Deconstructing Todd Beamer's phone call

[John Doe II]

« Let’s Roll ! » : Let’s deconstruct a phone call !
Besides the phone call of Jeremy Glick (starting at 9:37) and the four calls of Tom Burnett (9:27, 9:34, 9:45 and 9:54) the call of Todd Beamer is the longest and most important phone call from UA 93. Due to several interviews with Lisa Jefferson who talked to Beamer this call is reported very detailed.
Besides that this call with Beamer’s famous last words “Let’s Roll” is the basis four the story of the heroic efforts of the passengers who sacrificed their lives and prevented the plane from hitting its intended target.
It first appeared in the news on September 16, 2001:
“The phone call, first reported yesterday by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, offers the most detailed evidence yet of the passenger revolt aboard Flight 93”.
(Washington Post, 9/17/01)

What is surprising while analysing numerous different accounts of the call and interviews of Jefferson and Beamer’s wife is that there is basically not a single sentence of the call that is not in dispute. Worse many details stand in strong conflict with other phone calls, and/or the official story. And some simply make no sense at all. Even the famous last words “Let’s Roll” are in dispute.

Some facts about this call first:
It was recorded.
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 9/19/01)

The FBI was on another line offering guidance.
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm)
This by the way will also imply the important question what guidance they actually offered. Beamer’s call doesn’t contain a single hint that the FBI in whatever way tried to actually guide Beamer.

The FBI requested not to divulge Beamer's call, even to Beamer's wife, until late Friday (September 14).
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/19/01)

Todd Beamer pushed “0” on the airfone. He reached Phyllis Johnson (the name was only revealed on September 22). Here is the first contradiction. In one account her supervisor Lisa Jefferson just passes by and sees Johnson traumatized (NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm. Interview with Jefferson) or Johnson turned the call over to Jefferson (PPG 9/22/01. Based apparently on an interview with Jefferson)

I. A short chronology of Beamer’s call entering the news

September 16 : Beamer’s phone call is reported for the first time in “Pittsburgh Post Gazette”.
« Let’s roll » hits the news. Liza Beamer was called by Jefferson and recalled it to the press. But Jefferson declined to comment.

September 17 GTE faxes a summary of the phone call (apparently written by Jefferson)

September 18: First interview with Liza Beamer.

September 21 Jefferson for the first time in public.


II. What was said during the call?

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

Comment: The wording doesn’t make clear if Jefferson asked for the nationality (keep in mind the FBI was offering guidance) or not.

Arms of the alleged hijacker:
"Todd told me that there were three people ... on the flight hijacking the plane, two with knives and one with a bomb strapped around his waist with a red belt," Jefferson wrote.
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/17/01)
(Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01) (NBC, 9/18/01) (Herald Sun, 9/18/01)
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm) (ABC, 9/21/01 11 :35 pm) (PPG 9/22/01)

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

Comment: This seems to be very obvious thing to see. And one would expect all passengers to have seen it. But the only other phone calls that mentions this come from Jeremy Glick and Linda Grolund.
Mark Bingham reports that the hijackers say to have a bomb.
But this “say to have a bomb” can very easily be the result of the 9:32 message “Ladies and Gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So, sit.” (CR, 12).
Tom Burnett explicitly says in his third call to his wife Deena (9:45 exactly the same time as Beamer) that he doesn’t believe the hijackers have a bomb and are just making it up.

Was a passenger stabbed?
Generally it is accepted fact that passenger Mark Rothenberg was stabbed by the alleged hijackers. At 9:27 (18 minutes before Beamer called) Tom Burnett phones his wife Deena for the first time. «The plane has been hijacked. They already knifed a guy.» (Among the Heroes, p. 150).
The stabbing obviously happened before the alleged hijackers entered the cockpit.

Comment: What is surprising is that Todd Beamer (row 10) doesn’t mention this stabbing which happened just next to him (Rothenberg was seated 5B) with a single word.

Who went into the cockpit?
Here Beamer’s account is clear again.
“Two of the hijackers were in the cockpit with the door locked behind them.”
(Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01)
(NBC, 9/18/01) (NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm) (ABC, 9/21/01 11 :35 pm)

Comment: Only small bizarre detail: How can he know that they locked the door behind them?

Reseating of passengers:
Here comes the first point of strong contradiction in the accounts of this phone call.
Please keep in mind that UA 93 took off that 10 passengers were seated first class and 27 in coach. (Among the Heroes, p. xvi)

The first report was:
“The hijackers had forced 27 of them into the first-class compartment near the front.
Beamer, nine other passengers and five flight attendants were ordered to sit on the floor in the rear of the plane.”
(Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01)
(Washington Post, 9/17/01)

This is also stated by somebody who heard the recording of the call:
“Nine other passengers and five flight attendants had been herded to the back of the plane, said Beamer's friend Doug MacMillan, who heard a transcript of the call.”
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/17/MN40630.DTL

And Liza Beamer says: “He was in the back of the plane with 27 others, and he was sitting next to a flight attendant”.
(CNN, 9/18/01)

Comment: This means that the alleged hijackers insisted that 10 passengers from first class went to the rear of the plane and the 27 passengers from coach came to the front?? Why this? What for? Does this make any sense? And why then does Burnett apparently stay in the front of the plane with Mark Bingham (both had first class seats)?

In Jefferson’s written account the story is exactly the opposite:
“In her account, Jefferson wrote that Beamer told her the hijackers divided passengers into two groups: 10 in front and 27 in back. Five flight attendants appeared to be with the smaller group.”
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/17/01)

Comment: This again is strange. There is nothing to divide this is the exact order the passengers are sitting already!

Question: So what’s going on here?
In fact the Beamer call seems to be the only one that mentions the order of the hijackers to change seats. No other phone call mentions this.

Strange Lisa Jefferson herself does mention in her interviews where Beamer was seated during their call: in the back. But with no word she mentions that the hijacker asked the passengers to change seats. She only says:
“Ms. JEFFERSON: They had ordered everyone to sit down because the flight attendants were standing. One just happened to sit next to him.
PHILLIPS: So he was in a passenger seat?
Ms. JEFFERSON: Yes, in the back of the plane. “
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm)
(ABC, 9/21/01 11 :35 pm)

Jefferson explains also why a stewardess was sitting next to him. Not due to a decision of the hijackers to split the group but for a very simple one:
“the hijackers had asked everyone to take a seat because the flight attendants were standing. Just so happened a flight attendant was sitting next to him”
(ABC, 9/21/01 11 :35 pm)

Comment: The problem with all this is that Beamer had a ticket for the tenth row. So he was in first class. If he phoned from the back of the plane (and as we will see several things will indicate that he must have been in the back) then he must have changed seats. But again: Nowhere is this explicitly stated in first hand accounts of his call. Nor does any other phone call mention it. And it remains in question if he was with the bigger or the smaller group.
But any regrouping of the passengers seems to me to lack any minimum of logic.

The closed curtain:
Here is another detail that is only mentioned in Beamer’s call:
“And the hijacker with the bomb pulled the curtain, too, in First Class so they couldn't see what was going on.”
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm)

In fact this is supposed to have happened during Beamer’s call!
“After he explained that to me, the guy with the bomb pulled the curtain to First Class, so they couldn't see what was going on in First Class.”
(ABC, 9/21/01 11:35 pm)

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

He never mentions that he left.
Comment: Now this is rather strange. Nobody else mentions the presence of the guarding hijacker. Is it really believable that he would allow all the phone calls to take place? Glick phoned since 9:37 and Beamer since 9:45? Would he allow the discussions going on in the group around Glick who took a vote? Would he allow Sandra Brandshaw to boil water? While Glick doesn’t consider any hijacker with a bomb as their first obstacle the accounts of Beamer do:
“Ms. JEFFERSON: From that point, he said he's going to have to go out on faith because they're talking about jumping the guy with the bomb.”
(NBC, 9/22/01)
(Washington Post 9/17/01) (Scripp Howard News Service, 9/16/01)

But is this really believable? Keep also in mind that according to the CVR the hijackers in the cockpit decided around 9:47 to let the guys in (Among the Heroes, p. 291). People listening on the open phones to the ongoing attack never recalled with any word a nearby fight. So: Many reasons to doubt that a guarding hijacker was there.

Jeremy Glick:
“Beamer mentioned Glick by his first name in the call to Jefferson, Lisa Beamer said.”
(Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01)
(NBC, 9/18/01)
They were seated close to each other at the take off and apparently also during the phone calls. That they knew each other is especially important as it gives the possibility of comparing the two calls.

What happened to the pilots:
Jeremy Glick answered the question of his wife if the pilots were alive with “I don’t know” (Among the Heroes, 216). This make sense as he can’t look inside the cockpit. But it makes no sense in view of what Todd Beamer has to say about the pilots.
While in the first accounts of the call Beamer is vague:
“He did not know the whereabouts of the pilot, copilot and the remaining passenger. He said a flight attendant had told him the pilot and copilot had been forced from the cockpit and may have been wounded.”
(Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01)

“He said two people were hurt -- the pilot and co-pilot, according to Lisa Beamer. He was ‘not sure if they were dead or alive,’ Jefferson wrote.”
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/17/01)
(Washington Post, 9/17/01)

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

“He can see in the front of the plane where two people were down on the floor.”
(ABC, 9/21/01 11 :35 pm)
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 9/22/01)

Comment: Again: Is this believable? While Beamer didn’t notice the stabbing of a passenger he now notices something nobody else noticed in his calls although it should have been very important for the passengers: that the pilots are dead. And why especially did Tom Burnett who was supposed to be in first class not mention with a single word that two pilots were lying on the ground next to him although he called his wife four times? Burnett even explicitly told his wife that he tried to save the passenger but couldn’t find his pulse. So he was really in a position to have known. The claim that two people are lying on the ground and that theses are the pilot and the co-pilot should really have been noticed by more passengers than only Beamers. The same goes for the logical fact that at one moment before the cockpit door opened and the alleged hijackers carried the pilot and the co-pilot into the section of the passengers. Why did nobody witness this?
And if Beamer was that saw the pilot and the co-pilot on the floor doesn’t this make even more unbelievable that he didn’t try to figure out if there is any pilot among the passengers? But he doesn’t mentioned Donald Greene. No phone call does mention Donald Greene who had a pilot licence. < /i>

Did Jefferson tell Beamer of other hijackings?
Here we come to a central contradiction in the accounts.
In the first accounts of the phone call it is very clear:
“Jefferson told him about the other hijackings.”
(Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01)
(Washington Post, 9/17/01)
And the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette precises (two days after Jefferson’s written account had been passed to the press):
“Jefferson, a supervisor at GTE, got on the line and talked with Beamer for 13 minutes, telling him about other hijackings that had ended in crashes at the World Trade Center in New York.”
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 9/19/01)

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

But the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ( explicitly based on Jefferson’s own words ) remain:
“She told Beamer about the two planes crashing in New York.”
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 9/22/01)

Comment: While this already raises eyebrows and might not easily be put away with the standard answer: “journalistic inaccuracy” we shall just assume that Jefferson speaks the truth in her interview.
Apparently at the beginning of the call Beamer considers this as a normal hijack wondering if the hijackers want money and he doesn’t know their intentions. At no point Jefferson mentions in her interviews nor any media account that Beamer figures out that this is a suicide mission. So the crucial part of understanding the situation (and certainly he would have had some questions to ask Jefferson about it, wouldn’t he?) is nowhere shown with a single word. (Only Liza Beamer wonders: “It seemed like after a while he realized, either from information from other passengers or because the plane started flying more erratically, that this was not going to end well.”
(NBC, 9/18/01) yet this is not first hand nor is it a statement but an assumption)
Nor does even any account show that Beamer talked to his neighbours.
Why doesn’t Beamer ask Jefferson questions about what’s going on? Why doesn’t he do what eg Glick and Burnett did: Figure out what’s going on?
So, then why does Beamer decide to risk his life?
Last but not least: Is it believable that the FBI who has been on another line guiding Jefferson really accepted that she would let Beamer in the dark? Wouldn’t they have tried to do everything possible to ensure that the passengers might manage a counterattack? But this also points to the general question: In many phone calls from UA 93 the FBI was listening in, yet not in a single case can I see only a hint of any form of help offered by the FBI.

Beamer’s estimation of the situation:
Beamer is very clear about his own chance:
"I know we're not going to make it out of here,"
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/17/01)
(Washington Post, 9/17/01) (CNN 9/18/01)

Comment: Now, this is pretty surprising if you consider that he hadn’t heard anything about other planes already crashing into WTC.

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

And Jefferson recalls having heard shouts and screams at that moment of panic:
“You can hear screams and commotion. You can hear--I could hear the flight attendant next to him screaming. And I could hear men, their voices were raised, and there was just a lot of commotion going on. Todd kept his same calm voice that he was speaking to me in.”
(ABC, 9/21/01 11 :35 pm)
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm)

The press had a simple explanation for this:
“Toward the end of his conversation with Jefferson, Beamer said the plane appeared to have changed directions a few times. Later, it would be determined that it had flown west from Newark to near Cleveland, then turned back to the southeast toward Pittsburgh.
Beamer became anxious. ‘Oh! We're going down!’ he shouted at one point. He paused, then said in a calmer voice, ‘No, we're OK. I think we're turning around.’”
(Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01)

Comment: Unfortunately this explanation is impossible because this turn before Cleveland happened almost ten minutes BEFORE Beamer phoned Jefferson.
And there is a sudden drop of UA 93 officially noticed but it happened at 9:28 almost half an hour before Beamer’s remark:
“The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While travelling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet.”
(Commission Report)

Question: How come that Beamer clearly remarked something that no other passenger noticed (at that time)? How come that Jefferson heard screams that neither were witnessed in the calls of Jeremy Glick and Todd Beamer which happened at the same time? And how come that no flight path of UA 93 shows the sudden turn Beamer is talking about? And how come no other passenger noticed this turn (Burnett noticed clearly a turn but it was the turn at 9:34 before Cleveland)? And why does Stacey Taylor who watched the flight not mention this turn in her interview on NBC on 9/11/02?

Naming his wife and the moment of prayer:
The moment differs in two accounts of Jefferson herself:
“PHILLIPS: Did he tell you her name?
Ms. JEFFERSON: Well, what happened after that, the plane had taken another dive down. It was just flying a little bit erratic. And he made another outburst. You could tell in his voice that he was very nervous, but he was calm. And he just made a holler, 'Oh God.' Then he said, 'Lisa.' And I had not given him my name because I introduced myself as Mrs. Jefferson, and I responded by saying, 'Yes.' And he said, 'Oh, that's my wife's name.' And I told him, 'Oh, that's my name too, Todd.' And he said, 'Oh, my God.' So then he asked me if he didn't make it would I just keep that promise and phone his wife and let them know how much he loved his family very much.”
(NBC, 9/21/01)

“The plane is going down. At this point he raised his voice. He said, 'We're going down! We're going down! No, we're coming back up!' Wait, we're turning around, we're going back north. I think we're going north. At this point I don't know where we're going, I really don't know.'
He told me at that point that if he didn't make it, would I please make a phone call and call his wife and his family and let them know that he loved them very much. He told me he had two boys, David and Andrew. I asked him then his name, and he told me Todd Beamer of Cranberry, New Jersey. He told me his wife's name was Lisa. I told him that was my name also. And he said, 'Oh, my God.' So then he said that--would I say The Lord's Prayer with him, and he recited The Lord's Prayer from top to bottom. Then he said, ‘Lisa.’ He thought he had lost me. And I said, ‘I'm still here, Todd. I'm not gone. I'm not going anywhere. I'll be here as long as you are.’”
(ABC, 9/21/01)

Comment: The moment Beamer talks about his wife is different although theses interviews have been made within a few hours only. In the NBC interview Beamer cries in fear the name of this wife. In the second he cries and then talks of his kids and Jefferson asks the name of his wife.
Moreover what happened after this differ in theses two interviews. In the NBC one he asks Jefferson to phone his family and in the ABC interview he asks her to pray with him.

Praying together:
This point of the conversation is rather coherent in its description.
While in the very first account of his call they only recited the 23rd Psalm. (Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01) in all other accounts it was the Lord’s prayer.

Discussing what to do:
Another issue is curiously left out in all accounts of the call. This issue is directly connected that at no point Beamer is told that this is a suicide mission nor does he asks Jefferson any question that indicates he is aware of it (remember that at the beginning he wonders if the hijackers wants money. At that point obviously he doesn’t consider it a suicide mission): Nowhere any account indicates that Beamer actually discusses a plan with his neighbours. What’s more after being afraid because of the movements of the plane he prays with Jefferson and then apparently decides to start the attack:
No moment of understanding it’s a suicide mission.
No moment of realizing they have to do something.
No questioning of Jefferson who should know more about what’s going on as she of course is in direct contact with the external world.
No moment of discussing with others if they should do something.
No moment of discussing with other what they should do.
As a small side note (with no personal judgement of Beamer but just to demonstrate how the creation of a legend works that comes in very handy as a nice slogan for a war): While Glick and Burnett are obviously centers of the passenger’s assault the role of Beamer (even putting all above mentioned questions aside) is not at all active. The judgement that he was the center is based entirely on the famous “Let’s Roll”. But reading Jefferson’s account the fact that Beamer was active is let’s say open to interpretation:
“Ms. JEFFERSON: (Voiceover) And I feel that Todd played a great role in that because when he told the guys, 'Are you ready?' I assume that they were waiting on his cue. Then they responded to him, and he said, 'OK, let's roll.'”
(CBS, 9/21/01)

“Let’s Roll” or not “Let’s Roll”?
The first account of the end of this call that turned out to become a slogan for war:
“He got Jefferson to promise that she would call his family, then dropped the phone, leaving the line open.
That's when Jefferson heard what Lisa Beamer believes were her husband's last words: ‘Let's roll.’”
(Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01)

Comment: “Jefferson heard what Lisa Beamer believes” is a strange wording. Also note that: “Are you ready guys?” is missing.

The next day the missing phrase appears as well
“’’Are you guys ready?’ the operator heard before the connection was lost. ‘Let's roll!’”
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/17/01)
(Washington Post, 9/17/01) (NBC, 9/18/01) (Herald Sun, 9/18/01) (CNN 9/18/01)

Keep in mind that so far the very person who talked to Beamer hasn’t expressed her own account of the call herself. On September 21 she did.
“After that, he had a sigh in his voice, he took a deep breath. He was still holding the phone, but he was not talking to me. He was talking to someone else, and I could tell that he had turned away from the phone to talk to someone else. And he said, ‘You ready? OK, let's roll.'”
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm)
(CBS, 9/21/01, 8 pm) (ABC, 9/21/01 11 :35 pm)

Theses interviews were aired from 8 pm on September 21.
On September 22 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette publishes an article apparently based on Jefferson’s own account she gave “yesterday”. And here we find a different story:
“She heard Beamer saying, ‘God help me. Jesus help me.’ He addressed his cohorts, still calm, saying, ‘Are you ready? OK,’ Jefferson said. She did not complete the phrase that Lisa Beamer relayed in an earlier interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in which she quoted her husband using a family catch phrase: "Are you guys ready? Let's roll!"
"That's the last I heard from Todd Beamer," Jefferson said. "The line was still open, but it was silent."
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 9/22/01)

Question: How could Jefferson forget about theses famous words if they actually happened? Isn’t this contradiction very odd given the fact that the interviews to Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the TV channels must have been within a few hours?

What did Jefferson hear after Beamer left the phone:
“Then there was silence.”
(Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01)

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

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

Comment: It is important to not that even after the story changed Jefferson’s account differs heavily from Richard Makely who was listening to the phone after Jeremy Glick went to attack the cockpit. He hears screams, then silence and then screams again before he heard nothing anymore. But the second wave of commotions is nowhere recalled in Jefferson’s accounts.
Neither does her account talk of what family members heard on the Cockpit Voice Recorder and what Lorne Lyles recalled at the end of his call with his wife CeeCee Lyles: the sound of wind.

The end of the call:
Here comes the next huge contradiction within the accounts of Beamer’s call.
In the first account Jefferson hung up:
“Jefferson hung up at 10 a.m. EST, realizing that the plane had gone down. Officials said it crashed at 9:58 a.m.”
(Scripps Howard News Service, 9/16/01)

Then the connection was lost (based on a faxed summary of Verizon!):
“Beamer then said, ‘Let's roll,’ and Jefferson could hear chaos in the cabin until, minutes later, the line went dead.”
(Washington Post, 9/17/01)
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/17/01)

But then the description of the call changed completely:
“But she stayed on until she had heard that the plane had crashed about 10 minutes later.”
(NBC, 9/18/01)
(CNN 9/18/01)

“I didn't hear anything else from him. I kept the phone line open for about 15 minutes, hoping he would come back to the phone. I was calling his name. He never came back to the phone. About 10 minutes later, we had heard that the plane had crashed in Pittsburgh, and I knew that was his plane. It was United Flight 93.”
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm)

Question: So what did Jefferson do? And why theses huge contradictions? The fact that what Jefferson claims to have heard differs a lot from other accounts doesn’t help to convince that she stayed at the phone.

IV. When did Jefferson talk to Beamer’s wife and who called?
Even the general basics of this are in question although this might be based on several journalistic errors. But strange nonetheless.

Accounts have Jefferson calling Liza Beamer on Friday:
“On Friday, Lisa Beamer finally spoke with Jefferson.”
(Washington Post, 9/17/01)

“On Friday evening, three days after terrorist hijackings that crashed four passenger jets and killed thousands, Jefferson, with the FBI's approval, made a phone call that lifted her spirits and those of the Todd Beamer family.”
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 9/19/01)
“That is when Jefferson was allowed to keep her pledge to call Lisa Beamer”
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 9/19/01)

And also this interview with Jefferson implies this version:
“PHILLIPS: Four days after that phone call from Todd Beamer, Lisa, a wife and mother of two, got a phone call she had been waiting for.
Ms. JEFFERSON: And I told her the message that he wanted me to give her and her family is that he loved them very much.”
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm)

But Liza Beamer herself states things differently:
“I received a correspondence from GTE Airphone that one of their operators spoke to Todd during the hijacking. And then he gave me her phone number which he included. And on Saturday morning I called her at her home.”
(NBC, 9/18/01)

and she also says:
“I did speak to her on the phone on Saturday morning. I got this information that the call had been made on Friday night, and I was able to speak to Lisa and get all the details on Saturday morning.”
(CNN 9/18/01)

Only in the interview with CBS Jefferson is clear about this:
“Ms. JEFFERSON: She called me last Saturday morning.”
(CBS, 9/21/01, 8 pm)

Apparently this might be indeed what happened:
“Last Friday, someone from United Airlines told Lisa Beamer about her husband's call. On Saturday morning, Mrs. Beamer called Jefferson at her Chicago home and heard the news that lifted her spirits.”
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/22/01)

Conclusion:
Beamer’s phone call is a central to what happened aboard UA 93. Yet it is extremely surprising that there is basically not a single sentence without contradicting other accounts of the call a few days before or later, without contradicting ALL other phone calls made from UA 93, without coming into conflict with the official story and without coming into conflict with simple logic.
As the problems are innumerous it is difficult not to have the feeling that this phone call simply never happened and is a pure invention. For everybody who is offended by this conclusion I can only say:
The contradictions are presented: Explain them!


Used sources:
Sources that aren’t online were found on Lexis-Nexis.

Scripp Howard News Service, 9/16/01 is
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916phonecallnat3p3.asp

Sun-Sentinel, 9/17/01 not online.
For the only quote I used you can also take:
http://www.leadertelegram.com/specialreports/attack/storydetail.asp?ID=58
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-humantoll-beamer.story

Washington Post, 9/17/01 is
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A41095-2001Sep16

NBC, 9/18/01 the transcript is not online
Herald Sun, 9/18/01 is not online
CNN, 9/18/01 is
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/18/lkl.00.html
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/19/01 is
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010919gtenatp3.asp
NBC, 9/21/01 is not online
NBC, 9/22/01 is not online
CBS, 9/21/01 is not online
Pittsburgh Posy-Gazette, 9/22/01 is
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp



Special thanks to Team 8+ for all the help and input.
Special thanks as well to Astro3 who had many groundbreaking ideas on this issue.
His homepage is http://nineeleven.co.uk/

[philb]

1. If there is a recording, has it been made public? if not why not?

How can there be controversy about what was said in the call if it was recorded?

Did the 9/11 Commission listen to the recording, and if so what were their comments?

[John Doe II]

2. Ridiculous but true

the Commission apparently only based their work on interviews with recipients of the call. See the thread: Were the calls recorded. No exception for Beamer.

Anybody here who can explain the way too many contradictions in his call??

[dbeach]

3. 'lets roll"

became a big song for Springstein..BUT I would prefer to hear:
"let the good times roll" when bush gets arrested..

[pox americana]

4. Wait, so Beamer wasn't even talking to his wife?

And "let's roll" is something he's supposed to have said to an anonymous GTE operator? Who was recording the conversation? But the recording or a transcript of it has never been released to the public? Just a "summary"? Am I getting this straight?

This is really weird.

[John Doe II]

5. Anybody

ready to explain the innumerous contradictions of Beamer's call? I'd be very interested!

[Kevin Fenton]

6. More stabbing

"Was a passenger stabbed?
Generally it is accepted fact that passenger Mark Rothenberg was stabbed by the alleged hijackers. At 9:27 (18 minutes before Beamer called) Tom Burnett phones his wife Deena for the first time. «The plane has been hijacked. They already knifed a guy.» (Among the Heroes, p. 150).
The stabbing obviously happened before the alleged hijackers entered the cockpit.

Comment: What is surprising is that Todd Beamer (row 10) doesn’t mention this stabbing which happened just next to him (Rothenberg was seated 5B) with a single word."

Again, if Rothenberg (or another passenger) was stabbed in first class, there is no reason to suppose that the passengers in coach must have known of this, as it should have been invisible to them due to the curtain over the seats (assuming there is one on United 757s - I've never flown on such an aircraft with United, but it is fairly common). They may have heard some noises, but such noises may not necessarily have indicated that a passenger had been stabbed and subsequently expired.

[John Doe II]

7. As with Glick

Beamer doesn't mention the stabbing.
Yet, he mentions something completely different:
Two person lying on the ground of first class. The pilot and the co-pilot. Which is confirmed to him by a flight attendant.

How does that add up with Beamer mentioning the stabbing in first class?

Does this mean Beamer didn't realize the stabbing. Yet, he saw two dead people.
Burnett being in first class witnesses the stabbing (not witnessed by anybody else if I recall correclty) but fails to remark two further dead people on the ground.

[Ferry Fey]

8. Todd Beamer's birth records?

In another thread here it was mentioned in passing that no birth or death records were found for Todd Beamer. I'm aware that DulceDecorum has done substantial research (archived here) into the lack of Social Security death records of many of the names listed as passengers on the planes. But I don't remember seeing anything about Beamer's birth records before.

I'll echo here in the Todd Beamer thread the question raised by another poster elsewhere -- does anyone have a link to research that
failed to come up with valid birth information for Todd Beamer? I'll presume that the issue deals with alleged birth information that couldn't be substantiated by official records.

[philb]

12. How the heck could hijackers get into the pilot cabin if they had stabbed

a passenger earlier. The plane stewards have communication with the
pilots and would have warned them. The pilots would have notified FAA, etc.; and would not have let the hijackers into the cabin.

I don't understand how its suggested that the hijacking could have possibly happened. Seems totally implausible.

As also concluded by all commercial and military pilots who are on record regarding 9/11

[Kevin Fenton]

13. How the heck could the pilots keep the hijackers out of the cabin?

Hijackers stand up, Rothenberg objects, one hijackers stabs him while others go in the cockpit. What's wrong with that?

[Andre II]

14. The attack

The cockpit had been warned twice already before about cockpit intrusion and one can only wonder how fast things happened that Rothenberg realized he should oppose, he was stabbed, hijackers entered the cockpit that apparently no flight attendant manage to phone the cockpit and warn them, that the pilots didn't hear that something suspicious was going on (while the hijackers later do hear the passengers before their attack actually even started).
And how the heck could the pilots keep the hijackers out of the cabin?
Well, maybe doing the same that helped the hijackers keeping a clear majority of people out of the cockpit for several minutes...

[Kevin Fenton]

15. This and that

"The cockpit had been warned twice already before about cockpit intrusion and one can only wonder how fast things happened that Rothenberg realized he should oppose, he was stabbed, hijackers entered the cockpit"
Why should the pilots immediately lock the door just because they hear something funny in back (if they do hear it)? Maybe Rothenberg was stabbed (just) after they entered the cockpit.

"that apparently no flight attendant manage to phone the cockpit and warn them,"
If he was stabbed and you were a flight attendant, would your immediate reaction be to run for a phone?

"that the pilots didn't hear that something suspicious was going on (while the hijackers later do hear the passengers before their attack actually even started)."
The hijackers were listening out for it, the pilots weren't.

"And how the heck could the pilots keep the hijackers out of the cabin?
Well, maybe doing the same that helped the hijackers keeping a clear majority of people out of the cockpit for several minutes..."
(1) The aisle is narrow and the passengers' superiority in numbers wouldn't have been much good to them.
(2) Maybe the hijackers retreated to the cockpit and held the door shut.
(3) Maybe the passengers got in easy, just like the hijackers.

[Andre II]

17. We can agree on (3)

There were six passengers at least pushing a foot cart should have no big problem entering.

Why should the pilots lock immediately? Cause they've been warned twice already? They didn't even manage to send an emergency signal.

"Maybe Rothenberg was stabbed (just) after they entered the cockpit."
Not accoring to Burnett's call.

[Kevin Fenton]

19. There's no way six passengers

can all get round a food cart in the narrow aisle. And why would they use a food cart anyway? Why not just unlock the door with a key.

So what if the pilots locked the door. The hijackers could simply have unlocked it.

So Deena Burnett's account of this may be slightly wrong (as she was about the "guns"). No big deal.

[Andre II]

21. Sorry,

are you serriously implying that two maximum three hijackers with a height of 5feet something can hinder heavy weight champions as Glick, Bingham, Beamer, Burnett etc who used a foot card according to the CVR from entering the door for several minutes??
And if you doubt six passengers can't attack simultaneously the cockpit door: How many hijackers can protect the door from inside the tiny cockpit?

And if the hijackers unlocked the door:
Where does the key come from and especially why do all witnesses talk of of hijackers entering the cockpit? Nobody mentions the unlocking.

[Kevin Fenton]

23. Food cart

I don't believe the food cart story - if a food cart was used, why wasn't the sound of the food cart hitting the door audible? I don't think the hijackers could defend the cockpit well and I figure the passengers must have got in real quick. What happened next is anybody's guess.

I don't know whether the cockpit door was locked or unlocked. However, if it was locked, the hijackers could have unlocked it with a key, which, for example, they may have got from Osama.

[Andre II]

26. Food cart

If I recall correctly officialls stated on Newsweek that the sound of foot card was to be heard but when family members listened to the CVR they agreed that passengers entered the cockpit. None of the famous last sentences published in the CR have not been recalled by any family member. The last phrase they heard was something like "lift it up".

[Kevin Fenton]

29. No food cart

If I remember rightly, it was the sound of crockery, not a food cart. In any case, this isn't what the 9/11 CR says - it implies the passengers didn't get into the cabin.

[Andre II]

38. Do you think that the family members

and the Commission listened to the same tape?
And if you do how do you explain the huge discrepancies as they are outlined here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x82706

[Andre II]

39. How do you explain

that only Burnett speaks of a passenger having been stabbed but not Glick (who got very detailed questions about what was going on aboard), nor Beamer. According to the official documentation all passengers had been herded to the back and apparently could freely talk to each other.

[Kevin Fenton]

9. Dead pilots?

"Comment: Again: Is this believable? While Beamer didn’t notice the stabbing of a passenger he now notices something nobody else noticed in his calls although it should have been very important for the passengers: that the pilots are dead."
(1) Beamer could not have seen the stabbing as he was in coach, not first, and there was a toilet and a galley in his way.
(2) The reports of what he noticed are contradictory, as even you admit, but in the more detailed ones he is not sure whether the people he is discussing are dead or wounded. Further, he is not sure if they are the pilots.

"And why especially did Tom Burnett who was supposed to be in first class not mention with a single word that two pilots were lying on the ground next to him although he called his wife four times?"
There is no indication from Beamer that the people are next to Burnett, or even visible from where Burnett is sitting in first.

"The claim that two people are lying on the ground and that theses are the pilot and the co-pilot should really have been noticed by more passengers than only Beamer."
It appears that Beamer did not recognise them as the pilot and co-pilot, but only received this information from a stewardess, who was not sure of it herself.

"The same goes for the logical fact that at one moment before the cockpit door opened and the alleged hijackers carried the pilot and the co-pilot into the section of the passengers. Why did nobody witness this?"
Beamer does not claim this. Nowhere does Beamer say they were killed in the cockpit, in fact he is not even sure they are dead, or that they are the pilot and co-pilot. Even if the pilot and co-pilot were killed in the cockpit and then carried out, the closest place to put them is in either the galley or the toilet by the cockpit, not the first class section.

"And if Beamer was that saw the pilot and the co-pilot on the floor doesn’t this make even more unbelievable that he didn’t try to figure out if there is any pilot among the passengers?"
He's not sure they're dead, he's not sure they're the pilot and co-pilot. How do you know he didn't try to figure out if there was a pilot among the passengers? Maybe he asked but didn't get to Greene, or got to Greene, but just didn't mention it. Maybe he just figured out he'd switch the autopilot on. Maybe he thinks they're goners anyway, so what the hell.

I think if they killed (or seriously wounded) the pilot and co-pilot, they would put them in the galley, because (1) it's not nice having dead bodies in the cockpit and (2) it's the closest convenient place. The flight attendant could have noticed them there and then told Beamer.

[Andre II]

10. I disagree

I've managed now to read all the articles. So here my response:


Difference between “to notice” and “to see”: The point is not if Beamer saw it or not it is why Beamer didn't notice it.
A stabbing is not something that happens silently. The victim screams, people around scream yet nobody besides Burnett mentions the stabbing of one person. Marion Britton also first class mentions two people killed. NOBODY else mentions any stabbing. Not even anybody else from first class.


The point is less if the two victims are pilots or not (though it is noteworthy that the flight attendant believes they are the pilots) the point is Beamer speaks of TWO people and not one as Burnett does. And btw in most accounts he speaks of seeing them (he was in row 10 so this would easily have been possible).
And btw do you think in fact there were THREE victims? The two Beamer is talking about and the one Burnett is talking about? Only two as also Marion Britton believes. Only one as Burnett states. Or none as the clear majority (also of people in first class) didn't mention anything about anybody bein killed.



Do you seriously believe that the two killed people would have been in the galley and only the flight attendant realized this, nobody from first class saw it and the only person the flight attendant told it was Beamer?


And btw: not a single phone call does mention the presence of Greene.


Simple questions: Where are all the passengers (herded in the back or not)?
Is there a hijacker controlling them?
Does he have a bomb?

[Kevin Fenton]

11. It's not staged

"A stabbing is not something that happens silently. The victim screams, people around scream yet nobody besides Burnett mentions the stabbing of one person."
A stabbing may or may not be silent. Even if it is not silent, how can you tell a knife is used just by listening to it?

"Marion Britton also first class mentions two people killed. NOBODY else mentions any stabbing. Not even anybody else from first class."
AFAIK there were only another three people in first class. How many of them made calls? There isn't much info about Britton's call, it doesn't seem to have lasted long and she seems to have been disturbed.

"The point is less if the two victims are pilots or not (though it is noteworthy that the flight attendant believes they are the pilots) the point is Beamer speaks of TWO people and not one as Burnett does. And btw in most accounts he speaks of seeing them (he was in row 10 so this would easily have been possible)."
Beamer can't see Rothenberg, so how does he know he's dead and why should he mention him? Why would it be easy for him to see them from row 10, given the toilet and galley were in the way?

"And btw do you think in fact there were THREE victims? The two Beamer is talking about and the one Burnett is talking about? Only two as also Marion Britton believes. Only one as Burnett states. Or none as the clear majority (also of people in first class) didn't mention anything about anybody bein killed."
This is what eyewitness evidence is always like. Eyewitness accounts always differ in this way. There is nothing unusual about it whatsoever.

"Do you seriously believe that the two killed people would have been in the galley and only the flight attendant realized this, nobody from first class saw it and the only person the flight attendant told it was Beamer?"
Maybe they were in the galley, maybe they weren't. The people in first class couldn't see into the galley.

"And btw: not a single phone call does mention the presence of Greene."
So what?

"Where are all the passengers (herded in the back or not)?"
Some of them are in the back, some seem to be in front.

"Is there a hijacker controlling them?"
Probably some of the time.

"Does he have a bomb?"
Not a real one.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should conclude it was staged because the eyewitness accounts differ? Surely, if it were staged, they would be the same?

[Andre II]

16. I disagree again

"A stabbing may or may not be silent. Even if it is not silent, how can you tell a knife is used just by listening to it?"
You miss the point, it's not about noticing the method of the killing but the fact that somebody was killed or heavily wounded.

"AFAIK there were only another three people in first class. How many of them made calls? There isn't much info about Britton's call, it doesn't seem to have lasted long and she seems to have been disturbed."

Besides Britton there is also Bingham in first class, Joseph DeLuca, Ed Felt, Linda Gronlund. All did phone calls. None mentioned the killing.
While Britton's call doesn't contain much info it clearly states that TWO people have been killed.

"Beamer can't see Rothenberg, so how does he know he's dead and why should he mention him? Why would it be easy for him to see them from row 10, given the toilet and galley were in the way?"
Again, you miss the point. It's not about seeing butu about noticing. The normal reaction hearing something suspicious is to get up. There is nothing in the way to hinder seeing Burnett who took care off Rothenberg (though two women who had medical profession were close to him). Nobody, nobody of the coach section did realize that a passenger had been killed??

"This is what eyewitness evidence is always like. Eyewitness accounts always differ in this way. There is nothing unusual about it whatsoever."
Yawn. This is always the best argument, isn't it. The difference between accounts can never be big enough to even question what is reported, right?
Still, you haven't said how many people have died on the plane? None, one, two or three?

And all your argumentation takes as the necessary assumption that the passengers weren't herded to the back of the plane. Cause if you accept this possibility why didn't they pass the information? Remember Burnett talked to his neighbours, so did Bingham, so did Beamer and Glick. But if you take it as a fact that all passengers remained seated then you have several phone calls who tell nonsense. I do agree that eyewitness' accounts differ. But we're not talking about that all accounts have to agree in every single detail. What I'd expect is an agreement of the basic facts which is clearly not there.

"Maybe they were in the galley, maybe they weren't. The people in first class couldn't see into the galley."
Ever heard that people can get up? Tom Burnett walked around the whole time while phoning, Bingham moved around. Nobody saw anything? Only one flight attendant who only passes this info to nobody else but Beamer??

"And btw: not a single phone call does mention the presence of Greene."
"So what?"
Hm. I believe if passengers plan their attack as they did the question naturally comes up if there is a pilot aboard. The plane wasn't miles long. Nobody. Nobody mentions that there is a pilot around.


"Some of them are in the back, some seem to be in front."
Sorry, this is not the question: The question is if they were herded to the back? Or more vaguely: Was there an order by the passengers change places. There are three different stories what happened.

"Probably some of the time."
So, when does he enter the cockpit? Why does the CVR mention "Let the guys in" if there is only one outside? Why does nobody mention the hijacker entering the cockpit although there was always since 9:27 at least one passenger phoning? Why would the guard allow people like Burnett to walk around and talk to his neighbours etc?

"Not a real one."
So, I take it you mean there was something visible that was to be taken for a bomb.
First of all this surprises me. If hijackers had to open their luggage at the airport it wouldn't have helped them if they could claim that their bomb was only fake. Why take this risk?
But espically why do most of the passengers ignore the bomb?

"Are you seriously suggesting that we should conclude it was staged because the eyewitness accounts differ? Surely, if it were staged, they would be the same?"
Well, what you here apparently are seriously suggesting that
a) Witnesses' accounts always differ and
b) if they differ too much to be ignored then it makes no case anyway cause it can't have been staged because the script would have been better.

This is a very comfortable argument, isn't it?
But the problem is the huge discrepancies remain.
For example:
How come that Beamer clearly remarked something that no other passenger noticed (at that time)? How come that Jefferson heard screams that neither were witnessed in the calls of Jeremy Glick and Todd Beamer which happened at the same time? And how come that no flight path of UA 93 shows the sudden turn Beamer is talking about? And how come no other passenger noticed this turn?

[Kevin Fenton]

20. Eyewitnesses

Given that eyewitnesses almost never agree on the basic facts, why would you expect it here?

[Andre II]

22. Disappointing

Sorry, Kevin, but I honestly find it very disappointing that knowing your in-depth research (and please take this as a compliment as I do appreciate your work) you have presented again and again on DU you simply say good-bye to some minimum of logic.
After failing to explaining the huge discrepencies between all the phone calls you simply state that eyewitnesses never agree.

Nobody is expecting that all phone calls agree on every detail.
Nobody is expecting that all phone calls agree on minor details as the colour of the hijacker's shoes.

But in every major aspect of what is going on aboard the passengers can't agree:
Are there one, two or three people killed?
Have the passengers been required to go back into the rear of the plane?
Is there is hijacker guarding them?
Does he have something that could be considered to be a bomb?

Huge contradictions in single phone calls:
How can Beamer notice a huge turn if the flight path shows none and no other passenger being on the phone at the same time noticed them.

Why is he crying on the phone and Jefferson hears people in the background crying when no passenger being on the phone at the same time neither cries, nor realizes as Beamer that they are falling nor does the people they talk to hear other passengers crying.

Tell me, Kevin, are these contradictions (and you know I could go on and on and on) not enough to ask questions.

If you consider that eyewitneses are never reliable you're implying even if 100 of 100 people see exactly the same thing happening and officially the opposite is accepted as truth it would be perfectly ok and pure nonsense to ask questions...
Where is the limit for you?
How many contradictions are acceptable and when is it necessary to ask questions?

[Kevin Fenton]

24. I am willing

to discuss what are claimed to be the discrepancies one by one. I'm not going to go into however many you want of them at the same time, because it's just too much work and I really don't see much benefit in it.

Eyewitness testimony
The eyewitnesses at the Pentagon mostly say they saw a large twin-engined jetliner suspiciously like a Boeing 757. However, as far as I can see you seem to think that the eyewitnesses were wrong. On the other hand, you are arguing that the testimony of the "eyewitnesses" (actually earwitnesses) who took the calls from United 93 is unimpeachable and cannot be questioned. I think you have to have clear rules about which eyewitnesses you will believe and you have to apply them consistently. Generally, my position is I don't believe eyewitnesses nomatter what they say (whether I agree with them or not), unless they are backed up by the forensic evidence.

"But in every major aspect of what is going on aboard the passengers can't agree:"
That is simply not true. They all agree that the plane has been hijacked. How is that not a "major aspect" of what is going on?

"even if 100 of 100 people see exactly the same thing"
That is not the case here. The eyewitness accounts of the people who took the calls are different. These are the sort of discrepancies I would expect from eyewitnesses. If the people who took the calls all said the same thing, then I would be suspicious. And if a 100 out of 100 said exactly the same thing but the forensic evidence said something else, I would go with the forensic evidence.

You can ask questions whenever you want, but I ask them when something doesn't feel right. A debris trail several miles long with big gaps from a plane that merely crashed, that feels wrong. Somebody saying that she was told the plane was turning at a point when somebody else claims they weren't told the plane was turning, that feels normal.

[Andre II]

27. Eyewitnesses

So far I don't think I've made any statement about eyewitnesses at the Pentagon.

"you are arguing that the testimony of the "eyewitnesses" (actually earwitnesses) who took the calls from United 93 is unimpeachable and cannot be questioned."
This is simply untrue. As I've clearly stated I don't except 100% agreement on minor details and not even 100% on major details.

"They all agree that the plane has been hijacked. How is that not a "major aspect" of what is going on?"
Fair enough.
And what's about all the questions I've repeatedly asked:
If and how many people were killed. Is this a minor detail to you that people easily mix things up?
What about the question if the passengers were herded into the rear of the plane? Do you consider this a minor detail people might easily get wrong stating that they had been herded to the back of the plane while sitting in their seat?
The same goes for the presence of a guarding hijacker.
The same goes for the presence of a bomb.

"These are the sort of discrepancies I would expect from eyewitnesses. "
Whatever sort of discrepancies are.
Just name me one, only one detail that the passengers agree on besides that they have been hijacker.

" A debris trail several miles long with big gaps from a plane that merely crashed, that feels wrong."
There is no debris trail several miles long of UA 93. Source please.
Where exactly are big gaps from a plane that merely crashed?

"Somebody saying that she was told the plane was turning at a point when somebody else claims they weren't told the plane was turning, that feels normal."
You misquote here clearly.
I quote from the original post:

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

And Jefferson recalls having heard shouts and screams at that moment of panic:
“You can hear screams and commotion. You can hear--I could hear the flight attendant next to him screaming. And I could hear men, their voices were raised, and there was just a lot of commotion going on. Todd kept his same calm voice that he was speaking to me in.”
(ABC, 9/21/01 11 :35 pm)
(NBC, 9/21/01, 9 pm)

Jefferson who is on the phone with Beamer not only hears him screaming that they're going down but she also hears screams and commotion.
Did she invented this? The call was recored and transcripted.
If she didn't invent this: How come no other passenger being on the phone even remarked the loss of altitude nor did the people they were talking to hear any commotion.
This is something very different from typical hear-say problems.


And btw I quote again:
This is also stated by somebody who heard the recording of the call:
“Nine other passengers and five flight attendants had been herded to the back of the plane, said Beamer's friend Doug MacMillan, who heard a transcript of the call.”
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/17/MN40630.DTL

So, if all passengers were in the rear of the plane it even gets stranger. ALl passengers could talk with each other yet completely difefrent statements by all of them.

[Kevin Fenton]

30. Here is the debris field link

http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html

[Andre II]

31. Flight93crash

is a great side and I realy would love to know who wrote it.
But it talks of three different debris fields not at all of a trail of debris.
Moreover if you read the source of Petersen: If the debris was so small as he describes (and this view is shared by all and everybody who was at the crash site) how can he possibl conclude that it was parts of the fuselage??

It's a fact that there is no trail of debris.
It's a fact that on 911 all witnesses were stunnded by how a plane could have crashed there and why they didn't see anything that looked like a plane.
It's unfortunate btw that flight93crash didn't realize that UA 93 never crossed Indian Lake hence how can the debris there have been from this plane if one takes it as a fact that the wind can't have blown the pieces (refuted not only by logic but also by all eyewitnesses).


Kevin, maybe our huge differences considering the passenger calls are based on a misunderstanding:
I wouldn't say that the shown contradictions prove that the calls (or a part of the calls) are faked but I'm convinced that the amount and gravity of the shown contradiction shows the need to question these calls. You can't resolve the huge contradictions. I can't built a watertight proof with them but the contradictions are there.

[Kevin Fenton]

32. Either the plane is real or it isn't

The primary, secondary and tertiary debris fields indicate there was an incident in the air (as do some other aspects of the crash, but not as strongly). If the plane didn't crash at Skanksville, then where did it go? Or are you saying you don't beleive the eyewitnesses on the ground? What caused the seismic readings at 10:06? Are you saying the coroner is lying?

What else could the debris be, apart from parts of the fuselage? (OK, parts of the wings).

There are apparent contadictions between second-hand accounts. Why would anybody expect a second-hand account to be 100% accurate? The passengers agree on the major events: the hijacking and the revolt, but some passengers are repored to have seen (or thought they saw) X bodies, whereas others are reported have said they saw Y bodies. People in different places shouldn't necessarily see the same thing. The contradictions are either not there or they're meaningless.

[Andre II]

33. The plane is real the crash site is not

I take it you agree that there is neither a trail of debris nor any debris part that were recognized as plane parts on September 11.

I believe all eyewitnesses and they agree on every important detail.
I believe the coroner who didn't find any trace of human remains for one hour and never found any blood and said the crash site "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it."

There are many witnesses seeing the plane vanishing behind the trees but only one actually saw the crash.

"What else could the debris be, apart from parts of the fuselage?"

Read the article I've posted here and we should discuss there the issue more in detail.


There are apparent contadictions between second-hand accounts.
Do you call Lisa Jefferson, Miss Glick, Deena Burnett etc second-hand witnesses???

Why would anybody expect a second-hand account to be 100% accurate?
I have to repeat it again: It's not that I expect 100% accuracy but more or less an agreement on major issues.

The passengers agree on the major events: the hijacking and the revolt
No, they don't.
They only agree on the hijacking.
Ed Felt phones one minute after the passenger attack is supposed to have started. He doesn't mention it neither does John Dhaw hear anything even when Felt opens the door.
CeeCee Lyles phones after the passenger attack started and doesn't mention it neither.
Joe DeLuca phones only four minutes before the attack starts and doesn't mention it.
Same goes for Linda Gronlund
Elizabeth Wainio is on the phone from 9:51 till 10:01 or 10:02. She doesn't mention the passenger attack nor does her step mother hear anything in the background.

People in different places shouldn't necessarily see the same thing.
Yeah, right. People sitting both in first class see one killed person or two. But this is no contradiction to you.
The rest I've written in detail already.
Btw: were the passengers herded to the back? How then can you insist on the probem where they had been seated? And if they weren't: Why do some passengers tell they were and officially this is stated?

he contradictions are either not there or they're meaningless.
Sorry, with all respect, this conclusion is based on nothing but pure faith.
Exacly which contradiction do you consider not to be any??
And which contradictions to you consider to be meaningsless??

You haven't been able to answer the simplest questions.
So here once again:

Have the passengers been herded to the rear of the plane?
Is there a hijacker guarding them?
Is a bomb visible?
How many people have been killed aboard before the plane crashed?

If you can't sove the contradictions then don't say they don't exist.

[Kevin Fenton]

34. If the plane is real where did it go?

Are you saying you think the plane was real, the calls are faked and the plane crashed somewhere else? Where?

You said, "Ed Felt phones one minute after the passenger attack is supposed to have started. He doesn't mention it neither does John Dhaw hear anything even when Felt opens the door."
Actually, when she listened to the tape, when he opened the door his wife heard noises she likened to "street-level sounds one heard when riding a Ferris wheel - many voices were audible, but none that could be picked out clearly." (ATH, p. 275).

You said, "CeeCee Lyles phones after the passenger attack started and doesn't mention it neither."
Actually, "I think they're going to to it," CeeCee said. "They're forcing their way into the cockpit." (ATH p. 253)

"Same goes for Linda Gronlund."
The call lasted half a minute. She said I love you and told her family where her will was.

You said, "Elizabeth Wainio is on the phone from 9:51 till 10:01 or 10:02. She doesn't mention the passenger attack nor does her step mother hear anything in the background."
Actually, "And then Elizabeth said, "They're geting ready to break into the cockpit. I have to go. I love you good-bye." (ATH p. 242).

Perhaps your copy of Among the Heroes is defective.

[Andre II]

36. I stand corrected

Sorry, you're correct in correcting me.
So, passengers agree that the plane is hijacked and on the passenger's attack but on nothing else. All other questions do stand.
Btw CeeCee Lyles, Glick's and Wainio's phone call all contradict clearly the 9:57 attacking time but that's another issue.

Maybe you show me first how even theoretically the plane that has been seen in the Shanksville area can have caused the crater then I'll tell you where it went.
As I said it only makes sense discussing this in the thread I've opened.

[Andre II]

37. I stand corrected but

there are still many questions I've asked that are unanswered.
Any ideas how to explain these contradictions?

[Rich Hunt]

25. what are we 'deconstructing' here?

Are we 'deconstructing' eyewitness testimony, such as that of Todd Beamer with his 'innumerate' statements? Or are we deconstructing conflicting press accounts of what each passenger allegedly said?

The tone at the beginning of the thread is a bit...personal, I must say.

[Andre II]

28. Sorry,

in fact the whole discussion makes only sense in view of the articles about Beamer's, Burnett's, Glick's, Felt's and "the lesser known phone calls". Only if one put all known accounts of the phone calls next to each other and analyses what everyone says eg about the question if somebody was killed aboard the discrepancies emerge.
The other threads are also on DU.

[Rich Hunt]

18. thank you

I just wanted to say 'thank you' to you and to whoever else assisted in assembling all of this. It was a lot of work.

[Ferry Fey]

35. Identifying dead pilot and co-pilot?

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


Last time I flew, pilot and co-pilot were wearing the uniforms of their airline, not polo shirts and khakis. How could a flight attendant not confirm that detail immediately, instead being only "pretty sure" it was them?

[jberryhill]

41. Try this experiment

Put on a white shirt.

Slit your throat with a knife.

Wait a few minutes.

Tell me what color is your shirt.

For that matter, what color is your face?

[Andre II]

40. New official data makes case even worse

All posts trying to explain the huge contradictions between all phone calls in basically every detail due to the fact that people were seated in different locations face a very difficult situation now with the release of the phone animation of Flight 93 during the Moussaoui trial.
http://coop.vaed.uscourts.gov/moussaoui/flights.zip

All phone calls were done from the back of the plane. People doing phone calls mainly all seated in the rows 24, 25 and 26.
So they all had basically the same view what happened in the plane.
So question still stands.
How come all basic details (how many people were killed during flight, where the pilots are, if there is a guarding hijacker, if he has a visible bomb etc) different in every phone call?