Okay, first of all, I DO believe our government was complicit in 911. Having said that, however, I've been reading some of the research and oddities, and I feel I need to set the record straight and hopefully explain a few things.

Item #1 - Charles "Chick" Burlingame

Yes, Capt. Burlingame was a military guy. He was also married to a flight attendant I knew while based in Nashville. One of the things reported is that he quit the Pentagon and "took a job" with American Airlines. Here's the problem with that statement. Most of our pilots are military guys, and most work simultaneously at American and serve in our armed forces. We have a few thousand guys and gals serving in the military right now. However, you don't just start as a pilot with American (or any commercial airline) and advance within a year to the left seat. It takes many, many years to become a captain on a 757. And no, Capt. Burlingame wasn't "planted" there...in order to do that, you would have to pay off too many people, including the pilots union, the APA. Our occupation is based strictly on seniority and too many of us pay close attention to that as it means better pay and better flights!

First rule of a consipiracy folks, "Keep It Simple Stupid".

Item #2 - "Fullness" of flights, or lack thereof

I was based in Boston after they closed Nashville in 1995. I flew as purser on the LA transcons. During that time of year, those LA flights are some of the best to work, the loads are notoriously light. That is not unusual. Also, it has been noted about the flight attendant 'substitutions'. For the record, American Airlines has a very liberal "trip trading" policy. IT IS EXTREMEMLY RARE THAT I WILL FLY WITH THE SAME CREW TRIP AFTER TRIP. We are always trading our trips with other flight attendants, dropping trips, etc. And passengers ALWAYS try to standby for earlier flights! I can't tell you how many times I was bumped off a flight while commuting home because passengers from later flights were standing by for my flight.

Item #3 - Using drone planes

Sorry, but this is unlikely. Think about it. You would have to pay off soooo many people in the industry...everyone from our agents, crew tracking, crew scheduling, the APFA, the APA, operations, etc. etc. And you would have to convince all of these pilots, flight attendants and passengers to simply walk away from their families and lives. And never have contact with anyone ever again.

Item #4 - Flight 93's "tail number"

Listen, I've had crew tracking lose entire crews during snow storms, and lose track of planes. It easily could be that the United plane for flight 93 suffered a mechanical and was replaced by another aircraft, but the new tail number wasn't entered into the system. When I first heard of a plane, possibly American, striking the trade center, I immediately looked up the crews for all of the transcons out of JFK that left at approximately 8:00AM. When I found no security lockout, I shifted to Boston because I knew Boston flew the LA transcon on the 767. When I typed in a code to pull up the crew for flight 11, it was already "security blocked", meaning no more information could be viewed (it keeps the media from trying to get info. on the crews before the airline can contact families). I'm sure United does the same thing. Therefore, if a switch had been made due a mechanical, the update may never had made it to hard copy.

Anyway, there are many other reasons that do not support the plane substitution theory. However, the sadder and more sinister plot is that the Bush administration simply allowed those planes, passengers and crew to serve as "collateral damage".

Like I said, I (and many other flight attendants) feel that the Bush admin. let and encouraged this event to happen. If you have any questions regarding airline operations, I'll try to answer them for you.

Hi V2R0T8,

I have a few questions/comments;

1. Have you done any investigations in to the attack on the Pentagon?

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%2...-Flight-77.html

Since it is physically impossible for a plane to have done what it is claimed to have done at the Pentagon...would you happen to know where the actual plane went and where all of the people on board are now?

There is no physical way possible for a plane to have created the damage at the Pentagon, so...that leaves a plane full of people (you are saying you believe it was a regular flight with civillians and pilots/crew). So, if a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, and it didn't, where are they? Did Osama Bin Laden kidnap them and take them back to his cave? (I'm being sarcastic, but you see the dilema)

That brings up something you said...

"...you would have to convince all of these pilots, flight attendants and passengers to simply walk away from their families and lives. And never have contact with anyone ever again."

Dead people don't need to be convinced or payed off for anything. If you believe that Bush and his admin were complicit like you said, you believe they had no problem with the murder of thousands of US citizens and with the murder of 100,000's of civillians in Iraq. Why would airline people or their families be of any concern?

2. I believe it's nearly 20% of the persons on all 4 flights that were military or previously military. Do you honestly in your experience believe that to be an accurate account of what average flights are like? Because even with an average, what are the chances it would average out to that over 4 seperate planes? Also, you'd have to explain to me how most of the alleged passengers apparently have no family or trace. Only a couple have surfaced and in most cases nothing has come up! How is that possible? Were these just coincidently 4 flights jam packed with a combination of military personnel and...erhmm...hermits!?!

3. You know a little bit about planes. Here's a photo from inside the Pentagon after the 'crash'. What do you make of that "wing" in the photo? Seems to me to be a heck of a lot smaller than the jet they claimed crashed there, no?

http://www.the7thfire.com/images/GHwing.jpg

Is that closer to the size of a 757 or a Global Hawk remote plane?

http://www.the7thfire.com/images/pentagonxox30.jpg

If not, where did that wing come from? Where are the parts that would prove it was a 757?

I'm not attacking you, you have brought up some very interesting points, and from an insiders angle. I'd like to take advantage of your knowledge and those of your co-workers to answer some of those questions if you can.

http://www.the7thfire.com/images/aahawk.jpg

4. Here's the official evidence that a plane hit the pentagon. This one single frame out of 5.

http://www.the7thfire.com/images/pre-explosion.jpg

That's the plane on the right incase you....can't see it (like the rest of the world)

5. This is the most important part of it as far as I'm concerned, at least how it relays to you. Could you please if nothing else go to this weblink and tell me what you think?

http://team8plus.org/news.php?item.32

So here's my issue, if we look at the actual phsyics of the entire day, we can tell that there is no way WTCs collapsed due to the fire on the planes that struck them. We know that it takes several days to weeks to plan the controlled demolition of a building not even half the size of Towers 1 and 2. We know that it wasn't a plane that actually hit the pentagon and therefor there is a plane full of people and a flight crew that completely dissapeared. So...if we accept those things, what's the difference between that and another couple of planes/passengers/crew missing? It would take the same evil plan. The same motive. The same procedure most likely. The same people involved.

Thanks for the information you've provided. It's very interesting. I hope you keep digging.

Hey Canadian Raven,

Yes, I've thought about the fact that the Bush admin. could have simply murdered all of those crew members and passengers. But, once again, you would have to pay off crew scheduling (and there are many of them that sit in our operations), crew tracking, the agents that checked in ALL of those passengers onto those four flights. Listen, the Boston base is small...you couldn't just put in a "dummy" agent, or "dummy" flight attendant without raising red flags all over the place! We have IDs, our NS (which lists our names, employee numbers, seniority numbers, etc.). We all know each other in some form or fashion. Take for instance, Betty Ong. I met her in London at Princess Diana's funeral. We sat around in the bar at the Forum hotel! AT the time, she was based internationally at JFK and so was I.

As far as the photos of the 757 wing. The wing of a 757 is comprised of several different parts, one being the aeliron (forgive my spelling). It's like a little wing off the trailing edge of the entire wing, it provides for the wing to expand to give the A/C it's lift on take-off and slow it down on landing. That is what that looks like to me in the photo.

I agree the WTC was demolished by detonation, I simply disagree that drone planes were used to crash into it.

As far as 20% of the AC passengers/crew being military? Well, let's see, if there are roughly 200 people from that day, then that would be 40 people. Being that 90% of our cockpit is military or ex-military, that would be 8 people right there. So that means 32 other people (roughly) were military. There are many people in this country that, even before 9/11, have participated in the National Guard, or in the Reserves. In the flight attendant ranks alone we have a few. So, if a flight had an average of 38-40 people on board, two were pilots that served in the military, then I'm sure it wouldn't be a huge stretch that 5 to 7 more people on that flight had served in some capacity, in the "military".

I'm going to go back and look at the radar link....then I'll respond to that. But there's a few answers in the meantime.

My point is simply this...murdering 200 passengers and crew is too risky. There are too many loose ends to tie up, too many people to keep tabs on over a long period of time. To me, it makes more sense to simply let the planes be hijacked, make easy for the planes to be hijacked, and let the hijackers fly them into the buildings. All you have to do then is rig the WTC with some extra detonators, and viola baby! You've got some serious shock and awe complete with deep, emotional scarring.

I just looked at the flight paths. No great mystery there.

Imagine the sky as a big highway system. There are "roads" (vectors) that are used. As an example, when flying over the Atlantic Ocean, there are specific flight patterns used, and depending upon traffic and weather conditions, dispatch routes you accordingly.

The only thing that really separates these planes is altitude. You maybe following along the Charlie (C route) and simultaneously, about 3000 ft. below, you will have a British Airways flight right underneath you.

Turning off the transponder was to keep air traffic control from pinpointing their exact movements. But it still could be done...just not with much precision.

One of my favorite things to do on a long transatlantic flight is go up to the cockpit, and look at all of the planes flying directly around us, below, above, etc. And of course, the occasional fantastic view of Greenland when we fly far north. On a radar screen, those little blips appear to be almost directly atop one another.

The aileron of a 757 has to be 20 feet long though. Look at that photo again and compare it to the length of the other objects.

It also seems that for certain periods of time, at least 2 of the planes had other planes flying over top of them. This would make it look like only 1 plane on radar, no? If you wanted to confuse someone operating radar, it seems to me that's one way to do it. Also, many of the people that were monitoring the planes claimed that the manouvers they did could only be done by military planes.

I feel really bad for you because you knew some of these people personally. I didn't. Since you knew Betty Ong a little personally, I have to ask, have you listened to the recordings of her from the cell phone calls? What is your opinion about the calls? There have been tests done and cell phone calls from 32,000 feet up seem improbably if not impossible. How were they able to make so many clear phone calls? Does the call sound like Betty Ong?

You could easily be right about drones. My personal opinion was that there weren't drones used on the WTC, but that there was a switch of planes. The passengers were moved on to other planes because they were told it was due to security reasons/bomb threat. Then a couple of the suicide pilots, with full training and aid by the government flew on their own in to those towers. That the planes were pre-packed with thermite and that there were other charges planted throughout the WTC's. I think all or most of the passengers of those plans were put to their death by people with a lot less morals than those posting on here.

Thanks for that information. Much appreciated.

You don't see any coincidences with the 4 planes that happen to have been involved on that webpage? I do. :unsure:

Hi V2ROT8,

is Boston your base station? You know Betty Ong, so do you know other crew members of Flight 11 or 175?

When Betty made the call, the plane was NOT at 32,000 ft. It was much lower. My cell phone will work up to about 6,000 feet. We also have, in the back of the 767, airphones and we we press some "magic" numbers, we are patched into American Airlines via reservations, who can then patch us into whomever we like (the SOC, the Boston manager on duty, etc.)

Listen, you have to understand. There were hundreds upon hundreds of planes that day in the air, and ATC was trying to get them SAFELY onto the ground without causing mid-air collisions. Do you have any idea how difficult that would be? A down and out clusterf**k! ATC was desperately trying to track at least four planes who had no transponders on and find out if any other pilots/planes had a visual on them...all the while traveling at 300+ miles per hour!

The ATC was so screwed that many of our overseas flights were immediately turned back to where they came (I started vacation the day before, but many of my collegues were stranded in Europe for days!)

It is not possible to make sense nor logic out of chaos. That day you had ATC men and women trying to make sense out of catastrophe.....endorphins and adrenaline running amok, which in turn, pretty much destroys memory.

Have you ever stood up close to a 757? Those aelirons are huge! I am currently off work due to an injury, but, once I return, I'll try to bring my digital camera and go on a walk around with the First Officer to take pictures of the wing. It probably will not be until the fall, however.

Hi Woody, Capt. Chick Burlingame was married to a flight attendant that I knew from Nashville. Ken and his wife, on flight 175 I met when I first started flying (15 years ago), they always "buddy bid".

Betty I met during the funeral of Princess Diana, we were all in the bar getting drunk, there are usually about 14+ crews staying at the same hotel. You meet people, and then may never fly with again...but you'll probably run into them in operations, a layover, etc.

The deal with my job is that you are always working with different people UNLESS you have a month where nobody trades or drops their trips, which is very rare. But, when you are the same seniority with flight attendants, you tend to fly the same thing over and over because you can. The more senior flight attendants flock to the Tokyo and Dehli flights because you work less days. Our operation is divided specifically into the domestic operation and the international operation.

Some of you may recall the fiasco over Chick's burial in Arlington Cemetary. His wife and family fought hard to allow him to be buried there. The military's position was that he didn't die in military operations, so therefore, couldn't be buried there. But after the media attention, they allowed her to have him buried there.

Another thing you should know about the industry is that we all gossip and spread rumors like there is no tomorrow. We do "jumpseat psychotherapy" and if you dare to date someone within the operation, you're asking for trouble. In other words, "offing" a bunch of flight attendants and pilots would be incredibly stupid.

Oh, and no. Boston is no longer my base. I am based out of Chicago, but I've had the pleasure to be based out of JFK, LGA, BNA and BOS, in addition to IOR and ORD (IOR is our international call letters out of Chicago). I'm currently based internationally, and will interest you guys to know that I found this site through another flight attendant who is a close friend of mine. And she got it from a pilot at AA...so it's making it's way around. So, like the say, telegram, telephone or tell-a-flight attendant!

Thanks for all your information!

Keep this in mind... " In other words, "offing" a bunch of flight attendants and pilots would be incredibly stupid."

So is planting explosives in a building and killing 3,000+ people. So is launching an attack on two countries illegally. So is selling the use of US ports to a country you've previously claimed was a terrorist haven and the birth place of two of the alleged terrorists. I watched that port thing unfold on CNN. Only 15 minutes before it, the government raised the terror level up a notch. No fckin kidding!!! They should raise the terror level every time one of these corrupt sons of btches do anything.

"This just in, Vice President Cheney is giving a speech at ACLU and...the terror level has just been raised two levels"

"President Bush to give his State Of the...Speech about the St...of the...Speech about the Union, whatever you want to call it...and...terror levels have just been raised 3 levels to red"

The cardinal rule is...don't mis-underestimate this group. They are tyrants.

Thanks a lot for the info.

I was hoping that you maybe knew John Ogonowski, the pilot of Flight 11.

Did you know that he was not scheduled to fly Flight 11 on 9/11, but was put in duty one day before the attacks? A little bit odd, isn't it?

Not necessarily odd. By "put in duty", do you mean "went on duty'? As in went back on duty for reserve?

See, we (pilots and flight attendants) have a reserve duty obligation unless our seniority warrants that we do NOT have to serve reserve. For example, my reserve rotation is every March, July and November. During that time, my schedule is comprised of only my scheduled days off. The other days are for crew schedule to use me as they need, whether to fill in positions left vacant for sick calls or planned absences, including flight legalities. So, Capt. Ogonowski could have just come off of his days off, and went on duty at 12:01 AM of 9/10.

One of the flight attendants, bless her soul, happened to be sitting stand-by reserve at the airport that morning, and one of the regular flight attendants called in sick at the last minute. Can you imagine the "survivors guilt" that flight attendant must feel?

Hope that helps, Woody!

Okay, I probably didn't find the proper words.

What I mean is... John Ogonowski was - apart from being a pilot - a pumpkin farmer, and for Sept. 11 he was invited to a harvest celebration of his Cambodian tenants.

But in the evening of Sept. 10, he showed up at the Cambodians and apologized that he couldn't come to their fiesta, because he had to fly the next day.

I mean, with this late cancelling, something must have happened in the meantime, don't you think so?

Welcome V2ROT8!!

I wanted to say that just by being here, you make a fantastic contribution to the dialogue. This forum needs lots of diverse opinions and criticisms. Please stick to your guns, read a lot, and spread the word about LooseChange911 around to American Airlines and other air personnel you know -- the more airline industry people, FAA, ATC, who can bring enlightenment on both technical and human issues, the better the discussion!


I quote V2ROT8:
"murdering 200 passengers and crew is too risky. There are too many loose ends to tie up, too many people to keep tabs on over a long period of time. To me, it makes more sense to simply let the planes be hijacked, make easy for the planes to be hijacked, and let the hijackers fly them into the buildings. All you have to do then is rig the WTC with some extra detonators, and viola baby! You've got some serious shock and awe complete with deep, emotional scarring. "

I couldn't agree more. This is indeed the most straight-forward scenario -- arab hijackers PLUS rigged WTC, accounts for the 4 missing planes, well, at least the NY planes. Shock, awe, and a country read to look to a strong leader.

But then this rather careful 9/11 scholar named WoodyBox and others at team8plus.org found so many odd things about the hijacked planes flight paths - where/when transponders went off - and when you uncover the military's "hijacking drills/games" that the NEADS and the US military were playing AT THE SAME MOMENT of 9/11 hijackings -- suddenly the ante is up. Why were there simultaneous live-fly war games of hijacked planes going on> did the FAA radars have false radar blip injections, as part of the war game, that confused the ATC? Answer is apparently yes.

Question -- ask around on the 'tell-a-flight attendant' network if any air crew - passenger or captain - has ever been asked to take part in a planned hijacking drill, practice, or other air emergency, either pre- or post-9/11.

Jack

(I too have no idea how to account for the lack of amount of plane parts at pentagon or shanksville -- and I wonder if the planes did not crash there, where the heck did they go?)

You referred to Ken -- did you mean Ken Lewis on Flight 77 or Ken Waldie passenger on AA11?

One odditiy about Flight 77 is that there were only 2 calls made -- one from Renee May (?) and one from the famous CNN commentator Barbara Olson. 1) How far do the airfone cords stretch(could Ms Olson's call have been made from bathroom?) and 2) do you know of any other unpublished communication between any AA personnel on that flight and ground crew? It just seems so odd that it flew until 940am without anyone calling to or from plane.



American Airlines Flight 77, Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into Pentagon

CREW:
•Charles Burlingame, 51, Va., captain, American Airlines
•David Charlebois, Washington, D.C., first officer, American Airlines
•Michele Heidenberger, 57, Chevy Chase, Md., flight attendant, American Airlines
•Jennifer Lewis, 38, Culpeper, Va., flight attendant, American Airlines
•Kenneth Lewis, 49, Culpeper, Va., flight attendant, American Airlines
•Renee May, 39, Baltimore, Md., flight attendant, American Airlines

The only problem I have with the simplest explaination is it doesn't explain how these guys learned how to fly like JAG pilots.

There's a thread on here about Atta's girlfriend that pretty much addressess that but it basically implicates the government and various airlines of out right training Atta and some of his crew how to fly planes at their bases.

Yes, I was speaking of Ken Lewis, the flight attendant. He and his wife always flew together.

As far as telephones go, I can only say this: I always have my cell phone with me, and you know how you're supposed to turn off your cell phones before the flight starts? Well, suffice it to say, I frequently forget to turn off my cell phone until oh, about 20 to 30 minutes into the flight. Oddly enough, sometimes I am receiveing a signal, and sometimes not. I guess it depends upon where the cell towers are. And yes, I'm guilty of sneaking into the bathroom to make a call on landing. The reason why AA is installing equipment to assist in passenger use of cell phones in-flight is because once you get over a certain altitude, the reception is next to nothing (or absent) and it's not consistent. As far as our inflight phones that are located next to our galleys, I don't believe the cord will stretch into the bathroom, but I've not tried, but those phones ARE next to the exits/doors of the airplanes, which are equipped with windows.

If I'm not mistaken, I don't believe those airplanes got too much higher than 15,000 feet that day, it takes a while to get to cruising altitude and then, the "pilots/hijackers" were busy trying to get the planes positioned to crash, so they would have been continuously pushing the plane to a lower altitude. Also, built into every commercial aircraft these days is a piece of equipment that essentially "talks" to other airplanes (to avoid mid-air collisions). Basically, if it "senses" a plane is flying too close (and too close means a few thousand feet), then the computer shouts out a command like "pull up, pull up". A few years ago, while I was deadheading on a flight, the cockpit had just that happen, but they were told to descend by the computer, while the other plane was told to ascend...(it made for a scarey five seconds, we all thought the plane was in trouble!). These would alert the hijackers if they were about to crash into another plane inflight.

I had a captain friend of mine tell me that I could easily be a pilot. "It's not hard", he said. Those planes can basically fly themselves. (I've known a few flight attendants that have gone on to get their pilots licence and then become pilots for AA!)As a matter of fact, every so often, depending upon the hours the plane has flown, the captain has to let our 777s "auto-land". Of course it depends upon the climate and other variables. But the cockpit hates doing that because the landings tend to be "hard", and the passengers walk out looking at the cockpit as if too say "You may wanna work on your landings, jack**s".

So, having said all that....I think it's obvious that the "powers at be" were essentially facilitating and orchestrating the events that day. I just think the essential ingredient to pulling off a conspiracy is simplicity. The less people who know, the better. And, well, I guess anything is possible, though.

There are certain things, that, because of security reasons, I will never be able to disclose, as I could not only be fired for it, but prosecuted as well, so if sometimes I can't answer a question, that's why. But I'll do my best to clear up anything.

Oh, and Woody, there are many reasons why Capt. Ogonowski could have gotten that late call out...he could have been on the "make-up" list. See, whenever we want to fly extra hours, or we are low on time, we can put ourselves on the make-up list. So, though I may not have been scheduled to fly, if I am on the list, crew schedule can call me at anytime and say "Hey, are you still interested in flying a trip tomorrow?" and I can accept or decline it. Hope that helps!

I think I understand your position - there are binding legal reasons that not all can be discussed (of course, off the record, with your buddies over a glass of wine is different matter..)

there are abundant threads in this forum dealing with the technical issues of cellphone calls from planes...

The OTHER method of phoning -- GTE airphones use a satellite-to-ground connection and are more robust. Ong and Sweeney apparently used these phones. There's a bizarre explanation by Ted Olson (solicitor general) that his wife Barbara- CNN commentator--- aboard 77 -- used an airphone from the bathroom of 77. The story he gave changed - almost going through contortions to find a reason there was no paper trail.
The inability of Ted Olson to get a story straight - or tell the truth - beggars belief.

The issue that seems more damning than any phone oddities revolves in my belief around the fact that there were ongoing US military wargames happening ON and around 9/11. It's rather too convenient.... ...

This is the information that a citizens 9/11 jury in LA asked for:
D. All US federal government agencies release any and all documents, records, logs, and all other information regarding any and all war games, drills, emergency response exercises, maneuvers and related activities either held on and/or planned in advance for September 11, 2001 and the week before and after that date, be they headquarters, staff, computer and/or other simulation, field training, or live-fly exercises, pertaining to any and all exercises taking place on or about September 11, 2001, or in the time immediately previous and/or subsequent to that date, including but not limited to:
1. Amalgam Virgo 2. Vigilant Guardian 3. Vigilant Warrior
4. Northern Vigilance 5. Northern Guardian 6. Tripod II, New York City
7. Drill at the National Reconnaissance Office, Chantilly VA


A final , 'remote' possibility -- instead of a human hijack, if a commercial airliner suffered massive rapid depressurization at high altitude, as occured in Greece recently - or to Payne Stewart's Lear--- how long before capt/crew would be incapacitated? 10 seconds? Thus a knocked out plane could be simply flown via remote (HomeRun or GlobalHawk) with no interference from cockpit.

Heck, maybe the hijackers (if you accept they were onboard) THOUGHT they were hijacking a plane, only to find that they had no real control....and then suddenly only the whistling sound of air... as you say, the planes almost fly themselves.

"A final , 'remote' possibility -- instead of a human hijack, if a commercial airliner suffered massive rapid depressurization at high altitude, as occured in Greece recently - or to Payne Stewart's Lear--- how long before capt/crew would be incapacitated? 10 seconds? Thus a knocked out plane could be simply flown via remote (HomeRun or GlobalHawk) with no interference from cockpit.

Heck, maybe the hijackers (if you accept they were onboard) THOUGHT they were hijacking a plane, only to find that they had no real control....and then suddenly only the whistling sound of air... as you say, the planes almost fly themselves. "

That I can see...the hijackers not having any control over the plane. Here's why:

There was speculation that some of the hijackers had no idea it was a suicide mission, based on excepts from on the supposed hijacker's diary of sorts. Maybe none of them knew.

Next time I'm on a 767, which will not be until the end of the summer because I'm awaiting surgery, I'll check the airphones cord capabilitites. But, it doesn't surprise me that Ted Olson can't get his stories straight, he argued for Bush to be put in power in front of the Supreme Court...he's a lawyer with a slick tongue and seems to have a flair for the dramatic.

On another thread, someone asked "Why would the hijackers allow people to use their cell phones?". It's part of the psyche of a terrorist hijacker, it's all about power. Think about it, if the hijackers were part of the grand scheme, they need not fear being shot-down, because they knew it wasn't going to happen. How much more terrifying was it for us to know that people actually called their loved ones and relayed what was happening? The psychological ramifications are just too irresistable!

Also, people have made comments as to how "calm" the flight attendant's phone calls were. Well, every year we attend recurrent emergency training. From day one we are taught how to deal with these situations. Not only that, but, the airlines, when they hire us, are looking for people who react calmly under pressure. Delta used to send their prospective new hires to psychologists for evaluation and other airlines use handwriting analysis.

On flight 63, with the nutcase Richard Reid, the would-be shoebomber, you would be amazed at how the flight attendants improvised to lock-down the aircraft. Those procedures are now protocol for the industry. When I fly, I constantly think about what I would do...what could I use as a weapon and/or protection and self-defense tactics. All of us do. And our mentality is to kill or be killed.

We're not just there to serve drinks and snacks. If that were our only purpose, the airlines would've replaced us with vending machines long, long ago.

I have a problem with terrorists allowing victims to use their cell phones.

1. Where is the precedence?

2. They would know that one phone call could mean being shot down by a fighter plane and their mission is ruined. The mission here was not to terrify and ask for demands. I could see the logistics behind allowing calls if that were the case, you know, for sympathy, to issue demands or to let someone know they still have live victims. If your mission is to keep incognito, then the less people that know means the more chances of success. They would have removed those airphones if you believe that is logical. Why wouldn't they? These aren't idiots, right? They are "masterminds" that managed to fool the entire US military.

Ahhh, precedence.

There was no precedence for an airplane to be used as a guided missle, complete with unsuspecting passengers.

Previous hijackings followed three personality types: the criminal, the insane and the terrorist.

The criminally inclined hijacked to avoid being sent back to the "pokey".
The insane hijacked because, well, they are insane.
The terrorist hijacked to have demands met.

All three scenarios dictated how the crew dealt with the hijacker. Now, you've "hijackers" who probably have inside knowledge and assistance from the Bush administration and know that the military is off busy doing "exercises". Not only that, but I don't think it would go over too well if the military shot down a plane load of innocent peeps!

CNN: You shot down a plane load of people? Why?
Bush & Co.: Well, we had information that they might fly the planes into some buildings.
CNN: Where did you get that information?
Bush & Co: Uhhhhhh, that's classified.
CNN: Well, when did you know?
Bush & Co: Uhhhhhhh...this morning.
CNN: What time? 6 AM, 7AM? Why didn't you ground aviation?
Bush & Co: Uhhhh. Uhhh. That's classified.

Oh, boy... I would have loved to see the fall-out from that! CR, you're asking for logic out of an illogical set of events.

Okay, I take it no one cares for Michael Moore. However, when Dubya was informed at the school (reading to the kiddies), did it not strike anyone as odd his expression? He looked (to me) as if he was thinking "OH, sh*t. It's really started...what if I get caught?"

Then the moron flies around on AirForce One...more than likely buying time to get his stories straight.

You are using chaos as an arguement against presedence.

No presedence for a plane being used as a missle? Really? Ever heard of a kamikaze? With passengers? Shall I start linking the multiple sources that said terrorists were looking to learn how to pilot planes to use as missles? Not to mention that doesn't answer why a hijacker would allow multiple phone calls. It makes absolutly no sense unless demands are being issued. None at all. Those phone calls could have potentially leaked and forced the move to send out fighter planes.

As far as your comment about shooting down planes...you're trying to make it sound like there is no law or rules regarding shooting down a civillian plane. There are. There are also circumstances when it would be required, a hijacked plane going for civillian targets would be one of those. Even the pentagon has addressed this. The criminal inclined, insane, terrorist with demands comment absolutely side steps what I said and offers no answer at all.
It's never happened before and it completely defies the entire purpose of the hijacking!

You keep telling us that this is all illogical and to stop trying to make logic out of illogical events. Why would you do that? Our purpose is to make logic out of what we believe to be created chaos. I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to fck that up personally.

Someone else please?

"Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the military to shoot down any hijacked planes approaching the White House, and in a conversation with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a few minutes later, official transcripts quote Cheney as saying, "It's my understanding they've already taken a couple of aircraft out." Rumsfeld responded that he could not confirm that statement. The official story is "there was no shootdown," but a reasonable person can wonder."

http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/s...iracy_theories/

Wow, and to think a 757 came through that wall. Interesting. Must be new physics, because it's not anyting I learned in University. <_<

Canadian Raven,

Listen, if you choose to believe that those planes were substituted, that's you're perogative. I'm simply trying to point out to everyone the complexity that would entail.

I'm a flight attendant, those crews are dead. In order to substitute 4 airplanes, you would have to pay off the following groups, and this is a short list:

Crew Tracking
Crew Planning
Reservations
Ticket Agents
Boarding agents
APA
APFA
Boston Logan, Newark and the DCA Port Authority
Dispatch
Mechanics
Load management
Baggage Handlers

I could go on and on. As far as physics, have you ever seen the footage of that 767 hitting a body of water off the coast of...was it Sri Lanka? It was hijacked and ran out of fuel. The second it hit the water, the wing clipped the water first I believe, it broke apart. Usually, when planes crash, they crash into the ground or mountains. Buildings give way. I can't think of too many plane crashes into buildings.

Yes, as soon as our government KNEW the planes were being used as missles, they ordered them to be shot down. The problem was scrambling the military jets. THAT ALL HAPPENED ON THAT DAY. THERE WAS NO PRECEDENCE PER SE.

If you don't like me f*cking up your theory, then simply believe what you want to believe. The truth is like iodine, it only hurts when it's helping.

If you want to get people behind an investigation into this conspiracy, it has to be plausible. And I'm giving valid reasons why it's not.

I'm not even going into the fact that the CEOs, CFOs of American and United would never go along with this! It destroyed the airlines profit margins, hell, United went into bankruptcy. Not to mention that various lawsuits that were filed against AA and UA!

C-Raven it is impossible to argue with that picture....impossible......no 757 here no way!!

V2ROT8

I hear you...the complxeity of the operation all those peopl... not sure how they did all the behind the scense work that will come out in the TRIAL OF THE CENTURY...

All you have to focus on to HELP you understand is NO 757 AIRPLANE WAS AT THE PENTAGON on 9/11

I will repeat....no black boxes....no fusalodge.....no passengers.....now tail.....no wings......no seats.....no cockpit........no luggage.......no engines....... and I am not even talking about the TWO LITTLE SNAKE HOLES THAT A JUMBO JET WENT IN AND OUT OF.....sure the whole HOW IN THE HELL DID THEY DO THIS "JOB" comes up....but that is secondary to the evidence....Hey AA where is ALL THE SH*T AT

as for the quote not sure how this " JOB" went but....it reminds me what the Convict told the Sheriff at the Jail house he said..."Mr Sheriff sir I can not do my jail time, I mean I can not be locked up for 6 months" the Sheriff said to him..."Son you do not have to do 6 months.......just do 1 month and we will HELP you with the other 5 months............

The feds will HELP all involved.....Team Ball !!!

Let me see if I have this correct:

What you want the world to believe is that flights 11, 77. 175 and 93 never existed.

I was able to look it up through reservations on the day of the crash, then I'm sorry. It existed. It took off, and there were passengers and there were crew. If you like, I can contact pilots and flight attendants in Boston who worked that flight previously. I can also contact and find United crews who worked flights 175 and 93.

Capt. Charles Burlingame was married to a former friend of mine, who I hung out with when we were based in Nashville. We had memorial services for all of our crews, with fellow friends/employees who eulogized them, so they were real, they existed and they are dead.

What you want people to believe is that a) these flights took off b)these flights "rendevouzed" somewhere (NORAD, Area 51?) and then all of the passengers and all of the crews were taken off and c) either paid off to keep quite for ever and ever and walk away from their lives and families OR d) put in a gas chamber somewhere and murdered.

So, let's think of all the people that would have to be involved to keep up this ruse. Wow. Now, wouldn't be simpler, if you planned on murdering all these folks anyway, to just help out some hijackers and let them fly the real planes with the real crews and passengers into the buildings? At least that way, the only people who would talk are all dead (hijackers, crew and pax).

And I'm sorry. I'd like to know, how many of you here have actually been to a plane crash site? Does anybody remember the Value Jet crash into the Everglades? That plane was in a million pieces. Literally. No engines, no nothin'. So, you guys can try to convince yourselves all that you want that it was a missle or drone planes. But, hello? Missles have identifying parts, drone/dummy planes have engines as well....or were they gliders? These planes were traveling at more than 200 miles per hour, possible at 300 mph...you really think they are going to stay in large, identifying pieces? Another example of a plane that disintegrated is the one that crashed (a US Airways 737) in Alquippa, PA. In a million pieces, indeed.

So what if there were no black boxes? Has it occured to you guys that maybe the black boxes did exist, but were removed from the crash site and classified?

You guys are not interested in finding out the real truth. Like the Bush administration, you are "cherry picking" through the evidence to find what suits YOUR theories. In the end, who gives a flying f*ck whether or not drones were used, the REAL issue is that obviously the Bush admin. allowed, encouraged and fostered 9/11 to happen.

So, which of you have actually been to plane crash sites, which crash sites and were any of you there at the Pentagon, sifting through the wreckage?

Here's fantastic site of airplane crash photos

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/pictures.htm

You'll see that after many crashes, the plane is in a million tiny pieces.

OCMark... you're not helping anyone with the way you present your thoughts. You are rude to people you don't agree with, and here you are yelling at someone who has had contact with some 9/11 victims.

Maybe you could realize you don't know everything there is to know. Maybe you can realize V2ROT8 has some pretty important stuff to say. Sure, he/she might be wrong on some points, but I think we're all guilty of that. After all, that is the whole point of a cover-up....to muddy the waters, make it too confusing for the average person who doesn't have time to do hundreds of hours of research.

So please stop flying off the handle at anyone who has the misfortune of not agreeing with you. You don't know everything.... we're all asking questions, trying to learn what happened.


edit: V2ROT8, thanks for that link to the crashes.

Dear V2ROT8,

i don't know whether you include me saying

because I don't see anything in my posts justifying this reproach, but back to your remarks concerning Captain Ogonowski's late decision.

No, it doesn't really help. The problem here is that the pilot who was scheduled to fly on 9/11 - his name is Walter Sorenson - got a last-minute call from Ogonowski (the day before, probably) who requested to fly the next day, which was his right as the senior pilot. It was Ogonowski who called, not Sorenson.

This is what makes my head spinning. Ogonowski was proud of his farm and had a very friendly relationship to the Cambodians. If he cancelled his visit to their celebration at short notice and demanded from Sorenson to give him the Flight 11 job, all this just the day before, something important must have happened on September 10 causing him to do this. Do you have an idea?

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Here's a great site with eyewitness accounts from inside the Pentagon, and photos from recovery workers.

Of course I don't include you Woody! I'm just giving you my insights as a "stew" for American. And I apologize if my answers screw up any theories.

Capt. Ogonowski could have trip traded with another Captain. Who knows? Maybe he had something going on with his family for which he needed to be back home. It could be (though I'd have to check) that Capt. Ogonowski was a "Check Airman" and he was told by Ops to do a comp check on the First Officer. I'll try to find out.

Ogonowski would have been doing a check on then on first officer? Capt Charlesbois, then -- and leaving his pumpkin farm and farmers which he seemed very fond of....

Second point, by sharing facts and opinions in a free forum like this, I think little by little it forces us to abandon pre-conceived notions, or pet theories, and hold them up to the light. I am guilty of cherry-picking the data that supports my 'inside-job' theory -- but after a few weeks of study, it is hard not to. Also, sometimes anger over the September murders percolates up inside me and clouds the brain.

The basic possibilities being elaborated here are fall into 3 categories

1) 9/11 was a scary surprise pulled off by 19 guys with boxcutters (thanks Ms Olson for that detail!)

2) 9/11 was a 'Let It Happen On Purpose' (LIHOP) event -- hijackers were real, got help via NORAD stand-down and WTC explosives.

3) 9/11 was Make it Happen on Purpose ---- MIHOP. a drill fully planned and executed by select insiders, likely in a highly compartmentalized fashion, such that each sub-compartment had no idea how their role connected to greater picture, thus extremely protected planners.

I think that the general public, upon discovering new information, gradually passes, in disbelief, from 1 to 2 to 3. I did. Then I looked up Operation Northwoods -- the 1962 plan to swap a real commercial US flight with a drone and blow it up over Cuba, faking passenger/pilot deaths as pretext to Cuban invasion, it changed my thinking radically. I thought "my God these people have planned these types of plane swap operations for 40 years"

see what you think. ABC news did a story on this. Baltimore Sun, too.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/010501abc

I don't want to get away with a one-liner here, but are we (carefully and slowly) back to the theory that the hijackings did take place, the government knew about it, let ik happen and build from there? That would make thinks a lot less complicated and easier to realize.. don't you think.. Let it crash in the towers (deads explaned) and let controlled demolition do the rest?

It has some unawnsered questions as well, but it was my first thought on 9/11..

Leaving aside the tar-pits of sticky subject UA93 and AA77 for now -- I'd rather break down and pick apart the story for AA11. More of a challenge?!! And yes, I have a theory which needs full attention and criticism, so that it can be made stronger, or change, as needed.

The simplest explanation is that the AA11 hijacking was 'real' and the phone calls were 'real' -- whether or not there was 'inside-help' or NORAD stand down. AA11 then hit WTC1 at 846am? as reported. it's KISS (keepItSimpleStupid). But as you really begin to unpeel the onion, you see some funny business. Forgive the length. Inspiration is due 99% to WoodBox, and 1% my own overheated brain.

phone calls:
Flt Attendant Sweeney's phone call (from 9/11 commission rept: )
'---Sweeney slid into a passenger seat in the next-to-last row of coach.... "Michael, this plane has been hijacked," Ms. Sweeney repeated. Calmly, she gave him the seat locations of three of the hijackers: 9D, 9G and 10B. She said they were all of Middle Eastern descent, and one spoke English very well.
Mr. Woodward ordered a colleague to punch up those seat locations on the computer. At least 20 minutes before the plane crashed, the airline had the names, addresses, phone numbers and credit cards of three of the five hijackers. They knew that 9G was Abdulaziz al-Omari, 10B was Satam al-Suqami, and 9D was Mohamed Atta -- the ringleader of the 9/11 terrorists. ----

This seems to be very calm work by Ms Sweeney - grace under pressure. She went to the far back of plane, as not to scare passengers by revealing the hijack. She discussed the bomb she was shown by hijackers with it's red and yellow wires. She heard them speak. She remembers carefully even the seat numbers of at least three of the hijackers, does not get confused despite witnessing murder, forcing of cockpit, and bombs. She has training. Her seat ID of hijackers implies that hijackers had bought tickets with credit cards in real names, addresses, and checked in with airlines. (question: If hijackers had NOT checked in at Logan with American, could their identities be so rapidly verified? would their names even appear on flight manifest that woodward was looking at?) Note that Sweeney does not discuss pepper spray, nor did it apparently disturb her eye's abilities to discern the precise seat location of hijackers.

YET: The passenger manifest released by American does not show these names. To this day American will not answer the question "will you confirm that these men were truly on flight AA11?"
The security camera tape from Portland Maine airport seems to show Atta and Al-Omari. But there is no security footage of Atta or al-omari from Boston. Not only, they BARELY made the AA11 connecting flight. Moreover, the departure records conflict -- that AA11 took off from gate 26, and ALSO gate 32. This made for confusion in planning the location of memorial service Which gate was it?

Other call -- Betty Ong made her call from the over-wing jumpseat 3R. (please correct me if 3R is not over-wing jumpseat) We forgive her for referring to the flight as "12" which was the west to east name of AA11, normally turning into AA12. Easily confused. Ong's call highlights the pepper spray which prevents access and breathing into business class. But Ong does not mention the bomb that Sweeney emphasized. (Are these attendants really on the same flight?) How is that that passengers in coach class are said to be under impression that there is simply a medical emergency in first class -- yet are not bothered by the pepper spray? And none has figured out that there are at least 2 murdered : passenger in 9B, and the planes "number 3"
No passenger is freaking out within earshot of Betty Ong. You hear details of flight in her call, but not other attendants calling out to passengers to keep calm -- and oddly, Betty herself, after relaying quickly the key details to AA in ? Cary, North Carolina she does not INSIST that duty calls and she must return to keep order, and calm, in passenger cabin. Would not a flight attendant be concerned about her professional duty to the safety of the passengers? Why so long on the phone?

The flight AA11 was unscheduled for 9/11. Computer error? Human?

Screwing up the works even more, alleged hijacker Mr. al-omari has reported that he is alive and well in Saudi Arabia. Conveniently, even though flight recorders were said to be destroyed /not found from AA11, Mr. Atta AND Mr. al-suqumi's passports survived the crash, the fireball, inferno and tower collapse, to be found on the streets of NY. Note that AA11 was flight that entirely entered and was subsumed into WTC1.

These issues, while not being deal-breakers, suggest this -- there is SLIM evidence Atta and other hijackers were on board, EXCEPT for passport story, which is as weak as it gets -- both passports were 'found' by same FBI agent, mind you) No independant hijacker video evidence, no phone descriptions that match portland video, no manifest record, no autopsy, nothing.

I admit these issues do not alone topple the hijacker theory, nor do they create an iron-cast second explanation.

As a compromise, I suggest the following scenario: The Hijacking Drill of AA11. Ms Ong and Ms Sweeney were aboard a flight. Capt Ogonowski was piloting the flight. He was called up special since his experience in planning, and participating, in safety drills. He was point man. There were passengers, too, surely. But what Ong and Sweeney were calling about was reading a pre-written script. A hijacking script. Read calmly, and carefully. Thus Sweeney has no confusion that about the seat locations, despite 'pepper spray.' Ong did not have to worry about passengers, since perhaps there were none. The two attendants might have had differnet scripts. But it was their real voices. It was a test to see how American, and ground crews, the whole operation, would respond to a reported hijacking. Would AA ground give correct advice? Notify FAA? All emergency services use drills to test preparedness. Sometimes everyone knows its an exercise. Better when only a few people know.... but you'd want a hand-picked crew and captain. I'll bet dollars to donuts that American and other airlines have run these drills before, and a few seasoned, experienced attendants are familiar with such scripts.

So what might be seeing here is a parallel 9/11 airline hijacking safety drill, on AA11, or on a different flight, taking place at the SAME time as Flight 11. Or, perhaps, it WAS flight 11. The drill might have been embedded in the military/NEADS hijack drills of 9/11, or separate. I do not know what happened to the hijacking drill plane with Capt Ogonowski, Ong, and Sweeney, since FAA information becomes confusing. But it remains possible that the radio communication from "vee haff some planes" and the intermittent push-to-talk was coming from a completely different plane. The transponder-off gives further cover to the confusion. At the least, a special-status hijacking-drill flight gives an excuse why ACCARS and BTS information are not perfect. But SOMEONE broke into AA computers and inserted Atta, Al-omari, and al-suquami as 'boarded' passengers in the locations that perfectly matched the scripted info. Thus AA employee Woodward could run a quick trace, and "discover" the identities as Arabs, information which made it rapidly to FBI and CNN and our consciousness. For these reasons, American officials have motivation to tell the truth about what happend. Recall that the first thing they said was "lets keep this quiet" as if they realized that maybe their planned drill had got...well..hijacked. And a reason why they have a gag-order from talking about it publicly, still. Public flying confidence would not be helped by them coming forward -- just imagine the outrage.

The questions created in this creative, but imperfect, model are
1) what was the fate of hijacking-drill plane with ogonowski? was this OFFICIAL AA11?
2) were there passengers on this flight?
3) was this the plane that hit WTC1?
4) was this the plane later seen by FAA and 9/11 commssion at 921am as 'AA11, still in the air'?
5) might it have been diverted to another airport? harrisburg? griffiss? where did it go?
6) where did the hijacker-radio voice calls come from? same plane or different?

If you think this is interesting, you should see the work done for several years at team8plus and inn.globalfreepress.org

Even UA 175 suffers from similar head-scratchers the closer you look at it. All in all, I prefer a more simple explanation, but yet, sometimes the audacious Big Lie is easier to pull off.

back ground reading on "red teams" as used by both the Navy and Airlines/FAA to test security

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hear..._2004-01-27.htm

Search for 'red team'

("red teams" are special operations groups that try to do things like hack computers, smuggle weapons through security, etc, the purpose being to test, refine, and improve real security. Games with a point.)

-------
If you are scratching your head at the contortions in the "hijacking drill" story above, remember that it all starts with the question: "Why Is There So Little Evidence for Arab Hijackers on Board Flights?"

If some one has killer, unassailable, lines of evidence that these alleged hijackers were on board ANY of the flights, I will cease and desist from flights of fancy. I know, it's an attractive theory, especially since CNN clobbered us 24/7 with hijacker pictures and stories, and the whole damn 9/11 commission report is devoted to enshrining this legend -- but let's face the cold hard facts -- there is precious little, save a couple of singed passports, that you could use in a court of law to establish that these faces were in fact on the planes.

Whew. Over and out.

V2R0T8

1. You haven't actually offered ANY information that supports why you believe the government was complicit. Anyone that looks over your posts can see that all you've done is try to persuade us that there was a 757 at the Pentagon. I challenge anyone to re-read all of your posts and take a look at the bottom line of all of them.

2. I've never claimed there was a remote controlled plane at the Pentagon. I don't know forsure what caused the damage to the building. What I do know, from everything scientific and from every piece of evidence that has been presented...is that there is no chance in hell that a 757 caused that damage to the Pentagon.

3. Most of your "evidence" is your alleged experience and insider knowledge of working at an airport, and posting links to websites that collaborate the official 911 story.

4. I personally do not believe you, at all. I believe the only reason you came to this website is to infact try to convince the people on here that the Pentagon was a legit plane crash, despite everything we do know. If I'm wrong, then you are simply misleading people by using your alleged occupation to add weight to an argument that completely defies the laws of physics and chemistry.

5. Did you even look at those plane crash photos you posted? Outside of the 1 and 2 seater pre-1950 flying moltov cocktails that as could be expected burned to nothing, a plane on plane crash over a mountain range, a plane smashing in to a mountain top (where the photo does not follow the trail of damage down the mountain), and some photos of planes that crashed in to oceans....every single photo of a jumbo jet crashing has tons of wreckage. Just as we indicated. Again, you are misleading people with false information.

6. Convinient you didn't post any pictures of the Sri Linka crash. I have actually seen photos from the crash, and I knew damn well there was a ton of wreckage. Just for kicks I did go find the photos of the crash. I guess I can assume you thought I wouldn't look it up or wouldn't find it, because it completely proves yet AGAIN that you are misleading people with disinformation. Would you like me to post the photos of that massive crash that left behind hundreds of pounds of wreckage?

Outside of the insider stories you are sharing, (which is great!), I'm going to stick with what I have said...because you keep trying to tell people that a 757 crashed there, and it did not. There is no 757 in that photo, that you claimed to see one in. Everyone including the person that made Loose Change 2nd Edition has a set of working eyeballs. There is no sign of a plane in any of those shots.

For every eye witness account you link from a website that sticks to the governments story, there are tons more that were supressed from the 911 "investigation" that contradict it. Funny, none of those personal accounts can be found on the materials you are trying to spread around here.

Red...can you prove anything Mark or I have said to be wrong? Maybe you are easy to fool, but I am not. She's been hammering on how a 757 had to have hit the Pentagon more than Dick Cheney would if he were typing in this forum. You go ahead and bite tight on that hook. I'll pass thanks. I saw this exact same thing happen on another forum.

"Having said that, however, I've been reading some of the research and oddities, and I feel I need to set the record straight and hopefully explain a few things." <~~~all any of us can do is offer theories that work in comparison with the evidence, yet she claims to be able to "set the record straight" implying definitive evidence that would make us stop actually scientifically proving what DID happen.

"One of the things reported is that he quit the Pentagon and "took a job" with American Airlines. Here's the problem with that statement. Most of our pilots are military guys, and most work simultaneously at American and serve in our armed forces. We have a few thousand guys and gals serving in the military right now." <~~~Keep in mind, this is your imperical evidence to prove beyond a doubt that he didn't quit the Pentagon to work at American Airlines.

http://www.ketv.com/news/3026399/detail.html (see comments below)

"Here is some more info about the original pilots of those planes who are ALL required to have and maintain a current ATP (Airline Transport Pilot license) in order to ply planes with passengers. I believe that the copilots are required to have ATPs because they very frequently fly the return trip and in any case, they must be prepared to take over in case anything happens to the pilot. Apart from this, you will soon discover for yourself that the stories we are told in the mainstream press are NOT backed up by the FAA database. For example, Charles Burlingame was a fighter jet pilot -- who needed to wear corrective lenses. No way they would have let him into the top gun academy in the sixties. The dates and so many other things are wrong for the original pilots. They are just as bad as the hijacker pilots -- some of whom are STILL ALIVE.
When we put the results of the SSDI and the FAA database together, this is what we have.
FLIGHT 11
John Alexander Ogonowski, pilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
Thomas Francis McGuinness Jr, copilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
N 334AA Serial 22332
Registration: Cancelled/ plane destroyed on 1/14/2002
FLIGHT 77
Charles Frank Burlingame, pilot, DECEASED as of September 11, 2001.
David Michael Charlebois, copilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
N 644AA Serial 24602
Registration: Cancelled/ plane destroyed on 1/14/2002
FLIGHT 93
Jason Matthew Dahl, pilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
Leroy Wilton Homer Jr, copilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
N 591UA Serial 28142
Registration: Valid/ PLANE STILL ABLE TO FLY.
FLIGHT 175
Victor Saracini, pilot, DECEASED as of September 11, 2001
Michael Horrocks, copilot, DECEASED as of September 11, 2001
N 612UA Serial 21873
Registration: Valid/ PLANE STILL ABLE TO FLY.
Dear DD,
If you say that a pilot is still alive, eg JA Ogonowski, does that mean someone sees him walking around? Or is it just an official record? Could you explain to me what SSDI is and how its archives and records compare with the FAA. I presume that the date when a plane is destroyed or has its registration cancelled is given in the FAA? You seem to be claiming that not one of the four planes supposedly involved in 911 is registered as destroyed on that date, in the FAA archives. If this is so, I am puzzled that the media have not picked up on this!
25th April
DD replies:
OK, lets see if I can answer your questions. First of all, here is the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...2&mesg_id=10112, on the Democratic Underground, Forums, Foreign affairs, 9:11 forum, p.2 called ‘The pilots and the planes.’
No, the media have not picked up on the planes' registrations, and I do not think that anyone really wants them to.
The FAA keeps fairly decent records on civil planes. It has to. International and federal law prohibit the plane from flying out of ANY airport if the FAA records for US registered planes are not readily available. Since the civil airports own the runways and refueling stations, a civil plane which is not properly registered is not going to make it off the ground anywhere on planet earth unless it goes to a military base and the military will usually shoot down a civil plane that is trying to land there. Recently a plane with the US registered tail number N4610 landed in Zimbabwe and was discovered to be carrying a plane-load of mercenaries on their way to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea. The US State Department said that the plane was not a US plane but the FAA records show otherwise and the person who is the US registered owner has been cursing the FAA like you would even believe. So I would say, that this entire episode lends the FAA some credibility in its registry database.
As for the pilots, no-one has come forward and said that they have seen the 9:11 passengers or casualties or pilots walking around. But the Cambodians on Ogonowski's farm are being deported and AA and UA have gagged ALL employees. Which leads us directly to the SSDI.
The Social Security Death Index is the registry of all US Social Security numbers which belong to persons who are deceased. In order to EXIST in the US, one needs must have a Social Security number. Without it you cannot bank, cash checks, be employed, attend school, drive etc etc. EVERY SINGLE THING you do in the US is tied in to your Social Security number. Now, when someone dies, the SS number is "retired" and a note is made in the SSDI. The overwhelming majority of persons supposed to have died on September 11, 2001 do NOT appear in the SSDI. Therefore, it does not appear as if they are actually dead. Many of them do not appear to even have existed prior to September 11, 2001. Large numbers of them appear to have active Social Security numbers by which I mean to say that the numbers appear to still be in use. Take this article for example.
www.theomahachannel.com/news/3026399/detail.html
Now, the interesting part is that the FBI does not appear to be overly concerned about this. How come this kid has not been questioned? How come Homeland Security et al has not run a make on the SS numbers used by the alleged hijackers? The SS numbers are NOT random. The Social Security Administration can tell just by looking at a number, where and when it was issued and in some cases even the race/nationality of the recipient. So an Arab hijacker roaming around and trying to do some banking would VERY RAPIDLY wind up on a watch list if not in INS (Immigration) custody within a very short period of time. Remember, the SS number is tied in to any and all records, birth, death, driving, rental, banking, taxes, school, etc. The taxes are the worst. The IRS (Internal Revenue Service) is greatly feared worldwide. If the hijacker was making large transactions with that US issued SS number and not paying US taxes, you had better believe that the kid would have been so busted a long long long time ago. Furthermore, neither the IRS nor the INS are known for their compassion or sense of humor. That one single incident involving one single solitary SS number demonstrates that this entire operation is an inside job, -- unless you can somehow come up with an explanation as to how a fugitive caveman on dialysis has managed to outwit just about every single federal agency you can name."

"First rule of a consipiracy folks, "Keep It Simple Stupid"." <~~~You. Apparently your "simple" explanation for there being no evidence whatsoever that a 757 ever touched the Pentagon is....because the official story says so. You even post links that back up the "official story" as your back up. If THAT doesn't set of some signals to the other readers on this board...I don't know what will.

Heres a website that actually shows 4 diagrams of the seating arrangement on the flights. You can see for yourself if her explanation as to why ALL 4 were that low in capacity holds water for you, after all, she's basically insinuating you should stop investigaing. Remember? She's "setting the record straight". You can see her explanation in her first post on this thread. It's filled with touching personal details about people involved in the planes, but...does the explanation satisfy you as setting the record straight? Did she address why several people from another flight were moved on to the alleged hijacked planes the morning of take off!? If you'd like to leave that as being the record of the events at the Pentagon, feel free. I'll stay with science, thanks.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/ <~~~actual information

"Item #3 - Using drone planes

Sorry, but this is unlikely. Think about it. You would have to pay off soooo many people in the industry...everyone from our agents, crew tracking, crew scheduling, the APFA, the APA, operations, etc. etc"

No...how about this...how about actually thinking about what happened and the evidence that is available...like THIS...

"Some observers said they thought it had the markings of American Airlines but some said it was a small aircraft, others a missile or jetfighter. "It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon," Mike Walter, an eyewitness, told CNN.—CNN.COM, "Up to 800 possibly dead at Pentagon", September 12, 2001"
"Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the
plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetery so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said. Eyewitness described a small
jet aircraft seating a maximum of 12 passengers and crew, NOT an airliner, flying "like a fighter jet" at high speed below treetop level.
—News reports reposted on WhatReallyHappened.com"

You nonchalantly claimed that THIS

http://www.the7thfire.com/images/GHwing.jpg

was the .... Aileron (which I could spell, but you couldn't!?)

You claimed again your expertise and first hand knowledge of the aircraft to back up your claim by mentioning how you've seen them many times. I pointed out that the one in that photo would need to be over twice the length to possibly be that. You have no explanation for it, or why you would claim it could possibly be from a 757.
I linked a website that painstakingly points out several anomolies in the flight paths that prove an actual geometrical design to their routes that day. You replied by saying "thats easy" <~~you always give "easy explanations" which seem to coincide with the governments storys. You aren't even really good at hidding it. Your explanation was to say that the sky is crowded, so it's there for.....not in need of an explanation.
I can continue, but really, at this point, do I need to?
Anyone here is free to fall for this all they like. I'm glad at least ONE other person caught on to this when I did.

hehe, I never said I believed her. Far from it actually.

What I do believe is one of two things:

1) She is letting her personal experiences cloud her judgment. She says it'd be a logistical nightmare to fool everyone at the airlines...I don't buy that crap. When the order* comes from above, you execute the order*, end of story. And then they try to wash it* down with some propaganda to make sure that everyone thinks it* could never happen.
2) She's a shill.

I just prefer to not accuse anyone when there is more than one possibility.... and in this case, I'm givin her the opportunity to see the flaws in her judgment. e.g.: it is possible to fool the employees of an airline, just as you can fool anyone else on this planet. Flight stewards are not immune to deception.


*I'm using "it" and "order" in lieu of "cover-up".