And Bush, what about him, he made an impression of a man sincerely stunned by what has happened; is it possible, that he takes the side of conspirators too?
Bush’s reaction is quite understandable: he has found himself in husband’s role in that tragic situation which husband is usually last person to know. There’s no doubts, that he was perfectly right taking now famous terrorists phrase “Don’t do anything foolish; you won’t be hurt” as though it refers to himself – it’s not for nothing, that he hurried to hide out on the military base of Louisiana. Perhaps, he found out very soon whose handiwork it was, and even had enough courage to characterize the assault as “cowardly act”. But for many people it was not tragic, but rather amusing to observe the head of superpower state running as a hare from someone he didn’t even know, and in addition calling those incognitos “cowardly persons”. His tears on press conference were also quite ingenious and revealed his serious anxiety with problems of his own safety. Just in case, on the 12th he was repeatedly intimidated in the press by remembering the fate of Kennedy and Reagan, presidents “loved by all Americans”. I had the copy of John Karlin’s article from the Trotskyites newspaper “El Pais”, eloquently titled “The wounded American”. However, by the moment he seems to have come to his senses completely, and judging by his speech in the Congress on the September 20 (which reminded very much of Adolph Hitler’s speech in Nuremberg on the September 11, 1935) he has adjusted to his new role and new tasks rather well. How do you think, Watson, what can the following phrase mean, which Congress applauded on its feet: “Today everyone must make his choice for himself – either he’s with America, or with terrorists!”
It’s hard for me to answer, Holmes.
This is a password of its kind, famous to the entire world in the beginning of 20th century as Trotskyites slogan: “Whoever is not with me is against me!”[14] And if I’m not mistaken, they borrowed it from the Bible.
And what’s the explanation, dear Holmes? Can it be the proof of USA president’s personal fidelity to Trotskyites?
Oh, not so straightforward, Watson. Bush may not even understand it, but his speechwriters, probably, swear in their loyalty to IV International this way.
Just two more questions, my dear Holmes, if you don’t mind, of course.
You’re welcome, Watson.
There was a word in the articles from “The New York Times” which you kindly offered to my attention, it was repeated several times and remained incomprehensible for me.
Holmes willingly took in his hands the same pile of newspapers that I’ve already read.
Apparently, you mean the second upper paragraph from Mr. Kifner’s article about AA11 flight? – And he started to read:
“Capt. John Ogonowsky was at controls, a 50-year-old veteran pilot who lived on a farm north of the city and was looking forward to a family picnic on the weekend”.
Yes, that’s what I mean! But how did you guess?
Well, it wasn’t too hard, Watson; and did you appreciate humour dealing with pilot’s name and age?
Of course, I could do nothing but notice all these things, especially after your tales about IV International and the year of its foundation. Articles of Mr. Glaberson are plenty of such references too. I even remember the name and characteristics of the second pilot from UA175 flight that rammed the southern tower: “Victor J. Saracini, 50, an experienced pilot who had been a Navy flier, was at controls”. One more “experienced pilot, 50-years-old”! And his flight lasted for 50 minutes exactly!
Wonderful, Watson, you have excellent memory and your keenness of observation is worth envying!
That is due to you, Holmes.
A couple of 50-years-old American civilian airlines veterans – it does impress really; they like black humour, these Misters-internationalists which sometimes can’t be distinguished from internazis. The first – John Ogonowsky – I wonder, if his family name was mentioned in Russian press, how they be satisfied! And the other – the victor of Saracens, and for not doubting whom exactly it is they added “J” in the middle, incontestably pointing to jurists and journalists.
Don’t’ you consider, Holmes, that the planes were empty?
Sometime we will know it… but be patient, Watson. Anyway, you were interested in the word “picnic”, weren’t you?
Yes, I met it thrice in these articles and every time it was absolutely irrelevant. I suspected some enciphered sense in it.
Well done, Watson, I can say! I’m glad, that I wasn’t mistaken about you. Have a look at this, – and with these words Holmes handed me a sheet of paper folded twice, with sizes like newspaper sheet’s.
It was either some plan, or scheme for charade game. I stared for long in silhouettes of pictures and inscriptions, which I couldn’t interpret at once using my poor Russian, until at last I encountered a column of numbers in the right lower corner of the picture, which was printed in very small type and consisted of time of sun rising and sunset, as well as the length of a day. Most probably, I would never pay my attention to them, if it wasn’t for the first number in the column, the fatal number – 8.45 – time of ramming of the first (southern) WTC tower. I looked at Holmes questioningly.
Yes, Watson, you understood correctly, the time coincided “accidentally” with New York time of the first attack, made by “kamikaze” on Boeing-767 with 92 passengers on board. And I said “New York time” not by accident, because the next number in the column – 16.37 – too “accidentally” was very similar to first attack time… but in Moscow time zone (it was 16.45 exactly), and since this moment Russian viewers could follow the developing of events in New York and Washington. Without mystics, it is calendar time of sun rising – 8.45 and sunset – 16.37, and the length of a day – 7.52, which refers to January 20 of every year on the latitude of Moscow and Saint Petersburg.
Saying that, Holmes took a pencil and wrote in sprawling letters on the sheet of paper – 20.01, as they used to mark the date in Russia.
If take away the dot between the day and the month, what can indicate this combination of numbers, to your opinion, Watson?
2001 year! – I forced slowly. – But what this all can mean, dear Holmes? And how did you obtain this strange charade?
It was sent to me with two similar articles yet in 1994 from Russia. Notice the date when package with charades arrived to London pointed on the seal of London main post office – September 7, 1994, – and try to establish if something special had happened that day in London. In the envelope, besides the rebus in three parts, each having the word “picnic” in its title, and a calendar for 1994, there also was a little note: “Dear Holmes. Knowing your passion for solving the enigmas of the century, we send to you this “rebus of millennium” in three parts. We hope that time will come, and you’ll give your professional interpretation of their purpose. Yours sincerely, the admirers of your talent.” Return address: Russia, 190001, Saint Petersburg, subscriber’s mailbox 911, Pchelovod Victor Vladimirovich. I have been collecting information for seven years, and now I’m ready to give some variants of solution.
Sherlock Holmes unfolded two more copies of strange pictures before me.
As you can see, Watson, the charade you’re looking at, under the strange title “Post Historical Picnic”, appeared on the third page of Saint-Petersburg newspaper “Chas Pick” №33 (130) on August 17, 1992. But two not less enigmatical rebuses, printed in two more issues of the same newspaper “Chas Pick” on June 24 and August 5, 1991, and entitled “Historical Picnic” and the “Defence Picnic” respectively preceded it.