Anesthetic agents were used to incapacitate the passengers and crew on the plane. Because an anesthetic aerosol can be rapidly released into the cabin of a plane, putting everyone in the cabin area to sleep before they can fully realize what is happening to them, this method was used. The passengers, who were knocked out in this way, could not report to the people on the ground what was happening. The hijackers were therefore able to escape without any interference.
After this the hijackers, if they hadn’t already done so, switched the plane over to remote-control flight, and shortly after this, escaped from the plane by parachute.
In this way, anesthetics played a central role in the 9/11 Israeli deception. In this section is outlined how the use of anesthetics permitted the Israeli Mossad agents to carry out the conspiracy and mislead people into thinking the hijackers died along with the passengers and crew of the 9/11 planes. Despite the detailed planning of the conspirators, they did not execute the mission without leaving clues. By examining the record of the hijacking and especially focusing on the anomalies, we can discover how the hijackings were carried out; how the ruse was engendered.
Chemical warfare symbol
Was an incapacitating agent used on the passengers to subdue them in the 9/11 hijackings? All the evidence seems to indicate so. When the hijacking of Flight 93 is examined, the use of a knockout ‘gas’ by the hijackers seems to be the only theory that fits in with the evidence, in particular, the evidence from the cockpit voice recording and the phone calls from the plane. This chapter will analyze all the clues gleaned from the cockpit voice recorder and the conversations. Many findings have emerged that are not explained by the official version of 9/11 especially the silence from the passengers that lasts for a couple of minutes shortly before the plane crashes. Why does the struggle for the cockpit suddenly stop at its peak? How come listeners can only hear passenger silence (except for a few screams) for the last few minutes of the plane’s flight? We will outline a theory that explains these findings; we will demonstrate that this theory is the only one that can account for all the known facts about Flight 93. Events that appear at first puzzling will become clear as we solve the clue trail of the false flag attack.
The hijackers had no intention of committing suicide; they just wanted to make the attack look like a suicide attack. One of the ‘props’ they used to create this illusion was an incapacitating agent. Its employment enabled the hijackers to leave the plane unobserved by the passengers and maintain the deception that the hijackers died along with everyone else on the plane.
Hijackers’ luggage is searched
Given that the attacks could not have been carried out by the people the US government accuses of being the perpetrators as there is no possibility that these amateurs could have crashed the planes with pinpoint accuracy, we must reach the only conclusion available to us that this mission was a carefully planned one with much preparation done by the mission combatants ahead of time. In endeavoring to carry out the ruse, weapons and props were smuggled onto the planes well-ahead of the planned mission date. It is also possible the planes were fitted out with the necessary equipment in another location long before the planes arrived at the 9/11 airports on that fateful day. The following is how I speculate the secret conspiracy was carried out. The weapons and equipment had been placed in secret hiding places on the planes by the 9/11 airport Mossad agents and sayanim. The four 9/11 airports were under Israeli control; they were serviced by ICTS, a company owned by a Zionist Jew. The company had connections to the Israeli government. The Mossad could not take the risk of having their baggage carefully searched and the weapons in their baggage discovered. Furthermore, if their baggage was searched by airport personnel at the baggage checking stations, the story of Arab perpetrators doing a relatively simple operation, using boxcutters as their only weapon, could be maintained. As it turned out, the Mossad hijackers’ baggage were searched.
This was a complex attack requiring the use of specialized equipment to carry out. The Mossad hijackers probably had a gun(s) stashed on the plane (a passenger apparently told his wife he saw a gun) just in case they had to use more lethal weapons, especially on the pilots. These guns if they existed were fitted with silencers. More importantly, they had concealed on the plane a weapon that could immobilize the passengers en masse, leaving the hijackers free to carry out their plans unimpeded and unobserved.
When they checked in, the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS) selected Atta for extra luggage scrutiny, but he boarded without incident. … Three other hijackers, Waleed al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, and Satam al-Suqami, arrived at Logan Airport at 06:45 … CAPPS selected all three for a detailed luggage check.
All in all nine of the nineteen hijackers are selected for screening under the CAPPS system before they board Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93. [Washington Post, 1/28/2004; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 84; United States of America v. Zacarias Moussaoui, a/k/a Shaqil, a/k/a Abu Khalid al Sahrawi, Defendant, 3/6/2006].
Since 1998, the FAA has required air carriers to implement a program called the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS). This identifies those passengers who might be a security risk, based upon suspicious behavior such as buying one-way tickets or paying with cash. CAPPS also randomly assigns some passengers to receive additional security scrutiny. If a particular passenger has been designated as a “selectee,” this information is transmitted to the airport’s check-in counter, where a code is printed on their boarding pass. At the airport’s security checkpoints, selectees are subjected to additional security measures. [US News and World Report, 4/1/2002; 9/11 Commission, 1/27/2004; US Congress, 3/17/2004; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 2, 85 ]
All hijackers that are picked up for screening pass the security check and are allowed to board their flights. From Flight 93 only Ahmad Alhaznawi is selected from Flight 93 for special screening. His baggage is checked for explosives and he is then let through.
At 6:45 am, the presumed hijacker of United Airlines Flight 93, Ziad Jarrah, makes a phone call to his girlfriend in Germany, Aysel Senguen. She notes the phone call is strange: “[H]e was very brief. He said he loved me three times. I asked what was up. He hung up shortly afterwards.… It was so short and rather strange him saying that repeatedly.” [Reuters, 11/19/2002; Guardian, 11/20/2002]
Apparently, “Ziad Jarrah” speaks in an uncharacteristic manner to his girlfriend. The imposter keeps the ‘farewell’ phone call short (it only lasts seconds) because he doesn’t want to risk being picked up as an imposter by the girlfriend.
It was too risky for the Mossad hijackers to have concealed their weapons in their baggage as the security checks could have found them. All four hijackers would have had to pass through a security checkpoint that had three walk-through metal detectors, two x-ray machines, and a bomb detector. [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 97 ] The planners left nothing to chance. The presence of the tools, weapons and other gear the agents concealed on the plane in secret hiding places were only known to the conspirators (the personnel on the ground who were part of the conspiracy and the hijackers). The Israelis had plenty of access to the planes as a Zionist company managed all four 9/11 airports (see Fly by Wire and WRH: All 9/11 Airports Serviced by One Israeli Owned Company).
Newark Airport runways shut down the previous day
In the previous afternoon, the runways at Newark Airport, New Jersey, were shut down for 34 minutes due to a fire. [CNN, 9/10/2001; Bergen Record, 9/11/2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001] The fire could have been deliberately lit by the Mossad airport workers employed by ICTS to give the conspirators time to put the necessary items on the plane secretly. Another reason for the delay is the heavy traffic at that time (the reason the 9/11 Commission supports).
The fire on the previous day was also partly the cause of the delay in Flight 93 taking off. It will be delayed for 41 minutes at Newark Airport, finally taking off at 8.42 am. [Newsweek, 9/22/2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001; Boston Globe, 11/23/2001] The delay in the plane taking off is what eventually thwarts the conspirators’ attempt to crash the UA 93 plane into the intended target.
Warnings of hijackings disregarded
Tragically, the pilots of Flight 93 disregarded warnings of plane crashes and hijackings given to them shortly before the plane was taken over by the terrorists.
At 9:21 am, Flight 93 sends a routine message to the airline dispatcher, Ed Ballinger. The message reads: “Good mornin‘… Nice clb [climb] outta EWR [Newark airport] after a nice tour of the apt [apartment] courts y [and] grnd cntrl. 20 N EWC At 350 occl [occasional] lt [light] chop. Wind 290/50 ain’t helping. J.” The “J” is presumably the signature of Jason Dahl, the pilot of Flight 93. [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 37 ]
Between 9:10 and 9:22, one or two text messages are sent to the co-pilot of Flight 93, LeRoy Homer, from the United Airlines Operations Center at JFK Airport. [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 37 ] The messages are requested by Melodie Homer, the wife of the co-pilot and contain the message “Your wife just wants to make sure you’re okay”; however no replies are received. [Pittsburgh Channel, 9/19/2001; Longman, 2002, pp. 78; New York Observer, 2/15/2004; Discovery Channel, 2005]
At 9:23, a warning is sent to Flight 93 by United Airlines flight dispatcher Ed Ballinger who takes the initiative to send warning messages to all the flights he is monitoring including Flight 175 and Flight 93 (Flight 175 has already crashed). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 11; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 26 and 37 ] Ballinger is responsible for monitoring all flights flying from the East Coast to the West Coast, sixteen flights in all. He sends out a message that says: “Beware any cockpit intrusion… Two aircraft in NY hit [World] Trade Center builds.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 11; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 26 ] Because he has multiple flights under his jurisdiction, the warning to Flight 93 only gets sent out at 9:23. The message is received one minute later and at 9:26 a message is received from the pilot: “Ed confirm latest mssg plz [message please]—Jason.”
IMAGE: Jason Dahl, pilot of Flight 93. Source: Publicity photo.
At 9:24 am-9:25 am, Flight 93 makes radio contact with FAA’s Cleveland Center, having just entered the center’s airspace. The pilot says, “Good morning Cleveland, United 93 with you at three-five-oh [35,000 feet], intermittent light chop.” The flight controller, John Werth, who is responsible for Flight 93 is busy with other flights and does not respond straightaway. A minute later, Flight 93 radios again to the center: “United 93 checking in three-five-oh.” This time Werth replies, “United 93, three-five-zero, roger.” [Gregor, 12/21/2001 ; Longman, 2002, pp. 69; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 37 ; CBS News, 9/10/2006] There is one more normal radio contact from Flight 93 before it is hijacked.
At 9:27 am, air traffic controller John Werth radios Flight 93 saying, “United 93, that traffic for you is one o’clock, 12 miles east, bound three-seven-zero.” He is warning Flight 93 of another aircraft nearby 12 miles away and to its right, at 37,000 feet. Flight 93 responds seconds later acknowledging the warning: “Negative contact, we’re looking, United 93.” Less than a minute later, the pilots on Flight 93 are attacked. [Gregor, 12/21/2001 ; Longman, 2002, pp. 69; CBS News, 9/10/2006]
At 9:28 the hijacking begins
At 9:28 am the controllers at the FAA’s Cleveland Center hear sounds of struggle over a radio transmission from Flight 93, “a radio transmission of unintelligible sounds of possible screaming or a struggle from an unknown origin.” [Federal Aviation Administration, 9/11/2001; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; CBS News, 9/10/2006] The screams heard in the radio transmission are presumably from the pilots who are under attacks. Someone shouts “Mayday!”. Cleveland Center responds: “Somebody call Cleveland?” More screams follow and someone says: “Get out of here, get out of here.” [Toronto Sun, 9/16/2001; Newsweek, 9/22/2001; Observer, 12/2/2001; MSNBC, 7/30/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] Voices in Arabic are heard next. The translation is “Everything is fine.” [Newsweek, 12/3/2001] Later it is reported there are two bodies outside the cockpit. Presumably these are the bodies of the two pilots. [New York Times, 7/22/2004] The pilots are probably either dead or severely injured at this stage.
IMAGE: Flight recorder from FL 93
Transcript of the cockpit voice recording of Flight 93
Download from here: http://www.mishalov.com/flight93.pdf
From: http://www.mishalov.com/wtc-flight-93-transcript.html (HTML format of copy of transcript)
Also download from here:
Timeline graphic with transcript of Fl 93 cockpit voice recording
IMAGE: Timeline graphic by The New York Times, 13 April 2006. Click on the image above to open graphic.
Audio recording of Flight 93 cockpit voice recorder – portion
VIDEO: United Airlines Flight 93 CVR Recording – this is a small portion of the recording
Another jet hears the yelling from Flight 93
A small plane, ExecuJet 956, also hears the radio transmission from Flight 93 at around 9:28. [Government’s motion for protective order regarding cockpit voice recorder pursuant to 49 USC 1154. United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, 8/8/2002 ; Washington Post, 8/9/2002] The plane has been tracking Flight 93 for some time before it crashes. The planes are operating on the same frequency. Around 9:31, the ExecuJet calls FAA’s Cleveland Center saying, “[We’re] just answering your call. We did hear that, uh, yelling too.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 461] At 9:40 it is asked “did you understand that transmission [from Flight 93]?” ExecuJet 956 replies, “Affirmative. He said that there was a bomb on board.” [Associated Press, 4/12/2006] This plane is not to be confused with another jet that flies within 20 miles from Flight 93 when it crashes. This second jet belongs to a North Carolina clothing firm.
At 9:28 Flight 93 flying erratically
Another possible marker of the time that Flight 93 was hijacked is the observation that Flight 93 was flying erratically. This occurs at 9:28 which concurs with other observations about the time of hijacking. Cleveland flight controller Stacey Taylor hears another flight controller say, ‘Oh, my God, oh my God.” He has noticed something strange and yells for the supervisor. Taylor pulls up Flight 93 on her screen and she describes later what she sees: “He was climbing and descending and climbing and descending, but very gradually. He’d go up 300 feet, he’d go down 300 feet. And it turned out to be United 93.” [MSNBC, 9/11/2002] This erratic flying can either be explained by the pilot having to suddenly relinquish control of the aircraft due to the hijacking or it might be the caused by a rocky transition to autopilot flight or remote control flight.
Passenger’s wife reports a gun
According to Deena Burnett, her husband Tom Burnett, a passenger on Flight 93, reports that the hijackers have a gun: “The hijackers have already knifed a guy. One of them has a gun. They’re telling us there’s a bomb on board.” [Burnett and Giombetti, 2006, pp. 61] This phone call occurs at 9:27 am. The 9/11 Commission contradict her statement saying no other passengers reported seeing a gun. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 13] Although Deena Burnett leaves out mention of a gun in later interviews with the press and with the FBI and in a book she later writes about the hijacking incident, she will state: “He told me one of the hijackers had a gun. He wouldn’t have made it up. Tom grew up around guns. He was an avid hunter and we have guns in our home. If he said there was a gun on board, there was.” [London Times, 8/11/2002]
A passenger is stabbed
IMAGE: Tom Burnett. Source: Family photo.
In the 9:27 call Tom Burnett makes to his wife using his cell phone (Deena Burnett recognizes his caller ID on her phone), he tells her the plane has been hijacked and that a passenger has been stabbed. This person is likely to be Mark Rothenberg according to author Jere Longmann. [Longman, 2002, pp. 107] Tom Burnett was assigned Seat 4B in first class; Rothenberg 5B. (There were 37 passengers aboard Flight 93 including the four hijackers.) Rothenberg is the only first class passenger not to make a phone call. He also tells her that there is a bomb onboard. Then he hangs up telling her that he will call her back. This conversation takes seconds. Deena Burnett writes everything down. She doesn’t have time to tell her husband about the other hijackings and the planes hitting the WTC towers. [Burnett and Giombetti, 2006, pp. 62] He will make three or four more calls to his wife Deena. This is the first of over thirty phone calls made by the passengers of Flight 93.
IMAGE: Mark Rothenberg. This passenger sitting in Seat 5B first class cabin is presumably stabbed early on in the hijacking. [Source: Family photo] History Commons.
Most passengers see only three hijackers on Flight 93
All passengers except Todd Beamer report seeing three hijackers. One article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette claims that passenger Todd Beamer describes four hijackers. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001] Other articles say Todd Beamer sees only three. The 9/11 Commission concludes there were four hijackers on the plane and explains that the discrepancy is because the presumed pilot, Ziad Jarrah, retains a low profile until the cockpit is secured, and then he goes into the cockpit and stays there for the rest of the flight, unseen by most of the passengers. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 12]
Flight 93 requests a new flight plan
At around 9;30, Flight 93 radios in to the FAA and requests a new flight plan with a final destination of Washington DC. [ABC News, 9/11/2001; ABC News, 9/14/2001] This request is presumably made by a hijacker and is made shortly before the plane changes direction and heads east. The request is deemed very unusual by industry observers. Twenty-five minutes later at 9:55 am, a hijacker will program a new destination in the plane’s navigational system.
Cockpit voice recording begins
The cockpit voice recorder of Flight 93 is the only one that is recovered undamaged in the 9/11 attacks. The recording is made on a 30-minute reel so the reel is wiped over many times and the final recording is of the last 30 minutes of the flight though in practice it is usually slightly longer (in Flight 93’s case, the recording is 31 minutes long according to the 9/11 Commission). The recording begins at 9:30. [Longman, 2002, pp. 206-207; CNN, 4/19/2002; Hartford Courant, 4/19/2004]
IMAGE: Flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder.
A flight attendant is stabbed
A flight attendant is reported to have been stabbed early in the hijacking starts (some time after 9:31) and it is probably Debbie Welsh. It is probably Welsh whose voice is recorded about 9:31 saying, “Don’t, don’t,” and “Please, I don’t want to die,” after she is ordered to sit down by a hijacker. [Longman, 2002, pp. 207]
IMAGE: Debbie Welsh – flight attendant who was stabbed early in the hijacking of UA FL 93
Like the Rothenberg stabbing, her killing was probably planned. In Rothenberg’s case, he was probably singled out to be killed because he was Jewish. His killing was likely carried out with a flourish so that the frightened witnesses would report this killing to their loved ones on the phones they were using. The hijackers wanted to establish that the “Islamic terrorists” who had taken over the plane had a grudge against Jews. In the photo here he is wearing a skullcap. In the flight attendant’s case, the stabbing was done to terrify the passengers so that they would be less likely to offer resistance to the terrorists.
“Keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb aboard.”
At 9:32 a.m., an air traffic controller at the FAA’s Cleveland Center hears a hijacker over the radio saying a bomb is aboard: “Ladies and gentlemen, here is the captain, please sit down. Keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb aboard.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 12; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 39 ] (The FAA reports that the transmission is of ‘unknown origin’. This follows a minute of screams presumably marking the time when the passengers realize a hijacking is taking place. The 9/11 Commission believes that the hijackers unintentionally broadcast this announcement over the wrong radio channel. [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 98 ] It was sent to the air traffic controllers at the Cleveland center when it was meant to be broadcast to the passengers, according to them. At this time, the cockpit voice recorder records a woman screaming. This is probably the flight attendant Debbie Welsh. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 12; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 39 ]
The transmission about a bomb being aboard to the air traffic controller was deliberately done. It heightened the drama of the hijacking. Taking bombs onboard seemed exactly like the kind of act fanatical Islamic fundamentalist terrorists would do. However, it raises the question of how a bomb managed to get smuggled on board. How did the CAPPS checkers miss a bomb in the luggage of the terrorists? How did it pass through the bomb-detector, the x-ray machine or the metal scanner? Or was it just a mock-up of a bomb, a box with a piece of cloth tied around it to make it look like a bomb? Perhaps we are supposed to think the Muslim perpetrators brought out a crudely constructed mock-up of a bomb to frighten the passengers and bring them under their control.
In cold blood
It is likely the bomb was a fake one. The hijackers had no intention of blowing up the plane while they were still on board. They did not really require a bomb as they had other equipment they could use to subdue and control the passengers and crew. The Israelis likely used “a bomb” to scare the passengers into obedience and pass on reports to the outside world that the terrorists had a bomb. In other words it was a prop. They could not risk using a real bomb on the plane because if they did it would cause people to ask how was a bomb brought aboard the plane? Did they have inside help?
Here is a video showing the Israelis are quite capable of carrying out such a false flag deception. This video shows the Israelis setting up a young Palestinian man as a bomber.
In cold blood [NSFW – violence]
VIDEO: “Cold blood”. In this video, Israeli soldiers arrest a young Palestinian man and proceed to carry out a false flag. They take his clothes off and execute him. Later they bring in a robot to fake to the public that the man was a suicide-bomber. ArchiveOrg
This is not to say there were no real bombs on board. There were indeed bombs on the planes, but these bombs were not the small-scale bombs that people use to carry out suicide attacks but missiles for destroying buildings. Furthermore, the real bombs on the planes were under remote electronic control and were in special hidden compartments in the undercarriage of the planes.
“Oh my god, it’s a suicide mission”
Tom Burnett talks to his wife for a second time, at 9:34 am, and in this call is told about the planes hitting the World Trade Center. Deena tells him, “Tom, they are hijacking planes all up and down the East coast. They are taking them and hitting designated targets. They’ve already hit both towers of the World Trade Center.” [Burnett and Giombetti, 2006, pp. 64] Tom replies that the hijackers have been talking about crashing the plane and adds: “Oh my gosh! It’s a suicide mission.” Deena hears him telling another person (apparently his seatmate) about what Deena has told him. He notes that the plane is flying in toward New York and then says it’s changed direction and is now flying south, and is over a rural area. [Burnett and Giombetti, 2006, pp. 64]
The hijackers are establishing the meme of ‘suicide-bombers’ in the minds of the passengers. The hijackers want the people aboard the plane to think they intend to crash it with everyone on it. The people aboard the plane do not realize they are viewing an illusion. In reality, the hijackers are not Arab, they do not intend to kill themselves, and they will not be on the plane when it crashes.
Flight 93 changes course 180 degrees
Having flown west on a normal course, at 9:36, after it reaches the Cleveland area, it makes a sudden turn south. It then changes direction again, eastward this time, on its re-entrance into Pennsylvania, and heads towards Washington now. [CNN, 9/13/2001]
A description of the hijackers and ‘bomb’
IMAGE: Jeremy Glick [Source: Family photo]
Jeremy Glick calls his wife, Lyz. He describes the hijackers as Middle-Eastern looking and Iranian-looking. He describes how they start the attack: three of the hijackers put on red headbands, stand up, yell and run to the cockpit. (The fourth hijacker, presumably ‘Ziad Jarrah’ or really his imposter, has already gone inside the cockpit or is waiting inconspicuously in his seat for the cockpit to be taken over before he goes inside the cockpit). The hijackers have a bomb, according to Glick. It looks like a box with something red around it. He is sitting in the front of the coach section but is sent to the back with most of the passengers. Family members present when Glick calls in immediately call 9-1-1. Glick finds out about the WTC. Glick’s phone line remains open right to the end. This fact is significant because it is from the open phone line that we get clues that tell us what really happens in the last moments of Flight 93. [Toronto Sun, 9/16/2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001; Longman, 2002, pp. 143; MSNBC, 7/30/2002]
Flight 93 descends rapidly despite being far from its target
If we assume Flight 93’s target was Washington DC [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 14], the plane makes an inextricable descent. At 9:39, after maintaining an altitude of 41,000 feet for two minutes, it begins a rapid descent at a rate of 4,000 feet per minute. At 9:46, it interrupts this and goes back up, from 19,000 feet to 20,500 feet. Then it resumes its descent but slower, at a rate of 1,300 feet per minute. By 9:59 am, it has reached an altitude of 5,000 feet. Unlike the other hijacked flights that descended to below 5,000 feet when they were within 10 nautical miles of their targets, Flight 93 descends to 5,000 feet while it is 135 nautical miles from its presumed target (in Washington). [National Transportation Safety Board, 2/13/2002 ]
Perhaps this descent can be explained by the hijackers changing their plan. Maybe at this point, they realize they cannot complete their mission of hitting their presumed target in Washington DC successfully. Hence, they are readying the plane for their escape.
Hijacker again warns of bomb on board
At 9:39 am, the hijackers transmit over the radio (seemingly by accident) that they have a bomb on board: “Hi, this is the captain. We’d like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb on board. And we are going to turn back to the airport. And they had our demands, so please remain quiet.” [Boston Globe, 11/23/2001; Longman, 2002, pp. 209; MSNBC, 9/3/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] This is similar to the bomb on board warning broadcast over the radio at 9:32 am. However, the 9/11 Commission states these are two separate incidents. (NORAD has still not been notified by the FAA of the hijacking of Flight 93. [Complete 9/11 Timeline])
At 9:40 am, the transponder of Flight 93 is turned off. This means the altitude of the plane cannot be determined electronically, although the speed and position of the plane can still be tracked. [CNN, 9/17/2001; MSNBC, 9/3/2002; MSNBC, 9/11/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] The plane is still closely tracked by using primary radar by the Cleveland Center flight controllers and at United headquarters just outside Chicago. The plane’s speed is observed to fluctuate wildly at this time, between 400 and 600 mph. It eventually settles at 400 mph. [Longman, 2002, pp. 77, 214; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]
This is most likely when the hijackers turned the plane’s flying over to the handlers on the ground below so that from this point on it would be flown by remote control. The transponder might have had to be switched off for it could have been the transponder channel onto which data transmission signals for remote control piloting were piggybacked (see Joe Vialls’ theory).
These steps could be an indication that the conspirators were abandoning their original plan and were now focused on enabling the hijackers to make their escape before crashing the plane.
Another passenger report of a bomb
IMAGE: Mark Bingham [Source: Family photo]
At 9;42, Mark Bingham calls his mother and tells her, “I’m on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb.” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001]
Todd Beamer speaks with GTE phone operator
IMAGE: Todd Beamer. Source: Family photo
Todd Beamer tries to make a phone call using a seatback phone but is unable to get authorization when he uses his credit card. He is routed to a customer service center in the Chicago area where he speaks to operator Phyllis Johnson. The call is later handed over to customer service supervisor Lisa Jefferson who talks with him for about 13 minutes, apparently all the way until the end. “Todd stayed connected… all the way to the end.” [Beamer and Abraham, 2002, pp. 217] It is unclear whether this call is recorded or not. [Longman, 2002, pp. 199; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/19/2001]
Plans are afoot to defeat the hijackers
Tom Burnett calls his wife Deena for the third time. In this call he learns that the Pentagon has been attacked. He repeats this information to the people around him. He wonders out loud whether the hijackers really have a bomb or are just saying that for ‘crowd control’. Deena, a former flight attendant, tells him a plane can survive a bomb blast ‘if it’s in the right place’. He then tells her that a group of the passengers are putting a plan together to defend the hijackers. He says the hijackers are planning to crash the plane. [Sacramento Bee, 9/11/2002; Burnett and Giombetti, 2006, pp. 66]
HIJACKERS CHANGE THEIR PLAN
The problem of a passenger revolt
Unlike the other flights that were hijacked, Flight 93 passengers are mostly aware of the hijackers’ intentions to crash the planes into buildings. Thus, they are more motivated to force a confrontation with the hijackers and try and take back the plane. They guess that the only alternative to taking action is death.
If they had been truly suicidal terrorists, they would not have abandoned their mission because of a passenger revolt. They would have struggled with the passengers right up to the end, and there would have been signs of that struggle on the cockpit recording until it finished recording. However, that is not what we hear on the cockpit recording.
The hijackers knew that they had to abandon the plane within a short time-frame of squelching the passengers’ revolt. The only possible means of suppressing the revolt was by using a knockout ‘gas’. This was the only effective method that would not ‘give the game away’. The use of a gun would have raised too many questions. So too would using a bomb (how did a bomb pass the explosives detector?), and furthermore, a bomb would also pose a danger to the hijackers. Using knives may not have been successful against all 34 people, and might have taken too long.
The hijackers wanted to make their getaway before the plane crashed and they could not do that if they could not get out of the cockpit. In addition, they wanted to make their escape unobserved.
Therefore, the hijackers knew that as soon as they had immobilized the passengers (with the use of a knockout ‘gas’), it was urgent to leave the plane quickly. The timing of their ejection from the plane was hitched to the use of the incapacitating ‘gas’. If their departure from the plane was delayed by much after the employment of the “knock-out” gas on the passengers and crew, the extended period of silence that ensued would raise too many awkward questions.
Hijackers gather in the cockpit
On the cockpit recording about 9:45 am, the hijackers can be heard discussing bringing the ‘guys in’ and bringing ‘the pilot back’. The speaker is probably referring to the hijacker-pilot as it is likely the two pilots are dead or severely injured: one person who listens in to Todd Beamer’s call hears him say there are two men lying on the floor and that they are already dead. The hijackers know they must be collected in the one area when the passenger revolt occurs in order for them to carry out their counterattack successfully. From the safety of the cockpit, they can don on their respirator masks. Once their protection is on, they can then open the door and immobilize the passengers. [Longman, 2002, pp. 199 and 208-209; Associated Press, 4/12/2006]
IMAGE:Masked man in Moscow theater attack
Passenger revolt begins
Todd Beamer reaches the customer service center of GTE after failing to get credit card authorization to make a phone call from a seatback Airfone. He talks to supervisor Lisa Jefferson who after alerting the FBI of Beamer’s call, talks to him for 13 minutes from 9:45 to 9:58 am. Beamer, with the help of the flight attendant next to him, details the number of passengers and crew on the plane. They are divided into two groups with ten of them in the first class and twenty-seven in the back. (Jefferson’s written summary will say that the larger group are in the front.) Beamer says there are three hijackers on the plane. Two of them, armed with knives, are in the cockpit. They have locked the door. Another hijacker, with a bomb strapped to his waist, is in the first class section which is closed off from the coach section by a curtain. Another report says the third hijacker with the bomb is in the rear of the plane. One report (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) says Beamer describes four hijackers: two in the cockpit, one with a bomb strapped to his waist in the back, and one in first class. However, Beamer who is in the back of the plane (calling from a phone in row 32) tells Jefferson he is free to talk because the hijacker guarding the passengers is in the front of the plane and has drawn a curtain. (This is probably the hijacker-pilot that the hijackers discuss bringing back in. By the time the passenger revolt is in full swing, it is unlikely there was any hijacker in the cabin.) Beamer relates that one passenger is dead (most likely Rothenberg) and the flight attendant can be overheard saying that the two people on the floor in first class are the pilot and co-pilot (possibly dead). Beamer seems at one point to be unaware of the other hijackings; he asks, “Do you know what [the hijackers] want? Money or ransom or what?” Jefferson responds by informing him of the plane crashes in New York. [Chicago Tribune, 9/16/2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/19/2001; Newsweek, 9/22/2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/22/2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001; Observer, 12/2/2001; Longman, 2002, pp. 198-200; Orlando Sentinel, 9/5/2002; US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006, pp. 11 ]
IMAGE: A GTE Airfone recovered from the debris of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. [Source: Smithsonian National Museum of American History]
Filling pitchers with hot water
IMAGE: Sandra Bradshaw. [Source: Family photo]
Sandy Bradshaw, a passenger on Flight 93. calls her husband. She tells him her plane has been hijacked by three guys with knives. She says that some passengers are in the rear galley filling pitchers with hot water to use on the hijackers. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001]
NSA intercepts phone call between alleged Al Qaeda operatives
At 9:53, the National Security Agency intercepts a phone call from a location in Afghanistan to a phone number in the Republic of Georgia. The NSA alleges the phone call is between Al Qaeda operatives. The caller says he has heard good news and that another target is still to be hit. [CBS News, 9/4/2002] The caller says the attackers are following through on ‘the doctor’s program’. The authorities say the ‘doctor’ is al Qaeda’s number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri who has a doctorate in medicine. [New Yorker, 9/9/2002]
It would not have been hard to fake a phone call between Al Qaeda operatives. The conspirators would already have been aware that the NSA was monitoring Al Qaeda. Faking phone calls between ‘Al Qaeda operatives’ discussing the 9/11 attacks would have been part of the overall plan of the 9/11 attacks. Its purpose would be to ‘authenticate’ the Islamic terrorist nature of the hijackings.
Hijackers fear passenger retaliation
By now the hijackers are aware that a passenger revolt is mounting (according to the cockpit voice recording). One hijacker suggests that a fire ax be held up to the cockpit peephole to scare the passengers. [Longman, 2002, pp. 209-210]
IMAGE: Boeing cockpit door
http://forum.nexon.net/CombatArms/forums/thread/3461580.aspx Image shack picture
VIDEO: Cockpit door with peephole (“Cockpit peephole window”)
IMAGE: Cockpit door peephole
IMAGE: Cockpit door peephole
IMAGE: Cockpit peephole. Snapshot from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOIT02_bRSA
IMAGE: Fire axe
Flight 93 programs new destination
At 9:55 am, a hijacker reprograms the plane’s navigational system for a new destination. He dials in the navigational code for Washington’s Reagan National Airport with an arrival time of 10:28 am. [Longman, 2002, pp. 78 and 182; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 457; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 45 ] A minute later, at 9:56 am, the destination code for Flight 93 in FAA computers changes from ‘SFO’ (San Francisco) to ‘DCA’ (Reagan National Airport). Twenty-five minutes earlier, a hijacker had radioed in and requested a new flight plan from the FAA, with a final destination of Washington DC.
IMAGE: Flight management computer
http://tzywen.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=686 (Flicker image)
Passengers’ plan to fight back
Since 9:45 am, Todd Beamer has been on the phone with Lisa Jefferson, a GTE customer service supervisor. Shortly before 9:58 am, Beamer describes the passengers’ plan to fight back. Some of the passengers are going to ‘jump’ the hijacker that claims to have a bomb (this might be before the hijacker gets called into the cockpit by the others already in there or Beamer from his position in the rear of the plane may not be aware the hijacker guarding the first class has gone into the cockpit). He says, “We’re going to do something. I know I’m not going to get out of this.” Jefferson can hear screams in the background: “Oh my God,” “God help us,” and “Help us Jesus.” Beamer lets go of the phone but leaves it connected. His last words to her are at 9:58 am. Jefferson can hear him speaking to someone else: “Are you ready guys? Let’s roll”. [Newsweek, 9/22/2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001; Longman, 2002, pp. 203-204] Jefferson hears more screams and commotion. Jefferson will hang on until the end even after the plane crashes, though she reports she does not hear the plane crash. [Orlando Sentinel, 9/5/2002]
Passengers use food cart as battering ram
IMAGE: Airline food cart
At 9:57 am, the passengers begin the attempt to regain control of Flight 933. One of the hijackers asks at this time if anything is going on, meaning outside the cockpit, according to the cockpit voice recording . (By this time, all the hijackers are presumed to be in the cockpit.) Another hijacker must be monitoring the cabin through the cockpit door peephole. “Fighting,” answers one hijacker. [Longman, 2002, pp. 210] Officials deduce from the sounds heard on the cockpit voice recording that the passengers are using a food cart as a battering ram against the cockpit door. Apparently digital enhancement of the cockpit voice recorder reveals sounds of plates and glassware crashing at 9:57 am.
Battle outside the cockpit door
IMAGE: Cockpit door Flicker image
“In the cockpit! In the cockpit!” Presumably these are the cries of the passengers attempting to force the cockpit door open. The hijackers on the other side of the door are telling each other to hold the door closed. In English, someone outside says, “Let’s get them.” The hijackers are praying now, “Allah o akbar.” A hijacker suggests shutting off the oxygen supply to the cabin (which would have no effect as the plane is under 10,000 feet). (Perhaps the ‘shutting off the oxygen supply’ is code for ‘gassing’.) A hijacker says, “Should we finish?” Another hijacker replies, “Not yet.” The hijackers are probably speaking in code now. They fully know what they should do to ‘finish’. They know the only way this struggle can end is by the hijackers gassing the passengers. They want to time it correctly however. They need to be protected (with respirator masks) when they ‘gas’ the passengers. They should also be ready to leave the plane at short notice after the ‘gassing’. The hijackers are getting the gassing equipment ready and positioned to be used on the passengers. The next sounds are of the passengers whose voices are getting clearer. This probably indicates the cockpit door is now open. In unaccented English someone says, “Give it to me!”. “I’m injured,” someone says in English. Then something like “roll it up” and “lift it up” is heard. [Observer, 12/2/2001; Newsweek, 12/3/2001; Longman, 2002, pp. 270-271; MSNBC, 7/30/2002; Daily Telegraph, 7/31/2002] Possibly, the hijackers have now opened the cockpit door and have started their assault on the passengers. At 10:00 am, the hijackers are ready to put down the revolt. A hijacker says, “Allah o akbar! Allah o akbar!” (“God is great”), then asks, “Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?” Another hijacker answers, “Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.” [New York Times, 7/22/2004; San Francisco Chronicle, 7/23/2004]
This is when the hijackers probably open the cockpit door and ‘gas’ the passengers with knockout ‘gas’. Immediately the cabin falls silent and stays silent except for wind sounds, a few screams and mechanical noises.
IMAGE: Protests in Greece
Flight 93’s autopilot turned off at 10:00 am
The autopilot is turned off at 10:00 am and remains off for the duration of the flight. [National Transportation Safety Board, 2/13/2002 ] At the time of the disconnection it is noted by a relative who listens to the cockpit voice recording that an alarm sounds. Phil Bradshaw whose wife was on Flight 93 is a pilot himself and he recognizes an alarm that sounds when the autopilot is disconnected. [News and Record (Piedmont Triad, NC), 9/11/2002] CNN’s Kelli Arena will hear the cockpit voice recording during the Moussaoui trial in 2006 and she will report a second alarm goes off. [CNN, 4/12/2006] According to author Jere Longmann an alarm goes off when the plane exceeds its design limits: the plane exceeds the limits of 425 miles an hour below 20,000 feet, and exceeds the limits of 287 miles per hour below 10,000 feet. [Longman, 2002, pp. 208] So presumably the alarm Arena hears goes off because the plane is exceeding its design limits in the last minutes of its flight.
Probably the flight has been turned over to remote control piloting just before the hijackers are about to leave the plane, about 10:00-10:01. This is the reason the autopilot is no longer needed by the hijackers. As with the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, Flight 93 exceeds its design limits or software limits in the last minutes of its flight, another indication that the plane is being flown by remote electronic control. (See Fly by Wire).
At 1o:00 am, Flight 93 transponder gives a brief signal
The hijackers turn on the transponder at about the same time they turn off the plane’s autopilot. The transponder will stay on until about 10:03 am. [Guardian, 10/197/2001; MSNBC, 9/11/2002] The hijackers do this possibly to use the transponder channel as a data-link channel to enable remote control piloting of the plane. To do this, they need to turn on the transponder. The transponder tells the flight controllers that the plane is at 7,000 feet. This is probably around the altitude that the hijackers will make their escape from the plane. (See “Parachutes are the key” and see Joe Vialls theory, “Home Run”, in the “Fly by Wire” chapter.)
9:58: Attack by the passengers followed by strange sounds
CeeCee Lyles is on the phone with her husband, Lorne. She tells him it feels as if the plane is going down. Then she tells him the attack has started: “I think they’re going to do it. they’re forcing their way into the cockpit.” Then she starts screaming, “They’re doing it! They’re doing it! They’re doing it!” Her husband hears more screaming in the background, then he hears a “whooshing sound, a sound like wind,” then more screaming, and then the call breaks off. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001; Longman, 2002, pp. 180]
IMAGE: There were violent clashes in the Estonian capital, Tallinn, as police removed a controversial World War II memorial to Red Army soldiers
Where CeeCee Lyles screams, “They’re doing it! They’re doing it! They’re doing it!” is a different tempo to what she was saying earlier. There seems to be more urgency when she says this than when she tells her husband the attack has started which sounds more matter of fact. It could possibly be that “they” refers to the hijackers and not to the passengers. She could have meant the hijackers were attacking the passengers. Her husband hears “a whooshing sound, a sound like wind,” at this point when she screams, “They’re doing it! They’re doing it! They’re doing it!” accompanied by screaming. The call breaks off at that moment abruptly. The passengers are all probably affected by the knockout ‘gas’ and most talking and action stops cold at that point. Telephone conversations seem to abruptly end although some phone lines remain open and the listeners at the ground end can hear strange noises and a few screams although no speaking.
IMAGE: CeeCee Lyle
“A whooshing sound, a sound like wind”
This sound is heard by CeeCee Lyle’s husband just as CeeCee screams, “They’re doing it! They’re doing it! They’re doing it!” It is unlikely she is referring to the crashing of the cockpit door as she has already mentioned the passengers are attacking the cockpit door. Shortly after she screams this, Lorne hears a strange sound (“a whooshing sound, a sound like wind”) and some screams and then the phone call cuts off.
It is likely the sound CeeCee Lyle’s husband heard over the phone at about 9:58-9:59 was the sound made by an aerosol as it is being ejected from a canister.
The sound that Lorne Lyles heard may sound like this (see video below). Except in Flight 93’s case, the spray that was coming from the spray gun was not insecticide but knockout ‘gas’.
VIDEO: “Bug spray gun”. The video shows the kind of sound the passengers on Flight 93 probably heard. The method of delivery the man uses in the video is probably similar to what the hijackers used in the plane hijackings. As you can see, the insecticide is dispersed in a fine white mist. There is a loud whooshing sound as the mist is sprayed, a sound ‘like wind’. Dailymotion
Edward Felt reports explosion and smoke (between 9:58 and 9:59 am)
According to an emergency call supervisor, passenger Edward Felt phones 911 emergency and reports an explosion and smoke coming from the plane. However, an emergency call operator who listens on the same call will deny this.
An emergency call center supervisor who listens in on the call says that when passenger Edward Felt phones 911 from Flight 93 to report that his plane has been hijacked, he says he has heard an explosion and sees smoke coming from the plane. But others will explicitly deny this. [Associated Press, 9/11/2001; New York Times, 3/27/2002]
At 9.58am a 911 call – the last mobile phone contact from Flight 93 – was made from one of the airliner’s toilets by passenger Edward Felt.
Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: “He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.
“He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn’t know where. And then we lost contact with him.” Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.
At 9:58, Edward Felt calls 911 and reaches the 911 center in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Felt is calling from a bathroom on the plane. Presumably he hid himself in the bathroom early on and is probably the passenger unaccounted for by Tom Burnett. He uses his mobile phone to make the call. He reaches John Shaw, a dispatcher at the emergency call center. Glenn Cramer, a supervisor at the center, listens in on a separate line. The call lasts for one minute. [Dayton Daily News, 9/12/2001; Longman, 2002, pp. 197; Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/8/2002; Valley News Dispatch, 9/11/2002]
“We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!” Cramer quoted the man from a transcript of the call.
The man told dispatchers the plane “was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him,” Cramer said.
September 11, 2001
IMAGE: Malaysian riots
Glen Cramer hears Shaw responding to the caller, “You are what – hijacked?”. Cramer picks up a phone that allows him to listen to Felt’s call. Felt identifies himself. (Both emergency operators will mishear his name as “Ed Wart”.) Felt tells them, “We’re being hijacked! We’re being hijacked!”. He repeatedly states that this is not a hoax. He says that the passengers need help immediately. Shaw asks questions such as where is he, what type of plane is he on, and what has happened. Shaw answers these questions but does not describe the hijackers. Felt tells Shaw the number he has called him from. He says he is locked in an airplane bathroom. Felt describes “lots of passengers” on the plane (though the plane is below its normal passenger capacity). He then tells them, “We’re going down. We’re going down.” New York Times, 3/27/2002; Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/11/2002] Presumably the plane is descending at this stage. Cramer will say Felt reports an explosion on the aircraft and white smoke coming from it (although this is denied by others).
THE 911 CALL. At 9:58 a.m., roughly eight minutes before impact, a 911 emergency dispatcher in neighboring Westmoreland County took a call from a frantic passenger who said he was locked in the bathroom of Flight 93 and that the plane had been hijacked. The caller said there had been an explosion aboard the plane and there was white smoke. Authorities have never explained the report, and the 911 tape itself was immediately confiscated by the FBI.
November 15, 2001
IMAGE: Demonstration in Chile
On the following day, Cramer tells the FBI that Felt said, “some sort of explosion had occurred aboard the aircraft,” and “that there was white smoke somewhere on the plane.” [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9/12/2001 ; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/7/2001; CNN.com 9/11/2001] Cramer repeats this report to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: “[he] did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn’t know where.” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/12/2001]
One telephone call from the doomed plane whose contents do not entirely tally with the hero legend and which is accordingly omitted in the Independence Day-type dramas favoured by the US media. The Associated Press news service reported on 11 September that eight minutes before the crash, a frantic male passenger called the 911 emergency number. He told the operator, named Glen Cramer, that he had locked himself inside one of the plane’s toilets. Cramer told the AP, in a report that was widely broadcast on 11 September, that the passenger had spoken for one minute. “We’re being hijacked, we’re being hijacked!” the man screamed down his mobile phone. “We confirmed that with him several times,” Cramer said, “and we asked him to repeat what he said. He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down. He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn’t know where. And then we lost contact with him.”
August 13, 2002
However, this report is disputed. The dispatcher who took Felt’s call makes no mention of Felt reporting an explosion or smoke when he is interviewed by the FBI later on September 11. There are inconsistent reports about what Sandra Felt, Edward Felt’s wife, who listened to the recording of the 911 call, says about the phone call. Some reports will say she denies it. [Longman, 2002, pp. 264; New York Times, 3/27/2002; Valley News Dispatch, 9/11/2002]
Sandra Felt has heard Flight 93 tapes ……..
“I heard my husband’s voice. He was very calm in the face of death,” she said. The government has refused to give her a copy or transcript of the tape at this time.
She disputes a 911 supervisor’s Sept. 11 account of the conversation between Felt and Shaw in which the supervisor said Felt said he saw smoke after an explosion.
September 11, 2002
Others will say she heard the report of smoke and an explosion. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 4/21/2002] In September 2002, Britain’s Daily Mirror will report that Cramer has been ‘gagged by the FBI.’ [Philadelphia Daily News, 11/15/2001; Mirror, 9/12/2002] This might have something to do with the pending Moussaoui trial.
IMAGE: Ed Felt
What did happen to Flight 93?
RICHARD WALLACE, US Editor, examines riddle of hijacked jet as he visits crash site
” … At 9.58am a 911 call – the last mobile phone contact from Flight 93 – was made from one of the airliner’s toilets by passenger Edward Felt.
Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: “He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.
“He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn’t know where. And then we lost contact with him.” Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.
Also, according to sources, the last seconds of the cockpit voice recorder are the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage. What caused the smoke and explosion? Why the wind sounds? ….”
IMAGE: Demonstrator jumps
Like the other relatives of those who died on United Airlines Flight 93, the Felt family had come to hear the Sept. 11 tape of the cockpit voice recorder …….
Ed’s call was made at 9:58 a.m. In a conversation with dispatchers lasting about one minute, he spoke in a quivering voice saying, “We are being hijacked. We are being hijacked.”
He went on to describe an “explosion” that he heard, and then white smoke on the plane from an undetermined location.
Then the line went dead.
All these observations – explosion, white smoke, whooshing sound – would be consistent with an aerosol canister containing a knockout ‘gas’ being released on the passengers at the precise moment the passengers were attempting to gain entry into the cockpit.
Before Shaw could gather any more information about the hijackers, he said he heard something, but couldn’t make out the noise. Then, just one minute after the call began, the line was dead.
“I got dead silence,” Shaw said. “I was the last person that man talked to, without a doubt.”
The noise Shaw heard could possibly be the same noise that Ed Felt reported as ‘an explosion’. This noise could come from the can of knockout ‘gas’ that is released on the passengers. The timing certainly would fit. The ‘gassing’ probably took place between 9:59 and 10:00.
IMAGE: Athens riots: Protesters run from tear gas
Possible reason for conflicting reports
Family members of Felt might also have been gagged from talking to the media about the phone call. [Freedom Force International] When the FBI arrives at the center, it will immediately take possession of the tape of Felt’s call. [Washington Post, 9/12/2001; Philadelphia Daily News, 11/15/2001] The author of the site (Freedom Force International) from which the following is quoted suggests the reason for the conflicting reports of Edward Felt’s call is that the authorities have warned the relatives and others that discussing the ‘explosion’ and ‘white smoke’ might jeopardize the [then] upcoming Moussaoui trial.
Passenger Edward Felt made an emergency 911 call from the plane and told the operator that there had been an explosion on board and that he could see white smoke. Phone contact was lost shortly after that. The tape recording of this call was confiscated by the FBI, and the operator who took the call was ordered not to discuss it. However, Felt’s family members were allowed to listen to the recording (or at least part of it) and heard the comments about the explosion and smoke. They, too, were warned not to discuss the matter – on the basis that it might jeopardize the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was to be tried for masterminding the 9/11 attacks.
 This was denied by the New York Times in its March 27, 2002 issue, but was confirmed by The Washington Post and especially The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette which featured a detailed report on the Felt family’s experience at the FBI meeting where the tapes were played. See “Jetliner Was Diverted Toward Washington Before Crash in PA,” by Charles Lane and Phillip Pan, Washington Post, September 12, 2001, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=nation/nationalsecurity&contentId=A14327-2001Sep11. Also “It hurt to listen,” by Steve Levin, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 21, 2002, http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020421flight930421p1.asp.
There is a strange silence that descends on the plane after the passengers start their fightback. For some reason, the listeners on the ground can hear no speaking voices though they can hear other sounds. The fightback starts off with screaming and shouts from the passengers and with the noise of glass and crockery crashing (from the food trolley being used as a battering ram); however after a minute, everything becomes quiet on the plane.
This is noticed by several people on the ground. One of them is customer service GTE supervisor Lisa Jefferson who talks to Todd Beamer and stays on the phone until after the plane crashes.
Beamer puts the seatback phone down to join the passenger revolt, but he leaves the line connected. Jefferson continues to listen until after the plane crashes but she does not hear the plane crashing.
She relates what happened after Beamer left to join the other passengers, “I was still on the line and the plane took a dive and by then, it just went silent. I held on until after the plane crashed—probably about 15 minutes longer and I never heard a crash—it just went silent because—I can’t explain it. We didn’t lose a connection because there’s a different sound that you use. It’s a squealing sound when you lose a connection. I never lost connection, but it just went silent.” She says that soon afterwards, “they had announced over the radio that United Airlines Flight 93 had just crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and a guy put his hand on my shoulder and said, ‘Lisa, you can release the line now. That was his plane.‘… [Eventually] I gave in and I hung the phone up.” [Beliefnet (.com), 2006] It is determined later at Zacarias Moussaoui’s trial that Beamer’s call lasted 3,925 seconds which means that it ended at 10.49 am (if we take a start time of just before 9.44 am). [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006]
IMAGE: Gassed Kurds
Another listener reports a strange silence
http://kashmir.wordpress.com/2006/05/01/80/ Another false flag attack?
Between 10:00 and 10:06 am, several phones record only silence on Flight 93. In the middle of the commotion to take back control of the plane, voices suddenly fall silent. The listeners on the ground can no longer hear shouting or screams. Audible voices cannot be heard any more. For instance, although Todd Beamer puts his phone down without hanging up, Lisa Jefferson cannot hear any more sounds.
http://www.fotoglif.com/f/vyss41mpt47i Likely a false flag attack
IMAGE: An image from a security camera at Park Kultury metro station shows bodies lying on the ground … by Reuters
Similarly, Richard Makely, who listens to Jeremy Glick’s open phone line, can no longer hear voices of people talking. A reporter gives a summary of what Makely hears after Glick puts the phone down: “The silence last[s] two minutes, then there [is] screaming. More silence, followed by more screams. Finally, there [is] a mechanical sound, followed by nothing.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/17/2001] The second silence lasts between 60 and 90 seconds. [Longman, 2002, pp. 219] Near the end of the cockpit voice recording, loud wind sounds can be heard. [Longman, 2002, pp. 270-271; CNN, 4/19/2002] The Mirror says the last thing heard on the cockpit voice recording are wind sounds. “Sources claim the last thing heard on the cockpit voice recorder is the sound of wind—suggesting the plane had been holed.” [Mirror, 9/12/2002]
IMAGE: AFP photograph: Police fire tear gas as protesters attempt to disrupt the 2008 Republican National Convention.
If the plane crashed at 10:03 am as the 9/11 Commission claims, why the silence from 10:00 (at the peak of the passenger’s resistance when they were trying to break down the cockpit door) until the plane crashes (at 10:03)? Something has to account for the fact that people suddenly stopped speaking and no more sounds of the fightback by the passengers could be heard. The only explanation that makes sense is that the passengers were suddenly immobilized – they were ‘gassed’ and they fell immediately unconscious. Hence the abrupt cessation of passenger voices speaking. No more crashing sounds of a food trolley being used as a battering ram are heard. There are no more shouts of passengers attempting to take back the cockpit. Most of the passengers are unconscious or dead at this point, overcome by the knockout ‘gas’ that has been sprayed into the cabin. A few passengers might have taken longer to fall unconscious and some others may have woken up briefly. The screams heard by Makely may have been from those passengers.
IMG: Likely to be a false flag attack URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1243902/Saddam-Husseins-cousin-Chemical-Ali-sentenced-death-poison-gas-attack-killed-5-000.html
No more speaking voices heard on the cockpit voice recording
The cockpit voice recording of Flight 93 was recorded on a 30-minute reel which means that the tape is continually overwritten and just the last 30 minutes are recorded. The 9/11 Commission says the tape starts at 9:31 am and ends 10:02 am. [Longman, 2002, pp. 206-207; CNN, 4/19/2002] The government permits the relatives to listen to the recording. Passenger silence is heard for about a minute just before it ends. The silence starts just as the struggle is peaking. The New York Observer writes, “Some of the relatives are keen to find out why, at the peak of this struggle, the tape suddenly stops recording voices and all that is heard in the last 60 seconds or so is engine noise. Had the tape been tampered with?” [New York Observer, 6/20/2004]
The unfortunate explanation for this strange passenger silence that suddenly befalls the plane in the middle of the passengers’ struggle is that the passengers have been gassed by the hijackers. Upon being sprayed with an immobilizing ‘gas’, the passengers immediately collapse unconscious to the ground.
The hijackers’ hand was forced in that situation by the passengers mounting a fight to take back the cockpit. If the passengers had managed to break into the cockpit, the conspirators’ plans would have come undone. It was imperative that the hijackers escape from the plane unmolested and unwitnessed. It was also vital from the conspirators’ point of view that the plane crash and be detonated so that the evidence on the plane be destroyed.
Evidence mounts that the passengers were gassed
1. CeeCee Lyles’ husband hears a whooshing sound at about 10:00 am.
2. Edward Felt reports an explosion and white smoke about 9:59 am.
3. Lisa Jefferson hears no more sounds of the struggle after Todd Beamer ends the call and puts the phone down; there is only silence until after the plane crashes.
4. Richard Makely hears passenger silence, then screams, and silence again with some mechanical sounds and wind noise after Glick puts the phone down to join the struggle.
5. Cockpit recording shows silence for one minute from the peak of the struggle until the plane crashes according to the timeline given by the 9/11 Commission. Passengers’ relatives, who are allowed to listen to the cockpit voice recording, are surprised that voices stop at the peak of the struggle.
Discrepancies in timing of crash
There are differing reports about the timing of the plane crash. NORAD reports the time of the crash as 10:03:11, citing the evidence from the staff’s radar analysis, the flight data recorder, NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) analysis and infrared satellite data. [North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001]
IMAGE: Flight data recorder
However, a seismic study commissioned by the US Army gives a time of 10:06:05. Won-Young Kim and Gerald Baum, the scientists drafted to do the study, determine that the crash happened 3 minutes later than the time reported by NORAD. [Kim and Baum, 2002 ; San Francisco Chronicle, 12/9/2002]
IMAGE: Infrared satellite image
Still, other bodies posit the time of the crash to be 10:07 and 10:10. The New York Observer reports: “The FAA gives a crash time of 10:07 a.m. In addition, the New York Times, drawing on flight controllers in more than one FAA facility, put the time at 10:10 a.m. Up to a seven-minute discrepancy? In terms of an air disaster, seven minutes is close to an eternity. The way our nation has historically treated any airline tragedy is to pair up recordings from the cockpit and air traffic control and parse the timeline down to the hundredths of a second. However, as [former Inspector General of the Transportation Department] Mary Schiavo points out, ‘We don’t have an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation here, and they ordinarily dissect the timeline to the thousandth of a second.’” [New York Observer, 2/15/2004]
My theory is that the discrepancies in the timing of the crash arise because there are actually two events (three minutes apart) that occur in relation to the end of Flight 93.
The first event is the plane crash. This happens at the time of 10:03. The cockpit voice recording ends at this time. Also, infrared satellite data, flight data recorder analysis, radar analysis support this time as the crash time.
The second event that occurred is the missile strike aimed at the plane as it lay wrecked on the ground. The detonation of the plane is the event that showed up in the seismic study as a large disturbance. The detonation of Flight 93 will be discussed in another chapter (“Pennsylvania Crash”).
IMAGE: Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack by Won-Young Kim and Gerald R. Baum
Trancelike state, felt like she was leaving her body
Flight 93 passenger Honor Elizabeth Wainio speaks with her stepmother around 10:00 a.m. Her stepmother states that during the 10-minute call, Elizabeth “was in a trancelike state, appeared to have resigned herself to death, was breathing in a strange manner and even said she felt she was leaving her body”. Then she seems to be suddenly energized: “Mom, they’re rushing the cockpit. I’ve got to go. Bye,” Then she hangs up. Were the sensations Wainio experienced the result of being exposed to an anesthetic agent or were they simply the symptoms of an anxiety reaction? [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001; MSNBC, 7/30/2002]
IMAGE: Elizabeth Wainio
If she was experiencing an anxiety reaction, why did she seem to be calmly resigned to the likelihood of her death? It would seem that someone who was panicking at the thought of dying would be highly emotional, crying and yelling, and showing other signs of distress, instead of clinically describing strange sensations experienced.
Bomb theory debunked
Some people have proposed that a bomb was detonated on Flight 93, and the ‘explosion’ and ‘white smoke’ that Edward Felt reported came from that. They say that the wind sounds heard in the last minutes of the tape were from the plane being ‘holed’ by the bomb. There are several problems with this theory. A detonation of a bomb would not cause people on the plane to immediately fall silent. The explosion would have been loud enough to have been heard by everyone listening in on the open phone lines. As it were, only one person reported ‘an explosion’ (Ed Felt).
The only theory that fits with the known facts is that an incapacitating aerosol was released into the cabin which knocked out the passengers and crew and produced immediate cessation of voices on the plane. All the passengers who were talking to relatives or others on the ground stopped talking at this point. Sounds of struggle such as crashing plates also stopped at this point. This silence lasted for several minutes.
If the knockout ‘gas’ was shot out from a tear-gas gun, it can cause an explosive sound. The explosion would have been loud enough to have been noted by someone on the plane but it might not be heard by someone listening on the phone. (John Shaw did say in an interview that just before the end of the phone call, he heard a strange sound). CeeCee Lyle’s husband was able to report he heard a ‘whooshing sound’ at about the same time that Ed Felt reported the explosion. A whooshing sound is consistent with the noise a ‘gas’ makes when it is released under pressure, the same way a liquid will make a sound when it is sprayed out from an aerosol can. Perhaps Edward Felt was able to report the explosive sound and the white smoke because he was relatively sheltered from the effects of the aerosol (he was in a bathroom on the plane), and was one of the last people affected by it. As soon as the ‘gas’ was released, white vapor would have filled the cabin. It would have been easy to mistake the white mist for white smoke.
If there had been a bomb detonated on the plane in the last moments, it would have caused commotion and screaming, not silence. It would be unlikely that everyone would be killed instantaneously by the bomb. There would have been yelling, crashing sounds and other sounds of mayhem.
Cabin depressurization would probably not have been a problem at that point. When the transponder was turned on at 10:00 a.m, the signal showed the plane was flying at 7,000 feet. The transponder stays on until about 10:03 a.m. [MSNBC, 9/11/2002] Cabin depressurization is unlikely to have been the cause of the sudden silence on the planes.
“Pressurization is essential over 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) above sea level ” Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization
Betty Ong’s 9/11 phone call: “We can’t breathe”
In this phone call to air traffic controllers, flight attendant on Flight 11 Betty Ong says several times that the passengers are experiencing difficulty breathing. The conversation was 8 minutes long, of which 4 minutes was audible.
VIDEO: “Betty Ong’s 9/11 call from Flight 11.” Four minutes of the twenty minutes long call was recorded. (Dailymotion)
Betty Ong’s conversation with Nydia Gonzalez (Operations Specialist on duty on September 11)
Betty Ong flight attendant on FL11
In Betty Ong’s 9/11 call from Flight 11 to Nydia Gonzalez (Operations Specialist on duty on September 11), she mentions several times they “can’t breathe” in business class, and she also says “somebody’s got Mace”. When she made the call, she was in the back of her plane, in a jump seat. She says the cockpit door won’t open and she doesn’t know who’s there in the front part of the plane – business class/first class/cockpit.
… we can’t breathe …
[She was in the jump seat 3R]
“… we can’t breathe in business class … somebody’s got Mace or something …
I’m sitting in the back .. coming back from business.
… nobody knows who … we can’t even get up to business class right now because nobody can breathe.
… first class passengers … purser’s been stabbed …
We can’t get into the cockpit. The door won’t open.
Our number one has been stabbed and number five has been stabbed.
We can’t even get into the cockpit. We don’t know who’s up there.
We can’t even get inside.
“They might have spread something”
Operations specialist on duty who spoke to Betty Ong tells someone that Ong told her that “they might have spread something” so it’s hard to breathe there and to enter the front area.
Nydia Gonzalez: She doesn’t have any idea who the other passenger might be in first. Apparently they might have spread something so it’s—they’re having a hard time breathing or getting in that area.
(Plane struck World Trade Center)
Nydia Gonzales: What’s going on, Betty? Betty, talk to me. Betty, are you there? Betty? (Inaudible.)
Nydia Gonzales: Okay, so we’ll like—we’ll stay open. We—I think we might have lost her.
Why did the hijackers use a knockout agent?
The hijackers were not able to use guns openly (except perhaps in the cockpit) because they would have been reported by the passengers on the plane (although one first-class passenger apparently did report a gun – see Tom Burnett). Guns would mean that the hijackers had inside help. It would look less likely that Arab terrorists did the attack. Therefore, in the initial stage of the attack when the hijackers were trying to gain control of the plane, they relied on boxcutters (they were later found to be concealed in cigarette lighters). They may have used a gun with a silencer inside the cockpit. That may have been the gun that Tom Burnett reported to his wife. However, in the main cabin, they probably stuck to knives.
The hijackers could not use a bomb either to stop the passenger revolt for the same reasons. People would wonder how the hijackers smuggled a live bomb onto the plane. It would not fit the story of four Arab terrorists hijacking a plane with no inside help.
But the hijackers needed some extra weapon for ‘crowd control’ in case the passengers attempted to take back the plane. This weapon had to emit minimum noise, work instantaneously (within 1-3 seconds) to immobilize the passengers and be able to reach all the passengers at once.
The best weapon that could fulfill all the above criteria was a knockout aerosol.
If formulated correctly, a knockout aerosol:
1) Has instantaneous onset of action
2) Is able to be dispersed quickly throughout the cabin (in aerosolized form)
3) Is relatively noiseless (although a hissing or whooshing sound may be produced when it is sprayed from the aerosol can)
4) Can immobilize large groups of people in seconds.
Method of delivery
Tear gas is not a ‘gas’ but a liquid that has been aerosolized.
“CS gas” is actually an aerosol of a volatile solvent (a substance that dissolves other substances and that easily evaporates) and 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile, which is a solid compound at room temperature.
VIDEO: “Spray gun”. The ‘knock-out gas’ could have been delivered from a contraption similar to a spray gun. A spray gun can produce a cloud of fine white mist and makes a whooshing sound. Dailymotion
In the spray can method, the drug is sprayed through a nozzle in liquid form, producing a fine aerosolized mist, much similar to the way a liquid drug is delivered via nebulizer, liquid paint is delivered via a spray-gun or a liquid insecticide is delivered via an aerosol can. There will be a whooshing’ sound as the chemical agent is forced out through the nozzle.
In the tear gas gun launcher method, the drug is exploded out of a canister that is fired by a tear gas launcher.
RWGŁ-3 Polish tear gas grenade launcher
IMAGE: New form of tear gas canister. In Hebrew: 40mm bullet special/long range
IMAGE: Dr. Pornthip Rojjanasunant, the director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science Thailand revealed that the RDX explosive compound was found in the tear gas canister testing yesterday (12 Oct). Such canisters were imported from China and used mainly by Thai police during the crackdown in October 7. The trace of RDX spreading was also detected in the parliament area..
IMAGE: Tear gas with murderous RDX compound
It was important that the hijackers hit everyone with the incapacitating ‘gas’ at the same time. They probably waited until most of the passengers had assembled in the front part of the cabin before releasing the ‘gas’.
IMAGE: Tear gas launcher and gas mask
IMAGE: Israeli soldier fires tear gas
IMAGE: Thai protesters (Telegraph.co.uk)
IMAGE: Soldiers wear tear gas masks before a protest by supporters of Honduras’ ousted President Manuel Zelaya in Tegucigalpa
Dr. Pornthip Rojjanasunant, the director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science Thailand revealed that the RDX explosive compound was found in the tear gas canister testing yesterday (12 Oct). Such canisters were imported from China and used mainly by Thai police during the crackdown in October 7. The trace of RDX spreading was also detected in the parliament area..
IMAGE: An Israeli soldier fires a tear gas canister during clashes between the Israeli army and Palestinians in West Bank town of Hebron, Thursday, Jan. 17, 2008.
A cocktail of anesthetic agents and opioids
The Israelis needed to use a drug that would act fast to knock out the hostages. It was important that no reports of drugging leak out. To that end, they would have selected an anesthetic agent to spray in the cabin. Anesthetics can act instantly to put people to sleep. Inhalational anesthetics have been used to subdue large numbers of people in hostage situations. In the Moscow theater hostage crisis in 2002, apparently the Spetsnaz (Russian special forces) released a combination of inhalational halothane and an opioid drug through the ventilation system of the theater to knock out the hostage-takers and rescue the hostages.
IMAGE: Halothane molecule
Because anesthetic agents only act for the period they are inhaled ( “recovery of consciousness is rapid after the flow of gas is interrupted, unlike with high-dose fentanyl administration” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_hostage_crisis_chemical_agent]), to ensure that the passengers did not wake up suddenly, the hijackers likely added an opioid agent (opioids generally have longer duration of action than inhalational anesthetic drugs). Unlike the hostage drama in Moscow’s Dubrovnik Theater, the hijackers’ aim was not to merely knock out the people in the theater but to put them to sleep permanently. Therefore, it is likely that many times the lethal concentrations of the drugs were used in the plane attacks to ensure the people never recovered consciousness putting the hijackers’ plan into jeopardy. The hijackers wore respirator masks to protect themselves against the knockout aerosol.
IMAGE: Israeli gas mask (Amazon)
IMAGE: Self-contained breathing apparatus worn by Toronto firefighter
IMAGE: A person wearing an MSA Brand breathing mask with a Nomex hood on. This face piece attaches with a regulator to form a full SCBA.
One possible candidate for the opioid agent speculated to have been used is carfentanil, a drug used to immobilize large animals like rhinoceroses. It is a derivative of fentanyl, has about 100x the potency of fentanyl, and 10,000x that of morphine.
Carfentanil is another fentanyl derivative with very high potency and a high therapeutic index. It is a one of a series of N-4-substituted 1-(2-arylethyl)-4-piperidinyl-N-phenylpropanamide compounds. It is the only opioid approved in the United States for immobilizing large exotic animals; it is not approved for use in human beings.(19) Known as Wildnil, it is used primarily as an incapacitating agent for large animals, such as elephants, rhinoceroses, wolves,(20) seals,(21) and polar bears (22).
IMAGE: Elephant being anesthetized with a combination that includes carfentanil http://www.gorongosa.net/en/news-event/091008_elephant_collaring/elephant-gets-a-modern-satellite-tracking-collar
Because carfentanil has a short duration of action, the hijackers could have added other opioid agents with a longer duration of action to the cocktail of inhalational agents they released in the cabin, for example, sufentanil, alfentanil and remifentanil. Another possibility is the addition of aerosolized benzodiazepines.
IMAGE: Carfentanil molecule URL: http://www.3dchem.com/molecules.asp?ID=373#
Carfentanil is an analogue of the popular synthetic opioid analgesic fentanyl, and is one of the most potent opioids known. Carfentanil was discovered by Janssen Pharmaceutica. It has a quantitative potency approximately 10,000 times that of morphine and 100 times that of fentanyl, activity in humans starting at about 1 μg. It is marketed under the trade name Wildnil as a tranquilizer for large animals. Carfentanil is intended for animal use only as its extreme potency makes it inappropriate for use in humans.
The release of the incapacitating agent had to be delayed until the last possible moment. (Hijacker: “Should we finish?” Another hijacker replies, “Not yet.”) If the hijackers had not waited until the very last moment, that is, right before they left the plane and crashed it, there would have been a long period of silence that lasted until the plane crashed. Suspicions would have arisen that a chemical agent was used on the passengers.
Because of the variability of absorption of any given drug among the individuals exposed to it on the plane, it is highly possible some hostages took longer than others to fall unconscious or woke up briefly after falling asleep. This could explain why Richard Makely heard silence, then some screams, then silence again.
It could also explain the sensations experienced by Elizabeth Wainio which she reported to her stepmother in a telephone conversation shortly before the end. She felt as if she “was in a trancelike state … [she] was breathing in a strange manner and even said she felt she was leaving her body”. The timing for this call has been variously reported as taking place just before or just after 10:00 a.m. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/2001; MSNBC, 7/30/2002] This time of 10:00 a.m. is significant because it is the time when all conversations abruptly stopped on the plane.
“In opioid intoxication … respiratory depression manifesting as hypoventilation, apnea, and airway occlusion may be present.”
Moscow theater hostage crisis
IMAGE: Leaders of the hostage-takers in the theater (from Wikipedia Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis but has been removed since)
Kolokol-1 (Russian: Колокол, English bell) is a synthetic opioid, developed for use as an aerosolizable incapacitating agent. Although the exact chemical structure has not yet been revealed, it is thought to be a derivative of the potent opioid fentanyl, most probably 3-methylfentanyl dissolved in halothane as an organic solvent.
Chemical structure and physiologic effects
It is possible that Kolokol-1 may actually be carfentanil or 3-Methylfentanyl. The drug is formulated to be delivered as an aerosol. Upon inhalation, Kolokol-1 takes effect within one to three seconds, rendering the subject unconscious for two to six hours. In humans, the drug produces hypoventilation or apnea, the severity being dependant on the level of exposure and the subject’s degree of opioid tolerance. The hypoventilation or apnea may lead to death if the subject is not provided with ventilatory assistance.
Development and early use
According to Lev Fyodorov, a former Soviet chemical weapons scientist who now heads the independent Council for Chemical Security in Moscow, the agent was originally developed around a secret military research facility in Leningrad during the 1970s. Methods of dispersing it were later developed and tested by releasing harmless bacteria through subway system ventilation shafts first in Moscow and then in Novosibirsk. Fyodorov also claimed that leaders of the failed August 20, 1991 Communist coup considered using the agent in the Russian parliament building.
Use during Moscow theater hostage crisis
Kolokol-1 is thought to be the chemical agent employed by a Russian Spetsnaz team during the Moscow theater hostage crisis in October 2002. At least 129 hostages died during the ensuing raid; nearly all of these fatalities were attributed to the effects of the aerosolised incapacitating agent that was pumped into the theatre to subdue the militants. [MY BOLDING]
The Moscow theater hostage crisis was another Mossad false flag operation and was similar in many ways to the 9/11 false flag attack. The Moscow theater hostage crisis is discussed in the chapter called “Moscow theater hostage crisis”.
Israel’s Mossad has been documented to have used an opioid drug in a covert assassination or kidnapping attempt:
In October 1997, the Israeli Mossad used fentanyl in either an assassination attempt or a snatch-and-grab operation that subsequently went awry. In this case, Israeli intelligence operatives (including one physician) traveled to Jordan. There, they followed Khalid Mishal, a Jordanian-based Hamas leader in a car. The plan was to deliver fentanyl in a spray that would be absorbed through the target’s ear, but Khalid Mishal was able to escape. Following the event, he was reportedly affected by the drug, requiring significant medical attention afterwards.
IMAGE: Khalid Mishal
Here is another report about the same assassination/kidnapping attempt:
Mossad’s blunder strikes a raw nerve
Stephanie Nolen in Amman and Patrick Cockburn in Jerusalem on a bizarre assassination attempt
Sunday, 5 October 1997
Last Thursday, two men on Canadian passports tried to assassinate a Hamas leader in
Jordan. King Hussein believes that the attackers belong to Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency …
It all began at 7.15am on 25 September in the Hila El-Ali district of Amman, the Jordanian capital, when Khalid Meshal …
IMAGE: Mossad’s logo
Israel’s chemical weapons arsenal
The Schiphol plane crash in 1992 revealed that Israel El Al planes had been using Schiphol Airport weekly as a transit stop. In the crash, 10 tons of chemicals was found as cargo, including chemicals used in the manufacture of sarin gas. There was 190 liters of DMMP, which is enough to make 270kg of sarin, a nerve agent, that if released, could kill the entire population of a major city. There was also evidence that the plane was carrying radiological cargo. Reporters have claimed that there was weapons-grade plutonium on the plane.
Israel had an agreement with Dutch Authorities that their plane cargo could physical bypass inspection. This agreement had been in place since the 1950s. Israel could just present a cargo manifesto. Israel was making these trips weekly.
The source of the sarin chemicals, that were headed for Israel’s Institute for Biological Research, came from a Pennsylvania company called Solkatronics, a chemical company that specialized in specialty chemicals.
Solkatronics had a license from the US government to export these chemicals to Israel, it was later discovered.
The chemicals were headed for Israel Institute for Biological Research, a place that is thought to be a front for testing chemical and biological weapons.
A biologist formerly associated with the IIBR told the London Times on 4 October 1998: “There is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemical or biological weapon…which is not manufactured at the institute.”
Read more about Israel’s chemical weapons in the Schiphol El Al Crash section
CELL PHONE CALLS – GENUINE OR FAKED?
There have been doubts expressed by many people investigating 9/11 that the phone calls made from the hijacked planes were real. This section deals with these doubts and shows not only that the phone calls made from the planes were real but also that the making of the phone calls was an important part of the Israelis’ deception of 9/11.
Dewdney’s Faked Cell Phone Calls theory debunked
One of these investigators who is skeptical that phone calls from the planes were made on 9/11 is A.K. Dewdney. He outlines his theory here. He proposes that the phone calls were not made from the planes by the passengers but by actors from an operations center set up just for the purpose of faking the 9/11 phone calls. He says that the conspirators were able to fake the phone calls because they had captured recordings of the passengers while they phoned in to make reservations. Additionally, there would be some trace of their voices in the records kept by Amdocs or some other similar phone company from the times these people made a phone call in the past. Using the records of the phone calls, the conspirators were able to produce a a faked voice which matched the accent, pronunciation, intonation of the individual using sophisticated piece of voice synthesizing machinery. An actor would speak through a microphone to this machinery and out of the machine would come out audible speech which matched in all aspects the target’s voice that had been analyzed electronically by the machine. Such a process would likely be technologically possible in this day and age of advanced electronics.
However, despite it being possible to reproduce voice characteristics of a particular target, it would have been virtually impossible for the conspirators to have reproduced speech content that was natural, normal and expected for that individual under the circumstances on 9/11.
One of these circumstances that would have prevented the conspirators from doing such a thing is the high number of people who decided to fly on the fateful planes at the last moment. Half the known phone calls from 9/11 planes are from United Airlines Flight 93. Most of the people on Flight 93 had been booked to fly on another plane but were transferred to this flight when the original plane they were supposed to fly on got a cracked windshield. A few of the passengers who used cell phones on the plane, Flight 93, were passengers who switched over at the last minute, and the majority of them were not regular commuters of the route. There was no way the conspirators could have known that these people would opt to be on Flight 93 with 100% confidence. There just would not have been time for the conspirators to have done electronic voice analysis on these last-minute passengers as well as done the extensive data-mining of the passengers’ lives and histories required to make faked but genuine-sounding phone calls. A further analysis of the passenger’s conversations shows a lot of personal information was revealed during those conversations, information that the conspirators would unlikely have known. Under different circumstances in which the conspirators had been given the passenger list long before the actual trips, it might have been possible to fake the content of the conversations as well. However, these circumstances present on 9/11 were such that the conspirators would not have had much time to find out exactly who was going to be on the planes, particularly in the case of Flight 93. Additionally, some of the passengers talked to their spouses for as long as ten minutes; faking the personality characteristics and speech mannerisms of a person would be very difficult to do for such a lengthy period of time without the person at the other end of the line becoming suspicious.
IMAGE: This is a photo of a Verizon airphone in the back of a plane seat. URL: http://i1014.photobucket.com/albums/af266/haremountain/airphone1_mod.jpg
Caller gave her sister safe combination
Linda Gronlund, called her sister, Elsa Strong.
‘Elsa Strong says, “She said, ‘Hi, Else, this is Lin. I just wanted to tell you how much I love you.’ And she said, ‘Please tell Mom and Dad how much I love them.’ And then she got real calm and said, ‘Now my will is in my safe and my safe is in my closet. and this is the combination.’ And she just told me the combination of her safe.’
Besides this, the phone calls provide some of the most important clues for unlocking the mysteries of the 9/11 hijackings. The hijackers would not have wanted information about ‘white smoke’ filling the cabin or a ‘whooshing sound’ accompanying the white smoke and an explosive sound to get out. Then there was the long period of silence where no voices could be heard in the last minutes of the UA 93 flight, a silence heard by relatives on the still-open phone lines. How can that period of silence be explained other than by the passengers and crew being suddenly incapacitated by a knock-out ‘gas’?
The conspirators wanted the public to believe the hijackings were carried out with box knives the hijackers had brought with them in the carry-on luggage (a weapon that was somehow missed during the baggage inspection of the hijackers’ belongings by a suspicious baggage inspector before they boarded Flight 11). Anything that hinted at an operation more sophisticated than the one currently portrayed, for example, one involving knock-out gas to incapacitate passengers and crew, would create suspicion in the minds of the public that the 9/11 attacks were not carried out by a group of disaffected Muslim fanatics but by another entity.
Twenty-three (and counting) of the 44 people on Flight 93 were not supposed to be on the flight that day
By FrankL August 2002, (reviewed 2005 thanks to Brad)
Too Much Bad Luck?
Someone pointed out to me the large number of people who were only on the flights ‘by chance’. There are numerous stories about people who originally planned to take another flight but decided to take the opportunity to get home early and so on …. The following table details all the passengers and crew that were on this flight by chance – mostly moving from other flights. There are some, like Alan Beaven who were reluctantly called out to last minute meetings.
5. Jeremy Glick [made a call from FL 93]
Jeremy Glick was supposed to have been on Flight 93 a day earlier, but missed the Monday flight after getting stuck in traffic on his way to Newark Airport. http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
6. Lauren Grandcolas [made a call from FL 93]
Originally scheduled on a later flight, she had been pleasantly surprised to easily get a standby seat on Flight 93 at the airport. http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
7. Louis Nacke [made a call from FL 93]
Nacke had booked his seat only the night before. Out to dinner with his family, he had a received a phone call from one of his customers who needed help with an inventory problem. http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
8. Mark Bingham [made a call from FL 93]
11. Thomas Burnett [made a call from FL 93]
15. Honor Elizabeth Wainio [made a call from FL 93]
21. Sandy Bradshaw [made a call from FL 93]
22. Todd Beamer [made a call from FL 93]
24. Edward Porter Felt [made a call from FL 93] […..]
Several of the people mentioned above were originally supposed to be on another flight – Flight 91, scheduled for 9 a.m. According to the stories above, they arrived early at the airport and got standby tickets on Flight 93 – although flight 93 was delayed and didn’t take off until around 8:42 anyway …..
‘The reason they changed flight was, when the flight crew boarded and started to prepare for flight, my friend had noticed a crack in the windshield, so they grounded the plane.
They took the passengers and put them on flight 93, but not the crew members, that flight crew was saved ….’
Can phone calls be made at high altitudes?
Another reason given for the skepticism of some 9/11 researchers that phone calls were made from 9/11 planes is that they assert it is technologically impossible for phone calls to be made at the altitudes the planes were flying when the phone calls were supposed to have been made. To determine whether this is correct we need to ascertain at what altitudes the phone calls were made, and whether phone calls at these altitudes are possible.
Cell phone calls impossible at high altitudes?
Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes …..
Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less.
“They also were digital phones, and there’s a little bit more leeway on those digital phones, so it worked,” she said.
It helped that the planes were flying in areas with plenty of cell sites, too. Even United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania, was supported by several nearby cell sites, Raney added.
As explained in this article, it would have been more difficult to have made phone calls from the air than on the ground but it was still possible. The phone calls made would have been shorter than normal calls on the ground: the majority of the 9/11 phone calls lasted a minute or less. The areas in which the 9/11 planes were flying over were richly supplied with cell sites. Even rural Pennsylvania, above which UA FL 93 flew for much of its flight, had several nearby cell sites.
IMAGE: Flight path of United Airlines Flight 93 (New York Times)
Certainly, back in 2001, making cell phone calls from the air when the plane was above 10,000 feet was much more difficult to do. However, it is possible that the planes were cruising at an altitude less than 10,000 feet when the phone calls were made. When the transponder of Flight 93 was turned on briefly during the last half-hour of its flight, the signal from the transponder showed that the plane’s altitude was 7,000 feet.
Whether a phone call can be made from a plane depends on a couple of factors: the first one is the proximity to antennas. The second one is the speed of the plane.
It all depends on where the phone is, says Marco Thompson, president of the San Diego Telecom Council ….. The rough rule is that when the plane is slow and over a city, the phone will work up to 10,000 feet or so. “Also, it depends on how fast the plane is moving and its proximity to antennas,” Thompson says. “At 30,000 feet, it may work momentarily while near a cell site, but it’s chancy and the connection won’t last.” Also, the hand-off process from cell site to cell site is more difficult. It is created for a maximum speed of 60 mph to 100 mph. “They are not built for 400 mph airplanes.”
Another article makes the point that it is possible to make phone calls at altitudes of 5,000 to 6,000 miles with digital cell phones althought the chances of success decreases with increasing altitude.
From the New York Times: “According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.”
IMAGE: How a cell phone call is made in the air
This article makes the point that phone call signal may be stronger than phone call signals on the ground because there is less clutter like buildings in the air impeding the signal, and also because the plane’s fast speed means that cell phones can hop from one frequency to another.
Mobile phones can receive signals while travelling in an aircraft, provided the base station range allows. Territory covered with GSM network is divided into hexagonal cells. The covering diameter of each hexagonal cell may be from 400 m up to 50 km, which consists of base station that provides communication-receive and transmission, and antennae.
All GSM cellular communication telephone cells are performed via these antennae and stations, which are regulated by switching centre ……
Cell phone use during flights is still banned by regulations because it disrupts cell service on the ground and have the potential to interfere with an airplane’s navigation and communication instruments …
From high in the sky, a cell phone acts like a sponge, sucking capacity out of the cellular sites that carry calls. For ground users, cell phones communicate by connecting to one cell site at a time, from the air, because of the height and speed of an aircraft, the phones often make contact with several sites at once.
If allowed this would limit call capacity, which could mean less revenue. The cellular signal from the air is also especially strong, since it is unimpeded by buildings or other ground clutter. That often means it can jump on a frequency already in use on the ground, causing interruptions or hang-ups.
And airborne cellular calls are sometimes free because the signal is moving so fast between the cells that the software on the ground has difficulty, recording the call made, put the plane at risk because cellular phones can disrupt the aeroplane’s automatic pilot, cabin-pressure controls.
Modern aircrafts are installed with in-flight telephones mounted on passenger seats. The carriers receive a cut of the revenue from the telephones installed onboard.
They charge about about $6 for a one minute call, more than 20 times typical cell-phone rates. Thus the airlines and telecommunications companies also have an economic incentive to keep cell phones turned off in the air.
These in-flight telephones also operate on the cellular technology — using a single airplane antenna to which the onboard phones are typically wired ……
K. Kamalakannan, Doha, Qatar.
Like the article above, the report below affirms it is possible to make phone calls in the air when the plane is at its cruising altitude, usually 6,000 feet, and that many pilots make phone calls (illegally) and so do some passengers (in the toilets). The problem with making phone calls in the air is that the signal often drops as the phone signals are handed from one cell to another.
Making Calls From The Air
By Brad Smith
WirelessWeek – September 24, 2001
When several passengers aboard the hijacked airliners made calls to family and spouses from their wireless phones on the now-infamous Sept. 11, it came as a surprise to many that the calls actually were completed.
Although airline passengers are warned against using their mobile phones in flight, it’s fairly well-known that private airplane pilots often use regular cellular and PCS phones, even if it is illegal. Not quite as well-known, however, is that people have used their wireless phones to make surreptitious calls from the bathrooms of airliners.
The technology is there to support such airborne mobile connections. Take the Colorado company Aircell Inc., which uses FCC-approved equipment for wireless phone service.
But how does a terrestrial technology work in the sky?
First, altitude in itself is not a problem. Earthbound wireless phones can talk to base stations up to 10 miles away, depending on the terrain, while a typical passenger jet flies at an altitude of about six and a half miles. Since cell site antennas are configured to pick up signals horizontally and not from overhead, performance is usually compromised in calls from above. Nevertheless, cell sites can pick up signals from the air from great distances.
Toby Seay, vice president of national field operations for AT&T Wireless, says the technological limits to using a cell phone aboard a plane include the signal strength, potential signal inhibitors and “free space loss” as the signal gradually loses strength. The frequency used can make a difference, too. A signal using an 800 MHz cellular frequency can travel farther than a 1900 MHz PCS signal because of the different propagation characteristics of the two wavelengths.
The biggest problem with a phone signal sent from the air is that it can reach several different cell sites simultaneously. The signal can interfere with callers already using that frequency, and because there is no way for one cell site to hand off calls to another that is not adjacent to it, signals can become scrambled in the process. That’s why wireless calls from jetliners don’t last long, says Kathryn Condello, vice president of industry operations for CTIA. The network keeps dropping the calls, even if they are re-established later.
The phones on the back of the seats in most airplanes work similarly to a regular wireless phone. The major differences are that the antennas at the ground base stations are set up to pick up the signals from the sky, and there are far fewer stations handing off signals from one to another as a plane crosses overhead.
Also, Seay says, the airplane phones operated by AT&T Wireless and the GTE subsidiary of Verizon Communications send signals through wires to an antenna mounted on the outside of the plane. That is done to prevent interference with the plane’s own radio communications, as well as to eliminate signal loss caused by the airplane’s metal fuselage.
Another point in favor of cell phone calls being made from Flight 93 is that when many of the cell phone calls were being made, the plane was flying over rural areas (rural Pennsylvania and rural Ohio). Base stations in rural areas may be more powerful than base stations in urban areas as the signals in urban areas only have to travel a short distance to reach mobile phone users (as base stations are plentiful and in close proximity to one another in urban areas) whereas rural base stations must cover a wider area. The signals from rural base stations probably extend as far vertically as they do horizontally permitting the passengers on the plane to reach a base station on the ground.
Each base station can only serve a limited amount of users at a time. As the number of mobile phone users grows more base stations are needed. When there are shorter distances between base stations and mobile phone users, however, less output power is needed to communicate.
Betty Ong’s 9/11 phone call
Not only were phone calls made from the hijacked planes, but one such phone call was recorded. This is flight attendant Betty Ong’s phone call.
VIDEO: “Betty Ong’s 9/11 call from Flight 11.” Four minutes of the an 8 minute long call was recorded. (Dailymotion)
She called the American Airlines reservations center in Cary, New York at 8:20 a.m. from FL 11 using an Airfone. Part of the 20-minute conversation was recorded, preserving for posterity an account of the hijacking of Flight 11 while it was taking place. Although this call was made with an Airfone, it still supports the claims that cell phone calls were made from the air, as the technology for making a phone call with an Airfone is similar to the technology for making cell phone calls from an airplane (see the WirelessWeek article above).
A Calm Voice as Disaster Unfolded in the Sky
By the New York Times, January 28, 2004
By Phillip Shenon
…. “My name is Betty Ong,” she said after reaching the reservations office in North Carolina, speaking quickly but in a tone that was remarkably calm and lucid. “I’m on Flight 11.” She explained that she had been forced to the back of the jet, which was hijacked shortly after leaving Boston on a flight to Los Angeles. The plane later crashed into the World Trade Center ….
Anecdotes of people using cell phones in the air
There are many reports of people making phone calls in the air even at very high altitudes in some cases. One such phone call that was made on the day of 9/11 from a non-hijacked plane caused it to be grounded.
Plane was grounded on 9/11 because passenger was using cell phone on plane
My spouse] and I and six other fellow […] employees were on the 8 am flight from Boston to Los Angeles on Tuesday, but we were on the Delta flight , the one out of three 8am flights departing Logan that did not get hijacked. Instead, we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight.
Many people flying in planes on 9/11 found out about the 9/11 attacks by talking on cell phones to people on the ground. News of this importance would have spread very quickly to people flying by anxious relatives notifying them by phone of the attacks.
One investigation showed that “passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight”.
Over the course of three months in late 2003, we investigated the possibility that portable electronic devices interfere with a plane’s safety instruments … What we found was disturbing. Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight …
Downs, a software salesman, learned of the terrorist attacks while on a commercial flight returning home from South America … People on board using cell phones soon discovered the true nature of the day’s events.
The pilot indicated that he may be overflying the cloud tops. He did not file a flight plan. The pilot’s wife was driving to the same location and they talked by cell phone while en route. When the pilot failed to arrive at the destination a search was started.
Although many airplanes have public “air phones,” passengers flinch at the fee of $6 per minute …. I’ve seen passengers hunkered in their seats, whispering into Nokias. I’ve watched frequent fliers scurry for a carry-on as muffled ringing emanates from within. Once, after the lavatory line grew to an unreasonable length, I knocked on the door. A guilt- ridden teenager emerged. She admitted that she’d been in there for half an hour, talking to her boyfriend on a cell phone.
People have been communicating wirelessly from the main cabin since there have been wireless devices (never mind those overpriced satellite phones). A few years ago, I reported that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was looking the other way while air travelers were firing up their personal digital assistants (PDAs) in-flight and checking e-mail. I have personally used a cell phone on a plane, and I have flown next to people who have used their cell phones …….
I sat next to a woman who answered her cell phone at 30,000 feet, just above Mt Adams, on my way to Seattle. She answered to tell the person that she couldn’t talk to them as she was on a plane.
I was flying in a 757 somewhere in the 35,000 feet or thereabouts altitude when the cell phone in the briefcase of the passenger next to me started to ring. He quickly opened the briefcase and took off the battery then sheepishly looked around to see if a FA had heard it. He told me that he was using it in the terminal and forgot to turn it off.
My spouse was on a business trip once and called me at home on their cell phone while midway through a cross-country flight! ….. Besides my own personal experience with a cell phone call from an airplane, here is another source from a Wireless Week article:
The only plausible theory that explains many of the strange happenings reported by the passengers on Flight 93 is that an incapacitating agent was used on the passengers of Flight 93 a few minutes before the plane crashed. This theory explains the sudden onset of passenger silence that lasted a minute or more before the plane crashed. It also explains the reports of ‘a whooshing sound’, ‘an explosion’ and ‘white smoke’. It also explains why only wind sounds and mechanical sounds can be heard in the last moments of the plane’s flight and why no passenger sounds are audible apart from some screams.
An incapacitating agent was perfect for ‘crowd control’: it could be sprayed into the cabin, dispersing rapidly and reaching everyone within it, and it would not be obvious to the people on the ground listening on the open phone lines that a knockout ‘gas’ was being used. Additonally, it would work instantaneously to incapacitate the passengers, stopping any passenger revolt in its tracks.
The hijackers had to convey the impression that the attack was carried out with only simple weapons that the hijackers were able to bring aboard, such as boxcutter-knives and a crudely made bomb (a box with some material tied around it). The hijackers could not risk any information leaking out that the hijackers got help from ‘insiders’ at the airport or elsewhere.
Therefore, when it came to crowd control, an incapacitating agent was the perfect weapon.
Flight 93 went awry for the hijackers. This was the only flight among the four in which the passengers learned that there had been other hijackings and that they had ended as fatal crashes. Hence, the passengers on Flight 93 had a greater incentive than the passengers on the other hijacked flights to take active steps toward taking back the plane.
The attempt by the passengers to defend the plane forced the hijackers to eject from the plane earlier than they had planned to. The hijackers could not allow the passengers to take over the cockpit. Therefore, the hijackers had to use an incapacitating agent on the passengers. As soon as they used the incapacitating agent, the hijackers had only a couple of minutes to leave the plane. If they hadn’t left the plane within that time frame and crashed it shortly after their departure, too many questions would have been asked as to why the plane was flying for so long with no passenger sounds.
However, no plan is perfect, and the hijackers did not crash the plane straight after knocking out the passengers. There is a window of one to three minutes between the time the knockout ‘gas’ was used on the passengers and the crashing of the plane. In this window, there is passenger silence – a silence that is reported by Richard Makely, Lisa Jefferson and Lorne Lyles. These reports of passenger silence are corroborated by the cockpit voice recording.
The phone calls made from Flight 93 are vital for the re-creation of the last moments of Flight 93. What was said and heard in those calls provide the clues that enable us to deduce how the hijackers carried out their attack. The presence of ‘anomalies’ is an indication that this was no regular plane hijacking. Analyzing the atypical features of the hijacking reveals for us that it was a masterfully planned false flag attack – one that was designed to create a false picture and frame the wrong party.