|
|
|
WHAT HAPPENED ON IN SEARCH OF THE BASIC DATA (ADDITIONS) |
|
Q Q |
Q Q > |
•
•SEPTEMBER
1, 2003 •
(please note : due to double translation, some short English quotations are not always the word by word copy of the original, particularly when quoted from the New York Times. Later remarks and additions in pink).
By this date, the FBI still has not given its conclusions to the National Transportation Safety
Board about what happened to four airliners on
Fortunately, the independentinvestigationscontinue
Poor censors that take great pains ! We wish you a good migraine... while our brainwashing ends!
Day after day, the cause of the people finds new defenders against the forces of money which impose their model of social integration. Many men are gradually conscious that they'll know what is great life only when they will be prepared for the great escape. Always further from the constructions imagined by the busy ones which have only one lust : grow rich unceasingly. And don’t hesitate to "shock and awe" in order to "shop and save".
The political version of the facts that occurred on 9 / 11 / 2001 is a key part of these imaginary constructions. It will not avoid the deconstruction.
Everybody stressed that the images of the September 11 catastrophe and
Bush's tedious speeches seemed to come straight from a lot of
Obviously enough, those who perpetrated those heinous crimes were americanized spirits fully aware that they would inflict
durable anxiety in American souls. This could appear as a particularly evil but
also sincerely commiserating side effect of an American subculture, if the US
government had not immediately seized the occasion to definitively imprison a
whole population in silence and fear, to put in
vote an extraordinary extension of the military credits to a Congress in a
state of shock, and to enroll a battered nation in a new series of murderous
economical crusades. Moreover, the new greedy conquerors could almost have
spared themselves to spew out the more rotten drum-majoring movie speeches. The
images revived themselves a whole warlike rhetoric. And the chain driving from
terror to the making of hero (glorification of rescuers, of allegedly fighting
passengers, hats off for Rumsfeld coming to give a hand
at the Pentagon during fifteen minutes) to finish with the unavoidable
large-scale ass-kicking of the new century (Bush to Cheney on September 11th,
10:32 : "We're
going to find out who did this and we're going to kick their asses").
Let's say it clearly, no maniac of the diktat would
have ever dreamt such a refounding myth. But we
know what happens with these myths a little bit dumb. That a
digger pass them through a sieve, that a potter makes the turn of them,
and the piece of trash that they hold goes straight to the rubbish dump.
...... The time has come for
the American show to perish........
Antimaterialistic prejudice of mystified beast n?. national center of American defense was damaged by the simple
crash of a banal airliner filled with its mere passengers.
Outraged
reflex of irreclaimably gullible persons n?2.
How dare you question from your home the
testimonies of people who were on the spot?... You've
been there, to question people ? And you think you're
serious enough ?, and gnagnagna
and gnagnagna...
Doctrinary refusal to listen to anything else n?.
The twin towers of the WTC had only
collapsed because of the destruction made by the impact of two simple airliners
followed by fire.
Air
of Magic Flute n?.
Go back to bed, these were only rumors...
Weapons
of massive saturation n?.
Several telephone calls attest the
presence of terrorists armed with knives on board of each plane
Conditioned
reflex of dwarf poodle n?.
The existence of an Israeli spy network
dismantled after September 11 is unfounded because there is no confirmation
from the FBI.
Chattering
by smooth talkers on active service n?.
The American intelligence services were
allegedly informed of the risk of using airliners as weapons only in the
mid-Nineties.
Antimaterialistic prejudice
of mystified beast n°1.
The national center
of American defense was damaged by the simple crash of a banal airliner filled
with its mere passengers.
We noticed previously that one
of the first photographs taken at the place of the crash into the Pentagon
showed a "ball of fire" coming from the frontage of the building. The
copyrights of this photograph were probably bought to the Library of the
Congress which has a much clearer
version and which indicates the ownership rights of the author, Daryl Donley, whose profession is directing assistant
with the National Symphonic Orchestra. Donley, as it is written on September
12, is
said to have seen the impact, but does not mention the object which hit. It
is the journalist who seems to think that it's a plane: ""It just
was amazingly precise", Daryl Donley, another commuter, said of the
plane's impact. "It completely disappeared into
the Pentagon"". The same article explains that "As the
traffic crept along, there was a second explosion, caused by propane tanks on a
construction site at the Pentagon"). Some people think that the ball
of fire did not have the
necessary roundness to correspond to a gas explosion. And it could not be
either an explosion due to fuel considering the color of the ball and of the smoke.
What we discovered is that there is quite certainly a trace of this
explosion on a seismic record from the USGS seismic station CBN.
This record is mentioned by Terry Wallace in a
short report "Forensic Seismology Analysis of
the terrorist Attacks of
|
|
The image, alas, is fuzzy, but one distinguishes two close lines indicating two jolts with a nearly identical power. (End of August 2003 : experts could not determine precisely, from another similar recording - among other not similar recordings - if all this was not just electric disturbances (Seismic Vibrations During September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks).Indeed, the station MVL, that gives the same recording, shows two jolts, around 9:39, 10 seconds part, a big and a small one, as witnessed very early Lisa Burgess (TF1, 11/09/2001, 16h10). This station is twice farther from the Pentagon (139,4 km) than the CBN station of USNSN, according to a map of this report. Why do Gerard Baum and Wong-Young Kim, in their undated report, not speak about this recording which seems confirmed by the MVL recording ? Is it only because it is separated from the Pentagon by a piece of sea - as one can try to guess from the map ? Or is it because Wallace once denied that there were any recordings of nuclear weapons tests made by Saddam Hussein ?). (end of Sept. 2003 : on 911pi.com, Eric Bart advised us to read a mail written by Terry Wallace, probably around June 2002. Asked about the apparent lack of seismic record, here is what he answered : "John, I looked pretty hard – and to be honest I can’t find any CONCLUSIVELY above the noise. I calculated an expected magnitude assuming that the impact was on the wall, not vertical (like UA flight), and got a magnitude of .8. The noise at all the stations (closest is 60 km aways) is above this. I have been deluged with conspiracy theorys since that fellow published his book" http://www.unknownnews.net/cdd060702.html Well, maybe he had only seen one jolt above the background or instrumental noise, and that is why it wasn't conclusive. There was more than a plane, a huge explosion. |
We will try for the moment to evaluate the time which separates the two jolts and to see whether that converges with testimonies. We saw that the New York Times (N.Y.T.), September 12 (p.A5) evoked an enormous blast heard fifteen minutes after the crash (which happened between 9h30 and 9h45 according to various reports). It allotted it to the fall of the roof, which appears incompatible with the hour indicated in the press (10h10). This collapse of the roof may be visible on the graph in the form of a concentration of vibrations of an average amplitude. This is at one centimeter right-hand edge, beneath the spot where stops a yellow band marking the "time window of energy arrival". If the figures located on the horizontal indicate timemarks every ten minutes, it would seem that the roof broke down thirty minutes after the impact. If these indications are timemarks every five minutes, the roof would have broken down fifteen minutes later, in agreement with the indication of the N.Y.T.. In both cases, the first two jolts would have been separated by only a few seconds. This observation is also reinforced by what was reported of the crash the very same day or the following day. Even before the N.Y.T., The Independent mentioned that people had heard "little after [ the crash] a second explosion" (Sept.11, 2001, "US under terrorist attack"). A journalist of the Stars and Stripes was in a courtyard inside the Pentagon when she " heard two loud booms - one large, one smaller, and the shock wave threw me against the wall" (September 12, "At the Pentagon, Horror and Confusion Followed the Crash" - twolinks
available). Perkal Don was in one of the buildings of the Pentagon, he went out and heard two more explosions at a few minutes apart. It is perhaps this third explosion that we can see on the right side of this photograph. Outside the building, people also heard two explosions - crash included - (Milburn Kirk or Dave) (end of August 2003 : according to a Washington Post comment of a photo (n°2) in a series of photos showing the Pentagon online : "witnesses reported hearing several secondary explosions that rocked the building and sent plumes of smoke streaming into the sky", Sept. 11, 5:52). (end of September 2003 : here is what the same paper wrote on Sept. 11, p.A10 : "Then, at 10:10, the mood abruptly changed when thunderclapping sound echoed over the grounds – apparently a sonic boom of the sort made by high performance aircraft, although that was not immediately clear to those who heard it"). Visual witnesses outside are rare but Stephen McGraw saw a ball of fire coming out of two windows. What's more, many people inside the building felt a blast. At last, blast injuries were healed survivors' body. All these testimonies are gathered in a data base provided by Eric Bart who uses some of them for his demonstration and provides the adequate links to see the original source.We thus see that the evidences converge to propose an alternative scenario
than the one the commercial press finally came to retain. that
the press with ended up retaining. Eric Bart's work
(http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/index.html)
goes beyond Thierry Meyssan's
and Commander Pierre-Henri Bunel's
Pentagate. It
enumerates a lot of evidences and an impressive mass of testimonies which go,
for example, in support of the missile theory of the - aural but also
visual testimonies stated that the flying object reorientated
itself before penetrating at full throttle. But the most probable
assumption at this stage is that of the plane loaded in its front with an
anti-bunker shaped charge bomb, and in the back, with another bomb whose way
through the building would have been facilitated by the first one. This would
explain how three rings of the Pentagon were conceivably bored. The explosion
of the first bomb would have occurred right before the impact, initially
emitting a white "flash" which would have made some people believe
that the plane had run up against the ground, or some people feel a shock wave,
a shock wave that visibly destroyed windows of the Pentagon located far enough
from the place of impact, and made some other windows vibrate one mile
around. The technical description of this "plane-bomb"
remains to be defined. Was it a very sophisticated and handy aircraft
? Not necessarily. This kind of plane was already available in 1962,
when the
Outraged reflex of irreclaimably gullible persons
n° 2.
How dare you question
from your home the testimonies of people who were on the spot?...
You've been there, to question people ? And you
think you're serious enough ?, and gnagnagna
and gnagnagna...
Let us develop the complexity of the matter. Any humanly made person adopts
on an unspecified event a point of view which is his own and which diverges
more or less from these of other people who attended it. People don't always
turn their best attention to something. They don't think useful to note
immediately their impressions. Sometimes, emotion disturbed their perception.
And as time goes by, memory trifle with them and leads them to contradictions,
when it did not become the game of the politicians. Just go to courtrooms to
have an idea. Testimonies from sheer memory must thus be taken with care. Any researcher
interested by what occurred on September 11 should start by reading Gerald Holmgren's Did F 77 Hit
the Pentagon ? Eyewitness accounts examined (
In general, the independence of mind of the journalists is not their strong
point. But when their "own" country is attacked, the simple capacity
to correctly take notes which often stands for them instead of neutrality, ends in disappearing. The only possibility to be
more or less well informed is to look at what foreign journalists have written.
The latter are not so subjugated by the official version of a government which
is not theirs. They have a little bit more liberty from their editorial staff
and are less subjected to competition. These journalists will thus not
automatically shut up the mouth of the witnesses whose remarks do not stick to
the general interpretation. The version of their articles will thus be
appreciably different, at least in the details. We will give an example with an
article of The Guardian.
Correspondent Julian Borger begins by evoking what would have been the crash
landing of an airliner of a "middle" sized airliner.
Then he quotes a computer programmer, Hafework Hagos, which ensured him to have heard a "screaming
noise" before seeing an aircraft that "was tilting its
wings up and down like it was trying to balance". Other story : a network engineer of the Pentagon, Tom Seibert, had
not been the only person to hear "what sounded like a missile,
then we heard a loud boom" (also reported
in the Washington Post, September 12, p.A15, "Loud Boom, Then
Flames in Hallways"). A pilot who said he attended the impact, Tim Timmerman, is probably less subjective or grandiloquent.
If the various facets of its visual account cannot make him counted among the
most coherent witnesses, and reduce the chances that he saw "a 757 of
American Airways", an interesting detail that he gives seems to come
from an aural perception : "it added power on its way in") (The Guardian, Sept.12,
2001, "Everyone
was screaming, crying, running. It's like a war zone"). This is
confirmed when you read the long version on CNN : "the
pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more,
and then I lost it behind a building".
A sorting out must thus be done between the numerous
accounts that press groups echoed or borrowed each other. And even if the truth
is not at the end of the quotations given by journalists, however long they can
be, this sorting out will already give a better idea.
And regarding the truth on the crash at the pentagon, a brief two-day-long
thorough study of the first accounts reports published in the press is already
enough to have serious doubts about the string of approximations which was used
by the Bush administration as a support for its political action .
Doctrinary refusal to
listen to anything else n°3.
The twin towers of
the WTC had only collapsed because of the destruction made by the impact of two
simple airliners followed by fire.
If it seems certain that a commercial airliner of an important size hit the
tower n°2, it is not really the same for what has stricken the first tower.
It seems, by looking at the hole made by the flying object, or by watching the Naudet brothers' film, that it was a plane. But is the
discussion over or should we wonder, considering what occurred to the Pentagon,
if this plane was not in some way modified, just to fly a little bit faster or
to blow up more. Moreover, some witnesses saw a small plane, a jet, or a
missile (http://www.daytondailynews.com/
Before the first impact a post-office employee heard what he describes as the
noise of a jet or a rocket, so he raised his head and saw a large explosion (The Guardian, Sept.11,
2001, "Everyone
is Panicking"). It is undoubtedly a similar noise which drew the
attention of one of the Naudet brothers when he was
filming a team of firemen on the ground. Surely, it would be necessary to unearths other testimonies about what happened there,
because for the moment, we can think that the strange object that struck the
Northern tower and was noisy like a missile, could be the type of plane turned
into a weapon that was used on the Pentagon.
Let's point that the impact of the planes was not the only shock that was
heard or felt. We already saw that an important jolt had been detected by seismic
recorders four minutes after the second impact. Was that an
explosion? A member of an online chat indicates that after the second tower was
hit "there
was a third explosion there". This one was not due to a bomb
located on the aircraft. The explosion would have been seen. And the jolt was
felt at ground level (end of Sept. 2003 : here is what the Washington
Post reports on Sept. 11, p.
A12 : Verrete Abel
and her colleagues walked down 44 flights and out into the street : "There’s
another explosion. I look back and I can see all this black smoke. I try to get
into a police car, but I can’t. I run into this building. I hear another boom.
I can’t believe it"). A financial correspondent of the BBC, Stephen Evans, was at ground level inside or
near the Southern tower : "The building
physically shook".
"Seconds later, there were two or three similar huge explosions
and the building literally shook... smoke appeared
everywhere as if a mist had settled on the building".(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1537500.stm). The Guardian gives the same quotations but adds "But" before "seconds
later" and specifies that Evans was at the ground floor (Sept.11, 2001, "Everyone
is Panicking"). His testimony appears to have been altered by http://americanfreepress.net/, a
source that - as we saw seismic vibrations - can be selective or use a kind of
liberty of composition regarding quotations.
The frequent use of the dotted lines is only one of the things that shows it. Unless it was a later testimony,
but we have no specific source. It is not known any more if Evans heard
a second explosion only a few seconds after the crash. Was it longer than that ? The reader will also notice that he would not have
heard two or three but a series of explosion.
"There was an explosion—I didn’t think it was an explosion—but the base
of the building shook. I felt it shake . . . then when we were outside, the
second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions. . . . We
can only wonder at the kind of damage—the kind of human damage—which was caused
by those explosions—those series of explosions ".
Other explosions were heard by clerks in the first tower. Did they actually
hear things falling in the lift shafts? They are nevertheless worth quoting.
Just after the impact, an employee of Morgan Stanley, Andy Perry, heard
multiple explosions: "the building shook, like maybe a yard, but this
was multiple explosions", Time
Magazine, September 12). Others heard explosions later on the 74th
floor. Witnesses of the collapse of the first tower also "heard
another explosion right before the structure disintegrated. The police said
that it looked like a planned implosion [ planned
implosion ] intended to target passers by ". (The
Guardian,
Even more striking, a short
chronology of September 11 made by Time
Magazine the very day, thought useful to indicate that a "Fourth
explosion rocks the collapsed remains of the World Trade Center, at about 10:38
a.m." (that is ten minutes after the second
collapse). The moment when a third explosion took place is not specified (end of August 2003 : it seems
that the third explosion occurred about 20 minutes after the first collapse. At
(end of September 2003 : Jean-Pierre Desmoulins, whose
investigations on the Pentagon fraud are on http://earth-citizens.net, suggested to us that there could be natural
explanations for the collapses of the first two towers of the WTC. He took into
consideration the effect of the presence of aluminium,
a subject that, to our knowledge, no other expert had taken into account. The
explosions of the impacts had ripped the fireproof layers. Fire had melted the
horizontal steel trusses. Some floor collapsed. And then the central core would
have been subjected to more pressure. What’s more, the contact of the aluminium with the water coming from the sprinklers - water
tanks had remained at the top of the towers - had released hydrogen (search on
internet ‘chemistry of the aluminium’. The hydrogen
had reacted in explosive ways with the oxygen. Hydrogen was blown through
several vertical structures. And finally, the concrete of the central core had desintegrated from bottom to top).
Air of Magic Flute n°4.
Go back to bed, these
were only rumors...
On January
27, 2002, the Washington Post (p. A01), took
some place to discard some "false reports" made on September 11: "In
the early confusion that day, there was a series of frightening but ultimately
false reports: A plane was down near Camp David and another was down near the
Ohio-Kentucky border [ it is not very far from where flight 77 disappeared,
we will go right back on it ]; a car bomb exploded outside the State
Department ; an explosion near the Capitol, fires on the Mall [a big park
stretching from the Potomac river to the Capitol] and at the Eisenhower Executive
Office Building; a plane heading at high speed toward Bush's ranch in Crawford,
Tex."
Since rumors spread like bush fires in these particularly favorable places for
talking wind that are newspaper offices, the inversion of the rumors by
editorial staves should be regarded with some care and should deserve some
checking. We are not specified, here, the source of each rumor. And there is no
sorting out either between anecdotal "information" and reports which
received large coverage.
1) The rumor of a plane down close to the Ohio-Kentucky border arouses
curiosity since it is known that Thierry
Meyssan put forward that the 757 that took off from Dulles
airport had disappeared in
2) Other false reports had a national impact on September 11. It can be
traced through a chat exchanged during nearly six hours between people who were
listening to the radio and watching television (especially CNN):
"a mall in Washington on fire too (...) pentagon, a mall (...) and
white house on fire too (...) all I heard was there was smoke coming from the
White House (...) a small plane has crashed near the pentagon (...) the state
department is also on fire (...) a car bomb just exploded in front of the state
department (...) car bomb state department" ("#High's reaction to the big jihaD",http://www.digitaldfw.com/channelhigh/logs/911.htm).
That appears yet from a weblog
: "reports of white house on fire (...) reported car bombs". Time Magazine wrote about a fire in "the
Mall". But other newspapers especially reported an explosion that
had allegedly shaken the State Department. For example The Independent, according to a dispatch by AP,
According to other sources, it had been known from unconfirmed sources that a
fire had taken place at
But let's forget for a moment the alleged terrorists and look at the immediate
effects. The moderate spirits of the diplomats were dismayed. The attack had
finally been a judicious thing for some warmongers. Diplomats are deeply hated
by warmongers. It would not have been necessary for them to set up a real
attack. A simple rumor would have been enough to create a panic that would lead
to the evacuation of the building, which happened. We can bet that Rumsfeld
had one of his good laughing time when he heard the news, since he is the one
who went outside to play the rescuers while everyone was fleeing the building
by fear of other attacks, he is the
first who said that the Pentagon had been hit by a plane, and he is the one
who had predicted
that the Pentagon would be the next target after New York... Unless he was
victim of a professional reflex, for the propagation of frightening news is the
rule n°1 for persons in charge of security or defense, if they want to keep
their business going. Of course you'd better be trustworthy. And in this
respect, Rumsfeld's reaction is rather suspicious. it's like he wanted to frighten people at this particularly
tragic moment. And perhaps was it the very reason that started the rumor,
emanating from high circles, about the bomb next to the State Department.
Let us skip (too?) quickly on the rumor of fire or smoke at the White House.
Until proof of the opposite, it's a rumor since no image shows it. But some
representative of the authorities may have puffed two words to reporters. No
more was necessary to make a big story for these people who receive as a
blessing all that comes from the authorities.
3) This is how the New York Times
reported on September 13 (p.A1) the story of
the threat over the president's plane, Air Force One. The story seems to have
come from a leak. An anonymous civil servant of the Secret Service asserted
that a caller had announced that the presidential plane was going to be the
next target and that the caller had accompanied his message with "secret
codes", which suggested that he was aware of the
procedures of the White House. That would surely raise a crucial national
problem. Since the story came from a daily newspaper known for its good reverences,
the Washington Post doesn't state that
it was a rumor (January
27, 2002, p.A01). It jus writes that all
started from a mistake made by a White House employee :"The
threat to the plane turned out to be false. Someone inside the White House had
heard a threat to Air Force One, perhaps in a phoned-in call, and passed it up
the line using the code word "Angel." Others thought the threatening
caller had used the code word. It took days for the incident to be sorted out
and weeks before the White House publicly acknowledged it".
Maybe, subordinates make mistakes, but it seems that the authorities wanted to
get rid of the matter promptly. Especially since the White House remained quiet
on the matter during "weeks" though took only a few "days"
to clarify the origin of the problem! Is this because there was no convincing
explanation to give, or because confirming such a story could have nourished
all kinds of very embarrassing interpretations for possible masters of a
conjuration in the Capitol ? We can bet that the very
small anecdote of the N.Y.T. made a lot
of waves and that the White House was assailed with requests for transparency.
As silence became more and more compromising, the power was forced to put a
term to the speculations. So, through Washington Post
of January
27, 2002, p.A01 we were told that it is Dick Cheney himself who informed
George W. Bush about the threat, which was accompanied by the code of the plane
"Angel" (see also http://911timeline.net/).
You probably also noticed that the N.Y.T.
evoked not one but several code words. "Allow me please, Mr. Cheney... I
was informed about your explanation and am fully satisfied as a whole, but...
one code word is it all about the procedures of the White House
? ". We do not know if this question was ever asked to him by some
media figure. Their motto is too often credio
quia absurdum (I believe because it's absurd).
But perhaps isn't it too late?
4) The significant effect of some false alarms probably triggered by
militarist branch of the
mysterious collapse of the tower n°7. According to the New York Times, the collapse "intensively
increased the emotion among the employees [ of the CIA
] regarding the role of the agency in the battle against terrorism". As a
matter of fact, the building had had the misfortune - inexpressible until
November - to shelter a unit of the CIA... ("Secret CIA
Site in New York Was Destroyed on September 11", Nov. 4, 2001). A close look could even point
out that the office of the CIA were a priority for the flames... Let's examine
the photograph 5-19
of the FEMA report which shows us a fire "on the 11th floor".
Some skeptics think that we can't have faith in the FEMA. According to them,
the fire devastated the 9th floor since
this floor on the upper one sheltered the offices of the US Secret Service (read CNN).
The article of the New York Times surely
indicates that the agency used the cover of another governmental organization
whose name cannot be revealed. But it can also be another little lie. The
US Secret Service would not have been the best cover. But being sheltered by
the (
Whatever the place from where fire had spread, the collapse had had the utility
to paralyze the critical sense of members of an agency whose reports are not
always to the liking of warmongers. See how the CIA is now said to have been
loose about terrorist threats ! Or remember how, when
we were mentally prepared to accept the second Gulf War, CIA agents complained to the
press that they were muzzled by the Pentagon which wanted them to rewrite
their reports !
All these threats, these imaginary or real attacks had targeted, in the
order, the diplomats of the Sate Department, a president member of a traditionally
isolationist party, and conscientious employees of the CIA. That makes you
think that some warmongers took advantage of the attacks to spread fear. What
is striking is that these actors in the shade reacted very rapidly. As it
is astonishing that in the Middle East, people (wrongfully) claimed the
responsibility of the impacts of the two planes in the WTC on behalf of the
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, by calling the Abu Dhabi
television (United Arab Emirates) only 37 minutes after the 2nd impact (The Independent, Sept.
11, 2001. "Timetable of Terror"). We don't even speak at length about
the corans, the flying manuals, the general fake
terrorist instructions, the passport, the bag, that
were curiously found in vans, in airports, or in the ruins of the WTC.
All this testifies to a certain amount of prescience. Needless to go now
after alerts received by the CIA, as are now doing falsely curious congressmen.
It looks like some people added their touch to the hijackings that they knew
were coming, or that they simply organized the whole thing with more or less
accomplices. Interior or external accomplices, depending on
the nationality of the foremen.
Weapons of massive saturation n°5.
Several telephone
calls attest the presence of terrorists armed with knives on board of each
plane
Our prior interest will be in the formal aspect of the calls. The
analysis of the content will follow by itself. What is first astonishing is the
brevity of the first reported calls. We do not think that the journalists cut
them. The subject was too sensational. Moreover, the articles which report them
are often long. Maybe passengers were victims of a panic or were fighting? That
almost does not appear in the first reports. In one case, a man seems to be in
a state of emotion because he repeats several times "we've been
hijacked", a sentence which, by the way, he is asked to repeat. Regarding
fights, no mention, except, later, for what was reported about flight 93. In
this case, three men allegedly interrupted the conversation to begin a
struggle. And as it was reported belatedly on September the 22nd, one of the
men, Thomas Burnett, allegedly gave four short
calls, each time to talk about a dramatic event - somebody stabbed,
hijackers wanted to land the plane, the pilot probably dead, the absence of any
hope so the time to do something with two other people. Each story has also its
own story. It seems that after several days, the length of certain calls has
been exaggerated. The longest call made from this flight, by Jeremy Glick to
his wife, is said to have lasted twenty
minutes while at the same time the passengers were herded in the back and
one of them had already been stabbed. Glick finds even the resources to make a joke : "He was nervous about rushing the hijackers
but joked that he still had the butter knife from his in-flight breakfast"
(if he had time to have breakfast). Indeed, we don't know a lot about this
long call. More
than a month later, the same newspaper got back to the story, repeating the
"butter knife" anecdote, but without mentioning how long lasted the
call, and adding a detail from Mrs Glick
: her husband had seen Arab-looking guys wearing red headbands.!... We
should recover the recording of the call as we are told that a family member
immediately called the FBI so that it could listen to the conversation.
Todd Beamer's call lasted thirteen minutes.
And, among a dozen calls allegedly made from this plane, he is the only one to
have talked to an operator of Airfone who was clearly
unable to recognize his voice. The story of his call as remembered by the chief
operator Lisa D. Jefferson was published in detail on September 22 in the
This leads us to another general remark. In the first dispatches, the
content of the calls are seldom revealed by first hand. It is reverend
Franck Colaccio who reports that Thomas Burnett knew
for sure that he was going to die and was about to tempt something with two
other passengers, before saying I love you to his wife. We don't know that from
his wife. By the way, these two other brave passengers also called and also
spoke about their plans. Just hazard ? And, if it was
high time to do something against the hijackers, is it also time to call one's family ? But this is perhaps a minor contradiction as long
as there is no precise chronology of the events. Other example
: the words of an Afro-American air-hostess named Cee
Cee Ross-Lyles (we see her on a photograph with her
companion and children) are reported by her aunt called Schneider (bride name
?). These words especially express her care for her family in the middle of
screams, and include the sentence "We've been hijacked" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540158.stm).
It is a person in charge of law enforcement who reports the conversation that a
passenger held with his father before the crash in the WTC. The two calls were
cut. In the first one, he allegedly said that an air-hostess had been stabbed
(it is obviously the only - juicy - detail which is retained). And in the
second one, he said that the plane was going down. What the father, Lee Hanson,
said, had been confirmed not by the father himself but by the reverend Bonnie Bardot. But considering the way the information is given,
in a context of frenzy, we can legitimately wonder whether the journalists
actually met the reverend. A call coming from the second plane to have hit the
WTC was apparently given by a crewmember to an operator of an emergency number.
The content is reported by a man from American Airlines speaking under the
cover of anonymity : a crewmember was stabbed, the
cockpit was taken over, and the plane was about to go down on
That leads us to study how circumstances allowed people to make the calls.
At the beginning, one has some difficulties to understand how passengers most
probably watched by terrorists could use their telephones without the latter to
snatch them from the passengers. To our knowledge, no reported conversation
shows any such situation. Did they hide somewhere ?
Almost nothing reveals that. There is only one man on board of flight 93, who
called the assistance services from the lavatories, but only for one minute,
just enough to testify that he had just heard an explosion and saw white smoke.
This call could be a bogus call made to support the assumption that the plane
was blown up from the inside and not by US jets. Since it's the only one
attesting that a caller was hiding, we were provided, after two days, with
an enthralling explanation : "passengers were
ordered by the hijackers to use their mobile phones to call their families to
tell them that they ...")("Victims'
Final Call to Say I love You", The Times, London, Sept. 13, 2001, Ed 4M, p.3,) This sentence is an
advertisement for an article at cost price. It stops before we are said why the
families had to call. But the title is rather transparent. And other
conversations report the nice words that the passengers had the time - or the authorization ! - to express.
Probably because it is necessary to sell stories with touching "I love
you"... (end of
August 2003 : indeed if you read the Washington
Post, September 12, p.A1, passengers and
crew members were "ordered to call relatives to say they were about to
die"). But, anyway... let me be pinched !
I just believed that these insane fanatics were all but gentlemen
!... And, indeed, nothing in the content of the calls we could read
about suggests that the hijackers gave any authorization to call. What's more,
the reduced number of calls that apparently reached the ground dissuades us
from believing it. Unless the hijackers - whom we are told were Arab - made
racial discrimination ? It doesn't seem so : black and white people had been able to call. Unless,
then, that only a few mobile phones were sophisticated enough to work ? Maybe, but if the terrorists were coherent in their
kindness, which until now is rather exceptional for people prone to stab,
wouldn't they have authorize people to lend them to each other
?
But let us return to the capacities of the mobiles :
is it possible, with the modern technology now available, to call from
stratospheric heights with a mobile ? It would be necessary that somebody
proves to us that it is possible, in the
Is it because they can't work ? An international
seller of mobiles told us that they must reach some beacons to work, which is
quite difficult at high altitude (end of Sept. 2003
: Look at the experiences made by A.K Dewdney and Germar
Rudolf on http://physics911.org/911/index.php/docs/15
and http://physics911.org/911/index.php/docs/6.
The chance to make one call at high altitude is 1%.
As for Verizon Airfones
embedded in seats, two flight attendants on US Airways told us that they only
work one hour after departure and one hour before arrival). In such
cases, all the reported calls cannot be accepted as evidence that there were
hijackers. And if it is impossible for a caller to convey his call through an
antenna or a beacon while he is flying at high speed, the calls close to the
ground cannot constitute evidence either. These calls are almost the single
trace that terrorists were on board. If we had to summarize at this point we
would say "No calls = no terrorists". However, there allegedly
were some transcriptions of recordings from a voice recorder. We haven't yet
cross-checked the various versions presented to the public. We nevertheless
remember that families of passengers of flight 93 primarily heard noises more
than voices (indeed mostly screams) in the cockpit, on the recording tape that the were belatedly authorized to listen, in April 2002. And
we remember, as seen above, that they were not satisfied because they estimated
that three minutes were missing. Why did they hear only noises whereas it was
the plane from which most of the calls were given, and thus the plane where
"terrorists" were more inclined to let people speak.
This argument obviously finds easy responses as far as we don't have a precise
chronology of the calls.
But as we see, it is not the first time that the accounts dealing with what may
have happened on board, lead to insoluble contradictions because they are very
incomplete.
These small contradictions between the sensationalistic calls are probably not
the most interesting things to find. Let's point the attention to calls that
seem to draw a rather different cartoon. Longer research would be necessary
but let's get back to a particularly striking case. Lauren Grandcolas' phone call as reported in the Washington
Post of September the 12th, p.A06, and in the Pittsburgh
Post Gazette, on September the 22nd. The only difference is that
according to the Gazette, the call was recorded on an answer machine and
not directly by the husband. Lauren is a 38 year-old Good Housekeeping magazine
sales worker, coming from
If we were to find other similar testimonies, we could have elements that would
suggest that, if there had been a problem, this problem could well have been
only an hijacking problem without hijackers, or if
there were hijackers, they may not have been violent or threatening, but just
willing to make demands. Somebody would then have sabotaged their operation
by guiding the plane or the planes they chose toward buildings, and set up
false calls to accuse them of this crime. At this point a chronology of
the calls would be highly needed. Some real calls may have been given with
airplane phones (the Airfone). Let's identify
ourselves with a hoaxer. So that false calls don't be nullified by real calls,
it would have been necessary to call a little while after the passengers would
be poisoned, and before the scheduled crash. The hoaxer would have immediately
heard, from the interlocutor's voice if he had been already called. And in the
few cases where persons would already have been called by a passenger, the call
would have stopped immediately. Alas, these kind of
details were probably unnoticed, or not reported by journalists, and, clearly,
the newspapers preferred the phone call stories related by the persons who were
probably the victims of phoney callers. Generally, we
cannot delay the release of the recordings of these calls. Would Echelon be
able to help us ?
Now, if there were no calls made from the planes, or if some of the calls
were fabricated - but not all -, who
may have called the families and the operators ? A variation in the
reported stories will enable us to put forth an assumption about that. Alice
Hoglan, from
How thus explain these variations with the official version of 4-5 pirates?
Could another organization different from the FBI, or a foreign organization,
carry out most of the false calls ? This ghost
organization doesn't seem to have paid attention to this detail that appears
now disturbing. This leads us up to a subject that we have too quickly
tackled.
Conditioned reflex of dwarf poodle n°6.
The existence of an
Israeli spy network dismantled after September 11 is unfounded because there is
no confirmation from the FBI.
The story of the Israeli spy network had been revealed in
Today, the FBI still presumes the 19
hijackers to be dead, though articles in the press indicated that some of them
were still alive ! Maybe the time has come to raise
some eyebrows.
Chattering by smooth talkers on active service n°7.
The American
intelligence services were allegedly informed of the risk of using airliners as
weapons only in the mid-Nineties.
That's what a commission of the Congress has just
communicated in a more than 800 pages report (July 2003). Do we have to believe
that the producers of movies like Die Hard 2
had taken the lead over the intelligence services ?
Actually, these risks had been taken into account for at least fifteen years.
In the New Yorker,
|
THE DESTRUCTION OF FLIGHT 93 AS A KEY TO GRASP SEPTEMBER 11 |
This United Airlines
plane had left
We tend to think that passengers may have been eliminated in another way,
and that the destruction o flight 93 may have been a way to cover other trails.
As we have seen, several indications incline us to believe that the planes which struck three buildings were not completely ordinary. It is possible that they were modified to become invisible for civil control towers and to appear "friendly" on military control towers and defense systems. It is as well possible that they were modified to do more spectacular destruction, for example, by being charged with bombs in the baggage compartment. And if we suppose that it is extremely difficult to modify regular airlines in such a way discreetly - unless it was done by night and with the complicity of security employees - we have to consider that the planes which hit were military planes prepared in advance which took the place of these commercial flights after their departure. And then, we have to wonder what happened to these commercial flights.
|
We can assume that maybe one team of hijackers planed to take over a
flight on September 11. Let's say it could be flight 175 whose path seems far
less complicated than the other (see opposite, a map in Time magazine, September 11 edition,
or September 24). Flights 11, 77, and 93 went really far from their target so
that we can presume that they were taken by truly organized terrorists. So
the American intelligence agencies were alerted many times, and they finally
learned the details of an hijacking. The military
seize the opportunity to turn this hijacking in the biggest terrorist attack
of the new millennium. They put bombs in two towers and in two or three
ghost-planes, and perhaps also in a part of the Pentagon under restoration. A
plane bomb is sent into the North tower. This is the first impact, where we
can see, on a slow motion broadcast of an extract of the Naudet
brothers' film, a detonation before the crash explosion. We will be later
told that it was flight 11. But indeed, flight 11 is electronically hijacked
far from |
|
Then, flight 175 take off from
Now, let's consider that only flight 77 was made mad. It may have been shot
around
Now, you have to give an explanation for the debris of the plane(s) that people
would ultimately discover.
Here begins the
story of flight 93. It was just coming by. Instead of putting a bomb on
board, the control of the plane will be hijacked (remember the few words Lauren
Grandcolas left on the answer machine at her house : "There's
a little problem with the plane" "there
are being kind". Then, the plane will approach or make
circles near the place of the first collision until a jet fighter shoot at it.
No trace of a machination. Just people who may have seen one or more jets but
whose voice will quickly be covered by, first, the
story of a bomb on board (the false phone call to the Westmoreland Emergency
Operations Center may have been really made as soon as the decision to shoot it
down was made), and later, by a pleasant [prefabricated] story of mutiny which turned bad, so that the airline company or the airport won’t pay
any reparations to the families of the victims for its supposed negligence in
terms of security..
Therefore, what really happened to flight 93, will cover the destruction
undergone by two or three other apparatuses that were sent elsewhere than what
was said, because they disappeared from civil control screens. It will be
noticed a radius of debris of eight
miles. Many curious people will think that it can be related to the
destruction of one plane - and only one. Several teams will be sent to find the
debris (FBI, state police, and even the army
of Pennsylvania state troopers) so that they find separately the blackboxes (but on September 13, nothing was found yet).
Because planes colluded or were shot in the sky, experts in seismology will not
find the trace of it on their recorders. Or they will seek the trace for only
one crash, after
And if we start a
cross-checking of the testimonies, we happen to see that debris recovered far
away were not only pieces of papers, but also human remains,
pieces of seats or plastics, all found in a lake (the Indian Lake) six miles
away from the crash (and not 2.5 miles away as repeated in the comments) (end of September 2003 : we’ve been told that the debris
were precisely seen at the marina, located on one side of the lake, 2,5 miles
away from the crash – which is located about midway between Lambertsville
and Shanksville, west side of the lake looking at a
map provided by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/11/2001, p.A12.
Indeed, by looking at a geographical map, we can’t figure out which part of
And how can we
explain the human remains ? A new inquiry should be
done. At first, somebody should ask some people what exactly was behind this
sentence made by a journalist from Reuters
to sum up the situation : "local media have quoted residents as
speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from
the sky" (FBI
does not rule out shootdown of Penn. airplane,
9/13/01 9:00 AM). (end of
September 2003 : we have some problems to connect the different informations about the path of flight 93 and the place
where it crashed. Surely, journalists have a tendency to simplify things in
order to write shortly. But we are not sure here if it is just a matter of
imprecision. We have been told that according to John Hugya,
an administrative assistant to Rep John Murtha, "the plane initially
flew over Cambria County Airport in Johnstown" - PPG, 9/11/2001, p.A.12 –which is four miles East of the center of Johnstown (Rand
Mc Nally Road Atlas, zoom on Johnstown). In that
case, that places the plane about 15 miles totally North
of the crash, though it is supposed to have come from the West. Are we faced
with a second plane or did flight 93 make circles before getting down ? And in the Washington
Post,