Official 9/11-Story: Obvious Inconsistencies and Open Questions?

What are, in your opinion, the one or two most striking and important open questions, contradictions, and inconsistencies in the explanation model of 9/11 as presented to us by the White House and the leading media outlets? These aspects should be interesting not only for conspiracy theorists and not easily refutable.

I think there are some facts of this kind that are objectively worthy of discussion, e.g.

* The striking failure to defend the skies on 9/11 with no consequences for the military personnel in charge like General Myers. This question cannot be easily dismissed ( by arguments of the sort "nobody was prepared for this kind of attack"), as the 9/11 commission treats the matter as an important subject.

* The strange behavior of President Bush on the day of 9/11,

* the claim that the terrorists adhered to operational security (Report Of The Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11, pp. 6, 196-7), whereas in reality, the terrorists were not careful at all: They checked in using their real names, they used the phone openly, used their own credit cards (Washington Post 10/04/01), four of them got speeding tickets (Report Of The Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11, "Additional view of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski", without page). As Atta, the alleged leader, failed to show up for a May 28 court appearance to resolve the citation, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest (The Wall Street Journal, 10/16/01).

* Condi Rice’s claim that nobody could think of the possibility of terrorists using an airplane as a weapon, contrary to the fact that the Intelligence community was well aware of this possibility (Hearing Of The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The
United States, 05/23/2003, Transcript p. 25).

* the fact that the war against Afghanistan was planned long before 9/11 (Jane’s, 03/15/2001)

I am collecting arguments that show that there are many things that merit a close investigation and therefore appreciate your help.

is why were there reports of a car bomb at the State Department and several fires on the Mall, none of which occurred.

Like almost everyone else in America I was glued to the television that day, and when those things started being reported, I could not understand why the various news networks, all of whom were broadcasting live from Washington DC by this time (the Pentagon plane had hit) didn't just turn their cameras toward the Mall or send a cameraman the few blocks to the State Department to film the supposed damage, rather than repeating the "reports".

My theory is that someone in the government/administration (and I have no idea where in the food chain this might have occurred) gave the go-ahead to some kind of terrorist event on or around Sept 11. They were led to believe it would be something relatively innocuous, such as a car bomb at the State Department or some fires set on the Mall. Those things were in the pipeline to be reported and so they were. But they never happened.

There used to be a working link to all the major networks and then some starting early the morning of Sept 11 and continuing until they went back to normal broadcasting. I wish I had figured out a way to record that off the internet. Surely, someone somewhere out there did so. What a valuable archive. When it was available I'd periodically choose a network and start watching for an hour or so. Seeing it again in real time is valuable, because it reminds us how little we all knew at first.

One other small point. I'm a former airline employee. I was a ticket agent at National Airport in Washington DC for ten years from 1969 to 1979 and still have friends who work there. As soon as the second plane hit I knew that my buddies would know exactly which airplanes were missing, hijacked, whatever. I cannot impress upon people just how fast bad news travels in the airline industry. In the event, I could not get ahold of my friends just then, but when I did talk with them a couple of days later, they said, yes, they knew exactly which planes had been taken over by around 9am EDT.

This isn't exactly the same as wondering why fighter jets weren't scrambled, and it's a distinction I want to make. The fighter jet/interception question is a very separate one. I couldn't figure out whey the news media couldn't report more quickly exactly which planes had crashed.

I'm sure that some of those who believe the idiocy that missiles struck the Pentagon and remote-controlled planes hit the WTC will say it was all part of the grand conspiracy, but let me assure you I have no use for that theory.

But back to my original point: the false reports of car bomb and fires. Why? Who started those? On air, they weren't exactly corrected, just stopped being mentioned.

around the 9/11 complex.
E.g., concerning the mastermind/paymaster question of 9/11, different people where placed by the media on these positions at different points of time, with no reference to earlier, contradictory reports.

Concerning the car bomb reports, I have no clue.

is much the same: Something in the Washington Mall area was the originally intended target for Flight 77. The false reports would therefore have arisen from tip offs intended to direct news cameras towards the event.

The eventual precarious trajectory towards the Pentagon, clipping tree tops and five lamp poles along the way is not indicative of a carefully planned attack.

that his staff find linkages with Iraq


the opposition to any investigation, the appointment of WH neocon operatives to the commission, and the stonewalling of the investigation

(actually I could talk about this all day, but I'll throw in a couple of thoughts in no order)

- Why was the White House given Cipro to prevent anthrax, ON 9/11.
Note that they weren't worried about smallpox or anything else, only anthrax. Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A15269-2002Jun7
"We did not know about the anthrax attacks. Period!" said Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman.

Johndroe said he did not know why staffers were given Cipro but guessed it was "a precautionary measure in the early hours of Sept. 11 before the situation could be fully assessed."
End Quote

Note, he said "in the early hours of Sept. 11"

- Why did Cheney and Bush call Daschle (D-In Name Only) and threaten him not to allow any investigation?

- Why did they appoint Kissinger to head the commission?

- Why did the CIA meet bin Laden in Dubai in the summer of 2001?
(I have a copy if this obscene link doesn't still work, but it's common knowledge).
http://www.lefigaro.fr/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=FutureTense/Apps/Xcelerate/View&c=figArticle&cid=FIGJMSRVETC&live=true&Site=true&gCurChannel=ZZZJTGN6J7C&gCurRubrique=ZZZ83OM6J7C&gCurSubRubrique=

- I have no link, but Greg Palast reported that FBI etc were taken off investigating anything to do with the bin Ladens. This goes to the heart of the whole issue of how MN and AZ FBI warned FBI HQ. In the case of MN, they told HQ that flight students literally planned to crash a plane into the WTC. Also, see John O'Neill's frustrations.

- Why did these buildings fall like a planned collapse? Until the other questions are answered, I can't accept the official story, particularly since the rubble was sold off so quickly.

- The put options

- For me the #1 issue to hammer on is the difference in how Payne Stewart's plane was treated vs how these known hijackings were treated. Failure to defend the skies.

If the attacks were able to happen because of a vast failure of intelligence and air defense (not to mention airline security), why were the people responsible for all these things rewarded with promotions, increased funding, etc.? If this was really a horrible screw-up (and we have to hope that this is not considered acceptable performance by these agencies), why has nobody been called to account? Why has such a pall of secrecy been thrown over every aspect of the investigation if the motive is really to protect the country as opposed to protecting those in responsible for the screw-up?

It sure makes it look like people were rewarded precisely because they did allow 911 to happen.

ACTIVE ACTIONS HAD to have taken place on 9-11. You are talking about a LIHOP theory. LIHOP is an IMPOSSIBILITY with regard to the "attacks" of 9-11.

The only rational explanations are: The Official Version Conspiracy
MIHOP

The only perpetrators capable of carrying out 9-11 were NOT so-called Al Queda members. OBL is a very convenient Patsie & Scapegoat...just like Lee Harvey Oswald.

Or Eve Adele Harlow:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone%20Gunmen/The_Lone_Gunmen_Episode_1.htm

Thanks for your ideas.
For me, too, the failure to scramble fighter planes timely is one of the most obvious problems.
Concerning the Stewart incident however, I do not know how quick fighters were scrambled. I read somewhere it took quite long. Then this case would not be suitable as a precedence case.
However, only because the typical interception reaction times are not published, that does not mean that they could be short -- i.e. that the reaction time on 9/11 was indeed extraordinary long.

The fighter that was sent after Payne Stewart was a training flight testing a recently worked-on jet. It happened to be in the air at the time and they asked the pilot to go take a look.

They didn't "scramble" ready fighters out of some air base.

There are (were before 9/11) only three pairs of ready fighters on the east coast. All three were scrambled on 9/11, and in very reasonable periods of time. Other aircraft likely would have taken over an hour to prepare, man and launch.

People who claim that the Air Force was intentionally "stood down" that day have no knowledge of military procedures prior to 9/11.

People who claim that the Air Force was intentionally "stood down" that day have no knowledge of military procedures prior to 9/11..

This kind of accusation does not further the discussion. And as long as you do not provide a single source for your claims, why should anybody believe that just you have the knowledge of military procedures prior to 9/11 that you claim other people have not?

It is not an established fact if the periods for scrambling are reasonable, because it is still unclear when exactly NORAD was informed. That is one reason the 9/11 commission issued a subpoena to get documents from FAA, because in the hearings this question remained unclear.

when discussing the glaring inconsistencies and government lies of 9/11. And when he replies to being demanded for sources, like you just did, his argument (IF he responds) generally runs "So you must believe the earth is flat!!! Huh? Huh?" I noticed he won't reply to you. Because he made up his expertise. By throwing out the kind of statement he makes, his only shot is that no one calls him on it.
Well, we call the "expert" on it.
Btw, he is also a physics expert at NOT explaining how a passenger jet fits thru a hole a hummer could not drive thru.

Sorry no links on this stuff, but it might be in the 9/11 forum somewhere - I read it recently:

- the first planes, from Otis in MA, did not travel to NY at their top speed (something like 400 mph instead of the possible 700+). This insured they got there too late.

- Andrews is minutes from DC, but (iirc) the planes that did arrive much too late in DC came from a base hundreds of miles away in VA.

- (Opinion) WTF have we been paying for for the last 50 years if our air defenses take over an hour to prepare, man and launch?

"WTF have we been paying for for the last 50 years if our air defenses take over an hour to prepare, man and launch?"

The good news is that if the U.S. were actually attacked by a foreign military, our military defense is second to none and our forces are professionally trained and highly capable of defending our country.

9-11 was a U.S. Gov't sponsored event whose "success" depended on making sure our air defenses did NOT intervene. (If the "attack" on the Pentagon had been carried out by hostile forces, you can be 100% certain that defensive action would have been taken.)

loaded with billions of dollars take off from US airports.
Destination unknown.

Besides which, the ground stop order
(for which several officials have taken responsiblity)
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED
MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FLIGHTS FROM TAKING OFF
until after 10.31AM.

I never read this before.

FEMA Head telling Dan Rather they arrived in NY late Monday night and were first on the scene Tuesday.

---no US air response

---W's very weird non-response in FL

---passport found, cars found with info, list of 19 out so quickly

---govt was going to show proof bin Laden guilty, and then never did

Other questions after reading discussions since 9-11.

THE BIG ONE, as far as I'm concerned....

......WHY NO INVESTIGATION??????????????????????

Sept 10th, hmmm...
i did a little investigating into the flight times and found that on sept 10th there were SEVERAL LONG DELAYS at several airports, way out of ordinary. Someone had to know something, this is just not coincidence.
check this out...

http://sept10.batcave.net/air.html

It was also reported that the tail number for UA flight 93 was N519UA at first, i wonder where this rumor got started. i tracked it down to http://www.flightlinemalta.com, they said it came from http://aviation-safety.net
now that is suprising, that they would make this mistake, and what prompted the first report?
( the real tail number, or rather, the one NOW reported is N591UA)


different topic here...
the cab that was hit by the light pole at the pentagon, well...

the whole crime scene was moved, pole, broken glass, the cab...
the only reason i can figure for this is to try and show that where the pole was down, was proof that a large airliner hit the pentagon
check this...
http://physics911.org/net/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=9
http://cab.batcave.net/pent-pole.html

The notion is as absurd as it is unfounded.

Perhaps this will asist:

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_x_1.htm#Xmap

:eyes:

Do you really mean 9/11 was thoroughly investigated? What about the underfinanced commission, its difficulties to get documents, the subpoenas, the angry interim report in July?

Lewinsky investigation cost $40 millions, Columbia $50 millions, but 9/11 only $12 millions.
Perhaps there is nothing to investigate.

This is, I think, an underrated question:

One of the passengers of flight 93, Donald Greene, was a pilot of small planes after all.

There are 30 or so phone calls from flight 93, people talking to their loved ones, saying goodbye and praying, making plans to sacrifice their own lives to save other people's lives.

Not ONE phone call mentions the fact that there is a pilot among the passengers. Not ONE husband telling his wife, "I don't know if he's able to bring the bird down safely, but I've got a good feeling" or something link that. The difference between no hope and a bit hope is tremendous.

Donald Greene didn't call his wife.

His brother says he's sure Donald would have managed a safe landing. He's wondering why he is not among the official "heros".

Todd Beamer doesn't mention Donald Greene.
Tom Burnett doesn't mention Donald Greene.
Jeremy Glick doesn't mention Donald Greene.

But they make up a team and don't know that there is a pilot amongst them?


We know already that cellphones don't work in airplanes.


This "hero of flight 93" story is complete bogus.

This flight never happened.

Let me see if I have this correct. This "proof" is based on the notion that there were 30 or so phones call from flt 93 and then you state the cellphones don't work in airplanes.

The logic seem a bit off, not to mention the high level of facts that are incorrect and the conclusion that a passenger pilot (Greene) did not prevent the plane from crashing proves something.

Not even a link either.

"woody b" is obviously saying that the alleged calls from FL 93 are bogus. That's not a new story, but maybe some people here aren't aware of it.

He may think that most people who post here have long ago figured out that the Gov't has lied about what really happened on 9-11.

////He may think that most people who post here have long ago figured out that the Gov't has lied about what really happened on 9-11.///

I've asked a lot of people, privately and in the web, if they have ever heard a cell phone ringing at travel altitude. I got no positive answer up to now.

There is a pattern emerging: Cell phones do work up to 3000 ft, i.e during the first and last phase of a flight. Between 3000 ft and 6000 ft, sometimes a short connection is established, but immediately interrupted. At higher altitudes, you get no connection at all.

Look here:

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6

that the calls were made from cell phones, not airfones?

Why hoax a cell phone call?

Would it not be as easy or as difficult to hoax an airfone call?

Longman is a sports journalist writing for the New York Times. He has interviewed nearly all close relatives of the UA 93-victims and written this book.

A few quotes:

1) Tom Burnett p.107

"...As they spoke, the call waiting on Deena's phone clicked. It was Tom, calling from the plane on the cellphone he had nearly lost in a sporting goods store two days earlier.
'Tom', she said, 'are you okay?'
'No', he replied, 'I'm on United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco.' "

2) Marion Britton p.162

"Marion gave Fiumano a phone number. Write it down, she said. Her cell phone was not working. She gave him the number of another passenger."

3) Ceecee Lyles p.180

"At nine fifty-eight Ceecee called her husband again. This time Lorne awake and took the call. He looked at the time and the caller ID display on the phone. It was his wife."

4) Edward Felt p.193

"The man was on United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco, and it had been hijacked. He was calling from the bathroom. Following procedure, Shaw ((dispatcher)) asked for the passenger's name and cell phone number. The passenger identified himself as Edward Felt."


////Why hoax a cell phone call?
Would it not be as easy or as difficult to hoax an airfone call?////

I didn't say the phone calls were hoaxed. It's quite possible that every phone call, cell phone or airfone, is real.

But.

The cell phone calls didn't come from a plane at 30000 ft. altitude flying with 500 mph. Simply because it's physically impossible.

So some people pretending to be on board flight 93 made cell phone calls describing a hijacking, i.e. the_content_of the calls was hoaxed.

We can conclude that the content of the airfone calls is bogus, too. "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham!" These are the strange words Mark Bingham allegedly used to greet his mother...

One possibility is that the plane was grounded before start, the passengers were moved to another plane, and the hoax started.

it still seems to beg the question.

It is already clear that calls were reported as having been from cell phones but I seriously doubt that in every instance this was the case. If somebody calls me I may guess that they're using a cell phone but if they happened to be aboard an aircraft it would not ordinarily cross my mind to think that they'd be using an onboard air phone instead.

Did Tom Burnett have nothing better to say than "Hello I am calling on the cellphone I nearly lost..."? I doubt it.

With no more detailed advice it sounds to me like a hearsay conjecture, the sort of thing that has already given rise to too many false trails already.

I noticed for instance that somebody under another recent thread
appears to suppose that all the calls from the planes were from cell phones except for those made by staff aboard the planes, but according to a perfuntory search via google.com this was obviously not the case.

It is irrational to suppose that the calls were not authentic because you have yet seen enough to convince you that they were, but without also questioning, on similar grounds, the accuracy of the "cell phone" conjecture.

These 4 calls are not the only cellphone calls, there are more. But with these 4 it's clear that they were done with cellphones due to the context.

////Did Tom Burnett have nothing better to say than "Hello I am calling on the cellphone I nearly lost..."? I doubt it.////

I'm positive he didn't say that. Nevertheless, his wife Deena knew which phone he used because his number appeared on the display while she was talking with her mother. Longman has spoken directly to Deena Burnett. She knows that Toms first and third call were cell calls, the second was done with an airfone.

The other cases are similar: definitely cellphones. No airfone.

it would therfore be established that at least one authentic call came from Burnett's own cell phone and at least one call came from an airfone.

So the calls were not therefore made from an aircraft, nor were they made by Burnett?

:crazy:

Does his wife Deena concur with that opinion?

////it would therfore be established that at least one authentic call came from Burnett's own cell phone and at least one call came from an airfone.////

That's what Deena Burnett says.

////So the calls were not therefore made from an aircraft, nor were they made by Burnett?////

One possibility: If the cell phone calls came from the same airplane as the airfone calls, it is very likely that the airplane was not high in the air, because you don't get a connection above 6000 ft. Maybe someone forced Tom Burnett to report a fake hijacking while the plane was grounded somewhere.

The second possibility, I don't like to say that, but it's obvious, is that Deena Burnett doesn't tell the truth.

As i said: This "hero" story is complete bogus.

then what about the transponder? What about the autopsy? What about...? What about...? What about...?

You can't just pick and mix from the evidence and expect to be taken seriously.

:silly:

As I previously suggested, the technical details of a phone call under the circumstances would hardly have been Deena Burnett's most pressing concern. One should therefore at least hope to see some material corroboration of her recollection which may well be generously colored.

While the "let's roll" story has obviously been played up in the mass media responsible analysts were always more cautious. There is much to be taken with a pinch of salt but in the mean time where does anybody seriously hope to go with the idea that the whole hijack scenario was faked?

The notion is all built on shaky ground to start off with, in terms of the technical details and because a credible story needs to make some sense. Presuming that the end effect was as intended, why fake any of it? For anybody with the wherewithall to achieve as much, where would be the impediment to staging the whole thing for real?

Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less.

“They also were digital phones, and there's a little bit more leeway on those digital phones, so it worked,” she said.

It helped that the planes were flying in areas with plenty of cell sites, too. Even United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania, was supported by several nearby cell sites, Raney added.

http://www.wirelessreview.com/ar/wireless_final_contact_2

Tom Burnett called his wife on his cell phone the first time at 9:27, just when the hijacking began. The transponder was turned off around 9:40, so we know from the transponder data that the plane was flying at usual travel altitude at 9:27, i.e. 30000 ft (actually, 35000 ft, I think).

The other calls were later, but still at least 7000 ft (Longman). And the plane was always very, very speedy. You can't talk with someone on your cellphone at 500 mph, be it on the ground or in the air.

Sorry for Brenda Rainey, what this lady says is simply not true.

How?

Where is this data to be seen?

You say "we know" and then you say "actually, .... I think", neithing of which is convincing.

The information that I have seen is that the transponder was turned off just after 9:30, and soon after that came an announcement from the cockpit: "Keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb aboard."

/////Where is this data to be seen?////

Just ask Paul Thompson or his timeline, or go to google, or go to "flight explorer", or buy Longmans book.

///turned off just after 9:30///

That's still to late. Tom Burnett called exactly at 9:27, according to his wife. Where did you find this 9:30?

///and soon after that came an announcement from the cockpit: "Keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb aboard."///

Source, please.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/flight93.html

9:16 a.m. The FAA informs NORAD that Flight 93 may have been hijacked. No fighters are scrambled in specific response, now or later (there is the possibility some fighters sent after Flight 77 later head toward Flight 93). Although this is what CNN is told by NORAD, its not clear why NORAD claims the flight is hijacked at this time (and NORAD's own timeline inexplicably fails to say when the FAA told them about the hijack, the only flight for which they fail to provide this data). However, there may be one explanation: Fox News later reports, "Investigators believe that on at least one flight, one of the hijackers was already inside the cockpit before takeoff." Cockpit voice recordings indicate that the pilots believed their guest was a colleague "and was thereby extended the typical airline courtesy of allowing any pilot from any airline to join a flight by sitting in the jumpseat, the folded over extra seat located inside the cockpit." Note that all witnesses on the plane later report seeing only three hijackers, not four. So perhaps one hijacker tenuously held control of the cockpit as the original pilots still flew it, while waiting for reinforcements? Could this have happened before 9:00, when Flight 93 got a warning to beware of cockpit intrusions (see (After 9:00 a.m.))? F-16 fighters from the far-off Langley Air Force Base could reach Washington in seven minutes if they travel at 1100 mph, the speed NORAD commander Larry Arnold says fighters traveled to reach New York City earlier in the day. Note that the crash of Flight 77 is still 22 minutes away, so fighters scrambled to protect Washington from Flight 93 would protect it from Flight 77 as well, but none are sent at this time.

So before 9:16 it is possible the hijacking had started. One could speculate that once the warning was given at 9:00 the hijacker in the jump set took control of the cockpit immediately to avoid getting asked to leave.

....

(Before 9:27 a.m.) On Flight 93, at least three of the hijackers stand up and put red bandanas around their heads. Two of them force their way into the cockpit. One takes the loudspeaker microphone, apparently unaware it could also be heard by flight controllers, and announces that someone has a bomb onboard and the flight is returning to the airport. He tells them he is the pilot, but speaks with an accent. <"The best estimation is about 40 minutes into the flight" (9:22), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/29/01, "about 40 minutes into its flight," Boston Globe, 11/23/01, "about 9:28," Among the Heroes, by Jere Longman, 8/02, p. 208>



(9:27 a.m.) Tom Burnett calls his wife Deena and says, "I'm on United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. The plane has been hijacked. We are in the air. They've already knifed a guy. There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI." Deena connects to emergency 911.


So unless you have flight data no one has any ides what the altitude of flight 93 was.

Regarding cell phone use

From the same link posted by RH

Calling From 30,000 Feet

Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes.

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the 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. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.

Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less.

Obviously the folks that know cell systems are not scratching there heads about cell call from flight 93. Unless you are knowledgeable in this field why would you doubt what ATT says?

To check it out Paul's page was already the first that I went to!

:pals:

(9:27 a.m.) Tom Burnett calls his wife Deena and says, "I'm on United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. The plane has been hijacked. We are in the air. They've already knifed a guy. There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI." Deena connects to emergency 911

If you believe the claims about all those cell phone calls, you'd have to believe that Mrs. Burnett didn't know that her husband was headed out of town on 9/11. Sort of like the call where what's his name apparently felt the need to inform his own mother that it was her son calling.

One of the more clumsy aspects of the bogus 9-11 story put out by our Government & sold to us.

Tom Burnett tell his wife ""I'm on United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. The plane has been hijacked. We are in the air. They've already knifed a guy. There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI."

and Mr Linkman interprets this that his wife didn't know he was going out of town?????

How did you figure that out?


To me, it only shows he was telling her important information to relay to the FBI. When I travel my wife does not know what flight number and my exact destination off the top off her head. It always written down somewhere, (typically on the computer) but if I wanted to make sure critical informations was relayed quickly I would tell the same information as Mr Burnett. Assuming I could remember my flight number. Those detail tend to fall of the mental scope once you're in the air.

Perhaps I missed some important detail that lead you to believe what you believe. If so please fill me in.

Lared: I said:
"If you believe the claims about all those cell phone calls, you'd have to believe that Mrs. Burnett didn't know that her husband was headed out of town on 9/11. Sort of like the call where what's his name apparently felt the need to inform his own mother that it was her son calling."

Nowhere in the above did I say or imply that "his wife didn't know he was going out of town????"

I'm sure you didn't intentionally misstate what I said, but try to be careful in the future. Thanks.

But nevertheless. I believe the phone calls, and I believe Mrs. Burnett knew her husband was going out of town.

Please explain why believing both would be inconsistent?

Why do you stop at 9:27? Why don't you mention that according to the timeline the transponder was turned off at 9:30? And because there are no irregularities reported before, we can be sure that the plane was flying at usual travel altitude. 35000 ft.
And this is documented by "flight explorer" flight tracking software.


////Obviously the folks that know cell systems are not scratching there heads about cell call from flight 93. Unless you are knowledgeable in this field why would you doubt what ATT says?
////

You don't have to be knowledgeable to know that cellphones don't work in planes. It's just a matter of experience. Everybody can check it out.

///Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.///

Scratching her head, I could add.

irregularities were indeed reported before.

N.B. "Flight 93 may have been hijacked" already.

Why else did Tom Burnett call his wife?

We cannot therefore be sure that the plane was flying at the usual travel altitude, 35000 ft.


Where is the data to be seen?

After all this time you do not actually have a specific reference to support the notion?

was turned of a 9:56

The New York Times October 16, 2001, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final

United Flight 93
Flight plan: Newark to San Francisco.
Crashes near Shanksville, Pa.

8:42:00 Plane takes off from Newark.
At some point after 8:53, a flight dispatcher at a United operations center in Chicago sends out a text message to 15 planes, including Flight 93, that there had been a cockpit intrusion on another United flight. Flight 93 responds that the message was received.

9:28:19 First audible sign of problems in background cockpit noise.

9:29:29 Abnormal communication.

9:36:31 Plane turns off course.

9:35:09 Plane climbs without authorization.

Sometime after 9:30, two passengers make the first of several calls to their wives, saying that three or four passengers are discussing how they may stop the hijackers. One man on the plane also speaks directly to 911 dispatchers, relaying details of a hijacking in progress. Several other passengers on the flight place cellphone calls. Investigators who have heard the cockpit voice recorder have described the sounds of a struggle taking place.

9:56:00 Last transponder code observed.

9:57:19 Last radar return.

10:00:00 Controller states: "Think he is at 7,500 (feet)."

10:04:00 Last observation of primary heading of about 160 degrees.

10:06:00 Controller calls controller on land line to say Flight 93 is down.

And

A paper out of Boston says the same thing


Paul Thompson's time line also states it is either 9:30 or 9:40 when the transponders were turned off


So, now what?

We know the transponders were on while the hijackers had control of the plane for some period of time. We know that cell phones will work on an airplane, although is is not a sure thing it will work all the time. We know that family members spoke to people on flt 93. I would assume they would know the spouse cell numbers and voices and are not likely to be part of some great hoax.

We don't know exactly what the flt 93 was doing between the time it was hijacked and the time it crashed.

I guess the flt 93 hoax has lost some steam

I have a few comments about this. Personally, I believe those Flight 93 phone calls were legit. The one I have serious doubts about is the call to Ted Olson, due to his previously stated comment that lying to the public is justifiable, glaring contraditions in his accounts of the calls, lack of any evidence for the calls from his wife except his word on it, and his role in the "vast right wing conspiracy."

But that's on another flight. The relatives called on Flight 93 all appear sincere and seemingly have no motive to lie.

I think the fact that there are calls from that flight are the exception that proves the rule. On the other flights, there are virtually no calls except from special phones (like maintainance phones used by stewardesses) or in the case of Flight 175, a couple of calls right before the plane crashed, when the plane's altitude was much lower. Those calls also were disconnected several times, I recall.

Because the transponder was turned off, we don't know Flight 93's height exactly for much of the flight. But it's likely that it was steadily coming down long before it crashed. There were a couple witnesses for instance who saw the plane at 2,000 feet a few minutes before it crashed. It was making a gradual decent, not a steep one. Most of the calls from that flight come from the last twenty minutes when the plane may have been 10,000 feet or lower. For all we know, there could have been others on the flight even at low altitudes trying to call but failing due to a different type of phone service, bad luck, and the like.

Also, I don't see why this really matters a whole lot, whether you believe in the official story, LIHOP, MIHOP or something else. The callers said that the hijackers not only didn't take their phones away, but actually encouraged them to call their loved ones. This makes a lot of sense - think of how much more of a propaganda shock 9/11 has had because of those calls. The calls make it personal, make it seem like you could have been on the plane. In the same way, the plotters (whoever they were) knew that when the second plane hit the WTC, all the world's attention (and cameras) would be on it, and the propaganda effect vastly multiplied. I think the propaganda effect was very well thought out.

Under MIHOP, the same propaganda logic for the phone calls would apply. Think how much better it is to have real calls to real anguished relatives instead of faking all that. Even if one believes that the flights were remote controlled, why would all four planes have to follow the exact same routine? Why not remote control three, to make sure they hit their targets in the right spots, and then let the fourth have a real hijack, knowing you'll get the horrifying telephone calls? Then you let or make the plane crash into the countryside so some idiot pilot doesn't actually hit the wrong part of the target.

One final thought. Let's put it another way. If Flight 93 was making a long, gradual descent before it's crash, wouldn't it be surprising if there WEREN'T lots of calls from it?

Unless I'm mistaken, the only alleged phone calls from any of the 9-11 flights which show any signs of fear and panic, are those allegedly made by a flight attendant who gave us her best Hollywood imitation as she announced that she could see buildings and water etc.

To my knowledge, all of the calls from passengers were mild in tone, and their contents sound as though they could have been made while sitting in the airport lobby, calmly waiting for their flight to be announced. In other words, the only "panicky" sounding calls were made by the folks trained to remain calm, and the calmer sounding calls were made by regular folks you'd expect to be crying and carrying on like they were in some kind of mortal danger.

Hardly what you'd expect from people a few minutes short of going to Jesus.

I don't believe ANY of the "money" calls are legitimate. They're no different than what a good criminal defense attorney does to give wavering juors something to hang their hat on to get them to vote "not guilty": a made-up story designed to be as plausible as possible, all things considered.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

is not a convincing method.

So tell me, what was Jeremy Glick doing at 10:00 on 9/11?

Fighting with the hijackers in the cockpit?

Or talking with his wife in the rear?

eom

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/flight93.html

"During this time, there apparently are no calls from Flight 93."

"The only exception is Richard Makely, who is listening to the Jeremy Glick open phone line after Glick went to attack the hijackers."

Is there a good reason to dispute that?

If so please show.

Study for instance the call from Ed Felt to John Shaw.

"I absolutely knew right away it was for real," Shaw said.

"He was crying...frightened, scared and anxious," said Shaw, who remained on the line until the signal was lost.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/terrorism/oneyearlater/s_90401.html

"Terrified" was the only way to describe Felt, the 29-year-old Shaw said.

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020911shaw0911p9.asp

"(Between 10:00-10:06 a.m.) During this time, there apparently are no calls from Flight 93."?

N.B. "The call lasted only 78 seconds and ended abruptly, moments before the jet crashed in Somerset County."

Where does this quote come from:

N.B. "The call lasted only 78 seconds and ended abruptly, moments before the jet crashed in Somerset County."

This must be Edward Felt. According to Longman, the phone call lasted 70 seconds.

By the way, I agree with you, the officials didn't like this phone call. But it differs from the others in many ways. It certainly deserves further considerations.

Ed Felt;

Second link.

1. It's not clear, indeed, when the transponder was shut off, but the earliest time given is 9:30. There is no indication that the plane was flying irregularly below 35000 ft at 9:27 when the alleged first cell phone call happened. In the book published by Der Spiegel we read that Jarrah was taking the jet to 40000 ft when he turned around in Ohio.

2. Apart from the altitude, the speed of the plane makes it impossible to make cellphone calls. This is valid at any altitude and even on the ground. And the plane was very speedy until the end.

3. Again, the "heroes" story is complete bogus to me. It looks like a bad movie script as it implies non-rational human behaviour. Even in life-endangering situations, you don't throw away your brain. If you read Longman's book carefully, you'll find many, many oddities:

3.1. Lyz Glick told her husband about the collapse of the south tower at 9:59. And even after that, she was talking to him. We know that the uprising of the passengers has begun at 9:58, but Jeremy Glick never mentions it. While other passengers are fighting with the hijackers and try to seize the cockpit, Glick is talking with his wife in the rear, apparently not noticing the fights and screams.

3.2. Elizabeth Wainio's phone call was finished at 10:00. So her mother (she was talking to) should have heard screams, too. But she reports silence.

3.3. "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham."

3.4. Donald Greene's brother and wife wonder why he is never mentioned by any caller, as a pilot being the biggest hope for the passengers to survive. Instead, they are praying and talking about sacrificing their own lives to save other lives. Tom Burnett seemed to be very rational in the situation, making plans to overthrow the hijackers. Didn't he meet Donald Greene?

3.5. The passengers knew from Burnetts second phone call at 9:34 that the WTC was attacked and that they themselves likely would be victims of a suicide mission. But Todd Beamer apparently was not informed. He reached Lisa Jefferson at 9:45 on an airfone call and obviously didn't know about the WTC attacks as he asks Jefferson: "Do they want money?". He never asks her about the WTC, so he seems to be the worst-informed person on board. The idea that he was one of the leaders of the uprising has no factial substance.

3.6. Who invented the famous words "Let's roll"? Todd Beamer? No.

It was his wife.

http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp

///// She ((Lisa Jefferson)) heard Beamer saying, "God help me. Jesus help me." He addressed his cohorts, still calm, saying, "Are you ready? OK," Jefferson said. She did not complete the phrase that Lisa Beamer relayed in an earlier interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in which she quoted her husband using a family catch phrase: "Are you guys ready? Let's roll!"

"That's the last I heard from Todd Beamer," Jefferson said. "The line was still open, but it was silent." ////

So Lisa Jefferson didn't mention "let's roll", neither to the reporter of the postgazette nor to Lisa Beamer when she met her a few days before. Or do you think she has forgotten Beamers's last words? We know she had an excellent memory, but she explicitly says: " 'Are you ready? Ok?' - that's the last I heard from Todd Beamer. "

So the origin of "Let's roll" is Lisa Beamer, not her husband. Regarding the way she used to exploit these two words to make money I don't find this very surprising.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/911/showcase/orl-asecletsroll06090602sep06,0,6091457.story

While Beamer's parting words on Sept. 11 -- "Let's roll!" -- have become a global catchphrase of heroic defiance against terrorism, the Airfone supervisor in Chicago who comforted him in his final moments remains tormented by those other voices. "When I hear 'Let's roll,' I feel good because I know it was something I helped bring to the nation as a rallying cry, but other words I heard that day are what stay with me," Jefferson said in an interview Thursday. "There were people screaming for their lives, and that weighs on my mind a lot. I heard people saying 'Help me Jesus."Oh God,' and 'The plane is going down! ' "

...Jefferson told Beamer she would stand by him and stay on the line as long as he wanted her. Shortly after that, she heard an "awful commotion" of men shouting and women screaming. The last words she heard were Beamer speaking to someone else. "You ready?" he said. "OK. Let's roll."

Your message that these survivors are lying is ignorant beyond measure.

"2. Apart from the altitude, the speed of the plane makes it impossible to make cellphone calls. This is valid at any altitude and even on the ground. And the plane was very speedy until the end."

Why not?

I have never seen any reason given to explain why the speed would affect the ability to connect, the only problem being that at speed one may be less likely to stay connected.

"3. Again, the "heroes" story is complete bogus to me. It looks like a bad movie script as it implies non-rational human behaviour."

That's good, that is.

So what else is new in the USA?

Did you ever see a Jerry Springer Show?

Rational human behaviour?

:nopity:

" 3.1. Lyz Glick told her husband about the collapse of the south tower at 9:59. And even after that, she was talking to him. We know that the uprising of the passengers has begun at 9:58, but Jeremy Glick never mentions it. While other passengers are fighting with the hijackers and try to seize the cockpit, Glick is talking with his wife in the rear, apparently not noticing the fights and screams."

I gather that a hijacker had been nearby.

Would that not make a difference?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

"3.2. Elizabeth Wainio's phone call was finished at 10:00. So her mother (she was talking to) should have heard screams, too. But she reports silence."

Why?

According to reports I've seen the screams lasted for one minute or so. At 10:00 am there was still some time to go.

:eyes:

" 3.4. Donald Greene's brother and wife wonder why he is never mentioned by any caller, as a pilot being the biggest hope for the passengers to survive. Instead, they are praying and talking about sacrificing their own lives to save other lives. Tom Burnett seemed to be very rational in the situation, making plans to overthrow the hijackers. Didn't he meet Donald Greene?"


Possibly not.

3.5. The passengers knew from Burnetts second phone call at 9:34 that the WTC was attacked and that they themselves likely would be victims of a suicide mission. But Todd Beamer apparently was not informed. He reached Lisa Jefferson at 9:45 on an airfone call and obviously didn't know about the WTC attacks as he asks Jefferson: "Do they want money?". He never asks her about the WTC, so he seems to be the worst-informed person on board. The idea that he was one of the leaders of the uprising has no factial substance.

According for instance to CNN

"..he was aware that this was a situation that was not a normal hijacking situation, and he informed the operator that he knew he was not going to make it out of this.
His next response was to ask her to say the Lord's Prayer with him, and then he asked Jesus to help him.
....he told the operator that he and some other people on the flight were deciding to jump on the hijacker with the bomb strapped around his waist."

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/30/lklw.00.html

"3.6. Who invented the famous words "Let's roll"? Todd Beamer? No.

Many detailed reports, with quotes directly attributed to Lisa Jefferson specifically say that she heard it herself, e.g.

"He told her that he and several passengers had made the decision to stop the hijackers. "He turned from me to speak to someone else and he said, `Are you ready?' I couldn't hear the response. He said, `OK, let's roll!' That's the last I heard from Todd Beamer," she told "Good Morning America."

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1355/18_100/79341010/p1/article.jhtml


"She heard Beamer saying, "God help me. Jesus help me." He addressed his cohorts, still calm, saying, "Are you ready? OK," Jefferson said. She did not complete the phrase that Lisa Beamer relayed in an earlier interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in which she quoted her husband using a family catch phrase: "Are you guys ready? Let's roll!"

http://www.rubram.com/sept11-library/01.htm

Wow, if feels weird to be on the same side of an argument as RH and Boloboffin. Will wonders never cease? ;)

I think it's great to be skeptical of things like "Hi this is Mark Bingham." But I just don't see much smoke on these points to suggest a fire. For that comment for instance, I can't tell you how many times I've picked up the phone or called somebody and given the name of the company I work at instead of my name. I strongly suspect that's the case here - he's acting reflexively and not thinking.

Silence: 757s and 767s are big. If someone is in the back of the plane sounds of storming the cabin at the front of the plane might not be heard. People react differently in crises. Some get panickly and loud, some calm and quiet. We really don't know what the circumstances were on the planes, and we can do a lot of speculation. We know there were different groups of rounded up passengers on this plane, widely separated (according to the calls, at least), so the situation could be highly variable from call to call. But ultimately I'm likely to trust the 30 or so people who talked to their loved ones. I trust them way more than I'd trust government officials. Do we know all of them are honest? No (Ted Olson, cough cough). Do we know all details are true? No (for all I know Let's Roll (TM) could have been added after the fact - there's no transcript of that call and we're relying entirely on Lisa Jefferson and his wife's memories of the call. Memories can be manipulated and ideas even planted by questioners. And stories get embroidered - look at the fake British Airways anecdote with Bush's trip to Iraq recently, not to mention the whole Jessica Lynch fiasco. We've seen 9/11 acounts change, too - look how Atta went from drinking hard alcohol to juice at Shuckums as the key eyewitness changed his story a few days after 9/11). But I think it's an insult to those relatives to dismiss the whole lot of the calls. If that many they say they were speaking to their relatives, I believe them.

Speed: I totally don't understand this assertion that the plane was too fast to make the calls. Airplanes regularly travel at 600 mph and cell phones work just fine at that speed (depending on altitude).

>Lyz Glick told her husband about the collapse of the south tower at 9:59. And even after that, she was talking to him. We know that the uprising of the passengers has begun at 9:58, but Jeremy Glick never mentions it.

Can you find the page reference for that? That's interesting.

One last point. If the Flight 93 calls were faked, you'd think the fakeries would be "on message" a bit better. From the mentions of the use of guns to strapped on bombs to the Felt call with smoke and so on, there's the potential for billions to be won in lawsuits against the airlines. Why not have everything consistent with the box cutter story? The Felt call in particular seems like a detail the gvmt isn't happy to have gotten out. All the wierdnesses, including the missing last three minutes, tells my instict the calls were real, barring a possible "Let's Roll" embroidery or two.

Airplanes regularly travel at 600 mph and cell phones work just fine at that speed

That is certainly not correct in Europe according to my own experiments for the current generation of cell phone technology. It might be different in the US, however.

Is there a clear proof for your assertion that it is possible to make calls from cell phones (not airfones) during flights?

Paul,

forget Mark Bingham, he is not the weirdest case.

You don't address Donald Greene. He is never mentioned by ANY caller, but he was the most important man on board. His presence was the huge difference between a little hope and no hope. But the passengers don't comfort their loved ones with this piece of hope but seem to accept their fate and say goodbye. I don't believe that.

Longman seems to notice this oddity too. He needs two pages to explain why there was just a very small chance that Greene would have managed a safe landing (p. 182, 183). I'm positive the passengers on UA 93 would have not been interested in his analysis as Greene was the only chance to survive.

A friend of him, Peter H. Fleiss, pilot: "There is no doubt in my mind that had the passengers been able to gain control of flight 93, Don, with a little input from the control tower, could have safely landed the airplane. It would have been a hard landing,
sure, but he could have gotten it down." (Longman, p. 187)

So what happened? Was he dead? No reports on phone calls.
(No, dear debunkers, he was NOT the dead man stabbed in the beginning as reported by Burnett as he was sitting in row 27, not first class). Was he sleeping? Was he to shy to go to Burnett?
Tell me a convincing answer! There was communication possible between the passengers, as the hijacker in first class (the one with the bomb) had drawn the curtain. Where was Donald Greene?

I'm not the only one who thinks this is weird. Claudette Greene, Don's wife does it, too (p. 182)

Jeremy Glick is another weird case. Even after mentioning the collapse of the south tower, he was talking with his wife and asking her for her advice: should we take the risk and attack them? A little bit late, isn't it?

Source: Longman, p. 147 and 153, and it is confirmed by Lisa Beamer in her book.

I've gone through Longman's book many times, it's probably the most detailed, accurate and authentic source as he has spoken with all relatives personally. I don't swallow this story, I really think it's a bad movie script. The "hijacker with the bomb" was necessary to keep the threat. Burnett & co learned of the WTC attacks at 9:34. I doubt they would have hesitated if they were threatened by boxcutters.

You said: There was communication possible between the passengers, as the hijacker in first class (the one with the bomb) had drawn the curtain.

The truth: The passengers were in two groups, some in first class, some in the rear galley. The man claiming to have the bomb was with the passengers in the rear.

About the same time, Todd Beamer was on an Airphone to a GTE supervisor. He, nine other passengers and five flight attendants had been herded to the back of the plane, said Beamer's friend Doug MacMillan, who heard a transcript of the call. The rest of the passengers were in first class. The pilot and co-pilot had been taken from the cockpit and were nowhere to be seen.

"It doesn't seem like they know how to fly the plane," Beamer said of the hijackers.

His group was being guarded by a man who claimed to have explosives strapped to his midsection. Beamer, a basketball and baseball player in college and a take-charge guy, said he thought he and the others could "jump the terrorist with the bomb."

So where was Greene? Maybe he was in the front - only ten of the 37 passengers were first class, but Beamer reported only nine and the flight attendants were in the back.

Your message that these people are lying is ignorant beyond measure.

////The caller indentified himself as Todd Beamer, from Canbury, New Jersey. He spoke in a soft, calm voice. Three people had hijacked the plane. Two with knives went into the cockpit and locked the door. The third person stood in first class with what appeared to be a bomb strapped around his waist with a red belt. He ordered everyone to sit down, then closed the curtain that separated first class from coach. Ther were ten passengers in first class, twenty-seven in coach, and five flight attendants, Todd said, giving Jefferson the flight manifest. He could not see any children.///


Your source, please?

The ten passengers in first class are, by the way,

the 4 hijackers
Tom Burnett
Mark Bingham
Mark Rothenberg
Edward Felt
Linda Gronlund
Joe de Luca

because Beamer was referring to the flight manifest, so actually there were at most Edward Felt and the stabbed Mark Rothenberg in first class. The other passengers of first class were driven back, as reported by their phone calls. All other passengers were in the rear. Greene was sitting in row 27, anyway.

////Your message that these people are lying is ignorant beyond measure.////

Thank you for the compliment, but I don't say that "these" "people" are lying. Maybe some of them are lying. Maybe somebody forced them to lie.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/17/MN40630.DTL

////Your message that these people are lying is ignorant beyond measure.////

Thank you for the compliment, but I don't say that "these" "people" are lying. Maybe some of them are lying. Maybe somebody forced them to lie.

I do not compliment or insult you. Your message is abhorrent and not fit for civilized discussion, however. You do claim these people are lying. You must to prop up your obstinate refusal to believe the things they say. Your message is ignorant and offensive beyond measure.

This very thread was removed from GD and moved here, and so were many other 9/11-related threats. There is no rule not to post 9/11-related stuff in GD. In the last days several such threads remained there.

Elad promised to resolve the matter. Did anybody saw such a post? The GD rules seem to be changed as of today, but without any reference to the accurate assignments of topics to forums.