9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

AA Exposes Bush's 'Big Lie': Flight 11 DID NOT FLY on 911!

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2009/07/aa-exposes-bushs-big-lie-flight-11-did.html

The Existentialist Cowboy
THE TRUTH EXPLAINS EVERYTHING! --THE EXISTENTIALIST COWBOY
THURSDAY, JULY 02, 2009

AA Exposes Bush's 'Big Lie': Flight 11 DID NOT FLY on 911!
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

American Airlines itself is the source for information that AA Flights 11 (North Tower) and 77 (Pentagon) did not fly on 911. These flights are critical to the the government's crumbling cover up! Without those flights, Bush and his murderous co-conspirators will have to revise the big lie. They will have to concoct yet another cover story from the ground up! A cover up is on the brink of collapse when those guilty of capital crimes and high treason either turn on one another or are forced to revise the lie!If neither flight was in the air as American Airlines itself has so stated, then numerous 'official versions' of the 'official conspiracy theory' are all a pack of malicious lies. That includes almost every statement made by Bush. It is, in my opinion, probable cause to indict Bush and his co-conspirators for the crimes of mass murder and high treason.

WikiScanner discovered that American Airlines changed their Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 did not fly on 9/11. The original entry was as follows:

Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).

New entry is as follows and includes the bolded text below:

Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).

Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.
--Wikipedia

To make the point: the source for these change is American Airlines by making changes to Wikipedia. The 'story' is not Wiki. The story is not about Wiki. The story is about how AA 'corrected' a wiki entry. The story is about the fact that the evidence that Flights 11 and 77 were not flying on 911 comes from American Airlines itself.

According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).

However, a searchable online BTS database produces the following search results for three of the four 9/11 aircraft on September 10, 2001:

AA 11 departs San Francisco (SFO): AA 09/10/2001 0198 (flight number) N334AA (tail number) BOS (destination) 22:04 (wheels-off time)

UA 175 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0170 (flight number) N612UA (tail number) BOS (destination) 13:44 (wheels-off time)

UA 93 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0078 (flight number) N591UA (tail number) EWR (destination) 23:15 (wheels-off time)--911 Blogger, UPDATE: U.S. BTS FOIA Records For 9/11 Planes Differ From BTS Online Database [The records were obtained by Adrian Monaghan]

Anyone trying to prove that Flights 77 and 11 were not flying on 911 would have to verify that proposition through authoritative sources that could confirm it. The question is raised: how do we know who made the changes to Wiki? Everyone logged on to the internet does so from an IP address. In this case, the IP is that of American Airlines. It's traceable.

My own WHOIS lookup as well as a Google search of the IP address proves conclusively that it was --indeed --American Airlines itself that made the change. It is American Airlines --by way of Wiki --that has said that neither Flight 11 nor Flight 77 were in the air that day.

Therefore, the Bush theory of 911 is a deliberate lie. My look up returned the following:
WHOIS - 144.9.8.21
Location: United States [City: Ft. Worth, Texas]

OrgName: American Airlines Incorporated
OrgID: AMERIC-112
Address: P.O.Box 619616
Address: MD 5308
City: DFW Airport
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 75261
Country: US

NetRange: 144.9.0.0 - 144.9.255.255
CIDR: 144.9.0.0/16
NetName: AANET
NetHandle: NET-144-9-0-0-1
Parent: NET-144-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: DNS-P1.SABRE.COM
NameServer: DNS-P2.SABRE.COM
NameServer: DNS-P3.SABRE.COM
NameServer: DNS-P4.SABRE.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 1990-10-31
Updated: 2002-06-27

RTechHandle: OG60-ARIN
RTechName: Gelbrich, Orf
RTechPhone: +1-817-931-3145
RTechEmail: ************@aa.com

OrgTechHandle: ZW72-ARIN
OrgTechName: WARIS, ZISHAN
OrgTechPhone: +1-817-967-1242
OrgTechEmail: ************@aa.com

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-06-29 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
Elsewhere, confirmation that Flight 93 could not have crashed in PA.
Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard
Reported by: 9News Staff
Web produced by: Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.

United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight.

United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.

On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved.

"United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said.

These are not the first major holes to be discovered. The many lies (many referenced in previous EC articles; see links below) are probable cause to begin a Federal Grand Jury investigation of George W. Bush's role in 911. Bush should be compelled by subpoena and Federal Marshals to testify under oath before an independent Federal Grand Jury. The AA revelations demand it!

Bush lies have the effect of covering up the truth, protecting the guilty and obstructing justice. The lies are an insult to the families of 911 victims, victims who are dishonored by the continuing cover-up! Bush's lies aggravate the crimes of mass murder, terrorism and high treason for which the penalty must surely be death. 911 did not happen as we have been told.

Bushco's 'official conspiracies theory' of 911 is full of holes. Flights 11 and 77 are essential ingredients in the 'official conspiracy theory' of 911. That AA claims that neither 11 nor 77 were in the air that day sinks Bush's theory. More importantly, however, it should get him an 'invitation' to appear before a Federal Grand Jury to answers charges that he betrayed his nation and waged war upon the people. Clearly --the official theory is a lie, an intentional cover-up. Cover-ups imply guilt! Otherwise --what is there to cover up? The official 'lie' goes like this:

At 8:20, Flight 11 stopped transmitting its transponder signal, and veered northward and departed dramatically from the westward heading of its planned route. The controllers concluded that the plane had probably been hijacked. 4 5

At 8:24, the following transmission was reportedly received from Flight 11: We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you'll be okay .. we are returning to the airport...Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet. Nobody move please we are going back to the airport .. don't try to make any stupid moves. 6 Neither of the pilots pressed the distress call button.

At 8:28 controllers reportedly watched the plane make a 100-degree turn toward the south. 7 Presumably, Flight 11 continued south along the Hudson River until it reached the World Trade Center, though documentation of this is sparse given the lack of public information.According to NORAD's September 18 timeline, the FAA did not notify NORAD of the signs that Flight 11 was hijacked until 8:40, 25 minutes after the first signs of trouble. 8 --Flight 11, The First Jet Commandeered on September 11th, 911 Research

Elsewhere, 911 Research stats: "there is no evidence for the assertions by some people... that the North Tower was hit by something other than Flight 11". But, if 11 were not in the air as claimed by AA itself, it could not have struck the towers.

The house of cards collapses.

Assertions that Flight 11 struck the North Tower that are --therefore -- utterly baseless, if not a deliberate and criminal lie!

If neither Flight 11 or 77 was in the air that day, then nothing in the 'official statements' with regard to the Twin Towers or the Pentagon is true.

If flights 11 or 77 did not fly on 911, officialdom must come up with another explanation to explain the towers' falls.

If flights 11 or 77 did not crash into either the tower or the Pentagon, then the official theory must be discarded. While it is not good news for Bush, it is consistent with the fact that no wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever found at the Pentagon.

Moreover, photos of an engine rotor appear to depict an engine used in the Global Hawk, a payload carrying missile that was, according to Britain's International Television News, flown from the US to Australia completely by remote control. "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."

Britain's ITN continued: "The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state... It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images."

ITN quoted Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith: '"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right t from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway."'

The Global Hawk is a much better candidate for what Rumsfeld called '...the missile that struck this building' than a 757. Here's what you need to know about the Pentagon.
Only minutes after the strike, [see pic above] there is no sign of an airliner at all!!
No wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever recovered.
Only ONE engine rotor (seen in photos) was recovered! This rotor is about one third the diameter of a 757 rotor.
A 757 has two rotors, each of which are nearly three times the size of the SINGLE rotor located at the Pentagon
Engine rotors are made of a Steel/Titanium alloy to withstand high temps inside jet engines.
Flight 77 could not have crashed into the Pentagon
The time has come to consign Bush's official conspiracy theory to the dust bin of history. The theory is not even a good cover story, surviving for as long as it did only because millions of good Americans wanted to believe it. Millions of otherwise good Americans did not wish to believe the very, very worst about an administration that had claimed to represent and defend our interests. Millions of Americans chose to believe that the government was still responsible to us, that the government was still the defender of Democracy as we are always taught in school.

Below: a US Global Hawk painted to look like an AA airliner. There is really no way to prove that this is NOT the very Global Hawk that would later leave behind its engine rotor on the Pentagon lawn.
Recognizing lies for what they are is a part of the process of growing up! America, it is time to grow up! It is time to confront this heinous pack of lies! It is time to insist that the Obama administration begin a REAL investigation. It is time to insist that a Federal Grand Jury investigate every count of high treason, mass murder and domestic terrorism that was perpetrated upon the people of the US by the Bush administration, collaborators in the Pentagon, K-Street, the Congress and the leadership of the Republican party, Marvin Bush's 'Securacom', Larry Silverstein, General Myers, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and, of course, George W. Bush who was, at the time, the 'Commander-in-Chief' and ultimately responsible for the orders given the US military to 'stand down'.
By Donald Rumsfeld's own admission, he was unaware of any threats to the Pentagon -- the building where he was located during the September 11th attacks -- until an aircraft crashed into the side of it, and he ran out "into the smoke" to see if it might be a "A bomb? I had no idea." (ABC News This Week, Interview 9/16/01).Well, that's a pretty tall tale by any standard. The New York Times reported that by 8:13am, the FAA was aware of the first hijacking out of Boston. The Pentagon explosion, which Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "no idea," did not occur until approximately 9:37am, nearly an hour and a half later, this after two of the tallest buildings in the world were devastated. Note that a plane hijacked out of Boston can reach Washington D.C. as easily as it can reach New York City. It was widely reported that Pentagon personnel were indeed aware of the threats to their security, and they took security measures on that morning. But not the "Secretary of Defense." Why should the man charged with defending the United States of America concern himself with hijacked aircraft?
There is a set of procedures for responding to hijackings. In particular, these procedures were changed on June 1, 2001 while Rumsfeld was in power as our Secretary of Defense, in a document called: "CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION, J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A"
It would also appear that CNN reported the alleged 'crash' into the Pentagon BEFORE the alleged event could possibly have occurred. The following information may be verified by videos now widely available on the internet, videos of the original news coverage.

Check out the digital clock lower right corner CNN News banner on 911.


The Global Hawk
The video asks: "Was 911 a Conspiracy?" That is NOT the question. Even Bushco claims that it was a conspiracy, a conspiracy of 19 Arab Hijackers who could not possibly have pulled it off. It is, frankly, a stupid scenario! Without the shock and awe campaign, no one would have believed it. The questions, rather, are which conspiracy and who were the conspirators? It was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character Sherlock Holmes who said that when you have eliminated the impossible what remains however improbable MUST be the truth!

ADDENDUM:

There has been a spate of fallacious comments of the form: "...uh...what happened the passengers, dude?". A few points:
the 'question' is, in fact, an implied statement and ASSUMES there were flights! In a court, it would be said that the statement 'assumes facts NOT in evidence'!
absence of evidence is not evidence in support of anything, let alone Bush's idiotic, fallacious and pernicious lie! ! The 'absence of bodies' is not evidence of a crash of any sort; only the presence of bodies traceable to the alleged flights are evidence supporting Bush's unsupportable thoery.
There is --in fact --NO forensic evidence of any sort that supports the Bushco official theory of 911. There is no evidence whatsoever that there were --at any time --any Arabs of any sort (terrorist or otherwise) on board Flight 77, a flight for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were "passengers" on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell "victims" bodies from "hijacker" bodies. In fact, from the beginning NO explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.Now, being the trusting sort, I figured that the government would want to quickly dispel any rumors so we could get on with the chore of kicking Osama/Sadaam's butt (weren't these originally two different people?). It seemed simple to me. . .produce the names of all the bodies identified by the AFIP and compare it with the publicized list of passengers. So, I sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the AFIP and asked for an expedited response, because we were getting ready to send our boys to war on the pretext that Osama/Saddam had done the deed. Fourteen months later, a few US soldiers dead, many Iraqi civilians pushing up daisies, and I finally get the list. Believe me that they weren't a bit happy to give it up, and I really have no idea why they choose now to release it.foia-10003.jpgNo Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three ADDITIONAL people not listed by American Airlines sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras. I did American the opportunity to "revise" their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague. The AFIP claims that the only "passenger" body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified. The satanic masterminds behind this caper may be feeling pretty smug about the perfect crime, but they have left a raft of clues tying these unfortunates together.--Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D., Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77
Worth repeating and in summary: the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks.

Unaccounted for passengers is among the biggest holes in Bush's cover story. If Bush cannot explain the absence of airliner wreckage or the alleged 'missing passengers', then his official theory must be discounted as utter bunkum, a pack of malicious lies. Unlike wine, crap does not improve with age.

Anyone believing that there were such flights AND that there were passengers should insist that a Federal Prosecutor put Bush on the witness stand in front of a federal grand jury and put to him the question: 'what was the fate of the passengers on flights 77 and 11?'

It would be very interesting to learn how he might manage to escape his experience without indictments for 1) MASS MURDER; 2) PERJURY; 3) OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Concerning possible charges of 'high treason' against Bush: was it not Bush who declared that we were at war? Was it not Bush and his shills who insist that the US attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq was in response to an 'attack' upon the US? Have not Bush partisans insisted, from the 'gitgo' that the US attack, invasion and occupatin of Iraq was part and parcel of the US 'war on terrorism'. That being the case, Bush's complity in the events of events of 911 are most certainly acts of betrayal against a sovereign in a time of war and, therefore, high treason.

At that point, his most effective defense will be bribery --tried and true for the rich and the guilty.

Among a growing number of links back to this article is this excellent expose of the Flight 77 fraud:
According to the official story, AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, took off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m. bound for Los Angeles, with between 50 and 58 passengers. It flew west for about 45 minutes, making a curious detour to the north, west and south, before turning around and flying for another 45 minutes back to Washington. Why hijackers would allow a jet which they planned to crash into a target in Washington to fly for 45 minutes away from its target is not explained. Why did they not commandeer the plane ten minutes after takeoff when the plane was only ten minutes flying time from its intended target? The official story ignores this question, as it does all other questions.

As reported by the New York Times (International Herald Tribune, 2001-10-17, p.8), as AA 77 approached the Pentagon it executed a 270-degree 7,000-foot descent over Washington while flying at 500 mph. It approached the Pentagon on a horizontal trajectory so low that it clipped the power lines across the street then (so the story goes) it smashed into an outer wall of the Pentagon.

We were told (and, of course, expected to believe without question) that this maneuver was executed by an Arab pilot, Hani Hanjour, who in August 2001 was judged by the chief flight instructor at Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport as not having the piloting skills required to fly a Cessna 172 solo. (Is there something fishy here?)

In contrast to the attention given to the collapse of the Twin Towers, the attack on the Pentagon received little attention until in February 2002 a French website (by Thierry Meyssan) appeared which reproduced images obtained from U.S. Army websites: Hunt the Boeing! These images cast doubt upon the official story that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 jetliner. For example, here is a picture of the Pentagon crash site taken about two hours after the impact, with the fire still burning. Can you see any remains of approximately 100 tons of metal (including engines, wings, and tail section) which makes up a Boeing 757? ...

--Pentagon Official Story Hoax
Following is a reader's playlist. I recommend it.

September Clues
Or --How to Fake a Terrorist Attack with an off-the-shelf video editing suite, a sound effects library, some audio samples and an utter lack of conscience or humanity!
911: Inside Job!
Why I Moderate Comments
American education has deteriorated inversely with the rise of right wing politics! [An example is the 'Texas' that Bush left behind. It beats out Mississippi for DEAD LAST in high school graduations at the same that that it LEADS the nation in executions due to the state's extremely high crime rate!]
I don't take kindly to threats and will trace IPs if I should take a threat seriously! Threats, it must be pointed out, are not protected 'free speech' and can be prosecuted.
I tire of bad grammar and fashionable but idiotic attempts to be cute.
Additional resources:
Citizen's Investigation Team
911 Commissioner Slips Up: Pentagon Struck by Missile
Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part I, Police States Begin With False Flag Attacks.
9/11 FEMA videographer at Ground Zero goes public
BBC Censored Benazir Bhutto's Reports that Bin Laden Had Been Murdered
Prosecute the NIST for Obstruction of Justice
American politics: the choice between 'most bad' and 'not really very good'
Incompetent FBI Merely 'Assumed' Wreckage to be Hijacked Planes
Why Noam Chomsky is Dead Wrong About 911!
The 'Conspiracy of Rich Men' Who Pulled Off 911 and Other GOP Atrocities
911 Commissioner Slips Up: Pentagon Struck by Missile
How 'Suspicious' Plane Crashes and Assassinations Benefit the Right Wing
The Prosecution of George W. Bush, et al, for Mass Murder, High Treason
Last Chance to Indict Bush and Cheney for the Mass Murders of 911?
The US Army Document That Proves the US is the World's Number One Sponsor of World Terrorism
Scientists Explain Why People Vote For Republicans
George W Bush Authorized 911 Attacks Says Government Insider
The United States and the International Court
Forum Re: The Prosecution of George W. Bush, Robert H. Jackson Foundation
BBC Censored Benazir Bhutto's Reports that Bin Laden Had Been Murdered
Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes
BBC: Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
They Lied About 911
'Lucky Larry' Silverstein Makes a Killing With 9/11 Terrorism!
Explosives Found in 9/11 Dust
Dutch TV show exonerates Osama bin Laden
French professor sacked over 9/11 'conspiracy' theory
911 Security Courtesy Marvin Bush
Marvin Bush: connections to 9/11
9/11 Commission Memo: 'Executive Branch Minders' Intimidation of Witnesses'
Security, Secrecy and a Bush Brother
Thermite
Pentacon
KS" I make up stories

Views: 325

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 21, 2009 at 7:48pm
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:00:29 -0400 [04:00:29 PM CDT]
From: "Rosalee Grable"
To: "Rolf Lindgren"
Cc: [Show addresses - 25 recipients]
Subject: Re: Proof of Video Fakery

It takes a credit card to make a call from an AirPhone, and there are records.

To make up for the lack of AirPhone records, ATT decided to make all Airphone calls free,
retroactive to Sept 11.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9492

bodice ripper fiction:
www.storiesthatmatter.org/20090914265/NSNS">http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:hxUX_EB3vIAJ:www.storiesthatmatter.org/20090914265/NSNS


Rolf Lindgren wrote:


Ong's call was from an airphone.

The cell phone bullshit is disinformation.

Please stop spreading disinformation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Rosalee Grable **
*Sent:* Wed, October 21, 2009 1:41:29 PM
*Subject:* Re: Proof of Video Fakery

Then we circle back to the fact that cell phone conversations from a big ole boeing were
impossible in 2001.

If the phone calls were real, they were staged by actors.

http://911review.org/brad.com/sept11_cell-phones/engineer_tech.html
http://911review.org/brad.com/sept11_cell-phones/physics911_discuss...
http://911review.org/Wiki/CellPhoneCalls.shtml

Rolf Lindgren wrote:

She also says she is on *flight 12*.

If the tape was faked, she would not have said that, nor would the government tried
to cover it up.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 21, 2009 at 3:57pm
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:48:09 +0100 [03:48:09 PM CDT]
From: Ron
To: "Rolf Lindgren" , "Jack & Sue White" , "Alex LLoyd"
Cc: [Show addresses - 25 recipients]
Subject: Proof of Video Fakery

I still seem to be linked up to you guys despite wishing to be removed. But here is a subject which is worth making a contribution to.

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/911/ong.html

Of course the 9/11 Commission had to link the planes to the events and what better way to do that was using the communications from flight attendents. What better way to operate a hoax than using a flight which had been taken out of the scheduled line-up.

Flight 12 was a scheduled flight out of LAX at 13:00 being the return flight to Boston. If an explanation is required for Ms Ong stating she was speaking from Flight 12 then Flight 12 was a real flight whereas Flight 11 was not. She wondered off the script. She might have been on Flight 12 on many ocassions and she knew that the ground staff would know it was a hoax because flight 11 was not flying that day.

There is an analysis here which is impressive. The lack of back ground noise and the seemingly calmness of Betty Ong. If her collegues were being killed off then she had nerves of steel.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread326637/pg2

There is also something very prominant in the exchange between her and the ground staff. It is noteworthy that the ground staff were chiefly question her bona fides and were listening to her account of the effects of the hijacking. What she was relaying could not have really got any worse. But the ground staff should have diverted her off of these things and have got onto the matter of gaining intelligence and seeking a communication link to the hijackers. Something positive instead of reeling off all these alarming events. Get her to think of the living and not the dead. But it seems Betty Ong was not able to convince the ground staff of the hijacking of the plane. The events which Bettg Ong relayed could all be associated with an exercise. Did she ever ask for instructions for countering this hijacking? The exercise would end at a certain point short of storming the cock-pit and those taking part might only have a limited part to play. Relaying the bad news. Betty Ong never volunteered nor the ground staff asked if there had been any diversion from the flight plan. Surely, strange changes in course would have been noticed by flight attendents. Did the ground staff ask her any specific questions regarding the position of the plane. Land marks below the plane, and such like. Of course if 11 was not flying that day they would be as perplexed as 9/11 researchers are.


From: Rolf Lindgren
To: Jack & Sue White ; Alex LLoyd
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: Proof of Video Fakery

She also says she is on flight 12.

If the tape was faked, she would not have said that, nor would the government tried to cover it up.

From: Jack & Sue White
To: Alex LLoyd
Sent: Wed, October 21, 2009 9:19:02 AM
Subject: Re: Proof of Video Fakery

The alleged phone call of flight attendant Betty Ong on Flight 11:

Betty Ong's phone call: Flight attendant Betty Ong allegedly called Vanessa Minter at American Airlines reservations at 8:21, and talked for 23 minutes, until the plane crashed. Nydia Gonzalez also listened in from 8:27. The FBI refused to release a recording of the first 4-1/2 minutes of the conversation, but during the 9/11 Commission's January 27, 2004 hearing, the recording was played.

I do not have a transcript of Ong's alleged call, except I remember "there's buildings, there's water" etc. She does not mention excessive speed or a steep dive. Is that odd?

Jack

On Oct 21, 2009, at 10:07:33 AM, Alex LLoyd wrote:

Certainly the official path has the plane diving many thousands of feet very rapidly, but still leveling off completely and then banking before hitting the tower. So it's not as if the plane dived straight into the tower at 540 mph.

One thing for sure, is that it is ludicrous that any amateur pilot could have executed this maneuver. So straight off the official story is wrong.

The question here though is it possible for any plane, even with an ace pilot, to recover from this sort of high speed dive and then be controlled to undergo this rapid banking maneuver to hit a narrow target straight on at 540 mph?


> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:44:45 -0400
> From: webfairy@thewebfairy.com
> To: shure_dj@hotmail.com

> Subject: Re: Proof of Video Fakery
>
>
> Only one video shows anything near a "dive," and you guys claim that
> shows the same flat approach as the rest.
> The rest show a flat approach, if we believe your Fakery Fakers who
> claim the "plane" can be seen way in the distance in Fox 5.
>
> The first hit footage shows divebombing attitude and incredible speed,
> but no plane at all.
>
> Another problem is the lack of debris: millions of parts, each with a
> serial number, that would have been overtaken by gravity after hitting
> steel girders.
> We double back to Newton's Laws of Motion, which don't allow a plane at
> any speed to ignore them.
>
> He shows that an aeronautical engineer can suffer cognitive dissonance,
> but not much else.
>
>
> SHURE Dj wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > In an interview you said "it is approved to fly there only once during
> > the test program."
> >
> > audio is attached.
> >
> > This is what aeronautical engineer Ben Eadie said recently about the
> > conversation I had with him.
> >
> > /"One last thing here. The plane cannot fly at that speed but it sure
> > as hell can effing dive and crash at that speed. If the pilot does not
> > care if the plane falls apart as he turns it into a projectile then
> > YES the speed is possible. YES IT IS FULLY, COMPLETELY, 100% possible.
> > If I was asked if a plane could dive with full throttle at that speed
> > and with out regard to the airframe. my answer would have changed to
> > effin YES! Can it fly at that speed, no, can it crash at that speed yes!
> >
> > So this harmless video also makes me look like a dumbass. As the
> > answer is incorect."
> > /
> > /"It may not appear that the aircraft is diving at the angle of the
> > film, also it could have just came out of a dive, to decelerate at
> > those speeds it would have taken likely a minute to loose the
> > velocity. Again if you are not afraid of damaging the airframe then
> > you could bank at that speed. the structure is designed to take 1.5
> > times the forces recommended so to not be able to bank it would have
> > to be traveling at 700+ miles per hour 500 is well within reason to
> > bank."/
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: johnlear@cox.net
> > Subject: RE: Proof of Video Fakery
> > Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:05:46 -0700
> >
> > A military fighter can go that fast at low altitudes but bombers
> > cannot. (KC-135, B-1, B-2, C-5 etc.)
> >
> >
> > Vd is the maximum dive speed that cannot be exceeded at any time. Not
> > for a few
> >
> > seconds, not for a few milleseconds. That is why it is called Vd
> > (maximum velocity dive).
> >
> > If Vd is exceeded then the Vmo must be reduced. That is why Vd is
> > there in the first place.
> >
> >
> > But in no case did any jet, big or small, drone or missile hit the WTC.
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* Rolf Lindgren [mailto:rolfusaugustusadolphus@yahoo.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:03 AM**
> > *Subject:* Re: Proof of Video Fakery
> >
> > a military plane can go that fast. At least one of the planes that
> > hit the Twin Towers may have been a military plane.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* SHURE Dj **
> > *Sent:* Mon, October 19, 2009 7:39:24 PM
> > *Subject:* RE: Proof of Video Fakery
> >
> > A plane cannot go that speed in a sustained flight, but it could for a
> > few seconds which was all it did it for on 9/11. John Lear even said
> > in an interview that a plane is brought to those speeds during testing
> > which I have recorded somewhere.
> >
> > Still no proof of video fakery!!!
> >
> >
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:18:37 -0500
> > > From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
> > > Subject: RE: Proof of Video Fakery
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I still think Jeff is a "good guy", though I infer from some odd
> > recent posts
> > > of his he may not think the same of me. He gathered expert reports
> > that the
> > > velocity of the plane shown in the Hezarkhani video is flying at a
> > speed that
> > > is greater than aerodynamically possible for a Boeing 767. Not only
> > has this
> > > been confirmed by Joe Keith and by John Lear--whose arguments are
> > especially
> > > telling!--but Pilots for 9/11 Truth has arrived at the same
> > conclusion. This
> > > suggests to me that something odd is going on with Jeff. He was
> > right all
> > > along but now he seems to have abandoned his position. I don't
> > understand it
> > > but there are many reasons why good guys can do dumb things. This
> > may be one.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> >
Comment by Thoth II on October 20, 2009 at 8:13pm
The Bush cabal was so pressed for a flimsy pretense about flt. 77 that they actually said Barbara Olsson, of all people, crashed with the flight. I mean, couldn't their braintrust come up with a more believable one than that, it's laughable. And it's a sorry day that political operatives like Olsson consider a filthy lie like they told to the American people nothing compared to loyalty to their leader.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on October 20, 2009 at 7:55pm
http://thewebfairy.com/holmgren/holmgren/1177.html

What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11, 2001. by Gerard Holmgren . Nov 13 2003

(Slightly revised Sept 25 2006)

(Author’s note Jan 9 2005 : This article was originally published here. Shortly after I published this article the BTS moved it’s database to a new location—and didn't leave a forwarding address. The new address is

http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_statistics/

10 months after I published, they finally got around to doctoring the database as predicted at the end of this article. Links to back ups of the original BTS search results done in Nov 2003 are here 1 2 3 4

By visiting the original article, one can see that in Nov 2003, no-one in the comments column was disputing that I had accurately represented the contents of the data base. When I update this article, I will show how the BTS has made a mess of the cover up. Below is the article as originally published}

On the basis of photographic and physical evidence, it has now been established for some time that on Sept 11, 2001 the damage to the Pentagon was caused by something other than the hijacked Boeing 757, American Airlines Flight 77 claimed by the Government to have crashed into the building.

More recently, its become widely accepted on the basis of video evidence that the object which hit the North Tower of the WTC at 8.46 that morning was not the hijacked Boeing 767, American Airlines Flight 11, as claimed in the official story.

In response to these observations, both supporters of the truth and blind deniers of it agree on one thing. It raises the question - "If these flights did not hit the buildings as alleged, then where did they go?'

We are now in a position to answer that question.

First, lets recap the official story of what happened to four planes that morning.

AA 11 left Boston for LA at about 8 am, was reported as hijacked about 8.25, and hit the Nth Tower at about 8.46.

UA 175 left Boston for LA at about the same time, was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Sth Tower at about 9.03

AA 77 left Dulles for LA about the same time , was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Pentagon at about 9.45

UA 93 left Newark for SF at about the same time, was reported hijacked about 9.45 and crashed in PA at about 10.10.

The Buruea of transportation website contains search pages, where one can pull up detailed statistics about the history of which flights have been scheduled for which airports on any given day. Go to

http://www.bts.gov/ntda/oai/index.shtml (This was the link I quoted in the original article. As noted above, very soon after I published, the BTS moved it’s site and didn’t leave a forwarding address.)

and click on "detailed statistics" where one can search records of scheduled and actual departure times, arrival times, diversions and cancellations by departure airport, arrival airport, airline and flight number. Searches for Sept 11 2001 reveal that the flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist. They were not scheduled that day. Here are the search results which I encourage everyone to check for themselves.

A search for UA flights from Newark on Sept 11, 2001 shows 0093 to SF was scheduled at 8.00 and actually departed at 8.01. It is listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination.

A search for UA from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and actually departed at 7.58. Also listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. The term "diverted" is not clarified as to whether it includes hijacking and/or crashing, so the data gives no indication one way or the other as to truth of the official story about what happened to them, but it does confirm that they departed as per the official story and did not arrive at their destinations.

A search for AA flights from Boston that day does not list 0011. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA

that day was 0181 at 11.00

A search for AA flights from Dulles that day does not list 0077. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA was 0135 at 11.15.

Here's a different search method. One can find the historical reliability and punctuality of specific flights over a period of time, by specifying the Airline and flight number and defining the time period. The search then returns figures on average delays in departure and arrival times and percentages of cancelled or diverted flights.

If one searches specifically for UA 175 or UA 93 narrowed down to sept 11 only, the search returns the result of "diverted" for each flight. A similar search for either AA 11 or AA 77 returns "no data found".

If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you will find that they were regularly scheduled flights right up to Sept 10. AA 11 was scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00, and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at 7.45. On Sept 11, they were not scheduled. Not cancelled. Just not scheduled.

On Sept 12, they re-appear in the schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20 when both flights change their numbers.

Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77 flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did not exist. This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents.

This still leaves unanswered the question of what happened to the passengers alleged to be aboard the non existent flights. (See update below) In the case of AA 77, while one can always speculate about the most plausible scenarios, I prefer to wait until some real evidence emerges. However in the case of AA 11, I think it is worth noting that UA 175 left from the same airport, at the same time for the same destination as that normally applicable to AA 11. Therefore, although there is no direct evidence to support the claim, it would seem reasonable to speculate at this stage that any passengers who booked for AA 11 that day, and went to the airport, expecting to get on AA 11, may have been told that there was a last minute problem with the flight which could not be fixed within a reasonable period of time, and were offered a flight on UA 175 as compensation.

The data in this search indicates that we have been systematically lied to about the alleged flight paths and hijacking sequence of AA 11 and AA 77, as well as the alleged phone calls made from the planes.

It also indicates probable complicity by American Airlines in the events of Sept 11 , 2001.

For the benefit of any NWO operatives reading this, the search result pages have already been backed up and widely distributed, so there's no point in trying to pressure the Bureau into playing hanky panky with the records. Nevertheless, I do encourage all readers to do the searches themselves and back up the results pages, just in case this happens.

(Update Sept 25 2006). On May 16 2004, I published an article proving that even if AA 11 did exist, then the passenger lists published by the media for the flight were fabrications. This does not necessarily mean that there are no missing people to account for, but it does mean that question of “what happened to the passengers ?” now means that we must point out that we don’t even really know who we are looking for when we talk about “the passengers.” There is no known document which has any credibility as a “passenger list”.

In that analysis, I found that there were four people who were listed as being aboard both AA11 and UA 175. This may add some weight to the speculation above that some people were deceived into thinking they were going to catch a flight called AA 11 and finished up on UA 175. If so, that situation could be the source of a mix up where the two lists got partially confused. But that is only speculation.

All we know for certain at this stage is that according to the official flight data, no such flight took place, and that the media published fake passenger lists for the alleged AA 11 flight.

Related article.

How Mark Rabinowitz and Jim Hoffman Lied about the BTS data.

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service