9/11 Timeline Completely Overhauled

By the way, I forgot to post a link about this. We've been doing a lot of back end stuff with the 9/11 Timeline these past months, and now that we're done with that we're gonna do a whole lot of front end stuff. I've got a couple hundred new timeline entries queued up and ready to go, plus a big new three part essay, and all kinds of new things. Please check it out.

9/11 Timeline Completely Overhauled

The 9/11 Timeline has been on hiatus for some time while we have been making major changes to it. The Harper Collins book, The Terror Timeline based on the web timeline came out late last year, and the making of that book led to many changes. Now we have been able to take the progress achieved in making that book and put it back into the web version. There are hundreds of new entries and pictures, but the changes run deeper. Just about every entry has changed at least a little bit, as we've become more vigilant in fixing typos, broken links, and so forth. All entries now have titles as well, to make it easier to quickly grasp what each entry is about.

The informational organization has also changed significantly. The color coded sections are gone, and are replaced by an organization that more closely matches the chapters of the Terror Timeline book. But there are also new divisions, and we will have more presentation options as we continue to make improvements.

We are still working out some kinks, but we're now going forward full speed ahead. Expect to see frequent updates and improvements in the weeks to come. With a few exceptions, the entries still have not caught up to the November 2004 election and subsequent events, but we're working on that too. Now that we have the overhaul ready, we're also ready to plug in more volunteer energy. We want to make this the definitive repository of all 9/11 and "War of Terrorism" information, but there's still so much to do. If you'd like to help, please let me know.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

help.

Can I ask you a question, though?

It has been alleged many times that the hijackers were not on the passenger manifests-- or at least there were no men on the lists with Arab names.

Is this true? Have any of the real flight passenger manifests for 9/11 been made public? If not, why not? Has anyone given a reason?

I know a couple of hijackers were apparently on the flight 11 manifest, according to the FBI. But this is the only case I know of where the hijackers were on the flight manifest.

definitive passenger lists, far as I know. One innocent possibility is they don't want to name hijackers or certain passengers to avoid liability.

Media obtained lists and some later filled in the hijackers.

Only two lists would count:

-- actual boarding pass stubs as are kept at gates.

-- electronic file that is confirmably from the day itself (unlikely).

Neither has ever been provided by the airlines.

The Boston Globe was given the complete manifests of at least a couple of the flights a couple of days after 9/11, but chose not to publish the hijacker names in them. On at least one list the hijackers are included, and on at least one list it is specifically mentioned they were taken out (so as to not mix murderers and victims together). However, no member of the general public has ever actually seen any unedited manifests.

There was an article I think in the Sierra News about a guy who claimed to be a doctor who said he got a complete manifest via a Freedom of Information Act request, and he published an article about it. I tried to contact him and also tried going through Sierra News, but he seemed uncontactable, so I don't know if his story was legit or make up. So I'm ignoring that unless it gets more solid factual backing.

great work, as always.

I do wonder however if any substantive content has changed, been deleted, or reinterpreted. I wish there was a way to keep track of older versions.

Nicholas L.

The 9/11 Commission Report had a time line and statement that the FAA never contacted the military about Flights 77 and 93, and that the Pentagon and military never knew about these flights.
BUT:
officials testified to the contrary: Trans. Sec Normal Mineta, Nat. Sec. Coordinator Richard Clarke, FAA Laura Brown, and FAA Jane Garvey, etc. Isn't it clear the Comm. Report is deliberate disinformation to cover up the stand down??????

According to a report by Richard Clark, National Security Coordinator: He reported that the deputy director of the White House Situation Room told him at 9:15 that they had been on the air threat call with NORAD and FAA. This call had been going on a considerable time as it had begun as a significant event call and had been upgraded to an air threat call, and there had been many exchanges of information. According to Clarke, the FAA head Jane Garvey was at the White House teleconference answering questions about the hijackings before 9:20 am.

The Commission report said that it could not determine who from DOD participated in the teleconference with Clark and the FAA; however Richard Clarke had testified that Gen Myers and Donald Rumsfeld and Jane Garvey were on the call. Others confirm this.

6. Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, said he met with Richard Clark who was on a conference call before going to the White House PEOC room to meet with V.P. Cheney at 9:20. So Clark was on the conference call by 9:15. (note 9/11 Comm. said Cheney didn't get to PEOC until 9:58 but this is contradicted by many sources)

7. Norman Mineta, Sec. of Transportation, testimony before 9/11 Comm.: on a meeting he was at with V.P. Cheney at the White House PEOC that he arrived at about 9:20:

“During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out”; “The plane is 30 miles out” ; And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out” the young man said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

This has been the most popular article at 911Truth.org so far:

Senator Dayton: NORAD Lied About 9/11
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040731213239607

I want to do a new one with direct comparisons, blow by blow, of the various mutually conflicting timelines.

My own best treatment and proof that officials must be lying:
"Air Defense on 9/11"
http://justicefor911.org/iiA1_AirDefense_111904.php

See also, "Chain of Command":
http://justicefor911.org/iiA2_ChainofCommand_111904.php

It sounds like what you are talking about;
It documents that the 9/11 Commission revised time line is contradicted by considerable testimony to the Commission, and compares to the various time lines/scenarios that had been released before the Commission revision in 2004.
It also documents obvious complicity of Pentagon and military officials.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x41194

and http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

>I do wonder however if any substantive content has changed, been deleted, or reinterpreted. I wish there was a way to keep track of older versions.

Yes. For one thing, I'm trying to make the whole thing more objective, so we've removed little rhetorical questions I've asked here and there. Usually the questions were unnecessary or leading.

I also deleted about a dozen plus entries. Most of them were because I thought they were just too marginal or uninteresting for most people. For instance, this one:

September 20, 2002
In an editorial for the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram, David Welch, the US Ambassador to Egypt, denounces the publishing of “incredible conspiracy theories without the slightest bit of evidence to back them up” in both state and opposition press. “Leading Egyptian newspapers and magazines in the past two weeks alone have published columns by senior columnists who suggested governments or groups other than al-Qaeda were responsible.” Welch urges editors to exercise better judgment. The next day, a group of journalists and intellectuals criticize the editorial, calling it “an American call for imposing restrictions on press freedom”(see February 28, 2002).

The majority of the Arab world now believes US or Israeli involvement in 9/11, and what an ambassador to Egypt does in 2002 seems small potatoes, so I cut it.

But in some cases I removed the entries because I wasn't quite sure about the content. For instance, this one (which also has an example of the kind of rhetorical questioning and leading language that has been removed):

September 13, 2001
AP publishes a list of all the people on board the hijacked airlines. This follows an earlier list from CNN on 9/11. These lists are very curious, because the numbers don't appear to add up. Take for instance Flight 11. The list has 86 passengers on board, including five hijackers, plus 11 crew members, a total of 97. But there only were 92 people total on board the plane according to all accounts. The numbers only work if you subtract the five hijackers. The other plane lists all have too few names, by up to five people. Too few can be explained by people who asked their names not to be released, but how does one explain too many?

I thought that was true at the time, but now I'm not so sure and I'd want to be absolutely sure about the numbers before having that in the timeline. So some things like that were taken out at least for the time being.

Here another example of one at least temporarily cut:

September 15-November 1, 2001
Two of the largest war games in history take place during the buildup for war in Afghanistan. Both have been planned several years in advance. Operation Swift Sword 2, the biggest deployment of British troops since the Falklands War, sends 22,000 British troops to Oman, a country 200 miles from Pakistan. It runs from September 15 to October 26. Meanwhile, 23,000 US troops take part in Operation Bright Star, from October 8 to November 1. In Egypt, they join 50,000 soldiers from Egypt, Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Jordan and Kuwait for what is possibly the largest war game of all time. USA Today has an article called “War-games Troops May Join Real Fight” but it's unclear if that's what happened or not. At the same time two US carrier battle groups arrive on station in the Gulf of Arabia just off the Pakistani coast. Given other reports suggesting the US was planning a war in Afghanistan for mid-October, is all this troop movement towards Southwest Asia a coincidence?

For one thing, there are some statements there that aren't supported at all, like the two US carrier groups arriving, or these being two of the largest war games in history, so I'd need to fix that. For another, I'd want more evidence that soldiers in these exercises actually did get used for real. So this one goes back to the woodshed for repairs.

Paul Thompson,

You remain one of the most significant examples of the democratic practice of basing judgement on fact. You, sir are a journalist. Thank you. Its Ruppert, Thompson, and Griffin. Standing at the cultural crossroads. My anxiety has been limiting until now. All of these books have made me free again. Brought to life my patriotic vision of democratic culture. Knowing that others have read, learned, and understood what you have compiled. You are a man for our time. And books will carry your name forward for many generations. I honor your investment with my own. Every persons investment might better honor those who have come before them in the same pursuit. I am a 9/11 educator. And you have provided the undispendable textbook.
I know a few people who see the whole picture as you are evidently able. We have all benefitted greatly from Coopre and your book. We were quite upset when the money went dry. But all the more excited to see such a return. I have decided that becoming a 9/11 educator may be the best expression of my life force. I am ready to put all of my time and energy into facts, education, and social progress. I've recently heard a buzz. Seems that some of the facts you expose are dissonant with the mainstream view. The skeptical croud grows wider. We must be there, as you are, to offer them all the information they need to find the truth. There is no force involved in the exposure of a lie.
I've recently realized that we can avoid an entire philosophical challenge from the established 'truth' if we focus on the lies. Truth is muddy to most, while lies are direct. If I say I know the truth of what happened on 9/11, I instantly draw every existential challenge. What is the truth? But if I tell you that someone is lying to you? That's personal, and that's the hook. Expose the lies. And of course I can't help but fantasize about a social movement to recognize the democratic necessity of true journalism. There are few more fundamental qualities of our freedom than questioning our leaders.
You must continue. Your life is expressive among the multitude who have no voice. Keep it movin' - R.C.

I'm gratified if I'm helping you in your struggle to spread the truth. Good luck. I wish you strength. I think you have a good strategy. There are so many lies, and people don't like to be lied to.

He doesn't want to go down this road,
but if we want the truth out there,
he's gonna have to listen to the
facts and unanswered questions.

Ed needs to get some people on
who know their stuff on this...
you'd be great Paul.

Thank you, Paul.

When we are linking to the timeline, which of these links should be used:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
http://www.complete911timeline.org/
or are you happy with either of those links?

When linking to a specific article, is the following kind of link OK?
http://www.complete911timeline.org/context.jsp?item=a121301murkyvideo

and yes

I was looking at your time line and maybe it was me, but didn't see any references to what was happening in the Twin Towers themselves in relation to the timeline. ie accounts of explosions by persons on the scene. Am I overlooking them, or aren't they there?

I haven't really gone there yet. I may someday. I would like to know more about the falling jet fuel issue first. Are reports of explosions on lower levels connected to burning jet fuel falling down the elevator shafts and the like, or not? I haven't really looked into it enough.

You should win a lot of awards for your efforts. Thanks so much.