I'm A Flight Attendant With American Airlines, Oddities explained...

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.

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!

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.