9/11 and particularity the plane issue is the number one example of cognitive dissonance.
- THE IMPOSSIBLE CRASH PHYSICS
• NEWTON’S LAWS OF MOTION
• WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED
• DOES IT LOOK REAL TO YOU?
- MISSING WINGS
- LACK OF WAKE VORTEX AT WTC
- THE EMPTY HOLES – WHERE IS THE WRECKAGE?
• THE PLANE DOES NOT FIT
- 9/11 PLANE SPEEDS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPOSSIBLE
• EXPERTS CONFIRM IMPOSSIBLE SPEED
• THE FLUTTER TEST
- EMERGENCY LOCATOR TRANSMITTER (ETL)
- THERE ARE NO OFFICIAL CRASH INVESTIGATION REPORTS
- THERE ARE NO VERIFIED AIRPLANE PARTS
- ANDREW JOHNSON’S 9/11 PLANE WITNESS STUDY
• PLANE WITNESSES
• NO PLANE WITNESSES
• LACK OF NOISE – THE CONSPICUOUS ABSENCE OF THE DEAFENING NOISE OF A LARGE LOW FLYING JETLINER
- BTS AND ACARS RECORDS
- WHAT ABOUT THE PASSENGERS?
• OPERATION NORTHWOODS
• THE HIJACKERS
• THE 9/11 PHONE CALLS
- 9/11 FLIGHT 175 RADAR DATA 3D ANALYSIS BY RICHARD D. HALL
- ADVANCED HOLOGRAM / 3D IMAGE PROJECTION TECHNOLOGY?
• WITNESS TESTIMONY INDICATES A HOLOGRAM
• THE TECHNOLOGY – WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?
• VIDEO FAKERY OR HOLOGRAMS / 3D IMAGE PROJECTION?
• WHY NOT USE REAL PLANES?
- DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS LEGAL CASE AGAINST NIST CONTRACTORS FOR 9/11 PLANE FRAUD
1. THE IMPOSSIBLE CRASH PHYSICS
How could two Boeing 767 jetliners, which are essentially big hollow aluminum tubes, cut through multiple steel girders and concrete floors to completely penetrate the massive steel towers, with no deceleration visible, and disappear witout a trace, with no plane wreckage visible in the holes and no wreckage fall to the ground below the impact zone? Any video that shows an aluminum airplane with a fibreglass nose cone gliding through a steel and concrete building violates Newton’s Laws of Motion.
NEWTON’S THIRD LAW OF MOTION: “FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION”
Let’s apply Newton’s Third Law to Flight 175. In the 9/11 story, Flight 175 strikes the South Tower at 450 m.p.h. Now imagine that the South Tower moved at 450 m.p.h. and struck a stationary Flight 175. We would not expect that Flight 175 would be undamaged. We would not expect that it would simply disappear into the South Tower as is seen in the videos.
An aluminum plane hitting a thick steel beam will have the same effect as steel beam being swung at the same speed and hitting the plane. It makes no difference which one is moving as to the effect on the plane and the beam. In both cases the thick steel beam will do damage to the plane and the beam will emerge relatively undamaged. The faster the speed at the point of impact, the more damage that will be done to the plane. Try punching a steel beam. No matter how fast your hand is traveling, you will not be able to break through it; you will eventually break your hand. It matters not if the beam is swung at your hand or you swing your hand at the beam; assuming the impact is at the same speed, the injury to your hand would be the same.
The alleged 9/11 jetliners would not just have had to fly through glass windows as some people seem to imagine. On top of having to penetrate past the 1/4 inch thick steel beams, the alleged planes would have struck floors that contained at minimum 4 inches thick of concrete poured on 22-gauge fluted steel plates interwoven underneath with supporting steel trusses. There is simply no possible way that any part of an aluminum plane, especially not the wings, striking such a building could pierce edgewise through the barrier posed by the concrete floors and supporting fluted steel flooring and trusses.
The above diagram shows that “Flight 175” was intersecting with eight (8) floors that consisted of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external support columns at the other, where each floor was covered with 4-8” of concrete, representing an acre of concrete apiece and posing enormous horizontal resistance to any airplane’s penetration into the building.
In the impact videos, notably the Hezarkhani, Luc Courchesne, Spiegel TV and Evan Fairbanks videos we see what we are told is a plane cartoonishly pass through the steel face of the tower like a ghost. As the alleged plane makes contact with the tower there is no bending, buckling or breaking of the plane. No wings breaking or other parts of the plane breaking apart. This is impossible. It is cartoon physics. It melts into the side of the tower like a knife through butter. The “plane” we are told is Flight 175 is depicted as being simultaneously both half in the South Tower and still completely intact, a pair of buildings made with 200,000 tons of steel each. When the tip of the plane’s fuselage hits the steel exterior of the South Tower the fuselage should be breaking up. That would cause the wings to break off.
From the holes left in both towers after impact we are supposed to believe that the fragile mostly hollow aluminum wings sliced clean through every steel column leaving a Wylie Coyote style hole. An airplane wing can be sliced in half by a wooden telephone pole:
A Boeing 767 flying into the WTC tower is the same as a Boeing 767 flying into the side of a mountain or like a moth flying into a windshield. There’s no way the plane would go through it and there would be significant wreckage. No wreckage has been produced and not a single plane part identification number has ever been shown.
The outer box columns tapered to 13 ½- by-14-inch box columns that were 1/4-inch thick at the upper floors. Even though the outer columns did not have the strength of the inner columns they would have been an insurmountable barrier for any plane.
The inner core was interlaced with steel and connected to (59 on each side and one on each corner) outer box columns that were 14 ½ inches by 13 ½ inches on the lower floors with 2 ½-inch thick steel on two sides and 0.875-inch thick steel on the other two sides.
The massive core columns of the World Trade Center were anchored to bedrock. Thirty one of the columns were 36-by-16-inch box shaped columns made of two-inch thick solid steel at the foundation. Sixteen of the columns measured 52 inches by 22 inches triple thick steel boxes that were 5 inches thick at two ends matched perpendicularly with one 6 ½-inch and two 6-inch thick slabs of steel.
The box columns reduced in size and thickness at the upper floors, but were still substantial steel columns for which an aircraft of any size would not pose any serious threat. The minimum thickness was 2.25 inches for the columns between the impact zone for the alleged plane that supposedly hit Tower 2 (South Tower) between the 77th and 85th floors. The diagram depicts the dimensions as reported by NIST of one of the 16 larger box columns for the 77th through the 80th floors.
As the core columns progressed to the upper floors, they became smaller in size as seen in the diagram of the columns for WTC floors 80 to 83. The core columns transitioned to massive I beams that spanned from the 83rd to the 86th floor, as depicted in the diagram of the dimensions of those I beams.
In fact, the WTC Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (the largest passenger aircraft then flying at the time the WTC Towers were designed). The Boeing 767s that struck the twin towers were only slightly larger than a Boeing 707. The Boeing 707 length is 153 feet with a wingspan of 146 feet, whereas the Boeing 767 length is 159 feet, with a wingspan of 156 feet. The engineers were not making guesses about it strength. In the mid-1960’s, the structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. “In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.”
They have traditionally used 1/4 inch steel chest plates as impenetrable protection against rifle bullets in bullet proof vests. National Institute of Justice (NIJ) rated Level III body armor 1/4 (.25) inch steel plate protects against all handgun bullets, including .44 magnum rounds, and against rifle bullets 9.6g (148 gr) 7.62x51mm NATO M80 ball bullets at a velocity of 847 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (2780 ft/s ± 30 ft/s).
Note in the diagram below how the columns each had two 13.5-inch plates that were 1/4 inch thick steel facing edgewise toward the alleged plane. Those two 13.5-inch steel plates were framed by two other steel plates that were 13 inches wide in the exterior and 14 inches wide in the interior. They were also 1/4 thick. Those columns would have resisted penetration by the plane into the towers and any pieces that made it through the openings between the columns would have been for the most part shredded pieces of the aircraft.
The inner core steel columns were incredibly thick – each measuring 2.5 inches (6.35 cm), so the entire thickness of each column was 5 inches (12.7 cm). To imagine how thick this is, here is a good example to compare to: imagine the front armor of the best tank from the WWII period – the T-34 – whose steel was only 1.8 inches (4.5 cm) thick and was just single-walled. The T-34 tank and its armor are in the pictures below:
Yet there were practically no armor-piercing artillery shells available at the time capable of penetrating such front armor. The Twin Towers’ steel frames consisted of double-walled steel columns that were almost three times as thick as the front armor of a T-34 tank.
The media and the government would have the public believe that an aluminum plane can pierce into a building ringed with steel columns, and after cutting through those columns, continuing to cut through even thicker columns in the core of the building. Below are examples of what happens to a plane when it collides with a bird. Birds are light, which is how they are able to fly. Yet, look at the damage the birds do to an aircraft. If a bird can do that degree of damage to a plane what chance would a plane have against robust steel columns at the World Trade Center?
There are many things wrong with the 9/11 plane theory but one is the proposition that 767 wings can stay intact/attached in a high-speed, violent collision with a maxi-strength tower and those wings disappear inside said tower. Not to mention heavy tail sections disappearing within too. And such unprecedented (alleged) crashes occurred twice within 16.5 minutes? Wow. To paraphrase Gerard Holmgren, why don’t we have rotary aluminum blades and hacksaws for cutting steel today?
Watch this video of hijacked Ethiopian Airlines flight 961, a 767 out-of-fuel, trying to make a low-speed, soft landing adjacent to a Comoros beach.
The left wing was immediately ripped off by contact with water while the right wing was quickly “dismembered” by deceleration and roll of the fuselage. Too much stress. Doesn’t take much. And encounters with steel? Lots of steel? How would wings fare there? You decide. By the way, NIST never gave the dimensions of the cut-outs in the towers; couldn’t because they were undersized, well short of the 155’ wingspan of a 767, especially the WTC2 hole. Measure the holes yourself, recalling that the 14” columns were on one meter centers. Like the Pentagon and Shanksville, every hole that day was too small to accommodate passage of the claimed Boeing aircraft.
Newton’s Second Law of Motion: When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force. When an object in motion hits stationary resistance, the force acts in the opposite direction of the object and therefore the object decelerates.
Shouldn’t a plane travel faster through air than through a skyscraper?
We would expect a sharp deceleration as the plane crumpled to fit into the 60 feet of space (North Tower, Flight 11) and 35 feet of space (South Tower, Flight 175) from the perimeter to the central steel core. Instead, both “planes” enter the towers entirely at uniform motion.
WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED
If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane also, causing deceleration and deflection.
The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble, in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through Kevlar.
The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and tail plane.
The deceleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact to determine the direction of tumble.
And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving us another, separate reason for the plane to tumble.
With the diagonal rise of the nose being suddenly stopped upon penetrating the building, the rear of the plane should have continued diagonally upwards, causing it to tumble roof-on into the building, probably right-wing first due to the extra lift on that side due to the bank of the aircraft, the wing on the outside moving faster.
And as the bank of the plane means it should have been moving up and to the left then the fuel should have continued in that direction when the tanks ruptured, rather than go straight through any hole made by the impact.
A few days ago retired pilot John Lear sent me a link to a U.K. Daily Mail Online article about a December 16, 1960 mid-air collision of two airliners over Brooklyn, New York. It was the worst air disaster of the era and led to a reevaluation of Air Traffic Control policies.
The photos fascinate: while grisly they portray the familiar aftermath of real airliner crashes—which excludes the four alleged crashes of 9/11 which produced the cleanest “crash sites” in aviation history.
Of the hundreds of facts proving the 9/11 narrative a fraud, the hijacked airliners story is of central importance. Without Muslim hijackers, the whole rationale for warfare on the Muslim world collapses. Yet the “9/11 airliners” left the four cleanest crash sites in aviation history. To claim that large, hijacked airliners crashed at the four designated 9/11 sites is beyond ridiculous.
The recent crash of a KC 130 tanker/transport in Mississippi shows once again what a plane crash looks like. Every real crash of a large plane is an unholy, major mess with easily identifiable plane parts, bodies and luggage everywhere.
Remember the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 on November 12, 2001, in the Belle Harbor neighborhood of Queens, New York City, only two months after 9/11? Yes, I’d forgotten about it too. But now we have a five-minute clip from an interview of Dr. Judy Wood by Richard Syrett reminding us that the flight 587 crash, killing all 265 people aboard the Airbus A300-600 plus five on the ground, proves that the 9/11 twin tower “crashes” never involved real airliners.
Here we go again, comparing real Boeing plane crashes to expose – as simply as possible – the plane fakery of 9/11.
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020, a Boeing 737-86J, reportedly 11 years old, landing on runway 06 in rainy weather at Istanbul’s Sabiha Gokcen airport, “…overran the runway, went down an embankment and impacted the airport perimeter wall breaking in three. The aircraft came to rest about 20 m[eters] below the runway elevation. The last recorded ground speed was 74 mph as the aircraft crossed the perimeter stop way.” Remarkably, only three were killed of 183 aboard.
True, a 737-900, in production since 2000, is about 25 percent smaller than a wide-body Boeing 767, a pair of which supposedly disappeared into World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 with nary any Boeing debris in evidence nor any violent collisions on 9/11. The 737 has a 113′ wing span vs. 156′ for the 767, and a maximum takeoff weight of 174,000 lbs. vs. 220,000 for the 767. So? On the issue of comparative crash “worthiness” it’s a difference without a material difference.
The 74 mph “git off” caused this 737 Pegasus airliner to break the fuselage into three major pieces, including the inverted torn-off front section. Planes, to put it bluntly, are flying tin cans–well, aluminum cans–and when they crash, they break into pieces. There is no way in hell they can disappear into steel/concrete towers, sturdy stone structures like the Pentagon, or deep into the earth. They are fragile in violent collisions up against most any substantial agglomerations of matter!
Yet we’re supposed to believe Boeing airliners disappeared into the two strongest skyscrapers in the world? Disappeared! What rubbish! The four cleanest plane crashes in aviation history. Defying Sir Isaac Newton’s laws of motion. Impossible physics. His third law–equal and opposite–guarantees that in a violent collision the stronger object imposes far more destruction on the weaker object than vice versa. Always. No exceptions. And regardless of speed, impossible though the purported speeds would be–WTC tower 2 videos show 550+ mph near sea level–for real Boeing airliners to achieve on 9/11 or any day.
Joseph Keith is a retired aerospace software engineer, who created the software for Boeing’s “shaker” system to determine when an airplane will fall apart.
Question: When did you realize something was amiss about 9/11?
Answer: I watched 9/11 on TV that day and my next-door neighbor is a pilot for SkyWest Airlines. We were good friends and when 9/11 happened I called up right away and said, “Turn on the TV.” He came over to my house. I said, “It’s fake.” “Yes, it’s fake,” he said. Later, we decided that the networks did not get the real-time feed of the crash and simulated it instead. In about a week we were convinced by neighbors that the networks were displaying the real thing.
Get any video. They’re getting harder to find. A good example is “In Memoriam, New York City 9/11/01” from HBO, narrated by Rudy Giuliani, because the plane crashes at the beginning. Start the DVD and as the plane comes into view, hit the pause on your remote and then go frame-by-frame until the plane goes into the building, step by step. Carefully watch the plane go into the building: it’s like a hot knife cutting through butter. Marvel at how a plane can meld into a steel-concrete building. A plane should crash against the building. It makes one curious! It should make you think about how a plane would enter a steel-concrete building.
Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing. No nothing.
One more test is to pause with the plane on the screen. Take a magic marker or tape and mark the nose of the plane and then count frames until the tail passes the mark. You’ll find that the number of steps the plane takes while the plane is in thin air is the same as the number of steps the plane takes as it melds into the building.
Question: So there’s no deceleration?
Answer: Right. It violates all Newton’s laws of motion. I’ll state them:
- An object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion remains in motion until a force is applied.
- When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force. When an object in motion hits stationary resistance, the force acts in the opposite direction of the object and therefore the object decelerates.
- Newton said, “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction” but I say, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.
Question: So, for example, a diver speeds through thin air but slows in the resistance of the water unless he has a new energy source to maintain speed.
Answer: Right. It’s like this TV show I was watching called Myth Busters. They dumped this dummy from 100 feet and it registered 16 G’s when it hit water. That can kill you, we can only take about 10 G’s. Then think about hitting steel and concrete.
Question: Believers in Boeing 767s hitting the twin towers always bring up kinetic energy as the big explanation for how an aluminum plane could fly right through the wall of a steel and concrete tower. Speed squared is supposed make us believe the plane-like outline of the holes in the towers.
Answer: The more kinetic energy, the more damage the speeding object will do when it hits, but they’re claiming that it punched right through. The plane should have continued right through the building like a bullet through paper. Sure, in the bullet case, little kinetic energy is lost. No plane deceleration also means the plane never lost kinetic energy.
When Jerry Longspaugh, an aerospace engineer and SPINE member, saw a photo of a hole in one of the towers and thought he saw the core, he wrote to Kee and me, “It looks like the NPT (No Plane Theory) is true.”
Question: Why is there such resistance to NPT (No Plane Theory)?
Answer: NPT (No Plane Theory) is a direct attack on the head of the snake. You can go after Bush, Cheney and that whole compartmentalized entity but not the head of the snake. NPT is the only thing that we have direct evidence of, so it is very threatening. The media control everything because they can point the finger at anybody. The media is the enforcement arm of the head of the snake that controls everything. It can topple any government. And NPT is direct proof of their enforcement of the 9/11 scam. It’s the propaganda arm of the ruling class and NPT would break it all open. They’d be done.
Joe’s Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton’s three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe’s Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe’s Law states: “AIRPLANES DON’T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!” By now, I suspect that you have figured out that I formulated Joe’s Law for the expressed reason to expose the televised fakery of the 9/11/01 debacle.
The test is simple. Taking a section of wing from a scrapped 767, attach it to a rocket sled. Reseal the fuel tank and fill it with fuel, and at the other end of the track, fabricate some box-columns built to the specifications of the World Trade Center and collide them together at 550 MPH, filming the results with high-speed cameras. The intent is to copy the experiment used in the Mythbusters: Revolution video by simply replacing the “plow” with a section of wing from a 767, and by replacing the car with steel box-columns built to the same specifications as the WTC. If it is true that a whole plane can slice-through a steel building, a wing-section should slice through the steel columns with ease.
Naturally not everything would be identical to the alleged WTC crashes (no lateral floor edges, departures from right-angle/head-on impact, etc.) and there is room to debate experimental alternatives, but a simple crash test promises to prove quite a bit for or against the official WTC plane crash story and variations of it.
DOES IT LOOK REAL TO YOU?
There are only 2 videos that captured what is alleged to be American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767. One by Jules Naudet and the other by Pavel Hlava.
There are 64 known videos of what is alleged to be United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767 with 49 of the videos being shot by members of the public. There are 6 videos that show clearly the “plane” disappearing into the face of the South Tower. These are Michael Hezarkhani, Luc Courchesne, Evan Fairbanks, Park Foreman, Jennifer Spell, Shizzzham and Antonio Rosario. These videos show in plain view impossible crash dynamics, proving undeniably that the “planes” can not have been real.
Interestingly, there are no known videos of “Flight 175” taken by professional news media cameras on the ground. It is possible that they exist but have never been made public, because of the what the higher quality film reveals about the alleged “plane”.
The closest and clearest video of what is alleged to be Flight 175 was shot by Michael Hezarkhani. He gave it/sold it to CNN and as researcher Jeff Hill discovered, he will not discuss the video, on advice from his lawyer.
Does it honestly look like a real plane to you? The entire “plane” performs the impossible feat of melting into the face of the tower without any breaking or deforming. There is also no wake vortex after the explosion. The plane has an unreal appearance. The lighting and proportions of the plane are unreal. The plane has no strobe lights. The plane also casts no shadow. Go on Youtube and watch plane spotter videos of real airplanes from the 1990’s up to 2001 and you will not find anything that looks like this “plane”.
Source: Michael Hezarkhani (CNN). In between the fuselage and left engine the “plane” has pierced the building yet has not yet made the hole.
Below is a still from the Michael Hezarkhani video showing a digital composite plane on the top and the original “plane” from the Hezarkhani video underneath. The digital composite plane looks more realistic but it still looks computer generated.
Below is a digital composite of a plane on the left compared to the Evan Fairbanks video purporting to show Flight 175 entering the South Tower.
Carmen Taylor, an Arkansas tourist, took this photo of “Flight 175” as she was standing in line to board the State Island Ferry.
Source: Carmen Taylor. Unreal looking and absolutely impossible.
Source: Unknown, appeared online in 2012. If you think a real jetliner can do this, you need a reality check.
Source: Luc Courchesne. Left wing missing. The “plane” has entered the WTC…and the fuselage has not made any hole! It does not look like a real plane.
Source: Luc Courchesne. Does this seriously look like a real plane to you?
Source: Antonio Rosario aka Spiegel TV. Does this look real to you?
Source: Antonio Rosario aka Spiegel TV. Almost the entire fuselage, wings, and engines have pierced the North Tower, yet not a single sign of an entry hole.
Source: Jennifer Spell. We are seeing an impossible interaction between the “plane” and the tower.
Source: PAX TV. That is not a real plane.
In Park Foreman’s video the roof of the Woolworth Building partially obscures the view of the “plane” passing through steel and concrete like there is nothing there.
“I saw another airplane approaching from the south. I put my camera on it and followed it straight into the building. It looked like it went right through.“Park Foreman, Polytechnic Online, 09-12-2001
Evan Fairbanks: “It disappeared like a bad special effect. It disappeared right into the building. I’ve seen it 6-7 times now and it’s still incomprehensible what is actually happening there.”
Evan Fairbanks HD Slideshow
An aluminum plane does not disappear into a steel building nose to tail without any reaction with the building:
2. MISSING WINGS
In the Luc Courchesne video of “Flight 175” we see the left wing disappear:
The left wing also disappears on the Shizzzham video of “Flight 175”:
The left wing disappears in the PAX TV video of “Flight 175”:
In the Naudet Brothers video of “Flight 175” the plane’s right wing is not present for 6 frames:
In this study analysis I am going to compare two videos which captured an anomaly involving “alleged” Flight 175’s plane wing briefly disappearing before impacting the South Tower. I will also explore some of the most common explanations which have been put forward to try and explain these anomalies.
Many 9/11 researchers have tried to explain away some of the anomalies captured in the “Flight 175” videos. One such case is the video footage showing the plane wing disappearing in some of the videos.
Continue reading: http://mark-conlon.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-disappearing-and-reappearing-wing.html
3. LACK OF WAKE VORTEX AT WTC
There is no wake vortex to be seen in the smoke and explosion after “impact”. The wake vortex is the strong rotating vortex of air left by an aircraft that persists for around a minute or more.
Wake vortex created by a plane flying through smoke:
4. THE EMPTY HOLES – WHERE IS THE WRECKAGE?
There is no plane or plane wreckage at all to be seen in the hole of either tower in any video or photos. Neither is there any plane wreckage to seen on the street below.
Where are the wings, cables, hydraulics, tail, the luggage? wheels and turbines?
Where’s the plane? Airplane wreckage does not vanish upon impact.
A Boeing 767 is 156 feet wide and 159 feet long. The distance from: the outer perimeter of the North Tower at the alleged point of contact by AA Flight 11, to: the central 47 massive inner core beams that are cross-braced is 60 feet. The distance from: the outer surface of the South Tower at the alleged point of contact by UA Flight 175, to: the core structure of that building was 37 feet. The differential in length in relation to the North Tower with respect to plane length and a building length that is measured in terms of the distance to the core structure is about 99 feet. The differential length for the South Tower is approximately 122 feet. A 767 is 159 feet long so most of the plane has got to be outside of the tower in both cases since there is simply no room for the entire length of the plane to crumple into. Why didn’t we see 99 feet of AA Flight 11 sticking out of the North Tower or broken off, crumpled up, and/or crumbling to the ground below? Why didn’t we see 122 feet of UA Flight 175 sticking out of the South Tower or crumpled up, and/or crumbling to the WTC plaza below?
The North Tower’s Impact Hole
The South Tower’s Impact Hole
THE PLANE DOES NOT FIT
A Boeing 767 is 156 feet wide. The width of the hole in the South Tower was 106 feet wide and the width of the hole in the North Tower was 125 feet wide. 50 feet of the Boeing 767 that allegedly struck the South Tower cannot fit into the size of the hole that is in the North Tower…a hole that was supposedly created by a Boeing 767 with a wingspan of 156 feet. 31 feet of the Boeing 767 that is said to have hit the North Tower cannot fit into the size of the hole that is in the North Tower…a hole that was supposedly created by a Boeing 767 with a wingspan of 156 feet. Some people may say that the wings of the Boeings merely folded back as the aluminum portion of the wings came in contact with the exterior steel columns. However we can see this is not what happens in the videos. Even so the aluminum wings would not neatly fold back they would be torn off.
If it was ‘hot’ from burning jet fuel, then how are these people standing at the face of the hole? Where is the plane wreckage?
Meet Edna Cintron
Edna Cintron stood waving for rescue in the North Tower plane shaped hole for at least an hour. Help never came. Her picture is in the NIST reports, waving to tell us that their tales of thousand degree heat from “raging infernos” of jet fuel is a lie.
According to the media/government fable, it was hot enough to soften the steel and cause the building to collapse, however, as is evident from the photo and video, it was not hot enough to singe her hair.
5. A BOEING 767 CAN NOT FLY 500 MPH AT SEA LEVEL
According to the official narrative American Airlines Flight 11 was traveling at approximately 465 mph and United Airlines Flight 175 was traveling at a speed of approximately 590 mph when they hit the North and South Towers. Note: Detractors often claim the reason “Flight 175” was able to reach this speed is because the plane was in a dive. “Flight 175” was NOT in a dive when it approached the South Tower.
Pilots For 9/11 Truth state that the speed and sharp manoeuvres would have resulted in the plane breaking up from the stress on the aircraft frame due to the higher air pressure at sea level. It would be extremely difficult for the pilot to actually hit the tower even if the wings didn’t break off due to the stress (which they would do). Experienced commercial and military pilots have stated that the speed and manoeuvres of the planes that hit the World Trade Center are impossible to have happened. They state they could not replicate the alleged flights themselves. Two experienced pilots using flight simulators on the morning of 9/11 could not hit towers at 500 mph in six attempts. See: Pilots For 9/11 Truth Presents: “9/11 Intercepted”
When the force of the air pressure at sea level overcomes the aerodynamics of the plane it will break up, as seen in this animation below of what would have happened if a Boeing jetliner flew faster than design limitation towards the WTC towers.
9/11 Plane Speeds and Why They Are Impossible
At 1000ft the air is too dense, we need to examine the reasons why this is the case.
The turbofan engines would struggle to handle the volume of air going into it. Structural loads and pressures on the air-frame are not equal, some parts of the plane can’t handle the stresses as some of the others. The rule of thumb is to go with the lowest known pressure statistics (Boeing have conducted endless tests with this) and use that to calculate the maximum speeds for 1000 ft and again do not exceed 360 knots, in many cases this is not wise to even attempt this speed.
Now that does not mean the aircraft can’t exceed such speeds, but Boeing and the FAA utilize VMO Velocity Max Operating and VNE which is Velocity Not to Exceed, to do so is inviting structural failures in which will in high probability result in an airplane crash.
Professional pilots and aviation experts will tell you that anyone exceeding 360 knots especially at 1000ft, will run the risk of the destroying the aircraft. The common reason for this is due to the air resistance increasing as you descend to ground level i.e air molecules/pressure begin to increase at below 10,000ft, that pressure is sure to increase even more at 1000ft, which is were all the so called planes of 9/11 were exceeding such speeds.
The issue here is can a Boeing 757 and 767, the planes on 9/11, exceed VMO or VNE speeds? and also do the impossible speeds of over 500mph at 1000ft?
In 2014 Pilots for 9/11 Truth decided to address the issue of 9/11 plane speeds and why such speeds are impossible, in some cases depending on what sources you want to believe, Flight 77, 93 & 175 exceeded 100 knots above VMO or VNE. See their conclusions here in this 45 minute documentary and see why people who defend this belief are so totally wrong and misleading you all.
If you don’t trust that source, then visit the website of WestWind Airlines and download “Flying The Boeing 757-200“. The climb speed to 10,000 is 250KIAS Knots Indicated Air Speed and you are not to exceed it. Descent speed again not to exceed 250KIAS. So how does a 757-200 on 9/11 exceed 400knots at 1000ft? It can’t because it’s impossible. Especially in a horizontal flight.
The following interview is with Rusty Aimer, a 757, 767 captain who flew for United Airlines and has been a captain on the actual aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. This is what Rust had to say about the NTSB speeds reported of the exact aircraft he has logged flight time.
Capt. Rob Balsamo: “The alleged Flight 175 that impacted the South Tower was at 510 knots and comparing that to EgyptAir Flight 990 at .99 mach which was at 22,000 ft. The dynamic pressure equivalent at lower altitude for that is only 420 knots and this aircraft broke apart in flight.”
Capt. Rusty Aimer: “At that kind of speed, even if you can get an 767 up to 510 knots which is very very doubtful. I think it’s impossible to get that kind of speed on any commercial airplane. The Concorde can’t reach that speed at sea level. So to get an airplane, especially an old 767, which this United aircraft was, to me it’s impossible. Any pilot that has been in a commercial jet would probably laugh if you said 510 knots.”
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) – Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a “Radar Data Impact Speed Study” in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of EgyptAir 990, a 767 which exceeded it’s maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.
EgyptAir 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled “Equivalent Airspeed” or EAS. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.
Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.
Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.
Full detailed analysis, including analysis of a recent simulator experiment performed, and interviews with United and American Airlines 757/767 Pilots can be viewed in the new presentation, “9/11: World Trade Center Attack” available only at http://pilotsfor911truth.org. Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn’t lie. Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves.
Update: Since our article on WTC Aircraft Speed Analysis was written, more evidence has been gathered to reflect the research provided by Pilots For 9/11 Truth and in the film “9/11: World Trade Center Attack”. A more thorough understanding and explanation of why V speeds are established based on wind tunnel tests performed by the manufacturer is also available virtually making the need to gather documents from Boeing based on wind tunnel testing, moot. We already have their results of such tests in the form of the V Speeds they have established through wind tunnel testing required by definition as outlined in the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics and all other related text. For more information and to review the evidence gathered, click here.
For those who make excuses for the government story:
Please let us know when you find one verified pilot (or precedent) willing to support your claims that a standard Boeing 767 can maintain control and stability at Vmo+150, Va+220 –and pull G’s– out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G’s cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25′ margin for error – for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn’t control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than opinion or “Because the govt told me so…”.
06/22/2010 – (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.
Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth – “9/11: World Trade Center Attack”.
Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:
A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service – retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow
The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click “Who is Ethically Responsible” submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.
Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering” 1993 – 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
– Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career
It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the “Elephant In The Room” and needs to be thoroughly investigated.
In August 2007 researcher Jeff Hill called aerospace engineer Joseph Keith who designed the ‘shaker system’ for Boeing. This is what he had to say about the max operating speed of the Boeing 767:
Joseph Keith: When you’re at 700 ft altitude the air is so thick that when you max the rotation of the engine turbines, they can’t suck the air in and it starts acting as a brake. It will max out at 330 mph at 700 ft altitude. In other words it can’t fly that fast…if the plane was flying that fast at that altitude it would have shook itself apart before it hit the building.”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0wtUggPsBs
Jeff Hill also phoned aeronautical engineer Ben Eadie about the maximum speed at Boeing 767 can travel at sea level:
Jeff Hill: “A 767’s max speed at 30,000 ft cruising altitude would be about 535 mph?
Ben Eadie: That’s about right. Yes.
Jeff Hill: Is it possible to go that speed at sea level? In specifically a Boeing 767 with two Pratt & Whitney engines?
Ben Eadie: No it can not. It does not have enough power.
Jeff Hill: It can not?
Ben Eadie: It can not.
Jeff Hill: Is that beyond a reasonable doubt?
Ben Eadie: Oh yes. The engines have the right amount of horse power for cruising at 30,000 ft at 500+ mph. To do that at ground level you need six times more power. Those engines can’t put out six times more power. So it can not. Absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: Absolutely 100% can not go over 500 mph at sea level for a Boeing 767?
Ben Eadie: That’s right. Under all circumstances I would say an absolute resounding no.
Jeff Hill: Can I maybe tell you what I’m getting at here? I hope you don’t take offense to it. The planes on 9/11, the second one, Flight 175 that hit the second tower, they said it was going at roughly 560 mph at sea level.
Ben Eadie: No that’s impossible.
Jeff Hill: Like 100% impossible.
Ben Eadie: Yes. Again you need so much power to push yourself through that air, through that density of air. If you changed out the motors so they had six times the thrust then theoretically you could but then the structure is not strong enough, so no. Under all circumstances I would say an absolute resounding no.”
Jeff Hill spoke to another aeronautical engineer Paul Furnee who also confirmed the impossible speed of alleged United Airlines Flight 175.
In September 2007 researcher Jeff Hill called Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard to ask whether a 767 can fly 500 mph at 700 ft altitude:
Jeff Hill: “So there’s no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?”
Boeing Spokesperson – (Laughs) “Not a chance…”
Jeff Hill: “I had talked to a aerospace engineer who had designed the shaker system for Boeing (Joseph Keith) that test for resonant frequencies and he said there is no way the plane could go 500 mph at 700 ft altitude.”
Boeing Spokesperson: “Yeah. That would be like a rocket.”
John Lear, one of America’s most distinguished pilots, has written an affidavit about the impossible speed of the plane in the videos and has observed that the absence of strobe lights on the top and bottom of the fuselage indicates we are viewing a fake plane.
Capt. Russ Wittenberg is a former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Capt. Russ Wittenberg is a unique individual in that he had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft alleged to have been hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Captain Wittenberg is a founding member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and the Scientific Panel Investigating 9/11.
This is what he has to say:
“I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower.
I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s.
And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.”9/11 Ripple Effect (2007)
“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”…
“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.”http://www.arcticbeacon.com/17-Jul-2005.html
Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon:
“The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. …To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous…WingTV Radio Interview 9/16/04
It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. …The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile.”
“757s don’t go that fast. The airplane will just not do that,” Russ Wittenberg, a retired pilot with United and Pan Am airlines, told AFP. “Its exceeding its air speed and mach speed limitations. The airplane just won’t perform those maneuvers. The mach limit for a 757 is about 360 knots at 23,000 feet,” Wittenberg said.
About the sharp descending turn made by the aircraft that hit the Pentagon at ground level, Wittenberg said: “The only air vehicle that could perform that would be a high-performance fighter jet, a remote controlled jet-powered drone, or a cruise missile.”
“The fuselage of a 757 did not open that 16-foot hole,” Wittenberg said. “The aluminum of the fuselage would have crumbled like an egg shell on impact. Aluminum doesn’t vaporize.”
“There is no armor-piercing titanium on the tip of a 757,” Wittenberg said. “The white flash in the Pentagon video is the explosion of a high-energy explosive.
No Lies Radio: Captain Russ Wittenberg: An Aviation Expert on the Pentagon Attack
Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out!:
Captain Russ Wittenberg interviewed on BBSRADIO:
John Lear, a retired commercial airline pilot with over 19,000+ total hours flown in over 100 different types of planes for 10 different airlines in 60 different countries around the world, doubted that even a professional pilot could fly into the World Trade Center at 500 miles an hour. He said in an interview with Rob Balsamo, himself a pilot:
“[N]o Arab hijacker, ever in a million years, ever flew into the World Trade Center. And if you got 30 minutes I’ll tell you exactly why he couldn’t do it the first time. Now, I’d have trouble doing it the first time…Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few buildings, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour.”
Rob Balsamo then added:
“Yeah, as a matter of fact, one of our members [Pilots for 9/11 Truth], he was a 737 Check Airman. He was in the sim at the time on September 11 and right after it happened they tried to duplicate it in the simulator and they said they couldn’t do it. They were trying to hit the Towers and they couldn’t do it.”
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, a retired commercial pilot who flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years on most commercial aircraft said:
“I don’t believe it’s possible for (…) a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding – pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.”
Commander Ralph Kolstad, retired commercial airline captain with 27 years experience on most commercial aircraft said:
“At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.
I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners [apparently] did. Something stinks to high heaven!”
Gaffney (p. 199-200) reports the remarkable story of a flight instructor named Dan Govatos, who was on 9/11 training a class on a Boeing 737 flight simulator. The next morning Govatos said, “Hey, guys, let’s try something. Let’s see if we can hit those buildings [the WTC]. Like we saw happen.” So they all took turns trying to crash the Boeing 737 into the WTC. They all had many years flight experience, but none of them could do it, not even after ten high-speed runs at the building. They only succeeded to hit the building when slowing down to near-landing speeds. During the radio interview Govatos explained why his pilots had failed to replicate the impacts at the WTC:
“You’ve to understand, when you’re going 300 knots in a Boeing airliner and you move the controls like you would expect to do in a little airplane, you couldn’t stand the “G” forces. Everything has to be fingertip control. Even pilots who have logged thousands of hours of flight time have an extremely difficult time controlling a large airplane at those speeds.”
And retired Naval aviator and commercial airline pilot Ted Muga says:
“When a commercial airplane gets that high, it get very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can’t imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature. Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they’re designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you’re going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it’s bordering on impossible.”
Flight School Drop-Out Pulls Off Manuever that would Challenge World’s Top Pilots?
How difficult would it have been to fly a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon in the manner observed on 9/11?
Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11
The Flutter Test
It is said that Flight 175 descended 20,000+ft at speeds in excess of 500mph then levelled off at about 800-1000ft then struck the South Tower. Here is evidence that shows the amazing descent of Flight 175 was impossible. The Flutter Test is a test that the Airbus company had to run in order for their famous A380 to become flight worthy.
This test involves taking the plane to 38,000ft, pointing the nose at the earth and reaching maximum speeds and beyond to test the vibration stresses of the aircraft. They level the plane off just before 22,000ft or there about.
Because if they continue to descend below that level, the thickness of the air will tear the plane apart or cause the engines to overload.
This test is extremely dangerous and requires safety gear, parachute and water survival suits in case the plane has to be bailed out of.
6. EMERGENCY LOCATOR TRANSMITTER (ETL)
The ELT’s are a terrible blow to the official airplane stories:
“ELT signals are broadcast by radio transmitters carried aboard aircraft and are supposed to activate only in the event the aircraft crashes, their function being to facilitate searches for the aircraft wreckage. According to Paul Thumser, an operations supervisor at the FAA’s New York Center, ELTs on Boeing 767 aircraft cannot be activated by a pilot and only activate if there is a serious impact. According to the official account two Boeing 767 aircraft crashed at the North and South Towers, respectively, of the WTC. No ELT was triggered by the impact of the aircraft, although ELT signals were picked up a few minutes before the impact in each instance.”– Elias Davidsson, Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11 p. 289-90
According to the 9/11 Commission, AAL 11 crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. [The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 7.] However, two and a half minutes earlier, David Bottiglia, an air traffic controller at the FAA’s New York Center, received an important message from one of the planes in the airspace he was monitoring. At 8:44 a.m. the pilot of U.S. Airways Flight 583 told Bottiglia: “I just picked up an ELT on 121.5. It was brief, but it went off.” (121.5 megahertz is an emergency frequency that ELTs are designed to transmit their distress signals on.) A minute later, about 90 second before AAL 11 crashed into the WTC another plane in the New York Center’s airspace reported the same thing. The pilot of Delta Airlines Flight 2433 told Bottiglia: “We picked up that ELT, too. But it’s very faint.” [Transcript of United Airlines Flight 175]
According to author Lynn Spencer, “several” facilities picked up the ELT signal around this time. [Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 50.].
Peter McCloskey, a traffic management coordinator at the New York Center, later recalled that the ELT had gone off “in the vicinity of Lower Manhattan.” [Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York Air Route Center Interview with Peter McCloskey.” 9/11 Commission, October 1, 2003].
And, around the time AAL 11 crashed into the WTC, a participant in an FAA teleconference stated, “We got a report of an ELT in the area that (the radar track for Flight 11) was in.” (Before it disappeared from radar screens, the track for AAL 11 had indicated the plane was about 20 miles from New York’s JFK International Airport). [9/11 Air Traffic Control Transcript]
As UAL 175 “allegedly” hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 9:03:11 a.m. an ELT should have been activated, however an ELT was activated in the New York area several minutes before the “alleged” airplane hit the South Tower. UAL 175 “allegedly” transmitted an ELT signal on 121.5 megahertz, which is an emergency frequency that ELTs are designed to transmit their distress signals on, at just before 8:58:28 a.m. , which is over four minutes before the UAL 175 crashed. The pilot of Flight 583, who had reported the ELT signal before the North Tower was struck, told David Bottiglia at the New York Center that he had noticed another ELT going-off. The pilot said, “I hate to keep burdening you with this stuff, but now we’re picking up another ELT on 121.5.”
– https://www.scribd.com/document/17336462/T8-B8-Miles-Kara-Docs-3-Timelines-Fdr-Team-8-Tab-Hunt-for-AA-11-After-WTC-1-Hit-951 (Pg. 7 of 11)
Although an ELT went-off minutes before UAL 175 hit the South Tower, it seems that no ELT went-off at the time of the crash itself at 9:03:11. This “official” evidence confirms an ELT going-off at 8:58:28 a.m. which is four minutes before the “official” crash of UAL 175. Does this “official” evidence suggest UAL 175 did not crash into the South Tower at 9:03:11 a.m.? Clearly the South Tower had not been struck by any plane at this time, so it could not have been UAL 175.
An ELT activated over Ann Arbor, Michigan at 9:53 a.m.
An ELT was broadcast/transmitted over Ann Arbor, MI. at 13:53 p.m. PST, 9:53 a.m. EST. This ELT has not been “officially” related to any of the four alleged airplanes listed as involved on 9/11. However according to this evidence it indicates that an airplane crashed in Ann Arbor at 9:53 a.m. but has never been accounted for as any airplane crash taking place. Note: in the communication between the two controllers it appears there is an audio drop-out, or editing done, just after when the controller say “wait that doesn’t make sense”, and the other controller replies “yes it does, it…(audio drops-out or is edited)”. The controller seems to go on to explain something to the other contoller, however there’s an audio drop-out or edit towards the end? Why was this information removed? What was being concealed about this ELT occurrence?
Audio Recording: An unknown 3rd ELT over Ann Arbor, Michigan at 9:53 a.m.
Were the ETL’s connected to the various terror drills that took place on the morning of 9/11?
Little did we know at the time, 9/11 was not a normal day of blue sky aviation. On the contrary, it was one of the busiest days in the history of American aviation, a dense forest of live fly exercises, drills, simulations, fake radar injects and utter confusion. And that was before the attacks even began. This is the story of 9/11 that you didn’t watch unfold on your TV that fateful day in 2001. This is the story of the 9/11 War Games.
“Let’s Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim”: How NORAD Radar Screens Displayed False Tracks All Through the 9/11 Attacks
‘Real-World or Exercise’: Did the U.S. Military Mistake the 9/11 Attacks for a Training Scenario?
United Airlines Held an Exercise So Realistic That Its Personnel Had to Be Reassured That the 9/11 Attacks Were ‘Not a Drill’
Military Exercises, Or Wargames, Related To 9/11
Training Exercises, NORAD’s Commander on 9/11, United Airlines’ Response to the Attacks
Exercises in New York, Fighter Jets’ Response on 9/11, Suspicious Man Arrested, and More
Why Did the Secret Service Report That a Plane Had Crashed into the White House on 9/11?
The Day Before 9/11: Suspicious Events of Sept. 10, 2001
7. THE NTSB REQUIRES A COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION OF ALL CRASHES OF SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS. YET THERE ARE NO OFFICIAL CRASH INVESTIGATION REPORTS ON THE 4 INCIDENTS
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is the federal agency responsible for investigating every civil aviation crash in the United States. The NTSB website states “The NTSB issues an accident report following the investigation. These reports are available online for reports issued since 1996”. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are also required by the NTSB to assist in the investigation all civil aircraft crashes. However you will not find the four 9/11 planes listed on the NTSB Aviation Accident Reports.
THERE SHOULD BE FOUR PLANES FOR 9/11 IN BETWEEN AAB-04-02 – 8/10/2001 AND AAR-04-04 – 11/12/2001 BUT THERE IS NOTHING. There should be 2 million identifiable parts at least from all four planes…NOT ONE PART HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED. No investigations for all of the alleged plane crashes on 9/11…and it’s been 19 years. The average time is about 3 years.
Within a July 18, 2008 Freedom of Information Act response from the National Transportation Safety Board, the NTSB indicates that it possesses no records indicating how wreckage recovered from the 4 aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was positively identified as belonging to the 4 planes reportedly hijacked that day or even if such wreckage was positively identified at all.
Within a similar March 18, 2008 FOIA response from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI states the following:
“After this extensive research, RIDS has been unable to locate any FBI records responsive to your request. RIDS’ search efforts included verification by the responsible FBIHQ operational division that because the identity of the three hijacked aircraft has never been in question by the FBI, NTSB or FAA (since other evidence collected after 9/11 has all corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 93 were the aircraft that were hijacked), no records would have been generated responsive to your request for documents “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant (with the aid of the National Transportation Safety Board), as belonging to the said aircraft, presumably though the use of unique serial number identifying information contained by the said aircraft wreckage.”
Interview With LtCol. Jeff Latas Former USAF Accident Investigation President:
8. THERE ARE NO VERIFIED AIRPLANE PARTS
Apart from one or two props placed there like a bit of tire and a bit of engine…parts that didn’t even match a Boeing 767 there were no plane parts or debris to be seen and no black boxes were ever found at ground zero. In reality, if a plane had hit the tower it would have crushed up like a car hitting a wall and its wings would have broken off and the majority of the plane would have fallen to the street below. The street below would have been littered with plane debris and the charred remains of the passengers yet it wasn’t – because there were no planes.
Colonel George F. Nelson had a 34 year career in the US Air Force, starting as an enlisted man and ending up as a full colonel. During most of this time he was involved in crash investigations. What aroused his suspicion about the official 9/11 story was the fact that all the standard procedures for investigating crashes were not only bypassed, but aggressively flouted by destruction of evidence. As he explained both publicly and privately, in such investigations, it is normal to examine each serial-numbered part. Instead, those parts were reportedly discarded.
The importance of serial-numbered parts, as Colonel Nelson explained it, is to ensure that worn parts are not substituted for other worn parts during scheduled maintenance. The mere presence of a part number is not enough. Critical parts such as landing gear can only be deployed a certain number of times before they become unsafe. Thus, the need for unique serial numbers.
“In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft – and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. …Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (1937-2017) – U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career.
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view.
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged.
As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history.”
Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts as a Positive Clue to Aircraft Identity by George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)
There would have been an even more definitive way for the government to prove that AA 77 hit the Pentagon, if it really did. Retired Air Force Colonel George Nelson, who had specialized in the investigation of aircraft mishaps, has pointed out that every plane has many “time-change parts,” which must be changed periodically because they are crucial for flight safety. Each time-change part has a distinctive serial number. These parts, moreover, are virtually indestructible, so an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash could not possibly “destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers.” By identifying some of those numbers, investigators can determine the make , model, and registration number of a crashed aircraft. Accordingly, if Flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon, the FBI, which took charge of the investigation, could have proven this to the press within hours.9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes against Democracy Succeed, David Ray Griffin, 2011, p. 189
Part of the NTSB/FAA’s job during investigating airplane crashes is to gather up all the plane parts they can find and take them to a secure location. These parts are then laid out in their relevant places, on a grid lined floor and checked for identifiable numbers.
These are cross referenced by the plane’s history, manufacturer and factory paperwork. This is how planes are identified.
Potentially there can be as many as 500,000 to 1,000,000 recognisable parts per plane. Even if I half the lower number i.e 250,000 and times that by the number of planes (4), that gives me a potential one million parts to find.
Yet for 9/11: the FAA, NTSB, NIST, 9/11 commission, FBI, CIA or US Government failed to even provide one of these numbers. NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE NUMBER.
Now compare that to the Columbia shuttle disaster 2003. This was a space shuttle that broke apart during re-entry through the earth’s atmosphere. The speed of this shuttle was something like 17,500-20,000mph (35-40 times faster than 9/11 planes) and reaching temperatures of 3,000’C.
The shuttle broke apart and debris came crashing to earth, despite all that pressure, speed, temperature and impact, 84,000 pieces of debris were recovered. Along with pieces of the shuttle and bits of equipment, searchers also found human body parts, including arms, feet, a torso, a skull, and a heart.
Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was a Boeing 747-100 that exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean near East Moriches, New York, on July 17, 1996. Almost 2/3 of the plane was recovered and reconstructed. For three months, workers supervised by the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Bureau of Investigation meticulously pieced together some 700 chunks of wreckage from the shattered Boeing 747’s midsection.
Yet on 9/11 not one single piece was identified. No large significant wreckage at all.
People trying desperately to prove planes always show a picture of a wrecked CFM56 engine on Murray Street, an engine that could never have been fitted to a 767. And photographs of aircraft wheels, where the tires have the wrong number of tread grooves to be from a 767.
American Airlines Flight 77 was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.
Simulator Recreation Demonstrates Pentagon Attack Impossibility
The damage was so low in the building that, for Flight 77 to have caused it, it would need to have flown perfectly horizontally, barely inches above the lawn in front of the Pentagon. Yet photos clearly show this lawn was left perfectly intact, with no scorch marks or signs of gouging from a Boeing. Nor do any photographs show large pieces of debris recognizable as belonging to Flight 77.45 Apparently 60 tons of aluminum simply disappeared.
CNN No Plane at Pentagon Original Footage:
CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre: “There’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.”Pentagon Eyewitness – CNN’S Jamie McIntyre
Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.
Whatever happened, it was NOT United Airlines 77. The plane did not fly that day.
Numerous cameras surrounded the Pentagon that day, but none of them have apparently captured an airplane hitting it.
Petrus Feddema points out in his book, Disclosed 9/11 Details Obvious Clues, that thousands of what appeared to be silver plane pieces were found later that day on a lawn at the Pentagon. Just two weeks prior to 9/11, the plane now known as American Airlines 77 was positively photographed as blue! There was no chance for a paint job in those two weeks!
What about the passengers’ personal effects found at the crash sites?
The plotters were a group willing and able to create an illusion to direct public outrage against innocent people. To make an illusion work, plotters must convince the audience (the public) that the illusion is real. They cast a shadow over the truth while they construct their lies. To create the illusion of crashed commercial planes, the plotters, among other things, planted personal effects at the crash sites. They got the effects in the same place one usually gets another’s personal effects – from the people who owned the effects. This could have happened by theft, coercion, counterfeit or agreement.
The familiar CCTV scam seen in most of these events: FBI has admitted it has 83 different videos of the crash. But all that has been released are five frames that clearly show no plane hitting the Pentagon. They are laughing in your face.
Further on the trivium question of when, the video shows the date Sept. 12, 2001, not Sept. 11. The time is also wrong: 17:37 instead of 09:37. To cover for this glitch in their matrix, the operatives explain in the interview above that this was when “they made the video.” What possible rationale is used to time stamp evidence with the date it was “made.” This is ludicrous on its face.
April Gallop was in the Pentagon on 9/11 working in her office as “the object” hit. Here is her eyewitness account of what she experienced. She saw no evidence of a large airliner.
Later, Gallop gives clues about how the Crime Syndicate controls the process. She said that while she was in the hospital, men in suits visited her more than once.
“They never identified themselves or even said which agency they worked for. But I know they were not newsmen because I learned that the Pentagon told news reporters not to cover survivors’ stories or they would not get any more stories out of there. The men who visited all said they couldn’t tell me what to say, they only wanted to make suggestions. But then they told me what to do, which was to take the (Victim Compensation Fund) money and shut up. They also kept insisting that a plane hit the building. They repeated this over and over. But I was there and I never saw a plane or even debris from a plane. I figure the plane story is there to brainwash people.”– Jim Marrs interview with April Gallop, April 18, 2004. Quoted in Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies, Jim Marrs, San Rafael: Origin Press, 2004, p. 26
So there you have it. From someone who was there. But, believe what you want.
The next Pentagon eyewitness is one Lloyde England, the taxi driver whose vehicle was hit by a clipped lamp pole. The money shot on this one is at minute 4:00, when England admits on camera that his compartmentalized role was a fraudulent lie. This man’s wife is in the FBI.
Col. George Nelson, USAF commented that had United 93 crashed in Shanksville, “there would have [been] literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft.”
“This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no
bodies, and no noise.”
– Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller
“I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing.”
– Photographer Scott Spangler
“I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash.”
– Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset
barracks of the Pennsylvania State Police
WITNESSES SAW ‘NOTHING BUT TINY PIECES OF DEBRIS’ AT THE CRASH SCENE
Flight 93 weighed 127 tons when it crashed, according to New York Timesreporter and author Jere Longman. And yet numerous individuals, including some of the first people to arrive on the scene, have described the lack of anything resembling plane wreckage at the alleged crash site.
Assistant Fire Chief Rick King, who drove the first fire truck to reach the site, recalled thinking when he arrived: “Where is this plane? And where are the people?” King saw “thousands of tiny pieces scattered around–bits of metal, insulation, wiring–but no fuselage, no wings, only a smoking crater and charred earth.” He sent his men into the woods to search for the fuselage, but they kept coming back and telling him, “Rick, there’s nothing.”
Homer Barron, who also arrived shortly after the crash, has recalled, “It didn’t look like a plane crash, because there was nothing that looked like a plane.” He added: “I [have] never seen anything like it. Just like a big pile of charcoal.”
Jon Meyer, the first reporter on the scene, said he was “able to get right up to the edge of the crater” where Flight 93 supposedly hit the ground. However, he described: “All I saw was a crater filled with small, charred plane parts. Nothing that would even tell you that it was the plane. … There were no suitcases, no recognizable plane parts, no body parts.” Local coroner Wallace Miller, who was also one of the first people to arrive, said the crater looked “like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch, and dumped all this trash into it.”
Frank Monaco of the Pennsylvania State Police said the site looked “like a trash heap.” There was “nothing but tiny pieces of debris,” he said. “It’s just littered with small pieces.” According to Monaco, “It didn’t look like a plane crash.” Scott Spangler, one of the first photographers on the scene, said, “I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal.” But, he recalled, “There was nothing, just this pit.” “I didn’t think I was in the right place,” he commented.
And FBI agent Wells Morrison, the crash site commander on September 11, said his first thought upon reaching the scene was, “Where is the plane?” He recalled, “Most of what I saw was this honeycomb looking stuff, which I believe is insulation or something like that.” He added, “I was not seeing anything that was distinguishable either as human remains or aircraft debris.”
SCENE WAS UNLIKE A CRASH SITE
A number of witnesses stated specifically that they thought the scene appeared unlike the site of a plane crash. Lyle Szupinka, an area commander of the Pennsylvania State Police, said that when he arrived, “There was pieces of debris, small pieces of debris laying everywhere, and there were a lot of papers blowing around, and the ground was on fire.” The debris, he said, was “very, very small.” But, he added, “There was actually nothing to tell you that that was an aircraft.” Szupinka commented, “Had you not known that that was an aircraft crash, you would’ve looked at that and you would’ve said something happened here, but I don’t know what.”
Local resident John Maslak was one of the first people to arrive at the site, and saw the crater where Flight 93 supposedly went into the ground. A state trooper told him a plane had crashed there. But, Maslak has commented: “There was no way. The hole wasn’t big enough and there was nothing there.”
Patrick Madigan, a commander with the Pennsylvania State Police, described: “When I looked at the pit, I didn’t realize that was where the plane had crashed. I thought, at first, that it was a burn pit for the coal company.” A fireman said this was where the plane went into the ground. “I was amazed,” Madigan recalled, “because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash. I thought I would see recognizable plane parts. But at the pit, there was nothing that looked like a plane.” Craig Bowman, a colleague of Madigan’s, recalled: “Until that point, I had never been to a large plane crash. I was thinking that I should be seeing parts of the plane, seats, etc.” However, he said, “There was nothing that was recognizable to me as a plane.”
William Baker, of the Somerset County Emergency Management Agency, recalled: “When they said it was a 757, I looked out across the debris field. I said, ‘There is no way there is a 757 scattered here.’” Baker said, “The biggest piece of debris I saw would have probably fit in my pocket.” And Paul Bomboy, a paramedic who responded to the initial call for help, commented: “It was a very strange thing that there weren’t normal things going on that you would have expected. When a plane crashes, there is a plane and there are patients.”
Michael Soohy, a veteran FBI agent, had been to the sites of plane crashes before and expected to see “chaos, bodies, [and] a hulking wreck of a jet.” But, he commented, “I don’t think anyone expected to see what they didn’t see.”
CONTINUE READING: http://themillenniumreport.com/2014/09/shanksville-pennsylvania-on-911-the-mysterious-plane-crash-site-without-a-plane
‘Flight 93’ – No Jet Fuel Found at Shanksville Crash Site
Watch here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/KKKjKsRg3VT2
Valencia (Val) McClatchey, a real estate agent who lives about 1.6 miles east from the Shanksville crash scene, is the person who took the famous photo of the mushroom cloud rising above a red barn that was supposedly from Flight 93 crashing down in Shanksville. Her photo, which she has called “End of Serenity,” has been cheered by a lot of 9/11 researchers, including myself, who have argued that her photo proves that the crash of Flight 93 is fake because the smoke plume in her photo looks more like the plume coming from an ordnance blast because of its grey color rather than from a plane crash since smoke from jet fuel fires are almost black in color.
Jeffrey Hill (a.k.a. “Shure”) from Pumpitout.com in Canada calls Shanksville resident Kelly Leverknight, who was one of the witnesses who reportedly saw Flight 93 in the air before it allegedly crashed, and speaks to a lady claiming to be Kelly’s daughter*. Jeff asks this lady on the phone about Val’s Flight 93 plume photo.
Jeff: Val McClatchey… she has a famous photo.
Ms. Leverknight: It was a fake photo, because it didn’t have a mushroom cloud.
Jeff: It what?
Ms. Leverknight: There was no mushroom cloud.
Jeff: So it was a fake photo?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: Her photo’s faked?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: For what? For money?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: Why, do you know that for sure?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah!
The words “plane, jet, airplane, aircraft” were found in 426 accounts, 1770 times. The final account Sample Size was used for the “Witnesses to a plane” study was 291. A few of those who simply described seeing the impacts on TV were left out, but some were included – the main focus of the study was on those who were close to where the 2nd impact happened.
16 witnesses reported seeing the 1st plane before impact and 16 witnesses reported hearing the 1st plane before impact but only 1 witness reported clearly seeing and hearing plane 1 before impact.
I managed to establish that at least 96 witnesses were near the WTC (with ½ a mile) at the time of the 2nd impact and a further 21 witnesses were inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact. This gave a total of 117 witnesses who were near or inside the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact.
- Only 19 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing plane 2 before impact and, as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 20%.
- Only 20 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 21%.
- Only 8 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing and hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 8.3%.
- Of those witnesses inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact, only 2 reported hearing the plane (none saw it). As a percentage of the total of those inside WTC, this was 9.5%.
- There were 117 witnesses inside or near the WTC and 291 witnesses in the total sample I used. The percentages given below, then, are therefore based on the number 291 – 117 giving a total of 174.
- There were 33 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported seeing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 19%.
- There were 2 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported hearing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 1.1%
It is a myth that thousands of people actually saw a plane. Surrounded by tall buildings few people in New York’s business district actually had a decent view of the WTC towers. Few people reported actually hearing and seeing planes. Most testimonies of those who did are inconsistent with that of a wide-body commercial airliner hitting a building at 800 feet altitude, full throttle. Meanwhile, it was a simple matter for the TV networks to keep the eyewitnesses who didn’t see a plane off the air. A very small percentage of the approximately 500 First Responders at the WTC reported seeing commercial airliners. An even smaller number reported hearing them. A jet plane takeoff at 300 feet altitude is 10 times louder than a rock concert. There are witnesses who saw the South Tower explode but did not see a plane strike the tower.
“The closer you were, the less you knew.”
– Police Chief Joe Esposito, NYPD
“It was almost like the closer you were, the less you knew…As we look back, we were the least informed.”
– Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer, FDNY
“Inside the lobby, I think we knew less of what was going on than people outside or in the street, or the people watching on television.”
– Thomas von Essen, former FDNY fire commissioner
ABC reporter Don Dahler, who was live on the ground did not see a plane hit the South Tower, he saw only the explosion.
“I did not see a plane go in, that just exploded”.Watch the clip here: https://twitter.com/DeepStateExpose/status/1072511616791601158
“I never actually saw the plane, but l heard it. You could hear it coming in and then we heard the explosion and you could hear the roar of the plane coming in. At first I didn’t realize it was a plane. I thought it was like the roar of fire, like something had just incinerated, like a gas tank or an oil tank. It sounded like a tremendous roar and then you heard boom and then there was a big fire, a lot of fire, a big fireball. I never actually saw a plane hit the building. I never saw that. I saw it on television, but I never saw it while I was standing there.“– Stephen M. Gregory, retired New York Fire Department Assistant Fire Commissioner for Communications, World Trade Center Task Force Interview
“It was about 8:41 that we heard a plane hovering over the fire house. It sounded like the plane was right on top of us.” (400MPH airplanes do not hover)
“So about two or three minutes after hearing it, you heard something like revving. We took a look, and, boom, the north tower is hit.”
(Is two or three minutes realistic? Being that 400 MPH is well over 5 mile a minute, did Murad also hear planes take off and land at LaGuardia Airport, approximately 10 miles away?)
“Maybe about 10 to 12-minutes after that first plane, I heard another plane. Then I said to myself, we’re being attacked. I ran downstairs. No sooner did I run downstairs and look up, that I saw the second plane strike the south tower. It was such a vicious hit and such a precision hit, it was unbelievable.”– Murad, Murray, Lieutenant, Investigator with Bureau of Investigations and Trials, World Trade Center Task Force Interview.
(How come he didn’t report the deafening sound of a 500+ MPH commercial jet right above hit head?)
Comments by Andrew Johnson, Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths, March 6, 2008
An eyewitness saw the second explosion, but no plane
On 9/11 at 10:05am Fox News showed an eyewitness giving his very brief account that “it was not a second plane it was a bomb, no second plane” to Rick Leventhal.
LACK OF NOISE – THE CONSPICUOUS ABSENCE OF THE DEAFENING NOISE OF A LARGE LOW FLYING JETLINER
While some witness describe hearing a plane, others a missile, some heard nothing at all. Keep in mind that a mystery white plane was seen in the sky, flying parallel to “Flight 175” but at a higher altitude which may account for the plane noise that some people heard.
Carmen Taylor, an Arkansas tourist, was standing in line to board the State Island Ferry when the first “plane” hit. Regarding Flight 11, in a recorded phone conservation (14/10/2007) with researcher Jeff Hill, she states that no one in her group including herself heard Flight 11’s approach. At 9:03 a.m.,Taylor trained her digital camera on “Flight 175” – what she believed to be a military aircraft. She photographed the “plane” as it melted into the face of the tower. In a recorded phone conservation (30/10/2007) with researcher Jeff Hill, she described the “plane” as quiet, that there was no engine roaring.
Susan Romo was in Battery Park City when she witnessed the second “plane” from the roof of her apartment. In a recorded phone conversation with researcher Jeff Hill, she states that despite watching the plane go over her head and disappear into the South Tower she did not recall hearing it. She did not remember hearing the deafening noise of a low flying 767.
Jennifer Oberstein was walking to work in Battery Park and heard the explosion and looked up to see a big ball of fire. She did not hear he deafening noise of an incoming, low flying jetliner.
Radio presenter: “Do you have any idea what kind of plane it was?”
Jennifer Oberstein: “I’m sorry?”
Radio presenter: “Do you have any idea what hit the World Trade Centre?”
Jennifer Oberstein: “What it was?”
Radio presenter: “Yeah, what kind of plane? We’re getting reports that an airplane hit the building.”
Jennifer Oberstein: “Oh I didn’t even know that, honestly. I was walking up, looked up and saw a big boom and fire. You know I gotta tell you, we were all saying round here it was very interesting that it would be a bomb and be so high up. Perhaps it was a plane but we have no talk of a plane.”
- She looked up to see a huge ball of fire.
- The ‘boom’ wasn’t that loud.
- No plane was heard.
- No plane was seen by Jennifer Oberstein or the people she was around.
Joshua Good Amateur Video
This amateur video filmed by Joshua Good and uploaded to Youtube in 2016 is extremely significant. He and is friends are stood on the roof of his apartment right across from the towers. Before the explosion in the South Tower there is a total absence of the deafening sound of a low flying Boeing 767 jet aircraft. After the explosion, Josh and his friends do not know what has caused the explosion and immediately presume it was a bomb. If a low flying 767 jetliner had actually flown into the South Tower there would be no uncertainty over what had just happened. The deafening noise of the aircraft would be unmistakable and drowning out every other sound. Both visually and auditorily it would be unequivocal that a large jetliner had just flown towards and the hit the South Tower. Instead Josh is adamant that it was a bomb despite standing right across from the South Tower.
At 12:45 one of Joshua’s friends says “It was a bomb, definitely a bomb.”Joshua Good – Eye Witness Video – 9/11 2001 raw video
At 15:55 another friends asks “Was it a plane or a bomb? They said it was a plane.” Joshua replies “They said it was a plane? That building just randomly fucking exploded. It was not a plane. Look, that side just blew up. It was not a plane, they don’t know what they’re talking about. How are they saying it’s a plane?”
At 20:25 A member of the public asks “You saw the plane?” Joshua replies: “No. I have it on film, the second blew up, the second one blew up.” The female asks “It wasn’t a plane?” Josh replies “No, not at all, the second one blew up, it blew up.”
At 32:16 Joshua in conversation with another member of the public, says: “No I saw that second building blow up, it just blew up, flat out blew up.”
At 32:56 Joshua tells another member of the public “No it was not an airplane, it was a bomb. I saw that second building blow up, it was a bomb.”
David Handschuh Witness Testimony
David Handschuh was ideally positioned to see the second plane impact, the actual impact of the plane on the building. He took a photo of the moment of the strike, or to be precise of the moment after the strike:
These are his words:
“I was underneath it. I was looking at the tower. I had my camera in my hand. I heard the noise. I never saw the airplane. . . . I was less than a hundred yards away from the building. I was standing on West St.”– David Handschuh, The Charlie Rose Show, 10/31/2001
Note that Mr. Handschuh says: “I was looking at the tower.”
On September 11, 2001, professional videographer Evan Fairbanks was working at the Trinity Church, on Liberty Street, just southeast of the twin towers. The Fairbanks video is hand-held, camera very low to the ground, aiming up at the towers.
A man, rumored to be an FBI agent, is in the foreground. The man does not seem to notice what would undoubtedly be the screaming sound of jet engines. A plane enters from behind a building at the upper-left of the screen, crosses, and neatly slips into the tower. It’s another “ghostplane” – no crash physics at all. The tower explodes, and only then does the man react. In a January 2008 phone interview with researcher Jeff Hill, Fairbanks says the video has no audio because he accidentally turned off microphone.
As with the Hezarkhani video, the biggest problem with Fairbanks is the complete lack of crash physics. It looks fake. Fairbanks himself has admitted as much. In one televised interview he said:
“The image of that plane just coming into the frame and just disappearing into the side – into the south side of the tower – as if a floor had been hollowed out and it was a hangar that it was just landing in. We’ve seen these images in movies and we know that it’s all artificial, and that Hollywood makes it.”ABC Connie Chung interview 10:30 PM
Technology journalist Dan Rosenbaum was an eyewitness to the second “plane”. He had this to say:
“I saw a dark airplane, a passenger jet, approach the undamaged tower from the south. I saw no insignia, heard no engines, heard nothing until a BANG.”Dan Rosenbaum, Eyewitness to 9/11, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 9/12/01
ABC correspondent Don Dahler heard “what he could only describe as a missile“
DON DAHLER reporting: I’m about four or five blocks just north of the World Trade Center. And at about 10–I would say 10 minutes ago, 15 minutes ago, there was a loud sound that I can only describe it–it sounded like a missile, not an airplane. Then there was a loud explosion and immediately lots of screaming out on the streets. And I don’t want to cause any speculation, but that’s the only way I could describe the sound. And it was definitely not the sound of a prop plane or anything like that.
SAWYER: And am I right? Are you a pilot?
DAHLER: Well, I have flown. I do not have a pilot’s license, but I–I grew up on military bases and I know the sounds of jets. And–and I’ve been in war zones and–and heard those kinds of different sounds. So, again, not to cause any kind of undue speculation but the sound itself was not of a prop plane. It was perhaps a jet. But it could have been a missile as well.
GIBSON: Can you give me–was it–was it a whining sound, Don, or what?
DAHLER: Yes. It was–it was a–how to describe it. It was a high pitch, but it had a–a–a whooshing sound. Not–not like a prop plane.
Did Shanksville eyewitness Susan McIlwain see a missile?
“It definitely wasn’t a F20 Falcon. It was no wider than my van. There were no rivets. It was pure moulded white fibreglass. I’m coming up here, almost to the stop sign and this… I keep calling it a plane for lack of a better word. It came down right above my van and it went right over my windshield because it was so low that I ducked in my van and when I did I shut off my radio and that’s when I knew there was no sound and I said it out loud, I said it two times, oh my God, it’s gonna crash, it’s gonna crash. It cleared those trees. It seems to me it had to be below the power lines (about 25ft high), came in, swooped up, cleared those trees, it was fall so it was full of leaves. No leaves moved on the trees, nothing fell. Because I kept thinking there should be a disturbance. It just smoothly went over and right over there and banked to the right and crashed. Now you can’t see where it crashed because you can’t see through the trees. I didn’t hear the explosion that day. I don’t know why?”Susan McElwain’s eyewitness testimony. Interviewed by Domenick DiMaggio and Sam Ettaro
“It was pure white, there were no markings on it, there were no rivets, it was so moulded it looked like it was all one piece. It was cylinder and it came back and this spoiler was across it. I remember the spoiler was so moulded and so white and shiny. I could not see any wings because I saw it from mid-belly and I’m looking up under it. I can only go from what other people have told me and sent pictures of, that it had to be either a missile or small unmanned plane because of the shape and the way it maneuvered.”
“There’s no way I imagined this plane – it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look. It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven’t found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn’t one of those executive jets.”Susan Mcelwain. The Daily Mirror, What Did Happen To Flight 93?, 10 October, 2002
“The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around. Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000ft up. But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft above my head. They did not want my story – nobody here did.”
It is difficult to interpret Susan McElwain’s testimony as being anything other than a missile, possibly a JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile) or a reconnaissance UAV. Some have suggested she may have seen an Orbiter Micro but this particular UAV lacks the spoiler she describes and it is powered by a propeller which she made no mention of.
Ernie Stuhl, the mayor of Shanksville: “I know of two people – I will not mention names – that heard a missile. They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards… This one fellow’s served in Vietnam and he says he’s heard them, and he heard one that day.” He adds that based on what he has learned, F-16’s were “very, very close.”Philadelphia Daily News, 11/15/01
Three students at Shanksville High, John, Tessa and Brian said they saw a fighter jet just after the explosion:
“John: We think it was shot down because as soon as it crashed a big fighter plane flew over the school.
Brian: I think it was both. At the same time really… We saw that plane like right after it happened. We were the only ones who saw it pretty much from the school. Nobody one else saw.
Narrator: How long after did you guys see the fighter plane?
John: Like ten seconds.
Brian: Right there. It was right after everything.
John: As soon as we saw the mushroom cloud, this plane goes flying over.”UA 93: The Road to Shanksville (Part 2)
Witnesses, saw a small military type plane flying around shortly before “UA93” crashed. But the US authorities deny it ever existed.
Susan Custer “said she saw a small white jet streaking overhead.” – The Bergen Record (9/14/01)
Dennis Decker – “As soon as we looked up, we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast,” Decker said. “It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out.” Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings.” – The Bergen Record (9/14/01)
Robert Blair, of Stoystown, was driving his coal-hauling route when he saw the plane crash a few miles away. He noticed the second plane because he had heard on his truck radio earlier that the FAA had grounded all aircraft, and he said it was flying east – the same direction as Flight 93. He said the FBI asked him whether it looked like a military plane, but Blair remembered only that it was “a big jet flying low.” – Washington Post (09/14/01)
Robin Doppstadt was working inside her family food-and-supply store when she heard the crash. When she went outside, she said, she saw a small white jet that looked like it was making a single circle over the crash site. “Then it climbed very quickly and took off. ” – The Bergen Record (9/14/01)
Rick Chaney – “Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings.” – The Bergen Record (9/14/01)
John Fleegle, manager, Indian Lake Marina – “Like I said, probably within, within 45 seconds or a minute of impact, we were there. We were there before any fireman, any paramedics, or anybody; we were on site. When we got there, there was a plane flying up above and he was smart, he flew straight for the sun, so you couldn’t, you couldn’t look at it and see exactly what type of plane, or if it was a fighter or what it was. But we caught a glimpse of it and as he was swinging, he was basically traveling in the same direction as the plane.” – UA 93: The Road To Shanksville (part 2)
Lee Purbaugh – “Yes, there was another plane,” Lee said. “I didn’t get a good look but it was white and it circled the area about twice and then it flew off over the horizon.” – Daily Mirror (9/13/02)
Tom Spinelli, 28, was working at India Lake Marina, a mile and a half away. “I saw the white plane,” he said. “It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash.”
Somerset County resident Jim Brandt said that he “saw another plane in the area. He said it stayed there for one or two minutes before leaving.” – The Pittsburgh Channel (9/12/01)
9/11 “Planes” vs Cruise Missile Audio Comparison
A comparison of the “Flight 11” and “Flight 175” videos with the sound of a cruise missile. The sound of a cruise missile is very similar to what is heard in the 9/11 “plane” videos. The explosion is also very similar.
An audio comparison of the many video clips of “Flight 175” recorded on 9/11:
10. WHAT ABOUT THE 4 FLIGHTS? ACCORDING TO BTS STATISTICS, BOTH FLIGHT 11 AND 77 OFFICIALLY NEVER TOOK-OFF ON 9/11. ACARS CONFIRM FLIGHT 175 AND FLIGHT 93 WERE STILL AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH
The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights.
Although flights 11 and 77 have the above data meticulously logged on 9/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9/11, even when every other plane that took of that day had been recorded and logged by the BTS. The flight that was labelled flight 11 by air traffic control was 10 miles from Manhattan at 8:46am. If flights AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then there are only two planes, not four, to be accounted for. Investigators who have checked the tail numbers for the planes which departed as UA 93 and UA 175 on 9/11 (namely N591UA and N612UA respectively) believe that these planes are still in service. If so, and if AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then the number of Boeing 757s and 767s destroyed on 9/11 was not four, as the US government maintains, but rather zero.
Both UA 175, plane number N612UA and UA 93, plane number N591UA, were “still registered and valid more than 4 years after [their] alleged destruction. The two United Airlines flights were not deregistered until October 2005, as of official FAA records. Both should have been listed, by law, as ‘destroyed’. Shortly thereafter, the FAA rectified this ‘oversight’ in a peculiar manner : in place of ‘destroyed’, the wording used was ‘cancelled’. This evidence has not been challenged, to this day, by any of those air-regulating agencies nor by the airlines themselves.
ACARS CONFIRMED – 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH
UNITED 175 IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) – Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this “texting” system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it’s location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of “woody“, who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents (1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.
CONTINUE READING: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html
IT IS CONCLUSIVE – 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE WELL AFTER CRASH
UNITED 93 IN THE VICINITY OF FORT WAYNE, INDIANA AND CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS AT TIME OF SHANKSVILLE ALLEGED CRASH
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) – More information has surfaced which conclusively demonstrates the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, were airborne well after their alleged crashes. This article supplements our last, “ACARS CONFIRMED – 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH” in which the ACARS system is explained as well as how to determine if a message were received by the aircraft, along with how ground stations are selected through Flight Tracking Protocol based on messages routed to United 175, N612UA. We now have further evidence which places United 93, N591UA, in the vicinity of Champaign, IL, 500+ miles away from the alleged crash site in Shanksville, PA. This information is further corroborated by a (now former) United Airlines Manager of Flight Dispatch Michael J. Winter.
On January 28, 2002, Mr. Winter gave an interview to the FBI at United Headquarters near Chicago, IL (1). During this interview, Mr. Winter reviewed a list of ACARS messages explaining the contents and which messages were received or rejected. The messages provided below are the most significant and fatal to what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission. Two messages were routed through the Fort Wayne, Indiana remote ground stations (FWA), followed by two more messages which were routed through Champaign, IL (CMI).
The remote ground station used to route the message to the aircraft (FWA or CMI), the time and date in which the message is sent (eg. 111351, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1351Z or 0951am Eastern), the flight number (UA93), and the tail number of the airplane in which the message is intended (N591UA), are all highlighted in red. The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane. Although the first two appear to be identical, the message number denotes that they are in fact two separate messages, which is highlighted in blue. The messages are as follows –
CONTINUE READING: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/MORE-ACARS-CONFIRMATION.html
United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash – According To ATC/Radar
04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) – Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it’s alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by “Coast Mode” radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
Radar Coast Mode activates when a transponder is inoperative (or turned off) and primary radar tracking is lost, which enables ATC to have some sort of reference of the flight after losing radar coverage of the physical aircraft. When an aircraft target enters “Coast Mode”, ATC is alerted in the form of a blue tag on the target as well as the tag letters switching to CST. ATC will readily recognize when an aircraft enters “Coast Mode”.
United 93 transponder is recognized by Air Traffic Control as airborne after alleged impact time. Some have made the excuse this is due to Coast Mode tracking. ATC did not recognize any signs of CST (Coast Mode). Further confirmation that this was not any type of “Coast Mode” is that ATC also recognized United 93 reporting an altitude. The only way ATC could observe a reported altitude is if United 93 were squawking Mode C on the transponder, which means altitude reporting capability. Further confirmation comes in the form of latitude and longitude positions reported by ATC. N39 51 – W78 46 were reported as the last known radar position of United 93. It is unclear if the position is reported as Degrees, Minutes or Decimal, however, standard aviation terminology is in Degrees, Minutes. With that said, both positions are well past the alleged United 93 Crash site.
CONTINUE READING: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/united-93-still-airborne.html
Flight 93’s “Transponder On” at 10:05am According to FAA Transcript
In this short analysis I will show through the use of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recording transcripts that Flight 93’s transponder was still switched on at 10:05am after the “official” crash time in Shanksville. I will also touch on briefly other supporting evidence to show that Flight 93 did NOT crash at 10:03am as stated by the 9/11 Commission and also point-out other supporting evidence which indicates that Flight 93 did NOT crash at all on 9/11, as Flight 93 was located 15 miles past the “official” crash site heading towards the Washington DC area.
CONTINUE READING: http://mark-conlon.blogspot.com/2018/09/flight-93s-transponder-on-at-1005am.html
A coincidence, or possible airplane swap?
America West Airlines was the last airplane to land at Ronald Reagan National (DCI) across from the Pentagon on 9/11/01. The tail number was N644AW which is very similar to AAL 77’s tail number, which was N644AA. See below:
Airport: Washington DC – Ronald Reagan Washington National (DCA)
Airline: America West Airlines (HP)
NOTE: A complete listing of airline and airport abbreviations is available. Times are reported in local time using a 24 hour clock.
Carrier Code Date (MM/DD/YYYY) Flight Number Tail Number Origin Airport Actual Departure Time Wheels-on Time
HP 9/11/2001 98 N644AW CMH 9:39 9:35
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
The departure time from CHM (Port Columbus International), Ohio is 8:28 a.m. and the arrival time at Reagan National Airport (DCA) is 9:39 a.m. The scheduled elapsed time is 65 minutes. There are two airplanes listed departing from CHM on 9/11 with the same tail number N644AW. The second one (the same airplane) was scheduled departure time of 13:59 p.m. The owner of the airplane is Wilmington Trust Company Trustee, the same owner as AAL 77. I have determined that an American West Airlines A320 airplane landed at Reagan at 9:39 a.m. with the tail number: N644AW. (AAL 77’s tail number is: N644AA).
America West Flight 0098:
Tail Number: N644AW
Owner: Wilmington Trust Co.
Departure: Ohio, 8:40 a.m. (Wheels off time)
Arrival: 9:39 a.m. (Wheels on time), Reagan National Airport (directly on the other side of the Pentagon)
AAL 77’s transponder signal was switched off in the location of the Ohio-Kentucky boarder at 8:56 a.m. The alleged impact time was 9:37 a.m. into the Pentagon building, which is situated next to Reagan National Airport.
It’s very interesting that both airplanes have a near-identical tail number, and are owned by the same company. Is it a coincidence that BOTH airplanes are near the Pentagon at almost EXACTLY the same time, and AAL 77’s transponder code was lost over Ohio and the American West Airlines airplane took off from CHM, Ohio at 8:40 a.m. just 16 minutes before AAL 77 transponder is switched off.
It is interesting to note that the official ACARS data for AAL 77 states periodically at brief intervals a tail number for AAL 77 as being N644AAW, when AAL 77’s tail is: N644AA. I am not sure what can be drawn from these occurrences. See below:
Considering the airplane which landed at Reagan National Airport at 9:39 a.m. had the tail number: N644AW, does this data suggest the possibility of an airplane swap around the Ohio, Kentucky boarder? It is plausible, especially when considering at 9:35 a.m. two downlink ACARS messages were sent from “allegedly” AAL 77 to Baltimore and Washington Dulles Radio Ground Stations (RGS), when AAL 77 was flying past Missouri, which is in the opposite direction and nowhere near Baltimore or Washington Dulles Radio Ground Stations. Ostensibly the American West Airlines flight tail number: N644AW would have been near those RGS locations though. Note, no more ACARS messages are visible to read until the last one which was an uplink at 10:00 a.m. to the airplane. This is revealing because even though it says the ACARS uplink message was not delivered, the question remains why would an ACARS message be sent to an airplane that had already crashed twenty three minutes earlier? Perhaps if they were tracking AAL 77, and it was still flying towards Missouri, that might explain why an ACARS message was sent, in the belief that AAL 77 was still airborne. Also, if the airplane was swapped with American West Airlines, then this could also explain why controllers may have thought AAL 77 had landed at Reagan National Airport safely, which is why an ACARS message was sent. Either way, it is indicated and reflected in the Air Traffic Control transcripts that controllers were unsure that AAL 77 had crashed. Even the Secret Service still didn’t believe it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon building, which is also reflected in the ATC transcripts at 11:17 a.m. See below:
Moreover, there is no evidence of an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) being activated or transmitted at the time of the crash, which should have happened. Emergency transmitters are carried aboard most general aviation aircraft in the U.S. In the event of an aircraft accident, these devices are designed to transmit a distress signal on 121.5 and 243.0 MHz frequencies. ELTs are mounted in the airplane, and designed to be triggered upon impact or may be manually activated using the remote switch and control panel indicator in the cockpit. Activation of the ELT triggers an audio alert, and 406-MHz ELTs transmit GPS position for search and rescue. [Emergency Locator Transmitters – AOPA].
Pilots For 9/11 Truth, have confirmed that United 175 received a message at least twenty minutes after it allegedly crashed into the World Trade Center. This proves that the flight never smashed into the Center but instead flew for some time that day, a point advanced in the book ‘Planes Without Passengers: The Faked Hijackings of 9/11‘.
In the second edition of ‘Planes Without Passengers: The Faked Hijackings of 9/11‘ Dean T. Hartwell confirms the conclusion of the first book that no hijackings took place that day and puts together a more complete theory: Only two planes of the four planes alleged to be connected with the 9/11 plot actually flew on that day. And the passengers were not people who paid a ticket to go from one place to another. They were instead agents connected to the plot who were chosen to help cover up the crime.
This theory is based primarily upon two facts: (1) the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), which maintains information on all commercial flights in the United States, in its original form stated clearly that while United 175 and United 93 were scheduled and flew, American 11 and American 77 did not and (2) ACARS, a system much like electronic mail and GPS, shows that United 175 and United 93 were flying over the Midwestern part of the United States long after their supposed “crashes” on the east coast. Agents pretending to be passengers were seen at the Cleveland Hopkins Airport late that morning. They walked toward a NASA building to make calls to the media to straighten out an impression many had that the Internet reported that United 93 had landed in Cleveland. History should not be a lie agreed upon by the media, the politicians and others of influence. History must give us the most likely events based on the available information. This book aims to be a part of history we may not want to believe, but we should believe because it weighs the facts in an objective manner.
11. WHAT ABOUT THE PASSENGERS? WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM? DID THEY EVEN EXIST?
Of a total 760 seats there were only 198 passengers, on the 4 alleged flights.
As the number of strange anomalies and coincidences on the morning of 9/11 pile on top of each other, a reasonable investigator would at some point start to use the sheer force of so many convenient improbabilities against the official narrative. Add to that pile of suspicion the unusually low number of passengers aboard each of the hijacked flights that morning. Flight 11 and Flight 175, both Boeing 767s with approximately 180 available seats, had 76 and 46 passengers respectively. Flight 77 and Flight 93, both Boeing 757s with approximately 200 available seats, had 50 and 26 passengers respectively.
What this 30% passenger occupancy essentially means is that on each of the flights that were hijacked that morning, every passenger on every plane had an entire row to themselves to lie down. Any savvy, experienced traveler knows that when flying a major airliner, on a non-stop cross-country trip, at a commuter friendly morning flight time from one major U.S. city to another, it is incredibly good luck to get a row of surrounding open seats. On the morning of 9/11, every passenger on every plane had, essentially, an open row to themselves. And on Flight 93 that went down in Shanksville, PA, there were 10 more rows than passengers.
9/11 investigators have attempted to compare these numbers to the passenger lists from the same previous Tuesday morning flights the week before, on 9/4/01. But the FBI continues to refuse, without any explanation, to produce that information. It is known, however, that major airliners in the U.S. regularly shift their passengers to other flights and airlines serving the same cities if numbers are too low to justify the flight. But on the morning of 9/11, this protocol, like so many others that day, was not followed.
Furthermore, on the morning of 9/11 on officially released passenger lists provided by the airlines to the media, not one of the alleged hijacker’s names appears. In fact, no Arab names appear on any of the four passenger lists. “It has been claimed that the names of the hijackers were on the airlines’ flight manifests. However, there is no public evidence of this. Researchers who have attempted to obtain this information from the airlines have been rebuffed.” Add this information to the stories that have been told of last minute gate changes, passenger swaps, bizarre cell phone calls, planes disappearing and reappearing on radar screens, impossibly flown aircraft maneuvers, and you would have at least a part of a story worth investigating. But the oddly low numbers of passengers on the planes that morning, and the complete absence of any of the alleged hijackers’ names on the original flight passenger lists, is left as irrelevant. Why? What could possibly be more relevant than the fact that the main suspects of the crimes in question appear not to have even been present at the scene of those crimes?
The Pentagon’s Operation Northwoods envisaged the US military deliberately crashing a plane and then pretending that this was done by the Cubans. The document also outlines an elaborate plan for a fake attack on the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, including suggestion number 10, “Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock victims.”
In 1962, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed by General Lyman Lemnitzer, unanimously proposed state-sponsored acts of terrorism on American soil, against its own citizens. The head of every branch of the US Armed Forces gave written approval to sink US ships, shoot down hijacked American planes, and gun down and bomb civilians on the streets of Washington, D.C., and Miami. The plan was only overturned when President Kennedy refused to endorse it. The concept of Operation Northwoods was to engineer a situation where the blame for the (self-inflicted) terrorism would fall on Cuba’s leader, Fidel Castro, after which the American public would beg and scream for the Marines to storm Havana. Among other heinous acts, Operation Northwoods proposed faking the crash of an American commercial airliner. The disaster was to be accomplished by faking a commercial flight from the US to South America, the plane would be boarded at a public airport by CIA agents disguised as college students with aliases going on vacation. An empty, remote-controlled, clone of the commercial jet would then swap places for it at a given rendezvous point in flight, as it left Florida, and the real airliner would then land at a secure area in Eglin Air Force base. A May-Day transmission pertaining to come from the commercial jet would then be sent out stating that they had been attacked by a Cuban MIG fighter. The empty remote-controlled clone would then be blown up and the public would be told that all of the US citizens aboard were killed.
The public would have been asked to mourn for all the “dead college students.” Someone would have had to create false identities for a plane, load of non-existent college students. Would they all have been orphans, with no relatives, no home addresses, and no Social Security numbers?
Tony Rennell reviewing the book 9/11 Revealed: Challenging The Facts Behind The War On Terror, by Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan in the UK’s Daily Mail, 6th August 2005:
The plot by America’s military bosses was devilish in both design and intent – to fabricate an outrage against innocent civilians, fool the world and provide a pretext for war. In the pentagon, a top secret team drew up a plan to simultaneously send up two airliners painted and numbered exactly the same, one from a civil airport in America, the other from a secret military airbase nearby. The one from the airport would have military personnel on board who had checked in as ordinary passengers under false names. The one from the airbase would be an empty drone, a remote-controlled unmanned aircraft. Somewhere along their joint flight paths, the passenger-carrying plane would drop below radar height, and disappear, landing back at the airbase and unloading its occupants in secret. Meanwhile, the drone would have taken up the other plane’s designated course. High over the island of Cuba, it would be exploded in mid-air after broadcasting an international distress call that it was under attack from enemy fighters. The world would be told that a plane load of blameless American holidaymakers had been deliberately shot down by Fidel Castro’s Communists – and that the US had no choice but to declare war and topple his regime.
The passenger manifests have been changed multiple times, there is no CCTV of passengers or hijackers, no testimonies of people working the airports that day, no boarding cards or DNA analysis. Three planes were scheduled to fly to Los Angeles, arriving around the same time. No sign of Flight 175, Flight 11, or Flight 77 passenger pickups or victims families at Los Angeles Airport at scheduled arrival time. No media sightings of waiting victims families and worried friends, eager for information, as we would expect from three commercial plane crashes. Where were the grieving families at the airports? I don’t recall seeing frantic loved ones at the airports looking to find out where their family members were. In all these years I haven’t seen one documentary provide anything in video footage of families at airports talking to the media.
1). Did you take someone that day to the airport and watch them board one of these flights and see the plane take off with that person on?
2). Can you show proof of a real manifest for any of these flights (signed by the pilot)?
3). Can you show any other proof there were any passengers on these flights?
Researcher Elias Davidsson demonstrates in his recent book Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence, there is not one shred of authenticated evidence that any of the 19 men blamed for the “attacks” ever boarded any planes.
9/11, The Hijackers
Video excerpt from September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor
1) “Piss-poor student pilots”
2) Marwan al-Sheikki (UA175)
3) Ziad Jarrah (UA93)
4) Hani Hanjour (AA77)
5) The debunkers’ positions
6) 2 simulations of the Pentagon attack
7) Someone knew?
8) Airport security cameras
9) The missing black boxes
THE 9/11 CELL PHONE CALLS
Reports of cellphone calls from the allegedly hijacked airplanes on 9/11 were crucial in ‘selling’ the official version of events. These calls dramatized the horror of 9/11 for the worldwide audience and appeared to prove conclusively that the four ‘planes were, in fact, hijacked by terrorists. However, the technology that existed in 2001 made it impossible for the cell phone calls to have been made from the alleged hijacked jetliners in flight. This and the lack of background noise during the calls indicate that the calls were not made while in flight. It wasn’t until 2004 that technology was being developed to enable fairly reliable cell phone calls from commercial jetliners. Why would thousands of dollars be spent on this kind of technology if calls were able to be made to and from the plane on September 11, 2001?
Professor A.K. Dewdney is a Canadian mathematician and computer scientist who holds the position of Emeritus Professor at the University of Western Ontario and has some 100 academic papers to his name. Dewdney founded Scientific Professionals Investigating 9/11 (SPINE), the first scholarly 9/11 truth research group.
Dewdney put forth the thesis that ordinary cell phone technology of September 2001 did not permit sustained conversations from passenger aircraft at cruising altitude. On Tuesday 25th February 2003, Dewdney chartered a light plane and flew up into the airspace above London Ontario – an area extensively serviced with cellphone stations. His goal was to test the feasibility of the claim that cellphone calls could have been made from planes at high altitude. The test consisted of a number of phone calls made from the plane at different altitudes. At 4,000 feet, the success rate was around 40% and the success rate at 8,000 feet was around 9%. Using these statistics, the report gives an estimated cellphone success rate at the average commercial plane’s altitude of around 32,000 feet. This rate was 0.6%, which is a less that one in a hundred chance.
In March 2003, Dewdney’s published his report on this private experiment, entitled ‘Project Achilles’. The findings invalidate the official reports of extended cell phone conversations taking place between passengers on the allegedly hijacked planes and families on the ground.
His report concludes:
“To the extent that the cellphones used in this experiment represent types in general use, it may be concluded that from this particular type of aircraft, cellphones become useless very quickly with increasing altitude. In particular, two of the cellphone types, the Mike and the Nokia, became useless above 2000 feet. Of the remaining two, the Audiovox worked intermittently up to 6000 feet but failed thereafter, while the BM analog cellphone worked once just over 7000 feet but failed consistently thereafter. We therefore conclude that ordinary cellphones, digital or analog, will fail to get through at or above 8000 feet abga.”
The light plane used by Dewdney for the experiment could be expected to yield much better results for cellphone use than large commercial airliners of the type ‘hijacked’ on 9/11, because the carbon fiber skin of the test plane is ‘radio transparent’ and offers little attenuation of the signal – unlike the aluminum surface of a Boeing 757 or 767. If cellphones fail at a given altitude in the test plane, one may be confident they won’t work at equivalent altitude in an airliner with a metal surface.
The Japanese TV network Asahi Shimbun took a lively interest in Dewdney’s findings. They sent out a team to Canada to confirm Dewdney’s findings. Their report went into a two-hour production under the auspices of Japanese media giant Beat Takeshi, fully confirming Dewdey’s findings.
Project Achilles: Low Altitude Cellphone Experiments – A. K. Dewdney
The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93 – A. K. Dewdney
Scientist Dr. A.K. Dewdney on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio, May 8, 2015
The next thing that is suspicious about is the actual transcript of some of the alleged calls. Betty Ong made a call from Flight 11, and while the whole call was 23 minutes long, only four and a half minutes was recorded. She sounded extremely calm and almost unphased considering she was on a plane that had just been hijacked and three people killed. She talked about how the hijackers were spraying mace and there were no passengers reacting to this. As well as this, there was no background noise of people panicking or screaming considering they too had just been hijacked and were witnessing an extreme terrorist attack.
The second suspicious call was made by Madeline Sweeney. The call was made seven minutes after radio contact is lost, yet she was apparently reporting events as the hijackers were taking over the cockpit. The call was also made three minutes after Betty Ong had said the cockpit was not responding. The time of the call does not add up with the other events. Not only does the time not make sense, but what Madeline Sweeney was saying was also suspicious. She said “I see water and buildings. Oh my God! Oh my God!”. She had been a flight attendant for over 12 years so it seems strange that she did not recognize Manhattan. Once again, there was no noise from other passengers; surely they would have looked out their windows, seen they were flying full speed into Manhattan and freaked out. The lack of panic brings about suspicion.
Calls family members made to their loved ones were also strange. One man, Mark Bingham, called his mother and introduced himself using his full name. It is unusual for somebody to use their full name when calling their parents. Another passenger abooard Flight 93, Jeremy Glick, talked about fighting back the hijackers, saying “I still have my butter knife from breakfast”, implying he had finished breakfast already, yet breakfast was not served until the time the hijacking started so this does not make sense. This is only a very small selection of telephone calls from the plane that show their flaws, but there are many, they just do not add up.
Cell Phone Limitations
Given the cell phone technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were virtually – and perhaps completely – impossible. And yet many of the reported cell phone calls occurred when the planes were above 25,000 or even 40,000 feet and also lasted a minute or more – with Amy Sweeney’s reported call even lasting for 12 minutes.
Three problems have been pointed out: (1) The cell phone in those days had to complete a “handshake” with a cellsite on the ground, which took several seconds, so a cell phone in a high-speed plane would have had trouble staying connected to a cellsite long enough to complete a call. (2) The signals were sent out horizontally, from cellsite to cellsite, not vertically. Although there was some leakage upward, the system was not designed to activate cell phones at high altitudes. (3) Receiving a signal was made even more difficult by the insulation provided by the large mass of an airliner.
Well-known Canadian scientist and mathematician A. K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American, reported early in 2003 on experiments showing that these difficulties would have rendered impossible at least most of the reported cell phone calls from the 9/11 airliners. His experiments involved both single- and double-engine airplanes.
Dewdney found that, in a single-engine plane, successful calls could be counted on only under 2,000 feet. Above that altitude, they became increasingly unlikely. At 20,000 feet,
“the chance of a typical cellphone call making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred…. [T]he probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand.”
The likelihood of 13 successful calls, Dewdney added, would be “infinitesimal.” In later experiments using a twin-engine plane, which has greater mass and hence provides greater insulation from electronic signals, Dewdney found that the success rate decayed to 0 percent at 7,000 feet. A large airliner, having much greater mass, would provide far more insulation – a fact, Dewdney added, that “is very much in harmony with many anecdotal reports …that in large passenger jets, one loses contact during takeoff, frequently before the plane reaches 1000 feet altitude.” Dewdney concluded, therefore, that numerous successful cell phone calls from airliners flying above 30,000 feet would have been “flat out impossible.”
Such calls would become possible only several years later. In 2004, Qualcomm announced a successful demonstration of a fundamentally new kind of cell phone technology, involving a “picocell,” that would allow passengers “to place and receive calls as if they were on the ground.” American Airlines announced that this new technology was expected to be commercially available in 2006. This technology, in fact, first became available on commercial flights in March 2008.
In light of the fact that the 9/11 attacks occurred many years before this technology was available, the FBI faced a serious problem.
The FBI’s Revised Public Position
As will be shown later, the FBI by 2004 – the year after Dewdney reported his results – had provided an account of the reported calls from the airliners that did not affirm the occurrence of any high-altitude cell phone calls. But this account was not made public.
This account first became publicly visible in 2006 in a report on phone calls from the 9/11 airliners prepared by the FBI for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (who was accused of being the “20th-hijacker”). According to the McClatchy reporter at the trial, the spokesman for the FBI said: “13 of the terrified passengers and crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cell phone calls.”
Implicit in this matter-of-fact statement was a radical change in the FBI’s public position: Previously, the FBI had supported the idea – at least by not contradicting press reports spreading it – that there were over ten cell phone calls from Flight 93 – three or four from Tom Burnett alone. Indeed, Dewdney, observing that “more alleged cell phone calls were made [from Flight 93] than from the other three flights combined,” dubbed it the “Cell phone Flight.” But the FBI was now saying that this flight was the source of only two cell phone calls.
Given the fact that, of the approximately 15 calls from the 9/11 airliners that were originally described as cell phone calls, the FBI accepted this description for only the two that reportedly occurred at a relatively low altitude, it seems reasonable to conclude that the FBI implicitly agreed, in its report to the Moussaoui trial, that calls from high-altitude airliners were impossible – or at least too improbable to affirm.
Continued reading: https://www.globalresearch.ca/phone-calls-from-the-9-11-airliners/16924
READING A SCRIPT?
The following abridged text is taken from Planes Without Passengers: The Faked Hijackings of 9/11 3rd edition by Dean T. Hartwell:
Betty Ong was allegedly an airline attendant on Flight 11. She speaks calmly for four minutes telling her airline about a hijacking, a stabbing and mace used on her flight. It sounds riveting at first but it is not real. As noted earlier, American Airlines 11 never flew on September 11, 2001. There were thus no Flight 11 passengers or crew that day.
A four-minute tape recording of a phone call allegedly from Betty Ong was played in 2004 at the 9/11 Commission, where American Airlines Operations supervisor Nydia Gonzalez testified. Ong’s performance was crucial as it became the only recording from a “hijacked” plane to be played to the public.
Amazingly, no screams or other signs of passenger panic can be heard. Despite the use of mace in a inclosed space Betty Ong is not coughing or struggling to breath and no coughing can be heard from the other passengers. Ong uses the term “Flight 12” and states “We’re on Flight 11 right now,”22 comments that suggest a conscious effort to use the wrong flight number.
Betty Ong says: “Yeah, I’m number 3. I’m number 3 on this flight, and we’re the first”
What did Ong mean when she said, “we’re the first”? Was it a Freudian slip about being the first simulation?
The public never hears the remaining twenty minutes of her conversation, an omission never explained. Whether Betty Ong was a real person or not, the fact remains that the conversation attributed to her was not about a real hijacking. There are plenty of red flags that something was amiss here, but the Ong conversation served to push the “panic” button that serves to wake some people up, but also serves to shut off critical thinking as well. Whatever the case, Betty Ong was not a flight attendant on 9/11 on a hijacked plane.
Fellow flight attendant Amy Sweeney also made a call, although no recording is known to exist. This call became known to the public through records of FBI interviews. Her call allegedly went to American Airlines Flight Service at Boston Logan Airport and interview transcripts apparently show that she identified where hijackers were located on the plane.
She told a manager for American Airlines that “Flight 12 at Gate 32” had two flight attendants stabbed. But Gate 32 was the gate that Flight 11 was supposed to have departed from.
American Airline employee Elizabeth Williams told the FBI that she had gone down to Gate 32 after hearing of Sweeney’s comment. And found an empty plane matching the description of Flight 11!
Like Ong and the others listed here, it appears Sweeney or someone using her name made telephone calls pretending to be on a hijacked plane.
CeeCee Lyles who was said to be an American flight attendant on UA Flight 93 left a voicemail, calmly telling him about the hijacking, how much she loves him, how she hopes to see him again, etc. At the end of the call she whispers what sounds like “It’s a frame.”
If she really were a flight attendant somehow able to use a phone, she would have contacted the authorities to tell them all she could about the flight position in order to assist a rescuing plane. That is what flight attendants do in an emergency. Lyles was not a flight attendant or a passenger. She was a prop, used by others to direct us away from the truth.
Mark Bingham, alleged passenger on United 93 is said to have called his mother Alice Hoagland twice, at 9:36 am and 9.41 am. In the first call he says, “Mom? This is Mark Bingham.” When was the last time you called your mother and used your full name? Not only is it implausible that he would introduce himself with his surname to his mother, it’s also extremely unlikely that he would introduce himself at all. If he had been in a terrifying situation, wouldn’t he just go straight to his message?
It is said by official story proponents that Mark Bingham changed his flight on 9/10, Monday, because he had a heavy night of drinking on Sunday, 9/09. So his flight was changed to Tuesday, 9/11, THE NEXT DAY?
How did he get on the plane without checking in?
If his boarding pass was for a totally different flight on a totally different day. Then when did he receive his UA93 boarding pass or how were they able to know to let him on that flight, especially if his name wasn’t on the manifest? Did they same day deliver a boarding pass to where he was staying on 9/10? Or did he drive to the airport and pick it up on 9/10? That is never mentioned.
Something Strange about Flight 93
Were any of the passengers supposed to be on the flight?
No alleged passenger achieved more fame than Todd Beamer. According to the legend spread through the media, Beamer, confronted by terrorists on United 93, shouted the battle cry “Let’s Roll!” He inspired other passengers to fight back and forced the terrorists to crash the plane in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Beamer worked for Oracle Corporation selling systems applications and software.
Beamer made his alleged shout “Let’s Roll” into a telephone that Verizon operator Lisa Jefferson would later say she heard. For several days after this event, Jefferson supposedly was the only person to know of Beamer’s call and the story of a passenger uprising against hijackers. However, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison sent out a memo to his employees long before the call became public. His memo read:
“We know Todd Beamer is dead. We believe he died when he and other passengers aboard Flight 93 tried to recover the hijacked airplane from the terrorists.… Considering the devastation wrought by the other aircraft, it is unquestionable that Todd’s brave actions, and [those] of his fellow passengers, saved countless lives on the ground.”
Lisa Beamer would later write in her book about Todd, Let’s Roll!: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage:
“How did Larry know that? The FBI hadn’t made any announcement to that effect. Todd’s name had not shown up in any reports indicating that he might have been involved in some way.”
Could Ellison have known about Beamer’s story through Oracle’s connections to the CIA? Evidence shows that the company got its start as a CIA-run project involving some of the people who would later become its leaders. Strangely, Jefferson said later in her own book, Called, that she offered to put Beamer through to his wife. Todd inexplicably refused, instead spending the last few minutes of his life on the phone with a stranger! Jefferson failed to record the call, and the last call went on for 65 minutes, long after the “crash”!
But perhaps the most intriguing issue is that the FBI did not mention Beamer’s famous battle cry “Let’s Roll” in the summary of their interview with Jefferson on September 11, 2001. This phrase did not go public until an article written by Jim McKinnon of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette five days later. McKinnon claims that Lisa Beamer told him that Todd had likely used the phrase. The phrase that just happened to become the national battle cry against the “terrorists.”
So where was Todd Beamer on that day? As with Barbara Olson, we have only a spouse’s claim of the “passenger” staying overnight before a postponed trip. We have no way to verify how he got to the airport. We can also state without reservation that any call he may have made was not about real hijackers or a real crash.
Todd Beamer never boarded any plane. Someone from Oracle could have provided personal information about Beamer to whoever made the call. The caller could have given enough personal information to convince Jefferson and Lisa Beamer that Todd indeed made the call. With his company’s CIA connections, he could easily have assumed a new identity after the “crash.”
The facts of Todd Beamer’s story do not add up to his legend. His name was likely used by his company to help spread fear of terrorism.
The most well-known person allegedly on any of the planes was Barbara Olson. Theories range as to her whereabouts. Some say she was killed off by the plotters, while others say she went away, perhaps to come back later with a new identity.
The story went that she, the pilot, and others on American Flight 77 were rounded up by three of four hijackers using box cutters and knives and sent to the back. Barbara Olson called Ted twice for advice on how to handle the situation. I never could understand why the hijackers allowed her to make a call appealing for help. Nor could I determine why the pilot, Charles Burlingame (a weightlifter and boxer), while in the cockpit, could not have fought off the hijackers or why they did not kill him on the spot. But it got stranger. Ted Olson changed his story at least twice as to what type of phone his wife used to make the calls. At first, he said she used her cell phone to call collect, but he changed his mind about that when he realized she did not have her credit cards. Then he stated that she must have used an “air phone” found on the back of some of the seats, but that story did not work because the air phone could not likely have stretched to the back of the plane where Barbara supposedly made the call and because she would have had to use a credit card to initiate it. He then went back to saying it was a cell phone even though studies have shown the exceptional difficulty of making cell phone calls at high altitudes.
A note about the possibility of air phones on flight 77: There is serious doubt that any of the American Airlines Boeing 757 planes had air phones.28 David Griffin cites several sources, including representatives from American Airlines, the airline flight maintenance manuals and pilots, that make it clear that Boeing 757s, of which American 77 was one, did not have functioning onboard phones in September 2001.
When Zacarias Moussaoui went on trial in 2006 and the government had to produce evidence or let the case against one of the alleged masterminds get away. At some point, the prosecutors needed proof that passengers were really on board the flight and the FBI turned over its phone records to them. The records indicated phone calls by other passengers, but the only call from Olson was “unconnected.”
If the FBI, part of the same Department of Justice in which Ted Olson once served as a leader, would not cover for him and protect the story, it sounded like a rare admission from our government that there was a crack in the official story. But there was one more piece of the puzzle. A study by GlobalResearch.ca points out that carrier AT&T records do not show proof of alleged passenger Barbara Olson making a call to her husband Ted Olson, the then-Solicitor General, though the government “routinely” keeps such records.
Why would someone make up the phone calls? Could it be that Barbara Olson was the only person who allegedly said anything about the terrorists’ use of box cutters? The official story, as carried by politicians and the media at the time of the attacks, and the reports done later, speaks at length about the box cutters. It thus appears more likely than not that Ted Olson, either on his own but more likely at the request of others, made up the calls and inserted “facts” to put a face on the grief and to advance the official story of how terrorists put down anyone who challenged them.
The alleged calls, from Olson, and from other passengers, did not come from American 77 and were instead a part of a propaganda campaign to convince the public of the claims that Olson supposedly made—that there were terrorists with box cutters who hijacked and crashed the flight.
Barbara Olson was a real person who had an image as a television commentator on political issues. Whether she is dead or alive is an interesting question but one that need not be answered. She was not on a hijacked plane on September 11, 2001.
David Ray Griffin: Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials
This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife. In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well? The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11.
A few years later, Ted Olson got remarried to a woman who looks uncannily like his deceased wife, Barbara. She looks to be Barbara after losing weight and undergoing some facial plastic surgery.
Here is a side-by-side with an image of Lady Booth, the wife of Theodore Olson, former U.S. Solicitor General. There is no doubt that these two women look nearly identical. The question is whether the Barbara Olson (born Barbara Kay Bracher in Houston on December 27, 1955) is the same person as Lady Evelyn Booth (born in Louisville, Kentucky, on October 26, 1960) – or do they simply look very similar?
You can’t deny that there is great similarity in physicality between the two. So, is it just a coincidence that Ted Olson happened to meet a woman who looked that much like Barbara? Is this a case of life imitating art? I am referring to the classic Hitchcock trhiller Vertigo.
What Happened to Flight 77’s Passengers?
While Barbara Olson had very close connections to orthodox Jews and Zionism, her husband actually worked to protect the crimes of the state of Israel when he defended the Israeli spy, Jonathan Jay Pollard. How did he get that case – and why did he take it? Ted and Barbara Olson’s ties to Israeli intelligence need to be taken into consideration when pondering their roles in the false flag terror of 9/11. As a partner of the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore Olson served as lead counsel for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court, which secured Bush’s election as President of the United States. Bush then appointed Olson as United States Solicitor General which he was from, 2001-2004. At Yeshiva University, Ted Olson recalled that Barbara Bracher had been the person who officially kicked the Palestinian office out of the United States.
It is possible that some or are even all of the voices were faked using voice-morphing technology, at the very least the alleged voice of Muhammad Atta. The voice-morphing technology was developed by the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico as written about in the Washington Post, Monday, Feb. 1, 1999:
When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing
Monday, Feb. 1, 1999
“Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government.” So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command. At least the voice sounds amazingly like him. But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice “morphing” technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner’s voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm
This voice cloning/morphing software is now readily available: Baidu’s ‘Deep Voice’ Software Can Clone Anyone’s Voice With Just 3.7 Seconds of Audio
My latest book, Rumors Fly, Truth Walks: How Lies Become Our History, concludes that there were no passengers on any of the flights said to have been involved: American 11, American 77, United 93 and United 175. I want to take this idea one step further. With no passengers involved, how did the names that appeared on passenger lists get created?
Officially, the people on these lists were dead. One would ordinarily expect the names of deceased to be reported by a mortuary or by family members to an official source such as the Social Security. But because the “passengers” bodies were never recovered, there is no reason to believe a mortuary would report their deaths. That leaves family members. But how did family members “learn” of their losses? The media.
How did the media decide to accept the names they published on the lists of passenger victims? I have decided to focus on Flight 11. The Boston Globe posted the Flight 11 passenger list on September 13, 2001. I find no information on how the Boston Globe got the passenger list for Flight 11. The only logical sources would be American Airlines or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Airlines have the names of their passengers because the passengers must give this information upon buying a ticket. In the event of a disaster, it would make sense for the airline to release the names of those from its official record (the manifest) so as to notify the public. But they apparently did not release the names here or serve as the source for the Globe.
The FBI took over the investigation of the “plane crashes” from the group that has the responsibility to investigate them, the National Transportation Safety Board. How did the FBI know so quickly that the plane crashes had been acts of terrorism? From fake phone calls or other staged “evidence” that the media ran? How would the FBI have obtained the passenger names so quickly? Ordinarily, again, one would look to the airlines. But they are not the source.
So who created the list? A look at the list helps us to answer this question.
In my research of “passengers” on the Flight 11 list in late 2013, I discovered that only 24 of the 81 “passengers” on board Flight 11 appear on the Social Security Data Index. [Rumors Fly, Truth Walks pages 99-101]. I ran across an article by “brianv” on “Let’s Roll Forums” in which the author said in 2005 that he discovered only 9 of those same 81 “passengers” were on databases that serve as “front ends” to Death Records, Public Records, SSA Master Death File Database. http://letsrollforums.com/fake-passenger-manifests-airline-t6290.html
Allowing that there might be some discrepancies between the two sources, I used his method of checking on names on May 4, 2014: “I start with a wide open search on the Name only at http://www.stevemorse.org/ssdi/ssdi.html this returns the SSN of the person, if that person existed. I then cross reference with the other web – http://knowx.com/death/search.jsp Then I do a more restrictive search Name and State and cross reference. If the State is not listed I search by ‘All States’ Then I do a Name, State and Date of Death = Sept 11 2001. I then note the Age of the person if they Died Sept 11 2001.”
- I found people accounted for that he said did not show up in 2005!
- Why would death records change for people already dead?
- I keep coming back to the question: Who created the list?
- What is the list composed of?
- What about SSDI searches before 2005?
- Were there even fewer names then that showed up on SSDI?
Here is what we know: the flight list got to the media (namely, The Boston Globe) very quickly. The allegation of a plane crash took place on the morning of September 11, 2001. The newspaper published the list on September 13. The party that had the responsibility of maintaining the list of passengers was American Airlines. The airlines is the only party that could have the official passenger list, known as the manifest. The Boston Globe does not identify American Airlines as the source of the list. In short, we have an unofficial list that could have been created by anyone. Someone composed a list of 81 names that would be known as Flight 11 passengers. They chose some names of real people, the people who show up on the SSDI lists. The earlier the research of SSDI lists, the more likely the true number of real people who actually died on 9/11. There was likely enough time for plotters to find names of recently deceased individuals and add them to the list. There were nine such people on “brianv”’s list. Many of them were elderly, giving rise to the possibility that names were taken from retirement homes. http://letsrollforums.com/fake-passenger-manifests-airline-t6290.html
The rest of the names are most likely fictitious.
Dean Hartwell – Planes Without Passengers Challenge: What Happened To The Passengers?
In short, the stories of plane hijackings and the use of the planes by hijackers to strike buildings was a complete hoax. So, too, were stories of distressed passenger calls from planes. The more I researched and debated this matter, furthermore, the more it appeared that, with some exceptions, the alleged passengers were manufactured or used identities. This analysis led to my books Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11, 1st and 2nd editions. These books form the basis of what I say in this essay in which I give my best hypothesis as to the identity of the passengers and what happened to them.
Did they go to the airport/to the gate of flight? – There is no mention of anyone saying publicly that they went with an alleged passenger to the airport or the gate in the official report. Did the alleged flights take off? – The Bureau of Transportation Statistics says no for Flights 11 and 77. The same source says that Flights 175 and 93 did. Where did the flights land? – I don’t know – ACARS records (similar to email but for use for control towers and airplanes in flight) say 93 and 175 flew west of New York hours AFTER they allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania and the World Trade Center, respectively. Read the book to see why I think Ohio is the most likely landing place. Did the passengers exist? The assertion of their existence is not provable or disprovable. With a number of “passengers” from Flights 11 and 77 not passengers on those flights, and probably not passengers at all, it is clear that at least some of the identities are manufactured.
If there are real relatives of the “victims”, why don’t they speak up and acknowledge having doubts about the official story and demand to know what happened to their family members?
Some believe that Ellen Mariani (dec’d), who was the widow of Louis Mariani, an alleged passenger on Flight 175, did just that by filing a lawsuit against the United States government and some of its representatives. She is apparently the only relative to sue in such a manner. By doing so, and give up the money offered by the government to relatives, she certainly stands out.
Significantly, on Black Op Radio Show #156 (2004), Ellen Mariani said that she was the only relative of all the passengers that died on Flight 175 that crashed into the South Tower. Her lawyer, Phil Berg, repeated this statement. Ellen Mariani had tried to get in touch with the other relatives of the people that are supposed to have died on Flight 175 but she could not find a single one.
In her suit, she blamed the Bush administration for failing “to protect and defend against the preventable attacks based upon substantial intelligence known to Defendant GWB prior to ‘9/11’ which resulted in the death of Plaintiff’s husband and thousands of other innocent victims on ‘9/11.’” http://www.nancho.net/911/mariani.html
In other words, she supported the basic structure of the official theory that “terrorists” hijacked the planes and killed the passengers. As Carol Valentine pointed out, if this lawsuit were to succeed, “there will be no more 9/11 plaintiffs to bring suits and no more chance for honest discovery. The Mother of All Conspiracy Theories, the suicide pilot fable, will be set in stone.” http://911review.com/disinfo/lawsuits.html
The relatives’ families have had the opportunity to act like families of people who have lost someone. Typically, if there is any shred of doubt as to what happened, the relatives of victims press to find out the truth. They read up on the subject and would surely know by now the crash scenes were faked. They are the best evidence that there were no true passengers on 9/11.
VicSims – Virtual Victims?
It may be the case that at least some of the alleged 9/11 plane passengers never existed – they are VicSims or virtual victims created using an early version of software now in the public domain.
NVIDIA Neural Network – AI Generated Faces
Look at These Incredibly Realistic Faces Generated By A Neural Network
None of these people are real. We officially can no longer trust anything we see on the internet. From whole-body deep fakes to AI-based translation dubbing, technology is starting to distort reality — all with the help of machine learning.Case in point: researchers at NVIDIA have harnessed the power of a generative adversarial network (GAN) — a class of neural network — to generate some extremely realistic faces.
New AI Generates Freakishly Realistic People Who Don’t Actually Exist
Call you tell a real face from an AI-generated one?
ThisPersonDoesNotExist.com uses AI to generate endless fake faces
Hit refresh to lock eyes with another imaginary stranger
Which Face Is Real?
Deepfakes Are Going To Wreak Havoc On Society. We Are Not Prepared
Researcher Richard D. Hall has “mapped” as many of the flight 175 plane crash videos as he could onto/into a 3D-model of Manhattan. This analysis was published on 21 May 2012 and revealed that 26 clips of the flight 175 crash did indeed appear to match the Radar Data supplied by the NTSB (but there was a discrepancy of about 1400 feet/430 metres with the 84 RADES Radar Data). This tended to rule out the idea of “simple video fakery” – which is what most other “no planers” argue. It seemed to bring us to the point of realisation that “another” technology had been used – one which created the image of planes in the sky – which really could be filmed/video’d. This also explains one of the fundamental difficulties with the “only video fakery” position – some witnesses did report seeing a plane – though there were sufficient variations in their accounts to suggest that there could have been issues with viewing the projected image from certain locations. One of the curious things is the “disappearing wings” observed in some clips – this should not happen with CGI!
Richard D. Hall concluded: ‘The videos were real and the plane was fake – not a fake video of a real plane as some have alleged.’
Note: since this video has been circulating a possible explanation for the difference in the two flight paths (Daniel R. Bower & RADES) has been suggested. The RADES radar system was much further away from the towers, the distance is significant enough to create a fixed system error in the radar readings. This could account for why the RADES path seems over 1000 feet out of position. However, all the other observations in this film are still unexplained. I.E. The speed and impact dynamics are both impossible, therefore we were not seeing a plane in any of the videos. My current thinking on this is there may have been a solid object, probably a small missile at the centre of the “illusion”, with an image of a Boeing 767 being projected around it. The speed recorded is consistent with several types of missile in use in 2001, one being the Tomahawk missile. The size, speed and range of the Tomahawk all match the observed circumstances, they can be launched from a submarine. The speed is definitely not consistent with a Boeing 767. An energy weapon may have been used to created the “wing holes” shortly after impact as was seen in the first tower impact.
Watch the analysis here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Qxzx0qONTSpA
13. ADVANCED HOLOGRAM / 3D IMAGE PROJECTION TECHNOLOGY?
The evidence suggests the “airplanes” on 9/11 were actually a product of psychological warfare through the use of holography or some type of optical illusion and the ‘airplane damage’ was caused by a form of directed energy. I accept that it may not have been a hologram in the technical sense but for the sake of simplicity I will use the term as everyone knows what is meant by it.
Does this honestly look like a real plane to you? Does the physical interaction upon contact with the side of the tower honestly look real to you?
What was seen in the sky on 9/11 was a very convincing illusion technology, albeit, it didn’t look quite as convincing from certain angles. The blue sky was essential to the illusion. This is likely why they had to run the airplane illusion at a speed beyond normal operating mach speed, so the eye didn’t spot how the airplane seamlessly entered the building, which eventually backfired on them.
THE WITNESS TESTIMONY INDICATES A HOLOGRAM
The eyewitness testimonies are not consistent with the crash dynamics of a real airplane crash and indicate that the planes were indeed a hologram.
Penny Elgas, an eyewitness at the Pentagon states that the plane simply melted into the building. Obviouly a real plane does not melt into a building and this tesitmony can only be reconciled if we accept that what she is describing is in fact a 3D projected image of a plane.
“At the second that I saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything – not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds. The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building.”– Statement from Penny Elgas Personal Experience At The Pentagon on September 11, 2001
Park Foreman, an eyewitness at the WTC towers, filmed the “plane” going into the South Tower said “It looked like it went right through.” Since a jetliner could not possibly go right through steel beams and concrete/steel floors, this tesitmony can only be reconciled if we accept that what he is describing is a 3D image of a plane and not a real plane.
“I heard a plane fly overhead,” said Park Foreman, 37, an Internet security consultant. “Then I looked out the window and saw the first tower on fire. I saw another airplane approaching from the south. I put my camera on it and followed it straight into the building. It looked like it went right through.”Polytechnic Online, 09-12-2001
Evan Fairbanks was filming the South Tower from below as it happened. After watching the video back several times he describes the plane as disappearing like a bad special effect and that it’s incomprehensible. Yes it is incomprehensible if you believe it is a real plane, as in the words of Joseph Keith, aluminum planes don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them. It is comprehensible if we realise that what he saw and is seen in the video can only be a 3D projected image of a plane.
“It disappeared like a bad special effect. It disappeared right into the building. I’ve seen it 6-7 times now and it’s still incomprehensible what is actually happening there.”Evan Fairbanks, ABC News interview, 09-11-01, 15:03
Susan Romo was in Battery Park City when she witnessed the second “plane” from the roof of her apartment. Just 15 minutes after the “impact” she call into to a talk radio station.
“The plane just went right into the second tower and completely disappeared. I can see right now, there is no debris, no plane debris at all, it was just all swallowed up by the tower. It’s amazing.”
In a recorded phone conversation with researcher Jeff Hill, she told him that:
Susan Romo: “I didn’t see wreckage coming out of the building.”
Jeff Hill: “Ok, but when it went in, like nothing broke off? It went in from nose to tail, the wings and everything just disappeared into the building?”
Susan Romo: “Yeah, well you could see the fire but the building just absorbed it like a sponge, so to speak.”
Jeff Hill: “Yeah that’s what a lot of people seem to find very strange. Did you happen to see it coming in from far out?”
Susan Romo: “Not from far out. I was taking pictures from my rooftop of the first crash and I remember looking up and seeing the plane, the second plane coming over my head and I could see the writing on the plane and the plane banked its wings and went right in.”
Jeff Hill: “Did you hear it? Was it loud?”
Susan Romo: “No I couldn’t, I don’t recall hearing it. I was kind of in shock but I don’t remember hearing anything though.”
Jeff Hill: “You don’t remember hearing it?”
Susan Romo: “No I don’t.”
Susan Romo’s testimony is incompatible with what would have happened in a real crash between a 767 jetliner and the South Tower. Only a 3D projected image, or for lack of a better word – a hologram – would be absorbed by the tower like a sponge, would disappear right inside the tower without any debris, and without any sound, and leaving no wreckage. A hologram fits the evidence perfectly. A real plane does not.
Shanksville eyewitness Lee Purbaugh, “was the only person to see the last seconds of Flight 93 as it came down on former strip-mining land at precisely 10.06am.” He was working at the Rollock Inc. scrap yard on a ridge overlooking the point of impact, less than half a mile away. In conversation with researcher Jeff Hill he states that he watched the “plane” go down into a field as he was running towards it, never loosing sight of it. Then when he got to the crash site there was nothing there. Purbaugh said the only thing he could identify was a bookbag and a bunch of mail.
THE TECHNOLOGY – WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?
“The ability to project an object of apparent solidity to enemy radar, instantly manipulatable, would be a most valuable little toy to have in your bag of tricks. As an added bonus, the plasma might even have significant emissions in the IR bands, as a decoy for heat seeking missiles. With enough engineering, it might be possible to reduce the size of the particle accelerator/generator to something small enough to fit on an aircraft (although that’s hard to imagine). The energy requirements would still be quite large, but great advances have been made in the short-term generation of power through chemical means (i.e., airborne lasers).”– Particle Beams and Saucer Dreams: Is there “Substance” to lights in the sky over Area 51?, Tom Mahood
“…This is especially true due to the quick pace of development in the production of holograms. These can be used to make an army look larger than it is, or to make life-sized tank and soldier holograms appear to move and thereby confuse or intimidate soldiers. Hologram technology “uses a laser to illuminate an object and write its image into a photo-refractive crystal, while another laser projects that image into a liquid scattering material.” Holograms are also being considered for their value in propaganda productions, such as morphing images of political leaders. Soldiers require training to recognize misleading information produced from holograms, voice synthesis or other psychological tricks.”– Lieutenant Colonel Timothy L. Thomas (USA Ret.) analyst at the Foreign Military Studies Office
“Soon both sides will have the ability to use holograms and other IT manifestations that will offer the opportunity to completely fool one another.”
• PSYWAR is a fourth type of war, more important than land, sea and air warfare. There are weapons of “light” (blinding lasers, arc lights weapons), weapons of “sound” (noise simulators, electronic shouting, etc.).– Russian and Chinese Information Warfare: Theory and Practice, Timothy L. Thomas, FMSO
• PSYWAR techniques include image projection technology (holograms) and camouflage by transfiguration to deceive an enemy.
• Technology can imitate weapons, fighting positions, and personnel to confuse people. Holograms are being developed in the U.S. for PSYWAR use.
An Operational Analysis for Air Force 2025: An Application of Value-Focused Thinking to Future Air and Space Capabilities – A Research Paper May 1996
“The holographic projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.”– An Operational Analysis for Air Force 2025: An Application of Value-Focused Thinking to Future Air and Space Capabilities – A Research Paper May 1996 p. 114
This technology was reported in the media before 9/11 pertaining to military psychological operations (PSYOPS).
“When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing”
By William M. Arkin
February 1, 1999
According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.
washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The “Holographic Projector” is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to “project information power from space … for special operations deception missions.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm
Invisibility Cloak With Image Projection Capability
Investigations of invisibility cloaks have been led by rigorous theories and such cloak structures, in general, require extreme material parameters. Consequently, it is challenging to realize them, particularly in the full visible region. Due to the insensitivity of human eyes to the polarization and phase of light, cloaking a large object in the full visible region has been recently realized by a simplified theory. Here, we experimentally demonstrate a device concept where a large object can be concealed in a cloak structure and at the same time any images can be projected through it by utilizing a distinctively different approach; the cloaking via one polarization and the image projection via the other orthogonal polarization. Our device structure consists of commercially available optical components such as polarizers and mirrors, and therefore, provides a significant further step towards practical application scenarios such as transparent devices and see-through displays.
The chances of advanced image-projection holographic technology actually existing is becoming more and more likely. A good example of this is contained in a military document titled, “3-D Holographic Display Using Strontium Barium Niobate”, which was written by the Army Research Lab back in 1998, which discusses just one of many ways of achieving a high quality and realistic 3D hologram that can be projected into “free space”. In this case, the experiment was much more successful than they initially expected. Here is a short summary of the conclusions stated in the document, explaining the outcome of the experiment:
3D Holographic Display Using Strontium Barium Niobate
“A simple method for recording a real-time, 3D hologram using Strontium Barium Niobate has been demonstrated. The 3D hologram is a realistic image that can be viewed over a large field of view. A double-pumped phase-conjugate mirror was used to produce a phase conjugate read beam in order to view the hologram over the maximum perspective or field of view. We further increased the field of view of the hologram by storing the hologram in a mosaic of two Strontium Barium Niobate crystals. Multiple 3-D images have been stored and read out of the crystal via wavelength multiplexing. The holograms were also noted to persist without any external fixing mechanisms. During readout, the holograms persisted for hours. When the photorefractive storage crystal was kept in a dark environment, the holograms persisted for days.”
Holograms Based On ‘Spooky Action At A Distance’
Researchers at Boston University’s Quantum Imaging Laboratory propose to create holographic images of objects concealed in a spherical chamber.
Ideally, a small opening in the chamber wall permits light to enter, but lets no light out. The photons in a beam of light directed through the hole scatter from the enclosed object, and ultimately strike the inner wall of the chamber. According to the scheme, the inside of the chamber would be designed to detect the time when a photon hits the wall but not where it hits. Classically, there is no way to generate an image of an object with this sort of configuration.
Quantum mechanically, however, it’s possible to build a hologram of the hidden object provided that the photons in the illuminating beam are entangled with photons in another beam. Each photon in an entangled pair has properties (such as momentum or polarization) that are unknown until a measurement is performed on one photon or the other. When a property of one of the photons is measured, corresponding information about its entangled mate is instantly determined.
That may seem spooky enough, but in quantum holography, things get spookier still. Holograms are typically constructed with interfering beams of light, which provides more information about a subject than simple illumination can. The additional information helps build a three dimensional image of a three dimensional object.
In quantum holography, the researchers measure the simultaneous arrivals of an illuminating photon that is sent into the chamber and a companion photon in the other entangled beam. This measurement tells the researchers about the interference of various possible paths that the single photon inside the chamber could travel.
It’s the interference of the possible paths that encodes the holographic image of the hidden object, which is very spooky indeed. For the moment, quantum holography exists only on paper. But the BU researchers assert that there are no technological obstacles to the proposal, and they hope to begin building an experimental system soon.
NIST team proves ‘spooky action at a distance’ is really real
Touchable Hologram Becomes Reality (w/ Video)
Physicists create Star Wars-style 3D projections — just don’t call them holograms
Laser and particle system produces three-dimensional moving images that appear to float in thin air.
Volumetric Display achieves quality moving 3D images that are better than holograms
3D Volumetric Display Concepts For The Future
Better than holograms: A new 3-D projection into thin air
If you have seen the destruction of the twin towers then you have seen the effects of directed energy weapons. This has been proven in a Qui-tam court case filed by Dr. Judy Wood against NIST and its 9/11 Contractors which is documented in her 500 page investigation: Where did the towers go? The information is widely available, it is provable, and it is verifiable. It’s important to note that the same companies who investigated the 9/11 attacks, also specialize in these energy weapons. As do other companies involved in 9/11. They have developed something called the ‘Directed Energy Professional Society’ their sponsors are all members of the military industrial complex & private contractors for government agencies. Among the companies listed on the ‘website sponsor page’ is a company called SPIE. Which describes itself as an international society advancing an interdisciplinary approach to the science and application of light. Society for optics and photonics. This company specializes in military applications for holographic interferometry, lasers, illumination, displays, electronic imaging, signal processing, defense, and national security. They published a book in 1996 entitled: “Light in flight – the holodiagram the columbi egg of optics.”
This company has worked in close corners with NIST. (27) They were studying and testing holographic technology prior to 2001. They are apart of the ‘Directed Energy Professional Society‘ and have direct ties to the people who investigated the destruction of the WTC buildings. We also have Wright Patterson AFB with links to to NIST, and obviously other advanced aircraft, working on holographic technology prior to 2001. We also have IPG Photonics Corporation, II-VI Optical Systems, Lasertel, and TOSC all working on similar technologies relating to ‘electro-optics’.
Connection to Former Area 51 employee – Edgar Fouche
Edgar Fouche was a defense contractor / engineer who worked at Area 51 in the late 80’s and is known for disclosing his knowledge of the TR3-B aircraft at the International UFO Congress in 1998. In that speech he mentions that the aircraft utilizes a special meta-material known as quasicrystals for the stealth technology of the TR3-B. He said most of the information regarding quasicrystals was highly classified because of the different defense applications the material provided. He explains briefly it was discovered in 1984 and that DARPA was funding studies into quasicrystals. The reason this is so interesting is that he goes into a bit of detail about the quasicrystals potential for 3D penrose tiling and this information has only recently come to be known in the public. (31) The information he presents regarding quasicrystals is almost verbatim to some scholarly papers being written today. (32) He disclosed this technology in 1998 and he was an engineer. There’s no reason he should have knowledge that future physicist will be discussing 20 years later, unless he was directly involved in it.
He’s been called a fraud online. (33) I believe through my own research that Edgar Fouche was an honest, genuine, guy who did not lie about what he did and saw, and he did work at Area 51. Researcher Andrew Johnson has done an amazing job at documenting the proof of this. It all seems to check out. (34)
He was also correct about when the quasicrystals were discovered, which I decided to do a bit more research on. That’s when I found some very odd connections. Daniel Shectman is the man who found quasicrystals and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2013. (35) Shectman claims to have discovered these crystals in 1982 at NBS (NIST) while working alone. (36) He was born 1941 in Tel Aviv (Palestine) Israel. (37) His father Joseph Shectman set up the first Jewish printing house in Palestine in the early 1900’s which helped to eventually establish the first prime minister in Israel among other prominent political figures. (38) His father was a revolutionist and and activist, and a prominent figure in the early Zionist movement. He has even wrote a few books about this subject. (39)
Dan Shectman was in the Military and trained as a Sharpshooter. He later got his Ph.D. and took a job at the Aerospace Research Laboratories at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio to study compounds of the metals aluminum and titanium, with the goal of developing strong, lightweight materials for aircraft components. Yes the same Wright-Patterson Air Force Base I mentioned before. He became part of Technion in the 60’s – Israel Institute of Technology which was established in 1912 during the Ottoman Empire. (40) There are many connections to the U.S. Department of Energy and this Institute. (41) Schectman was at NBS (NIST) for a two-year position as a visiting researcher. He was ridiculed for 10 years after his discovery in the 80’s. The head of his research group told him to “go back and read the textbook” Linus Pauling said: “There are no quasicrystals only quasi-scientists” and a couple of days later “asked him to leave for ‘bringing disgrace’ on the team.” Then 1992-1994 he was asked back to NIST after Linus Pauling died – a man who ties to Schectman through what seems to be mystery religion subjects and scientific work. He also received the Rothschild Prize in Engineering in 1990. (42) Most of the information relating to Dan Schectman is on the NIST Website. Once again the same company who was hired by congress to determine how the WTC was destroyed on 9/11.
After reading some “peer reviewed” papers, It seems some applications refer to short wavelengths being used to create images of structures with the right meta-materials. It seems the quasicrystals can have multiple purposes possibly helping with propulsion techniques. Which is something else that Edgar Fouche mentioned, also energy solutions, and data storage. He gives a quote from the DoE regarding quasicrystals in the 1990’s and refers to AIMS Laboratory being involved in studying this material. The Nobel Committee at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said that “Dan Schectman’s discovery was extremely controversial,” but that his work “eventually forced scientists to reconsider their conception of the very nature of matter.” (43)
There is close to a 20 year gap between NIST getting ahold of this technology and Ed Fouche disclosing it at the conference. It is accepted in the mainstream that there are no technological applications for quasicrystals yet. However the Nobel Prize did come in 2013. How did Edgar Fouche know this material could be used for stealth? Why have they only just recently mentioned the possibility of image projection / stealth? It does seem to have been a part of black projects at some time in the 80’s – 90’s. When Schectman published his first paper on this “The world went crazy, he got emails, phone call, etc. and explained to many young scientists how to make this material. (44) Then he was ridiculed. Then we hear about this same technology being used at Area 51. Then all goes quiet, 9/11 happens, and we don’t hear about quasicrystals again until 2013 when the Nobel Prize was awarded. Very interesting. Some of these documents are very telling too. (45)
It is important to mention these patents filed with the U.S. Patent Office as well.
Hughes Aircraft Company – https://www.google.com/patents/US3940204
Holography Image Formation – https://www.google.com/patents/US3653736
Optical Control Shaping Beam – https://www.google.com/patents/US3529887
In this short blog post I want to draw attention to some strange anomalies captured in various videos and photographs during Flight 175’s approach towards the South Tower before it crashed. Please see a selection of the video still images and photographs below showing the anomalous looking orbs. To begin my analysis please see the Park Foreman video still image below:
Many people have tried to explain these strange white anomalies as paper which was ejected from the North Tower after it got its damage from the “alleged” first plane. However if you look at the size of the “alleged” plane in this still video image the anomalous objects would have to be far too large to be pieces of paper flying around in the air. Plus, the anomalous objects, if indeed they are solid objects are showing-up in different frames of the video as the “alleged” plane approaches the South Tower.
The fact we are seeing these anomalies from different directions and camera angles can rule out reflections from the sunlight into the cameras, as the sunlight direction is behind from a south west position, however could indicate something else such as orbs which are periodically being captured by the cameras, which may not be visible to the naked eye. This needs further investigation and research as to what indeed these strangle anomalies are, as they are definitely NOT paper as suggested by many researchers.
An area of research we never hear too much about anymore is the two “mystery” planes flying in and around the vicinity during the second “alleged” plane event where allegedly “Flight 175” impacted the South Tower in NY. The FBI were aware of at least one of those two “mystery” planes, as reported by Jennifer Spell a videographer who captured the “mystery” plane in the background as “Flight 175” crashed into the South Tower in her video footage. She provided the FBI with a copy of her video which showed a “second” plane parallelling the “alleged” United Airlines “Flight 175” plane. To my knowledge nothing more was ever disclosed to Jennifer Spell by the FBI (during their visit for a viewing at her home of the video footage) as to what the second plane was doing in that area at the time of the plane crash into the South Tower.
9/11 Second Plane Circling Witnesses, Photos, FAA Unknown Radar
Image Projection & Holographic Projector Technology…
Hypothesising: Because of all the “strange” anomalies captured in the second plane crash videos of the “alleged” Flight 175 airplane, such as; disappearing wings, no collision on impact with the building, explosion happening after the plane had already entered the building and no apparent debris falling to the ground of the plane along with no breakage of the tail section on impact and impossible plane speed.
Explaining these anomalies has always been promoted via way of “video fakery”, which has several issues in its theory. My personal hypothesis suggests similar to a hypothesis first put forward by Richard D. Hall in 2012, regarding a drone flying parallel to Flight 175 projecting an airplane. This was mainly suggested because of the anomalies in the military radar data which showed the plane’s coordinates 1500 feet to the side of the civilian radar data plane path.
My suggestion to the drone theory flying to the side of Flight 175 would be to ask the question; were those two unidentified “mystery” planes involved in some way deploying some type of “image projection” of a plane, which is why the existence of the two “mystery” planes was never investigated fully or discussed publicly by the 9/11 Commission?
David Shayler discussing “No-Planes” on Sky News 05-12-2006
On December 5th, 2006, former MI5 officer David Shayler was on UK television news channel Sky News to talk about the death of former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko. Shayler took the opportunity to “go off the reservation” and relates the bizarre Russian spy poison plot as an example of false flag terrorism which he uses as a pivot point to tie in 9/11 and 7/7 as examples of manufactured terror. He deftly rattles off a host of 9/11 anomalies which would surely make someone hearing them for the first time at least raise an eyebrow, and maybe even type a few keywords into a web search engine. He is bold enough to pin 9/11 on the US establishment, rapidly humming through the PNAC foreshadowing.
At the 26 minute mark, in reply to Shayler’s comments with regards to the probability of Al-Qaeda bringing down the WTC towers, Sky News presenter Martin Stanford brings up the airplanes which are said to have struck the towers. Because of this, Shayler goes on to say that there is no evidence that the specific American and United flights hit the towers:
STANFORD: Did the American State book the planes? Fly the planes?
SHAYLER: Well this is the interesting point about the planes. FAA records show that Flight 11 and Flight 77 didn’t even take off that day …and where’s all the CCTV footage of the hijackers in the airports, there’s no CCTV footage been released of them in the airports where planes took off.
STANFORD: …I’m sorry if I’m repeating myself… but the shot… the iconic shot which is emblazoned in all our minds, those of us that were around that day, and were reporting that day, of planes hitting the tower… how do you explain that?
SHAYLER: Well I would say to anybody, look at that footage, slow it down, and come to your own conclusions. I very firmly believe that what you’re seeing there is not consistent with a plane going into a building, but people have got to make their own minds up.
STANFORD: I’m sorry, I don’t understand that. What do you mean? There was a plane or there was not a plane?
SHAYLER: I would say to people, look at the footage, yeah? From all the angles, and see how that plane goes into the building.
STANFORD: Every angle shows an aeroplane, hitting the building.
SHAYLER: It shows an aeroplane – it shows SOMETHING… melting into a building. Not hitting a building. When you have a plane hitting a building like that you expect to see the wings start to fracture, you expect to see explosions when the engines, that are full of fuel, hit the buildings. You expect to see blowbacks of parts coming back off the building. When you slow it down, you see a plane melt into the building, then you see the explosion once it’s inside.
STANFORD: You’ll be aware of the offence some people will take…
SHAYLER: I’m not in the business of offending anybody I’m trying to get to the truth. I want justice for those people. Because if I’m right and I believe I am; that elements of the American government were responsible for this then we have so far not had justice.David Shayler Discussing Poisioned Spy, 7/7 and 9/11 “No-Planes” on Sky News 05-12-2006
In September 2006, British columnist Brendan O’Neill had interviewed David Shayler at his home with his then girlfriend Annie Machon. He was asked whether he is a “no planer” to which Shayler replied “The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes.”
Then things really go off the rails. I ask Shayler if it’s true he has become a “no planer” – that is, someone who believes that no planes at all were involved in the 9/11 atrocity. Machon looks uncomfortable. “Oh, fuck it, I’m just going to say this,” he tells her. “Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/11.” But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. “The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes,” he says. “Watch the footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center.” He must notice that my jaw has dropped. “I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe.”Meet the No Planers, New Statesman, September 11th, 2006
David Shayler – Interview on BBC Radio2 – No-Planes & Holograms
In early-mid 2007 David Shayler unfortunately suffered a breakdown and began cross-dressing and claiming to be the messiah. Did the stress of whistleblowing cause him to have a breakdown or was he also intentionally “head fucked” by the intelligence agencies to assassinate his character? It’s likely he was simply coerced into discrediting himself with a threat to his life, instructing him to act up before the media; or was he poisoned into a drug induced delusion with a potent version of the drug Ropinirole which is known to cause impulsive cross-dressing?
14. IN CONCLUSION WE CAN BE 100% CERTAIN THE PLANES WERE NOT REAL
Opponents contend that if a jetliner could indeed travel 500 mph at sea level it would smash into so many little pieces there would be very little left. Aside from a jetliner not being able to to fly 500 mph at sea level, the idea that the plane would basically disintegrate into confetti leaving almost no wreckage to identify is not plausible at all. Ronald Bleier argues, as any rational person would, that a plane going into those steel buildings is the same as a plane going into the side of a mountain or like a moth flying into a windshield. There’s no way the plane would go through it and there would be significant wreckage. No wreckage has been produced and not a single plane part identification number has been shown.
Apart from defying the laws of physics with impossible crash dynamics the planes do not even look real. A significant argument against the belief that real planes were used; is that if real planes did indeed fly into the towers we would not have videos with ridiculously cartoonish planes performing cartoon physics – instead we would have videos that showed an indisputably real plane performing indisputably real crash physics. But of course we don’t because it is an impossibility – a real plane would not have penetrated the thick steel and concrete of the WTC towers.
Another contention by opponents is that the plane wasn’t a normal jetliner it was a drone or some other specially modified aircraft. The answer to this is that the same physics applies to a drone or any other aircraft as it does to a Boeing 767. That is, impossible is still impossible no matter the aircraft.
So the question is: are the planes digital composites (CGI) inserted into real video or is it a 3D projected image using advanced technology not known to the public?
The media fakery argument is that small planes or missiles hit the towers and these were covered over in the videos and photos of the impact by 3D graphic images (CGI) of 767s (including real-time superimposition of these images on all live TV footage as it was broadcast). The over arching weakness of the media overlay argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one good image posted to the web would have threatened the exposure of the operation.
Researchers Richard D. Hall, Andrew Johnson and Mark Conlon’s work has thoroughly debunked the video fakery theory:
Mark Conlon: While I agree with this video analysis by Saultrain, that ‘Luma Keying’ compositing was impossible. I don’t agree “real” planes were used or involved in the crashes at the WTC, Pentagon or Shanksville, although many eyewitnesses did see planes in the sky and crash, so this rules out CGI and video fakery. Some type of ‘image projection’ technology was used to broadcast an image of a plane in the sky. This hypothesis is the only explanation that can explain all the anomalies captured in the video evidence record of ‘Flight 175’ regarding the missing wings of the plane for 6 frames, the impossible crash physics and impossible speed the plane was travelling at in the videos.
Debunking Ace Baker’s “The Key” CGI & Video Fakery Plane Compositing Theory
Richard D. Hall’s 3D radar data analysis has confirmed that the trajectory of the “planes” in all the videos match up with the radar data. If video fakery was used i.e the planes were digital composites, the question can be asked why would they go to the trouble of making sure all the “plane” videos match up with the radar data but do such a poor job of rendering the planes which look like poor quality CGI. Why does the wing momentarily disappear in six different videos? This still from the Hezarkhani video shows a digital composite plane on the top and the original “plane” from the Hezarkhani video underneath. The digital composite plane looks more realistic. Here is a video showing how easy it is to create a digital composite plane and insert it into real video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds Here is another example of a digital composite plane inserted into the Evan Fairbanks video. Why would they create such poor quality CGI planes that look different in different videos? If the planes were a digital composite it should look the same in every video.
Based on Richard D. Hall’s radar data analysis (Richard D. Hall – 9/11 “Flight 175” – 3D Radar Analysis), the witness testimony and the fact the left wing disappears in 4 videos the evidence points to the plane being a 3D volumetric holographic projection. Richard D. Hall believes there may have been a solid object, probably a small missile at the centre of the “illusion”, with an image of a Boeing 767 being projected around it.
WHY NOT USE REAL PLANES?
Since it is impossible for an airplane to penetrate the towers, using real airplanes was simply not an option. Aside from that, there are too many things that could go wrong using real planes. The planes could miss the towers and crash in the wrong place, exposing the fraud, outsiders would discover faked airliners and missing hijackers (Muslims required!). Not using real planes also eliminates the need for a DOD “stand down” order because there’s no risk of airliner interceptions by “rogue patriots” in the military.
For a more thorough explanation of why real planes were not used please read the late Gerard Holmgren’s article Why they didn’t use planes.
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, is Professor emeritus, economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. He is a former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor 2001-2002, and he also served as the Director of the Criminal Justice Center and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
“I’m like the kid in The Emperor’s New Clothes, somebody’s got to step up and say something.”– Dr. Morgan Reynolds
Last month the U.S. District Court, Southern New York, unsealed a 9/11 case filed by Dr. Morgan Reynolds, thereby making the case public. Reynolds is suing on behalf of the United States of America after the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who represents “the government” declined to intervene in the case. The suit, a so-called qui tam case, alleges that the 9/11 contractors NIST hired to investigate destruction of the WTC Towers on 9/11 defrauded the U.S. government of substantial money by rendering bogus, impossible physical analysis and animations about how two hollow aluminum aircraft (allegedly Boeing 767s) flew into a steel/concrete tower and disappeared. Yet it can be easily demonstrated, after a great deal of hard work by dedicated 9/11 researchers, that no planes hit the towers. The office of Reynolds’ attorney, Jerry V. Leaphart of Connecticut, is now serving(notifying) the defendants in the suit, including Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Applied Research Associates (ARA), Boeing, American Airlines, United Airlines and Silverstein Properties. I will post new information on the case as developments warrant.
Unsealed Complaint PDF
Affidavit by John Lear
Affidavit by Morgan Reynolds
Request for Correction by NIST for its Invalid WTC Jetliner Animations and Analyses
Mailed to the National Institute of Standards and Technology on March 8, 2007.
Supplement to Request for Correction
Mailed to the National Institute of Standards and Technology May 1, 2007
Qui Tam Complaint and Jury Demand
Filed under seal May 31, 2007
Morgan Reynolds July 11th, 2008
DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS, on behalf of The United States of America
Plaintiff vs. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al
“In separate actions, three different plaintiffs, who are all represented by the same attorney, commenced individual lawsuits attempting to challenge the investigative findings, of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), as to how and why the World Trade Center buildings collapsed on 9/11.” Plaintiff, Dr. Morgan Reynolds is not challenging why the “World Trade Center buildings collapsed on 9/11.” That is a clear misapprehension of his information.
Even more glaringly fundamental to this assertion of misapprehension of plaintiffs claim is the fact that the document that is specifically incorporated into the complaint that gave rise to plaintiffs assertions of fraud and that constitutes the very essence of the “information” upon which his status as a qui tam relator is based is not mentioned, not referenced, not even acknowledged to exist anywhere in the Memorandum Decision. This refers to plaintiffs’ Request for Correction filed with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on March 8, 2007.
Accordingly, therefore, the Memorandum Decision does not show how the conclusion — “[n]one of plaintiffs’ asserted legal claims can withstand defendants’ motions to dismiss” — could possibly have been reached absent mention of them and absent acknowledgement of their being materially true.
On June 26, 2008, Judge George B. Daniels dismissed three 9/11 law suits with prejudice, including my “no planes crashed at the WTC” lawsuit against NIST contractors. My conclusion? Disappointment but no surprise. The dismissal was highly likely if not certain. Yes, it would have been great to interrogate the government’s hired cover-up artists under sworn oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” subject to perjury penalties. My case, as well as Dr. Judy Wood’s suit, held the potential to break the 9/11 conspiracy wide open, so I had to try. The judge’s decision, badly crafted and over-the-top, nearly hysterical, combined with his subsequent denial of my motion for reconsideration, brilliantly drafted by attorney Jerry V. Leaphart, on the same day no less, established two results in my mind:
- There is no justice system when push-comes-to-shove because the powerful will be served, as blatantly demonstrated on Wall Street this September, and
- The government and its agents cannot withstand discovery under oath by a savvy prosecutor or plaintiff, so it will not be allowed to happen. Any dishonest reply or faking of evidence by NIST contractors would have drawn another question, exposing the lie. Judge Daniels betrayed his oath of office by protecting NIST contractors from the questions they could not answer.
So how do we win? How do we break 9/11 wide open, convict perpetrators and re-boot the system? Beats me, but we must continue to try, exploring every avenue and exploiting all peaceful opportunities as they arise. I have chosen not to appeal my “no planes” case to the federal appellate level in New York but Dr. Judy Wood has appealed her case. One appeal is enough because the judge rolled all three cases together, so one smackdown by the appeals court will be quite sufficient to confirm that the “judge-holds-a-grudge” theory applies at the appellate level when it comes to 9/11 too.
Date: March 10, 2008
Wood v ARA 1:07cv3314 (GBD)
Reynolds v SAIC 1:07cv4612 (GBD)
Two citizen-plaintiffs on behalf of the United States of America have claimed fraud by several companies led by Applied Research Associates Inc. (ARA) and Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) in preparation of the September 2005 “Final Report on the Collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center” (NCSTAR 1) under contracts with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Reynolds’ case claims that No Planes hit the Twin Towers. Wood’s case claims that Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) destroyed the Twin Towers and some of the effects are ongoing.
The first step in so-called Qui Tam lawsuits involves determining whether the court has proper jurisdiction over the claims, not their validity. The pending lawsuits are brought under the False Claims Act and are designated as Qui Tam cases. The only way to find out whether a case can pass muster under the False Claims Act is to put it before the court to decide.
A nearly complete set of briefs and affidavits have been filed in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, by the attorney for Dr. Judy Wood in the case entitled Dr. Judy Wood ex rel. USA vs. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al. 1:07cv3314 (Hon. George B. Daniels, Judge). That filing comes one month after the filing of opposition briefs and affidavits involving a similar jurisdictional challenge in the case entitled Dr. Morgan Reynolds ex rel. USA vs. Science Applications International Corp. et al. 1:07cv4612, also pending before Judge Daniels and involving the same defendants.
In Wood v ARA, evidence confirming that the annihilation and pulverization in approximately 10 seconds of each of the Twin Towers could not possibly have been caused by supposed jetliner impacts and kerosene (jet fuel is kerosene) is put forth in detail by Dr. Judy Wood, plaintiff-relator.
Reynolds v SAIC relies on evidence that 767 wide-body jetliners could not have done what video images depict. Evidence of false imagery includes:
767 jetliners appearing to attain the velocity of 540 mph at 1000ft or less above sea level;
767 jetliners, made of aluminum, seeming to penetrate solid structural steel from nose to tail, wing-tip to wing-tip, without exploding, without slowing, without degrading, crumpling or losing a single part, disappearing through an undersized airplane silhouette of passage appearing an unknown time after the plane image disappeared and without a widely-heard deafening sound of a jetliner at full throttle being present. Moreover, the south tower explosion appears in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Few of the depicted characteristics if any, as seen in videos of the event, are physically possible, according to documents filed in the Reynolds case.
The brief and affidavits filed by Dr. Wood point to an ongoing danger in that Ground Zero is still contaminated with the aftereffects of the use of directed energy weaponry. According to her documents, the weapons used to destroy the Twin Towers are a new technology and affect the destruction of materials at the molecular level, which accounts for the near instantaneous disappearance of the towers.
Further, the results of 9/11 appear to be a non-self-quenching reaction. The cleanup of the aftereffects is still ongoing and may pose a significant danger to the public. Because of that contamination, Dr. Wood asserts that it is unwise to construct any skyscrapers on the site, let alone a 1776 ft. tower. Dr. Wood, a materials-engineering scientist whose expertise is experimental mechanics, has called upon the scientific community in America to take heed of this evidence.
Dr. Wood got NIST to admit that it “did not investigate the actual collapses” despite its mandate to investigate the “collapses” of the Twin Towers.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DR. JUDY WOOD on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Relator vs. Defendants.
Jerry Leaphart and Judy Wood discuss new Qui Tam case https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2007/10/12/old-news-3128
9/11 Qui Tam Case Filed in US Supreme Court
Paul Craig Roberts: Why Do Academics Fear the Truth About 9/11?
Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds brought Qui Tam cases (2007) against Applied Research Associates and Science Applications International Corporation for their allegedly fraudulent role in the production of the NIST reports. However, the longer that time goes on, and more people around the world come to understand that there is something deeply suspect about the events of 9/11, the more inexcusable it becomes for academics to continue to turn a blind eye to those events. The burden of proof today is on academia to defend the official narrative against the allegations that have been made against it.