"Let's Roll!" On United Flight 93,
The Saddest Lie Of All

Copyright  Joe Vialls, 20-22 September 2002
Click Here For 'Cleveland Tape Proves Hijack Calls Forgeries'

Flight 77        Flight 63        Electronic Hijack        Vialls Investigations

This web page may be mirrored or copied unedited in the public interest



  Vialls Investigations

Is a public-interest organization
operating entirely without funds.
Please help me to maintain this
free service by making a small
donation to the cause of truth.


“We were once with the Prophet on a journey. The sheets we had spread on our camels were decorated with red thread on the border. The Prophet, peace be upon him, said ‘I notice that the red colour has begun to catch your fancy.’ On hearing this we stood up and dispersed in confusion at the rebuke and immediately removed the sheets from the camel’s backs.”   Reported by Rafe in the Hadis
          In March of this year I published a long report which used scientific proof to destroy the evolving American media myth that “phone calls” were made by Barbara Olson from American Airlines Flight 77, the Boeing 757 flown by remote control into the Pentagon with devastating effect on 11 September 2001. The blatant media lies about Olson were so outrageous, I was moved to write:
           “This is a story about a little white lie that bred dozens of other little white lies, then hundreds of bigger white lies and so on, to the point where the first little white lie must be credited as the ‘Mother of All Lies’ about events on 11 September 2001. For this was the little white lie that first activated the American psyche, generated mass loathing, and enabled media manipulation of the global population. Without this little white lie there would have been no Arab Hijackers, no Osama Bin Laden directing operations from afar, and no ‘War on Terror’ in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine…”
           “This unsubstantiated claim, reported by CNN remarkably quickly at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT] on 12 September, was the solitary foundation on which the spurious ‘Hijacker’ stories were built.Without the ‘eminent’ Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional telephone calls, there would never be any anecdotal ‘proof’ that humans played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that day. Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on 16 September about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically important to remember that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on 12 September. It was beyond doubt the artificial ‘seed’ that started the giant media snowball rolling down the hill.”
           When I wrote the report about Flight 77 in March, there was also ample scientific proof available for me to destroy the media myth about the crash of United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, but I deliberately pulled my punches and maintained a discreet silence. Americans were in deep shock and in dire need of some home-grown heroes, with most seemingly unable or unwilling to comprehend that 9/11 was a calculated high-tech surgical strike against the Zionist banking heart of New York City, rather than an attack on Americans in general. “Let it go” I reasoned to myself, “In the final analysis, does it really matter if shell-shocked Americans console themselves with heroic illusions about Todd Beamer and the others on Flight 93?”
           Six months later in September I can no longer afford the luxury of omission, and Americans can no longer afford to live in denial. Over the few past weeks the American President, Vice-President and Secretary of Defense have inched visibly closer to complete insanity, with barely-veiled threats to nuke the world in general if denied the “right” to attack Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Every day, as if on some sort of satanic media schedule, we are all reminded this action is necessary at least in part because of those “Arab” or “Muslim” Hijackers who violated American national security on 9/11. Beyond any doubt this is to be a Zionist-led Christian crusade against the Muslims, for the sole benefit of the Jewish State. The harsh reality that thousands of Christian American soldiers will die for the sake of this phony war, is demonstrably of no interest whatever to the US Administration.
           This massive media social engineering and “Muslim Hate” exercise reached its peak on the first anniversary of 9/11, with Australian television stations showing hour after hour of tear-jerking footage from New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Most was comprised of reruns of the famous “impact” footage and interviews with relatives of the dead, but then suddenly at 8.30 p.m. local Australian time we were shown an exclusive “dramatized reconstruction” of Flight 93. Luckily my VCR was running at the time, and the first six  pictures on this page are actual frames from this monstrous propaganda film.
          The film's opening legend claims “This dramatized reconstruction is based on air traffic control recordings and telephone conversations from passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 on September 11th 2001”. So here it is at last, “hard” evidence of the “official” telephone conversations from the aircraft you were never allowed to hear on television or radio, and out-of-context chatter from a fragmented air traffic control tape that you were not supposed to be able to understand.
           Fortunately, due to an almost frightening lack of cultural knowledge on the part of the American propagandists who made this “Ben Hur of hate”, we can use its content to finally destroy the hijacker myth for ever, and with it all of the imaginary “phone calls” from the four aircraft that day. Not only that, part two of this report also proves scientifically that the “Hijacker radio calls” from Flight 93 to Cleveland Center Air Traffic Control were deliberately forged.
           The first ‘phone call’ on the film was from Flight 93 passenger Jeremy Glick, who allegedly says, “There’s three of them, Arab looking, possibly Iranian. They’ve got red headbands on, one of them is standing in the aisle wearing a red sash and bag round his waist. Says there’s a bomb in it.” The second ‘phone call’ was from Flight 93 air hostess Sandy Bradshaw, who allegedly says, “My aircraft has been hijacked by three guys with knives. One of them is sitting in the back row first class. They’ve got red bandannas on their heads and they’re Islamic-looking people. We are in the back galley boiling water to throw on them”. As you can see from the photos on this page, the propagandists made sure you noticed this by filming the ‘reconstructed hijackers’ with bright red scarves tied around their heads.
           As I sat there watching the stereotyped ‘Muslim Terrorists’ with beard stubble savagely threatening defenseless Christian men and women, and running up and down the aircraft cutting a few throats here and there with their tiny Stanley knives, my brain automatically went into overdrive. Though not a Muslim myself, more than a decade ago I spent years in various parts of the Middle East, and could not remember ever seeing a Muslim man wearing the color red during my extensive travels through the towns, villages, deserts and mountains. If the color red was not acceptable for Muslims like “Ringleader” Mohammed Atta and his colleagues, the “official” story and the "phone calls" from the aircraft would be proved a complete and blatant lie. No devout Muslim would dare mock the Prophet Mohammed or Allah [God] at the very point of martyrdom.
           To prove this point I obviously needed expert assistance, and contacted Islamic authority Imam Sheikh Abbass on the subject. Sheikh Abbass was most helpful, and confirmed that the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed are clear on this matter, though the Prophet’s disapproval of the color red on Muslim men is shown in the Hadis [Loosely translated as “The Prophetic Traditions”], rather than in the Koran. The actual location of the text makes no difference  to devout Muslims, who follow the traditions in the Hadis as closely as they follow the teachings of the Koran.
           Knowing that this report would produce blind outrage on the part of many evangelical Christians, I asked Sheikh Abbass to provide some direct quotes from the Hadis, which he very kindly did, the first of which appears at the top of this page under the two photos showing the ‘Muslim hijackers’ wearing their red headbands or bandannas. Remember that all quotes are translated from the Arabic, and reflect the way that “directives” are discreetly issued in the Middle East, i.e. in the manner of oblique disapproval of a habit, rather than a direct order to stop a habit. I’ll quote two more small extracts here to drive this critical point home, then get back to the main story of the mythical hijackers.
The color of Islam is GREEN, not red
          Abdullah Bin Amr reports: “Once we were accompanying the Prophet on a journey and I went to see him and I was wearing red saffron colored garments. He said to me ‘What is this you are wearing?’ I sensed he did not like me wearing dress of that colour, and when I returned home I took it off and threw it into the fire.” Bara Bin Azib reports, “That the Prophet, peace be upon him, prohibited the use of the red saddle”.
           Because we have been bombarded by the American and European media on this subject, we know that Mohammed Atta and the others who were presumably murdered before the four aircraft took off on their remote-control bombing missions, were in fact devout Muslims. We were not told this at the time because the Zionist-controlled media wanted us to respect their deep religious values, but because in the new “Americanese” the term “devout” has been deliberately twisted into meaning “fanatical” where Muslims are concerned.
           You know how words are twisted. Once upon a time the word “gay” was a brilliant three-letter special describing happiness, enjoyment and even excitement. The media destroyed all that, and warped the word in a determined attempt to legitimize sexual perversion.
           In fact, Mohammed Atta and the others may have been selected for premature death and eternal dishonor primarily because they were devout [read “fanatical”] Muslims, of the sort Americans have nowadays been brainwashed into believing are capable of such atrocities. And let us not forget about Osama Bin Laden here. A very devout Muslim in his own right, Bin Laden stands accused by the CIA of being the “mastermind” behind the 9/11 attack, and thus by default of being Mohammed Atta’s boss.
           This ethnic targeting of convenience was extremely useful for the very same CIA, who only a few weeks later trotted into Afghanistan on the heels of the US Military, to “recover” its US$4 trillion heroin trade that was “stolen” by the Taliban in early 1996. Recent reports indicate that the heroin trade is once again back in “safe” CIA hands, a fact noted by many American parents as an ever increasing numbers of children lie dying on the streets of New York and San Francisco.
           Getting back to the subject in hand, the color of Islam is green, the color of Osama Bin Laden is green, and the color of the largely mythical Al Qaeda is green. Almost as a reflection of this the Saudi Flag is green, as in the flag of Libya and several other predominantly Muslim countries. The whole of Palestine is awash with green, and martyrs from Hamas and Islamic Jihad always wear green headbands, either before or during their suicide missions. At a single stroke, this film has destroyed forever any possibility of the "Arab Hijack" rubbish ever being made to stick with the American people in the long term, and certainly not the point where they will be prepared to sacrifice their sons and daughters in a Zionist crusade designed to benefit only the Jewish State. 
           There is one very strong indicator that at the subliminal level; most Americans wrote the “hijacker” story off as rubbish many months ago, but are reluctant to talk about it. If anyone really believed the ridiculous story to be true, then please explain why no lawsuits of note have been directed against the airports from which the four airliners departed? So far as I can tell from Australia, there is a single giant “class action” against the Saudi Government for US$1.2 trillion, which happens to be exactly the same sum as the total known Saudi Arabian assets in America.
           Think about it people, think about it! The chances of grabbing a hunk of Saudi cash are as remote as winning the Lottery with a single ticket, and there is absolutely no hard proof that Saudi Arabia played any role at all in the attacks on September 11th. If the American Government continues insisting that a bunch of red-bandanna-wearing “Muslim Terrorists” stole four manned airliners from American airports, they are proving only that security was woefully inadequate, and they are thus responsible for the deaths of approximately 3,000 Americans. So go ahead and sue the airports for a few million, or even a few billion dollars.
           Don’t be shy. Even if you didn’t lose a relative on one of the aircraft, or in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, you have all been subjected to massive shock and trauma, and must therefore be compensated by the guilty parties for your mental anguish. It is almost certainly time for a “class action” against the airports, by those with the will to cripple the White House on this very point.
           Use the power of the Internet. Gather together 5,000 bona-fide Americans and sue the airports for $1 million each for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, then see how fast “The Government” in Washington backs away from the “hijackers” they have forced you to believe in and hate.
           On a closing note it seems fitting to ask once again where this “official” hijack and mayhem film peddled worldwide by the media on the first anniversary could have gone so wrong. Are all of the folk working for the American media and the Central Intelligence Agency certifiable idiots? Well, not all of them it seems. For the first time ever in my experience, the Australian television network cut the film off before the credits appeared at the end, as proved by my VCR file copy. This may have been an accident or it might have been intentional, I have no idea which.
           Of course, the lack of credits made sure that I could not write to the producer, director, or any of the actors or actresses with a complaint, or sue them, because I have no idea who they are. If you wish to find out more about this film, or who to contact on the matter, I can only suggest that you write to program presenter Ray Martin at Channel 9 Television, asking for his assistance. Ray Martin’s address is PO Box 27, Willoughby, New South Wales 2068, Australia.