Category Archives: Identifying the aircraft

FAA loses track of 119,000 aircraft

AP Enterprise: FAA loses track of 119,000 aircraft

Published December 10, 2010

Fox News

Associated Press

NEW YORK –  The Federal Aviation Administration is missing key information on who owns one-third of the 357,000 private and commercial aircraft in the U.S. — a gap the agency fears could be exploited by terrorists and drug traffickers.

The records are in such disarray that the FAA says it is worried that criminals could buy planes without the government’s knowledge, or use the registration numbers of other aircraft to evade new computer systems designed to track suspicious flights. It has ordered all aircraft owners to re-register their planes in an effort to clean up its files.

About 119,000 of the aircraft on the U.S. registry have “questionable registration” because of missing forms, invalid addresses, unreported sales or other paperwork problems, according to the FAA. In many cases, the FAA cannot say who owns a plane or even whether it is still flying or has been junked.

Already there have been cases of drug traffickers using phony U.S. registration numbers, as well as instances of mistaken identity in which police raided the wrong plane because of faulty record-keeping.

Next year, the FAA will begin canceling the registration certificates of all 357,000 aircraft and require owners to register anew, a move that is causing grumbling among airlines, banks and leasing companies. Notices went out to the first batch of aircraft owners last month.

 

 

“We have identified some potential risk areas, but I think we’re trying to eliminate as much risk as possible through the re-registration process,” said FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown.

The FAA says security isn’t the only reason it needs an up-to-date registry. Regulators use it to contact owners about safety problems, states rely on it to charge sales tax, and some airports employ it to bill for landing fees. Also, rescuers use the database to track down planes that are missing.

But the FAA has emphasized the security and law enforcement angle as the new measure has moved through the rule-making process over the past two years. The agency says the paperwork gap is becoming a bigger problem as authorities increasingly rely on computers to tighten aviation security in the wake of 9/11 and other terrorist plots.

There have already been cases of criminals using U.S. registration numbers, also known as N-numbers or tail numbers, to disguise their airplanes. In 2008, Venezuela authorities seized a twin-engine plane with the registration number N395CA on the fuselage and more than 1,500 pounds of cocaine on board.

Soon afterward, airplane owner Steven Lathrop of Ellensburg, Wash., received a call from a reporter.

“He sort of started the conversation with, ‘Do you know where your airplane is? … Your airplane’s in a jungle in South America,'” Lathrop said.

Lathrop’s Piper Cheyenne II XL was locked safely in its hangar at the Ellensburg airport. The smugglers had apparently chosen his tail number because the model was similar to their plane.

“Anybody with a roll of duct tape can put any number they want on an airplane,” Lathrop said.

Federal law requires all U.S. aircraft owners to register their planes with the FAA and carry the registration certificate on board. The registration number — all U.S. registrations start with the letter N — is painted on the fuselage or tail. The numbers are used on flight plan forms and by air traffic controllers to communicate with aircraft in flight.

The amount of missing or invalid paperwork has been building for decades, the FAA says. Up to now, owners had to register their planes only once, at the time of purchase. The FAA sent out notices every three years asking owners to update their contact information if needed, but there was no punishment for not doing so. As of 2008, there were 343,000 airplanes on the registry. By 2010, the number had risen to 357,000.

The U.S. registry includes 16,000 aircraft that were sold but never updated with the names of the new owners, and more than 14,000 aircraft that have had their registrations revoked but may still be flying because the FAA has not canceled their N-numbers. Other registrations are outdated because the owners have died or the planes were totaled in crashes. Some planes are simply derelicts corroding in barns or junkyards.

As a result, there is a “large pool” of N-numbers “that can facilitate drug, terrorist or other illegal activities,” the FAA warned in a 2007 report.

The problem became more acute after the government launched a new computer system for tracking flights called the Automatic Detection and Processing Terminal, or ADAPT, the FAA says. The system combines dozens of databases, from a list of stolen aircraft to the names of diplomats. It flags suspicious flights in red on a map.

Unreliable data in the system has led to cases of mistaken identity.

Pilot Pierre Redmond said his Cirrus was searched by Customs and Border Protection agents in fatigues and bulletproof vests last year in Ramona, Calif. They told him his tail number had been confused with that of a wanted plane in Florida.

In August, police in Santa Barbara, Calif., detained flight instructors John and Martha King at gunpoint after federal authorities mistook their Cessna for a plane that was stolen in 2002. The Kings are famous in aviation because they produce and star in a popular series of test-preparation videos for pilots.

The error in the Kings’ case was eventually traced to a law-enforcement database that is cross-referenced with the FAA’s registry, not to the registry itself. But Brown of the FAA called it an example of the real-world consequences of bad recordkeeping.

“It’s very, very scary,” Martha King said. “If this keeps happening to people, somebody’s going to get shot.”

To update the FAA registry, the agency will cancel all aircraft registrations over the next three years. Owners will have three months to re-register. In addition, the FAA will do away with its one-time registration certificate and adopt one that has to be replaced every three years. Those who fail to re-register will lose their certificate, and the plane must be grounded.

“We’re trying to model it more closely on some of the programs that are in effect for automobiles,” Brown said. “With the more regular renewal process, you will capture bad data much more frequently.”

Airlines, leasing companies, charter operators and banks agree there is a problem but have complained about having to repeatedly re-register planes.

The Air Transport Association of America, which represents airlines, warned in 2008 that the measure “had the potential to wreak havoc on the commercial air transportation system.” On Tuesday, ATA spokesman David Castelveter said airlines are still gauging the potential effect of the new rule.

Other groups noted that most of the aircraft with paperwork problems are smaller planes that pose little terrorist threat.

“I don’t think we’re going to see a tremendous security benefit as a result of this,” said Doug Carr, a vice president of the National Business Aviation Association.

Banks and finance companies that hold loans used to buy planes will be among those hardest hit, said David Warner, general counsel for the National Aircraft Finance Association. A bank’s claim to an aircraft is often tied to the FAA registration, so lenders are having to hire more staff and buy computer systems to track hundreds of aircraft registrations, Warner said.

He said the FAA has exaggerated the danger.

“The threat of people wanting to do us harm is very real, but the focus on re-registration or stale registration data on aircraft is not where the risk is likely to be,” Warner said.

___

Associated Press writer Joan Lowy contributed to this report from Washington.

 

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/10/ap-enterprise-faa-loses-track-planes/#ixzz17hALDQvF

A Little Known Fact About the 9/11 Planes

A Little Known Fact About the 9/11 Planes

Anthony Lawson for Salem-News.com

March 18, 2010

(BANGKOK) – Extract: …it would be a remarkable irony, and quite possibly a unique circumstance in the annals of American jurisprudence, if the assumptions used as reasons for launching wars against two sovereign nations, as well as the more generalised ‘War on Terror’ would not stand up as evidence in either a criminal prosecution or a civil damages suit in an American court of law.

It is not a theory but a fact—one that is well known within the 9/11 truth movement—that the 9/11 Commission failed to ensure that at least one of the appropriate government agencies: the NTSB, the FBI or the FAA was commissioned to positively identify the aircraft which were allegedly involved in the murders of nearly 3,000 people, on September 11, 2001.

One does not need to be a Harvard Law School graduate to know that the first and most important requirement in any murder investigation is to determine the cause of death, which often leads to a requirement to identify, and trace to its origins, a murder weapon, or, in the case of 9/11: weapons. And there can be no doubt that each of the four planes which were allegedly hijacked on the morning 9/11 was posited as being a murder weapon, by the U.S. administration and the 9/11 Commission, yet there is absolutely nothing which firmly connects the four allegedly-hijacked planes to any of the 9/11 crash sites.

In fact it is not fanciful to suggest that if a lawyer, even of a far lower calibre than that of an Alan Dershowitz, were engaged to defend the airport security companies that allegedly allowed 19 box-cutter-carrying Arabs to get onto those planes, he would immediately call for the dismissal of such an action on the grounds that the planes which allegedly hit the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the one which crashed near Shanksville had never been forensically identified as the planes which, allegedly, had been hijacked that morning.

And such a motion could not possibly be denied, as I will explain.

The planes in question were alleged to have been: American Airlines flight 11 (Tail Number: N334AA), North Tower; United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), South Tower; American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA), the Pentagon, and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA), which supposedly crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. But the truth is that they could well have been different planes that had arrived on the scenes from quite different locations, because the crash debris recovered from those four crash sites has never been forensically linked to the planes that allegedly took off from Logan International, Boston; Dulles International, Washington and Newark International, New Jersey, and which were, allegedly, hijacked shortly thereafter. Therefore they cannot possibly be linked, without a reasonable doubt, to breaches of security at those airports.

So, it would be a remarkable irony, and quite possibly a unique circumstance in the annals of American jurisprudence, if the assumptions used as reasons for launching wars against two sovereign nations, as well as the more generalised ‘War on Terror’ would not stand up as evidence in either a criminal prosecution or a civil damages suit in an American court of law.

Air-crash investigations in the United States are normally carried out by the NTSB’s air accident investigation division, and there are several documentary television series featuring this government agency’s painstaking approach when investigating the causes of air crashes. During many such investigations, serial numbers from recovered parts are cross checked with the airline-in-question’s purchase and maintenance records, to try and identify the reason for an accident, when it is suspected that mechanical failure may have been the cause.

However the NTSB has confirmed that—apparently for the first time from its inception, in 1967, since when it has investigated more than 124,000 other aviation accidents—it took no part in investigating any of the air crashes which occurred on September 11, 2001. So the world has been asked to take it on faith and hearsay that the four planes involved were normal scheduled flights which were hijacked by Arab terrorists, some of whom, are, allegedly, still alive.

Even more disturbing is the fact that documentation exists, and is available on the Internet, which indicates that the FBI, backed up by a separate letter from the Justice Department has refused to release any information, under the Freedom of Information Act, about any debris recovered from the crash sites, including the serial number of the “Black Box” Cockpit Flight Data Recorder allegedly found near the alleged crash site of United Airlines Flight 93. It may be recalled that a transcript taken from this recorder formed the basis for several TV dramas and one Academy-Award winning feature film.

By no means finally, but just as disturbing, the core of a jet engine, which can been seen in several 9/11 videos falling out of the northern face of the WTC’s South Tower, and which hit a building on its way down, and was photographed and videoed—in the presence of FBI personnel and at least one FBI vehicle—where it came to rest at the junction of Church and Murray streets, was later photographed, prior to its burial in a land fill on Staten Island. So much for what murder investigators are usually so concerned about: The chain of custody and preservation of important evidence, pending its identification.

The events of 9/11 had consequences far beyond the destruction of life and property in the United States; they were the reasons for the launching of three wars. Yet it is obvious that a leader writer of an influential newspaper, the Washington Post, could not spare the time to look into such a serious matter—one that people with far fewer resources than he or she has access to have managed to do—before launching a scathing attack on a member of the Japanese parliament and the world-wide 9/11 truth movement, in general.

Just because the 9/11 Commission did not do its job properly is no excuse for newspaper writers not to do theirs. Unless, of course, newspapers such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times are playing a conscious role in a conspiracy to prevent the truth about these events from surfacing. In which case their editors and owners would almost certainly be guilty of misprision of felony.

I would like to stress that the identity of the planes is not the only reason why the 9/11 Commission’s findings should be regarded as invalid, and its members found guilty, at the very least, of gross oversights in the collection of the evidence which was used in the writing of its Final Report. Even a cursory look at the visual evidence of the collapsing World Trade Center’s Twin Towers and WTC 7 should have instilled grave doubts about the findings of some of the experts from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST.

But, for my money, the real smoking guns were, and still are, the four aircraft that were used as weapons on that terrible day, and for them not to have been identified breaks every rule in any book which seeks to teach the art of solving crimes.

9/11 Aircraft ?Black Box? Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

http://truthgonewild.blogspot.com/2008/02/911-aircraft-black-box-serial-numbers.html

Wednesday, February 27, 2008
9/11 Aircraft “Black Box? Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 'black boxes' are virtually the only ones without listed serial numbers.

NTSB American Airlines flight 77 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:

http://www.911myths.com/AAL77_fdr.pdf

NTSB United Airlines flight 93 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf

The United States government alleges that 4 registered Boeing commercial passenger aircraft were used in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, yet has failed to produce any physical evidence collected from the 3 9/11 crash scenes positively tied to these federally registered United and American airlines aircraft. Despite the release of abundant information regarding the 9/11 flights and the aircraft reportedly used, specific information that would confirm official allegations regarding the identity of these aircraft has been mysteriously withheld or denied upon request.

The federally registered aircraft reportedly used during the 9/11 attacks:

– American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA).

With flight data recorder serial number data that is virtually always provided within NTSB reports of major U.S. commercial airline crashes that occur within U.S. territory, one can trace an installed device to a particular registered aircraft through manufacturer or Federal Aviation Administration records.

The following e-mail was provided by a Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007, in response to a 12/16/2007 public correspondence e-mail inquiry:

"Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon."

A 11/26/2007 Freedom of Information Act request of the Federal Aviation Administration for the last known serial numbers of the flight data recorders and other components contained by the aircraft said to have been used during the 9/11 attacks, was unlawfully denied.

Background:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13149

A 1/3/2008 e-mail reply from a Loren Cochran, a FOIA specialist with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, regarding the FAA FOIA denial reads as follows:

"It is unusual and unlawful for them to not cite an exemption. "[W]e are not in a position to release the said records at this time," certainly isn't an exemption any where in the Freedom of Information Act, and I can't think of any case law that supports that answer either."

The RCFP site:

http://www.rcfp.org/

Because of the criminal nature of the 9/11 attacks, the FBI became the lead investigative agency into the 9/11 aircraft mishaps, along with the requested aid of the NTSB. It is possible that the FBI seized FAA 9/11 aircraft records containing component serial number data for aircraft identification purposes and that the FAA no longer possesses them.

http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2001/010913.htm

By document labeled "Testimony of Marion C. Blakey, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation United States Senate", it is indicated that the NTSB assisted the FBI with the process of "aircraft parts identification" regarding the said aircraft.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Speeches/blakey/mcb020625.htm

Flight data recorder information provided by the NTSB, for all major U.S. commercial passenger aircraft crashes within U.S. territory, involving major aircraft and/or loss of life, since 1988, with noted FDR serial numbers:

Comair Flight 5191, August 27, 2006, CRJ-100, 49 Dead, Fairchild Model F-1000 FDR, Serial Number: 102368

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2007/AAR0705.pdf

9/11 Lawyers Seek Black-Box Data on Saudi Hijackers

9/11 Lawyers Seek Black-Box Data on Saudi Hijackers

http://web.archive.org/web/20030623193324/%20http://tomflocco.com/Lawyers_seek_black_boxs.htm

by Tom Flocco

November 27, 2002

TomFlocco.com

While recent reports reveal that Administration officials are considering whether to place Saudi Arabian interests above 9/11 victim families by filing a federal court motion to dismiss or delay the families’ private lawsuit accusing members of the Saudi royal family of ties to Al Qaeda, other lawyers will seek to unearth information about Saudi hijacker cockpit conversations and actions just prior to the crash disasters on September 11. 

  In a letter written to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein from Douglas A. Latto, attorney at New York’s Baumeister & Samuels firm, Latto told Hellerstein that “we have been led to believe that the United States of America, through the Department of Justice (DOJ), will attempt to prevent discovery of the [9/11] black boxes.”  A copy of the letter was obtained from a reliable source close to the investigation.

Latto’s July 10 letter to Hellerstein also shed more light on the fact that possible Justice Department attempts to prevent inspection of the actual contents of the recovered and original cockpit-voice and flight-data recorders “would undoubtedly lead to motion practice not present in any of the other cases.”  Moreover, analysis of news reports over time indicates troubling contradictions regarding the “usefulness” of the recovered data and the true condition of the recovered black boxes currently impounded by the FBI.

Baumeister and Samuels represents in excess of 60 families who lost loved ones on September 11, including families of passengers on board all four aircraft as well as tower victims.  Lead attorney Michel F. Baumeister is a 30-year aviation accident trial lawyer; and his past experience as a Manhattan Assistant District Attorney and Assistant U.S. Attorney will undoubtedly serve the victim-family lawyer team well in the face of government promulgations of “ongoing criminal investigation” strategies.  

A source close to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) who asked to remain anonymous when asked about the ” ongoing [black box] investigation, ”  told us that “the NTSB never closely examined the cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) and flight data recorders (FDRs) recovered from American Flight 77 which hit the Pentagon, and United flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania. ” This, while the FBI has continued to quietly dodge vexing questions related to its prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and how the Bureau’s widely-reported inept and mishandled information protocol cost so many lives.

The source added that “the [CVR and FDR] tapes were sequestered by the FBI and quickly taken to its Quantico, Virginia labs where analysis was conducted solely under the Bureau’s influence in order to maintain complete control.”  However, according to the individual with knowledge of the investigation, “there were a few NTSB officials allowed to observe, but their influence on the probe and tape inspection was minimal at best.”

We also talked to Michael Thompson, chief engineer in the CVR/FDR division of Allied Signal-Honeywell Corporation in Redmond, Washington — according to his counsel, Mark Larson. 

We asked Thompson if he was the person in charge of flight data recovery in the 9/11 investigation, since Honeywell manufactured the data recorders in operation on all four Boeing jets involved in the September 11 crashes.  “I cannot answer that under advice from legal counsel,” he said.   

Since his legal counsel, Mark Larson of Tempe, Arizona, was unavailable for a conference call, Thompson told us, “On advice of my legal counsel, I cannot answer any legal questions pertaining to that incident.”  [On November 19, 2002 at 12:16 pm, Honeywell  transferred our initial call to Mark Larson, corporate in-house counsel for Honeywell, who in turn told us to contact Michael Thompson regarding any questions we might have about the 9/11 CVRs and FDRs.]  

When we asked Thompson if he had ever seen or been involved in any recovery analysis of the 9/11 CVRs or FDRs, he stated, “That’s a legal question, and on advice of counsel, I cannot answer any of those questions.  You need to talk to Mark Larson about this.”  [This surprised us, because we are aware that the memory chips from which the NTSB and/or FBI tapes are derived is raw data and cannot be manipulated.  Thus, the “ongoing criminal investigation” excuse could result in either obstruction or suppression of fact.]

As a matter of fact, ABC news reported on 9-13-2001 that “Although investigators look for an entire black box, sometimes the only parts of the device that survive are the recorder’s crash-survivable memory units (CSMU). The CSMU is almost indestructible.   [A former NTSB source told us that only a direct hit from a nuclear blast can destroy it]   ABC also said that “it is housed within a stainless-steel shell that contains titanium or aluminum and a high-temperature insulation of dry silica material.”

Judge Hellerstein’s hand-written annotations on Latto’s ‘World Trade Center litigation’ letter said that his “views may be presented….as amices curiae [friend of the court], pending a later and different status.”  [ When or if any of his clients initiate civil procedure.]  

Asked about the government’s intention to impede discovery of the black boxes, Latto told us that “we used a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the contents [tapes] from the recovered [Flight 93] black boxes.”  [That Latto was unaware that both the CVR and the FDR had also been recovered from the Flight 77 Pentagon crash could easily be expected since there are relatively few reports confirming their availability — and the FBI has remained tight-lipped about the issue.]

“I can’t remember to which government branch we referred the FOIA off hand,” Latto replied, adding “I’ll have to ask my paralegal to check back in my files.”    

Asked to divulge the name of the official in the 9/11 case who had led him to believe that “the government would attempt to prevent discovery” of the original tapes, or what type of response he had received regarding the FOIA request, Mr. Latto again begged off, not wishing to name names, replying “I can’t remember.  I’ll have to check on it.”

Douglas A. Latto :  Latto revealed that his office had employed a FOIA request to obtain accurate and original recordings of the recovered black boxes; but he declined to reveal who had led him to believe that the government planned to suppress or obstruct their discovery.  Latto’s letter to Judge Hellerstein also contains references to limits of airline liability insurance and potential monetary damage exposure to both passengers on board the aircraft and ground victims.   

No study has yet been conducted as to whether campaign contributions and visits by airline lobbyists to key legislators on Capitol Hill just hours after the crashes played a part in the unprecedented back-door tort reform measures enacted just days later.                                              

For instead of waiting to bail out the airlines AFTER the victim families had their day in court, Congress voted to place a cap on airline liability prior to private civil action adjudication.  Thus, 9/11 victims were denied full, fair and complete due process — unfettered by “nick-of-time” legislation — potentially induced in violation of U.S. Code bribery statutes.  However, the jury is still out regarding whether the denial will be litigated — in light of recent attempts to absolve airport security firms.

___________________________

Latto added that  ” ‘we always have to use motion practice to obtain the tapes from black boxes, with the judge having the discretion to order whole parts or portions of the material released; however, the FBI has control of the tapes because they involve an ‘ongoing criminal investigation.’ “

The CVR tapes contain radio transmissions and sounds in an airplane’s cockpit for the last 30 minutes of its flight — picking up engine noises, communications with air traffic controllers, and conversations in the cockpit.  The FDR picks up altitude, heading, speed and operations of  the airplane systems.  The “black-boxes,” now colored bright orange in an updated visibility change from earlier usage, are located in the tail of the airplane to afford the best odds for survival in a crash.

When we asked Mr. Latto about the issue of the FBI, CIA, and White House withholding or suppressing evidence — such as the black-box tapes or documents related to prior knowledge of 9/11  — by employing the “ongoing criminal investigation” strategy — especially involving a case wherein those withholding the evidence have the most to gain from withholding it — Latto replied, “That’s a good point.  We will definitely have to consider that issue.” 

__________________________________

Of particular interest to 9/11 families and investigators is the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR).  It records the flight crew’s voices, as well as other sounds in the cockpit.  Communications with air traffic controllers and conversations between the pilots and ground or cabin crew are also recorded. However, of more critical importance to victim family lawyers is the fact that normally a CVR committee consisting of members from the National Transportation Safety Board, Federal Aviation Administration, operator of the aircraft if he survived the crash, manufacturer of the airplane, manufacturer of the engines, and the pilots union is formed after a crash to listen to the recording.  This committee [ not the FBI ] creates a written transcript of the tape to be used during the investigation.  

Due to the highly sensitive nature of the verbal communications inside the cockpit, Congress has required that the Safety Board not release any part of a CVR tape recording.  Because of this sensitivity, a high degree of security is provided for the CVR tape and its transcript.  The content and timing of release of the written transcript are strictly regulated: under federal law, transcripts of pertinent portions of the cockpit voice recording are released at a Safety Board public hearing on the accident. (Source:  www.NTSB.gov )

[ Our sources, attorney interviews, and various reports in the media indicate that the FBI has assumed total control over the contents of the CVRs recovered from 9/11 flights 77 and 93, using “an ongoing criminal investigation” as the reason for silence.  So it can be safely assumed that few if any of the above-named groups or individuals have listened to or analyzed the original tapes from those flights. 

Given our conversations with lawyers at the forefront of this litigation, Judge Hellerstein will undoubtedly have to wrestle with unprecedented motion practice; and  9/11 lawyers will undoubtedly have the need to insure that the original tapes have not been tampered with or altered, given the stakes involved — political and criminal.  

Victim families are just coming out of a year of intense grief from their losses.  This is significant because grief often turns to anger, especially as more Saudi, FBI, CIA, INS, TSA and Administration shoes continue to drop; and the political implications of “criminal” evidence suppressed by the government are enormous.  And when the families decide to demonstrate inside congressional offices instead of outside in surrounding Capitol Hill parks, they will begin to fully realize the significance of their collective political weight as television cameras start to find them.

One only has to consider the multiple instances of Saudi links to the 9/11 terrorists: State Department-issued visas to Saudi hijackers, Saudi royal family members laundering checks to support Saudi terrorists in the U.S.,  Saudi hijackers living on a “secure” U.S. Naval Air base with a Saudi flight instructor and tens of millions of dollars transferred  from the Saudis to Al Qaeda over the last year alone according to the CIA — let alone the total failure of Congress to seal the country’s borders to protect constituents.  All this, as millions of illegal aliens and more Saudi terrorists continue to roam the USA — hidden and unaccounted for in a broken but taxpayer-funded immigration disaster.]

_______________________

Interviews with attorneys representing victim family members point to further inquiry and investigation via subpoena requests regarding whether data from the black box tapes has been concealed, tampered with, or destroyed.

BLACK BOXES NOT PROTECTED BY SENSITIVE SECURITY STATUTES

Mary Schiavo, lead 9/11 counsel for Los Angeles-based Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Guilford & Schiavo, representing some 40 victim family clients related to passengers on all four planes hijacked by the Saudi nationals, says that “black boxes are not mentioned in the Sensitive Security Information (SSI) statutes as being protected as SSI; and they have never been treated that way by the courts in the past.”  

 

 

Mary F. Schiavo

Ms. Schiavo adds an experienced, capable legal and public face to counteract government-promulgated courtroom challenges to suppress evidence in the coming litigation against the Bush Justice Department.  The LA air disaster attorney and author’s 9/11 client roster includes Ellen Mariani, the first victim family member to initiate civil action in the September 11 attacks, and a pilot’s young widow, Julie Sweeney.  Both women have appeared numerous times before television cameras to articulate their calls for truth, justice, and government accountability. 

Schiavo told TomFlocco.com that “we will go after the original [VCR and FDR] tapes by requesting them from the airlines and their insurers.  They, in turn, will have to go to the FBI through the courts to request the tapes.”   

“The FBI will likely attempt to comply with the court by submitting transcripts,” Schiavo said, adding that “in prior legal matters of interpretation such as the TWA Flight 800 case, the judge has granted access to actual tapes [memory chips] in the past, instead of transcripts.”

 

Paul J. Hedlund

Veteran LA air disaster attorney will have much to say about the outcome of the 9/11 World Trade Center litigation .

Mary Schiavo’s co-counsel, Paul Hedlund, a veteran air disaster attorney and mechanical engineer, told us at a September 20 hearing in Manhattan that “in a typical air disaster, the NTSB pays for the reasonable expenses for recovery of the remains with the aircraft company reimbursing normal and reasonable expenses.  The NTSB gives priority to the FBI regarding the VCR and FDR tapes, although the aircraft company and its insurers actually own them.”

Not leaving anything to chance, Ms. Schiavo also told us that “we will require all individuals having access to [listening / examining / analyzing] the VCR and FDR tapes of Flights 93 and 77 to testify under oath as to what they heard on the tapes and how they conducted their analyses; and we will also require all individuals connected to the investigation of and search for the un-recovered tapes from the Twin Towers crashes to testify under oath that those tapes were never found.”

An attorney from another firm representing 9/11 victim-families told TomFlocco.com that he will also press for discovery of the black-box cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders.  

James Kreindler, lead 9/11 counsel at New York’s Kreindler and Kreindler firm, told us that “we will be working with other 9/11 attorneys within the discovery committee to draw up subpoena requests for black box discovery, but I was unaware that FBI Director Mueller had listened to the original tapes from all four recovered boxes from flights 77 and 93.”  

The Kreindler firm has filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of over 1,400 victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks seeking $1 trillion in damages from Al Qaeda, Iraq and other 9/11 terrorist sponsors.

James Kreindler

Kreindler represents a sizable number of the September 11 families, mostly those involving deaths in the towers, with a number of airline passengers as well.  He will be an important face in the coming 9/11 litigation.

 

Interestingly, the Kreindler firm also includes in its client roster two of the most outspoken activists among all the victim families:  Sally Regenhard and Monica Gabrielle.  Both have attended congressional hearings and are leaders in the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, where Regenhard literally and personally forced the government to hold hearings in New York City regarding tall-building safety — even though a number of respectable journalists have made an interesting case that the buildings could have been blown off their foundations by terrorist-planted plastic explosives.  

DEENA BURNETT’S BLACK BOX BATTLE

TomFlocco.com also interviewed Michael Elsner, associate attorney at Ronald Motley’s Ness – Motley firm in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, representing nearly all victim families in a civil action primarily against members of the Saudi royal family and other prominent Saudi businessmen involved in funding radical Muslim terrorist operations in the United States.  

Motley’s lead 9/11 client Deena Burnett — whose husband Tom had called her four times from doomed United Flight 93 prior to becoming involved with other passengers in an attempt to take back the plane from Saudi hijackers — started calling the FBI on September 12, 2002, asking to listen to the tapes constructed from the cockpit voice recorder’s memory chips, according to Elsner.  

Elsner also told us that “Deena wrote letters to United Airlines and to FBI Director Robert Mueller, both of whom fought her attempts to hear clues” implicating other individuals who may have been involved, whether Al-Quada was mentioned, conversations about other attacks, or whether there was mention of steering and control problems as a possible explanation for the crash.  

 

 

Ronald Motley

Ron Motley is a veteran trial attorney who handled most of the recent tobacco litigation, settling some of the largest civil cases in the history of the legal profession.

 

 

We asked whether Ness – Motley’s attorneys had verified through an independent and expert source that the Flight 93 VCR transcription tape the FBI played for the families was complete, unaltered, authentic and was constructed from the actual raw data on the memory chips in the VCR.  “None of the lawyers have had access to the tapes, transcriptions, or the actual raw data in the recorders,” Elsner replied.  

“I am sure that [when this case reaches the courtroom], any jury will want to hear authentic tapes directly transcribed from the VCR’s [from United 93 and American 77],” Elsner told us, adding that “Ness – Motley will also want to independently verify that any 9/11 VCR conversations we are listening to in court are complete, unaltered and derived from the actual [memory chips] inside the VCRs — those in operation in the planes that day.  We are litigating this matter on behalf of our clients to find out the truth.”  

In a Flight 93 side-bar issue sure to be addressed during the newly formed 9/11 Independent Investigation Commission’s proceedings, another Reuters report (9-13-2001) immediately following the attacks said that “Pentagon officials vigorously denied initial reports [from whom?] that a military fighter had shot down the United Airlines [93] jet.”  

Curiously — and initially, FBI agent Bill Crowley, at the scene for the investigation, had told reporters that the Bureau “had not ruled out that possibility.”  [Why not?]  According to Reuters reporter David Morgan, Crowley later retracted the statement, saying unequivocally, “There was no military involvement in what happened here.”   

[ Will 9/11 lawyers seek testimony under oath from the Air Force pilots and their commanders, ground crew and their officers, the pilot of the mysterious un-marked plane, and missile ordinance officers?  Will they request access to all military “after-action” reports? ]  

Pennsylvania state police reported debris fields as far as eight miles away near a residential area where “local media quoted residents as seeing flaming debris from the sky.”  But according to Reuters, “[FBI] investigators were unwilling to say whether the presence of debris in separate places evinced an explosion.”  

Accuracy in Media’s Reed Irvine wrote in the Philadelphia Daily News (12-28-2001) that the Mayor of Shanksville near the [Flight 93] crash site, “said that F-16 Fighters were very, very close and two men he knew claimed they had heard a missile,” adding that “the FBI acknowledges that a half-ton piece of one of the engines was found west of the crash site.” [hitting the ground well before the plane]  

Another investigative report in the Philadelphia Daily News (9-16-2001) revealed that “a three-minute gap between the time the tape [produced for the victim families last spring by the FBI] goes silent — according to government-prepared transcripts — and the time that top scientists have pinpointed for the crash.”  But the American people have accepted the smoke and mirrors presentation as if it were a Rosemary Woods Presidential production.  

Thus, complete and unaltered transcripts from the memory chips become all the more important in determining answers regarding “bomb-on-board” and “military shoot-down” hypotheses — totally un-addressed by Congress during recent sham hearings.  [But such compliance has likely not been provided to the families thus far, since attorney Mike Elsner revealed to us that no lawyer has had access to the original memory chips, boxes, or FBI-transcribed tapes.]  

TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES

“It’s extremely rare that we don’t get the recorders back. I can’t recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders,” said Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the NTSB.  And FBI spokesman Joseph Valiquette said “We don‘t know what was said in the cockpits, by the crew members or by the hijackers.”  (Associated Press, 2-24-2002)   

FBI Director Robert Mueller said Flight 77’s FDR provided altitude, speed, headings, and other information, but the cockpit voice recorder “contained nothing useful,” and he originally declined to say what was gleaned from both recorders on Flight 93 — before Deena Burnett started her campaign described above.  On September 15, 2001, Mueller told the Arizona Star that “the agency had gotten no information from the voice data recorder from Flight 77.”  

Mueller said the [voice] recorder from the plane that rammed into the Pentagon was so badly damaged by fire that it would not yield any information.  But the flight data recorder [from Flight 77] was recovered in usable condition as was the flight data recorder from the Pennsylvania crash. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9-21-2001)  

However, in a Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) report on September 14, 2001, Dick Bridges, spokesman for Arlington County, Virginia authorities, told the Associated Press “the voice recorder was damaged on the outside and the flight data recorder was charred in fires that broke out following the crash.” This report directly contradicts statements made by FBI Director Robert Mueller; but no one has questioned the inconsistency.  

Perhaps the main reason that Director Mueller should be subpoenaed by 9/11 lawyers to testify regarding the black box issue is a troubling television appearance from his past.

Award-winning Time Magazine reporters Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne [John Hancock and Gerald Loeb award for business reporting and Jack Anderson Award for investigative reporting] detailed an interview appearance by Mueller on a 1991 ABC Nightline Show with host Ted Koppel wherein the authors caught Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Robert Mueller,  not realizing that he had changed his story before the television cameras.

______________________________________

The Outlaw Bank — Jacket Design: Andy Carpenter, Random House, Inc. FBI Director Robert Mueller, Photo: Dennis Cook, Associated Press

In an amazing portent for the future and how Mueller might handle critical investigations down-the-road [like 9/11], this troubling interview also centered around the existence of critically important tapes like those surrounding the current investigation.

But 9/11 victim families are unaware that an individual known for his talents in “damage control“ is managing the evidence needed to extract the answers to 9/11‘s unanswered questions. [The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride Into The Heart Of The BCCI, Jonathan Beaty & S.C. Gwynne, Random House, NY, 1993, pp.118-121] Beaty and Gwynne reported:

    “A Financial Times story also raised the stakes: The financial minister had also said that the CIA and other American intelligence agencies had maintained slush funds at BCCI branches and that these funds were used for payoffs of Pakistani military officers and Afghan rebel leaders.”       

    “Acting CIA Director Richard Kerr appeared before a group of high-school students and admitted for the first time that BCCI did in fact hold CIA accounts. With no one to ask hostile questions, Kerr asserted that these were normal accounts….After denying it for months, the Agency had found what it thought was a graceful, quiet way of letting the cat out of the bag.”

    “The day after it appeared [CIA’s BCCI slush funds charge in Time Magazine], Attorney General Richard Thornburgh dispatched the head of his criminal division, Assistant Attorney General Robert Mueller, to ABC’s Nightline show, with Ted Koppel, to refute Time’s charges. It would prove a tactical mistake.”

    “Koppel invited Beaty, Gwynne, Jack Blum, and Senator John Kerry to appear on the same show….Mueller, Kerry and Beaty sat in the same studio in Washington during the live coverage. Mueller insisted that the Justice Department had won a major victory. He also disputed any charges that his department had not proceeded vigorously with further investigations, and he ignored Senator Kerry’s attempt to bring up the subject of the missing tapes of Blum’s interviews with the former BCCI bankers who talked about political payoffs and BCCI’s secret ownership of First American Bank.”

    “When Koppel tried to point out that the assistant attorney general had not answered the senator’s question about the missing tapes, Mueller ignored him too….Kerry was beginning to sputter, and Beaty, outraged enough at Mueller’s deceptive tactics to forget that he was on national television, jumped in.”

    ” ‘But Mr. Mueller — I’m sorry, but the senator is quite accurate. You may have provided the reason for shutting down the bank by convicting it of money laundering, but then a very high-level person in your own department turned around and asked the State of Florida to keep this bank open, despite the fact that your own prosecutors had testified that drug-money laundering was a policy of the bank and that it wasn’t a matter of employees taking some kind of independent action. When you plea-bargained out, you let the bank go and took the low-level employees, which is kind of in reverse.’ “

    “Mueller came back strongly. ‘I adamantly disagree with that‘….‘Mr. Mueller,’ Beaty cut back in, ‘We haven’t made the accusation that this has been shaped by the intelligence community. All we have tried to do is point out the rather stunning lack of curiosity and aggression of the part of the Justice Department.’ ”

    ” ‘And I can cite you, sir, numerous occasions when witnesses have come forward and been ignored by you. The very tapes that Senator Kerry has referred to, of witnesses talking about the link between First American Bank and BCCI and of payments to American officials, disappeared. Those tapes had been listened to by U.S. attorneys from your own office.’ “

    ” ‘Mr. Beaty, the tapes have not disappeared,’ Mueller replied.”

    ” ‘Two months ago you denied to Mr. [NY District Attorney Robert] Morganthau and his department that those tapes even existed!’ Beaty shot back.”

    “Mueller’s last statement to him was awesome in its implications:  Beaty had not brought either information or sources to the Justice Department.  To Morgenthau, yes. To Justice, no.  It could only mean, it seemed, that the CIA had passed on his notes of his interview with Sami Masri to Mueller at Justice.”  

The portions above are quoted directly from the transcripts of Nightline and Beaty and Gwynne’s book.But the implications for current 9/11 obstruction are self-instructive.   _________________________________________________

According to a Reuters report (11-27-2001), “the Justice Department and the FBI have so far declined to release even anedited transcript of Flight 93’s cockpit voice recorder, saying that it is evidence in a criminal investigation” — indicating early-on the extreme reticence of the government to let the public have full access to complete and authentic transcripts compiled from raw memory chip data as to what was said in the cockpit.

Gail Dunham, president of Washington, DC-based advocacy group — The National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation, said “tapes from earlier crashes had been released upon court order, or after prosecutors conclude that there is no information in them crucial to build a criminal case.”  (Reuters — 11-27-2001)  It would seem that such a time period has long passed.

The fact that the London-headquartered Reuters News Service is in the forefront of much of the 9/11 black-box investigation should of itself say something about corporate control of U.S. media, for Reuters again reported (12-21-2001) that “FBI Director Robert Mueller has personally listened to the recording from the hijacked (Flight 93) and advised that the FBI will not be releasing the tape at this time.

Curiously, a report only found in the New Delhi Indian Express (10-17-2001) revealed that “people involved in air traffic control said the FBI seized the air traffic tapes of the conversations with that airplane [Flight 93], and no transcript was made available of air-to-ground communications for the flight.  Thus, lawyers may also need to hear the original recordings between the air traffic controllers and the cockpit.

WIDOW ON THE WARPATH

Mariani vs. United Airlines, et. al., brought by Schiavo and Hedlund on behalf of Mariani’s husband Neil, who was killed when his United 175 jet crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, is the collective umbrella name for the current World Trade Center litigation being conducted in Judge Hellerstein’s Lower District of Manhattan courtroom.

Mrs. Mariani told us that she is concerned that the government may have tampered with evidence in her case, as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had [through lawyers in the Ashcroft Justice Department] contacted her witnesses and diverted evidence subpoenaed by her previous attorney without a court order — and prior to the judge allowing government inclusion in her private civil action.

Ellen and Neil Mariani — Neil Mariani could not obtain a ticket on Ellen’s plane as they traveled to their daughter’s wedding in California.  So Neil purchased a ticket on United flight 175 which was hijacked by Saudi nationals living at the supposedly secure Pensacola Naval Air Base in Florida where the terrorists registered their cars and residences — but also where a recent and mysteriously-deceased Saudi military flight instructor lived.  Mrs. Mariani attends every hearing — sitting next to her attorneys and usually staring at Judge Hellerstein.

 

So intent upon holding United Airlines and the government accountable for her husband’s death, Mrs. Mariani abruptly fired her original attorney, Chicago’s well-known airline disaster specialist Donald Nolan, for not being aggressive enough in allowing her case to drag on since December 20 — delayed for some unknown reason well into the summer.

“I was not pleased that my previous attorney — within a few weeks after I had hired him to represent my interests, not the government’s — had contacted 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund Special Master Kenneth Fineberg to negotiate dropping my lawsuit and bringing me into the victim fund after I had told the world I wanted no part of that fund,” said Mariani during a phone interview yesterday.

Highly displeased that airport gate security was so poor after she found out that the State Department had been violating existing federal law while issuing U.S. visas to Saudi terrorists, Mariani said “while our country was under attack and people were dying, highly-paid airline lobbyists were running from congressional office to office, lining up votes for an Airline “Stabilization” Bill that would set limits on compensation in private jury trials in spite of their atrocious negligence and incompetence.”

Mariani had continually referred to the Compensation Fund as the “Shut-up and go-away Fund,”  adding that “without my day in court, I’ll never learn the truth and who did this to my husband — let alone get justice and accountability.”

Never one to mince her words, Mrs. Mariani told us “I want to know what Governor Jeb Bush and the FBI were doing as they flew off from Florida in a military cargo plane with the terrorists’ airport flight-lesson records and other evidence connecting the Saudi hijackers to the events that killed my husband and hundreds of others.  I want answers.”

“And what were [Intelligence Committee Chairmen] Senator Graham and Congressmen Goss doing having breakfast together the morning of the attacks with the Pakistani Intelligence leader who was writing checks to support the hijackers’ living expenses in the United States”,” said the irrepressible Mariani.  “It was even reported that Secretary of State Powell and CIA Director Tenet also met with the terrorist sponsor,” she added.

“The government may have just played the voters for a bunch of fools — but not me,” Mariani said, promising she would “never give up, give in, or give out.”

  “We live in a dirty and dangerous world.  There are some things the general public does not need to know, and should not.  I believe that democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.”   (Katherine Graham, owner — The Washington Post, speech to  CIA, 1988)

Michael Thomas contributed additional research and reporting for this story.

 

911 and the Precautionary Principle: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

In all my years of direct and indirect participation [in the Air Force], I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident...The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft.  (George Nelson, Colonel, USAF, ret.)
 
 

arts as a Clue to their Identityby George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were – if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts. 

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government’s theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government’s 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history.

Difficult to find black boxes in Pentagon

 http://web.archive.org/web/20010917011524/www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/t09142001_t914irby.html

United States Department of Defense
NEWS TRANSCRIPT

Presenter: John F. Irby, Director, Federal Facilities Division, Friday, September 14, 2001 – 1:00 p.m

 

DoD News Briefing – Pentagon Update

<!– START HEADER DoD News Briefing John F. Irby, Director, Federal Facilities Division Friday, September 14, 2001 – 1:00 p.m. END HEADER (14 lines) –>

(Also participating: Victoria Clarke, assistant secretary of Defense for public affairs; Army Maj. Gen. Jim Jackson, commanding general, Military District of Washington; James Schwartz, assistant chief, Arlington County Fire Department; and Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for public affairs. Slides used in this briefing are available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/g010914-D-6570.html )

 

[…]

Q: Chief, can you tell us anything about how hard it was to get to the black boxes? I mean, it was our understanding that was in a pretty destroyed part of the building.

Schwartz: It certainly was in a fairly destroyed area of the building, which to a large degree accounts for the couple of days it took, I guess, to retrieve them, because the very methodical way that the USAR teams work through the building, you know, from the side that you see on all the pictures with the slide tilting down, that’s the side we’re working from, working towards the back. You know, all of their efforts are extremely methodical, keeping safety in mind and, as I keep emphasizing, ensuring the structural stability. So I think the whole nature of moving through all of the debris and all of that collapsed area just is what caused us to take so long. But, you know, I think that just how they’ve gone about their job is what led to how long it took.

Q: Have they been able to tell you, when they got to that part, whether or not there were any, you know, recognizable elements that an aircraft itself had crashed into the building, or is it all pretty much vaporized? Are there are any — is there a tail, is there a wing, is there anything there?

Schwartz: I certainly would not use the term "vaporized," but there’s not a lot of the aircraft that is recognizable at all.

Pentagon: Flight data and cockpit voice recorders found

http://web.archive.org/web/20010918222043/www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/b09142001_bt425-01.html

FLIGHT DATA AND COCKPIT VOICE RECORDERS FOUND

September 14, 2001

The Department of Defense announced this morning that at approximately 4:00 a.m., today, searchers found the flight data and cockpit voice recorders in the wreckage of the plane that hit the Pentagon on Tuesday, Sep. 11. The recorders are in the possession of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The National Transportation Safety Board is providing technical assistance in reading the data on the recorders, which are currently at the NTSB laboratory in Washington, D.C.

For further information, contact Ted Lopatkiewicz, NTSB Public Affairs, at202-314-6100.

UAL Refuses to View Proof Flight 175 Did Not Hit WTC

UAL Refuses to View Proof Flight 175 Did Not Hit WTC

Christopher Bollyn | October 1 2004

Christopher Bollyn of American Free Press offered United Air Lines (UAL) to view the video "911: In Plane Site" by Dave von Kleist of The Power Hour, and discuss the images of what is allegedly UAL Flight 175 hitting the South Tower at the World Trade Center.

It is not possible that United Air Lines used a windowless plane with a missile pod on its underside for UAL 175 on Sept. 11, 2001, therefore, the plane seen in the videos cannot be UAL Flight 175.

Below, UAL categorically refuses to view the video evidence.

Bollyn-United Air Lines Correspondence follows.

From Christopher Bollyn (AFP) to Jeff Green, UAL spokesman:

Jeff Green
Media Relations Manager
United Airlines World Headquarters
Worldwide Communications
Elk Grove, Illinois

Dear Mr. Green,

Thank you for responding to my inquiries. I write for American Free Press (http://www.americanfreepress.net/) an independent weekly newspaper based on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

With all due respect, I’d like to respond to your comments in today’s email and phone conversation.

I was surprised to hear you say that any suggestion that it was not UAL Flight 175 that hit the South Tower was "offensive." I am also surprised that you are not interested in viewing the video images from "911: In Plane Site."

The video images in Dave von Kleist’s video come from mainstream news coverage of the events. They are simply the images that have been shown countless times on television sets around the world. In the video, however, they are slowed down and examined frame by frame. What they reveal when viewed in slow motion is nothing short of astounding.

You said, "Neither I, nor any of my colleagues or UAL executives wishes to see the video." Do you speak for all of the employees at UAL?

Does that mean that there is a corporate diktat ordering employees not to view the video, or has a consensus been reached through a democratic-type process in which all of the executives and your colleagues voted or expressed their own opinions personally and told you that they are not interested in seeing the video?

You said it is offensive to suggest that it was not UAL 175 that hit the South Tower at about 9:03 a.m. on 9/11. If it was UAL 175 that hit the South Tower, then it must be that UAL 175 had an object attached to the underside of the fuselage that looked and acted like a missile pod when it fired a missile at the South Tower just before it entered the building.

To maintain that position means that all four videos, taken by four different cameras in different positions and by four different networks, are all showing falsified images.

What the video appears to show is a modified Boeing military tanker plane that has a missile pod attached to the underside. The video images of the underside of the plane also show what appears to be the boom port of such a tanker. Witnesses also reported the plane that hit the second tower had no windows nor markings like a commercial jet.

In the face of the video evidence and eyewitness testimony that it was NOT a commercial jet that hit the South Tower, I would like to ask this question to UAL: What evidence can you provide that it was UAL 175 that hit the tower?

The evidence available to the public simply does not support this claim.

The government has made that claim, the media has repeated it, and you say it is offensive to challenge it. But what can you tell the American public to convince them that it was UAL 175 that hit the South Tower? What proof can you offer?

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press

Jeff Green’s earlier e-mail follows:

"Green, Jeffrey [WHQPR]" <Jeff.Green@united.com> wrote:

Mr. Bollyn,

I know that you?ve been trying to reach me for a few weeks now regarding questions you have related to flights 93 and 175. My colleagues inform me that you have a video you would like to show us regarding Flight 175. I have looked at the site you suggested, as well as the UK-based site, The Truth Seeker, that features your writing. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues or UAL executives wishes to see the video.

I would suggest that you contact the FBI, who is leading the criminal investigation into the crash of each flight, and arrange to show them the tape. You may reach their public affairs group by calling 202-324-3691.

I also know that you?ve had some other questions, which I think I can generally answer for you. If you have very specific questions about the events of 9/11, I’m afraid I have to once again direct you to the federal authorities as they are the group responsible for the continuing criminal investigation.

1) The wreckage of Flight 93 recovered from Pennsylvania has been preserved in a storage facility as it will likely be used as evidence in pending civil litigation.

2) Flight 93, a Boeing 757, was painted in United’s standard blue and gray livery.

3) Yes, United is certain that Flight 175, a Boeing 767, was hi-jacked by terrorists and flown into the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. The flight carried 54 passengers and 11 employees.

Regards,

Jeff Green
Media Relations Manager
United Airlines World Headquarters
Worldwide Communications

9/11 ‘black box’ cover-up at Ground Zero?

New Cover-up revealed? 9/11 Black Boxes found

by Will Bunch

Philadelphia News  28 October 2004

Two men who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center claim they helped federal agents find three of the four “black boxes? from the jetliners that struck the towers on 9/11 – contradicting the official account.

Both the independent 9/11 Commission and federal authorities continue to insist that none of the four devices – a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) from the two planes – were ever found in the wreckage.

But New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi has written in a recent book — self-published by several Ground Zero workers — that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate three of the four…

His account is supported by a volunteer, Mike Bellone , whose efforts at Ground Zero have been chronicled in the New York Times and elsewhere. Bellone said assisted DeMasi and the agents and that saw a device that resembling a “black box? in the back of the firefighter’s ATV.

Their story raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at Ground Zero. Federal aviation officials – blaming the massive devastation – have said the World Trade Center attacks seem to be the only major jetliner crashes in which the critical devices were never located.

A footnote to the 9/11 Commission Report issued this summer flatly states: “The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175? – the two planes that hit the Trade Center – “were not found.”

And officials for the FBI – which oversaw the cleanup at Ground Zero – and the New York City Fire Department repeated this week that the devices were never recovered.

The “black boxes? – actually orange – could have provided valuable new information about the worst terror attack to ever take place on American soil.

The cockpit voice recorder uses two microphones to capture the sounds of the cockpit for the last 30 minutes of a doomed flight on a tape loop. In the case of the hijacked 9/11 jetliners, the devices should have captured any conversations or actions involving the hijackers, as well as radio transmissions.

The flight data recorder records things like airspeed, heading, and altitude. Both devices – located in the tail of the airplane – emit loud “pings? so they can be located even in ocean jetliner crashes, like the 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island.

They are built to survive an impact of enormous force – 3400 Gs – and a fire of 1100 degrees Celsius for one hour, somewhat higher than official estimates of the World Trade Center blaze.

“It’s extremely rare that we don’t get the recorders back. I can’t recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders,” Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board, told CBS News in 2002. However, officials said little of the jets was recovered.

DeMasi was with now defunct Engine Company 261 in 2001. He wrote up his recollections of the Ground Zero recovery in a glossy book self-published by a group that calls itself Trauma Recovery Assistance for Children, or the TRAC Team. The book was published in 2003 but received little notice.

DeMasi, an all-terrain vehicles hobbyist – said he donated 4 ATVs to the clean-up and became known as “the ATV Guy.”

“At one point, I was asked to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes,” he wrote. “We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV…”

“There were a total of four black boxes. We found three.”

Efforts over several days to locate and interview DeMasi, who is now said to be with the FDNY?s Marine Unit, were not successful.

But his account was verified by another member of the so-called TRAC Team, recovery site volunteer Bellone. He recalled FBI agents arriving for the search one day in early October, setting up their equipment near Brooks Brothers. He said he didn’t go out with them on the ATV but observed their search.

At one point, Bellone said he observed the team with a box that appeared charred but was redish-orange with two white stripes. Pictures of the flight recorders on the NTSB and other Web sites show devices that are orange, with two white stripes.

“There was the one that I saw, and two others were recovered in different locations – but I wasn’t there for the other two,” Bellone said. He said the FBI agents left with the boxes.

If the account by DeMasi and Bellone is true, it’s not clear what motive federal authorities would have for claiming they weren’t found.

By the same token, however, it’s not clear what incentive either man would have to lie.

An FBI spokesman in New York, Jim Margolin, said after checking with the leader of the Ground Zero investigation that none of the boxes were recovered.

Frank Gribbon, the FDNY spokesman, also said “no one in the Department is aware of the recovery of any of the airline "black boxes" at the WTC site.”

Bellone has encounted some unrelated problems in connection with the TRAC group, however. In April, the New York Post reported (story not available online) that TRAC owned money to a number of creditors, including the company that published the book. Fire officials also told Bellone, who was made an honorary firefighter by a New York engine company, that he couldn’t wear an official uniform on school visits…

AA11 mystery

AA11 left from Logan gate 26 (document of 11 April 2005). Source:
http://911memorials.org/usa/archives/2005/04/11/logan-airport-911-memorial/
Logangate26.pdf

AA11 left from Logan gate 26 (document of 12 September 2001). Source:
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0912/Crashes_in_NYC_had_grim_origins_at_Logan+.shtml

 

Black box cover up

BLACK BOX COVER-UP

Rescue workers silenced after exposing 9-11 whitewash


 
By Greg Szymanski

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/black_box.html

 
A 9-11 rescue worker recently came forward to say he was told by FBI agents to “keep my mouth shut? about one of the “black boxes? a fellow firefighter helped locate at ground zero, contradicting the official story that none of the flight and cockpit data recorders were ever recovered in the wreckage of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers.

Honorary firefighter Mike Bellone claims he was approached by unknown bureau agents a short time after he and his partner, Nicholas DeMasi, a retired New York firefighter, found three of the four “black boxes? among the WTC rubble before January 2002.

The pair first claimed in an August 2003 book entitled Behind the Scene: Ground Zero to have found the data recorders.

 DeMasi said the “black boxes? were found while he traversed “ground zero? in his all-terrain vehicle (ATV) with three federal agents.

FBI and New York fire officials have denied ever finding the voice and data recorders.

Now Bellone claims agents were adamant about keeping the discovery a secret.

“They confronted me and told me to not to say anything,” recalled Bellone, referring to one of three reddish-orange boxes with two white stripes he saw in the back of DeMasi’s ATV. “I said, “Give me a good reason.” When they couldn’t, I told them I wouldn’t shut up about it.

“Why should I? I have nothing to hide and nothing to gain. It’s the truth, and Nick and I are sticking to our story as we always have.”

Bellone said he and DeMasi were not the only 9-11 rescue workers to see the “black boxes.” He said there were several other witnesses and said he knows they have been silenced by federal agents.

“I know two or three others saw what went down, but they are not talking,” said Bellone. “They got to those guys after they talked to me. The only reason I can figure they are trying to hide the truth is that the government knows it screwed up, and the recorders would prove it.”

Asked to give names of the other witnesses, he said he wouldn’t break a fellow worker’s confidence by revealing his identity.

“I can tell you this, though, it was all very strange. I worked on the spaceship Columbia cleanup, and you know when something important is found and when something is not,” he said.

 The day the “black boxes? were secretly carted away, agents acted like “something big was going down,” he added.

Bellone said he never learned the FBI agents? names as this type of personal contact and information wasn’t exchanged between the civilian workers and government officials working side-by-side at ground zero.

“They had on their FBI jackets, but I’m sure I could pick them out of a lineup or recognize their pictures,” said Bellone.

The pair’s bombshell accusations blow a big hole in the official story as well as the findings in the recent 9-11 commission report.”

 In Chapter 1, footnote 76, there is the sole but definitive reference to the airline “black boxes?: “The CVR?s and the FDR?s [voice and flight data recorders] from American 11 and United 175 were not found.”

Asked if DeMasi and Bellone were questioned or subpoenaed, commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said: “I can’t tell you now if he was one of the 1,200 people we interviewed or if the book was one of the countless ones we researched. We explored every lead, but I will try to find out if we talked with him and get back to you.”

Bellone said commission members never contacted him or DeMasi and never asked the two to appear before the group even though the book was published well before the hearings commenced.

“I have been contacted by only one newspaper reporter, from The Philadelphia Daily News,” said Bellone, referring to an October 2004 story by reporter William Bunch, who recapped DeMasi’s statements as well as the usual official denials.

Those close to the 9-11 investigation said the recovery of the “black boxes? is important because they may hold vital clues about what really happened on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

The cockpit voice recorder uses a pair of microphones to capture all cockpit sounds for the last 30 minutes of a doomed flight. The flight data recorder is also significant since it records altitude, heading and airspeed.

Both recorders are designed to withstand enormous impact and heat. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) officials said they should have withstood the conditions at the WTC.

And finding the boxes after a crash seems to be standard procedure, according to the NTSB.

“It’s extremely rare that we don’t get the recorders back,” said NTSB spokesman Ted Lopatkiewicz. “I can’t remember another case which we did not recover the recorders.”

Bellone is retired and was made an honorary New York fireman for his efforts after 9-11. DeMasi has recently retired from Engine Co. 261, nicknamed the “Flaming Skulls.”

  

9/11 ‘black box’ cover-up at Ground Zero ?

9/11 "black box" cover-up at Ground Zero? —
a Campaign Extra!/PDN exclusive

The Black Boxes would reveal, what kind of flights, planes or other non commercial aircraft objects, really arrived in New York.

This is the more comprehensive version of our story appearing in today’s Philadelphia Daily News.

Will Bunch/Philadelphia News -October 28, 2004

 Two men who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center claim they helped federal agents find three of the four “black boxes? from the jetliners that struck the towers on 9/11 – contradicting the official account.

Both the independent 9/11 Commission and federal authorities continue to insist that none of the four devices – a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) from the two planes – were ever found in the wreckage.

But New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi has written in a recent book — self-published by several Ground Zero workers — that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate three of the four.

His account is supported by a volunteer, Mike Bellone, whose efforts at Ground Zero have been chronicled in the New York Times and elsewhere. Bellone said assisted DeMasi and the agents and that saw a device that resembling a “black box? in the back of the firefighter’s ATV.

Their story raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at Ground Zero. Federal aviation officials – blaming the massive devastation – have said the World Trade Center attacks seem to be the only major jetliner crashes in which the critical devices were never located.

A footnote to the 9/11 Commission Report issued this summer flatly states: “The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175? – the two planes that hit the Trade Center – “were not found.”

And officials for the FBI – which oversaw the cleanup at Ground Zero – and the New York City Fire Department repeated this week that the devices were never recovered.

The “black boxes? – actually orange – could have provided valuable new information about the worst terror attack to ever take place on American soil.

The cockpit voice recorder uses two microphones to capture the sounds of the cockpit for the last 30 minutes of a doomed flight on a tape loop. In the case of the hijacked 9/11 jetliners, the devices should have captured any conversations or actions involving the hijackers, as well as radio transmissions.

The flight data recorder records things like airspeed, heading, and altitude. Both devices – located in the tail of the airplane – emit loud “pings? so they can be located even in ocean jetliner crashes, like the 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island.

They are built to survive an impact of enormous force – 3400 Gs – and a fire of 1100 degrees Celsius for one hour, somewhat higher than official estimates of the World Trade Center blaze.

“It’s extremely rare that we don’t get the recorders back. I can’t recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders,” Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board, told CBS News in 2002. However, officials said little of the jets was recovered.

DeMasi was with now defunct Engine Company 261 in 2001. He wrote up his recollections of the Ground Zero recovery in a glossy book self-published by a group that calls itself Trauma Recovery Assistance for Children, or the TRAC Team. The book was published in 2003 but received little notice.

(There’s more on the book and how people can get it at this site.)
 DeMasi, an all-terrain vehicles hobbyist – said he donated 4 ATVs to the clean-up and became known as “the ATV Guy.”

“At one point, I was asked to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes,” he wrote. “We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV…”

“There were a total of four black boxes. We found three.”

Efforts over several days to locate and interview DeMasi, who is now said to be with the FDNY?s Marine Unit, were not successful.

But his account was verified by another member of the so-called TRAC Team, recovery site volunteer Bellone. He recalled FBI agents arriving for the search one day in early October, setting up their equipment near Brooks Brothers. He said he didn’t go out with them on the ATV but observed their search.

At one point, Bellone said he observed the team with a box that appeared charred but was redish-orange with two white stripes. Pictures of the flight recorders on the NTSB and other Web sites show devices that are orange, with two white stripes.

“There was the one that I saw, and two others were recovered in different locations – but I wasn’t there for the other two,” Bellone said. He said the FBI agents left with the boxes.

If the account by DeMasi and Bellone is true, it’s not clear what motive federal authorities would have for claiming they weren’t found.

 By the same token, however, it’s not clear what incentive either man would have to lie.

An FBI spokesman in New York, Jim Margolin, said after checking with the leader of the Ground Zero investigation that none of the boxes were recovered.

Frank Gribbon, the FDNY spokesman, also said “no one in the Department is aware of the recovery of any of the airline "black boxes" at the WTC site.”

Bellone has encounted some unrelated problems in connection with the TRAC group, however. In April, the New York Post reported (story not available online) that TRAC owned money to a number of creditors, including the company that published the book. Fire officials also told Bellone, who was made an honorary firefighter by a New York engine company, that he couldn’t wear an official uniform on school visits.

Posted on October 28, 2004 07:30 AM

 

Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

http://physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

911 and the Precautionary Principle: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity
 
by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)


The precautionary principle is based on the fact that the failure to prove a proposition completely does not disprove the proposition. If the proposition warns of an ongoing or oncoming disaster (e.g. global warming) it is wise to take precautions. The proposition arrived at here is this: the 911 hijackings and damage to buildings were not the work of Arab terrorists, but appear to have been part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce aerial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government’s theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government

Report on the Black Boxes

Report on the Black Boxes


What happened to the black boxes from the four flights on 9/11? There is a great deal of misinformation concerning this issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information: both the official government version and some possible scenarios.

Thanks to Phil Jayhan for his comments and recommendations, which has resulted in some changes and edits.

What are Black Boxes?

Every airliner is required to have two black boxes: 1) A Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and, 2) A Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR). The black boxes are actually painted orange. The FDR records a variety of data concerning the aircraft: speed, direction, engine settings, etc. Approximately 50 types of data are recorded for each trip or series of trips for 25 hours. The CVR records the last 30 minutes of all transmissions and receptions made through the crew’s headphones, plus there is a recorder in the cockpit. Black boxes are mounted in the rear of the aircraft, which is usually the least damaged section in a crash.


Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR)

What happened to the Black Boxes? – The U.S. Government Official Version

Flights 11 & 175

No black boxes were found from Flights 11 and 175, allegedly Boeing 767-200 airliners, which crashed into the World Trade Center Twin Towers. A massive search was undertaken with no results.

Flight 77

The black boxes from Flight 77, allegedly a Boeing 757, which crashed into the Pentagon were found. There are two conflicting government stories concerning the cockpit voice recorder (CVR).

On 25 February 2002 FBI Director Robert Mueller stated to CNN that Flight 77’s flight data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the cockpit voice recorder contained “nothing useful”.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said the data in the cockpit voice recorder was unrecoverable.

Flight 93

The black boxes from Flight 93, allegedly a Boeing 757, which crashed in Pennsylvania were found. Both the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) were recovered. Data was downloaded from both. The CVR recording was played to the passengers? families of Flight 93 after requiring them to sign non-disclosure forms.

The flight data recorder was found buried in the crash crater and its data apparently retrieved as revealed in the 9/11 Commission report in Chapter 1. See “911 Commission Report & Notes” at the end of this post.

Black Box Theories

Flights 11 & 175: The Twin Towers Hit

Will Bunch, a journalist with the Philadelphia Daily News, reported that three of the four black boxes were found at Ground Zero. His article was published on 28 October 28 2004 on page 7 of the Philadelphia Daily News (PA)

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN410B.html

Flights 11 & 175 Black Box Theory: Research Instruments

First, Flight 11 was not a scheduled flight. It was not listed in the BTS databse. It was a remote control drone. So was Flight 175, except it was listed in the BTS.

The FDRs recorded the required flight data and perhaps some additional data. This information would be extremely valuable in comparing actual flight performance vs. planned flight performance while being flown by remote control. For example, if the objective was to make the final approach at 1000 feet (308 m) ? what was the actual altitude?

A question is was one of the black boxes not found? — or where there only three for some reason? Or, are the eyewitnesses in the Will Bunch article incorrect or lying? Maybe there were no black boxes. The planes were, after all, drones. At this time, we dont’ know.

Flight 77: The Pentagon Hit

There was no Flight 77, no Boeing 757, no black boxes.

Flights 77 Black Box Theory: Props for the Cover-Up Story

Black boxes had to be publically “found” for the media, public and rescue workers to reinforce the story that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. And they were found by the Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue Team (FCUSRT), which is one of the first special FEMA emergency response teams. FCUSRT was at the OKC bombing site. The black boxes were found just inside the famous “punch out” hole in the Pentagon’s third ring, next to the internal AE Drive . The distance was 310 feet (100 m) from the entry point of the aircraft into the Pentagon. They were planted there shortly after the crash, along with some front landing gear, during the confusion.

See my post: Pentagon: New Cover-Up Revelations
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?p=53795

See my post: Debunking Popular Mechanics Article “9/11 Myths, The Pentagon: Flight 77 Debris”
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?p=52553

I am surprised that the government states the flight data recorder was recovered and downloaded, since the 757 made an incredibly difficult manuever on its final approach: a 330 degree turn while descending 7,000 feet (2.150 m). FAA air traffic controllers said the plane “manuevered like a fighter”. Not bad for Hani Hanjour, who had less than 50 hours of flying time and was a poor pilot. I can only surmise that the perpetrators decided that destruction of the FDR would raise more red flags than not releasing the data. Keep in mind that the FDR is bogus ? planted evidence.

The cockpit voice recorder is also intriguing. FBI Director Mueller stated there was “nothing interesting” on the tape. The hijackers said nothing interesting for the last 30 minutes of their flight? Again, keep in mind that the CVR is bogus ? planted evidence.

The FDR and CVR were planted as evidence. Did the perpetrators fake the data and voice recordings or were they left blank? If they faked the data and voice recordings, it would be very interesting to review them.

Flight 93: Crash into Heartland America

There was no Flight 93, no Boeing 757, no black boxes.

Flight 93 Black Box Theory: Props for the Heroic Passengers Story

The FDR and CVR were planted as evidence. Did the perpetrators fake the FDR data or was it left blank? The CVR had the faked 31 minutes of voice recording.

The faked data in the FDR would be extremely interesting to review since there is overwhelming evidence that no Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

The cockpit voice recorder is an amazing story. Keep in mind that there was no crash, no passengers, no hijackers, no cell phone of airfone calls, no “LetsRoll”. The entire story is propaganda. Remember that the first government version was “heroic passengers crash plane, sacrificing their lives, to save the White House”. When the families wanted to hear the tapes, the story got changed to “hijackers crash plan to prevent passengers from getting into the cockpit”. Remember that the government had the voice recording (supposedly) within days and would have known that the hijackers crashed the plane. Keep in mind the recording is a fake.

The CVR data was recovered and was listened to by family members. Remember that the government didn’t want to release the tape, but family members insisted. Finally the government relented, but required them to sign a waiver agreeing not to sue the government. There was an argument concerning allowing families listen to the last three minutes. Remember that there is a three minute discrepency in the time of the crash: the government says 10:03, seismic records show 10:06. The last three minutes apparently record the sounds of passengers trying to break into the cockpit. There is more to this story which will have to wait for another article.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/911/showcase/chi-020419flight93%2C0%2C2369725.story

911 Commission Report & Notes
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm

911 Commission Report Chapter 1 wrote:
By all accounts, the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz-Jason.”70

The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft. During the first broadcast, the captain or first officer could be heard declaring “Mayday” amid the sounds of a physical struggle in the cockpit. The second radio transmission, 35 seconds later, indicated that the fight was continuing. The captain or first officer could be heard shouting:” Hey get out of here-get out of here-get out of here.”71


911 Report notes wrote:
70. On FDR, see NTSB report, “Specialist’s Factual Report of Investigation-Digital Flight Data Recorder” for United Airlines Flight 93, Feb. 15, 2002; on CVR, see FBI report, “CVR from UA Flight #93,” Dec. 4, 2003; Commission review of Aircraft Communication and Reporting System (ACARS) messages sent to and from Flight 93 (which indicate time of message transmission and receipt); see UAL record, Ed Ballinger ACARS log, Sept. 11, 2001. At 9:22, after learning of the events at the World Trade Center, Melody Homer, the wife of co-pilot Leroy Homer, had an ACARS message sent to her husband in the cockpit asking if he was okay. See UAL record, ACARS message, Sept. 11, 2001.

71. On FDR, see NTSB report, “Specialist’s Factual Report of Investigation-Digital Flight Data Recorder” for United Airlines Flight 93, Feb. 15, 2002; on CVR, see FBI report, “CVR from UA Flight #93,” Dec. 4, 2003; FAA report, “Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events: September 11, 2001,” Sept. 17, 2001; NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording-United Airlines Flight 93, Dec. 21, 2001.


911 Commission Report, Chapter 1 wrote:
At 9:32, a hijacker, probably Jarrah, made or attempted to make the following announcement to the passengers of Flight 93:”Ladies and Gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So, sit.” The flight data recorder (also recovered) indicates that Jarrah then instructed the plane’s autopilot to turn the aircraft around and head east.75

The cockpit voice recorder data indicate that a woman, most likely a flight attendant, was being held captive in the cockpit. She struggled with one of the hijackers who killed or otherwise silenced her.76


911 Report notes wrote:
75. Like Atta on Flight 11, Jarrah apparently did not know how to operate the communication radios; thus his attempts to communicate with the passengers were broadcast on the ATC channel. See FBI report, “CVR from UA Flight #93,” Dec. 4, 2003.Also, by 9:32 FAA notified United’s headquarters that the flight was not responding to radio calls. According to United, the flight’s nonresponse and its turn to the east led the airline to believe by 9:36 that the plane was hijacked. See Rich Miles interview (Nov. 21, 2003); UAL report, “United dispatch SMFDO activities-terrorist crisis,” Sept. 11, 2001.

76. In accordance with FAA regulations, United 93’s cockpit voice recorder recorded the last 31 minutes of sounds from the cockpit via microphones in the pilots’ headsets, as well as in the overhead panel of the flight deck. This is the only recorder from the four hijacked airplanes to survive the impact and ensuing fire. The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found, and the CVR from American Flight 77 was badly burned and not recoverable. See FBI report, “CVR from UA Flight #93,”Dec. 4, 2003; see also FAA regulations, 14 C.F.R.

Flight 11 Goes Site-Seeing

Flight 11 Goes Site-Seeing

by Frank Levi (8th Sept 2004) 

Introduction

 

Since 9-11 there has been much speculation about the possibility that the planes used on that day were flown by remote control.  If you are not familiar with these theories it is advisable to read them first before reading this article.

 

These theories were sparked by a number of anomalies in the official story such as: 

 
  • The alleged hijacker pilots have all been reported to be less than adequate pilots.
  • The jerking movements of the planes.
  • The aerobatic manoeuvres performed by Flight 77 prior to its crash into the Pentagon
  • The failure of all pilots on four planes to change the transponder code to 7500 indicating a hijacking is taking place. (They didn’t even need to change their transponder code; transmitting “squawk seven five zero zero? on the radio is enough.)
  • The bizarre way that AA Flight 77 flew round in a circle and into the side of the Pentagon like a plane coming in to land.
 

You can read these various pieces and come to your own conclusions. There has been a gradual evolution in this theory over the years since 9-11 as more evidence has come to light. Original theories focused on the idea that the planes were modified (probably in the airports) to allow remote control. Looking from the viewpoint of our unknown conspirators this might appear unnecessarily complex and risky, especially when compared to more recent ideas which we will expand on in this essay.

 Read the rest on :  http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Flight11.htm
 

 

The Timeline of Delta 1989

The Timeline of Delta 1989

 


John Doe II Thursday 10 March 2005

The Delta 1989 made an emergency landing at Cleveland on 911.
Woody Box dealt in a very interesting article on the “Cleveland Airport Mystery”. Especially concerning all the contradicting accounts of the landing of Delta etc his article is essential reading.
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=323

Not much is known about this flight that Colonel Scott called in his testimony “a red herring”.
Time to change this as there are still many unanswered questions.

8 :05 Delta 1989 pushes back from the gate at Boston Logan Airport.

8:25 Delta 1989 takes off (two minutes after UA 175).

Shortly after 9 :03 “FBI agents called an air traffic facility in Ohio that was tracking Flight 1989. Watch what the Delta flight does, agents told controllers at Cleveland Center. Controllers there had already been watching. Like the FBI, they realized that the Delta flight had taken off from Boston just minutes after American Flight 11 and United Flight 175 ? the two jets that crashed into the Trade Center towers. The similarities didn’t end there.”
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-clear-skies.htm

9 :15 “Aboard Delta Flight 1989, Capt. Paul Werner learns of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks from his cockpit radio.”
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-clear-skies.htm

9 :28 UA 93 : The attack of the hijackers begins. “While travelling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds in the descent, the FAA?s air traffic control center received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft. During the first broadcast, the captain or first officer could be heard declaring “Mayday? amid the sound of physical struggle in the cockpit. The second radio transmission, 35 seconds later, indicated that the fight was continuing. The captain or first officer could be heard shouting: “Hey, get out of here ? get out of here ? get out of here.” (CR, 11)

Delta 1989: “Now about 9:30 a.m., controllers hear words that seem to confirm their worst fears. They hear shouting as Flight 1989 approaches the Ohio border. Then they hear a voice: "Get out of there!" Then what sounds like a scuffle.”
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-clear-skies.htm

My comment: This is exactly the same sounds as for UA 93.
MercutioATC pointed out to me that a controller has no possibility to figure out from which plane a sound was coming. That’s why controllers always asks the planes to identify. So this can explain the mix up of UA and Delta at this moment.

My question: Why did the controller never asked Delta if it had a problem. After the sounds he only tried to contact UA 93 not Delta 1989. From the controller’s behaviour it seems clear to me that he has no doubt that UA 93 has a problem not Delta.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/flight93-air-traffic.htm
MercutioATC, maybe I mix up things here. Corrections always appreciated!

At first, they wondered if the struggle was coming from Delta 1989.
"The controller asks the transmission to repeat itself, not knowing exactly what you had heard," Kettell said. "We finally were able to deduce… (which one) was the airplane not talking to us. That was Flight 93."
(Akron Beacon Journal, 8/14/02)

"After the second struggle, we were pretty sure we had a problem on Flight 93, but we were also still watching Flight 1989," he said.
(Akron Beacon Journal, 8/14/02)

O’BRIEN: At first, they suspected it was Delta 1989.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/08/sm.09.html

9 :32 UA 93 : Jarrah’s announcement :

An overview of the AA11 mystery



This is a copy of the original article text which can be found here: http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=629 I have stored a local copy minus most of the scripts but please try the above link FIRST in case my copy is out of date, and if it does not load for you then you can read the local copy here.  NOTE! See updated copy at above link – August 3rd, 2004!


Flight 11 – The Twin Flight

posted by ewing2001 on Sunday March 14, @10:35AM
from the Woody-Box dept.

 

Ewing2001 presents:

Flight 11 – The Twin Flight




An examination on the critical moments of September 11 at Logan Airport by Woody Box


The efforts necessary to research and formulate this text are dedicated to the victims of Sept.11 and their loved ones, and especially to the victims of flight 11.
I know them a bit by now, and I like them.


Where did Flight 11 start? Almost everyone knows the answer: this was in Boston. But if you want it a bit more precise and ask for the specific gate the airplane left from, your interview partner most likely will just raise his eyebrows and present a counter-question: "Why do you want to know that?"


This is about to change. On closer inspection, the question for the gate is not trivial at all, but highly intriguing. There are two answers: Gate 26 and Gate 32. And both answers resist any attempt to refute them.

 

 


Flight 11 was an institution on Logan, Airport, it used to be the American Airlines’ early morning transcontinental flight for years. The flight was popular among flight attendants because usually wasn’t full of passengers, sometimes not even half full. Its departure was scheduled regularly for 7:45 a.m. at Terminal B, Gate 32. And so it was on Sept. 11, as this radio transcript shows: "7:45:48 — Ground Control 1: American eleven heavy boston ground gate thirty two you’re going to wait for a Saab to go by then push back" (1).

This document is encountered by press reports claiming that the passengers of flight 11 embarked on an airplane at Gate 26 (2). This gate is located in another wing of Terminal B and about 1000 ft. away from Gate 32. Gate 26 is the "official version", and apart from one exception, Gate 32 is never mentioned (3). The confusion is completed by the fact that this airplane’s departure (which I will name "plane-26" as opposed to "plane-32") was delayed, i.e. it left the gate later than 7:45 a.m (4). This has been confirmed by several witnesses (5).

Summarizing the diverse reports and witness statements yields the following double timeline for flight 11:


(x): source x
* No data found; estimated half an hour before scheduled departure
** No data found; estimated quarter an hour before scheduled departure
*** Estimation based on witness statements

Instead of favoring one of the planes and hopelessly trying to invalidate the evidence for the other one, it’s a better idea to get familiar with the thought that there was a plane labeled "flight 11" at both gates (6).
Then we must realize the consequences of this surprise with regard to the criminal case of 9/11.

The issue in question is the identity of the doomed plane. Plane-32 is the jet that crashed into the WTC North Tower. Its flight path is well documented by the transponder data, the radar data and the radio talk with the controllers, at least up to a few minutes before the crash. But there is no evidence of any people embarking, or intending to embark, on a plane starting at 7:45 from Gate 32, not one report, not one witness. Whereas it’s possible that the passengers boarded partly plane-26, partly plane-32, it seems to be far more likely that the irregularity of the two gates is part of a hitherto unknown plan to get control of plane-32 without disturbing passengers or crew members. So in all probability, the plane was "stolen" from the airport by the so-called hijackers, – with no passengers aboard.

The people most concerned by this are the relatives of the victims of flight 11. They must learn that their husbands, wives, fathers, mothers etc. perhaps did not die in the North Tower. Sadly, there is virtually no hope that they are still alive because we’ve never heard of them anymore. But as every human being wants to know the place where his loved ones left this earthly world, it’s just a matter of time until questions for their real fate will arise.

The FBI and the 9/11 Commission, apparently unaware of the problem, should seriously scrutinize the hypothesis of the "hijacked" planes. If there were no passengers on plane-32, there was no need to hijack it. The pilot’s behavior – deviation from course, no reaction to controllers, suspicious cockpit talks – was supposed to PRETEND a hijacking. The resulting question – why did he do that, why did he attract attention so early instead of calmly following his deadly route as long as necessary – lacks an answer yet but constitutes a big challenge to every investigator.

Well, the flight attendants Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney relate a hijacking in their phone calls (7). The problem is that the contents of the calls differ considerably, thereby diminishing their conclusiveness. Mrs. Sweeney, for instance, doesn’t mention with one word the mace Mrs. Ong is talking about. Instead, she describes a bomb with yellow wires, and this essential detail does not appear in Ong’s call. The two women are seemingly not in contact as they don’t exchange information. This is not the right place to discuss the inconsistencies of these two calls, but there are many to detect through careful examination. Therefore the identity of the callers and the authenticity of the calls are highly doubtful, particularly since they are not recorded, apart from the first four minutes of the alleged Ong call. The possibility that the calls came from another person simulating the voices of Mrs. Ong and Mrs. Sweeney with the help of voice-shaping software should not be dismissed flatly. It is known that the hijackers did a lot of test flights. Enough opportunities to record the voice of a flight attendant on a hidden tape. Enough time for a female terrorist to train imitating the captured voices.

Plane-26 is a far better candidate for a hijacking than plane-32 as there were passengers seen waiting in front of Gate 26 (Spiegel, see (2) ). Unfortunately, the only thing we know from this plane is that it was scheduled to depart at some point after 7:45 a.m. Its actual departure time is not known, however, and it’s even possible that it didn’t start at all. The official database of the Bureau for Transportation Statistics (BTS) doesn’t help either. This database contains all domestic flights of the big airlines, but on Sept. 11, flight 11 and its data are missing completely (8).

Perhaps some FBI investigator should browse his filing cabinet for the mysterious "5th flight" shortly emerging in the media after September 11. This transcontinental flight was scheduled to start at 8:10 a.m. in Boston, but it was canceled in the last minutes due to a mechanical defect (9). The flight number 43 turned out to be wrong afterwards, raising the question for the correct number of the canceled flight (10). In any case, the scheduled departure time 8:10 a.m. perfectly fits the boarding time 7:35 a.m. of plane-26 (Spiegel, see (4) ), so it’s quite possible that this was the delayed flight 11 at Gate 26. Note that American Airlines used to offer only one transcontinental flight around 8 a.m: flight 11.

This article raises many questions but fails to provide the answers. This is not surprising, though, because the author lacks the means to go deeper in his investigation, be it interviewing witnesses or sifting documents. Some questions, however, might be answered quickly if certain important documents are published, for instance the tape corresponding to the radio transcript in the New York Times. The 9/11 commission already has proven its openness to such ideas.

Was it really John Ogonowski who was sitting in the cockpit of plane-32 and talking with Ground Controller 1? It is said that Mrs. Ogonowski was never given an opportunity to listen to the tape.

"7:45:58 — AAL11: After the Saab cleared to push, and we’re gonna need four right today, American eleven heavy."

Sources:


(1)

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/16/national/…

NY Times (Transcript-Mirror, GFP)

(2)

Gate 26 was reported by several newspapers, especially the Boston Globe.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/…

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/watt16.xml

A few weeks later, Gate 26 is confirmed by a Spiegel team coming to Boston and speaking with eyewitnesses (Spiegel 49/2001, cover story: "Was wirklich geschah" (What really happened) ).

http://news.globalfreepress.com/ewing/flight11_spiegel911.pdf, p. 37/38 (3,9 MB)

The crucial text passage is repeated in the 9/11 Spiegel book
Aust/Schnibben (Ed.): 11. September – Geschichte eines Terrorangriffs, dtv 2002, p. 43/44.



(3)

The exception is the Boston Globe article "Two flights from Logan are hijacked" by Stephen Kurkjian and Raphael Lewis. This is one of the very earliest reports on the attacks, published on Sept. 11. It can be found in the archive and is mirrored here:

http://news.globalfreepress.com/ewing/twoflights_fromboston_cp.html

Quote: "One airport employee, who asked not to be identified, said the American flight left on time from Gate 32 in Terminal B, and that nothing unusual was apparent." One day later, in the Globe article "Crashes in NYC had grim origins at Logan", we read: "The American flight left from Gate 26 in Terminal B, and the United flight from Gate 19 in Terminal C. One airport employee said nothing unusual was apparent when the American flight left." Was this the same employee as the day before?



(4)

http://news.globalfreepress.com/ewing/flight11_spiegel911.pdf , p. 37/38

According to Der Spiegel, Gate 26 was opened to the passengers at 7:35. And we learn that flight 11 was 14 minutes late – because the jet lifted off at 7:59, that is 14 minutes after the scheduled departure time. This is nonsense, of course, and you might ask yourself whether these reporters had been coming to Boston by ship because they obviously don’t know the difference between gate departure and take off. Anyway, with a boarding time of 7:35 the plane surely left the gate later than 7:45.



(5)

Two passengers and one crew member called their spouse before the departure of flight 11:

http://www.cbsnews.com/earlyshow/healthwatch/…

Quote: "(David) Filipov’s father Alexander, whom he calls Al, was a passenger on American Airlines, Flight 11, which was the first jet that crashed into the towers. In an ironic twist of fate, he was supposed to be on a Delta flight to Los Angeles but switched to American at the last minute. The last contact Alexander Filipov had with his family was when he called his wife from American Airline’s Admiral’s lounge at Boston’s Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. " So Mr. Filipov was not aboard plane-32 which was just pushing back from the gate at 7:45. Most likely he was going to take plane-26. Given the time he would need to walk from the club to Gate 26 – at least five minutes, probably more – the boarding was surely possible until at least 7:55.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcase/…

Quote: "Richard Ross, 58, of Newton Mass., called his wife Tuesday morning to say his plane was leaving a bit late. He was frustrated, concerned about arriving in time for a business meeting in Los Angeles, his son said." So this was a substantial delay, not just five minutes. And obviously Mr. Ross didn’t intend to take plane-32 – this plane was right on time.

http://news.globalfreepress.com/ewing/sheehy_ong_2004GFPMirror.html

Quote: "(Amy) Sweenex’s first call from the plane was at 7:11 a.m. on Sept. 11?the only call in which she displayed emotional upset. Flight 11 was delayed, and she seized the few moments to call home in hopes of talking to her 5-year-old daughter, Anna, to say how sorry she was not to be there to put her on the bus to kindergarten." So at 7:11, gate departure and boarding time already were rescheduled, i.e. shifted back by some minutes. And Mrs. Sweeney was likely not calling from plane-32.



(6)

 

This thesis is confirmed by a peculiar scenery taking place one year later. Time: Sept. 11, 2002, 7:55 a.m. Location: Boston, Logan Airport, Terminal B. While Sylvio Amorino mourns calmly in front of Gate 26 in memoriam the victims who left the airport here one year ago, a big memorial service with 200 American Airlines employees is held at Gate 32. How many of the employees were eyewitnesses of the boarding procedure of the last flight 11, and why weren’t any employees with Sylvio Amorino?

http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2002/09/11/news/export25738.txt

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/…



(7)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/…

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/01/27/911.commis.call/

There is one additional oddity concerning Betty Ong’s call. According to Vanessa Minter, the AA employee who has received the call, it commenced "minutes after 8:00 a.m.", lasted nearly 40 minutes and ended at 8:46 a.m. This contradicts other reports that Mrs. Ong rang her up at 8:21:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/print_091002_NW_LastCall.html

Why didn’t the 9/11 commission invite Mrs. Minter when they were playing the Ong call to the public?



(8)

http://www.bts.gov/ntda/oai/index.shtml

http://sydney.indymedia.org/…



(9)

The Tribune article is to be found in the archive. A copy is here:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/…

The Telegraph is better informed: like flight 11, the destination of the transcontinental flight was Los Angeles.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/…



(10)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/…

"In fact, the flight under investigation flew out of Newark" writes the Tribune and apologizes for associating flight 43 with Boston; the AA 43 of Newark, however, didn’t have a mechanical problem but started on point, so it couldn’t have been the "flight under investigation". Does the Tribune want to spell away the canceled flight?


Copyright (c) February 29, 2004 by Woody Box. The author is a musician and free-lance 9/11 researcher from Germany. Nico Haupt contributed to this report.
(*thx to Michael Kane for further edit)

 

 

AA11 left Logan Gate no. 26





The Boston Globe OnlineBoston.com
Boston Globe Online / Nation | World


[ Send this story to a friend | Easy-print version ]

 

Logan Airport   CLAMPING DOWN: A worker closing access to gates at terminal C after Logan Airport was closed and all flights were canceled, after two flights that left Logan were propelled into New York City’s World Trade Center.
(Globe Staff/John Blanding)

 

Crashes in NYC had grim origins at Logan

 

By Peter J. Howe and Matthew Brelis, Globe Staff, 9/12/2001

Long-standing concerns about the adequacy of security at Boston’s Logan International Airport took on new weight yesterday after two jets that had taken off from Boston were hijacked and later crashed into the twin World Trade Center towers in New York.

 

By last evening, airport and law enforcement officials had offered no information about who took over the Los Angeles-bound American Airlines Flight 11 and United Air Lines Flight 175 or how, or whether, the hijackers had help from others on the ground who could have smuggled in weapons before takeoff. The flights left within the same 15-minute span as jets leaving Newark and Dulles International Airport that were also hijacked and crashed, one into the Pentagon, in a terror campaign of astonishing precision.

 

As the Federal Aviation Administration shut down all US air travel yesterday, Logan officials began evacuating and sealing the airport. Logan was expected to remain closed ”indefinitely.”

 

Last evening, Massachusetts Port Authority aviation director Thomas Kinton said whenever Logan reopens, there will probably be ”very significant” security changes, including no more curbside luggage check-in and a ban on anyone except registered passengers passing checkpoints.

 

Massport security director Joseph Lawless, a longtime state trooper who was Governor William F. Weld’s chauffeur in the early 1990s, said Logan tower operators received no communications from either plane that anything was amiss before contact with the planes was handed off to national air traffic control operators in Nashua and Long Island.

 

”Everything seemed normal when they left Logan,” said Lawless, who said the American flight left with 92 people on board at 7:59 a.m. and the United flight with 65 people at 8:14 a.m.

 

Lawless would not divulge details regarding what Massport knows about who may have been able to get through Logan security and seize control of the planes, but said, ”We have a very high security standard here. We are as secure, if not more secure, than any other airport in the US.” Nevertheless, Lawless said Logan will remain closed ”indefinitely … until we receive some directives from the FAA.”

 

The American flight left from Gate 26 in Terminal B, and the United flight from Gate 19 in Terminal C. One airport employee said nothing unusual was apparent when the American flight left, and airline workers learned almost simultaneously that there had been explosions at the World Trade Center and that air traffic control had lost contact with the American flight.

 

A flight that left Boston for Cleveland yesterday morning was detained on arrival for a search in a secured area, according to a spokesman for Cleveland Mayor Michael White.

 

While Logan officials insisted they have hewed to ”high-security standards,” in recent years safety concerns have repeatedly been raised at Logan, including by some Massport officials concerned about the reliability of low-paid private security company officials charged with inspecting baggage for weapons and keeping intruders out of secure areas.

 

From 1997 through early 1999, the FAA found at least 136 security violations at Logan, including easy access to parked planes and lax baggage inspections. Massport, which operates Logan, and airlines operating there were fined $178,000 for security lapses during the period.

 

In one spectacular security breach during the summer of 1999, a Brookline teenager was able to climb over an airport security fence, walk 2 miles across the tarmac, get through a jetway door that should have been locked, and stow away on a British Airways 747 headed to London. In April 2000, Massport said it was permanently locking 26 of about 300 doors that lead from terminal buildings onto tarmacs after a September 1999 Boston Globe investigation found that doors were frequently left open, potentially allowing terrorists access to airplanes on the ground.

 

Brian Sullivan, a retired FAA special agent who had been working to focus congressional and media attention on security concerns at Logan, said yesterday, ”If a determined terrorist wants to take out a target, they will get it. The question we have to ask is, `Have we done everything possible to prevent that?’ and I think the answer is no.”

 

”Two of the planes flew out of Logan, but I don’t think Logan is weaker than any other airport. The problem is systemic,” Sullivan said. ”Morale problems are horrendous” among FAA security staff whose job includes trying to prevent terrorists from boarding planes. ”All you need to do is look at turnover and employee satisfaction,” Sullivan added.

 

Sullivan, like many other security specialists, said the weak link in aviation security is the low-paid employees hired to work at security checkpoints by private security firms that are contracted by the airlines.

 

A former Massport official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that for years airport officials have been concerned about ”the quality of the people hired, basically at the minimum wage, to check your bags. There were a lot of people at Massport who said this was the weak link.”

 

However, this official noted that it would be hard to single out Logan for blame yesterday in light of the simultaneous hijackings of flights from Newark and Dulles.

 

For terrorists determined to bring down the World Trade Center, Logan would be a natural target because transcontinental flights filled with jet fuel could be commandeered soon after takeoff, Massport’s Kinton said.

 

On the issue of weapons getting into the plane, Kinton said, ”We don’t know what, if anything, got through any of the three airports involved.”

 

Sullivan agreed that in general, ”the screeners at checkpoints are not well educated. You can’t keep up with their background checks. There is high turnover and low pay. And that is our front line of security. It can’t be.”

 

Responsibility for security at Logan is split among Massport and its State Police Troop E contingent, which oversees the airport perimeter, parking areas, and terminal space, and the airlines themselves, which hire contractors to staff the security checkpoints for passengers boarding flights and inspections of baggage being loaded into cargo holds.

 

Danielle Crosby, a spokeswoman for Globe Aviation Services, an East Boston-based company identified as American’s security contractor in Logan’s Terminal B, said the company could make ”no comment about anything because of the national security issues.”

 

Massport officials identified the security company that runs United’s checkpoint at Logan as Huntley Security. Efforts to locate Huntley officials for comment were unsuccessful yesterday.

 

The 136 violations found by the FAA in the 1997-2000 monitoring came after plainclothes agents were able to board airplanes parked overnight at gates and walk into restricted areas without facing questions. People hired to operate luggage screening devices also routinely failed to detect test items such as pipe bombs and guns.

 

According to three sources interviewed by the Globe, a flight attendant on the American flight called back to Boston to report that flight attendants and passengers had been stabbed by a knife-wielding assailant who slit their throats – raising questions about whether a knife may have been smuggled through security or stashed ahead of time on the plane.

 

Cathal Flynn, the FAA’s associate administrator for civil aviation security from December 1993 through October 2000, said he was ”horrified and saddened” by the attacks. ”At the same time, I wondered how do you deal with the problem of determined, suicidal attackers,” Flynn said.

 

”I worried about this sort of thing and other sorts of things constantly,” Flynn said. ”To be involved in security is to be worried, and then to transfer that worry from something that is just debilitating to something that is conscious, systematic work to improve things. It’s a tough thing to do in a free country and a system based on free enterprise.”

 

Flynn said any free country will always struggle to maintain security. ”Israel is a highly security-conscious place, and yet people are being killed by suicidal attackers. It is an enormously difficult problem,” Flynn said.

 

In late July, the FAA announced it would seek $99,000 in civil penalties against American Airlines for a total of nine security breaches last year on six flights, including one from Logan to Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport.

 

During an assessment of American’s passenger pre-screening and checked baggage security on June 25, 2000, FAA special agents found that the airline had improperly transported unaccompanied bags on five flights, failed to perform a passenger ID check on two flights, and failed to ask appropriate security questions about checked bags on two flights.

 

The FAA did not say which violations occurred on the Boston-Chicago flight or on the other flights, which were from Washington’s Ronald Reagan National to Miami International, Denver International to Dallas/Fort Worth International, San Diego International to Reno Tahoe International, San Jose International to Los Angeles International, and Lambert St. Louis International to Chicago’s O’Hare.

 

The FAA said American took immediate corrective actions at the airports where the alleged violations were reported.

 

One of the more spectacular Logan security breaches occurred in July 1999 when a 17-year-old Brookline youth who hoped to impress Israeli spies cut razor wire from the top of a Logan perimeter fence, walked hundreds of yards across supposedly secured areas, then through a jetway door normally protected by a combination lock, and stowed away aboard a British Airways Boeing 747 jetliner headed to London. The youth was arrested after he arrived in England.

 

In the late 1990s, the FAA took steps to beef up security at Logan, including buying 600 machines to detect traces of explosives in passenger bags, but FAA investigators found many went unused, and many security staffers were never trained in how to use them.

 

Glen Johnson, Kimberly Blanton, and Stephanie Stoughton of the Globe Staff contributed to this report.

 

This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 9/12/2001.

AA11 left from Gate 26, Logan

September 11, 2001

 

Steve Miller Ate a Scone, Sheila Moody Did Paperwork, Edmund Glazer Boarded a Plane: Portrait of a Day That Began in Routine and Ended in Ashes

By David Maraniss

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 16, 2001; Page A01

A few minutes before 8, Tuesday morning. The day had broken clean and clear and sweet on the East Coast. Summer was over mentally, if not officially. It was time to get to work, and people were up and at it. The saddest and most relentlessly horrific day in modern American existence started in the most ordinary ways.

American Airlines Flight 11 had backed away from Gate 26 of Terminal B at Boston’s Logan Airport and was rolling toward the runway for a six-hour flight to Los Angeles. Edmund Glazer, in Seat 4A, first class, heard the flight attendant instruct the passengers to put away their cell phones and computers, but could not resist punching in his wife Candy’s number anyway. He’d left her in the darkness of their Wellesley home and driven away in their black SUV. He was a top financial guy for a high-tech firm, and though business was rough, life seemed good. He’d lost 40 pounds. He and Candy were feeling close. He was on board. "Hi, hon. I made it," he said.

Memorial service at Gate 32, Logan, on 11. Sept. 2002

Subdued scene at Logan Airport

By TOM BENNER Patriot Ledger State House Bureau

At 7:40 a.m. today, about 200 American Airlines employees gathered at Gate 32 at Logan Airport, the point of departure for Flight 11 exactly one year before. They observed the anniversary with a memorial service for the crew and passengers aboard the hijacked flight, which crashed into the World Trade Center in New York at 8:46.

The service was occasionally drowned out by the sound of planes taking off.

Most people were very stoic,” said American employee Andrea Rader. It was very quiet.”

At 8:46, as the country went silent for a moment and the planes were still on Logan’s tarmac, American Airlines ticket agents huddled behind a counter and bowed their heads. Some wept aloud; others silently wiped tears from the eyes.

As the moment of silence ended, God Bless America” flowed from the intercom, and the agents went back to their counters, ready for more passengers.

Counselors were on hand today for American and United Airlines employees grieving the loss of their colleagues in last year’s attacks.

American Airlines lost 23 employees from Flight 11 and Flight 77, which took off in Washington and crashed into the Pentagon.

Eighteen United employees perished on Flight 175, which struck the World Trade Center, and Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after taking off from Newark, N.J. In remembrance, United employees will wear memorial ribbons through September.

For the most part this is going to be a very low-key day,” said Chris Brathwaite of United Airlines. For most of our employees they’re going to make it a business-as-usual day as much as they can.”

Both airlines have stopped using the flight numbers that were used for the ill-fated flights.

Logan Airport is usually bustling on a weekday morning. But today there were no waits at the ticket counters, few people were inside the terminals and the normally noisy walkways were quiet except for the hum of escalators.

United Airlines had only two flights to Los Angeles this morning; American Airlines had just one.

Airport chaplain Rev. Richard Uftring, who started his career as a priest at Blessed Sacrament Church in Houghs Neck, Quincy, said, I’m telling people just believe in who we are as an airport community and as a nation.”

The number of passengers coming into and out of Logan Airport, normally 400,000 people a week, is down to an estimated 243,000 this week.

The whole week is slow,” said Barbara Platt of the Massachusetts Port Authority, which operates Logan Airport.

But despite the somber mood at Logan today, some people were still flying and remained defiant.

The president said you can carry on. No one’s going to be impeded. If they want to frighten us, we’ll frighten them back,” said Alexander Ferraro of Milton, who was flying to Arizona.

Doug Reese of Plympton, who was waiting to board the same flight, said: I wanted to travel on Sept. 11. We’re going to see our own country.”

Bob Quinn of Watertown, a Korean War veteran on his way to San Diego for a Navy reunion, said: A lot of people said I wouldn’t fly today. It doesn’t bother me. When your number’s up, it’s up.”

Tom Benner may be reached at tbenner@ledger.com.

Click here to read much more from The Patriot Ledger’s Sept. 11 One Year Later” Special Report.

Copyright 2002 The Patriot Ledger Transmitted Wednesday, September 11, 2002

 

Truth – Justice – Peace