911-archiv.net

Achtung!!
Ich hatte diesen Artikel vor der Veröffentlichung der Animationen im Moussaoui-Prozess geschrieben. Der nächste Schritt wäre also die Zeiten abzugleichen. Dennoch denke ich, dass sich hier ein paar wichtige Dinge finden:


After having analysed in detail the central phone calls from UA 93 I’ll turn now to the lesser known calls. But there won’t be a single phone call that doesn’t give reason for serious questions. The order of the phone calls is chronological. Unfortunately we don’t know the exact time of Andrew Garcia’s call. Therefore I placed him according to my feeling. But of course the call can have happened even an hour earlier. We don’t know. What we do know that there are way too many contradictions in theses phone calls.
Here we go:


9:00 – 9:30:
LOUIS J. NACKE II:
All accounts consider Nacke as a central part of the passenger attack. This might be explained by the fact that he had a weight-lifter’s physic but there is no hint in his phone call if he was part of the attack simply because his call is very special and contains not a single word.
Nacke didn’t plan to fly on 911. He “had booked his seat only the night before. Out to dinner with his family, he had a received a phone call from one of his customers who needed help with an inventory problem”
www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
He called his wife from the airport before boarding (p. 177)
Apparently Nacke tried to phone his wife between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m and left a message for his wife.
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp
The approximate time is very surprising. Given that officially the hijack at 9:27. Did Nacke phone BEFORE the hijack started officially? Was he tin fact the first caller?
The call supposedly only contained “noise and a click” .
www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
Unfortunately « Amy Nacke, his wife, accidentally erased an answering machine message while trying to identify where the call came from.”
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp
“She said officials at Kay-Bee Toys were trying to determine if he made a call on his company cell phone.”
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp
But neither Jere Longman nor anybody else mention what was the result of this research. Therefore it seems to be still unknown if Nacke tried to phone his wife or not. This is very unfortunate as it is quite likely that the time of the call was in conflict with the official timeline (and might hint back to the “old” hijack time of 9:16).
Another simple question is of course the same as with Andrew Garcia: Why doesn’t he use an airfone? And why isn’t his cell phone so bad that it doesn’t work at all while other cell phones manage calls of 10 minutes without any problem (Elizabeth Wainio)?


After 9:30, 9:41
MARION BRITTON:
She had bought two tickets due to her body volume.
Although nowhere it is indicated where she was seated we can deduce that she was in first class (therefore a pretty expensive flight) as flight attendant CeeCee Lyles gives 11 in first class and 27 in coach (therefore altogether the figure of 45 people aboard that was reported first. But officially now we have 44 people aboard, 10 passengers in first class and 27 in coach).
As her cell phone wasn’t working she borrowed the cell phone of a neighbour (Longman 228) (NBC, 10/2/01) and she called her longtime friend Fred Fiumano.
Fiumano only recalls that is was “sometimes after 9:30” www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp. And while Longman gives no time in his book the “Times Herald” (basing their account Longman, Newsweek and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) gives 9:41 (Times Herald, 9/11/02). Again the time could easily be known by asking the cell phone company.
“Britton was crying. She had been hijacked, she told Fiumano, and two people on the plane already had been killed.”
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
It is very strange to say the least that the fact how many people have been killed during the flight and were visible for the passengers (and who the victims were) varies a lot in the phone calls. Britton’s account seems to support Todd Beamer who precises with the help of a flight attendant that the two people were pilot and co-pilot. But it is in stark contradiction to Burnett and Glick. Moreover she doesn’t state that the victims are pilot and co-pilot. Especially striking is the conflict with Burnett’s account as he was in first class, too, and tried to take care of the victim.
Jere Longman provides the detail that she gave Fiumano the telephone number and asked him to write it down (as it wasn’t her number). Here again the question: Why doesn’t she simply use the airfone? Why do two people share a cell phone in a case of emergency if they can use an airfone, too?
Based on an interview Longman writes:
“The plane was making a turn” (Longman, 228)
But this doesn’t correspond at all with the official timeline ad the turn before Cleveland was several minutes earlier. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on the other hand writes that the had made a U-turn)
She’s aware of the WTC:
“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/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp
And the call ends:
“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/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp
Neither Lyzbeth Glick nor Deena Burnett nor Alice Hoglan heard screaming around 9:45 (I estimate the call lasted that long). Fiumano’s account only corresponds to Lisa Jefferson (on the phone with Todd Beamer). In no way the end of this call can present the end of the flight or only the start of the passenger attack.
“He (Fiumano) tried calling back but the call didn't get through.”
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp
Again one can only wonder about the use of cell phones!
Unfortunately we don’t know what he heard on the answering machine or in general to whom the phone number belonged.


9:35
Unidentified flight attendant:
And here a new phone call I just found with the help of Paul Thompson's Timeline:
”At 9:35, San Francisco maintenance center received another call from flight attendant on Flight 93 saying that the flight had been hijacked.”
www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing7/...aring_2004-01-27.htm
The only source about this call is Wall Street Journal, 10/15/01:
”In the United crisis center, managers isolated Flight 93 on the big Aircraft Situation Display screen. The plane had made a wide U-turn over Ohio and seemed to be heading toward Washington. Everyone in the room by now knew that 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/911timeline/2001/wallstreetjournal101501.html

Question: Who is the flight attendant? Why does nobody tells details?
Why does the flight attendant give no hint about who hijacked the plane?
The hijacker with the bomb is highly questionable. Only Todd Beamer mentiones him.
The hijacker holding a knife on the crew. Excuse me?? The hiijackers are in the cockpit at the time of the call. So how can the caller know? And why does neither Bradshaw or Lyles know??
And even if this happened before 9:28 before hijackers entered the cockpit: No, not a single other passenger reports this happening.
Why are no questions asked? Why didn't happen the same thing as with Betty Ong?
Why is there no absolutely no discussion of this call? (I only managed to find this call with the help of Paul Thompson’s Timeline.)
9:42, 9:44 or 9:45
MARK BINGHAM:
The call of Mark Bingham is famous within the CT crowd for his sentence “Mom, this is Mark Bingham”. In general with this and any other call I find it difficult to prove that a call is fake due to arguments of psychology (he wouldn’t have said that etc). Therefore I’ll only mention but not judge strange behaviour. And indeed there are several in his short call.
While many passengers had booked for Flight 91 and switched to UA 93 because they were much too early Mark Bingham almost missed his flight.
He “had overslept and his friend, Matthew Hall, drove madly from Manhattan to Newark. They screeched to a halt outside Terminal A at 7:40. Bingham leapt from the car, lugging the old, blue-and-gold canvas bag he'd used as a rugby player at the University of California at Berkeley a decade earlier.
United attendants reopened the door to the boarding ramp and let him on the plane.
Bingham slipped into a seat in aisle 4-D, next to Thomas Burnett. Nine minutes after Hall dropped him off, Bingham picked up his cell phone.
‘Hey, it's me,’ he said. ‘Thanks for driving so crazy to get me here. I'm in first class, drinking a glass of orange juice.’”
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp

United Airlines shows a surprising service. They reopen the door to the boarding ramp and nine minutes after arriving at the terminal Bingham is already inside the plane, an orange juice served and he’s sitting comfortably! This almost breaks the speed record of Atta and Al Omari in Portland. Only that Portland is a very small airport. And are you allowed to do phone calls right after boarding a plane?

Although if the content of what Mark Bingham actually said is very simple to grasp the circumstances of his call are quite complicated. The actual time of the call varies between 9:42, 9:44 and 9:45.
Alice Hoglan, Mark Bingham’s mother, didn’t expect her son back before September 14 and wasn’t aware that he took a plane before he called.
(NBC, 10/2/01)
Still on September 11 Alice Hoglan, Mark Bingham’s mother, is the first relative of the victims of UA 93 who goes public:
“Ms. HOGLAN: The phone rang about 6:45 (9:45 EST) this morning, and Carol Fitz, a friend of the family, answered it and she heard a male voice say 'Get Kathy or Alice quickly.' And she did. She went and got Kathy, who is Mark's aunt, that's my sister-in-law, it's her home here. And I heard Kathy running down the hall. Kathy spoke to Mark. I heard her say, 'We love you, too, Mark.'”
(ABC, 9/11/01 11:35 p.m.)
I find it rather surprising that Mark Bingham doesn’t want to talk to this mother but asks for either his aunt or his mother. Keeping in mind that according to Jere Longman Mark Bingham kept a sign in his office “Alice Hoglan is Goddess” (Longman, 185).
“Ms. Hoglan: And I--I--I--coming out of my room, she said to come talk to Mark. 'He has been hijacked.' And I got on the phone and I heard Mark's voice. He said 'Mom, this is Mark Bingham.' He was so flustered, I guess, screaming his last name. And he said, 'I just wanted to let you know that I love you.' He was repeating that, he had told Kathy a moment before. I told him, 'We love you, Mark.' And--and he said, 'I'm on a flight, Flight 93, United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco, and there are three guys that have taken over the flight and they say they have a bomb. And I'm calling you from the air phone on this plane,' meaning not his cell phone, I guess.”
(ABC, 9/11/01, 11:35 p.m.)
The mentioning of the airfone is rather strange as it is without any interest in the situation.
Unfortunately on her first appearances in the media Alice Hoglan doesn’t continue her recollection of the call but tells how proud she is of her son.
The following day she recalls the end of the call:
"And I said: 'Who are they?' And he repeated that he loves me and I think he said 'I don't know who they are'.
He became distracted there, as if someone else was speaking to him. He said something to the effect that it was true... and then the phone went dead."
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/americas/1543466.stm

This very strange end of the call is slightly different in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette which is also presented in Longman’s book (he relies on interviews). Here Alice Hoglan asks twice for the identity of the hijackers. Unfortunately in most accounts the end is never reported although it is the most interesting:
“"Who are these guys?" Alice Hoglan asked.
There was a pause. Hoglan heard murmurs of conversation in English. Mark's voice came back.
"You believe me, don't you?" he asked.
"Yes, Mark. I believe you. (b]But who are these guys? "
There was a pause. Alice heard background noise. The line went dead.” [/b]
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
(Longman, 186)
Twice he’s asked and twice he doesn’t answer and his mother even has the impression that he has no idea who the hijackers actually are. This is astonishing given the fact that he was sitting in row 4, extremely close to all four hijackers. His question “You believe me, don’t you?” doesn’t help to avoid having suspicion against the authenticity of this call. Why would he not answer (twice) the question about the identity of the hijackers and instead talking to neighbours and come back only wanting to know if his mother believed him?
Alice Hoglan was wondering if Mark Bingham was observed by the hijackers and to her his pauses were explained by this. But knowing from Tom Burnett who was sitting next to him and even phoning at the very same time we know that he was absolutely free to talk.
The way the phone went dead must have been very abruptly because Alice Hoglan worried that her son had been thrown off the phone or that the hijackers had knifed him (Longman, 186). But there was no hijacker close to him. Why would Bingham hang up like this? Is it possible that an airfone disconnect a call that only lasted three minutes? (While Jeremy Glick could stay on his phone for half an hour (if he didn’t use a cell phone) and Todd Beamer 12 minutes)?
Surprisingly the Commission Report comes up with: “All calls placed on airphones were from the rear of the aircraft” (CR, 456, Foot: 77). All newspapers place Mark Bingham in first class as a neighbour of Burnett. But while Burnett used his cell phone almost every account states Bingham used an airphone. Moreover he is supposed to have told his mother that he used one!

Two important issues are missing in Bingham’s call:
He does not mention the planed counter attack with any word. Keep in mind that Tom Burnett who is sitting next to Bingham talks in his 9:45 call of a group that is planning to do something. But no word from Bingham.
Tom Burnett received at the very beginning of his 9:45 call the information from his wife that the Pentagon was hit and Deena Burnett heard that her husband was relaying this information to his neighbours. Is it believable that it is this information Bingham heard when being away from his phone? After hearing that also the Pentagon was attacked he would come back and only ask his mother: “You do believe me, don’t you?”.

Later Alice Hoglan adds further information about the call:
“The call lasts about three minutes. Twice during the call, says Alice, ‘Mark was distracted. There was a five-second pause. I heard people speaking. There was murmuring, nothing loud.’”
www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
After the call ended Alice Hoglan’s brother turned on the news and they saw the WTC and the news of the Pentagon just came in. Her brother asked her to call Mark Bingham on his cell phone. She did but somehow only at 9:54. Given the fact that she is a flight attendant of United Airlines it strikes me as odd that she didn’t try to contact officials to let them know and to see if they have additional information.
“Alice Hoglan, a United flight attendant who was phoned by her son, Mark Bingham, a passenger on the plane, while the hijacking was in progress, called him back at 9:54 a.m. and left two messages on his cellphone, urging him and the other passengers to rush the cockpit because the flight appeared to be a suicide mission. Her son, who she believes helped try to retake the plane, apparently never got the messages, but Ms. Hoglan later retrieved them from the phone company.
'Mark, apparently it's terrorists and they're hell-bent on crashing the aircraft,' Ms. Hoglan said in the second message, urgency in her voice. 'So, if you can, try to take over the aircraft. There doesn't seem to be much plan to land the aircraft normally, so I guess your best bet would be to try to take it over if you can, or tell the other passengers. There is one flight that they say is headed toward San Francisco. It might be yours. So, if you can, group some people and perhaps do the best you can to get control of it. I love you, sweetie. Good luck. Goodbye.'”
www.nytimes.com/2002/03/27/national/27TA...7&ei=5070&oref=login
This article is written by Jere Longman who claims in his book that he got the chance to listen to this call which Alice Hoglan managed to retrieve from Bingham’s cell phone with the help of the cell phone company. What is extremely surprising is that nowhere in any transcripts of news shows on 911 have I found any mentioning around 9:54 that a plane to San Francisco had been hijacked! How does Alice Hoglan know? How is this possible (and please note that if it would be possible, if indeed it was already public knowledge then the whole NORAD story of being informed only at 10:07 can been thrown where it belongs anyway: into the dustbin!)
Another interesting detail: 40 urgent messages had been left which is another surprising detail given the fact that Bingham had decided the last minute to take a flight on 911.
www.nytimes.com/2002/03/27/national/27TA...7&ei=5070&oref=login


Time unknown:
ANDREW GARCIA:
This is maybe the shortest of all phone calls from UA 93. Sitting in 20C he phoned his wife Dorothy and after his fist word “Dorothy” the call broke off. The time of the call is unknown and also Longman doesn’t precise it.
“His wife, Dorothy, believes he called her during the final minutes of the flight. Through heavy static, she heard a voice say, "Dorothy." Then the phone went dead.”
(Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 9/22/01)
The time of the crash is known quite precisely (ok differing by three minutes). If Dorothy Garcia can’t recall herself the approximate time then why can’t his cell phone company not help out?
But although the call only consists of one word it opens a central discussion: Why does his call get disconnected immediately? Apparently he uses a cell phone: Why does eg Tom Burnett not have the same problem but can talk for several minutes several times? Not to mention Jeremy Glick who might even have used a cell phone for the longest call that was made from UA 93. And if Garcia used a cell phone and the line went dead why doesn’t he try an airfone? The plane is almost empty: There are by far more airfones aboard than passengers (each row of three seats has one airfone. That makes only in coach section about 54 airfones)!


Just before 9:50
LAUREN GRANDCOLAS:
She had been originally scheduled for Flight 91 but her car service had arrived early at the airport so she changed to UA 93. From the airport she made her first phone call and left a message on the answering machine of her husband telling him that she changed flights.
It is sad but Longman doesn’t provide the time information that would have been easily available for her call from UA 93. But we can deduce from the accounts we have on Elizabeth Wainio’s call (Grandcolas handed her her phone after she ended her conversation herself) that Grandcolas’ call was just before 9:50. She phoned her husband and left a second message:
“Mr. GRANDCOLAS: I heard her say, 'There's a little problem on the plane. I'm totally fine, just a little problem, and I want you to know how much I love you, know that.' Stopping herself from saying, 'I'll call you back,' as if she didn't want to leave a haunting promise, and then mentioning that she was--she was fine and comfortable for now, and that she loved me more than anything, just know that, and that it was just a little problem, as if it was something they were going to take care of, and to tell my family how much I love them and then good-bye.”
(NBC, 9/3/02)
There is only one completely different account which might be not correct but which I’ll quote with the necessary carefulness:
"We have been hijacked," she told her husband, Jack. "They are being kind. I love you."
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp
She didn’t phone anybody else.
Although one account states she used an airfone: “Then she passed the Airfone to the woman seated next to her.”
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
Most accounts indicate that she used a cell phone: “Another passenger, she (Elizabeth Wainio) explains, had loaned her a cell phone and told her to call her family.”
www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
(See also the chapter on Elizabeth Wainio)
But here again the question: They do have apparently one cell phone and one airfone. (Keep in mind that there are more airfones than passengers aboard!) Why do they have to share the cell phone? Why don’t they use the airfone, too?
She too was a trained emergency medical technician. Here again the question why it is then Burnett who took care of the dying passenger (at least according to his own account)?


9:51
ELIZABETH WAINIO:
This is maybe the most underestimated phone call from UA 93. In my opinion it contains several heavy contradictions against the official version. As far as I can see Esther Heyman who talked to Elizabeth Wainio never gave an interview (so Jere Longman who interviewed her and later gave interviews himself is the best source we have).
According to Longman it’s “shortly past 9:51” (p.235) (Keep in mind that this is an extreme precise time and therefore very likely that it is absolutely correct). According to Longman Elizabeth Wainio’s stepmother Esther Heyman had been on the phone with her husband Ben Wainio when she heard the call-waiting signal clicked and she put her husband on hold (p. 235).
Most likely Elizabeth Wainio used Grandcolas’ cell phone who was sitting next to her. (NBC, 9/3/02) (Keep in mind that the way all accounts deduce that it must have been Grandcolas is highly strange. Given the claimed fact (which I highly doubt cause it is only based on Todd Beamer’s call) that passengers had been herded in the back of the plane. So in that logic wouldn’t Wainio and Grandcolas being seated in row 11 and the beginning of second class not reseated as well?)
"’Mom, we're being hijacked. I just called to say good bye,’ she said.”
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
”’ Do you know what’s going on’, Elizabeth asked.’” (Longman, p. 235)
This question is pretty surprising given the fact that Burnett provided passengers with information. On the other hand if Elizabeth Wainio who was hyperventilating and almost in a state of trance during the call really had no clue what was going on then why does she want “to say good bye” implying that she knows she’s going to die?
Esther Heyman decided not to tell her what she knows from TV and during the call she tries to comfort her:
“Mr. LONGMAN: Elizabeth seemed to be speaking calmly, but her breathing was shallow, as if she were hyperventilating. And Esther said, "Elizabeth, I've got my arms around you, and I'm holding you, and I love you," trying to calm her.
(Voiceover) And Elizabeth said, "I can feel your arms around me. And I love you, too."”
(NBC, 9/3/02)
The call lasted “approximately ten minutes” (Longman on NBC, 9/3/02) or “eleven minutes” (Longman, 241). Please keep in mind that only six minutes after the phone call started the passenger assault is supposed to have begun! But while other phone calls heard sounds of the attack Esther Heyman being on the phone until 10:01 or even 10:02 “could not hear another person. She could not hear any other conversation or crying or yelling or whimpering” (Longman, p. 241f)
So, in fact we have something similar than in the case of Jeremy Glick. A very clear hint (in the case of Glick it is a prove beyond the shadow of a doubt cause it is based on the time the WTC collapsed which is beyond dispute I guess!) that the passenger attack simply cannot have started at 9:57!
This suspicion is furthermore underlined by how Elizabeth Wainio ends her call:
“They’re getting ready to break into the cockpit. I have to go. I love you. Good bye”.
(Longman, 242)
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp

For everybody believes she was just a bit late in realizing what was going on on the plane because she was almost in a trance I like to point out that:
a.) Esther Heyman who doesn’t hear any commotion is an ojective source
b.) Elizabeth Wainio says “They’re getting ready”. She doesn’t realize all of a sudden that the passengers are at the cockpit door for some time now but that they are getting ready.
c.) As her sentence was said between 10:01 and 10:02: Jarrah is supposed to have started pitching the nose of the plane up and down on 9:59:52 (CR, 13) A few seconds later he starts again. Passenger’s yelling is heard on the CVR from outside the cockpit door. So, neither does Elizabeth Wainio realize the violent manouvers of the plane nor does Esther Heyman hear the screaming of passengers in fear nor the yelling of the attacking passengers.

I think we can savely conclude that the call of Elizabeth Wainio and of Jeremy Glick either aren’t from UA 93 where a passenger attack is supposed to have happened at 9:57 or the attack started 4 or even 5 minutes later!


9:53, “shortly before ten”
LINDA GRONLUND:
Only very few accounts exists of her phone call.
Linda Gronlund was on a vacation trip with Joe DeLuca, whom she had been dating for several month.
Before boarding she had phoned her sister, to give her the flight number and she also told her that the battery of her cell phone was running out. Therefore she gave her sister the number of Joe DeLuca.
According to Jere Longman DeLuca and Gronlund “took turns calling their families” “shortly before ten” (p. 227). Therefore it seems she made several phone calls but unfortunately only one is mentioned in news accounts. What about the other phone calls: Whom did she phone? What did she mention? She phoned shortly before the passenger attack: Did she mention any planning? Could the start of the attack be heard on the phone? Many highly important questions we don’t have any answers to.
The only known phone call was done to her sister again. At 9:53 (Longman said for all calls by DeLuca and Gronlund: “shortly before ten”) she calls her sister and leaves a message on the answering machine. Of course this call has been taped. Yer, there are two different versions:
According to Jere Longman:
“This is Lin. I’m on United Flight 93. We’ve been hijacked. There are terrorists aboard and they have a bomb” (p. 221) then she tells that her will is in the safe and that the safe was in her closet. “I want to let you know how much I love you; please tell Mom and Dad. I don’t know if I’ll be able to tell you again in person how much I love you. I hope I will. I’m really going to miss you.” Then she said good-bye. (p. 227) The call supposedly lasted half a minute (which is surprisingly short for everything that is supposed to have been said). It’s strange that she asks her sister to tell her parents how much she loved them if it’s true that she phoned several family members. Why didn’t she phone her parents?
“Times Herald”:
“9:53 a.m. - 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)
This sounds a pretty different. The two details given here aren’t mentioned at all in Longman’s version.
What I find in any case especially noteworthy is the absence of any mentioning of the planed passenger attack. (According to Longman Gronlund was herded into the back of the plane and it was later found out that she used an airfone). Longman precises that her voice changed in the half minute call from anger to uncertainty and resignition (It has to be mentioned that the chapter on Gronlund is only based on interviews. Apparently he didn’t hear the taped message. Why?).
Another interesting detail is that she was a trained emergency medical technician (NBC; 9/3/02). When the hijack started she was sitting in first class (second row). But she neither describes the hijackers who were sitting in the row before and behind her nor does she apparently try to save Mark Rothenberg’s life (at least according to Tom Burnett who states that it was him who tried to help the dying passenger).


9:53, “shortly before ten”
JOE DeLUCA:
As already said he was flying with his girl-friend Linda Gronlund and they were sitting in first class. Although according to Longman he did several phone calls to his family but again only one call of him is reported in the news. He phoned his father “shortly before ten” (I also noted 9:53 as time based on a deduction that Gronlund and him phoned at the same time and for Gronlund 9:53 was also mentioned as a time). The only thing known from this call is: “Dad, there are terrorists on the plane. I love you very much” (Longman, 227). Again what’s striking is the absence of basically any information. Did he really talk to his father? Did his father ask any questions? And why doesn’t DeLuca describe the hijackers (he was in second row)? Why doesn’t he mention the planed passenger attack? It is extremely hard to believe that this is the whole phone call.


9:47, 9:58
CEECEE LYLES:
At 9:47 CeeCee Lyles, the second flight attendant working the rear galley, called her husband Lorne. As he was still sleeping she left a message on the answering machine. Jere Longman heard the original tape:
“Hi baby, I want you to listen carefully. I’m on a plane that’s been hijacked. I’m calling from the plane. I want to tell you that I love you. Please tell my children I love them very very much. I’m sorry, I don’t know what to say. 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)
So far only three important things to notice:
Why doesn’t she also phone an official to relay as much information as she can?
Why doesn’t she precise her flight number?
And she is aware of the WTC. In fact Todd Beamer seems to be the only one not to be aware what’s going on!

CeeCee Lyles called her husband a second time. “Shortly before ten” (NBC, 10/2/01). Jere Longman gives precisely 9:58 (p. 253).
Now this already is an important detail. She calls AFTER the passenger attack is supposed to have started already. And her conversation will make clear that yet it will take quite some time until CeeCee Lyles will remark that the attack is about to happen. Therefore this phone call refutes with Glick’s and Wainio’s call the official theory.
Jere Longman writes “He (Lorne Lyles) looked at the time and the caller ID display on the phone” (p. 253) (ABC, 9/18/01). We can conclude that CeeCee Lyles uses her cell phone. But why on earth does a experienced flight attendant not use an airfone?
Lorne Lyles recalls the call:
“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.' And then she went on to say that--she said, 'Babe, I need for you to tell the kids that I love them and I love you all dearly,' like that. And I went--I--I thought, you know, me just waking up, I thought she was joking, you know? I said, 'Babe, stop joking.' She said, 'No, babe, I'm not joking. I wouldn't call you and play like that.'”
(NBC, 10/2/01)
“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/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
(Also Longman, 253)
“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)
And Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Jere Longman quotes the sentences of CeeCee Lyles which clearly indicates the beginning of the passenger attack:
“’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.”
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
(Longman, 253)
What’s strange to note is that while several other sources quote CeeCee Lyles mentioning of the beginning of the attack the account of the only first hand witness indicates nothing of that sort.
What remains in any case without a shadow of a doubt is that the account of CeeCee Lyles’ call puts back the beginning of an eventual attack to approximately 10:01. This corresponds also to Jeremy Glick and Elizabeth Wainio.
A second strange detail to note that CeeCee Lyles apparently doesn’t hang up when she runs to the cockpit but the line coincidentally goes dead exactly at this very moment! Jere Longman adds a detail that is again not mentioned in Lorne Lyles own account:
“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)
Together with Richard Makely who is on the phone with Jeremy Glick and Lisa Jefferson (but as already seen it is doubtful if she actually stayed on the phone) Lorne Lyles is the only one who is on the phone when the attack started. And as Richard Makely he hears a sound like wind. But contrary to Richard Makely he hears it apparently right after his wife left the phone and not a few minutes later.
One thing that should be added. Although Lyles worked with Bradshaw in the rear section she does not boil water. On the other hand Bradshaw states that she is boiling water with several other flight attendants.


Just before the end
SANDRA BRADSHAW:
Sandra Bradshaw worked as a flight attendant in the rear galley.
Her phone call was reported quite late in the media.
The time of the call is unknown. As it was apparently fairly short and ended with the attack one can only estimate. The given time of 9:45 (US News&World, 10/29/01) seems to be incorrect given the reported content and the end of the call.
“Phil Bradshaw was home in Greensboro, N.C., on the telephone, talking with a friend about the horrors on television. The line clicked. He asked his friend to hold.
It was Sandy Bradshaw, his wife, the flight attendant.
‘Have you heard what's going on? My flight has been hijacked. My flight has been hijacked by three guys with knives,’ she said.
Who was flying the plane? Phil asked his wife.
‘I don't know who's flying the plane or where we are,’ she said.”
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
Her husband Phil Bradshaw, a pilot of US Airways, asked for facts but Sandra Bradshaw doesn’t describe the hijackers at all. Only in Jere Longman’s book it is claimed: “She thought she had seen one of the hijackers, a short, dark-complexioned man, sitting in the back row of first class” (p. 247). This could have been possibly Ahmad al Haznawi (seat 6B). So if Longman is correct she only saw one hijacker. How come? And if she saw only him than he should be according to Todd Beamer’s account the guarding hijacker (keep in mind that his account is the only one mentioning a guarding hijacker with passengers). But in Todd Beamer’s account he’s in coach section just before the closed curtain having something around his waist that looks like a bomb. And here the only hijacker remaining with the passengers is sitting in first class and apparently has no bomb. Might this contradiction maybe be explained that Bradshaw saw him before the hijack started? But then why doesn’t she see the other hijackers? And in any case she doesn’t see any guarding hijacker as Todd Beamer.
Jere Longman added another detail of her account that I couldn’t find anywhere else so far. Therefore this too should be taken with caution (although Longman interviewed Phil Bradshaw): “Most of the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane, she said”. (p. 247). Although this doesn’t say if people from first class were herded back as well.
Longman also mentions Phil Bradshaw’s question: “Where is the sun?” which Sandra Bradshaw answers “In front of us” (p. 247). Therefore the plane was eastbound.
"I see a river." Sandy Bradshaw couldn't name it. It suggested, though, that Flight 93 was somewhere over Western Pennsylvania.
"I just told her to be safe and come home soon," Phil Bradshaw said. "She said she hoped she would."
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
“There was talk of doing something, she said. She and several of the other flight attendants were filling coffeepots with boiling water--to throw at the hijackers.”
(Newsweek, 12/3/01)
"Everyone's running to first class," Sandy Bradshaw told her husband. "I've got to go. Bye."”
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
All accounts quote her saying that they’re running to first class not to the cockpit. This seems to imply that the passenger attack started in first class as the “Observer” assumes. observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/s...,1373,610355,00.html
But if that would be the case then why does Lisa Jefferson only hear commotion in the background after Todd Beamer said “Let’s Roll”? If the assumption of the “Observer” is correct then Beamer wouldn’t at all have started the attack but would have followed one that started in first class. Which still leaves the question open why Jefferson didn’t heard commotion only after Beamer gave the sign and why there is no surprise reaction in Beamer’s behaviour. This would be normal: He plans an attack and all of a sudden realizes that an attack is already under way.


Conclusion:
At the end of this work I can draw the conclusion that there are way too many contradictions. Contradictions between several phone calls concerning a detail that should be beyond dispute (eg the reseating of the passengers or how many and who were killed that could have been seen by the passengers). Everybody who believes that the calls actually happened doesn’t only have to explain how Burnett can phone four times at an altitude of 35,000 feet (and even higher) for several minutes without any problem. They also have to find an explanation to answer all the questions raised and to reconcile the contradictions presented here.


UPDATE:
40 urgent messages and not even his mother knew that he had taken a last minute change!