Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Flight 93: Too many contradictions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-20-04 05:56 PM
Original message
Flight 93: Too many contradictions

I. THE COCKPIT RECORDINGS OF FLIGHT 93

What the family members heard:

On April 18, 2002 family members were finally allowed to listen to the cockpit voice recorder. The FBI initially declined to play the tape, saying it was too disturbing, and it was evidence that might be used in criminal prosecutions related to the attacks of September 11. (Among the Heroes, p. 374). The family members were forbidden from recording the tape or from taking notes (p. 375).
Family members agreed that the passengers managed to enter the cockpit. Also Assistant United States Attorney David Novak theorizes that the passengers had advanced into the cockpit. (Among the Heroes, p. 376). And the Guardian writes
a group of passengers overpowered the hijackers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,687...

This is what according to family members can be heard at the end of the recording:
One of the hijackers spoke about finishing off the flight, though the transcript suggested he could have been referring to the woman who had pleaded earlier for her life. Not yet, another terrorist cautioned.
Near the end of the tape, muted voices seemed to grow louder, closer. The scuffing continued. I'm injured, someone said in English. More shouting: roll it and pull it up or lift it up or turn up. A final rushing sound could be heard and, about three minutes after ten, the tape went silent.

(Among the Heroes, p. 377)

So: No intention of the hijackers to crash the plane is heard. The last shoutings even indicate the intention to lift up the plane.


What the Commission heard:

The Commission stated that the hijackers remained at controls (p. 14) and that the passengers didn't manage to enter the cockpit. Here is the account of the last minutes:

At 10:00:08 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. (...) At 10:01:00 Jarrah said, Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest! He then asked the hijacker in the cockpit,
Is that it? I mean shall we put it down? To which the other replied, Yes, put it in, and pull it down.
The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, Pull it down! Pull it down! (...) With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field.


There are two huge differences between the two statements:
Jarrah's first question to crash the plane appears in both accounts. But his second question that is answered with the order to crash the plane only appears in the Commission Report:
Is that it? I mean shall we put it down? To which the other replied, Yes, put it in, and pull it down.
Moreover more than a minute later (!) the hijacker repeats his order according to the Commission (this is not mentioned by family members neither):
Pull it down! Pull it down!

On the other hand: the advice to lift up the plane (heard by family members) is not noticed by the Commission. But this was according to family members the last words to be heard on the recording!
(AP, 08/08/03)

"The families listened to the tape through headphones while transcripts, including English translations of Arabic words, were displayed on screens."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/04/19/rec.flight.93.families /
(Among the Heroes, p. 376)

So, why then, if the "English translation of Arabic words, were displayed on screens" did no family member realize that the hijackers decided to crash the plane although the hijacker discussed it according to the Commission?


How are the two completely different accounts are to be explained?
Why doesnt the Commission loose even one word about this contradiction?



II. GENERAL CONTRADICTIONS
1. The continuing counterattack:


The Commission Report describes the crash of Flight 93 as follows:

"The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, "Pull it down! Pull it down!" The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them. The airplane headed down.; the control wheel was turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting "Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest." With sounds of the passengers counterattacking continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville".

(p. 14)

The hijackers are intentionally crashing the airplane. The airplane heads down, full speed (it crashed with 580 mph, see p. 14) and rolls once on its back during the flight (eyewitness agree on that). And the hijackers were under much pressure because the passengers were obviously only seconds away from entering the cockpit therefore they would have tried to crash the plane as fast as possible. (An eyewitness observed that Flight 93 hit the ground at almost a 90-degree angle - USA Today, 9/12/01) According to the Report the counterattack lasted till the crash (counterattack continuing).
But is it physically possible to continue the counterattack given the violent movements of the airplane?
It should even be impossible in a plane that's going to crash head on and rolling on its back to remain standing on one's feet.

Apparently the family members of the victims who listened to the cockpit recordings had the impression that at the very end of the tape the passengers managed to gain control. That means that till the end of the tape the sound of the counterattack are audible. But if the counterattack is physically impossible the only thing that is proven by the family member's impression is that they weren't listening to the same recordings the Commission is talking about.


2. The absence of screams at the end:

Is this just about semantics? Does it matter if the Commission called it counterattack or people screaming of pain?
Yes, it does. Because the Report hides a strange absence. A certain noise is suspiciously absent from the recording that family members heard as well: The family members don't mentioned that at the end of the recordings there are neither screams of people that are in pain (as the plane heads down and rolls on its back) nor screams of people that know that the plane will crash within seconds.
How come they don't hear anything that indicates that people in the cockpit and elsewhere see and know there are dying within the next seconds??



3. No sound of impact

There is something else strangely missing on the recordings:
"There is no sound of the impact".

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/4084323.htm?1c

Why is there no sound of impact to be heard on the recordings?



4. But sound of wind!

Several people who had been on the phone with passengers of Flight 93 witness another bizarre sound before the connection ended abruptly (e. g. Lorne Lyles, Among the Heroes, p. 253): The sound of wind. This sound is heard by family members as well when they listened to the recordings:

"according to sources, the last seconds of the cockpit voice recorder are the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid= ...

Yet, the Commission Report fails to answer the question of "The Mirror":

Why the wind sounds?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid= ...

Why is there no sound of the impact but the sound of wind at the end of the recording?
And why does the Commission Report not mention things audible for the family members?



Eyewitnesses of the crash:

The Report describes the crash of Flight 93 as the intentional crash of the hijackers:

The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them. The airplane headed down.

(p. 14)

The hijackers obviously tried to crash the plane as fast as possible (this corresponds as well to the speed of 580mph with which UA 93 crashed). So I think the last seconds of Flight 93 seen from the outside are quite easy to imagine:
head down, roll at one point onto its back and plow into the field as fast as possible.

Strangely the eyewitnesses recalled that the airplane didn't behave like this. Moreover several eyewitnesses alos hear something bizarre:

He (Rob Kimmel, several miles away) sees it fly overhead, banking hard to the right . It was only 100 or 200 feet or less off the ground as it crests a hill to the southeast.
(Among the Heroes, by Jere Longman, p. 295)

It dropped out of the clouds,
too low for a commercial flight, (Terry) Butler said.
The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude , then
it just went flip to the right and then straight down.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscen ...

Linda Shepley, said she had an unobstructed view of Flight 93's final two minutes (). She recalls seeing the plane wobbling right and left , at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing abruptly dipped straight down, and the Boeing 757 plunged into the earth.
(Philadelphia Daily News, 11/15/01)

Lee Purbaugh, 270 metres away: There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there, right above my head maybe 50 feet up (....) I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground.
http://www.world-action.co.uk/independent.html

And like Lee Purbaugh some hear strange noises:

Laura Temyer: I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny. I heard two more booms -- and then I did not hear anything.
(Philadelphia Daily News, 11/15/01)

Michael Merringer, two miles away: I heard the engine gun two different times
and then I heard a loud bang

http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2001/09/12atta ...

Linda Shepley, told television station KDKA in Pittsburgh that she heard
a loud bang and saw the plane bank to the side before crashing.
(ABC, 9/11/01)


Do the eyewitness' accounts correspond to the Commission's description that the hijackers deliberately crashed the plane as fast as possible?
How can one explain the strange sound that some witnesses heard?



How many hijackers were onboard Flight 93?


The Commission Reports states vaguely:

several passengers on United 93 described three hijackers not four
(p. 12)

Well, this is not really precise because actually none of the passengers saw four hijackers and all passengers giving a number said that there are three hijackers onboard.

The Report refuses the idea of jumpseating as an explanation.

We have found no evidence indicating that one of the hijackers, or anyone else, sat there (jumpseat) on this flight. All the hijackers had assigned seats in first class, and they seem to have used them.

(p. 12)

Moreover jumpseating makes no sense as all hijackers had seats assigned to them and therefore boarding cards.
The Commission report states that there have been 37 passengers onboard. "Among the Heroes" precises that 10 passengers were seated first class and 27 in coach. (Among the Heroes, p. xvi)

All hijackers were in first class. 1B, 3C, 3D and 6B.

There is a passenger who sees ALL four hijackers (without knowing): Todd Beamer.

At 9:45 Beamer calls Lisa Jefferson and according to Longman he gives her the following information:
"There were ten passengers in first class, twenty-seven in coach" (p. 279).

So conclusively all the hijackers are to be seen in first class at the beginning of the flight. And how many hijackers are there according to Beamer: three! (p. 279)

Why doesn't he see the fourth one?

But it's becoming even stranger:

Beamer describes:
"Two with knives went into the cockpit and locked the door. The third person stood in first class with what appeared to be a bomb strapped around his waist with a red belt. He ordered everyone to sit down, then he closed the curtain that separated first class from couch"
(p. 279)

Maybe Beamer being seated in coach didn't see a hijacker who didn't do a move yet.
Let's see what all passengers from first class have to say:

Joseph DeLuca and Linda Gronlund (seats 2B and 2D) just sitting between Jarrah and Nami and Ghamdi (1B, 3C and 3D): No mentioning of the number of hijackers nor any characteristics of them.

Edward Felt: (2D) sitting very close to three hijackers. "Ed Felt did not describe the hijackers or mention any attempt to regain control of the plane" (Among the Heroes, p. 275)

Thomas Burnett Jr.: (4B) sees three hijackers. No special characteristics of hijackers are mentioned. (ABC, 9/12/01)

Mark Bingham: (4D): states that there are "three guys" . No characteristics of hijackers are mentioned. (p. 186)

Mark Rothenberg: (5B) made no call.

So although all four hijackers have been sitting in first class when Flight 93 took off none of the passengers sitting very close to them see the four of them. Even stranger none of the passengers gave as special characteristic of the hijackers that apparently they were Arab and the only Arab-looking passengers on the plane. (The only one doing so is Jeremy Glick who is seating in the coach section).

Why don't they see the four hijackers.
Where is the fourth hijacker??
And why does none of the passengers give the obvious description of the hijackers so FBI would know who they were?


So maybe, maybe the simple explanation is that Todd Beamer miscounted and there have been only nine person in the first class when the flight took off. (Although this again poses the problem that the hijackers had boarding cards)

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

This clearly says that two hijackers are in the cockpit and two are still outside the cockpit door. But Todd Beamer only saw one hijacker standing in first class. This hijacker with a bomb is seen by other passengers as well. But no one saw the second hijacker. So where is he? Where is the fourth hijacker?

Jere Longman comes up with this explanation:
Perhaps one of the terrorists got cold feet when told that this flight would be a suicide mission. Perhaps he did not identify himself, remaining anonymously among the passengers to assist his partners in the event of a revolt (p. 169)

This highly speculative explanation seems very unlikely as one hijacker was supposed to get the guy in.

Is it believable that he wouldn't have asked the fourth hijacker to come in?
How could the hijacker then have remained anonymously among the passengers?
If mysteriously he stayed outside then why didn't he try to hinder the passengers from their revolt? Why didn't he worn his friend?



Why remain seated?

Flight attendent Sandy Bradshaw said that "most of the passengers had been herded to the rear of the plane". (Among the Heroes, p. 247). And Jeremy Glick said "they send passengers to the back of the plane" (p. 202). The Commission Report agrees on that (p. 13)
This must have happened before 9:37 as Glick's phone call began at that time (Among the Heroes, p. 201).
According to the Commission Report two minutes later the following occured:

At 9:39, the FAA's Cleveland Air Route Traffic Control Center overheard a second announcement indicating that there was a bomb on board, that the plane was returning to the airport,
and that they should remain seated . While it apparently was not heard by the passengers, this announcement, like those on Flight 11 and Flight 77, was intended to deceive them. Jarrah, like Atta earlier, may have inadvertently broadcasted the message because he did not knowhow to operate the radio and the intercom. (p. 12)

But what's the sense of herding passengers to the rear of the back and then a few minutes later to tell them that they shall REMAIN seated??


According to the Commission Report Jarrah wanted to deceive the passengers. But how could he. Since around 9:45 the passengers were completely left alone. With an airplane equiped with airfones it's quite forseeable that passengers do phone and get to know of other attacks (as Flight 93 had a 41 minute delay Jarrah must have known that the other three flights already had hit their target or finished in another way). The Report comments on this not convincingly:

If Jarrah did know that passengers were making calls, it might not have occured to him that they were certain to learn what had happened in New York, thereby defeating his attempts at deception.
(p. 12)

I mean is Jarrah completely dumb?
How could the passengers not learn of the other attacks and become convinced that they have to start a counterattack if the hijackers let them phone?



How many attacks were there?

There are two indications that from about 9:45 the passengers were left alone when the hijacker(s) entered the cockpit to join Jarrah.

About midway through the tape, one of the hijackers said to another Let the guys in now, apparently referring to other terrorists entering the cockpit.

(Among the Heroes, p. 291)

It fits that no passenger who was reflecting about their plan of entering the cockpit refers to a hijacker who was still standing in first class. Moreover no sound of a fight with this hijacker is to be heard on any phone call. So I think its rather save to assume that from around 9:45 the passengers were alone.
A small group around Burnett are in the first class. The rest of the passengers was herded in coach and forms a group around Beamer. Apparently there seems to have been no communication between theses two groups. In not a single phone call it is mentioned that theses two groups wanted to attack together or were even aware of the others. (The curtain that one hijacker closed in order to separate theses two sections shouldn't have been an obstacle as there was no more hijacker out there)
Paul Thompson assumes in his timeline that the attack started in first class at 9:57 and was followed by a second attack from coach at 9:58. (Observer, 12/2/01). This chronological order corresponds also to Beamers phone call:

Then, in the background, she could hear an awful commotion, mens voices raised and hollering and women screaming Oh my God, and God help us, and Help us Jesus.
Todd seemed to turn away from the phone to speak with someone else.
You ready? He said. Okay. Lets roll.

(p. 285f)

So first the attack in first class then following the passengers from coach.
But why didnt they communicate before if there was nobody preventing them anymore? Why didn't they attack together?
And why is there no surprise in Beamers reaction when he hears that the attack started already?



The cockpit door:


Jere Longman states in "Among the Heroes":
Although the cockpit door remained locked during flight, it provided only flimsy protection on September 11. The door was designed to withstand no more than one hundred and fifty pounds of pressure, so that it could be forced open in emergencies, allowing thepilots to escape outward
or passengers to escape inward to climb out of a cockpit window. A heavy shoulder would dislodge the door. (p. 8)

According to the Commission Report the passengers didn't manage to enter the cockpit during a fight of six minutes.

How is it possible that a minimum of six passengers (all known to have been very athletic) didn't manage with the help of a foot cart to open the cockpit door that only provided flimsy protection?



The absence of the saviour:

A lot of passengers decided to overcome the hijackers and they discussed together a plan. There was a pilot onboard, Donald F. Greene, which was the very person all hope was put on. Certainly it must have been a big concern for the passengers what to do after they overcame the hijackers. Certainly this would have been something they wanted to tell their beloved ones on the phone to comfort them.
But in not a single phone call (and there have been many) the very existence of Donald F. Greene is mentioned.
Or to put it into the word of Greene's wife:
"I have just found it so unusual that no one mentioned the pilot among them. If these guys were trying to reassure their wives on the phone, that everything was going to be okay, wouldn't you say, 'We've got a guy who can fly a plane' There was never any mention of that. Don was a provocative guy. He would have been in these guys' faces"
(Among the Heroes, p. 255).

One of the few passengers not to make a phone call was Greene himself.
Why is Greene so absent?






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-20-04 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Brilliant compilation

I would like to add that Todd Beamer - as opposed to the other passengers - remained in his seat. He was not forced to the rear by the hijackers, that's what he told Lisa Jefferson, the lady he spoke with.

And it was not before about 9:50 that he learned that he was on a suicide mission, because he asked Jefferson if the hijackers wanted money. The other passengers knew this probably since 9:34, when Tom Burnett's wife told him about the WTC attacks.

Doesn't seem that Todd was one of the leaders if we buy the story of UA 93 and the "heroes".

But there's no reason to buy it. It's just a bad movie script.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-21-04 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. Great work.

John Doe II

Fantastic work..

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
3. Addendum to the cockpit recordings
"Families of passengers and crew members aboard United Flight 93, the hijacked plane that crashed outside Shanksville, Pa., on Sept. 11, will hear nothing to resolve crucial questions about their loved ones' last minutes when they listen to the cockpit voice recorder next month, say officials who have heard the tape or read transcripts of it.
Officials said the tape, a loop that records the last 30 minutes of a flight, did not record the moments when the hijackers got into the cockpit and does not resolve how they took over or whether the pilot and copilot were then killed. It also does not make clear whether the passengers were able to force their way into the cockpit in an effort to regain control of the plane or whether the hijackers crashed the Boeing 757 deliberately or just lost control of it."
(New York Times, 3/27/02)


So officials dfidn't hear the famous decison of the hijackers to crash the plane (which occured twice) NEITHER.
I think I've to put the section about the cockpit recordings in the thread "THE COMMISSION LIED".
Or can anybody come up with an explanation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roachman Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Thanks John Doe II!
I'm not sure yet what to think about all this, but I for one really appreciate you taking the time to put it together. That's some dedicated work there.

Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Me neither!
Thank you and everybody here for the encouragement!

And btw I still have no idea myself what REALLY happened on Flight 93. But I think to be able to prove that the official explanation is simply not true to put it mildly. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-04 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
9.  Extra Passenger -- Proof that UA93 was part of Vigilant Guardian?
While googling flight 93 and the 9:16 am time for the suspected hijacking, I came across this strange site: http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/warrant21.htm

The site is a little out of date, and seems to be a random collection of various articles and observations, some of which deal with 9/11.

In any case, in the middle of the page was this interesting tidbit:

"An acquaintance of mine, with top classified clearance, runs a training program for special forces for the military and police professionals worldwide. On flight 93, one of their highly trained judo instructors died. He was a professional special forces warrior, yet his name is nowhere to be found on news releases. It is highly unlikely that he was there for a pleasure ride."


I will assume this is legit for two reasons. First, there is no strange conspiracy attached to it, it is merely a random observation on the page. Second of all, it makes a lot of sense.

I think there were a set of these special ops people on each flight, as part of the back-up plan for Operation Vigilant Warrior/Vigilant Guardian. In other words, these guys were part of the hijacking drill. Such a person was known to be on flight 11, as well-- Daniel Lewin: who once belonged to the Israel Defense Force, Sayeret Matkal, a top-secret counter-terrorist unit.

Moreover, these special forces agents could be why the number of people who were reported to have died on each plane was greater than the number of names of the passengers reported by the media, even when the hijackers are taken into account. This fact has been analyzed by several 9/11 sites. And now it makes sense-- the airlines didn't report the names of the special forces agents on each flight, because that would be a dead give-away for what was happening on 9/11.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Interesting!
And welcome to DU!
Thanks a lot for this. I'll try to dig a bit deeper into this.
The passenger lists are really unreliable. Every publication seems to be different from the next one. It will be difficult to achieve something with more proofs but it certainly is worth having a close look.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Jeremy Glick
"A third passenger, Jeremy Glick, had been a national judo champion."

A google for Jeremy Glick / judo champion gives hundreds of hits.
So I assume that the instructor must have been Glick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-28-05 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. Except this site mentioned that this person wasn't on the passenger list
and Glick clearly was. Also Glick was not a special forces soldier-- that we know of anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-18-04 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. And Newsweek saw nothing as well!
Newsweek did obtain a transcript of the CVR recordings and wrote an article based on it and guess what. They didn't READ anything about the hijackers TWICE deciding to crash the plane:
That makes in the sum:
The family member didn't hear nor read what the Commission claims
Officials didn't hear it neither
Newsweek didn't read it neither.
(Newsweek, 12/3/01)

Does anybody believe in the CR story of the destiny of UA 93?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. Edward Felt: The last phone call from Flight 93
Edward Felt or the very last phone call from Flight 93

Edward Felt's phone call from Flight 93 was one of the first to be reported and alredy in the news on 911.

"We got the call about 9:58 this morning from a male passenger stating that he was locked in the bathroom of United Flight 93 traveling from Newark to San Francisco, and they were being hijacked," said Glenn Cramer, a 911 supervisor.
"We confirmed that with him several times and we asked him to repeat what he said. He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down. He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where.
"And then we lost contact with him."

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2...

There are three reasons why this phone call is very special, different from all other call from Flight 93 and highly important:
Before it has to be pointed out that Glenn Cramer who made all the statements right after 911 was the 911 supervisor but it was John Shaw who was the dispatcher and actually took the call of Edward Felt.
Cramer monitored the call after Shaw alerted him that it was about a hijacking in progress.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011207dispatche...

1.)Edward Felt mentions an explosion. This was widly reported right after 911 based on direct quotes from Glenn Cramer.
But later the mentioning of smoke and an explosion was denied: e. g.

A male passenger, Edward Felt, did call from the bathroom of the plane, but never mentioned an explosion or puff of smoke, said John Shaw, the dispatcher who took the call. Didn't happen, he said. Felt's wife, who heard a tape of the call, corroborated Shaw's story.

(Among the Heroes, p. 369)
(New York Times, 3/27/02)

2.)This 911 dispatch tape is sized by Agents on the day of 911.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2...

The phone call only lasted 78 seconds.
http://www.postgazette.com/nation/20020911shaw0911p9.as...

The supervisor who took the call has been gagged by the FBI.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=...

The call lasted only 78 seconds so what else can possibly be on this tape that explains the seizing of it?
Jere Longman who denied the existence of the explosion claim gives some further details of the call which only helps to make the call even more strange:

Following procedure, Shaw asked for the passenger's name and cell phone number. The passenger identified himself as Edward Felt.
(Among the Heroes, p. 271)
But still on December 6, 2001 the caller is not identified:
The passenger, whose name is not being released.
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/News/1106952/detail...
(New York Times, 3/27/02)

Another detail given by Longman:
Once he seemed to grow impatient with the dispatcher, but he kept his cool under the circumstances. We're going down, we're going down. (p. 275) (This detail is contained in other newspaper accounts, too).
But the Commission Report doesn't mention any loose of height for Flight 93 at that time of his call.

Ed seemed at one moment to be peering out of the bathroom, as if checking to see what was going on. (...) many voices were audible, but none that could be picked out. (p. 275)

Not only do all the details of the phone call make a duration of only 78 seconds unlikely but especially striking is that neither Edward Felt mentions the ongoing counterattack of the passengers nor is it to be heard when he is supposed to peer out of the bathrorom.

In one of the rare interviews of John Shaw he states:
He told me he locked himself in the bathroom, he gave me the flight number and the tail number , everything he possibly could, and that the plane had been hijacked
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/News/1106952/detail...
How did Felt know the tail number of Flight 93?

3.)Let's talk about Felt's behaviour
With an ongoing hijacking and a terrorist surveilling the passengers with a bomb around his waist etc it seems to be an understandable and even clever behaviour to look for a moment and sneak into the bathroom in order to alert the FBI. That might be also the reason why Felt's behaviour never strikes out as highly bizzar.
But it is very bizzar. Especially if one compares it to the behaviour of other passengers. But it's not about judging Felt as a hero or a coward. There are several reasons why his behviour in the concrete situation of 9:58 on Flight 93 appears very, very, very strange:

There is no hijacker surveilling him. Since one minute the counterattack of the passengers is already underway. So why does Felt go into a bathroom to phone? And even more why the need to lock himself? The call was disconnected because he used his cellphone. Why didn't he use the available airfone like so many other passengers?

And as his call was disconnected at 9:59 why didn't he try then an airfone?

It makes very much sense to alert the FBI. But basically EVERY passenger has done this already. Why now? And why didn't he phone before as basically EVERY passenger?

Why doesn't he loose a word about the ongoing counterattack?
If for whatever reasons he decided not to participate in the attack why doesn't he want to see if the others are successful?

He was sitting 2D next to three hijackers. Why didn't he mention and describe them?

How can he see the smoke outside the airplane? Does a bathroom have a window?

How could he have known the tail number of the flight?
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/News/1106952/detail...


How can one explain Felt's behaviour?
What about the explosion?
Why is Glenn Cramer gagged?
Why is the recording confiscated and not yet publicly released?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-04 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Explosion or no explosion?
There are still more oddities concerning Felt's call to come!
Right after 911 all accounts stated that the passenger who phoned from a restroom of UA 93 at 9:58 said that he saw smoke and he mentioned an explosion.
Until March 27, 2002 his identity wasn't revealed (only one newspaper account identified the passenger but as Mark Bingham!). The same article that revealed that it was Edward Felt who phoned stressed as well that he didn't mention any explosion:

"Earlier reports have said that a previously unidentified passenger, Edward Felt of Matawan, N.J., said in a 911 call from a restroom that he saw a puff of smoke and heard an explosion, leading some to cite this as evidence that the plane was shot down by the military to prevent it from crashing into sensitive targets. But the 911 dispatcher, John Shaw, and others who have heard the tape, including Mr. Felt's wife, Sandra Felt, say he made no mention of smoke or an explosion when he said, 'We're going down.'"

(New York Times, March 27, 2002)

So everything seems clear. But now have a look at the next article please:
Sandra Felt listened to the tape on April 18, 2002 just before joining all the family members to listen to the CVR of UA 93

"And so, before they joined the other relatives to hear the cockpit voice recorder tape, Edward's widow, Sandy, his brother, Gordon, and his mother, Shirley, were led to a small conference room at the Princeton Marriott Forestall Village Hotel, where they were joined by two FBI agents and a victim-assistance counselor.

Sitting around a polished wood table, the agents handed each of the Felts a typed transcript of the 911 call, and then played it.

Ed's call was made at 9:58 a.m. In a conversation with dispatchers lasting about one minute, he spoke in a quivering voice saying, "We are being hijacked. We are being hijacked."

He went on to describe an "explosion" that he heard, and then white smoke on the plane from an undetermined location."

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020421flight930421 ...

Unfortunately I can't copy the whole article but it's clear in this article that Sandra Felt listens for the first time, that she listened twice to it and that she mentiones the explosion!
So bizarr bizarr: We've one account that Sandra Felt listened to the tape and didn't hear the "explosion" (March 27, 2002) Then we've another account with a lot of direct quotes from Sandra Felt stating clearly that she listened to the tapes for the first time on April 18, 2002 and that she heard "explosion".

I made a Lexis-Nexis research and didn't find any artilce that identified Felt and stated if there was an explosion or not.
Only a web research had the following result:

Thanks Woody Box
:)

"Sandra Felt has heard Flight 93 tapes made when her husband and 39 other passengers and crew battled with four hijackers. Some believe the Americans decided to crash the jet rather than let it be used as a missile to hit another Washington landmark.


"I heard my husband's voice. He was very calm in the face of death," she said. The government has refused to give her a copy or transcript of the tape at this time.

She disputes a 911 supervisor's Sept. 11 account of the conversation between Felt and Shaw in which the supervisor said Felt said he saw smoke after an explosion."


http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/terrorism/on ...

But here again this is not a proof as it contains a completely wrong description: All accounts agree (direct quotes from Glenn Cramer and John Shaw as well)that Felt was everything but calm. ("he sound as if he was crying" Among the Heroes, p. 271)

So, what's going on here? When did Sandra Felt hear the tape and what did she hear? Did Edward Felt really not mention an explosion and why is Glenn Cramer gagged?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Borg Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-19-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
35. Conclusion
This sentences describes very clearly what has happened:

He went on to describe an "explosion" that he heard, and then white smoke on the plane from an undetermined location."

In this context the "explosion" means a bang of a exploding teargas cartridge and the job of the FBI investigators was to devert this suspicion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-19-05 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. So where was the tear gas coming from-- the hijackers or somewhere else?
Edited on Thu May-19-05 02:02 PM by spooked911
Why would the FBI want to divert from that? Just because it was supposed to be a banned item and they didn't want trouble for the airlines?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Borg Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-19-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. The purpose of tear gas - to break down the will of the passengers fast
The discovery of weapons like that contradicts the story of 19 arabic hijackers armed with small boxcutters diametrical.
I'm not sure about the reasons why the hijackers (or the unifomed terrorists) should fight in this manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. Thomas Burnett: The first phone call
Tom Burnett:

The very first phone call from Flight 93 is from Thomas Burnett.
At 9:27 he phoned his wife Deena. He tells her:

The plane has been hijacked. They already knifed a guy. One of them has a gun. They're saying there is a bomb onboard.

(Among the Heroes, p. 150)

According to the Commission Report at exactly the same time as Burnett phoned his wife happened the last last normal contact of Flight 93 with the FAA. (p. 28)
Only one minute before had the pilot Jason Dahl confirmed the warning of cockpit intrusion:
Ed, confirm latest mssg plz Jason. (p. 11)

Is it possible that the hijackers knifed a guy (why?), were telling the passengers that they had a bomb BEFORE trying to storm the cockpit?
Shouldn't this have been their first aim?
The only possible victim could have been Mark Rothenberg (5B)
But three of the hijackers were seated in front of him. Why did they first attack him before attacking the cockpit?

This is rather strange. But let's just imagine for a moment that the hijackers for whatever reason behaved like this.

Is it possible that the crew in the cockpit didn't hear the screams of this killing? The reaction of the other passengers etc? (On the Cockpit Voice Recorders the voices of the attacking passengers at the end of the flight are clearly audible to the extent that it can be understood what was said and cried.) In the combination with the warning of a cockpit intrusion the pilots would certainly have noticed any unusual sounds from the passengers.
Is it possible that the flight attendant working in the coach section (as the killing occured in first class) didn't phone the cockpit and mention the word trip (a code to indicate a hijacking the flight attendants were trained to use)? (Among the Heroes, p. 9)


How can it be explained?

Did the hijacking perhaps start before 9:27 already?
After 911 it was reported that the FAA informed NORAD at 9: 16 (!) that Flight 93 may have been hijacked. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warnin... /
Unfortunately the Commission Report doesn't consider it worth an explanation that according to them the hijacking only started at 9:27.

If the hijacking really started at 9:27 there are many questions open as seen above.
If the hijacking really happened at 9:16 then how did the hijackers not only managed to answer the cockpit intrusion correctly, also using the usual abbrevations but also to know the first name of the controller and the pilot?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-04 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
8.  Is the Original 9:16 am Suspected Highjacking of Flight 93 a Smoking Gun?
As pointed out by John Doe II, the original NORAD timeline said that flight 93 was a SUSPECTED highjacking at 9:16 am. This time point for a suspected highjacking of flight 93 at 9:16 am was revised later by NORAD and this point was almost completely ignored by the 9/11 commission. (It was addressed towards the end of Chapter 1 and written off as a mistake).

Clearly, as pointed out in this thread, and as referenced by multiple sources, strange things didn't happen with flight 93 until around 9:30 am.

WHY WAS FLIGHT 93 A SUSPECTED HIGHJACKING MUCH EARLIER THEN?

The only thing I can figure is that NORAD KNEW there were highjackers aboard as part of their highjacking exercise, Vigilant Warrior/Vigilant Guardian.

Could this be a smoking gun for 9/11 being an INSIDE JOB?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-04 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. That has been mentioned elswhere recently.

It looks like Flight 93 was mixed up with Vigilant Guardian.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-27-04 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. could you please provide more details?
what do you mean by "mixed up with Vigilant Guardian"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-18-04 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Weren't most of the pilots ex-military or Reserve?
Seems I read that somewhere. It would make sense if they were using commercial flights for Vigilant Guardian to have pilots who had a military background, I'd think.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-04 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
15. Todd Beamer: Let's Roll!
Also Todd Beamer's phone call arises questions.
At 9:45 he took the airfone and pressed the "0" button and was connected to the GTE Verizon operator. The operator who took the call passed it to customer service supervisor Lisa D. Jefferson.

He identified himself. Then the following information are said during the call:

Three people had hijacked.

Two with knifes went into the cockpit.

Third person stood in first class with what appeared to be a bomb.

He ordered everyone to sit down then separated first and coach section with a

curtain.

10 passengers in first, 27 in coach and 5 flight attendants.

Two people lying on the floor.

After receiving info from flight attendant he states that its captain and co-pilot.

He asks Jefferson if the hijackers want money.

Were going down!

He asks Jefferson to recite the Lords prayer, then he began reciting the 23^rd psalm.

She tells him that shes called Lisa like his wife.

He tells her about her family and prays her to let know his family how much he loved them.

(Longman inserts paragraphs about Beamers life)

He tells Jefferson that he and a few passengers were going to jump the hijackers.

What does she think about it.

Talking about their families again.

He said he didnt want to call his wife because he didnt want to upset her.

In the background awful commotion (apparently 9: 57 my comment)

Lets roll


This is most likely the best-documented phone call from UA 93 and there are several interviews by Lisa Jefferson.

Here my question:
Beamer had no clue about the attacks in New York (although sitting one row before Glick) and asked Jefferson if the hijackers wanted money. Therefore his decision to jump the hijackers can only have occured after 9:45 and therefore only during his phone call.
But exactly this moment of decision and discussing with other passengers is missing (and somehow Longman inserts a biography of Beamer exactly at this point).
Moreover the discussion of an exact plan is missing. If you're going to attack the hijackers wouldn't you want to discuss a sort of tactics with other passengers beforehand. But Beamer hears the attack starting from first class (he's strangely not surprised) and without any preparartion declares "Let's Roll". So, this very famous story, that might look coherent at the first glance raises serious questions.
I've looked at other accunts. Nothing about the moment of decisionmaking which Jefferson clearly must have witnessed nor of any discussion of their tactics.
Did anybody find any article that can fill this gap? Or does anybody has an idea how to explain it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-18-04 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
16. Can anybody
come up with just one eyewitness account that confirms what the Commission has written about the end of UA 93??
I've found many many witnesses that have seen a flight behaviour clearly different from a Boeing that does a head down nosediving at maximum speed.
But maybe I overlooked something.
So, can anybody come up with just one eyewitness who confirms the CR??
And if nobody can and all eyewitnesses have seen something comlpetely different ....
What does that mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Sorry!
I mean this can't be too much asked for:
Can anybody come up with just one just a single eyewitness account that talks of UA 93 "head down" nosediving at maximum speed.
I found between 15 and 20 that see clearly something different but I still wish to be convinced that the Commission didn't lie.

Btw while the Commission believes UA 93 crashed with 580 mph (p. 14) the first estimations were slightly different ....:

"The hijacked jetliner slammed into the earth nose-first at more than 200 mph, according to estimates by the National Transportation Safety Board and other experts."
(News Journal, 9/16/01)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-27-04 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. What;s the problem?

I primed google.com "witnesses" "Flight 93". In the first report it comes up with I found this:

"It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=...

and in the next one this:

"The story of the plane being taken over, that fits," Wright said

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/966339/detail....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Still a problem
The complete quote of Lee Purbaugh is:

"I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground."

This contradicts the nosediving and maximum speed story. The "nose suddenly dipped".

Terry Butler sees the plane 500 feet over his head:
"It dropped out of the clouds," too low for a commercial flight, Butler said. The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscen...

Or this unnamed witness of the first day:
"A witness told WTAE-TV's Paul Van Osdol that she saw the plane overhead. It made a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then made a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashed."
(Cleveland Newschannel 5, 9/11/01)

Or Linda Shepley:
"the plane wobbling right and left, at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing abruptly dipped straight down, and the Boeing 757 plunged into the earth."

And in your quote pilot Wright says nothing about nosediving. In fact nothing in his account describes any behaviour of the plane like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-04-05 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
22. The transponder
Around 10:00 defintitly while the passenger's counterattack was underway what are the hijackers supposed to have done?!:
they switched the transponder on again.

"Ms. TAYLOR: Yeah. And then the transponder came back on. We got two hits off the transponder. That's something we've always wanted to know. Why did the transponder come back on?"
(NBC, 9/11/02)

A bit strange, isn't it. While Jarrah was doing violent movements with the plane, the hijackers were panicking they had nothing more urgent to do then switching on the transponder....

Anybody any idea how this could be explained besides the recurring motive of the hijackers simply being strange .....?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-28-05 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. well obviously one could say the hijackers were fumbling around in the
heat of battle and switched it on by accident.

But I wonder if there is a better explanation? Did the remote control override go off allowing the transponder to come back on? Perhaps that is how they took down the plane-- they knew the hijackers couldn't really fly it so they turned off the remote control program?

Or was a flight 93 pilot still alive and tried to turn the transponder back on?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-28-05 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
23. The FBI
Paul Thompson asked:
Why did the FBI not advice passengers of UA 93 of what to do? The FBI was listening in several calls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-10-05 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Kick!
In view of Spooked911's new thread about the crew and hijackers of UA 93.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
27. Again-- this is an excellent post describing some of the inconsistencies
of the flight 93 phone calls. But there are actually even more inconsistencies than this!

Just one example -- at 9:45am, first class passenger Tom Burnett calls his wife a third time. According to Longman (page 111):
"The hijackers, Tom said, were talking about crashing the plane into the ground. 'We have to do something'"

WTF????

First of all, no one else has said there was more than one hijacker guarding the passengers. Thus, how could Burnett hear them discussing this?

Second, why on earth would the hijackers be talking about putting the plane on the ground-- before the passenger revolt? This is clearly BEFORE the passenger revolt because Tom says: 'We have to do something'.

Can any one explain this????????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Great finding, spooked911!
:applause:
Four eyes always see more than two!
Thanks for checking on counterchecking!

Let say this clearly:
After the passengers doing phone calls it is logical that passengers hearing of WTC concluded that their sad destiny would be to crash into a building.
But ho how could they have known that the plane would crash into the ground? Something the alleged hijackers decided in the very last minute?
Moreover see all the clar reasons of spooked911
And here is what I always wanted to say:
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Language talent
For sure Burnett understands Arab...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. That's what I was wondering too but forgot to add it!
Edited on Mon May-16-05 01:11 PM by spooked911
Even if Burnett could hear them, and it is not clear how he could-- how likely is it that the hijackers were saying this in english???

And how likely is it that the hijackers would announce over the PA that they were going to crash the plane on the gorund? Actually, all the 9/11 hijackers seemed to have a habit of keying the radio so ground control could hear when the hijackers made an announcement over the PA-- and certainly no one heard such an announcement over ther radio. Also, no other passenger mentioned that the hijackers said this. So it is quite unlikely that Burnett heard this over the PA of the plane.

Weird.

Just like the calls from flight 11 from Sweeney and Ong didn't match up, the calls from flight 93 don't match up.

I have wondered if there were two different flight 11's (there is some evidence for this from Woody Box's research) and now I wonder if there were two different flight 93's. There is actually evidence for two different jets flying over Shanksville from two different directions, from John Doe II's research...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. Burnett's and Beamer's location

All reports including the 9/11 commission say that the passengers were forced to go to the rear of the plane, including Burnett. His second call from 9:34 confirms that.

But there were exceptions. Todd Beamer rang up Lisa Jefferson at 9:45, and he told her that all passengers were ordered to remain sitting. Obviously the hijackers had overlooked him, and he didn't notice the run to the rear. And several minutes into his phone call, he still didn't know about the hijacker's motives and the coming passenger revolt, asking Jefferson: "Do they want money?"

The Flight 93 story is really a bad movie script.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Wow-- if you see my recent post, we have a direct contradiction
Edited on Tue May-17-05 03:36 PM by spooked911
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I agree about the bad movie script aspect of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Contradictions
Like for the questions if there were one or two attacks the phone calls basically always contradit each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-05 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. Longman didn't get it wrong
It is important to note that two FBI agents listened in Burnett's call.
Here is a sort of transcript that shows clearly that Jere Longman didn't get it wrong:

"A plane can survive a bomb if it's in the right place," Deena said.

"Did you call the authorities?" he asked.

"Yes. They didn't know about your plane."

"They're talking about crashing this plane into the ground. We have to do something. I'm putting a plan together."

"Who's helping you?"

"Different people. Several people. There's a group of us. Don't worry. I'll call you back."

(Star Tribune, 9/11/02)

Of course I'm ready to post the whole article if wanted.

Spooked911: I think your finding is really worth its own thread in order for more people to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ferry Fey Donating Member (289 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-05 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Cyberspace Orbit
Further up in the thread the alleged insider tip about the judo expert that was printed at Cyberspace Orbit was mentioned. For those who keep an eye on some of the more esoteric material around, Kent Steadman's site can occasionally be very useful. I've sent him tips myself. However, his inclination doesn't seem to be to filter things out too rigorously, so you sometimes have to take things there with a pinch or pound of salt. In the past couple of years he's become more connected with the God-like Productions board (GLP) and its offshoots.
It's a fast-moving board that is infested with trolls, and has a real poor sign-to-noise ratio, yet it sometimes has useful non-mainstream information in the midst of the disinformation. But keep your bullshit meters finely tuned.

Obituaries of Edward Felt mention an uncle, but not a father. I didn't see anything in a casual look, but is there a chance that he's related in any way to alleged "Deep Throat" Mark Felt?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 28th 2014, 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC