INDEX LIST: - ON THIS PAGE -
We now have 7 items BELOW, concerned with the scenarios in our analysis.
1. "THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK"
2. 28 November supplement concerning additional sounds on the tape (reported in The Times).
3. 28 November e-mail discussing #2.
4. A further (November 16-17) e-mail suggestion regarding on-board equipment and software guidance equipment.
5. December 4, 2001: A reference to an IMPORTANT Scientific American December 2001 article concerning this whole question.
6. March 10: a google site which asks very probing questions.
7. April: Counter-arguments to item 6 above, also plan to disclose Flight 93 tape in dispute.

"THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK" THUS "LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG!" - AN ANALYSIS:

WHEN ISRAEL NATIONS GO TO WAR, THE CAUSE MUST BE RIGHTEOUS, and MUST UNQUESTIONABLY BE SEEN TO BE RIGHTEOUS.
In November 2001 the release of the tapes from the fourth hijacked and downed airliner (September 11, 2001) has led the writer to follow a "detective trail" through four "Scenarios" which results in serious speculations AND DISTURBING QUESTIONS regarding the truth of reports concerned therewith.

OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE TV - NEWS PRESENTATION OF THE COCKPIT VOICE RECORD OF THE DOWNED HIJACK AIRCRAFT IN THE PENNSYLVANIA FARM FIELD: By Douglas C. Nesbit, B.A.

I wonder if the rest of the world missed the significant aspect in the presentation of the sounds of the cockpit voice recorder just released a few days ago, on November 15 (?) 2001, from the aircraft which plunged into the Pennsylvania field nose down.

On the CTV News, Toronto, Canada, (via a feed from ABC, if the faint logo in the corner is observed), they played the sounds from the just-released tape as the screen was occupied with a sequence of photos and video shots pertinent thereto. At the bottom of the screen, a typed transcript printed in white lettering appeared, a line or two at a time, as voices spoke or sounds were heard. The news commentator's voice-over sought to clarify what we were hearing in the somewhat muffled sounds from the tape as each was flashed to view but there were two lines of transcript which appeared for a second, (too fast to be read off), which might have been missed by many viewers. I read them at the time with amazement (One of my little capabilities is as a "fast-read"), and I wondered if I could verify what I had seen.

The next morning, I accessed the < ctvnews.com > web page, and scrolled down to the "click-on" to view the video clip from the previous day's news again. I was correct in my clarity of perception, although it took me a number of re-plays to click on the "pause" to freeze that particular "frame" of the video. (I used a camcorder to film confirmation on my computer screen with the video clip on the computer screen "paused".) [CTV NEWS, in line with normal practice, has since changed the contents of that particular page, as they do daily in their normal operations.]

The hijacker's assumed name was quoted by the newscaster and a photo of his face was on the screen, as he addressed the passengers on the aircraft over the intercom, with these words of transcript across the bottom of the screen following mention of a bomb being aboard the aircraft: "And we are going to turn back to the airport. And they have our demands."

The implications of those words could be evident, and of great importance. If we try to create a set of scenarios and then eliminate each, like Sherlock Holmes, the "least-probable" turns out to be correct.

The question is: "Why did the aircraft turn nose down to crash into the farm field, killing all aboard?" We may find a key in the Sherlock Holmes novel which has as its theme "The dog that did not bark."

Scenario 1. - The hijackers were all bent on suicide collision with a high profile target building, and all knew they were heading to death. The spoken words quoted above were lies intended to pacify the passengers until the termination in death.

Scenario 2. - The hijacker pilot was a zealot bent on suicide collision with a high profile target building in accordance with a secret plan, and the other hijackers had not been informed of that terminal plan, but were acting in concert with a (bogus) less dangerous supposed plan involving supposed return to the airport with demands being supposedly passed to the airport officials by some other member of the wider organization. In other words, the words spoken by the hijacker were false information of a bogus plan which the hijackers (other than the suicidal pilot) had themselves been fed as true.

Scenario 3. - None of the hijackers was bent on suicide collision with a high profile target building. Four aircraft had been hijacked, three terminated. This was the fourth. Passengers in this aircraft had time to receive news of the fate of the other three aircraft via cellphone calls to relatives.

Scenario 4. - See below.

Caveat emptor: For this investigation, we will assume that the sound bits as broadcast to the public on the recovered cockpit recording form the only material evidence available of episodes of sounds thereon. (The Government, of course, might have culled the tape as presented on TV to eliminate portions damaging to their planned publicized scenario.) Further, we could speculate that, for example, a military fighter was ordered to bring down the airliner, but that has not been admitted to date, to the writer's knowledge.

Scenario 1. fails, as the passengers were not conned by the lies addressed to them, and were planning to retake control of the cockpit. (Attested in the news report.)
(a) Passengers failed to regain control. Why, then, did the mission not continue to termination on target?
(b) Passengers succeeded in forcing entry to the cockpit. Why, then, was there no comparable sequence of noises to those produced by the hijackers' takeover from the airline pilot, as played on the tape? (The dog didn't "bark") Without such evidence, we are left to assume no loss of hijack pilot control during such an attempt. The expectation would be the continuance of death-flight to target, not loss of aircraft control by either group, when both groups struggled in utter silence when fighting!
- If (i) passengers succeeded in regaining control, why were their voices not heard on the voice recorder?
- If (ii) passengers failed to regain control, then result is as in (a) above.
- If (iii) results of struggle were inconclusive while control was lost, sounds of that struggle would still have been recorded. No sounds were recorded in the playback. (The dog didn't "bark"!)

Scenario 2. fails, as news, verifiable by the cellphones, would almost certainly have been shouted at the hijackers who themselves believed, (and had also told the passengers over the inter-com), that there was no suicide termination planned. These themselves would doubtless then have joined the passengers in questioning or restraining their fellow hijacker, or at least their voices would be heard relating to the pilot what they had heard. The voices are not heard. (The dog didn't "bark"!)

But why, then, would the aircraft have almost immediately plunged to the ground, which was not the designated "target" of the pilot in any event?

Scenario 3. fails. Nobody either among the hijackers or the passengers wanted to crash the aircraft.

Scenario 4. The unexpected solution: Ground control takes over the aircraft! Control of the aircraft at some point was lifted out of the hands of the passengers or the hijack pilot, (using technology and equipment presently used on drone spy planes over Afghanistan), and they/he discovered, too late, this inability to correct the flight path from the one chosen by the distant ground radio controllers (i.e. the hijack pilot discovered that he and his team had been conned, and sacrificed to a terminal ending rather than the "return to the airport").

He could not find help by calling anyone because the cockpit microphone could have been cut off by radio control from the ground, while Cleveland tower's attempts to raise the aircraft could be received and recorded as though answered by silence. During those twenty or so repeat calls, the aircraft was still continuing to operate. The hijack pilot was entirely helpless and on his own at this point. BUT: HAD THE PASSENGERS LEARNED OF THAT LOSS OF CONTROL BY THE HIJACK PILOT, THE NEWS OF THIS MIGHT HAVE GONE OUT ON ONE OF THOSE CELL PHONES BY PHONING RELATIVES. Such news would:
A - Defeat the entire purpose of the whole four-plane scenario, (America blames the Islamic fundamentalists, terrorism must be countered with extraordinary countermeasures, etc. which yield increased power to the government),
B - Would also have revealed complicity in a larger plot by non-hijacker elements in the U.S. Government and or rogue elements among the air-controllers themselves! That would spell disaster for the whole plot. Thus any chance of such discovery then or later MUST BE TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY by the radio controllers who must send the aircraft vertically nose down to its doom in the farm field before any cellphone use could contact someone, and could relay the facts beyond the aircraft passenger compartment. Disclosure would spell catastrophe for the plot to blame "terrorists" and claim emergency powers! Alternatively, we can speculate that, with high priority secrecy, a fighter jet could have been ordered to terminate the aircraft at once by executive order for the same reason.

Can there be any other conclusion?

28 November, 2001: appended information: [A PRINTED REPORT THAT THE "DOG DID BARK"]
WE, AT B.I.W.F. ARE HONEST REPORTERS OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY PLAYED ON THE NEWSCAST AND ACTUALLY HEARD BY THE PUBLIC.

THE FOLLOWING EXCHANGE OF E-MAILS HAS BEEN SENT: FIRST, ONE WHICH FORWARDS THE PRINTED COPY OF AN ARTICLE IN THE TIMES, WHICH ASSERTS THAT THERE WAS MORE ON THE TAPE THAN WAS PLAYED FOR THE PUBLIC: (IDENTIFICATION OF E-MAIL SOURCES STRIPPED) This is followed by a critique, by way of further questions, which are raised in light of the printed article.

----- Original Message -----
From:(name withheld)
To:
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 11:42 PM
Subject: Hijackers on United Airlines Flight 93 Squabbled As Passengers Fought Back

Source: The Times (UK)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/

Hijackers Squabbled As Passengers Fought Back
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001540007-2001550826,00.html

TUESDAY NOVEMBER 27 2001

FROM KATTY KAY IN WASHINGTON

TERRORIST hijackers flew United Airlines Flight 93 into the ground deliberately as they argued about how to stop a courageous group of passengers from bombarding them with crockery and almost regaining control of the cockpit. While this desperate struggle went on at the cockpit door, passengers could be heard crying and praying in the last moments of the Boeing 757, which were revealed for the first time yesterday.

Through the anguished voices of all on board, there is chilling evidence of just how close these few passengers came to averting disaster on the fourth hijacked plane on September 11, according to a Newsweek report.

The four hijackers, red bandanas tied around their heads, are heard screaming at each other. One shouts that they should use the axe kept in the cockpit to beat back the passengers as the sound of plates and metal trays crash repeatedly against the door. Another is almost in tears as he pleads for his fellow hijackers to "take it easy". He is drowned out by one of the gang screaming "Give it to me" as he fights with his own comrades for the aircraft controls.

The one at the controls decides to try to knock the passengers off their feet as a last line of defence by putting the aircraft into a steep dive. He is heard mumbling to himself about cutting off oxygen to the passenger compartment but cannot find the right control. As half a dozen men charge up the aisle towards the cockpit, the hijackers, hearing this bedlam, suddenly realise that two of their team are left outside and are heard dragging them inside to safety as they push away the first of their assailants.

One of the passengers was a trained pilot whose job it would have been to steer Flight 93 to safety. Two others had played American football. They had said their farewells to loved ones from telephones on the backs of the aircraft seats or their mobiles.

The aircraft was now beginning to roll and from the jigsaw of voices pieced together from the black box recordings it sounds as if at least one of the passengers had by now forced his way into the cockpit. He reaches for the controls, the effort clearly audible on these tapes.

This struggle for life goes on for at least eight minutes until the hijackers' leader, believed to be Ziad Jarrah, realises they are outnumbered and in Arabic tells the other al-Qaeda recruits that they must crash the aircraft rather than let themselves be captured.

They never reveal what their target was to be - Camp David, the Three Mile Island nuclear site or any Washington landmark - but Jarrah is the one who decides they cannot carry out their mission. His is the last voice picked up the black box as he cries out: "Allahu akbar" (God is greatest). The time was 10.06am.

Less than an hour earlier in the cockpit of Flight UA93, Captain Jason Dahl, 43, who had learnt to fly before he could drive, and Leroy Homer, 36, the first officer, received a radioed text message from air traffic control in Chicago warning aircraft of that morning's hijackings.

"Beware cockpit intrusion," the text message said. At about 9.15am, the crew typed a one-word reply: "Confirmed."

At 9.28am, the hijackers - Jarrah, Ahmed Ibrahim al-Haznawi, Saeed al-Ghamdi and Ahmed al-Nami, all in their 20s - made their move. They were the youngest of the hijack teams sent by Osama bin Laden and were shorthanded because, the FBI believes, the man who should have taken over this flight could not get a visa. Air traffic controllers on the ground heard muffled screams and Captain Dahl shouting: "Hey, get out of here."

It was then that the hijackers make their first mistake. Thinking that they are speaking to the passengers, they switch on a microphone, but their heavily accented voices are relayed to air traffic control. The controllers sit powerless, listening to someone - probably one of the pilots - pleading for his life. From the frenzied telephone calls that would come from the passengers, it seems that the hijackers cut the crew's throats.

Confident that he is in control, 27-year-old Jarrah says in halting English: "Hi, this is the captain. We'd like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb on board. We are going to turn back to the airport. And they have our demands, so please be quiet." Jarrah was an engineering student who lived in Germany with his girlfriend. Just before boarding the plane at Newark he had telephoned her to talk about a wedding they were invited to attend that weekend.

The 33 passengers and surviving crew were herded to the back of the aircraft, which turned nearly 180 degrees back on its flight path, heading towards Ronald Reagan International Airport, Washington DC.

Two of the hijackers - Jarrah, 26, a trained pilot, and al-Haznawi - flew the aircraft. Another remained at the curtains dividing first and second class, while a fourth stood over the bodies of the murdered crew.

Some of the passengers realised that they could reach the in-flight phones. At least 26 made poignant calls, all of them knowing it was the last call they would make. Sandra Bradshaw, a stewardess, called her husband, Phil, a pilot, who was looking after their two children, Alexandria, 2, and Nathan, 1, at home in North Carolina.

She kept calm, explaining what had happened and what they could do, then, realising that there was no escape, telling him how much she loved them all and how he should kiss their children.

Elizabeth Wainio ended her phone call with her stepmother, saying: "I've got to go, they're breaking into the cockpit. I love you. Goodbye."

At 9.57am, the cockpit voice recorder picked up sounds of a struggle, with one passenger shouting: "Let's get them." On board the passengers were giving a running commentary on how the hijackers were struggling to keep the aircraft straight and how they were planning to take back the Boeing that should have been on its way to San Francisco. Jeremy Glick, 31, a website sales manager and former judo champion from New Jersey, called his wife, Lyz, who was staying with their daughter Emmy, aged three months, at her father's home.

In detail he told her what the hijackers were doing while she telephoned the police on another line. Mr Glick asked if it was true what another passenger had heard in a call, that terrorists had crashed aircraft into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre. She bit back her tears and said:

"You need to be strong, but, yes, they are doing that." Her husband realised that those on board had no other option because they were not hostages but were trapped on a flying bomb. She could hear him formulating a plan with two other men, now identified as Tom Burnett and Mark Bingham, 31, from San Francisco, who ran his own PR company. All were more than 6ft tall, well-built and fit. As the three discussed attacking the hijackers, Mrs Glick said: "Honey, you need to do it."

He joked about using a plastic butter knife as a weapon. Then he said: "Stay on the line, I'll be back."

Todd Beamer, 32, an accounts manager from New Jersey, married with two sons, decided not to call his pregnant wife, Lisa, because he did not want to worry her with bad news. Instead, he telephoned the switchboard of the company that provides the telephone service on United Airlines flights. Whispering, he told how one of the gang appeared to have a bomb strapped around his waist with a red belt. "In case I don't make it through this, would you please do me a favour and call my wife and my family, and let them know how much I love them." Seconds later the aircraft nosedived into a disused quarry in Pennsylvania.

THAT E-MAIL CONCLUDES HERE. NOW WE REPORT THE RESPONSE OF ONE OF OUR READERS (VIA E-MAIL):

THE RESPONSE: So, if the voice recorder information is available, where's the transcript, as in the WHOLE transcript, including the part where they allegedly indicated they intended to turn the plane around and go back to the airport (kicking in the head the notion of EVER intending a suicide mission to anywhere)?

And, WHERE, again, is the passenger manifest for THAT flight with THESE names on it: Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed Ibrahim al-Haznawi, Saeed al-Ghamdi and Ahmed al-Nami?

From where comes the information about the red bandanas on the head? The voice recorder information? The phone calls from the plane?

Seeing that "we're" so careful to INclude certain things and to EXclude certain things, still very much EXcluded is the fact of the 8-10 MILE diameter debris field for that "crash." Plane pieces DO NOT BOUNCE 8-10 miles after impact.

That plane came apart at a very high altitude. Was it a "sonic barrier" destruction, based on too much speed, as is one theory? Was it an on board explosion, or WAS THE PLANE SHOT DOWN? And if it was shot down, was it because someone, who could be a witness, realized that the plane was a drone, under remote control, even though the hijackers themselves were subdued, or at least rendered incapable of going forward with the hijacking?

SIGNED (name suppresssed)

WE AT B.I.W.F., WHILE RESPECTING THE IDENTITY OF SOURCE, BELIEVE THAT THE STATEMENTS WILL BE VALIDATED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BY EVENTS. WE WONDER WHY THE EXTENSIVE PORTIONS OF THE SOUNDTRACK ON THE TAPE WERE SUPPRESSSED UNTIL MONDAY 26TH NOVEMBER, AFTER OUR ANALYSIS WAS MADE PUBLIC!
D. Nesbit.

A STILL LATER SUBMISSION, RELAYED AS DATED BELOW
The Author of the original Analysis on this web page believes that the following exchanges by way of reply may serve to widen the scope of our understanding, and therefore may make a beneficial contribution to the picture, and thus should also be included.

"And, here's another possibility."
(Signature of relaying intermediary)
(Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 2:24 PM)
Subject: Remote control AA-587, playing nintendo with real people ...
From: (Source suppressed)
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 8:29 AM
Subject: RE: New evidence: The 11/12 crash? Look at the 11/31 NY crash in 1999 for the answer. Then rethink 9-11.

(Names of originator and relay deleted)
"I am convinced that no one was knowingly on a WTC suicide mission. The 4 planes were all taken over by remote control on 9-11-10 after the hijackings were begun."

"I agree but I doubt remote control was needed. The same thing could be accomplished by a hidden program inside the aircraft flight directors. Tell the hijackers to fly the planes back and forth over Manhatten so that they are seen and videographed, then as soon as the planes' GPS systems detect they are in the right area the flight director takes over and flies the planes into the targets, before the hijackers realize what is going on and can stop it.

Had remote control been used, there would have been too much time for people on radios, aircraft cabin phones, or even cell phones to get the message out that the planes were flying themselves. It had to happen in the space of a few seconds. And, having the aircraft under the control of the flight directors at the end explains the extremely high proficiency the pilots appeared to have in those final extreme maneuvers.
(Signature suppressed)

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FOR DECEMBER, 2001, pp. 23-24, Contains an important contribution to our above analysis.
"RESEIZING THE CONTROLS - Remotely Piloted Hijack Rescues May Be A Bad Idea" by Steven Ashley.
- The article concerns Air Security, and the possibility of seizing back control of a hijacked airliner by a ground-control station.
The article examines present technology which is specifically related to the very questions we have raised, regarding ground security, along with cockpit security, etc.

One passage reads: "It is already possible to control and land an aircraft automatically without the pilot, although such a step is typically taken only in zero-visibility conditions. Most modern aircraft have an autopilot - a computerized system that maintains altitude, speed and direction - that could be reprogrammed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground to make a safe, automated landing at a nearby airport."

Another reads: "The system itself could be a terrorist target."

Yet another states: "Still, any thought of using the Federal Aviation Administration's existing data communications links to pilot aircraft from afar brings up the troubling vulnerability of the nation's air traffic control (ATC) computers to terrorist takeover."

This entire Analysis will have been worth while if it draws forth further truthful information from those who may be holding it! - D.N.

6. March, 2002: Another related source: < http://www.google.ca > search, using the words "hunt the boeing": Among the first 10 of the offered menu of sites, a week ago, (March 10, 2002 - and hence might have since been withdrawn), one which yields a sequence of colour photos relating to the alleged flight which hit the Pentagon Building accompanied by pertinent questions.

This sequence can all be saved to one floppy disk. (It is difficult to print a sequence which scrolls from left to right rather than from top down.)

Significant items include a superimposed diagram of the top-view of the boeing on an aerial photo of the damaged Pentagon. The boeing is too large for the damage shown. Also, the undisturbed lawn outside the Pentagon building as seen in a photo right after the impact is later covered by extensive sand and gravel moved there by large earth moving equipment.

Why?

Implied, but not stated, is the following line of thought, here expressed by your Editor: Was the whole scenario a "staged" event, created to cover the disappearance of loyal Pentagon employees who have been "terminated" in a "wet operation" for refusing to "go along" with the "plot"? Very grave issues are here raised, and the site deserves to be commended for raising the issues involved!

7. April, 2002: Two further submissions: (a) An Australian newspaper, "The Strategy" Vol. 11 No. 124, April, 2002, p. 8, carries an article "French Claim About Pentagon Jet is a Sick Joke", from "Joe Vialls < joevialls@yahoo.com > which points out that:

(i) Fast moving aircraft can penetrate deeply, drawing in the dragging appendages like wings and tail with them as they impact,
(ii) That spreading sand and gravel is standard operation where heavy moving equipment is to be used. Both valid points. Photos are stated to be available on the web site to validate the counter-arguments raised in this four column illustrated article.

(b) www.msnbc.com/news/739277.asp?pne=msn website news of the day, April 17 carries an article by Don Phillips and Dan Eggen, quoted from The Washington Post; "Plan to play flight 93 tapes assailed" which indicates legal objections to public disclosure, on grounds of litigation and respect for sensitivity of close relatives to such.

We will attempt to keep abrest of further developments as they are brought to our attention.

RETURN TO QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
RETURN TO B.I.W.F. HOME PAGE