911-archiv.net

Meines Erachtens der wichtigste Anruf!


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) www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?...ME&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.
www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?...ME&newsdate=9/8/2002
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.:
archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/plane.phone.call/
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14344...p11?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:
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.”
www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
Also Glick’s brother-in-law stated that the call lasted 30 minutes. www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14344...p11?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) 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" 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) www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14344...p11?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:
inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=839
and
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/du...ll&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?