Many Interesting Details and Questions About 9/11...

in a German book by "medienanalyze", summarized by 9/11 researcher John Doe II.

The authors start their documentary by casting doubt on the identity of the 19 hijackers: At least six of the Arab people allegedly identified as hijackers made clear: the "identification" identified them wrongly. So who are they or are there hijackers at all?

The following people have the same name as the alleged hijackers and are alive: Salem Al-Hazmi (Flight 77), Ahmed Al-Nami (Flight 93), Abdulaziz Al-Omari (Flight 11), Said Al-Ghamdi (Flight 93), Walid Al-Sheri (Flight 11) and Wail Al-Sheri (Flight 11). As we all know the official list of the FBI wasn’t changed. The official list of the passengers was never published. No video footage of the hijackers save the one at Portland Airport (maybe) showing Atta. And then three years later the one from Dulles.

The authors are wondering how the press managed to have the photos of the 19 hijackers within two days if not with the help of the FBI. But then how did the FBI have the photos already at hand?

Khalid Al-Midhar:
Although Al-Midhar was known to the CIA due to the Malaysia meeting in January 2000. Al-Midhar personally went to the Washington International Airport on August, 26 to get his tickets (at that moment he was already on the Terrorist Watch List). Before he had aquired a new identity as a habitant of Falls Church (three miles away from the CIA headquarters). There he even managed to get five other new papers for his fellow terrorists. (But in all reports about the Fake-I.D.s it is never mentioned which names figured on the new papers).

But the authors wonder why did the terrorists need new papers just few weeks before the attacks (so far everything worked perfect with their “real” identity and they never appeared to behave carefully. And why did Atta open a Frequent-Flyer-account on August, 25? Did they have future planes after 911)?

The authors continue their investigation about the identitys of the terrorists (explicitly based on the work of Paul Thompson) by discussing the “two Attas” (although he was under surveillance of the CIA in Hamburg he had no problems to fly to the US, get a visa, fly to Madrid, return to the US etc), quoting the landlords of Atta Vonnie and Tony LaConca who don’t recognize Mohammed Atta on the official photos. The authors give examples of the very un-islamist life of Atta (parties and alcohol, girlfriend before marriage, etc) and his strange behaviour in the night before the attacks as if he wanted to make sure he would be remembered (I’m a pilot of American Airlines).

The “two Jarrahs”:
With Jarrah as well there are clear contradictions in his biography as he appears several times at different places at the same time. The authors more over mention the bizarre coincidence that the FBI found Jarrah’s letter to his girlfriend because Jarrah didn’t manage to writ her (and his!) adress correctly.

The “two Hanjours”.
At the very beginning the talk was of 18 hijackers because Hanjour’s name (so the official explanation) didn’t figure on the passenger list (although the Palm Beach Post gives the story of him buying his ticket on August, 31 with Moqed). With Hanjour as well there is the problem that he’s at the same time at different places. Moreover the authors give two examples of his handwriting. In 1996 his writing turns to the right side. Four years later his writing is completely different: smaller and turned to the left side.

The “proofs”:
The authors remark that although according to CNN (8/16/02) nine hijackers (of Flight 77 and Flight 93) have been found the death certificates will note: John Doe and suicide. But the question remains why isn’t each one of them identified and who are they? And at the end what proof do we have that the hijackers shown on the official photos have been on board?

Afterwards the authors wonder about the lists of the passengers. As they have never been officially published the only lists known are by CNN. But there again are mistakes. Jude and Natalie Larson figure on this list but on September, 18 (five days after CNN published the lists) the airline companies acknowlidge that this had been a mistake. The two of them weren’t on the flight and they are perfectly alive. The next problem: Adnan and Ameer Bukhari had been named as two hijackers. But on September, 14 the FBI had to acknowldige that Adnan is still alive and his brother died in a plane crash in September 2000.

The phonecalls via mobile phone:
According to the authors these calls mainly were made to unknown people and not to family members (eg Todd Beamer). And these calls to “officials” contain the keyphrases: arabs, hijacking and boxcutters.

Then they analyze in detail the phone call by Barbara Olson (the only call from Flight 77) that was the proof for the boxcutter story. They document the huge contradictions in the different summaries of the different calls (see also Paul Thompson’s Timeline) and quote Ted Olson who gave his decisive vote [sic] for Bush’s presidency: that they are a lot of different situations possible where it is legitimate for the gouvernement to lie.

The authors question the authenticity of Edward Felt (Flight 93). Why did he close himself into the toilet room? Why did he call the emergency operator? Why is Glenn Cramer (the one who received the phone call) not allowed to talk about it?

The authors wonder also about the call of the stewardesses Sweeney and Betty Ong (Flight 11). Sweeney gives the seats of the terrorists but they differ from the places where the terrorists were actually seated. She phones flight manager Michael Woodward (Boston) an official, somebody who didn’t know her and therfore couldn’t identify her voice. Strangely she says that two stewardess and a passenger had been murdered, the hijackers had reached the cockpit, while Sweeney gave their seat numbers, the flight took a sharp turn directly into the heart of Manhattan. But then the phone call had to last at least 30 minutes as the sharp turn happened at 8.28.
Betty Ong phoned Vanessa Minter from the flight reservation of American Airlines. She says the hijacker had sprayed something in the first class to prevent others from entering the cockpit. The calls last 25 minutes (from 8.21 till the crash). But the FBI says that only the first four minutes had been recorded and that the recording won’t made public.
Why didn’t Sweeney mention any spray?

The missing air defence:
According to the authors in the NATO the Quick reaction alert teams 15 minutes is a standard, 12 minutes better and ten minutes normal.

Washington’s air space below 18,000 feet is a no-fly zone and strictly forbidden.

The authors describe the “changes” of the starting times of the F-15 from Otis: On September, 13 Channel 4 claims at 8.39 two F-15 or F-16 started from Otis. But then the time changed from 8.39 starting time to 8.38 being informed and finally 8.52 take off. Then they quote Willaim Wibel from Otis saying (already on September 11) that it was 9.00 maybe even 9.30 when the airfighters were prepared for take off. And a “neighor” of Otis, Bill Thompson remarked that only around 10.00 maybe 10.30 there was an increased activity at Otis.

But the authors wonder as well why nobody saw or heard the F-15 approaching New York around 9.05?

Remote Control:
The authors remark the difficulty of the Flights: Flight 11 was still at a height of 30.000 feet just seven minutes before the crash, Flight 175 managed to crash into the WTC in a very difficult turn and especially Flight 77 made an almost impossible manoeuvre. Not only Egyptian president Mubarak wondered how pilots who didn’t even manage to fly a Cessna could have done that, Danielle O’Brien (a flight controller from Washington Dulles airport) even believed Flight 77 was a military airplane as it was very difficult to fly a Boeing 757 this way.
Therefore the authors start wondering if the four airplanes weren’t flown by remote control. They describe the possibilty of this technique and that already in 1984 a Boeing 720-027 was flown by remote control in order to do a crash test.
This technique is developped by Raytheon, Litton and also Boeing.
According to the authors this theory would also explain why the contact to the tower stopped and the transponder was turned off.

The C-130:

The authors point out the odds that eyewitnesses saw a C-130 next to Flight 77 and Flight 93 when they crashed. For the Flight 77 they name the eyewitnesses John O’Keefe and Bruce Warner. Besides that they remark that the firm Raytheon has equipped the C-130 with a lot of electronic warfare stuff. They are so called “Command & Control” units.

The authors figure out that Middletown (Pennsylvania) is placed on the route of all four airplanes and only there in the Air Force Base of the Harrisburg International Airport only there are airplanes of the type EC-130. (In contrast to the C-130 they have an extra 90-Kva generator for each engine).

During the hearings for the Joint Committee Col. Alan Scott mentions another C-130. Around 9:10 the tower asked several airplanes if they had seen Flight 77 (they also asked a C-130 on the way to Ohio). (The authors wonder if this airplane is identical with the EC-130 seen in New York).

Last but not least they point out that the slowness of the C-130 (only 450 mph) might explain why all four airplanes flew slower after they had been hijacked and deviated from their original route.

Then the authors come up with an interesting story. The Cleveland Center which is in charge of controlling the air traffic was also on 911 in charge of Flight 93. But when all the workers concentrate on the hijacked plan the center had to be evacuated due to a threat (expressed via telephone). All the workers but one left. Only one saw on the screen what happened in the end to Flight 93. The recordings of the radar are stored by the FBI the workers have been told not to talk.

Hijacked hijackers?
The authors wonder how it can be explained that F-16 and F-15 are always too late and a slow C-130 is always in time. Moreover they are wondering how also the decline of Flight 11 (29,000 feet in eight minutes. And how could the hijackers have foreseen it would be excellent flying weather on 911?). They build the hypothesis that either the known hijackers were not on board or they were simple passengers or they would even have been hijacked hijackers.

Raytheon:
Raytheon, the fourth biggest producer of arms in the US is also specialist of remote control technique. Especially the C-130 are equipped with their technique. The EC-130F is able to “hijack” a frequency with their own message. In three of four airplanes of 911 are senior members of Raytheon. The authors wonder if the members of Raytheon might not have been told that after a fake hijacking the airplanes would safely land with the help of their remote control technique but then the hijackers really get hijacked.

Two further members of Rathyon died on May, 8 2002 under bizarre circumstances. During a test flight of a T-39 Sabreliner two airplanes are suddenly lost to the radar and collide. There was no emergency call. And very bizarre the pilot of one airplane was Ambarak S. Al-Ghamdi. He had worked on a basis where according to Newsweek Said Al-Ghamdi and Ahmed Al-Ghamdi had lived in 1997.

The strange behaviour of people in positions with high responsibility on 911:
The authors describe that not a single politician was willing to take decisions on 911. Instead they tried to disappear or to do nothing or business as usual.

The attitude of the President in Sarasota is widely known.

But also the head of defence, Donald Rumsfeld; who was notified at 8.40 about the hijacking decided not to act. At 9.00 he then had a meeting with several Senators and Wolfowitz discussing how to achieve a majority for the budget for defence. At 9.25 Rumsfeld is still in the middle of this discussion explaining that the real threat of 21th century is terrorism and he foresees that there will be another attack. When the Pentagon was struck nobody could find Rumsfeld for half an hour. Only at 10.30 Rumsfeld appeared in the “National Military Command Center”.

Dick Cheney and Norman Mineta are carried into the bunker of the White House. It is not known what they had been doing before.

General Richard Myers only appeared at 9:45 “back to life”. For one and a half hours he discussed the formalities of his promotion with Senator Max Cleland. He acknowledges that he realized that the WTC was attacked but he thought it had been a small airplane. Even when the Pentagon was hit he wasn’t informed.

After 911: The democrats wanted to discuss on a meeting in Florida what could be done about the election manipulation of 2000.

On 911: In Washington the Carlyle Group has a dinner with the special guest Shafiq Bin Laden, the brother of Osama.

And General Tommy Franks was in Pakistan on 911 participating on conversations about terrorism and security.

Foreknowledge and other questions:
The authors mention the Pentagon drill in October 2000, the exercises of the medicines in May 2001 (assuming the attack of a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon) and the exercises of the NSA and CIA on 911 just a few miles away from Dulles Airport.
The authors wonder why the hijacker took the highly difficult to turn in order to struck the Pentagon at the very angle where the building was just protected against attacks and where due to the ongoing works mainly manual workers were killed. The authors wonder why the pilots didn’t went to crash straight into the Pentagon (which would have been a much easier manoeuvre and would have created a much higher degree of devastation) or didn’t crash into the side of the Pentagon where Rumsfeld has his room (and again this would have been much easier than the actual turn they made).
The authors mention that the enterprise that was responsible for building the protected side was AMEC. Interestingly they were also in charge of “cleaning up” at the Pentagon and on Ground Zero after 911. One part of the business of AMEC is also scanning of radio frequency and the planning of frequencies (something that could be useful in the C-130).

The authors remark as well that the News Service of the Army stated that within one hour of the first attacks temporary workers of the department for Defence were on the streets of New York and in the air to help. In view of the absence of Rumsfeld at that time and in view of the absence of air defence and any other action this is noteworthy. Besides the department of Transport pointed out that due to simulation and precise preparation they had been able to react within minutes. It’s a very good thing that the help was provided so quickly but due to the declared unprecedence of the attacks it is noteworthy as well.

The meeting:
Warren Buffet (second richest person in the world) had an interesting meeting on 911 in Nebraska. Several directors of the biggest American companies are there. Several of these firms have rooms in the WTC. Evidently a lot of them were saved from being victim of the attacks. At 2.00 p.m. the President arrived there. Why did he make this detour from Barksdale?

The enterprise NetJet to which belonged the Falcon Fairchild that was seen near Flight 93 although there was a flight ban is owned by Warren Buffet.

Mohammed Atta and the Vencie Flying Circus:
In the next chapter the authors analyze the film of Daniel Hopsicker (which is sold with the book).

The Hamburg terror cell:
Atta’s appartement in the Marienstraße was under surveillance of the BND (German secret service) from February 1999. But then the German police realized that Darkazanli and Zammar had been interviewed by American agents without the knowledge of their German counterparts. Moreover in 1999 the CIA tried to recruit Darkazanli as an agent.

The judge and two prosecutors of the Motassadeq-trial in Germany were asked to give testimony in the US. When they arrived at the American airport their three bags containing files on the trial were missing and they were obliged to go into court without these material. Two days later two of the bags were found.
The authors remark that it could be very possible that not only Binalshibh but also Atta and other hijackers were CIA-agents.

The proofs:
The authors analyse the quality of the official proofs of the guilt of the 19 hijackers: The passport of Satam Al-Suqami that was found a block away from the WTC (how is it possible that it survived?), Atta’s bag containing a pilot’s uniform (why did he need it as he already had a ticket) the Koran, his last will (but why did he put his last will in his bag and didn’t keep it with himself? Robert Frisk moreover showed that Atta’s last will is everything but not an expression of an Islam believer. The authors have the impression that all this proof creates more the impression of being made up than to explain or to prove something.

The authors ask to be shown proofs that really could prove something:
Fingerprints of the hijackers left on their boarding cards.
The complete documentation of the conversations between the tower and the four flights.
The complete recording of the cockpit voice recorders of Flight 77 and Flight 93.
The complete recordings of the Data recorder of Flight 77 and Flight 93.
The identification of the hijackers based on their DNA.
A documentation where which corps was found (inside or outside the cockpit).
Signature of the hijackers (the traces they left buying their tickets).
The complete documentation of the radar recording (proving if there had been airplanes nearby etc).
The complete documentation of Air Force Bases Andrews, Otis and Langley (who did take off with which plane and when).
In contrast to the proofs the authors demand they describe the destruction of possible proofs especially the rubbles of the WTC.

The blocked investigations:
Besides the Phoenix memo, the memo of Robert Wright and the testimony of Coleen Rowley the authors mention the case of James Hopkins. Again nobody seemed to be interested. Hopkins worked for the FAA and figured out that Adnan Bukhari (who was considered the first days to have been one of the hijackers) had attended in 1991 and 1998 the FAA academy in Oklahoma. He told his superiors. The day he told the FBI he was fired by the FAA. Later the Merit Systems Protection Board gave Hopkins right.
The authors end their analyses showing the problem of the Independent Commission and the Joint Inquiry and the secrecy of the ruling government (the change of the Presidential Records Act).

PostScript:
The authors reconstitute the history of the Jihad and the CIA involvement, the inability of the US army to capture leading Taliban (and some newspapers calling it all a “charade”). And indicate the importance of the PNAC and the need for a new Pearl Habour.

They give three different explanations of what might really have happened on 911:
1. The creation of the Taliban the Frankenstein of the US is responsible.
2. Let one happen stop the rest.
3. The creation of a new Pearl Habour

The authors tend to 2 and 3. And they describe also the possibility how 911 could have been a long planned Pearl Harbour with just 20, maybe 30 people really knowing what would happen.

So, some information that is probably old to many of you, but it is always good to refresh these facts. Plus there are some new details there as well-- for me, anyway. Finally, the questions and proofs are very important and still unresolved.