Deconstructing Tom Burnett's phone call

[John Doe II]

Deconstructing Tom Burnett’s phone calls :

For several reasons Tom Burnett’s phone calls are central to the story oh what happened aboard UA 93. After the phone call from a bathroom to an emergency dispatcher in Westmoreland County (now considered to have been from Edward Felt) Tom Burnett’s phone call was the second phone call from this plane that hit the news (it first appeared on September 12) and it was also the very first account that there were passengers aboard that tried to fight back. Besides being the first call telling of the revolt Burnett was also the first one to phone after the plane got hijacked. He phoned four times his wife Deena Burnett (with the FBI listening in from the second phone call). His calls took place according to Deena Burnett’s watch at 9:27, 9:34, 9:45 and 9:54.
The San Francisco Chronicle was the first newspaper to report. They quoted Rev. Frank Colacicco (apparently a friend of the family). His presentation is very short. According to him the call ended: “’He said, 'I know we're all going to die -- there's three of us who are going to do something about it,' ‘ Colacicco said. ‘He then said, 'I love you, honey,' and that was the end of conversation.’”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/09/12/MN193956.DTL&type=printable

But this quotation already contains the first big error. Apparently Burnett never said “I know we’re all going to die”. And this quote drops out of the news after September 22 (only exception Boston Globe, 11/23/01).
Deena Burnett turned public at the evening of September 12.

Let’s now turn to the contradictions of the call. I’ll base my analysis on an AP article (9/5/03) that quotes Deena Burnett’s unedited written account of the call.

(Time is PDT)

6:27 a.m.

cell phone call:

Contrary to Todd Beamer who used an airfone it is without dispute that Tom Burnett used his cell phone. Given that we know that UA 93 was flying at 9:27 at 35,000 feet and the call didn’t get disconnected this is important to not.

Deena: Hello

Tom: Deena

Deena: Tom, are you O.K.?

Tom: No, I'm not. I'm on an airplane that has been hijacked.

Deena: hijacked?

Tom: Yes, They just knifed a guy.

Deena: A passenger?

Tom: Yes.

Deena: Where are you? Are you in the air?

Tom: Yes, yes, just listen. Our airplane has been hijacked. It's United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. We are in the air. The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, they are telling us there is a bomb on board, please call the authorities.


Tom Burnett states clearly that one hijacker has a gun. This is not only important to note as officially it is always repeated that no gun was aboard UA 93 but it is also strange as Burnett is the very only one to mention the presence of a gun. Why does no other passenger remark the gun? Especially intriguing as Jeremy Glick discussed the weapons the hijackers had but he didn’t mention any gun neither.
Second Burnett says “they are telling us there is a bomb on board” (and later he will wonder if the hijackers are just making this up). This stands in clear contrast to Todd Beamer who even describes the bomb as a red box. Jeremy Glick tells his wife of a bomb too (“something with a red tag around it”, NBC/ 9/15/01). While they see a bomb Burnett and also his neighbour Mark Bingham only state that the hijackers say to have a bomb. Can this really be explained only by the fact that Burnett and Bingham were in first and Beamer and Glick in second class?


He hung up.


What Burnett didn’t mention: According to the CR at 9:28 the plane suddenly dropped 700 feet. This would have been exactly during Burnett’s first call. Why doesn’t he mention this although it should give passengers a very strong and negative sensation?
What Burnett didn’t mention neither: At 9:28 the CR states that one could hear on the CVR that the hijackers entered the cockpit and fought with the pilots. Why does Burnett not speak of this although it occurred during his call?
Is maybe simple Deena Burnett’s watch wrong? As Burnett will mention in his second phone call that the hijackers are in the cockpit now it would imply that Burnett’s first call ended at 9:27. The call lasted about three minutes (see that four minutes after Deena was called she phoned 911). Therefore the explanation would be that Deena Burnett’s watch is three minutes early. That all calls happened three minutes earlier. But there are some indications that Deena Burnett’s watch is precise. (Btw her 911 call and the FBI listening in should be further indications that her given times are correct).
What Burnett doesn’t mention neither: The physical appearance of the hijackers. This is especially striking as he was sitting (4B) extremely well to see them (1B, 3C, 3D, 6B). But no word about the hijackers that were the only Arab-looking people aboard.


6:31 I call 911


6:34 The phone rang in on call waiting, Tom's cell phone.


Remark also the second call happened with a cell phone (although Jere Longman insists “using an Airfone this time” (p. 154)). This call again happened not only at the normal cruising altitude of up to 40,700 feet (CR)! But it doesn’t get disconnected nor any problems of communication.
Btw: “Deena's caller ID told her it was Tom.” (Star Tribune, 9/11/02). This indicates clearly that he was using indeed his cell phone.


Deena: Hello

Tom: They're in the cockpit. The guy they knifed is dead.

Deena: He's dead?

Tom: Yes. I tried to help him, but I couldn't get a pulse.

Deena: Tom, they are hijacking planes all up and down the east coast. They are taking them and hitting designated targets. They've already hit both towers of the World Trade Center.


Here is one of the very rare contradictions between this unedited written account of Deena Burnett and her interviews after 911. On October 2, 2001:
PAULEY: (Voiceover) Passengers may, at first, have thought this was the kind of hijacking in which hostages are held until demands are met. But Tom Burnett made a second call to his wife, saying ominous news was circulating among the passengers.
(Scenes of inside plane; air phone)
Deena Burnett: “He asked me about the World Trade Center.”
(NBC, 10/2/01; the same interview was broadcasted on 9/3/02 again) .
This account implies that Burnett new already something was going in New York BEFORE he asked his wife. But how can anybody on the plane have known as Burnett was the first one to do a phone call. There is no other passenger officially known to have done a phone call even before Burnett’s second call!


Tom: They're talking about crashing this plane. (a pause) Oh my God. It's a suicide mission...(he then tells people sitting around him)


Well, who is they? The hijackers? But two of the three hijackers Burnett saw are already inside the cockpit and only one remained with the passengers. And why would the hijackers say that they intend to crash the plane if Jarrah is supposed to have said at 9:39 (so basically the same time) that they’re going back to the airport? Why should the hijackers stir up a revolt by uncovering their intentions? Especially as only one of them is controlling the passengers and doesn’t seem to bother that they phone as much as they like?
Btw Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has the quote slightly different: “They are talking about flying the airplane into the ground." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/22/01) http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp. Of course this would make even less sense as why should the hijackers tell something that they don’t even know yet themselves and why should they say that anyway? That this quote is not completely wrong is shown by the fact that indeed Burnett will definitely say exactly this phrase at the end of his third call. Therefore a closer examination will take place there.


Deena: Who are you talking to?

Tom: My seatmate. Do you know which airline is involved?

Deena: No, they don't know if they're commercial airlines or not. The newsreporters are speculating cargo planes, private planes and commercial. No one knows.

Tom: How may planes are there?

Deena: They're not sure, at least three. Maybe more.

Tom: O.K....O.K....Do you know who is involved?

Deena: No.

Tom: We're turning back toward New York. We're going back to the World Trade Center. No, wait, we're turning back the other way. We're going south.


Here the official time and Deena Burnett’s watch match perfectly. It’s 9:36. This is an indication that Deena Burnett’s watch isn’t three minutes early.


Deena: What do you see?

Tom: Just a minute, I'm looking. I don't see anything, we're over a rural area. It's just fields. I've gotta go.


He hung up.


What Burnett didn’t mention: He doesn’t mention the reseating of the passengers (ten in first class and 27 with crew in coach). Btw this was only reported by Todd Beamer but nobody else. Burnett doesn’t mention the closing of the curtain between the two sections nor the hijacker that is surveilling the passengers having a red box around his waist.



6:45 a.m.


Deena Burnett doesn’t precise if he used a cell phone or not. Jere Longman writes that he did so indeed (p. 156)


Tom: Deena

Deena: Tom, you're O.K. (I thought at this point he had just survived the Pentagon plane crash).

Tom: No, I'm not.

Deena: They just hit the Pentagon.


Was the Pentagon crash already at 9:44 in the TV news (Deena Burnett recalled having seen the images just before Burnett called the third time)


Tom: (tells people sitting around him "They just hit the Pentagon.")


If Burnett can phone, talk and discuss so freely why don’t all other passengers from first class do phone calls as often as possible?
And why is there not a single other call from UA 93 that shows that the passenger is aware of the Pentagon. Though several callers mentioned that they know of the WTC?


Tom: O.K....O.K. What else can you tell me?

Deena: They think five airplanes have been hijacked. One is still on the ground. They believe all of them are commercial planes. I haven't heard them say which airline, but all of them have originated on the east coast.


I’ve to confess: I’ve never heard that around 9:45 a plane was considered as a hijack that was “still on the ground”!?


Tom: Do you know who is involved?

Deena: No

Tom: What is the probability of their having a bomb on board? I don't think they have one. I think they're just telling us that for crowd control.

Deena: A plane can survive a bomb if it's in the right place.


Deena Burnett was a Delta Airlines flight attendant.


Tom: Did you call the authorities?

Deena: Yes, they didn't know anything about your plane.

Tom: They're talking about crashing this plane into the ground. We have to do something. I'm putting a plan together.


Now, this is really strange! Again: Who are “they”? The hijackers? Remember there is maximum only one hijacker with the passengers (and Burnett’s possibility to relay information to his neighbours indicates that he is not surveilled) who is apparently not close to Burnett. So how could have Burnett have come to this surprising prophecy? (Which btw is part of his account in the media right after 911). Did the hijacker accidently once managed to hit the correct button and really talk to the passengers via the PA? But then why did no other passenger hears this important message? Why does neither Glick nor Beamer who were at the phone at this time not recall it? And last but not least how should the hijackers have known something that they would decide the very last minute when the passengers were attacking the cockpit? And why should they assure with such a message that the passengers would certainly fight for their lifes? I’m sorry this makes strictly no sense to me!
Background information: The CVR recorded that around 9:48 – so during this phone call of Burnett – one hijacker is heard to have told the other to “let the guys in now” (Newsweek, 12/3/01). This is rather strange cause as several phone calls indicated two hijackers stormed the cockpit and now this quote indicates two are still with the passengers then why weren’t they seen by any passenger? And if they were only talking about one hijacker who was still with the passengers then: Why does Burnett not mention that this hijacker just passed by him and entered the cockpit?


Deena: Who's helping you?

Tom: Different people. Several people. There's a group of us. Don't worry. I'll call you back.



6:54


Deena: Tom?

Tom: Hi. Anything new?

Deena: No

Tom: Where are the kids?

Deena: They're fine. They're sitting at the table having breakfast. They're asking to talk to you.

Tom: Tell them I'll talk to them later

Dena: I called your parents. They know your plane has been hijacked.

Tom: Oh...you shouldn't have worried them. How are they doing?

Deena: They're O.K.. Mary and Martha are with them.

Tom: Good. (a long quiet pause) We're waiting until we're over a rural area. We're going to take back the airplane.


If the 10:03 crash time is correct they would be over a rural area by now!
If the 10:06 crash time is true then they just passed by Pittsburgh. But why doesn’t Burnett point out that he just passed a very big city?


Deena: No! Sit down, be still, be quiet, and don't draw attention to yourself! (The exact words taught to me by Delta Airlines Flight Attendant Training).

Tom: Deena! If they're going to crash this plane into the ground, we're going to have do something!

This information is that important to him that he even repeats it for the second time!

Deena: What about the authorities?


The FBI is listening in. This is kind of strange question.


Tom: We can't wait for the authorities. I don't know what they could do anyway. It's up to us. I think we can do it.

Deena: What do you want me to do?

Tom: Pray, Deena, just pray.

Deena: (after a long pause) I love you.

Tom: Don't worry, we're going to do something.


Strange is that Burnett doesn’t mention their plan.

He hung up


Burnett’s phone call ends about 9:57 (my estimation based on the given time the fourth call began). This again fits perfectly with the official timeline.


Conclusion: Certainly there are not as many contradictions in Burnett’s phone calls than in Beamer’s but the ones that are definitely there are either extremely hard to explain (eg his strange prophecy) or they are in an irresolvable conflict with all other phone calls (eg mentioning of a gun).
Whoever believes the official story of what happened aboard has to come up with explanations for them!

[philb]

1. Has the new flight plan filed by the pilot at 10:00 am been explained?

Is it considered likely that this was by one of the original pilots?
Or the other pilot on board?

What is the official version of what the new flight plan was about?

[John Doe II]

2. Anybody

ready to explain the numerous contradictions in this phone call?

[Rich Hunt]

3. what contradictions?

You're talking about a traumatizing event here.

[philb]

4. So he's halucinating a gun because he's traumatized?

And he's making up the hijackers are talking about flying the plane into the ground, when its inconceivable that he could have heard such a conversation.

His message doesn't appear traumatized, and the contradictions don't appear to be anything related to trauma.

Does anyone believe that this call really came from a plane at flying altitude?

If not, are the wife and FBI in on a scam?

If not that, is it likely that the call was a scam put together by voice manipulation using Tom's voice?

Or from someone sounding like Tom?

or from Tom somewhere other than on the plane?

[Kevin Fenton]

5. Gun

I don't believe the official account of United 93, because I think it was shot down, but I do think that it was a real flight with real passengers.

Your first alleged contradiction:
"Tom Burnett states clearly that one hijacker has a gun. This is not only important to note as officially it is always repeated that no gun was aboard UA 93 but it is also strange as Burnett is the very only one to mention the presence of a gun. Why does no other passenger remark the gun? Especially intriguing as Jeremy Glick discussed the weapons the hijackers had but he didn’t mention any gun neither."

I don't think any of the hijackers had guns.
(1) You say that he "clearly states that one hijacker has a gun." We have no way of knowing whether he clearly states this or not, as there is no recording of the call. His wife may have remembered it correctly, or she may not - we simply have no way of knowing.

(2) Even if he did say that one of the hijackers had a gun, he may have believed this because:
(a) One of the hijackers told him he had a gun, but was lying;
(b) One of the hijackers may have had something that looked like a gun and may have shown it to Burnett, but it wasn't a gun;
(c) Burnett may have noticed a suspicious, gun-shaped bulge in a hijacker's pocket and assumed it was a gun.

I do not find it strange that one eyewitness reportedly claimed something that no other eyewitnesses claimed. Indeed, this is fairly typical behaviour for eyewitnesses.

[John Doe II]

7. Gun

(1) Deena Burnett took immediately notes of the calls and went public already on September 12. She had the recording of her call to the FBI which she also played to Jere Longman. As according to Longman she relayed all information of Burnett's first call (which weren't many) to the FBI agent the possibility that Deena Burnett simply mixed up things are very small.

(2) Burnett is apparently very clear about the information he tells his wife and he does make a difference between "they are telling us they have a bomb" and the fact "one of them has a gun".

2b: Why should only Burnett have seen this pseudo-gun? Why should a hijacker only show it to Burnett? The fact if it was a real gun or something that only looks like a gun doesn't change anything.

2c: If it was only a bulge then see the difference Burnett makes between the vague "they are telling us" and the clear "one of them has".

So, the problem remains.
But please let me stress that the gun contradiction is really a small and by far not the central problem of this call.

If you believe all calls are genuine then answer the simple questions:

Were passengers herded into the back of the plane (and if so, how many)?

Was a hijacker guarding them?

Did he have a bomb?

Were people killed during the flight (if yes, how many and were they the pilot, flight attendants or passengers)?

Being critical about eyewitnesses is a good thing yet I believe that a minimum of coherence about the central issues as eg the above mentioned questions can be expected.

[Kevin Fenton]

10. Longman

"(1) Deena Burnett took immediately notes of the calls and went public already on September 12. She had the recording of her call to the FBI which she also played to Jere Longman. As according to Longman she relayed all information of Burnett's first call (which weren't many) to the FBI agent the possibility that Deena Burnett simply mixed up things are very small."
How does Longman know she relayed all information from Burnett's first call to the FBI? Is it just because she told him? How accurate should her notes be, given that she may be worried that her husband's plane has just been hijacked and he's in mortal danger? The possibility that Deena Burnett got everything 100% right is very small.

"(2) Burnett is apparently very clear about the information he tells his wife and he does make a difference between "they are telling us they have a bomb" and the fact "one of them has a gun"."
How do we know this? Because DB said so? Maybe the hijacker who told him he had a gun was more convincing than the one who told him they had a bomb. Maybe Burnett thinks they couldn't get a bomb through security, but they could get a gun through. It's illogical for a hijacker to bring a bomb (what for? if you want to blow a plane up, you blow it up, you don't hijack it first), but logical to bring a gun.

"2b: Why should only Burnett have seen this pseudo-gun? Why should a hijacker only show it to Burnett? The fact if it was a real gun or something that only looks like a gun doesn't change anything."
OK, good point.

"2c: If it was only a bulge then see the difference Burnett makes between the vague "they are telling us" and the clear "one of them has"."
Again, how do we know this? How many times do we on this forum, typing in the comfort of our home/office, not express precisely what we mean? I don't think we should read too much into the statements of anybody, still less a person under stress.

I'll deal with the other stuff later.

[John Doe II]

12. Deena

(1)Deena Burnett played the her call to the FBI that was recorded to Longman. Either she mentions that her husband told her of a gun that we can assume that he really said that. Or do you imply that within seconds after receiving the first call Deena Burnett's brain played tricks on her and she invented this detail? If she didn't mention it in her call to the FBI and later told Longman of having been told that her husband spoke of a gun: Don't you think that she and also Longman would realize that this was actually not said in the call of Tom Burnett??

You write:
How do we know this? Because DB said so? Maybe the hijacker who told him he had a gun was more convincing than the one who told him they had a bomb.

You imply here that actually TWO hijackers are with the passengers. Nowhere is this reported. Some mention one as a guard. Some mention none.

2c: I think the bulge is specualtion. Why did only Burnett see it? What sense does the bulge have if they have a bomb etc.

In any case these are the really small contradiction that don't worry me too much:
Central is:
Were the passengers herded back? All of them?
Is there a guard?
Does he have a bomb?
How many and who are dead on the floor?
Do you have answers to these simple questions?
These are the real contradictions.

[Kevin Fenton]

14. Memory

When somebody calls me and tells me a load of stuff, I can never remember it. If it's for work, I always ask for e-mail confirmation of anything that is even slightly unusual. I don't think I have a bad memory compared to other people - this is standard practice. People forget and misremember stuff all the time and misremembering can get worse under stress. I don't know what Burnett said to his wife and I don't know what she said to the FBI or Longman. However, as there is only one "Chinese whispers" style report of a gun, I am very sceptical about it.

[John Doe II]

15. We are talking about four sentences here

The gun is mentioned in the first call and only in the first call.
The call apparently consists of four information given. Not more.
Do you think that it is possible that Deena's mind played tricks on here and within seconds after the call she invented a detail that wasn't mentioned at all?
Btw the gun story is also mentioned for the killing of Daniel Lewin on AA 11.

But let me repeat:
These are not the important contradictions. If you want to show that the calls are genuine than try and find answers to very basic questions.

[Kevin Fenton]

16. Tricks

"Do you think that it is possible that Deena's mind played tricks on here and within seconds after the call she invented a detail that wasn't mentioned at all?"
Not quite. I'm suggesting she may have wrongly remembered a detail. It happens to me all the time.

[John Doe II]

17. Excuse me

but let's repeat it.

Either Burnett mentioned the gun or he didn't.
If he didn't then we have the choice that Deena Burnett mentions the witnessing of a gun by her husband in her call to the FBI just seconds after her husband hung up or she didn't.

If she didn't mention it then certainly neither Deena Burnett nor Jere Longman who both have listened to the recording of the call will have repeated a detail that obviously wasn't part of Deena Burnett's call to the FBI.

If she mentioned the witnessing of the gun to the FBI only seconds later although her husband didn't mention anything of that sort and her husband only told her four basic details then something would happen that I would call her mind playing tricks on her.

So, I don't understand you're answer.
Not quite. I'm suggesting she may have wrongly remembered a detail. It happens to me all the time.

What's the difference to you of her mind playing tricks to her and remembering something wrongly? And do you believe this happened?

Moreover do you mind discussing the important contradictions and not minor ones?
Are the passengers herded in the back of the plane or not? If so how many?
Is there a hijacker guarding them? If so does he remain till the end?
Are there dead people on the floor of the plane? If so how many? If so are they crewmembers or passengers?

Any ideas?

[Kevin Fenton]

18. I'm suggesting

that Burnett said something about a gun and then DB then amplified this, altering the wording and emphasis, as people are wont to do.

[John Doe II]

19. Contradictions

Why should Burnett say something about a gun?
As why should Glick say something about red bandanas?

And when do you finally want to adress the main contradictions?

Thanks for your question concerning Glick. I'll have to look things up again and will come later. For the moment I work only on Katrina.

[Kevin Fenton]

6. Gradual descent

"What Burnett didn’t mention: According to the CR at 9:28 the plane suddenly dropped 700 feet. This would have been exactly during Burnett’s first call. Why doesn’t he mention this although it should give passengers a very strong and negative sensation?
What Burnett didn’t mention neither: At 9:28 the CR states that one could hear on the CVR that the hijackers entered the cockpit and fought with the pilots. Why does Burnett not speak of this although it occurred during his call?"

"suddenly dropped" Actually the CR uses the word "descended" (page 28) and says this happened before 9:30. It may or may not have happened at 9:28 - PT has it at 9:29.
PT says at 9:28:
"Cleveland flight controller Stacey Taylor has been warned to watch transcontinental flights heading west for anything suspicious. She later recalls, “I hear one of the controllers behind me go, ‘Oh, my God, oh my God,’ and he starts yelling for the supervisor. He goes, ‘What is this plane doing? What is this plane doing?’ I wasn't that busy at the time, and I pulled it up on my screen and he was climbing and descending and climbing and descending, but very gradually. He'd go up 300 feet, he'd go down 300 feet. And it turned out to be United 93.”"
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=ua93
So it was descending "very gradually", not dropping suddenly.
Given that it was "very gradual", it is not surprising that Burnett does not mention it.

"At 9:28 the CR states that one could hear on the CVR that the hijackers entered the cockpit and fought with the pilots."
I found no reference to the cockpit voice recorder in the CR in this part of its account of United 93, could you tell me where it is please?
If the CVR is on a 30-minute loop, then it should begin at either 9:33 or 9:36, depending on the crash time.

[John Doe II]

8. It dropped

No, I don't agree, Kevin.
The plane dropped according to the CR. It didn't descend very gradually.
The Stacey Taylor account is just before the event that I'm talking about:

The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35, 000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. (CR, 11)

So, this happened DURING the first call. Why didn't Burnett mention it?


Thanks for pointing the inaccuracy about the attack of the cockpit. Though all the data is correct I gave the source is not the CVR but:

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. During the first broadcast, the captain or first officer could be heard declaring "Mayday" amid the sounds of a physical struggle in the cockpit. The second radio transmission, 35 seconds later, indicated that the fight was continuing. The captain or first officer could be heard shouting:" Hey get out of here - get out of here - get out of here. " (CR, 11)

[Kevin Fenton]

9. It didn't drop suddenly

in the sense we would understand it - like when you fly through an air pocket and the plane goes straight down.

If a plane is travelling at a cruising altitude of 40,000 feet and descends to land in 20 minutes, then it must descend 2,000 feet per minute, or 33 feet per second. I believe planes may often descend in less time (say 15 minutes), so a rate of descent of even, say, 40 feet per second would not be worthy of comment.

We know that the descent lasted more than 11 seconds, as the CR says, "Eleven seconds into the descent...". If the descent lasted for, say, 14 seconds (in which time the plane would travel, say, one and a half miles), this would mean the plane descended 50 feet per second. If the descent lasted 21 seconds (in which time the plane would travel around 2 miles), then the rate of descent would be 33 feet per second.

As we don't know exactly how long the descent lasted, we don't know whether it was worthy of comment or not, but it appears it was not sharp enough to cause the passengers injury or discomfort.

[Kevin Fenton]

11. Bomb

"Second Burnett says “they are telling us there is a bomb on board” (and later he will wonder if the hijackers are just making this up). This stands in clear contrast to Todd Beamer who even describes the bomb as a red box. Jeremy Glick tells his wife of a bomb too (“something with a red tag around it”, NBC/ 9/15/01). While they see a bomb Burnett and also his neighbour Mark Bingham only state that the hijackers say to have a bomb. Can this really be explained only by the fact that Burnett and Bingham were in first and Beamer and Glick in second class?"

Let's get this straight, two guys in one place don't mention seeing a bomb (or object claimed to be a bomb), whereas two guys in another place mention seeing a bomb and even give similar descriptions. Wouldn't this indicate that the "bomb" was visible in one place, but not the other? Isn't this a consistency, rather than an inconsistency.

[John Doe II]

13. Bomb reply

Let me stress that as the gun the bomb is a point I believe this is a contradiction but on purpose I left it open raising simply a question.
Having said this I like to ask you:
Is there a hijacker guarding the passengers?
Where are the passengers?

If you can answer me these questions we do have a basis to see if Burnett and Bingham couldn't see the bomb but Beamer and Glick could.

[spooked911]

20. And if there is a hijacker guarding the passengers

what happened to him when the passenger rebellion started?