(NOTICE AND UPDATE!!!:  Many of you were kind enough to comment in the comments below this blog that this was NOT an article by the WSJ, but rather, a press release that, for whatever reason, was claiming such! I am posting this notice that this was my oversight as I did not see this at the time I composed this blog. Thank you to all of you who caught the mistake... due to computer problems I have only now been able to get around to posting this preface to the blog. So Again, this was someone's PRESS RELEASE and NOT the WSJ article. Nonetheless, the cell phone problem remains. Thanks again folks for the heads up!)

For those of you who've been following the long 9/11 truth movement saga, and the various scenarios that have made the rounds since then - inside job, controlled demolitions, nanothermite, directed energy weapons, or even (my favorite in the "Really Far Out" category), "mini-nukes" (and in this case folks, "mini" in some circles denotes a "mere" 150 kilotons... an order of magnitude greater than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs) - then one of the things you'll have noted along the way were the phone call anomalies.

One of those anomalies was the fact that then, apparently, cellphone calls were not possible at altitudes greater than 10,000 feet, yet, apparently, some of those calls were made at altitudes exceeding that. No...never mind, nothing to see here, just another crazy conspiracy theory, move along.

Now, ordinarily I've avoided commenting very much on 9/11 simply for the reason of all the above-mentioned "noise" surrounding the subject, though I still retain my conviction that, rather than an "op within an op" or to give it the other more popular characterization, an "inside job", 9/11 has certain aspects that appear to present the idea of an "op within an op within an op."

But in any case, there are still those disturbing phone calls.

Well, now it's "official," or at least, being seriously entertained by some seriously-minded people whose feet are on the ground and whose eyes are firmly on the balance sheets: The Wall Street Journal:

The 9/11 Phone Calls: Disturbing Irregularities Uncovered in the Calls that Flashed around the World

Now, in addition to the WSJ noting that the whole scenario of jet fuel burning concrete-and-steel-reinforced load bearing columns in the center of the World Trade Center and a "pancake" model of near-free-fall collapse - a feat that defies any ordinary physics I ever learned - is now even being mentioned in the prestigious newspaper, there are these rather interesting summations of the "phone call problem":

 " The 9/11 Consensus Panel now offers four evidence-based Points about the alleged phone calls from the 9/11 flights.

"The famous "let's roll" drama of the passenger revolt on UA 93 was relayed by passenger Todd Beamer's 13-minute unrecorded seat-back call to GTE telephone supervisor Lisa Jefferson, who reported Beamer as strangely tranquil, declining to speak to his wife. Eerily, Beamer's line remained open for 15 minutes after the crash.

"Oddly, the Verizon wireless record shows that 19 calls were made from Beamer's cell phone long after the crash of UA 93.

"Initial media reports and FBI interviews detailed more than a dozen cell phone calls from the planes at high elevation.

"Yet in 2001, a telephone spokesperson stated that sustained mobile calls were not possible above 10,000 feet.

"During the 2006 Moussaoui Trial, the FBI (under oath) reduced the number of cell phone calls to two calls made from 5,000 feet, and presented evidence of only one (not two) "unconnected" call from Barbara Olson, lasting "0 seconds."

"In another twist, two other women reported that Caller-ID showed their husband's cell numbers on their answering machines, which while lasting several minutes, had been made from elevations of 25,000 and 35,000 feet."

Phone calls from people that were, according to the official scenario, already dead? For the WSJ to mention things of this sort is to point out the obvious: serious problems in the official scenario are now being noticed by serious people.

Which raises as many questions as it answers, the most important of which is: why now? The above noted discrepancies have been circulating among various researchers of the whole 9/11 official scenario  - with its "Warren Commission" version, with its magic airplane fuel that can magically remove the load bearing columns of two steel-and-concrete cantilevered buildings, and "dustify" over 500,000 tons of building, each - for many years. Why now? The phone call discrepancies were some of the earliest anomalies reported. So, again, why now?

I suspect the reason lies in the fact that there is some "deep linkage" or "dot connecting" being done now by most people, with the IRS-NSA revelations, many are drawing the conclusion that there is some rogue element in the US government. Eisenhower warned us of it, even Nikita Khrushchev warned us of it.

Suppose, for example, all that spying (woops, "data mining") began before 9/11? Wouldn't it be interesting to know what the "phone records" would then show. But what they show now is serious enough: there are manifold and serious problems with the bill-of-goods the Bush administration sold to the American people and to the world. Finally, someone in the "mainstream" is beginning to notice. Now....watch for the "documentaries" to appear, subtly favoring the "official scenario".

Add magic airplane fuel to magic bullets. While you're adding those two things, never forget that domestic state sponsored terrorism has been a part of the oligarchical playbook since...oh...well...since the Venetian "republic." Can you say gladio?

See you on the flip side.

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Nidster - on June 28, 2013 at 10:32 pm

    Just fer fun!!!

    BREAKING NEWS!!! from an unreliable source known only as DeepDooDoo

    Jeb ‘I’m Running” Bush is slated to award the 2013 Liberty Medal to Hillary “We came-We saw-He died” Clinton this fall in Philadelphia.

    Jeb said, “Former Secretary Clinton has dedicated her life to enslaving and murdering people across the world. These efforts as an antagonist and a conniver have earned Secretary Clinton this year’s Liberty Medal.”

    The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia will host the ceremony on Tuesday, September 10, 2013, just 364 days after Clinton watched with glee and mirth, the murder of 4 Americans in Ben Ghazie, Libya, including the Ambassador Chris Stevens and only 691 days after Muammar Qaddafi was murdered. Clinton was allegedly overheard saying in the Situation Room during the raping of the Ambassador, “Hells Bells, this is way more fun then when we had Qaddafi beaten and murdered during the Battle of Sirte.” Map coordinates: 31°11′44″N 16°31′17″E / 31.19556°N…

  2. Night Train on June 28, 2013 at 3:44 pm

    About that WSJ 9/11 article, I just wanted to let you know that’s not really an article from WSJ, and it never appeared in their paper. It’s a “press release” put out by PR Newswire. For a few hundred bucks, they’ll put out a press release for anyone, and for some reason, many mainstream news outlets publish these online, automatically, without any editor ever seeing them. Many internet marketers and/or scammers use press releases for just this reason — when a mention of their product or service appears on a MSM site, it gives them legitimacy. Of course, I’m not saying the facts in here aren’t legit. Legitimate outfits use PRNewswire, too. Just wanted to make sure you know that it’s not the WSJ saying this. At the bottom it has a disclaimer that “the WSJ news department wasn’t involved in the creation of this content.” It also says the source is something called The 9/11 Consensus Panel, and lists their URL. They’re the ones who paid for this press release.

    • Joseph P. Farrell on June 28, 2013 at 4:39 pm

      Thanks Night Train I appreciate the heads up!

      • Sagnacity on June 28, 2013 at 5:04 pm

        Night Train:

        Thank you.

  3. DownunderET on June 28, 2013 at 2:58 pm

    Hummmm the WSJ and phone calls, it appears that the WSJ may have started at the wrong end of the story.

    Why didn’t they talk about “toasted cars” 1/2 mile from ground zero. Why didn’t they cover that they are burying fireman, policemen, and other first responders almost on a daily basis.

    This IS the rabbit hole of ALL rabbit holes, and I’m afraid that 9/11 will be the same as the JFK murder, a story that will not go away, but never solved.

    • emlong on June 28, 2013 at 3:22 pm

      When WSJ starts talking about the controlled demolition of WTC 7 the 3rd building to collapse in dead drop free fall at the end of the day then we will know they are serious about getting to the bottom of things. They might also discuss in your face contradictions such as that the “Arab hijackers” were miserable student pilots who could not possibly have guided those planes as precisely as they were targeted especially the thing that hit the Pentagon which wasn’t even an airliner. The huge library of evidence exposing the fraud is now quite impressive.
      And for comic relief how about Tucker Carlson leaping through hoops to keep Professor Jones from showing collapse footage of WTC 7 on MSNBC. That’s the footage you will never see aired by the MSM because it is so starkly footage of a controlled demolition. After CBS aired it on 911 it disappeared from view:

  4. Robert Barricklow on June 28, 2013 at 11:03 am

    9/11 has produced a divide for myself.
    In that, those who swallow the official line are fish. They swim in schools of group think. I’ve tried at times to sway those in that particular school of thought and find that denial is very much part of their nature.
    When it happened I expressed my thoughts and found(in terospect) that it was much easier to get someone to pause and “think”. As time moved on though, the process of decoupling the official line become more & more difficult.
    It is a dividing/line
    in our culture of “Present Shock”
    (A Douglas Rushkoff coined word/book)

    • plj4all on June 28, 2013 at 6:07 pm

      I find it a convenient dividing line when knowing whether to trust an on-line source. I use it as a gauge. If they’re a 9/11 truther I trust most anything else they have to say on other subjects that I’m less familiar with. If they talk like they believe in the msm story I know I can immediately dismiss them.

  5. marcos toledo on June 28, 2013 at 11:02 am

    I remember watching a children’s science program that told how to change lead into gold the presenter was Prof Albert Hibbs . He said by either adding or subtracting atoms you could change one substance to another and this was in the late 1960’s alchemy anyone. The WSJ story sounds like another version of Dearly plaza magic bullet instead now substitute the magic cellphone theory our Elites believe in a lot of magic to explain what goes on in the world.

  6. WalterBosley on June 28, 2013 at 10:33 am

    For me, I sensed something was not as it appeared in the result it had on the populace. I was in Amman, Jordan when 9/11 happened; was on my third trip there and had arrived just four days prior to the event. The stark differences in media presentation I have related to friends, i.e. how I had to tune into BBC or German news to get real news reporting because all I found on American media was the usual obsession with how everyone felt, every US reporter seeming to be vying to be the next “Oh the humanity!” guy. Just a bunch of sobbing and panic and that idiot Bill Clinton running around ‘feeling everyone’s pain’ (and God knows what else when it was a woman). It was pretty embarrassing and frustrating to be an American abroad during that week and have to rely on foreign media for any serious straight reporting.

    And that is part of my point.

    After I returned, it was as if I was Kevin McCarthy in ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’. Now, I am a US military officer, a former spy-chaser for the FBI, a former agent for AFOSI who ran DA ops, and was a terrorist hunter from 2000-2006. Patriotism has been a part of my life, obviously. However, this was weird. The whole flag-waving, glassy-eyed march I encountered from people who, to me, had been oblivious prior to 9/11 just seemed odd. I couldn’t pinpoint why, but I sensed it.

    Well, over the intervening years between then and now, I have learned some superficially unrelated things about human consciousness and the psyche and its manipulation. I’ve also learned some other arcane things I will not go into here. It was all this that made me look closer at the nuts and bolts details of 9/11 and then I met Joseph.

    People can debate how it was done, but it was done and not how we were officially fed. What convinced me were the results of WHY it was done. Therein lies something FAR darker than all the politics, finance and NWO bugaboos that are certainly involved, combined. What was done with 9/11 is far reaching in a way I personally have never seen considered publicly. The key is the initial zombification and the resultant polarizing hysteria.

    Wake up, Alice…

    • Robert Barricklow on June 28, 2013 at 10:47 am

      Glad to see someone saying that they woke up into a Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ landscape.

      And your right it goes deep, way deep.
      So far down the rabitt hole,
      that if you follow it too far…

      your going to have a hell of a time
      getting back to where you once belonged.

    • Tim H on June 28, 2013 at 2:44 pm

      Nine – eleven = evil magick? Similar to the JFK assassination, perhaps the ultimate aim is sorcery…

      • Tim H on June 28, 2013 at 2:54 pm

        I was working night shift that night, as i drove home around 7am the ABC was reporting that cargo planes hit the towers and a truck bomb had detonated outside the Pentagon. Then when i got home and turned on the idiot box the story had started to change. And honestly, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. I think i did both. But I reckon I know apocalypse theatre when it’s on the morning show.

  7. QuietRiot on June 28, 2013 at 10:13 am

    Of course this is interesting, thank you Joseph. I went to the link and noticed a disclaimer to the effect that the WSJ “did not have any role in the creation of this content.” Also, the byline contains a reference to /PRNewsWire/ and the Marketwatch site picked this up from the wires.

    In any case, that makes it all the more significant that they felt the need to have two levels of plausible deniability…. A visit to the website referenced in the /PRNewsire/Marketwatch release shows that a number of more mainstream news outlets both here, in France, and elsewhere are picking up the story. So the “march” of this through the information infrastructure is noteworthy

    And the NYT yesterday published an Op-Ed by two prominent professors outlining that the recent revelations by Snowden point to prima facie illegal behavior and they show why.

    The information war of the elites seems to be in full swing. It is noteworthy too that the METADATA reported in the WSJ link is some of the very same metadata showing up in large databases in the desert….

    It looks like the puzzle pieces are fitting together for people.

    Seems like stepping on the tail of the media tiger is starting to move things into a different mode.

    • Robert Barricklow on June 28, 2013 at 10:52 am

      Demeaning a tiger by “media” association?

    • Cassandane on June 28, 2013 at 12:13 pm

      By ‘metadata’ are you meaning the Krux data the WSJ page is collecting in the background? I assume you know this data is collected by pretty much all sophisticated and/or high-profile sites. Because of it, these days it’s almost impossible to prevent someone from tracking you around the internet, even if you think you’re browsing anonymously. With all Dr Farrell’s social media widgets, this site (and many others) acts like a portal for alerting TPTB to your online presence, as do so many others.

      There’s no need to do something embarrassing to get your 15 minutes of fame when you know that someone somewhere follows your every move. 😉

      On a personal note about the topic at hand, the day the towers were demolished I was home from work with an extreme headache and around 2 pm a colleague called to make sure I saw what was happening. As I looked at television ‘footage’ of a plane hitting one of the towers, my first thought was “That tower is so tall, when the top half goes over all of Manhattan is going to look like a war zone.” Then the top half didn’t go over. The whole building went down. I thought it was so odd that it all just went down, and odder still that there was no explanation from the talking heads to explain this.

      Other people thought I was odd to wonder about it. I questioned my own thought processes, but could only reference the Kingdome demolition that had taken place shortly beforehand: I’d watched a news report about how long and carefully the Kingdome demolition company had studied methods, laid charges in specific places, and partially severed structural members in order to bring it straight down – pancake it – without destroying surrounding structures. Why would they have had to do that if the WTC builders had already mastered the process, and what about the apparently accidental nature of the towers’ collapse? Someone suggested that all modern high-rises are rigged to collapse straight down. That seemed like a pretty silly idea: if the top half of your building is damaged, wouldn’t it be easier to fix it instead of rebuilding the entire edifice? And if word got out about that ‘feature’ of high-rises, who would work in them knowing that a fire on any floor would result in the complete collapse of the building and the deaths of everyone in it?

      For months after 9/11 I had a strange sort of static in my mind whenever I tried to process the information that was coming to me, until I discovered the term cognitive dissonance and realized these ‘facts’ were never going to add up.

      • Robert Barricklow on June 28, 2013 at 5:00 pm

        I was walking by by son’s room when I heard something strange on the TV. I went in and saw a tower going down in it’s footprint. I immediately thought, as the tower fell/
        “they’re” powers going up exponentially.
        My next thought/
        Kissinger’s smiling from ear to ear.

    • Joseph P. Farrell on June 28, 2013 at 3:43 pm

      Yea this was brought to my attention and it was MY mistake…I didn’t read closely enough. This is the problem when you’re a one man show and don’t have a nice big “staff,” but nonetheless it was my bad!

  8. dougragan on June 28, 2013 at 9:53 am

    Conspiracy websites always have a funny way of not being honest. I will list the most obvious example.

    “Well, now it’s “official,” or at least, being seriously entertained by some seriously-minded people whose feet are on the ground and whose eyes are firmly on the balance sheets: The Wall Street Journal:”

    This is not true. If you look at the actual article, you find that this information was posted on PR Newswire, which is a paid service you can use to send out your article to reputable news agencies.

    In other words, no one from the WSJ had anything to do with the information on the link you provided.

    Look at the beginning of the article and you will see the following:
    “NEW YORK, May 16, 2013 /PRNewswire/”

    Then look at the end:
    “The Wall Street Journal news department was not involved in the creation of this content.”

    The WSJ has acknowledged nothing.

    • Joseph P. Farrell on June 28, 2013 at 3:45 pm

      You’re right Doug, it was my bad! My only excuse is I am a one man show, have no staff, and am constantly crushed for time and tend to read very quickly when I am going through articles and such.

      • Frankie Calcutta on June 29, 2013 at 9:27 pm

        Don’t beat yourself up Dr. Farrell. Lots of information bombarding us rapidly from all corners of the globe. While we may like to joke that you are super human based on your astounding acumen and work ethic, we know that you are human like the rest of us and can’t catch every trick that crosses your computer screen. That is why you have this comment section to collaborate in deciphering this avalanche of information. You are a one man show but you got a support staff that for the most part wants to constructively aid in your investigations.

        Don’t ever think your work and daring insight is unappreciated and certainly don’t give up taking high octane speculations for fear of criticism from non-entities in the rare chance that you may have been taken in by some bad info. The thorough research that goes into your books speaks for itself.

    • Sagnacity on June 28, 2013 at 5:03 pm


      Thank you.

  9. LSM on June 28, 2013 at 7:38 am

    Hi Dr. Farrell and readers,

    Dr. Farrell, I agree totaly with your viewpoints-

    but what/who has sadly been forgotten is: Beverly Eckert- Eckert had a self-help website (may still exist through proxy) for those who lost loved-ones/friends in the WTC- if I recall correctly Eckert’s website began with the words “My silence cannot be bought”; if anyone is not yet familiar with Eckert she was on the cell phone with her husband (in WTC) until the moment the WTC collapsed- so what was he communicating to her?-

    Eckert was offered 1.4(6?) mio. dollars compensation for the loss of her husband (if I recall correctly it was from the US Gov’t) and she refused to accept the money-

    if reports are true (IF!) Eckert managed to secure a personal interview with Obama asking him to re-open the 9/11 investigation-

    but: a day or two later Eckert sort of accidentally “got blown up” in the Buffalo, NY plane crash-

    I could go on forever about 9/11- it was the day I completely lost my political virginity (had seen controlled demolition before), got de-flowered big-time and was the catalyst to finally wake me up and search for answers about who is really in control of our lives-

    stay well all- many regards-


  10. John Q. on June 28, 2013 at 6:58 am

    I mentioned this recently, in another comment, but I think it bears repeating in a context specific to the events of 9/11/01:

    I strongly recommend Henrik’s recent interview of Maurice Cotterell, over at Red Ice Creations.

    It is ostensibly about the utilization of anti-gravity radiation—employed in conjunction with controlled, nano-thermite, de-grounding demolitions—in bringing down the Twin Towers as dust.

    Mr. Cotterell also speculates that certain agencies had access to this technology as early as 1991, and perhaps employed it during the Gulf War, at Highway 80.

    He spends a good deal of time, however, at Square One, so to speak. He explains some interesting notions of the nature of electromagnetism, the octave of electric orientations of atoms, gravity & anti-gravity radiation via hydrogen… quite a uni[que] little theory, it would seem.

    Anyway, toward the end, he states as a matter of fact:

    “I’ve discovered how to make Helium, from Deuterium—and I believe we can make any of the elements, for example, Gold, simply. The problem is, I can’t make Helium because I don’t have Deuterium, and I don’t have the money to build the equipment required…

    “I believe I could make Gold, but I don’t have a particle accelerator, and I don’t have the funding to do it.”

    Then, on Rossi’s ECAT:

    “I know how it works… [spoiler omitted]. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Cold Fusion; it’s Periodic Scaling, as described in ‘Future Science’.”

    And my favorite—nail, head, etc.:

    “If you don’t understand one of the fundamental forces of nature, how on Earth can you proposed to be a scientist? Well, they DON’T understand how gravity works!”

    (Again, I apologize for the re-comment on this, but I feel quite compelled.)

  11. jkingqm on June 28, 2013 at 6:36 am

    I might be wrong, but I don’t think it is the WSJ making these claims. At the top and bottom of this press release is says “The Wall Street Journal news department was not involved in the creation of this content.”. It is a press release from http://www.consensus911.org/ using PR Newswire https://portal.prnewswire.com/Login.aspx.

  12. charlesfrith on June 28, 2013 at 6:20 am

    I noticed this. It’s two articles they’ve printed recently which suggests to me that Rupert Murdoch is distancing himself from the Zionist psychos who are bleeding the middle East to death using their control of Congress through AIPAC.

    Here are the two articles including the one you refer to.



Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events