Seen the 9/11 Independent Commission reports?

[paulthompson]

The 9/11 Commission public hearing last month was no big deal. But I just noticed that the staff reports they released then are on line, and there are some interesting things in there.

Go here:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7.htm

and then look at the PDF files.

There's a lot of blah blah blah and cover up (for instance they spend a long time debunking the idea that passenger Daniel Lewin was shot by a gun, but completely fail to mention Deena Burnett's claim that her husband said the hijackers on her plane had a gun). But there are some interesting things here and there.

For instance, have you heard the claim that the passengers on Flight 175 were speculating they would be flown into a building, and were talking about rushing the cockpit? I've never heard that before.

Staff statements 3 and 4 are particularly interesting. For instance, it looks like the hijackers from Flight 77 were all filmed going through a security checkpoint at the airport. The report gives details of what happened when gleaned from that footage. It doesn't actually state whether anyone on the commission has seen the footage or just been told what it contains.

There's no mention of any other airport footage of the hijackers. But at the very least, why wasn't this released? They played a tape recording of one of the phone calls during the hearing - why didn't they show this video?

[paulthompson]

1. more

I'm going through this now, the complete transcripts from the second day:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-27.htm

And there's actually quite a lot of information that comes out in the question and answer session. For instance, I did not know that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and 11 other associates of bin Laden were actually on a domestic US no-fly list prior to 9/11. Some of those names were added in late August 2001. Makes you wonder why the names of two hijackers and even Khallad bin Attash, known at the time to be the USS Cole bombing mastermind, were not also added in late August at the same time, as they'd just been put on an international no-fly list a few days before.

And here's a quote from an internal FAA document widely published in July 2001:

"A domestic hijacking would likely result in a greater number of American hostages but would be operationally more difficult to accomplish. We don't rule it out. If, however, the intent of the hijackers is not to exchange hostages for prisoners but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

I've never seen this mentioned anywhere except now mentioned in a question in this Q and A session.

The utter lack of any media coverage about any of this is amazing.

[graphixtech]

2. Phil Berg says that

the Commission is not asking the right questions, so of course they will not get the right answers. Simply serving their purpose.

btw, over 1500 Kansas Citians saw Ellen Mariani and Phil Berg speak at several venues on Sun. Feb.22. They were also interviewed live by the three big television stations here, and two radio programs. They gave out excellent information about the 9-11 issue.

(a link with three photographs at one event)
http://kcindymedia.org/newswire/display/1321/index.php

[JackRiddler]

3. I was at the hearings, Paul...

This was my second round in DC. The only point of showing is to actually see how obviously an excercise in pretend the whole thing is, and to try to pose a provocative question during the press conference.

The Betty Ong tape was played (selected parts only!) entirely for the purpose of emotional manipulation and distraction, "human interest" angle. Very cynical and basically useless. Just selling the official story.

At least it prompted the NY Observer to publish Sheehy's report on Amy Sweeney, which for the first time nails down the official story on how the authorities learned the identities: she gives the seat numbers, they call up the names on the computer and see it's Arab guys, then for all the hijacked flights they look for Arab names and have the 19 "hijacker" names already set by 11 a.m. on Sept. 11th. True or false? At any rate, it is now official. In effect, though the passenger manifests (boarding pass receipts) and airport videos have never been released, they are saying, yes, the hijackers were on the official lists of travelers on the flights that day and that is how we figured out who they are.

WHY didn't they show the AA77 video surveillance video? Are you kidding?! These hearings NEVER do actual evidence. Of any kind. We should be grateful that in January they actually covered 9/11 (as opposed to Dec., which was exclusively pros and cons of more Homeland Security, as in, "should we raise the repression level by a little or a lot?")

And in the questions period (which finally comes after 2 days of stage-managed bulldada), the answer is always the same:

"I am not aware of the subject you mention but if you have the material please submit it to our staff and we will look at it, we are following all evidence wherever it may lead."

PS Your mailbox is overloaded, as usual, Paul!

See ya!

[paulthompson]

4. Yes

You're right. The Commission is sad. However, every time any new info about 9/11 comes out, disinfo or not, it allows one to get closer to the truth if you really look. Because you just can't tell a lie that big without the inconsistencies getting exposed.

A similar thing happened with the Warren Commission. It was clearly a whitewash. But it was also the launchpad for all further research on the JFK assassination. One could go through it, figure out what was for real, dissect the lies, and start new investigations.

For instance, when this 9/11 Commission played the Betty Ong tape, one could tell they cut out the part of the killing of Daniel Lewin. So that's a huge red flag that there must be something there.

By the way, I have cleared out my inbox so you should have no trouble with emails bouncing any more.

[medienanalyse]

5. your red flag is too small, Paul

>>>For instance, when this 9/11 Commission played the Betty Ong tape, one could tell they cut out the part of the killing of Daniel Lewin. So that's a huge red flag that there must be something there.

You missed the discussion of the Ong-tape here? Again: the whole tape is contradictory in itself and with the Sweeney/Woodward story.

It is a fabrication in the whole. Shall I repeat my arguments or do you disagree with them? Then let us discuss it.

My point is: there is and was no phone call out of the planes. Not even one. Wherever you begin to analyse: it stinks. The sheer amount of alleged phone calls shall make us dizzy, but if you examine one by one they make no sense, are contradictory and so on.

[Abe Linkman]

6. If you don't question the premise, anything is possible.

Nibbling around the edges is all you can do if you accept the basic premise of the fantastical "Wacky Cave Man Did It" Conspiracy Theory.

[BeFree]

7. "Wacky Cave Man Did It"

Can we just call them the WCMDIs? I am tiring of the constant un-informed and not wanting to know, WCMDIs who constantly litter this forum.

We need to have an acronym for them: I vote for WCMDI.

[paulthompson]

10. red flag

You may be right that my red flag is too small. I haven't seen the Ong tape discussion, but I have seen lots of phone call discussions and my take is the phone calls were real. Maybe not all of them, and maybe I'm wrong, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I haven't seen enough to convince me on that point. I don't trust the government and what they say, but I do believe the relatives who say they were talking to their loved ones.

For one thing, if the tapes were faked, then why have so much strange information on them? Why have Daniel Lewin be killed at all if you could just make stuff up? His death brings up his secret Israeli counterterrorism training which otherwise would have remained hidden and raises all kinds of questions. Why have things like mace, guns, and bombs mentioned, when that could literally cost billions in lawsuits to the airplane companies? There are so many weird things in these calls, like Ed Felt's entire call. Why do the calls on all the planes always mention one less hijacker than the official number on each plane? Why are the seat numbers in the Ong and Sweeney calls wildly inconsistent with the actual seating purchases?

If I were to fake a phone call, it would be more like Barbara Olson's, which I suspect was faked. That's the only call to mention box cutters, and from that one mention the entire box cutter story emerged, a story that has now apparently been discarded in favor of short knives. That call was a lifeline to the airlines, saving them from much blame, something that I'm sure Ted Olson would have been glad to do given his public admission that he'd freely lie to the American public if it served a political purpose.

Ted Olson is a very evil, partisan man, and everything about his call rings false and is internally inconsistent. With the other people called, except for the opportunistic Mrs. Beamer, I see no motive to lie. Many talked to their loved ones for ten minutes or more. They would have realized the call was false in all that time.

[paulthompson]

11. wacky cave man did it?

I should also mention that to believe there were real calls doesn't necessary mean one supports the "wacky cave man did it" theory.

Let's say you believe in the remote control theory. Why can't you have that AND the phone calls? Especially from Flight 93, where a good 90% of the calls came from. Have three flights remote controlled, and the fourth get some real hijackers to hijack for the express purpose of allowing those calls. So much better than faking, and so easy to do. Suicide bombers area dime a dozen. Hamas for instance says they have way more suicide volunteers than they can handle. You wouldn't need remote control on that plane if you plan to just shoot it into the ground in the remote countryside anyways. Or have hijackers and remote control on all the planes. Let the hijackers get the plane close to their targets, and let the remote control at the last minute make sure the targets are hit exactly as you want them. If at any point the hijackers majorly mess up, scramble all electronics from the plane with a nearby C-130 and let the remote control take over.

If I were the ultimate evil 9/11 genius who could do anything, that's what I'd have done, because to have real calls with resulting real grieving relatives is priceless for propaganda purposes. I'm not saying that's what happened, but I'm pointing out it is a possibility. Others say for instance that the Mossad really hijacked the planes and that's why you see the likes of Daniel Lewin on them. I'm not saying I agree with that either, I'm merely pointing out there are lots of possibilities, and not just empty planes vs. bin Laden did it.

To say that the existence of actual hijackers equals bin Laden did it is absurd, as we don't have any proof who those hijackers were or who got on the planes at all.

[Woody Box]

12. Phone calls and red bandanas

The most phone calls were very short. AFAIK there are five lenghty phone calls:

AA 11: Ong, Sweeney
AA 77: Olsen
UA 93: Beamer, Glick

From these, Ong, Sweeney and Beamer were not talking to a loved one, but to a third person, not able to identify the caller by his voice anyway. The question why they didn't ring up their spouse is not answered yet.

You've already mentioned the inconsistencies of the Olsen call. So Glick is left. He was the one who (allegedly) said the hijackers were wearing red bandanas, which is a ridiculous claim, conveying a kitsch image of islamistic hijackers. And Glick was told by his wife that the South Tower collapsed while the oher passengers were (allegedly) fighting with the hijackers in the cockpit. Is that credible?

The other phone calls, most of them of UA 93, are quite short.

Mark Bingham's first words to his mother are notorious, but the whole phone call is odd, too, just not the way a son would say goodbye to his mother forever.

Tom Burnett's first phone call was (allegedly) made with a cellphone. Altitude: 30000 ft, speed: 500 mph ->transponder data. Have you ever tried to do this?

Ceecee Lyles and Marion Britton and Edward Felt also used (allegedly) their cellphones. We don't know the altitude of the airplane, but it was always very, very speedy.

/// For one thing, if the tapes were faked, then why have so much strange information on them? Why have Daniel Lewin be killed at all if you could just make stuff up? His death brings up his secret Israeli counterterrorism training which otherwise would have remained hidden and raises all kinds of questions. Why have things like mace, guns, and bombs mentioned, when that could literally cost billions in lawsuits to the airplane companies? There are so many weird things in these calls, like Ed Felt's entire call. Why do the calls on all the planes always mention one less hijacker than the official number on each plane? Why are the seat numbers in the Ong and Sweeney calls wildly inconsistent with the actual seating purchases? ///

You take these inconsistencies as proof that the calls were real? You think if they were faked, they would have to be without any contradictions? I don't think this is a solid conclusion. Of course they must mention weapons like mace, guns and bombs to make the hijacking plausible. And obviously, the airlines survived these potential killer lawsuits. And why not to mention one hijacker less on each plane to present a red herring that leads nowhere?

Keep in mind that Atta and colleagues did a lot of test flights before the attacks. There were enough opportunities to record the flight attendant's voices and to train a female terrorist to imitate them.

[paulthompson]

13. You're forgetting some calls

For instance, the Elizabeth Wainio call was ten minutes long, as was the Sandy Bradshaw one. Others had multiple calls, such as Tom Burnett, which appear to have been short the first couple of times, but longer later.

The red bandana comment was repeated in other calls even on other planes, so regardless of how absurd you consider that, don't say it was just a Glick thing. Personally I don't find red bandanas absurd at all. The idea of dressing up in a special way, putting paint on one's face, etc... to both psych one's self up and intimiate others is about as old as warfare. The use of bandanas in such a situation is in fact common, look at the Tamil Tigers and Hamas, for instance. It makes sense for a suicide bomber because you can slip it on at the last second and it's not suspicious if you're found with it beforehand. Your complaint is like saying having a bank robber wear a mask is an old cliche.

One hijacker less is not just a red herring - it's a strong indication that the hijackers utilized a jumpseat to initially get into the cockpit. This also jibes with the times the flight controllers notice the hijackers have taken over vs. when people calling inside the plane notice. In three of the flights, the people on the outside notice BEFORE those on the inside, again suggesting that there was someone already in the cockpit. If this jumpseat theory were true, it again would probably cost billions of dollars for the airlines. Interestingly, the recent Commission staff report categorically ruled out the jumpseat idea, claiming there was a lack of paperwork to back it up (which sounds fairly absurd to me).

You don't need to mention mace, bombs, and so on to make the hijackings plausible. The general public has been perfectly happy with the box cutters only theory until now, haven't they?

As for if cell phones work at certain altitudes and speeds, I've seen wildly different claims on this, and the only tests or claims of tests done are by those already strongly partisan on this issue. So I'm not convinced. I want extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim, and I just don't see it for the phone calls. At least not yet. Claiming that "Hi I'm Mark Bingham" sounds fishy just isn't going to convince anybody.

[demodewd]

15. How many?

How many calls were made from the first three planes(11,175 & 77)? It's a rather limited number? Right?

[medienanalyse]

18. excuse me I did not see this answer before

and so I must research the Wainio and the Bradshaw one first before answering - according to my own claim.

It is not my claim by the way if phones work or not concerning speed/height and so on. The theories are to wild to depend on them, I agree with you.

I hope to be able to answer tomorrow about Bradshaw.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080117/

This was the one I just found about Wainio.
The article was edited in december 2003. Why? It is an old story.
The report is from . no not the stepmother. Mr. Löngman tells the story. Wainios voice sounds like hyperventilating, which is explainable. But which could cause an error in recognizing it. In ten minutes there are long breaks. The rest is nothing very special which sounds like family talk.

What makes this story believable? Only that it is told.

[Woody Box]

19. calls

You're right, Elizabeth Wainio's call lasted ten minutes, but there are many oddities with this call, too. Her stepmother didn't hear any crying or screaming people (like other people being called); Elizabeth doesn't report the uprising at 9:58; instead, after a period of silence, just past ten, she says abruptly: "They're getting ready to break into the cockpit. I have to go. I love you. Good-bye." A bit late, isn't it? For me, this call is a good candidate for a faked call.


/// The red bandana comment was repeated in other calls even on other planes ///

Is that true? Which calls? The only one I know is Glick's call.


/// You don't need to mention mace, bombs, and so on to make the hijackings plausible. The general public has been perfectly happy with the box cutters only theory until now, haven't they? ///

I disagree. In the case of UA 93, the "man with the bomb" keeping the passengers in the coach off the first class is essential for the plot. Do you think Burnett, Beamer & co could have been deterred by box cutters only? No, the bomb threat was necessary to keep the passengers back. Glick and Burnett discuss the "man with the bomb" problem with their wives. Burnett thinks the man is bluffing, so they decide to take the risk to overthrow him.


The cell phone question is neither fishy nor partisan - it is a physical question easy to answer by experiment. I asked some people in the German forum telepolis last year:

http://www.heise.de/tp/foren/go.shtml?read=1&msg_id=4245301&forum_id=47533

Although not representative, a pattern emerges in this poll: cellphones do work in planes only during the start and landing phase. The probability of a succesful call goes down rapidly when the plane climbs. At 35000 ft, the probability is virtually zero.

[paulthompson]

20. Red bandanas?

I appear to be wrong about the red bandanas. I did a search of all my database of articles and only see that being mentioned on Flight 93. There is a mention of "calls" mentioning this, but the only specific call mentioned is Glick's.

[medienanalyse]

21. I owe you the analysis of the Sandy Bradshaw one

My source is
http://www.warroom.com/nyterrorism/flightattendant.htm

At first it sounded good. There was no weird sentence. Nothing. So I scrolled back to look if there is any hint about Mr. Bradshaws profession, something circumstancial. But I stumbled over something else:

He allegedly received the call at 9.30.
It lasted 5 to ten minutes. And it ended with the run towards the cockpit.

Five minutes are not the same as 30 minutes. 10 minutes neither.

The story is fabricated. Because he got money or because he wanted his wife to be a hero. I do not know. Investigations will cleat that. But the mistake is just too big.

As I said Paul, take the stories one by one.

[medienanalyse]

17. red flag in the wind

>>>Many talked to their loved ones for ten minutes or more. They would have realized the call was false in all that time.<<<

In fact this is your main argument. That is what I called "they make us dizzy with the amount..."

But immediately when you recall in your argument a single story, a single call (you mentioned olsen and beamer) you have your doubts.

So how many? How many are left when you take out the "let`s roll" additionally and the "Hi mom here is Mr. Bingham!" and and and? One by one. And if there is one left with a trustworthy relative who had directly spoken: we have not the chance to ask if he/she is sure and when and what was said and recognizability and so on.

>>>extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence<<< This is very correct. In fact I do not have any evidence. Not even with Ted Olsen whose ten or twelve versions I counted in my book. There is no evidence and will never be, all is circumstancial.
One claim against the other, one belief against the other.

The Ong-discussion is just some lines to scroll in this forum.


Your point with the strangeness and weirdness is the only one which is standing a bit better. I can only mention that the sense to lay out red herrings is still that it is a herring or looks or semell like a herring. It is not nothing. 911 is full of fishy things including the antisemitic trail, the pixel-wixel herring and so on. I can not and will not explain weird things which are weird maybe because they shall be weird.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. The red flag is liability

According to Sweeney the terrorists had a bomb that they were carrying. Add that to the possibility of one of the passengers getting shot with a gun and American Airlines is in deep do-do.

Having a plane hijacked with items that are banned and should have been caught when the person went through security is a heck of a lot different than a plane being hijacked with items that had been considered acceptable.

[Woody Box]

9. Who killed Daniel Lewin?

/// For instance, when this 9/11 Commission played the Betty Ong tape, one could tell they cut out the part of the killing of Daniel Lewin. ///

Have you any information that it was Betty who reported the shooting? I think there is none.

I always thought it was Amy Sweeney's call. But that's also not right. The original report is here, including a scanned jpg file of the memo:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26641

This memo is independent from the Ong and Sweeney calls, I think. Note the odd time scale. I agree, So that's a huge red flag that there must be something there, but which direction do we have to look?

Concerning the Ong and Sweeney calls, I share medienanalyse's view: They are faked or didn't even take place at all.

[Abe Linkman]

16. Have any phone records been released? Why not?

Such a simple, easy thing to do. Yet, to my knowledge no records have been released. Why?

Victim families (whose loved ones supposedly got calls) aren't likely to
want to even consider any alternative to the "Wacky Cave Man Did It" explanation. Besides, they've probably been paid a little extra to keep quiet and they may have also received a visit from "grief counselors" who explained to them (in gentle, no uncertain terms) that it's best if they just let the tapes be the "evidence"...after all, anyone who questions their validity can be easily discredited.

(have you heard anyone here who supports the Official version try to bolster the validity of the tapes stories with evidence of any kind?)

[Phil_Jayhan]

14. 911 phone calls

This is a great thread, with lots of good info. I read it through and was trying to think of anything else that might possibly explain the phone calls or any other theories we might not be considering;

And I came up with one, one that makes sense, and answers most of the major problems or inconsistencies with the other theories.

I am sure this will pose new problems as well, but tell me if this sounds plausible;

Premise; Almost all phone calls were real, save for just a few.

How was this done?

With phones of course!:)

The way it could have happened would be that each airplane captain gets a radio call on a secure frequency. The bogus NORAD call;

"Flight 11, this is NORAD come in please"

Flight 11: 'This is "Flight 11" NORAD go ahead'

"This is a private emergency matter for the ears of the cockpit crew only, please close and lock your cockpit doors to receive this transmission, this is an emergency"

Flight 11: "Cockpits cleared of all personel and the doors have been closed and locked, over..."

Roger that Flight 11; A National emergency has been declared, numerous aircraft 'Heavies' have been hijacked and some have been crashed into buildings in chicago and washington DC; We suspect 'flight attendents' have infiltrated these aircraft; We repeat, do not open your cocpkit doors for any reason and have no communication with them until you land at an alternate destination;

Please turn off your flight transponder, and deviate your course heading to; (coordinates given here) and land at Military base 1139;
You are commanded to communicate with none but NORAD on this secure frequency. (This also causes the Captain to not be able to hear the other 'chatter' from the flight controllers and other aircraft in the area, as flight 11 turns from its course and turns another direction;)

Thus, the Captain cannot now hear whats going on on the other frequency, and is effectively blind; He turns his plane to the new heading. Perhaps right away, or maybe a few minutes later, people, flight attendents, realize their plane is going in the wrong direction; Flight attendents try to go to the cockpit, only to find it closed, locked and with no response to their many bangings;

They then try calling the cockpit; No answer. Panic starts to occur.
A few minutes go by and the panic is affirmed; People start calling home, loved ones, the flight attendants try to call offical channels to tell them of their emergency; Some call loved ones, fearing the worst and wanting to say goodbye;

The cockpit is still silent, and locked; The pilots hear the banging, and as it grows louder and harder, their suspicions of the flight attendants is confirmed; They suspect NORAD is correct, and to open or communicate with them will 'breach their security'

At this time, the fake calls from flight 11 were being made; This was, they also blended right in with the others;

Thus they continue on to their alternate destinations without communication with anyone inside the plane. They are off the official channel and listening only on the encrypted frequency, so they are still effectively blind, not hearing the other pilots and flight controllers talk about flight 11; and have no suspicion that the NORAD radio call is a hoax;

Thus the phone calls, most of them were genuine, which also would account for why so many were disconnected and called out numerous times; Then some started usiing the planes phones, etc...

The calls which were faked are easy to pick out in this scenario;
They will be the ones which estsblish the 'official story of the day' and lead us onward to war, war, and more war...

So pick out the phone calls with references to arabs, box cutters, guns, bombs, knives, murders, etc...Those are the phone calls which were faked;

Does this scenario work?

Just a working concept at this time.

cheers~
pj :)