Big update and overhaul to 9/11 Timeline is finally finished!

[paulthompson]

Here's a good place to start to see all the updated stuff:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/ann-2006-03-19pt.jsp

There's a TON of new stuff. Three hundred new entries, and another two hundred significantly updated entries. Check it out and please donate! We're having a big funding crisis right now.

[file83]

1. Sweet, thanks for the tip!

[AlienSpaceBat]

2. Thanks Paul

An awesome piece of work. Attention to detail is crucial.

[reprehensor]

3. Excellent.

Your donation is on the way.

[medienanalyse]

4. FINISH. Paul Thompsons "timeline is not reliable any more.

See for example the "Hani Hanjour" section. The person in question is repeatedly addressed as "Hijacker Hani Hanjour.

As if Mr. Thompson did not know that the identity is in doubt.

He does not mention the other name Hanjoor.
No mentioning of different handwriting.

Of poor skills in handling a Cessna.
of when "addition" of the ""Hani Hanjour" as hijacker nr. 19 as an exchange to somebody else the same problem existed with all the other hijackers too: exchanged names.

That the body of hanjoour must be on ice and must be identifiable.


It is not the problem that Thompson does have another way to understand this or that problem.

It is that a reliable source must DISCUSS even the information which it does not agre to. The information about Hanjour is open in the net. Here in DU. In books. In "John Doe`s" work.

It is impossible not to know it.

So the timeline changes to open bushist propaganda.

I am impressed - but not surprised.

[paulthompson]

6. Before you speak...

...you might want to actually read the timeline first. Yes, there are a number of entries about Hanjour being a poor pilot. Many of them are new, just released today. Also, there is an entry about Mansour Caned being named as the 19th hijacker and then that changing to Hanjour. Different handwriting? I don't see the importance of that since someone else like a travel agent could easily have filled out one or more of the forms. If there's more to that, please let me know.

I am trying to include all the information I can but of course there is much that I still miss. If you feel like I'm missing some important things, name them specifically, or even better, volunteer to help out to make sure those things are added. For instance, I don't know much about the issue of the collapse of the WTC. I can't claim to have engineering knowledge or a good understanding of that. However, there's a volunteer who has looked into that a lot more than I have, and thanks to his work there will be a lot of new entries about that soon.

Also, if you look at the table of contents:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

You'll see the section on the hijackers calls them the "Alleged 9/11 hijackers." I'm not going to say the word "alleged" every single time their name comes up.

[paulthompson]

7. In case you're curious...

Here are some of the entries I'm talking about. There actually are a number of entries about Hanjour's poor skills, but the below two are a sample.

September 13, 2001-September 14, 2001: 18 Hijackers Named, Mysterious Name and Then Hanjour’s Name Follows One Day Later

On September 13, the FBI says there were 18 hijackers, and releases their names. Hani Hanjour’s name is not on the list. (CNN, 10/13/2001) On the morning of the next day, CNN announces on the air that “CNN managed to grab a list of the names of the 18 suspected hijackers that is supposed to be officially released by justice sometime later today.” An announcer reads the list, which actually contains 19 names. It is the same list as the day before, except for one new name: Mosear Caned. (Note that the name is a very rough phonetic spelling from a CNN transcript.) (CNN, 10/14/2001) Later in the day, the list is revised. Caned is gone and is replaced by Hani Hanjour. It is never explained who Caned is, how he got on the list, or even how his name is correctly spelled. No name even remotely similar to his appears on any of the released manifests of the hijacked 9/11 flights. (Associated Press, 10/14/2001; CNN, 10/14/2001) A few days later, it is reported that Hanjour’s “name was not on the American Airlines manifest for (Flight 77) because he may not have had a ticket.” (Washington Post, 10/16/2001)

April 15, 1999: Hanjour Gets Pilot’s License Despite Dubious Skills

When Hani Hanjour attended flight schools between 1996 and 1998 he was found to be a “weak student” who “was wasting our resources” (see October 1996-December 1997), and when he tried using a flight simulator, “He had only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do.” (see 1998) Yet, on April 15, 1999, he is certified as a multi-engine commercial pilot by Daryl Strong in Tempe, Arizona. Strong is one of many private examiners independently contracted with the FAA. A spokesperson for the FAA’s workers union will later complain that contractors like Strong “receive between $200 and $300 for each flight check. If they get a reputation for being tough, they won’t get any business.” Hanjour’s new license allows him to begin passenger jet training at other flight schools, despite having limited flying skills and an extremely poor grasp of English. (Government Executive, 7/13/2002; Associated Press, 7/13/2002) At the next flight school Hanjour will attend in early 2001, the staff there will be so appalled at his lack of skills that they will repeatedly contact the FAA and ask them to investigate how he got a pilot’s license (see January-February 2001). After 9/11, the FBI will appear to investigate how Hanjour got his license and questions and polygraphs the instructor who signed off on his flying skills. The Washington Post will note that since Hanjour’s pilot skills were so bad, how he was ever able to get a license “remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss.” (CBS News, 6/10/2002; Washington Post, 11/15/2001) After gaining the license, Hanjour returns to Saudi Arabia for a few months in late April 1999.


Mid-August 2001: Hanjour Still Not Skilled Enough to Fly Solo

Hani Hanjour goes to the Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland, about 20 miles west of Washington. He wants to rent a single engine Cessna airplane. However, when two instructors take him on three test runs, they find he has trouble controlling and landing the plane. One instructor has to help him land. Due to his poor skills, therefore, he is not allowed to rent one of their planes without more lessons. Further, while Hanjour appears to have logged over 600 hours of flying experience and possesses a valid pilot’s license (though it has in fact expired), he refuses to provide contact information: He gives no phone number and only gives his address as being a hotel in Laurel. In spite of Hanjour’s lack of flying skills, chief instructor Marcel Bernard later claims, “There’s no doubt in my mind that once (Flight 77) got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.” (Gazette (Greenbelt), 10/21/2001; Capital News, 10/19/2001; Newsday, 10/23/2001; Washington Post, 11/15/2001) However, on 9/11, in piloting Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to do much more than simply point the plane at a target. Because Flight 77 at first seemed to overshoot its target, the Washington Post will note that “the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level... Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm...” (Washington Post, 10/12/2001) One Washington flight controller will later comment, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” (ABC News, 11/24/2001) One law enforcement official who will study Flight 77’s descent after 9/11 will call it the work of “a great talent ... virtually a textbook turn and landing.” (Washington Post, 10/10/2002) Remarkably, the 9/11 Commission will overlook the numerous accounts of Hanjour’s terrible piloting skills (see April 15, 1999; January-February 2001) and state that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed assigned the Pentagon target specifically to Hanjour because he was “the operation?s most experienced pilot.” (9/11 Commission, 8/24/2004)

[medienanalyse]

10. yes I do not deny it was a good source in former times

but I rely on the new entries which you advertise now. Why does the new entry not contain any more the information you had before ?

Why do you not come to the point which is obvious when you read all what you mention now ?

You must not Always use teh word "alleged". Once is enough in the beginning, and it saves you the space to repeat the word "hijacker" every time.

But in the new entry you do not even show a glimpse of a doubt that the bushistic allegations might be wrong.

Not even ONE "alleged". That is it.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_alleged_9/11_hijackers=haniHanjour

[medienanalyse]

8. I agree you do not use the word "alleged" every time

but you or one of the authors you let write has time enogh to set "hijacker" befor every mentioning of "Hani Hanjour".

I am talkinf about the new entry which you advertised above:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_alleged_9/11_hijackers=haniHanjour

I notice there was time and place enough to largely deploy what this HHH ever learned in flight schools - but not that he got help of a FBI-man to get his exam. Poor flight skills: not in the new article I read.

"If you feel like I'm missing some important things, name them specifically, or even better ..."

Oh I just miss the DISCUSSION that the person you write about may
1) not be identified
b) not be a hijacker at all.

Untill now - and we had some argument here and by mail before ! - I ignored that you have a different opinion. Because this is normal and good. But if you obviously do not pick up information (and if it only were to dismiss it)

then I call it propaganda. Take the handwriting which is ONE of different signs of unclear identity. It is possible to explain ut this or that way like nearly everything in this world. But you sort out one of the most important evidence for different identity. If you have two different photos like with Jarrah you can explain that too.

It is not your ability to explain things different, ot is not your opinion. It is ismissing info when on the other hand you meticuloiusly feed in mainstream info.

[paulthompson]

11. Reply

I'm not sure what you mean about him getting help from an FBI man to get his exam. If you're talking about an FAA agent sitting in on his classes, then that is here. If you're talking about something else, please let me know. The poor flight skills entries, including the ones I pointed to, are in the same webpage that you linked to.

January-February 2001: Flight School’s Repeated Warnings About Hijacker Hanjour Ignored by FAA

In January 2001, the Arizona flight school JetTech alerts the FAA about hijacker Hani Hanjour. No one at the school suspects Hanjour of terrorist intent, but they tell the FAA he lacks both the English and flying skills necessary for the commercial pilot’s license he has already obtained. For instance, he had taken classes at the University of Arizona but failed his English classes with a 0.26 grade point average. A JetTech flight school manager “couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had.” A former employee says, “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.” They also note he is an exceptionally poor student who does not seem to care about passing his courses. (CBS News, 6/10/2002; New York Times, 6/4/2002) An FAA official named John Anthony actually sits next to Hanjour in class and observes his skills. He suggests the use of a translator to help Hanjour pass, but the flight school points out that goes “against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently before they even get their license.” (Associated Press, 6/10/2002) The FAA verifies that Hanjour’s 1999 pilot’s license is legitimate (see April 15, 1999), but takes no other action. However, his license should have been rejected because it had already expired in late 1999 when he failed to take a manadatory medical test. (Associated Press, 10/15/2001; CBS News, 6/10/2002) An Arizona FAA inspector later says, “There should have been a stop right then and there.” He will claim that federal law would have required Hanjour to be re-examined. (Associated Press, 7/13/2002) In February, Hanjour begins advanced simulator training, “a far more complicated task than he had faced in earning a commercial license.” (New York Times, 7/19/2002) The flight school again alerts the FAA about this and gives a total of five alerts about Hanjour, but no further action on him is taken. The FBI is not told about Hanjour. (CBS News, 6/10/2002) Ironically, in July 2001, Arizona FBI agent Ken Williams will recommend in a memo that the FBI liaison with local flight schools and keep track of suspicious activity by Middle Eastern students (see July 10, 2001).

I'm sorry to see that you take the attitude of too many people in the 9/11 truth movement who say something along the lines, "if someone does not follow my theories exactly then they must be a Bush dupe or disinfo agent." I consider my 9/11 timeline to be a project open to everyone, similar to Wikipedia except more managed. If you have issues with certain things, then please submit entries of your own. There's a lot of information in the timeline; you can choose to use it, add to it, or ignore it.

[medienanalyse]

14. Your allegations are FALSE

You write:
I'm sorry to see that you take the attitude of too many people in the 9/11 truth movement who say something along the lines, "if someone does not follow my theories exactly then they must be a Bush dupe or disinfo agent."

Everybody can read what I wrote in my critique above. Feel free to believe whtever you want.

But you answer the MAIN QUESTION like Bush.

The MAIN question is: Who did it ? And your answer is: "Hijacker Hani Hanjour" without ANY "allgedly" or any reference to the discussion that wether his identity nor his deed are cleared.

You say: he was it. And the rest is lametta. Take your "reply" above. It says: he had bad skills, he did not fulfill the regulations, everybody did what he could to help him. That is the essence.

But is is not his bad English. It was that he was unable to fly a Cessna. And in no way you confront this lack of ability with the exact landing point Pentagon in the wedge wich was in the PENREN programme and so more or less empty.

Hundreds of words about regulations and about bad English. No word about his identity. No confrontation between his stay in the U.S.A. since at least 1990 and his bad English in 1999. You may explain all that this or that way. But you do not even adress it.


No Cessna for HH:Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md.
http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/archives/2001/oct/21/hanjour21.htm

he could not fly at all:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/national/04ARIZ.html?

FBI knew everything about Hanjour:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/FBI_informant020523.html
links is broken, maybe archive .org has a help.


Again: there are so many hints and evidence that HH was not HH and not the perpetrator. And there is no evidence at all that he was the hijacker.

BUT YOU FILL PAGES about the "Hijacker Hani Hanjour". A murder case which is solved, which is finished. What is all the "information" for when in your eyes the main question is solved ?

[paulthompson]

16. What is with you?!

I don't know what has happened to you with your posts in this thread. You call my timeline "open Bushist propaganda" and then you complain about my statement complaining about that? The thing that really puzzles me is that you seem to not actually be reading the timeline material when you make your complaints. Virtually everything you've said about the Hanjour page for instance has been wrong. You said it did not talk about his poor flying skills - wrong. You said it not mention the Caned as 19th hijacker report - wrong. You said it didn't mention the FAA agent (not FBI) in the classroom with him report - wrong. (Next time, try the timeline's search function before you claim such and such is not in there.) Now you say I don't confront his lack of ability to hit the Pentagon in the way he did - also wrong. Did you not even read this bit from my timeline which I pasted earlier in this very thread?:

However, on 9/11, in piloting Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to do much more than simply point the plane at a target. Because Flight 77 at first seemed to overshoot its target, the Washington Post will note that “the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level... Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm...” (Washington Post, 10/12/2001) One Washington flight controller will later comment, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” (ABC News, 11/24/2001) One law enforcement official who will study Flight 77’s descent after 9/11 will call it the work of “a great talent ... virtually a textbook turn and landing.” (Washington Post, 10/10/2002)

As for the rest of the new timeline entries on Hanjour, you may not understand them because apparently you aren't really reading them. For you, the only thing that matters is was Hanjour flying that plane or not, but that's not true, there are other things that matter. If you read the new entries on him, it turns out that many of Hanjour's associates in the US were under investigation BEFORE 9/11 for terrorist connections (for instance, even one of his flight trainers). It turns out he was closely connected to many of the people mentioned in Ken Williams' Phoenix memo. I discovered for instance that Aukai Collins, the FBI informant who said he had informed about Hanjour in detail to the FBI, was actually the chief informant for the information in the Phoenix memo and was mentioned in the memo by name. Given that the Hanjour guy running around the US before 9/11 had ties to so many people in the plot, this means that had more than enough information to investigate him. In fact, they kept having many close calls where they remarkably failed to catch him. Regardless of whether he was on the plane or not, his behavior and his ties were so obvious that an investigation into him could have easily allowed the FBI to roll up the entire plot. This is a very important point in my opinion that is a separate issue of who got on the planes. How many chances did US agents have to roll up the plot and how could they have possibly failed to do so? I should also mention that many of the things I've pieced together about this in my new Hanjour entries have never been pieced together in any internet posting, article, or book, as far as I know. Had all this come out at the time of the Phoenix memo, it would have been a much bigger deal. With these new entries, it becomes obvious (at least to me) that had the Phoenix memo been acted on in a timely manner, Hanjour would have very easily been a subject of investigation before 9/11, it would have become immediately obvious that a number of al-Qaeda operatives were training on planes in the US, and the plot may not have been successful.

I am with you on the importance of the question about who the hijackers really were. I have many entries in my timeline that touch on that and also the essay on the two Jarrahs, which was some of the first work on this topic. However, my methods are different than yours. Kevin Felton put it nicely:

"Let's face it, many of the people who come to the 9/11 Timeline may or may not know who exactly which hijacker is, so it helps them get orientated if there are these easy-to-understand tags. You're probably better trying to draw people in and insinuate stuff than hitting them over the head with a sledgehammer from the get-go."

Exactly. I'm not interested in preaching to the converted. I'm interested in opening the eyes of the typical soccer mom in Kansas. The sledgehammer method completely backfires with most of them. I think your criticisms are based on a misunderstanding of my methodology (which I have gathered from previous posts that you have never really understood) and also a failure to actually fully understand my new entries. The issue of who the hijackers actually are is a very important issue, but not the only important one. There are many many issues that challenge the official story and I'm interested in looking into as many as I can. If you're not interested in the kind of topics like I mentioned above, fine, but don't criticize those who are. Things here are not the same as in Germany, where people are more open minded. Here, there are pockets of open mindedness, like New York City and San Francisco, but they are few. To help change the political balance in this country, one needs to reach beyond those who already are skeptical by using an approach that better draws them in, and that's what I'm trying to do.

[medienanalyse]

19. no trust. I lost my trust. A answer to the point despite the amont of you

>>>I don't know what has happened to you with your posts in this thread. You call my timeline "open Bushist propaganda" and then you complain about my statement complaining about that?<<<(quote Thompson)

This “misunderstanding shows your stance. I referred to the attitude to “say something along the lines, "if someone does not follow my theories exactly then they must be …”

I pointed out several times now: you must not follow my theory ( in fact how could you do since I did not publish a theory ). Since years I accepted your tries to find a Saudi-Arabian or Pakistan link. Go on, look, have fun. And if you do believe in HH, Attas, Jarrahs perpetratorship: why not ? Do it, feel free.

What I argue against is that you do not discuss the obvious problems, that you do not even mention that the identity is in question. This is bushist propaganda. You say without any doubt: HHH (hijacker Hani Hanjour). That is the official bushist position.





>>>“You said it did not talk about his poor flying skills - wrong.”<<<

Yes and no. I should have pointed it out HOW you do it. We know he was unable to fly a Cessna. We know he sat in different simulators. Which does not say anything about his skills there. There is NO report that he ever sat in a Boeing cockpit – not at all. The practical test was: he was unable to obtain a Cessna for rent.

How do you work with this? “he lacks … flying skills necessary for the commercial pilot’s license he has already obtained. “

The skills for the license. This is your main point. And you know that nobody who discusses 9/11 is interested in his LICENSE. We want to know: was HHH able to fly the manoevre into the Pentagon ?

You reduce it to English skills and regulations:
Quote again: “For instance, he … failed his English classes…A JetTech flight school manager “couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had.”
Then you mention the important “He could not fly at all” – and so you are right that I am wrong. And this sentence without the mentioning of the denial of the Cessna rent is covered again with the discussion of a “translator” and with regulations.

Excuse me: you may shift story upon story about Hanjour. If he was able to comb his hair or to fullfill all regulations to ride a bicycle. Do it, it is nice and fills your timeline. But there is only one important question: was he able to fly the machine on 9/11 ?

If not he was not the HHH, but only the “alleged hhh”. So simple. And you cover the clue as if it were just failing to write English.

>>> Now you say I don't confront his lack of ability to hit the Pentagon in the way he did - also wrong. >>> No, it is right. Many sentences and words later you write about the skills needed for the Pentagon manoever. This is nothing else than re-telling what others say, what the mainstream told us. The expertise you have enables you to CONFRONT “no skills to fly even a Cessna” with “talented pilot”. You do not. Only a trained reader gets this information out by picking it in a heap of words about Hanjour. After having them picked out he is left alone by you. He might be interested to know how HHH changed from no skills to extremely talented. Can you offer, do you offer the solution?

No. You do not offer the deep rift between the skills, you cover them. You do not offer the solution, because there is no bridge which you could offer. You do not offer the question which is in the open of the 9/11 sceptics community and nowadays widely more. The question “Who did it” ? No you do not even let it open. You decide “Hijacker Hani Hanjour”.

You are right that on second search I CAN FIND some of the missed information in the HHH website – if I dig deep enough. This is possible for any user of the internet WITHOUT your timeline. And as I said: it is only SOME.

The main point “Who did it” is solved and closed by you in exactly the way Bush does.






>>>”many of Hanjour's associates in the US were under investigation BEFORE 9/11 for terrorist connections (for instance, even one of his flight trainers).”<<<< This matters ? Yes and no again. A bunch of suspicious people who are known as suspicious but not investigated. Whom to concentrate on ? On the suspicious men and rewrite history ? Or on those who obviously cover the others ?


>>>”more than enough information to investigate him”<<<
Yes: And just this makes HIM more harmless every minute and the FBI and CIA get suspicious.


<<<”failed to catch him. Regardless of whether he was on the plane or not, his behavior and his ties were so obvious….>>>>
He . “Hani Hanjour” is NOT IMPORTANT. Yes when you even admit he might not even have been on the plane why do you not write it in the timeline ? Those who “failed to catch him” are the culprits – and they throw red herrings everywhere which you pick up and piece together in your unreproducable “method”.




>>>”the FBI to roll up the entire plot. This is a very important point”<<< Yes – if you would look onto the FBI.


>>>”How many chances did US agents have to roll up the plot and how could they have possibly failed to do so?” <<< Hundreds of thousands. Remember Atta who left his Cessna on the runway. Remember Moussaoui who went into jail against all orders of the superiors. Remember the Hamburg “cell” which was under investigation by nearly every agency of the world. All of the so-called hijackers tried to be so suspicious as anybody can be. Elelfant trails covered with red herrings. And you are proud to “find” them and piece the stinking herrings together ….



>>>”Had all this come out at the time of the Phoenix memo, it would have been a much bigger deal.”<<< What means “come out” ? It came OUT to those who are responsible. You just now notice what the sceptics say since years. Those who knew were those who covered. To uncover what they knew does not at all solve the case – it opens the new one about ar least complicity of FBI, CIA, government.


>>>”obvious that a number of al-Qaeda operatives were training on planes in the US“<<< No. It is obvious that a number of people CALLED al-Qaeda were covered by the FBI, were helped, feeded, saved and kissed by U.S. officials.

>>>”I am with you on the importance of the question about who the hijackers really were”<<< No again, you are not with me. “who the hijackers really were” is not my question. Much better:
“who were the people who were said to be the hijackers” – but still not to the point. “Who did it” is the main question in any murder case. And if it is clear that thes people who were said to be hijackers were not the culprits – the relevance of their identity falls some hundred points.



>>>”I'm interested in opening the eyes of the typical soccer mom in Kansas. The sledgehammer method completely backfires with most of them”>>> So why don`t you do it to open the eyes ? Why do you sledgehammer “Hijacker Hani Hanjour” ?

>>>”There are many many issues that challenge the official story and I'm interested in looking into as many as I can “<<< What about a scientific method ? Which reduces the amounts by solving the main questions first and go into detail then ? If it was not a south Antarctic penguin who shot JFK you must not investigate penguins, even when the official biology books might tell us that penguins are fish (they are able to swim and to dive, you know).

You retell official stories. That is all in the end. You do it with the “method” to make them look a bit suspicious. It is intelligent Bushism.

[rman]

20. The essence of the timeline

is that it's a database of media publications - not so much that it is a source of Absolute Truth. It can only be as truthfull as the publications in the database.

No single source should be trusted, you can only come close to the truth by cross-referencing - which is where thompson's timeline comes in handy.

I can imagine though, if you lost your trust in the media only recently, that you're still a bit stressed about it.

[paulthompson]

42. Reply

You say: "Can you offer, do you offer the solution?"

I think that's all that needs to be said. Again, as I've said many times in these forums, you don't understand what I'm trying to do with the timeline and you probably never will. I am not trying to offer solutions. There are thousands of 9/11 websites where people present their theories. That's fine. I'm trying to take a different approach to appeal to a different bunch of people. Instead of offering solutions, I present information and let people come up with their own solutions. In my essays I may present some theories, but in my timeline entries I do not. I know for a fact that many people read my timeline and come away rejecting the official story. They reject the so called "Bushist position." They read the information and come to their own conclusions which is inevitably contrary to the official story. I know this because people email me and tell me this all the time. I've never had a single person email to tell me that after reading the timeline their support for the official story was reinforced. This is my technique. You can believe what you want or call it what you want, but I know that it has been highly effective in changing people's opinions. The slegehammer method is not the only way.

[mt1000]

28. who did it? remote control handler

From early on when I first read reports about Raytheon and Global Hawk I thought the planes (all of them) were flown by remote control system such as Global Hawk.
The flight patterns were intricate - esp. the DC plane's u-turn to strike the least occupied (under construction) side of the pentagon.

Hijackers, agents or persons causing havoc on planes, if there were any, were just to 'build the plot' to cover up the events of the day. These remote control systems are routinely in use in the military etc. And Building 7 had that above ground 'bunker' to watch the whole thing and they blew it up to hide the Global Hawk apparatus. Why the hell else did they even build that super reenforced war room overlooking WTC 1 & 2?

There's a tremendous amount on the web about this. Raytheon execs began to die like flies acording to published reports 2001-2002.

Moussaoui and other odd people seem all connected to CIA or something. When you look at their travel itinery. Moussaoui traveled mysteriously as did James Earl Ray and that is ignored in mainstream media.

[mt1000]

29. I have a survey up about opinion on 9-11

I just made a survey about if you doubt the 9-11 official story or if you always had doubts - or don't have any.

http://www.lfchosting.com/sportsfem/peace/911survey.html

[salvorhardin]

30. Your survey is problematic

• It does not include any options for people who believe the official story
  
• It does not include options for people who believe the official chain of events but might have questions concerning other aspects of the official story
  
• It does not include options for people who do not know what to believe

[medienanalyse]

35. do not act like Paul Thompson - theory is theory

remote control is a nice theory to explain a lot.

But nobody could prove it yet.

So we are stuck. On the other hand it is no problem not to decide. Let the question open. Most important is not to be Sherloch Holmes II but to ask the Bushist where they got thgeir conspiracy theory from since they do not provide evidence to prove it - although they should have it.

Most material evidence is the body of the allged HHH which is on ice. a simple DNA-check with the parents, a teeth-check with his dentist. They did it with all the other passengers - why not with the alleged hijackers?

For sure there is much more: fingerprints and so on. They are unable to prove their case. That is the point when asking "who did it?". Alternative theories are not necessary and they only take time and public attention.

And so I see Paul Thompson sliding into a "what happened" quizz which is far away from loking for the culprits.

[Kevin Fenton]

15. Is Hani a hijacker?

Well, I would say he is not, having bailed out at the last minute, but I think you are better off continuing to refer to him as a hijacker and only putting in "alleged" or something, when there is some reason to doubt whether he actually did it.

Let's face it, many of the people who come to the 9/11 Timeline may or may not know who exactly which hijacker is, so it helps them get orientated if there are these easy-to-understand tags. You're probably better trying to draw people in and insinuate stuff than hitting them over the head with a sledgehammer from the get-go.

[Kevin Fenton]

9. Travel agent

The writing on Hani's two applications is definitely different. However, the 1997 aplication form "indicated that it was prepared by Siddiqi/Samara Travel." (Terrorist Travel, p. 35)
Presumably the indication was on page 2, which, AFAIK, has not been published (but page one has), so I can't check it.

Generally, I'm delighted with the update, although I suppose you can't please all the people all the time. I have my own (constantly changing) ideas on Hani, but I suppose you have to make the call yourself in the end. btw and fwiw, Congressional Air Charters fly to Canada, although I doubt that's relevant.

The one minor grumble I have is that "Soviet Forces, Lured in by the CIA, Invade Afghanistan" isn't first any more. I really liked that one, but it's been replaced by the "mishap".

[Twist_U_Up]

54. Another 200-300 nails in the coffin. Thanks Paul

[HughBeaumont]

5. ALWAYS tell people your book/site is the best place to start.

I re-read the book quite often and find something new every time.

[Ufomammut]

12. Thanks, Paul...

Your "timeline" was the first source I read on this ..then went on to David Griffin's book, which sourced your material as well. When recommending research materials, I always advocate Chomsky for outlining how propaganda and thought control work in democratic societies, but rely on your timeline and Griffin's two books for showing how something is terribly, terribly wrong with the "official" version. Ironically, Chomsky claims the inside job is "possible but improbable," although I'm sure he has varied reasons for not offering much more on it.

[stickdog]

13. Keep on keeping on, Paul.

Thanks for continually trying to improve this resource.

[petgoat]

18. Vielen Dank, Paul! nt

[Duer 157099]

17. Date is wrong?

Too much irony having a timeline site have the year wrong... is it?

[rman]

21. Lots of irony claiming an error

and not referencing the supposed error.

[Duer 157099]

34. Oh. Sorry. Thought it was obvious

At the very top of the page that the link goes to, the date is "March 27, 2005"

[Shoestring]

22. This is interesting...

September 10, 2001: Anti-Terrorism Meeting at WTC on 9/11 is Canceled
Silverstein Properties, Larry Silverstein’s company which took over the lease of the WTC weeks earlier (see July 24, 2001), has a meeting planned for the morning of 9/11 in it’s temporary offices on the 88th floor of the WTC north tower, along with Port Authority officials. It is to discuss what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. However, this evening the meeting is canceled because one participant cannot attend. {Ha'aretz, 12/21/2001; New York Times, 10/12/2001} Of Silverstein Properties’ 160 staff, 54 are in the north tower when it is hit, and four of them die. {Globe and Mail, 10/7/2002}

And then this on the day of 9/11:

(8:00 a.m.): Larry Silverstein Doesn’t go to WTC Due to Doctor’s Appointment
WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein is supposed to be working today in the temporary offices of his company, Silverstein Properties, on the 88th floor of the north tower. However, at his Park Avenue apartment, Silverstein’s wife reportedly “laid down the law: The developer could not cancel an appointment with his dermatologist, even to meet with tenants at his most important property.” {New York Magazine, 5/18/2005; New York Observer, 4/17/2003} He is therefore not at the WTC when it is hit, and first hears of the attacks when an associate calls him from the lobby of one of the WTC buildings. {Real Deal, 2/2004} Two of Silverstein’s children—his son, Roger, and daughter, Lisa—work for his company and have been regularly attending meetings with WTC tenants at Windows on the World (the restaurant at the top of the north tower). Yet this morning they are running late. According to the New York Observer, “If the attack had happened just a little later, Mr. Silverstein’s children would likely have been trapped at Windows.” {New York Observer, 4/17/2003} Fifty-four of Silverstein Properties’ 160 staff are in the north tower when it is hit, and four of them die. {Globe and Mail, 10/7/2002} Silverstein signed the lease on the WTC less than two months previously, and later will attempt to get $7 billion in insurance for the destruction of the towers (see July 24, 2001).

[Andre II]

23. Congrats

Well done, Paul.
Though I've to say that I'm a bit disappointed about the absence of some facts that seem crucial to me.

eg: September 7, 2001 for Atta who's drinking i Shuckums.
You still write: "What is particularly interesting about this story is how it has changed over time."
Well, isn't it more interesting that according to the CR he's in Baltimore as you've acknowleged yourself on DU?

September 8, 2001:
Unfortunately it misses the entry that officially he's in Baltimore but that he's also witnessed in Flordia inquiring for crop dusters.

September 10, 2001:
The fact that Atta's credit card was used in New York.

September 10, 2001 for Al-Shehhi:
That he was witnessed in the Helmsley Bar in New York although officially he was in Boston.

As I've posted all this stuff recently on DU (based on John Doe's files) I was of course curious what you have to say about them.
So, I'm surprised you've left them out;
Did you overlook them or is there any other reason why you didn't include them?

And as we're talking about alleged hijackers and their doubles. You've expressed here on DU the opinion that you wouldn't be surprised if there are more and more cases of alleged hijackers being seen in two different locations at the same time: So, what's your take on this issue? Do you agree with Kevin Fenton who stated he doesn't care and is sure it will be explained somehow?

Btw: Why did you reduce the amount of your comments a lot compared to earlier versions of your timeline?
Eg I find it way stronger to read that 14 alleged hijackers entered the US before the official entrance date than to read for each case the remark that officially the person wasn't in the US at that time.

[Kevin Fenton]

24. Shuckums

What time were they there?
What time was the last flight to Baltimore that day?
How far is it from the airport?

You know the first two, all you have to do is check the last one.

[Andre II]

25. Most conservative guess

is that they stayed till 7 pm in Shuckums.
Airport in Lauderdale would be around 10, 15 miles.
Take off time of last flight to Baltimore was 7.30

[Kevin Fenton]

26. Most conservative guess?

Why is 7 p.m. your most conservative guess? "Conservative" in what sense?
Where did you get "10, 15 miles"?

[Andre II]

27. The accounts

(as far as I recall) that give the beginning of the drinking state that it happened at 4 pm.
Most accounts have it lasting 4 hours. One or two state three hours.
This makes 7 p.m.

Well, I've looked on a map a couple of days ago.
Hollywood to Fort Lauderdale Airport.
How far is it for you?

[Kevin Fenton]

31. The accounts are all over the place

They start absolutely anywhere, some of them aren't even on the 7th - some are on the 8th or just at some time that week or God knows when.

If we go by volume, then it was at night, not in the afternoon, although the ones that seem to be better (i.e. it looks like the journalist actually talked to Idrissa or Amos) tend towards the afternoon. I figure that if a journalist were lazy he might assume it were at night, because that is when most drinking is done. Myself, I am not in the habit of drinking five Stolnichnayas in the afternoon (or at any other time - never drink anything made out of potatoes).

The shortest length I found is 90 minutes, but most of them come in at 3 hours or more (or don't say). But 90 minutes is 18 minutes per drink - pretty quick even for a cokehead. What sort of measures do they serve there?

I figure the distance as 6 miles:
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&address=1814%20Harrison%20Street&city=Hollywood&state=FL&zipcode=33020&homesubmit.x=33&homesubmit.y=3
Click on the link then zoom out and go north. It should be the red star in the middle.

btw, the wikipedia article on Shuckums, which you can find here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuckum's_Oyster_Bar
links to a completely different restaurant on Florida's gulf coast.

[Andre II]

33. 7th or 8th

I have left the question if it was 7th or 8th aside simply cause it would even pose a stronger problem for the official story if it was the 8th cause during the day he was in Baltimore and according to CR he took a flight from Baltimore to Boston on September 9.
And if we talk about 7th please let's not forget that also the account of Atta and Al-Shehhi being in Sarasota in the eveing is another big contradiction to the official story. You can reconcile the two drinkings in Florida but never the stay in Baltimore.
The Sarasota stay is also in Paul's Timeline.
All I ask is that he simply adds the OFFICIAL account which has Atta in Baltimore and ask the simple question how this can be possible....

Do you have a link for the 90 minutes please?
I agree that night is more likely, btw.

Well, thanks for the map but Fort Lauderdale seems to me a bit more than 10 miles away.

There are different Shuckums in the region but some accounts give the exact adress of it in Hollywood.

[Kevin Fenton]

36. This and that

90 minutes was in the Daily Mail article PT used to link to in his hijackers drinking entry. However, it's not there anymore. Maybe you can find it. I doubt it's true anyway.

Some of the reports of the flight to Baltimore are for the 8th anyway, although I doubt they are true.

I don't know about Sarasota.

A proposal for the flight to Baltimore will be forthcoming in a week or so (depending on the hockey a bit).

The airport is called Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport and is between the two cities, about 6 miles from Shuckums if you ask me.
Wesbite:
http://www.fortlauderdaleinternationalairport.com/
IMO they were drinking at a bar by the airport, they left so he could catch his flight. No big deal.

Where did you get the idea that the last flight was a 7:30?

btw:
FBI director Andrew Mueller said:
"In July 2001, Mohamed Atta, Abdul Aziz al Omari, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Ahmed Alghamdi, and Majed Moqed purchased personal identification cards at Apollo Travel in Paterson, New Jersey. Atta purchased a Florida identification card, while the others purchased New Jersey identification cards."
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602mueller.html
Even if we ignore the various problems with the other hijackers' ID, then how come the 9/11 Commission says Atta has no such ID? On page 31 of Terrorist Travel it lists Atta as having only a Florida driver's licence, nothing else. IMHO the 9/11 Commission's account of the USA ID is entirely fictional.

[Andre II]

38. Baltimore

Some of the reports of the flight to Baltimore are for the 8th anyway, although I doubt they are true.
Well, the CR clearly speaks of September 7.(CR, 253).
The only thing I ask is why Paul doesn't add the CR quote which creates the contradiction of where Atta was on this day (and all the other incidences not only concerning Atta that are entirely based on MSM).
The 7:30 I've got from checking the BTS for all possible flights he could have taken from the Flordia area to go to Baltimore on September 7.

[RedSock]

37. reducing the comments & what the Timeline is

"Why did you reduce the amount of your comments a lot compared to earlier versions of your timeline?"

************

This is something that Paul and I have talked about in the past. I believe it is good to keep the editorializing in the Timeline to a bare minimum. Let the article summaries tell the story -- and if there is some point that needs to be made (like if the entry is contradicted by several other sources) then point that out.

But statements in various entries that seem to be trying to "lead the witness" to thinking a certain way are not good IMO and should be deleted. The soccer moms he's talking about reaching do not want to be preached to.

***

And this goes to the other criticism of the Timeline. I would say that Paul is NOT advancing a theory about what happened. He may have his own thoughts about various aspects of the plot/attacks, but he wisely keeps them to himself. He could present his opinions in some other essay, but as far as the Timeline itself, it should be purely informative, not speculative.

It is this aspect that (for me) makes the Timeline so strong -- and makes it inviting to those people who are beginning to question the official story.

Also: Various topics will not be in the Timeline if they have not been dealt with in the mainstream media. I don't know if there is any demolition entries at this point, but I know Paul avoided putting stuff in before because almost all of the articles were from non-mainstream sources.

[Andre II]

39. Redsock

This is something that Paul and I have talked about in the past. I believe it is good to keep the editorializing in the Timeline to a bare minimum. Let the article summaries tell the story -- and if there is some point that needs to be made (like if the entry is contradicted by several other sources) then point that out.

I agree to let the articles speak for themselves yet if between every entry that points out that an alleged hijacker was alrady in the US before the official entrance date are more than 100 other entries I'm certain that the soccer mom will loose the overview (as I did) and not realize even after reading the complete timeline that it is the case of 14 alleged hijackers entering the country before the official entrance date. The comment would just add up other entries concerning the same issue and make things clearer. No interpretation. Just helping NOT to loose the overview. And reading that it was the case for 14 alleged hijackers certainly has a very strong impact on the reader. If you only see one entry about this every 20 or so pages I doubt people will realize the big picture but get completely lost in details.

I would say that Paul is NOT advancing a theory about what happened. He may have his own thoughts about various aspects of the plot/attacks, but he wisely keeps them to himself. He could present his opinions in some other essay, but as far as the Timeline itself, it should be purely informative, not speculative.
I agree that it is certainly a good thing that the timeline doesn't show Paul's opinion. But here at DU he can express hiss opinion, can't he? As I've already once asked him on DU what he thinks about the many indications that the alleged hijackers had doubles and he didn't answer I repeat my question again. Especillay in view of the fact that Paul himself stated:
My timeline has lots of holes, and one big series of holes has to do with the hijacker's movements. Now that John Doe II has put a lot of that together, I hope to build on that and fill some of those holes.I suspect that when more is done, there will be more instances of hijackers being two places at once that come to light.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=73072&mesg_id=73142

And Kevin Fenton who helped working on the timeline stated:
I don't really care about the two Attas. I'm sure it'll be explained somehow.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=72624&mesg_id=74010



Various topics will not be in the Timeline if they have not been dealt with in the mainstream media.
This is my whole point ALL the articles I've mentioned above that do indicate that Atta (and other alleged hijackers) had a double are entirely based on MSM and on official reporting. I've linked them all on DU. So, I'm surprised that Paul updating his timeline has not a single article added that John Doe II presented to point out that there are doubles. I'm especially surprised as eg for Atta on September 7 he joined the discussion on DU:
I'm definitely going to work on updating some of this material in my timeline to make the time conflicts clear. Thanks for pointing this out.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=59071&mesg_id=62628
So, why didn't he add the material? (Especially as the contradiction arises when quoting the CR where Atta was on September 7. And I'm sure the CR is considered a source that is allowed to be quoted in the timeline.)
That's all I'm asking for and the reason why I'm disappointed of this update though doubtless there is a huge amount of new and unknown information.


There are other entries in the timeline that do surprise me finding unchanged after the discussion here on DU.
Jeremy Glick's phone call
Eg the time given for the start of the passenger's counterattack on UA 93. Paul gives it still with 9:57 without any further comment.
But what's about Jeremy Glick hearing from his wife on the phone that the WTC (9:59) just crashed? As Glick is the main organizer of the attack why does the 9:57 not to be doubted? All accounts of his wife saying this are MSM and Jere Longman's book.

Tom Burnett's phone call
Tom Burnett stated twice during his call that the alleged hijackers intended to crash the plane into the ground. This is a quite surprsing prophecy.
Paul stated in the discussion:
So while this is interesting and I'll be adding it to my timeline, I think you're making too many assumptions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=40000&mesg_id=40023
I'm not saying this is a smoking gun why not add it to the timeline. All sources agree that Burnett said this

Indian Lake
John Doe II made a big deal that in fact there have been two planes arriving at the same time at the crash site of UA 93 that have been considerd by eyewitnesses as UA 93. Of course I understand why Paul considers this a speculation yet I think it is substantial that he indicates in his timeline that eyewitnesses in Shanksville etc are NORTHWEST of the crash site. And witnesses at Indian Lake are EAST of the crash site. So if both witnesses speak of a plane they saw or heard overhead approaching the crash site we do have indeed a problem. No reader can grasp that reading the timeline. Therefore I strongly recommend simply to add the geograohic information where the locations of the witnesses are.

[paulthompson]

44. Reply

"I agree to let the articles speak for themselves yet if between every entry that points out that an alleged hijacker was alrady in the US before the official entrance date are more than 100 other entries I'm certain that the soccer mom will loose the overview (as I did) and not realize even after reading the complete timeline that it is the case of 14 alleged hijackers entering the country before the official entrance date. The comment would just add up other entries concerning the same issue and make things clearer. No interpretation. Just helping NOT to loose the overview. And reading that it was the case for 14 alleged hijackers certainly has a very strong impact on the reader. If you only see one entry about this every 20 or so pages I doubt people will realize the big picture but get completely lost in details."

You make a good point here. But one thing I can do now is slice and dice the entries in many different ways. For instance, in this latest update I have a new category of all entries related to remote surveillance. I could easily have a new category of all entries suggesting problems with entry dates, or all entries relating to conflicts in timing suggesting a person in two places at once, or really anything else. I'm open to suggestions. With the timeline having become so big, it's important to organize the information in different ways to help expose patterns.

Regarding this point:

"Eg the time given for the start of the passenger's counterattack on UA 93. Paul gives it still with 9:57 without any further comment.
But what's about Jeremy Glick hearing from his wife on the phone that the WTC (9:59) just crashed?"

If you look at 9:59 I think there's an entry about his wife saying the WTC just crashed. I'm not sure if I have that info about Burnett but if I don't I certainly should add it.

[Andre II]

45. Suggestions

Thanks for your answer.
I've spent some time thinking about the method of your timeline and like to make some suggestions.
(I'm very aware that you must have spend ages on the timeline and it is indeed an outstanding work. Though paradoxically especially because of its size your timeline runs the risk to the loose its potential. Therefore my suggestions and I hope it is constructive and helpful.)

If I understand your method correctly you have two ideas:
only use MSM and official documents
no interpretation

First question is:
Does one say Hijacker Mohamed Atta, alleged hijacker Mohamed Atta or simply Mohamed Atta?
You often use Hijacker Mohamed Atta. But this is certainly an interpretation and not an objective fact: You present here an assumption as a fact and you might risk that in factyou reinforce the impression of the reader that Mohamed Atta is the hijacker on 911. But this is at the moment an allegation not a conclusion. And talking of Atta and a double I might ask: Which one is the hijacker?
Until today no proof has been presented by the government that Atta hijacked on 911 a plane (not even a proof that shows he boarded the plane). All we have is the claim of the government. Therefore I would suggest that in order to keep the objctivity of the timeline you should avoid the word "hijacker". What I'd propose is to write an introduction, a sort of guide for how to read the timeline (especially important for those you only read bits and pieces and not the complete timeline). There you can present that the government claims that Atta et al are hijackers yet we don't have any conclusive proofs. That's why you simply call the person "Mohamed Atra" etc.

The same goes for the name of the flights.
Even if it is possible that the planes that left the airports are the ones that crashed it is far from being certain. All four planes were identified when they crashed. Especially striking is the difficulty to figure out which plane crashed in the case of UA 175. In all four cases it is a logical assumption to take it for granted that as four planes are lost and we do have four crash sites these four planes in fact crashed there. Still it is a conclusion but it is far from being a fact. Therefore I'd propose in order to keep the objectivity of your timeline either to point these problems out in the introduction and/or use "AA 11" etc. Otherwise if you simply use AA 11 without any further explanation you reinforce what is a claim and not a fact (I don't state that this is your intention at all. I only point out what might be the impression created to the reader).


Further reasons why I think you should put more comments into your timeline:
The fact that you use only MSM and official documents has its huge advantages in convincing people, that goes without saying. Yet, I believe there is also a big danger. There are some issues the MSM simply prefer to ignore. There are questions the MSM prefers not to ask. Therefore the danger might be that your timeline being a sort of huge mirror of press entries also reflects (without any intention) the holes of the MSM. Therefore I'm sure that you should fill in these holes by pointing out in commentaries what the MSM doesn't want to ask, the unsaid (as in literature theory the unsaid is extremely important in analysing a literary text). In n way does this mean that you interpret.

The Jeremy Glick entry is a very good example of the need of a comment.
You give the passenger's attack time at 9:57 without any hint that this can hardly be in view of Jeremy Glick's phone call. The first problem is that people who only read the 9:57 will take it for granted that the attack happened at that time. They need the hint. People who read also the entry of the end of Glick's phone call certainly need the hint that the WTC crash was at 9:59 and that therefore Glick's phone call (recently Lyz Glick repeated that she told him) strongly contradicts the 9:57 time. So, the soccer mum needs that somebody also points out the contradictions. This is not interpretating. If Lyz Glick told her husband of the WTC collapse then he was at 9:59 at the phone and then we have a contradiction to the claim that he participated since two minutes in the passenger attack. Especially as your timeline is extremely huge now I think it is indeed extremely important to have somebody who thinks through the entries and points out the contradictions.

Same problem for how the CVR of UA 93 ends:
You have two different entries. In one entry you repeat what the family members heard and in the other you present what the Commission wrote. Again I think it is important that somebody shows that the two accounts strongly contradict each other.

I believe in fact that the passenger's phone calls are the best example why the timeline needs a commentation.
You write at 9:45
"Beamer says he has been herded to the back of the plane along with nine other passengers and five flight attendants. A hijacker, who says he has a bomb strapped to his body, is guarding them. Twenty-seven passengers are being guarded by a hijacker in first class, which is separated from the rest of the aircraft by a curtain. One hijacker has gone into the cockpit. One passenger is dead (that leaves one passenger unaccounted for—presumably the man who made a call from the bathroom, thought to be Edward Felt). The two pilots are apparently dead."
The problem is that here you do interpretat and you can't avoid it. (No criticism meant):
Beamer doesn't say that a passenger is dead nor that one alleged hijackers is in the cockpit. You do put different calls together. On the surface this creates a picture of what happened aboard. But the fact is: NOBODY on board saw THREE dead people. Beamer saw two and Burnett saw one. So, instead of adding up the different accounts of the passengers it is more useful I believe to point out each version and also indicate the contradictions between the account. This again is not interpretating. Interpretation would be to conclude from these contradictions that the calls are faked etc. But what is most interesting again are the contradictions. And they need to be pointed out by a commentator: Are all passengers herded to the back or not, is there a hijacker guarding them or not, how many people are dead, etc etc etc

In this sense as well (as an example) I think it is necessary to give the location of eyewitnesses at the crash site of UA 93. Only knowing that Indian Lake is east of the crash site one can come to the conclusion that most likely UA 93 never crossed Indian Lake and so a shoot down still wouldn't explain the raining debris. Again no interpretation but a help in geography for the reader.


A completely different danger your timeline might face is that I believe you need to find a possibiliy to differentiate between early media accounts (when journalists still didn't know what the official line was) and later reportings. For exmaple I think it is less important to know what was found in general at UA 93 crash site but it is much more initeresting that the very first day only pieces of the size of telephone books were found. Nothing more.
Same goes for the hijackers. Your timeline in its form can't really raise issues like: Why was Atta identified as having been in Portland on 910 on September 12 while Alomari was only identfied one whole day later. For one day reportings were only "Atta and another man". (Maybe this example has no consequence for the research yet I hope you see my point). Or: Why was Abdulrahman Alomari first considered an alleged hijacker.
So, all in all. It is not only interesting for a timeline WHEN something happened but also WHEN something was reported and how. One example where you manage to show the two parameters are in the Shuckums drinking where you also point out how the story turned.


While relying only on MSM and official documents help a lot for the quality of your timeline I believe it can be helpful eg in the case of discussing certain issues to link to a homepage of a researcher. This would therefore not be a source of an entry in the timeline but more a link for the interested reader to follow up on an issue and go into the details eg in relation to the Andrew Base I believe Jared Israel's or for Otis Base medienanalyse's HUNT are great readings.


Paul, I very much hope you don't take this long post wrong. I know it is soooo easy to critizise a huge timeline. The huger and bigger the easier to find mistakes. All my suggestions here are in the spirit of making your valubale timeline even better and having more impact as it already has. And the possibility to split the timeline in many more subsections (as you've pointed out) seems to me a great improvement (eg also adding a link in the timeline entries when the entry is part of a subsection, too).

Keep up the great work.

[paulthompson]

43. Reply

If you'll notice, my entries on Atta are fairly weak right now. Also on Jarrah. I just fixed Hanjour and added a lot of information on him, but I still have a long way to go with some of the other hijackers before the entries are even close to being comprehensive. Certainly I will get to looking at these conflicts you point out, they are high on my list. But I haven't gotten to them yet. Actually, there's a ton of stuff I want to do about Atta, and really go into detail on him. I think that if I do, even more time conflicts will come out. Kevin is helping me with this but I disagree with him if he states that it can be explained somehow. I've already seen so many instances of time conflicts with Atta, for instance his time in the Philippines and in Spain. So, rather than have these explained, I'm sure we'll see more. For instance, there is one owner of a Florida crop duster company who said Atta came to his company every weekend for six weeks just prior to 9/11. I don't see how this can be squared with all his other travels. I think a really close accounting of his timing will show all kinds of interesting things. I hope to use your research as a big jumping off point on this and with the other hijackers too. Great stuff you did there. :)

As far as removing the comments go, I agree with Redsock's comments on that. Basically, the more neutral I can make the timeline, I think the more impact it will have and the more people it will influence. It is ironic, but I've found that the less I try to push my point of view, the more people look at the timeline and change their point of view about the official story. This is a paradox that MA apparently cannot understand. If the work cannot be marginalized and derided as a biased conspiracy theory, it spreads to new places and reaches new people. And the facts are so strong in themselves that there's really no need to comment. Any intelligent people who takes the time to read will see how the facts are at odds with the official story.

[Andre II]

46. So,

what's your take on the double Atta?
Are there two and if so how would you explain them?
Especially a you've written an outstanding article on the double Jarrah the topic isn't new to you.
And the double Hanjour etc etc

Certainly it's too early to have a definite theory on that but what do you think right now?

[Andre II]

49. Paul,

what's your take on the two Attas, the two Hanjours, the two Jarrahs etc etc?
I'd be especially interested as you were one of the first to write a great text about this topic.

[medienanalyse]

50. ...and in another thread here ...

Pauk Thompsons timeline was taken as proof for the official theories - what made me smile.
And it was Andre II who defended the timeline.

I would not do that any more. Paul Thompson writes "Hijacker Hani Hanjour". That is his position, it is the Bushist position.

Paul Thompson decided the main question "WHO DID IT" despite al evidence against that. He "forgets" evidence which does not suit to his opinion, he has no time and no place to use the word "allegedly".

[petgoat]

51. Thinking about 9/11 requires working in several frames

simultaneously. And you can't stick an "alleged" tag on everything. If you're writing about
Hani Hanjour you just have to let the reader assume that means "alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour".
Of course maybe Hani was never on that plane. Everybody knows that.

[paulthompson]

52. I think I'll be on Guns and Butter Wednesday (KPFA in Berkeley)

Hi, I think I'll be on KPFA radio tomorrow (Wednesday) at 1 P.M. As some of you may know, that's the Pacifica radio station that can be heard all throughout the SF Bay Area. It should be interesting because I had a wide ranging interview with the host, Bonnie Faulker, that I think will be broadcast as two one hour shows this week and next week at the same time.

So check it out if you get the chance. We talked about a lot of interesting things. Her broadcasts also show up on her website fairly quickly, which you can find here:

www.gunsandbutter.net

[paulthompson]

53. Reply

Well, you know my position on Jarrah from the essay the Two Ziad Jarrahs. I suspect there is a similar situation with most or all of the other key hijackers. I'd like to turn my attention to Mohamed Atta next, because I think he's a particularly interesting case. Kevin Felton is helping me with this, and he's already added some interesting things that will be going into the timeline soon. For instance, when Atta went through security in the Portland airport on the morning on 9/11 (and was videotaped), he was wearing one outfit. But just a couple of minutes later he was seen by a witness in a different outfit. I have long suspected this was the real reason for him to go to Portland the night before 9/11: to perform a last minte switch. After making sure to be seen on the video camera, he could easily go to the bathroom or something else and hand his ticket to someone else, and then that person actually gets on the plane to Boston and then gets on the soon to be hijacked plane. With Portland being so close to the Canadian border, he could then drive to Canada and be across the border before the attacks are even over and before there's any serious chance of the border closing or close inspections. But again, that's just my theory at this point. I don't think anyone has been able to prove why he went to Portland.

But I also want to look closely at his whole life, because I think the closer one looks, the more anomalies will come out. We just saw one more such anomaly in the Moussaoui trial when it was revealed that he was repeatedly flying after dark at an airport in early 2001 (when the airport is officially closed) and was still associated with Huffman Aviation at that time even though Rudi Dekkers of Huffman swore up and down that his company had no contact with him after the end of 2000. Atta's life is just one strange event after another.

[Andre II]

55. Who did it?

Your explanation for Portland is interesting. Tuhoey said both Atta and Alomari had a coat and a tie but on the videofootage they don't wear them anymore but have open collars. Your explanation would imply that Alomari had a double as well.
But the decisive question is: Who did it?

Given the strong evidence of
a double Jarrah (you champion in your essay)
a double Atta
a double Hanjour (as also supported by the Dulles photo)
a double Alshehhi (as supported besides others by Able Danger)
a double Salem Alhazmi (supported by eyewitness at Dulles Airport)
the fact that 14 alleged hijackers entered the country before the official entrance date (which either leaves the possibility of the Commission lying - but why should they lie about it - or that indeed on the entrance date somebody with the same name entered the US) all hint strongly to the possibility that many if not all of the e19 alleged hijackers had doubles.
My question is simple:
Why should al Qaeda use doubles?
What's the advantage. They never did that? Why double the risk of the operation?
And why should the US cover something up that would be a perfect excuse for failing to defend the US?
Doesn't the use of doubles and the cover up not strongly point to the typical use of patsies?
That 911 is an inside job?

Btw what do you think about my suggestions in post 45?

[Andre II]

57. Who

I think the question who did it is crucial.
If we agree on the presence of several dopplegangers the question about who was behind is crucial.
So, what's you're take?
And as mentioned above in post 45 I don't really understand in view of your opinion and the facts why you always do call them hijackers in your timeline. This is presenting something as a fact that I don't see at all how it can be 100% proven. But repeating always Hijacker Mohamed Atta runs the risk of being mistaken by the reader as a fact.

[HamdenRice]

32. A magnificent achievement!!! nt

[JackRiddler]

40. Paul, can you check out this thread?

Whether Scheuer was in the PEOC...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x79933

My bet is not, but perhaps we can make it definite....

[DemInDistress]

41. Thank you Paul Thompson...

I will soon read these new updated entries but I want to commend you on this excellent site "CooperativeResearch." I came across this about 2 years ago and was fascinated by the many indisputable stories from the Media itself. Undeniable facts support you Timeline to such a degree that the Ludicrous 911 Official Report is the greatest conspiracy of all.
On Sept.11 2001 I was fooled by King George the Imbecile 1st. I believed he didn't know who crashed those commercial jets and I trusted him while supporting America. But what did I learn as the weeks and months passed? His failure to conduct a full and open investigation made me suspicious. The fact that he stonewalled the 911 Families and America made me more suspicious then on May 15 2002 the NY.Post ran a front page story,"911 shocker, BUSH KNEW" prez was warned of attacks before they happened. Wow! my eyes opened up and I got off his train wreck. That woman Cynthia McKinney wasn't far off base on 911 asking King George the Imbecile "what did the president know and when did he know it."
I have made your Timeline my Bible of Truth. All research should begin with the Timeline. Many 911 hunters have made great progress without the "top secret" documents held by the FBI and others in government. My feeling is the Sept 11 2001 tragedy will soon burst open and the Bush Crime family will be exposed for what they are,"M-U-R-D-E-R-E-R-S"
I will end this with the promise to review your new material and post my opinions later..

Once again thanks !!

DemInDistress

[Cookie wookie]

47. This work is of historical significance

Thank you for all you have done. Amazing work.

[Cookie wookie]

48. Just donated & hope others will do the same.

Keep up the great work.

[Old and In the Way]

56. The gold standard for 9/11 knowledge.

Hats off to you and your researchers for the incredible work you have done.

[ConspiracyTheorist]

58. thx for your hard work, great site!