Flight 93: crash time cannot be true

[John Doe II]

I like to put three threads together here that all deal with an spect of Flight 93. Seen all three together I have the strong impression that the official story and the official crash time cannot possibly be true. (This of course implies the believe that the Commission did a cover up).
Here the three aspect:
Thread: Jeremy Glick (woody box) Shows that the timeline of the last minutes more precisely the moment when the passengers started to storm the cockpit simply can't be true. Officially it started at 9:58. But in their phone call Lyz Glick told his husband that the WTC crashed (9:59) The conversation then continued for approxemately one or two minutes leading. This clearly contradicts the official description in the Commission report.
Thread: 9/11 Commission: There must be 93 ways ... (stickdog) The official crash time clearly contradicts the seismic recordings by 170 seconds ...! No explanation has been given so far.
Thread: Flight 93: Cockpit recordings of final minutes. What the Comission states that can be heard on the recordings is in sharp contrast to what the family members reported to have heard when listening in April 2002 theses tapes. The commission points out that on the recordings it can clearly be heard that the hijackers finallt decide to crash the flight. not a single family member reported this after hearing the tapes. Most of them stated that passengers managed to storm the cockpit. The recordings have not been released.

Seen all this three threads together I believe it's hard to keep up the official version. But I want to encourage everybody who still believes the official version of Flight 93 to be true to discuss it and show their reasons.
In my opinion the discussion can be done here or in one of the threads. I just wanted to bring attention to this important issue.

[sffreeways]

1. I don't believe the official story

I have a theory why the government is lying but I haven't thought it out completely yet.

When I watched the news reports and they showed the flight path it was not at all clear that it was headed for Washington and the reports for several weeks after the attack gave no indication that it was. The notion that it was headed for the Capitol building came long after the attack and as far as I know are recent since the commission hearings. The plane in my opinion did not appear to be headed toward the capitol at all but toward three mile island. There were web sites like MSNBC that showed this flight path as well. The last plane making the biggest impact of the attack. I believe the plane was shot down by a drone (reports of a small white jet plane near the plane at the time it crashed). The government has covered this up for two reasons.

1. The drone capabilities are top secret

2. The powers that be don't want a public outcry to end nuclear power plant production (and there are numerous reasons one can think of why this could be true)

I'm not up on all of the details of these commission reports like others are here (and I admire those that have gone the extra mile to do so) but I do agree with the DU'ers that don't ascribe to the official findings. There is no doubt in my mind for whatever reason that flight 93 was shot down.

I don't yet believe that the attack on the pentagon isn't what the government says it is. I just haven't been convinced by arguments that it wasn't a plane the hit the building. But the official story of the downing of flight 93 from the moment of the attack has in my mind been distorted. Trying to figure out why they distorted the story is important to finding out what really happened.

I am curious since you don't believe the official version what is your theory. I am very interested in this aspect of the attack on 9/11. I was incredibly moved by the courage those passengers and especially the gay man from San Francisco, Mark Bingham showed. I think of him as one of my heros right up there with JFK, Che, and others. I strongly believe the passengers tried to take back the plane. I believe they were successful but were murdered by our government when the CIA drone shot down the plane but I am not exactly sure why this was done.

Glad you started a discussion about this.

[beyurslf]

2. Just one thing about the time differences you mention

Quickly run through your home and look at every clock.

I did it through mine and it took 5 minutes according to the different times. (I have a large one bedroom.) Of course, I ended back in the office earlier than the latest time I saw on one of the clocks.

It doesn't prove time travel. It does prove our clocks very by a few minutes here and there. So what the time on the call is recorded ONE minute before the plane crash. If the events occurred within a few minutes of each other, that explains it.

2-3 minutes.... 170 seconds...differences this small are easily explained and cause me no confusion whatsoever.

[John Doe II]

3. Not that easy

The 170 seconds. We're talkinig about the seismic recordings which are supposed to be precise by + - 1 second.
The other time difference: As the WTC crashed at 9:59 the phone call of Glick can't have ended before 10:01. But according to the official timeline that's already when the storming of the cockpit is about reaching it's peak. And yes, the question of the crashtime: 10:03 (official) or 10:06 (all threads indicated that tis one is true) is highly significant and moreover it would prove that the Commission did a cover up. So yes, we have to be exact and precise here. Nothing to do with running around at home ...

[seatnineb]

4. Is Deena Burnett telling the truth?

According to this article from September 14th,2001.

A friend took the children to school, and Deen Burnett, joined by local police, waited in front of the television.
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2001/09/14/foreign/AAHEROES.HTM.

This happened in- between the 2nd and the 3rd phone call from Tom to Deena.

Yet in the T.V documentary Flight 93: A Reconstruction that was made in 2002:

The same Deena Burnett recounts that in her 4th and final call from Tom:

In the words of Deena Burnett:
"I told him(Tom) that the children wanted to talk to him"

The documentary cuts to an actor reciting the role of Tom Burnett on a plane who says:

"Tell them I'll speak to them later"


Why would Deena Burnett give her husband,Tom Burnett,the option of speaking to the children.....
When the children are not with her and are already at school?

Please note that Deena Burnett has 3 children(all girls).
Two of which are twins who were aged 4 at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
The other was aged only one(or 2?) at the time of the attacks.

I am not sure what age children begin School/Nursery in the U.S so maybe you can clarify this story for me.

[MercutioATC]

6. Children typically start school at 5 in the States.

Kindergarden begins at 5. There are preschool programs for younger children, but they're voluntary...many children start school at 5.

[RH]

8. "the children wanted"

is past tense. It appears to me to be an expression of regret.

"Do you want to talk to the children" would be another matter.

[MercutioATC]

5. Why is glick talking on the phone while the cockpit was being stormed

a problem? Glick was talking while other passengers ran to the cockpit. So what? How does this prove (or disprove) anything?

[k-robjoe]

7. My impression

is that he didn´t say anything about anybody storming any cockpit.
(Have I got this wrong?)

And on another thread, I believe, seatnineB pointed out that he supposedly was in on the "planning".

Seems like it just doesn´t add up.

( Putting it mildly...)

[k-robjoe]

9. Putting it very mildly

Two quotes from Woodys thread:

"Lyz recalls no background noise. No commotion."

& ( at the same time ) :

"At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt. the assault."

[John Doe II]

13. Just a small addition

This is my answer from the Glick thread.

Official timeline:
"At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down. <....> At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said, "In the cockpit. If we don't we'll die!"" (Commission Report, p. 13).

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

[John Doe II]

15. Jeremy Glick

Jeremy Glick is not just one passenger. He's the one that talked in his phone call that they are takinig a vote. Anybody around here has an idea why he wants to take a vote although everybody is torming the cockpit already and Jarrah moves the airplane sharply up and down?

[RH]

63. An idea based on what?

It is all hearsay and wild conjecture.

Without hearing what was actually spoken, in context, with emotion, how does it help to speculate?

[stickdog]

11. Why don't we just synchronize all the evidence like they would in any NTSB

report, then release it to public just like they would in any NTSB report?

Of all of the hundreds plane crashes in our recent history, why are the four 9/11 completely exempt from what's just standard procedure?

It's like Americans have to prove complicity beyond a shadow of doubt just to get our government to release the same evidence it always releases in all other plane crashes -- and certainly all other historically prominent plane crashes. Why?

[MercutioATC]

12. THAT I completely agree with.

While I don't subscribe to any of the various and sundry CTs here, I'm still disturbed by the lack of evidence available to the public.

I don't consider the withholding of the evidence to be proof positive of LIHOP or MIHOP as some do here, but releasing more evidence would, I believe, put some of these issues to rest.

[John Doe II]

14. Nobody is saying it's MIHOP or LIHOP

The simple question is:
How can the timeline be true?? And sorry, this question (like the two others of this thread) are highly backed up by sources and the Commission Report. So let's come back to the question: How can it be possible? It simply doesn't add up!

[MercutioATC]

16. What, specifically, doesn't add up?

If it's the Glick issue, I've addressed that and I don't see it as an issue.

If it's the seismology/FAA times, I've addressed that, too, but I'd like to see more information.

[John Doe II]

17. Excuse me, where did you answer?

See point 13: Do you mind to answer how this is possible. Please keep in mind point 15. Thanks

[MercutioATC]

18. Again, we're talking about a difference of two minutes.

Aside from that, assuming everything you say is completely accurate, what difference does it make?

[John Doe II]

19. A lie is a lie

Please see my answer in the Glick thread. (Sorry, we're jumping around a bit)

[MercutioATC]

20. We ARE jumping around. Wanna just do this in the Glick thread?

It'll make things easier.

[John Doe II]

21. Ok

[RH]

22. Evidence is evidence

To say that somebody lied you need to show that they knew well enough that something else was true as a matter of fact.

Where is the evidence for that, as opposed to error; who is the suspect; and what then is the motive?

[John Doe II]

23. All you ask for is there

"To say that somebody lied you need to show that they knew well enough that something else was true as a matter of fact."


The Commission Report states:

"United 93 crashed in Pennswlvania at 10:03:11, 125 miles from Washington D.C. The precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute. The 10:03:11 impact times is supported by previous National Transportation Safety Board analysis and by evidene from the Commission staff's analysis of radar, the flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmissions" (Commission Report, p. 30).

The conclusion is obviously a very conscious one but as we've seen the impact time simply can't be correct! The seismic recording of 10:06:05 seems very much more plausible. So, yes, certainly the Commission must have known that their conclusion isn't true. So it's a lie, a cover up.
The suspect: The Commission who wrote and signed it but also most likely the government that from the beginning claimed 10:03 was correct although the seismic data said 10:06. The government always refused to dexplain this discrepancy.
The motive: Certainly something to cover up. What that might have been is not of interst in this thread.

But I take you agree that the offical timeline can't be correct, don't you?

[MercutioATC]

24. Why is the seismic data the "truth" when ALL of the other evidence

points to 10:03 as a crash time?

[stickdog]

25. Ummm, what is your explanation? Is the Earth part of a massive conspiracy?

The bottom line is that SOMETHING caused a clear seismic spike with the signature of a near surface explosion very near the Flight 93 crater at 10:06:05 +/- 2 seconds. This is according to publicly released incontrovertible scientific evidence -- not the "just trust us" say so of a compromised group of obvious non-investigators. This is according to the foremost forensic seismologist in the world. And NOBODY is arguing or can legitimately argue otherwise.

So if a 757 slamming into the ground at 580 mph, creating a world's record debris field and driving the remains of its passengers some 50 feet into the ground didn't manage to register even the tiniest seismic blip -- what the fuck happened in the same vicinity just three minutes later that DID cause a clear, noticeable, incontrovertible seismic spike?

Tell us, MercutioATC, what unknown, unreported event could have caused the 10:06:05 spike if a 10:03:11 plane crash that supposedly vaporized 92% of Flight 93 and jettisoned metal debris at least 2 miles from the crash site didn't even manage to generate the slightest blip?

This should be interesting.

[MercutioATC]

27. When did UAL93 crash?

"The 10:03:11 impact times is supported by previous National Transportation Safety Board analysis and by evidene from the Commission staff's analysis of radar, the flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmissions"

So, we have:

1) Radar

2) the flight data recorder

3) the cockpit voice recorder

4) infrared satellite data

5) air traffic control transmissions

that all point to 10:03 as the crash time. All of these are DEFINITELY direct data about UAL93.

On the other hand, we have:

1) a seismic spike

that shows up at 10:06. While there were no other recorded events that would have caused the spike that we know of, it isn't directly connected to UAL93.

Seriously, which time, 10:03 or 10:06, seems to have the majority of the evidence supporting it?

[John Doe II]

31. Can you please answer the question!

The question is still there!
How can the timeline be possible in view of Glick's phone call??
Please don't avoid to answer.

[MercutioATC]

65. See the Glick thread

[stickdog]

54. You COMPLETELY avoided the question. So let's try again.

The bottom line is that SOMETHING caused a clear seismic spike with the signature of a near surface explosion very near the Flight 93 crater at 10:06:05 +/- 2 seconds. This is according to publicly released incontrovertible scientific evidence -- not the "just trust us" say so of a compromised group of obvious non-investigators. This is according to the foremost forensic seismologist in the world. And NOBODY is arguing or can legitimately argue otherwise.

So if a 757 slamming into the ground at 580 mph, creating a world's record debris field and driving the remains of its passengers some 50 feet into the ground didn't manage to register even the tiniest seismic blip -- what the fuck happened in the same vicinity just three minutes later that DID cause a clear, noticeable, incontrovertible seismic spike?

[MercutioATC]

64. See the Glick thread

[stickdog]

69. I have seen it. But I've seen no answer. (nt)

[MercutioATC]

76. Look again

[John Doe II]

79. Looked there found nothing

Looked there again and found nothing again. So please, just for the ones that haven't understood your explanation: be so kind and let us know how you explain the contradiction between Glick's phone call and the official timeline. If you don't mind then please have a look at the summary given at point 82 of this thread. This might help the discussion to move forward!

[MercutioATC]

89. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x6210#21317

[MercutioATC]

90. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x6210#21317

[RH]

66. Do you know what "incontrovertible" means?

The evidence obviously is controverted. That's the whole point, isn't it? It is controverted by analysis of radar, the flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmissions.

[stickdog]

68. incontrovertible = impossible to deny or disprove

How are you going to deny or disprove the FACT that a seismic spike was recorded in the vicinity of the Flight 93's crash site at 10:06:05 +/- 2 seconds and that none was measurable between 10:02 and 10:04?

Time to put your money where your keyboard is.

[RH]

72. Presumably by demonstrating

the FACT that the seismic spike was NOT recorded in the vicinity of the Flight 93 crash site. The seimic recordings were many miles away.

The flight data recorder on the other hand was in the vicinity of the Flight 93 crash site and is thus to be regraded as that much more reliable.

[stickdog]

75. How do seismologists determine the epicenter of earthquakes?

Of course the measurements were recorded at several different seismographs many miles away. That's what gives us the ability to localize the event's origin.

As for the flight data recorder (and all the other evidence cited by the 9/11 Commission), the data have never been released. That makes this "just trust us" evidence far more questionable than the seismic evidence -- which anybody who cares to can confirm for him or herself.

[The Straight Story]

145. The spike

How far away were the sensors that detected this spike from the crash site?

[stickdog]

147. It was detected at multiple sites.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~mwest/papers/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf

This study does not include the Millersville, PA seismograph data because it is not a part of the US government. But I requested the Millersville data and it also shows activity starting at 10:06:05 +/- 2 seconds (when considering the average velocity of the seismic waves and the distance from the crash site).

[RH]

153. The link is impertient

It appears to relate to nothing but New York.

The 'MVL' Millersville Station is shown in the plot I previously posted, in posting #144.

Why is there nothing similar for MCWV and how on Earth may an accuracy of 2 seconds be claimed?

I do not see such a sudden onset.

[Robb]

77. Heya Thumb-biter...

:hi:

As self-appointed UAL93 CT guru, I'd answer that with this:

The first five have never been released. The seismic event is the only piece of public evidence available.

Two forensic seismologists, the guy at Lamont-Doherty and that Wallace character (who did the Kursk stuff) verified it was what we all said it was -- a crash at 10:06.

It's stone cold certain, IMO; seismographs record velocity in three directions, and looking at all three spikes and the p/s waves you can even get a vector and distance.

The LD guy is "less certain" now, according to the Commission report. Wallace is unwavering, as am I (although it should be noted that while I'm the only other guy I know of who's bothered with the original seismic data sets, I'm no seismologist).

But the rest, radar, FDR, CVR, sat data, none of it has been released. That seismic timeseries, though, is a real bug in the ass of the whole thing. :)

Small note: the spike is not at 10:06, it's recorded at five different stations at different distances (and different times) afterwards. LD and Wallace (and then me) did the math to back it out to 10:06 from the waves that arrived at those stations. So it's not a single spike, it's five p-waves and five s-waves that all point back to an event in the same place, at the same time. Cool, huh? ;)

[John Doe II]

78. It always feels good to read intelligent stuff!

:hi:

[RH]

83. Stone cold certain or "less certain" now?

:shrug:

I have doubts about the objectivity of Wallace and his agenda to make a name for himself. I also have doubts about the interpretation of measurements barely above noise levels; it gets into Rosarch test territory. What, if any, precendent exists to compare?

[Robb]

94. I don't understand

You speak with authority to three things that require more explaining.

1) In what way is Wallace making a name for himself?

2) What gives you the idea the event registered at "barely above noise levels"? At which of the stations do you believe this happened? And finally (on this one), what do you think "noise levels" are?

3) Assuming you mean Rorschach, you should tell us: what do you see in arriving waves? I see recorded velocity of p and s waves that give travel times and azimuths. There is nothing to "interpret".

For the moment, if you want to actually learn about this, here's my suggestion:

Head to IRIS. Identify the stations near the crash that were operating that day. Identify the timeseries data you want to obtain. Start an account and do so. Download the SEED data. Find a SunOS workstation -- or go buy one, as I did in 2001. Find a server hosting rdseed. Download, compile, and run rdseed on your SEED data sets, unpacking them. Save the datasets in whatever your plotter program understands (in my case I had to use rdseed to turn sets into SEGY data, then segy2sac to create SAC format files, which then could be read by Wiggles).

For fun, pick up Kim's LDEO team's data and reproduce the work. It will make no sense to you why he backed away from it.

MIT has done some good work on non-earthquake seismic events, crashes, refinery explosions, things like that. Plenty to read. I've got phone numbers you can have of fine people in Geology departments who walked me through the 300-series basics.

Then come back and talk about noise, or making a name for yourself.

[RH]

96. This may help.

1). http://www.google.com/search?num=48&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&as_qdr=all&q=+%22Forensic+Seismology%22+Wallace&btnG=Search&lr=lang_en

2). "The seismic signals are relatively weak compared with the background noise level. For instance,
at stations MCWV and SDMD, the signal (portion of signals just after Sg) to noise (portion of
records just before Pg arrivals) ratios are about 1:1, whereas, at station SSPA the ratio is about
2.5:1 and at MVL it is about 2:1 (Figure 5)."

http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf

3). Of course there is something to interpret. Wallace was instrumental in generating a vast database of seismic "signatures."

http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Forensic%20Seismology%20-%20A%20Weapon%20in%20the%20War%20on%20Terror.htm

My concern is then to know how the signature is to be recognised of an event of a sort that is hardly a frequent occurrence.

Unfortunately I am not going to have the time to head to IRIS, so any assistance to help to save the time will of course be appreciated.

Is it just the cynic in me, or is it really a rather rare occurrance to hear a professional forensic opinion to the effect that the expertise on offer is not really worth much as compared to other factors?

[Robb]

107. I get where you're going

Here's how it was explained to me: no one (nearly) disputes 93 hit the ground that day. We know exactly where it hit. All regular (not even "forensic") seismologists had to do was look for a significant event at that exact point on the earth during the morning, which with several station measuring in three dimensions wasn't too tough to do. There was just the one.

Seismographs don't just measure "in the area"; the reason they measure in three directions is precisely to determine epicenters. The only other possibility was that something else moved the earth at that exact spot around 10 that morning. :shrug:

On edit: Hurm.... obviously I didn't intend to reply to myself.

[stickdog]

116. 1) Get the data. 2) Examine the data. 3) Determine the data are

incontrovertible. 4) Remove head from ass.

I desperately searched for problems with this data. There were none.

It's not a case of personalities. It's rock solid evidence. Finally, Kim never said that the data were wrong -- only that "it's not the be all and end all with regards to Flight 93."

[RH]

123. Removing my head

from your ass may well be a good idea. I had already seriously considered the advantage.

I did not have to search too far to find a problem with the data, i.e. the context: There was no comparable data for the Pentagon event, nor have I yet seen and data for an previously similar event with which to compare, nor anything to gauge the usual background ambience, hence the significance.

Do you have anything of the sort?

Books also fell from shelves some distance away from the Pentagon, while cars on the Boulevard lurched physically, so why was that not detected from further away?

[stickdog]

128. You can't be serious. Was metal debris from the Pentagon crash found

2 1/2 miles away from the crash site? Were the remains of Flight 77 passengers found FIFTY feet below the surface of the earth?

IF a 757 hit the Pentagon (and that has yet to be proven), it hit a newly reinforced lowrise building PARALLEL to the ground. How exactly was the lion's share of its kinetic energy supposed to be converted into seismic waves?

In contrast, according to the 9/11 Commission, Flight 93 hit the ground itself at a very steep angle going 580 mph. How exactly could the lion's share of its kinetic energy NOT be converted into seismic waves?

Comparing Flight 77 to Flight 93 in terms of expected seismic conversion is like comparing a speed boat to giant meteorite in terms of expected tidal displacement.

Is this or is this not OBVIOUS to you?

[John Doe II]

130. This sounds logical and convincing to me.

[RH]

132. The energy required

to propel parts to a distance of an extra 2 1/2 miles from the crash site was thus, presumably, energy not transmitted to the ground. The seismic effect would therefore be less, not more.

Furthermore the very fact that remains were found 50 feet below persuades me that the ground was soft; there must have been a considerable degree of energy absorption rather than energy transmission.

The shock wave at the Pentagon was a matter of fact. An abundance of witnesses said that the building palpably moved. Linda Plaisted was in Arlington Village, a couple of miles away. She wrote:

"I started to run toward my front door but the plane was going so fast at this point that it only took 4 or 5 seconds before I heard a tremendously loud crash and books on my shelves started tumbling to the floor."

http://www.wherewereyou.org/search/index.php

(search for item #1148)

[Robb]

134. Good observations

...the question then, for your discussion, would be whether the books on the shelves were rattled off by the ground shaking, or by that shock wave moving through the air. :)

Hardly matters, really. The fact remains 77's crash didn't shake the earth much, and 93's did a little more. No one measured an N-wave in the air, that we know of.

While we're playing with logic points that don't seem to be illuminating anything: there are all kinds of reasons other than soft earth to explain remains buried so deeply. A softball bounces off of plywood, but a much lighter dart goes right in. ;)

[RH]

135. What does a softball do at 500 mph?

I've been immunised by the Pentagon stuff. Whenever I see a "would have" or a "should have" I am on guard. Neurotics I get on well enough with. The people who scare me are those too sure of themselves, on either side, those who fall in love with their own ideas.

There is a need I think to draw the distinction between evidence that is incotrovertible because it was thoroughly and expertly cross examined and evidence that is incontroverted primarily because nobody with a sufficient expertise reviewed it closely or deeply enough, and especially in a field of interest that most of us were not ordinarily familiar with.

At the Old Bailey a frightening number of cases have been won on appeal because of dodgy forensic evidence that was of course absolutely incontrovertible until a defence team just happened to get around to thrash it all out and then the case fell apart.

[John Doe II]

138. Excuse me

Excuse me I really think this discussion about seismology is really interesting. And I acknowledge I don't have a clue of it. But I believe nonetheless that the question why did Flight 93 create a seismic spike while Flight 77 didn't manage it but much more precisely as stickdog asked it already:

If Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 and didn't create a seismic spike although at a speed of 580 mph the devastation is pretty impressive (and the cases where bascially nothing is left of an airplane are extremely rare. Even the Lockerbie airplane which exploded at 35.000 feet is absolutely recognizable after it crashed) how can it be explained that an unknown event happening in the same area three minutes later created a spike. So although the comparison to the Pentagon is surely interesting I believe it doesn't help illuminating this question.

[RH]

139. I have no doubt

that there would have been a seismic spike of some sort in the vicinity of Shanksville. Whether or or not it would be detected at a distance of at least 57 miles is another matter. Where I live we've been experiencing some considerable seismic activity because of building work on an adjacent development site. On one occassion an item fell from a shelf but from half a mile away nobody would have noticed anything.

It is then obvious to me that the Pentagon comparison is pertinent and I would not myself have described the moot 'three component record' alleged Flight 93 'lg' record as a "spike". The disturbance appears to extend for up to 20 seconds and I am not convinced that the alleged 'lg' and 'pg' spikes exist at all. I therefore surmise that at best what is actually recorded is not so much any sudden impact but a resonance triggered an impact.

A report from Won-Young Kim cites "The uncertainty ... due to seismic velocity at the uppermost crust near the surface in which the Lg waves propagated." http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/Seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm

None of it struck me as being "incontrovertible". My "barely above noise" description came directly from experience of audio electronic signals.

I have not ruled out the possibility that 9:06 was the impact time.

I have not ruled out the possibility that the seismic argument is deliberately bogus or incidentally spurious. If the 9/11 Commission result can be deliberately faked I dont see why it would be so impossible to fake the seismic record.

Scottish granite is notoriously solid.

By way of a contrast "While specific details vary, the explanation for the disappearance of the plane is that the reclaimed land acted like liquid and absorbed the aircraft, which is said to have impacted at between 450 and 600 miles per hour."

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/flight93.htm

I have seen it written that there was no spike from the Pentagon event because the movement of the river gravel substrate absorbed the energy.

I'd like to see more about the geology of Somerset County and the possibility of a delayed geologocal event triggered by the Flight 93 imoact.

I'd like to see more about the way that the actual seismic sensors work. How much do the seismologists know about electronics? There is no such thing as an electronic sensor absolutely immune to extraneous electronic interference, especially at this sort of noise/energy level.

[stickdog]

146. Your reply is IGNORANT. Read the studies. Learn something about

seismology.

NOTHING COULD CAUSE A DELAY OF THREE MINUTES.

To suggest as much only highlights your complete ignorance of this subject.

[MercutioATC]

106. Thanks for the clarification, Robb :)

I'll admit you've done much more UAL93 research than I have. I understand that the extrapolated "event" was timed at 10:06. I also understand that we don't know of anything else that could have caused that spike. I'm curious, though, as to whether there's been a study done on the seismic readings that compare them to other plane crashes that you're aware of. Pennsylvania is mining country (Shanksville, especially). Is there a way to tell if the data that was recorded better fits the profile of a plane crash or of mining activity?

I know ATC. I've seen conspiracies claimed that would have seemed perfectly reasonable to me if I didn't understand ATC as I do.

I don't know seismology. Is there any professional study of the UAL93 crash and the seismic event recorded at the same approximate time that you know of?

[Robb]

108. Other than the LDEO one, no

The LDEO paper done by Kim et al is the only pro study of the 93 crash I've run across. Wallace did his work at the request of Will Bunch, and obviously there's spare-time boy (me).

IIRC fellow Blackbird-hunter Tom Mahood did a little seismic investigating looking for cold war plane crashes. I'll email him and see what he's got in the bag. It was actually him that got me looking for wiggles in the first place.

Quarry blasts are a pretty easy animal to spot, apparently. It's the second most observed seismic phenomenon for undergraduates to muck around with, finding vectors and magnitudes and what-have-you. I was surprised how exact a science basic seismology was, considering the apparent wishy-washiness that comes across when they go on TV and tell us Mt. St. Helens might go off again, or something.

:hi:

[MercutioATC]

111. Thanks! Like I said, I really know nothing about the subject.

As far as the seismic event/UAL93 crash time issue, I just think it would be useful to know more facts like how the reading at 10:06 compared to to the "average" crash signatures and the "average" blast signatures (or any other signatures). It's my understanding that intervening terrain between the event and the sensors makes a difference in readings, especially with events that happen at or near ground level like a plane crash or a shallow-depth mining blast.

As I don't have expertise in the field, I'm just looking for the professional opinion of somebody who does.

I'm sure you've posted it before, but do you still have the link to the LDEO paper?

[Robb]

117. Pretty sure it's here:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~mwest/papers/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf

This is the one where they said, "Well, we can't answer the question you asked, so how about an answer to one you didn't ask?" ;)

[stickdog]

118. Sure the intervening terrain can make a difference.

But it's on an order of a few seconds. The speeds of P waves and S waves just don't vary all that much in practice.

And remember when you are positing that the 10:06:05 spike was a mine collapse/blast that the different seismographs locate this event in the near vicinity of Flight 93's crater.

Also, it's not enough just to say the spike was caused by something other than Flight 93's crash. Remember that people in Shanksville reported that "the crash" knocked stuff off shelves nearly 10 miles away. So an additional question would be -- why DIDN'T Flight 93's supposed 10:03:11 crash register anything?

[MercutioATC]

136. I wasn't saying the the terrain made a 3-minute difference, I was asking

if intervening terrain could have an effect on the "signature" of the event. It seems we have plenty of seismic sensors out there and some of them have probably recorded plane crashes. Is there a unique signature that would identify a plane crash or are there too many variables (like intervening terrain) to make that possible?

[RH]

140. There is surely no doubt

that the terrain did affect the signal.

see posting 139.

From what I have seen the records are not at all "unique". There was evidently an 'lg' disturbance, nothing more. The best they've got is to say that the signals are "relatively consistent"(sic). The connection with Flight 93 is a conjecture, not a self evident fact.

If the seismic records were seen in ignorance of other information it would never have crossed anybody's mind that the cause was the impact of an airliner.

[Robb]

141. You're right, pure conjecture

...there could have been another seismic event within fifty feet of UAL93's crash point that morning. It was indeed a morning of coincidences. ;)

[RH]

142. No need to be so silly.

:spank:

Look at the record for the three minutes around 9:38
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/Seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm

" There appears to be strong seismic signals around 09:38:52 at station MVL (Millersville, Pa; Ä = 139 km), but the signals are too high frequency (5-10 Hz)and too high amplitude (328 nm/s at 139 km). Hence, it appears be noise perhaps due to electrical disturbances. Otherwise, there are no clear and consistent seismic wave arrivals in this time window."



How does that compare with the Flight 93 case?

At 09:38:52 we see a distinct spike but allegedly too big to be a seismic event, so it is blithely dismissed as due to "electrical disturbance" but with no further explanation or justification. The significance of the frequency is not explained. I know something about electronics. 5-10 Hz is not especially characteristic of anything electronic.

So can you then give me any sensible reason why the moot signal at 10:06 would not possibly be caused by "electrical disturbance"? Being nearer to the ambient noise level I would have thought it that much more likely to be caused by "electrical disturbance".

The data is self evidently controvertible. It calls itself into question.

[Robb]

143. Well, by that rationale

...why look at any of the data, because it could all be electrical disturbances?

The 093852 spike at MVL, for example, is dismissed not simply because it is too big, but also because it doesn't appear on the north-south or east-west component of the timeseries. Nor does it describe the shear and compression waves that taken together represent a seismic event.

The event that Standing Stone recorded for UAL93 appears on all three components of the timeseries, as both a shear wave and a compression wave, at the appropriate different times. Same with the one in Maryland. One wave arrives before the other, and the amount of time between them (when read from all three vectors) is part of the equation to determine the distance to the epicenter.

The data is not "self evidently controvertible"; I think it's that it's not sufficiently explained to most folks what all is there.

Again, for the purposes of papers like this, bear in mind these seismologists have only showed you the vertical component of the record (because, frankly, it's usually the most dramatic).

[RH]

144. I dont see it.

You say that one wave arrives before the other but where?

I dont see any 'Pg' or 'Sg'. What is supposed to distinguish the alleged 'Pg' and 'Sg'? According to Kim and Baum the waves are "difficult to discern". In their fig. 6. I find them impossible to discern:



I would hope then to distinguish a wave signal as opposed to a noise signal by discerning, at least a wave frequency, and by discerning correlations e.g. between different seismic stations.

What frequency then is to be discerned in the elleged lg wave above?

I dont see it. What frequency do you see? There is possibly something happening at around 2HZ but not in any regular sense. It looks like noise to me.

And where is the corresponding disturbance at the other station, MVWV in the illustration below?

I dont see it.

In as much as any significant disturbance is visible for MVWV I see it at the beginning of the plot, before the indicated 'Pg' and 'Sg', notional indications, which once again are impossible to discern.

How can anybody be convinced by this sort of sloppy bullshit?

[stickdog]

149. Yes. It's all an electrical disturbance. Or not.

Anything to negate any data that doesn't conform to official specification, right?

[RH]

155. You professed to wish to encourage everybody

who still believes the official version of Flight 93 to be true to discuss it and show their reasons.

So that's what you got, strangely enough.

:eyes:

Your present attitude is then and therefore IGNORANT. Read the studies. Learn something about seismology.

BOFORE TALKING ABOUT A DELAY OF THREE MINUTES.

You have to prove the connnection.

[stickdog]

148. That is an open question. Wallace says it's a plane crash in his judgment.

But he also admits that it's hard to differentiate a plane crash signature from a near surface explosion or collapse signature.

[RH]

110. Maybe that could explain it.

Maybe there was an eventual underground event, a collapse or a land shift, triggered by the Flight 93 impact but a few minutes later, analogous to the fracture of the Pentagon after the impact.

Is there a geologist in the house?

[stickdog]

150. Sure. There was nothing from the initial 580 mph crash.

But 3 minutes later the Earth decided to react.

I mean, it took Bush 27 minutes ...

[RH]

152. "Nothing" is not exactly the problem.

How does a sudden impact explain a "spike" that appears to last for twenty seconds and with no obvious resonant frequency and not evident at another closer recording station?

You did of course consider this before declaring an "incontrovertible" conclusion, yes?

[RH]

29. "incontrovertible scientific evidence"?

For as far as I can see the suppposed cause of the seismic data is a matter of opinion.

This persistent "should be interesting" gambit is disingenuous. If MercutioATC were to offer an opinion you could just as well doubt his qualification to hold it, just as I doubt the basis for the present opinion.

There may be something to it, but from the current presentation it smells more of rampant prejudice than it does of objective science.

[stickdog]

56. What? You guys are unbelievable. If you don't like the scientific evidence

you simply call it "rampant prejudice"!

You'd do fine in creationist circles with such pre-enlightenment attitudes. And this is where your infinite faith in the divine truth of the official 9/11 cover story has brought you. How perfectly fitting.

[stickdog]

67. incontrovertible = impossible to deny or disprove

How can you deny or disprove that there was a seismic spike in the vicinity of Flight 93's crashs at 10:06:05 +/- 2 seconds?

Time to put your money where your keyboard is.

[RH]

32. Why not a conspiracy?

Seeing that criminal conspiracies are routinely supposed to have spread as if like a plague, because of what then would seismology be immune? Is there a good reason to think so or is that yet another article of faith?

I've seen a lot of red herrings chased during the past couple of years as if to distract from more fruitful questions. This was not the first and it will not of course be the last. With many other issues arguments about the time were already around then but nothing substantial seems to come of it since, which tends to persuade me that there is nothing substantial to it.

In terms of a case to prove time is not on your side.

[John Doe II]

33. Substantial?

Seeing that you answer stickdog's question about the seismic data by simply ridiculising the question and stressing that you're looking dfor something substantial ....! I can only wonder what the substantial could be!
Would you mind still to answer stickdog's question that is based on publicly available facts?

[RH]

34. Yes. ... Substantial

As in answers to the sort of questions that MercutioATC is asking, the calibration of black boxes and seismographs, or anything else to firm up the opinion.

What's new?

I do mind to be expected to provide answers. I'd thought that we were rather invited to form a judgement. Technical issues and others' recollections are not my responsibility. I accused nobody of lying.

[John Doe II]

35. What's new?

Hm, what's new?
Maybe that the phone call is a proof that the official timeline can't be true. If you see any reason how you can solve the contradiction then please let us know. If you and't then at least don't claim that there's nothing new ....!

[RH]

38. Wrong versions

often arise because of a poor comprehension of plain English.

I did not claim that there is nothing new.

I ask the question.

The seismic data story was already aired two years ago:

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

[John Doe II]

39. Thanks

Your evaluation of my English is too kind!

[RH]

41. That's right.

A conspiracy theorist would have alleged that the misunderstanding was deliberate.

[John Doe II]

43. Lucky you

Some people might have mistaken your sense of humour with arrogance.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[John Doe II]

26. "The other evidence"

Can you please answer the question how the official timeline can be correct. Base your statement please on the timeline given in the thread "Flight 93) point 16. If you don't find a theoretical explanation than we probably should face the possibility that "all teh evidence" might not poiny at 10:03 as the Commission said.
Please answer this general question because otherwise we're simply turning around in circles in this certainly doesn't help to find the truth.

[RH]

28. I see no reason. ....Why?

Why do you say that the official timeline can't be correct?

Because of what could it not as well be said that the seismic information cannot be correct?

:shrug:

[John Doe II]

30. Can you please answer the question!

How can the official timeline be possible in view of Glick's phone call and the mentioning of the WTC crash. Why does everybody refuse to answer this question??

[RH]

36. The official timeline does not depend upon Glick.

The “time is supported by evidence from the staff's radar analysis, the flight data recorder, NTSB analysis, and infrared satellite data.”

Why prefer Glick?

[John Doe II]

37. Oh, my God

Please, please have a look at Glick's phone call, the fact that they're talking about the WTC collapse (9:59) an continued to talk.
Mon dieu, I've written all the facts (the sources are endless) and the timeline supported by this phone call contradicts the official one. So just explain how this is explainable. Everything is based on facts so I hope this question is worth answering in your eyes ........!

[RH]

40. Can you please answer the question!

Why prefer Glick?

The inference of the thread is not ambiguous: "Flight 93: crash time cannot be true".

Why not just as well assert that Glick cannot be true?

[John Doe II]

42. Highly unlikely

Could it be that Lyz Glick for whatever reason simply made up the story that she was talking to her husband about the collapse of the WTC?
Highly unlikely as the FBI was listening to the conversation. If she would have lied (and her story was printed everywhere) certainly the FBI would have indicated this to the Commission, wouldn't it?

[seatnineb]

45. You are on the ropes!

rh gettin desperate.....
Why not just as well assert that Glick cannot be true?

Sure rh...

If Glick was lying....

Why should we trust anything he said.......

Including this.....


Glick described the men as Arabic-looking, wearing red headbands, carrying knives.
http://www.werismyki.com/articles/one_destiny.html

[stickdog]

58. Yes, that's the point. Either Glick's family & the FBI are lying

or the 9/11 Commission timeline is lying.

As for the seismic evidence, the bottom line is that SOMETHING caused a clear seismic spike with the signature of a near surface explosion very near the Flight 93 crater at 10:06:05 +/- 2 seconds. This is according to publicly released incontrovertible scientific evidence -- not the "just trust us" say so of a compromised group of obvious non-investigators. This is according to the foremost forensic seismologist in the world. And NOBODY is arguing or can legitimately argue otherwise.

So if a 757 slamming into the ground at 580 mph, creating a world's record debris field and driving the remains of its passengers some 50 feet into the ground didn't manage to register even the tiniest seismic blip -- what the fuck happened in the same vicinity just three minutes later that DID cause a clear, noticeable, incontrovertible seismic spike?

[seatnineb]

61. Fine points Stickdog.

Regarding that impact that failed to register a seismic spike.

The following is one of my favourites.......

The F.B.I collected 14 knives or portions of knives at the flight 93 crash site.

F.B.I Report.
Knives found at the UA Flight 93 Crash Site.

Undated


9/11 Commission Report.
Page 457.

[seatnineb]

44. Keep defending the indefensible ron

Keep runnin rh......

Ten minutes into the 30-minute call with her husband, Lyzbeth Glick asked her father to call the FBI on a separate line, Hurwitt said. FBI agents monitored the last 20 minutes of the call and are studying a tape and transcript.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetnat3p3.asp.

[John Doe II]

46. Thanks for the source!

[seatnineb]

47. No worries mate!

:toast:

[John Doe II]

48. A tape and a transcript

A tape and a transcript (!) seem quite a good proof to me that Lyz Glick didn't lie.

[RH]

50. and you have heard the tape

and read the transcript?

[John Doe II]

51. .....

You implied that Lyz Glick lied. The answer is how can she if the FBI listend during the phone call, the call was recorded and a transcript was written?
Please, how can she have lied about the conversation, about mentioning the collapse etc etc.
Please. If she didn't lie then find another defence line

[RH]

52. I asked why

your Glick version is preferred.

How exactly does it establish a time?

Do you have a timeline for the call, hence whatever was said?

[John Doe II]

53. Once and for all

See point 16. I don't prefer a timeline. The question how the official timeline can be correct in the view of this phone call. I don't know how often I've formulated this!!!
You're simply running around in circles!
First yo wondered why the three minutes differences is important.
Then you wondered if Glick maybe stayed behind.
Then you wondered if Lyz Glick didn't lie.

You're like a CT!
You just never make a point. Never back up anything with a source.
And now have a look how many sources are on the other side.
So there is a contradiction and we'll happy how you solve this problem. But please make a point.

[RH]

62. I was not aware of any obligation

to point.

Is that a DU rule?

I had previously suggested why it goes around in circles.

Since September 2002, what's new?

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[RH]

49. Huh.....?

so the point would be....?

I read the post-gazette.com story.

Where is the problem?

[k-robjoe]

55. You´re pulling our legs now

aren´t you?

> " Why not just as well assert that Glick cannot be true?"

> " FBI agents monitored the last 20 minutes of the call and are studying a tape and transcript."

[seatnineb]

60. Yo K-Robjoe!

I wonder......

Is rh going to be bold enough as to say that the F.B.I are lying with regards to the content of that Glick phone call!

;-)

(By the way...Thanx for the Pentagon photo)
:thumbsup:

[stickdog]

59. When all else fails, play dumb. (nt)

[stickdog]

10. Yeah, seismograph clocks and air traffic control clocks and the timing of

the South's tower's collapse are all likely to be just as inaccurate as the clocks in your house.

Of course. What were we thinking? Thanks for injecting some common sense into this discussion.

[John Doe II]

71. Summary

I tried to use the time and wrote a sort of summary of this thread:


Why the official crash time of Flight 93 cannot be true


The account of the 9/11-Commission about the last minutes of Flight 93 goes as follows:

At 9:57, the passengers assault began. <…> One of the callers ended her message as follows: “Everyone’s running up to first class. I’ve got to go. Bye.”
The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of the passenger assault muffled by the intervening cockpit door. <…>
In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault. The recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts, and breaking glasses and plates. At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane.
<…> The sounds of the fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the cockpit up and down. At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said, “In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!” <…> Jarrah stopped the violent manoeuvres at about 10:01:00 and said, “Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!” He then asked another hijacker in the cockpit, “Is that it? I mean shall we put it down?” to which the other replies, “Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.”
The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, “Pull it down! Pull it down!”
(p. 13f)


The Report states concerning the time of impact:

“United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03:11, 125 miles from Washington D.C. The precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute. The 10:03:11 impact time is supported by previous National Transportation Safety Board analysis and by evidence from the Commission staff’s analysis of radar, flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmission”
(p. 30)


Surprisingly the Commission does not mention the seismic recording of 10:06:05 as impact time (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University). Stickdog has written an excellent essay on this (see: 9/11 Commission: There must be 93 ways to blow your cover) and his question is still unanswered: “So if a 757 slamming into the ground at 580 mph, creating a world's record debris field and driving the remains of its passengers some 50 feet into the ground didn't manage to register even the tiniest seismic blip -- what happened in the same vicinity just three minutes later that DID cause a clear, noticeable, incontrovertible seismic spike?”.
Another issue that the Commission does not raise is why no family member of the victims that were finally allowed to listen to the cockpit recording in April 2002 heard any indication that the hijackers decided to crash the plane. Neither any article nor Jere Longman’s book “Among the Heroes” (that is based on interviews with family members) mention even the slightest hint that something like this was audible on the recording. The Commission does not make any attempt to explain the contradiction between what the family members heard and the official version now.
But it was a find by woody box that might be the watertight proof that the official timeline simply cannot be true.

Jere Longman based “Among the Heroes” on his interviews with family members. He quotes at length the conversation between Jeremy Glick and his wife Lyz:


Were they going to crash his plane into the World Trade Center? Jeremy wanted to know.
“No,” Lyz said, almost laughing. “They are not going there.”
Why? Jeremy asked.
One of the towers had just fallen.
“They knocked it down,” Lyz told him.
(p. 207)


The first Tower collapsed at 9:59:04 (Paul Thompson’s timeline). So obviously at this point of the conversation it is at least 9:59:15. According to the official timeline the battle at the cockpit was already taking place for two minutes and Jarrah had ordered to block the cockpit door.
Let’s see how the conversation between Jeremy and Lyz Glick continues:


They were problem-solving. Lyz asked Jeremy about the United pilots. Were they alive? He didn’t know. Had the real pilots said anything to the passengers over the public address system? No.
Did the hijackers have any automatic weapons? Lyz asked. Even a former judo champion like Jeremy would be no match for guns.
No guns, Jeremy said. “They have knives.”
How could people have gotten on the plane with knives and a bomb? He wanted to know. And then he made a joke that was typical Jeremy. “We just had breakfast and we have our butter knives.”
He said that they were taking a vote. There were three other guys as big as him. Was that a good idea? What should they do?
(p. 216)


What is the time at this moment of the conversation? I believe it’s a conservative guess to say 10:00:30. At the very moment while Jeremy Glick is discussing with his wife what to do, according to the official timeline Jarrah had twice pitched the nose of the airplane up and down and a passenger said “In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!”
Is it believable that Glick was staying behind? Is it believable that he does not mention Jarrah’s pitching of the airplane’s nose? Is it believable that he discusses attacking the hijackers without telling his wife that the other passengers are doing this for more than three minutes already?
But let us see how the conversation continues:


Lyz shook as she talked to her husband, but when she heard that the hijackers didn’t have guns, she thought Jeremy would be okay. He could get stabbed, or get his hand slice, but he might not even feel it in the adrenaline rush. Getting stabbed wouldn’t kill him. The only hope is if they take these people over and get control of the plane.
“I think you need to do it,” Lyz told Jeremy.
“Okay,” he said. “Stay on te phone, I’ll be right back.”
There was a sound of conviction in his voice. Not anger, but a sense of purpose. He wanted to get home to wife and daughter.
They were going to jump on the hijackers and attack them, Jeremy said.
(p.216f)


Ok. What is the time now? Again I would say that 10:01:15 is a conservative guess. Now is the moment that “they” have taken the decision to attack. But according to the official timeline the battle has reached it’s peak already and Jarrah is asking if he should crash the plane.
Do the two timelines really go together? Why doesn’t Glick who clearly has the intention to attack the hijackers stay back? Why does Lyz Glick not remark the noise of the battle? (Glick was seated in row 11)
Let’s see how the conversation continues:


Put a picture of me and the baby in your head, Lyz said to Jeremy.
He went away, and it sounded as if he were talking to people.
(p. 217)


To say it’s now 10:01:30 is still very conservative. But Glick doesn’t rush to the cockpit to join the other passengers in their ongoing battle. He talks to other people. This is very understandable if one is planning an attack but not if this attack is already underway since four and a half minute (according to the official timeline).
Lyz Glick later recalls: I didn't hear any screaming. I didn't hear any noises. I didn't hear any commotion.


“Among the Heroes” continues:


“She couldn’t bear to listen and handed the phone to her father ”
(p. 217)


According to the official timeline there are only 30 – 40 seconds left before the hijackers will start to pull down the airplane. And about 70 – 90 seconds before the plane crashes. So what does Lyz’ father hear?


"There was no noise for several minutes. And then there were screams, so I said - well, they're doing it. Another minute, it seemed like an eternity, but another minute, a minute and a half, and then there was another set of screams. It was muffled. Then there was nothing."



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


So they didn’t hear any signs of a battle at this moment neither!


As the exact time of the collapse of the WTC is beyond doubt we can come to the conclusion now that either the official timeline or the account of Jeremy Glick’s phone call can’t be true.
So did Lyz Glick consciously or unconsciously not tell the accurate truth?
This is basically impossible for the following reasons:
The New York state police patched into the phone call after Lyz Glicks’ mother had dialled 911. (p. 206). This was shortly after Glick called his wife (which happened around 9:30)
The State Police dispatcher is Robert Weingaertner
“Captain Francis Christensen stood behind Weingaertner, firmly directing troopers who were flooding the dispatch room. Call Verizon and see if they can patch directly into Glick's call. Contact the FBI. Call the Federal Aviation Administration”.
“An emergency official arrived at the Makelys' home in Windham and took the phone, telling Weingaertner they were there. The call was disconnected. The tape would later be turned over to the FBI.”

It exists a tape and a transcript of the phone call.

On September 12, 2001 Lyz Glick and other recipients of the phone call were interviewed by the FBI. On April 22, 2004 Lyz Glick was questioned once again by the FBI. (9/11 Commission Report, p. 457)

It is really hard to believe that Lyz Glick didn’t say the accurate truth and that the FBI and the Commission were too dumb to realize this although they had the recording and the transcript of the call in front of them.

Although the 9/11 Commission uses “Among the Heroes” as a source for their Report (e.g. p. 457) maybe the New York Times journalist Jere Longman was happy to invent the detail of the WTC collapse.
This again is refuted by the simple fact that Lyz Glick repeated this detail of the conversation with her husband several times:

Ms. GLICK: He began to ask me, 'Are they crashing planes into the World Trade Center?' I guess one of the other passengers had spoken to his mother, I believe it might have been, and that message might have been relayed. So he asked that. And then I am watching on the big screen television in front of me the World Trade Centers collapsing.




And in a documentary film called “Flight 93: A Reconstruction” aired in the UK in 2002 Lyz Glick confirms that she told Jeremy that the South Tower had fallen.
In her words "It was valuable information for him to have".


So if the account of Glick’s phone call then is accurate the only possible explanation is that the official timeline can’t be true. That Flight 93 didn’t crash at 10:03:11. Considering that Glick’s phone call more likely postpones the beginning of the attack by about three minutes it seems reasonable to assume an impact time of 10:06. And surprisingly this is also what the seismic recordings indicate.

Is there the possibility that the Commission simply didn’t work accurately enough.
Their explanation for the impact time is:

“United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03:11, 125 miles from Washington D.C. The precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute. The 10:03:11 impact time is supported by previous National Transportation Safety Board analysis and by evidence from the Commission staff’s analysis of radar, flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmission”
(p. 30)

But how can the analysis of theses sources lead to a wrong impact time? It seems very reasonable to assume that the Commission most likely did a cover up. It’s seems simply a lie. As the government always insisted after 9/11 that the impact time was 10:03 and never dared to explain the difference with the seismic data it seems sensible to believe that the Commission changed the time favouring the wish of the government.
As far as I can see this might be the very first time that a lie of the Commission can be proven.
So the only question remains: Why does the Commission decided to cover up the last three minutes of Flight 93? Maybe the explanation is the same reason why the family members heard different things on the cockpit recording than the Commission and why the recordings are not publicly released…


My special thanks: woody box, seatnineb, stickdog and k-robjoe.

[seatnineb]

73. 45 seconds or several minutes?

John Doe II.

Excellent summary.

I just noticed something regarding Lyz's dad(Richard Makely).

Between the time he took the phone(from Lyz) and the first time he heard screams.

"There was no noise for several minutes. And then there were screams.."
I assume the above quote comes from the "Among the heroes" book.
Unfortunately...I dont have a copy myself.


Wheras in the Flight 93 Reconstruction T.V. Documentary
he says:

"I took the phone(from Lyz-she could not bare to listen anymore) and there was probably 45 seconds of silence then there was shears of screams comin..."

45 seconds is not several minutes.

And in this twisted scenario every second counts!


In the same T.V documentary.....

Lyz Glick says
"Our call was...uh....it started at 9:37 and went to 10:03....
Its about 27 minutes on the phone"

By compressing the time from "several minutes" to 45 seconds ....it allows the Glick story to climax and fit the 10:03 crash time.
Just!

To top it all off..........
Makely also says in the T.V documentary :
"I uh....I ...uh...it's not somethin I talk about often"

[John Doe II]

74. Richard Makely

I've several quotes of him:

"I heard a pause, and then a minute later, a burst of yells and screams, which I presumed was their attack on the hijackers," Richard Makely said. "Another minute or two passed, and then I heard a series of screams and yells."


Mr. RICHARD MAKELY: There was no noise for several minutes. And then there was some screams, some screams in the background. And so I said, 'Well--well, they're doing it.'


In this case sure I'm not surprised that he differs a bit in his judgement. But what's really important is that he always said (and the law-enforcement source)that at the beginning he did hear no noise. And Lyz Glick had said that she did hear no background noise.
But as Makely after a while (45 seconds or several minutes) clearly heard screams. So All his statements are consistent that you could have heard screams through the phone and although according to the official timeline the battle started at 9:57 it is hard to explain why neither Lyz Glick nor Richard Makely didn't hear any screams. According to the timeline the battle had already reached it's peak.

[RH]

84. Maybe

no screams were heard because nobody had screamed.

Just a guess, of course.

[John Doe II]

86. Sure

The battle is going for several minutes. A passenger cries: "In the cockpit. Or we'll die". And Lyz Glick didn't hear it. When Makely picked up the phone the passengers decided to have a rest and calm down (in order not to frighten Makely) and then they all agreed to shout double as loud so Richard Makely finally can hear something. Very convincing.
Or did you mean Makely didn't hear anything because the battle hasn't started yet?? That would be something we finally could agree on!

[RH]

87. A cry is not a scream.

A scream could have come from somebody who ran back closer to the phone. With the plane moving erratically the phone could have moved.

It is all guesswork. You'll get no further by endlessly repeating the speculation.

[John Doe II]

88. Yes, it's all speculation

By the way Makely and the law-enforcement source are talking about screams not a scream. And obviously for them they took theses screams as indication of the ongoing battle.

But according to you: although a battle was going on and people cried in about (maximum) ten meters distance nothing was heard through the phone and according to you twice (!) people came running back to the phone while the battle went into its final climax which would explain Makely's observation.
Add this to your explanation of Glick's highly bizarre behavior (who jumps into different forms of denial nonetheless clearly and cal my passing all information about the flight to his wife).
Add this to three tall guys who jump according to you into denial.
Add to this that obviously no passenger screamed when (at least twice) Jarrah pitched the nose of the plane up and down and then shook the wings.

AND YOU SAY THAT I'M "ENDLESSLY REPEATING THE SPECULATION".
Give me a break your logic would honor the toughest CT!

[RH]

91. Screams would probably occur

if the plane flew upside down.

I have carefully scanned these threads in search of something to move the issue beyond what was already seen in 2002.

Did I miss it or what?

[John Doe II]

92. Logic

Sure. Jarrah pitched at least twice the nose of the plane up and down and later shook the wings in order to hinder the passengers from attacking the plane (according to Commission Report). This shold be rather uncomfortable and many people attacking the cockpit door will have fallen on the floor. But sure nobody screamed. IN general this battle was the most silent ever witnessed. Only when Makely took up the phone and some time of SILENCE passed the passengers decided to open their mouth. And even if the cockpit voice recorder registered the exact wordings of what passengers were saying and shouting outside the cockpit door nothing absolutely nothing was audible through the phone.
Your sense of logic is becoming amusing.

[RH]

93. If ABSOLUTELY nothing was heard

the sensible assumption is that the phone transmission was absolutley interrupted.

Why would that be so illogical?

[John Doe II]

95. Interrupted

Sure you know I'm talking about background noise! Absolutely no background noise was heard by Lyz Glick and later for some time by Richard Makely and a law-enforcement source (how often did I write this now?).
Nowhere it is written that the call was interrupted (whereas this is none often several other calls).

[RH]

97. background noise.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

The presence of backgound noise is the usual way to know whether or not a connection is established. That's why to want to hear the actual sound. A radio signal may be obliterated by interference. Was it a digital connection? To what extent were the listeners trained to listen? The percepton of sound is very selective and relative, subject to preconception. All sorts of variables come into play.

[John Doe II]

98. GTE airfone

Glick used a GTE airfone so the quality should have quite good.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp

Lyz Glick never spoke about connection problem. If you have a counterproof then present it please otherwise what sense does it make to discuss this?

Moreover three (!) listeners spoke of "silence" (so I don't really what psychology of perception can explain here).

[RH]

99. A silence is a connection problem.

Isn't that the usual result of a connection failure?

How else would a listener know that a connection had failed?

I never heard that Lyz Glick's father ever spoke of a connection problem but I did hear that he sat there for an hour listening to an empty line. Does than then mean that there must have been a connection, that Flight 93 still flew for another hour?

[John Doe II]

100. Wake me up please!

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

During the conversation with Jeremy there is certainly no connection problem. Read the dialogue. And she didn't hear any background noise.

Wake me up please if you've anything substantial and let me know if you're really interested in discussing issues or do you just love to discuss the lets talk about tennis, football, movies, theater. You know, there are many interesting subjects and it can be much more interesting, refreshing and funny.

[RH]

101. You've conceded the point then.

Is that the gist?

[John Doe II]

102. Yes, sure

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:



Yes , Yes , Yes, I conced everything.
I know now: The fact that Lyz Glick was able to talk and listen to Jeremy and after he left heard him calmy talking to neighbours but that three different listeners miracously don't hear any battle noise only miracle again after a long silence after Glick left the phone: sure sure it's all explained by the GTE airfone.
Your ingenious.

[RH]

103. It is a not a question of explaining.

You're not going to have it all explained. Jeremy Glick is not going to come back to explain. The point is whether or not it is safe to leap to any conclusion as proposed. There are too many variables, too many possibilities.

No matter how many icons you care to resort to, you're miles away from proving that anybody lied. If there were evidence enough to do so somebody sure enough would have made a case of it. There are enemies enough. The issue has floated about for two whole years now but to what effect?

[John Doe II]

104. Everything is said

I've the impression our positions are too far away and our idea of logic too. So I propose that we don't continue to discuss this. There is simply no use.
In case you have a completely new point or an interesting link I'm always happy to answer.

[seatnineb]

105. Rolling lies.

John Doe II

Keep up the excellent work.....

Here is more ammunition to fire.

Todd Beamer is patched through to Lisa Jefferson at 9:45am and speaks to her for 13 minutes.

That puts the time at 9:58am....

This is when Beamer utters the famouse"Lets roll!"
And this (according to the Cockpit Voice Recorder)is when the passenger assault is heard.

Yeah right!

Because look who Beamer was mixin with on Flight 93.....

Beamer mentioned GLICK BY HIS FIRST NAME in the call to Jefferson, Lisa Beamer said.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916phonecallnat3p3.asp

So

Despite the fact they are supposed to be counter-attacking together....

Remember both of these guys are at the back of the plane.

But....

Glick says he is votin and starting at 10:00am + to attack.

Beamer is Rollin,Rollin Rollin! at 9:58!

The only thing that is rolling are these lies.....

They are rollin out of control!

[John Doe II]

112. Great find!

:toast:

I've just checked it out and I'm going to see if I find more sources confirming that.
What a strangne kind of denial Glick must have jumped into (and all just to save the official timeline).
And you brought me to a good idea: have a closer look to the other phone calls and here you go:

Beamer's phone call to Lisa Jefferson:


Then, in the background, she could hear an "awful commotion", men's voices raised and hollering and women screaming "Oh my God," and "God help us," and "Help Jesus."
Todd seemed to turn away from the phone to speak with someone else.
"You ready?" he said. "Okay. Let's roll."
(Among the Heroes, p. 287f)


This certainly should put all te discussion about background noises to rest. This account exactly fits with the official timeline. The screaming starts at 9:57 (when the battle started) but why didn't Lyz Glick hear it in her phone call?? Obviously the distance was not too far away so the attack was audible through the phone: Why then didn't three persons hear the attack? Why did Richard Makely only hear the battle beginning at about 10:02 or 10:03??

THE COMMISSION DID A COVER UP

[John Doe II]

113. And there is is still more

I had a close look at "Among the Heroes". And here is what I found:

Not only does Jere Longman state that he interviewed all (save one) person who received a call from Flight 93 but he also stresses:
"I heard tapes of a couple of the phone calls made from the plane" (p. xiii)
It has been said already that Glick's phone call has been recorded so this seems to reduce the chance that Longman simply invented the important detail of the phone call basically to zero. (As already pointed out in the summary there are several interviews by Lyz Glick where she is repeating this detail). This leaves little doubt that indeed the conversation took place as quoted in the summary (see 82).

It has been said Glick used a GTE airfone.
Longman notes that in Flight 93 "a GTE airfone (was) located in the center seats of each row" (p. 5)

Concerning seatnineb's link that Beamer addressed Glick with his first name: additional info: Beamer was seated in row 10; Glick in row 11 (p. 25, 28) "near the front of the coach" (p. 201).

Concerning Glick's conversation with his wife:
"Lyz's father retrieved the cell phone from the car and her mother dialed 911. What was the flight number? the 911 dispatcher wanted to know.
Where was the plane headed?
How many passengers?
What was the nationality of the hijackers?
What did they look like?
What did the ground look like beneath the plane?
Were they circling?"
(p. 206)

All this Jeremy Glick answered calmy and passed all the important infos.

The detail of the collpase:

"Are they going to blow this plane up?" Jeremy asked.
She didn't know, Lyz said, but, yes it was true that two planes had crashed into the World Trade Center. By now, it was amost ten o'clock (! my comment). At nine fifty-eight, the south tower collapsed in a telescoping of smoke and metal and glass and crumbled rescue.
Were they going to crash his plane into the World Trade Center? Jeremy wanted to know.
"No" Lyz said (...) "They knocked it down"."
(p. 207)


Concerning the background noise:
Not only Lisa Jefferson on the line with Todd Beamer but also other persons clearly heard through the phone when (according to the official timeline the attack began at 9:57):

Fred Fiumano listens to Marion Britton:
"Fiumano could hear screaming, a lot of noise" (p. 228)

Lorne Lyles listens to CeeCee Lyles:
"I think they're doing it," CeeCee said. "They're forcing their way into the cockpit."
Lorne could hear screaming in the background."
(p. 253)

Why then didn't Lyz Glick any background noise of this battle which according to the official timeline started several minutes before Jeremy Glick ended the conversation with her? Why didn't neither Richard Makely who took the phone nor a law-enforcement source hear any background noise at the beginning. They use the word "silence" instead and then at 45 seconds later they do hear screams.

But if one puts back the start of the battle at around 10:01 then all of a sudden all contradictions are solved!
Flight 93 crashed at 10:06 as the seismic recordings tell as well.
Why does the Commission lie about this???


About the time of the attack:
Elisabeth Wainio said:

"They're getting ready to break into the cockpit. I have to go. I love you. Good-bye."
She hung up. It was just past ten (! my comment)

[RH]

114. then all of a sudden all contradictions are solved?

No they are not all solved.

Glick has still not mentioned any extraordinary aerobatics, notwithstanding the need to explain a new set of problems. How is it possible to completeley fake the official account with a considerable number of people from different agencies involved in the investigative process? Believe it if you will but you're going to have a hard time to sell the story to anybody who happens to know better and if they were not complicit the net result will be to completely alienate those whose integrity you insult.

If Longman did hear tapes that counts for something. How and where did he hear them? It makes a change from the usual "not released" mantra.

To get an idea of what should or should not have been said I want to see a complete account of the call to get a sense of how much time was available to explicate.

[John Doe II]

115. Yes

Jarrah's violent manouvers were a reaction to the start of the battle. So if we just assume that the battle started at 10:01 (after Glick put his phone down) then it's no wonder that he doesn't mention them on the phone. Following the assumption it is also no contradiction anymore that Lyz Glick didn't hear any background noise. So, yes, I think that all the contradiction that have been mentioned in order to challenge the official timeline or absolutely no contradictions anymore once we put the start of the battle at 10:01. And also the seismic record do agree on that.

Under which circumstances Longman listened to the tape it's not mentioned. But to be precise: He listened to the phone calls. As far as I know he wasn't part of the family members that listened to the recordings on Apil 18, 2002.

What you say about the number of people involved etc:
I do agree that it should be really difficult to cover up the time gap. But this is not important. To find a theoretical explanation how this might have been managed seems much easier as to find an explanation for 10:03 as crash time that stands the test of logic.
And the first step in order to find out what really happened is to answer the question of this thread.

[stickdog]

120. How was it possible to keep the Manhattan Project a secret?

How is it possible to keep the Gulf of Tonking incident a secret?

How was it possible to keep the fact the German U-boats were attacking US ships up and down the Eastern seaboard during WWII a secret?

Work backward from what we KNOW.

The 9/11 Commission states that Flight 93 "came to rest" -- one way or another -- at 10:03:11 WITHOUT causing any measurable seismic signature. If this is true, it implies that Flight 93

1) fluttered to ground in pieces,
2) landed nearly parallel to the ground or
3) hit the ground at a much lower than 580 mph velocity.

Now we have two problems.

1) How did the debris field get so huge? And how did passenger remains get buried 50 feet underground?

2) What caused the obvious, indisputable 10:06:05 seismic reading in the near vicinity of the crater that was ostensibly dug by Flight 93?

Note that the 10:06:05 seismic reading could have been caused by a missile exploding, a drone crashing into the ground or even another fully loaded passenger plane. But what it could NOT have been caused by is Flight 93 -- unless, of course, the entire 9/11 Commission staff was knowingly lying when they wrote that "the radar analysis, the flight data recorder, NTSB analysis, and infrared satellite data" all prove that Flight 93 stopped flying at 10:03:12.

[RH]

124. If it was kept a secret,

how come you know about it?

:shrug:

[John Doe II]

126. Funny

Operation Northwood.
Plan of faking the shoot down of an airplane full of US students.
Obviously Lemnitzer considered it possible to keep it secret!?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

[RH]

127. The same applies.

Why keep the document as if for a rainy day when they could just as well have have shredded it?

If you think that the 9/11 Commission result may be faked because of what then would you rely upon this?

Pick and mix according to taste, or is there some more definite criteria to apply?

Has anybody from the 1960s who was at all aware of this Northwoods thing vouched for its authenticity since it appeared?

[stickdog]

151. Well, you've convinced me!

Northwoods was obviously faked to make us believe that our government is capable of things that it's clearly incapable of!

Yep. That's RH "logic" at it's finest!

When it comes to questioning the official story, you are a regular David Hume. But when it comes to accepting the official story, you suddenly morph into Gomer Pyle. Why?

[RH]

154. Logically

what they are capable of is beside the point, not in dispute.

May we then surmise that the sarcastic diversion betrays the lack of a susbtantive answer to the actual point?

Do you judge according to prejudice or according to evidence?

What if anything is available to authenticate the item?

[stickdog]

129. If you have a clue, where oh where could it be?

:eyes:

[stickdog]

119. Miles away from proving anybody lied? Using your judgment, nobody

could ever be guilty of anything beyond a "reasonable" doubt.

Seriously.

Did Bush lie about the weapons of mass destruction?

Did Bush lie about seeing a plane hit the first WTC on TV?

Did Bush lie about not getting special treatment in the Texas ANG?

Not using your "too many variables, too many possibilities" fuzzy math.

And these issues have also floated about for over 2 years now -- and to what effect?

[RH]

122. I had already specified the criteria.

To show that somebody lied you have to show that they knew that something else was true.

What exactly is supposed to establish that, apart from any difference of opinion?

I have no doubt at all the very concept of truth as an academic may understand it is completely lost on GW Bush. Much the same as most people around here he thinks that if he thinks it is true and for as long as he gets away with it then it must true. That's how the game works. Politicians subjugate to the mass opinion. They're impressed by Hitler, not by Galileo.

[seatnineb]

137. Jeremia sees all.

Absolute bullshit!

In the words of rh
To show that somebody lied you have to show that they knew that something else was true

We know that Glick was in the back of the plane.
We Know that Beamer was in the back of the plane.

We know that Beamer knew Glick....
BEAMER MENTIONED GLICK BY HIS FIRST NAME in the call to Jefferson, Lisa Beamer said.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916phonecallnat3p3.asp

And........

In the words of Lyz Glick.....
He(Jeremy) HAD BEEN TALKING with some of the other passengers and conferring with them as well
http://premium.asia.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/07/lkl.00.html

And when Beamer starts Rolling at 9:57/58.....

Jeremy IS GONNA SEE AND KNOW ABOUT IT!

Trouble is..........

Beamer was kickin ass at 9:57/58.

Jarrah was tryin to save his ass gettin kicked at 9:57/58.

Glick started kickin ass AFTER 9:59/10:00.

But Glick is supposed to be kickin ass SIMULTANEOULSY WITH Beamer.

[John Doe II]

81. Thanks, seatnineb

Sorry, I forgot to write something in my answer:

Thanks a lot for studying in detail my summary (I'll edit it because my sources got lost) and that you critically read it and found something that might have to be changed. It's that what makes a discussion and the search for the truth move forward!
And I hope I'm not somebody who always has to be correct. It's together that one comes closer to the truth, isn't it?


Hope that my answer satisfied you.
I think we can't conclude anything from the length of the silence when Makely picked up the phone (and here certainly and understandably the time he gives can't b taken as exact beyound a doubt). But what's beyound a doubt is that at the beginning he heard silence (as the law-enforcement source!)and then screams. And as Lyz Glick always said she didn't hear anything in the background (but she was quite sure that Glick was talking to his neighbours, se here again she can clearly distinguish) it makes Makely's statement a heavy proof that the battle can't have been underway before Glick let down the phone.:toast:

[John Doe II]

80. How to do Hyperlinks

Can please somebody help me out and explain me how to insert hyperlinks into the meassages. It kind of freaks me out to see that I quote lots of sources and none of them shows up!
Thanks in advance!

[John Doe II]

82. Summary with sources

sorry, somehow I've format problems:

So here again:



Why the official crash time of Flight 93 cannot be true


The account of the 9/11-Commission about the last minutes of Flight 93 goes as follows:

At 9:57, the passengers assault began. <…> One of the callers ended her message as follows: “Everyone’s running up to first class. I’ve got to go. Bye.”
The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of the passenger assault muffled by the intervening cockpit door. <…>
In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault. The recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts, and breaking glasses and plates. At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane.
<…> The sounds of the fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the cockpit up and down. At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said, “In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!” <…> Jarrah stopped the violent manoeuvres at about 10:01:00 and said, “Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!” He then asked another hijacker in the cockpit, “Is that it? I mean shall we put it down?” to which the other replies, “Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.”
The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, “Pull it down! Pull it down!”
(p. 13f)


The Report states concerning the time of impact:

“United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03:11, 125 miles from Washington D.C. The precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute. The 10:03:11 impact time is supported by previous National Transportation Safety Board analysis and by evidence from the Commission staff’s analysis of radar, flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmission”
(p. 30)


Surprisingly the Commission does not mention the seismic recording of 10:06:05 as impact time (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University). Stickdog has written an excellent essay on this (see: 9/11 Commission: There must be 93 ways to blow your cover) and his question is still unanswered: “So if a 757 slamming into the ground at 580 mph, creating a world's record debris field and driving the remains of its passengers some 50 feet into the ground didn't manage to register even the tiniest seismic blip -- what happened in the same vicinity just three minutes later that DID cause a clear, noticeable, incontrovertible seismic spike?”.
Another issue that the Commission does not raise is why no family member of the victims that were finally allowed to listen to the cockpit recording in April 2002 heard any indication that the hijackers decided to crash the plane. Neither any article nor Jere Longman’s book “Among the Heroes” (that is based on interviews with family members) mention even the slightest hint that something like this was audible on the recording. The Commission does not make any attempt to explain the contradiction between what the family members heard and the official version now.
But it was a find by woody box that might be the watertight proof that the official timeline simply cannot be true.

Jere Longman based “Among the Heroes” on his interviews with family members. He quotes at length the conversation between Jeremy Glick and his wife Lyz:


Were they going to crash his plane into the World Trade Center? Jeremy wanted to know.
“No,” Lyz said, almost laughing. “They are not going there.”
Why? Jeremy asked.
One of the towers had just fallen.
“They knocked it down,” Lyz told him.
(p. 207)


The first Tower collapsed at 9:59:04 (Paul Thompson’s timeline). So obviously at this point of the conversation it is at least 9:59:15. According to the official timeline the battle at the cockpit was already taking place for two minutes and Jarrah had ordered to block the cockpit door.
Let’s see how the conversation between Jeremy and Lyz Glick continues:


They were problem-solving. Lyz asked Jeremy about the United pilots. Were they alive? He didn’t know. Had the real pilots said anything to the passengers over the public address system? No.
Did the hijackers have any automatic weapons? Lyz asked. Even a former judo champion like Jeremy would be no match for guns.
No guns, Jeremy said. “They have knives.”
How could people have gotten on the plane with knives and a bomb? He wanted to know. And then he made a joke that was typical Jeremy. “We just had breakfast and we have our butter knives.”
He said that they were taking a vote. There were three other guys as big as him. Was that a good idea? What should they do?
(p. 216)


What is the time at this moment of the conversation? I believe it’s a conservative guess to say 10:00:30. At the very moment while Jeremy Glick is discussing with his wife what to do, according to the official timeline Jarrah had twice pitched the nose of the airplane up and down and a passenger said “In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!”
Is it believable that Glick was staying behind? Is it believable that he does not mention Jarrah’s pitching of the airplane’s nose? Is it believable that he discusses attacking the hijackers without telling his wife that the other passengers are doing this for more than three minutes already?
But let us see how the conversation continues:


Lyz shook as she talked to her husband, but when she heard that the hijackers didn’t have guns, she thought Jeremy would be okay. He could get stabbed, or get his hand slice, but he might not even feel it in the adrenaline rush. Getting stabbed wouldn’t kill him. The only hope is if they take these people over and get control of the plane.
“I think you need to do it,” Lyz told Jeremy.
“Okay,” he said. “Stay on te phone, I’ll be right back.”
There was a sound of conviction in his voice. Not anger, but a sense of purpose. He wanted to get home to wife and daughter.
They were going to jump on the hijackers and attack them, Jeremy said.
(p.216f)


Ok. What is the time now? Again I would say that 10:01:15 is a conservative guess. Now is the moment that “they” have taken the decision to attack. But according to the official timeline the battle has reached it’s peak already and Jarrah is asking if he should crash the plane.
Do the two timelines really go together? Why doesn’t Glick who clearly has the intention to attack the hijackers stay back? Why does Lyz Glick not remark the noise of the battle? (Glick was seated in row 11)
Let’s see how the conversation continues:


Put a picture of me and the baby in your head, Lyz said to Jeremy.
He went away, and it sounded as if he were talking to people.
(p. 217)


To say it’s now 10:01:30 is still very conservative. But Glick doesn’t rush to the cockpit to join the other passengers in their ongoing battle. He talks to other people. This is very understandable if one is planning an attack but not if this attack is already underway since four and a half minute (according to the official timeline).
Lyz Glick later recalls: I didn't hear any screaming. I didn't hear any noises. I didn't hear any commotion.
(NBC 09/30/02)
http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2002/msnbc090302.html


“Among the Heroes” continues:


“She couldn’t bear to listen and handed the phone to her father ”
(p. 217)


According to the official timeline there are only 30 – 40 seconds left before the hijackers will start to pull down the airplane. And about 70 – 90 seconds before the plane crashes. So what does Lyz’ father hear?


"There was no noise for several minutes. And then there were screams, so I said - well, they're doing it. Another minute, it seemed like an eternity, but another minute, a minute and a half, and then there was another set of screams. It was muffled. Then there was nothing."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11314790&method=full
(ABC, 09/15/01; NBC, 07/30/02)

His observation is confirmed by officials:
“According to law-enforcement sources (who were listening in on the conversation), there was silence on the line. Then screams. Then silence. Then screams. Then nothing.”
(Newsweek, 09/13/01) http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069645/

So they didn’t hear any signs of a battle at this moment neither!


As the exact time of the collapse of the WTC is beyond doubt we can come to the conclusion now that either the official timeline or the account of Jeremy Glick’s phone call can’t be true.
So did Lyz Glick consciously or unconsciously not tell the accurate truth?
This is basically impossible for the following reasons:
The New York state police patched into the phone call after Lyz Glicks’ mother had dialled 911. (p. 206). This was shortly after Glick called his wife (which happened around 9:30) (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/01)
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
The State Police dispatcher is Robert Weingaertner (Times Union, 09/08/02) http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=57018&category=FRONTPG&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=9/8/2002
“Captain Francis Christensen stood behind Weingaertner, firmly directing troopers who were flooding the dispatch room. Call Verizon and see if they can patch directly into Glick's call. Contact the FBI. Call the Federal Aviation Administration”. (Times Union, 09/08/02)
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=57018&category=FRONTPG&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=9/8/2002
“An emergency official arrived at the Makelys' home in Windham and took the phone, telling Weingaertner they were there. The call was disconnected. The tape would later be turned over to the FBI.”
(Times Union, 09/08/02)
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=57018&category=FRONTPG&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=9/8/2002
It exists a tape and a transcript of the phone call.
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 09/13/01)
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/20/01)
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetnat3p3.asp
On September 12, 2001 Lyz Glick and other recipients of the phone call were interviewed by the FBI. On April 22, 2004 Lyz Glick was questioned once again by the FBI. (9/11 Commission Report, p. 457)

It is really hard to believe that Lyz Glick didn’t say the accurate truth and that the FBI and the Commission were too dumb to realize this although they had the recording and the transcript of the call in front of them.

Although the 9/11 Commission uses “Among the Heroes” as a source for their Report (e.g. p. 457) maybe the New York Times journalist Jere Longman was happy to invent the detail of the WTC collapse.
This again is refuted by the simple fact that Lyz Glick repeated this detail of the conversation with her husband several times:

Ms. GLICK: He began to ask me, 'Are they crashing planes into the World Trade Center?' I guess one of the other passengers had spoken to his mother, I believe it might have been, and that message might have been relayed. So he asked that. And then I am watching on the big screen television in front of me the World Trade Centers collapsing.
(ABC, 09/18/01)
(NBC, 08/20/02] http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080114
(Observer, 02.12.01)
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,610355,00.html


And in a documentary film called “Flight 93: A Reconstruction” aired in the UK in 2002 Lyz Glick confirms that she told Jeremy that the South Tower had fallen.
In her words "It was valuable information for him to have".


So if the account of Glick’s phone call then is accurate the only possible explanation is that the official timeline can’t be true. That Flight 93 didn’t crash at 10:03:11. Considering that Glick’s phone call more likely postpones the beginning of the attack by about three minutes it seems reasonable to assume an impact time of 10:06. And surprisingly this is also what the seismic recordings indicate.

Is there the possibility that the Commission simply didn’t work accurately enough.
Their explanation for the impact time is:

“United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03:11, 125 miles from Washington D.C. The precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute. The 10:03:11 impact time is supported by previous National Transportation Safety Board analysis and by evidence from the Commission staff’s analysis of radar, flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmission”
(p. 30)

But how can the analysis of theses sources lead to a wrong impact time? It seems very reasonable to assume that the Commission most likely did a cover up. It’s seems simply a lie. As the government always insisted after 9/11 that the impact time was 10:03 and never dared to explain the difference with the seismic data it seems sensible to believe that the Commission changed the time favouring the wish of the government.
As far as I can see this might be the very first time that a lie of the Commission can be proven.
So the only question remains: Why does the Commission decided to cover up the last three minutes of Flight 93? Maybe the explanation is the same reason why the family members heard different things on the cockpit recording than the Commission and why the recordings are not publicly released…



This text is the result of the work of several researchers to whom I owe my special thanks: woody box, seatnineb, stickdog and k-robjoe.

[RH]

85. Serious Question:

re. "a clear, noticeable, incontrovertible seismic spike?”.

Did anybody actually notice this as a significant event before being aware of the Flight 93 event, before actually going out of their way to look for seismic evidence?

[Robb]

109. Good question

And the answer is pretty much no, except for the folks who got their windows rattled. I was specifically looking for the time of the crash when I began trying to figure out Seismology 101. Shortly after I "got it" I found the LDEO study, done (obviously) much better, but with the same results. That was enough to get Bunch to task Wallace, who got the same.

I seem to recall that was roughly when most people stopped caring. :)

[stickdog]

121. I did. I was looking for anomalies. Instead I found about what you would

expect if Flight 93 hit the ground at 10:06:05.

Why are you focusing on motivations and personalities? This isn't social science. Regardless of what you, me or anybody else WANTS to believe, the seismograms say what they say. It's like a test that proves your tumor is malignant. Maybe your pathologist only found it because "he was out to get you," but it doesn't make the tumor any less cancerous.

[RH]

125. Why motivations and personalities?

It is irresponsible to spend a lot of time on anything without occassionally wondering to what good effect.

I have spent a lot of time in the past on various anti corruption campaigns and access to information issues. On the whole the simple truth of it is that the supply of information far exeeds the damand. The people who make the most noise about information not being released are those who just sit there waiting for somebody else to do the donkey work. Those who actually do attempt to do something about it don't appear to have such a hard time of it.

[stickdog]

131. What "good effect" are you expecting from constant negative repetition?

According to you, nobody ever makes a valid point about 9/11 and if they make a valid point, it's meaningless and if they are dismayed by their secretive government, it's because they're not personally resourceful enough to extract answers from a brick wall.

What good are you hoping to "effect" with this tiresome defeatist nonsense?

[RH]

133. "Constant negative repetition"?

What I have said is that in as much as a valid point was made it was already made in 2002.

It was not me who chose to repeat the attempt to negate of the official version.

What's new?

Do you see any good in the 9/11 Commission?

More than a smidgen of projection going on here, I think.

[John Doe II]

156. Third summary

I've put the third (and I think the last) summary of this thread into the thread "The Commission". I think now that the proof is watertight. Case closed.