Saturday, July 31, 2010

Peter Hanson, C. Lee Hanson & Eunice Hanson

In an article in yesterday's New York Times, Debate Heats Up About Mosque Near Ground Zero, C. Lee Hanson, whose son, Peter was killed in the 9/11 attacks along with his wife and young daughter, was reported to have said at a recent public hearing. “Build it someplace else.”

These four words of the senior Mr. Hanson's cap his long career as a professional mouthpiece in the 9/11 narrative, too often found in the news. However, any scrutiny of the roles played by the family members of 9/11 victims, will reveal them to be parts of a fictional narrative overlaid onto what is in truth, a covert, false-flag attack by U.S. and other special interests on targets in New York City and Arlington, Virginia. Such attention may peak soon, as the tenth anniversary of the attacks approaches. Mr. Hanson's record shows him to be either the head of entire family of deep-cover spooks, a contrived family member of a digitally manufactured "vicsim," or else he's play acting the "father" role for some planted agent set up in a false identity as his son in order to count on a victim roster. For veracity's sake, such establishment and pre-positioning of mock identities may have been executed over a period that likely lasted several years or more.

I'm leaning more toward Peter Hanson turning out to be a form of vicsim, but proving the truth of these computer-generated personas has been extremely difficult to date. This is because of the immense power and control exerted by the conspiring corporate, media and government forces, which shape everything in our society, from our concepts of identity, to our perception of reality.

The logistics of the 9/11 plan they hatched are easy to fathom however. It is clear that during the planning stages any intention leading to the actual deaths of real Americans would be an off-putting moral dilemma for the average operative, the type who would make up the bulk of the conspiracy. Thus, only two choices were available with which to build a record of fatalities necessary to galvanize U.S. citizens into supporting the prospect of war---digitally fabricating entirely non-existent people as "vicsims," or in the type of mock death as spelled out in the early 1960's Joint Chiefs of Staff document, Operation Northwoods---what we can safely describe in shorthand as being a kind of "public disappearance."

The simplest method for constructing the narrative would have been for agents of the conspiracy to simply disappear into witness-protection type programs, leaving behind their honestly grieving but duped relatives. This may be the case with some of the New York Fire Department casualties, but again, it must have been accepted as too painful a reality for the participants to endure for it to be used in large numbers as a methodology. This means that many fire department family members would need to be brought into the scheme. Such degrees of internal emotional duplicity are hard to imagine, even within a hardened covert, or uniformed community, especially one that depends on loyalty and unity to maintain group secrets.

Rather than reducing the overall number of covert members necessary to undertake an operation of this magnitude, the use of vicsim identities required a larger fleet of operating agents to have been previously established in mock identities, thus providing the supporting roles of the survivors and storytellers. These sorts of agents require a much lower standard of training in order to pass muster, and they could certainly be drawn from lesser pools then the 850,000 American citizens with Top Secret clearances, as was recently reported in the Washington Post---although the Post series also stated that an aspect of security clearances included training in the assumption of false identities.

This means that if a category does exist consisting of a real family member of an actual person "lost" on 9/11, then they must explicitly be involved in the conspiracy, Carrying this logic one step further, means that all the narrative elements, from the media figures who carry the load, to the authority figures whose credibility backs up the storytelling, can be indicted at some level in the plot.

Although most media figures involved in the story understand it to be a fiction, some were obviously used as unwitting patsies, be they blindly honest, or willfully gullible.

At this stage, in determining a possible vicsim from a mock victim, it helps to arrange a chronology of media reports that involve them, to see how a storyline has developed over time. This has been tricky so far, because of the potential for fundamental manipulation in what passes for the "official" record.

Personal stories were often reported in smaller, community newspapers, (a step-down organization,) or story details could be offered up in a little-read foreign outlet, (a step-out approach,) with both methods allowing for the suppression, or reorganization of any errant, or inconvenient fact, which may seep into the collective consciousness. What this implies is the total ability to control public awareness through a unified system of media control. To gain a hearing, one can never compete against this system.

Recently though, I see evidence that this system is breaking down. A good example is the resurfacing in December, 2008 of suppressed articles from the New York Times, as well as an important column by Robert Novak. More recently, I've noticed a new depth and comprehensiveness in the way indexes that organize news archives from such outlets as The Staten Island Advance, the Hartford Courant, the Asbury Park Press and the Baltimore Sun come up in Google searches. If true, this could represent the unstoppable force of truth asserting itself in the internet age.

I found one such record in the Fairfield (Connecticut) Citizen after a search for stories about Peter Hanson, the supposed victim of Flight 175, and a preeminent element in the hijacking story, via his father, C. Lee Hanson, who has played a nonstop role since 8:52 am on September 11th, 2001 when he says he received the first of two phone calls from his son aboard the ill-fated flight.

Mr. Hanson became a conduit immediately after the attacks when his account went out the evening of September 11, via the Associated Press.

Several factors make the Hanson family story a powerful example of a synthetic narrative. It begins with the extreme rapidity in which it was reported---launched by the AP with facts vetted by the FBI, and then verified for good measure by a minister of God, (a little known name that bares studying, a Rev. Bonnie Bardot.) Stated are two central facts for the record---a stewardess was stabbed, and the "plane is going down." They are dressed up with the moving human-interest pathos of an entire young family's being extinguished suddenly, with their child serving a distinction of being the youngest victim that day. Their AP account bears reprinting in full
"Separately, a businessman, his wife and young child aboard a United flight that left Boston and crashed into the World Trade Center twice called his father in Connecticut as his plane was being hijacked, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.

"The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the victim's father told the FBI his son made two calls, and both times the phone cut off. In the first call, the businessman said a stewardess had been stabbed. In the second call, the son said his plane was going down.

"The man was identified as former Easton, Conn., resident Peter Hanson. A minister confirmed the cell phone call to his father, Lee Hanson, an official in Easton, a small town near Bridgeport.

"'He called to his parents' home, and so in that way they were so together in that moment,' the Rev. Bonnie Bardot said."
Two additional callers from other flights are also mentioned in the AP article, and both are major storyline players too, Barbara Olsen and Mark Bingham, with his story stemming from a contact between his mother and a San Francisco television station, KTVU, while her story was issued straight out of the top of the Justice Department, like seafoam from the forehead of Zeus, early midday on the 11th.

But, for some reason, the AP article contains a narrative misstep, when it's reported that an unnamed flight attendant aboard United 175, who placed a phone call to the airline's maintenance center informing them of the hijacking, was female, rather than a male employee, as the 9/11 Commission Report was ultimately to determine. Even a month after the attack, in a serious examination of the flight control response inside the American and United commend centers, conducted by the august Wall Street Journal, it was being reported still that this unnamed flight attendant was female. Though the WSJ writers name 16 top corporate managers and executives in the two companies as the sources for the article, both the caller, and the mechanic in United's San Fransisco maintenance facility who received the call, remained unidentified.

This is an important detail, as a second unnamed United flight attendant aboard Flight 93 also called this facility and spoke to another, unnamed worker there. In both cases, it was by this backdoor mechanism that United Airlines became aware its planes had been hijacked.

But how could top-level sources within United Airlines mistake their own employee's gender in a matter of such supreme importance? What evidence caused the 9/11 Commission to establish a fact that created such an awkward inconsistency with the earlier news reports? Why did the Commission name the attendant as being Robert Fangman in a staff report, but neglect to put it in the final report?

When the 9/11 Commission Report was released in July 2004, Chapter One, "We Have Some Planes," established the official narrative for the hijacking of United Flight 175. The relevant section reads
Also at 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco, reaching Marc Policastro. The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane.The call lasted about two minutes, after which Policastro and a colleague tried unsuccessfully to contact the flight.46
Note 46 reads
Flight crew on board UAL aircraft could contact the United office in San Francisco (SAMC) simply by dialing *349 on an airphone. See FBI report of investigation, interview of David Price, Jan. 24, 2002. At some point before 9:00, SAMC notified United’s headquarters of the emergency call from the flight attendant. See Marc Policastro interview (Nov. 21, 2003); FBI report of investigation, interview of Marc Policastro, Sept.11,2001; Rich Miles interview (Nov. 21, 2003).
The note tells us that Marc Policastro was interviewed by the FBI on the day of 9/11. This leaves no room for an erroneous gender identification to have been disseminated by an unnamed law enforcement official in the AP article that evening, or by United executives in the Wall Street Journal article over a month later. On the off chance that Policastro didn't catch the name or gender of the flight attendant calling, then why was there a discrepancy in establishing the identity? Lastly, why wasn't Policastro publicly identified before the issuance of the Report nearly three-and-a-half years after the event?

The naming of Robert Fangman as the identity of the caller derives from a casual reference in an undated, semi-official document, to which History Commons has ascribed the date of January 27, 2004, titled, "The Four Flights: Staff Statement No. 4," and it reads as if it had been an oral presentation delivered during a Commission hearing
"We first wish to pay tribute to the brave men and women who are the source for most of what we know about what transpired onboard American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77, and United Airlines Flight 93. In just a few minutes, we will be hearing about one of those heroes, Flight Attendant Betty Ong who perished on Flight 11, from another individual, American Airlines Reservations Manager Nydia Gonzalez. She spoke with Ms. Ong on that tragic morning and made sure that her voice was heard then, and continues to be heard to this day. But there are many others who we wish to recognize, both passengers and crew, who were able to reach out to let their companies, friends, or families know what had befallen them, and in so doing enable us to tell their story here today.

Also from Flight 11, Betty Ong’s fellow Flight Attendant Madeline “Amy” Sweeney
· From Flight 175, Flight Attendant Robert Fangman, and passengers Peter Burton Hanson and Brian David Sweeney
· From Flight 77, Flight Attendant Rene May and passenger Barbara Olson
· From Flight 93, Flight Attendants Ceecee Lyles and Sandy Bradshaw, and passengers Todd Beamer and Jeremiah Glick.
The naming of Robert Fangman as a fact was further established five weeks later, on March 10, when CNN's notorious Phil Hirschkorn wrote an article about "calls [that] came to light in a January statement from the independent commission investigating the attacks." Hirschkorn constructs his piece around a supposed revelation---or should I say, re-evaluation---of two calls made by Brian David Sweeney, a 38-year-old former U.S. Navy pilot from Barnstable, Massachusetts. In 2004, his remarried widow Julie, is updating her former characterization of her late husband's phone calls as being more in the manner of a Todd Beamer or Jeremiah Glick "Let's Roll" call to arms, then the loving expressions, which had been in the established record. Weirdly, Julie is discussing calls Sweeney made to his mother, and not to herself personally.

Hirschkorn then slips in Fangman's name at the very end of the article, without acknowledging in any way that this was a new addition to the record.

Someone named Corky Siemaszko, writing in the New York Daily News, had beaten Hirschkorn to the Sweeney scoop the previous day, March 9. Together, they help in Brian Sweeney's transformation from a loving consultant into a new rebellious persona, someone who also fought back against the hijackers, "a Gulf War veteran," who "could literally kill somebody with a twist of the neck. We could see him trying to do something about it," the widow is quoted as imagining, while speaking for the mother. "She asked who they were and he said not specifically but said they were Middle Eastern," a detail she added in the second person, past tense.

In any event, according to the AP obit on September 18th, Fangman had only been working as a flight attendant since January 2001. He previously worked for Verizon Wireless. This is evidence of covert operations.

Julie Sweeney already had inserted her work product into the public record, as per a design---like in this Chicago Tribune profile from September 13, 2001
"He was calm and said, 'I'm on the plane, it's been hijacked and it doesn't look good. But I want you to know how much I love you and my family,'" said Julie, a physical education and health teacher, from their home in Barnstable, Mass. The two were married in 1999. "He said to live a long life and be happy. And he said he'd see me again soon. Then he said he had to go."

"Consultant Brian Sweeney, 38, was on his way from Boston to Los Angeles for business. When Sweeney realized the plane was hijacked, he made two phone calls: one to his parents, the other to his wife, Julie. She wasn't home, so he left his last words on the answering machine.
Julie Sweeney, remarried by early 2004, had only married Brian in 1999, and together they they were living in their new house in Barnstable for only a few months when 9/11 hit, (make that two months,) at which point she was also only into her fourth day teaching in a new school. These are the classic hallmarks of two vagabond, deep-cover-operative lives, rushed into place to play their upcoming false-flag roles.

Brian David Sweeney's wife, the beautiful and mysterious Julie Sweeney, doing her craft-project thing post-9/11.

After the 9/11 Commission Report sets into place a newly ordered history, the second-tier history efforts, such as the online History Commons, or the compendium established under the name Killtown, lapped up the sanitized, post-2004 version, while ignoring, or minimizing the implications of the slew of inconsistencies in the earlier reports.

The original AP article indicates that the United Airlines attendant perceived her geographic date with destiny with some precision
"And a flight attendant aboard the second jetliner that struck the World Trade Center managed to call an emergency number from the back of the airplane, an American Airlines source said. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the flight attendant reported her fellow attendants had been stabbed, the cabin had been taken over, and they were going down in New York."
Note the interesting error. The AP writer is confusing American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to strike the first tower, with United Airlines Flight 175, which was the second airplane that struck the second tower. However, Flight 11 also had someone named Sweeney aboard---Flight Attendant Madeline “Amy” Sweeney, and she too performed the same role of first informing her company that a hijacking was underway by calling from a phone on the plane.

Could a professional journalist have made a mistake of this caliber? I think not. It is more likely to be evidence of the fluidity at that point when the narratives were still being assembled. Similar to the case where a Pentagon employee thought to have died in the building turned up to have died on one of the flights.

In the 9/11 Commission Report, the now certifiably male Flight 175 attendant, reports that both of the pilots were killed off early in the hijacking, a new "fact" never heard before the Report was issued.
Also at 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco, reaching Marc Policastro. The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane. The call lasted about two minutes, after which Policastro and a colleague tried unsuccessfully to contact the flight.46
I should think the hijackers were "probably" flying the airplane, since dead pilots obviously couldn't. This is an example of the poorer efforts of the later rewritten narrative details, as compared to the original storyline.

Trying to keep my own narrative straight, I'll return to my topic of the Hanson family.

It is interesting to chart how two simple details in Peter Hanson's story were expanded into the standard set piece we now find attributed to him in the histories. Here is a comprehensive list of the early news articles that mention Hanson:

AP 9-11
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the victim's father told the FBI his son made two calls, and both times the phone cut off. In the first call, the businessman said a stewardess had been stabbed. In the second call, the son said his plane was going down.

BBC News 9-13
"A stewardess has been stabbed... the plane is going down," he said, before being cut off.

Boston Globe article 9-13
"Dad," Peter Hanson said in a hushed voice, "I think they're going to crash the plane."

Daily Telegraph 9-16
Hurriedly he told the elderly couple of the knifings and the hijacking. They could barely take it in...Hanson made his final call to his mother: [sic] "We are going down," she heard him say, his voice choking.

Toronto Sun 9-16
"Oh, my God!" he tells his father, Lee. "They just stabbed the airline hostess. I think the airline is being hijacked." The phone then goes dead. When he calls a second time, it is to say goodbye. Their plane is going down.

Boston Globe Editorial 9-16
"Something's wrong with the plane," he is reported to have said. [Sic. What report, where?] "Oh, my god! They just stabbed the airline hostess!" Then minutes before the plane hit the World Trade Center tower: "Don't worry about us. It's going to be quick."

Over three years later, this turns into
9/11 Commission Report 7- 22-2004,
At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed—and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.” Lee Hanson then called the Easton Police Department and relayed what he had heard.45 [Note says: See FBI report of investigation, interview of Lee Hanson, Sept. 11, 2001]

At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter: It’s getting bad, Dad—A stewardess was stabbed—They seem to have knives and Mace—They said they have a bomb—It’s getting very bad on the plane—Passengers are throwing up and getting sick—The plane is making jerky movements—I don’t think the pilot is flying the plane—I think we are going down—I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building—Don’t worry, Dad—If it happens, it’ll be very fast—My God, my God.49 [Note says: See FBI report of investigation, interview of Lee Hanson, Sept. 11, 2001.]
Does this really sound like a man who was "a Gulf War veteran," who "could literally kill somebody with a twist of the neck?"

The over elaboration of the Commission Report writing, with its self-contradictory "I think we are going down—I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building," and its repetitive "Passengers are throwing up and getting sick," which perhaps represents an attempt at explaining away any meaning in the original short declarations, "we are going down," and "I think they're going to crash the plane." Since such contentions cannot be logically justified when spoken during level flight in "a hushed voice," they are beefed up to become even more absurdly dramatic, likewise expanding the original report of a attendant being stabbed, with a weird "someone else up front may have been killed."

The Boston Globe article from September 13, is a more personal and domestic story development, and it leads off with the quote "Dad," Peter Hanson said in a hushed voice, "I think they're going to crash the plane." It is sourced to unnamed friends and neighbors of the younger Hansons in Groton Connecticut, and identifying one neighbor by name, Karen Forbes. Quoted, is a Professor Hardy Kornfeld,
"who was Sue Hanson's thesis adviser at the BU School of Medicine, hired her in 1992 as a lab assistant. Her talent quickly became apparent. With his encouragement, she entered the doctoral program and began a series of challenging experiments creating mice that lacked the InterLeukin-16 gene. She studied the role that the gene may play in both asthma and AIDS.

"She basically did it all by herself - she was a terrific scientist," Kornfeld said, "and one of the nicest people." He said he expects BU to award her a doctorate posthumously, and he said he would attempt to finish her project and publish an article about it in a science journal, with Sue as the lead author."
How professor Kornfeld could determine BU would award a posthumous doctorate in micro-biology immunology to his protege, who had previously graduated from the university in 1992 with a degree from the Graduate College of Arts and Sciences, is a neat trick, coming only two days after her sudden death. Such an award should rightly be a collective---and considered---decision. The Globe article's author, Patrick Healy may be a legit reporter, but the professor is definitely not, (I'm still waiting for his science article that completed her work to appear.) This is evidence of the kind of corrupt institutional power wielded by the conspirators.

This institution's involvement was borne out at the May 2002 BU Commencement, when Sue Hanson did indeed receive her doctorate degree, with her in-laws prominently positioned on the dais and featured in news reports. This is an example of the pre-scripted lengths that constitute the conspiracy's parameters, a detail only given away by the unseemly mar of a professor's too-quick revelation.

Sue Hanson's New York Times "Portrait in Grief," from February 10, 2002, is in direct conflict with an August 7, 2004, Pasadena Star-News article about her past, that states "[t]he Groton, Mass., couple planned a trip to Disneyland and to visit Sue's 83-year-old grandmother, who raised her and her brothers after their parents died." That information was sourced to Sue Hanson's high-school friends from the Class of 1984, Andy Groeneveld, Beatrice Fong John and Annie Wyatt Moore, who are quoted in the article.

The Times profile however, has Sue being raised by her strict father after her mother died when she was 15
"For Sue Kim Hanson, 34, a native of Los Angeles, her husband's family was the antidote to a childhood spent longing for structure. She lived with her grandmother in Korea until she was 6. Her mother died when she was 15. Her bond with the Hansons was so strong that they accompanied her to California when she went to inform her father about her engagement. She worried that her father would protest because Peter Hanson was not Korean. But her family embraced the Hansons." NYT Portraits in Grief
Doesn't the groom traditionally ask the bride's father for her hand in marriage, and not sent his bride with his parents as proxy?

If you want proof C. Lee and Eunice Hanson are frauds, look no deeper than a letter, "A mother to her son: How could I forget your curiosity and energy?" that Eunice Hanson wrote at the one-year anniversary mark for dissemination by the Associated Press.

It is written in the same standard, melodramatic style as the rest of the interchangeable 9/11 exposition is, combining a saccharine emotional quality with a savage political polemic. Seemingly composed by a committee, it reads like a Madison Avenue sales job---but as one performed by a schizophrenic who is speaking to the dead. We feel like interlopers overhearing:
"I want them brought to justice, but my feelings are about you. How can I ever forget you? Why would I want to forget you? How could I forget your curiosity and energy?"
Never ask why. This letter is emblematic of the relentless push the Hansons make in selling their story over the years. They approach it like a profession, as indeed it was, with their job to rack up chits in the media marketplace. Nothing will sate their desire for remembrance or memorialization, or their craving for validation, verification, and vengeance.

Around September 2004, the Hanson's were involved with the "WTC Families for Proper Burial" movement, a 50,000-signature strong effort which supposedly meant to force officials to "sift out" or "resort" all the WTC debris buried at the Fresh Kills landfill, in order to "extract out" by some mechanism all the dust which was composed of human remains. This was just further unscientific clap-trap meant to boost and enhance the fact that the victims were real.

The nadir of the Hanson career surely came during the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in April, 2006. One of the horrible aspects of seeing the truth behind the fact that hidden powers could undertake such vast schemes as a false-flag attack to serve as a casus belli for wars against totally innocent sovereign nations, is the utter depravity, and complete corruption of a society, and the institutions that support it, which allowed for, and condoned such an activity. That the United States Justice Department knowingly tried a man in a capital case using evidence that it itself had fabricated, is breathtaking in my view, perhaps because, in my mind it is of a more manageable scale than the vast horror that is Iraq and Afghanistan wars. That Moussaoui was spared an execution, and exists instead in a condition of total deprivation from any human contact whatsoever, is even more horrifying to me still.

The names of the supposed family members of 9/11 victims who testified at the trial, reads like a list of "the worst of the worst," to recycle a phrase. Ronald Clifford, Rudy Giuliani, Tony Sanseviro, Harry Waizer, Carol Azzarello, Wen Shi Wang, Mary Ellen Salamone, John Creamer, Andrea Maffeo, Rosemary Dillard, Tu Ho Nguyen, James Smith, Chandrasekar Salashidr, (or should that be Chandra Kalahasti, as this person is alternately reported to be?) Mike Low, Tamar Rosbrook, Lashawn Clark, Lisa Beilke and, heading it all up, Lee Hanson, perhaps the most featured media star among the relatives to testify.

Apparently, the Hanson's intended to continue their assault on justice. In September of 2009, Mrs Hanson was quoted as saying she and her husband intended to attend the upcoming scheduled trials in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
"Hanson said attending the trial of an alleged 9/11 perpetrator later this month at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will "give my husband and I the opportunity to see first hand what is going on." "Mom who lost family members on 9/11: Healing comes hard," by Frank Juliano, The Fairfield Citizen, September 5, 2009

The Fairfield Citizen

Ningen's Blog November 27, 2007,Where was Flight 175 when Peter Hanson called his father?

Spook at Humint Events Online
Proof that a Phone Call from a 9/11 Hijacked Flight was Faked?

30CDE 9:00:03 Peter Hanson Lee Hanson (father) 192 sec
FBI analysis of cell phone records on F 175

A personal family web site,
Christine Lee at two and a half was the youngest victim on 9/11. The family was on UA 175. Sue was awarded her PhD in Pathology after her death, and Boston University has established and annual lecture to be held on September 11 in honor of Sue Kim Hanson. Peter's parents, Eunice and Lee Hanson, live in Easton,

"At 9 a.m., Lee Hanson in Miami received a call from his son, Peter Hanson, who was a passenger aboard Flight 175, the 9/11 report reads. "I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building," the report states Peter Hanson said. "Don't worry, dad. If it happens, it'll be very fast. My God, my God." Lee Hanson then heard a woman scream before the call ended abruptly, the report reads. When the father then turned on his TV, he watched the aircraft hit the tower at about 590 mph. Sixty-five people were aboard."
"9/11 memories: 9:03 a.m. -- 'If it happens, it'll be very fast,'" by Justin L. Engel, The Saginaw (Michigan) News, September 11, 2009

History Commons
(8:52 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Flight 175 Passenger Details Stabbing
Peter Hanson. Peter Hanson. [Source: Family photo]Businessman Peter Hanson calls his father from Flight 175 and says, “Oh, my God! They just stabbed the airline hostess. I think the airline is being hijacked.” Despite being cut off twice, he manages to report how men armed with knives are stabbing flight attendants, apparently in an attempt to force crewmembers to unlock the doors to the cockpit. He calls again a couple of minutes before the plane crashes. [BBC, 9/13/2001; Daily Telegraph, 9/16/2001; Toronto Sun, 9/16/2001] Hanson’s father immediately calls the local police department and relays what he heard. [San Francisco Chronicle, 7/23/2004] • A Washington Post story said: “Brian Sweeney called his wife Julie: ‘Hi, Jules,’ Brian Sweeney was saying into his cell phone. ‘It's Brian. We've been hijacked, and it doesn't look too good.’”13

Hanson noted that he and his wife grew up a short walk from the Public Garden. September 11, 2003, Boston Globe Online, "Ceremonies, dedications honor Mass. Sept. 11 victims,"

"When Peter signed off, his parents, Eunice and Lee Hanson, turned on the television, and they watched as the plane their son, daughter-in-law, and granddaughter were on slammed into the south tower of the World Trade Center."
'Out of the blue: the story of September 11, 2001, from Jihad to Ground Zero,' By Richard Bernstein

Michel Chossudovsky
The 9/11 Commission Report: The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls
Mon Aug 23, 2004
August 10, 2004
With regards to this call, Griffin also cites a letter written by Hanson’s sister: “Peter, Sue and Christine were on the United flight (175) that struck the south tower. Peter called daddy twice from this cell phone. He said, don’t worry Dad, it will be over fast.”

September 11, 2001, "Experts, U.S. suspect Osama bin Laden, accused architect of world's worst terrorist attacks," Associated Press, By Karen Guillo and John Soloman,

September 13, 2001,"Young Couple Loved Quiet Town Life," Boston Globe, By Patrick Healy

October 15, 2001, Wall Street Journal, "American, United Watched and Worked In Horror as Sept. 11 Hijackings Unfolded," By Scott McCartney and Susan Carey

9/11 memories: 9:03 a.m. -- 'If it happens, it'll be very fast' by Justin L. Engel, The Saginaw (Michigan) News, September 11, 2009

January 25-31, 2006, New York Press, Vol 19 - Issue 4, "Miracles and Wonders," By Alan Cabal


  1. As someone who believes that it is a virtual certainty, based on the evidence, that neither AA 11, nor UA 175 impacted the towers, I am open to many considerations of how the fake stories were setup.

    However, I prefer to stay with the following assumptions until they are completely ruled out:

    1) The flights in question did depart the airports cited on 9/11.

    2) Phone calls, even cell phone calls were made and received as claimed by the persons cited. Of course, there is no way that some of the persons could have been as cruising altitude and connect the calls. Therefore, the plane was near the ground, or they were on a plane when the call was made.

    I share the above not as a more "right" way of looking at 9/11. It's simply where my taste for the research takes me.

    I 100% think many of the calls were coached for content, and that some callers were aware ahead of time that they would be role playing.

    As far of some "witnesses" lying about receiving a call, I'm not ready to accept that charge without more review.

    1. Role playing what? I'm sorry however you are only partially able to cope with observable reality. But you don't seem half as bad as the writer of this blog however.

  2. I'm sorry that events of that day were so terrible, so mind-bending that you are both unable to deal with factual reality. That you are still so convinced of your self-contrived fantasies nearly 10 years later tells the rational mind that yours needs careful, professional evaluation.

    Good luck.

  3. I like the above comment for its transparency. Steve, thanks for examining this angle of the attacks. It's a great, and an important, avenue of research. I was wondering if you were aware of the alleged "transcript" taken from one of the black boxes of flight 93? My local paper recently reproduced the transcript as part of an editorial on 9-11-2010, and I could not find any critiques of the "transcript" online.

  4. Given the number of assumptions that I see being offered in this article, I feel the need to clarify one point. Pete Hanson was a real person, not a "vicsim." He was a childhood friend of mine for many years, and a real friend at that. He was also a friend to many people in the within and beyond the Easton area, and was well-liked. I would strongly suggest that you hone your research skills so as not to make such blatantly incorrect statements and not take the writings of journalists at face value. Journalists make mistakes, so making assumptions based on such information leads to attribution errors such as those exemplified in this article. I encourage you to check your facts more closely!

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Yes, I saw BOTH AA 11 and UA 175 hit both the N and S Towers of the WTC as did so many other witnesses in L-Manhattan. I was 4 at the time of the attacks. My mom escaped from the burning towers with me in her arms. Proof that a plane DID crash into the S-Tower of the WTC. I think everyone realized America was being attacked and that it was not a "pure accident" at or shortly after that moment. People all mistakenly assumed it was a accident as they watched AA 11 hit the N-Tower 18 minutes earlier at 8.45am.

  9. BTW, Lee Hanson was in Easton, Connecticut NOT Miami

  10. While I have serious doubts about much that we have been told about 9/11, there is no doubt Sue Kim Hansen was a real person. I was a friend and classmate of hers at South Pasadena High School. We shared many classes together as well as being on the school yearbook staff. Sue talked of wanting to become a doctor and help study the cancer that took her mother's life. She was a beautiful, brilliant and very fun gal with a beautiful smile and a huge heart. RIP Sue, Peter and Christine.