The UA 93 phone call story is crumbling like a card house

[Andre II]

Thanks to the Flight animation that was released during the Moussaoui trial we do have all the official information concerning the seats the passengers of UA 93 were seated in after they had been herded to the back of the plane by the alleged hijackers and and we do have the exact time and duration of their phone calls.
Based on these information it is possible to show how huge the contradictions are between the official chronology of the flight (apparently supported by the CVR) and the phone calls. Both should be true. If putting the two in relation to each other leads to an unsolvable contradiction at least one of the twos is necessarily false.
Let’s concentrate on the last minutes of the flight.

“At 9:57, the passenger assault began. Several passengers had terminated phone calls with loved ones in order to join the revolt. One of the callers ended her message as follows: ‘Everyone's running up to first class. I've got to go. Bye.’”
(CR, 13)

And in fact the time Sandy Bradshaw’s call ended 54 (all cited times of the phone calls are according to the phone call animation presented at the Moussaoui trial) matches perfectly with the CVR where at 9:57:55 the alleged hijackers wonder what’s going on.
Yet, no less than four passengers apparently remain on the phone AFTER the passenger attack officially started:
CeeCee Lyles
Honor Wainio
Ed Felt
Jeremy Glick.


CeeCee Lyles:
At 9:58:00 she uses her cell phone to call her husband but unfortunately the length of the call isn’t mentioned.
“The pair prayed. In the background, Lorne Lyles could hear what he now believes was the sound of men planning a counterattack.
"They're getting ready to force their way into the cockpit," she told him.
(…)CeeCee Lyles let out a scream.
"They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!" she said. Lorne Lyles heard a scream. Then his wife said something he couldn't understand. Then the line went dead.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp

“Lorne Lyles: And then I--you know, I hear commotion in the background, and then, you know, I didn't know what to think. I just--honestly, I didn't know what to think. I didn't know what to think had happened. All I know, I got disconnected. And I got disconnected with her screaming.”
(NBC, 10/2/01)

“CeeCee screamed and he heard a whooshing sound, a sound like wind, a sound he couldn’t really explain, just that it was like wind and people were screaming and then the call broke off”. (p. 253)

As officially this call started five seconds AFTER the passanger assault started it makes absolutely no sense at all. Taking into consideration that the couple prayed together it seems to be very conservative to estimate the length as longer than one minute. So the call would have ended AFTER 9:59. Which means that the cell phone company would have been wrong by their officially given time by MORE than one minute.


Wainio, Honor:
At 9:53:43 she phoned her parents. The call lasted 269 seconds. Therefore it ended at: 9:58:12.
She ends her call:
“They’re getting ready to break into the cockpit. I have to go. I love you. Good bye”.
(Longman, 242)
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
While in reality they have been running to first class already 20 seconds ago. This might be not surprising as her mother described Honor Wainio as being in a dream like state of mind.

But how come her mother didn’t hear the screams of Sandy Bradshaw and CeeCee Lyles both being only one row behind Wainio?

Esther Heyman “could not hear another person. She could not hear any other conversation or crying or yelling or whimpering” (Longman, p. 241f)


Ed Felt
Ed Felt officially used his cell phone at 9:58:00 in the bathroom in the rear of the plane. The call lasted 74 seconds and got disconnected.
There are many questions surrounding this call though this call doesn’t seem to be a
100% proof that the official story is a lie. For further info chec out:
http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?315
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x23179


Jeremy Glick
Before dealing with this call lets quote the Commission Report:
”The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of the passenger assault muffled by the intervening cockpit door. Some family members who listened to the recording report that they can hear the voice of a loved one among the din. We cannot identify whose voices can be heard. But the assault was sustained.
(CR, 13)
So, it is very clear from the CVR that since the beginning of the passenger attack began its clearly audible.


Jeremy Glick is unquestionably still on the phone at 9:57:54 (as his wife will tell him of the WTC collapse she is seeing on TV).
For the sake of the argument we will show everything that must have happened aboard UA 93 in order for the official story to be true.

First of all there are some psychologically very surprising events.
Though according to Lyz Glick Jeremy Glick said:
'Three or four other guys, they're big like me. We're talking about storming the hijackers.'
(ABC, 9/18/01)
and they voted to storm the cockpit and though Todd Beamer knew his first name Jeremy Glick remained seated when the attack started. And these three or four men run first class and don’t ask Jeremy Glick who had a very athletic body to join them? Not even Todd Beamer sitting five rows behind him (so had to pass next to Glick) and knew his first name?
In his conversation with his wife Glick even doesn’t mention the ongoing attack nor seems he to be so emotionally involved in what’s going on in front of the cockpit. Instead he discusses with his wife the risk if they’d attack the cockpit!
From Jere Longman’s book:
“Lyz shook as she talked to her husband, but when she heard that the hijackers didn’t have guns, she thought Jeremy would be okay. He could get stabbed, or get his hand slice, but he might not even feel it in the adrenaline rush. Getting stabbed wouldn’t kill him. The only hope is if they take these people over and get control of the plane.
“I think you need to do it,” Lyz told Jeremy.
“Okay,” he said. “Stay on the phone, I’ll be right back.”
There was a sound of conviction in his voice. Not anger, but a sense of purpose. He wanted to get home to wife and daughter.
They were going to jump on the hijackers and attack them, Jeremy said.”
(p.216f)

Does this conversation makes any sense at all if the passenger assault is ongoing since two or three minutes already?

I believe this is extremely unlikely.

But for the sake of the argument let’s put all the psychological improbability aside.
There are more improbabilities that are not of psychological nature. After Jeremy Glick left his seat his wife gave the phone to her father Richard Makely. He states:
"There was no noise for several minutes. And then there were screams, so I said - well, they're doing it. Another minute, it seemed like an eternity, but another minute, a minute and a half, and then there was another set of screams. It was muffled. Then there was nothing."
(Mirror, 9/20/01:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=...)

But during the conversation with her husband as Lyz Glick recalls:
“I didn't hear any screaming. I didn't hear any noises. I didn't hear any commotion.”
(NBC 09/30/02, http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2002/msnbc090302.htm... )

So how is it possible that she didn’t hear none of the following though as her father’s statement shows the sound quality of the connection can’t be the reason:
- The panic that Lyz Jefferson heard talking to Todd Beamer.
- The two screams of CeeCee Lyles when the attack started.
- The scream of Sandy Bradshaw when the attack started.
- The screams that Fred Fiumano hears around 9:53 when talking to Marion Britton.
- The sound of the attacking passengers who were sitting behind Glick as e.g. Todd Beamer, CeeCee Lyles, Sandy Bradshaw (in fact most passengers were sitting BEHIND Glick and had tp pass next to him).
- Nor the sound of the passenger assault (which was clearly audible on the CVR)??

Not enough. There are still more improbabilities.
“In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt”
(CR, 13)

All this MUST have been during Jemery Glick’s phone call.
Yet, neither does his wife hear any commotion at all.
Nor does Jeremy Glick react to the sudden violent movement of the plane in any sort but continues discussing the risks if “they” should attack the cockpit?

All this must have happened in order for the official story to be true. How believable is that???

[victordrazen]

1. It's just a script someone wrote.

and a bad one at that.

[noise]

2. The ultimate nightmare

is that the CVR showed the passengers regained control of the plane only for the plane to be shot down.

If these calls were faked that was one hell of an elaborate, detailed operation. Some suggest that the calls were fake but the plotters were sloppy. A sophisticated fake operation farmed out to some cheap private CIA outfit to save a few bucks? The black op team had a keg party on 9/10 and weren't on their game? If the calls were faked wouldn't we hear someone mention Bin Laden or al Qaeda?

I understand the doubts about the likelihood of successful cell phone calls at speed and altitude in 2001. I agree with the doubts about the likelihood of an elaborate voice morphing operation. If one wants to speculate I think it would make more sense for the planes to have been retrofitted with some sort of cell phone enabling technology. This sort of technology wasn't available commercially at the time but that does not rule out some sort of DARPA prototype.

[victordrazen]

3. no planes, no phones, even some of the people

never existed. Please...Sandra Bradshaw lived in North Carolina, very unlikely her cell phone would reach there and she would take time from fighting the evil hijackers to call her husband. Good God.

[noise]

4. The families were all fooled?

With voice morphing? The airphone calls were fake too? The sudden lack of response from the pilots? The ATC broadcasts (Flight 11 and 93) of people presumed to be hijackers?

[victordrazen]

6. Few of them claimed to receive calls

For example, Ted Olson, was the only one with a relative claiming to receive a call on flight 77. I doubt that call ever occurred, considering who he is.

As far as faking passengers, etc... Take a look at this "obituary" -
http://www.arrangeonline.com/notablePersons/notable.asp?ObituaryID=64182329
Then do a search for "Jude Larson". It is framed as a "hoax", but I think it provides insight as to how some of it happened.

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=2412

And as far as "faking" the voices, I don't think they would do that, they would have them read a script, telling them it was for a practice "terrorist" scenario. (The flight attendants, etc..) I heard one recently, one of the flight attendants, can't remember which one, and it sounds like someone is saying "Good job!" at the end.

[noise]

9. One would think

the safety measures built into any hijacking drill were extensive considering the possible danger involved and the risk of lawsuits. Unannounced hijacking drills on a passenger plane? That doesn't sound right. Some have theorized that the al Qaeda operatives were actually involved in a hijacking drill. Again, is this the way to conduct a drill? Why not use a FAA red team who was officially cleared for such work?

[victordrazen]

13. I don't know if the drill protocol is always the same

Here is an article about the drills that supposedly took place prior to 9-11. They seem to vary. But this would have been a "mock" drill. Remember the recording of the guy asking - is it real or a drill? and he was someone who was around that all the time and he couldn't tell.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

What's funny in the above article is they talk about scrambling and intercepting as part of their drills. And we're supposed to believe that 4 flights were in the air over a period of several hours all known to be hijacked and not one of them was intercepted? It's ridiculous. I think the drills were devised to create confusion on this issue.

[Woody Box]

8. Forget the voice morphing

Andre like most others who have researched the physical impossibilities and factual contradictions of the cell calls from UA 93 don't claim any "voice morphing" - am I right, Andre?

The "physicists" like AK Dewdney just argue that the cell calls certainly didn't origin from a plane at 30.000 ft. And the "journalists" like Andre argue that the calls in toto - cell phones and airphones - contain too many contradictions to assume that the alleged passenger assault really happened.

There's no need for "voice morphing". A more realistic explanation - just a suggestion - is that the callers were taking part in a wargame. Have you ever listened to Betty Ong's call from Flight 11? It is most probably Betty Ong herself, but her sentences sound like she's reading from a script. That doesn't mean she was "in on it". She didn't know that her engagement in Vigilant Guardian (or whatever wargame) was misused to conduct the biggest crime ever on American soil.

[victordrazen]

10. Yes, I think the "voice morphing" is a canard

and that they were participating in war games or terrorist drills (which I said in my other post).
I.E: Why would Betty Ong be talking to the Richmond reservation desk? She would also know her flight # .

[noise]

16. Obviously 9/11 CR skeptics

are frustrated at the lack of information. I blame that on the secrecy of the White House, CIA, FBI, FAA, etc. My point being that the lack of detail or odd details from people on the plane aren't necessarily odd at all, they just seem odd because of the outrageous coverup after the attacks.

The drill scenario for people on the planes is over the top in terms of recklessness. To have a drill in which passengers tell family members they may die? That is not credible. Nobody would do that.

What sort of drill MO would call for Middle Eastern operatives to take part? Why would they hang out in the country for months and take flight training? It's not remotely credible.

[Woody Box]

23. Frustrated? Pardon?

Obviously 9/11 CR skeptics are frustrated at the lack of information. I blame that on the secrecy of the White House, CIA, FBI, FAA, etc. My point being that the lack of detail or odd details from people on the plane aren't necessarily odd at all, they just seem odd because of the outrageous coverup after the attacks.

I can reassure you, I'm not frustrated at all, and despite the secrecy exhibited by these government agencies, there is a enough information out there to make a Operation Northwoods/plane swap maneuver, based on military drills, more plausible than the official story. Have you ever listened to the NORAD tapes?

The drill scenario for people on the planes is over the top in terms of recklessness. To have a drill in which passengers tell family members they may die? That is not credible. Nobody would do that.

Not agreed. Take the case of Mark Bingham. This is the guy who called his mother and greeted her with "Mom, here's Mark Bingham". Even more strangely, he asks her several times "Do you believe me, Mom?" as if he fears that his mother might not believe him. If a family member is informed beforehand that the passenger is taking part in a drill, but doesn't know any details, the passenger might well call his relative and tell him that his plane is hijacked - because the relative knows that it's not for real.

What sort of drill MO would call for Middle Eastern operatives to take part? Why would they hang out in the country for months and take flight training? It's not remotely credible.

Not agreed again. I don't see any problem here. These Middle Easterners were laying out false tracks with their flight training. I've read somewhere that up to 90% of a clandestine operation consists of constructing a false track. Of course, these Middle Easterners were not only involved in the drills (like Betty Ong and Mark Bingham, probably), but also in the crime.

[PatrickSMcNally]

28. Misrepresentation

-----
This is the guy who called his mother and greeted her with "Mom, here's Mark Bingham". Even more strangely, he asks her several times "Do you believe me, Mom?" as if he fears that his mother might not believe him.
-----

That's not quite what was reported. The actual report was:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/06/04/911.calls/index.html

-----
"'Mom, this is Mark Bingham. I just want to tell you that I love you. I am on a flight from Newark to San Francisco. There are three guys on board who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb. You believe me don't you, Mom? I'm calling you from the air phone.' And then we were disconnected," Hoaglan said, her voice breaking.
-----

The question about "You believe me don't you" is not simply asking "do you belive that I am really Mark Bingham?" Rather, he's asking "do you believe that I may be killed soon because this plane has been taken over by people who say they have a bomb?" That isn't such an odd query for a son to make to a mother when breaking such news.

[MorningGlow]

29. Yabbut

Who in the hell calls his mother and says "This is Mark Bingham"?! Most children would say, "Mom--it's me" or, if there are many siblings, "Mom, it's me--Mark". That little tidbit always sounded profoundly "off" to me.

[defendandprotect]

60. Agree . . . stories aren't believable and OLSEN once oif the most unbelievable . . .

Ted Olsen . . . remember him and his right-wing wife . . . Barbara, wasn't it?

Bingham comes in second as unbelievable ---

[SDuderstadt]

30. It also was not unusual for Bingham to announce himself by his first and last name....

to his mother:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z96MZOZyilo

(about 1:40 in)

[Andre II]

25. Hi Woody!

You're right.
I've never written a word about voice morphing and I believe the discussion is simply too hypothetical.
You've written:
"And the "journalists" like Andre argue that the calls in toto - cell phones and airphones - contain too many contradictions to assume that the alleged passenger assault really happened."
Indeed. and all the people who believe that the story of the calls must be true should come up with an explanation.

[William Seger]

33. An explanation

You start by assuming that times derived from different sources are synchronized, make guesses about how long things took, make assumptions about what people meant on the phone or in later interviews, make assumptions about what people should have heard or seen at any particular time, make guesses about how the passenger attack would have unfolded, and assert personal incredulity that certain things could have happened. The simple explanation is therefore that you are simply wrong.

[Andre II]

34. LOL

"You start by assuming that times derived from different sources are synchronized"
Sorry, William, all phone calls used are from air phones therefore the officially given times are synchronized. Where I refer to phone calls (Lyles or Felt) that officially are from cell phones I point out that the time might be approximate.

"make guesses about how long things took"
What? I believe you're talking about the duration of the calls. Again, this are the officially given duration. As shown above the times are synchronized.

"make assumptions about what people meant on the phone or in later interviews"
Care to present any example of where I interpretate things?
The case of Lyz Glick talking about the World Trade Center collapsing is hardly a case open to interpretation.

"make assumptions about what people should have heard or seen at any particular time"
Again wrong. I don't make assumptions. I point out that people at the very same time (based on the officially given times) hear different things. Please be more specific in order to discuss.

"make guesses about how the passenger attack would have unfolded,"
Hm. Is it guessing that people sitting behind Glick must have passed besides him in order to attack the cockpit?

"assert personal incredulity that certain things could have happened"
Really? Well, what would that be.

"The simple explanation is therefore that you are simply wrong."
The simple answer is that it is a very strange form of debunking if the OP comes up with many facts, quotes and sources and you rest totally vague not even refering to just a single quote from the OP (not to mention to at least try to debunk at least one tiny example of the OP.

But, I'm grateful that you've answered at least. Most people again are discussing issues that have nothing to do with the OP.

[spooked911]

38. The problem is that you're not even trying to take this seriously and looking at the evidence

you're just coming up with a glib explanation for why Andre II is wrong.

[William Seger]

41. You're right; I'm not taking it seriously

If the "official information" such as the call times were actually contradictory with other "official information" (and I don't really accept Andre's argument that they actually are, but even if they were), then the most likely explanation is that one or the other pieces of "official information" is incorrect. Spinning a conspiracy yarn out of that requires assuming the most sinister reasons for why it's incorrect. Arguing over that would be a total waste of time, since it seems neither side can offer anything objective. I also notice that Andre shies away from offering any rational hypothesis himself -- he's content to just sow suspicion -- so the whole thing seems pointless.

[Andre II]

42. Again

you fail to present any specification but anyway. And no I'm not going to play any hypothetical games about what did really happened. Sorry, I stick to the facts as they are present in the official explanation; I know that pisses you off but you do know that a lawyer doesn't have to prove who killed somebody in order to show that the prosecution is wrong. It suffice if he proves that the argument of the prosecutor is convincing (or as in the case of 9/11 a lie).
But back to UA 93.
"the most likely explanation is that one or the other pieces of "official information" is incorrect"
Interesting. And, yap, I agree.
But what would be incorrect? The CVR?
The phone call times?
Ok let's take the phone call times which are synchronized as you could admit by now. So how come some (Sandra Bradshaw) correspond perfactly whith the official timeline and some simply don't.
And what' about Glick's call?
The basis of showing that the UA 93 phone call story is a cardhouse.
In all the argument concerning Glick's phone call I DON'T use the times given by the phone company.
But only the CVR time which I put in relation with the fact that Glick is still on the phone at 9.59.
So, is the CVR wrong.
Now, that would be interesting.
Sorry, William, if you want at least to try to debunk the OP, you have to be much more specific.


Btw
"Spinning a conspiracy yarn out of that requires assuming the most sinister reasons for why it's incorrect. "
What? Looking at the official facts in putting them in relation togethe rrequires ..... maybe the wish to know if the official story is true (just as a small hint)

[spooked911]

46. good point-- so even Seger admits the official story has flaws

wouldn't it be good to know what they are?

By the way, it is irrefutable that the FBI changed their story about cell phone calls being made from the plane-- why would they say it was cell phones if they didn't have the evidence for it?

[William Seger]

52. You asked for an explanation: I gave you one

Easy to predict you wouldn't like it, but it is the most plausible explanation. There's really nothing in your OP to "debunk." You can't prove the "official" times are accurate enough to make the inferences you're making, and I can't prove they're not. You can't prove that particular people "should" have known whatever at any particular time, and I can't prove that they didn't, for whatever reason. Please do let us know if you ever come up with anything substantial.

[Andre II]

71. An exlanation???

I don't see your explanation.
You say something must be wrong but fail to specify which one that'd be.
You refuse to be any more specific than saying it can't be true.

"You can't prove the "official" times are accurate enough to make the inferences you're making, and I can't prove they're not. "
What?
So, please be clear, do you imply the times of the CVR are incorrect?

"You can't prove that particular people "should" have known whatever at any particular time, and I can't prove that they didn't, for whatever reason."
Now, this is real nonsense. Nowhere do I imply people should have known whih is a completely subjective category. Again be more specific.
It would be great if you do at least once quote the OP you're pretending to refering to.

Btw again you fail to talk about Glick's phone call which - as I've shown - is refuting the official story alone (at least the times given by the CVR).

" Please do let us know if you ever come up with anything substantial."
Now, that's funny!

The phone call story is bogus and you fail to debunk it but keep on babbling about substantial....
:spank:

[William Seger]

74. Good grief, Andre

The Commission report implies that the 9:57 time for the beginning of the attack was based on the CVR, but they don't say precisely how they derived that time. The phone call records are from both Airfone and cell phone records. There is no basis for assuming that any of the three time sources were synchronized. A difference of only 20 or 30 seconds would explain the "contradiction" with the Lyles and Wainio calls, if I discount your pure conjecture that her prayer lasted "longer than one minute" and instead assume it took perhaps 15 or 20 seconds. The Felt call adds nothing, since he was in the toilet. And with the Glick call, you failed to even explain how you deduced that he was still talking about planning the attack when it' "ongoing since two or three minutes already." Even ignoring your supposed time discrepancies, you think it's suspicious that people receiving the calls didn't hear things you think they should have heard, despite the fact that phone microphones are specifically designed to shut out background noises.

There's very little to debunk because there's just very little there, Andre. If you've got something more substantial, let's hear it. Otherwise, I can't see any reason to keep rehashing what you've got in the OP, and I don't see any reason to keep replying just to tell you that.

[Andre II]

75. Getting slightly more specific...

"The Commission report implies that the 9:57 time for the beginning of the attack was based on the CVR, but they don't say precisely how they derived that time."
The Commission gives the exact time of the attack down to the second. The logical thing is that they've deduced it based on the official aknowledged time of the crash.
Do you doubt the time of the crash?
It is also perfectly supported by Bardshw's phone call.


"The phone call records are from both Airfone and cell phone records."
Officially all phone calls have been done with airfones save one of Lyles and one of Felt. I've explicitly stated in the OP that the two times for the cell phone calls might be approximate only. Therefore your agument changes nothing.


"There is no basis for assuming that any of the three time sources were synchronized"
The airfone times are synchronized.

"A difference of only 20 or 30 seconds would explain the "contradiction" with the Lyles and Wainio calls, if I discount your pure conjecture that her prayer lasted "longer than one minute" and instead assume it took perhaps 15 or 20 seconds."
What exactly does a time discrepency has to do with the fact that Wainio's mother didn't hear any screams when the attack started though Bradshaw and Lyles both being only one row behind Wainio?

"The Felt call adds nothing, since he was in the toilet."
I've added the Felt call as he is one of the few still on the phone while the passenger attack is already underway.
But there are many question concerning his phone call (see link)


"And with the Glick call, you failed to even explain how you deduced that he was still talking about planning the attack when it' "ongoing since two or three minutes already."
You do realize thathis wife told him that the WTC collapsed (9.59)
This is two minutes AFTER officially the passenger assault started.
And you have lost not a word about all the things that must have occured concerning Glick's call so that the official story remains true.


"Even ignoring your supposed time discrepancies, you think it's suspicious that people receiving the calls didn't hear things you think they should have heard, despite the fact that phone microphones are specifically designed to shut out background noises."
Hm. Care to explain how it come some people using airfones heard the noise while other people using airfones only heard silence?
Care to explain why Richard Mekely didn't hear any noise when he took the phone and hearing only silence for 30 seconds though the passenger assault was long time under way already. Then he hears screams..

[William Seger]

84. Well...

Your problem is to demonstrate that the 9:57 time derived from the CVR was synchronized with the Airfone calls, not that the Airfone calls were synchronized with each other.

> "You do realize thathis wife told him that the WTC collapsed (9.59)"

No, I don't "realize" that; that's why I asked. Yes, Longman says that in "Among the Heroes," but since this OP is just a rehash of the same thread you started over a year ago, you should realize why that's insufficient proof: In her own book, Lyz Glick said "... but I don't recall mentioning it or even knowing about {the collapse}." Believing that Longman got it right is one of your assumptions I was referring to. And even if it were true, the rest of your argument hinges on personal incredulity that Glick would have continued talking to his wife after the attack began. In fact, we can't really be sure that Glick even participated in the attack; that's just another assumption.

It seems that you haven't really improved your argument in over a year, Andre. So, last time for this: Please do let us know when you have something substantial.

[Andre II]

90. Rehash

"Your problem is to demonstrate that the 9:57 time derived from the CVR was synchronized with the Airfone calls, not that the Airfone calls were synchronized with each other."

Well, that's at least a small progress as you admit that the airfone calls were synchronized though you completely ignore my hint that the CVR was synchronized using the official crash time...

But it really seems that you don't understand the implication of the CVR NOT being synchronized!
If the CVR is not synchronized then pray tell how do you explain the transcript of the CVR recording?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191520,00.html

Before you conclude that the crash time might not be “synhronized” you should better think twice about the consequences for the official story…


“No, I don't "realize" that; that's why I asked. Yes, Longman says that in "Among the Heroes," but since this OP is just a rehash of the same thread you started over a year ago, you should realize why that's insufficient proof: In her own book, Lyz Glick said "... but I don't recall mentioning it or even knowing about (the collapse)." Believing that Longman got it right is one of your assumptions I was referring to.”

First of all a quote fro her book (published in 2005) would come in handy.
Second in ALL her public appearances and in all detailed articles mentioning her phone call the fact that she saw the WTC collapse is mentioned:


Ms. GLICK: He began to ask me, 'Are they crashing planes into the World Trade Center?' I guess one of the other passengers had spoken to his mother, I believe it might have been, and that message might have been relayed. So he asked that. And then I am watching on the big screen television in front of me the World Trade Centers collapsing.
(ABC, 09/18/01)
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080114
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/02/september11.terrorism1
(The documentary film “Flight 93: A Reconstruction” (2002))


And again in "Fight that fought back"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=147225&mesg_id=177035

(thanks to seatnineb).

„ And even if it were true, the rest of your argument hinges on personal incredulity that Glick would have continued talking to his wife after the attack began. In fact, we can't really be sure that Glick even participated in the attack; that's just another assumption.“
Nonsense. The OP is assuming nothing whatsoever.
You should deal with the stuff I did specify instead of remaing as vague as possible!
From the OP
„ But for the sake of the argument let’s put all the psychological improbability aside.
There are more improbabilities that are not of psychological nature. After Jeremy Glick left his seat his wife gave the phone to her father Richard Makely. He states:
"There was no noise for several minutes. And then there were screams, so I said - well, they're doing it. Another minute, it seemed like an eternity, but another minute, a minute and a half, and then there was another set of screams. It was muffled. Then there was nothing."
(Mirror, 9/20/01:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=...)

But during the conversation with her husband as Lyz Glick recalls:
“I didn't hear any screaming. I didn't hear any noises. I didn't hear any commotion.”
(NBC 09/30/02, http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2002/msnbc090302.htm... )

So how is it possible that she didn’t hear none of the following though as her father’s statement shows the sound quality of the connection can’t be the reason:
- The panic that Lyz Jefferson heard talking to Todd Beamer.
- The two screams of CeeCee Lyles when the attack started.
- The scream of Sandy Bradshaw when the attack started.
- The screams that Fred Fiumano hears around 9:53 when talking to Marion Britton.
- The sound of the attacking passengers who were sitting behind Glick as e.g. Todd Beamer, CeeCee Lyles, Sandy Bradshaw (in fact most passengers were sitting BEHIND Glick and had tp pass next to him).
- Nor the sound of the passenger assault (which was clearly audible on the CVR)??

Not enough. There are still more improbabilities.
“In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt”
(CR, 13)

All this MUST have been during Jemery Glick’s phone call.
Yet, neither does his wife hear any commotion at all.
Nor does Jeremy Glick react to the sudden violent movement of the plane in any sort but continues discussing the risks if “they” should attack the cockpit?

All this must have happened in order for the official story to be true. How believable is that???

And last but not least
Concerning calling the OP a rehash.
Well? You did realize that the OP fort he first time does work on the basis of the official given seat numbers (which are important in the argument)? And also fort he first time synchronizes Glick’s phone call with the CVR.

[William Seger]

104. Yup, right back where we started

You say you are just "looking at the official facts in putting them in relation together." But with different assumptions -- for example, that the CVR times and the Airfone times are simply 20 to 30 seconds out of sync, and that Lyz Glick did not tell Glick about the collapse and doesn't really remember the call in that much detail -- your contradictions disappear. And you still haven't offered any explanations yourself for these contradictions other than the vague implication that if the "official" times are wrong, then the calls must have been faked. Clearly, that's not the only explanation, and with no reason given for why the calls would have been faked, yours is obviously not the most likely explanation. The ATC conversations and the CVR and calls from 10 people on the plan prove that the plane was hijacked, and the DNA of all the people you're accusing of participating in a hoax, found in that hole in Shanksville, prove that the plane crashed there. You may have enough confidence in your assumptions to think that they prove all the other evidence must have been faked, too, but I certainly do not, so I'm finished with this -- unless you come up with something more substantial, of course. Keep in touch.

[Andre II]

111. Contradictions

"But with different assumptions -- for example, that the CVR times and the Airfone times are simply 20 to 30 seconds out of sync, and that Lyz Glick did not tell Glick about the collapse and doesn't really remember the call in that much detail -- your contradictions disappear"

First of all:
Do you agree that the times of the CVR must be correct as they are based on the official given crash time?
Second:
Do you agree that all airfones must be synchronized?
Third:
But with different assumptions -- for example, that the CVR times and the Airfone times are simply 20 to 30 seconds out of sync, and that Lyz Glick did not tell Glick about the collapse and doesn't really remember the call in that much detail -- your contradictions disappearYou failed to explain how the CVR and the phone calls can be "20 to 30 seconds out of sync" if Sandra Bradshaw's phone call fits perfectly down to the second with the CVR.
And also:
Please point out any main contradiction that will be solved if we assume that the CVR and the phone calls are out of sync by 20 seconds?


Concerning Lyz Glick:
Please provide the quote from her book.
Second: Do you believe she made things up every time she talked about the phone call? Why don't you refer to the bunch of sources where she is quoted again and again. The news shows and the documentaries where she speaks?? In “Flight 93: A Reconstruction” InLyz Glick also said that "It was valuable information for him to have".
In fact Lyz Glick was interviewed by the FBI right on September 12. And Jere Longman is used as a source in the CR. And you believe everything is made up?

Here from an article by John Doe II:
The New York state police patched into the phone call after Lyz Glicks’ mother had dialled 911. (p. 206). This was shortly after Glick called his wife around 9:37. The State Police dispatcher is Robert Weingaertner (Times Union, 09/08/02) http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=... . There is also another witness of this phone call: “Captain Francis Christensen stood behind Weingaertner, firmly directing troopers who were flooding the dispatch room. Call Verizon and see if they can patch directly into Glick's call. Contact the FBI. Call the Federal Aviation Administration”. (Times Union, 09/08/02)
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=...
After the end of the call “(a)n emergency official arrived at the Makelys' home in Windham and took the phone, telling Weingaertner they were there. The call was disconnected. The tape would later be turned over to the FBI.”
(Times Union, 09/08/02)
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=...
It exists a tape and a transcript of the phone call.
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 09/13/01)
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetn...
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/20/01)
On September 12, 2001 Lyz Glick and other recipients of the phone call were interviewed by the FBI. On April 22, 2004 Lyz Glick was questioned once again by the FBI. (9/11 Commission Report, p. 457)



If you talk about the phone calls how come that -if you compare these calls - they can't agree on ANY detail besides that they are hijacked:
How many people killed during flight?
Bomb visible?
Gun visible?
Is there a guarding hijacker etc etc etc etc etc

[wildbilln864]

50. why are you so eager to accept....

"the most likely explanation"(your words) instead of solid evidence?
Why do you need someone else's hypothesis before you can see that something's being covered up? :shrug:
Why does finding the truth seem so pointless to you?
The victim's family members want the truth not what's likely but what and how it actually was allowed to happened. Tell them it's pointless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0JZXIsi104
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMkkA16mNJk

[William Seger]

53. Why are you so eager to reject all the SOLID evidence as faked?

... and instead take some apparent errors in time estimates as "solid evidence?" "Solid evidence" of what? Simple errors in time estimates, or gross stupidity on the part of the conspirators? If the latter, then you should at least attempt to come up with some story about how Flight 93 figures into the plot and what really happened. So far, what I've heard from the "truth movement" is all the "solid evidence" that Flight 93 never even took off in the first place, but anyway it was swapped with another plane, but anyway the swapped plane was shot down with a missile, but anyway the plotters had to fake a crash crater.

You seem to be forgetting you have a history on this board, wildbill. YOU go tell the victim's families how little YOU care about the truth when it butts up against your delusions.

[wildbilln864]

54. you have a history on this board yourself there willi am....

You saying it's SOLID isn't convincing.
What delusions of mine are you referring to will? Be specific please. :popcorn:

[William Seger]

56. Why, thank you

It would be easier to list all the idiotic "theories" that you HAVEN'T either linked to or bumped.

Here's the list, off the top of my head:

1.

[defendandprotect]

61. The planes were myth - an illusion . . . probably one plane riding towards the WTC ....

twice -- once from each direction -- filmed . . .

Then taken down to ride up and over the Pentagon --

Certainly it would be impossible to hijack four commercial jet liners from any of our

airports!

Nor could they be flown by the "alleged" hijackers --

whom -- btw, we never saw anywhere near the planes -- they're not on the passenger lists --

and no ARAB DNA was found in any remains.

[defendandprotect]

58. "Fooled" or cooerating with the hoax . . .

IMO, it's all fake --

including the planes -- which one of the airlines made clear they didn't have scheduled for

that day!

[wildbilln864]

59. How does an airplane that's not scheduled to fly get off the ground !? nt

[defendandprotect]

62. It doesn't . . .

but that's more information that we're supposed to ignore --

Like pilots who can't fly --

[wildbilln864]

109. Thanks. So what was given as ....

the reason if was flying when it wasn't supposed to be? :shrug: Was any given?

[LARED]

11. Huh?

Sandra Bradshaw lived in North Carolina, very unlikely her cell phone would reach there ...

I hope your kidding.

[victordrazen]

14. You crazy conspiracy theorists

believe such nutty stuff that anything that makes sense doesn't seem real to you. I think that YOU are kidding about your "hijacker theory". It's unlikely that cell phones will work NOW on planes let alone back then.

[noise]

17. Do you give the perps credit for knowing that cell phones

wouldn't work or do you think this was an oversight?

[victordrazen]

19. Good point. I don't know, though.

Lots of things about 911 "don't work" though. I noticed that after people started questioning the cell phones, different articles started appearing online mentioning that people use cell phones "all the time" on flights and that it is safe and they work. I fly a lot and never see people using phones (in the air) and I have tried myself almost every time I fly and it never works.

[wildbilln864]

51. I would think oversight.

Some airlines used to tell people to not use them on the flight so few would try. Especially if they feared it would interfere with their plane's performance.

[defendandprotect]

63. Let's see . . . did they think thru the THREAT to AIR FORCE ONE . . .????

Did they expect one of their own -- Wm. SAFIRE -- to actually challenge that bit

of crap?

[LARED]

18. Actually I was wondering if you thought her cell

phone needed to near her home in order to work, as that what it sounds like you are saying

Sandra Bradshaw lived in North Carolina, very unlikely her cell phone would reach there ...

[William Seger]

55. It sounded that way to me, too

I almost fell out of my chair. I'm SO glad I wasn't drinking anything.

[Andre II]

24. Faked or not faked

Why don't you simply have a close look at the facts:
Time and duraion of the calls (based on official information)
seats of passengers during calls (based on official information)
content of calls (based on numerous statements of the people who have been called
and then explain how it can be possible that all of these three elements are correct.
You jump to a different discussion.
Stick to the facts and explain the contradictions.
I believe they are unsolvable.
if they are unsolvable at least one of the three parameters must be false.

[noise]

27. I'm not defending the CR

For all I know they got the times wrong, seats wrong, the CVR was altered, etc.

We have theories that are contradictory:

1) Faked cell phone calls YET the black op agents were sloppy and didn't properly coordinate their timelines.

2) A hijacking drill YET family members were not told.

[victordrazen]

31. delete wrong place to reply eom

[wildbilln864]

5. thank you Andre! nt

:hi:

[victordrazen]

7. Excellent work!

Sorry about my outburst above without complimenting you.

[greyl]

12. "Some people want to have substantive discussions here." - petgoat nt

[Andre II]

26. I'm very sure

you want to say something important concerning the OP
but unfortunately I simply don't get what it is .....

[victordrazen]

15. Not only cell phone calls from this flight , but guns!

One of them has a gun. They’re saying there is a bomb onboard. Please call the authorities.” (Longman, 2002, pp. 107 )
The major difference from earlier accounts, is the mention of a gun. The call wasn’t recorded, but Deena’s call to 9-1-1 immediately afterwards was, and on that call she states, “They just knifed a passenger and there are guns on the plane.” (Longman, 2002, pp. 108)
Deena Burnett later says of her husband: “He told me one of the hijackers had a gun. He wouldn’t have made it up. Tom grew up around guns. He was an avid hunter and we have guns in our home. If he said there was a gun on board, there was.” (London Times, 8/11/2002)

[spoony]

21. If the calls are fake, and scripted, then why

would their "writer" include such bizarre info contradictory to the "OCT" they were presumably trying to buttress?

[wildbilln864]

22. perhaps the writer thought...

he was simply writing for a harmless exercise. He wasn't knowingly trying to buttress any OCT. :shrug:

[victordrazen]

32. It was probably a work in progress

whoever did it was not thinking of the ramifications of, say, having a gun on board. (Not only would it be difficult to get a gun on board, but people would expect lawsuits.

[defendandprotect]

64. Why fake a story about a THREAT TO AIR FORCE ONE . . . ????

I think they know that at a time of "Shock & Awe" that some spaghetti will stick to the wall

and some won't --- but you can always go back and deny much of it --

except Wm. Safire got on their tail about the threat to Air Force One --

so . . . I think like the Nixon thugs, much of them are ....

"really smart about really stupid things---"

and sometimes they're really, really dumb!

[victordrazen]

20. Speaking of Sandra Bradshaw, she's an interesting gal

So far I've found four different last names for her (and I'm still working on it).

[defendandprotect]

65. Interesting ... I don't know if anyone else is pursuing these alleged victims . . .

one of the planes upposedly landed and passengers walked off -- no hijacking!

but . . . what about survivors' benefits . . . would the airlines or insurance

companies be paying out on these deaths -- Social Security?

Barbara Olsen/Ted Olsen, IMO, is among the most suspicious -- unless it was another

Martha Mitchell event . . . ??!!!

[victordrazen]

69. I'm quite sure Sandra Bradshaw is a fake ID

not ready to post the info yet though, although it is tempting.

[defendandprotect]

73. Excluding extended families, it really isn't a lot of people .....

and I thought there was interesting info developed on connections to government,
military, etal --

and i'd also guess religious fanatics --

I think it's a good area to look at -- especially as time passes and some of these
people become more relaxed --

[Andre II]

35. In general

It would be extremely helpful for a discussion if people actually refer to things discussed in the OP instead of talking about any issues somehow related to UA 93.
Thank you!

[noise]

36. The theories

are attempts to explain the contradictions. The theories directly relate to the OP. The problem is the fake calls theory and the hijacking drill theory do not make sense either.

We have similar issues with your research on hijacker entry dates and other contradictory details (ie...languages). One theory to explain this is the possibility of doubles, perhaps to create trails. Such a theory isn't off topic, rather it is an attempt to make sense of the contradictions.

[spooked911]

37. I think the hijacking drill theory makes sense

the passengers were acting out a hijacking, acting out a rebellion and making real phone calls to their families. They would have been told that their families were given info about what was going on, and the family members were playing their part. I suspect many of the passengers and key family members the passengers contacted were secret agents.

[SDuderstadt]

39. "I suspect many of the passengers and key family members

the passengers contacted were secret agents".

And, you wonder why hardly anyone takes you seriously.

[spooked911]

45. Dude--

no one with any sense, takes YOU seriously, due to your drooling devotion to the ludicrous official story.

[SDuderstadt]

49. It's pretty stupid to claim I have a "drooling devotion" to the "official story"...

simply because your claims are revealed to be nonsense. You don't get a "get-out-of-jail-free" card simply by implying your opponent supports the "official story". What I find really funny, though is, if you listen to all the really silly 9/11 CT's floating around and aggregate them, it sounds far more preposterous than anything connected with the "official story". Learn or rent some critical thinking skills. I mean, really, many of the passengers were "secret agents"? Really?

[spooked911]

72. which claims of mine have you proven to be false?

saying the passengers were secret agents may sound far-fetched-- that hardly means I am wrong.


Fact is, spies are far more common than people think:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/08/secret-spies-everywhere.html

[PatrickSMcNally]

40. For starters...

Do you know of any actual verifiable precedents for something like what you're suggesting? My first thought is that if I got on a plane and someone came around announcing to us that "OK folks, just so that you know, we're planning to stage a hijacking as a test," then my reaction would be something like "what the eff?" You would be able to better buttress this argument if you could reference some real authenticated cases where such a practice has been done previously. As it is, I don't know of any real verified cases of such.

Some of the speculations which you toss out here were, in my opinion and experience, very tempting to think about 5 years or so ago. I can remember in the fall of 2003 running up and down many of these hypotheses which you're suggesting. As long as such questions had not achieved any public notice it was tempting to speculate that some key ingredient might have been covered up which could change the whole picture. Maybe that will still turn out to be the case, eventually. But it is about time that people started aiming for something more specific than just tossing out speculations in sequence.

So if you really think it was possible that a staged practice hijacking was done on 911, then find some more information about real authentic case examples where such hijackings were staged as a practice drill. Note: Hollywood movies do not count as real authentic case examples. If we can get some real events as references, then people can pick it up from there and maybe something will come of it.

[spooked911]

44. A hijacking drill was done in Buffalo New York,

very shortly before 9/11, for instance, and we know NORAD was fucking running live-fly hijacking drills on 9/11. Don't give me this bull. There was precedent.

And the participants would not have been told as they got on the plane-- they would have known well before hand, but told to keep it secret-- as one way to go.

[PatrickSMcNally]

47. Reference?

Would you have either a link or some reference which can be followed to further read up on this drill in Buffalo, New York? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's difficult to evaluate off the cuff without having further information. Try listing something when you have the chance please.

[SDuderstadt]

48. It's actually bullshit...

and the poster knows it.

[victordrazen]

76. Wrong

I don't know about Buffalo, but there were other drills -

Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response," USA Today (4/18/04) Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said." -


http://www.despardes.com/TIMEOUT/norads-drill-of-jets-j...

also;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE2D9...

[victordrazen]

77. Here are some references

Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response," USA Today (4/18/04) Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said." -


http://www.despardes.com/TIMEOUT/norads-drill-of-jets-j...

also;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE2D9...

[SDuderstadt]

78. Neither one of the links work n/t

[Andre II]

80. Try the links in post 70

they work.

[PatrickSMcNally]

82. OK

OK, they managed to work for me. Some comments to note. The first one

http://www.despardes.com/TIMEOUT/norads-drill-of-jets-jul26.htm

says a bit about exercises simulating potential hijackings, but says nothing to suggest that a drill was ever conducted where real passengers getting on a plane were involved in staging such an exercise. There is the comment:

-----
one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.
-----

But it lacks any detail as to just what and who was involved with these planes from airports in Utah and Washington. Were these normally scheduled flights whose tickets were bought up in advance? Or something else? There is very little to go on here.

The second one

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE2D91E3FF934A25752C0A961948260

is set in India and therefore does not have a direct relevance to the United States. But here they tell us that:

-----
officials said, there were no regular passengers aboard the plane, only Government personnel taking part in the mock exercise.
-----

I've seen some people on this board claim that there were "many" "secret agents" on board the planes of September 11, but so far I haven't seen anyone try to claim that on 911 "there were no regular passengers aboard the plane, only Government personnel taking part in the mock exercise." Would you wish to argue that? If we rest our case on this Indian example, then it would seem to suggest that one must have planes with only Government personnel on board, all knowingly taking part in a mock exercise, for the parallel to be valid. The first article above didn't actually say that, but it was rather vague all around as to just who was on the planes from Utah and Washington. These are the types of ambiguities which should be cleared up.

[victordrazen]

87. I've never seen anyone say there were "many secret agents

on board". What people have pointed out is that there were quite a few people with backgrounds as defense contractors or there was an Israeli commando - Daniel lewin I think? It's been awhile.

[PatrickSMcNally]

88. 37 & 72

"I've never seen anyone say there were "many secret agents

See the posts above which do say such.

"there were quite a few people with backgrounds as defense contractors or there was an Israeli commando - Daniel lewin I think?"

Do you know of any precedent cases where a hijacking drill was staged based only upon a situation such as you postulate above, without actually having the plane fully manned by explicit government personnel? That's what is at issue here.

[victordrazen]

85. Not that hard to figure out

http://www.despardes.com/TIMEOUT/norads-drill-of-jets-jul26.htm

[PatrickSMcNally]

79. Both links fail

Try again.

[victordrazen]

86. It's pretty easy to figure out if you can think for yourself

http://www.despardes.com/TIMEOUT/norads-drill-of-jets-jul26.htm

[defendandprotect]

67. Agree . . .

but, all in all, a plane wasn't necesary -- and certainly not four hijackings -- !!!

One plane would have been flown around the WTC for film to be taken --

approaching from two different directions --

then flown down to DC to fly up and over the Pentagon while explosions are set off

simultaneously from inside.

The plane is then flown hither and yon with reports of it hither and yon --

and reports of it being shot down and/or exploding in a crater which long existed!


Said plane is then returned to wherever it was borrowed from ---

[spooked911]

81. right-- it's very true that one plane could have been used at all four locations

timing wise, that idea makes sense

[defendandprotect]

83. It's not an original idea with me -- don't want to take credit for it . . .

it was on one of the investigation websites -- and thought it made a lot of sense!

[William Seger]

106. Yes, it was original with the Onion

... proving that it's nearly impossible to satirize the "truth movement."

(Edit: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_oliver_stone_9_11_film )

[defendandprotect]

108. Thanks -- never saw the Oliver Stone movie . . . will check for it --

but I don't see the Onion much, either --

I believe I read the theory at one of the truth sites --

which are all excellent --

Battle in Seattle
W
Religulous
WTC-Oliver Stone

[defendandprotect]

68. dupe

[victordrazen]

70. yes, Complete with script writers

"Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response," USA Today (4/18/04) Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said." -


http://www.despardes.com/TIMEOUT/norads-drill-of-jets-jul26.htm

also;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE2D91E3FF934A25752C0A961948260

[defendandprotect]

66. Agree -- and some investigation into some of these people -- it would only be

those who have made themselves prominent -- seem to indicate attachments to intelligence/

military/government.

I think they were cooperating for a "cause."

[dailykoff]

43. Weird. It's like they were all improvising from a loose script

in an acting workshop, so none of their stories quite matches, but they're all very "motivated" based on the director's sketchy prompts.

[defendandprotect]

57. Happy to see DUers keeping after this cell phone crap --

Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance.

Right . . . an inexperienced "alleged" pilot is going to ROLL the plane -- on purpose ---!!!

Lots of these alleged callers seem to have connections to government, miliary --

and from the prayer bit, I'd guess a few were fanatical "Christians."

It was impossible to make phone calls from individual cell phones at that time from an

airplane.

Couldn't have happened ---

[Bolo Boffin]

89. Which calls do you intend to keep?

Which calls do you intend to throw out?

What basis will you use to reject or accept phone calls?

[Andre II]

91. Meaning? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

92. My questions are written in plain English. Their meanings are clear. n/t

[Andre II]

93. I love you politeness!

Which calls do you intend to keep?
All.

Wich calls do you intend to throw out?
None.

What basis will you use to reject or accept phone calls?
Question totally without any sense.

[Bolo Boffin]

94. ?

So you think that all of these phone calls actually happened, and were from the people on Flight 93 as the plane was being hijacked?

Really?

[Andre II]

95. Yawn

Yawn.
Yawn.
Bolo try this trick on others, please.

I in general take all the officially presented evidence and try if they fit or if they contradict each other.
No, I'm not playing this silly game of hypothises.
But maybe you've something interesting to say concerning the OP....

[Bolo Boffin]

96. Oh, so you don't have a story. You're not trying to determine what actually happened.

I am actually speaking about your OP. I'm trying to make sense of it. But since you yourself don't see the value in making sense of it, why should I?

[Andre II]

97. Oh boy

still trying to press and continue this silly game?
What I think has happened is not the issue of this thread.

"I'm trying to make sense of it. But since you yourself don't see the value in making sense of it, why should I?"
Now, this is a plain dumb stupid argument.
The OP deconstructs as you VERY WELL KNOW the official theory based on all evidence that has been officially presented.
It is very strange and very telling that apparently your main concern is to discuss if my belief of what happened on 9/11 is true or not instead of discussing if th eofficial stroy of 9/11 is true or not!
Why is that?
If you do want to disuss if the official story is correct then join the discussion of the OP
If you prefer to babble around what my belief might or might I assure you that I won't join your pseudo-discussion.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. What is the point of deconstructing if you're not going to construct your own story?

Very telling that you won't submit your own theory to the same kind of hyper-analysis you like to submit the "official story" to.

[Andre II]

99. Last time

What's telling is
is the FACT that you simply don't want to discuss if the official story of 9/11 is correct and stands the test of logic.
Your repeated refusal to discuss the official story an the OP is telling.
Btw it's the first time you use such a silly way of discussing and trying to be off-topic. Last time we discussed the issue you tried (and I appreciate that) to refute my argument by presenting counter arguments.
Are you somebody who could'nt care less if somebody would prove that Oswald couldn't have killed JFK unless the same person comes up with his own theory...
If you have anything to say about the OP do so otherwise I have better things to do then to answer your repeated attempts to be off-topic.

[Bolo Boffin]

100. It is manifest that you do have some scenario you're stumping for.

Quite likely it's a shootdown at 10:06, for which you mash phone calls together, seeking to show they couldn't fit together for a crash at 10:03. Thus the 10:06 time is the only thing plausible.

But your refusal to state so is sad, since you know that the physical evidence (CVR, FDR) all points to a simple crash at 10:03. Nothing wrong with the plane other than speed and direction of flight when the FDR data stops. The CVR shows who was flying the plane at that point.

The OP is an exercise in desperate dot-connecting. It in no way contradicts the CVR and FDR. Why you continue to post these mish-masheries over and over again is puzzling.

[greyl]

101. He's trying to avoid proposing a falsifiable theory, I think.

Maybe he won't even state it to himself.

[Andre II]

103. Welcome aboard

another one that prefers not to discuss if the official story is true but prefers to jump on any random discussion about any random hypothesis.
or do you have anything substantial to add to the discussion, greyl??

[greyl]

105. What random hypothesis?

I added my speculation about why you won't spell out an alternative sequence of events.

[Andre II]

102. So it's transparent

that you have nothing absolutely nothing to say concerning the OP.
Is the CVR a physical evidence?
Well, which one?
The one the family members listened to in 2002
or the one that has been transcribed in 2004?
And are the phone calls no physical evidence?
And the seismic recordings are no physical evidence??
And no my scenario is not a simple shoot down.
My sceanario is that you apparently don't want to know if th eofficial story is true.
This is puzzling.
But, yeah, I know it's hard for you.
All your posts that deperately tried to show that theoretically it could have been possible that Glick remains on the phone while the passenger attack is underway receive aheavy blow by the new facts the OP uses.
Until you wish a discussion of the OP

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

107. As you've pointed out, we've hashed over this before.

You're being much too literal and hardcore about the Glick conversation, needlessly so. You only insist the bulk of the conversation happened after the second tower fell so you can make these silly posts. But Liz has said she's not sure about what was said when. If you put the voting conversation in conjunction with news of something at the Pentagon, the conversation fits completely into the CVR and there's no contradictions at all.

Why you persist in believing that events at the cockpit should be heard over phones in the back of the plane is beyond me.

And since you're not even doing it in service of a hypothesis, there's no point to your machinations.

BTW: you state in your OP that part of this (the phone calls or the CVR) must necessarily not be true. I've been asking you which way you come down in that logical necessity, and you've refused to live up to the courage of your OP's assumptions.

[Andre II]

110. I'm not really sure you refer to the OP.....

"As you've pointed out, we've hashed over this before."
Yes, indeed, and using the official facts of the seats where the passenger did their phone call and the CVR does reinforce my argument.

"You're being much too literal and hardcore about the Glick conversation, needlessly so. You only insist the bulk of the conversation happened after the second tower fell so you can make these silly posts. But Liz has said she's not sure about what was said when. If you put the voting conversation in conjunction with news of something at the Pentagon, the conversation fits completely into the CVR and there's no contradictions at all."

Now that’s funny. Did you actually read the OP?? Where do I rely on any assumption whatsoever about the chronology of Glick’s phone call?? Please point that out? I only rely on the fact that Lyz Glick mentioned the collapse. That’s all.

"Why you persist in believing that events at the cockpit should be heard over phones in the back of the plane is beyond me."
First of all if you did read the OP I mainly rely on comparing what people heard over the phone. How come somebody hears screams and the person sitting next to her doesn’t?
Concerning the CVR: How come the violent movements of the plane don’t result in any reaction of Glick etc etc. I’m notgoing to repeat what I’ve already written

"And since you're not even doing it in service of a hypothesis, there's no point to your machinations."
So true, otherwise one would have to explain how the official story can be true and this is much less fun

"BTW: you state in your OP that part of this (the phone calls or the CVR) must necessarily not be true. I've been asking you which way you come down in that logical necessity, and you've refused to live up to the courage of your OP's assumptions."
Nonsense. The logical necessity is clear. Both can't be true as they do heavily and repeatedly contradict each other. But maybe you should read the OP

[Bolo Boffin]

112. "Both can't be true" -- which one are you going with? n/t

[Andre II]

113. Back to the beginning

Apparently you agree that my conclusion was right that you haven't read the OP....!
And btw you failed to answer which CVR you're talking about ....?


I don't do you the favor of playing hypothetical games.
If I'm correct and both can't be true then the official story is a lie. It's that simple.
So, instead of continuing to start again your silly game :
Why don't you (after five starting attempts) begin to show that the official story remains true and my argument is wrong??

Again until you don't refer to the OP and start discussing the issues raised in the OP.
:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[Andre II]

114. Can somebody please help me ut here!

Can somebody please help me ut here!
Bolo has repeatedly claimed in another thread that he has answered here the question of the OP:

"This was answered in another thread. Andre didn't accept the answer, of course"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=174755&mesg_id=228610

Asked for him to provide a link he only answered:

"Why should I link? You'll bump it up in one of your kickatude moods sooner or later."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=174755&mesg_id=228610

and
"The question has been answered, very likely on the very links Andre provided here claiming I did not. Search is your friend, not I."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=174755&mesg_id=228655

Well, I completly fail what bolo could consider to be an attempt to give an answer.
Apparently I'm too blind.
But I would of course very much ike to discuss bolo's answer.
But as I can't find what he'stalking about
maybe somebody elese could have the kindness in the spirit of a good discussion to link the post that could be considered an answer.

Many thanks for your kind help!

[hack89]

115. Why can't you help us out?

and tell us what you think actually happened that day. OK - the OCT is wrong. What alternative narrative do the facts lead me to?

[Andre II]

118. One step at a time

So, am I right in assuming that you accept the fact that the official story of UA 93 is a lie?

[hack89]

123. Is this an act or are you really this obtuse? nt

[Andre II]

130. See

it doesn't happen every day that an OTC comes up with such a statement.
Therefore I politely ask in order to avoid any misunderstanding:

Do you agree that the official story of UA 93 is a lie?

[greyl]

135. Are you saying the Pittsburgh Post Gazette is an official source? nt

[Andre II]

141. No

Where did I do so or is this just another attempt to divert the discussion....

[wildbilln864]

126. because....

A Tactic:

When evidence is presented that the official version of the events of 9/11 is false. The first step is to try to change the subject by provoking the presenter into speculating his own hypothesis. If the presenter does submit any hypothesis that he/she has then the opposition has new subject matter to pick at and is successful in distracting the conversation away from the fact that the official story is a lie in the first place and that an investigation is warranted.

[Ohio Joe]

116. I don't know what your question is

The Post you ask for an answer in links to a post about a white plane over the white house and this thread is about phone calls on flight 93, I don't see the connection.

As for this thread, the minor discrepancies in the phone calls does not seem very important to me. I did not look through your links but I will assume they all say what you have here. You gather your times from different sources and that there is minor differences does not surprise me in the least, I would actually be very surprised if they fell in line. Different sources getting times from different peoples perspective and those times not matching perfectly is not a shock to me at all.

[Andre II]

119. My question

As bolo has claimed in the thread of the plane over the white house to have answered the questions raised here in the OP I'm wondering where they are.
Do you find in this thread an answer by bolo concerning the OP??

"You gather your times from different sources and that there is minor differences does not surprise me in the least, I would actually be very surprised if they fell in line."
You do realize that all given times for the phone calls are from the VERY SAME SOURCE.
All given times for the CVR are of course from one source as well.
As for the collapse of the WTC. Are you doubting that it happened at 9.59 so after officially the passenger assault had started?

[Ohio Joe]

122. I must be reading the other thread wrong

Because I still don't see the connection to this thread but whatever.

"You do realize that all given times for the phone calls are from the VERY SAME SOURCE."

Well, you say that "all cited times of the phone calls are according to the phone call animation presented at the Moussaoui trial" (no link provided) Then you find minor discrepancies from other sources, I see links for your times and events to some forum, the 9/11 commission report (no actual link just reference), a reference to a book, the Mirror and a link I cannot access that I think is MSNBC. Also, another DU post that references the Guardian, CNN, Daily News, the Mirror, Post Gazette, Independent, Courier-Journal and god knows what else. Sure looks like more then one source to me.

I have to say still, that there are minor differences is not a surprise.

[Andre II]

129. Sources and sources

The given times are only from the phone call chronologie presented at the Moussaoui trial.
The CVR time from the CVR from the CR.
The time of the WTC collapse is hardly in question.
All the other sources specify the content of the phone calls.

[William Seger]

127. Yes, your questions were answered

You have failed to present any evidence of any contradictions that can't be explained by mundane reasons such as differences between call times and the CVR times and the imperfect memories or inaccurate characterizations of events made by the people involved. These contradictions may be unexplainable to you, but they are simply not unexplainable. It's your argument that has crumbled like a house of cards.

[Andre II]

132. Answer

"mundane reasons such as differences between call times and the CVR times "
You agreed that the phone call time are synchronized.
Then how do you explain that in some cases the phone call times match perfectly the CVR and in some cases they don't at all?

[William Seger]

133. You have demonstrated no such thing

If you add 20 or 30 seconds to the CVR-derived times (and the presumed time of the start of the attack, as guessed from the CVR), all of your supposed contradictions between CVR times and call times disappear (with the exception, of course, of the ones where the "contradiction" is simply between what was said or heard -- or even what was just reported to have been said or heard, although those reports are not necessarily accurate -- and what you think should have been said or heard).

Case in point: You claim the Bradshaw call confirms that the call times are synchronized with the CVR times because one second after she says everyone is running toward the cockpit, one of the hijackers asks what's going on. But before the passengers could have gotten to the cockpit, they would have had to fight their way past the hijackers in first class. So, there's simply no reason to assume the hijackers in the cockpit noticed the ruckus at the exact time Bradshaw ended her call. In fact, that can be taken as more evidence that the times are not synchronized, under the reasonable assumption that it was 20 or 30 seconds later that the cockpit hijackers noticed something was happening.

As I've said several times now, under a different set of assumptions -- reasonable asssumptions -- all of your contradictions disappear. And since you refuse to say what you make of these supposed contradictions, there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that the assumptions you prefer are correct. If you could present some alternate hypothesis, perhaps we could see if there's any supporting evidence for that. It's beginning to appear that that's exactly why you refuse to offer any alternate hypothesis -- you're content to sow suspicion, justified or otherwise. So, we just keep going round and round the barn without getting anywhere.

Just like most of your threads.

[Andre II]

140. First of all

Let me point out - and I mean it - that I apprecaite your answer especially as you're the only OTC-ler who has read the OP (in all other posts I see no indication on thecontrary).

Before entering deeper into the discussion I wish to clarify two issues raised by you.

"and what you think should have been said or heard"
Can you please point out where the OP is based on "what I think should have been said or heard" a completely subjectiv category?

"But before the passengers could have gotten to the cockpit, they would have had to fight their way past the hijackers in first class."
Can you please come up with any hint that at the time of the passenger attack there was still guarding hijackers?
In fact around 9.44 on the CVR we hear "Let the guys" in.

[William Seger]

143. (sigh)

> "Can you please point out where the OP is based on "what I think should have been said or heard" a completely subjectiv category?"

That seems like a strange request, considering that you wrote it (?), but okay:

...
But how come her mother didn’t hear the screams of Sandy Bradshaw and CeeCee Lyles both being only one row behind Wainio?
...
And these three or four men run first class and don’t ask Jeremy Glick who had a very athletic body to join them? Not even Todd Beamer sitting five rows behind him (so had to pass next to Glick) and knew his first name?
In his conversation with his wife Glick even doesn’t mention the ongoing attack nor seems he to be so emotionally involved in what’s going on in front of the cockpit. Instead he discusses with his wife the risk if they’d attack the cockpit!
...
Does this conversation makes any sense at all if the passenger assault is ongoing since two or three minutes already?
I believe this is extremely unlikely.
...
But during the conversation with her husband as Lyz Glick recalls:
“I didn't hear any screaming. I didn't hear any noises. I didn't hear any commotion.”
...
So how is it possible that she didn’t hear none of the following though as her father’s statement shows the sound quality of the connection can’t be the reason:
- The panic that Lyz Jefferson heard talking to Todd Beamer.
- The two screams of CeeCee Lyles when the attack started.
- The scream of Sandy Bradshaw when the attack started.
- The screams that Fred Fiumano hears around 9:53 when talking to Marion Britton.
- The sound of the attacking passengers who were sitting behind Glick as e.g. Todd Beamer, CeeCee Lyles, Sandy Bradshaw (in fact most passengers were sitting BEHIND Glick and had tp pass next to him).
- Nor the sound of the passenger assault (which was clearly audible on the CVR)??
...
All this MUST have been during Jemery Glick’s phone call.
Yet, neither does his wife hear any commotion at all.
Nor does Jeremy Glick react to the sudden violent movement of the plane in any sort but continues discussing the risks if “they” should attack the cockpit?

> "Can you please come up with any hint that at the time of the passenger attack there was still guarding hijackers?"

Well yes, I can come up with a very big hint. After asking what's happening outside the cockpit, one of the hijackers asked, "A fight?" Would you suggest that the passengers were fighting among themselves?

[Bolo Boffin]

117. "Apparently I'm too blind."

Apparently you are. You might try looking in the posts labeled as mine for my answers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=225759&mesg_id=226189

There, that wasn't so difficult, was it?

[Andre II]

120. Difficult

Bolo, you do realize that your statement was
"This was answered in another thread. Andre didn't accept the answer"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=174755&mesg_id=228610

And now this link is supposed to be the answer you're talking about?
Are you serious?

This link basically only refers to an older thread and completely ignores the facts presented in the OP.
Show me one post of you where you at least tried to adress the OP.
And that's the reason why i responded to your famous post by stating:

" I'm not really sure you refer to the OP...."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=225759&mesg_id=226218

And what was the answer you gave me to this?
Raising a hypothetical question!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=225759&mesg_id=226220

Bolo, in a nutshell:
You've claimed to have answered the OP.
You haven't.
You haven't even tried.
But keep on talking about illusions.
It's not so difficult to grasp ain't it?

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[Bolo Boffin]

124. I cannot imagine what was offensive in the post that was deleted.

Post 107. I have answered. You continue to play games.

[greyl]

125. Six Blind Men And The Elephant

Once upon a time there were six blind men. They lived in a town in India. They thought they were very clever.
One day an elephant came into the town. The blind men did not know what an elephant looked like but they could smell it and they could hear it. 'What is this animal like?' they said. Each man touched a different part of the elephant.

The first man touched the elephant's body. It felt hard, big and wide. 'An elephant is like a wall' he said.

The second man touched one of the elephant's tusks. It felt smooth and hard and sharp. 'An elephant is like a spear' he said.

The third man touched the elephant's trunk. It felt long and thin and wiggly. 'An elephant is like a snake' he said.

The fourth man touched on of the legs. It felt thick and rough and hard and round. 'An elephant is like a tree' he said.

The fifth man touched one of the elephant's ears. It felt thin and it moved. 'An elephant is like a fan' he said.

The sixth man touched the elephant's tail. It felt long and thin and strong. 'An elephant is like a rope' he said.

The men argued. It's like a wall! No, it isn't! It's like a spear! No it isn't! It's like a snake! They did not agree.

The king had been watching and listening to the men. 'You are not very clever. You only touched part of the elephant. You did not feel the whole animal. An elephant is not like a wall or a spear or a snake, or a tree or a fan or a rope'.

The men left the town still arguing. Andre II heard them and said 'Each of you is wrong … but I know what all this means. Elephants don't exist!'

[Andre II]

131. The beauty

The beauty of the OTC-world seems to be that it seems to be completely immune against any discussion of the facts.

[Andre II]

128. Yeah, indeed it's a funny game you play

after you've tried unsuccesfully to play your hypothetical game.
Now let me get this straight:

You've claimed to have answered the question raised in the OP.
After having been asked several times you've come up with pointing out with your post 107.
At that time I've already shown that your post 107 doesn't even refer to the OP but to an older thread (see my post 110).
Ths post 110 you've answered not with backing up your claim but restarting your hypothetical game.
Now you claim again that in post 107 is the answer.
Again I challange you pointing out that it doesn't even refer to the OP
and you find nothing else but to state that post 107 contains the answer?
:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

Just a hint:
The OP doesn't speculate about what has been said at the end of the call nor about the moment when the vote was taken.
Maybe it helps if you read the OP before claiming to have answered it.

And many thanks you do care so much for my mental health.

[Bolo Boffin]

134. Andre, you're right

I give up. You've discovered the truth.

Now what? You must have a point. Spill it.

[wildbilln864]

136. the point is plain to me...

We were deceived about the circumstances and perpetrators of 9/11! So we need to find the truth. :eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

137. What a crappy point.

That's not really your point, Andre. Is it? "We were deceived..."

Is that all?

[wildbilln864]

138. You're only deceiving yourself! nt

[Andre II]

139. Is that al?

Well, bolo,
My point is only that you've succeded in posting
about 20 posts in this thread WITHOUT ONCE refering to the OP.
Might be a record.

Second
My point is only that the official story is a lie.
But I guess this appears to be a minor point...

[Bolo Boffin]

142. Why do you continue to post factually inaccurate statements, Andre?

you've succeded in posting
about 20 posts in this thread WITHOUT ONCE refering to the OP.

This is a factual inaccuracy that you have told. Please stop stating egregious factual inaccuracies about me.

Your OP, as I have stated a few times in this thread and in MANY OTHERS, is a collection of cherry-picked data points from stories that you find most favorable to build together into some mass of contradiction. However, you don't offer a single scenario as to how these contradictions could be resolved. Because of that, one easily sees that you have in the instance of Jeremy Glick, chosen a single version told by his wife who has told at least two versions of that story and confesses in a book to her daughter that she is completely unsure of actual chronology. Nevertheless, you use her single story obsessively because it messes the "official" chronology up the most.

You seize on a single word in another phone call, "everyone." But the passenger could not have literally meant "everyone" because many did not run up to the front. That passenger meant that word in a colloquial way, a common usage in everyday English. Again you must make it literally to please your fantasies about destroying the "official" chronology.

Another place you insist that cockpit noise should have been heard over an airphone in the back of the plane.

And I just read a post of yours where you seem to imply a belief that all the hijackers were in the cockpit when the passenger assault began. Looking at the CVR, that is clearly not the case. Only two were in the cockpit then.



In four months, you will start yet another thread on this. You will claim that no one is paying attention to your OP. And the constant readers around here will know different.

It is not your point that the official story is a lie. It is your fervent belief and your motivation for such hyperliteral hatchet jobs as the OP. But you have not proven anything but your unreliability in handling data.

[Andre II]

144. Yo man

Post 89 doesn’t refer to the OP.
Post 92 doesn’t refer to the OP.
Post 94 doesn’t refer to the OP.
Post 96 doesn’t refer to the OP.
Post 98 doesn’t refer to the OP.
Post 100 doesn’t refer to the OP.
Post 107 (your darling) doesn’t refer to the OP. But clearly discusses the older thread and completely leaves all new material I’ve presented aside. No, it doesn’t matter what was said in which chronoligical order in Glick’s call.
Post 112 doesn’t refer to the OP.
Post 117 doesn’t refer to the OP.
Post 121 didn’t refer to the OP.
Post 124 doesn’t refer to the OP.
Post 134 doesn’t refer to the OP.
Post 137 doesn’t refer to the OP.
So, all in all you’ve managed that all your 13 posts in this thread had had no direct relation to the OP. Nowhere you bothered even to discuss the presented facts.
And you dare to claim repeatedly to have answered the OP....!
But, yeah, sorry, you’re right. You didn’t manage to 20 posts in this thread that didn’t refer to the OP....!


Your OP, as I have stated a few times in this thread and in MANY OTHERS, is a collection of cherry-picked data points from stories that you find most favorable to build together into some mass of contradiction.

If it would indeed be cherry-picked then you should have no problem to present data that I’ve deliberatly omitted.


However, you don't offer a single scenario as to how these contradictions could be resolved.
Yawn, this shit again.
The prosecution has to prove their case.
The OTC has to have a solid case.
The defence only has to show that the OTC is lying.
The defence has to prove that the accused isn’t the assassin. The defence doesn’t have to prove who ist he culprit in order to achieve liberty for the accused.
That you couldn’t care less about a lie being presented but ask over and over for a hypothteical scenario is very telling.


Because of that, one easily sees that you have in the instance of Jeremy Glick, chosen a single version told by his wife who has told at least two versions of that story and confesses in a book to her daughter that she is completely unsure of actual chronology.
Now, that’s fun.
At least two versions??
Why do you leave completely aside that she told the same story over and over again? In journals, in interviews in documentaries (see post 90).
Until 2005 there is EXACTLY ONE STORY Lyz Glick tells again and again in detail.
That in 2005 she has doubts about her story seeing that it completely contradicts the official story isn’t exactly .... hm .... surprising. Who wouldn’t start doubting?


Nevertheless, you use her single story obsessively because it messes the "official" chronology up the most.
No it doesn’t mess up. It exposes the lie right away. Something btw you did try to challenge in the older thread. Now with the data of the Moussaoui trial you know that the case is crystal clear and therefore you post repeatedly to the older thread consciously ignoring all the new material.
By the way there is a recording of what Lyz Glick told he husband. Do you support a FOIA request?


“An emergency official arrived at the Makelys' home in Windham and took the phone, telling Weingaertner they were there. The call was disconnected. The tape would later be turned over to the FBI.”
(Times Union, 9/8/02)

„FBI agents monitored the last 20 minutes of the call and are studying a tape and transcript.“
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetnat3p3.asp



You seize on a single word in another phone call, "everyone." But the passenger could not have literally meant "everyone" because many did not run up to the front. That passenger meant that word in a colloquial way, a common usage in everyday English. Again you must make it literally to please your fantasies about destroying the "official" chronology.

I’m very well aware of the colloquial use of the word „everyone“. (It’s similar to many other languages). Can you show where I base my argument on the literal use of „everyone“??
And can you also explain in how far the official story is supported i fit wasn’t „everyone“ rushing to the cocpit but only a handful?


Another place you insist that cockpit noise should have been heard over an airphone in the back of the plane.
Care to explain the fact that Richard Makeley – after taking the phone from Lyz Glick - did hear what was able to hear when there was commotion, screams and when there was silence....?
Same goes for Lyz Jefferson who remained on the phone with Todd Beamer.


And I just read a post of yours where you seem to imply a belief that all the hijackers were in the cockpit when the passenger assault began. Looking at the CVR, that is clearly not the case. Only two were in the cockpit then.

I’ll open a thread of this in one week and go more into it.

[Bolo Boffin]

145. "data that I’ve deliberatly omitted." You managed to actually refer to it there.

I'm talking about Mrs. Glick's statement to her daughter that she is unsure when she told her husband. You leave that out all the time. You only use the one story that messes up the official chronology most. Mrs. Glick has abandoned it. You keep harping on it.

Richard Makeley heard the screams of people in the back of the plane, not the commotion up at the cockpit. THAT IS WHERE THE PHONE HE WAS LISTENING TO WAS. The same goes for the operator who talked to Beamer.

No, I am not in support of the release of any recording of the Glicks speaking to each other in Jeremy's last moments, not to satisfy your morbid curiosity.