UA 93: Detailed analysis of phone calls exposes nothing but unexplainable contradictions

Comparing the details of the phone calls

In the article « UA 93: Too many contradictions » I've already compared the details given in the different phone calls account.
www.team8plus.org...
www.democraticunderground.com...
Since the phone animation (based on data from Verizon) was presented as official evidence at the Moussaoui trial it is much easier to pinpoint the exact contradictions as the animation provides us with the exact location of each phone call and the official claimed fact that most passengers were herded to the back of the plane before Burnett's first phone call.
coop.vaed.uscourts.gov...

(Please note that this animation once again proves that the crash time is a lie:
www.team8plus.org...
and that it's very certain the animation is lying about Burnett using an airphone and not a cell phone and that the animation completely omitts Burnett's fourth phone call:
(y Andre II)
www.team8plus.org...)

Now let's have a look again at the contradictions under the view point of where exactly the phone calls were done which contradict each other.
(The number behind the passenger indicates the seat from where the phone call was done)
A detailed analysis will show that the number of contradictions is unexplainable especially if one assumes the official data is correct. But what is one left to assume if we consider the official data as a complete lie?


I. Witnessed « hijackers »:

Beamer 32DEF:
“He told Jefferson there were three hijackers, armed with knives. He did not know their nationalities or their intentions. ”
(Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01)
(NBC, 9/18/01)

Glick: 27DEF
“LYZ GLICK: He said that they were Arabic-looking men . I think he said that they were wearing red headbands , you know, was the description.”
(NBC, 9/15/01)

Bingham 25DEF.:
ALICE HOGLAN“there are three guys that have taken over the flight”
(ABC, 9/11/01, 11:35 p.m.)

Lyles 32ABC:
“Three guys have hijacked the plane. ” (Longman, p. 248)

Bradshaw 33DEF :
‘My flight has been hijacked. My flight has been hijacked by three guys with knives,’ she said.

Felt (restroom):
He was sitting 2D next to three alleged hijackers yet he didn't loose any word about the hijackers.

Summary:
Nobody sees four alleged hijackers. All who specify the number of the alleged hijackers talk of three. So far so good.
Yet, why does Beamer who mentions a hijacker who is guarding them not specify his appearance?
Indeed the very fact that most of them have been herded to the back of the plane very much implies the presence of a guarding hijacker. This is also stressed by the recording of the cockpit where an alleged hijacker asks “Shall we let the guys in now”. Therefore all of the passengers should have had the guarding hijacker right in front of them yet only Glick (originally seated several rows behind the alleged hijackers) mentions their ethnic appearance.
Why not Beamer who was seated one row behind Glick when the alleged hijackers started the attack?
Why not Burnett who was sitting next to them?
Why not Bingham who was first class as well?
Why no flight attendant?


II. Dead passengers/pilots

Burnett 24ABC and 25ABC:
“They just knifed a guy.” He specify the victim as a passenger.
The passenger was knifed before Burnett's first call at 9:30 (or 9:27).
(For details concerning the time discrepancies between the officially given time and the time Deena Burnett noted please see:
www.team8plus.org...)
In his second phone call at 9.37 (or 9:34):
Tom: They're in the cockpit. The guy they knifed is dead.
Deena: He's dead?
Tom: Yes. I tried to help him, but I couldn't get a pulse.

But Burnett is in the back of the plane.
Either the dead passenger is also in the back of the plane then there is absolutely no explanation why nobody else witnesses his death. Or Burnett is allowed to go back to first class to help reanimate the passenger? And yet no other phone call mentions this?

Beamer 32DEF:
While in the first accounts of the call Beamer is vague:
“He did not know the whereabouts of the pilot, copilot and the remaining passenger. He said a flight attendant had told him the pilot and copilot had been forced from the cockpit and may have been wounded.”
(Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01)
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/17/01)
(Washington Post, 9/17/01)

Later accounts based on interviews are very clear:
“But he did see two people that were on the floor. He couldn't tell if they were dead or alive. The flight attendant told him that she's pretty sure it was the pilot and the co-pilot.”
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm)
(ABC, 9/21/01 11 :35 pm)
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 9/22/01)

Britton 33ABC:
“She was crying. He heard screaming. Two people were already stabbed, she said. He knew something bad was going to happen. The call got disconnected” (p. 234).
www.post-gazette.com...

Glick 27DEF:
“PAULEY: He didn't tell you that one of the passengers had been stabbed?
Ms. L. GLICK: No.
PAULEY: And had already died.
Ms. L. GLICK: No.”
(NBC, 9/15/01)

He doesn’t know if pilots are alive.

Lyles 32ABC:
“Mr. LYLES: And she was like, 'Babe,' you know, 'my plane has been hijacked,' you know? She said, 'They forced their way into the cockpit.'”
(NBC, 10/2/01)

Unidentified flight attendant:
“a flight attendant on board had called the mechanics desk to report that one hijacker had a bomb strapped on and another was holding a knife on the crew. ”
billstclair.com...
No word about a dead passenger.
No word about the pilot and copilot.

Summary:
Burnett sees the stabbing of a passenger (although it is hard to see how he could have tried to save his life). But Burnett doesn't mention anything about pilot and copilot.
Beamer doesn't mention anything about a dead passenger. But he mentions two people (most likely pilot and copilot) are lying on the floor.
Britton (one row behind Beamer) mentions two people having been stabbed.
Glick (two rows behind Burnett) is the only witness who sees all the details of the attack of the hijackers (when the killing of the passenger is supposed to have happened) yet he doesn't mention a dead passenger at all. And he has no idea if pilot and copilot are well.
Lyles (sitting next to Beamer) nor any other flight attendant mentions anything about the pilot/copilot or a dead passenger.
How can we explain these huge contradictions though all these people sit within meters from one another?


III. Guarding « hijacker »

Beamer 32DEF:
In fact according to Beamer who phoned at 9.45 the alleged hijacker with a bomb was in the back of the plane guarding the passengers.
(Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01) (Washington Post, 9/17/01)

“Ms. JEFFERSON: From that point, he said he's going to have to go out on faith because they're talking about jumping the guy with the bomb.”
(NBC, 9/22/01)
(Washington Post 9/17/01) (Scripp Howard News Service, 9/16/01)

Unknown flight attendant:
a flight attendant on board had called the mechanics desk to report that one hijacker had a bomb strapped on and another was holding a knife on the crew. ”
billstclair.com...

Glick 27DEF:
He doesn’t mention any guarding hijacker. And Lyz Glick explicitly states:
“LYZ GLICK: He was free to talk to me.”
(NBC, 9/15/01)

continued...............

Summary:
Again only contradictions.
Beamer claims the presence of the guarding hijacker (which somehow is logic as the passengers officially have been herded to the back of the plane) but whom the alleged hijacker wanted to come into the cockpit already at 9.45 according to the CVR (so at the time Beamer's call started. So why is Beamer talking about jumping somebody who shouldn't be there according to the CVR?)
The unidentified flight attendant claims the presence even of two hijackers. But this implies that only one entered the cockpit (keep in mind that everybody only talks of three alleged hijackers).
Everybody else doesn't mention the guarding hijacker at all who would be the very first obstacle for a passenger attack with any word. Even Glick and Burnett who both tried to relay as much information as possible.
Especially important is this question when we come to the consequences of the presence of the guarding hijacker: Did he have a visible bomb?
And why does the guarding hijacker allow the passengers to talk to their neighbours (e.g. Burnett talks during his 9.37 and his 9.45 calls to his neighbours) and especially when does he allow phone calls to be done?


IV. A visible bomb:

Beamer 32DEF:
“One had a bomb strapped around his waist with a red belt.”
(ABC, 9/21/01 11 :35 pm)
(Washington Post, 9/17/01) (Herald Sun, 9/18/01) (Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01)
This he says after 9:45.

Burnett 24ABC and 25ABC:
At 9.30 he says “they are telling us there is a bomb on board”

In his 9.45 call
Tom: What is the probability of their having a bomb on board? I don't think they have one. I think they're just telling us that for crowd control.
This is already when he is in the back of the plane.

Glick 27DEF:
Though he doesn’t mention anybody guarding them (nor the problem that they have to overcome this guy) he describes the bomb that according to Beamer the guard is wearing:
“LYZ GLICK: It was something with a red tag around it.”
(NBC, 9/15/01)

Unknown flight attendant:
a flight attendant on board had called the mechanics desk to report that one hijacker had a bomb strapped on and another was holding a knife on the crew. ”
billstclair.com...

Bingham 25DEF.:
“they say they have a bomb.”
(ABC, 9/11/01, 11:35 p.m.)

Gronlund 26DEF:
“This is Lin. I’m on United Flight 93. We’ve been hijacked. There are terrorists aboard and they have a bomb” (p. 221)

Felt (restroom):
Did Felt hear an explosion and see white smoke? The accounts contradict each other and are far from being clear as the Commission Reports pretends.
For further details see:
www.team8plus.org...
www.democraticunderground.com...
(post 6 and 14)

Summary:
In case the alleged hijackers had indeed a bomb aboard we have to wonder went they took the risk to pass the security check with a bomb in their luggage.
Why do both Bingham and Burnett believe that the alleged hijacker only claim to have a bomb? How can Burnett ask in his third call (at the very same time when Beamer phones): “What is the probability of their having a bomb on board? I don't think they have one. I think they're just telling us that for crowd control.”?
Both Burnett and Bingham talk as if there is nothing to see no object to analyse if it might be a bomb. And this although Burnett is talking to other people at that time starting his plane for counter attack.
Why does Glick who is only two rows behind Burnett and Bingham see something like a bomb but he doesn't mention the person that is supposed to have this very bomb around his belly?


V. gun

Burnett 24ABC and 25ABC:
In his first call at 9.30:
”The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, they are telling us there is a bomb on board, please call the authorities.”

Glick 27DEF:
“LYZ GLICK: And, you know, so I asked them if they were armed, and he said he had seen knives and--but there were no guns.”
(NBC, 9/15/01)

Summary:
Again. Burnett is very clear about the presence of a gun while Glick being only two rows behind is very clear that there are no guns.


VI. curtain closed between :

Beamer 32DEF:
This happens during Beamer’s call (starting at 9.45)!
“After he explained that to me, the guy with the bomb pulled the curtain to First Class, so they couldn't see what was going on in First Class.”
(ABC, 9/21/01 11:35 pm)

Summary:
Beamer is very clear here about the activity of a guarding hijacker who has a bomb around his waste. This guy is pulling the curtain to first class. Therefore he MUST have been visible to ALL passengers doing phone calls. Yet, as we have seen there are huge contradictions about the presence of the guarding hijacker and the bomb.


VII. Flight path

Beamer 32DEF:
Lisa Jefferson recalled Beamer’s words in his call starting at 9.45:
“He said, 'We're going down! We're going down! No, we're coming back up!' Wait, we're turning around, we're going back north. I think we're going north. At this point I don't know where we're going, I really don't know.'”
(ABC, 9/21/01 11 :35 pm)
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm) (PPG 9/22/01)

Burnett 24ABC and 25ABC:
Burnett says at the end of the second call:
“We're turning back toward New York. We're going back to the World Trade Center. No, wait, we're turning back the other way. We're going south.”
This matched perfectly the time given by Deena Burnett (9:35) but according to the official document it is now 9:38. But at 9:38 the flight path shows that UA 93 didn’t change direction at all for three minutes. There was no change of direction at 9:38. Either the official time is wrong, the flight path is wrong or Tom Burnett is having hallucinations.

In his fourth call he said (according to Deena Burnett at 9.54 according to the official data this call never happened):
“We're waiting until we're over a rural area. We're going to take back the airplane.”

If we stay with Deena Burnett's given time we have a problem here:
If the 10:03 crash time is correct they would be over a rural area by now!
If the 10:06 crash time is true then they just passed by Pittsburgh. But why doesn’t Burnett point out that he just passed a very big city?
O.k. We know that the official crash time cannot be true.
www.team8plus.org...

Britton 33ABC:
“The plane was making a turn” (Longman, 228)
But this doesn’t correspond at all with the official timeline as the turn before Cleveland was several minutes earlier.

Felt (restroom):
At 9:58.
“Once he seemed to grow impatient with the dispatcher, but he kept his cool under the circumstances. “We're going down, we're going down”.
(Longman, p. 275)
But the Commission Report doesn't mention any loss of height for Flight 93 at that time of his call.

Summary:
We have many descriptions of the flight behaviour yet all do contradict the official given flight path and altitude.


VIII. Background noise:

Britton 33ABC:
During the call 9.49-9.53:
“She was crying. He heard screaming. Two people were already stabbed, she said. He knew something bad was going to happen. The call got disconnected”
(Longman, p. 234).
www.post-gazette.com...
Also Jefferson’s supervisor heard the screaming.
(San Francisco Chronicle, 9/17/01: sfgate.com.../c/a/2001/09/17... )

Beamer 32DEF:
Almost at the end of his call (between 9.55 and 10.00):
“You can hear screams and commotion. You can hear--I could hear the flight attendant next to him screaming. And I could hear men, their voices were raised, and there was just a lot of commotion going on. Todd kept his same calm voice that he was speaking to me in.”
(ABC, 9/21/01 11 :35 pm)
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm)

continued

Burnett 24ABC and 25ABC:
Burnett says at the end of the second call:
“We're turning back toward New York. We're going back to the World Trade Center. No, wait, we're turning back the other way. We're going south.”
This matched perfectly the time given by Deena Burnett (9:35) but according to the official document it is now 9:38. But at 9:38 the flight path shows that UA 93 didn’t change direction at all for three minutes. There was no change of direction at 9:38. Either the official time is wrong, the flight path is wrong or Tom Burnett is having hallucinations.

In his fourth call he said (according to Deena Burnett at 9.54 according to the official data this call never happened):
“We're waiting until we're over a rural area. We're going to take back the airplane.”

If we stay with Deena Burnett's given time we have a problem here:
If the 10:03 crash time is correct they would be over a rural area by now!
If the 10:06 crash time is true then they just passed by Pittsburgh. But why doesn’t Burnett point out that he just passed a very big city?
O.k. We know that the official crash time cannot be true.
www.team8plus.org...

Britton 33ABC:
“The plane was making a turn” (Longman, 228)
But this doesn’t correspond at all with the official timeline as the turn before Cleveland was several minutes earlier.

Felt (restroom):
At 9:58.
“Once he seemed to grow impatient with the dispatcher, but he kept his cool under the circumstances. “We're going down, we're going down”.
(Longman, p. 275)
But the Commission Report doesn't mention any loss of height for Flight 93 at that time of his call.

Summary:
We have many descriptions of the flight behaviour yet all do contradict the official given flight path and altitude.


VIII. Background noise:

Britton 33ABC:
During the call 9.49-9.53:
“She was crying. He heard screaming. Two people were already stabbed, she said. He knew something bad was going to happen. The call got disconnected”
(Longman, p. 234).
www.post-gazette.com...
Also Jefferson’s supervisor heard the screaming.
(San Francisco Chronicle, 9/17/01: sfgate.com.../c/a/2001/09/17... )

Beamer 32DEF:
Almost at the end of his call (between 9.55 and 10.00):
“You can hear screams and commotion. You can hear--I could hear the flight attendant next to him screaming. And I could hear men, their voices were raised, and there was just a lot of commotion going on. Todd kept his same calm voice that he was speaking to me in.”
(ABC, 9/21/01 11 :35 pm)
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm)

Glick 27DEF:
Lyz Glick later recalls: I didn't hear any screaming. I didn't hear any noises. I didn't hear any commotion.
billstclair.com...

Wainio 33ABC:
During her call 9.53-9.58:
“could not hear another person. She could not hear any other conversation or crying or yelling or whimpering”
(Longman, p. 241f)

Lyles 32ABC:
After 9.58:
“The pair prayed. In the background, Lorne Lyles could hear what he now believes was the sound of men planning a counterattack.”
www.post-gazette.com...
(Also Longman, 253)
He doesn't mention any screaming.

Summary:
While Fiumano could hear screams in the background during his call with Britton Liza Glick recalls no screams at the same time (though her connection was good enough that sounds were audible at the very end. See below).
While Liza Jefferson hears screaming in the background in her call with Beamer Esther Heyman explicitly states that she didn't hear any screams in the background at the same time and again Liza Glick recalls no screaming neither. Just before the counterattack started Lorne Lyles hears people talking but again no screaming.


IX. Sounds of the attack and sounds of wind:
There are only three people on the open phone line when the passenger attack is supposed to have started: Liza Jefferson (Beamer), Lorne Lyles (Lyles) and Richard Makely taking the phone from Liza Glick.

Lyles 32ABC:
“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”.
(Longman, p. 253)

Glick 27DEF:
At the end of their call:
“He went away, and it sounded as if he were talking to people.
“She couldn’t bear to listen and handed the phone to her father -Richard Makely)”
(Longman, p. 217)

Richard Makely:
"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."
(NBC, 9/15/01)

His observation is confirmed by officials:
“According to law-enforcement sources (who were listening in on the conversation), there was silence on the line. Then screams. Then silence. Then screams. Then nothing.”
(Newsweek, 09/13/01: msnbc.msn.com... /

Beamer 32DEF:
After Todd Beamer's famous last words:
Liza Jefferson “Then there was silence.”
(Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01)

Then the story changed:
“There were screams, she said. She said there was a lot of commotion and there were screams. And she said she stayed on the line, and it became silent then.”
(NBC, 9/18/01)
(CNN 9/18/01) (Washington Post, 9/17/01)

“PHILLIPS: Moments later: screams, commotion.
Ms. JEFFERSON: Then it went silent.”
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm)


Summary:
Three witnesses and again three completely different stories:
Lorne Lyles hears the sound of wind and the screams right after his wife left the phone. Then immediately the silence.
Richard Makely doesn't hear screams but a long silence. Then screams then silence and the sound of wind.
Liza Jefferson hears screams right away and then only silence. Yet, officially the passenger's attack lasted several minutes.


As an aside:
Please note that several people who had been on the phone with passengers of Flight 93 witness the sound of wind. This sound is also heard by family members as well when they listened to the recordings:

"according to sources, the last seconds of the cockpit voice recorder are the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage".
www.mirror.co.uk...
Still it doesn't appear in the official transcription presented later to the public nor in the CR.
www.democraticunderground.com...


X. Passenger's awareness of what was going on

Burnett 24ABC and 25ABC:
In his 9.37 call:
Deena: Tom, they are hijacking planes all up and down the east coast. They are taking them and hitting designated targets. They've already hit both towers of the World Trade Center.

Here is one of the very rare contradictions between this unedited written account of Deena Burnett and her interviews after 911. On October 2, 2001:
PAULEY: (Voiceover) Passengers may, at first, have thought this was the kind of hijacking in which hostages are held until demands are met. But Tom Burnett made a second call to his wife, saying ominous news was circulating among the passengers.
(Scenes of inside plane; air phone)
Deena Burnett: “He asked me about the World Trade Center.”
(NBC, 10/2/01; the same interview was broadcasted on 9/3/02 again)
This account implies that Burnett new already something was going in New York BEFORE he asked his wife. But how can anybody on the plane have known as Burnett was the first one to do a phone call. There is no other passenger officially known to have done a phone call even before Burnett’s second call!

Tom: They're talking about crashing this plane. (a pause) Oh my God. It's a suicide mission...(he then tells people sitting around him)

Glick 27DEF:
His call started 9.37 as well:
“LYZ GLICK: And he said, 'Liz, I need to know something, one of the other passengers had talked to their spouse and he had said that they were crashing planes into World Trade Center , and was this true?'”
(NBC, 9/15/01)

This could only have been Burnett but Deena Glick doesn't mention at all that a neighbour is talking to Glick during the call.

Britton 33ABC:
During her 9.49 call:
“Fiumano told her that the World Trade Center towers were in flames. She said, ‘I know, and we're going to go down.’ Fiumano said they were only going to take them for a ride, but she responded, ‘No. They're going to kill us.’”
www.post-gazette.com...

Gronlund 26DEF:
Officially at 9.46:
“Linda Gronlund calls her sister and leaves a message, saying the passengers are aware of the attacks on New York. She says of the hijackers, ‘I think they're going to try to do something like that with us.’”
(Times Herald, 9/11/02)

Lyles 32ABC:
Three guys have hijacked the plane. I’m trying to be calm. I heard planes were going into the World Trade Center. I hope to see your face again.” (p. 248)

Beamer 32DEF:
During his 9.45 call:
“Ms. JEFFERSON: He asked me, did I know what they wanted? Did they want money, ransom or what? I told him I really didn't know. I didn't have a clue what they wanted.
PHILLIPS: Did you tell him about the other hijackings of the other planes?
Ms. JEFFERSON: No. No, I didn't.
PHILLIPS: Do you think he was aware of that?
Ms. JEFFERSON: Not at the time, he was not. That's why he asked me, what did they want, was it money or ransom? He didn't know, he was confused. And I didn't tell him because I didn't want him to get upset, excited or lose control. And I still felt that they had hope.”
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm)
(CBS, 9/21/01, 8 pm)

Wainio 33ABC:
In her 9.53 call:
”’ Do you know what’s going on’, Elizabeth asked.’” (Longman, p. 235)

Summary:
As the accounts clearly show Burnett, Glick, Gronlund, Britton, Lyles
(and also Bingham
www.msnbc.com...)
were talking to their neighbours. All of them were aware of what was going on. While one might explain Wainio's lack of knowledge of what was going on Beamer's lack is extremely strange. Especially given the fact that he knew Glick by first name and in Liza Jefferson's account two crucial moments don't exist: The moment when Beamer realizes the gravity of the situation and decides to do something and when he is agreeing on a plan with other passengers.
One certainly should also keep this ongoing communication in mind that makes it even less explainable why no account agrees on any detail.


XI. Special:
Burnett's prophecy:

In his 9.37 call:

Tom: They're talking about crashing this plane. (a pause) Oh my God. It's a suicide mission...(he then tells people sitting around him)


In his 9.45 call:
Tom: They're talking about crashing this plane into the ground. We have to do something. I'm putting a plan together.

There is a maximum of only one guarding hijacker left so who is “they”?
Why would the alleged hijackers tell this to the passengers while at the same time declaring that they are going back to the airport? And why is Burnett the one and only passenger who mentions this?


XII. The passenger's attack:

About midway through the tape, one of the hijackers said to another “Let the guys in now,” apparently referring to other terrorists entering the cockpit.
(Among the Heroes, p. 291)

Paul Thompson assumes in his timeline that the attack started in first class at 9:57 and was followed by a second attack from coach at 9:58. (Observer, 12/2/01). This chronological order corresponds also to Beamer’s phone call:

Then, in the background, she could hear an “awful commotion,” men’s voices raised and hollering and women screaming “Oh my God,” and “God help us,” and “Help us Jesus.”
Todd seemed to turn away from the phone to speak with someone else.
“You ready?” He said. “Okay. Let’s roll.”
(Longman, p. 285f)

But the problem is a very simple one. According to the official presentation both Burnett and Beamer were in the rear of the plane. No curtain separating the two. So, then why apparently didn't they organize the attack together though – as it has been shown – communication worked well in the rear of the plane as e.g. both Burnett (row 24 and 25) and Lyles (row 33) were aware of what was going on in New York.


Conclusion:

How can we explain that basically the phone calls contradicts each other to a great extent concerning basically every single piece of information that is provided in the calls.
If we assume that the official data is completely wrong and that the reseating of the passengers took place later then the number of the contradictions is reduced (but far from omitted) then we have to conclude that the officially presented animation (based on official data) is plain wrong. Or to use more plain English: A LIE.


[uSources:
All sources can be find in these articles:

« Deconstructing Todd Beamer's phone call »
www.team8plus.org...
www.democraticunderground.com...

“Deconstructing Tom Burnett’s phone calls”
www.team8plus.org...
www.democraticunderground.com...

“Deconstructing Jeremy Glick’s phone call”
www.team8plus.org...
www.democraticunderground.com...

“Deconstructing Edward Felt's phone call”
www.team8plus.org...
www.democraticunderground.com...
(post 6 and 14)

Deconstructing the lesser known phone calls from UA 93
www.team8plus.org...
www.democraticunderground.com...

UA 93: Too many contradictions
www.team8plus.org...
www.democraticunderground.com...



FROM team8plus.org...

Anyone here of Delta flight 1989?

Google it.

I was not going to reply because I do not know much about these calls, but no one else has. I just wanted to give you credit on a great job with research.

I'd like to see someone either provide more content to add to yours or someone explain some of the discrepancies.

So, flag and star on all posts.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by IvanZana
Anyone here of Delta flight 1989?

Google it.

Google it? Yes ... Google University or GU for short. Thats what I call research and starting threads on ATS. This is more spam

But since you brought up flight 1989 I will bite.... and please pay attention.


From Liz Formen

I thought it was time to set the record straight on a website error that's gotten out of hand.

I've been getting calls and e-mails for several years, all from folks who have seen my byline on a story (Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard) about Flight 93, the plane that crashed in a Pennsylvania field on September 11, 2001.

The story in question, an Associated Press bulletin, was posted on WCPO.com during the morning of September 11, 2001. The story stated that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. This was not true.

Once the AP issued a retraction a few minutes later, we removed the link.

There were two problems:

1)I only removed the link TO the story. We did not remove the story itself. This was my error probably due to the busy nature of the day - I was the only person updating the website until about noon that day, and things were crazier than they’d ever been.

2) The byline was incorrect. In my haste, I pasted the “Reported by: 9News Staff” byline from a previous story, but this was actually an Associated Press story.

Sometime in 2003 I received an e-mail inquiring about the story. I quickly removed the story, and wrote back to the person, thanking them for the heads up about the incorrect story.

Things didn't stop there.

Messages and phone calls started coming in about "Why did the government make me remove the story?" As is the nature of the net, folks had gotten a hold of the old story and posted it on their own blogs, fueling even more interest in the situation.

So, for everyone who is still wondering about this story, here are some frequently asked questions. I'm hoping this clears everything up once and for all!


FAQ

1. Where did the original story come from?
The story was an Associated Press bulletin that came across the news wires. Associated Press is a news service that many news organizations subscribe to for non-local news. The idea is that a local news organization can’t possibly have reporters everywhere in the world, so for that reason, we publish stories written by Associated Press journalists.

2. So you didn’t report the story yourself?
No, I work at the website in Cincinnati. I generally do not do any reporting out in the field. Also, I was not in Cleveland, nor does WCPO-TV have a Cleveland-based reporter. If you’re not familiar with the geography of Ohio, Cleveland is a good four hours away from us.

There were two problems:

1) I only removed the link TO the story. We did not remove the story itself. This was my error probably due to the busy nature of the day - I was the only person updating the website until about noon that day, and things were crazier than they’d ever been.

2) The byline was incorrect. In my haste, I pasted the “Reported by: 9News Staff” byline from a previous story, but this was actually an Associated Press story.

3. Why didn’t you remove the problem story page from the outset?
My mistake, that’s why. I removed the link TO the story, but didn’t remove the actual story. Then, the story page was indexed by the major search engines. I didn’t even know the story hadn’t been removed until after I was contacted by a member of the public.

4. Why DID you remove the page?
Because it was in error.

5. Why did you create this FAQ page? Isn’t that just fueling the fire?
I’ve been getting a ton of phone calls and e-mails about this recently and answering everyone would make it hard for me to get my day job – running the website – accomplished. Also, unlike the old media paradigm, which is “ignore it and it’ll go away,” the Internet means a two-way conversation with our website users. So, in the interest of media transparency, this is my attempt to clear the air.

blogs.scripps.com...

My husband] and I and six other fellow [...] employees were on the 8 am flight from Boston to Los Angeles on Tuesday, but we were on the Delta flight [1989], the one out of three 8am flights departing Logan that did not get hijacked. Instead, we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight. Also, there was an irregularity in the passenger manifest because there were two people [with the same middle eastern name] who were listed but only one aboard.

256.com...

No explosives were found aboard a Delta flight from Boston that was forced to land at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport because of fears it had been hijacked, city officials said.

The Federal Aviation Administration had been informed at 9:45 a.m. of a possible hijacking of a plane headed for Cleveland, said FBI spokesman Mark Bullock.

Flight 1989 to Los Angeles was not hijacked but was grounded by Delta because it was in the same flight pattern as a plane that was hijacked and struck the World Trade Center in New York, Bullock said.

thepost.baker.ohiou.edu...



[edit on 24-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

More on 1989

Rumor One: Cleveland Mayor Mike White told reporters that United 93 had landed safely at Hopkins on 9/11.

Evidence For: At 11:43 a.m. the morning of 9/11, the following Associated Press news bulletin appeared on the Web site for Cincinnati ABC affiliate station WCPO, Channel 9: "A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93."...

Evidence Against: Former Mayor White hardly ever talks to the media now, so Free Times contacted his former press secretary Della Homenik.

"It has always been my understanding that United flight 93 diverted from its intended flight plan while it was in Cleveland air space," Homenik writes in an e-mail. "I never heard a single report, from any source, either on September 11 or in its aftermath, that flight 93 landed in Cleveland."

A review of WEWS Cleveland Channel 5's live coverage of White's comments that day show that he never suggested that the grounded plane parked at the end of a Hopkins runway was United 93.

"Let me walk through the most current situation that we are grappling with," says White at the brief press conference. "At this moment, we have a Boeing 767 in a secure area of Hopkins International Airport. The initial reports were that this plane was hijacked and that there was a bomb on board. There was, before this, an additional plane in our airspace. I am told through unconfirmed reports that we could hear screaming in the control tower. This plane has been diverted from Cleveland and at last report was in the Toledo airspace."

Later, we would learn that this 767 was Delta flight 1989. It had originated from the same Boston airport as United 93, but was cleared by inspectors after landing at Hopkins. It had not been hijacked, and there was no bomb. And United 93, by the way, was a 757...

Rumor Two: United 93 deboarded at NASA Glenn Research Center and its passengers were taken away in an unmarked shuttle.

Evidence For: Newspaper articles published after 9/11 suggest there were two planes, not one, that were forced to land in Cleveland. One was Delta 1989. The other is often referred to as "Flight X" but is assumed by many to be United 93.

The Web site 911review.org cites real articles from the Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon Journal and USA Today to establish these facts:

> A plane landed in Cleveland at 10:10 a.m.

> Delta 1989 landed here at 10:45 a.m., and its 69 passengers and nine crew members were loaded onto buses and taken to Federal Aviation Administration headquarters at Hopkins.

> At 11:15 a.m., 200 passengers from the other plane were taken to NASA Glenn, whose employees had already evacuated, to be interviewed by FBI agents. (While United 93 is known to have carried 37 passengers and seven crew members, conspiracy theorists are quick to point out that if the passengers and crew of all four flights that crashed on 9/11 had been consolidated at some secret location, the number would be right about 200.)

Bloggers claims that eyewitnesses saw civilians being loaded onto military bus ses at NASA Glenn. They were whisked away to some undisclosed location, never to be seen again.

The FAA refused Free Times' repeated requests for interviews. The media department at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport stopped returning our calls when we asked to speak with the safety director who worked at the airport on 9/11.

During a recent layover in Cleveland, Loose Change producer Jason Bermas questioned an airport employee about the events of 9/11. "She said, "Well, that one Delta flight was grounded here and another was grounded at NASA Glenn,'" Bermas recalls. "We told her we had heard the plane at NASA was United 93. But then she just went into the official version of events and said it was definitely not United 93. But there was another plane at NASA Glenn that day and no one has ever explained that. I'm hoping a news agency will go over and follow up on that."

Evidence Against: We did. And Bermas is right, there was another plane grounded at NASA Glenn on 9/11. But it wasn't United 93.

Vernon "Bill" Wessel is the director of safety and mission assurance at NASA Glenn. He was in his office the morning of 9/11 when an employee called him from home. "He says, "Bill, I don't know if this is a hoax or what, but I just saw a plane crash into the World Trade Center.'" Wessel says he hung up and raced downstairs to a conference room. Center Director Don Campbell joined him. A projector beamed the television's image onto a large screen just as United Airlines flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

An emergency meeting of directors was called, and an order to evacuate NASA was issued. When Wessel learned that Delta 1989 was stuck on the tarmac at Hopkins and that it might contain explosives, he decided it would be unwise to use the front gate, closest to the airport, to evacuate the 3,500 NASA Glenn employees under his watch. E-mails and phone calls were sent out to different departments at the research facility, informing everyone to leave via the back gate. "It took about an hour and a half to evacuate everybody," Wessel recalls.

So what about the so-called Flight X?

"A KC-135 had to come back to the hangar," says Wessel, as if realizing for the first time that this aircraft may have caused some undue confusion. A team of scientists from the Johnson Space Center in Houston had flown to Cleveland on this KC-135 to conduct micro-gravity experiments. (Also known as "the vomit comet," KC-135's are used to simulate weightlessness. The plane soars to high altitudes, then falls back toward the ground, giving passengers a few seconds of zero-G experience. Scenes for the Tom Hanks movie Apollo 13 were filmed in one.)

The visiting scientists could not return to Houston as scheduled on 9/11 once the FAA ordered all planes to land. "After the facility closed, we had to take those scientists to a hotel." The scientists, dressed as civilians, were boarded onto shuttle buses.

www.freetimes.com...

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Good rebuttal. Thanks for that.

Ivan, anything to add?

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Boy thanks for the links to debunk the one line post, how about the previous posts IvanZana made any errors in there?

Yes he made errors. Or maybe made assumptions would be a better description. Seems to be quite hung up on minute time differences.

Either the official time is wrong, the flight path is wrong or Tom Burnett is having hallucinations.

Or between the FDR, the cell phone and the radar station....the clocks arent set the same......

reply to post by infinityoreilly


Infinity... I responded to Ivans phone call spam posting on his other phone call spam posting.

Thanks for asking though

Nobody sees four alleged hijackers. All who specify the number of the alleged hijackers talk of three. So far so good.
Yet, why does Beamer who mentions a hijacker who is guarding them not specify his appearance?
Indeed the very fact that most of them have been herded to the back of the plane very much implies the presence of a guarding hijacker. This is also stressed by the recording of the cockpit where an alleged hijacker asks “Shall we let the guys in now”. Therefore all of the passengers should have had the guarding hijacker right in front of them yet only Glick (originally seated several rows behind the alleged hijackers) mentions their ethnic appearance.
Why not Beamer who was seated one row behind Glick when the alleged hijackers started the attack?
Why not Burnett who was sitting next to them?
Why not Bingham who was first class as well?
Why no flight attendant?

reply to post by IvanZana


Why don't you TELL us Ivan. Gosh, you cut and paste these so called theories yet offer NOTHING of what you think happened. Why not?

Was Beamer lying? Was he not there?