By Elias Davidsson
Editor’s Note: This article, republished with permission, is from Elias Davidsson’s new book: The Betrayal of America: Revisiting the 9-11 Evidence.
On 10 September 2001, a farewell letter purported to have been written by Ziad Jarrah (the alleged suicide-pilot of flight UA93) to his fiancée, Aysel Sengün in Germany, was sent to the wrong address. It was thereupon returned to the United States and fell eventually in the hands of the FBI.
The letter was presented to the press as a farewell letter and thus as proof of Ziad’s intention to die. Ziad’s uncle, Jamal Jarrah, suspected that the letter had been fabricated. He considered it suspicious that the address was mistaken, as Ziad had known his girlfriend for five years and would not have made such an error.
There is no known evidence that Ms. Sengün authenticated it. Why would Ziad write a farewell letter if he did not intend to die on 9/11?
Ziad’s fiancée, Ms. Sengün, was in hospital on 11 September 2001 after her tonsils were removed. Two days later, after being released from hospital, she was interviewed by unidentified “German authorities” at Police Headquarters, Bochum, Germany.
Prior to her interview, she had called the police and advised that she was no longer able to reach Ziad. She said she was seriously concerned about her Lebanese friend. Having learned about the attacks in the United States she was afraid that something might have happened to him.
She did not know, however, that the U.S. authorities had already planned to designate Ziad as one of the suicide-pilots of 9/11. His name only appeared in the media one or two days later.After telling the police about Ziad and his interest in learning to fly, as well as about his flight studies in Florida, she told them about Ziad’s last telephone call.
Here are excerpts from Ms. Sengün’s police deposition which she made under penalty of perjury on 13 September 2001 (as reported in an FBI translation):
“We rarely had written contact. Writing was simply not his thing. … Looking back, we spoke on the phone almost daily…. spoke to him on the phone last on Tuesday, 9/11/2001, I believe it was between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. I believe it was rather 3 p.m. He called me.
I took the call in my room at the Catholic Hospital in Hattingen Blankenstein. He called me frequently during the week. I believe it was on Thursday, on Saturday, on Sunday and on Tuesday. However, I don’t remember precisely. The telephone connection last Tuesday was good. There were no background noises.
During the phone call [redacted] a lady from the nursing staff came to my room and asked what I wanted to eat the following day. I tried to put her off for five minutes. She absolutely did not want to wait and I was not able to concentrate on the call with my friend. Our telephone conversation was practically disrupted by the nurse when I then kept it brief and told my friend good-bye.”
Note that Ms. Sengün was firm about the time of Ziad’s call. Her deposition was made merely two days after the call. She possessed no motive to lie about the time of the call. She could not have known how important the time of the call had been for the United States of America and the Western alliance.
For 3 p.m. in Germany was 9:00 a.m. in the Eastern part of the United States, when flight UA93 was already cruising at high altitude from where calls with cellphones could not be made. Therefore Ziad must have made his call from the ground after the take-off of flight UA93, which proves that he was not on that flight.
Ms. Sengün certainly did not realize that her deposition would become so important! At the end of her deposition, Ms. Sengün was asked by her interviewers to call the flight school in Florida where Ziad had studied, because the flight school had tried to contact her.
In her second call attempt, a female voice introduced herself and promised to connect her to the appropriate person. After a short while, a non-identified male voice answered. After “some questioning,” he told Ms. Sengün that Ziad Jarrah was “wanted by the police” in connection with the 9/11 attack.
He asked her about Ziad’s whereabouts. Ms. Sengün said she was unable to provide any information. At that point he told her that her friend Ziad was “no longer alive.” This exchange is extremely disturbing for it suggests that the male speaker lied to her by stating that Ziad was “wanted by the police,” knowing that he was already dead.
As a rule people do not lie, except for important reasons. So why did the speaker lie to Ms. Sengün? At this point, we are forced to conjecture. Let us assume the following scenario: If parallel to his flight training, Ziad was working for a U.S. intelligence agency, which might have paid for his flight schooling or made him irresistible offers for his future, his task might have been to travel around the United States. Unknown to him, the purpose of such travel may have been to build the future hijackers’ legend. [But officially the story is that they made] efforts to case airports and aircraft in preparation for their hijacking operation. This was the explanation given after 9/11 for the alleged hijackers’ continuous travel around the United States. As an explanation for Ziad’s trips, his handlers may have given him some trivial assignments that he would find satisfying.
Let us further assume that Ziad smelled a rat and decided to skip flight UA93 that he had booked. For the sake of argument, let us further assume that it was he who wrote his farewell letter under orders, but deliberately addressed it mistakenly in order that his fiancée not receive it.
His absence at the airport obviously would be noted by his handlers. They would be terrified, lest Ziad, after learning about the attacks, reveal to the world what he suspected. His handlers would immediately send a commando to search and “neutralize” him.
Although this is pure conjecture, there exists no evidence that Ziad Jarrah boarded flight UA93, that he possessed the skills to pilot a Boeing 757 and intended to die on 9/11. It is moreover a fact that he vanished on 11 September 2001. As no one has seen him after 9/11, he was most probably assassinated on that very day.
Let us now return to the conversation with Ms. Sengün. She was first told that Ziad was “wanted by the police.” The purpose of that statement may have been to test her reaction, or more exactly to find out what Ziad had told her in his last call. Had he told her that he feared for his life, telling her that he’s dead would have made her extremely suspicious about the circumstances of his death. As Ziad did not tell her of his suspicions, possibly because he never told her about his intelligence activities, it was then safe to tell Ms. Sengün that Ziad was already dead.
It is not known whether Ms. Sengün got suspicious because of the sequence of questions or whether she believed the official legend about his demise. As to her statement about the time of Ziad’s call, German investigators, possibly after being contacted by panicked FBI officials, stipulated that Ms. Sengün had been mistaken. The German unidentified officials wrote in an internal memorandum that the call must have been made 2-4 hours earlier.
Did Ms. Sengün agree? Unfortunately, it is not possible to ask her, because German authorities swiftly transferred her to the witness protection scheme that makes her inaccessible, if she is still alive.
Off-topic
Hawaii’s Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is running for president. But you can’t get past the first page pf her website “Tulsi2020” if you don’t make a donation
Her campaign manager must be a plant. You heard it here first.
Staying off topic – If only you had a dollar for every time I had been wrong … so let me say, humbly …
As you know, I have spoken with such high hopes for Tulsi Gabbard – her theme of “Servant Leadership” (“Service Above Self”) is all very JFK-ish and appealing.
But she started to lose me with her presidential announcement speech. My reaction – Americans can’t be “who we [they] are” until they “talk about 911”.
And then this interview with Stephen Colbert.
She seems to say all the right ‘anti-war’ things but then it starts to go downhill from around 2:50.
Then at 4:20+
Colbert: Do you believe that he [Assad] is a war criminal? Do you believe he gassed his own people or committed atrocities against his own people?
Gabbard: YES – reports have shown that that’s a fact … [I’m afraid the rest is blah]
Things went further south more recently in an interview with Joe Rogan
I have really gotta start sticking to my motto – reason before hope.
Quel disappointment, Fish. Wow, She’s been got at. I wonder how they did it.
Holy smoke, Fish. I recalled that Dee did a good critique of the chem attack in Syria so I just searched Gumshoe for it. I did not find it (dee, please find it), but instead I found this tremendous piece by Montse Alarcon Flix:
.
https://gumshoenews.com/2016/12/16/al-assad-the-caucasus-tsarnaev-and-a-grateful-heart/
I want everyone to read it now please.
“Truth makes us all brothers” – !!
“There will come a day when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, and the truth will triumph again”
Well if the time of Ms. Sengün’s last conversation with Ziad, as recorded in her deposition, has never been repudiated, why would any more evidence be needed?
But I guess such a stupid question doesn’t deserve anything more than a stupid answer
Berry, I find this a bit weird:
“Prior to her interview, she had called the police and advised that she was no longer able to reach Ziad. She said she was seriously concerned about her Lebanese friend. Having learned about the attacks in the United States she was afraid that something might have happened to him.”
Which police did she call? I imagine there was an official 800 number given to the public so they could ask about their loved ones, especially as many actually worked in the towers.
Anyway, it seems the police got in touch with her without needing to have been told by her that she was worried. Surely the farewell letter is not genuine. It is hokum just like Ziad’s visa, half burnt at Shanksville, was hokum.
Oops, now I get it (maybe). It really was her call that made them aware of her and so at that point they asked Quantico to turn out an appropriate letter. Yes, Berry, you are right. If she is genuine and she says they chatted at 9am, then there goes the whole Flight 93 Story. “Let’s roll” and all.
Still, it is odd he was allowed to be alive at 9am. Usually they bump em off in advance. I am of the belief that David and Sally Martin were killed at least one day before April 28, 1996 at Seascape, as it would have been too much of a nuisance and risk to have them alive that morning.
Hence I think the gunshots at 11am were a red herring.
Thank you, Elias. What goes around comes around.
So what do you make of Carl Wernerhoff’s assertion re Petra Wilmot ?(my underlining):
“Wilmott does connect Bryant to the Prince sports bag and does state that he talked about wasps and Japanese tourists – which pearls of information must have been highly gratifying to the DPP – but in every other respect she has gone on record as declaring that Bryant was a gentle soul who would have been incapable of harming anyone Perhaps the answer to the mystery lies in the fact that she was apparently involved herself in the obscure goings on at Seascape. According to the policewoman who accompanied Bryant to the hospital after he was apprehended, he asked if Petra was OK. He told her that Petra had been, with him, in Seascape, that she was his girlfriend, and that the two of them always stuck together. This aspect of the story has, of course, been suppressed. Whatever the nature of her activities at Seascape, she has clearly been left in a position of being unable to tell the truth about what happened there.”
http://www.murderpedia.org/male.B/images/bryant_martin/pa.pdf page 97
The obvious questions are “what policewoman ?” & “what was the source of said info?”
The issue outlined in pages 98 – 105 of the same pdf is also interesting
My observation is that time-frames are always critical re unraveling lies
From my interpretations of the event, no plane crashed into the ground at Shanksville. So no pilots. The whole story of piloted aircraft seems to be crap. The planes flown into the towers were auto-piloted. They were also undisputedly military aircraft, as identified by photographic evidence.
Mal, in Elias’ previous book “Hijacking America’s Mind on 9-11” he informs us that although there were no bodies found, as such, at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, a human tooth was discovered in a nearby tree.
I’m SERIOUS.
Maybe it belonged to Todd Beamer.
Fox News flash, this is nice:
.
“San Francisco has become the first city to forbid local agencies from using facial-recognition software. The Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance, enacted Wednesday, asserts that the technology’s “propensity . . . to endanger civil rights and civil liberties substantially outweighs its purported benefits.” Yay.
Had a mate who strongly argued in favour of the 9/11 “official story”.His major thesis was that they couldn’t keep so many people quiet if it was an inside job. He was/is a builder. I showed him WTC7 collapse but didn’t tell him what building it was.
I then asked him what he just saw.
“Controlled Demolition” was his immediate answer.
Now he has some questions to answer for himself.If they have a brain, let the use it.
Phil, please tell us later if your friend comes round on the situation.
But it really isn’t a matter of “having a brain”.
Reproduced (with other articles) at https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-911-official-narrative-fails-at.html