|
CHAPTER XVIII
On the Morning of 9/11: What Happened
on the Planes?
“We Have Some Planes”
The 9/11 Commission’s Report provides an almost visual description
of the Arab hijackers. It gives a face to the “terrorists”. It
depicts in minute detail events occurring inside the cabin of the
four hijacked planes.1
In the absence of surviving passengers, this “corroborating
evidence” was based on passengers’ cell and air phone conversations
with their loved ones. According to the Report, the cockpit voice
recorder (CVR) was only recovered in the case of one of the flights
(UAL 93). Focusing on the personal drama of the passengers, the
Commission has built much of its narrative around the phone
conversations. The Arabs are portrayed with their knives and box
cutters, scheming in the name of Allah, to bring down the planes and
turn them “into large guided missiles”. (Report, Chapter 1.)
Wireless Transmission Technology
The Report conveys the impression that ground-to-air cell phone
communication from high altitude was of reasonably good quality, and
that there was no major impediment or obstruction in wireless
transmission.
Some of the conversations reported by the Commission were with
onboard air phones, which, contrary to the cell phones, provide for
good quality transmission. The report does not draw a clear
demarcation between the two types of calls.
More significantly, what the Commission fails to mention is that,
given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an
aircraft travelling at high speed above 8000 feet:
Wireless communications networks
weren’t designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular
experts privately admit that they’re surprised the calls [on
September 11, 2001] were able to be placed from the hijacked
planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They speculate
that the only reason that the calls went through in the first
place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground.2
Expert opinion within the wireless
telecom industry casts serious doubt on the findings of the 9/11
Commission. According to Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesman, commenting in
the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks:
It was almost a fluke that the
[9/11] calls reached their destinations. … From high altitudes,
the call quality is not very good, and most callers will
experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can
pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain
altitude.3
New Wireless Technology
Within days of the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in July
2004, American Airlines and Qualcomm, proudly announced the
development of a new wireless technology—which would at some future
date allow airline passengers using their cell phones to contact
family and friends from a commercial aircraft.4
Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as
2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a
trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls.5
While serious doubts had been expressed with regard to the cell
phone conversations in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, this
announcement of a new landmark in the wireless telecom industry had
contributed to upsetting the Commission’s credibility. Aviation Week
described this new technology in an authoritative report published
within a couple of weeks of the release of the 9/11 Commission
Report:
Qualcomm and American Airlines are
exploring [July 2004] ways for passengers to use commercial cell
phones inflight for air-to-ground communication. In a recent
2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government
and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA)
third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text
messages from friends on the ground.
For the test flight from Dallas-Fort
Worth, the aircraft was equipped with an antenna in the front
and rear of the cabin to transmit cell phone calls to a small
in-cabin CDMA cellular base station. This “pico cell”
transmitted cell phone calls from the aircraft via a Globalstar
satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network.6
Neither the service, nor the “third
generation” hardware, nor the “Picco cell” CDMA base station inside
the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower
inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11,
2001.7
The 9/11 Commission points to the clarity and detail of these
telephone conversations.
In substance, the Aviation Week report had created yet another
embarrassing hitch in the official story.
The untimely July 2004 American Airlines/Qualcomm announcement acted
as a cold shower. Barely acknowledged in press reports, it confirmed
that the Bush administration had embroidered the cell phone
narrative and that the 9/11 Commission’s account was either flawed
or grossly exaggerated.
Altitude and Cellphone Transmission
According to industry experts, the crucial link in wireless cell
phone transmission from an aircraft is altitude. Beyond a certain
altitude, which is usually reached within a few minutes after
takeoff, cell phone calls are no longer possible.
In other words, given the wireless technology available on September
11, 2001, these cell phone calls could not have been placed from
high altitude.
The only way passengers could have communicated with family and
friends using their cell phones, is if the planes were flying below
8000 feet. Yet even at low altitude, below 8000 feet, cell phone
communication is of poor quality.
The crucial question: at what altitude were the planes travelling,
when the calls were placed?
While the information provided by the Commission is scanty, the
Report’s timeline suggests that the planes were not consistently
travelling at low altitude. In fact the Report confirms that a fair
number of the cell phone calls were placed while the plane was
travelling at altitudes above 8000 feet, which is considered as the
cutoff altitude for cell phone transmission.
Let us review the timeline of these calls in relation to the
information provided by the Report on flight paths and altitude.
(Italics are added to highlight key events in the timeline.)
United Airlines Flight 175
United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:
“It pushed back from its gate at
7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14.”
The Report confirms that by 8:33, “it
had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet.”
According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until
8:51, when it “deviated from its assigned altitude”:
The first operational evidence that
something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the
aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51,
the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute
later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and
unsuccessfully trying to contact it.
And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson
receives a call from his son Peter.
At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a
phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son
told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has
been stabbed—and someone else up front may have been killed. The
plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s
Flight 175, Boston to LA.”
Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cell (i.e., it
was not an air phone). Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the
plane was still at high altitude at 8:52.
Another call was received at 8:52 (one minute after it deviated from
its assigned altitude of 31,000 feet). The Report does not say
whether this was an air phone or a cell phone call:
Also at 8:52, a male flight
attendant called a United office in San Francisco, reaching Marc
Policastro. The flight attendant reported that the flight had
been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant
had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the
plane. The call lasted about two minutes, after which Policastro
and a colleague tried unsuccessfully to contact the flight.
It is not clear whether this was a call
to Policastro’s cell phone or to the UAL switchboard.
At 8:58, UAL 175 “took a heading toward New York City.”
At 8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney tried to call his
wife, Julie. He left a message on their home answering machine that
the plane had been hijacked. He then called his mother, Louise
Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that the
passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to take control
of the plane away from the hijackers.
At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:
It’s getting bad, Dad—A stewardess
was stabbed—They seem to have knives and Mace—They said they
have a bomb—It’s getting very bad on the plane—Passengers are
throwing up and getting sick—The plane is making jerky
movements—I don’t think the pilot is flying the plane—I think we
are going down—I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace
and fly into a building—Don’t worry, Dad— If it happens, it’ll
be very fast—My God, my God.
The call ended abruptly. Lee Hanson had
heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a
television, and in her home so did Louise Sweeney. Both then saw the
second aircraft hit the World Trade Center. At 9:03:11, United
Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade
Center. All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the
tower, were killed instantly.
American Airlines Flight 77
American Airlines Flight 77 was scheduled to depart from Washington
Dulles Airport for Los Angeles at 8:10. “At 8:46, the flight reached
its assigned cruising altitude of 35,000 feet.”
At 8:51, American 77 transmitted its last routine radio
communication. The hijacking began between 8:51 and 8:54. As on
American 11 and United 175, the hijackers used knives (reported by
one passenger) and moved all the passengers (and possibly crew) to
the rear of the aircraft (reported by one flight attendant and one
passenger). Unlike the earlier flights, the Flight 77 hijackers were
reported by a passenger to have box cutters. Finally, a passenger
reported that an announcement had been made by the “pilot” that the
plane had been hijacked.
On flight AA 77, which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, the
transponder was turned off at 8:56am; the recorded altitude at the
time the transponder was turned off was not mentioned. According to
the Commission’s Report, cell calls started 16 minutes later, at
9:12am, twenty minutes before it allegedly crashed into the Pentagon
at 9:32am:
[at 9:12] Renée May called her
mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being
hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of
the plane.
According to the Report, when the
autopilot was disengaged at 9:29am, the aircraft was at 7,000 feet
and some 38 miles west of the Pentagon. This happened two minutes
before the crash.
Most of the calls on Flight 77 were placed between 9:12am and
9:26am, prior to the disengagement of automatic piloting at 9:29am.
The plane could indeed have been traveling at either a higher or a
lower altitude to that reached at 9:29am. Yet, at the same time
there was no indication in the Report that the plane had been
traveling below the 7000 feet level, which it reached at 9:29am.
At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her
husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States.
[using an airphone] (Report p.7.)
United Airlines Flight 93
UAL flight 93 was the only one of the four planes that, according to
the official story, did not crash into a building. Flight 93
passengers, apparently: “alerted through phone calls, attempted to
subdue the hijackers. And the hijackers crashed the plane [in
Pennsylvania] to prevent the passengers gaining control.” Another
version of events, was that UAL 93 was shot down.8
According to the Commission’s account:
[T]he first 46 minutes of Flight
93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio
communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and
altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to
United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at
9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of
puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.” The hijackers
attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern
Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into
the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland
received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft.
At least ten cell phone calls were
reported to have taken place on flight 93.
The Report confirms that passengers started placing calls with cell
and air phones shortly after 9:32am, four minutes after the Report’s
confirmation of the plane’s attitude of 35,000 feet. In other words,
the calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost
UAL 93’s transponder signal (9:41) and approximately 30 minutes
before the crash in Pennsylvania (10:03):
At 9:41, Cleveland Center lost
United 93’s transponder signal. The controller located it on
primary radar, matched its position with visual sightings from
other aircraft, and tracked the flight as it turned east, then
south.
This suggests that the altitude was
known to air traffic control up until the time when the transponder
signal was lost by the Cleveland Center. (Radar and visual sightings
provided information on its flight path from 9:41 to 10:03.)
Moreover, there was no indication from the Report that the aircraft
had swooped down to a lower level of altitude, apart from the 700
feet drop recorded at 9:28. from a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet.
The following excerpts describe in minute detail what happened
inside the cabin. This description is based almost exclusively on
the alleged cell phone conversations:
At 9:32, a hijacker, probably Jarrah,
made or attempted to make the following announcement to the
passengers of Flight 93:“Ladies and Gentlemen: Here the captain,
please sit down keep remaining sitting. …
We have a bomb on board. So, sit.” The
flight data recorder (also recovered) indicates that Jarrah then
instructed the plane’s autopilot to turn the aircraft around and
head east. The cockpit voice recorder data indicate that a woman,
most likely a flight attendant, was being held captive in the
cockpit. She struggled with one of the hijackers who killed or
otherwise silenced her.
Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of
calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones. These calls between
family, friends, and colleagues took place until the end of the
flight and provided those on the ground with firsthand accounts.
They enabled the passengers to gain critical information, including
the news that two aircraft had slammed into the World Trade Center.
… At least two callers from the flight reported that the hijackers
knew that passengers were making calls but did not seem to care.
The hijackers were wearing red bandanas, and they forced the
passengers to the back of the aircraft. 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 and first
officer. One caller reported that a flight attendant had been
killed. One of the callers from United 93 also reported that he
thought the hijackers might possess a gun. But none of the other
callers reported the presence of a firearm. One recipient of a call
from the aircraft recounted specifically asking her caller whether
the hijackers had guns.
The passenger replied that he did not see one. No evidence of
firearms or of their identifiable remains was found at the
aircraft’s crash site, and the cockpit voice recorder gives no
indication of a gun being fired or mentioned at any time.
We believe that if the hijackers had possessed a gun, they would
have used it in the flight’s last minutes as the passengers fought
back. Passengers on three flights reported the hijackers’ claim of
having a bomb. The FBI told us they found no trace of explosives at
the crash sites. One of the passengers who mentioned a bomb
expressed his belief that it was not real.
Lacking any evidence that the hijackers
attempted to smuggle such illegal items past the security screening
checkpoints, we believe the bombs were probably fake. During at
least five of the passengers’ phone calls, information was shared
about the attacks that had occurred earlier that morning at the
World Trade Center. Five calls described the intent of passengers
and surviving crew members to revolt against the hijackers.
According to one call, they voted on
whether to rush the terrorists in an attempt to retake the plane.
They decided, and acted. At 9:57, the passenger assault began.
Several passengers had terminated phone calls with loved ones in
order to join the revolt. One of the callers ended her message as
follows:
“Everyone’s running up to first
class. I’ve got to go. Bye.” The cockpit voice recorder captured
the sounds of the passenger assault muffled by the intervening
cockpit door. Some family members who listened to the recording
report that they can hear the voice of a loved one among the
din.
We cannot identify whose voices can be
heard. But the assault was sustained. In response, Jarrah
immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right,
attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah
told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah
continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the
assault continued. At 9:59, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the
nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault. The
recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts, and
breaking glasses and plates.
At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane. Five seconds later,
Jarrah asked, “Is that it? Shall we finish it off?” A hijacker
responded, “No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off.” The
sounds of fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah
pitched the nose of the aircraft up and down. At 10:00:26, a
passenger in the background said, “In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll
die!” Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled,“Roll it!”
Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers at
about 10:01:00 and said, “Allah is the greatest! Allah is the
greatest!” He then asked another hijacker in the cockpit,“Is that
it? I mean, shall we put it down?” to which the other replied,“Yes,
put it in it, and pull it down.” The passengers continued their
assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, “Pull it down! Pull it
down!” The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged
that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them. The
airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the
right.
The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began
shouting “Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.” With the
sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft
plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580
miles per hour, about 20 minutes’ flying time from Washington D.C.
Jarrah’s objective was to crash his airliner into symbols of the
American Republic, the Capitol or the White House. He was defeated
by the alerted, unarmed passengers of United.
The Mysterious Call of Edward Felt from
UAL 93
Early media coverage in the wake of 9/11 on the fate of UAL 93 had
been based in part on a reported cell call from a passenger named
Edward Felt, who supposedly managed to reach an emergency official
in Pennsylvania. How he got the emergency supervisor’s number and
managed to reach him remains unclear.
The call was apparently received at 9.58 am, eight minutes before
the reported time of the crash at 10.06 am in Pennsylvania:
Local emergency officials said they
received a cell phone call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was
a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked
himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the
plane had been hijacked. “We are being hijacked! We are being
hijacked!” he was quoted as saying. A California man identified
as Tom Burnett reportedly called his wife and told her that
somebody on the plane had been stabbed. “We’re all going to die,
but three of us are going to do something,” he told her. “I love
you honey.”
The alleged call by Edward Felt from the
toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the
emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.
It is worth noting that Glenn Cramer was subsequently gagged by the
FBI.9
Ironically, this high profile cell call by Ed Felt, which would have
provided crucial evidence to the 9/11 Commission was, for some
reason, not mentioned in the Report.
American Airlines Flight 11
Flight 11 took off at 7:59.
The Report outlines an airphone conversation of flight attendant
Betty Ong just before 8:14. Much of the Report’s narrative hinges
upon this airphone conversation.
In contrast to the other plane flights, there is no explicit mention
in the Report on the use of cell phones on Flight AA11. According to
the Report, American Airlines AA11 crashed into the North Tower of
the World Trade Center at 8.46.
Concluding Remarks
A large part of the description, regarding the 19 Arab hijackers
relied on cell phone conversations with family and friends.
While a few of these calls (placed at low altitude) could have got
through, the wireless technology was not available in September 2001
which would enable cell phone conversations to be placed at high
altitude. On this issue, expert opinion within the wireless telecom
industry is unequivocal.
Consequently, at least part of the Commission’s script in Chapter I
of the Report on the cell phone conversations, is subject to serious
doubt.
According to the American Airline/Qualcomm announcement, the
technology for cell phone transmission at high altitude will only be
available aboard commercial aircraft in 2006.
In the eyes of public opinion, the cell phone conversations on the
Arab hijackers is needed to sustain the illusion that America is
under attack. Concretely, the script of what happened on the planes
provides a face to the enemy. It is also an integral part of the
disinformation campaign, which serves to dispel the historical role
played by US intelligence in supporting the development of the
terror network.
The “war on terrorism” underlying the National Security doctrine
relies on real time “evidence” concerning the Arab hijackers. The
latter personify, so to speak, this illusive “Outside Enemy” (Al
Qaeda), which is threatening the Homeland.
Embodied into the Commission’s script of 9/11, the narrative of what
happened on the plane with the Arab hijackers is therefore crucial.
It is an integral part of the Administration’s propaganda program.
It constitutes a justification for the anti-terror legislation under
the PATRIOT Acts and the waging of America’s preemptive wars against
Afghanistan and Iraq.
Notes
1. National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks upon the United States, Report, Washington DC, July
2004, Chapter 1,
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf
2.
http://www.elliott.org/technology/2001/cellpermit.htm
3. Wireless Review, 15 July 2004
http://wirelessreview.com/ar/wireless_final_con-tact/
4. See Qualcomm Press Release at
http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2004/040715_aa_testflight.html
5. Washington Post, 27 July 2004.
6. Aviation Week, 20 July 2004.
7. See Qualcomm on the Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA),
http://www.qualcomm.com/technology/cdma101.html
8. Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_flight_93. See
also Richard Wallace, “What Happened to Flight 93”, Daily
Mirror, 12 September 2002
9. Ibid.
Back to Contents
|