Richard Clarke, 9/11, and the Continuity of Government Plan

The morning of 9/11, a highly secret plan was activated for the first time. Called continuity of government (COG), it dated back to the cold war and had originally been designed to ensure the U.S. government would continue to function in the event of a nuclear war. According to author James Mann, this little-known plan "helps to explain the thinking and behavior" of the Bush administration, "in the hours, days, and months after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001." [1]

Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, who on 9/11 were the secretary of defense and vice president, were key players in the COG program throughout the 1980s. Both regularly participated in secret exercises rehearsing the plan. Furthermore, a third Bush administration official was also a major player. That person was Richard Clarke, who on September 11 was the White House chief of counterterrorism. Not only was he a regular participant in the COG exercises, Clarke also wrote a presidential directive that in 1998 changed the focus of the program from the Soviet threat to the threat posed by terrorists. And, according to his own recollection, it was Clarke that initiated COG on the morning of 9/11. This means that on September 11, individuals in three of the most important positions within the U.S. government, who all had crucial roles to play during the attacks, had in common their participation in this most secretive and mysterious program.

RICHARD CLARKE ON 9/11
In his book Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke described how he personally ordered the COG plan into effect during the 9/11 attacks. At around 9:45-9:55 that morning, he had been joined in the White House Situation Room by the coordinator for continuity of government. Clarke asked him, "How do I activate COG?" According to Clarke, "In the exercises we had done, the person playing the president had always given that order." But the coordinator replied, "You tell me to do it." Clarke ordered him, "Go." [2]

If this account is accurate, then Clarke's central role in COG becomes obvious: He was able to initiate the plan, performing a task conducted by the acting president during exercises.

Clarke has explained what happened next: "Every federal agency was ordered ... to activate an alternative command post, an alternative headquarters outside of Washington, DC, and to staff it as soon as possible." Cabinet officers were dispatched around the U.S., and members of Congress were taken to alternative locations. According to ABC News, "If executive branch leaders and large numbers of congressmen had been killed ... the plan could have gone further, officials suggest, perhaps even with non-elected leaders of the United States taking control and declaring martial law." [3]

RICHARD CLARKE PARTICIPATES IN COG EXERCISES
In 2004, Clarke revealed that over the previous 20 years he had been a regular participant in exercises where he had "gone off into caves in mountains in remote locations and spent days on end in miserable conditions, pretending that the rest of the world had blown up." [4] As part of a program with a secret budget of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, these exercises rehearsed the COG plan. During the 1980s, teams of 40 to 60 federal officials, plus a member of President Reagan's Cabinet, would disappear at least once a year to a remote location such as an underground bunker or a disused military base. There they would practice in detail how to keep the federal government running during and after a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were also among those who regularly participated in these exercises. [5]

Despite the fall of the Soviet Union, the exercises continued throughout the 1990s and the program's budget remained at over $200 million a year. But now the exercises practiced for the threat posed by terrorists. [6]

PDD-67: TERRORISM BECOMES THE NEW THREAT
In early 1998, while he was the chair of the White House's Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG), Richard Clarke wrote the Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) that updated the COG program to make its focus terrorism rather than the Soviet Union. As he later explained: "We thought that individual buildings in Washington, and indeed perhaps all of Washington, could still come under attack, only it might not be from the former Soviet Union. ... It might be with a terrorist walking a weapon into our city." [7] Clarke has recalled, "If terrorists could attack Washington, particularly with weapons of mass destruction, we needed to have a robust system of command and control, with plans to devolve authority and capabilities to officials outside Washington." President Clinton signed Clarke's directive on October 21, 1998, as Presidential Decision Directive 67, "Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations." [8]

This top-secret document has never been released, and there is no White House fact sheet summarizing its contents. [9] But Knight Ridder reported in 1999 that PDD-67 required "agencies to prepare plans for governmental continuity if the country is hit by a major terrorist attack." According to Energy Department emergency planning documents, the continuity plans "could be triggered by an event worse than what's expected from the Y2K problem and comparable to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing." [10] The Washington Post reported that, under PDD-67: "[E]very single government department and agency was directed to see to it that they could resume critical functions within 12 hours of a warning, and keep their operations running at emergency facilities for up to 30 days. FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] was put in charge of this broad new program." [11] The fact that he wrote such a key document again shows the central role Clarke must have had within the COG program. And, as it could be triggered "by an event ... comparable to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing," it appears that Clarke's directive may be what enabled COG to be activated in response to the 9/11 attacks.

REPUBLICAN HAWKS
In light of his involvement with the continuity of government program, it is worth noting that, while he has become well known for his criticisms of the Bush administration's pre-9/11 failures, Richard Clarke is by no means a peace-loving liberal. Some who have known him have in fact described quite the opposite. According to the Washington Post, many in the Clinton administration viewed him as a hawk. [12] Robert Gelbard, who worked with him at the State Department in the early 1990s, said Clarke is "no liberal. He is very hawkish." [13] Larry DiCara, the former president of the Boston City Council, who knew Clarke when he was younger, has described him as "fiercely conservative at a time when just about everyone in Boston was a Democrat." DiCara added, "I'm amazed he worked for [President] Clinton." [14]

As early as February 1999, Clarke was articulating the desire for a particularly aggressive foreign policy, telling the Associated Press: "We may not just go in a strike against a terrorist facility. We may choose to retaliate against the facilities of the host country, if that host country is a knowing, cooperative sanctuary." [15] In April 2000, he told the Washington Post: "We should have a very low barrier in terms of acting when there is a threat of weapons of mass destruction being used against American citizens. We should not have a barrier of evidence that can be used in a court of law." [16] That year, The Independent called Clarke "the Dr. Strangelove de nos jours," while The Spectator magazine later described him as having "frequently sounded more Bush-like than Bush," prior to his much-publicized attacks on the president in 2004. [17]

Indeed, according to journalist and author Andrew Cockburn, during the 1990s, the COG exercises Clarke participated in were attended "almost exclusively" by Republican hawks. A former Pentagon official with direct knowledge has described: "It was one way for these people to stay in touch. They'd meet, do the exercise, but also sit around and castigate the Clinton administration in the most extreme way. You could say this was a secret government-in-waiting. The Clinton administration was extraordinarily inattentive, [they had] no idea what was going on." [18]

NOTES
[1] James Mann, "The Armageddon Plan." Atlantic Monthly, March 2004.
[2] Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror. New York: Free Press, 2004, p. 8.
[3] "Worst Case Scenario: Secret Plan to Control U.S. Government After an Attack Went Into Motion on 9/11." ABC News, April 25, 2004.
[4] Howard Kurtz, "'Armageddon' Plan Was Put Into Action on 9/11, Clarke Says." Washington Post, April 7, 2004.
[5] James Mann, "The Armageddon Plan."
[6] Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy. New York: Scribner, 2007, p. 88.
[7] CBS News, September 11, 2001.
[8] Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies, pp. 167 and 170; William M. Arkin, "Back to the Bunker." Washington Post, June 4, 2006.
[9] "PDD-NSC-67: Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations (U) 21 October 1998." Federation of American Scientists, December 12, 2000.
[10] Jim Landers, "Government Uses Y2K Lessons in its Blueprint for Cyber-Terror Defenses." Knight Ridder, November 17, 1999.
[11] William M. Arkin, "Back to the Bunker."
[12] Dan Eggen and Walter Pincus, "The Book on Richard Clarke." Washington Post, March 23, 2004.
[13] David E. Kaplan, "Clarke: A Man on a Mission." U.S. News & World Report, April 5, 2004.
[14] David Abel, "Conservative Side Showed in Hub Days." Boston Globe, March 29, 2004.
[15] "USA Claims Right to Bomb Kabul." Associated Press, February 8, 1999.
[16] Michael Dobbs, "An Obscure Chief in U.S. War on Terror." Washington Post, April 2, 2000.
[17] Andrew Marshall, "Losing the War for Justice Against the 'Islamic Menace.'" The Independent, August 23, 2000; Mark Steyn, "Murderous Rhetoric." The Spectator, April 10, 2004.
[18] Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld, p. 88.

Was 10:45 a.m. the Originally Planned Demolition Time of WTC 7?

At 11:07 a.m. in the morning of September 11, 2001, a CNN correspondent in New York reported that a third tower had possibly collapsed. While this report was incorrect, it is interesting to note that the reporter's description could have applied to World Trade Center Building 7. This huge skyscraper was indeed the third tower to collapse on 9/11. However it did not come down until late in the afternoon, more than six hours after this report.

CNN correspondent Allan Dodds Frank reported by phone from Lower Manhattan. He described: "[J]ust two or three minutes ago there was yet another collapse or explosion. I'm now out of sight, a Good Samaritan has taken me in on Duane Street. But at a quarter to 11, there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower. And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon." [1]

WTC 7 was a 47-story tower, so would have fitted the description of the estimated "50 stories" described by Frank. And it did indeed collapse completely. One could in fact accurately describe its demise with Frank's words: "The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon." However, this collapse did not happen until 5:20 that afternoon.

What could have led Frank to make his incorrect report? Surely, even in the chaos of that morning, it would have been quite difficult for a mistaken report of another massive skyscraper coming down to have emerged out of nothing. Could the reason be that WTC 7 had originally been scheduled to be brought down (with explosives) at 10:45 a.m.? The incorrect information Frank reported had therefore been put out, by persons unknown, on the assumption that this would be the case. However, something--as yet unknown to us--happened that meant the demolition had to be delayed, and so Building 7 was not ready to be brought down until late that afternoon.

10:45 a.m. would certainly seem a far more logical time for the masterminds behind 9/11 to have wanted to bring down WTC 7. At that time, just 17 minutes after the North Tower had come down, the collapse of a third skyscraper would have appeared less obviously suspicious. It would have been easier for those involved with covering up the truth about 9/11 to claim this collapse was simply a consequence of the two earlier ones. Instead, however, the collapse at 5:20 p.m. appeared completely inexplicable. (Unless, of course, it was a controlled demolition.)

MORE REPORTS OF A THIRD COLLAPSE
What makes Frank's report particularly notable is that there were other incorrect reports of a third building having collapsed--or at least being in danger of collapsing--later in the day, though these made specific reference to WTC 7. These went out in the hour or so before Building 7 came down:

At 4:15 p.m., CNN reported, "We're getting information that one of the other buildings ... Building 7 ... is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing." At 4:27, Greg Barrow reported from New York for the BBC radio channel Five Live, "We are hearing reports from local media that another building may have caught light and is in danger of collapse." He added, "I'm not sure if it has yet collapsed, but the report we have is talking about Building 7." At 4:54, presenter Gavin Esler reported on the BBC's domestic television news channel, BBC News 24: "We're now being told that yet another enormous building has collapsed. ... It is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building." At 4:57, presenter Phil Hayton announced on the BBC's international channel, BBC World, "We've got some news just coming in actually that the Salomon Brothers building in New York right in the heart of Manhattan has also collapsed." [2] However, WTC 7 (the "Salomon Brothers building") did not collapse until almost 25 minutes later.

WHY PUT OUT ADVANCE REPORTS OF THE COLLAPSE?
These reports indicated that some people knew in advance that Building 7 was going to come down. This would have been quite a feat, since, as the New York Times put it, "before then, no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States had ever collapsed in a fire." [3]

Perhaps the real reason we heard these premature reports was that this information had somehow been passed to the media by the 9/11 perpetrators, as a cautious attempt at preventing speculation that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives. This was clearly what the collapse resembled, with the building falling completely and symmetrically into its own footprint in just 6.6 seconds. Indeed, CBS News anchor Dan Rather commented at the time that it was "reminiscent of ... when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down." [4]

Speculation such as this would surely have been a threat to the official 9/11 story, as it might lead people to ponder whether--rather than being committed by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda--the attacks were an "inside job." To stifle any such debate, an official narrative would need to have been put out promptly. Perhaps this was why at 5:10 p.m.--still before WTC 7 had come down--the BBC's Phil Hayton reported: "[Y]ou might have heard I was talking a few moments ago about the Salomon building collapsing and indeed it has. ... It seems this wasn't the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning's attack." [5] It appears the information had been put out already, not only that WTC 7 had collapsed, but also that it had come down without the use of explosives: It collapsed because "the building had been weakened during this morning's attack."

And thus, the cover-up had begun.

NOTES
[1] "America Under Attack." Breaking News, CNN, September 11, 2001.
[2] These reports are summarized in Richard Porter, "Part of the Conspiracy? (2)." BBC News, March 2, 2007.
[3] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, "Burning Diesel is Cited in Fall of 3rd Tower." New York Times, March 2, 2002.
[4] CBS News, September 11, 2001.
[5] Quoted in Richard Porter, "Part of the Conspiracy? (2)."

Husband of Flight 93 Attendant: "Cell Phones Don't Work on a Plane ..."

The husband of a flight attendant on one of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 has, during an interview, revealed his astonishment at receiving a cell phone call from his wife that morning. The reason for his surprise: "because cell phones don't work on a plane."

The interview appeared on the 2006 documentary DVD, Portrait of Courage: The Untold Story of Flight 93. In it Lorne Lyles, a police officer in Florida, described how, at around 9:51 a.m. on September 11, he received a call from his wife, CeeCee Lyles, who was a flight attendant on United 93. She told him her plane had been hijacked and that she and some others were getting ready to "go to the cockpit." Lorne described that, after the call got disconnected: "I looked at the caller ID, and noticed that it was a call, and it was from her cell phone. And I'm like, OK, wait a minute. How can she call me from on the plane from a cell phone, because cell phones don't work on a plane? That's what I'm thinking." [1]

EXPERT OPINIONS
Lorne Lyles' concern was understandable. An article published by the Travel Technologist shortly after 9/11 stated: "[W]ireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did." [2] Wireless Review similarly commented: "Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact that so many people were able to call from the sky [on September 11] brings into question how the phones worked from such altitudes. Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations." [3]

To investigate this matter, scientist A. K. Dewdney conducted a series of experiments using mobile phones from a small propeller aircraft, over the city of London, Ontario in Canada. (He noted that, "not only is the cell phone technological base in Canada identical to its U.S. counterpart, but Canadian communication technology is second to none, Canada being a world leader in research and development." [4]) Dewdney found:

[C]ell phone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8,000 feet are essentially impossible, while those below 8,000 feet are highly unlikely down to about 2,000, where they become merely unlikely. Moreover, even at the latter altitude (and below), the handoff problem appears. Any airliner at or below this altitude, flying at the normal speed of approximately 500 mph, would encounter the handoff problem. An aircraft traveling at this speed would not be over the cell site long enough to complete the electronic "handshake" (which takes several seconds to complete) before arriving over the next cell site, when the call has to be handed off from the first cell site to the next one. This also takes a few seconds, the result being, in the optimal case, a series of broken transmissions that must end, sooner or later, in failure. [5]

TOM BURNETT'S FOUR CELL PHONE CALLS
A similar concern to that expressed by Lorne Lyles may also have been hinted at by Deena Burnett, whose husband Tom Burnett apparently called her four times from on board Flight 93. In her own book, published in 2006, Deena Burnett described receiving the first of these calls from her husband at 9:27 a.m. on September 11: "I looked at the caller ID and indeed it was Tom's cell phone number." Deena, who during the early 1990s had worked as a flight attendant for Delta Airlines, asked Tom: "Where are you? Are you in the air?" She commented in her book, "I didn't understand how he could be calling me on his cell phone from the air." [6]

Later in the day of 9/11, Deena told the FBI that "only one" of the calls she'd received from her husband "did not show on the caller identification." The reason for this was simply that "she was on the line with another call" when it was made. Otherwise, she had been "able to determine that her husband was using his own cellular telephone" on all his calls, "because the caller identification showed his number." [7]

Yet if cell phone calls like these would have been so unlikely from an aircraft in flight, what was really going on that morning? Was it just a "fluke" that these and other alleged passenger cell phone calls got through? Or, alternatively, might the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks have been involved in a sinister and malicious deception, to make the victims' relatives mistakenly believe they had been called from the hijacked flights?

NOTES
[1] Portrait of Courage: The Untold Story of Flight 93. DVD. Directed by David Priest. Baker City, OR: Grizzly Adams Productions, 2006.
[2] Christopher Elliott, "Will They Allow Cell Phones on Planes?" Travel Technologist, September 19, 2001.
[3] Betsy Harter, "Final Contact." Wireless Review, November 1, 2001.
[4] A. K. Dewdney, "'Project Achilles': Final (Third) Report and Summary of Findings." Physics 911, April 19, 2003.
[5] A. K. Dewdney, "The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93." Physics 911, undated.
[6] Deena Burnett with Anthony Giombetti, Fighting Back: Living Life Beyond Ourselves. Altamonte Springs, FL: Advantage Books, 2006, p. 61.
[7] "Interview with Deena Lynne Burnett (re: Phone Call from Hijacked Flight)." Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 11, 2001.

Bombs in the Pentagon on 9/11? Witness Accounts Raise Questions

Several accounts reveal that some witnesses who were at the Pentagon when it was attacked on 9/11, and located close to where the building was struck, initially were quite sure a bomb--or bombs--had gone off. These accounts are particularly notable since these individuals were members of the armed forces, and therefore familiar with what explosives sounded and felt like. While they may not tell us anything conclusive, these reports raise questions about what actually happened at the Pentagon that morning:

• John Thurman, a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, was in a second floor office just above where the Pentagon was hit. He has described the attack: "To me it didn't seem like a plane." Although he was aware that aircraft had hit the World Trade Center, he has recalled: "[T]o me, it seemed like it was a bomb. Being in the military, I have been around grenade, artillery explosions. It was a two-part explosion to me. ... [I]t seemed like that there was a percussion blast that blew me kind of backwards in my cubicle to the side. And then it seemed as if a massive explosion went off at the same time." He described what happened next: "[I]t just felt like this rolling earthquake going on underneath me. And in reflection, I realize that it was the plane that was actually underneath me. But at the time, again, I had thought that perhaps the terrorists had surreptitiously gotten construction workers to come in and place explosives, and they had perhaps commanded--detonated them synchronous with what was going on in New York." [1]

• Lieutenant Nancy McKeown ran a small meteorological unit in the Navy Command Center on the first floor of the Pentagon's D Ring--an area that was mostly destroyed when the building was hit. She described the attack: "[T]he building started to vibrate and things started to fall. And it initially felt like an earthquake. As the, as time progressed, the shaking of the building got violent. The noises got louder and louder." She added, "It sounded like a series of explosions going off." A colleague yelled out, and she "yelled back, bomb." When asked about the incident, "At that point you thought a bomb had gone off in the Pentagon?" McKeown replied: "That's correct. It sounded like a series of bombs exploding, similar to like firecrackers when you light them and you just get a series going off. But they got very loud, very extensive." [2]

• Army Major Craig Collier and his colleagues were in their second floor office, about 200 feet from where the Pentagon was hit. Collier described the moment of the attack: "[T]he building jolted and we heard a muffled boom, then a rumble. ... All of my peers in the area are experienced combat arms officers, and we quickly agreed that it sounded and felt like a bomb." [3]

Considering these accounts, it is perhaps interesting to note the following description of the physical effects of the attack, which was given in the U.S. Department of Defense's book Pentagon 9/11: "The Jet A fuel atomized and quickly combusted, causing explosive bursts as the plane hurtled into the building. A detonation 150 feet inside the building resulted from a 'fuel-air' explosion after the Jet A tanks disintegrated on impact. Here, as elsewhere, there was no uniform pattern of death and destruction. The vagaries of the fuel-air explosions and freakish blast effects meant deaths occurred randomly inside the Pentagon, with the occupants of seemingly more secure interior offices sometimes suffering worse fates than those nearer the outside wall." [Emphasis added] [4]

While these accounts provide us with no clear answers, they do show, again, why we need a proper investigation of 9/11--one that will include a thorough and unrestrained examination of what happened at the Pentagon that day.

NOTES
[1] United States of America v. Zacarias Moussaoui. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, April 11, 2006.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11. Washington, DC: Defense Department, Office of the Secretary, Historical Office, 2007, p. 26.
[4] Ibid. p. 37.

Last-Minute Pilots, Passengers, and Flight Attendants: The Unexplained Oddity of 9/11

In all the valuable research that has been conducted into 9/11, a significant detail has so far been mostly overlooked: An examination of news reports and other accounts reveals that a surprising proportion of the people on the four targeted planes had only been booked onto those flights at the last minute, often the day before or even the morning of September 11. Pilots on three of the four planes, more than half of all the flight attendants, and many passengers--including almost half those on Flight 93--were not originally booked to be on those flights.

It is difficult to dismiss all this evidence as mere coincidence. There must be specific reasons that we do not yet know about. For the truth to be uncovered will require further study by independent researchers, scrutiny by the press, and proper formal investigations of the 9/11 attacks.

Below is a summary of these latecomers to the four planes: American Airlines Flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines Flights 175 and 93.

REPLACEMENT PILOTS

The pilot at the controls of Flight 11--the first plane to hit the World Trade Center--before it was supposedly hijacked was John Ogonowski. However, as the Georgetown Record reported: "American Airlines Captain Walter Sorenson of Groveland was scheduled to fly Flight #11 on Sept. 11, 2001. He was disappointed when he was replaced by Captain John Ogonowski, who had seniority over Sorenson and requested to fly that day. ... The last-minute change of pilots ... spared Sorenson's wife Sarah the untimely loss of a young husband." [1] On Flight 77, which supposedly hit the Pentagon, the pilot and co-pilot were Charles Burlingame and David Charlebois. But, as the New York Times reported: "Bill Cheng, an American Airlines pilot who normally flies Flight 77, changed his plans in late August [2001] and applied for time off on Tuesday [September 11] so he could go camping. When another pilot signed up for the slot, Mr. Cheng's application was accepted." [2] Whether it was Burlingame or Charlebois that replaced him is unstated. And the pilot of Flight 93 was Jason Dahl. But according to the Denver Post: "Dahl piloted United Flight 93 on Sept. 11 because he asked to. At his request, [his wife] traded for the flight on their home computer. He'd wanted to get back to Ken-Caryl Valley sooner to start celebrating their fifth wedding anniversary. Days after the request, Dahl's terrorist-invaded plane took a nose dive in a Pennsylvania field." [3] Dahl took Flight 93 in exchange for a flight he'd been booked on later that month. [4]

UNSCHEDULED FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

Flight 11: There were nine flight attendants on American Airlines Flight 11 the morning of 9/11. At least four of them were not originally booked to be on this flight, but had recently been assigned to it. Barbara "Bobbi" Arestegui "was not scheduled to work Flight 11 that day but had accepted extra flights. She was saving up vacation to take a trip with her boyfriend to Vermont at the end of this month." [5] Jeffrey Collman "didn't normally work the Boston-to-Los Angeles route but made an exception to get vacation time at the end of the month." [6] Jean Roger was a relatively new flight attendant, and every third month was placed on a "standby" work list. On September 11, "Someone called in sick and she had to go." [7] And Sara Low also "was not originally scheduled to work the flight." [8]

Flight 175: There were seven flight attendants on this plane on 9/11, at least four of whom had only recently been assigned to it. Robert Fangman was a reserve attendant for Flight 175, and was on it by chance. He replaced Elise O'Kane, who'd been on the flight regularly for the previous six months. When she was signing up for her flights for the month, O'Kane entered an incorrect code into the computer, which scheduled her instead for flights from Boston to Denver. She later said "she had never made such an error in 16 years as a flight attendant." She had subsequently "made several attempts to switch onto the flight, but had computer problems." [9] Another original attendant was Elaine Lawrence. However, "because she was going on vacation, she traded shifts with her close friend, Amy Jarret." [10] Lauren Gurskis was also one of the original attendants. "In August of [2001], however, she switched assignments--trip-traded, as flight attendants call it--so that she could drive her son to his first day of kindergarten." According to the Boston Globe, Kathryn Laborie was most likely the attendant that replaced her. [11] One more of the original attendants, Barbara McFarland, had "decided to spend an extra day with her son," and so she "swapped shifts with another attendant." The name of this attendant is unstated. [12]

Flight 77: Of the four attendants on this plane, at least two were not originally scheduled to be on it. Michele Heidenberger regularly flew from Washington's Reagan National Airport to Dallas, but on 9/11 was unusually flying out of Dulles Airport on Flight 77. When Heidenberger phoned her friend Toni Knisley, an administrator at Reagan Airport, shortly before boarding her plane, Knisley was surprised, saying: "What are you doing at Dulles? Aren't you flying your regular turn to Dallas today?" Heidenberger explained: "I'm working Flight 77 to LA because I want to take time off in October to go to Italy with [my husband] and the kids." [13] Renee May was only assigned to Flight 77 during the morning of 9/11. American Airlines had earlier called another attendant, Lena Brown, and asked her to take the flight, but Brown said she would be unable to get to the airport in time. "Renee May, the next flight attendant on American Airlines' list, accepted." [14]

Flight 93: At least three of the five attendants on this flight were not originally booked to be on it. Sandra Bradshaw "liked working first class," but "was in economy because she'd picked up Flight 93 late in the planning." She had "switched flights with another attendant." [15] Wanda Green "had been scheduled to fly Sept. 13, but Green, who also worked as a real estate agent, realized she had to handle the closing of a home sale Sept. 13. She'd phoned her best friend, fellow flight attendant Donita Judge, who opened United's computerized schedule and shifted Green to the Sept. 11 flight." [16] Deborah Welsh "usually avoided early-morning flights," and "was not originally slated to be on Flight 93, but was assigned to the flight when she swapped shifts." [17]

It wasn't just pilots and flight attendants who'd joined the doomed flights late. A large number of the passengers had similarly not originally been booked on these aircraft.

LAST-MINUTE PASSENGERS

Flight 11: Alexander Filipov "originally held a ticket for a Delta flight, but switched at the last minute to American Flight 11." [18] Edmund Glazer had got a call from his company's home office in Los Angeles the night of September 10, asking for his help on a major project. "In his obliging way, Mr. Glazer boarded Flight 11 the next morning." [19] Pendyala Vamsikrishna "was to leave Boston on Sept. 10, but hadn't finished his job, and rescheduled for the following day on American Airlines Flight 11." [20] Brian Dale "was supposed to have flown Monday night. But the Warren, NJ, man instead opted to fly out Tuesday morning." [21] Peter Hashem "had been scheduled to take an earlier flight but postponed the trip in order to make time to attend his son's soccer game." [22] Robin Kaplan had also been scheduled to take an earlier flight, but "she would have had to get up too early, so she didn't." [23] David Angell and his wife Lynn "were on board [Flight 11], even though they had originally planned to take a later flight." [24] David Kovalcin "wasn't supposed to fly to California until later this week." But his company's managers "were looking for someone to leave on Tuesday to discuss a hardware problem with a supplier. He volunteered." [25] Christopher Mello had originally "planned to return home on a red-eye flight the next day." [26] And Kenneth Waldie "was supposed to leave Wednesday, but he got the flight the day before." [27]

Flight 175: Touri Bolourchi "was not supposed to be aboard Flight 175, but she decided to stay a few extra days in Boston to visit her daughter and two grandchildren." [28] Francis Grogan "was not originally booked on Flight 175, but overcrowding on his original flight bumped him." [29] Mark Bavis "was originally scheduled for the 11 a.m. departure but pushed it up a few hours." [30] And Daniel Brandhorst, Ronald Gamboa, and their adopted son David, "changed their flight plans so they could return to Los Angeles from Boston on Sept. 11." Brandhorst's mother had "thought her son was flying the previous night." [31]

Flight 77: Barbara Olson, who flew on Flight 77 on 9/11, was originally "scheduled to fly to Los Angeles on the night of Sept. 10," but "changed her schedule ... to be with her husband on the morning of his 61st birthday." [32] Barbara Edwards "had gone to Connecticut for a wedding and was supposed to return home Saturday [September 8]." But, "her friends talked her into staying with them so she took the flight that crashed into the Pentagon." [33] Vicki Yancey "had planned to leave Washington earlier, but ticketing problems delayed her departure." [34] After a vacation with their daughter, husband and wife Shuyin Yang and Yuguang Zheng were "scheduled to leave for China on September 10." But as they had only finished their vacation on September 9, their daughter "felt it might be a hassle for my parents [to] leave [in] just like a couple hours and to get on the plane. So, I have them to reschedule their flight ticket to September 11." [35] Dora Menchaca was in Washington for two days of meetings. "The meetings ended late Monday [September 10], a day earlier than expected." So, "The next morning, flying on standby, she caught an earlier-than-scheduled departure to California." [36] Ruben Ornedo was originally scheduled to fly two weeks after 9/11. But "during a lull in an extended Washington business trip he seized the chance to rush home for a day or two and see his wife." [37] One group of passengers on Flight 77 comprised eight individuals: three teachers and three 11-year-old students who had been selected to participate in a program at the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, accompanied by two staff members of the National Geographic Society. According to a close friend of one of the teachers, Sarah Clark, "She was originally supposed to go to Florida, but two weeks [before 9/11] they changed it and told her she was going to California." [38]

There were likely more passengers who were only booked onto these flights at the last minute, but I have simply not yet come across the reports describing this. And it seems reasonable to assume there were even more of these late additions to the flights, where the details of these individuals' travel arrangements have so far gone unreported.

In the case of Flight 93, however, since the official story revolves around the heroism of the passengers who supposedly fought back against terrorists, we have the fortune that a lot more has been written about these individuals and how they came to be on that flight. What has been reported is extraordinary: Of the 33 passengers (excluding the four supposed hijackers), at least 16 had only recently been booked onto the plane. Some only joined it early in the morning of September 11.

Flight 93: Environmental lawyer Alan Beaven arranged to take Flight 93 on 9/11 the day before, as he was duty-bound to go to San Francisco to help settle a case after talks had just broken down. [39] "Normally," passenger Todd Beamer "would have left [for San Francisco] the night before." But on September 10 he had returned from a trip to Italy and wanted some time with his children before flying out. [40] Edward Felt "was on a last-minute business trip to San Francisco." [41] Sisters-in-law Patricia Cushing and Jane Folger had "moved up the time of their flight" in the days before 9/11. [42] Mark Bingham "had missed his plane the day before because of a hangover from a friend's birthday party." [43] Jeremy Glick "was supposed to leave Monday night, but there were problems at the airport: He decided to wait 'til Tuesday morning." [44] Nicole Miller's "Monday night ... flight back to the Bay Area was canceled due to weather. Miller re-booked on a flight the next morning." [45] Lou Nacke "only booked his seat the night before. He had a customer on the coast with an inventory problem and offered to fly out first thing Tuesday morning to fix it." [46] When she'd checked in at the airport on September 11, Georgine Corrigan switched to Flight 93, as it was non-stop, whereas her original plane would be making two stops on the way to San Francisco. [47]

A number of the Flight 93 passengers were originally booked on United Airlines Flight 91, scheduled to depart 1 hour 20 minutes after Flight 93, at 9:20 a.m. Deora Bodley "was supposed to take United Flight 91, but decided the night before to take one an hour earlier so she could get home sooner to her family and boyfriend." [48] Christine Snyder "called to check on her flight, Flight 91," early in the morning of September 11, and "moved up to Flight 93 for an earlier start." [49] Lauren Grandcolas "had been scheduled for United 91, but her car service had arrived at the airport early." [50] Husband and wife Donald and Jean Peterson "arrived at the airport early for United Flight 91 ... so they switched to Flight 93." [51] Tom Burnett, according to author Jere Longman, "had changed his plans. ... He would be leaving at 8 a.m. instead of taking Flight 91." (The San Francisco Chronicle said, however, that he'd originally been booked on a Delta Airlines flight that afternoon.) [52]

NOTES

[1] Sally Applegate, "Flight 11 Crew Not Forgotten." Georgetown Record, September 18, 2003. Credit to Woody Box for having found this little-known information.
[2] Elaine Sciolino and John H. Cushman Jr., "A Route out of Washington, Horribly Changed." New York Times, September 13, 2001.
[3] Susan Besze Wallace, "Legacy of Sept. 11 Pilot Comforts Widow." Denver Post, December 16, 2001.
[4] Jere Longman, Among the Heroes: United Flight 93 and the Passengers and Crew Who Fought Back. New York: HarperCollins, 2002, p. 1.
[5] "The Attack on America Hits Home." Cape Cod Times, September 10, 2002.
[6] "Among the Lost: Victims Included CEO, Researcher." Seattle Times, September 17, 2001.
[7] "Jean Destrehan Roger." Chicago Tribune, September 15, 2001.
[8] "American Flight 11 Victims at a Glance." Associated Press, September 25, 2001.
[9] Wendy Killeen, "Flight Attendant Changes Course." Boston Globe, May 22, 2005; "Twists of Fate: Stories from 9/11." CNN Presents, CNN, October 8, 2005.
[10] Michael Taylor, "Airline Passengers Keeping Eyes Peeled." San Francisco Chronicle, October 23, 2001.
[11] Joseph P. Kahn, "The Flight Not Taken." Boston Globe, September 8, 2002.
[12] Meg Murphy, "Flight Workers: 'It Could Have Been Any of Us.'" Cape Cod Times, September 14, 2001; Meg Murphy, "Three Cape Flight Attendants Reflect on Returning to Air." Cape Cod Times, March 10, 2002.
[13] Tom Murphy, Reclaiming the Sky: 9/11 and the Untold Story of the Men and Women Who Kept America Flying. New York: AMACOM, 2006, pp. 42-43.
[14] Eunice Moscoso, "Not All Airline Pilots Want to be Armed." Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 9, 2002; Cynthia Kopkowski, "Stewardess Returns to Work after Passing on Ill-Fated Flight." Daily Reflector, September 11, 2002.
[15] Dennis B. Roddy, "Flight 93: Forty Lives, One Destiny." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 28, 2001; Maria C. Johnson, "Mother Wants People to Remember Bradshaw, Sept. 11." Greensboro News-Record, September 3, 2006.
[16] Dennis B. Roddy, "Flight 93: Forty Lives, One Destiny."
[17] Kim Barker, Louise Kiernan, and Steve Mills, "The Heroes of Flight 93." Chicago Tribune, October 2, 2001; "Victims in the Flight 93 Crash." Associated Press, September 9, 2006.
[18] "Their Lives, Deaths Touch Us All." Chicago Tribune, September 13, 2001.
[19] "Charming the Snake and the Husband; Making the Fire Drills Count." New York Times, June 2, 2002.
[20] Steve Lopez, "When Love Stands Bravely against Unbearable Grief." Los Angeles Times, October 24, 2001.
[21] "Bittersweet Memories of Lives Cut Short." Chicago Tribune, September 17, 2001.
[22] "Region Remembers Terrorism Victims." Boston Globe, September 16, 2001.
[23] Alice Dembner and Bella English, "Firm and Families Mourn Seven Women." Boston Globe, September 13, 2001.
[24] Amy Goldstein and Cheryl W. Thompson, "Jet Crash Victims' Stories Start to Emerge." Washington Post, September 12, 2001.
[25] Liz Kowalczyk and Beth Healy, "After Tragedy, Executives Feel Invincible No More." Boston Globe, September 13, 2001.
[26] Ibid.
[27] "American Flight 11 Victims at a Glance."
[28] "Calls to Family ... Then Silence." Chicago Tribune, September 14, 2001.
[29] "United Flight 175 Victims at a Glance." Associated Press, September 25, 2001.
[30] Jim McCabe, "Team Players Bavis Was at Center of Extended Family." Boston Globe, September 16, 2001.
[31] John Glionna and Joe Mozingo, "Lurched into Grief, Families Are Left Only with Questions." Los Angeles Times, September 13, 2001; "A Spitball-Shooting Executive, a Frank Zappa Fan, and the Lawn King." New York Times, March 31, 2002.
[32] "Barbara Olson: A Sparkling Celebrity 'Full of Energy.'" Newsday, February 27, 2002.
[33] Shawn D. Lewis, "Memorial Day Recalls Pain of 9/11." Detroit News, May 27, 2002.
[34] "Calls to Family ... Then Silence."
[35] United States of America v. Zacarias Moussaoui. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, April 11, 2006, pp. 59-60.
[36] John Scheibe, "Thousand Oaks, Calif., Scientist among Dead in Hijacking." Knight Ridder, September 14, 2001; "Dora Menchaca." Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2001.
[37] "Ruben Ornedo." Los Angeles Times, September 17, 2001.
[38] "Team from National Geographic Killed in Pentagon Crash." National Geographic News, September 12, 2001; "Maryland's Lost." Baltimore Sun, September 19, 2001.
[39] Jaxon Van Derbeken, "Bound by Fate, Determination." San Francisco Chronicle, September 17, 2001; Peter Hecht, "A Spiritual Journey Aborted on Flight 93." Sacramento Bee, September 30, 2001.
[40] Angie Cannon, "Final Words from Flight 93." US News and World Report, October 21, 2001.
[41] "Victims in the Flight 93 Crash."
[42] Jere Longman, Among the Heroes, p. 35.
[43] Karen Breslau, "Courage in the Air." Newsweek, September 27, 2001.
[44] Jane Pauley, "No Greater Love." NBC News, September 11, 2006.
[45] Oakley Brooks, "School Daze." Saratoga News, September 26, 2001.
[46] Jane Pauley, "No Greater Love."
[47] Jere Longman, Among the Heroes, p. 12; "Victims in the Flight 93 Crash."
[48] Jaxon Van Derbeken, "Bound by Fate, Determination."
[49] Dennis B. Roddy, "Flight 93: Forty Lives, One Destiny."
[50] Jere Longman, Among the Heroes, p. 12.
[51] Ibid. p. 16.
[52] Jaxon Van Derbeken, "Bound by Fate, Determination"; Jere Longman, Among the Heroes, p. 8.

Engineer Sees Evidence of Extreme Temperatures in WTC Steel

A structural engineer who was a member of the team assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate the World Trade Center site after 9/11 has described numerous phenomena indicating extremely high temperatures suffered by the WTC structural steel. This appears to be further evidence that high-temperature explosives, such as thermate, were used to bring down the towers.

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. He flew to New York on September 19, 2001 to conduct a two-week reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they'd come down. He was able to examine numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero. [1]

He said the towers were exceptionally well designed and built, describing the WTC as "the best-designed building I have ever seen." [2] Yet the structural steel had suffered unusual warping and other major damage:

• Astaneh-Asl said that steel flanges "had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin." [3]

• At a recycling center in New Jersey, he saw 10-ton steel beams from the towers that "looked like giant sticks of twisted licorice." [4] He showed the San Francisco Chronicle a "banana-shaped, rust-colored piece of steel" that had somehow "twisted like toffee during the terrorist attack." [5]

• He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns. He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted--it's kind of like that." He added, "That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot--perhaps around 2,000 degrees." [6]

• In an interview in 2007, Astaneh-Asl recalled, "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center." [7]

• He found a foot-long twisted shard of steel that was "like a piece of bread, but it was high-strength steel." He commented, "I haven't seen anything like this [before]." [8]

• He came across "severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]." [9]

• The fireproofing that had been used to protect the WTC steel also showed evidence of extreme conditions. In some places it had "melted into a glassy residue." [10]

• Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7--a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11, even though no plane hit it. "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized." [11]

These observations indicate that the World Trade Center steel was subjected to very high temperatures. Yet, while postulating that the towers collapsed due to fire (and without the use of explosives), even Thomas Eagar--an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology--admitted, "The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." [12] One must conclude that the phenomena observed by Astaneh-Asl are therefore highly suspicious.

It may well have been because it offered such revealing clues that the remaining structural steel from the World Trade Center was so rapidly destroyed, being shipped abroad as scrap to be melted down and recycled. CBS News described: "The [cleanup] operation--which began days after the collapse, okayed by then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani--goes on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As a result, Astaneh has almost certainly missed seeing crucial pieces before they were cut up and sent overseas." [13] As the New York Times reported, the steel scrap was worth "only a few million dollars, a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars the cleanup" was going to cost. Yet the knowledge that could have been gained from it "could save lives in a future disaster." [14]

NOTES
[1] Kenneth Chang, "Scarred Steel Holds Clues, and Remedies." New York Times, October 2, 2001; Robert Sanders, "Report from Ground Zero." Berkeleyan, October 3, 2001; Jeffrey R. Young, "Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually." Chronicle of Higher Education, December 7, 2001.
[2] Keay Davidson, "Berkeley Professor Seeks the Safer Skyscraper." San Francisco Chronicle, October 22, 2001.
[3] Robert Sanders, "Report from Ground Zero."
[4] Jeffrey R. Young, "Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually."
[5] Keay Davidson, "Berkeley Professor Seeks the Safer Skyscraper."
[6] Jeffrey R. Young, "Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually."
[7] "Collapse of Overpass in California Becomes Lesson in Construction." NewsHour, PBS, May 10, 2007.
[8] Pamitha Reynolds, "Berkeley Prof Analyzes Structural Damage of the WTC." Berkeley Daily Planet, October 20, 2001.
[9] David Kohn, "Culling Through Mangled Steel." CBS News, March 12, 2002.
[10] Kenneth Chang, "Scarred Steel Holds Clues, and Remedies."
[11] Ibid.
[12] Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation." Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society 53 (12) 2001: 8-11.
[13] David Kohn, "Culling Through Mangled Steel."
[14] Kenneth Chang, "Scarred Steel Holds Clues, and Remedies."

The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?

According to the official account of 9/11, American Airlines Flight 77--which supposedly crashed into the Pentagon--was hijacked shortly after 8:51 a.m. on September 11, 2001. This claim is so central to the U.S. government's story that we would reasonably expect it to have been proven. Yet a closer analysis of the evidence shows that, in fact, it appears preposterous.

THE TOUGH PILOT
The first thing to recognize when evaluating the official Flight 77 story is that the plane's pilot was a former military man, and a genuinely tough guy. Captain Charles "Chic" Burlingame had graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1971. He served eight years on active duty as a fighter pilot, and served several tours at the Navy's elite Top Gun school. He then spent 17 years in the Naval Reserve before retiring from the military in 1996. [1] During his military career, he had tours in Vietnam and the 1991 Gulf War. [2] His sister Debra Burlingame described him as "a guy that's been through SERE [Survival Evasion Resistance Escape] school in the Navy and had very tough psychological and physical preparation." She said, "If there was any chance of saving [Flight 77], this was the kind of guy who would have been able to do that." [3] Admiral Timothy Keating was a good friend of Burlingame's, having been a classmate of his in the Navy and attended flight school with him. He told CNN: "I was in a plebe summer boxing match with Chic, and he pounded me. ... Chic was really tough." [4] Even up to his death Burlingame enjoyed boating, in-line skating, and weightlifting, and was "in great shape," according to his friend Steve Brooks. [5]

Surely it would take a particularly formidable team of terrorists to wrestle control of a plane from a man like this? Yet here is where the official story falls apart at the first hurdle. The supposed hijackers in fact appear to have been a group of weaklings.

THE FEEBLE HIJACKERS
The five men who allegedly hijacked Flight 77 comprised of a pilot, Hani Hanjour, and four "muscle" hijackers who'd been tasked with storming the cockpit and controlling the passengers: Majed Moqed, Khalid al Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi, and his brother Salem al Hazmi. However, as the 9/11 Commission pointed out, "The so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing," with the majority of them being between 5'5" and 5'7" in height, "and slender in build." [6] As their ID cards have revealed, Salem al Hazmi was just 5'4" tall and Khalid al Mihdhar's was 5'6". [7]

Between September 2 and September 6, 2001, about a week before the attacks, the five alleged hijackers attended Gold's Gym in Greenbelt, Maryland, where, reportedly, they were "awkwardly lifting weights and using resistance machines." [8] Gold's Gym regional manager Spero Courtis has described, "They seemed not to really know what they were doing." [9] According to Gene LaMott, the CEO of Gold's Gym International Inc.: "They weren't on the masculine side. They looked like students from the university." [10]

Heading this group of supposed mass murderers was Hani Hanjour, the alleged suicide pilot said to have crashed Flight 77 into the Pentagon. This 29-year-old from Saudi Arabia was "barely over 5 feet tall, skinny and boyish," according to the Washington Post. [11] Not only was he physically unimposing, he was also quite a nice man, according to several people who met him. In spring 1996, he'd stayed for a month in Miramar, Florida, in the home of Adnan Khalil, a Saudi professor at a local college, and his wife Susan. The Khalils have recalled Hanjour being "mousey and gentle, with a weak personality." Susan Khalil has commented, "I didn't get the feeling that he hated me or hated Americans." [12] He also liked children. Susan Khalil recalled, "He was very kind and gentle to my son, who was 3 years old." [13] Early in 2001, Hanjour attended the JetTech flight school in Phoenix, Arizona. [14] According to Marilyn Ladner, a vice president at the Pan Am International Flight Academy, which operated the school: "The staff thought he was a very nice guy. ... There was no suspicion as far as evildoing." [15] After 9/11, Abulrahman Hanjour, Hani's older brother, described the family's feelings: "We thought that he liked the USA. ... I would think he would give his life to save lives, not to do this." [16]

THE IMPOSSIBLE HIJACKING
Yet this apparently sweet and gentle little man, along with his four physically unimposing colleagues, are meant to have become a gang of killers on 9/11. Here, in the words of the 9/11 Commission, is what they are alleged to have done: "Between 8:51 a.m. and 8:54 a.m., the hijackers began their takeover of the aircraft. They initiated and sustained their command of the aircraft using knives and box cutters (reported by one passenger) and moved all of the passengers (and possibly crew) to the rear of the aircraft (reported by one flight attendant and one passenger)." However, "Neither of the firsthand accounts to come from Flight 77, from a flight attendant and from a passenger, mentioned any actual use of violence (e.g., stabbings) or the threat or use of either a bomb or Mace." [17] I guess we are supposed to believe the passengers and crew were so terrified by these puny little men that they just submitted to them without a fight.

Charles Burlingame and his co-pilot David Charlebois appear to have lost control of Flight 77 within the space of just a few minutes. At 8:54, three minutes after its last routine radio communication, the plane veered off its assigned course. Two minutes later, its transponder--a small radio transmitter that sends information about a plane to controllers--was switched off. [18] In other words, five short, weak men were supposedly able to seize control from Burlingame--a highly trained former military man who enjoyed weightlifting and was described as "really tough"--in about three minutes.

Although neither of the two alleged callers from Flight 77 mentioned any violence having occurred, Burlingame's younger brother Mark has commented: "I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that [the hijackers] would have had to incapacitate [Charles Burlingame] or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane." [19] Burlingame's friend Timothy Keating remarked that "the terrorists had to perform some inhumane act to get him out of that cockpit, I guarantee you." [20] And indeed, according to Virginia Senator John Warner, "the examination of his remains ... indicated Captain Burlingame was in a struggle and died before the crash, doing his best to save lives on the aircraft and on the ground." [21] Former Senator George Allen said the FBI had determined that Burlingame was bludgeoned to death. [22]

This story is ridiculous. There is no way five weaklings could have seized control of Flight 77, in the process beating Charles Burlingame to death, all within a few minutes. The most crucial questions therefore remain uninvestigated and unanswered: Who really killed Charles Burlingame? And what actually happened that day?

NOTES
[1] "Arlington's Burial Regulations Anger Family of Hijacked Pilot." New York Times, December 5, 2001; "Arlington Plot Sought for Slain Pilot." Associated Press, December 6, 2001.
[2] Marcia C. Smith, "Man Will Toss out the First Pitch in His Brother's--and the Nation's--Honor." Orange County Register, March 29, 2002.
[3] Shawn Cohen, "Pilot's Death Leads to Sister's Crusade." Westchester Journal News, December 30, 2003.
[4] "Tony Snow's First Day as Press Secretary; Video Released of September 11 Plane Crashing into Pentagon." CNN, May 16, 2006.
[5] Megan O'Matz and Kathy Bushouse, "Reactions Across S. Florida: Agonizing Wait in Weston; Radio and Music Offer Comfort." South Florida Sun-Sentinel, September 14, 2001.
[6] "Staff Statement No. 16: Outline of the 9/11 Plot." 9/11 Commission, June 16, 2004.
[7] 9/11 Commission, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel: A Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Franklin, TN: Hillsboro Press, 2004, pp. 191-192.
[8] Bradley Olson, "Md. Was Among Last Stops for Hijackers." Baltimore Sun, September 9, 2006.
[9] Thomas Frank, "Tracing Trail of Hijackers." Newsday, September 23, 2001.
[10] "The Banality of Evil." U.S. News & World Report, September 23, 2001.
[11] Amy Goldstein, Lena H. Sun, and George Lardner Jr., "Hanjour a Study in Paradox." Washington Post, October 15, 2001.
[12] Wes Allison, "The Terrorists Next Door." St. Petersburg Times, October 2, 2001.
[13] David Crary, "Baseball, Pizza and Porn: Hijackers Saw American Daily Life up Close." Associated Press, September 21, 2001.
[14] "FAA Was Alerted to Sept. 11 Hijacker." CBS News, May 10, 2002.
[15] Jim Yardley, "A Trainee Noted for Incompetence." New York Times, May 4, 2002.
[16] Amy Goldstein, Lena H. Sun, and George Lardner Jr., "Hanjour a Study in Paradox."
[17] "Staff Report, August 26, 2004." 9/11 Commission, August 26, 2004, p. 29.
[18] Ibid.
[19] "Remembering the Pentagon Victims: Charles Burlingame." Washington Post, undated.
[20] "Tony Snow's First Day as Press Secretary; Video Released of September 11 Plane Crashing Into Pentagon."
[21] Josh White, "An About-Face on Pilot's Burial." Washington Post, December 8, 2001.
[22] Josh White, "Lawmakers Seek Full Burial for Pilot." Washington Post, December 6, 2001.