Thomas Burnett’s Phone Calls
According to the FBI, Thomas Burnett, passenger aboard flight UA 93, made three telephone calls to his wife, Deena:
According to Tom’s wife, Deena, her husband made four telephone calls to her and their times do not coincide with those provided by the FBI:
Deena emphasizes that she wrote down the exact times of her husband’s calls. Even if one concedes that her clock could have been three minutes too late, the two latter calls would not fit the FBI account. It is logically impossible that both accounts are true. Who was lying?
(a) FBI Document 302 535. Interview with Deena Burnett. September 11, 2001
Deena Burnett was interviewed at her home by an FBI agent on September, 11, 2001. According to the agent, she received “three to five cellular phone calls” from her husband, starting at approximately 6:30 a.m. (Pacific time), i.e. 9:30 a.m. (EST).
She said she received the second call approximately 10 minutes later. In that call, her husband asked her if she had heard about any other (hijacked) planes. She told him about the plane crashes on the WTC. Deena told the interviewer that during that call, her husband mentioned that the “hijackers were talking about flying the plane into the ground.”
Approximately five minutes later, Deena said she received another cell phone call from her husband. She said she was able to determine that he was using the cell phone because the caller ID was showing. One of the calls from her husband did not show on her screen because she was on the line with another call. Thomas advised that one passenger had been knifed and was dead. He told her that “they” were in the cockpit. Thomas stated he did not think “they” had a bomb because he did not see a bomb, only knives. Thomas then told his wife “we are turning toward the World Trade Center, no we are turning away.” Then he told his wife “I have to go” and hung up.
During his fourth and last call he told her “a group of us are getting ready to do something,” and he may not speak to her again, whatever he meant by that. Deena advised to her interviewer that her husband did not describe the hijackers. She never noted any background noise other than one would normally expect on an airplane.
According to Deena’s book (Burnett, 74), she was interviewed by several FBI agents, one after the other (a fact not mentioned in the 302 form): After 30 minutes or so of questioning, the [FBI] agent seemed satisfied and went outside. Then the second agent began asking questions. The exact same ones. When he was finished, the third agent chimed in and started going over the same questions again. Each time, they assured me that they didn’t think I was lying. They just wanted to make sure I wasn’t forgetting anything.
(b) MFR 04020024. Interview with Deena Burnett by 9/11 Commission staff
On April 26, 2004, Deena Burnett was interviewed by John Raidt and Lisa Sullivan, members of the 9/11 Commission Staff. In that interview Deena confirmed to have spoken four times to Tom, her husband. She claimed that he said, “I think one of [the hijackers] has a gun.”
She said that he did not mention the number of hijackers. Deena said she believes that the hijackers held a woman (possibly a flight attendant) at knife point. Deena then elaborated upon the individual calls:
Call 1: Deena believes he called from first class. She believes this because there were many sounds she could hear in the background, as he narrated to her what was going on. She also thinks this was the one call he placed to her from his cell phone, because she recognized the number on the caller ID.
Call 2: She believes he told her the hijackers had entered the cockpit. He was further back in the plane for the call, and for the other calls that followed.
Call 3: He was looking out of the window to describe to her where they were located. She thought he was moving around the cabin.
Call 4: She did not provide any specific information from this call. Surprisingly, Burnett’s calls made from his cell phone did not show on the invoice, nor did the one he reportedly placed to his secretary before take-off nor those he placed to Deena. Deena said she turned the notes she had written down about her conversations with Tom into a typed transcript and gave it to the FBI. These notes have not been released.
(c) Transcript of Tom’s calls to Deena, posted on the website of the Tom Burnett Foundation
6:27 a.m. (pacific time) - First cell phone call from Tom to Deena
Deena: Hello.
Tom: Deena.
Deena: Tom, are you O.K.?
Tom: No, I’m not. I’m on an airplane that has been hijacked.
Deena: Hijacked?
Tom: Yes, they just knifed a guy.
Deena: A passenger?
Tom: Yes.
Deena: Where are you? Are you in the air?
Tom: Yes, yes, just listen. Our airplane has been hijacked. It’s United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. We are in the air. The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, they are telling us there is a bomb on board, please call the authorities. He hung up. 6:34 The phone rang in on call waiting, Tom’s second cell phone call.
Deena: Hello.
Tom: They’re in the cockpit. The guy they knifed is dead.
Deena: He’s dead?
Tom: Yes. I tried to help him, but I couldn’t get a pulse.
Deena: Tom, they are hijacking planes all up and down the east coast. They are taking them and hitting designated targets. They’ve already hit both towers of the World Trade Center.
Tom: They’re talking about crashing this plane. (a pause) Oh my God. It’s a suicide mission...(he then tells people sitting around him)
Deena: Who are you talking to?
Tom: My seat mate. Do you know which airline is involved?
Deena: No, they don’t know if they’re commercial airlines or not. The news reporters are speculating cargo planes, private planes and commercial. No one knows.
Tom: How many planes are there?
Deena: They’re not sure, at least three. Maybe more.
Tom: O.K. ... O.K. ... Do you know who is involved?
Deena: No.
Tom: We’re turning back toward New York. We’re going back to the World Trade Center. No, wait, we’re turning back the other way. We’re going south.
Deena: What do you see?
Tom: Just a minute, I’m looking. I don’t see anything, we’re over a rural area. It’s just fields. I’ve gotta go. He hung up. 6:45 a.m. Third cell phone call from Tom to Deena Tom: Deena.
Deena: Tom, you’re O.K. (I thought at this point he had just survived the Pentagon plane crash).
Tom: No, I’m not.
Deena: They just hit the Pentagon.
Tom: (tells people sitting around him, “They just hit the Pentagon.”)
Tom: O.K....O.K. What else can you tell me?
Deena: They think five airplanes have been hijacked. One is still on the ground. They believe all of them are commercial planes. I haven’t heard them say which airline, but all of them have originated on the east coast.
Tom: Do you know who is involved?
Deena: No.
Tom: What is the probability of their having a bomb on board? I don’t think they have one. I think they’re just telling us that for crowd control.
Deena: A plane can survive a bomb if it’s in the right place. Tom: Did you call the authorities?
Deena: Yes, they didn’t know anything about your plane.
Tom: They’re talking about crashing this plane into the ground. We have to do something. I’m putting a plan together.
Deena: Who’s helping you?
Tom: Different people. Several people. There’s a group of us. Don’t worry. I’ll call you back. 6:54 a.m. Fourth cell phone call from Tom to Deena Deena: Tom? Tom: Hi. Anything new?
Deena: No.
Tom: Where are the kids?
Deena: They’re fine. They’re sitting at the table having breakfast. They’re asking to talk to you.
Tom: Tell them I’ll talk to them later.
Deena: I called your parents. They know your plane has been hijacked.
Tom: Oh...you shouldn’t have worried them. How are they doing?
Deena: They’re O.K. Mary and Martha are with them.
Tom: Good. (a long quiet pause) We’re waiting until we’re over a rural area. We’re going to take back the airplane.
Deena: No! Sit down, be still, be quiet, and don’t draw attention to yourself! (The exact words taught to me by Delta Airlines Flight Attendant Training). Tom: Deena! If they’re going to crash this plane into the ground, we’re going to have to do something!
Deena: What about the authorities? Tom: We can’t wait for the authorities. I don’t know what they could do anyway. It’s up to us. I think we can do it.
Deena: What do you want me to do?
Tom: Pray, Deena, just pray.
Deena: (after a long pause) I love you.
Tom: Don’t worry, we’re going to do something. He hung up.
Some facts reported to the FBI on 9/11 to have been mentioned by Tom in the third call were later posted under call nr. 2: On September 11, 2001, Deena told the FBI that Tom only reported in his third call the death of a passenger who was previously knifed. On the website this information is reported in the second call, implying a faster death. In addition, in the second call, as reported on the website, Tom is said to have tried to help him, but couldn’t get a pulse. Surprisingly, no mention is made of any attempt to find a doctor or nurse on board. On September 11, 2001, Deena told the FBI that the presence of the “hijackers” in the cockpit was only reported in the third call whereas on the website, this information is shifted to the second call.
(d) The Telegraph (UK), September 14, 2001 In an interview with The Telegraph on September 14, 2001, Deena Burnett confirmed that her husband made four cellphone calls to her on 9/11. Deena said she believes that, “after she told her husband about the WTC attacks, he and the other passengers decided to turn the tables on their hijackers.”1
(e)The San Francisco Chronicle, April 21, 2002 According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a police officer came to Deena’s house already “on the morning of the crash” to bring her bad news.2 Deena Burnett told the Chronicle that she received four cellphone calls from her husband, scribbled down notes and later made a transcript that she always carries with her. Thomas also said to her that one of the hijackers has a gun. He asked her to call the authorities.3
According to Deena, Thomas had already mentioned at 9:45 a.m. a plan he was putting together with others to overcome the hijackers, because “they’re talking about crashing this plane into the ground.”4 Yet, he did not report what the “hijackers” actually said or what accent they had. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that the “hijackers”—assuming they were Arabs—would discuss their plan in English and do so within ear-reach of passengers. The “hijackers” certainly had no interest in prompting a counter-attack.
(f) Books
In her book Never Forget, An Oral History of September 11, 2001, Mrs. Burnett reiterates that her husband used a cell phone: “I looked at the phone and I saw on the caller ID that it was Tom’s cell phone”1 (p. 192). She also reiterates that he mentioned a gun.2 According to her, she told him in that occasion about the crashes on the WTC. She said he hadn’t known about it yet, reacted with, “Oh, my God, it’s a suicide mission,” and started asking questions: “Who’s involved? Was it a commercial airplane? What airline was it? Do you know how many airplanes are involved? And he was relaying my answers to people sitting around him. Then he told me he had to go and he hung up.”
According to Deena, Tom asked in his fourth call “Is there anything new?” Deena wrote that Tom was “very quiet this time, very calm. He had been very calm and collected through the other conversations, but he was very solemn in this conversation, and I couldn’t hear anything in the background. I could hear the roar of the engines and I could tell that he was sitting in a seat and very still and not walking around like he had been.” He then said, “We’re waiting until we’re over a rural area. We’re going to take back the airplane.” According to Deena, a policeman showed up around the third or fourth phone call to sit with her. By the time Tom’s fourth phone call came, firemen had shown up on the front lawn.
(g) Analysis
In her first interview by the FBI, Deena did not apparently mention that Tom reported a gun on board. Yet this is what Deena insisted he mentioned in his first call, as posted on the website of the Thomas Burnett Foundation and in Deena’s book. How can that discrepancy be explained? If Tom was saying the truth, why did the FBI deny it? Was FBI implying that Deena was lying?
Tom’s first cell phone call was made on 9:27, when the aircraft was—according to the official timeline—flying at 35,000 feet. As this was technically impossible, there are two explanations for this anomaly: One is that Deena Burnett was lying about having seen his cellphone number on the ID indicator; another is that the official timeline on flight UA 93 is a fraud.
According to the officially released transcript of the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) from flight UA 93, one “hijacker” (or two) entered the cockpit at 9:28 a.m. and struggled with the pilot. Yet Tom Burnett does not report this fact in spite of having been seated in First Class at 4B, that is in proximity of the cockpit.
Tom Burnett fails to describe the alleged hijackers and even to mention how many they are. In view of the fact that he called four times, this omission is incongruous.
At one point Tom is quoted as saying “They’re talking about crashing this plane.” At that time, two of the alleged hijackers are already said to be in the cockpit. As most callers mentioned only three hijackers in all, this leaves just one “hijacker” outside the cockpit. So, who is Tom referring to as “they,” who allegedly talk about crashing the plane? Why should “they” announce their murderous plans to the passengers, if by doing so they would actually encourage passengers to rise up?
According to the transcript of the CVR, the hijacker-pilot says on 9:39, that “they’re going back to the airport.” How does that statement fit with their alleged announcement that they intend to crash the plane? Other passengers mentioned that the “hijackers” closed the curtain of First Class. Tom in his four calls does not mention this information. A few times Tom mentions that “they” announce this or that. “They” certainly did not speak as a choir, but had one of their representatives make the announcement. Yet he used the plural (“they”), while omitting to report what “they” actually said and “their” allegedly Arab accent. Such omissions are surprising.
Tom Burnett does not mention that the “hijackers” put on red bandanas on their heads, as some other callers mentioned. Didn’t he notice this glaring fact, or was this just one of the numerous bogus facts reported from the aircraft?
Tom Burnett mentions in his first call, which started at 9:27 (according to his wife) that one “guy” had already been knifed. In other words, deadly violence allegedly erupted on that aircraft before 9:30. It must be remembered that according to the official account, the cockpit was then already controlled by the “hijackers,” leaving only a single “hijacker” to guard 35 odd passengers. Yet we are asked to believe that no efforts were undertaken for another half an hour by the passengers to overpower a single “hijacker.”
Tom Burnett claims in his second call that he “tried to help” the “guy they knifed,” who meanwhile had died. He said that he “couldn’t get a pulse.” But why did none of the flight attendants seek the assistance of the three medical emergency technicians on the plane (Lauren Grandcolas [Longman, 179], Linda Gronlund [Longman, 221] and Jean Peterson [Longman, 18-19]), if someone was really stabbed? Neither Grandcolas nor Gronlund mentioned in their phone calls having been asked to, or having volunteered, to assist the wounded. Is that plausible?
While the above contradictions and anomalies are certainly significant, one particular fact in Deena’s testimony sticks out: her absolute certainty that her husband used his cell phone to call her. She consistently maintained that she saw the number of his cell phone on her telephone receiver and knew, therefore, that the caller was her husband. This particular fact has huge implications.
In 2001, it was nearly impossible to make cellphone calls from airliners flying at cruising altitudes. This fact has been acknowledged by professionals, demonstrated by controlled experiments and verified by numerous travelers, who tried without success to make phone calls from cruising altitude. The higher the altitude and the faster the plane, the less likely a cellphone call would succeed. Even Tom Burnett’s wife Deena, a former flight attendant, expressed surprise that he was able to call her from the aircraft with his cell phone: “I didn’t understand how he could be calling me on his cell phone from the air”(Burnett, 61). But she did not apparently pursue this anomaly any further.
Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, told Wireless Review that cell phone systems were not designed for calls from high altitudes. She suggested shortly after 9/11 that it was almost a “fluke” that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations: “On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions—say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.” From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops.1 Marco Thompson, President of the San Diego Telecom Council, commented: “Cell phones are not designed to work on a plane. Although they do.” The rough rule is that when the plane is slow and over a city, the phone will work up to 10,000 feet or so. “Also, it depends on how fast the plane is moving and its proximity to antennas,” Thompson says. “At 30,000 feet, it may work momentarily while near a cell site, but it’s chancy and the connection won’t last.” Also, the hand-off process from cell site to cell site is more difficult. It is created for a maximum speed of 60 mph to 100 mph. “They are not built for 400 mph airplanes.”2
Toby Seay, Vice President of national field operations for AT&T Wireless, said in 2001 that the technological limits to using a cell phone aboard a plane include the signal strength, potential signal inhibitors and “free space loss” as the signal gradually loses strength.... Performance is usually compromised in calls from above because cell site antennas are configured to pick signals horizontally and not from overhead. The biggest problem with a phone signal sent from the air is that it can reach several different cell sites simultaneously. The signal can interfere with callers already using that frequency, and because there is no way for one cell site to hand off calls to another that is not adjacent to it, signals can become scrambled in the process. That’s why wireless calls from jetliners don’t last long, says Kathryn Condello, vice president of industry operations for CTIA. The network keeps dropping the calls, even if they are re-established later.1 In a series of controlled experiments conducted by Prof. A. K. Dewdney in 2003 over London (Ontario, Canada), an area “supplied with some 35 cell sites distributed over an area of about 25 square miles,” he established a “distinct trend of decreasing cell phone functionality with altitude.”2 Using a variety of cell phones, he found that “the chance of a typical cell phone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cell site there is less than one in a hundred.”Already at 8,000 feet, only 8 percent of calls were successful. To my knowledge, Prof. Dewdney’s findings were not scientifically challenged by anyone.
If it was virtually impossible in 2001 to make sustainable cell phone calls from aircraft flying at cruising altitudes—such as above 30,000 feet—four questions arise in relation with Mrs. Burnett’s statement:
Was Mrs. Burnett a reliable witness?
Is there a possibility that Mrs. Burnett erroneously believed that her husband called her with a cell phone?
Is it plausible that Mrs. Burnett deliberately lied about her husband using a cell phone?
From what altitude were Tom Burnett’s calls made?
Was Mrs. Burnett a reliable witness?
I found no evidence that Mrs. Burnett was an unreliable or untruthful witness. All publicly available evidence suggests that Mrs. Burnett has been (and is) a meticulous, well-organized person. When he called, she rushed to note the exact times of his calls and made notes of what he said. She immediately contacted the authorities. Her statements regarding her husband’s calls and other facts have remained consistent over the years.
Is it probable that Mrs. Burnett was mistaken?
While some recipients of calls from Flight UA93 said they “believed” the caller had used a cell phone, Mrs. Burnett relied on what she actually saw with her own eyes in more than one call. She said “she recognized the [phone] number on the caller ID” on her receiver as that of her husband. She did not waver on this point: She consistently maintained that Tom called her with his cell phone. She made this statement in her FBI interview, in media interviews, in an interview with staff of the 9/11 Commission, on the website of the Tom Burnett Foundation and in a book she authored. There is no basis for suspecting that she was repeatedly mistaken in her observation (Tom called four times).
Is it plausible that Mrs. Burnett deliberately lied?
Mrs. Burnett did not have a motive for lying to the FBI and the public about this matter. On the contrary: by emphasizing that her husband called her with a cell phone, she placed herself in contradiction to the FBI. She did not contradict the FBI out of spite or because she suspected official malfeasance. In fact she never disputed the official account of 9/11. She even took pride in being regarded by President Bush as the wife of a national hero.(Burnett, 152-3) The fact that she stuck to her account—in spite of knowing that it conflicts with that of the government—strengthens the reliability of her statement.
From what altitude were Tom Burnett’s calls made?
If one accepts that Tom Burnett’s calls (or some of them) to his wife on the morning of 9/11 were made with a cell phone, could they have been made from a cruising passenger jet?
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued an Altitude Profile for Flight UA 93 which indicates the altitude at which that aircraft was believed to be flying at various times
Tom Burnett’s first call was made at 9:27 (according to Deena) or at 9:30:32 (according to the FBI). At these times Flight UA 93 was flying—according to the NTSB document—at 35,000 feet. The likelihood of a successful cell phone call from that altitude is less than one percent. Tom’s last phone call was made at 9:54 (according to Deena) or at 9:44 (according to the FBI). At 9:54 Flight UA 93 would have been flying at approximately 10,000 feet. According to the FBI’s time, the aircraft would have been flying at 28,000 feet. In either case, a successful, let alone a sustainable cell phone call, would have been very unlikely from these altitudes.
In addition to the discrepancy in the times of the calls, the FBI claimed that Tom made only three calls home, whereas Deena consistently maintained that he called her four times and provided specific information for each call, including the exact timings.
If Mrs. Burnett was telling the truth, the FBI must have been presenting falsified evidence. There is actually, no escape from that conclusion.