Jeremy Glick and the collapsing south tower

[Woody Box]

According to Paul Thompsons timeline,

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/dayof911.html

the passengers began to attack the hijackers at 9:58. Everybody, especially the "heroes", was running to the cockpit.

Everybody?

What did Jeremy Glick do?

He was talking with his wife in the rear.

From Jere Longman, "Among the heroes", p.147:

//////
Were they going to crash his plane into the WTC? Jeremy wanted to know.

"No", Lyz said, almost laughing. "They are not going there."

Why? Jeremy asked.

One of the towers had just fallen. ((9:59))

"They knocked it down," Lyz told him. The north tower, was wounded, too. //////

And the phone call is not finished yet. So let's get straight: There was a fight in the cockpit going on, there were screams, there was a wobbling plane going down rapidly .

And Jeremy Glick is sitting in the rear and talking with his wife about the WTC.


This story of the "heroes of flight 93" is complete bogus.

[Woody Box]

1. bump

I've pulled this thread up because of the actual discussions on the last minutes of Flight 93.

The South Tower collapsed exactly between 9:59:04 and 9:59:14. So the quoted passage between Glick and his wife took place between 9:59:14 and 10:01:00 if not later.

Now let's hear what was going on aboard Flight 93 in this two minutes according to the 9/11 report:

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. the assault. The recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts, and breaking glasses and plates. At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane. Five seconds later, Jarrah asked, “Is that it? Shall we finish it off?” A hijacker responded, “No. Not yet. When they all come,we finish it off.” The sounds of fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the aircraft up and down. At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said,“ In the cockpit. If we don ’t we ’ll die! ”Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled, “Roll it!” Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers at about 10:01:00 and said, “Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!”

And Jeremy Glick is sitting in the rear and talking calmly with his wife about the WTC.

This story of the "heroes of flight 93" is complete bogus.

[seatnineb]

2. Well spotted!

Great work Woody...

I have a videotape of a documentary from 2002 that was shown here in the U.K.

It was called Flight 93:A Reconstruction.

Make no mistake.
This documentary is as partisan and pro-the official story as it comes.

But it contains one glaring mistake.

Lyz Glick confirms that she told Jeremy that the South Tower had fallen.

In the words of Lyz Glick.

"It was valuable information for him to have"

As you said Woody.......

The official story of Flight 93 is complete bogus.

[Woody Box]

6. Great...

Dave v. Kleist might be interested in this ..

[MercutioATC]

7. I'm sure he would be...

:eyes:

[John Doe II]

9. Hm

MercutioATC, well, now we know what you think of Kleist. But do you mind to comment on Woody's finding?

[MercutioATC]

11. I don't see how it's an issue.

Plane's hijacked...a guy calls his wife. Seems like a normal thing to do. Other passengers on the plane are organizing to storm the cockpit. This guy and his wife talk for a few minutes and she tells him that she just saw the South Tower collapse (presumably on live TV). Shortly afterward, UAL93 crashes.

What's the big deal?

[seatnineb]

12. Merc...you have been betrayed by the very story you believe in.

Because it was Glick who helped initiate the passenger counter-attack....

Lyzbeth Glick, 31, of Hewitt, N.J., said her husband, Jeremy, told her that three or four 6-foot-plus passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 from Newark bound for San Francisco planned to take a vote about how to proceed, and joked about taking on th hijackers with the butter knives from the in-flight breakfast.
http://www.americanmemorials.com/memorial/tribute.asp?idMemorial=1320&idContributor=7709.

And you are wrong when you say that Glick stayed behind on the phone whilst other passengers were fighting the hijackers.

Lyz recalls no background noise. No commotion.
http://www.werismyki.com/articles/one_destiny.html.

[MercutioATC]

14. No I haven't...here's why:

It's completely possible to be involved in a discussion and not be part of the action. You're assuming that Glick was one of the passengers that tried to regain control of the plane when there's absolutely no evidence of that. I'm "wrong" that Glick stayed behind? How do you know?

Have you ever been on a commercial plane? I don't believe it's odd at all that noise from the cockpit door wouldn't be heard by somebody on the other end of a cell phone call made from the back of the plane.

[John Doe II]

16. No, not possible

Official timeline:
"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. <....> At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said, "In the cockpit. If we don't we'll die!"" (Commission Report, p. 13).

But this is simply not possible:
At 9:59 Glick is on the phone with his wife. She tells him of the collaps of the WTC. They talk about the weapoons of the hiijackers, how they might have managed to get oboard. Then (!) Glick tells about the plan and that they are taking a vote (!), he discusses with his wife if he should go. He tells him he would ove to be at home, she advices him to go to the cockpit. A last farewell. (Jere Longman: Among te Heroes, p. 217). Now, where are we in the timeline???? At 10:01 maybe 10:02? Certainly later than 9:59:52. But how on earth is Glick talking about a plan if the ballte is already going on?? How on earth did he not mention the up and down of the airplane??

[MercutioATC]

17. You DO realize you're talking about a "grey area" of TWO minutes

don't you?

I don't see where it makes any difference. Why would Glick's wife lie? Perhaps the times are off by a minute or two, but what difference does that make?

[John Doe II]

18. The difference

It's not that Glick's wife lied. She tells him about the collapse of the WTC. So it must have been 9:59 at that moment at least. And then it's not a "grey area" of two minutes. It turns out that the official timeline of the Commission Report is impossible. And seeing all the sources they claim to have based their timing of the impact on: I'm sorry it's a lie. And Glick's phone call is the proof that' a lie.

[MercutioATC]

19. So what?

She told him about the collapse as she saw it on TV (live) at 9:59. He tells her that some of the passengers are going to try to take control of the plane. The passengers try it between 9:59 and 10:03 (the FAA's official crash time).

How is this impossible?

[John Doe II]

20. Please

Have a look at this exact and official timeline. See point 16. And please, answer based on the exact timeline and try to solve the contradiction.

[seatnineb]

21. Wrong.

Sorry Merc...You are goin to have to get use to it.

You have been betrayed.

Richard Makely is the father of Lyz Glick.

He took the phone from Lyz just after Jeremy had said (to Lyz)..........

(From the T.V documentary Flight 93: A Reconstruction.)

An actor reciting the role of Jeremy Glick holding onto the phone talking to Lyz.
"We're gonna jump the hijacker with the bomb!.We're takin a vote.(Glick turns towards his fellow passengers)You guys gonna do it.All of us.Well we should do it now then.We're gonna give it a shot.I 'm gonna leave the phone right here...yeah...I'll be right back.I Love you."


Cut to Makely who then says:
"I took the phone(from Lyz-she could not bare to listen anymore) and there was probably 45 seconds of silence then there was shears of screams comin......like a rollercoaster ..divin... just a mass of people.....with a scream......and I presumed at that point that there was some type of struggle goin on..as if the plane was diving ..or turning or flipping.....(I was) hopin that Jeremy or someone is gonna come back and say...we got them...or somethin.....that is when the was a second set of screams which I probably heard seconds before the plane crashed.........and then nothin"

So screams could be heard from a phone at the rear of the plane.
We know that Lyz talks to Jeremy beyond 10:59am.
There is no mention from Lyz that there were screams at this point...or that the other passengers had begun a counter-attack.

But as John Doe II has correctly pointed out ....the 9/11 Commision Report says:
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 up and down..

Makely's claims of screaming do not synchronize with Jarrah rolling the plane.

Oh the lies,the lies.

[MercutioATC]

22. I really wish you'd skip the melodrama, seatnineb...

This "betrayed" stuff is just tired.

We're dealing with a multitude of different timekeeping systems:

1) the black box

2) ATC radar

3) cell phone records

Before we get our panties in a bunch over this, wouldn't it behoove us to find out exactly which of these systems were used for which elements of the timeline and how accurate they are in relation to each other?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[seatnineb]

30. It's over.

Forget it Merc.

On this issue you ,and far more importantly ,the story that you stick up for are lost.

And here is why.

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 is running to First Class.I've got to go .Bye."
9/11 Commission Report.
Page 13.


The passenger who said this was one Sandy Bradshaw..A Flight attendant aboard Flight 93.

And this is what the 9/11 commission report purposefully failed to tell us about the timing of this call......


Bradshaw said he took his wife's call about 9:30 a.m. at their home in northwest Greensboro.

Bradshaw thinks they talked for five or 10 minutes.

Phil Bradshaw heard the phone drop. "We're all running to first class," were her last words. "I've got to go. Bye."

http://www.warroom.com/nyterrorism/flightattendant.htm

This puts the Counter-attack at roughly 9:35 to 9:40am.....Not at 9:57am.

Oh the lies,the lies......

[RH]

33. It salways the same isn't it?

The three part psychotic sophistry method:

1. Interpret something according to your own predilection.

2. Observe that the reality fails to fit the interpretation.

3. Instead of thus realising that the interpretation is wrong, complian that the World at large has perpetrated a gross deception.


:eyes:

[seatnineb]

40. Anomaly.

It is on this T.V reconstruction documentary.......




.....that an actor reciting the role of Jeremy Glick (talking on the phone to Lyz) says:
"What do you mean theres nothin left?........they could'nt have demolished the whole of the World trade centre!"

Followed by the real Lyz Glick who says:
"It was valuable information for him to have"

No mention from Jeremy or Lyz about this :
At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down.
9/11 Commission Report.
Page 13.

Or this:
At 9:57 the passenger assault began.Several passengers had terminated phone calls with loved ones in order to join the revolt.
9/11 Commission Report.
Page 13.


rh and Mercutio.......

How can the passenger revolt have begun at 9:57 if Jeremy Glick is taking a vote to do a passsenger revolt after 9:59am?


And....

Why would Ziad Jarrah do this:
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.

When according to Glick.........

The assault has not yet begun.

[John Doe II]

41. Thanks again

Feels good to read something that makes sense!

[seatnineb]

44. No.... I should thank you.

But this is the response I predict from rh:
"Why use Glick as a reference in the time line?" :boring:

And this is the reponse I predict from Mercutio:
"It's a grey area of two minutes...so what!":boring:

;-)

[John Doe II]

45. ! Yes, I'm feeling a bit tired !

:donut:

It's quite late over here ... Coffee just in case ...! Just in case the discussion doesn't ... move ... forward...!

Concerning yor article. Did have a quick look. There are several other articles with the same infos. So it's not a journalist mistake. And keep it in mind. Nonetheless as all the other phone calls point to a different time of the battle I tend to assume that Phil Bradshaw got the time of the phone call wrong.

[seatnineb]

46. Yeah!

That is why Phil Bradshaw needed a bit of help to re-jog his memory by the F.B.I themselves!

F.B.I Report Of Investigation ,Interview with Phil Bradshaw.

September 11th ,2001

And

June 15th, 2004


This can be referenced in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Page 457.
Index:85.

[John Doe II]

48. I repeat myself!

Good find. Yap, you read things carefully!

[John Doe II]

35. Good find

This might be a good find. When I've time I'll do a Lexis-Nexis-Search in order to find if your (warroom) article is a good find that once more questions the timeline or the result of a mistake by a journalist. Keep it in mind. I'll come back to you in the next days!

[RH]

50. Anomaly.

A flight attendant is not a passenger.

So because of what do you assume that a flight attendant is a passenger?

[seatnineb]

65. Anomaly according to the F.B.I

In the words of rh....

"So because of what do you assume that a flight attendant is a passenger?"


The F.B.I seem to think that a Flight Attendant is a passsenger.


Care to disagree with them, rh?

The following statement..............

One of the callers ended her message as follows.."Everyone is running to First Class.I'v got to go .Bye."
9/11 Commission Report.
Page 13.

.....is obtained from the following source.................

F.B.I Report Of Investigation.
Interview of Phil Bradshaw(Husband of Flt 93 -Flt-Attentant Sandy).
9/11/01 and 6/15/04.

[stickdog]

25. You just ignore the facts that don't add up. So allow me to help.

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.

[RH]

60. What doesn't add up?

:shrug:

Do you mean to suppose that a telephone conversation was not possible?

[stickdog]

66. Possible as described? No.

Why that isn't obvious to you is beyond me. You'd think that you concluded first and only then evaluated the evidence ...

[RH]

69. It is not obvious to me

because I was not there aboard Flight 93.

Under stress people often go into denial. I once witnessed a head on car collision whereafter dozens of fellow travellers simply sat in line, inside their cars, blocked by the event but without lifting a finger between them even to dare to approach the seriously injured drivers.

If and when I see a full and detailed timeline of the actual Glick conversation I shall be happy to evaluate it as evidence. Before then I'd rather not resort to hyperbolic speculation.

[stickdog]

70. YOU'D RATHER NOT RESORT TO HYPERBOLIC SPECULATION?

You just speculated that one of the heroes of Flight 93 spent his last living minutes in stress-induced denial, cowering in the back of a plane that was being rocked from side to side, then up and down, ignoring the ongoing passenger assault and talking to his wife as though nothing was happening the whole time!

BUT YOU'D RATHER NOT RESORT TO HYPERBOLIC SPECULATION?

:wow:

[RH]

72. Perhaps you dont know what the word means,

i.e.

enlarged beyond truth or reasonableness

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/hyperbolic


My proposition is niether enlarged nor unreasonable.


By way of a contrast where is the proof of any assumption that anybody lied? The allegation is not legitimate.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[John Doe II]

71. What's the use?

I'm really not surprised that there is nothing new for you on DU. Lucky you!! It's such an intelligent way of discussing if one always refuses to answer the contradiction that's in question of the whole thread. It's such intelligent way to alwys refuse to say anything constructive because you were not on Flight 93 and because you haven't heard any transcript. That's good for you. Especially as so many recordings are not released to public you never run the risk of havinig to use your own brain.
But I hope you do realize what you do imply??
You implied several times that eg "Among the Heroes" is heresay. (Jere Longman interviewed Lyz Glick but that obviously that doesn't matter. Even the fact that the Commission Report uses his book as a source doesn't matter) And you still do imply that Lyz Glick didn't say the truth. It doesn't change anything if you avoided to answer my question if you think she said the truth or not: Either she did say the truth (so she repeated in the interview ono September 12, 2001 what's on the recording) or she didn't. The what people call logic. If she didn't this would imply that the FBI and the Commission were too dumb to compare her statement to the recording).
Yes, yes, you do want to see a timeline: The Glick timelin is based on the fact that Lyz mentioned the collapse of the WTC. I've outlined the further conversation. As I said this book is based on interviews and Longman doesn't summarize the conversation of Jermey and Lyz Glick but he quotes (!) it. But yeah everything you haven't heard yourself is hearsay. I still consider you the heaviest CT around here on DU.
Timeline: Yes, we come back to point 16 and I really do wonder whenever you admit that you simply don't know or you reveal your answer to the contradiction (and the latter that's what makes discussion move forward).

[RH]

73. No, I do not use my brain to invent evidence.

If that fails to fit with your plan, too bad.

What is the contradiction supposed to be?

Which statement contradicts which fact?

If the allegation is that an event in New York was mentioned before it happened, then I see no way to resolve that except with an accurate timeline of the conversation.

Why is that thought to be so unreasonable?

[stickdog]

88. Nothing can dissuade the zealot who has already convinced himself

exactly what can be questioned and what cannot. You are such a zealot.

This exercise is futile. It's like arguing with a creationist "scientist."

[k-robjoe]

81. Hm

So Jeremy Glick went into denial. And so he talked to his wife as if nothing was actually happening, even though the passengers had stormed the cockpit and the plane was being rocked violently.

And then he sort of went into a different kind of denial, where he playacted (?) for his wife like he was now taking part in the riot, that in reality had allready taken place a couple of minutes back?

And then when his wife handed the phone over to her father, Glick waited for forty seconds or so, and then he started screaming and yelling like a group of people starting a riot would sound like?

[RH]

83. Denial

Lyz Glick's father was certainly in denial.

"He kept the phone to his ear for a painfully long time—more than an hour—hoping against hope."

http://www.life.com/Life/lifebooks/911/excerpt.html

Is a case therefore to be made out that Flight 83 did not actually crash for another hour?

I think it is a big mistake to expect normal patterns of behaviour, let alone any attempt to lodge an allegation of false evidence on the strength of nothing more than a distant interpretation of what should or should not have happened.

See posting #33.

[k-robjoe]

84. No RH

Lyz Glick's father holding the phone to his ear for more than an hour is not the kind of denial we are talking about here.

It is, like it says, "hoping against hope".

I take it that you don´t find the explanation for how a denial on Jeremy Glicks part could explain things, probable.

And so your explanation, with somebody being in denial, is now concentrated on Lyz Glick and her father?

Guess I´ll just have to be happy that I was able to make you see that the idea with Jeremy Glick being in denial wasn´t very good.

[John Doe II]

86. New theory?

So you're thinking that Flight 93 and Flight were changed 83??
Don't worry, I'm just trying to get used to your sense of humour.

[stickdog]

89. Your technique of trying to confuse the issue is tiresome.

You have no legitimate argument.

Either the FBI lied or the 9/11 Commission lied. But you simply refuse to face the facts.

[RH]

90. The issue is clear enough.

Do you have any proof that anybody lied?

No. To show that somebody lied you need to show that they knew better. In that respect what do you have?

Your argument appears to be based entirely and only upon an opinion, an interpretation of how Glick should or would have behaved, and a peculiar preference for one particular version of the time of the impact in ignorance of all others.

You go on and on about contradiction but when challenged to cite a definite statement that contradicts a known fact you have nothing to show. Where is this contradiction? An ommission is not a contradiction. A disagreement is not a lie.

[John Doe II]

91. So here is your explanation?!

I think what we consider a contradiction is clear enough. (see point 16 once and again). But just for me because I'm a bit slow today:
What you propose that solve the contradiction is this:

Jeremy Glick discussed with his wife if he should attack the cockpit with three other tall guys although the battle is already going on?
He doesn't mention that twice Jarrah pitched the nose of the airplane up and down? He then decides to attack but instead of joining a group of passengers that according to the official timeline are fighting since about four minutes he prefers to talk calmy with other passengers?
And how come Lyz Glick does not hear any background noise although Glick was in row 11. (But miracle, miracle: when her father picks up the phone he can clearly distinguish that at the beginning there is silence and then he hears screams then silence then screams again. If the battle is already going on for about four to five minutes how come Lyz Glick didn't hear anything of it.)


Did I get something wrong or is this your explanation of what happened?
If you have any questions concerning exact timeline and exact conversation of Glick simply have a look at the other thread: I put up a summary over there.

[RH]

92. I have a hunch that

Glick had chickened out and that was on his mind but I've really no idea. I've not heard the tapes. Without the emotional context it is impossible to tell, but if he were to have mentioned any odd aerobatics how would it be phrased, and what would the purpose be of sharing it with Lyz Glick at the other end? Under stress or in shock the sense of time, concentration and Worldly priority is enormously changed. People pass into a sort of hallucinatory mode. I wouldn't even know if what Glick was saying made sense to Glick, let alone to anybody else. I dont expect so much of people.

[John Doe II]

94. To chicken out

Thanks for the explanation. But nobody believes that this whole thread is about proving that Glick chickened out!

" wouldn't even know if what Glick was saying made sense to Glick, let alone to anybody else."

As you can see in my summary (Flight 93: Why the flight time cannot be correct, point 82) there is the whole conversation (most parts are direct quotes from interviews with Lyz Glick) and as stated by Depatcher Weingaertner who listened into this call Jeremy Glick not only gave the impression to be very calm and concentrated but what he actually is saying does make very much sense (if one just leaves the official timeline aside saying that the battle is underway).
But all the contradiction in his behaviour are not mentioned in your thought you just reduce his behaviour completely. Moreover you don't mention why he doesn't tell Lyz that Jarrah twiced pitched the nose of the airplane up and down although he is giving her all the infos about the flight. You didn't mention why Lyz Glick never heard any noises of the battle which was going on for several minutes? But her father Richard Makely and law-enforcement source state that after Jeremy Glick left the phone and a long silence (!) they clearly heard screams!! (Glick was seated row 11).
Pleasee have a look at my summary because there is everything explained in detail. Thanks.

[RH]

96. How do you know

that Glick never heard any noises of battle? Was he supposed to say "I can hear noises of battle" or would he assume that any significant noise would already be heard on the phone line? If no noise was on the phone line that's another matter.

The "contradiction" that I notice is none but that between what happened and what some people think should or would have happened. A perfectly obvious explanation therfore presents itself. The understanding of what should or would have happened is wrong. Alternative understandings are possible.

For as far as I have yet seen Glick did not contradict. He did not say that everything was quiet. He did not say that the aircraft was flown normally. If any aerobatic effect was not overwhelmingly sudden then it would be a matter of where it should fit with a train of thought. Glick may well have had a need to stay calm in mind. People in shock do tend to be calm and the emotional context was not his alone. If he simply did not wish to invoke anxiety that would be a reasonable enough consideration.

In unusually stressed situations I have often been surprised by the course of my own concentration. Having suffered a compound leg fracture a few years ago I was not so much aware of the pain of the injury. The mind builds its own resistance. What I was overwhelmingly aware of was the discomfort of the cold pavement beneath me, thinking about first aid instruction manuals that may advise to cover a patent with a blanket albeit that the ground beneath them would be so much more important. That was the reality of the experience but without actually being there I would not have anticipated the same.

[John Doe II]

97. Please!

I was clearly talking about Lyz Glick, Richard Makely and a law enforcement source.
During her call Lyz didn't hear anything in the background. Richard Makely took over the phone when Jeremy Glick left. Makely and the law-enforcement source both stated that they heard silence at the beginning then clearly screams. But the battle was underway four four minutes (and please please just for once have a look at my timetable it's quite tiring always to repeat oneself!). How is this possible? How is it possible that Jarrah pitched the nose of the plane and Glick who gave all infos about the flight didn't mention that. And your explanation of Glick's behaviour in view of what's supposed to happen around him is far from convincing. (By the way: Glick is talking about three guys tall as him that want to join him. So everybody is staying behind calmy discussing to have a vote??)

[RH]

98. It is perfectly possible not to mention.

The requisite technique is usually to keep the mouth shut or to mention something else instead.

Maybe the phone was cut off. Maybe the microphone was covered. Maybe it moved. Maybe the transmission quality varied.

How is it possible to know better without access to the first hand evidence?

[John Doe II]

102. Very usual

It's very usual behaviuor to talk about all facts of the flight, to discuss the possibiolity of attacking the cockpit and not to mention the violent movement of the plane. Very usual!
I've tonnes of documents that state which phone call was disconnected. Strangely the call of Glick is not mentioned. Please send me the link!
Nowhere Lyz Glicks mentions tht she had problems to hear Jeremy neither. Nor that the transmission quality varied.
Please send me a link!

Anyway he must have used a very bizarre phone: While Lyz Glick could hear everything Jeremy said the phone obviously had a filter. That's te reason why Lyz Glick didn't hear any screams of other passengers during the violent movements of the airplane (up and down and red to left in order to make it impossible for the passengers to attack the cockpit. Should have been not very comfortable in the plane, shouldn't it. But certainly Jeremy Glick once again jumped into denial). And just for all the rest that the phone miracously filtered see my response in other link.

I'm happy to wait for your links!

[RH]

104. "tonnes of documents"?

That's odd.

I had no idea that any ordinary telephone record would show a temporary interuption.

Another crowd has argued avidly that the cell phone calls are impossible; they never took place and no phone records were ever released.

If and when I claim the authority of a document I should of course be happy to cite a reference. Did I mention one?

In the mean time is it fair to expect the same?

Where did you get the phone records?

[John Doe II]

109. Who has to show a link?

Who has to show a link: The one the claims the possibility of an interruption or the one who says no interruption has been reported of the phone call?
By the way Jeremy Glick used a GTE Airfone.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp

[RH]

110. How would a link help?

Do you seriously think that it is impossible for a telephone connection to be interrupted?

[John Doe II]

111. NOBODY NOBODY NOBODY mentions this

Your discussion is completely hypothectical and makes absolutely no sense!
Three persons on the phone with Jeremy Glick: nobody mentiones problem of connection. It was GTE Airfone.
Please come on change the subject.

Moreover a problem of connection that always prevents background noise from being heard and then MIRCALE MIRACLE works only twice when Richard Makely picks up the phone.
Can you insert something substantial here?

And hopefully you did realize that Lyz Glick's account is FIRST HAND information no hearsay.

[RH]

112. Absence of evidence is not

evidence of absence.

Hearsay is not reliable because a statement may be influenced by a leading question or a particular context. On the whole it may not matter so much but when it comes to particular questions of fact such as the time and the sequence of events, or the tense of a verb, I think it does. There is also of course a difference to the extent that any time has passed before a statement is made.

There is no good substitute for the sworn affidavit and cross examination, and that's not just my opinion, it is the usual practice of jurisprudence established over hundreds of years. I am surprised to find that anybody prefers to argue against it.

[John Doe II]

113. Wake me up

Just have a look at the context.
How can you evoke that she mentiones that she saw the WTC collapse and told Jeremy.
Stop being so baselessly hypothetical.

[John Doe II]

85. !!

:-)

[MercutioATC]

23. Correct me if I'm mistaken...

The cell phone call times are from cell phone company records. The times of the hijackers' actions are from the black box.

Do we know how closely those two systems agree on time? How is the time "set" on a black box?

[John Doe II]

24. No

The timing of the phone call is based on the very simple fact that Lyz Glick mentioned the collapse of the WTC. The other given times are from the Commission Report.
Please, do just answer my question I've asked several times now: How can the official timeline be true. Please base your statement on the times given in point 16.

[MercutioATC]

76. I can't explain the few minutes of difference. Perhaps Lyz Glick

has her facts wrong. Perhaps the black box and its recordings of the plane's movements were in error by a few minutes (I don't know how they're calibrated or how accurate they are).

My point is, so what? What does this prove? Might a timeline having to do with an event where the only firsthand witnesses all died have some small discrepancies? I'd think so.

If you're going somewhere with this, please let me know. I really don't see the significance.

[John Doe II]

78. Lyz Glick

Well, I think we can assume that the woman is smart if enough to realize if the Tower collapses or not.
Could she have made it up unconsciously?
No, a FBI agent followed the phone call. The call was recorded and a transcript was made. The next day the FBI did an interview with her. The Commission had all this in front of them.
Where do I go:
If this is a proof that the official timeline is not possible then clearly the Commission is covering up that the plane crashed later than 10:03:11. Is this not significant for you?

[MercutioATC]

93. I'd disagree with your characterization.

If Lyz told her husband that the WTC tower collapsed as she saw it on live TV at 9:59am, that leaves 4 minutes for the plane to crash within the "official" timeline.

Sit back, right now, and time four minutes.

See what i mean? four minutes is a long time when you're actually experiencing it. I don't see how this is anything that a minor discrepancy nor how it refutes the official time of the crash.

[John Doe II]

95. MercutioATC, it's not about that

As you could have seen in the very first entry: It's not about the fact that a battle can't happen during four minutes. It's about several contradiction between the timeline based on Glick's phone call and the official one that cannot add up. Please have a look at my summary in the thread Flight 93: Why the crash time cannot be correct, point 82. Thanks

[RH]

101. based on Glick's phone call?

It is apparently based on hearsay, i.e. Jere Longman's "Among the heroes", p.147:

Did Jere Longman have an authentic original version to examine?

If amd when I hear it I shall make my mind up and in the mean time I shall hold off writing a book.

[John Doe II]

103. PLEASE

That's getting slightly annoying. Read the summary, RH.
"Among the Heroes" is based on an interview with Lyz Glick. Longman's book is used by the Commission as a source. In my summary I've several more dircet quotes by Lyz Glick.
So stop using the word HEARSAY.
Don't forget you already managed to call the Commission Report twice HEARSAY.
So in your English What does Hearsay mean???????????

[RH]

105. We should take that as a 'no', then,should we?.

Longman did not actually examine the original evidence.

'Hearsay' is hardly an unusual nor a difficult term:

"Testimony given by a witness who relates not what he or she heard, saw, or knew personally, but what others have said. In such cases, that knowledge is dependent on the credibility of the other person, and as such, is not admissible in court unless it meets a hearsay exception"

http://www.legal-definitions.com/G/hearsay.htm

If Lyz Glick ever gets around to writing a book, do please let us know.

[John Doe II]

106. Can you please for a change really read my post?

In my summary I've several direct quotes by Lyz Glick stating that she saw the WTC crash while being on the phone with Jeremy.
If you've any interest in moving forward in the discussion you should read what others wrote. If you don't want to move forward just let me know. I've got other things to do than always repeating myself till you've got the kindness to actually respond to what I've written.

[RH]

107. I was kind enough to respond.

I thought it may help to explain why your conclusion fails to convince.

PLEASE by all means find something better to do.

I discern no actual purpose to any of it.

[John Doe II]

108. Super

So you call direct quotes of Lyz Glick (being interviewed live) Hearsay.
Ok fair enough.

[k-robjoe]

99. So we have

So we have this scenario : The riot started a few moments past 10:00 - ( This leaves three minutes until the crash, not four ) - so the riot started a bit past 10:00, and the plane crashed at 10:03:14

This would mean that on the cockpit voice recorder and the other tapes, there should be three minutes recorded from the first definitive marks of the riot having begun until the end of the recording.

But the problem is, that according to what the commission says, there must be six minutes recorded from those first signs of the riot until the end of the recording.

The commission : " At 9:57, the passengers assault began.(...) The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of the passenger assault muffled by the intervening cockpit door. "

So this must be six minutes from the end of the cockpit voice recorder. Are you saying that it is maybe only three minutes from the end? And the commissioners hear the tape, but doesn´t see that it doesn´t add up?

The commission : " In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance."

This will have been seen on the black box recorder ( not? ). So it must be six minutes from the end of that recording. Are you saying that, again, there´s probably only three?

[John Doe II]

100. Please stay with me, k-robjoe!!

:toast:

[RH]

79. The CT was that

there is something on the Flight 93 cockpit tape you're not to be allowed to hear, according at least to whatever pick and mix of fact and theory would suit the moment.

Somewhere else you'll be told that the tape is a total fake, which is why the lost time theory makes no sense to me. If a conspirator feels the need to cover an embarassment why fake the time in such a clumsy fashion? Why not fabricate an alternate version of whatever record they need to cover up?

:shrug:

[tngledwebb]

82. Good work on this...

and happy hunting. Isn't it a bit odd that the Official Reports you cite which undermine the FLT 93 story are no longer credible to certain parties who swear by them at other times? And it's a long wait for any coherent answer to a direct question, but distracting circumlocution pops up in a nanosecond. Either way, those crazy OCT'ers will stick to their guns, never admitting any mistakes or doubts.

[stickdog]

27. No cell phone company records have ever been produced or even cited.

Why are you pretending that these "records" have anything to do with anything?

The problem is that 9/11 Commission's timeline vs. Glick's family's testimony and the KNOWN time of the South Tower's collapse. Positing that cell phone clocks were inaccurate doesn't address the issue because the issue has nothing to do with any putative cell phone records.

[k-robjoe]

28. Just thinking

First we had the theory that the storming of the cockpit was going on as Glick was talking on the phone.

But this was clearly not the case. ( See post 21 )

Then we have the theory that : " Perhaps the times are off by a minute or two, but what difference does that make? "

But clearly, if Attas rolling of the plane that supposedly started up at about 9:58, in reality started at about 10:01,and the cockpit tape continues for five minutes after this ( as it must do, to "officially" end at 10:03 ), then the tape stops at about 10:06.

So it seems to me like it makes a lot of difference. The plane could not have crashed at 10:03 if the tape continued to record until 10:06.

[John Doe II]

29. Indeed

And I really wonder why the Commission and the government insist so much on 10:03 (although even nobody at DU could manage to come up for an explanation neither how the official timeline could be possible nor how the seismic spike at 10:06 could be explained). Rests still the weird contradiction of what one hears listening to the recordings.

[RH]

32. I'd guess

that it had something to do with a consideration of which sets of data were the most reliable and consitent with each other.

What else would you have then do?

[k-robjoe]

34. Reliable

The most reliable thing in all this seems to be : When did the first tower collapse.

And it seems very reliable that five minutes of recorded action ( cockpit being stormed ) will have been recorded over five minutes.

( Answering to your post below, ( regarding my writing Atta when I meant Jarrah ): Oh, RH you´re SO funny! Too bad I can´t tihnk of anything funny regarding : "What else would you have then do?" so we could get even further from the issue.)

[RH]

36. Where does your "five minutes" come from?

:shrug:

The orginal posting says that "the conversation then continued for approximately one or two minutes..."

Why is is this impossible?

[John Doe II]

37. It has all been said already!

See point 16.
You've to precise your way of argumentation.

[RH]

38. Point 16 is nothing but hearsay.

Where is your timeline and transcript?

[John Doe II]

39. Hearsay

Point 16 is entirely based on the Commission Report, several newspapers articles, "Among the Heroes" (a book based on the interviews with all passengers of Flight 93). The author of this book quotes the conversation between Lyz and Jeremy Glick at length.
As again, as usual, you refuse to face and explain the contradiction: Do you mind to tell us why you call all this "HEARSAY"?

[RH]

52. It is hearsay because

as best we may gather, you do not have the tape or the full transcript of Glick to examine.

[John Doe II]

53. Great

So you imply:
that Lyz Glick lied.
All journals printed her story.
The FBI didn't say a word.
Lyz Glick also lied in the interview she gave the FBI on September 12, 2001.
Surprisingly the FBI didn't realize because it was too dumb to compare the recordings, the transcripts and the interview.
And also the Commission was too dumb to see that Lyz Glick was lying.
Hm, I would call this an absolut baseless conspiracy theory.
Frankly, I'm getting a bit lost.

[RH]

58. Sad.

You've got lying on the brain.

I wonder why?

People may on occassion be confused or mistaken without intending to be so.

[John Doe II]

61. Talking about politness

Sorry, you just missed the point. How could she have TOLD LIES?????????
The FBI recorded the phone call.
The FBI interviewed her the next day.
Come on present us now your personal self-styled conspiracy theory how Lyz Glick managed to lie.

[RH]

63. My point is that

I never said that anybody lied.

Why do you suppose that I did?

[John Doe II]

64. Whatever you've said

"Why not just as well assert that Glick cannot be true?"
This is what you've said in the other threat but anyway.
So then please have a look at point 59.

[seatnineb]

42. Very simple Question.

rh.....

Seeing as you are being so evasive.

I'll ask you a very simple question.

What time did the South Tower collapse?

Answer it.

If you can.

[RH]

49. I am not a witness.

Nor am I in any way attemting to prove anything.

I have asked for substantiation of assertions made and instead of substance I am to be interrogated, and accused of being evasive?

:crazy:

Do you think that is somehow a way to make friends and influence people?

If I wish to evade I can just as well find better things to do.

[John Doe II]

51. No intention of interrogation

I had no intention of interrogation. But as you were always this and that about the facts the question is build on (even calling the Commission Report "Hearsay") the only way to move forward in the discussion - that is reflect about the question if the official timeline is not possible - is to answer your questions (and I answered a lot of them: What importance of the two minutes, if Lyz Glick lied, if Glick styed behind etc) and then always come back to the original question. Otherwise the discussion turns around in circles and is quite senseless.
Besides I'm surprised that you claim that the question lacks substance (every single bit of the question is backed up).
And concerning politness: Yes, I agree we all should be polite and respectful around here. But don't forget that you yourself made a remark to me that was everything but polite.

[RH]

55. If you're saying that a version is deliberately false

the need is to provide a substantial proof, not a substantial question.

I have the impression that under pressure agents may have come up with "facts" that were really nought but estimates, not so well founded, and from there one thing leads to another, to save face. Who knows?

To go on then to suppose that the whole thing was a concerted effort to fake the record you need to have at least a record that's better than theirs to prove the case, and that you obviously do not have.

The overall impression is one of sheer speculation versus bare faced bullshit, neither of which is especially to my taste.

[John Doe II]

59. Did Lyz Glick lie?

Do you believed she lied?
If yes: Then the FBI would have been too dumb to realize that, yes? Although they recorded the call and wrote a transcript? And Lyz Glick had to lie the next day as well when giving the FBI an interview and the agents still didn't realize the contradiction. And then she lied to the newspapers and then to Jere Longman who published basically the whole conversation?? And then the Commission is too dumb to realize that she lied although they have all the proofs at hand?? Come on, how is this possible. This is conspiracy theory of the worst.
So, if she didn't lie then it's simply impossible that the plane crashed at 10:03. See point 16.

[RH]

74. I see no proof that Glick lied

nor any reason to suggest it as an issue.

Please explain why you think it an issue.

[John Doe II]

77. ....

:boring:

I didn't say that she lied.
So if she didn't lie then see point 16.

[seatnineb]

56. rh

Answer the question.

What time did the South Tower collapse.

Is it really difficult to answer?

Come on man!

You can do it.

[stickdog]

57. In the words of many famous bluesmen, can I get a witness? (nt)

[RH]

62. Not around here.

That's one thing I've noticed.

First hand witnesses steer clear of conspiracy theorists.

[stickdog]

67. Not in the case of Flight 93.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&siteid=50143

WHAT DID HAPPEN TO FLIGHT 93?

RICHARD WALLACE, US Editor, examines riddle of hijacked jet as he visits crash site

Susan Mcelwain, 51, who lives two miles from the site, knows what she saw - the white plane rocketed directly over her head. "It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van," she recalled.

"It was so low I ducked instinctively. It was travelling real fast, but hardly made any sound. Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialed 911 and told them what happened.

"I'd heard nothing about the other attacks and it was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realised it wasn't the white jet, but Flight 93. I didn't think much more about it until the authorities started to say there had been no other plane. The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down. There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look.

"It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven't found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around. Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000ft up. But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did."

[seatnineb]

68. Nice one!

This is a gem of an article Stickdog.

I never knew United Airlines Flight 93 has white livery!

Because I thought this is how Flight 93(N591UA) looked:



In the words of Susan Mcelwain who saw ....well she saw somethin..............

There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was
definitely military, it just had that look.


What I find interesting is that she saw this white plane........but never saw Flight 93?

I think there are some other articles that feature witnesses who saw the 757 crash then saw this white plane circle overhead
I'll try and dig em' out.

[RH]

75. That's another issue.

How does it relate to the subject?

[seatnineb]

43. Very simple Question.

rh.....

Seeing as you are being so evasive.

I'll ask you a very simple question.

What time did the South Tower collapse?

Answer it.

If you can.

[k-robjoe]

47. Where does my 5 minutes come from?

The comission report states clearly that Jarrah - at 9:58 - was rolling the airplane left and right, as a response to the passengers trying to storm the cockpit.

From that moment on, the cockpit voice recorder records for five more minutes.

So when the time of the riot is set forward by three minutes, then the time of the crash ( tape ending ) also must be set forward by three minutes.

[stickdog]

54. I think it has to do with the timing of the "unarmed transport plane"

that supposedly reported that Flight 93 had crashed.

Proven lies = proven cover up. The only question now is why.

[RH]

31. Attas rolling of the plane?

Does that allude to another theory that I somehow missed, a switch of pilots?

[John Doe II]

3. Great find!

I just have "Among the Heroes" at hand. In my edition on p. 207 is the moment when the conversation about the collapse of the tower is mentioned. It occurs after Glick wants to know if the terrorists might want to blow up the plane. (So he's far from talking about storming the cockpit.) Then Jere Longman returns to this conversation on p. 216. In fact the conversation takes another whole page before Glick gets up to join the fight. (Here Lyz asked if the pilots are alive. If the hijackers have weapons? Jeremy asked how hijackers could have gotten on the airplane with weapons. Then he mentions the vote. They discuss it. He said he wanted to be at home. Then he decides to join the fight after Lyz agreed. He says a last farewell).
I'm sorry it feels kind of macabre to go in all the details of this conoversation but I believe it's necessary to find the truth. I think it clearly shows that the official timelinee is simply impossible. This shown conoversation certainly took about two minutes and then here we go this adds up to three minutes difference (Glick didn't join at 9:58 but 10:01) and the crash time is quite likely again 10:06.

Did Longman simply mix the conversation up? I don't think so. It seems very likely that they discussed the decision, talked about the weapons, the last farewell etc. In my opinion Longman presented the conversation in the correct order.

[John Doe II]

4. Source

One article that states the same:

"Burnett made a second call, by which time Deena was watching the World Trade Centre collapse on television. Burnett fired a fusillade of questions: 'Are they commercial places?'

Jeremy Glick learnt the same news from his wife, Lyz, in upstate New York. 'Is that where we're going too?' he asked her. 'Unlikely,' said Lyz, 'there's nothing left to crash into.'"


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,610355,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0%2C11209%2C610356%2C00.html

[Woody Box]

5. Further confirmation...

...you find in Lisa Beamer's book "Let's roll!". She relates the South Tower story, too.

I've read Longman's book about one year ago (there is a translated German book, too). After reading it, the last doubts that 9/11 was MIHOP had vanished completely.

The "heroes" story is simply not credible (apart from the big contradictions). People in such a situation don't behave like that. You don't tell your Mom "Good bye, I will die soon" if you know that there is hope that you survive.

And there was hope on UA 93. The hope had a name: Donald Greene. He was a passenger. And a pilot.

He was mentioned by not one of the callers. Neither cellphone nor airfone.

[seatnineb]

10. This timeline is over!

Woody and John Doe II...........

Here is a nother nail in the coffin for the Flight 93 timeline.

According to this, the passenger revolt began at roughly 9:40am!....

Bradshaw said he took his wife's(Sandy Bradshaw-Flight 93 flt-Attendent) call about 9:30 a.m. at their home in northwest Greensboro.

Bradshaw thinks they talked for five or 10 minutes.

Phil Bradshaw heard the phone drop. "We're all running to first class," were her last words. "I've got to go. Bye."

http://www.warroom.com/nyterrorism/flightattendant.htm

Did it take 17 minutes for these passengers to make there way from the rear of the plane to the front?
How long was that aisle in Flight 93's fuselage?

[John Doe II]

8. This is highly highly important!!

Everybody should read this thread. It quite likely reveals that the official timeline of Flight 93 simply can't be true!

[sffreeways]

13. Okay...so what ???

I can see that the timeline doesn't fit but what happened then ?

Why is EVERYONE lying ?

What is the theory ?

Did the passengers storm the cockpit ?

Did the pilot passenger let the others know he was a pilot ?

What brought the plane down ?

Where was flight 93 headed, what was the target ?

Were the highjackers in control of the plane ?

Did the passengers eventually get control of the plane ?

Was it shot down by the small white plane that was reported by all of those witnesses on the ground ?

Are the recorded converations that the commission states they heard on the recorders acurate ?

Is the entire commission behind or part of the cover up ? Why ?

I don't agree that people don't talk like that when there is hope as one poster said. I can imagine saying something like "Oh my god I'm going to die" even if there was hope. It's fear, it's an expression of absolute terror.

That said, I don't believe the official story. I don't know anything but the official story but I've never believed it was completely acurate.

No doubt that on that horrible day I wanted to believe the heroics of the passengers was a true story, I still do. But I don't for a minute believe that the plane was brought down by the highjackers or that it was heading for the capitol.

So why the lies ?

How does lying about 93 help cover up MIHOP ?

I apologize in advance for being ignorant about this, I've had some personal tragedy I've been dealing with for the past year and a half but before that happened I was following the work here of the DU'ers that were trying to figure out what really happened and now that I'm back I'm trying to pick up where I left off. If someone would be kind enough to explain this to me I'd appreciate the updated information.

I believe MIHOP without a doubt in my mind but I don't understand this particular aspect of the cover-up. Maybe there are others too like me that don't get it.

[John Doe II]

15. Why this is important

All your questions are absolutely necessary. The idea of putting this question here (and of combing it with other aspects in: "The crash time cannot be correct") This very much might be a real prove that the Commission lied. I think this is an enormous step forward to ucover the truth and to answer your questions. And the Commission wouldn't have lied just a bit bit bit.
Here you go: "United 93 crashed in Pennswlvania at 10:03:11, 125 miles from Washington D.C. The precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute. The 10:03:11 impact times is supported by previous National Transportation Safety Board analysis and by evidene from the Commission staff's analysis of radar, the flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmissions" (Commission Report, p. 30). Crash time is backed up by an incredible amount of sources but still .... I don't see how it can be correct.

[RH]

80. It can be correct

precisely because it is backed up by an incredible amount of sources.

Jurisprudence tends to work like that. The majority wins.