
...President Bush and other top government officials continue to invoke the story - based largely on the cell-phone calls - of fighting between the passengers and the hijackers as a "Let's roll" rallying cry to continue the war against global terrorism.
But the FBI has clamped a tight lid of secrecy on the flight data recorder - which could best show how Flight 93 actually crashed - and on the cockpit voice recorder.
An FBI spokesman, Steven Berry, said the bureau continues to officially list the time of the Flight 93 crash as 10:03 a.m. The NTSB referred all questions to the FBI.
But the relatives of Flight 93 passengers who heard the cockpit tape April 18 at a Princeton hotel said government officials laid out a timetable for the crash in a briefing and in a transcript that accompanied the recording. Relatives later reported they heard sounds of an on-board struggle beginning at 9:58 a.m., but there was a final "rushing sound" at 10:03, and the tape fell silent.

Source: Philadelphia Daily News (9/16/02)

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The relevant article is cached here.
According to the story, there was a gag order placed on Glenn Cramer.

The original story was located here. Questions Persist About Flight 93

January 24, 2003
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&siteid=50143

Sorry, I can't help you with the contact information but I hope the above helps.

Oh look, it's that same british tabloid again. Anyone beginning to see a pattern here? I bet all the unsourced claims the national Inquirer makes are all fact too.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

There is a 3 minute discrepancy in the cockpit recorder. This could have been the time frame where the pilots are making the oh **it comments.


Source: Philadelphia Daily News (9/16/02)

168. Ibid., pp. 23*27.We also reviewed a report regarding seismic observations on September 11, 2001, whose authors conclude that the impact time of United 93 was "10:06:05±5 (EDT)."Won-Young Kim and G. R. Baum, "Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001,Terrorist Attack," spring 2002 (report to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources). But the seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets.These data sets constrain United 93's impact time to within 1 second, are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community.

Furthermore, one of the study's principal authors now concedes that "seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93." Email from Won-Young Kim to the Commission,"Re: UA Flight 93," July 7, 2004; see also Won-Young Kim,"Seismic Observations for UA Flight 93 Crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania during September 11, 2001," July 5, 2004.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-478.html

 

[BenBurch]

Oh look, it's that same british tabloid again. Anyone beginning to see a pattern here? I bet all the unsourced claims the national Inquirer makes are all fact too.

There is a reason that "tabloid journalism" is a pejorative.

 

[Calcas]

I doubt that Glenn Cramer is subject to an FBI "gag order" but after a little googling it seems it *may* be possible after all without a courts approval.

"Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882.html

A National Security Letter (NSL) is a form of administrative subpoena used by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation and reportedly by other U.S. Government Agencies including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense. It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various record and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight. They also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter

But, these National Security Letters are defined as being "issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various record and data..." so it seems unlikely that they could simply be used to silence someone from talking about an event.

The problem is you can't say you have received one. So, even saying you're "gagged by the FBI" would probably be a violation.

Nice catch-22.

Edit: I just finished reading the rest of the Wiki article on NSL's. I had never heard of these things before. Very interesting.

However, I still call BS on the OP. IF they DO gag you, you can't even say so!