And all the people who were in the planes are still alive.

and all their grieving relatives were acting and are in on the deal with the govt.

there were lists and comments from friends mourning deaths

were the passengers killed?????

why haven't they been reported alive??????

Thanks for digging all this stuff, out.

I suspect the people who died, were all on Flight 93, eh--the one that got shot down over Pennsylvania?

Now the question is, "Does anybody care, who can do something about it?"

Regarding your comment about "passengers alleged to be aboard," are you suggesting that those alleged passengers were not on board and that they didn't die. Is this plausible?

Make a rating on this comment.

select a ratingUninformativeOKGood stuffRecommendedExcellent

If the flights didn't exist then its axiomatic that the passengers weren't on board. And the official documentation appears to show that the flights did not exist.
However this cannot be extrapolated to an automatic claim that they're still alive. If they are dead, which would seem to be the default assumption, then they died by some means other than being aboard the planes in question.

people are taking this seriously..

i saw the footage of the FIRST and second planes, over and over,,.//

there is clear footage of BOTH planes Crashing!!!!!

Spot on!
It was all a film set and the yanks sure got fooled. Fake planes, fake people. It was like the Towering Inferno, fake buildings and all.

That hole in lower Manhattan is all special effects.

At least you stopped clawing yourself long enough to get onto the keyboard for a while.

Hey guys!

You've to read properly!
The article suggests that the passengers of Flight 11 actually were in Flight 175 (theoretically no problem as there has been lots of seats free) and the article only says that Flight 11 was not scheduled. No word about Flight 175.
Moreover the fact that Flight 11 was not schedulded does not mean that nothing hit the WTC. It just says that it wasn't Flight 11. So therefore it demands the answer to the question: What actually hit WTC instead?

Wierd isn't it that none of the planes that crashed had taken off from an alleged airport, including Flight 587, New York, November 12 2001

Was that event also faked?

Brilliant research! Two of the four 911 planes were apparently coming from nonexistent flights, flights that were not scheduled and not listed any place.

WTC plane crash #1 does not appear to be a plane at all. The images on the link are quite good. Something cigar-shaped appears to have been shot down at the north tower. Bush, however, said that he saw plane crash #1 on 911 before he entered his classroom to spend his lazy afternoon chatting about goats while NYC was being destroyed and another jet was streaking (unimpeded by any nasty NORAD air defenses!) towards Wash. DC. But there was no known film of plane crash #1 until 9/12/01, so Bush must have been watching the direct feed from the laughing high-fiving Israeli Mossad film crew!

The Pentagon, was also apparently struck by a missile, not a plane. Planes leave plane wreckage when they crash. Planes also cause plane-sized damage when they crash into something.

Also, the Pennsylvania plane left an eight mile trail of debris before finally crashing. that is not consistent with an alleged passenger revolt overpowering the hijackers. it is consistent with the plane having been shot down. In addition, the whole story about the hijackers moving all the passengers to the back of the plane (all in a nice group so that they could plan some action) and telling them to call home (on cell phones that could not have worked) because they were about to die, makes zero sense. Real hijackers on such a mission would have told the passengers to remain calm and strapped in their seats and that they'll be OK.

Also, you can see how the Secret Service behaves when there is a REAL threat, like a couple of days ago when some plane approached Washington air space without clearance. Jets were immediately scrambled and the retard in chief was immediately whisked away. Compare that to what happened on 911!

So none of the official 911 cover story makes any sense at all, starting with the fact that there weren't even any Arabs on the 911 planes

I would be very interested to know what the private conversations of commercial pilots are regarding the 911 story. I think it would also be extremely interesting to hear from air traffic controllers who were on duty, or know or knew those controllers who were on duty on 911.

The last i heard about that was that the controllers on duty were strictly forbidden to speak of the events of 911 even with their immediate families. That was quite a while ago. Of course the government has kept all the air traffic tapes and black box conversations top secret. Where are those air traffic controllers now? Are they still alive, or have they all committed "suicide" or been in "accidents" by now? Also, how about the security people who were manning the airport metal detectors on 911? What do they have to say about ALL the hijackers managing to pass through ALL the metal detectors with all their hijacking gear?

Thousands of unanswered questions, and the so-called free media and the politicians are doing their level best to stonewall all of them.


rrb

Surveillance cameras? Any and all government building are usually surrounded by close circuit video cameras. Why was the pentagon alleged plan crash not captures on one of these? I mean of all places, you think the Pentagon would have video surveillance inside and outside the compound.

Regarding the comment about 587, that was an international flight. They are not included in that database. Its just for the domestic flights for the major airlines. I checked every domestic flight thats crashed within the time period and search parameters of whats covered by that data base and every one of those flights is there. Planes which crashed on landing are described as "arrived" with the punctuality stats supplied and planes which crashed on take off are described as "cancelled".
What does prevent us from an absolute rock soild proof of how to interpret the data is that I could not find any domestic flight within the time period and search parameters which had crashed between landing and take off (apart from 175 and 93) which were listed as "diverted." I checked sites such as airdisaster.com, and then matched up the details of any crashes with the data base. Everything I found clearly indicated that planes which crash upon landing are listed as arrived, planes which crash upon take off are listed as cancelled,and if one accepts 175 and 93 as examples, then planes which crash inbetween are listed as diverted.
If anyone can find a flight which fits the time period and search parameters of the database, and has been similarly disappeared from the records, then I'll need a serious rethink of the allegation I've made.
However ,I'll reiterate, 587 is not a valid example,and I've failed to find any such example,which was something I checked for quite extensively before writng this, so the hunt is on to find something which does support the objection that planes which crash between take off and landing are for some reason removed entirely from the data base.
If any such exaample is found, then we need to ask why 93 and 175 were not removed.

Spaz writes
[[I cant believe people are taking this seriously..
i saw the footage of the FIRST and second planes, over and over,,.//
there is clear footage of BOTH planes Crashing!!!!!]]

175 ( alleged Sth Tower hit) is not under discussion in this article. 11 (Nth tower) is.

The links supplied in the article are of video and stills of the Nth Tower hit. I'm not sure what it is, but I'm sure as hell what its not - and thats a Boeing 767. Remember that even if it was a B767, that wouldn't prove that it was necessarily AA 11, although in the absence of any specific evidence to the contrary, there would seem to be no reason to disbelieve it.
However the video clearly shows that its not a B767,all early reports described it as a small plane, and the Bureau of transportation stats state that the flight alleged to have been respionsible was not scheduled to fly that day.

So, we dismiss video evidence because the video doesn't show what we want it to, we dismiss witness reports because they don't say what we want them to, and we dismiss official govt documentation, because it doesn't show what we want it to.

The video, the witness reports and the official documentation all support each other. The belief that the object was AA 11 depends soley upon a predetermined position to believe that the witness reports were all wrong, the video is doctored,and the Bureau of transportation stats are doctored.

I found these on a web search - please give your comments:

http://911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/1820
http://911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/7349

I was not successfull in establishing the link, but that's interesting:

"A search for UA flights from Newark on Sept 11, 2001 shows 0093 to SF was scheduled at 8.00 and
actually departed at 8.01. "

The official story is, its departure time was delayed for 41 minutes, actually departing at 8:42. Check Paul Thompsons timeline!

It was very busy in Newark this morning. Flight 93 had to wait for a dozen other planes to take off.

"A search for UA from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and actually departed
at 7.58. Also listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. "

What does Paul Thompson say?

"8:14 a.m.  Flight 175 takes off from Boston's Logan Airport, 16 minutes after the scheduled departure time. [CNN, 9/17/01, Washington Post, 9/12/01, Guardian, 10/17/01, AP, 8/19/02, Newsday, 9/10/02]"

I think, we have some confusion here. So 7:58 was the scheduled departure time and 8:14 the actual departure time? Or 8:00 the scheduled time and 7:58 the actual time?

7:58 is a strange "scheduled" departure time, isn't it? Usually they have even numbers, 8:00, 9:30, 10:15 or something like that.

Has anyone tried to contact AA UA and ask them their official story?
This is something we should be able to pu our finger on.
surely their had to be AA UA attandants confirming reservations, boarding people? did anyone see the pilots at the airport, co-workers? computer and paper trails, not to mention witnesses should be abundant to figure this out.
FAA records should corroborate, and if they dont, then someone has to say exactly why those records were different, if they were changed "after" the fact or not?
and especially WHY ???

this does start to fit together well with the radio controlled planes/? as well

Brad
http://911index.batcave.net/911.html
physics911.org

Compared to official figures from the Bureau, reports from the media about when a plane was scheduled for, and when it departed are just hearsay. What was the source used by the media for these calims? The default position must be that the Bureau's data is correct, unless and until someone can come up with compelling counter evidence from a similarly first hand source.
The work done by Paul Thompson, and Jared Israel on the hijacking sequences and the lack of air force response was excellent, but it was based on the assumption that we were told the truth about the scheduling, departure and flight paths and times of the planes. According to the Burueau's data, we were not told the truth.

I've found one source claiming that UA 93 had his scheduled departure time at 8:00, left the gate at 8:01 and took off at 8:42 because it had to wait for a lot of other planes this morning.

So maybe the "scheduled departure time" 8:01 mentioned by the official media refers to the "gate departure time". This could explain the discrepancies.

But I've found another one: Flight 11's scheduled departure time on 9-11 and the days before was 7:45, not 8:00, according to all media reports. Its actual departure was at 7:59. Look here (scroll down a bit):

http://www.postalworkersonline.com/matrix.htm

Keep in mind the transponder data of the (alleged) Flight 11. There was a plane, but was it a Boeing 767 with passengers on board?

Let me throw a hypothesis into the debate: maybe on Boston Airport we had a "Bumble planes light" scenario. There was a plane taking off at 7:59, but with no passengers, and another one taking off at 8:14 (flight 175) with additional passengers?

In response to the comment directly above from Woody, I rechecked the scheduled depature times for AA 11 and 77 on sept 10 on the BTS database, and found that I had incorrectly transcribed them in the article, an error which I will remedy in future versions of this article. The correct reading of the BTS database is 7.45 for 11 and 8.10 for 77. When writing the article , I somehow got this as 7.45 for 77 and 8.00 for 11.

These departure times correspond with those claimed in the article sourced by Woody in the above comment. It would appear that the article cited by Woody was using the correct times for the normally scheduled departures of those flights.
Nevertheless, they are not in the schedules for Sept 11.

And why were those 911 planes so sparsely occupied? All of them were strangely mostly empty. Anyone who has flown in recent years, including the years preceeding 2001, knows that airlines have been using their computerized systems to cram in as many passengers per plane as they could. So why were all of the 911 planes, all on popular prime time routes, mostly empty?

Thousands of questions, thousands of "anomalies" (lies), but zero answers from the Bush gang and its whore media.


ww

Refering to the postmag.com-article which contains the officially released data, these funny "scheduled departure times" 7:58 and 8:01 of flights 175 and 93 resp. don't let me rest. Why don't they say simply 8:00 and take instead the "gate departure times"? And why don't they do it with flights 11 and 77 - obviously taking the planned scheduled times?

Maybe it's not important, but my inner Sherlock Holmes is scenting something strange behind these numbers.

Evidence for No Departure of AA11 and AA77:

Mirrors of the Search results of <a href="http://news.globalfreepress.com/ewing/airline_boston911.html" target="_blanK">AA11(Boston)</a> and <a href="http://news.globalfreepress.com/ewing/airline_dcdulles911.html" target="_blank">AA77 (DC-Dulles)</a>

http://news.globalfreepress.com/ewing/airline_boston911.html
AA11(Boston) and http://news.globalfreepress.com/ewing/airline_dcdulles911.html
AA77(DC Dulles)

So did flight 11 and 77 really take off if they were not scheduled for civilians ? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe American Airlines was ordered to keep them down, and used them later on another flight number. Maybe the planes were requisitionned by some military men. What did they do with them ? Did they fly some of them somewhere in a military base and replace some of them with a missile or a Global Hawk (we think of flight 11 because the thing that hit the North tower was very fuzzy and a witness, Flore Mongin, saw it zigzagging) ? Or did they load both of them with bombs, which could explain how the Pentagon was pierced through three of its rings as reported by the NY Times as soon as on September 12 and how the flying object going into the North Tower made a white flash before the big explosion (for sources see http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/inv2.html down the page, http://geocities.com/aauaplanes09112001whathappened/pictures911.html or www.propagandamatrix.com/150903dvdcensored.html).

Maybe passengers for AA 77 boarded another plane, which crashed West of Washington. Maybe they boarded flight AA 599 for Dallas or UA 205 for San Jose at 9am. Xymphora was speaking about errant planes, particularly over Colorado (xymphora, October 15, 2001, but I couldn't find more about that). Were flight AA 599 or UA 205 destroyed ? According to the BTS, they began to fly again a little bit later than other planes.

I also think that some companies may be accomplices in hiding the truth, since airline companies were silent about the list of passengers on the night of September 11 : "federal authorities" forbade the airline companies to release the lists of the passengers (NYT, 12/09/2001, p.A16).

http://geocities.com/AAUAplanes09112001whathappened/index.html

STRANGER THAN FICTION

I've been sceptical about 9-11 conspiracy theories but this meticulously researched and documented article adds considerably to the mountain of doubt forming around the "official" version of events.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...But not all of the eye-witnesses to the 9-11 slaughter were so saddened. On September 11, five Israeli army veterans were arrested by the FBI after several witnesses saw them "dancing", "high-fiving", and "celebrating" as they took pictures of the World Trade Center disaster from across the river in New Jersey. Steven Gordon was the lawyer who volunteered to represent the five Israelis. He was asked by a Hebrew newspaper why the five men were being detained by the FBI. Hereâ??s what Gordon told Yediot America:

"On the day of the disaster, three of the five boys went up on the roof of the building where the company office is located," said Gordon. "I'm not sure if they saw the twin towers collapse, but, in any event, they photographed the ruins right afterwards. One of the neighbors who saw them called the police and claimed they were posing, dancing and laughing, against the background of the burning towersâ?¦.

www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_STF.htm

know what happened to flight 77("Pentagon" plane) fake deaths?or intentional? (english)
report from peter, what ya think? 3:02pm Sat May 25 '02 (Modified on 8:27pm Mon Jan 13 '03)
article#182551

This was a comment at another post, I thought worthy of briging up to the wire for discussion as well as NOTIFICATION! original at:
"winged missle;757 Boeing;Predator;small jet"-witnesses differ yet data points!
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=182127

Sounds as mysterious as all the dozens of missing or dead microbiologists in the past several months. Was someone getting rid of alot of sensitive witnesses? or are these people successfullly disappeared?


I know what happened to flight 77

I started researching FLight 77 and its passengers. Approximately 16 to 21 of the 58 passangers work at classified positions in the defense sector!!!! Look at how many of them are aerospace engineers. One is a lifetime CIA operative who works for veridian as an aerospace engineer, Yamnicky is his last name. The first passenger listed, Caswell, led a team of 100 scientists for the navy. Several work for Boeing and Raytheon on the Global Hawk in El Segundo, California.

I think many people faked their deaths. Perhaps a remote control center was riding with these folks on the C130 transport plane many witnesses saw at the same time as the missile attack on the pentagon. Here's is the list of people in aerospace/defense/bush associates that were on the plane that disappeared (into the shadow gov?). I'm sorry this is a rough draft, these are all excerpts from AP, Boston Herald, W Post, NYT, and other mainstream sources. The passenger list must be scrutinized to figure out what happenned to the alleged flight 77.

Remember Olson's wife, (was) disappeared using this flight as well. Another angle to research is the stuff I have seen on his wife (and his) background.

read some of the 'official' disappeared from AA77 at link:

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=182551&group=webcast

come back and add to this thread though, please.

Make a rating on this comment.

/TD>

Finally I was able to check out the bts data base for myself (thanks, nico).

I took a look at the "wheel-off times" of flights 175 and 93. (The "actual departure time" indeed refers to the moment when a plane rolls off its gate, ie. the gate departure).

Surprise!

According to the bts, flight 175 took off at 8:23. This is 9 minutes later than the official wheel-off time (8:14)!

According to the bts, flight 93 took off at 8:28. This is 14 minutes earlier than the official wheel-off time (8:42)!

Here's a summary:

Scheduled dep. Actual dep. Wheel-off

175 bts 8:00 7:58 8:23
official 7:58 ? 8:14

93 bts 8:00 8:01 8:28
official 8:01 ? 8:42


What do we do now?

woody

"Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77 flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing."

Thanks! That sure solves a problem for me. I kept thinking "where could they have "Put those people" and now I see how they did it. Like the phone calls, they just weren't there in the first place! Like the WMD in Iraq that weren't there either, and the Yellow Cake from Niger. this is how Bush gets by with killing freedom and America. The people will never know because they don't want to know.

Skip Baker

Thanks Gerard
interesting news. I took up your cue and also made a search on flight 93. According to times collected by the center for cooperative research, take-off time for flight 93 was 8.41, give and take a minutte. But if you look at the statistics, then whells-off time was 8.28. What do you make of that? Beats me. Dosn't seem important, but still, it's curios.

Serge Jakobsen

The Bureau's site has been down for most of the day.

Make a rating on this comment.

select a ratingUninformativeOKGood stuffRecommendedExcellent

If we take it that AA Flt. 11, the same type of plane as UA 175, never happened, there are some difficulties (not insurmountable though). Both flights are non-stop, both go to LAX, and both take off at close to the same time (according to the official story). The der Spiegel book actually has them on the runaway nose to tail at the same time.

1) The terminals for United and American are next to each other at Logan Airport. It would be possible to tell the passengers who had come for AA11 to go to the next terminal and board United for LA nonstop.

I don't know what the families can say about their loved ones' travel reservations that day (by the way, one of the persons lost on flt. 77 was a reservations specialist for National Geographic and a great friend of Sylvia Earle, the oil company spokesperson)...

There is the story of two women best friends from respectively Flt. 11 and Flt. 175 going to California and Disneyland. One woman was travelling with her small daughter. To me it is implausible that under the circumstances these gal-pals booked different flights. You would want to help your best friend with her kid. That is what people do.

2) My problem finally is not that there was no AA Flt. 11, my problem is with the crew. Where do you put them? Do you send them over to United to dead-head? And who was it who said that the whole bunch of travellers on AA11 left from Gate 26? Was it Michael Woodward (?), the employee of American who took down by hand the in-flight testimony of flight attendant Madeleine Sweeney for twenty-five minutes (without, apparently, jumping up and screaming for help or patching her onto a recording). Who is this fishy American employee? ("I see water, I see buildings, Oh My God!!!!)

Why would an American crew board a United flight anyway? Couldn't they just board one of the later American flights? Wasup?

Make a rating on this comment.

select a ratingUninformativeOKGood stuffRecommendedExcellent

you are insane

Make a rating on this comment.

select a ratingUninformativeOKGood stuffRecommendedExcellent

I read both of the links, but feel more capable of responding to the first one, that of American Airlines passenger "Karen Booth", commenting on her supposed sighting of some Flight 11 passengers on 9/11, at the American Airlines terminal at Logan Airport, Boston.

She said that as she waited for her own American flight at 7AM, a San Juan connection to Aruba, a plane landed and about 40 passengers (what about the crew?) disembarked from a Los Angeles "red eye". She then said that the board was changed to read Flight 11, departure at 7:45. She seemed to think the very same plane was going to turn right around like a bus and go right back to LA.

The waiting area began to fill, with people for "both" flights (how could you know for which or whether they were all for the same one?)

She remembered two of the putative future Flight 11 passengers (but since her own flight was not going to stick around until 7:45, since she was leaving at 7:00, she presumably did not seen any of them board - unless of course she got on and never noticed that they had boarded the very same flight she had). She would not have seen anyone get on Flight 11.

She does not give gate numbers (and I have just checked American at Logan: it seems that arrivals and departures use different gate numbers - at least today they were doing that). In other words, the plane drops off passengers and then doesn't necessarily just accept new passengers for a return trip; perhaps it goes somewhere for maintenance - and then moves to another site?

I find her account so lacking in detail and so emotional, so full of a need to have glimpsed some of the human beings who were presumably lost on this flight, in their last earthly moments so to speak, that she plays right into what she later hears about the events.

The fact that she is uninterested in the detail of the gate number makes me wonder if she ever saw the announcement of Flight 11 at all.

I therefore find this "eyewitness" account the sort of "eye-witless" account which certain types of human interest press would love to reproduce. It does not tell me anything about who boarded Flight 11.

Make a rating on this comment.

select a ratingUninformativeOKGood stuffRecommendedExcellent

Contrary to the bts database suggesting there was NO flight 11, a document has emerged suggesting TWO flights 11:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/16/national/16TEXT-FLIGHT11.html?ex=1071378000&en=4b6d66a63bf99b3a&ei=5070

//// 7:45:48 -- Ground Control 1: American eleven heavy boston ground gate thirty two you're going to wait for a Saab to go by then push back. ////

Gate 32? All reports up to now were talking about gate 26! Gate 32 is about 1000 ft away from gate 26.

There is already a discussion going on in the democraticunderground.com forum.

@omnibus: Concerning Mrs. Booth, I'm not sure if I would dismiss her report so easily.

The reason is: The plane N334AA (=AA 11) did indeed arrive from the West Coast at 6:03 am (->bts; there is a trap, however; you have to look at the arrivals of Sept 10, because if one plane flying from west coast to east coast departs in the evening and crosses the "midnight point", its arrival is registered on the day of departure. Check it out).

Ms. Booth embarked her plane around 6:30 am (because her plane's departure was scheduled for 7:00, this seems to be a reasonable estimate). This fits into the 6:03 arrival of the LA plane, as she describes the waiting passengers between 6:00 and 6:30.

Thanks for the link, omnibus and tom. I'm looking for reports of eyewitnesses who've been at Logan airport on 9/11.

So, NO flight 11or TWO flights 11? Confusing as it is, I think these oddities point to the same secret concerning flight 11. We don't know the secret yet, but time is on our side.

Make a rating on this comment.

select a ratingUninformativeOKGood stuffRecommendedExcellent

I copied the transcript you mentioned. Was an English major. Fascinated with jargon, and speech patterns.

But as I read, I noticed an inconsistency in the speech patterns of the pilots.
I have my eye on "Flight 175", because isn't that the one that reported hearing a weird transmission from his brother pilots' cockpit on Flight 11? In other words, "Flight 175" first got the message out of something untoward.

At the end of 175's transmission, there are two greetings to the ATC: one is "good morning" and the other is "good day" . At the end says another "good day". I noticed that before the exchanges with Flight 11 and ATC were both simply "good morning".

Don't know why 175 used two variants.

See Flt. 11 (out of ground gate 32 not 26 - you're right, an inconsistency): exchange at 8:00:30 says:

Departure. Good morning. American eleven heavy with you passing through ah two thousand for three thousand.

The response from Boston Departure Radar at 8:00:36 is: American eleven heavy, Boston departure radar contact. Good morning. Traffic ten o'clock two miles maneuvering.


okay

Now note the exchange at 8:17:13

UAL 175: Two seven point two, United one seventy-five heavy. Good day.

Again at 8:17:21 (8 seconds later)

UAL175: Boston, good morning. United one seventy-five heavy out of eight thousand.

etc.

the last note is at 8:19:13 Three three four two, United one seventy-five heavy. Good day.


Good morning --- good day


Any inconsistencies must be probed, whether the gate number or the exchanges with air traffic controllers.

Make a rating on this comment.

select a ratingUninformativeOKGood stuffRecommendedExcellent

Another thread picking up the UAL-175 and AA-11 stories from the other end of the story--from the point of view of what actually hit Towers 1 & 2. Perhaps it would help to work backward to the airport as well, in someone's thinking. Remember that the "official Bush conspiracy theory" is that:

AA11 hit WTC1
UAL175 hit WTC2

One idea based on the images, and the cover-up of the flashes by Guliani's version and another commercial version that edited out the flash! Was it a laser plane that hit WTC1? There has always been the discussion that the WTC1 hit--whatever it was--was considerably smaller than a 757.

So, with that in mind, it is very unlikely that the first hit at WTC1 was AA11. So the Boston-Logan plane that calls itself AA11 either disappears and lands somewhere and is substituted with a laser plane, or there is a painted fake AA11 which is the laser plane at Boston Logan already on the tarmac. I think the latter is the more likely solution at present.

Why most likely? Well, it could be that perhaps either a laser plane was intercepted/substituted on that strange jaunt that AA11 took well north of its flight plan. On the other hand, if there were two AA11's on the tarmac at Boston-Logan, then it would be unlikely that the fake AA11 afterwards could be substituted in time, and there would be the risk that it gets delayed for some rationale on the ground or has some failure. So I, unless someone can think of a way around that, would prefer the tentative hypothesis that the AA11 at Boston-Logan was (a) fake on the ground at Boston-Logan ATC and (b) it may have been coming from a different gate for some rationale (or it may be a typo on the NY Times site, who knows--I'd want a lot more verification before I introduce that as a true fact in the case.). (c) This may jog with the sense that the 6:00-6:00 a.m. witness mentioned above noted that gates were altered beforehand. (d) Either way, remember that the actual AA11 was unscheduled for that day, along with the actual UAL175.

Some background on the Zionist/US military connections of a laser plane before you go into that link: this plane was entirely operational over a year before 9-11. It is built into a slightly smaller 747 (which would be smaller than the 757s that were unscheduled for the day at Boston-Logan:

The first ABL [airborne laser] B-747-4G4 flying platform, 00-0001 (c/n 30201) took off Jan. 6, 2000 from Paine Field, Everett, Washington.


related links:


WTC1 9-11 plane had BRIGHT FLASH before striking showing IT'S NOT COMMERCIAL JET
author: imc-international
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/275927.shtml
[first image on the screen is an animated .gif--you are required to click on it at the Portland IMC to make it animated. There is a much larger, more detailed flash against the WTC1 in a lower comment on this page; many more images and video on down]

and

WTC1 911 hit: ISRAELI-&-US MILITARY CONNECTION strong in laser plane technology
author: !
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/278028.shtml
[detail about the laser plane technology and its associated human networks; this page has a discussion of the WTC2 hit as well, that oddity of the 'bump' on the underside of the
]


Heavily 'trolled' in the comments in both, though interesting discussion. Most of the discussion note is only about the WTC1 hit, from the point of view of what hit, instead of from the point of view of the airport.

Make a rating on this comment.

select a ratingUninformativeOKGood stuffRecommendedExcellent

///// So the Boston-Logan plane that calls itself AA11 either disappears and lands somewhere and is substituted with a laser plane, or there is a painted fake AA11 which is the laser plane at Boston Logan already on the tarmac. I think the latter is the more likely solution at present. /////

I don't want to go into it, but I definitely prefer the first version.

Thanks for the links. Interesting.

Make a rating on this comment.

select a ratingUninformativeOKGood stuffRecommendedExcellent

Even while the follies about British Airways coming in during the Super-Bowl engage our "betters", or was that "bettors"?, after the false leads of the holiday season which turned our world to Orange,

Even after the bizarre partial glimpse into Betty Ong's distress on "Flight 12 -uh - Flight 11" (she seemed at first confused), while her grieving relatives wept over the tape player that is her sole remains,

There seems to be a point to the exercise by the 9/11 Commission. That is to introduce us to Ong's supervisor, Ms. Gonzalez, and to tell us that she was the one who heard the message,

Wait folks! There's more. Are you confused enough yet.

Gonzalez says she talked with Betty Ong for 23 minutes.

This evidently jives with the story of when 9/11 was hijacked.

But there's a slight problem. Back in Cary, North Carolina, it was Gonzalez who first took the call. Oh no.
Vanessa Minter, who was down-sized from American just after 9/11, said, contemporaneous with the events, that she spoke to Betty Ong around 8AM and was on the phone with her for FORTY MINUTES. Then, into the call, Gonzalez came on. They spent 9/11 doing drafts of what was said.
It looks like the time-line of what happened, the original timeline, was discarded or significantly tampered with.

Please don't just believe me. I have not been in the hearings. I do not know what ALL the testimony is.

But please see this link: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/print_091002_NW_LastCall.html The reporter who wrote the story is Jennifer Julian.

It is a sentiment piece, there to talk about Betty Ong's courage and Vaness Minter's duty to hear her story.

BUT THE TIMELINE IS A SMOKING GUN.

This Commission on 9/11 is being deliberately forced to take short-cuts. I would insist that they heard from both Vanessa Minter and the reporter Jennifer Julian and everyone else with contemporaneous information.

Their story (told innocently and patriotically in the best Southern tradition) is that the hijacking happened IMMEDIATELY INTO FLIGHT 11. This is a really big deal.

original quote:
"AA11 either disappears and lands somewhere and is substituted with a laser plane, or there is a painted fake AA11 which is the laser plane at Boston Logan already on the tarmac. I think the latter is the more likely solution at present.

Why most likely? Well, it could be that perhaps either a laser plane was intercepted/substituted on that strange jaunt that AA11 took well north of its flight plan. On the other hand, if there were two AA11's on the tarmac at Boston-Logan, then it would be unlikely that the fake AA11 afterwards could be substituted in time, and there would be the risk that it gets delayed for some rationale on the ground or has some failure. "

to which you responded:

///// So the Boston-Logan plane that calls itself AA11 either disappears and lands somewhere and is substituted with a laser plane, or there is a painted fake AA11 which is the laser plane at Boston Logan already on the tarmac. I think the latter is the more likely solution at present. /////

I don't want to go into it, but I definitely prefer the first version.

Thanks for the links. Interesting.



to which I responded:

1. As I said, I find it much more likely it is the second version, given that the point of this whole thread--which we are forgetting?--is that the actual AA11 was unscheduled for that day so substitution would be an additional hassle. ;-) Forcing American Airlines to withdraw that plane flight for the day (and substitute a fake AA11 on the ground) is perhaps a good motivation for why AA11 was unscheduled in the first place.

2. This may have something to do with the fact that the ATC at Boston said that the "[unscheduled] AA11 plane" on the ground was coming from a DIFFERENT gate than the official gov't 9-11 story.

[from above comment: "Any inconsistencies must be probed, whether the gate number or the exchanges with air traffic controllers.. . .See Flt. 11 (out of ground gate 32 not [the official gov't conspiracy theory of] 26 - you're right, an inconsistency):]

Anyone have a map showing the layout of Boston Logan Airport and the locations of gates 26 and 32? Why did American Airlines release a story that said [the unscheduled AA11] came from [the wrong gate at 26]? Is this gate discrepancy another fact that can be used for the hypothesis of the laser plane on the ground, instead of mid-air substitution? Why the different gate? Is gate 32 the CIA's favorite hangar or something? On another note, what gate did controversial Boston Logan flight, TWA800, leave out of?

TWA800 did not originate at Logan, but at JFK. It crashed just off East Moriches Long Island soon after. Only recently has it been admitted by agencies of the federal government that there were naval vessels in the area. The number has gone from zero to 3 or 4, and that includes a submarine, I believe.



The inner map of Logan Airport, which would include all gates, has been thusfar impossible for me to find on the internet. American has a huge number of gates in terminal B, next to which, counter-clockwise, is terminal C, which contains United. There are also several small shuttles and commuters belonging to American and so there might be some overlap between the terminals (I think some of them may actually be over at C).

You can easily find the main map on the internet, but might have to dig to find more about the relative gates on 9/11. They are working on the airport (have actually been doing so a very long time, partly in conjunction with the endless Big Dig and new Ted Williams tunnel). Terminal A (which starts the series at about 3 o'clock, with B at one o'clock and C at eleven o'clock) has been shut down for a long time. It used to be the Eastern Airlines terminal, then the ( I think) USAir Shuttle. I don't know how long it has been shut down.

Another interesting line of enquiry is the motels that the alleged hijackers stayed at on the eve of their horrific crimes - or someone's.
Not only does Killtown cite the fact that the flight 77 guys spent their last night alive across the street in Baltimore from NSA HQ, but the motels when the Boston hijackers stayed have in my mind some interesting associations.

Why did they go out to the suburbs of Newton and Brighton? Why not stay near the airport to catch their morning flights? Or why go to Maine?

Atta's place, the former Susse Chalet now Park something on Rte. 9 Newton is right smack in the middle of an area where are there are two famous shopping malls across the street from each other owned by the firm that owns the Mall of America as well. It is a heavily Jewish community as well, and a few years ago, basically a hop skip and jump from this motel, there was a devastating office fire in a small building which killed five owner-employees.

The razed area where the fire happened occupies the same parking complex as the motel, if you approach it from behind Route 9.
The other motel, where the other team stayed, a Days Inn, is on Soldier's Field Road, near Harvard and near a building which many, many years ago housed a bowling alley in which the employees (again 5 or 6) were found killed execution-style; the bowling alley was replaced by a liquor store now occupying the site. It is very close to a state police barracks.

If these motels have anything in common, I would bet that it is drug-smuggling operations. And perhaps that was the business these hijackers may have believed they were in. But these are just furtive impressions. I happen to have a long memory, for I have lived in Boston more than twenty years. It's a very, very small place geographically. I cannot imagine a bin Laden feeling comfortable here unless people made him feel at home. Like our incredibly corrupt local FBI.

1.


>>>"TWA800 did not originate at Logan, but at JFK."

OK, thanks, though I remember a story about another furtive odd coincidence on 9-11. I suppose I connected it with the Boston ATC in general more than the Logan/airport issue: the same ATC controller was there that morning on 9-11 overseeing AA11/UAL175, as TWA800's day of reckoning.

----------------------------------------------------------

2.


and to the main (re)post: which you can see more at:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/279744.shtml
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/279920.shtml


Here's some interesting data and assertions about a plane "queue theory."

I thought might help other people along with other issues.

Ask a 9-11 Researcher, "why remove transponders? & QUEUE EFFECT THEORY/DATA 05.Feb.2004 17:53

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ad nauseum



Dear Ask a 9-11 Researcher:


"How and why was the transponder in all four planes disabled?"


I'm unsure. My ideas are that it would be simulteneously
(a) EASIER TO SEE: easier for NORAD to know where the attack planes are (as they would still be visible by radar as the only planes in the air without the "IFF" beacon), easier to monitor progress of the standdown when there are literally thousands of planes in the air in the United States.

(b) FOR SUBSTITUTIONS: removing the IFF beacon removes the planes name and altitude height, though it is still visible on any radar clearly. It would simply be an unidentified blip instead of an identified blip. This 'blank blip' framework can allow potential substitutions by flying under/above the skyjacked planes so that their radar signals merged. It allows original planes to either land somewhere (likely only AA77 was landed somewhere in Ohio, as clinton appointee of FAA said when she reported that AA77 "was going down and likely crashed!"-- this story of course was entirely down the Memory Hole in a few minutes.). (SIDENOTE: If AA77 lands and its Pentagon black op's personnel survive (and its actual civilian passengers are killed immediately then sent to the "Pentagon morgue" to be given fake death certificates/autopsies like what happened in Waco. Fake autopsies. Hey! By the way, the very same two autopsy cover up artists of Waco were used in the Pentagon hit, by the way. Obviously they proved their worth in the mid 1990s and in 2001.

THE QUEUE EFFECT

(c) queue effect: There is in my studied opinion a 'queuing phenomenon' that shows a similar small 5 minute or less gap between a period where a plane would be a "definte hit coming up" and the next planes transponder going off, or the next plane taking off the ground. When IFF beacons go off is always right after the previous one is about to hit, (as in the case of UAL175's IFF going off right before WTC1 is hit with "AA11"; or "AA77s" IFF going off right before the substitution). The strikes in my opinion all follow a pattern of definite PRIORITIES for the order and location of the hits though little else was decided beforehand in terms of planes to do the hits. Well, perhaps the unscheduled-for-that-day AA77 plane was more hardwired, though at least I would say that the first, second, and fourth plane were more open.

For example it was only barely right before WTC1 was hit, that the WTC2 plane hit (unscheduled for that day, UAL175) was taken off its transponder. Moreoever, a bit earlier, it was right as (unscheduled for that day) AA11 stopped communicating with ATC that scheduled-for-that-day UAL175 takes off. Both of these planes come from Boston Logan.

And like telekenesis--at another airport: Once 'second-hit' UAL175 takes off (remember, exactly when unscheduled-for-that-day 'first hit' AA11 begins to lose communication with ATC), it was only minutes later at Dulles Airport that unscheduled-for-that-day AA77 takes off, only when UAL175 is assured. The AA77 is more hardwired to a certain target, because it is definitely to be the Pentagon alibi plane for (according to one eyewitness) the "cruise missle with wings" that plowed into the Pentagon). It was important that WTCs be the first two hits for the alibi with the Pentagon hit being a later hit instad of a first hit, so it waited until both the WTC1 and WTC2 planes were in the air and set. The fourth plane UAL93, following this queue, presumably takes off 40 minutes late (though there may be a discrepency between BTA data and actual take off time in this case). However, this 40 minute stall time on the ground was less than five minutes before the unscheduled-for-that-day 'first hit' AA11 hits the WTC1, which allowed the UAL175 definitely to hit the WTC2. Another option that would hold to the queue theory would be that perhaps the UAL175 was hardwired to the WTC2 hit, instead of it still being undecided. It was still designed to be in a temporal queue to make sure that unscheduled-for-that-day was AA11 was in queue itself before taking off for WTC2.

Back to UAL93, the fourth plane. In other words, with UAL93 taking off only several minutes before unscheduled-for-the-day AA11 hits the WTC1, the UAL93 may have been a "WTCs backup plane" that only takes off on another mission of terror, (undecided? who can say? or was it the Capitol?) once both WTCs hits are almost assured.

My point is that this looks like a queue effect that says "OK, that one is airbone, bring up the next one" in all three cases of UAL175, unscheduled-for-that-day AA77, and the potential "WTCs backup hit" of UAL93--that was launched toward something else and kept in the air as a backup later once the WTCs area was assured a double hit.

Second, the FAA "tells" the already-in-the-know NORAD, who have the best radar data in North America all to themselves, the code message, "xxxx plane has just been hijacked" This is the message that is always illegally late, though like the queue effect always almost immediately before a hit instead of when it stops communicating or goes off course! This means in my opinion built into this queue theory issue was a way simultaneously for the "FAA blame" alibi to be constructed as as "tell NORAD to move on" message: that "this plane has just been placed in queue for the next target in priority target list because we are confident that nothing can interfere with it at this stage and that it will be a definite hit. So we (or you?) can program and guide that next plane into the second target."

So is someone at FAA calling the shots, and reporting on successes and giving the OK to NORAD to program the next plane for its destination? My bet is that the FAA contact was MONTE BELGAR, who retires immedately after 9-11. Information on him is hard to come by. I would like assistance in finding about Monte Belgar's background.

In other words what I draw from this is that If I WAS IN CHARGE, and it was VERY VERY IMPORTANT to hit both WTC1 and WTC2 to cover up the internal implosions and demolitions, you require backups and reserves. A military mind alwasys knows that it is the reserves that win the battle or the war, instead of what you put into your immediate assault.

First, in planning 9-11, I would have had a series of priorities of what should be hit that dealt with
a. order of hits
b. symbolic rationales of hits
c. alibi for disguising demolition or bomb explosion cover-up operations (this is the case of both the WTCs and the Pentagon).

Second, and I would have backup. I would have the actual planes be a 'swarm' of backups. The targets would be settled, though the planes for particular ones would be open, instad of 'hardwiring' the overall plan to be four separate events with their specific targets and adopting the "aw shucks" attitude if one failed to work out. With this type of operation there is nothing that would allow this "aw shucks" type of attitude to a failed terror strike, because all of them were crucial to the overall plan, or the full plan for an immediately police state and WWIII would fail. One of these planes did fail in its hit by the way, and in my opinion, it has given us this slight breathing space as the Bushes attempt to jury-rig up something that would take the place of what they considered to be the carte blance that would be given to them by the missing fourth terror plane hit. So what would have been this carte blance for the Bushes that failed, which launched us into this gray inbetween, a 3/4 successfully terror strike by the Bushes? More on this below.

Anyway, back to the queue issue: if a plane or two fails to hit the WTC for some reason, this would really spoil the cover operation of demolitions of the towers! So you keep everything loose throughout the attack, monitor everything, gauge when particular hits are certain, and then and only then, move on to the next definite target using the next plane.

This accounts for why the fourth plane UAL93 was grounded for huge times on the tarmac, until the WTC1 and WTC2 were more certain, and then it could go on to its next destination or be in the air for sudden adaptations in case something else went awry.

When you create a timeline of takeoffs, waiting on the tarmac, IFF beacons, and hits it reads like one script, with tiny spaces of minutes inbetween, where once only when the previous queued target was sound the next plane was either powered up and allowed to leave the ground, or if it was in the air already, it would suddenly turn off its IFF beacon and move in for the next hit. This would be a failsafe is in case some particular ones fail to get thorugh. There was another Memory Hole story (or perhaps one I remember myself) right after 9-11 that would support this: the FBI said that they KNEW ABOUT 11 PLANES. So this brings up the question did they have many more planes than four waiting on the ground or otherwise in the air which were scheduled to take off?

THE MISSED FOURTH HIT AND THE UNEXPECTED BREATHING SPACE BEFORE FULL POLICE STATE AND SECRET GOVERNMENT OVERLORDSHIP CAUSED THEM TO ADAPT AFTER 9-11---------WITH ANTHRAX AIMED AT THE SAME MISSED TARGET

In order to stagger them appropriately through the air, the queue would read three hits and one missed hit. So the order of the four priority hits could be maintained as 1) WTC1, 2) WTC2, 3) Pentagon, and (in my opinon the Bushes wanted the fourth plane to hit.........) 4) the Congress building?

"Why do you think the fourth plane was to hit the Congress building?"

You ask, why do I think that the Congress building was the fourth plane's destination?

a. Well, because everything was going so "well" (from the Bushes/CIA/Cheney point of view), one of the planes that was in rotation for terror hits and already in the air got REAL FAR AWAY from its target. It got real far away by the time they actually decided on its final target to be, the Capitol building. This caused some trouble, because the NORAD standdown was going on about 1 hour and 45 minutes by 10:00 a.m. (Counting from the unscheduled-for-that-day AA11 stopping communication with ATC around 8:15 a.m.)

b. Why the Capitol? Well, ask whoever decided to ask for a "change of flight plan to DC" from Dulles ATC....after FAA head who said to "clear the skies and land at the nearest airport". The DC airport was very very far away by then. (DAMN! That sudden initiative from the intentionally placed first day on the job person at the "Big Board" of the FAA really messed everything up for the fourth hit. They expected him to be unable to comprehend what was going on, or be scared of taking any action when faced with this on his first day. However! HA! He said "clear the skies!" He singlehandedly ruined the chances of the fourth hit--and perhaps even others. As I said, someone had the audacity after this FAA order was given to attempt to allow UAL93 (ahem) to (alibi) head back to Dulles Airport (ahem) under these conditions of "clear the skies". Moreover, it was the FAA that simultaneously said for the Buffet "NetJet" to follow UAL93, interestingly enough, countermanding its own orders? Who gave the order to allow the NetJet to follow UAL93? Remember that this "someone" only radioed ATC at Dulles after it was supposedly (alibi) hijacked, though still on course. FAA claims that UAL93 was 'hijacked" (alibi for this one is next in queue) around 9:20. Wait a minute, UAL93 was still on course and with a IFF beacon at 9:20. It's beacon is on until 9:40 a.m. and it only goes off course around 9:28-9:35 a.m.. This sort of says to me that "well, we have ourselves a plane here, where should it go"? All this lag time here to me shows indecisiveness on just what to do with it. So they finally request on the fly in response to the FAA nationwide order to "clear the skies" a "flight plan to DC," though this was after the FAA had claimed it had been hijacked! Ouch! Sorry, we have some delightful parting gifts for you, thanks for playing. This flight plan alibi was the last ditch attempt to get it to DC.

So with this background, why do I think that the fourth plane was to hit the Capitol?

a. Cheney had made damn sure to keep the Capitol full of legislators even though he and the Secret Service had pseudo-evacuated HIM from around 9:05 a.m. to the White House Bunker--a full 30 minutes before the Pentagon was hit by the "cruise missle with wings" and ***a full hour*** before the fourth plane was shot down (that was even the US miitary's original story, then they changed it. There is plenty of seismic and other plane witness data and ATC data and court testimony at the Massaoui trial that a Warren Buffet "NetJet" was for some reason told to tail the fourth plane). Remember, that this means that the Capitol and the Pentagon, even though Cheney and the Pentaon knew something was approaching from around 9:00 a.m. (when Pentagon goes on Alpha Alert as well, though they fail to evacuate), are left unevacuated until AFTER the Pentagon hit was successful.

b. Remeber they were all ready with the Shadow Government, after 9-11, however, the expected Congressional hit was a failure.

c. Suddently there was very little "emergency" to pass the Patriot Act as the legislators were still alive.

d. So in the days after 9-11, someone in the military got the bright idea to mail out some Ft. Detrick military grade anthrax of the Ames strain (which the FBI had the original sample destroyed to cover the US's trail on this, and which was shared by groups such as BioPort (Carlye Corporation owned), Battelle (truly a NWO operation if ever I saw one), and other top secret miltiary areas like Dugway Proving grounds in Utah. The point is they picked a strain that was easily tracable to only a few domestic miltary people, and they used weaponized which even further refined the suspect list to CIA related groups. Follow: first anthrax were mailed days after the failed Congressional hit that would have killed most of the legislature. Ahtnrax is known to have about a month downtime before it infects.

e. Bush, Ascroft, Rumsfeld, everyone--are in the media early October talking about ANTHRAX coming up, danger of anthrax, this is still going on, etc. We are in danger. Patriot Act is introduced in Congress by Bush cronies.

f. Days later, anthrax finally surfaces, as predicted after being mailed out after 9-11. So the Bushes attempt scare tactics instead of mass murder of the legislature. The anthax kills........the editor of the Florida Newpaper who was the only one in the whole country to publish pictures of Jenna Bush drunk, and was ready to go with publishing nude pictures of Bush in a coffin with his male Skull and Bones buddies. This editor dies. Then the FBI CLOSES THE NEWSPAPER and refuses to let people retrieve anything. This newspaper is gone.

g. Daschle and Leahy say "screw you Bush" fu*k your police state, in so many words. We refuse to introduce this bill, it destroys the Bill of Rights, etc. They are immediately sent THE MOST CONCENTRATED STRAINS sent out, weaponized anthrax, trillion spores per gram, weaponized under patent to the CIA in a contract job. Daschle does gets his, and his whole staff is nearly infected. Leahy's anthrax letter was stopped by mail stoppages once danger realized and was only 'found' in November, postmarked the same as Daschle's letter. The letters were posted from Trenton, New Jersey. To get weaponized anthrax out of its secure environments and to handle it without killing yourself, is a very specialized operation. Plus, it is reputed that only people with the level of CIA clearances could authorize such anthrax to be removed from such US government operations as Ft. Detrick.

h. Remember that the Patriot Act was already written up well before 9-11. WELL BEFORE 9-11. WELL BEFORE 9-11. Who wrote most of it? Why, Sentaor Graham of Florida, the person who, along with an ex-Intelligence operative, were in charge of the "Biparisan 9-11 Investigation (ha) Commission". On the day of 9-11, Graham was meeting the terrorist money drop man of the Pakistan ISI in the Congress builining, Ahmad, the person who met with (likely Rice) someone in the White House in the week before 9-11, right before the money transaction was wired from Pakistan to the Florida (Sun Trust Bank) accounts of Mohammad Atta who the FBI still claims was "a hijacker." So you have Graham, the writer of the Patriot Act mostly, meeting with the money drop man to the FBI claimed terrorist of 9-11, Atta--and on 9-11 the meeting occurred. With Graham in this meeting was Goss, another Floridian Bushite ex-Intelligence operative. Lots of Florida in this story, eh? Graham says that Goss and he and everyone who was with him "received a note from Goss's aide" and they turned on the television to see a smouldering WTC2 (second hit, post 9:03). He claims that it was then this group evacuated themselves from the Capitol--early--right after WTC2 was hit (9:03 a.m). [I personaly would like to see more information about the Capitol evacuation because it is a crucial issue in connecting Graham/Goss, and whether they knew they were going to be offed by the potential fourth plane hit, or did they know to leave early? Knowing that they would be hit in the Capitol if they stayed around. Capitol was only evacuated officially much later and after the "cruise missile with wings" found the Pentagon and hit it around 9:35 a.m. or so.] In other words, DC for 30 minutes, nothing evacuated, though plane coming in? By the way, Graham came out immediately after 9-11 saying the US should attack Iraq immediately. He even called the mass murdering ex-Governor "Executioner" Bush "soft on terror." Graham used to be a Governor of Florida by the way, well know for all his executions as well. This is the same Graham family that runs the Washinton Post and has covered up "votescam" in Florida since the 1970s! [on this read half of a free book http://www.votescam.com ]





The overall point is, people, that 9-11 is only one in a series of state teror and corrupt actions of the US. There is a direct continuity with these people. The more I looked into it, the more that 9-11 seemed to be business as usual. It was business that finally has woken up some of the sheep that is all.

The sheep theory is that 9-11 represents something different in the way of US criminal actions. However, it is the same networks building on what they have accomplished and they have been doing this for 30 years in the United States, terror, assassination, and cover-up, terror, assassionation, and cover-up, terror, assassination, and cover-up, etc.

Welcome to your world. It's high time you got to know it.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/279744.shtml
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/279920.shtml

Make a rating on this comment.

\

"WTC2 plane hit (unscheduled for that day, UAL175)" said above, my bad, according to all other points above only AA11 and AA77 were unscheduled.

We have recently heard of a pilot a few days ago (Feb 2004) on American who at some early point in the flight from Los Angeles to New York (nonstop?) alarmed his passengers by suggesting that the Christians identify themselves as such and engage their seat-mates in religiously tinged conversation rather than just watch the movie.

It's all quite vague, but fight attendants felt this was odd enough for them to call relevant people on the ground so that they could find out what was going on in the cabin.

Undoubtedly this is embarrassing to American since it isn't being down-played nearly enough.

Undoubtedly, the passengers have been offered something to keep still.

But some who spoke blurted out this rather revealing thing: passengers called on airfones and TRIED to call on cells (thinking they had a screwball in the cabin and fearing the worst).

How many cell calls got through? How many passengers discovered the impossibility of making a cell call from a plane?

How do you generalize this to the alleged cell calls made on 9/11, which are provably impossible to make?

How is this relevant to what we know about HOW the hijackings are alleged to have happened?

I find this tantalizing clue very interesting. Too bad the media is whirling away from it.

Make a rating on this comment.

>

i saw recently on the web that marvin bush
young brother had position on dulles airport security
also wtc security
also airlines insurences

get benefit from security contracts related later

I think we don't know the whole truth about 9/11, but doesn't it seem reasonable that American Airlines removed Flights AA 11 and AA 77 from their records on 9/11 because of the tragic events that unfolded? I've never seen such a stretch... it's people like you the give conspircy theorists a bad name!

I've checked all the data on flights 11 and 77 and have found no lisings. Also, I've checked the temperature of burning jet fuel, cremation rates, the melting points of aluminum and steel, and DNA recovery. Interestingly, it's impossible for the planes to disappear almost entirely and still have DNA. Yet, that's what was supposed to happen at the Pentagon. Any ideas?"

So what happened to the alleged passengers on these mythical flights? Am I mistaken in believing that the only families fighting for the truth of 911 are the relatives of those lost in the WTC? What about the relatives of flights 11 & 77?

You say the passengers were given another flight, but what about the fact that they have relatives who say they are dead?

I thrive on databases. They are the nearest researchers can get to documentary evidence (besides news reports that is). Another database available to researchers is the Social Security database recording deaths.

I spent many hours checking the passengers' names with the database. The thing with databases is that with the next name you always think this will be the one that gets a hit. Well, you want to know my findings? The hits could be counted on one hand. The majority of the passengers on board the four planes were NOT listed as dead.

This was some time ago and I still remember one that I did find was a female flight attendant. No, not one we particularly know, who gave ground staff important information but just one lady flight attendant.

They cannot argue with any degree of credibility with the BTS database but some have tried. I simply wonder why they bother. It's as though they get paid for what they do so they have to argue against you. I can understand what we do and the conviction that we do it with but why do the "denial brigade" do what they do with so much conviction. It's the official story, for Christ's sake. Why does it need reinforcement?

Gerard, did you read John Judge's "reinforcement" of the Pentagon official story? Why the heck did he have to do that, if the story is true. In fact he provided "evidence" that it wasn't true.
Regards
Ronin.

I was there. I saw it with my own eyes. Where the fuck were you?

Get a life.

What do you think you saw with your own eyes?

Who was on the jet?

Who controlled the jet?

What the fuck would you know jackass?

Imbecile.

The BTS has removed all information about September 11, 2001 flights of AA11 and AA77! I attempted to get a search of it this evening, and was able to look up the 9-11 UA flights, though I got errors in looking up the two AA flights!

The cover up is in effect.

If there was nothing to hide, why hide it, hmm? Thanks BTS for making yourself complicit in the coverup. Is that acessory to mass murder?

it seems the organization of the BTS has changed overall from Gerard's original article month ago. The public face of the database has removed all mention of particular times for all planes in its latest 'reform.' IN short, information thankfully found by Gerard is structurally entirely removed from the database. It would be interesting to know why they made such a total website overall of the data presentation.

Thank you for participating!
NOTE: This survey is not scientific; it includes the opinions of only those Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) website users who have chosen to vote. Therefore it should not be assumed that the results represent the opinions of Internet users in general or the public as a whole. BTS is not responsible for the content or opinions expressed in the survey tabulation.



What do you think of our redesigned website?

Excellent 38.23% 1,616 votes
Good 21.55% 911 votes
Fair 10.53% 445 votes
Poor 29.69% 1,255 votes

Total 4,227 votes

Created: July 14, 2003 OMB #2139-0007

i cant believe u ppl take this crap seriously. u can tell the ppl who know things, they make rational posts, the conspiracists talk BS. i best be off now, UFO's are tracking me ;)

If passengers expecting to fly on flight AA11 were transferred to UA175, could the Airlines' Check-In staff responsible for transferring the passengers be found ?

Someone employed at the Airport that day had to check- in those passenger's onto a flight ... they'd remember whether AA11 was listed on the 11th, or not.
If AA11 was a routine flight number throughout the year, it's cancellation on this particular day would surely be memorable to the staff of that airline considering the implications ... and considering they'd remember transferring passengers from AA11 to UA175.

It seems we all try to look too high for the truth when sometimes it's lying nearer the ground !
It's possible ordinary airport staff , flight controllers et cet, have more knowledge & recollections about these events than those offering official information.

It's just a thought !

I'd like to congratulate all of you working on this particular quest, and send best wishes for it's success.

Regards

Colin. UK

http://www.bts.gov/ntda/oai/index.shtml is no longer there.

I have followed and copied the material from many websites which argue the honesty of the story given to the sheep in America. I can't believe Americans, who are supposed to by educated people. Many of the pages were not available. I found the info very, very interesting and will forward it to many. thank you.

Axiomatic
by Gerard - if you're trying to impress people with your recently-learned 'big words' then please learn at least the grammatical rules you twat.

you have good arguments and stories. its not impossible. but half of your links are broken and the video in http://home.earthlink.net/~whatzit is such low quality I could have created it. That's all

I could shoot so many holes through your so called conspiracy theories. First, your research or lack therof is weak. You depend on stats reported on a crazy day like september 11. It's also obvious that you don't know the inner working of an airline operations. Ask any UA or AA pilot if Sept 11 happened or not.

You all need to collect your dignity, pack it up in your "Lord of The Rings" backpack -Don't forget your 'Conspiracy Theory' paperbacks- and move out of your parents' basements.
What a slap in the face to all the people that died and their families.
Here's hoping the majority the you board a "non-existent" flight and disappear yourselves.

Grow the Fuck up.

Unfortunately, the scenario you just described about the NWO tampering with the BTS records has come to pass. Today(9/29/04), I discovered that more than three years after the event, somebody has inserted AA11 and AA77 into the BTS records for 9/11/01, They were not in there as of two weeks ago. I am kicking myself for not having the foresight to have run off copies of not only sept.11, but also 9/12,13,14 as well since the two AA flights were still shown as scheduled for those days.

Bush DID say he saw the 1st plane on TV before entering classroom.
The pentagon footage has mathmatically proven the object cannot be a 767. Also there's clearly a vapor trail.
Bush and Rice flat out lied by saying that such acts were inconceivable. Norad & Pentagon have run almost exact replicate drills. (norad = commercial jet was foreign born)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/ContPlanP.htm
Above link from Milit. District of WA website, see the drill for yourself done at the pentagon.
No forensic test on buildings remains(esentially an autopsy on a structure) even after all the hoo haa that ensued after that same error w/ the Murrah Bld. cleanup.
6 witnesses in Pa. saw second plane; Chief of Safety NYFD Albert Turi in a.m. interview W/Pat Dawson(NBC) stated (along w/ many other firefighters soon thereafter)that there were 2 explosions other than the plane. What better source is there? The unexplainable picture purfect demolition of WTC7 due to fire. All this is fact. It gives any 'conspiricy nut' a definite argument. The #1 all-time fact you can't deny is that none of this shit is brought up in any mainstream media. That fact is what makes me beleive. www.quitwitdabullshitsuckas.org.com..

Thank you for the info. I am astounded by the idea that the Arab hijackers are fictional. Apparently the flights themselves, at least in a couple of instances, are also fictional.
I am troubled about the passengers alleged to be on these flights. Are they fictional? Aren't there survivors of the doomed passengers? If they aren't fictional and they didn't fly into the targets, were they murdered and how?
Thank you for your work. I only wish the regular media was half as methodical. L. W.

Barbara Olsen... then she didn't die at the Pentagon. Her husband Theodore Olsen, Bush's lawyer, just retired this past summer. Tail him and see where he goes most often... and that is where you find Barbara. With a telescopic lens Barbara brought to life in this world CRUMBLES THE WHOLE 9/11... no?

I started backtracking flight 93, or rather tail number 591UA. What I found can only be explained by having 2 planes with tail number 591UA on Sept10th, or , at least, records indicating this.

quick note: times are represented as WOT (wheel off, or wheel on time)

going by timeline...

591UA arrived in Newark at 6:54
591UA left BOSTON at 7:39.

there are no record of departure from newark to BOS (before 19:40)
There are no records of arrival from Newaark in BOS.

How can a plane arrive (touch down) in Newark, and take off from Boston in 45 mins?
It cant.

to further the point, 591 also departed Chicago for Newark at 10:43 (flight # 0642), but arrival statistice show it never got there.(0's for arrival time). This is confirmed by diversion statistics here...
http://physics911.org/net/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=29
So it was diverted right?
That means it never got there right?

Well, the next entry for 591UA in the database is a departure from....
gues where......

Newark.

chronology as i see it, from http://www.bts.gov/
arrived in newark from SFO 6:54 (flight 0078)
*
depart BOS to ORD 7:39 (flight 0507)
arrived in ORD 8:39
departed ORD to EWR 10:43 (no arrival time in EWR diverted)
departed Newark to SFO 19:40 (5 hours late, 14:30 scheduled, as flight 0075)
arrived in SFO 22:07
departed SFO for newark 23:15 (scheduled 22:05 , late)

IMHO, there had to be 2 planes flying with tail# 591UA on sept 10th. So, very possibally on the 11th as well. This could explain and fit in nicely why some have spotted this plane still flying in chicago.

more info and graphics here...

http://911bts.brad.com/2-591s.html

full story here (much more detail)
http://publish.portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300588.shtml

maps and transponder incosistancies here...
http://airgames.bravehost.com/

speaking of transponders, flight 175 chenged its squak code twice. i cant see why a hijacker would do that?
Brad
http://www.911index.batcave.net

Mr. Holmgren,

AA flights 11 and 77 are listed on the BTS logs for September 11, 2001.(???)

M. Kato

mr kato:

1.what are BTS logs
2.how are we to verify your statement if you don't source it?

http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/22548_comment.php#23814

______________5 Arabs allegedly hijacked American Airlines flight 11 and crashed it into the Nth Tower of the World Trade Centre at 8.46 A.M. It was part of a crime which killed approximately 3000 people.___________________:


this your statement is only partly rational.
To make it entirely rational,you'd have to have said:

"it was part of a crime which killed.allegedly,approximately 3000 people".

that's because the 3000 figure is the official figure,which is unverifiable.

and since bush and his thugs have been lying all down the line about 911,they might well have lied about the 3000 figure too.

for example if AA11 and AA77 were fabricated as you yourself maintain.

not to mention the scam of the WTC and UA 93 figures,for which i refer you to:

http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/14527.php



this comment refers to
http://www.indymedia.be/news/2004/05/84711.php

but i thought it would be appropriate here too

______________5 Arabs allegedly hijacked American Airlines flight 11 and crashed it into the Nth Tower of the World Trade Centre at 8.46 A.M. It was part of a crime which killed approximately 3000 people.___________________:


this your statement is only partly rational.
To make it entirely rational,you'd have to have said:

"it was part of a crime which killed.allegedly,approximately 3000 people".

that's because the 3000 figure is the official figure,which is unverifiable.

and since bush and his thugs have been lying all down the line about 911,they might well have lied about the 3000 figure too.

for example if AA11 and AA77 were fabricated as you yourself maintain.

not to mention the scam of the WTC and UA 93 figures,for which i refer you to:

http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/14527.php



this comment refers to
http://www.indymedia.be/news/2004/05/84711.php

but i thought it would be appropriate here too

same for this other coment:
________It was part of a crime which killed approximately 3000 people.______________:


the official 3000 figure,which is gravely suspect because of the reasons you bring and because of the reasons brought by this author:
http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/14527.php

has been trumpeted by the lying massmedia whores simply because it's bigger than pearl harbor (officially some 2400 dead) therefore if pearl harbor justified WW2,the association is 911 may well justify something even bigger and longer than WW2.

anyway i've just checked the link i provided,and i see it's dead - i'm not surprised since cybersabotage of rational thinking on indy and in general is precisely what this nazi NWO system based at wall street is all about...

anyway it was an essay by an author called Adrian More titled Fuzzy Math,maybe you can still find it on google or something,it's definitely worth the search.

it anticipated many of the things holmgren says here.

alright now the link i referred to
http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/14527.php

seems to be working again

anyway i'll paste the essay i was referring to here,just in case:

MORAL GROUND ZERO
by Adrian More â?¢ Saturday May 24, 2003 at 08:33 AM


The war on terror is the war on Bush.


MORAL GROUND ZERO / I


I argue that the U.S. establishment has been inflating the 9-11 death toll wildly for warmongering purposes.



Fuzzy Math (Nov.4, 2002 version)


a T.I.P. (Text In Progress) by


Adrian More



charles v. campisi, chief of the New York police departmentâ??s internal affairs bureau:
you've raised more dead in 14 months than Jesus ever did in 3 years.


On Nov.1, 2002 you reported an ever-so-slowly-slimming-down total of 2,795 WTC victims, deep down from your September 24, 2001 high of nearly 7,000 [The Associated Press, Nov.1, 2002, 16:35 ET: Death Toll at WTC Drops by Two, by Sara Kugler].
- 1,411 death certificates have been issued, reportedly, by the medical examinerâ??s office: that is, 1,411 victims have been reportedly identified, having been found whole or fragmented; official figures exclude the "19" hijackers", but still I'd like to know: are any of the alleged AA11 + UA175 victims among the 1411 allegedly identified? It's high time you let humanity know, so we could better assess the plausibility of the official story that AA11 + UA175 with 92+65=157 people on board crashed into the WTC; especially since the Associated Press reported on Aug.16, 2002 that "no remains have been linked to the 10 hijackers who crashed two airliners into the World Trade Center", contradicting early press reports (http://cooperativeresearch.org/completimeline/timeline911topresent.htm );again: have any remains been linked to any passengers/crew?
- 1,327 death certificates have reportedly been issued without a body, reportedly at the request of victimsâ?? families;
- 59 people were reportedly missing, on Oct.7, 2002. I guess it should be 57 by now, though the Nov.1 AP dispatch doesnâ??t give the breakdown.


(See the Associated Press web site for figure updates. They make it harder and harder to find data, as their special contribution to the general obfuscation/falsification, but if one seeks hard enough one will find.)

Summing up: according to you, campisi, as reported by the associated press on Oct.7, 2002, 17:38 ET ("Official Count of Sept.11 Victims"), and on Nov.1, 2002, 16:35 ET:
1,411 + 1,327 + 57 = 2,795 people died at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
Adding the 184 alleged Pentagon victims + the 40 alleged Pennsylvania victims, the Sept.11 victims total would be 3,019.
As of Nov.1, 2002. The official figures exclude the alleged "19 hijackers".

Readers will soon realize from this essay why a critical thinker may only speak of ALLEGED WTC dead, ALLEGED Pentagon dead, ALLEGED UA93 dead.

The vast majority of the 911 dead has, to date (Nov.1, 2002), NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMED.

As a first example among many, "there has been some discrepancy regarding the number of people aboard the plane [UA93, Pennsylvania]". This is in the 911- regime-myth-spreading book "Among The Heroes", by Jere Longman, Harpercollins, 1st edition, 2002, authorâ??s note, p.XIII.
Authorities had first spoken of 45 people on board UA93, says Longman.

Apparently, one passenger - Marion Britton - had bought two tickets. "A capacious woman, she suffered from diabetes. Usually, she purchased two seats so that she would be comfortable on a plane.â??

So again: the updated authorities figure for the people on board UA93 - hence its dead - is an alleged 44 (including the alleged 4 hijackers). 4 perpetrators + 40 victims on UA93. Allegedly.

But, Longman continues: "Terry Tyksinski, a longtime United flight attendant, said she was told six months after the crash, by a customer service supervisor who witnessed the incident, THAT TWO PASSENGERS LEFT THE PLANE WHEN IT WAS ANNOUNCED THERE WOULD BE A FIVE-MINUTE DELAY IN PUSHING BACK FROM THE GATE. THE FIRST-CLASS PASSENGERS WERE DARK-COMPLEXIONED, â??KIND OF BLACK, NOT BLACKâ??, THE SUPERVISOR SAID, ACCORDING TO TYKSINSKI, a flight attendant for thirty-five years [â?¦]. The supervisor said SHE NOTED THE NAMES OF THE PASSENGERS AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TWICE INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI, Tyksinski said. This incident could not be independently confirmed. "

NOW, FBI DIRECTOR MUELLER: ITâ??S EXTRA-HIGH TIME, ALMOST 14 MONTHS AFTER 911, YOU TOLD HUMANITY, LIVE AND ON PRIME-TIME CNN:

1. IF YOU COULD CONFIRM THAT 2 FIRST-CLASS PASSENGERS LEFT UA93 BEFORE DEPARTURE, AND THUS IF THE TOTAL ALLEGED UA93 DEAD ARE 42 NOT 44;
2. THE NAME OF THAT UNITED "CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR" WHO REPORTEDLY WITNESSED THE INCIDENT, SO WE CAN DIRECTLY CONFIRM WITH HER AND HEAR FROM HER TOO, LIVE AND ON PRIME-TIME CNN;
3. WHAT ARE THE NAMES OF THOSE 2 PASSENGERS? ITâ??S UNHEARD OF THAT 2 PASSENGERS WOULD LEAVE A PLANE AFTER BOARDING! AND SINCE ITâ??S HAZARDOUS TO LEAVE A PLANE AFTER BOARDING & JUST WALK OFF, WE MAY REASONABLY EXPECT THE 2 TO HAVE BEEN ESCORTED OR DRIVEN BACK TO THE TERMINAL - SO THERE MUST BE MORE WITNESSES! HAVE YOU CHECKED, FBI DIRECTOR MUELLER?
TESTIFY!

ALSO, IF 2 1ST-CLASS PASSENGERS LEFT UA93 BEFORE DEPARTURE, ONE OR MORE UA93 ATTENDANTS MUST HAVE NOTICED AND INFORMED UNITED STAFF AT NEWARK IMMEDIATELY - SO AGAIN, THERE SHOUD BE MORE WITNESSES; HAVE YOU ASKED AROUND, MUELLER?

4. COULD IT BE THAT THE 2 "BLACK, NOT BLACK" PASSENGERS WHO REPORTEDLY LEFT UA93 BEFORE DEPARTURE WERE ALLEGED "HIJACKERS" "ZIAD SAMIR JARRAH" ("black, not black", according to photo in http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1567000/1567815.stm ) AND ANOTHER ("SAEED ALGHAMDI" being the most likely candidate, appearing â??black, not blackâ?? in photo at http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/subsection/0,1300,559888,00.html ; the other two alleged UA93 "hijackers", "Al Haznawi" and "Alnami" appear to me from the photos to be white or anyway less dark);

WERE THERE ANY OTHER PEOPLE ON FLIGHT 93 WHO WOULD FIT THE â??BLACK-NOT-BLACKâ?? (=MIDDLE-EASTERN) DESCRIPTION?

First officer LeRoy Homer Jr. maybe would - but he was the uniformed co-pilot, not a passenger. The report was about "2 passengers".

UA93 passenger Waleska Martinez appears, from the photo section of Longmanâ??s book, to also possibly fit the "black, not black" description.
But, according to Jere Longman, he interviewed a colleague of hers at the N.Y. Census Bureau where Martinez worked, and this colleague speaks as if sheâ??s dead. Longman also appears to have talked to her father and her director.

So unless these people are all lying at the same time, Waleska Martinez hasnâ??t been heard of since 911.

The rest of the alleged UA93 passengers appear all white from Longmanâ??s bookâ??s photo section.

THEREFORE THE "TWO PASSENGERS" THAT A UNITED AIRLINES CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR REPORTEDLY WITNESSED LEAVING UA93 ON 911 CAN ONLY HAVE BEEN TWO OF THE ALLEGED "HIJACKERS" - "ZIAD SAMIR JARRAH" AND "SAEED ALGHAMDI" BEING THE LIKELIEST CANDIDATES BECAUSE OF THEIR "KIND OF BLACK, NOT BLACK" SKIN COLOR.

GIVE US THE NAMES OF THOSE 2 RIGHT NOW, MUELLER!!!
STOP COVERING UP FOR 911, YOU LIAR!!!

The possibility that the people on board UA93 were 42 not 44 is unwittingly confirmed by Longman himself on p.260: "A dozen passengers and crew members were identified by fingerprints or dental records, the remaining twenty-six by matching DNA samples [...].DNA profiles for the four hijackers were also established, although they were not identified by name":
12 + 26 + 4 = 42, NOT 44!

[As for the "4 hijackers" having been DNA-profiled, note:
1. they were reportedly not identified by name;
2. it's the FBI saying this; noone can independently check and verify;
3. if passengers + crew were all identified as Longman says, but their total is 38 not 40, then who are the 2 people to be crossed out from the list of 40 UA93 passengers + crew published by Longman on p.V?]
4. authorities' figures are self-contradicting, from what Longman says: how can authorities claim at the same time that there were 40 victims + 4 hijackers = 44 people on board UA93, but that all...38 victims + 4 hijackers = 42 people on board UA93 were identified/DNA profiled?]


Anyway, the official 3,019 total for the victims of 911 is by no means the final death toll. Hereâ??s some additional evidence.

First, how come the AP database of 911 victims has a total of 2,999 (Nov.1, 2002, 3:48:10 PM EDT), not the 3,019 one gets adding your WTC total to the pentagon + UA93 totals, campisi?

How come this difference of 20 victims?

If official Bush spokesparrots like you, campisi, and the AP canâ??t even agree with each other, what is one to think of the reliability of your figures?

Second: according to the AP, Feb.8, 2002, 18:12 ET, "The toll is likely to drop slightly as investigators make changes." Thatâ??s because your cops, campisi, are hypermeticulous. Or maybe because theyâ??re under orders to go as slow as it gets? Why havenâ??t you brought the matter to closure yet after WELL OVER 1 ENTIRE YEAR?

Third, "seven foreign countries still need to confirm their missing-persons lists, which could cause the death toll to drop." Who are those seven "snails"? Youâ??re in no hurry to push them, right campisi? AFTER WELL OVER 1 ENTIRE YEAR!

According to your own data, campisi:
1,411 alleged identified dead + 1,327 alleged declared dead by a death certificate = 2,738 "confirmed" alleged WTC dead.

It is NOT correct/logical to add the alleged "57 missing" to the WTC victims total, as campisi does (thatâ??s how he gets his total of "2,795": 2,738 confirmed dead + 57 missing = 2,795).

It is not correct because you yourself, campisi, have said, as reported by the associated press, March 7, 20:33 ET, that:
- of the "158" (then) allegedly still missing, only "SOME â?¦[ARE] ALMOST CERTAINLY DEAD [my caps]";
but: "SOME [ARE] PERHAPS MISTAKENLY ON THE LIST [ my caps]";
and: "SOME [ARE] POSSIBLY TRYING TO FAKE THEIR DEATHS [my caps]".
Moreover:
"The police department ESTIMATES AT LEAST 60 PERCENT OF THE 158 STILL CLASSIFIED AS MISSING DID DIEâ?¦ WHILE THE REST REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION [caps mine]."

Thatâ??s to say, you campisi have no proof yet (after well over 1 year!) allowing you to classify those "57" missing as victims.
So why did you add them to the Sept.11 "official count" of WTC victims - if not to artificially inflate that count?

Putting it simply: your "official count" is (at least in part) a lie, campisi. Because it includes "57 missing" of whom you yourself said that a big chunk may be mistakes or fakers, and you only "estimate" that the rest did die but you can't prove it.


That you, campisi, and your former slavemaster giuliani have been lying for almost 14 months about the difficulties of culling the WTC victims list is further attested to by an Oct.8, 2002, 04:25 ET Associated Press report (â??WTC Death Toll Drops Below 2,800â??, by Sara Klugler):
just one little example among many: Nickola Lampley, who "was removed [from the WTC missing list] after a reporter for The Associated Press tracked her down by phone in Brooklyn" on Sept.11, 2002.

But you, campisi, had not managed to accomplish this extraordinary feat of picking up the phone book & dialing Nickola Lampleyâ??s number FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR!! "POLICE COULD NOT LOCATE HER"!!!

WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE FOOLING CAMPISI - YOU STUPID FUCKINâ?? FEET-DRAGGINâ?? BUSHIITE MOTHERFUCKER!!!

Another telltale indicator that your alleged WTC victims total of "2,795" is inflated, surfaced in the associated press, Aug.23, 2002, 07:44 ET (â??Few Sept.11 Families Apply for Aidâ??):

ONLY 662 SEPT.11 VICTIMS FAMILIES HAD APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL VICTIMS COMPENSATION FUND BY AUG.23, 2002 (CLOSE TO 1 YEAR AFTER)!

AND SINCE WEâ??RE TALKING OVER A MILLION BUCKS PER FAMILY, ITâ??S HIGHLY DOUBTFUL THAT THE OTHER ALLEGED 2,357 (3,019 - 662) SEPT.11 VICTIMS FAMILIES (THAT IS THE VAST MAJORITY) WOULDNâ??T HAVE APPLIED!

Donâ??t you think, campisi?

Again: the alleged (provisory) confirmed WTC total is 2,738. 2,738, NOT "2,795"!

Plus Pentagon + Pennsylvania: 2,738 + 184 + 40 = 2,962 alleged Sept.11 dead.


2,962 "confirmed" alleged Sept.11 victims - NOT 3,019 (the AP-reported "official count" as of Nov.1, 2002).

And if and when youâ??ll come up with proof that the "57 missing" are really dead, Iâ??ll add them to the total. NOT NOW!


Furthermore, even that other official spokesparrot, medical examiner spokeswoman Ellen Borakove, cautioned (AP, Aug.20, 2002 7:35 ET: 'WTC Victim Toll Lowered by Four', by Sara Kugler) that the list of 2,819 WTC victims she gave to City Hall to be read aloud by a bunch of liars at the Sept.11 memorial "WASN'T BEING CALLED THE FINAL NUMBER" [my caps].

As a matter of fact, from Aug.20 to Sept.11 (3 weeks) the WTC total slimmed down by 18, to 2,801. And as of Nov.1, 2002 it stood at 2,795.

And there is no end in sight.

And there is no way to independently verify if all of the 3,019 official 911 victims are really dead or not.

Where are the 4 original flight manifests for the 4 planes? Why haven't they been published integrally, AFTER OVER 1 YEAR?

HOW IS HUMANITY TO VERIFY IF THE 184 ALLEGED PENTAGON VICTIMS, THE 40 ALLEGED UA93 VICTIMS AND THE 2,795 ALLEGED WTC VICTIMS ARE REALLY DEAD?

ESPECIALLY SINCE NO SERIOUS, INDEPENDENT INQUIRY HAS BEEN SET UP YET?


Eric Lipton on The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/11/nationchallenged/11EXAM.html ) confirmed on Sept.11, 2002 that "in New York, a year after the attack, the culling of the list is still not complete."

And Lipton reports that "THERE ARE STILL 35 TO 40 PEOPLE ON THE LIST OF THE MISSING WHOSE NAMES MIGHT BE REMOVED FROM THE FINAL COUNT ALTOGETHER".

Wonder how much longer it'll take you, campisi, to remove those 35/40 from your list.

You said you could not prove that they were not killed. But the official count must include only those you CAN prove to have been killed.

The others about whom you're uncertain should be given as a separate category, otherwise your "2,795" official WTC count is a lie, because it gives the false impression that you're certain each and every one of those 2,795 really died. Which you are not.

Ongoing fabrication of inflated numbers to keep the hatred high for warmongering purposes - thatâ??s what you are all about, campisi.


So the PROVISORY confirmed official 911 victims total is 2,962 as of Nov.1, 2002. THAT IS, UNLESS EVEN THE IDENTIFIED-VICTIMS AND CERTIFIED-DEAD-WITHOUT-A-BODY TOTALS HAVE BEEN TAMPERED WITH/FALSIFIED/INFLATED. AINâ??T NOTHING ONE SHOULD NOT BE SKEPTICAL ABOUT WITH PROFESSIONAL SMUGS THE LIKES OF YOU.


As early as late October 2001, everyone else who conducted an independent count of WTC victims, from USA Today to the New York Times to the Red Cross and the associated press, had come up with victims totals under 3,000 (International Herald Tribune, October 26,2001, p.3), while you were still touting close to 4,800 dead.
Your WTC totals, campisi, which are the only ones most people have been fed by the mass media, have as-slowly-as-possible slimmed down from a sensational 'nearly 7,000' in late September (full-blown headlines) to the much less than 3,000 of today (no headlines).
Sloppy work at best. Yet most effective in brainwashing worldwide TV-fed public opinion into believing the lie of 5 or 6 thousand Sept.11 dead.

WHY ON EARTH DID IT TAKE THE PRESS AND THE RED CROSS ONLY 6 WEEKS TO GET DOWN TO THE SAME WTC TOTAL YOU CAMPISI & YOUR THUGS EMPLOYED MONTHS TO GET TO - AND YOU AREN'T EVEN FINISHED YET?

Once more: using your WTC total, campisi, the total confirmed death toll of September 11 at all three sites (New York, Pentagon, Pennsylvania) would be 2,962 by now.

WHY HAVENâ??T YOU RELEASED A VERIFIABLE LIST OF NAMES FOR ALL VICTIMS? BY THAT I DO NOT MEAN PLAQUES ON A WALL - I MEAN A WRITTEN LIST CONTAINING ALL IDENTIFICATION DATA/RECORDS: SOMETHING A FUTURE SERIOUS INQUIRY COULD CROSSCHECK!
AND WHY HAVENâ??T YOU GIVEN NEWS ORGANIZATIONS ACCESS TO YOUR FULL, VERIFIABLE LIST OF VICTIMS?
JUST HOW RELIABLE IS YOUR LIST?
JUST HOW RELIABLE ARE YOU?

LET NOONE BE FOOLED BY THE RECENTLY (AUGUST 2002) RELEASED (AND DECLAREDLY PROVISORY) "MEDICAL EXAMINERâ??S" LIST OF 2,819 WTC VICTIMS!
NOT EVEN THE NEW YORK TIMES COULD VERIFY IT: "THE NAMES RELEASED [â?¦] COULD NOT BE VERIFIED INDEPENDENTLY AFTER THEY WERE PROVIDED TO NEWS ORGANIZATIONS" (The New York Times, Aug.20, 2002: â??City Compiles List of Dead and Missing From Sept.11â??, by Thomas J. Lueck, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/20/nyregion/20DEAD.html ).
And Iâ??ve already reported how the 2,819 slimmed down to 2,795 between Aug.20 and Nov.1, 2002.


At least you, campisi, and your former slavemaster and co-liar Giuliani have been faintly whispering (though not always, not nearly enough) from the beginning that your figures were in a state of flux due to "duplications"/"errors" and were/are likely to drop further.
But the following liars are more than a match for you, as shown by a Nov.21,2001 New York Times report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/nyregion/21NUMB.html


colin powell had the straightface to repeat the 5,000-dead lie in a Nov.19, 2001 Louisville speech, although you, campisi, had made officially known WEEKS earlier that the Sept.11 toll had dropped well below 5,000. Actually, by Nov.19, 2001 it stood at little over 4,000. You're busted colin, you spouter of lies.

The 2nd certified liar is general richard b. myers , chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who during November 2001 briefings repeatedly bleated the "5,000" myth.

The 3rd certified liar is don imus, the radio talk show host, who topped everyone else by inventing "6,000" WTC dead on larry king live, saturday Nov.17, 2001.

The list is long. Too long. Longer than anyone can bear. Overblown casualty lists printed by massmedia whores and trumpeted by power pigs will always "create a helpful wave of national indignation" - a time-honored dirty trick.


See, campisi, these are not trivialities, or morbid curiosity. How can Bush possibly be waging a "proportionate" war (as he and Blair driveled all over the media after Sept.11: see for example International Herald Tribune, Oct.6, 2001,p.1: "Blairâ?¦Calls for â??Proportionateâ?? Strikes"), if the death toll is still uncertain? How many people does Bush have the right to murder back? 2,962 (your PROVISORY confirmed total)?

This "proportionate" war has long since become savagely disproportionate: in only 10 days in November 2001, 6,000 alleged Talibans and Qaidas were killed, according to U.S. and French experts (International Herald Tribune, November 19, 2001, p.8). If this is true, then the total death toll of over 1 year of war since Oct.7, 2001 is much higher than 6,000, considering:
- the fighters killed outside those 10 days;
- the refugees who starved and froze to death;
- the ever-increasing "unintended victims" (who amount to "certainly hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent Afghans", according to the International Herald Tribune, Feb.11, 2002,p.1, continued on p.8; who amount to "at least 3,767 civilian casualties from Oct.7 to Dec.6", 2001, according to Marc Herold of New Hampshire University, as reported ibid.; who amount to "1,000 to 1,300 deaths" according to Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives, as reported ibid.: that is, only until before Feb.11, 2002).


Maybe itâ??s time to shed some light on your WTC victims list, campisi - lest more and more unpatriots should start thinking you are a liar who's been fabricating inflated figures all along to whip Americans up into a war frenzy.


War ought to be the first casualty of the Truth.




Nov.4, 2002 version. I wrote the first version on September 24, 2001.



Adrian More

so i'll just paste it here so i can comment




Media published fake passenger lists for American Airlines Flight 11
author: Gerard Holmgren e-mail: enquiry11@hotmail.com
An examination of anomalies surrounding published passenger lists for American Airlines Flight 11 on Sept 11, 2001. (Alleged to have hit the WTC at 8.46.)
MEDIA PUBLISHED FAKE PASSENGER LISTS FOR AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11.

By Gerard Holmgren enquiry11@hotmail.com

Copyright. May 16, 2004. This article may be freely reproduced as long as it it is not for commercial purposes. Please include the authors name, the URL where you found it, and the copyright notice.

As everyone knows, on Sept 11 2001, 5 Arabs allegedly hijacked American Airlines flight 11 and crashed it into the Nth Tower of the World Trade Centre at 8.46 A.M. It was part of a crime which killed approximately 3000 people.

Any crime of this magnitude, is - or should be - subject to rigourous examination by investigative and law enforcement authorities, such as the FBI. In any crime involving the illegal use of a plane, it is obvious that one of the first investigative steps taken by such authorities is to find out who was on the plane.

This is not a difficult thing to do. Airlines keep well organized records of everybody on any particular flight. The apparent ID of anyone on that flight - regardless of whether they used a true or false ID - should be immediately available to authorities.

Unless authorities decide that disclosure of such information may jeopardize the investigation, it should also be easily available to the media. It should be as simple as an exchange of faxes or emails between the media and either the airline involved or one of the relevant authorities to which the airline has released the information. Or possibly printed copies handed out at a press conference.

In relation to the alleged AA11, there has never been any indication that such information has been withheld for security reasons. We have been given the clear impression that the information relating to exactly who was on that plane has been made available to us via the media - which presumably sourced it in the manner suggested above. If the information had been withheld, one would expect that to be known.

Supporters of the official story seem to support this view. In the face of mounting evidence that none of the Sept 11 crashes were actually caused by the planes alleged to have been involved (some of this evidence is linked at the conclusion of this article), supporters of the official story will often reply with a demand to know exactly what happened to the alleged passengers, illogically imagining the lack of a specific answer to represent a flaw in the no planes/substitute planes argument. Implicit in this demand is the belief that there is solid documentation of who the passengers were.

Anybody can put up a website, do an interview or send an email, claiming to be family or friend of a plane victim. But the only credible, official source for such information is the airline passenger list, and the only credible source for obtaining this information is the airline itself, or authorities and media to which the airline makes it available. One can't demand an explanation of what happened to particular people alleged to be on the flight unless one can prove that they were on the flight. Implicit in the official story is the assumption that such information has been established in the public domain by the media.

It is therefore incumbent upon any serious investigator to properly examine such passenger lists and ensure that they match with other alleged facts we have been given, and with the processes by which one would expect the information to have been sourced.

In this context, the following statement by "USA Today" in relation to its published passenger lists is of some concern.

"Partial lists of passengers and crew killed in Tuesday's terrorist attacks, according to family members, friends, co-workers and local law enforcement."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-list.htm

This is a very strange way to source such information. Why not get it from American Airlines or the FBI? If neither of these were consulted, how did USAT know who's "family members, friends, co-workers" to go looking for? Or if AA and the FBI were the first source of inquiry, why a partial list from hearsay sources?
Why "local law enforcement" rather than the feds, who would surely have any complete database of the victims? This statement appears to make no sense at all, except to confirm that the obvious sources where any media outlet should be looking - American Airlines and the FBI - seem to have been left out of the process. And it gets more ridiculous.

At
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight11.htm

USAT gives the following bio of one of the alleged victims.

"Tom McGuinness, of Portsmouth, N.H., was co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 11, an official at his church confirmed...He said church pastors were with his wife when she was notified Tuesday morning. "

Surely American Airlines, the FAA or the FBI would be the only sources which could confirm who was co-piloting the plane. A family member, who's ID can be verified would be a reasonably good unofficial source, but first one needs to find out which family one is looking for. In the process of ascertaining that, one should have already received official confirmation. This source is someone who claims to know such a family member - a second hand attribution to a source which is not official anyway, and should be subject to confirmation from AA, The FAA or the FBI.

Why does USAT cite the church administrator as the source, indeed the confirmation of the information, when they can't have found out anything about how to find the church administrator without first consulting the official source, which could comfirm it far more authoritively ? The indications are that the church administrator contacted USAT with this claim, and USAT accepted this hearsay at face value. If so, this is very poor journalism.

One can't be certain of the exact processes employed by USAT, but its fair to say that there are strong indications that its passenger list is based on hearsay, because they had some kind of problem in obtaining the routine documentation which one would expect to be available, but failed to give a direct disclosure of what that problem was.

By contrast, CNN, introducing its passenger list ,says

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/main.html

"authorities from American Airlines, United Airlines, the Department of Defense, the New York City Medical Examiners Office and the New York City Fire Department, have released partial lists. They are linked below."

This is a clear indication that CNN claims to have sourced its passenger information as one would expect.

The firs passenger list for AA11 which I studied was that presented by CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

It says that there were 92 people aboard, but if you count the names listed there are 87 - and no Arabic names. On the surface, this seems reasonable. One can speculate that CNN has published the names of all 87 innocent victims, and deleted the names of the 5 hijackers for sensitivity reasons.

If so, why is said that American Airlines released a "partial list" ?

For the moment, lets give CNN the benefit of the doubt and assume this to be a complete list (in contradiction to what they wrote) of the 87 innocents alleged to be on board - a list sourced from AA, whether directly, or indirectly via a law enforcement agency. A reading of the names suggests that the CNN list may actually represent only 86 people - one name duplicated with different spelling.

Robin Caplin and Robin Kaplan are listed as two different people. There is a brief bio for Kaplan, but nothing for Caplin, except the home town.

Perhaps this is just an enormous co-incidence and two people with such names actually were on the flight ? Lets suspend judgment for the moment, while we investigate further.

I then checked the passenger list provided by USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-list.htm

Again, it is described as a partial list. It contains 86 names. - one short of a complete list. Robin Caplin is missing. However, two other names from the CNN list - Jude Larson and Natalie Larson - are also missing, and the list contains two names which are not on the CNN list.

Kelly Booms and Pendyala Vamsikrishna.

Lets think through the possibilities.
1) Two of the names from the collective passenger lists are fictitious.
2) Neither list is complete, and the complete list of innocents only emerges from a collective viewing of the lists - as strongly implied by the term "partial list" used in relation to both lists. If so, then we have 89 innocents. If this is the case, there can't be 5 hijackers for a total of 92 people. And yet nobody seems to dispute these two figures.

At http://www.boston.com/news/daily/12/victims_list.htm

We find a list of AA 11 victims published on Sept 13 2001, which, judging by the introduction, may have come from exactly same the source as that used by USAT today. It begins thus.

"By The Associated Press. Partial list of those killed in Tuesday's terrorist attacks, according to family members, friends, co-workers and law enforcement. "

Compare it with the introduction to the USAT list.

"Partial lists of passengers and crew killed in Tuesday's terrorist attacks, according to family members, friends, co-workers and local law enforcement."

However, this list is quite different to that published by USAT - or CNN . While not giving any summation, it contains the names of 89 alleged innocents and introduces two new names - Robert Jalbert and James Roux. Vamsikrishna and Booms are the two names not included from the collective CNN and USAT lists. Since it publishes 89 names as a "partial list " this implies a minimum of 90 innocents aboard the plane.
From the three combined lists, we now have 91 alleged innocents and 5 hijackers for an apparently undisputed summation of 92. The Boston Daily list ,in isolation, implies a minimum of 95 aboard, while the collective lists imply 96 - if one is to believe in 5 hijackers. Alternatively, there must be four fictitious innocents.

The Boston Daily list also contains "Heath Smith", which would appear to be a substitute for "Heather Smith" named on the previous two lists.

A year later, the Boston Daily published a very different list, seemingly without acknowledging any previous error.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/victims/flight11.htm

It contains only 87 names. Jalbert ,Roux,Caplin and the two Larsons have been dropped for Booms,Vamsikrishna and another new name - Waleed Iskander - who is not alleged to be one of the terrorists. Heath Smith has become Heather Lee Smith. A person named on every other list as Antonio Montoya has become Antonio Jesus Montoya Valdes. Peter Hashem has been replaced by Peter el-Hachem.From the bio, it appears to be a different name for the same person While the odd spelling discrepancy or missing hyphen is quite plausible, this much of a name change is stretching the credibility a little. I can believe that "Green" could become "Greene" or "Catherine" become "Katherine", but "Hashem" becoming "el- Hachem" - from an official passenger list - is more difficult to accept.

This is most unsatisfactory. The combined lists now name 92 innocents, so if one is to believe in 92 aboard, 5 of which were hijackers, we now have 5 fictitious innocents.
We have three major mainstream media outlets, publishing 4 lists which all contradict each other about who was on board, when this information should have ultimately come from one official,well organized source. We have lists claiming to be "partial lists" publishing more names than should be in a complete list.

I checked another list - from the Guardian dated sept 13 ,2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,551423,00.html

This also claims 92 people aboard. It published only 75 names, saying

"This is a preliminary, partial list of passengers aboard the flight whose next of kin have been notified. Some families asked the airline not to include their loved ones' names: these do not appear. "

Fair enough. So this list is unable to be fully tested for consistency with either of the other four conflicting lists. However, it does agree on the number of people aboard. 92. This creates a real headache for the official story. Is the figure of 92 correct? Should it be really be 97 - the 92 collectively listed innocents plus 5 hijackers? If so, why is everyone saying 92 ? Or were there no hijackers? If so, why is everybody saying 5 ? Or are 5 of these names fictitious ? If so,why ?

The Guardian list also has Heath Smith instead of Heather Smith, and Hashem rather than el-Hachem.

There's another problem. If AA released only 75 names on Sept 13, how did the Boston Daily mange to publish 89 on the same day ? Where did it get the extra names that the airline was still withholding ?

Now the list from NBC
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/wtc/victims/default.asp...

It lists 87 names for a summation of 92, and is the same as the USAT list, except for the addition of Iskander. That is - the same as the anniversary list from the Boston Daily.

I checked another mainstream media source - PBS

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/sept11/victims/aa11.html

which entitles its list " One year later. Remembering the victims."

This agrees with the NBC and Boston anniversary lists.

Lets review the problems so far.

From five mainstream media outlets we have four conflicting lists.

Robin Caplin and Robin Kaplan on the same flight is difficult to believe, especially as Caplin is one of the frequently missing names.

The lists can't agree on the correct names for three of the passengers - Hashem/el- Hachem, Heath/Heather Smith, and Antonio Montoya/Valdez .

There are collectively 92 innocents and 5 hijackers for a total of 92 aboard.

So these are the possibilities
a) 5 of the innocents are fictitious
b)There were no hijackers
c) Some of these people were the real hijackers
d) There were 97 people aboard.

I will clarify what I mean by "fictitious". It may be that the extra names represent real people, who are missing and presumed dead. It may be that they have family and friends who honestly believe that the missing person boarded a flight called American Airlines 11. That's a matter for further research. But for five of these individuals who have been listed, (although we can't at this stage specify who ) the belief that they were on AA11 is proven to be false - unless one is to accept one of the other possibilities above.

The Washington Post from Sept 12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18970-2001Sep12

Introduces its list as

"American Airlines partial passenger lists"

and then lists 89 names, (no hijackers) implying a minimum of 95 aboard. Once again, how did it get 89 names on Sept 12, if AA was still withholding some of them on Sept 13 ?

Those missing are Iskander, Vamsikrihna and Jalbert. This doesn't even agree with the missing three from the Boston Daily's first list of 89, published the day after. The missing names there were Iskander, Vamsikrishna and Booms. So even if it were to be argued that the Boston Daily and the Washington Post somehow found a source of which the Guardian was unaware, their lists still don't match.

Fox news
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34223,00.html

lists only 81 names. It gives no summation and introduces the list as

"Confirmed on board American Airlines Flight 11 Boston to Los Angeles: "

perhaps implying that this is only a preliminary list and that a complete list is still awaiting confirmation. The problem is that this report is dated Sept 20, 2001. Why does it take more than 9 days to achieve the simple task of obtaining an official passenger list? Perhaps the story about AA only releasing 75 names on Sept 12 is true, and that by Sept 20, this had risen to 81. If so, then those who were publishing 89 names on Sept 12 and 13 have some explaining to do. But if they were telling the truth, then the Guardian has some explaining to do, and so does Fox in relation to why it was only able to confirm 81 names more than a week later. And yet, even those who were publishing 89 names were calling them partial lists and disagreeing on the names. Someone is fibbing.

At http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/12/133231.shtml

dated Sept 12, 2001, NewsMax.com introduces its passenger list thus, appearing to support the Guardian's version of how the information was being released.

"American Airlines Wednesday released a partial list of passengers and crewmembers aboard the two flights downed by terrorist acts in New York and Washington. The following is a list of passengers whose next-of-kin have been notified. American has honored the requests of those families who have asked that their loved ones' names not be included. "

Note that like the Guardian, it does not claim to withheld the names itself. AA didn't supply the missing names.

It publishes 77 names, including Heath Smith, not Heather. And Hashem, not el-Hachem. This would appear to be the identical source as the Guardian. So why did the Guardian - the following day - publish two less names? The lists are identical except for these two - Judy Laroque and Carlos Montoya - missing from the Guardian list.

The same intro as NewsMax with a matching passenger list to NewsMax appears at

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/12/story23539.asp

also dated sept 12.And also at

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m4PRN/2001_Sept_12/78169846/p1/article.jhtml

and again at

http://yellowhawk33.tripod.com/html/powmia.html

Except that this list is identical to the Guardian. 75 names, with Laroque and Carlos Montoya omitted. Well...almost identical. Heath Smith has become Heather Smith.

Even more puzzling in relation to Smith, is why large news agencies such as CNN and USAT who one would surely expect to have also received this early list, made the same mistake in relation to Smith, naming him as Heather.(Unless Heather is correct and sources such as the Guardian and NewsMax somehow made Heather into Heath.)

If this is alleged to be simply a typo, why are nearly all of the other names consistently free of typos or variations (other than who was included ) in list after list ? Why does every office typist develop a severe case of dyslexia or fumble fingers every time Smith's name comes up ? In isolation, this problem would strongly indicate that some news sources are just copying from other news sources. Someone initially made a mistake in copying Smith's name, and this mistake got passed on to some other lists. But that theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If different media outlets are simply copying each others lists - without acknowledgment - why are nearly none of them the same ?

Whatever the answer to this mystery, we can confidently state that media is not publishing any kind of reliable, official documentation. These lists are an appalling shambles, not worth the paper that they're not written on.

This site http://www.wwnfsept11.com/AmericanAirlinesFlight11Victims.htm

makes no comment on the total number aboard, but if you count the names you'll find 88 innocent victims. It's the same as the CNN list with the addition of Iskander.
The authors of the site do not identify themselves or their sources in any way, so I went to the home page

http://www.wwnfsept11.com

which also gave no real information about the authors or the sources.
Where did this list come from? Whoever put it together has not even uncritically copied one of the previously examined lists ( while failing to source it). They've created a new combination of names from the combined lists. Or if they've uncritically copied it without acknowledgment from some other mainstream source which has eluded my searches, then we have yet another contradictory list. Why does it imply 93 aboard ?

At this point it is worth doing some searching to see if there's any significant disputation of the figures of 92 aboard, including 5 hijackers.

In relation to the five hijackers, it would appear not. The 5 hijacker story is so integral to the official myth, that it's not worth linking the sources which claim it, and I can't find anything which disputes it

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_flight_11

which describes itself as an encyclopedia about Sept 11, is a link to what is confidently described as a "flight manifest " for A11, although it gives no source for this information. Clicking on this link takes one to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_Terrorist_Attack/Plane_casualties

which introduces AA 11 as having 93 aboard, including 5 hijackers. The list does contain the names of 5 suspected hijackers (All Arabic names) , so there should be 88 innocents.It specifies this directly by stating

"93 people: 82 passengers (including 5 hijackers), 9 flight attendants, 2 pilots "

This makes 11 crew and 77 innocent passengers. 88 innocents in total.

But if you count the names, there's only 92 - 5 hijackers and 87 innocents,making a mockery of the rather official sounding title of "flight manifest." The missing names are Caplin, Jude Larson, Natalie Larson, Roux , Jalbert and Iskander. The reason why six names have been dumped from the collective list of 92 to make 87 is that this list has a new name - Lana Tu. So we now have - collectively - 93 innocents and five hijackers for a total of 92 or 93 aboard.

Here are just a few of the sources which agree on the summation of 92 aboard.Most of them are sites with reasonably good reputations as reliable sources of information. None of them represent sources which question the official story in any way.

Crash database.com
http://www.crashdatabase.com/cgi-bin/webdata_crashdatabase.cgi...

US govt info/resources
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blattack0911.htm

Newsday
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nymain122362150sep12,0,7355100.story...

ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/primetime_flightattendants_020718.html

Massport press release
http://www.massport.com/about/press01/press_news_advisory2.html

Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0913/p1s2-usju.html

Airsafe.com
http://www.airsafe.com/events/airlines/american.htm

Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/american_text091101.htm

Washington Post
http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/trade091101.htm

Airdisaster.com
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/view_details.cgi...

Aviation Safety Network
http://aviation-safety.net/database/2001/010911-0.htm

WiredNews
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,46740,00.html...

Times-Herald Record
http://www.recordonline.com/adis/62/stories/timeline.htm

The Straits Times.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/html/webspecial/WTC/timeline2.html

World Statesman
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/index2.html

Biblia Vividia
http://biblia.com/islam/newyork.htm

Higher Praise.com News
http://www.higherpraise.org/news/ArchivedNews4.htm

http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/lookup.html...

http://www.ezl.com/~fireball/Disaster.htm

So, if we have universal agreement that there were 92 aboard - 5 hijackers and 87 innocents - why can no-one agree on who those 87 innocents were? Which 6 of the 93 names are fictitious ?

It appears that some spin doctor became partially aware of this problem, and tried to solve it by putting up another of these hearsay sites - again failing to provide identification or sources.

http://www.inmemoriamonline.net/List_AA11.html

According to this list, there were 90 innocents aboard, and 5 hijackers, for a summation of 95. Not a word is said about the universally accepted figure of 92. This is simply swept aside as if the figure had never existed. It publishes 90 names - 90 of the 93 collectively published in all of the other conflicting lists. But where did this list come from ? The site has not copied from any of the previously examined mainstream media sites. Or if its copied (without providing documentation), from some other mainstream source which has eluded my searches , then we have yet another contradictory list. But since this site broke basic documentation protocol, by providing no sources, we are entitled to assume the worst. That they fabricated their own list, by cobbling together 90 names from other collective lists - indicating that they were well aware of the discrepancies, but failed to note three of the names - and then fabricated the summation of 95 aboard to try to make the figures add up - hoping that no-one would notice.

The missing names are Jalbert, Tu and Vamsikrishna

At
http://www.americanmemorials.com/memorial/deathnotice_private.asp...

is a list from "ObituryRegistry.com which describes itself as " a service of AmericanMemorials.com"

Upon first viewing of the site, its not immediately apparent what the official status, if any, of this site is. Since anyone can post anything they like on the internet, one needs to check these things carefully. So I followed some of the links to find out more about the site and its authors, and its official status, if any. I clicked the link for AmericanMemorials.com which took me here

http://www.americanmemorials.com/

It describes itself as the "The internet's most complete database of current obituaries and death notices. Searchable by name,city and state, keywords and more."

It invites one to create one's own memorial for $US49.95. Following various links around the site gives no indication that it is anything other than a commercial operation, with no official status. So it appears as if anybody could create a memorial to anyone- real or fictitious - as long as they came up with $49.95. So lets have a look at the list for AA11.

It lists 90 innocents, and introduces two new names. Bill Weems and Timothy Ward. So we now have 95 alleged innocents. Those missing from this list are Tu, Booms, Vamsikrishna, Jalbert and Roux.

There are now a minimum of 8 fictitious innocents -unless someone wants to suggest that there were 100 people aboard in total -or else get creative with the practical application of abstract maths and suggest that the plane was hijacked by a group of Arabs numbering minus three, making the total passenger load 92 - in which case the media owes an explanation for why it keeps publishing 5 names for these minus three individuals.

Someone is fibbing.

Here is a summary of the anomalies between the lists.

Collectively, these sources list the names of 95 alleged innocents.

CNN lists 87 names, which should be a complete list ,but indicates that the list is incomplete. The 8 left out are Vamsikrishna, Roux, Iskander,Jalbert, Tu,Weems,Ward and Booms.

USAT lists 86 names, citing this as a "partial list", Those missing are Caplin, Jalbert, Jude Larson, Natalie Larson, Roux, Tu,Weems,Ward and Iskander.

NBC lists 87 names. Its the same as USAT with the addition of Iskander, but changes Peter Hashem to Peter el-Hachem.

PBS is identical to NBC.

The Boston daily lists 89 innocents and describes it as a a partial list. Those missing are Iskander,Vamsikrishna, Tu , Weems,Ward and Booms. It is the only list to name Jalbert.

A year later it lists 87 names, changing Heath Smith to Heather Smith, Hashem to el-Hachem , and losing Caplin, the two Larsons, Jalbert and Roux for Iskander, Vamsikrishna.and Booms.

The Washington Post published a "partial list" containing 89 names. Those missing are Iskander,Vamsikrishna, Jalbert , Tu , Weems and Ward .

The "we will never forget" website lists 88 names. Those missing are Vamsrikrishna, Jalbert, Booms, Tu,Weems,Ward and Roux.

The AA11 memorial website lists 90 names and claims 95 aboard. The missing names are Vamsikrishna, Tu, Weems,Ward and Jalbert.

Wikipedia claims a summation of 93 aboard, but lists only 92 names (including hijackers).It is the only site to list Lana Tu. Those missing are Iskander, Caplin, the two Larsons, Jalbert,Weems,Ward and Roux. This makes it the same as the USAT list with the addition of Tu or put another way - the same as the NBC and PBS lists except that Tu is in for Isaknder.

The American Memorials/Obituary site lists 90 names and is the only list to name Weems and Ward. It leaves out Tu, Jalbert,Vamsikrishna, Roux and Booms.

Several sources claim that AA released 77 (or 75) names on Sept 12, but the Washington Post published 89 names the same day, and the Boston Daily published 89 - but not the same 89 - the day after, while Fox News was still claiming that only 81 names were confirmed a week later.

We still can't rule out the possibility that Caplin/Kaplan is a genuine co-incidence, but suspicion is justified, especially as Caplin is one of the frequently missing names. Some lists have Peter el-Hachem, others Peter Hashem. Some lists have Heather Smith and others Heath Smith. Most lists have Antonio Montoya but one has Antonio Montoya Valdes.

Since the media which sells us the official story universally agrees that there were 92 aboard - 87 innocents and 5 hijackers, then 8 of these names (although we can't yet specify which 8 ) must be fictitious. If 8 are confirmed as fictitious, then we are perfectly entitled to speculate with some validity that any number of the 95 could be fictitious.

What's even more curious is that four of these names also appear on the lists for UA 175, alleged to have hit the Sth Tower of the WTC at 9.03. Jalbert ,Roux, Ward and Weems.

What a mess ! This crime - the murder of approximately 3000 people , and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly investigated and documented ? Why should we be expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims ?

It's previously been demanded by many sceptics that we need to see a verifiable official passenger list which actually contains the names of the alleged hijackers. We can now take the implications of that further and point to the absence of any passenger list documentation for AA11 which stands up to scrutiny as a credible document. We have nothing which could support the existence of any of the alleged passengers on the alleged flight.

The fact is - that in nearly three years - the media has tried to give the impression that they have published valid passenger lists, when all that has been provided is the contradictory rubbish exposed in this investigation. We are left with no choice but to conclude that these AA11 lists are fabrications. Personal stories of those allegedly involved have been built on the basis of these fabricated lists. As qualified earlier, some or all of them may be real people who are really missing, and may have friends or families who genuinely believe that they got on to a flight called AA11. We don't know at this stage. But the passenger lists as complete entities are lies.

I say "alleged flight" because the article linked below presents official documentation that there was no such flight as AA11 on Sept 11, 2001.

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

http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3...

The article linked below presents documentation that if one is to use media reports as the basis to claim the existence of such a flight, then one would have to believe that there were two AA11s that day.

Flight 11 - The Twin Flight - by Woody Box

http://physics911.org/net/modules/weblog/details.php...

This website presents video evidence that neither of the objects which struck the WTC were the planes alleged in the official story.

First hit examinations

http://thewebfairy.com/911/noplane

Second hit examinations

http://thewebfairy.com/911/2hit

This page presents a comprehensive compilation of evidence for Govt. involvement in the Sept 11 attacks.

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml...

SUGGESTIONS FOR VERIFYING THIS INFORMATION FOR YOURSELF

For those who would like to seriously scrutinize my analysis - and I welcome and encourage such scrutiny - here is a suggestion for a way to analyze this mass of data while minimizing the likelihood of mistakes.

Print each list linked in this article. Choose one list as a reference list, which I will call List 1. Count the names - at least twice - and write down the number. Take list 2. Count the names - at least twice- and write down the number. Cross check it , name by name, with list 1. On list 1 write down any names from list 2 which are missing, and on list 2, write down any names from list 1 which are missing. Ensure that the summary of conflicting names reconciles with the numbers of names on both lists. Take list 3, count the names and write down the number. Cross check the names against lists 1 and 2 in the same way, writing on list 3 any names missing from the compilation of lists 1 and 2, and adding any new names appearing in list 3 to lists 1 and 2. Ensure that the numbers match the name discrepancies and move through the rest of the lists in similar fashion. When you are finished, each list should contain a listing of names it has omitted from the collective list. This was the method I used for this research.

In case anyone is thinking of removing or doctoring the lists linked in this article, they've already been backed up and widely distributed.

add a comment on this article

Craptacular! 16.May.2004 08:38

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher mankey link


I see the alleged flight "11" that supposedly hit the alleged world trade on the allged date of september 11, 2001, suposedly in an alleged city named new york. I remember all the alleged victims and the alleged collapse of the alleged towers in the imaginary city on the east coast. Allegedly


what about other plane crashes? 16.May.2004 09:17

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gerry link


What has the procedure been in other plane crashes? Have there ever been discrepancies about the names and numbers? What sources have the media used in the past to publish their passenger lists?


planes half full 16.May.2004 09:51

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nori J. Muster exkritter@yahoo.com link


It is clear that the passenger lists are fictitious and that there were no planes. That may be one reason why we only hear from the families of the victims who died in the towers. Also, planes such as the ones allegedly involved in 9/11 carry 186 passengers. What are the chances that all four were half full? If you are concerned about these (and other major) discrepancies send your comments to: Thomas H. Kean, Chair Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chair info@9-11Commission.gov You may say "what's the use, they'll just lie to protect the president and endorse the official story anyway." But if they hear from enough people, they will be more likely to actually say something of substance in their report. They can't ignore it if they see the 9/11 hoax has become common knowledge. I have collected hundreds of links on the 9/11 hoax at my site: http://surrealist.org/prayforpeace/9-11truth.html


http://surrealist.org/prayforpeace/9-11truth.html
P.O. Box 41750, Mesa, AZ 85274


Mafattavanazool! 16.May.2004 10:27

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mulberry Sellers link


"It is clear that the passenger lists are fictitious and that there were no planes."

Okay, then exactly what was the bloody great thing with, like, wings, and a tail, and engines and airline markings and stuff which was both seen and filmed crashing into the tower?

"Also, planes such as the ones allegedly involved in 9/11 carry 186 passengers. What are the chances that all four were half full?"

Ever taken a really early-morning flight from, say, the East Coast to LA? It's pretty common for those to be sparsely booked. The only people who are hauling their asses to the airport and going through all the crap that early are the people who are stuck with it. In fact, if you want to have the best chance of having an entire row of seats to yourself, taking an early bird flight is an excellent way to do it.

The suggestion above of looking into the accuracy of passenger lists from previous air disasters is a sound one. My recollection is that it often takes a few days to get the identities of all the people on a crashed flight sorted out, and that the passenger list is only a starting point, not a definitive solution to that problem.

Of course, that's only an impression formed from news reports of air crashes. YMMV.


reply to YMMV 16.May.2004 10:48

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nori J. Muster exkritter@yahoo.com link


Dear YMMV,
There's only one video and no photos that show the planes hitting the Twin Towers. Where were all the tourists and journalists who might have had cameras with them that day? The one video that exists shows a puff of smoke hitting one tower, and a plane going into the other tower with no crash, no explosion, but rather just melting into the tower like a knife into a cake. The explosion occurs about 10 - 20 floors above the floor where the plane hit.
Show me a photo - show me a video - there has to be more than just one.
This is not a partisan issue where you have to get so rankled. This was the worst crime in the history of the world. We're just trying to understand the facts. Nothing adds up. All for now. I gotta go to work today.
-Nori


verification of deaths 16.May.2004 12:02

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N.Kollerstrom (London 9:11 Sceptics Group) link


Of the 86 or so passenger names on the given lists for flight AA11, I found that only 17 appear on the SSDI (Social Security Death Index) for the date of 9:11 (http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/). One can't get far in America without a social security number, unique for each individual, and at death this transfers into the SSDI: this is the most reliable American index of who has really died and when. Of the given crew list of 11, for the flight AA11, only one was thus registered, for that date. Thus flight assistants Betty Ong and Madeleine Sweeney that we've heard so much about, are not recorded as dying on or around that date, as far as the SSDI is concerned. The supposed pilot of that plane, John Ogonowski, is not recorded as dying on or around 11th September 2001: how can that be? Of interest is the name Xavier Suarez on the AA11 pasenger list: for this distinctive name the SSDI gives only one person, not surprisingly - however, the date given is 28 Nov, 2003 (NJ). Does this mean that Suarez kept using his social security number for two years after his claimed death? I agree with Mr Holmgren that more research is worthwhile over who really died that fateful morning.


America : lies are US 16.May.2004 15:09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Cameron link


I understood that George Washington was revered in America because of his integrity.No.43 TAKE NOTE. 911 is a cesspool of lies from day one. 1.Buildings dont fall out of the sky.eg.Implosion of WTC building # 7. 2.Lack of wreckage Boeing 757 200 AA Flight 77 ( 100 tons.) Pentagon 911 etc.etc. American voters are like lemmings, easily led. "Whilst secrecy prevails,Democracy withers & fails."


The SSDI is apparently far from definitive 16.May.2004 15:14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mulberry Sellers link


SSDI searches on family members who I know to be dead produce mixed results.

"Nothing Found" for my father, whose death must have been reported to the SSA as my mother and I received survivors benefits.

"Nothing Found" for my uncle Tony, whose death can easily be verified on the net by other means (it appears in a footnote to an SEC filing, of all places).

They do have a record of my paternal grandmother's death in 1982, but nothing for any of my other deceased relatives.

That might give some indication of the futility of using the SSDI to try to prove that someone is *not* dead.

Other online public records searches have produced similar results. Somethimes there really isn't any substitute for going to where the paper records are kept and searching the hard way.

As for the claim that there's only one video of the second plane hitting, a set of captures from a video which is *obviously* not the one we all saw endlessly repeated on TV (taken from a completely different angle) can be found here:

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx...

Examine them in sequence. They show very clearly that the fireballs appear on the same level as the crashing plane.

I've found a source for the video we all remember, but can't review it until I get home, as they require RealPlayer, which is not installed on this computer.


The main point 16.May.2004 19:23

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerard link


Mulberry sellers writes

[[what was the bloody great thing with, like, wings, and a tail, and engines and airline markings and stuff which was both seen and filmed crashing into the tower?]]

It would helpful if some of the debunkers actually read the article, and checked its links, and then did a bit of basic research before shooting off their mouths.

The footage that Mulberry Seller is referring to is of the second crash. AA11 was allegedly the first. In the first video, there is nothing that looks anything like a 767.

The links to this video evidence were provided at the conclusion of the article.

Sorting out which crash we're talking about should be basic stuff.

The first commenter, unable to find anything factually incorrect or illogical about the article, had to resort to attributing to me things which I didn't write - for example, misrepresenting me as saying that there was no such city as NY. Its easy to discredit someone if you simply make up stuff which they didn't say and then criticise that. Official aviation records say that there was no such flight as AA11 on Sept 11. The links are provided.

Even if a 767 hit the tower- and the video shows quite clearly that it was not - that wouldn't prove that it was AA 11. The fact that official records show no such flight, and that the media has resorted to publishing fake passenger lists doesn't help the cause.

Nevertheless, lets have a little focus.However anyone might tellytubble about the other issues, this article was about one very specific issue.
The so-called passenger lists for AA11 are not worth byte space they take up.

The story has internal contradictions. There can't be 95 innocents and five hijackers for a total of 92 aboard. Clearly, wherever these lists came from, it was not from a routine flight manifest of the type that airlines keep.

Someone is fibbing. The onus is on those who want to claim that AA11 hit the WTCto provide evidence that AA11 even took off, let alone hit the tower.
As the evidence has stacked up to the contrary, they have all begun to bleat "Well what happened to the passengers?"

Which passengers - specifically?

Would any of the debunkers care to hazard a guess as to who was on the plane and who wasn't, and provide some documentation for it ?


Whilst secrecy prevails, democracy withers & fails 16.May.2004 20:46

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nori J. Muster exkritter@yahoo.com link


Whilst secrecy prevails, democracy withers & fails. i like that so i added it to my web page:
http://surrealist.org/prayforpeace/9-11truth2.html.
Do you have an attribution for that? . . . I love my country, but i get mad when people lie. For ten years i was in a dishonest guru group. I had put my faith in the guru, thinking that he represented God. It was a painful disillusionment when i found out what was really going on: drug dealing, child abuse, etc. Now i feel the same way about my own government. . . . When i was seven years old JFK was murdered and then the government glossed it over. Many people were unhappy with the official answer, but they conducted a mock investigation and concluded "that's the way it is." That was the first real news story that i understood as a child. That had a huge effect on how i see the world. It did not have to be that way. But if that was a lie, then they have continued lying all these years and now they have told the biggest lie in the history of the world. The only reason people believe it is because it would be more unbelievable to think someone could tell such a big lie. . . . We owe it to the children who are coming up now to straighten this out and give them a sense of resolution. If we leave this big hoax dangling, our world will slide toward hell. . . . The Kennedy assassination had several lingering question marks, but 9-11 has about 3,000 question marks. Why is there practically no evidence of the planes? If there were planes, why did NORAD stand down when the planes went off course? Why did the hijackers leave their luggage and passports behind so that authorities would find them? Why did the government ignore intelligence warnings? Why are the Bush people so afraid to investigate anything? Why did Bush sit with children at an elementary school on 9-11 after a month-long vacation in Texas? Why did WTC 7 implode? For that matter, why did WTC 1 & 2 implode? . . . . I was in a cult and you may look down on me for that if you wish, but now YOU are in a cult. You have been brainwashed and indoctrinated and now you're being asked to look the other way while the leaders pursue their crimes and follies. That's called having bliners on. Your leaders are arrogant, narcissistic, careless, ruthless, and charismatic, just like cult leader gurus. Half the people love them, no doubt. . . . Now you know what it feels like to belong to a cult. The USA has become a cult that violently sexually abuses innocent people (it started with their inquisition of Clinton). In my cult they pretty much stuck to abusing women and children, but these people seem to like to abuse men too. Are these people trying to start World War III with the Moslems? It might be part of their plan. They own the weapons companies, remember. Even Hitler's concentration camps did not sexually abuse people. In my cult the abusers got their jobs by giving big donations. What did those people have to do to get those jobs? Is this a Haliburton thing? You ever feel like our world has been taken over by aliens? This has turned into a cult and we better do something about it or future generations will suffer.


http://surrealist.org/prayforpeace/9-11truth2.html
P.O. Box 41750, Mesa, AZ 85274


Twin flight link... 17.May.2004 11:41

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is not link


working.


thankyou for this article 17.May.2004 12:50

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ link


after this long a time people still don't know how to talk about "it" (wtf?!)it's like if you question the mantra and the "facts" behind it, then it's poo on you. this passenger list thing is ridiculous. i'm sure there is a real one out there...somewhere. questioning and cross-examination is good. amerika IS a cult. cult culture, it klls. and please john cameron, don't compare lemmings to amerikan voters.

**the lemming thing -i hope that wasn't a reference to "suicidal" lemmings (some ppl ACTually think that's true). it wasn't suicidal tendencies that made them run off a cliff -it was disney film makers ('white wilderness' -terrible film "documenation") who tossed them off cos they "wouldn't jump".


Twin Flight 17.May.2004 19:02

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ewing2001 link


The article "Flight 11- The Twin flight" is mirrored on 911physics. You find it, if you scroll down at http://physics911.org/net/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=28 It deals more with the departure(s) of the "flights", not with the arrival of the "planes". However, both research fit with each other. The further analysis of the passenger lists lead to the possibility, that the passengers boarded on totally different planes and died "somewhere else" Please check out also 9/11 -The lost "war drill"? (Chapter 2) http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=4&start=45 The Abu Ghraib-Titan- 9/11 Connection http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=165


Gerard on Urban Moving Systems and the Pentagon 17.May.2004 23:10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Published link


Gerard Israel said,

>>> "Even if a 767 hit the tower- and the video shows quite clearly that it was not"


No Gerard, the video does NOT clearly show that it was NOT a 767, because the video--actual 25fps video (not algorithmicaly compressed pixels)--is not a particularly clear enough resoultion to make a judgement until the camera zooms into the damage after impact, by which time the plane (whatever sort of plane it was) is destroyed, and a large burning hole is all that remains. That hole happens to be rather similar to the hole we saw when a plane that definately looked like a 767 crashed into the second tower.

a) You ommitted the military-precision testimony of Keith Wheelhouse and other C-130 witnesses from your analysis of an arbitrary collection of Pentagon witness reports. Why?


b)Why did you write the following nonsense, Gerard?

>>> "some Israeli kids who were *supposedly* arrested"

http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/holm.htm

(full debunk here:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/288393.shtml)


Curious methods of argument 17.May.2004 23:30

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerard link


My name is not Gerard Israel - I'm not sure where the above anonymous commenter got that from. I'm Gerard Holmgren.

A curious characteristic of those who support the official story is that they always want to distract the issue to something other than what's just been written about. If you write an article on pentagon witnesses, they want to talk about the physical aspects and avoid the witness evidence thats been disclosed. If you write an article about the physical evidence, then sudddenly they want to talk about witnesses. If the article is about video evidence, they want to talk about passengers, and if the article is about passengers, suddenly they're interested in videos again.
This article has the following title.
"Media published fake passenger lists for american Airlines flight 11."

Thats the evidence it presents. It gives some links to rerlated issues, such as video and BTS documetnation.

Because apologists for the mass murdering US gov, can't find any real evidence for their spin, they always restrict themselves to attacks on the linked related issue, rather than the issue under specific discussion.

In any article about video evidence, you can bet that the above commenter will be bleating "what happened to the passengers, then?" , pretending that this piece of research doesn't exist.

So tell me, anonymous debunker - whats your position on the passengers.
Are you claiming that we've ben given the truth about who was on board on the alleged flight? If not , then what specifically is your problem with this article? If so, then please supply the list of names - with documentation.


cult leaders / blind followers 18.May.2004 00:26

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nori exkritter@yahoo.com link


Back in the temple there were several levels of knowing. . . . On the outside coating, naive peole like me followed the rules of celibacy, chanting, and so on; worked hard, and thought the teachings were true. That could compare to average Americans who think the leaders are good hearted and would never intentionally do anything dishonest. . . . . On the next level are the skeptics who suspect that something's amiss. That's like us. . . . But the inner circles of the organization were composed of extremely dishonest people, the people living the lie. They were the most pathetic people i've ever known. Over the last 25 years their secrets have been exposed and they have fallen from their lofty pedestals. It takes time and hard work to expose the truth. . . . Get ready for a lot of brainwashed people who will try to shut you up. Don't push against them, find ways to move forward with what you believe is right.


http://surrealist.org



apologist for explosive-tainted Mossad 18.May.2004 09:27

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Published link


quote:
================
>> So tell me, anonymous debunker - whats your position on the passengers.
=====================

Leon Carter from Australia, actually - aka: "Already Published" or "Count Folke Bernadotte" (remember him?)

My position on the passenger lists is that they are very old and plausibly-deniable news ("fake passports"!)--unlike the explosives-tainted Urban Moving Systems activities on 911 that included "fake passports")--and are therefore curious and a little murky, but hardly worth pursuing in excruciating detail.

I note that you didn't address my claim that the video evidence doesn't permit you to say, with confidence, that a 767 didn't hit tower #1.


quote:
=====================================
"In any article about video evidence, you can bet that the above commenter will be bleating "what happened to the passengers, then?", pretending that this piece of research doesn't exist."
======================================

This fallacy is called "posioning the well", Gerard.

My actual response was "My position on the passenger lists is that they are very old and plausibly-deniable news".


I'm interested in knowing why you spread Urban Moving Systems disinformation and hyper-analysis of trivia instead of promoting hard-core incontrovertible facts - eg: the 9.25AM stand-down order published in Time, Spetember 14 - two days after the attacks.


As for NON-trivia:


a) You ommitted the military-precision testimony of Keith Wheelhouse and other C-130 witnesses from your analysis of a seemingly arbitrary collection of Pentagon witness reports. Why?


b)Why did you write the following nonsense?


>>> "some Israeli kids who were *supposedly* arrested" <<<--- curious method of lying

http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/holm.htm

(full humiliating debunk here:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/288393.shtml)


Leon Cater's hilarious rant 18.May.2004 18:13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerard link


In repsonse to my request to Leon Carter to state his position on the passengers, we got this.

[[very old and plausibly-deniable news". ]]

Can you translate this gibberish, please, Leon ? My question was:

Do you believe that we've been told the truth about who was on board the alleged plane? Yes or no? It's a very simple straight forward question. Please answer it. If yes, what specifically is your problem with this research? If no,please provide the list of names with documentation. Why are you to frightened to state your position clearly?

As for Leon's "humiliating debunk"

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/288393.shtml)

I suggest people read it for themselves. It is indeed quite humiliating for Leon. Its quite a hoot. Leon has been posting this exact same message all over IMC, whenever the topic of Sept 11 comes up. It seems to be his opus magnum, so brilliantly researched and written that he feels no need to move on.

I've now worked out that his reference to me as "Gerard israel " was actually meant to be a attempt at what passes for wit in Leon's mind.

The fact that I questioned the authenticity of claims that Israeli's were arrested for cheering at the WTC disaster, somehow makes me an apologist for Mossad. If one properly researches the documentation for this story, one will find several contradictions and uncertainties. It may have happened, but it is far from established fact. The poor quality of documentation in Leon's Opus Magnum refelects this.

However, before Leon expires from the apoplexy he's currently having over my alleged Mossad sympathies, let me state my position on this clearly.

I believe that the Israeli govt and intelligence services definitely knew about sept 11 before hand. There's considerable evidence for that. Whether they were actually involved in logisitcal support for it is questionable. Its a plausible suggestion, but there's little in the way of direct evidence. Certainaly they are playing a criminal role in covering up the truth and using it as an excuse for their own brutality against the Palestinians. But then again, pretty much every country in the world is aiding the cover up, for their own reasons. The govts of Australia, Britian and Pakistan also knew before hand, and its equally plausible to suggest that they may have assisted in some way, although again the evidence for that is scarce. But Leon doesn't seem interested in those three countries.

The Israeli govt is an awful bunch of murdering criminals. That doesn't prove anything about how much they were or were not directly involved in Sept 11. The Chinese and Russian govts aren't so flash either, but no one's accusing them of doing sept 11 - just because they're bad people. One has to produce evidence. The quality of such evidence in relation to Israel can be reviewed at Leon's hilarious Opus Magnum as linked above.

I like it when the Tellytubblers like Leon tell lies about me. It shows how desperate they are, that they can't find in a hole in my research, so they have to resort to misrepresenting me to justify their shift with troll central.

Take this lie for example.

[[your analysis of a seemingly arbitrary collection of Pentagon witness reports]]

If one actually reads my article

http://hamilton.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3...

you'll find that it was anything but arbitary. I spent a considerable amount of time in the intro to the article, specifiying the exact parameters of my research. Someone like Leon wouldn't understand the importance of qualifying parameters of research. What I was looking for - specifically - was reports which appeared to be someone claiming that they had actually seen a large jet hit the building. Thats all. People who actually saw the collision.
I then searched both the web and Lexis Nexus using various keywords in an attempt to find as many such reports as I could. And then analyzed them. There was never any guarentee that I'd find everything, but I searched as thoroughly as possible. It also needs to be remembered that this was the first serious effort by anyone to properly assess witness reports as to whether a large plane actually hit the building. Prior to that, we had heard vague cries of "but there were hundreds of witnesses!" without anybody bothering to actually systematically research the question. I was the first to do so. And I missed Wheelhouse's report. Horrors !

Except... I didn't miss it. It just didn't come within the paramters of my research. Why? For two reasons. 1) It was a second hand report. It came not from Wheelhouse himself, but his sister. I had a consistent policy in the article of not using second hand reports. Hearsay peddlers like Leon wouldn't understand such research standards. 2) There was no claim of actually having seen the jet hit the building. As stated in the intro, I was only interested in reports where the witness actually claimed - in quotes - not paraphrased or inserted by the media - to have seen the plane hit the building.

That doesn't mean that such reports are useless to any inquiry. but they simply didn't fall within the parameters of that particular article - parametetrs which were clearly stated at the beginning. Hearsay peddlars like Leon don't understand the importance of carefully deconstructing the different aspects of evidence before trying to put them all back together for a complete picture.

Check some of the links for Keith Wheelhouse below, and view them in the context of the introduction to my article, where i gaver some exapmles of reports I chose not to consider, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

http://www.911review.org/Wget/propagandamatrix.com/signs_of_a_coverup_at_the_pentagon.html

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/C130sawF772P.html

http://www.voxfux.com/features/other_pentagon_plane.htm

It would help,Leon if actually read my articles properly and summarized them accurately.

Now to Leon's ludicrous claim that a 767 hit the Nth tower of the WTC. Look at the size of the object for a start. Poor resolution does not change the size of an object. The wingspan of a 767 is approximately 2/3 the width of the tower. Nowhere near it. A 767 also can't fly in the divebombing kind of motion that we see on the video.

Leon resorts to inventing new properties of video in claiming that poor resolution changes - by orders of magnitude- the sizes of specifically selected objects in the video - but not others. Having established this delusion, he then concludes that because one can't really tell what it is, that its plauisble to speculate - amongst other possiblities - that it could be a 767, and from there proceeds to the extrapolation that the existence of the mythical plane is proven.

"Aha!" I can't see a 767 in the video ! That proves that it was there!"

Witness reports overwhelmingly support a small plane or missile - (as seen the video) - and a sonic boom before the impact, indicating some kind of supersonic object. Official aviation records say there was no such flight as AA11 that day, and the media resorted to publishing fake passenger lists for the alleged flight. So what's left of the 767 story?

Ahh...CNNN and the US govt tells us it was a 767 - so people like Leon believe it.

Now that I've answered Leon's questions - more throuropughly than he deserved - its time for him to answer mine.

1) Are you claiming that reliable passenger lists exist for the Alleged AA 11. Yes or no?

2)Why do continually ignore the fact that according to Bureau of transportation records, there was no such flight as AA 11 on Sept 11 ?

3)Since you've admitted that the object on the video doesn't look like a 767, you can't produce any witness reports to a large jet being responsible, you can't produce any avaition record saying that the alleged plane flew that day, and can't produce a passenger list for the alleged flight, what specifically is your evidence that it was a 767?

BTW - that the media and govt tell us so, doesn't count as evidence.


Plausible Denial and the procedural step-by-step algorithm of "proof" 18.May.2004 23:24

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goedel's Theorem of Incompleteness (Already Published) link


>>> and from there proceeds to the extrapolation THAT THE EXISTENCE of the MYTHICAL PLANE [!] is PROVEN.


Shall I highlight *all* the bold-faced lies you produced, Gerard?


check html! (fix) 18.May.2004 23:28

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Published link


>>>amongst other possiblities - that it could be a 767,

I'm afraid it could be a 767 Gerard. Not that I'm saying it definately IS or ISN'T, as you seem so dangerously obsessed with doing. I have the uncompressed video - would you like a few high-res non-compressed stills?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the Emperor Wears No Clothes

Reader: "I'm Unimpressed with Attempts to Link Israel and 9-11"
[Posted 15 September 2002]
=======================================

Dear Emperor's Clothes,

There's a disturbing trend developing among some activists concerned with Sept 11. They seem obsessed with trying to implicate Israel. Myself, I'll listen to any evidence with an open mind, but I'm concerned at the readiness of otherwise rational, ethical people to jump at these accusations on the flimsiest pretexts. There's a fair bit of this stuff floating around the net. I've read a lot of it, and haven't been impressed by the quality of the evidence.

The text below is from a letter on the subject, which I recently sent to one of my networks.

Best regards,
Gerard Holmgren
Australia


I'm Unimpressed with Attempts to Link Israel and 9-11
by Gerard Holmgren

Regarding Israel's alleged involvement in September 11th let me first state that I'm open to anything but I want to see evidence. Everything I've seen on this accusation has been at besthighly circumstantial and speculative and at worst completely without foundation.

Five Men Detained As Suspected Conspirators
Eight hours after terrorists struck Manhattan's tallest skyscrapers, police in Bergen County detained five men who they said were found carrying maps linking them to the blasts. The five men, who were in a van stopped on Route 3 in East Rutherford around 4:30 p.m., were being questioned by police but had not been charged with any crime late Tuesday.

However, sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot. "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."

Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives. The FBI seized the van for further testing, authorities said. Bergen Record, September 12, 2001 (copy)


The White Van
Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." ABC June 21, 2002

Spies, or students?
Were the Israelis just trying to sell their paintings, or agents in a massive espionage ring? Ha'Aretz, May 14, 2002

Suspicious Activities Involving Israeli Art Students at DEA Facilities
Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Security, June, 2001
In January, 2001, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Office of Security Programs (IS), began to receive reports of Israeli art students attempting to penetrate several DEA Field Offices in the continental United States. Additionally, there have been reports of Israeli art students visiting the homes of numerous DEA employees. These incidents have occurred since at least the beginning of 2000, and have continued to the present DEA

Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth
Americans Probing Reports of Israeli Espionage
Despite angry denials by Israel and its American supporters, reports that Israel was conducting spying activities in the United States may have a grain of truth, the Forward has learned.[...]

According to one former high-ranking American intelligence official, who asked not to be named, the FBI came to the conclusion at the end of its investigation that the five Israelis arrested in New Jersey last September (Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel) were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, N.J., served as a front.[...]

In addition to their strange behavior and their Middle Eastern looks, the suspicions were compounded when a box cutter and $4,000 in cash were found in the van. Moreover, one man carried two passportsand another had fresh pictures of the men standing with the smoldering wreckage of the World Trade Center in the background.[...]

On December 7, a New Jersey judge ruled that the state could seize the goods remaining inside the warehouse. The state also has a lawsuit pending against Urban Moving Systems and its owner, Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen. The FBI questioned Mr. Suter once. However, he left the country afterward and went back to Israel before further questioning. Mr. Suter declined through his lawyer to be interviewed for this article.[...] Charlene Eban, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Washington, and Don Nelson, a Justice Department spokesman, said they had no knowledge of an Israeli spying operation.

"If we found evidence of unauthorized intelligence operations, that would be classified material," added Jim Margolin, a spokesman for the FBI in New York. Forward, February, 2002

Dominik Suter of Mossad on an FBI List of September 11 Suspects (large pdf)


First: One thing I've heard a lot is the question, "Who has the most the to gain?"

This doesn't constitute evidence. It merely constitutes grounds for inquiry.

The moment the Sept. 11 attacks happened, I knew that the US would use it for it's strategic agenda, but I never regarded that as evidence of the complicity [of the US establishment].

It took me a month of reading Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel's articles on the standing-down of the U.S. Air Force and the behavior of Bush on the morning before I was convinced. That's what I call evidence, not vague generalizations about who might have the most to gain.

5 Israelis detained for `puzzling behavior' after WTC tragedy
Five Israelis who had worked for a moving company based in New Jersey are being held in U.S. prisons for what the Federal Bureau of Investigation has described as "puzzling behavior" following the terror attack on the World Trade Center in New York last Tuesday.[...] They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.Ha'Aretz, September 17, 2001

Even so, I can't really see what Israel had to gain. We know what the US stood to gain. Cheap oil, strategic influence for a long-standing imperialist policy agenda, and profits from arms trading.

Israel's agenda is completely different and far less duplicitous. Its main concern has been securing its borders....

Unlike the forked tongue propaganda of the US, Israel makes it quite clear and open what its agenda is. It pursues it ruthlessly so what you see is what you get. I see no evidence of a shadowy covert strategic chess game of the type the US plays.

"kee betachbulot ta'ase lecha milchama"
"By way of deception thou shalt do war"


http://i-cias.com/e.o/ill/mossad_crest.gif


"Ha'Mossad Le'modiein"
"The institute for the collection of Information"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I wrote these things- [these instructions to the embassies to frame Arabs for Israeli terrorist attacks against U.S. targets in Egypt] - I still didn't know how crushing is the evidence that was
ALREADY PUBLISHED
refuting our official version. The huge amounts of arms and explosives, the tactics of the attack, the blocking and mining of the roads ... the precise coordination of the attack. Who would be foolish enough to believe that such a complicated operation could "develop" from a casual and sudden attack on an Israeli army unit by an Egyptian unit?
- Moshe Sharett, Prime Minister of Israel 1954 & 1955.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This web site is dedicated to the memory of thirty-four fine young men
who gave their lives on June 8, 1967, defending the USS Liberty
against a sustained air and sea attack by the armed forces of the State of Israel

I fail to see how engineering a war between the US and Afghanistan or the US and Iraq provides anything useful to Israel.

In Washington, Team Chalabi is led by Deputy Secretary of Defense [zionist] Paul Wolfowitz and [zionist] Richard Perle, the neoconservative strategist who heads the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. Chalabi's partisans run the gamut from far right to extremely far right, with key supporters in most of the Pentagon's Middle-East policy offices -- such as Peter Rodman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Michael Rubin. Also included are key staffers in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, not to mention Defense Secretary Donald [so-called occupied territories] Rumsfeld and former CIA Director Jim Woolsey.
The Washington partisans who want to install Chalabi in Arab Iraq are also those associated with the staunchest backers of Israel, particularly those aligned with the hard-right faction of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Chalabi's cheerleaders include the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/21/dreyfuss-r.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Free Iraqi Resistance Calling on Jewry For Support in Quest to Depose Saddam

Allies of Chalabi Meet Ambassador Gold, Warn of White House Folly
By SETH GITELL FORWARD STAFF

[...]
An adviser to INC chairman Ahmad Chalabi, Francis Brooke, and a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser, met with Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations, Dore Gold, last Friday to begin the process of getting Israel to back the INC. Representatives of the group have also met with a spokesman for Prime Minister Netanyahu, David Bar-Illan.

Domestically, the INC advisers believe that the core of America's organized Jewish community could rally the requisite amount of political support for the Iraqi opposition group to enable it to successfully challenge Saddam Hussein.
[...]

With regard to the American Jewish community, [Richard] Perle said: "There's no question that the Jewish community's been at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein."
http://www.forward.com/BACK/1998/98.07.31/news.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bush aide: Inspections or not, we'll attack Iraq

Exclusive By Paul Gilfeather, Whitehall Editor


GEORGE Bush's top security adviser last night admitted the US would attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons.

Dr Richard Perle stunned MPs by insisting a "clean bill of health" from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not halt America's war machine.
mirrorUK
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Netanyahu says Iraq-Israel oil line not pipe-dream.

LONDON, June 20 (Reuters) - Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he expects an oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel to be reopened in the near future after being closed when Israel became a state in 1948. - "It won't be long when you see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa", the port city in Northern Israel, Netanyahu told a group of British investors, declining to give a timetable.
Reuters


In fact the reverse. All Israel has gained out of Sept 11 is a certain amount of political justification for going a bit harder against the Palestinians, and I find it preposterous to suggest that they would use the convoluted route of engineering Sept 11 for this purpose. First, they have a much richer source of justification in the terrorist bombings of Palestinian extremists than in any marginal increase in justification for attacking "terrorism" in general in the aftermath of Sept 11. And any gains in this area are well and truly offset by the stirring up of the Arab and Muslim states following September 11.

This network [Note from http://www.tenc.net As Mr. Holmgren said, this text is based on a letter he sent to an email-list] has spent many words and hours examining in minute detail the finest points of what the US has to gain out of Sept 11, but when it comes to Israel, seems to be satisfied with the vague generalisation that more hostility to the Arab world might prove useful to them. I find this approach unbalanced, unscientific and inconsistent.

Second point. There have been numerous [post Urban Moving Systems exposure] reports that Mossad warned US intelligence agencies about Sept. 11 prior to the event. This is also presented as evidence that they were involved because "they knew." But why would they have tried to warn the U.S. if they were part of it? [Why were the alleged warnings only published after the arrest of the happy Mossad agents?] These reports point to the involvement of US intelligence, not the Mossad. [EMPEROR'S CLOTHES NOTE: Apparently the Russians, French and Egyptians also tried to warn the CIA...]

Third point. It's all very well to say that "Israel was involved" but I'm yet to hear anything specific about how they actually contributed to it.

sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot. "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."

Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives. The FBI seized the van for further testing, authorities said. Bergen Record, September 12, 2001

....In addition to their strange behavior and their Middle Eastern looks, the suspicions were compounded when a box cutter and $4,000 in cash were found in the van. Moreover, one man carried two passports - Forward, February, 2002


Standing down the airforce could only be done by US authorities. If the planes were flown by remote control this would have required complicity of US authorities and possibly some officials in the airlines. Slackening or manipulation of airport security measures would have to be organised by US authorities. Issuing of passports and ID to the terrorists, which some think happened, would require the work of US authorities. Did Israel have interests in Enron, or the Carlyle group? Does Mossad have connections with the Bin Ladens? Everything we know suggests a domestic US intelligence operation, tied in with US business.

I want to see evidence and research of real quality before I'll take these allegations seriously, and quite frankly, I haven't seen a shred. Vague stuff about Israeli spy rings or some Israeli kids who were supposedly arrested after cheering the WTC disaster from a rooftop in New Jersey - and who knows if they even knew what was happening [!!!] - do not constitute evidence of the quality needed. When I see things like the Chief of the Israeli airforce being in Washington on Sept. 11 and meeting with Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Myers as the attacks were going on, or hijackers with Israeli-issued passports, then I'll get interested. I haven't seen anything like that.

Why is it that everywhere we look we find evidence of the US Establishment's collusion lying around in heaps so big we keep tripping over them, but we're having to resort to the most circumstantial, vague and twisting speculation to find anything at all to pin on Israel?

-- Gerard Holmgren
Australia *****

Emperors Clothes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: the passenger list disparities IS, in fact, a very old and much analyzed story. Unlike many other hard-core frequently-ignored facts surrounding 911 (eg: stand-down order, Time, September 14), the passenger manifesto is plausibly deniable, and thus not worth wasting too much time investigating in excruciating detail.*

The very important witnesses that Gerard conspicuoulsy ignored

* - "The principle of plausible denial is simply if an operation or action is later disclosed, for example, as an action of the United States government, the government can plausibly deny it, deny any involvement or connection with the action."
a lesson for Gerard from E. Howard Hunt


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More to follow on F11, Gerard.


F11 on CNN on 911 - what'll be interesting about this 18.May.2004 23:53

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Published link


"that's at least a thirty-minute run there."

flight explorer radar archive



Still no answer from Leon 19.May.2004 00:32

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerard link


I answered all Leon's questions. But he's too scared to reciprocate.

Simple questions.1) Are the passenger lists for AA11 faked? Saying that its "old information" is no answer. Vague mumblings about Leon's perception of how politically useful the info might be does not tell us what his opinion is. Leon - either admit that the passenger lists are faked, or if you disagree, provide the documented proof of who was on that plane. Leon's backed himself into a corner, so he simply refuses to give us his opinion.

And after all, that was the subject of the article. Leon responded to an article entitled

"Media published fake passenger lists for American Airlines flight 11"

with a furious tirade against the author, but won't actually tell us whether or not he agrees with the information and conclusions of the article. What's the big secret ,Leon ?

Bereft of ideas to hide this problem, or support his ludicrous theroies about poor video resolution selectively reducing the size of various objects by orders of magnitude, Leon took to a cut and paste of his treasured Opus Magnum referred to in the previous post. Can't think of anything new to say ,Leon?

Leon asked why I didn't include Keith Wheelhouse in my pentagon article. I gave a detailed reply. Leon's only response was to link to more of these kinds of reports which weren't covered for exactly the same reasons as Wheel-house. There was no direct claim by a witness to see the plane hit the building. Leon seems incapbable of understanding the concept of setting specific research paramters and sticking to them. He also seems incapbale of reading my replies to his questions.

He's also not prepared to reciprocate my gesture in answering his questions. He thinks it all one way.

Leon admits that he has no evidence for a 767 at the Nth Tower. His best argument is that it "could be" (if one accepts that video selectively minimizes certain objects, while leaving others unchanged). We had already established that this was Leon's position.

So I attempted to move the discussion forwards by asking him for actual *evidence* for a 767. No video evidence for it. No witness evidence for it. No documented evidence that such a flight took place. He refused to provide anything - simply pleading that the video just might show a 767 if we shrink the object by orders of magnitude.

I'm going to be away from my computer for 4 or 5 days, so even someone of Leon's limited mental acumen might find this enough time to dream up some more pointless lies, to try to spam himself out of the corner he's backed himself into.

If he completely runs out of ideas, he can always resort to endless more pastes of his treasured Opus Magnum.

4 or 5 days all to yourself Leon ! I'll embarrass you some more when I get back if you're stupid enough to hang around.

As for highlingting "*all* the bold-faced lies" I've produced, Leon - please do! I wait with bated breath ! I'm shaking in my shoes ! There's so many of them, that you 'll need that 4 or 5 days to fabricate them all. I'll check back then.


Return to the Middle Ages 19.May.2004 07:19

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom link


Fascinating midnight musings in above posts.

Undoubtedly the 9-1-1 Commission is part of a major whitewash that will in the end (already has) officially blame "poor communications", wring hands for a while and consign the whole matter to the same dustbin as the Kennedy, Kennedy, MLK, Sen Heinz, microbiologists, Paul Wellstone, etc. investigations. Then move on to continue consolidation of power in a new world-wide aristocracy.

It is amazing to watch the development of this new royalty-- right under the noses of us skeptics, who just don't seem to be able to get any traction with the majority of the public. It is as though the public collectively is just uncomfortable with democracy and truly wants to avoid the rigors of self government.

Apparently, the 21st century is the century of the development of a new fundamentalist feudalism. It appears to me that the bulk of the American people have chosen (by default) to help forge their own chains.


Yet another step-by-step problem solving procedure from Leon 19.May.2004 07:46

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turing (Already Published) link


I'll come back with a point by point rebutal soon, as humiliating as the one I produced using extracted evidence alone to expose Gerard's whitewashing of the Urban Moving Systems activities on the day of the "catastrophic and catalyzing event". For the moment, however, note that Gerard promiscuously and incorrectly refers to the Urban Moving Systems activities compendium as my "Opus Magnum", begging me to come up with "something new". But the fact that the plausibly-deniable flight list discrepencies are "old news" is not considered reason enough for Gerard Israel (it's a prosody thing) to "move on", as he nicely put it.

When is Gerard going to "move on" with these plausibly deniable passenger list discrepencies? I was discussing them more than two years ago during a game of bait and switch; Sunday February 17th to be precise:

http://www.cybersoapbox.com/csb/viewtopic.php...

more steps to follow

qua PNAC - by Leon (not quite new)



"Supposedly" 20.May.2004 13:42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Published link


In repsonse (sic) to my request to Leon Carter to state his position on the passengers, we got this.
>>>"very old and plausibly-deniable news". <<<
Can you translate this gibberish, please, Leon ?

MARK LANE: What is a plausible denial?
E. HOWARD HUNT: Denial that is believable.
LANE: Is that a term of art within the CIA?
HUNT: In the intelligence community it means a story that is plausible, it could be believed by a substantial number of people. Plausibly denying, a denial that is believable, that is credible.
LANE: Do you recall testifying on June 28, 1974, in the case of United States versus Ehrlichman, page 761, were you asked these questions, and did you make these answers:

"Question. What was the reason given, or was any reason given, why you and Mr. Liddy couldn't perform this operation?
"Answer. Because of our connection with the White House and the fact that plausible denial would have to be maintained.
"Question. You said plausible denial would have to be maintained?
"Answer. Yes.
"Question. Would you explain what you mean by that?
"Answer. "The principle of plausible denial is simply if an operation or action is later disclosed, for example, as an action of the United States government, the government can plausibly deny it, deny any involvement or connection with the action."

Do you recall those questions and answers?

HUNT: Yes.
LANE: Would you accept as a fair definition which you gave, when you testified as to what a plausible denial is?
HUNT: Yes.

Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, Plausible Denial, pp 261-262, Mark Lane, 1991


My question was: Do you believe that we've been told the truth about who was on board the alleged plane? Yes or no?

I don't believe anything: I estimate the likelihood of any explanation based on the quality and quantity of tangible, relevant, non-contradictory evidence. In the absence of good evidence it isn't wise to jump to conclusions. But I can conclude, logically, that we have not and cannot have been accurately informed about the actual passengers on flight 11, as the contradictions alone demonstrate. This doesn't lead me to conclude that no passengers and no flight 11 existed.

...what specifically is your problem with this research?

There's nothing wrong with the referenced research detailing contradictions and the unusual methods used for compiling the flight manifesto. In fact, it's good work, Gared. But the Rorsach's-based conclusion that a 767 certainly didn't hit the first tower doesn't fit the available evidence, nor does the repeated inference that flight 11 didn't exist in the first place (contradictory to non-government radar evidence). These claims poison an otherwise interesting well, and--perhaps intentionally--provide handy levers for trolls to press. Eg. from above: "...alleged flight "11" that supposedly hit the alleged world trade on the allged (sic) date of september 11..."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Leon's "humiliating debunk"
I suggest people read it for themselves. It is indeed quite humiliating for Leon.
Its quite a hoot. Leon has been posting this exact same message all over IMC, whenever the topic of Sept 11 comes up. It seems to be his opus magnum, so brilliantly researched and written that he feels no need to move on.

"It's quite a hoot" that you continue to assert that Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari, Yaron Shmuel, Ro'i Barak and Moti Butboul of Mossad's Urban Moving Systems were only "supposedly arrested" in explosives-tainted circumstances, because--supposedly--"contradictions and uncertainties" exist that you seem unwilling to detail. At no point have you referenced or quoted any of the relevant reports.

"It's quite a hoot" that you can shamelessly claim that I've not only posted this "exact same message all over IMC", but that I've done so "whenever the topic of Sept 11 comes up."

It's quite a "hoot" that you berated me for my anonymity, thus falsely implying that my identity has any relevance whatsoever to the accuracy of the referenced information I posted (see argumentum ad hominem and ad verecundium), and it was subsequently a "hoot" when you responded to my ID disclosure with a derisive appeal to ridicule that presupposes knowlege of all my contributions on a substantial range of subjects posted under various imaginative pseudonyms on a very small subset of all the available IMCs.

And what a "hoot" it was to be told that I should "move on" from the explosives-tainted evidence linking Mossad's "suspected conspirators" to the "bombing plot", whereas to "move on" from the dubious inference that flight 11 didn't exist or was certainly not a 767 should be interpreted, according to you, as support for the official narrative.

I've now worked out that his reference to me as "Gerard israel " was actually meant to be a attempt at what passes for wit in Leon's mind.

While your lack of wit is irrelevant, I've now worked out that fallacies and insults do nothing to support your case. I've also worked out that the following examples of your implausible-denial haven't devalued the quality of evidence linking Israel to PNAC's "catastrophic and catalyzing event":

I questioned the authenticity of claims that Israeli's were arrested
If one properly researches the documentation for this story, one will find several contradictions and uncertainties.
It may have happened, but it is far from established fact.
The poor quality of documentation in Leon's Opus Magnum refelects (sic) this.
I believe..Israeli govt and intelligence.... knew...There's considerable evidence for that. Whether they were actually involved...is questionable.... plausibl...but...little...evidence.
Everything I've seen on this accusation has been at best highly circumstantial and speculative and at worst completely without foundation.
Unlike the...US, Israel makes it quite clear and open what its agenda is. It pursues it ruthlessly so what you see is what you get.
.. and the behavior of Bush on the morning ...That's what I call evidence
...supposedly arrested...

Apart from the fact that "surveilance mission" is not concordant or compatible with "evidence linking the men to the bombing plot", false passports, box-cutters, jubilation, or the explosives-tainted moving van, I see no contradictions, no "uncertainties" nor problems with the "quality of documentation". Once again, every reference was provided with working hyperlinks.

As for the Pentagon witness reports--many of which refer at least to an AA-marked jet of some kind--it's a fairly standard practice (and not one I particularly like) for journalists to explain that Jerard claims a 767 didn't hit the north tower because there is "no documented evidence that flight 11 took place". The fact that a journalist doesn't quote Jerard verbatim in entirety doesn't automatically devalue the journalist's re_presentation of Jerard's claims, particularly in the context of reporting, uhhh...live verbal exchanges, such as ...uhhh...witness interviews.

quote:
"according to Bureau of transportation records, there was no such flight as AA 11 on Sept 11"
-Gerard Holmgren, possibly trying to explain that no record of the flight is available from the Bureau of Transportation:

Flight Site Crew Passenger Total
American Airlines #11 World Trade Center 11 81 92
United Air Lines #175 World Trade Center 9 56 65
American Airlines #77 Pentagon 6 58 64
United Air Lines #93 Shanksville, PA 7 37 44
Total 33 232 265

"1) The recordings of communications, transcripts and any documents relating to your request are part of an ongoing, sensitive investigation. Therefore, the contents of the investigative file are protected from mandatory disclosure under Exemption 7 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (7). Exemption 7(A) protects information to the extent that if disclosed it could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, your request for recordings of communications and any documents contained in the investigative file is denied."
The Memory Hole


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



questions 20.May.2004 17:57

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nori J. Muster exkritter@yahoo.com link


Hi - Can anybody tell me how much Larry Silverstein paid for the World Trade Center, when he bought it, and how much he got from the insurance after 9/11? I know it was a billion less than he wanted, but did he break even, or did he made money? . . . My ex-husband got upset when i told him i doubted whether there were planes involved in 9/11, so he is sending me a CD with the original Dan Rather broadcast on the day of 9/11. I'm waiting for the disk. . . . If there were planes involved, i still doubt that they were hijacked. I think the Bush administration need a "Pearl Harbor-like" event so they could start changing things in the Middle East. The rest is a cover-up.


http://surrealist.org
P.O. Box 41750, Mesa, AZ 85274


Larry on 7 21.May.2004 04:20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Published link


"Firemen evacuated the area AS THEY PREPARED FOR the collapse of Building Seven."
Tom Franklin, photographer
Thursday, September 13, 2001
http://www.september11-tribute.org/CollectedWritings/FranklinPhoto.htm
__________________________________________


Firefighters from Engine 255 and Ladder 157 in Brooklyn had been digging in the rubble for survivors for six grueling hours, when THEY GOT THE CALL TO immediately EVACUATE.
[...]

Firefighter Dan McWilliams from Ladder 157 headed out with the rest of his crew. It was then that the 35-year-old firefighter spotted a flag flying from a yacht docked behind the World Financial Center. He made his way to the boat, rolled the flag up around its pole to be sure it didn't touch the ground, and carried the pole back to the evacuation area.

As McWilliams passed his buddy and fellow 157 firefighter George Johnson, he slapped him on the shoulder. "Gimme a hand, will ya, George?"

"I knew exactly what he was doing," Johnson, 36, said.

Then Billy Eisengrein of Rescue 2, another Brooklyn fire company, and McWilliams' childhood friend from Staten Island, jumped in, "You need a hand?"

The three firefighters quickly found a perfect spot -- a single flagpole anchored in the rubble about 20 feet off the ground on West Street.


They climbed a makeshift ramp so they could easily raise the flag in its new home. It was at that moment that Record photographer Thomas E. Franklin spotted the three from a distance.
http://sydney.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/metafiles/wtcflag02.jpg

Jeannine Clegg, staff writer
Thursday, September 14, 2001
http://www.september11-tribute.org/CollectedWritings/FranklinPhoto.htm
_________________________________________


"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, MAYBE THE SMARTEST THING TO DO IS PULL IT.

AND THEY MADE THAT DECISION TO PULL and we watched the building collapse."

Larry Silverstein, Leaseholder, Word Trade Center
America Rebuilds, PBS, September 2002

Big Wings (de-interlaced)



the "no plane at WTC" is disinformation 21.May.2004 11:42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
muddying the waters link


New at questionsquestions.net: an analysis by Eric Salter, refuting several widely-circulated claims about the WTC airliner impacts on 9/11. These include the claims that original video recordings of the impacts were fabricated or altered using computer graphics, that aircraft other than 767s struck the the towers, and even that no planes hit the two towers, the planes supposedly being replaced by super high-tech "holographic" illusions [!]. The analysis shows that these claims, which unfortunately have been lingering around for some time, have no solid basis in the evidence -- video, photographic, or otherwise -- nor any solid basis in logic, and could help to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html


pipe down, holograms are valuable concept and as US mil tech, do exist 22.May.2004 04:29

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
query link


There is nothing called 'muddying the waters' in this case, ***unless you somehow already know*** every fathomable detail. There are plenty of smoking guns in my opinion in many different directions. Use your energies researching the 9-11 events, instead of without any data that you mention, lambasting others.


intentional mud, untenable conclusions, sowing confusion and doubt, etc 22.May.2004 06:19

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Published link


>>> "nor any solid basis in logic, and could help to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement."

Exactly: thanks!

>>>>> "There is nothing called 'muddying the waters' in this case, ***unless you somehow already know*** every fathomable detail."

Bollocks.

"The objective of this lesson is for you to comprehend pychological operations, and how they may be employed to influence an adversary's behaviour. At the end of the lesson you will be able to define 'psyop', as well as explain its different categories and types. You will be able to identify the tools used to conduct psyop, and you will be able to explain the principles and objectives of psyops."


great link too 22.May.2004 06:29

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AP link


"Holmgren and Webfairy base their analysis on the fact that a 767 is not visible in the 1st strike mpeg, and therefore was not there in real life. Of course it's not visible-the reduction in resolution removed half the visual data, and compression artifacts distort the shape of the plane. Holmgren and Webfairy show a profound lack of knowledge of digital imagery by failing to consider that this movie was a highly compromised version of the original footage."

worth reading
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html


Thanks Leon 24.May.2004 18:18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerard link


Finally we get an admission from Leon that the passenger lists are not credible and that this research is "good work ".

This says something about Leon's motives that he's more interested in smothering the comments page of "good work" with angry rants about the alleged past misdeeds of the author, than looking at the implications of the research.

Good work is good work - whoever does it.

Leon's paste from the Bureau of transportation does not provide any official documentation of the existence of AA 11. Its simply a general commentary on the methods of working out fatalities - based on the unsubstantited myths about the flight. We can have the alleged calls from Sweeny and Ong splashed across the media, and media reporting of when the flight took off, how many people aboard, etc - but to list the routine stats confirming an official record of the flight in the media would be compromising security? Hmm - wheels off time - really sensitive info !
The tail number of the flight - top secret ! Its scheduled departure time - heavily classified ! Its taxi out time - this a matter of urgent national security ! All of this stuff is far too sensitive to to list in a page of routine stats. Everything about AA11 is so secret, that people mustn't even know that the flight existed - well not officially anyway. Knowing everything about - unofficially - is fine. CNN can report whatever it likes about it. We just can't list it on the official stats page. That would be dangerous !


As for the ludicrous idea that the video shows a 767 hitting the North Tower - I have two questions.

1) Does video -of whatever quality - *selecvtively* change the size of objects? That is - change the size of some objects by orders of magnitude, while leaving others unchanged ? Yes or no? If so, please give other examples.

2) I've asked for anyone to produce a verifiable witness report to a large plane, which could could conceivably be consistent with a 767. I note the deafening silence. So - to those who claim that a 767 hit the tower, are you

a) refusing to link to such witness reports that you've found ?

or b) admitting that you can't find any ?


The Alleged "Gerard" and hiu intentionally whacky no-plane hypothesis 24.May.2004 22:50

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Published link


Finally we get an admission from the alleged "Gerard Holmgren" that discussing Urban Moving Systems and their explosives-tainted moving van, and their false passports, and their box-cutters, and their maps linking them to the bombing plot, and their boss Dominik Suter of Mossad being listed by the FBI as a 911 suspect, is a good way to solve the mystery of 9/11.

Or did we?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Does video -of whatever quality - *selecvtively*[sic] change the size of objects?
-the alleged "Gerard Holmgren"


What I will do partly for your benefit, "Gerard"--but mostly for the benefit of genuine researchers--is to post Eric Salter's exquisite analysis (referenced above) in its entirety to a fresh position on the newswire, thus exposing you to a more public form of ridicule. Can't wait to see how you explain your Rorsach's pixel-test, demonstrating, yet again, your ignorance (or deliberate misrepresentation) of resolution limitations (film and video), lensing limitations, photon behavior, Charge-Coupled-Devices (CCD video), photon-reactive chemical emulsions (film) and compression algorithms for digital video. See you there!

"The objective of this lesson is for you to comprehend psychological operations, and how they may be used to influence an adversary's behaviour..."



equisite what ? 25.May.2004 08:16

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerard link


Planes wings - yellow. So clearly seen that they have to be drawn in. Heh !

I love the bit where Eric says "The shape of the airplane is much clearer in the high quality movie:"

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html

so clear in fact that he has to draw in arrows to tell us what parts of the tiny blob represent the various parts of the plane. And so clear that one part is labelled as 'right wing or engine" and another part (which doesn't line up at all) is labelled as "left wing or engine."

Hee hee ! An engine is about 10 ft wide and a wing about 160 ft long, but Salter can't quite decide which it is, but nevertheless assures us that its clearly a plane with a 160 ft wingspan.

I also love the crazy angle at which the bit labelled "tail" with the informative arrows sits against the bits labelled "wing or engine."

Thats one mighty strange looking plane.

The reason why Salter published this is because I debated him in an email list in April and he got so severely beaten that he ran off from the debate, and now hides behind a website where I can't argue with him.

He was so backed into a corner, that when I asked him to state whether he was
a) claiming that it was clearly a 767
or b) saying that it was so indistinct that we cant tell what it is, and that he was simply speculating that it *might* be a 767

that he refused to answer the question. He also recklessly and stupidly claimed that there were thousands of witnesses to a large plane hitting the building. I asked him three times to produce any and he refused.

His claim at the website that

"I asked Holmgren to provide me with the complete list of these eyewitness reports and he refused. " is a straight out lie.

It was Salter who refused to supply any witnesses to back up his wild claim of thousands of witnesses. I was perfectly prepared to debate him on the witnesess, but he demanded that I send them to him privately and not to the list in which we were debating.

I said that I was perfectly happy to post them to the group, as part of the ongoing debate, which prompted Salter to run away and post the above defamatory satement on the website.

Heh! I like it when people tell lies about me...

But since the question of witneses came up... Witness? Witness? Anyone got a witness? I never get tired of asking...


Infinite Resolution in Every Capture! 25.May.2004 12:20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Published link


I love the way that no hint whatsoever of the 16 inch perimeter-columns can be seen in the video of the "alleged" towers, either before or during impact - don't you, "Gerard"?


Yet here they are! Spooky, isn't it?



Witness,witness...anybody got a witness ? 25.May.2004 16:12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerard link


Well... asking for a fourth time can't do any harm.


Thousands walk around with eyes turned to sky!! 26.May.2004 00:12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Published link


You can ask th e question over and over and over again, Jerard. Doing so does nothing to strengthen your case or refute the evidence that was already published - including rather good quality video evidence.


The Only Published Witness: Milan
________________________________

Plane Hits Milan High-Rise
Crash Called Accident, but Sept. 11 Memory Stirs Panic


MILAN, April 18 -- A small private plane flying in clear skies crashed into Milan's tallest high-rise today, killing the pilot and at least two people in the building and triggering global fears that terrorists were seeking to repeat the devastation of Sept. 11.
[...]

The plane headed toward the 417-foot Pirelli Building, a 1950s structure that was formerly home of the Pirelli tire and cable company and now houses offices of the Lombardy regional government. It sits across THE BUSY PIAZZA Duca d'Aosta from Milan's central train station.
[...]

At 5:45 p.m., the plane plowed into the 25th floor of the building, while flying on an upward trajectory. Glass, metal facing and concrete crashed to the street below and spread about 40 yards around.

At the moment of impact, the streets below were full. Pedestrians screamed and ran for cover as debris fell to the ground. "Madonna mia!" a woman yelled. "IT'S A HELICOPTER!" She evidently thought that a helicopter, not a plane hit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12340-2002Apr18.html
_________________________________________________________



Sean Murtagh, a CNN vice president, was in an office near the World Trade Center towers at the time of the first crash. HE WITNESSED THE CRASH.

Murtagh said he saw the plane "teetering back and forth, wingtip to wingtip" before the plane smashed into the side of the building.
http://europe.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.03.html


Steve's Cousin & Bob's Wife (contactable) 26.May.2004 01:21

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Published link


Third Person Report (Score:4, Insightful)
by SteveM (11242) <stevemattan@co m c a s t .net> on Tuesday September 11, @08:49PM (#2283135)
My cousin, Maryann, worked in the WTC for the Port Authority of NY and NJ.

She was on her way to work, on a bus in NYC, when she saw the first plane hit. She, and the others on the bus thought it was an accident.

Then she saw the second plane hit and realized it was no accident.

She got out of the bus and started walking north. She went to the Port Authority Bus Terminal, but it was closed. As she worked for the Port Authority, they let her in to sit a while. She is short and overweight, and not used to all that walking.

She then heard that trains were leaving from Penn Station. So she walked on down and got on a very crowded train.

She didn't want to go home and be alone, so she went to my parent's who live a couple of miles from her home.

She told her story to my mom and dad. And cried and cried. She had worked there for over thirty years. She doesn't know how many of her freinds and coworkers are dead. She does know that her best friend is alive. She can't get the images out of her head.
===========================================================

My Wife Was In WTC #2 When the First Plane Crashed (Score:5, Informative)
by Brooklyn Bob (132045) on Tuesday September 11, @09:50PM (#2283518)
She's okay. Here's what happened:

My wife, Stacy, worked in tower #2, 21st floor. She was in a
meeting at 8:45 when the first plane crashed into tower #1. She
heard the plane coming in, loud enough to make her think it was
flying unusually close to the buildings.

After the crash, she saw large chunks of burning debris falling
down. Her office decided to evacuate immediately. Thanks to all
the fire drills they've done since the '93 bombing, they knew
exactly what to do, where to go. They got into the staircase
quickly, and started walking down the 21 floors.

Stacy didn't hear any alarms or building announcements. There
were other people in the staircase, heading down, but it wasn't
crowded.

When Stacy and her coworkers got to the lobby, security guards
directed them away from the Liberty St. exit. They used the
Church St. exit instead. Outside the building, security guards
told them to move away from the building. One of the guards kept
shouting, "It was a plane, not a bomb!"

At first Stacy hesitated, because she saw debris coming down,
but she realized it was paper from offices. So she crossed Church
St.

As Stacy was crossing Church St., she turned and looked back for the
first time. She saw the flames shooting out of the top of tower #1. She
stopped in her tracks for a few seconds, stunned.

Across Church St., Stacy found a bunch of her coworkers in front of
Century 21. Their boss told them to go home. Stacy turned and starting
walking down Cortlandt St. towards Broadway.

Near Broadway, Stacy stopped to look again. She didn't see the
second plane crash into tower #2, but she saw the enormous
fireball explode. People started screaming. Everyone on the
street started running away from the Trade Center.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl...


PS: Jerard's malicious mis_re_presentation 26.May.2004 07:42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Published link


the alleged Gerard: - "Planes wings - yellow. So clearly seen that they have to be drawn in. Heh !" [!]

Salter: "plane of wings: yellow"

plane
n.
Mathematics. A surface containing all the straight lines that connect any two points on it.


And this is how Leon lies 26.May.2004 17:30

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grerard link


This will be my final comment on this page because I will now demonstrate how Leon has lied about the witness evidence. I knew he'd pull out this one if he were goaded enough. From Leon's above post.

[[Sean Murtagh, a CNN vice president, was in an office near the World Trade Center towers at the time of the first crash. HE WITNESSED THE CRASH.

Murtagh said he saw the plane "teetering back and forth, wingtip to wingtip" before the plane smashed into the side of the building.
http://europe.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.03.html ]]

What Leon very, very conveniently failed to mention was this - from the very same CNN transcript which reported Murtagh's statement.CNN interviewed a number of witnesses.

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/cnn091101.html

Here's one extract.

TRACTSONBURG: Well, I'm not an expert on planes, but it didn't seem like a big passenger jet. It was smaller type plane, because it made some pretty radical turn, and flying low.

Here's another:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jim, I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an aircraft, or to be more specific, some people said they thought they saw a missile. I don't know how people could differentiate, but we might keep open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings.


And another

YURMAN: I had no idea it was a plane. I just saw the entire top part of the World Trade Center explode. So I turned on the TV when I heard they said it was a plane. It was really strange.

LIN: Fortunately so. When you say a sonic boom, did you feel anything? Were things shaking in your apartment?

YURMAN: Yes, you could feel it. It was a gigantic sonic boom. The TV went off for a second and went back on. And the windows -- you felt the vibrations on the windows.

This all began at about 8:48 this morning. Again, what we know in case you are just joining us, a small plane, not a Cessna-type or five or six seater, but instead, perhaps a passenger flight ran into the north side of the World Trade Center.

OK, we actually have an "Eyewitness News" reporter, Dr. J. Atlasberg (ph) who was downtown at the time and he is on the phone with us live


Dr. J., what can you tell us?

DR. J. ATLASBERG (ph), REPORTER: Hello, Steve.

I'm actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Center from about half the building up to the top. And about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the center, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible, that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Center.

--------------------------------------
But what does Leon do? he picks out Murtagh who was the only one who said that it was anything like a large Boeing. But what Leon also carefully omitted was that this is how he actually described it.

"It was a jet, looked like a two-engine jet," Murtagh said. "It looked like maybe a 737."

--------------------------------------------------

A 737 has a wingspan of 93 ft and a length of 94 ft - approximately 58% of the size of a 767. It is conceivable that someone could mistake a 160 ft plane for a 94 ft plane. And its equally concievable that someone could mistake a 60 ft plane for a 94 ft plane. So ,in isolation, Murtagh's report leaves open the possibility that he may have seen something the size of a 767. When taken in context with other witness reports, if they were all reporting something as big or bigger than what Murtagh said, then we would be entitled to interpret his report as underestimating the size of the plane.
If some said bigger, some smaller and some about the same , then it would indicate that he got it about right - in which case we would have evidence of a medium sized Boeing - which gives the govt an awful lot of explaining to do. If other witnesses consistently said something smaller, then it indicates that Murtagh has overestimated the size of the plane.
And thats exactly what we see in this transcript.

But Leon fraudulently picked out the most selective quote he could find - ommitted the specific reference to a 737 - a medium sized plane, significantly smaller than whats being alleged and ommitted the other witnesses - which all indicated that Murtagh's estimate was on the high side.

Also note the reference to a missile.

Here's another one.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/WorldNewsTonight/sept11_paexcer
pts_030828.html

WTC Ch. 07
MALE: Either ... either a plane crashed into the Trade Center, or a rocket hit the Trade Center. And, uh, people are all over the place, dead.

... MALE A: The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building. And the second one they think is an airplane that was circling to watch it, and hit the World Trade.

INSPECTOR: One more question. Why do you think it might be an airplane?
PAPD RAY MURRAY: Uh, that's what one of the units, uh, said over the air. That's all. That's the only reason I say that.
---------------------------------
Here's another
From the NY POST (08-29-03):
"The Woolworth Building! The Woolworth Building! They're shooting at the
Trade Center from the Woolworth Building!" a police officer screams.
... "There's fucking explosions going off on Vesey street!" another officer
yells.

"Can you send somebody over to the Woolworth Building to check the roof?" a
Port Authority police officer asked. "There's a possible ... they said it
was ... we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of
the Woolworth Building."
"The Woolworth Building?" replied a police operator.
"`Yeah, on ... on Broadway," the officer said.
---------------------------------------------------------
Also note the reference to a sonic boom.

Here's some more. Note that nearly all of them are explicit about hearing the sonic boom *before* the impact.

http://www.globeandmail.com/special/attack/pages/whathappened_article3.html

A witness named Gail told Associated Press radio, "I was watching TV, and there was this sonic boom and the TV went out. And I thought maybe the Concord was back in service because I've heard about those sonic booms and I got up to my window (I live in Battery Park City right next to the twin towers) and I looked up and the side of the World Trade Center exploded."


http://abc.net.au/news/2001/09/item20010911230953_1.htm

A witness reported a "sonic boom" as a commercial passenger jet hit the north tower of the 110-story building between the 80th and 85th floor.

http://journalism.unl.edu/wtc.html

Then I heard what sounded like a sonic boom. I ducked next to the window to get a better view of the sky, and the first tower exploded in flames.

http://www.mcjonline.com/news/01b/20010911a.shtml

An eyewitness who was working in Tower 2 told WCBS-TV in New York, "I heard what was like a sonic boom, then there was smoke everywhere

-----------------------------------

There's plenty more like this. Thats just a small sample.

And there's plenty like this.

http://www.gcn.com/21_27a/news/19929-1.html
A year ago today, Alan Leidner left his apartment on the Upper West Side a little before 9 o'clock. "I heard someone yelling that it looked like a small plane went into the World Trade Center," he said

http://www.seacoastonline.com/2001news/exeter/e9_16d.htm

scroll about 1/2way

. When he answered, he told me that he was watching the TV â?? he didn't really engage me â?? after a long pause he told me that someone had flown into the World Trade Center and didn't know what was going on. He thought it had been a small plane, maybe a twin-engine Cessna.

http://tvnewz.com/2_tvnewz/sept11/articles/cavazos.htm

My co-anchor and I were told it was a small plane.. according to AP wires..

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/attackonamerica/content_objectid=11525718_method
=full_siteid=50143_headline=-WE-ARE-ALL-F---ING-DYING-IN-HERE-name_page.html
http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/us/graham.html

A medium size or small plane flies very low overhead - straight into the north tower of the World Trade. There is no way to think of it. He stares. Is it real? It is burning three quarters of the way up the building. It must be real, but it cannot be. It flew very low overhead. He stares at it and shouts to everyone who can hear him, Come out right away!
----------------------------------------------------------
One expects some variation. One can't put forward a really confident opinion on exactly what it was from these reports. But one can get a general sense. Something small to medium. Something supersonic. We can't rule out that there was more than one object involved. Perhaps a small to medium plane and a missile. Perhaps a supersonic craft and a slower one.

But there is no indication whatsoever from these reports that it was a big Boeing. Even Murtagh's report doesn't indicate that. The best that one can say about it that it sits at the very margins - to the small end - of what might be interpreted as a 767 sighting.

But what does Leon do ? He selects the only report which could concievably come within this range, selectively quotes from it, to hide the fact that it was actually reporting a much smaller craft, and omits other reports, which strongly point to something that size or smaller - from the very same transcript. As well as conveniently omitting the report about the sonic boom.


Then he tries to smother this with an irrelevant witness report about a different plane crash and gives two reports which *make no reference* to the size of the plane.
Here the relevant excerpts from those.

[[when she saw the first plane hit]]

The other one didn't even see the plane.

[[She was in a
meeting at 8:45 when the first plane crashed into tower #1. She
heard the plane coming in, loud enough to make her think it was
flying unusually close to the buildings. ]]

Ugh... Leon - this person didn't even see the thing.

So Leon couldn't produce a single witness. But instead of admitting it, he resorted to selective quoting and unfocused, irrelevant spamming to try to hide the lack of evidence.

This is why I had to ask 4 times. This is why I always have to ask the 767 huggers 4,5 or 6 times, and then they run away or resort to this kind of junk.

This is why Brian Salter refused three requests to provide any witness evidence, after initially boasting that there were thousands and then ran away and posted a downright lie in his artice that I had refused to supply witnesses.This is why, in a recent debate with Sean McBride, I had to ask 6 times (from memory), before he ran off- after initially boasting of overwhelming witness evidence.

Witness evidence is actually the most unreliabale from of evidence, so its value needs to be kept in perspective. But its the 767 huggers who constantly make wild unsubstantited claims about witness evidence and then run away when you ask them to produce it.

Because leon is more stupid than most of them, he allowed himself to be goaded into exposing himself as an active liar.

I now have better things to do. Leon will doubtless continue to spam this page with more lies and idiocies in a petty attempt to have the last word, but I'm out of here.


"Gerard" - the Charles Spiesel of the 911 Turth Movement 27.May.2004 11:10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Published link


the alleged Gerard: - "PLANES WINGS - yellow. So clearly seen that they have to be drawn in. Heh !" [!]



Salter: "PLANE OF WINGS: yellow"

plane
n.
Mathematics. A surface containing all the straight lines that connect any two points on it.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Charles+Spiesel



Al Jabr: step by step 27.May.2004 11:23

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Published link


"Witness? Witness? Anyone got A witness?"

http://europe.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.03.html ]]

"What Leon very, very conveniently failed to mention was this - FROM THE VERY SAME CNN transcript which reported Murtagh's statement.CNN interviewed a number of witnesses."

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/cnn091101.html

Here's one extract.

TRACTSONBURG:
_________________________________


click here for the transcript --> http://europe.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.03.html

search the page for "TRACTSONBURG"

Why are you such a malicious liar, "Gerard"?


appreciate the substantive information and patience, Gerard 14.Jun.2004 17:45

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
me link


Gerard is very patient, and I appreciate his actual substantive comments. As for the troll, it's sort of comic relief to read it between Gerard's posts.

SONIC BOOM WITNESSES

And Gerard, thanks for all the 'sonic boom' witnesses in detail--an issue I had yet to actual see documented anywhere and which really fleshes out the 'missile hit' hypothesis with added audial witnesses. In other words, it is easier to match this audial evidence of witnesses with the visual missle lauch strike evidence (and the attempts to digitally remove it is definitaley a smoking gun that it was something like a missle or laser or whatever) the split second before the hit.

WOOLWORTH BUILDING

These were the only Woolworth building connections I was able to find in earlier searches. Anyone with any more?


More great research frrom GH! 27.Jun.2004 13:56

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
werewolf wwerewolff@yahoo.com link


!


Thanks Already Published 06.Jul.2004 23:56

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reader link


You're easily making him look like the fool that he is.

This reader appreciates it. I've also appreciated your work on sf.indymedia.


much appreciated 07.Jul.2004 23:47

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opere Citato (AP) link


thank you very much, reader.


Which passengers - specifically? 29.Jul.2004 13:20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
victim's friend link


I keep an open mind about what exactly happened, and how and why it happened, on Sept. 11. But pointing out every possible anomaly is not in and of itself very helpful. Let me make a couple of points that may clarify some of the mysteries presented here:

In his article, Gerard Holmgren writes of "another new name - Waleed Iskander - who is not alleged to be one of the terrorists."

And later, he writes: "Since the media which sells us the official story universally agrees that there were 92 aboard - 87 innocents and 5 hijackers, then 8 of these names (although we can't yet specify which 8 ) must be fictitious. If 8 are confirmed as fictitious, then we are perfectly entitled to speculate with some validity that any number of the 95 could be fictitious. ... some or all of them may be real people who are really missing, and may have friends or families who genuinely believe that they got on to a flight called AA11. We don't know at this stage."

We DO know of at least one (wouldn't take much digging to find dozens of others: perhaps 87?) who is really missing, and believed by family and friends to have been on that flight. It's my buddy from college, Waleed Iskandar. (Note that he spelled his name this way, with "ar" at the end, not "er" -- but seeing alternative or mis-spellings even in supposedly authoritative texts is hardly surprising.) When word of this got out and was passed among his friends, it was noted that he did not appear on some early published lists of passengers, a fact attributed, plausibly, to his Arab name. His memorial website, created by his family, is: http://www.iskandar.com/waleed911/; an article for which his parents are interviewed is: http://www.the-tidings.com/2001/1005/waleed.htm. He was a good man and is much missed.

Another anomaly strikes me, after just a quick reading of the article, as easily solvable. The folowing is mentioned in passing:

"What's even more curious is that four of these names also appear on the lists for UA 175, alleged to have hit the Sth Tower of the WTC at 9.03. Jalbert ,Roux, Ward and Weems."

Doesn't it seem likely that these four were UA 175 passengers, but were mistakenly listed as AA 11 passengers by some media? It happens.

I don't have the time or inclination to check that out myself, but if it were confirmed, the mystery behind at least 5 of the names in this article -- the question of whether they belong on an accurate list of AA 11 passengers -- would be cleared up.

P.S. If such a grand conspiracy was in fact so spectacularly successfully cooked up, one would think "they" (the cookers, whoever they be) would have gotten their alleged-passenger cover-story straight.

P.P.S. Sentiments from the article about Waleed that I cited above:

"He [Waleed's father] said he is even more terrified now that President George W. Bush has declared war against terrorism, and against the main suspects: Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaida, his network of extremist Muslims.

"'War means killing. I don't want another father or mother to go through the grief and sorrow that we're going through,' said Iskandar. He strongly urged the American government not to retaliate but to seek other solutions, to pursue more peaceful means. At the bottom of a Web site he created for Waleed, Iskandar posted an illustration of Jesus. Underneath, a text read: 'When I forgive, I forget.' Somewhere, Iskandar said, there has to be room for forgiveness."

__________If so, why is said that American Airlines released a "partial list" ?____________:

it is NOT said gerry - you gotta learn to read:

___________________ Lists of victims
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and the crash of United Airlines flight 93, officials across the country are working to piece together lists of victims.

While the official number of those missing and dead will inevitably rise over the next few weeks, authorities from American Airlines, United Airlines, the Department of Defense, the New York City Medical Examiners Office and the New York City Fire Department, have released partial lists. They are linked below.___________________:

so clearly the term partial lists refers to all 911 victims not just to AA11.

you misrepresented here,mr holmgren.

better watch out.

gerard holmgren,i know you are a jew.
and that's perfectly ok with me.

but after i read you say:

_______________ fail to see how engineering a war between the US and Afghanistan or the US and Iraq provides anything useful to Israel. In fact the reverse. All Israel has gained out of Sept 11 is a certain amount of political justification for going a bit harder against the Palestinians, and I find it preposterous to suggest that they would use the convoluted route of engineering Sept 11 for this purpose. First, they have a much richer source of justification in the terrorist bombings of Palestinian extremists______________________


i realized you have clearly slipped into the zionazi mindset so typical of jared israel and other pseudoleftists,but i was sorry to see it spread to you.
you didn't use to be like that.

i am not implying israel (the state) perped 911.
i think the wall street military industrial complex was the guys with the real motive - perpetual war profits - not oil control,because thay had that already before 911.

but let's not forget that the militaryindustrial complex includes rabid zionazis rumsfeld,perle,feith wolfowitz,all of which are intimately connected to sharon so much as to hold zionazi meetings based on torah promised land bs in jerusalem.

and you who are mostly so rational in scrutinizing official 911 lies,you of all people dare speak of
_________ terrorist bombings of Palestinian extremists______________________!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STUPID FUCKING ZIONAZI ASSHOLE - WILL YOU PLEASE PROCEED TO LINK EVIDENCE FOR US THAT ANY SINGLE TERRORIST ACT OFFICIALLY PINNED ON PALESTINIAN EXTREMISTS REALLY WAS PERPED AND MASTERMINDED BY PALESTINIANS?

AND IF YOU CAN'T,WILL YOU STOP ONCE AND FOR ALL USING 2 WEIGHTS AND 2 MEASURES AND TRYING TO BE CRITICAL/RATIONAL RE 911 WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SPOUTING THEOLOGICAL ZIONAZI PROPAGANDA DOGMAS WHEN IT COMES TO CRIMINAL AGAINST HUMANITY SHARON?

thanx man.

what a sorry end you met.

thought you were a bit less brainwashed than a jared israel.

so disappointed to see you were sucked into that shit,thus discrediting yourself .

alleged victim's friend:

::::::::::::::::It's my buddy from college, Waleed Iskandar::::::::::::: :

really?

and what are we supposed to believe,your holy word or what?

any evidence for your allegation?

as for the web site,any evidence it's not yet another fabrication?

can you give us alleged waleed's family address or email or whatever data we may be able to verify?

if not,we have no reason to either believe or not believe your baseless allegations.

you are thus NOT disproving holmgren's research conclusions.

as for the interview with the alleged waleed alleged family,the link is dead.

so much for your pathetic attempt at disproving.

____________P.S. If such a grand conspiracy was in fact so spectacularly successfully cooked up, one would think "they" (the cookers, whoever they be) would have gotten their alleged-passenger cover-story straight.__________________:

no.

it's called (dis)information fog.
if they had gotten the alleged-passenger cover story straight,it would have looked pre-cooked from start.

anomalies/discrepancies in the aftermath of 911 look more "natural" in that in the chaotic aftermath of such an unprecedented mess as 911 it would have looked more natural to have discrepancies as opposed to a straight list.

secondly,the reason why we still have those discrepancies over 3 years later is because by now the official 911 lie has sunk in so deep in the world's majority's psyche that it's not even necessary to bother with putting forth a straight uniform official list anymore.

thirdly,if they that is the bush govt FBI etc came up with an official list,someone in 50 years might be able to get the original via FOIA request and inquire about its sources in the FAA AA etc.- which would blow the coverup right away.

four,the discrepancies uncovered by holmgren are a false flag puposedly spread by the govt terrorists in charge of disinfo so that researchers such as gerard waste truckloads of time trying to sort out the lists mess instead of focusing on the real issue,which gerard is aware of but refuses to pursue:

THAT SINCE THE AA77 STORY HAS CLEARLY BEEN ESTABLISHED TO BE A FORGERY SINCE THIERRY MEYSSAN'S THE APPALLING FRAUD;

AND SINCE THERE ARE GRAVE SUSPICIONS AS TO AA11 AND UA75 - IF THEY EVER EXISTED AT ALL ON 911 TO BEGIN WITH - REALLY HAVING HIT THE TWIN TOWERS;

AND SINCE NOBODY SAW A PLANE AT SHANKSVILLE PA ON 911 AS ADMITTED EVEN BY TESTIMONY IN THE MAINSTREAM PACK OF SHIT ON THE SUBJECT WHICH IS JERE LONGMAN'S BOOK;

THEN THE REAL ISSUE IS EITHER WE INVESTIGATE ONE BY ONE WHETHER THESE FUCKING ALLEGED PLANE VICTIMS REALLY EXISTED OR NOT AND IF THEY DID WHETHER THEY REALLY BOARDED THOSE ALLEGED FLIGHTS ON 911 OR NOT;

OR WE ARE JUST PURSUING ABSTRACT LOGIC WHICH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ANY REAL PROOF AND THAT'S WHY NO GOVT TERRORIST HAS PLANTED A BULLET IN GERARD'S OR MEYSSAN'S HEAD YET - AND NEVER WILL IF THEY GO ON LIKE THAT.

____________P.S. If such a grand conspiracy was in fact so spectacularly successfully cooked up, one would think "they" (the cookers, whoever they be) would have gotten their alleged-passenger cover-story straight.__________________:

no.

it's called (dis)information fog.
if they had gotten the alleged-passenger cover story straight,it would have looked pre-cooked from start.

anomalies/discrepancies in the aftermath of 911 look more "natural" in that in the chaotic aftermath of such an unprecedented mess as 911 it would have looked more natural to have discrepancies as opposed to a straight list.

secondly,the reason why we still have those discrepancies over 3 years later is because by now the official 911 lie has sunk in so deep in the world's majority's psyche that it's not even necessary to bother with putting forth a straight uniform official list anymore.

thirdly,if they that is the bush govt FBI etc came up with an official list,someone in 50 years might be able to get the original via FOIA request and inquire about its sources in the FAA AA etc.- which would blow the coverup right away.

four,the discrepancies uncovered by holmgren are a false flag puposedly spread by the govt terrorists in charge of disinfo so that researchers such as gerard waste truckloads of time trying to sort out the lists mess instead of focusing on the real issue,which gerard is aware of but refuses to pursue:

THAT SINCE THE AA77 STORY HAS CLEARLY BEEN ESTABLISHED TO BE A FORGERY SINCE THIERRY MEYSSAN'S THE APPALLING FRAUD;

AND SINCE THERE ARE GRAVE SUSPICIONS AS TO AA11 AND UA75 - IF THEY EVER EXISTED AT ALL ON 911 TO BEGIN WITH - REALLY HAVING HIT THE TWIN TOWERS;

AND SINCE NOBODY SAW A PLANE AT SHANKSVILLE PA ON 911 AS ADMITTED EVEN BY TESTIMONY IN THE MAINSTREAM PACK OF SHIT ON THE SUBJECT WHICH IS JERE LONGMAN'S BOOK;

THEN THE REAL ISSUE IS EITHER WE INVESTIGATE ONE BY ONE WHETHER THESE FUCKING ALLEGED PLANE VICTIMS REALLY EXISTED OR NOT AND IF THEY DID WHETHER THEY REALLY BOARDED THOSE ALLEGED FLIGHTS ON 911 OR NOT;

OR WE ARE JUST PURSUING ABSTRACT LOGIC WHICH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ANY REAL PROOF AND THAT'S WHY NO GOVT TERRORIST HAS PLANTED A BULLET IN GERARD'S OR MEYSSAN'S HEAD YET - AND NEVER WILL IF THEY GO ON LIKE THAT.

i paste here the following,as pertinent:

http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/22548_comment.php#23814

dead or a lie/4
by james Wednesday October 27, 2004 at 11:42 AM


a brand new line of bush-did-911 research

dead or a lie/4
by james 4:22am Thu Oct 28 '04 (Modified on 4:30am Thu Oct 28 '04) article#15198


a brand new and possibly decisive line of bush-did-911 research
dead or a lie/4
by inquirer 6:29am Mon Oct 25 '04 (Modified on 4:07am Tue Oct 26 '04) article#47948


a brand new line of 911-bush-did-it research
dead or a lie/4 Current rating: 0
by hunter
(No verified email address) 23 Oct 2004
a brand new line of bush-did-911 research:
if we could show but one of the alleged plane victims to have been fabricated,it'd be the smoking gun that blows up the whole damn bush house of lies...bear with me and help!
______________Bernard Brown, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. He was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.______________________:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

this is the third alleged passenger victim on flight 77 - the alleged penta flight - on 911.

parts 1-3 of my research on alleged 911 plane victims,with the purpose of proving bush did it if i manage to find at least one fake victim,are here:
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/126916
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/127231/index.php
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/127754/index.php

dealing with alleged aa77 passengers paul wensley ambrose,yeneneh betru and mary jane booth

i've thus far provided reports that show how the ambroses had been bush inner circle memebers long before 911,and if this is true it looks very unlikely that bush would rub out 2 establishment figures at once - barbara olson and paul w ambrose

on betru and booth i've provided loads of verifiable clues for those willing to help in this all-important verification process

of course i assume bush did 911,based upon for instance following material:


http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-government/C-fraud/01-911/2004/05C1-08-17-04-...



>>>>>>>>>Bernard Curtis Brown
Attack Location: AA Flight 77 (Pentagon)
Age: 11
Home: Washington, D.C.




â??He just loved basketball. Heâ??s been playing [on teams] since he was 7, in [Corpus Christi,] Texas. He tried football, but he couldnâ??t, because of his asthma. He played soccer at 5. As he got older, he would just go out and shoot baskets. He usually got up Saturday morning, about 8 in the morning, and heâ??d just go outside and dribble, shoot. The goal was right outside our neighborsâ?? bedroom window. He would play by himself in the mornings, or his dad would go out and play with him. Sometimes I would, or his sister. The neighborhood kids would come and play once they got up. He always said he was going to be a star, that he was going to play [professional] basketball some day.â??

Sinita Brown, Mother>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/attacked/victims/vic

this obituary could be a fake
anyone out there able and willing to check if alleged sinita curtis brown living in dc?
Re: DEAD OR A LIE/part 4
por now this is really interesting


__________________Bernard Brown

Eleven-year-old Bernard Brown was clever, a quick wit, the kind of boy who kept his teachers on their toes. Estella Cleveland, who taught his fifth-grade class last year at Leckie Elementary School in Southeast Washington, loved him.

"He used to give the fourth-grade teacher fits. But he turned it around last year. Everybody noticed it," Cleveland said.

That's why Cleveland gave Bernard's name to her best friend at Leckie, sixth-grade teacher Hilda Taylor, when Taylor asked whom she should take on a four-day National Geographic trip to California.

Taylor drove from her home in Forestville before dawn Tuesday to Bolling Air Force Base, where Bernard lived with his parents, Bernard and Sinita Brown, in naval housing. Taylor left her car on the base, and the boy's mother drove the two travelers to Dulles International Airport.

An official at the Browns' house said they did not want to speak about their son's death. Cleveland said she was devastated about her former student's death.

"He was fun-loving," she said. "He was the joy of the class."

-- Debbi Wilgoren



Source: The Washington Post, AP and washingtonpost.com _________________:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/attacked/victims/vic

1.ANYONE OUT THERE FROM DC?
IS THERE A LECKIE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON?
AND IF THERE IS,WILL YOU PLEASE VERIFY IF THERE'S A TEACHER THERE BY THE NAME OF ESTELLA CLEVELAND?
3.NOW THIS IS REALLY SOMETHING:BERNARD ALLEGEDLY LIVED AT BOLLING AIR FORCE BASE WITH HIS PARENTS BERNARD AND SINITA BROWN
now this obviously makes it hard to just pop in there and verify...
but if his parents were living in naval housing there,and if this isn't totally fabricated,then either one or both of them probably were us navy officials,career military,or career navy civilians,possibly middle to high-grade ones...
which in turn would make of bernard brown the THIRD "excellent" victim on AA77,after bush inner circle insider paul w ambrose and barbara olson.
just the kind of people govt terrorist bush would have warned NOT to fly on 911,just like he did with sf mayor willie brown and writer salman rushdie reportedly
in other words,because we know at least since meyssan's the appalling fraud that bush did 911,it's highly unlikely that he would rub out as many as 3 establishment figures at once...
it's hard to question the existence of barbara olson,but ambrose and brown may be either utter fabrications or they may not be dead at all - but i'd rather at this point incline towards the former,since it's hard to make an 11-year-old understand he must keep his mouth shut for the rest of his life and undergo plastic surgery and pose as another person for the rest of his life...
of course,i cannot rule out they really died on 911 either IF they were real people and IF they ever boarded that alleged plane - but they certainly did NOT die at the penta where alleged AA77 never crashed...

___________________Students Rodney Dickens, Asia Cottom and Bernard Brown Jr., all age 11, and teachers Hilda E. Taylor, 62, and Sarah Clark, 65, were flying to California along with Debeuneure and two National Geographic staffers for an educational field trip. They were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when it was hijacked as part of the Sept. 11 attacks.______________________:

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0904/172204.html

according to this and other search items,this school is real- but i found neither a website for it nor anything about it at all BUT brown etc's obituaries...
alleged hilda e. taylor,alleged brown's teacher,allegedly was 62,from forestville,and we can't check on her cuz she'a allegedly dead on AA77 too...

This work is in the public domain

Terrible (-1) No comment Good (+1) Very good (+2) Excellent (+3)

Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email
Comment

Text Format Plain text Pseudo-HTML (<b> <i> tags) HTML formatted
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments
Parent Article: dead or a lie/4
Re: dead or a lie/4
by contradictions?
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
25 Oct 2004
::::::::::::BERNARD CURTIS BROWN II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fan of Basketball and School


Unlike many 11-year-olds, Bernard Curtis Brown II bounded out of his house every school day. "He lived to go to school,'' said his mother, Sinita. ''If he was sick, he would always say he was feeling better so he could get to school."

But before Bernard left, a few things had to be in order. His parents did not demand it, but Bernard's bed had to be made, his room straightened, and his clothes ironed before he stepped out into the world. ''Oh yes, he was a neat child,'' his mother said with a laugh.

He also awoke with a unusual energy. "He would just pop right up," his mother said. So she did not mind letting him stay up late to watch basketball on television.

An ambitious player, Bernard had just bought a pair of Air Jordan basketball shoes and was wearing them on Sept. 11 on a flight to California as part of a trip sponsored by the National Geographic Society. A Washington resident, he was enlivened by the prospect of Michael Jordan running the court for his hometown Wizards.:::::::::::::::::

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_1012_brown.html

so here the nyt has alleged brown's alleged mother talk about her son

but supra we had seen how
>>>>>>>>>An official at the Browns' house said they did not want to speak about their son's death.>>>>>>>>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/attacked/victims/vic

so it seems this alleged mother would speak to some but not to others...

Terrible (-1) No comment Good (+1) Very good (+2) Excellent (+3)

Parent Article: dead or a lie/4
Re: dead or a lie/4
by more contradictions
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
25 Oct 2004
>>>>>>>>>>The neighborhood kids would come and play once they got up
Sinita Brown, Mother>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/specials/attacked/victims/vic

we've alredy seen above how it was reported that alleged bernard lived with his parents at bolling air force base in naval housing:

but here the alleged mother speaks of neighborhood kids,a terminology which really doesn't befit an air force base i suppose...

Terrible (-1) No comment Good (+1) Very good (+2) Excellent (+3)

Parent Article: dead or a lie/4
Re: dead or a lie/4
by critic
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
25 Oct 2004
another funny thing is if you go to
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page96.html

which is said to be updated sept 2003,there is no picture of either alleged bernard brown or mary jane booth...

yet their pics are on many other links,so why not publish them on cnn too?

Terrible (-1) No comment Good (+1) Very good (+2) Excellent (+3)

Parent Article: dead or a lie/4
Re: dead or a lie/4
by doubter
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
25 Oct 2004
let's go back to the washington.com article:

____________________Bernard Brown
Thursday, September 13, 2001; Page A11


Eleven-year-old Bernard Brown was clever, a quick wit, the kind of boy who kept his teachers on their toes. Estella Cleveland, who taught his fifth-grade class last year at Leckie Elementary School in Southeast Washington, loved him.

"He used to give the fourth-grade teacher fits. But he turned it around last year. Everybody noticed it," Cleveland said.





That's why Cleveland gave Bernard's name to her best friend at Leckie, sixth-grade teacher Hilda Taylor, when Taylor asked whom she should take on a four-day National Geographic trip to California.

Taylor drove from her home in Forestville before dawn Tuesday to Bolling Air Force Base, where Bernard lived with his parents, Bernard and Sinita Brown, in naval housing. Taylor left her car on the base, and the boy's mother drove the two travelers to Dulles International Airport.

An official at the Browns' house said they did not want to speak about their son's death. Cleveland said she was devastated about her former student's death.

"He was fun-loving," she said. "He was the joy of the class."

-- Debbi Wilgoren________________:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentI

now please notice the publication date on top of the item:
september 13,2001
this means the article must have been written on the 12th,which in turn would have given the author only about one and a half days since the tragedy to do the research+interviews+writing and editing.
strange,because the article says that alleged bernard's parents didn't wanna comment.
SO HOW ON EARTH DID ARTICLE'S AUTHOR DEBBI WILGOREN LEARN IN ONE AND A HALF DAYS THAT BERNARD WAS A STUDENT AT LECKIE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL?
AND THE REST OF IT?HOW DID SHE LEARN THAT QUICKLY THAT BERNARD'S PARENTS WERE OFFICIALS AT BOLLING AIR FORCE BASE?

USUALLY when something happens to a plane victims' relatives and friends rush to the departure or arrival airports to get news updates.

yet i haven't found a single news item about alleged flight aa77's relatives/friends gathering at dulles or lax on the morning of sept 11 to inquire on the flights...

in other words,the bernard brown story is starting to look increasingly suspect,as if someone had concocted it well in advance of 911 and then fed it to obliging media whores...

little can be verified here since alleged brown's parents live on an air force base...

no word about relatives.
in theory one could go to leckie and ask alleged estella cleveland...
give it a try if you can and report back. Make a quick comment on this article.
your name

your email (optional)

comment heading

comment


add your own longer comments (including web links and multimedia uploads)
Comments may be edited or hidden according to these policy guidelines


Make a rating on this article.
select a ratingUninformativeOKGood stuffRecommendedExcellent




check this out
by right track 3:47am Tue Oct 26 '04 comment#47997



::::::::::::::::::At age 11, Bernard Brown already had style. He dressed sharply and made sure his clothes and accessories were always coordinated. "He was very particular about his looks. He was handsome and had charisma," says Denise Sessoms, assistant principal at Leckie Elementary School in Washington, where Bernard attended sixth grade. He had become an excellent student in the past 2 years, catching the attention of his teacher, Hilda Taylor. That's why she picked him to go on a 4-day National Geographic Society school trip to the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara, Calif. "She felt that this was an opportunity to further encourage him to excel, and he had an interest in marine biology," Sessoms says. Bernard lived in Washington with his parents, Bernard and Sinita Brown.::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.911twothousandone.homestead.com/Flight77.html

will any washingtonian out there have a peep and check if alleged denise sessoms,alleged assistant principal at leckie elementary,is a real person?
funny how this item,just like the cnn victims list,does not carry bernard's pic.Make a rating on this comment.
select a ratingUninformativeOKGood stuffRecommendedExcellent



mmmmmmmmmm
by mmmmmmm 4:07am Tue Oct 26 '04 comment#47998



_____________ naval officer bernard brown had a conversation with his son about not being afraid of dying just before he put him on Flight 77, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Had Bernard Brown been at work that day he would have been killed as the plane carrying his son crashed into his office at the Pentagon . Luckily he had taken a rare day off to play golf._______________:
http://www.the-movement.com/menu/weird_coincidences.htm

an interesting item - but when you click on the source link,you can't access the site...another weird coincidence?

anyway this could be just one more spam item by the military.
if true though,it tells us that bernard curtis brown is a naval officer working at the pentagon,and as we already know,living on bolling airforce base.
just the kind of person who,along with bush inner circle insider ambroses,might have been part of the plot,in either faking the existence of their son or faking his death.
he might be off in some remote base with his kid now.

or the entire story might be fabricated,including the existence of naval officer bernard curtis brown and his wife sinita.

the detail about taking a day off to play golf would make us incline towards the possibility that naval officer brown really exists and is part of the plot.

but the whole thing,once again,might have been intended to divert us from the logical possibility that AA77 never crashed into the penta and brown is a fabrication alongside with his alleged wife and victim-son. Make a quick comment on this article.
your name

your email (optional)

comment heading

comment


add your own longer comments (including web links and multimedia uploads)






disinfo
by pentaspam 4:30am Thu Oct 28 '04 comment#15199






______________Oct. 27, 2004 War on Terror Transformation News Products Press Resources Images Websites Contact Us



Space Camp Scholarship Honors Young Sept. 11 Pentagon Attack Victim



"Robbed of your time, the world lost your love. Go forward into God's hands, little dude." -- Patrick Mulligan, in a letter to CNN about 11-year-old Bernard Curtis Brown's death in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.
By Rudi Williams
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 4, 2002 -- His voice cracked and lips quivered as he fought back tears and tried to control his heartbroken emotions about the loss of his 11-year-old son in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

Struggling to speak recently to more than 350 attendees at the Military Child Education Coalition conference in San Antonio, Texas, Navy Chief Petty Officer Bernard Curtis Brown thanked the coalition for endowing the 2002 Bernard Curtis Brown II Memorial Space Camp Scholarship. The Military Child Education Coalition's Bernard Curtis Brown II Memorial NASA Space Camp Scholarship is named for an 11-year-old Washington, D.C., area military-connected child who was killed aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists crashed it into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. Photo courtesy Navy Chief Petty Officer Bernard Curtis Brown. (Click photo for screen-resolution image; high-resolution image available.) Additional photo

He announced the first scholarship recipient, Buck A. Tanner, 14, an 8th grader at the Department of Defense Education Activity's Central High School in London. Tanner won based on his essay stating why he should be selected; he was unable to attend the conference.

MCEC established the annual scholarship for a military child to attend the NASA Space Camp and the Brown family agreed to allow the organization to name the scholarship in memory of their son. The coalition and the family felt the scholarship is a fitting honor.

At the time of his death Brown was en route to California to participate in Sustainable Seas Expeditions, a National Geographic Society-funded marine research project at the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, near Santa Barbara.

Brown was in a Washington area party with two other students, three schoolteachers and two National Geographic Society staff members. They and the other 51 passengers and crew aboard American Airlines Flight 77 died when terrorist hijackers crashed the plane into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

Teacher James Debeuneure and student Rodney Dickens were representing Ketcham Elementary School. Teacher Sarah Clark and student Asia Cottom were from Backus Middle School. Teacher Hilda Taylor and Brown were from Leckie Elementary School. All the students were 11-year-old sixth graders.

"My wife breaks down more than I do, and I thank God for the little strength he gives me," Brown told the audience of principals, teachers, counselors, parents, military personnel and others. "It's truly difficult for me to be able to say his name in the same breath without tears falling out of my face."

After thanking MCEC officials for using his son's name to start the annual Space Camp scholarship program, Brown said he lost a lot of friends, co-workers and his son on Sept. 11. He works in the chief of naval operations' graphic shop, which was devastated in the attack.

"My wife and I have bad days," he told the audience. "My wife would have more really bad days if I'd been at work that day.

"My son was going into the sixth grade and Miss Hilda Taylor was going to be his teacher," Brown said. "She met him in the fourth grade while he was out fighting one day. She told him when he got to the sixth grade, she wanted him in her class."

The Browns were joyful when Taylor told them Bernard had been selected to represent his middle school on the California trip.

"Miss Taylor, who was from Sierra Leone, Africa, thought my son was the best candidate at his school for the job and I was really proud of him," Brown said. But there was mixed emotions when the family sat down on Sept. 9, 2001, to talk about the trip.

"I knew he was a strong swimmer and I was sure he could do all the things they wanted him to do," Brown said. "The two kids from the other schools were selected because the teachers thought they could do whatever was expected of them, too.

"It's just so happened that on that date, we talked about death," he recalled. "They're going to do kayaking and things inner city kids don't normally do. So I said, 'Son, be careful.' They'd put a disclaimer in the paperwork that said death could happen. But not in my wildest dreams did I think he'd die before he could get there."

U.S. Space Camp is a five-day program that shows youngsters firsthand what it takes to be an astronaut. Activities include simulated Space Shuttle missions, training simulators, rocket building and launches, scientific experiments, and lectures on the past, present, and future of space exploration.

There are three Space Camp locations: Huntsville, Ala.; Mountain View, Calif.; and Titusville, Fla. Tuition ranges from $550 to $875 and includes meals, lodging and program materials, but not transportation.

Application deadline for the 2003 Bernard Curtis Brown II Memorial NASA Space Camp Scholarship is May 15, 2003. The Military Child Education Coalition endowment covers the winner's tuition and travel. Applicants must be a child of an active duty military parent. The student must be in grades 6 through 9.

For online application forms and more information, visit the Military Child Education Coalition Web site at http://www.militarychild.org/index.cfm. The 2003 application form is scheduled to be posted soon, coalition officials said.

The winner of the 2003 Bernard Curtis Brown II Memorial Space Camp Scholarship will be announced at the 2003 MCEC national conference in Connecticut.



Ileen Rogers of the Military Child Education Coalition introduces Navy Chief Petty Officer Bernard Curtis Brown at the annual coalition conference held recently in San Antonio, Texas. Brown's son is the namesake of the MCEC's new Bernard Curtis Brown II Memorial NASA Space Camp Scholarship. The young Brown, 11, died aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when the terrorists slammed the plane into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. Photo by Rudi Williams. (Click photo for screen-resolution image; high-resolution image available.) _______________:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2002/n09042002_200209045.html
backup link:
http://www.militarychild.org/press/bernardbrownii.htm

now this stinks of pentaspam to high heaven...

can anyone tell me if the pics in the link may be retouched or fabricated?

IN THE UNLIKELY CASE THAT naval officer brown really exists,funny he reportedly was out playing golf on 911 instead of getting killed at his penta office...

maybe he received advance warning of 911 just like his omonymous sf mayor willie brown...

maybe he was part of the plot and his role was to help fabricate and propagate the poor son story...

one might try calling the penta and ask to be connected to navy chief petty officer bernard curtis brown,chief of naval operations' graphic shop...





add your comments



amazing coincidence...
by amazing coincidence... Saturday November 20, 2004 at 08:55 AM





>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A cruel irony also surrounds the loss of 11-year-old Bernard Curtis Brown II of Washington, D.C. Bernard was one of three exceptional middle-school students headed for an educational adventure to the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary off the California coast, accompanied by their teachers. Bernard, praised for his spelling, drawing and zest for living, was one of 64 people aboard American Airlines Flight 77 that slammed into the Pentagon â?? the workplace of Bernard's father.

"Everybody was calling me at my job because they knew my husband worked at the Pentagon," Sinita Brown told NBC News. A golf outing had Bernard Sr. out of the office that day. But Sinita Brown's relief quickly turned to grief when she learned it was her son's flight that hit the Pentagon. The elder Bernard, a Navy chief petty officer, told NBC News he had a serious heart-to-heart with his "happy, loving child" who was apprehensive about flying.

"To be honest," Brown told NBC, "we talked about death. And I just told him, 'Don't be afraid. â?¦ Just listen to what the people tell you, and the instructions. You'll be all right; you'll be fine.' He said, 'Daddy, Iâ??m scared,' and I said, 'Hey, don't be scared; don't be afraid to die. Because we are all going to die someday.'"

Unlike many 11-year-olds, Bernard "lived to go to school," according to his mother. The New York Times reports the ambitious basketball player had just purchased a pair of Air Jordan sneakers. He was wearing the treasured shoes on Sept. 11.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25771

now check this out:

on september 11,a week day,a tuesday,a working day,a navy chief petty officer decides to play the hook and go play golf instead of going to work-what a show of military discipline and commitment to the job - at the very penta spot where AA77 allegedly hit - but we know full well it didn't.

now if you check the source link and its NBC news sublink for the alleged brown mother statement,you'll notice that the NBC link is dead...quite uncommon for a mainstream medium...

and just by coincidence of course,brown sr states he had talked to his son about death before his alleged son's departure on AA77...we're all going to die some day is the most idiotic "reassurement" i've ever heard,it simply makes NO sense at all to say this to a child who's scared of flying,that it's alright for we all have to die anyway so how about dying today...

you'd have expected a dad to tell his kid that the plane was fine the pilots best and so on...
no,the alleged dad terrorizes his alleged kid with the kind of macabre bs about having to die you'd expect from a psychopathic prankster...

which speaks volumes for the reliability of such an alleged heart-to-heart...



add your comments



alleged brown sr photos
by alleged brown sr pics Sunday November 21, 2004 at 09:30 AM



http://www.militarychild.org/press/images/ileenbig.jpg
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/200112214d_hr.jpg

the latter relates to the folwing news item:
______________Navy Chief Petty Officer Bernard Brown, whose 11-year-old son died in the American Airlines flight that terrorists crashed into the Pentagon Sept. 11, holds an extinguished Olympic torch following a Dec. 21, 2001, ceremony at the Pentagon. The Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic Winter Games of 2002 hosted the ceremony to honor the heroes and 184 victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. Photo by Linda D. Kozaryn (Click photo for screen-resolution image; high-resolution image available.)__________________:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/n12212001_200112214.html#photos
so you got 2 pics of the alleged brown dad to compare and keep filed for future investigative developments...


add your comments



first pic date
by pic dates Sunday November 21, 2004 at 09:35 AM



ther first alleged brown sr pic was taken shortly before sept 4 2002 according to:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2002/n09042002_200209045.html

the second,on dec 21 2001



add your comments



CAN ANYONE VERIFY THIS?
by verify this please Tuesday November 23, 2004 at 10:32 AM



____________Indeed, we lost one of our own family members, 11-year-old Club member Bernard Brown from Washington, D.C., who was on American Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon._______________________:
http://www.bgclubspringfield.org/press_release_15.asp

was alleged bernard brown really a member of the springfield boys and girls club movement?


add your comments



more verifiable clues
by corpses? Saturday November 27, 2004 at 10:49 AM




__________________The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9/11 memorial plundered
By David Drebes
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 14, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Students and teachers at Leckie Elementary School in Southeast reacted with disbelief yesterday when they learned that somebody had stolen part of their memorial to a student, teacher and parents killed in the September 11 terror attacks.
Two benches were taken from the garden memorial in front of the school, at 4200 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave., during spring break that ended Monday, the Metropolitan Police Department said.
"Whoever it is, they have no conscience," school Principal Clementine Homesley said.
A business manager and maintenance workers leaving the school late Friday night noticed that two benches were missing and immediately called the police, but Mrs. Homesley said officers never arrived.
Officer Junis Fletcher, a police department spokesman, said yesterday he was unaware of a report made Friday night and pointed out that school was not in session last week. He also said the theft could have occurred as early as April 5, when spring break started.
Students helped design and create the garden to remember 11-year-old student Bernard Curtis Brown II and sixth-grade teacher Hilda Taylor, who were on American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon, and parents Marsha D. Ratchford and Johnnie Doctor Jr., Navy information specialists working in the Pentagon.
Mrs. Taylor was accompanying Bernard on a trip to California that he won in a National Geographic Society essay contest.
A group of 40 architects from the Washington Architectural Foundation donated their time and expertise to help students create the memorial, a cement walkway lined with children's handprints that winds through three separate gardens. The memorial was dedicated September 11, 2003, exactly two years after terrorists used four hijacked planes to kill nearly 3,000 people.
The largest part of the walkway has a heart design to honor Mrs. Taylor's love for children. Bernard's section has a basketball imprint, and the area honoring the parents has an official Navy seal.
Two of the four benches -- one for a parent and one for Mrs. Taylor -- were stolen. The remaining two were removed for safekeeping.
Mrs. Homesley compared the thefts to a desecration.
"It's like someone going to your parents' or grandparents' grave and moving the headstone," she said. "It's like each person's grave site. We didn't get to see their bodies, so this is a form of their graves right here at this school."
Architect Mary Fitch said the foundation can replace the benches if they are not returned.
Mrs. Homesley plans to have the benches set in cement to deter further thefts.
"Some people just have no compassion; nothing really bothers them," she said. "If they want something, they're going to find a way to get it, regardless of what it means to anybody."
â?¢ This article is based in part on wire service reports. ______________________________:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040413-110505-1987r

now this item really is interesting

first we learn from it the address of the alleged leckie elementary - i keep saying alleged because i never saw it or found anything on the web about it - ,which makes it easier for anyone willing and having the opportunity to go there and verify if it exists,what the memorial says etc

then we learn the name of the school principal - clementine homesley
and we had the name of her assistant denise sessoms from another item i provided above
it would be great if someone could interview these two as to alleged bernard brown II and the rest of the story

but the most interesting detail is the principal saying:
"""""""""We didn't get to see their bodies""""""""""""""""""""""""":

now - why?
were are the bodies of alleged bernard curtis brown II,of his teacher hilda taylor and of the other alleged AA77 victims?

how have they been identified?



add your comments



You're All Pathetic Idiots!
by Proud American Monday November 29, 2004 at 02:06 PM



Do you have any idea what a complete moron you are? Insinuating that because a school doesnâ??t have a web address it canâ??t possibly exist or be real is one of the most absurd things Iâ??ve heard. I did a search for Leckie Elementary School in Washington, DC and hereâ??s the address and a phone number you so desire: 4200 M L KING JR AVE, WASHINGTON, DC 20032 (202) 767-7056 - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNTY.

If you had bothered to research this yourself instead of spewing and attempting to spread your paranoid conspiracy theory, you would have discovered that this is a school where 361 of the schools 377 students are black. You would have also learned that 203 of those students qualify for the free lunch program while an additional 50 students participate in the reduced lunch program. For many of the children who attend Leckie Elementary, lunch is the only meal they eat every day. The school does not have the luxury of investing in computers and having a web page so idiots like you will believe they exist.

I challenge you to stop denigrating the memory of the teacher and student lives lost from this school on 9/11/01 and put your efforts into a positive venture. Contact the school and begin a fundraising effort for them for computer equipment and a web page.

If youâ??d like to find out more about this school or any school you can find all kinds of information at http://www.nces.ed.gov. That is, if youâ??re interested in real proof that a school exists.

When I read through most of the sniveling posts here, I find myself extremely nauseated at the thought that there are really people in this world as bitter and small minded as this. You are all pathetic and really disgust me!


add your comments



proud asshole
by responder Tuesday November 30, 2004 at 08:57 AM



see trolley,if you'd bothered to read the comment above yours you'd have spared yourself the search,for its author had already found and provided the address of leckie elementary.

but if leckie really exists,it still doesn't logically imply alleged AA77 victim bernard curtis brown II really existed.

and if alleged AA77 victim bernard brown really existed,it still doesn't necessarily imply he's really dead.

and if he's really dead,it still doesn't necessarily follow that AA77 crashed into the penta on 911.


and,just as a footnote:
if alleged pupil brown was for real,then his dad is alleged to have been a chief petty officer working at the penta and living on an air force base.

not exactly the kind of poor black who needs lunch programs.

check your ill logic.

i personally find this kind of research such as our poster here has been painstakingly purveying for us all extremely useful and i thank him or her for it.


add your comments



To Responder
by Proud American Tuesday November 30, 2004 at 12:49 PM



Excuse me derfwad, but according to Military.com the current median cash compensation for a typical E7 â?? Chief Petty Officer (Navy) in Washington, DC, is $34,693.20. Based on HUD information, the current estimated 2004 median income for Washington, DC, is $54,900. In 1999, the median income for Washington, DC, was $46,260. Also, I suppose you didnâ??t know that Leckie Elementary, located on ML King Ave, is on the east side of I-295. Wanna guess whatâ??s located on the west side of I-295 before you reach the Potomac River? If you said, Bolling AFB, you are correct!! I send my kids to the school in my neighborhood, why wouldnâ??t the Brownâ??s do the same. I never said that Bernard Jr. was a kid on the free lunch program; I said that is the profile of the school he attended. However, based on his dadâ??s income, he may have qualified for the reduced lunch program.

As for some of the other dribble spouted by you and others here, have you ever heard of â??Divine Interventionâ??? Or do you believe in that? Have you, or anyone you know, ever felt compelled to do something, didnâ??t know why at the time and then later it connected with another event in your life? For instance, one night my son was going out with friends like he frequently did. For some reason, I told him to take my cell phone. I never did before because between all his friends, they usually had one. Later that evening he called me that there had been an accident. The car had gone off the side of the road and rolled over. He was the only one wearing a seatbelt; the others had been ejected. If he had not had my phone to call me, his friends would have died because they were not on a main road that gets very much traffic and would have been stranded. We donâ??t know why things happen the way they do, but there are forces of nature at work and stuff just happens. I suppose there are those conspiracy theorists that would say, I must have wanted the other kids out of the way for some reason. Why was it that â??myâ?? son was the only one wearing a seatbelt and escaped serious injury? And, why did I on a â??rareâ?? occasion give him my cell phone for the night? According to your illogical way thinking, the answer must be â?? â??Iâ?? had something to do with the accident! I must have known what was going to happen!

Get a job, get a life and join reality numbnuts!


add your comments



how do i
by get your job Tuesday November 30, 2004 at 01:18 PM



ie trolling 'n' spamming indy 24/7 on behalf of your bushiite paymasters?

i'd sure do better than a fuckwit the likes of you.

1.whatever the income of alleged chief petty officer bernard brown sr,it doesn't imply necessarily that either he or his alleged kid really exist.

2.even if brown sr and jr really existed,it doesn't necessarily follow AA77 crashed into the pentagon.

3.even if alleged brown sr's income is what you reported,it doesn't qualify him as poor by us standards.
and it must be reckoned into the equation that being in the military and working at the penta and living on an air force base brings with it a helluva lotta fringe benefits that translated into monetary terms would make for a largely higher income for a mr brown.

take your meds and learn to think mr shill.


add your comments



well
by state of the matter Tuesday December 14, 2004 at 11:46 AM



i met someone who knew someone who knew one of the pilots of UA 93.

and i think my source is reliable.

so if it's true,then at least the UA 93 pilot in question was a real person who really died or at least never came back on 911.

this doesn't mean that the same holds true for all alleged plane victims.

this doesn't mean the planes ended like they're alleged to have ended.

but if the ua93 pilot story is true,than maybe at least that 4th plane really existed,really took off that morning with that pilot on board...

no wait he might have been killed elsewhere and replaced on board ua93...

anyway at least that one victim seems to be a real story.

of course what we'd all like to know is HOW and WHY he really died.

to be found here:



http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2004/12/23991_comment.php#24005

>A search for AA flights from Boston that day
>does not list 0011. The earliest scheduled AA flight
>to LA that day was 0181 at 11.00

Flight AA11 is in the bts.gov database.

Carrier Code Date (MM/DD/YYYY) Flight Number Tail Number Destination Airport Scheduled Departure Time
AA 09/11/2001 0011 UNKNOW LAX 7:45

Has it been added after the fact?

Only Amerians who have read books like "The Controversy of Zion" by Douglas Reed, "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullin, can have a comprehension of what is going on in their own country.

Just as Zionism has hijacked Jews and Jewry, so the 300 owners of Federal Reserve have hijacked America. They own the controlling interest in mass media, they control who becomes candidates for President. They have controlled the White House since 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act was sneaked though Congress and the Senate on Dec 22. and 23.

The Fed was a diabolical gift to Americans, facilitated by crook, corrupt politicians. And today they all have to compete for sneaky hand-outs, and to get into the corrupt media they have to "say the right things". They are abject lackeys in the game of filthy belial, neatly configured on Jekyl Island.

Kaj Krinsmøe
kkrinsmøe@stofanet.dk

Only Amerians who have read books like "The Controversy of Zion" by Douglas Reed, "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullin, can have a comprehension of what is going on in their own country.

Just as Zionism has hijacked Jews and Jewry, so the 300 owners of Federal Reserve have hijacked America. They own the controlling interest in mass media, they control who becomes candidates for President. They have controlled the White House since 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act was sneaked though Congress and the Senate on Dec 22. and 23.

The Fed was a diabolical gift to Americans, facilitated by crook, corrupt politicians. And today they all have to compete for sneaky hand-outs, and to get into the corrupt media they have to "say the right things". They are abject lackeys in the game of filthy belial, neatly configured on Jekyl Island.

Kaj Krinsmøe
kkrinsmøe@stofanet.dk

a chronology of plane strikes,witness statements and news feeds,with timedates which are verified,would answer a few questions!

you guys have way too much time on your hands!

This is just another in a long line of "dirty tricks" from the department of dirty tricks, better known as the Secret Team, with an acknowledgment to the late Colonel L Fletcher Prouty for naming it so. This organization has grown from an intel outfit to basically running the entire country from the comfort of their anonymity. They got their running start by assassinating President Kennedy,
flexed their muscles by eliminating Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King and have now stepped up with a big swing at starting the complete takedown of our country as we know it.
And people are shocked that a federal judge's family gets whacked, or a perp grabs a gun and opens fire in a courtroom? We've only just begun kids...
thankx for the info.
RIP HST

The US Bureau of transport page http://www.bts.gov/ntda/oai/index.shtml is no longer available, or does not exist. It looks like the hanky panky you expected has taken place!

Have you done any research into the 'purported' passengers.

An initial brief search reveals that they did appear to exist as people, but never had a funeral, although Thomas R. Olmsted, MD, (posted over 9 months ago, on Rense.com), claims to have seen an autopsy report. Surely they would have had funerals, if there was an autopsy?

There must be a connection between flight 587 on 11-12-01 crashing in Queens and the 9-11 puzzle. The engine simply fell out of the plane and it was filled with expendable non-american citizens. It created lots of fear of new terrorism attacks and it seemed to prevent a clear investigation of 9-11. It happened just as the anthrax attacks and patriot acts were occurring. I would like more connectons with this event not a an event of terror but as part of the 9-11 crime management. I want to know whose houses were hit by the plane. I believe it was the house of a New York fireman who was ready to speak up about the wtc fires and explosions. The facts of 9-11 reach far into the past and the future. I hope to bring more attention to flight 587 as
a means to limit early 9-11 research and keep the fear level high enough to allow no anthrax investigations or patriot act legal discussions before signing.

So the regular commuters of Flt AA11 & AA77 are ushered onto a substitute flight. The nation comes under alleged attack and they are ordered to land, like the rest of the airplanes, and upon landing whisked away to a secret underground base for protection of fallout from this attack. Thinking they are among the lucky ones to be surviving WWIII they learn to man and operate this base, unknowingly awaiting the real WWIII when the 'elite' will flee to these facilities. Most Americans have families and would be unwilling to give up there lives to man and operate a secret facility for extended periods of time and then expected to keep it a secret upon a real attack.

Is there any evidence as to where the passengers or flight crew have gone. If I were flying and my carrier changed I would call my family or someone meeting me on the other end. People travelling for business would likely have arrangements made for people meeting them and such. Is there any indication that people called to indicate a change had been made.

Did anyone at these airports notice that passengers were being diverted to different carriers, were announcements made to advised passengers of the change. Do AA and United fly from the same terminals at these airports.

Did flight crews normally scheduled for these flights have the day off, were they sent home when the flight was not scheduled?

Someone would have to notice these changes.

Dear Gerald, am very puzzled, if Flight 11 did not take off, then what was being flown as shown on flight tracking services?Was this the substitute Flight 11 which then crashed into WTC1? Also how do you explain the transcripts of the Flight 11 pilots?Were the pilots involved in a drill or is this conversation disinformation?Finally, how do you explain witnesses who phoned home to say Flight 11 was delayed and the anomalies of gates 26/32? Best Wishes and keep up the good work
Julia

>>>>>>>>>>>> if Flight 11 did not take off, then what was being flown as shown on flight tracking services?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:

hey true believer,can you link us to said alleged "flight tracking services"?

or did you make them up?

ever seen those alleged flight trackings with thine own eyes?

if not,how do you know they exist?

and how can we verify their existance?

and if they do exist - which you don't prove - how are we to know whether they're authentic?

learn to think,julia - it's never too late.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>how do you explain witnesses who phoned home to say Flight 11 was delayed and the anomalies of gates 26/32?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:

again julia gives for granted what isn't - what is nothing but a regime-spread false certainty at best:

how do you know such alleged calls are real or authentic?

by the way,what are the anomalies you're mentioning?

could you link me to them please?

please think logically and do not be misled by regime false certainties which may well be disinfo meant to distract your mind from the real issue:

THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT FLIGHT 11 EVER EVEN EXISTED THAT DAY;

THAT ACTUALLY ACCORDING TO GERALD THERE IS OR WAS EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY WHICH HE BACKED UP AND MAYBE COULD HE POST IT AGAIN?

THAT THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIMS OF THE ALLEGED FLIGHT 11 EVER EVEN EXISTED AT ALL TO BEGIN WITH,AND IF THEY DID THAT THEY EVER BOARDED THAT ALLEGED FLIGHT THAT MORNING.

unless of course you were there,miss julia -

please learn to think.

This certainly supplies questions (with plausible answers) which I had not heard before. It is good that you thought "outside the box" regarding the "hijackings" (not..in these two cases).

I am going to send this on to the people at the New American magazine. They "bought" the gov't story and then put out an issue blaming "conspiracy theories".

Is it true that the gov't only spent $600,000 on the 9/11 investigation and $40,000,000 on investigating Clinton for his impeachment?

How about impeachment of Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards?

WHEREVER WHENEVER WORLDLY ARMED CONFLICT ARISES PREDICABLY THE SPECTRE OF UNCLE SAM MATERIALISES.

BUSH- IN BUSH WE DISGUST.

PUBLIC SERVANT-EMPOLYEE NOT SEEKING EFFICIENCY IN INEFFICIENCY.

POLITICS-VOTING INSPIRES & EXALTS POLITICIANS THEREFORE FELLOW CITIZENS CONTEMPLATE SUCCOUR.

Cordially,john cameron.Blackheath

for those asking about the flight tracking,
some stuff with those maps dont make sense....
flight 93 is shown crashing (last blip) at 35,000ft ?
the guy who runs flight explorer, used to work on software for wargames. now aint that a coincidence !!!
http://physics911.ca/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=58

i am a cell phone engineer, those calls were bogus, cant happen from 35,000ft like the maps say,
but they COULD happen at a lower altitude, but that would mean the maps are wrong....
http://analysis.batcave.net/cell_phones.html
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/CellPhoneCalls.shtml

check out the maps, i have a page for each flight...
http://airgames.bravehost.com/
http://airgames.bravehost.com/Flight93.html

several things just dont make sense...
flights 93 and 175 turned the transponder off twice and back on again...
flight 93 filed a new flight plane AFTER the time of hijack...
sounds like something a hijacker would do right ?
and the FAA OK'd the change....
go figure...
... and kiss the official UA 93 theory good-bye!
http://team8plus.org/content.php?article.11
http://team8plus.org/content.php?article.19
http://team8plus.org/content.php?article.12


9/10- 9/11: The Johnstown "Terror Team" Cover-up
http://team8plus.org/content.php?article.20

http://team8plus.org/news.php

brad
http://911index.batcave.net

NOTHING HIT THE PENTA
by planemissileornothing Friday July 01, 2005 at 02:25 AM


what hit the penta and the wtc on 911 was...nothing

much if not all of the discussion about what really happened at the penta on 911 has focused on whether it was a plane - the alleged AA77- or a missile.

i think i am able to argue it was neither.

gerald holmgren wrote:

"It is not in dispute that something hit the Pentagon wall and damaged it."

source:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/holmgren/index.html

wrong:
it actually IS disputable.

that the alleged AA77 never hit the penta has long since been shown by thierry meyssan first and then by holmgren himself.

but both seem to uncritically believe it must have been a missile.

well actually it may well have been NOTHING at all.

it may well have been another wtc-style controlled demolition.

the alleged surveillance cam video which has been circulated on the web may well be another wtc-style fabrication,a fake.

and the controlled demolition would have been the simplest and best-concealable way for bush and his thugs to do the penta job - you just need a couple of skilled crooks to plant the bombs,disguised as renovation workers.

and then remember the part of the penta that was allegedly hit had been under renovation for some time,oh coincidence,and stood empty by 911.

if bush&gang had shot a missile instead they would have had to do it from a ship or base,and shooting a precision missile requires quite a team of expert military - not that it's impossible to corrupt a number of people but it's much harder to conceal the shooting of a missile,especially since you have to do it from a distance,or from a visible plane travelling from a distance.

and even if they had wanted to use a drone,well it takes quite a team of experts i assume to remote control a drone and again it's less concealable.

well you might say at this point:

how about the witnesses who (allegedly) spoke of a small plane?

well i do not see why holmgren discards the jet witnesses as planted - rightly indeed - but then goes on to uncritically accept the small plane or missile witnesses as authentic.

no proof of that at all.

i think both were planted in the media by the bush thugs to confuse and lead minds astray.

because the regime spin machine is so powerful to be able to plant hundreds of fake jet witnesses in the media,it would have had no trouble in editing out the small plane witnesses.

or fabricating them and editing them in to bafle truth-seekers and raise false flags.

there's quite a few of them for both the wtc and the penta and even pennsylvania.

but there's more to this:

the videos of the 2 alleged wtc jets have long since been shown to be fakes:

http://thewebfairy.com/911

yet even the critics that showed them as fakes still cling to the false assumption that something must have hit the towers anyway.

why not assume nothing at all hit the towers if the videos were faked,and that it was all done by controlled demolition?

why factor in unnecessary unproven missiles?

same goes for the penta.

i possess a rare penta pic from a hard copy of the international herald tribune,september 12,2001,page12.

maybe you can obtain it too from the iht website,probably you'll have to pay but it's worth it:

i haven't seen this photo on the web since 911.

i hope to be able to scan it decently and then upload it in a future update of this essay.

anyway for now you get my description of it and conclusions:

it shows the burning penta part before the collapse,therefore if authentic this pic was taken between 9.40 am - reported approximate time of the event - and what was it,roughly 10 am - reported official collapse time,correct me if i recall wrong.

obviously there's no trace of the alleged plane,but that's a given by now ever since february/march 2002 when thierry meyssan's brilliant where's the plane website first appeared.

but the one interesting detail is the wire fence outside the penta.

it is in part collapsed,near a burning car and what may be a burning van or station wagon (a car bomb to simulate the plane exlosion?).

now the fencing has clearly collapsed OUTWARDS,AWAY FROM THE PENTA.

if the alleged plane had hit it we would instead expect it to have collapsed inwards,or to have been dragged inward,towards the building.

same if a missile had hit it.

instead it's as if it had been blown to the ground by an explosive force coming from INSIDE THE BUILDING - the same explosive force that may well have opened the hole at the concourse level.

of course one might object that it may have been an explosive-loaded missile which penetrated the building and then exploded inside - such a weapon may exist,dunno.

but now figure the stakes bush and his madmen had in a perfect outcome of 911:

zillions of dollars in war business against the alleged arabic terrorists.

try walking in the shoes of a greedy establishment glutton the likes of bush or cheney or rummy planning 911:

would you have preferred a volatile missile launching,less concealable and more prone to error,or a controlled demolition accurately prepared and traditionally known to work,under the guise of renovation works?

forget the planes of course.

forget the missile.

dark forces prefer to cloak their inside jobs...

I didn't read the entire article, and I usually never come to web sites such as this because it makes me realize the types of people that really exist. It's pretty scarey to realize there are people out there that not only believe crap like this but actually print it. Guess all those loved ones left behind that knew the flight numbers, times the planes left and name of the airlines their wife, sister, etc., were on that were interviewed on the news were all fakes. Guess the thousands of witnesses that saw the first plane hit the WTC and saw the plane hit the Pentagon were all fakes, too. Guess all the personnel working at those airlines that had to see there were no such flights that day had to all be involved in this conspiracy theory, too. If people would just use their brains, they'd realize that the reason most conspiracy theories are not true is b/c there would have to be way too many people involved. Anytime you get over 4 or 5 people involved in anything, especially something like this, people are going to talk. One more common sense issue here...one out of about a hundred more...is wouldn't the Democrats love nothing more than to catch this gov up in something such as this? Anyone who says not, doesn't have a clue as to how Democracies work or what has been going on in this country over the last 4 years. I am absolutely positive that all of Bush's enemies have researched this stuff thoroughly and some very "legitimate" source would have already exposed something as telling as this if it were true. But you don't have a city full of eyewitnesses to something like this and expect them all to have been involved in this ridiculous conspiracy theory. There are some crazy ones out there, but I believe this one has to at least rank in the top 10. Oh, and let's not forget all of the policemen/women, firemen/women, and everyone else who had to have inspected this site and found an overwhelming amount of debris of these airplanes.

Geez, people, use your logical thinking skills. These conspiracy theories have gotten way out of hand. I guess it takes all kinds of make up this world. If some of you conspiracy geniuses have any other wild tales you're thinking are true about 9/11/01, you can go to the following web site where these people have researched some of the conspiracy theories that makes just a little more sense, anyway, and proved them all to the wrong, of course. There's no way in this world our gov could have done this and gotten away with it. People rarely get away with murder, you know; and even if a body isn't found, with the technology and knowledge we have today, one can only imagine in their wildest dreams ever getting by with something as huge as 9/11/01. Let's not forget the cameras that showed these men; let's not forget the rental cars where the terrorists had to show ID's; let's not forget the landlords of the terrorists where they never came back to to get their belongings; let's not forget the owners of those flight schools and all their classmates; let's not forget all those loved ones who got phone calls from their loved ones on those planes, etc., etc., etc. There would have had to have been thousands of people in on these conspiracy theories, and it just doesn't happen that way, people. No one's gonna keep their mouths shut about something like this.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Dear Gerald,


I read your post on the AA flights, and I went to the BTS website and searched the records for those flights, and now there saying that these flights were hijacked by terroist and are not included in the on time flights summary. I thought that very interesting.



Jason Barber
jlbarber352004@hotmail.com

email:ca920105@gmail.com
I just like spam! I'm collocting junk email...