Deconstructing Jeremy Glick's phone call

[John Doe II]

Deconstructing Jeremy Glick’s phone call :

Jeremy Glick’s phone call is another central account of what is supposed to have happened aboard UA 93. Like Tom Burnett’s calls the story of Jeremy Glick hit the news on September 12 and were the basis (together with the accounts of Burnett and Beamer) of the hero story. His call is especially important as it is by far the longest call from this airplane.
This article aims to show that the accounts of this call (as the one of Beamer’s and Burnett’s call) is full of partly extreme contradictions.
But before we start some background information first:
Jeremy Glick phoned his wife Lyz who was at her parents on 911.
The first sources for this call were Joanne Makely, Glick’s mother-in-law, (CNN, 9/12/01) and Douglas B. Hurwitt, Glick’s brother-in-law, who talked to Washington Post (September 12). Lyz Glick appeared in the media on September 15.
The New York state police patched into the phone call. The State Police dispatcher is Robert Weingaertner (Times Union, 09/08/02) http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=57018&category=FRONTPG&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=9/8/2002.
“Ms. L. GLICK: They were listening. They had not been able to--I had heard them tap in, but they were not able to ask questions.”
(NBC, 9/15/01)
The call was recorded. The tape was later turned to the FBI.
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=57018&category=FRONTPG&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=9/8/2002
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetnat3p3.asp
But very very strange: The Independent Commission gives as a used source only the interview with recipient of the call but not the transcript (contrary to Betty Ong’s call).

Two basic facts concerning Glick’s call are in dispute:
What kind of phone did Glick use? As his call lasted about 30 minutes it would be extremely surprising that Glick managed it with his cell phone (his wife nowhere recalls any problem with the connection). Yet all media accounts state in the days after 911 that
he indeed used his cell phone. e.g.:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/plane.phone.call/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14344-2001Sep11?language=printer
(CNN, 9/13/01), (NBC, 9/12/01, 10 p.m.)

NBC states on September 14 that Glick used an airfone but it has to be stressed that it is Pauley who says: “Jeremy told her he was calling from a plane”. It is not his interviewpartner Lyz Glick. And nowhere I’ve found another quote that Glick said this indeed. The next mentioning of an airfone is only on October 28:
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp

To make a long story short : Until today it is much more often written that Glick used his cell phone. Nowhere so far could I find the mentioning of a prove that he used an airfone (e.g. his bank account or a declaration of Verizon).

The time of his Glick’s call
In the first days no clear time was given for the call but now it is normally assumed the call happened at 9:37. But one source states the call happened “just before 9:30 a.m.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
Also Glick’s brother-in-law stated that the call lasted 30 minutes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14344-2001Sep11?language=printer
Which of course would be impossible if the call started at 9:37. Also Lyz’ Glick’s own estimation that the call lasted longer than 20 minutes (NBC, 9/15/01) questions the given time of 9:37. Though as will be seen later it is highly unlikely that the passenger attack Glick is supposed to have organized started with him at 9:57.
The time of the call is important for the simple fact that if Glick was on the phone a few minutes before 9:37 he would have experienced the 180° turn before Cleveland while talking to his wife. Tom Burnett was on the phone when this turn is supposed to have happened but he didn’t mention it. Glick doesn’t mention it happening neither.

He felt the plane was circling and, you know, circling, and it wasn't--it wasn't going to California.
NBC, 15.09.01


THE CALL
As unlike Beamer’s call no transcript has been printed in the media I’ll rely on the first hand quotes from Lyz Glick. Therefore I’ll won’t try to reconstruct a perfect chronology of the call (btw the chronology of Jere Longman seems to be questionable).

Jeremy Glick called his parents-in-law where his wife Lyz was staying. After Joanne Makely picked up the phone Glick asked to talk to Lyz. (NBC, 9/15/01) http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
“LYZ GLICK: And the first thing he said was, 'Lyz, there's some very bad people on this plane.'” (ABC, 9/18/01).


Describing the hijackers

“LYZ GLICK: He said that they were Arabic-looking men . I think he said that they were wearing red headbands , you know, was the description.”
(NBC, 9/15/01)

This detail which has been reported numerous times and also managed to appear in the Commission Report is slightly surprising to say the least. We leave the question aside that the colour red is not exactly a holy colour in the Islam. Just to get this straight: The very only passenger that remarked that the alleged hijackers put on red bandanas is Jeremy Glick. Nobody else reported this. Not even Tom Burnett who called four times and was sitting within a few feet of the alleged hijackers. And why should they waste valuable time and the advantage of the surprise attack by taking out their bandanas and putting them around their heads?
Jeremy Glick is surprisingly the only one as well that indicates the origin of the alleged hijackers. Given the fact that the four alleged hijackers were the only Arabs on the plane this surprising again. Even more surprising that Glick even specifies in many accounts that he saw "three Iranian-looking men" http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp, (Newsweek, 12/3/01) and also Jere Longman who claims to base his book on interviews and listening to the tapes mentions this detail. (Though Lyz Glick never mentioned in an interview). How is Glick able to tell the difference between an Iranian-looking and an “Iraqian-looking man”?


Weapons of the alleged hijackers
“LYZ GLICK: And, you know, so I asked them if they were armed, and he said he had seen knives and--but there were no guns.”
(NBC, 9/15/01)
Here Glick is in definite conflict with Burnett’s account. Though it must be said Burnett was the only one aboard who explicitly mentions the presence of a gun.


Was a anybody aboard stabbed?
While Burnett explicitly reported that a passenger was stabbed and that he tried to reanimate him (this is taken officially as the correct version as the dead passenger is considered to be Mark Rothenberg), Todd Beamer talks of no stabbed passenger but two pilots lying on the ground. Now welcome to the third different account if anybody aboard was stabbed:
“PAULEY: He didn't tell you that one of the passengers had been stabbed?
Ms. L. GLICK: No.
PAULEY: And had already died.
Ms. L. GLICK: No.”
(NBC, 9/15/01)

Glick was seated row 11, only six rows behind Rothenberg and only five rows behind an alleged hijacker. Why didn’t he witness the dead of a passenger? Would a stabbing of a passenger not stand out? Keep in mind that Lyz Glick asked her husband many question the police dispatcher asked her to pose. “LYZ GLICK: We were able to ask Jeremy some questions and it was guided by that 911 call” (NBC, 9/15/01).


The reseating of the passengers
And again in three analysed calls the third version!
Burnett doesn’t mention any reseating at all. Beamer (although the accounts are extremely contradictory) states that passengers were reseated and basically the same number of passengers ended up in first and coach as at take off.

“LYZ GLICK: It seemed that the men had taken over the plane and had moved everyone to the back of the plane and kind of left them there. ”
(NBC, 9/15/01)
(Cox News Service, 9/12/01) (CNN, 9/12/01 e) (CNN, 9/13/01 f) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14344-2001Sep11?language=printer

To make no mistake : This is now the third different account about this detail. Why can’t the calls not agree on something that should be the easiest detail to agree upon?


A guarding hijacker

Todd Beamer who was sitting at take off just one row before Glick and who explicitly was in the rear of the plane during the hijack and btw mentioned Glick with his first name describes in detail an alleged hijacker that is guarding the passengers. He is standing between first and coach section and wears a box that he claims is a bomb.
Tom Burnett neither mentioned a gurading hijacker nor any bomb he could see (though he mentions that the alleged hijackers talk of having a bomb). And here comes Jeremy Glick with (you know it already!) a third account!
He doesn’t mention any guarding hijacker. And Lyz Glick explicitly states:

“LYZ GLICK: He was free to talk to me.”
(NBC, 9/15/01)

But though he doesn’t mention anybody guarding them (nor the problem that they have to overcome this guy) he describes the bomb that according to Beamer the guard is wearing:
“LYZ GLICK: It was something with a red tag around it.”
(NBC, 9/15/01)


What Glick is already aware of
“LYZ GLICK: And he said, 'Liz, I need to know something, one of the other passengers had talked to their spouse and he had said that they were crashing planes into World Trade Center , and was this true?'”
(NBC, 9/15/01)

As you’ll see soon this is an incredibly important quote. To stress the correctness of this quote:

“LYZ GLICK: One of the other passengers has talked to their spouse, and he had said that they were crashing planes into the World Trade Center, and was that true?'”
(NBC, 10/2/01)

“LYZ GLICK: He began to ask me, 'Are they crashing planes into the World Trade Center?' I guess one of the other passengers had spoken to his mother, I believe it might have been, and that message might have been relayed. So he asked that. And then I am watching on the big screen television in front of me the World Trade Centers collapsing.”
(ABC, 9/18/01)

The only passenger Glick could possibly be talking about is the only person who had done a phone call before Glick: Tom Burnett. And indeed Burnett learned from the WTC attacks and Deena Burnett heard him relaying this information to other passengers. So, Glick’s account seems to go hand in hand with Burnett’s call. But there are two huge problems. First of all Glick and Burnett were in different parts of the plane. How could Burnett then possibly tell Glick? This clearly seems to underline that the passengers weren’t guarded. That the guard and the closed curtain Beamer is talking about in detail simply didn’t exist. One account must be a lie: Either there is a closed curtain and a guard or Burnett couldn’t have informed Glick. Second, How is it explainable that Glick is informed about the first attacks and Beamer (who mentioned Glick by his first name and was sitting just one row before Glick at take off) has not the slightest clue of what’s going on and asked Lisa Jefferson if the hijackers want money? Keep in mind that Beamer call’s Jefferson eight minutes after Glick phoned. So Glick knew at least eight minutes before!

A small detail that completely destroys the official 9:57 attack time and hence the 10:03 crash time

“LYZ GLICK: He began to ask me, 'Are they crashing planes into the World Trade Center?' I guess one of the other passengers had spoken to his mother, I believe it might have been, and that message might have been relayed. So he asked that. And then I am watching on the big screen television in front of me the World Trade Centers collapsing. ”
(ABC, 9/18/01)

The problem is that the WTC collapsed at 9:59:04 (seismic record) and that the passenger assault that Glick is supposed to have organized, taken a vote upon and decided to do it already started at 9:57. If we keep in mind that the call still continued after Lyz Glick told her husband of the collapse Glick can’t have left the phone before 10:00 or even 10:00:30. Either Glick didn’t participate in the attack (which is extremely unlikely as Lyz Glick heard no background commotion although other people being on the phone with passengers did hear the start of the attack) or the attack simply started three minutes later which logically would put to rest that the plane crashed at 10:03 as officially claimed but as the seismic records tell at 10:06:05.
For a lengthy analysis of this issue please read:
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=839
and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x21703

Conclusion:
After analysing in detail the three central calls from UA 93 I wonder how many contradictions can fit into a single phone call, how many conflicts can be even on the most obvious detail of what happened aboard and how many clear conflicts can appear with the official story?

[philb]

1. There were other official records of UA 93 after 10:03 other than the sei

siesmic data. FAA had info on the flight at 10:04 and 10:05 that is in the record. Has been posted before.

[philb]

12. Here are some of the reports contradicting "official story"

10:01 CBS television reported that 2 F-16 fighters were trailing UA 93. Also an FAA flight controller, ignoring orders to not talk to the Media, was reported to say that an F-16 closely pursued UA 93.
10:02 AM After a review of radar tapes, a radar signal is detected near Shanksville, Pennsylvania." - CNN (9/17/01)
10:04 Johnstown-Cambria Country Airport reports the plane is 15 miles south and coming fast.
10:05 People on the ground witness the plane flying low and erratically.
10:06 a.m. Flight 93 crashes near Shanksville, approximately 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh(according to Seismic data)
After the crash:
1. Major Daniel Nash, one of the 2 F-15 pilots sent to New York, stated that he was told that a military F-16 had shot down an airliner in Pennsylvania.
2. Deputy Sec of Defense Paul Wolfowitz confirmed the previous reports, saying “the Air Force was tracking the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania… and had been in position to bring it down if necessary.
3. There was evidence that the plane was “holed” by a missile provided by witnesses on the ground. Several people reported having heard a loud bang just before the plane began to drop. The mayor of Shanksville reported that he knew at least 2 people, one of whom had military background, who reported having heard a missile. Other witnesses reported finding debris, including what appeared to be human remains, as far as 8 miles from the crash site. Workers at a lake 6 miles from the site said they saw “a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion. A half ton piece of one of the engines was found a considerable distance from the crash site.

Cleveland air traffic controllers called Dennis Fritz, the air traffic manager at the Johnstown-Cambria County Airport, 56 miles east of Pittsburgh, at 10:04 a.m. They said the plane was 15 miles south of him, bearing down on the airport."
(AP, 9/20/01)

[John Doe II]

2. Anybdoy

ready to explain the innumerous contradictions in Glick's phone call?
Anybdoy able to explain how the official time of the passengers attacking teh cockpit at 9:57 can be true in the light of this phone call? I'd be very interested!

[Kevin Fenton]

3. Recording

"The call was recorded. The tape was later turned to the FBI.
But very very strange: The Independent Commission gives as a used source only the interview with recipient of the call but not the transcript (contrary to Betty Ong’s call)."

The Times Union article you link to says that the call that was recorded was not the call from Glick to his wife, but a call from his inlaws to the police station.

Based on this article, you say "The New York state police patched into the phone call." However, there is no such indication in the article. It appears that a person at Glick's inlaws was relaying questions from the police to Glick, holding a telephone in each hand.

The Post-Gazette story is completely different:
"Ten minutes into the 30-minute call with her husband, Lyzbeth Glick asked her father to call the FBI on a separate line, Hurwitt said. FBI agents monitored the last 20 minutes of the call and are studying a tape and transcript."

Given that the Times Union actually talked to a person involved in the phone call, State Police dispatcher Robert Weingaertner, whereas the Post-Gazette only talked to Glick's brother-in-law, who had no first-hand knowledge of the events, it appears that the Times Union version should be more accurate.

[John Doe II]

9. Recordings

Thanks again for this question cause I didn't see that so far.
First of all let me say that Lyz Glick was at her parents-in-law. Her brother-in-law might have been around.

The Times Union article states:

Capt. Francis Christensen stood behind Weingaertner, firmly directing troopers who were flooding the dispatch room. Call Verizon and see if they can patch directly into Glick's call. Contact the FBI. Call the Federal Aviation Administration -- they already knew Flight 93 was in trouble. Christensen only listened, because Weingaertner, a dispatcher for eight years, was asking all the right questions.

Unclear if they managed.

In any case the Commission should have listened to this call as certainly it contains useful information.
And why does the Commission didn't quote from Beamer's call that Verizon claimed to have recorded?

[philb]

13. Why is FBI still withholding so much evidence and covering up

so much of what is known about all of the 9/11 events?

What could be the purpose of the coverup?
http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html

[Kevin Fenton]

4. Stabbing

"Was a anybody aboard stabbed?
While Burnett explicitly reported that a passenger was stabbed and that he tried to reanimate him (this is taken officially as the correct version as the dead passenger is considered to be Mark Rothenberg), Todd Beamer talks of no stabbed passenger but two pilots lying on the ground. Now welcome to the third different account if anybody aboard was stabbed:
“PAULEY: He didn't tell you that one of the passengers had been stabbed?
Ms. L. GLICK: No.
PAULEY: And had already died.
Ms. L. GLICK: No.”
(NBC, 9/15/01)

Glick was seated row 11, only six rows behind Rothenberg and only five rows behind an alleged hijacker. Why didn’t he witness the dead of a passenger? Would a stabbing of a passenger not stand out? Keep in mind that Lyz Glick asked her husband many question the police dispatcher asked her to pose. “LYZ GLICK: We were able to ask Jeremy some questions and it was guided by that 911 call” (NBC, 9/15/01)."

I've never flown in a United 757, but shouldn't there be a curtain between first class and economy, as there is on many airlines? And shouldn't this have meant that such an incident in first class could not be seen by Glick, who didn't report it? So he claimed not to have seen something he probably wouldn't see - what's wrong with this?

[spooked911]

5. If he could see the pilots on the ground,

why couldn't he see the stabbed person?

Even about the curtain, the accounts differ.

I know I know, you REALLY REALLY just want to think that there was nothing unusual about this hijacking, for reasons I don't quite understand.

But flight 93 is very weird.

The flight should not even have been hijacked in the first place.

The passenger phone calls are contradictory (and what do you make of Ed felt's call?).

And the crash site defies common sense.

But if you really want to think that it was a normal hijacking, go ahead.

[Kevin Fenton]

6. Pilots?

Where did you get the reference to Glick seeing the pilots on the ground? Aren't you confusing him with one of the other passengers?

[spooked911]

7. sorry, confused Glick with Beamer

But still, Glick was a witness to the hijacking-- describes the red bandannas, but isn't able to see them stab a passenger?

Besides, there are many other contradictions...

[John Doe II]

8. Stabbing

The stabbing of a passenger and Burnett trying to save the life of the dying passenger should have made some sound.
But especially I would like to know why Todd Beamer who is seated in coach as well does see people on the ground. Strangely he sees two of them. Strangely he sees pilot and co-pilot.
How do you explain that?

[Kevin Fenton]

10. Plane layout

I moseyed over to United's website and found the seat diagram for a 757:

You can find it at: http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1090,00.html

As you can see, there are solid objects between coach and first in the form of a galley (G) and a lavatory (L).

Then I fired up the trusty Wayback Machine and checked that this was the right configuration in 2001. It was, see here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010611201131/united.com/site/primary/0,10017,1090,00.html

Provided the passengers in coach did not have X-ray vision (and I think we can assume they didn't), they would not have seen a dead passenger sitting in first, whereas a passenger in first could have seen him. Therefore, it is perfectly normal that the passengers in coach did not report that Rothenberg (assuming it was him, assuming somebody was killed) had been stabbed to death.

As for the sounds, I've never stabbed anybody, been stabbed or participated in a stabbing in any way, but the last time I cut up some meat to make a meal, the knife didn't make any telltale noises. As for the sounds of the struggle that must have accompanied the stabbing, why do you think they would be necessarily different to those of a struggle without a stabbing or a struggle with a non-fatal stabbing?

[John Doe II]

11. Not really the central issue

The central issue was:
Why does Beamer (coach) see two dead people on the ground in first class that are identified by a flight attendant as pilot and co-pilot while Burnett (first class) witnesses the stabbing of a passenger but no two dead people on the ground. While Glick basically next to Beamer sees nothing at all.

And where are the passengers during their phone calls? In their given seats or herded back (if so how many)?

[Andre II]

14. But how can you explain that??

It is beyound a doubt that Glick told his wife:
that the hijackers were Iranian-looking,
put on bandanas
and were armed with knifes.
Ok

How can he have known?
Simple answer: He must have seen them when they got up and stormed the cockpit.
Ok

And also in Longman's book the things are very simple:
They put on red headbandanas and the three of them stood up and yelled and ran into the cockpit.

Didn't Longman forget something?
Did all the interviews forget something?
Did Glick forget something?

Why didn't he mention that they stabbed Mark Rothenberg??

[Kevin Fenton]

15. X-ray vision

Why do you think Glick has X-ray vision?

[Andre II]

16. X-ray

How can he see that they are
Iranian
have red bandans
have knife
storm the cockpit

and not see not even notice the stabbing?

What the hell does this have to do with X-ray?

[Kevin Fenton]

18. They're not Iranian

Can we assume they go from their seats to the cockpit via the central aisle, where they would be visible from coach?

Why do you think the stabbing must be visible from coach?

[Andre II]

20. Are you serious?

"They're Iranian".
It's not me who stated that but Glick.
All accounts about his call report this.
If you're not happy with it it's not my problem.

Can we assume that somewhere between the moment the hijackers got up (witnessed by Glick), put on their bandanas (witnessed by Glick), took out their knifes (witnessed by Glick) and storming the cockpit (witnessed by Glick) the hijackers must have killed Rothenberg?
(A killing that is only mentioned by a SINGLE witness, Tom Burnett).

All this is witnessed and apparently seen by Glick (knifes and bandanas don't make a lot of sounds).

Can you please tell me how Glick can have witnessed and seen this without neither having seen or only noticed the neither the stabbing, nor Burnett trying to save Rothenberg's life?
And why no other passenger witnessed this?

[Kevin Fenton]

22. Hunt the Iranian

It is photo A?


Or photo B?


Or photo C?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yitzhak_Shamir.jpg

Or photo D?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Osama-med.jpg

Once you've found the Iranian, find the Arab - the other two are natives of the Middle East, but are neither Iranians or Arabs.
Can you distinguish the Iranian from the Arab just by looking at them?

[Andre II]

23. What's your point?

It's Glick saying that they're "Iranian"! Ok?
Now, please answer my questions.

[Kevin Fenton]

24. Why do you think Glick

is an expert at telling the difference between Iranians and Arabs?

[Andre II]

25. Jesus, Kevin, give me a break

I DON'T CARE IF GLICK IS AN EXPERT AT TELLING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IRANIANS AND ARABS.
OK?
Can we move on now?

What I do care is how Glick describing the hijackers,
witnessing that they put on bandanas,
witnessing that they have knifes,
witnessing that they then stormed the cockpit
didn't witness not even notice the stabbing of a passenger?
Which btw was only mentioned by a single passenger.

[Kevin Fenton]

26. No, we can't

Moving on from an issue before it is settled is bad. Can you tell the difference between Iranians and Arabs just by looking at them or not?

[Andre II]

27. What's your point?

Did Glick describe them as Iranians or didn't he?
And if he did what is your point?

[Kevin Fenton]

28. Middle Eastern/Iranian

The quote from ATH is "The hijackers had a Middle Eastern apperance. They looked Iranian." (p. 201) These two sentences appear to be based on Lyz Glick's recollection of the call.

Here are photos of three of alleged hijackers:




Do these guys look Iranian to you or not?

[Andre II]

29. I'm in no position

to judge whether they look Iranian or Iraqian or east-turquian or from Jordania or Afghanistan.
The statement is widely reported.
Do you mind revealing me one day what your point actually is?
And btw I'm afraid I've asked you first how you explain why Glick didn't witness nor notice the stabbing .....

P.S. Why didn't you use other photos of Jarrah??

[Kevin Fenton]

31. Have you ever considered the possibility

that Glick may not have known that Iranians are not Arabs? Amazing as it sounds, some people do think that.

On edit: I got the Jarrah photo from the 911 timeline. Why?

[Andre II]

33. Wow, what a revelation!!

This short discourse into ethnology was very interesting!
And what actually does this have to do with the fact that he witnessed everything I've mentioned 100 times already but somehow he didn't witness nor even notice the stabbing?

[Kevin Fenton]

34. Judging by his phrasing

John Doe II thinks that this ("Iranian-looking men") is one of the many alleged discrepancies in the calls. Are you saying that you don't think it is a discrepancy and that Glick may reasonably have made a mistake? Do you disagree with John Doe II on this point?

[Andre II]

35. Yawn, yawn, yawn

please Kevin, since how many posts are we discussing the question how come that Glick witnessed
the appearance of the hijackers (what he described as "Iranian-looking"),
witnessed that they put on red bandanas,
witnessed that they had knifes,
witnessed that they stormed the cockpit.
Why didn't he neither witness nor even notice that during this the hijackers are supposed to have stabbed one passenger?

Nowhere since I brought up this issue I've made a deal about the fact that Glick uses "Iranian-looking" as a decription. I've stressed that repeatedly and I don't have a clue why you avoid the issue here and continue to discuss this.
So, do you mind to answer the question finally?

[Kevin Fenton]

36. It is better to finish one issue thoroughly before starting another

I take it you think that Glick describing the passengers as "Middle Eastern" and "Iranian looking" is consistent with the official conspiracy theory.

Now you seem to want to move on to the stabbing. First of all, we need to ask how reliable Deena Burnett's version is, because the story of the stabbing comes from her. What's your take on that?

[Andre II]

37. I asked first remember?

It's me who raised the question about how come he didn't witness the stabbing. You raised an issue in post 22 that I've touched in no way. I did never state that "Iranian-looking" would be inconsistent.
Therefore writing taht I seem to want to move on to the stabbing is quiet funny given the fact that I started the whole discussion several posts before post 22. But anyway.
I've no reason to doubt Deena Burnett.
But I've no reason to doubt Glick neither.

[Kevin Fenton]

39. Actually,

a brief review of the thread shows that you were the first to bring up "Iranian looking" in post 14, but never mind.

Tom Burnett's first call:
"I'm on United Flight 93 from Newark to San Frnacisco. We're in the air. The plane has been hijacked, They already knifed a guy. One of them has a gun. They're saying there is a bomb on board. Please call the authorities."
AFAIK there is no recording of this call, so the wording is just based on Deena Burnett's recollection.

Deena Burnett's 911 call made a couple of minutes minutes after his first call to her:
"My husband just called me from Flight 93. The plane has been hijacked. They just knifed a passenger and there are guns on the plane."
AFAIK this is a direct transcript from a recording, so the accuracy should not be in doubt.

Can you spot a discrepancy?

[Andre II]

41. Actually, actually, actually

I just quoted Glick. I didn't draw ANY conclusion from him using the word "Iranian-looking" and in the very same thread I asked questions which unfortunately I've to repeat over and over again. But nevermind.

Are you testing me?
Why don't you tell us if you have reason to doubt that Mark Rothenberg was stabbed before the hijackers entered the cockpit?

[Kevin Fenton]

42. I'm sure you spotted the discrepancy in what Deena Burnett said

even though you didn't mention it in your post.

I think Mark Rothenberg may have been stabbed around the time some of the hijackers entered the cockpit.
The questions are:
(1) Where was he stabbed?
(2) Did he die immediately?

[Andre II]

43. I love quiz-shows

but it kind of gets frustrating that since 11 answers to my clear question in post 14 you avoid giving any answer instead you come up with quiz-shows etc.
If you want to move this discussion forward why don't you try to explain how come Glick witnessed all that he has witnessed but yet hasn't witnessed nor even noticed any stabbing of a passenger.
I'm very curious for your answer but not for reading new quiz-shows. The time of my one-to-one tutorials is gone.

[Kevin Fenton]

44. Could Glick see it?

Maybe the stabbing happened in part of first class Glick couldn't see.

[Andre II]

45. Sorry, this is very vague

for an explanation.
Glick's account states that he witnesses the hijacker when they get up, put on the bandanas, he sees the knifes, he witnesses that they storm the cockpit.
Where exactly can they have stabbed a passenger that Glick would neither have witnessed nor even noticed (not to mention not noticed that Beamer tried to re-animate the passenger)?

[Kevin Fenton]

46. Post 10

Look at the plane layout in post 10. You can clearly see that Glick, sitting in row 11, could not have seen all of first class. Indeed, most of it was probably outside his field of vision.

[Andre II]

47. Are you serious?

So what you propose here as an explanation is:
Glick witnesses the three hijackers get up, put their red bandanas on, get their knifes out and storm the cockpit but he didn't witness nor even notice that somebody in first class was stabbed?
He's obviously focussed on what these three are doing and misses a stabbing which apparently was also soundless. And he also misses any reaction of Burnett who tries to save the life of the passenger?
This was such an invisible stabbing that no other passenger of first class noticed it, nor reacted in a manner that would have made Glick think that the hijacker actually have a use for their knifes and no other passenger of coach noticed it.
Wow.
And Burnett apparently reacted in a very invisible manner as well. Apparently not asking if there is anybody with medical experience on board. Or how did he manage to ask without anybody noticing it?
Maybe Lauren Grandcolas would have helped. She was a trained medical technician.
Nor Linda Gronlund who was a trained emergency medical technician.
Is there any other example in the history of aviation where a passenger is killed and only one single passenger realized it?

[Kevin Fenton]

48. Soundless

"a stabbing which apparently was also soundless"
When did I say it was soundless?

[Andre II]

49. Sound

If it wasn't soundless how do you explain that Glick didn't hear a scream or something (either of Rothenberg or another passenger in shock) which would lead him to noticing the stabbing?

[Kevin Fenton]

50. What sound?

Perhaps there was a sound, perhaps there wasn't. If there was a sound, why would Glick associate it with a (fatal) stabbing?

[Andre II]

51. Kevin

very simple question:
Do you want to really discuss the issue or do you prefer to avoid and avoid and avoid the subject.

So far you've repeatedly failed to answer.
Maybe you can do better:

Glick witnesses the hijackers getting up
Glick witnesses they put on red bandanas
Glick witnesses they take out their knifes

And you seriously ask if there was a sound of the stabbing why would Glick associate it to the stabbing (assumingly he didn't see it which already is strange cause it implies that Rothenberg remained seated but then why should he be killed?)?

Glick sees all of them have knifes and he hears a sound. A sound that we can assume is a scream of Rothenberg and maybe also of shocked passengers (none of them mentioning the stabbing in their phone calls) and Glick didn't associate the screams to the knifes? Not even bother to check out? Burnett didn't ask for help? No movements in first class that Glick witnessed and associated with the knifes nor anybody else in coach section? According to you the stabbing was not only invisible, but somebody who had a view till the cockpit door would not even notice anything? Right.
And the stabbing was even so invisible that no other passenger noticed it.
And all this is not even a minor contradiction for you?
And this also if as officially claimed all passengers were herded to the back of the plane this would get even more absurd cause you need to assume that Burnett didn't tell anybody from coach section about the stabbing.
Exactly as the flight attendant who only told Beamer and nobody else that pilot and co-pilot are dead on the floor who of course are again completely invisible to the passengers who not even noticed when the cockpit door opened and two bodies were put outside the cockpit.

And all this is not even a minor contradiction for you?

[Kevin Fenton]

52. Who's avoiding the subject?

"Glick witnesses the hijackers getting up"
Actually, that's not what Lyz Glick says. She says the her husband told her they got up. He may or may not have seen it. He may have noticed them standing up and deduced that the stood up.
"Glick witnesses they put on red bandanas"
Actually, that's not what Lyz Glick says. She says the her husband told her they put red bandanas on. He may or may not have seen it. He may have noticed them wearing bandanas and deduced that they put them on.
"Glick witnesses they take out their knifes"
Actually, that's not what Lyz Glick says. She says the her husband told her they had knives. He may or may not have seen the hijackers take the knives out.
Also, you got the order wrong too - according to ATH the bandanas went on before they stood up. Why do you constantly make subtle alterations to the facts?

"And you seriously ask if there was a sound of the stabbing."
Yes, some stabbings are silent. If you think this stabbing cannot have been silent, then please say why you think so.

"Assumingly he didn't see it which already is strange cause it implies that Rothenberg remained seated but then why should he be killed?"
They're terrorists, they kill people. So what if they stabbed him in his seat?

"Glick sees all of them have knifes and he hears a sound."
Glick didn't see all the hijackers, so how can he have seen that they all had knives!

"A sound that we can assume is a scream of Rothenberg and maybe also of shocked passengers."
Why can we assume that?

"Not even bother to check out?"
There were hijackers on the plane with knives, getting up might attract undue attention.

"Burnett didn't ask for help?"
According to Burnett, Rothenberg was dead. What help would he need?

"And this also if as officially claimed all passengers were herded to the back of the plane this would get even more absurd cause you need to assume that Burnett didn't tell anybody from coach section about the stabbing."
Could I have a link for this official claim please?

"Exactly as the flight attendant who only told Beamer and nobody else that pilot and co-pilot are dead on the floor who of course are again completely invisible to the passengers who not even noticed when the cockpit door opened and two bodies were put outside the cockpit."
We don't know who she told (if she did tell anybody). We don't know whether they really were dead. We don't know whether they were inside or outside the cockpit. We don't know for sure who they were.

Why won't you admit it is possible that the stabbing happened in a part of first class Glick couldn't see?
Why do you insist that there must have been sounds clearly identifying the incident with (we assume) Rothenberg as a fatal stabbing?

[Andre II]

53. Contstantly

"Actually, that's not what Lyz Glick says. She says the her husband told her they got up. He may or may not have seen it. He may have noticed them standing up and deduced that the stood up."
What difference to the general question does this really make?

"Actually, that's not what Lyz Glick says. She says the her husband told her they put red bandanas on. He may or may not have seen it. He may have noticed them wearing bandanas and deduced that they put them on."
What difference to the general question does this really make?

"Actually, that's not what Lyz Glick says. She says the her husband told her they had knives. He may or may not have seen the hijackers take the knives out."
What differenc to the general question does this really make?

"Also, you got the order wrong too - according to ATH the bandanas went on before they stood up."
I had to write this presentation about 10 times in this thread before receiving an answer from you. Sorry, if I don't check out every single time. And would explain to me what difference the chronology actually makes in view of the general question why Glick didn't witness the stabbing??

"Why do you constantly make subtle alterations to the facts?"
Constantly? I had one single time the facts wrong and I had no problem admitting this. I don't know how do you use the word "constantly"...

"Yes, some stabbings are silent. If you think this stabbing cannot have been silent, then please say why you think so."
I think that a stabbing results in a sound of the victim, of surrounding people who express their horror, of the movement of people trying to help, of people asking for help etc. All this are sounds who evoke the attention of somebody who already has seen knifes in the hands of the hijackers. Do you think that Glick after seeing the kinfes continued reading his newspaper?

"Glick didn't see all the hijackers, so how can he have seen that they all had knives!"
You know that we're only talking about the three hiaackers.

"There were hijackers on the plane with knives, getting up might attract undue attention."
Maybe check out right after the cockpit door closed or are you convinced now that there was a guarding hijacker?

"According to Burnett, Rothenberg was dead. What help would he need?"
No. In his first phone call he mentioned that a passenger was stabbed. In his second call only he mentioned that he tried to help but couldn't find the pulse and concluded that he was dead.
Why didn't he ask for help. Maybe two medically trained women in first class could have been more experienced.

"Could I have a link for this official claim please?"
Is the Commission Report officially enough for you?
Do you agree or disagree with there statement and if yo agree how do you explain that Glick didn't know of the stabbing, that Beamer hasn't heard of the WTC attacks contrary to many passengers?

"We don't know who she told (if she did tell anybody)."
Nobody else besides Beamer mentiones them.
Do you imply the flight attendant didn't tell Beamer?
How in general does Beamer know. Not to forget that in some accounts it is clearly stated that he even sees them.

"We don't know whether they really were dead."
There are at least seriously wounded. But this is not important for the sake of the argument. Why wasn't their presence witnessed?

"We don't know whether they were inside or outside the cockpit."
Do you believe that seven people fit into the cockpit of a 757?

"We don't know for sure who they were."
Who exaclty is "they" now? If you imply that "they" are passengers then why aren't "they" witnessed nonetheless. The question remains.

"Why won't you admit it is possible that the stabbing happened in a part of first class Glick couldn't see?
Why do you insist that there must have been sounds clearly identifying the incident with (we assume) Rothenberg as a fatal stabbing?"

The question is not if he saw but if he witnessed. Seeing knifes for example and hearing screams and then people around saying "Oh my God": i don't know if you need to see in order to be quite sure what happened.
No, I can't imagine a stabbing which somebody can't witness whose attention has been sharpened by seeing knifes which certainly has put him on alert.

[Kevin Fenton]

54. Main issues

"I think that a stabbing results in a sound of the victim, of surrounding people who express their horror, of the movement of people trying to help, of people asking for help etc. All this are sounds who evoke the attention of somebody who already has seen knifes in the hands of the hijackers."
Are you saying this applies to every stabbing - that every stabbing is noisy? If Glick did hear an expression of horror, why would he have known it related to a fatal stabbing, rather than the fact that the plane was hijacked?

"Is the Commission Report officially enough for you?"
No, I want a page reference.

"Nobody else besides Beamer mentiones them."
Are you sure? Jere Longman doesn't think so.
"Marion was crying. Her plane had been hijacked, she said. Two people had been killed, she told Fiumano.
"They slit their throats," she said. (p. 228).

If I understand you correctly, you now admit that Glick may not have seen the stabbing, but that he should have deduced it from sounds you claim must have been made and heard. Right?

[seatnineb]

55. Burnett and Bingham forgot to mention the 2 "injured/dead " pilots....

Considering Beamer,from his vantage point in the rear of the coach section of the plane, could see the 2 "incapicitated" pilots who were in 1st class......

What stopped Burnett and Bingham,who were in 1st class,from mentioning these same 2 "incapicitated" pilots?.

[Andre II]

56. Answers

“Are you saying this applies to every stabbing - that every stabbing is noisy? If Glick did hear an expression of horror, why would he have known it related to a fatal stabbing, rather than the fact that the plane was hijacked?”
Because he saw knifes.
And all events that surround the stabbing as I’ll present below.


”No, I want a page reference.”
“The hijackers were wearing red bandanas, and they forced the passengers to the back of the aircraft” (CR, 13)


”Are you sure? Jere Longman doesn't think so.
’Marion was crying. Her plane had been hijacked, she said. Two people had been killed, she told Fiumano.
"They slit their throats," she said.’ (p. 228).”
I don’t know how you can take somebody who witnessed the death of TWO people as a proof that the account of a passenger that witnessed ONE person killed is true?
If Wainio is referring to the same people as Beamer then she doesn’t account for Rothenberg. If she is not referring to the people of Beamer then who is the second dead?? Do we have none, one, two or even three people killed during the flight? Is this a minor contradiction for you?
Does the Commission help you stating “Callers reported that a passenger had been stabbed and that two people were lying on the floor of the cabin, injured or dead-possibly the captain first officer. One caller reported that a flight attendant had been killed” (CR, 13)
Who reported the dead flight attendant by the way?

”If I understand you correctly, you now admit that Glick may not have seen the stabbing, but that he should have deduced it from sounds you claim must have been made and heard. Right?”
I’ve never said that Glick saw the stabbing. I’ve always used the words “saw or witnessed the stabbing”.
Let’s summarize what all must have happened in order to explain that Glick witnessed the hijackers, the bandanas, the knifes and the storming of the cockpit but not the stabbing:
Rothenberg can’t have gotten up to hinder the hijackers because otherwise he would have been seen right away by Glick (you also assume that he was stabbed in his seat 5B). This already would have been a big mistake of the hijackers as they risk to alarm the cockpit, to give time to the flight attendants to warn the pilot and to loose the advantage of the surprise attack. Reinforced is the impression that there should have been time to warn the cockpit as Burnett in his first call mentions the stabbing but only in the second he mentioned that the hijackers entered the cockpit. So while it seems strange that Rothenberg was stabbed in his seat it appears possible yet it raises other problems and questions.
Rothenberg can’t have screamed in pain otherwise Glick would have noticed (having seen knifes just seconds before). Even if he can’t have checked out right away he would have done once the hijackers were in the cockpit.
The people around him can’t have screamed in horror cause again Glick would have made the connection.
The movements of people around Rothenberg trying to help must again have been not very audible otherwise Glick would have noticed the panik and even if he didn’t draw the conclusion that it was a stabbing certainly wanted to figure out more.
Burnett can’t have asked around for help (and he tried to help as shown in his second call). This is very strange given the fact that medically trained women were next to him. Why not ask for a doctor if somebody is dying or even if one assumes he’s dead? Burnett is not a professional doctor as far as I know.
Nobody else in coach can’t have realized cause otherwise Glick would have been told during the discussions he had.
If all passengers have been herded in the back then how come that Burnett and nobody besides Burnett mention the stabbing? Btw how come that Beamer is one of the few who is not aware of the attacks against the WTC?
If we assume the passengers haven’t been herded to the back then you accept that the Commission is talking nonsense here.
Now, on the one hand all these things have to have happened in order that it is possible that Glick didn’t witness a stabbing that happened. On the other side is only one passenger of the whole plane that mentions the stabbing.
How likely is it that the stabbing happened?

You haven’t answered several important questions I’ve raised:
Where are the two dead or wounded people on the ground:
Somewhere outside the cockpit? Then how come that only Beamer from coach is aware of that and how come he’s the only one the flight attendant is talking to? How come nobody from first class realized? If you say Wainio now then I’ve to ask you why she doesn’t mention Rothenberg. Burnett and Bingham are walking around during their talks: Why don’t they see anything? Why did nobody realize the cockpit door opening and the pushing outside of the two people? Why the doubts whether they are pilot and co-pilot? Shouldn’t this be clear due to their uniforms?

[Kevin Fenton]

57. Wainio? Britton?

"Marion was crying. Her plane had been hijacked, she said. Two people had been killed, she told Fiumano.
"They slit their throats," she said.’ (p. 228).”
"I don’t know how you can take somebody who witnessed the death of TWO people as a proof that the account of a passenger that witnessed ONE person killed is true?
"If Wainio is referring to the same people as Beamer"
Who said "They slit their throats" Marion Britton or Elizabeth Wainio?
Britton agrees with Beamer.

Are you seriously suggesting that the calls were faked by a bunch of incompetents?

Where do you think Glick was sitting?

[Andre II]

58. Britton

Britton mentioned the two dead passengers.
You take it that she agrees with Beamer than the two she is talking about are lying on the ground and are NOT Rothenberg. Therefore she wouldn't agree with Burnett not even mention the stabbing of Rothenberg.

"Are you seriously suggesting that the calls were faked by a bunch of incompetents?"
Do you suggest that because the calls must be genuine all the contradictions simply vanish?

"Where do you think Glick was sitting?"
Row 11 with view to the cockpit.

Sorry, what's with rest of my questions?

[Kevin Fenton]

59. Row 11 with view to the cockpit.

But which seat?

What's more plausible (1) eyewitness give differing accounts or (2) the whole thing is faked incompetently? Are you suggesting that because the calls contain contradictions they must have been faked?

[Andre II]

60. Seat

We don't have the info of the seat number of Glick only the row number.
What difference does it make.

You know very well that judging what is more plausible we first have to judge the degree of the contradictions.
I still haven't heard about the two people on the ground. Where are they?
Are all passengers in the back?
How many people killed during the flight?
Is there a hijacker guarding the passengers or not?

If we can't solve the contradictions of the calls in substantial questions then maybe we also should turn again to the technical possibilities of the calls.

[Kevin Fenton]

61. Difference

"We don't have the info of the seat number of Glick only the row number.
What difference does it make."

But you said he had a view of the cockpit, so that would mean the seat number you are claiming he had would have to be 11C or 11D, right?

Why do you think he had a view of the cockpit?

[Andre II]

62. Answers,

Do you intend one day to answer my questions from post 56 and 60 or do I again have to wait for 10 posts?
I'm not enjoying too much repeating myself in the vain hope that you bother to answer.
Instead you insists on a question that you brought up after I've asked my questions (while not answering mine).
Nonetheless an answer from my side:
I think he had a view of the cockpit cause it's stated he witnessed the hijackers yelling and storming the cockpit.
Any proof that he couldn't see the cockpit?

[Kevin Fenton]

63. Answers

"Do you intend one day to answer my questions from post 56 and 60 or do I again have to wait for 10 posts?"
I intend to answer them after we have examined the assumptions on which they are based, provided you choose not to rephrase them then. It would obviously be improper to answer a question that may be based on incorrect assumptions without first examining those assumptions.

You say "it's stated he witnessed the hijackers yelling and storming the cockpit."
Specifically, where is this stated?

[Andre II]

65. Longman

So, we do move forward....
You ask me for the source of my paraphrased quote from post 14 ....
It's Longman.

It would obviously be improper to answer a question that may be based on incorrect assumptions without first examining those assumptions.
Hm and what exactly did your question help you to answer above mentioned questions like:

Are the passengers herded to the back?
How many people were killed during the flight?
etc etc

Hope this turns into a discussion one day....

[Kevin Fenton]

66. Which page in Longman?

Do you mean this?
"It had been hijacked, Jeremy told Lyz. He had been sitting in Row 11, near the front of coach. The hijackers had a Middle Eastern appearance. They looked Iranian. They put on red headbands and the three of them stood up and yelled and ran into the cockpit. They sent passengers to the back of the plane, and they were threatening to blow it up. They claimed to have a bomb. It looked like a box with something red around it. Jeremy was calling now from the rear of the plane."
pp. 201-202

Do you think Glick told his wife that he saw all of this, even though it is not expressly stated in the text?

[Andre II]

67. Yes

Do you think his wife is inventing stuff?
If yes, which part would that be?
And again what relation does your question have with all my questions I have raised before ....

[Kevin Fenton]

68. Where is it stated?

In post 62 you said, "it's stated he witnessed the hijackers yelling and storming the cockpit."

In post 63 I asked? "Specifically, where is this stated?"

In post 65 you replied, "It's Longman."

In post 66 I asked you which part of ATH it was and suggested you might mean this passage: "It had been hijacked, Jeremy told Lyz. He had been sitting in Row 11, near the front of coach. The hijackers had a Middle Eastern appearance. They looked Iranian. They put on red headbands and the three of them stood up and yelled and ran into the cockpit. They sent passengers to the back of the plane, and they were threatening to blow it up. They claimed to have a bomb. It looked like a box with something red around it. Jeremy was calling now from the rear of the plane."
pp. 201-202

In post 67, you replied, "Yes".

The passage you refer to does not state that "he witnessed the hijackers yelling and storming the cockpit." He mentions the hijackers yelling and storming the cockpit, but there is no express quote saying that he actually saw any of it. I cannot understand why you think Glick saw the hijackers at the start. The passage quoted above does not support this view.

Where is it stated that "he witnessed the hijackers yelling and storming the cockpit"?

[Andre II]

70. The detail of his call

as the colour of the bandanas the fact that he mentions the knifes etc implies that he swa them.

He had been sitting in Row 11, near the front of coach. The hijackers had a Middle Eastern appearance. They looked Iranian. They put on red headbands and the three of them stood up and yelled and ran into the cockpit. They sent passengers to the back of the plane, and they were threatening to blow it up. They claimed to have a bomb. It looked like a box with something red around it. Jeremy was calling now from the rear of the plane."
pp. 201-202


According to you: What else can this description be based on than Glick witnessing what he's describing?

[Kevin Fenton]

71. Your argument

First of all you said "It's stated" that he saw them. Now you say there is only an implication. I detect a shift in your position.

"The detail of his call as the colour of the bandanas the fact that he mentions the knifes etc implies that he swa them."
I find that a surprising assertion. Why do you think the details his wife says he gave her imply that he saw everything she reported?

My conclusion is that he probably saw some of what he reported and probably didn't see some other stuff.

[Andre II]

72. Shift in my position

Yawn.


Why do you think the details his wife says he gave her imply that he saw everything she reported

Do you imply that he invented details? If yes, which ones?
Do you imply his wife invented details? If yes, which ones?


And please wake me up if you bother to tell me how many people aboard were killed before the crash, if there is a guarding hijacker, and if the passengers are herded to the back.

[Kevin Fenton]

73. Why are you always trying to change the subject?

We are talking about whether Glick should have seen or heard the stabbing or not.

You are trying to set up a false dichotomy by saying that anything Glick says must be either (a)(i) correctly observed by him, (ii) correctly communicated by him to his wife, (iii) correctly repeated by his wife, or (b) invented.

However, there are other possibilities which should be considered, for example that (c) he may not have observed something, merely deduced it happened (and such deduction may be correct or incorrect), (d) he may have repeated something another passenger or crew member told him (which may or may not be true, which may or may not have been distorted in the telling), (e) his description to his wife may not have been 100% accurate, or (f) his wife may not have total recall.

If they did put on red bandannas before they stood up, as the passage from ATH implies, then it is highly probable that Glick did not see this (although he allegedly reports it to his wife). Therefore, it is reasonable to ask whether he saw all the other things he reported. You not only claim that he saw the knives, but that he did so before the hijackers went into the cockpit, which is why you think he must have known Rothenberg (or somebody else) was stabbed (if they really were stabbed, if he made a sound). However, the passage you rely on does not back up this assertion, nowhere does Lyz Glick say her husband told her that he actually saw the knives, still less before the hijackers entered the cockpit. My position is that Glick (a) may have seen a knife/knives before they entered the cockpit, (b) may have seen a knife/knives after some of the hijackers entered the cockpit or (c) he may have learned about the knives without actually seeing them, for example from an air stewardess. Based on the passage we've been discussing, there's no way to tell.

Therefore, there is no reason Glick should have made any connection between knives he may or may not have seen and the sound of a stabbing he may or may not have heard.

[Andre II]

74. The subject

My question from post 14:
“Why didn't he mention that they stabbed Mark Rothenberg??”

In post 18 you start a new discussion
“They're not Iranian“.


In post 56 I’ve asked:
„You haven’t answered several important questions I’ve raised:
Where are the two dead or wounded people on the ground:
Somewhere outside the cockpit? Then how come that only Beamer from coach is aware of that and how come he’s the only one the flight attendant is talking to? How come nobody from first class realized? If you say Wainio now then I’ve to ask you why she doesn’t mention Rothenberg. Burnett and Bingham are walking around during their talks: Why don’t they see anything? Why did nobody realize the cockpit door opening and the pushing outside of the two people? Why the doubts whether they are pilot and co-pilot? Shouldn’t this be clear due to their uniforms?“

In post 65 I repeated a part of them.

In post 63 you started a new topic questioning the source of my post 14.

I answered your question and asked you in post 67:
“And again what relation does your question have with all my questions I have raised before”:

You still haven’t answered them but reproach me of changing the subject???
Right.



You've stated:
“However, there are other possibilities which should be considered, for example that (c) he may not have observed something, merely deduced it happened (and such deduction may be correct or incorrect)”

Please tell me from what he could have simply deduced the red bandanas or the description of the hijackers as Iranian-looking?

“(d) he may have repeated something another passenger or crew member told him (which may or may not be true, which may or may not have been distorted in the telling)”

And coincidentally this informant of course forgot to tell Glick of the stabbing….

“(e) his description to his wife may not have been 100% accurate, or (f) his wife may not have total recall.“

He gives a detailed description of the hijackers. His account even doesn’t have to be 100% correct to raise the question how he could be able to describe them but yet not have seen the stabbing.
Moreover Lyzbeth Glick seems to be quite certain about what her husband told her:

Lyz recalls no background noise. No commotion. He described the men as Arabic-looking, wearing red headbands, carrying knives. One told passengers he had a bomb. Most passengers had been forced to the rear of the cabin. Glick's mother-in-law went to another phone and dialed 911. As Jeremy and Lyz spoke, New York state police patched in on the call.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp


"He said they had been up for about an hour, and there was some very bad men that had come onto the plane," says Lyz. "I'm not sure how long they had been up before the plane was hijacked. But he said that the men had a bomb and they had a knife. He said that they were Arabic-looking men. I think he said they were wearing red headbands. The description said that there were three of them. He was very surprised that these people could have boarded the plane."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/629077.asp


And when do you intend to answer my questions???

[Kevin Fenton]

75. New discussion?

You say, "In post 18 you start a new discussion"
“They're not Iranian“.
Is this a new discussion I started or did you ask in post 16 "How can he see that they are Iranian?"

"If you say Wainio now"
I didn't say Wainio, you did.

"Burnett and Bingham are walking around during their talks."
They weren't.

"Lyzbeth Glick seems to be quite certain about what her husband told her:"
So what? That doesn't make her any more credible as an eyewitness.

[Andre II]

76. Are you sure

Is this a new discussion I started or did you ask in post 16 "How can he see that they are Iranian?"
Sorry, Kevin, but do you seriously believe that in the phrase the word "Iranian" is important or the fact that he SEES the alleged hijackers?

"Burnett and Bingham are walking around during their talks."
They weren't.

Please explain your defintive judgement in view of Tom Burnett ending his second call saying:
“I’ve gotta go”.
Moreover twice Deena Burnett mentions that Burnett “tells people sitting around him”.
Concerning Bingham I don’t see how you can make such judgement considering that he too apparently talked to people around:
“Hoglan heard murmurs of conversation in English. Mark's voice came back.”
And how does Glick can take a vote if they can’t move around somehow in the plane?

[spooked911]

17. Good point. I think the answer is because the all these calls were

were not describing something that was really happening. Rather, they were making it up as they went along-- is all I can figure.

It is quite hard to reconcile what Glick says with the other descriptions of a stabbing.

One other possibility is that Glick or his wife were purposely planting disinfo, much like Barbara and Ted Olson...

[Kevin Fenton]

19. Stabbing

Why do you think it is hard to reconcile what Glick says with the order descriptions of a stabbing?

If you think the stabbing must have occurred in the aisle, please say why it can only have occurred there.
If you think there must have been sounds of a fatal stabbing, please say what sounds.
If you think Glick could see the dead Rothenberg in his seat, please explain why with reference to the plane layout I posted earlier.

As for disinfo, people in glass houses...

[Andre II]

21. See post 20

[spooked911]

30. what don't you understand here?

He said he saw Iranian looking guys put on red headbands, yell, and go into the cockpit.

If he could see that, why couldn't he see the stabbing? If he had time to mention that they put on red headbands, surely he had time to mention they STABBED A GUY!

So his call really makes no sense, just like Ed Felt's call, just like Tom Burnett's call, just like Todd beamer's call. They all have things that DON'T MAKE SENSE!

Why is pointing out contradictions, "disinformation"?

[Kevin Fenton]

32. My post 28

contains some pictures of the alleged hijackers - do they look "Middle Eastern" and "Iranian" to you?

[spooked911]

38. Yes. So? This would reinforce the idea that he can see into first class

Right?

[Kevin Fenton]

40. All of first class or just some of it?

[savemefromdumbya]

64. was there really a Flight 93?

[WeedBug]

69. My Story

2 Days before the September 11 attacks I rang a nationwide talkback show in New Zealand. I forget how the conversation started but after only a couple of sentences I started saying "they dont think". I said this three times. Ill let you imagine who i was talking about. The next thing I did was yell at full volume "WAR" meaning there was going to be one. After this I gave a cry to tell about suffering (er youd have to hear it and what the host was saying) and then showed that I was giving the call everything I had and started saying "the thing, the thing" as a clue to why i was saying there was going to be a war. I finished the call by voicing a gleam in my eye, referring to there going to be a war and what i was saying about it. Err i guess you know what a gleam in ones eye means. So 2 days after yelling theres going to be war the planes hit the buildings. Theres more to the call than this like the host speaking and stuff but its obviously hard to type about a phone call and deliver the exactness of it. I made a point of showing I was giving it everything I had to express how there was going to be a war and everything in the call was to do with war. Umm, the translation of the call into text is a very poor example but i just wanted to post that and see if people have any comments. Like I said its not nearly as powerful as it would be to hear the actual call.

Thanks

[Andre II]

77. In view of the official claim

that all passengers were in the rear of the plane the fact that the accounts given in the phone calls differ significantly in all details is even stranger.