FL 77 Cell Phone Calls (Real or Fake?)

[Abe Linkman]

Here's just one of many articles that have been written about the alleged cell phone calls from Barbara Olson to husband Ted, from FL 77.

Most serious students of 9-11 are familiar with this, but for the sake of those who are new to the subject, and for "mercutio" & "bolo" --
this might be very interesting, indeed. Enjoy.


http://geocities.com/mossadlibrary/olson.html

[BlueEyedSon]

1. I only get a picture, no article....

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Isn't that just like Abe?

Abe links to an article at Geocities that instantly uses up all its data transfer allotment...

...and is unavailable for perusal.

He could easily have reproduced the contents of the article, but then we'd be able to read it and judge it on its own merits.

Now all we can do is, once again, take Abe's word for it. But it's proof, boy howdy!

Sheesh.

With a name like "Mossad Library" I can hardly wait. Is it possible to form a decent conspiracy theory without blaming Zionists for everything?

Just add that question to your growing list of questions to never answer in public, Abe.

[Abe Linkman]

3. Sorry about that; here's a pasted article esp. for bolo, merc. & lared

This is a story about a little white lie that bred dozens of other little white lies, then hundreds of bigger white lies and so on, to the point where the first little white lie must be credited as the “Mother of All Lies” about events on 11 September 2001. For this was the little white lie that first activated the American psyche, generated mass loathing, and enabled media manipulation of the global population.
Without this little white lie there would have been no Arab Hijackers, no Osama Bin Laden directing operations from afar, and no “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine. Clearly the lie was so clever and diabolical in nature, it must have been generated by the “Power Elite” in one of its more earthly manifestations. Perhaps it was the work of the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission?
No, it was not. Though at the time the little white lie was flagged with a powerful political name, there was and remains no evidence to support the connection. Just like the corrupt and premature Lee Harvey Oswald story in 1963, there are verifiable fatal errors which ultimately prove the little white lie was solely the work of members of the media. Only they had access, and only they had the methods and means.
The little white lie was about Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator for CNN and wife of US Solicitor General Ted Olson. Now deceased, Mrs Olson is alleged to have twice called her husband from an American Airlines Flight 77 seat-telephone, before the aircraft slammed into the Pentagon. This unsubstantiated claim, reported by CNN remarkably quickly at 2.06 am EDT <0606 GMT> on September 12, was the solitary foundation on which the spurious “Hijacker” story was built.
Without the “eminent” Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional telephone calls, there would never be any proof that humans played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that day. Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on September 16 about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically important to remember here that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on September 11 and. 12. It was beyond question the artificial “seed” that started the media snowball rolling down the hill.
And once the snowball started rolling down the hill, it artfully picked up Osama Bin Laden and a host of other “terrorists” on the way. By noon on September 12, every paid glassy-eyed media commentator in America was either spilling his guts about those “Terrible Muslim hijackers”, or liberating hitherto classified information about Osama Bin Laden. “Oh sure, it was Bin Laden,” they said blithely, oblivious to anything apart from their television appearance fees.
The deliberate little white lie was essential. Ask yourself: What would most Americans have been thinking about on September 12, if CNN had not provided this timely fiction? Would anyone anywhere have really believed the insane government story about failed Cessna pilots with box cutters taking over heavy jets, then hurling them expertly around the sky like polished Top Guns from the film of the same name? Of course not! As previously stated there would have been no Osama Bin Laden, and no “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine.
This report is designed to examine the sequence of the Olson events and lay them bare for public examination. Dates and times are of crucial importance here, so if this report seems tedious try to bear with me. Before moving on to discuss the impossibility of the alleged calls, we first need to examine how CNN managed to “find out” about them, reported here in the September 12 CNN story at 2.06 am EDT:
“Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN. Shortly afterwards Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon” … “Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters. She felt nobody was in charge and asked her husband to tell the pilot what to do.”
At no point in the above report does CNN quote Ted Olson directly. If the report was authentic and 100% attributable, it would have been phrased quite differently. Instead of “Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel…”, the passage would read approximately:- Mr Olson told CNN, “My wife said all passengers and flight personnel…” Whoever wrote this story was certainly not in direct contact with US Solicitor General Ted Olson.
Think about it, people! If you knew or suspected your spouse’s aircraft had just fireballed inside the Pentagon building, how would you spend the rest of the day? Initially you would certainly be in deep shock and unwilling to believe the reports. Then you would start to gather your wits together, a slow process in itself. After that and depending on individual personality, you might drive over to the Pentagon on the off chance your spouse survived the horrific crash, or you might go home and wait for emergency services to bring you the inevitable bad news. As a matter of record, Ted Olson did not return to work until six days later.
About the last thing on your mind , would be to pick up a telephone and call the CNN Atlanta news desk in order to give them a “scoop”. As a seasoned politician you would already know that all matters involving national security must first be vetted by the National Security Council. Under the extraordinary circumstances and security overkill existing on September 11, this vetting process would have taken a minimum of two days, and more likely three.
The timing of the CNN news release about Barbara Olson, is therefore as impossible as the New Zealand press release back in 1963 about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As reported independently by Colonel Fletcher Prouty USAF (Retired), whoever set Kennedy up, accidentally launched a full international newswire biography on obscure “killer” Lee Harvey Oswald, without first taking the trouble to check his world clock.
It was still “yesterday” in New Zealand on the other side of the International Date Line when the biography was wired from New York, enabling the Christchurch Star newspaper was able to print a story about Oswald as the prime suspect in its morning edition, several hours before he was first accused of the crime by Dallas police.
If the CNN story about Ted Olson had been correct, and he really had called them about Barbara on September 11, then he would most surely have followed the telephone call up a few days later with a tasteful “one-on-one” television interview, telling the hushed and respectful interviewer about how badly he missed his wife, and about the sheer horror of it all.
There is no record of any such interview in the CNN or other archives. Indeed, if you key “Barbara Olson” into the CNN search engine, it returns only two related articles. The first is the creative invention on September 12 at 2.06 am EDT <0606 GMT>, and the second is on December 12, about President Bush, who led a White House memorial that began at 8:46 a.m. EST, the moment the first hijacked plane hit the World Trade Center three months before. CNN includes this comment about Ted Olson:
“In a poignant remembrance at the Justice Department, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson referred to "the sufferings we have all experienced." He made no direct reference to the death of his wife, Barbara Olson, who was a passenger aboard the American Airlines flight that crashed into the Pentagon…”
Regarding the same event, Fox News reports that, extraordinarily, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson then said Barbara Olson's call, made "in the midst of terrible danger and turmoil swirling around her," was a "clarion call that awakened our nation's leaders to the true nature of the events of Sept. 11."
So Ted Olson avoided making any direct personal reference to the death of his wife. Clearly this was not good enough for someone somewhere. By the sixth month anniversary of the attack, Ted Olson was allegedly interviewed by London Telegraph reporter Toby Harnden, with his exclusive story “She Asked Me How To Stop The Plane” appearing in that London newspaper on March 5, thereafter renamed and syndicated around dozens of western countries as “Revenge Of The Spitfire”, finally appearing in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday March 23, 2002.
I have diligently tried to find a copy of this story in an American newspaper but have so far failed. The reasons for this rather perverse “external” publication of Ted Olson’s story are not yet clear, but it seems fair to observe that if he is ever challenged by a Senate Select Committee about the veracity of his claims, the story could not be used against him because it was published outside American sovereign territory.
Regardless of the real reason or reasons for its publication, the story seems to have matured a lot since the first decoy news release by CNN early on September 12, 2001. Here we have considerably more detail, some of which is frankly impossible. In the alleged words of US Solicitor General Theodore Olson:
“She had trouble getting through, because she wasn’t using her cell phone – she was using the phone in the passengers’ seats,” said Mr Olson. “I guess she didn’t have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy.” … “She wanted to know ‘What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?’ ”
"What Can I tell the pilot?" Yes indeed! The forged Barbara Olson telephone call claims that the flight deck crew were with her at the back of the aircraft, presumably politely ushered down there by the box cutter-wielding Muslim maniacs, who for some bizarre reason decided not to cut their throats on the flight deck. Have you ever heard anything quite so ridiculous?
But it is at this juncture that we finally have the terminal error. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson’s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.
It gets worse. On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network. Under these circumstances the passengers’ seat phone on a Boeing 757 is a much use as a plastic toy.
Perhaps Ted Olson made a mistake and Barbara managed to borrow a credit card from a fellow passenger? Not a chance. If Barbara had done so, once swiped through the phone, the credit card would have enabled her to call whoever she wanted to for as long as she liked, negating any requirement to call collect.
Sadly perhaps, the Olson telephone call claim is proved untrue. Any American official wishing to challenge this has only to subpoena the telephone company and Justice Department records. There will be no charge originating from American Airlines 77 to the US Solicitor General.
Even without this hard proof, the chances of meaningfully using a seat-telephone on Flight 77 were nil. We know from the intermittent glimpses of the aircraft the air traffic controllers had on the radar scopes, that Flight 77 was travelling at extreme speed at very low level, pulling high “G’ turns in the process.
Under these circumstances it would be difficult even reaching a phone, much less using it. Finally, the phones on the Boeing 757 rely on either ground cell phone towers or satellite bounce in order to maintain a stable connection. At very low altitude and extreme speed, the violent changes in aircraft attitude would render the normal telephone links completely unusable.
Exactly the same applies with United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed before reaching any targets. The aircraft was all over the place at extreme speed on radar, but as with Flight 77 we are asked to believe that the “hijackers” allowed a passenger called Todd Beamer to place a thirteen minute telephone call. Very considerate of them. The Pittsburg Channel put it this way in a story first posted at 1.38 pm EDT on September 16, 2001:
“Todd Beamer placed a call on one of the Boeing 757's on-board telephones and spoke for 13 minutes with GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife said. He provided detailed information about the hijacking and -- after the operator told him about the morning's World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks - said he and others on the plane were planning to act against the terrorists aboard.” Note here that Mrs Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone call from Todd personally, but was later “told” by an operator that her husband had allegedly called. Just another unfortunate media con job for the trash can.
As previously stated it is the Barbara Olson story that really counts, a view reinforced by the recent antics of the London print media. The photo at the top of this page is a copy of that printed in the West Australian newspaper. You only have to study it closely for a second to realize its full subliminal potential.
Here is a studious and obviously very honest man. The US Solicitor General sits in front of a wall lined with leather-bound volumes of Supreme Court Arguments, with a photo of his dead wife displayed prominently in front of him. Does anyone out there seriously believe that this man, a bastion of US law, would tell even a minor lie on a matter as grave as national security?
Theodore Olson’s own words indicate that he would be prepared to do rather more than that On March 21, 2002 on its page A35, the Washington Post newspaper printed an article titled “The Limits of Lying” by Jim Hoagland, who writes that a statement by Solicitor General Theodore Olson in the Supreme Court has the ring of perverse honesty.
Addressing the Supreme Court of the United States of America, US Solicitor General Theodore Olson said it is "easy to imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out."

[dinyc]

4. Yup

You should've used my link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x12574#12654

Doncha sometimes wonder instead of "who called, how, and why?"
Who didn't and why not?
:think:

[demodewd]

5. Abe...

Abe...it is my understanding that the alleged phone call took place shortly before the plane crashed. Why the wait?? The plane had been supposedly taken over some time before(certainly one half hour or so). But she waits until it almost crashes to establish a phone connection? But if she would have made a connection lets say 20 minutes earlier it would have put the administration even more on the line to respond with scrambled jets assuming that Ted Olsen would have of course notified Washington immediately. Just some ramblings. :toast:

[Abe Linkman]

6. "demodewd"

In some versions of the story, Ms. Olson (who, btw may not actually have been legally married to Ted) made three or four calls, but I don't remember off hand at what time the first was allegedly made.

There are so many oddities. In addition to what you mentioned, consider the absurdity of her supposedly asking her husband what she should tell the pilot. Among the questions that statement raises are: where WAS the pilot at that time? Why not put HIM on the phone. And, if he was being constrained, what was she going to do, YELL OUT Ted's response?

Doesn't it strike you as curious that she was asking her alleged husband what she should tell the pilot...rather than yelling at Ted to DO SOMETHING. ANYTHING. TELL THE DAMN ARABS THE U.S. Gov't WILL GIVE THEM 72 Vestal Virgins RIGHT HERE ON EARTH, ALL the coke they want, and anything else that'll make them happy, just PLEASE DON'T DO ANYTHING RASH. Isn't that what a normal person would most likely do?

Ted's lies were thought to be critical in establishing many of the starting point lies about the self-attacks on 9-11: Arab men, wearing red bandanas (I think she said bandanas), etc.

I'll concede that IF Ms. Olson* was on FL 77 innocently (it's more than passing strange that she was even on the flight...seems out of character for her plans to have been changed on such fateful days -- didn't at least TED know about the warnings being issued to so many important people about NOT flying on 9-11? Mayor Brown (SF) knew, Ashcroft had stopped two months prior. Pentagon brass knew not to fly. Why didn't Ted know? Or, did he?)...it's even theoretically possible that she may have TRIED to call Ted, and he may have known about that, and thus it might have been "easy" to convince him to just
embellish things (patriotic duty, you know) for National Security reasons. But, all that's a real stretch.

There is zero evidence of these alleged calls, and the Gov't could easily release proof of them, if they actually occurred. You know that EVERY call to the office of the Solictor General of the U.S. is logged, and probably recorded.

Disinformation agents have tried to change the issue from the truthfulness of the calls, to the benign question of whether or not it is possible to actually make phone calls from a commercial airliner during a flight.

[LARED]

7. Abe, There is a problem with this article

It's baloney

Without the “eminent” Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional telephone calls, there would never be any proof that humans played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that day. Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on September 16 about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically important to remember here that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on September 11 and. 12. It was beyond question the artificial “seed” that started the media snowball rolling down the hill.
And once the snowball started rolling down the hill,

A quick Nexuas Lexus search find that on the 11th and 12th there were plenty of mentions about cell calls and hijackers desides Olsen's story.

CNN.com
September 12, 2001 Wednesday
SECTION: U.S.
LENGTH: 716 words
HEADLINE: Passengers voted to attack hijackers
DATELINE: NEW YORK
BODY:
... one passenger.

Passenger Jeremy Glick called his wife Liz and in-laws in New York on a cell phone to say the plane had been hijacked.

All 38 passengers, and possibly the crew, had been herded to the back of the plane.

Glick said they were aware a ...

CNN.com
September 12, 2001 Wednesday
SECTION: U.S.
LENGTH: 1747 words
HEADLINE: Chronology: The day after
BODY:
... Relatives of Jeremy Glick, a passenger on the plane that crashed in rural Pennsylvania, say he related during a cell phone call that men on board voted to try to overpower the three hijackers. Shortly after that call, the plane went down. ...
September 12, 2001 Wednesday

Transcript # 091208CN.V74
SECTION: News; Domestic
LENGTH: 469 words
HEADLINE: America Under Attack: President Bush Meets with National Security Team
BYLINE: Leon Harris, Kelly Wallace
BODY:
... one of those crashes yesterday.

Leon, back to you.

HARRIS: Yes, terrible situation there. And as we understand it his wife was able to make a cell phone call from that plane as well.

Thanks, Kelly, we'll get back to you once we do hear word from Mr. Bush. TO ORDER A ...

September 12, 2001 Wednesday
Transcript # 091210CN.V54
SECTION: News; International
LENGTH: 5074 words
HEADLINE: America Under Attack: American Symbols of Military and Financial Might Attacked
BYLINE: Colleen McEdwards, Jim Clancy, Garrick Utley, Bob Franken, David Mattingly, Richard Quest, David Ensor

BODY:
... now. Many lie dead where the World Trade Center lies in ruin. Some people trapped alive have been placing cell phone calls, we are told, quite possibly from the basement of that World Trade Center building.

The combined death toll from New York, Washington, and ...

... All right, one person on one of the flights, also a man, actually had the presence of mind to phone emergency personnel from his cell phone to report and say, "We are being hijacked."

Let's take a look at a night shot right now, the Manhattan ...

September 12, 2001 Wednesday
Transcript # 091244CN.V54
SECTION: News; Domestic
LENGTH: 1503 words
HEADLINE: America Under Attack: Officials Hold Press Conference on Airport Safety, Suspects

BYLINE: Paula Zahn

BODY:
... embedded with razor blades. Now these are sources familiar with the investigation talking to "The Boston Herald" that is consistent with what's apparently a flight attendant cell phone calls indicated as well.

Now, I want to show you one of the latest pictures of what is going on here in New York ...
September 12, 2001 Wednesday
Transcript # 091260CN.V54
SECTION: News; Domestic
LENGTH: 9801 words
HEADLINE: America Under Attack: How Could It Happen?
BYLINE: Wolf Blitzer, Greta Van Susteren, Bill Delaney, Kelli Arena, John King, Miles O'brien, Bill Hinshaw, Susan Candiotti, Mike Boettcher, Jeff Greenfield

BODY:
... well-known attorney and frequent CNN legal commentator. Huddled in the back of the plane, Olson called her husband twice from her cell phone. She described the frantic scene.

TIM O'BRIEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: She said that they were armed with knives and box cutters, paper cardboard cutters. ...
September 11, 2001 Tuesday
SECTION: U.S.
LENGTH: 1448 words
HEADLINE: Bush promises justice for terror strikes
DATELINE: NEW YORK
BODY:
... officials said the attacks appeared to have been well planned and executed, a passenger on the plane that hit the Pentagon said in cell phone call to her husband that the terrorists were armed with knives and box cutters.

The passenger was Barbara Olson, a CNN commentator and wife of Solicitor ...

... by U.S. aircraft.

They did not know that specific plane was involved. Callers from two of the other hijack planes called on cell phones to say their planes had been hijacked.

Hijackers may have flown planes

James Kallstrom, the retired FBI agent who led the investigation into the ...
September 11, 2001 Tuesday
SECTION: U.S.
LENGTH: 217 words
HEADLINE: Wife of Solicitor General alerted him of hijacking from plane
BODY:

Barbara Olson is presumed to have died in the crash.

Her husband said she called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77, which was en route from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles.

Ted Olson told ...
September 11, 2001 Tuesday
Transcript # 091135CN.V00
SECTION: News; Domestic
LENGTH: 1584 words
HEADLINE: America Under Attack: Bush Holds Press Briefing
BYLINE: Judy Woodruff, Jamie McIntyre
BODY:
... 93. Now this is the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. About 20 minutes before the plane crashed, a passenger with a cell phone locked in a bathroom actually called an emergency dispatcher and shouted into the cell phone. We are being hijacked. We're being hijacked.

They apparently stayed on the phone with this passenger up until the moment when the passenger heard ...

September 11, 2001 Tuesday
Transcript # 091174CN.V00
SECTION: News; Domestic
LENGTH: 4931 words
HEADLINE: America Under Attack: Israeli Prime Minister, Foreign Minister Offer Condolences to the American People
BYLINE: Joie Chen, Miles O'Brien, Aaron Brown, Tim O'Brien, Jamie McIntyre, Maureen Madden

BODY:
... hours ahead.

It says something about the world we live in that people, while this was going on, were able to make cell-phone calls. We heard earlier today of another call that was made from a plane, that there was some awareness on the ground, perhaps not ...

I can't wait to see how this gets spun.

[DulceDecorum]

8. LARED,

that was a rather decent piece of work you just presented.
You completely TRASHED Ann Coulter.

September 13, 2001 9:05 a.m.
This is not to engage in the media's typical hallucinatory overstatement about anyone who is the victim of a horrible tragedy. The furtive cell phone call was an act of incredible daring and panache. If it were not, we'd be hearing reports of a hundred more cell phone calls. (Even people who swear to hate cell phones carry them for commercial air travel.)
http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter091301.shtml

We always knew that she was nothing but a cold-blooded liar,
and your most brilliant post
just pours the concrete over her.

Now,
be a dear and tell us more about Barby the Harpy's ballet career.

I myself,
after MONTHS of considerable effort,
have drawn a complete blank on the specifics of her pointed toes.

Similarly,
I have also failed to find any record whatsoever of an actual marriage certificate to one Ted Olson,
Or even proof of Barby the Harpy's divorce of her first husband.

Also, do you you have any information to share concerning
the whereabouts of Barby the Harpy
on the evening of September 10, 2001?

Thanks awfully, LARED.
You might yet redeem yourself.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. And there's your answer, LARED

How will it get spun? Well, let's change the subject to Ann Coulter, and how you proved her a liar.

I'm sure that you're all torn up about that. Imagine, Ann Coulter writing a error-filled screed to pump up Barbara Olson!

The next thing you know, Bush will be using Reagan's corpse to boost his flagging poll numbers.

[LARED]

13. DD

Don't try to drag me into your world of unassociated mumbo jumbo.

What does Ann Coulter have to do with this subject. Or Barbra Olsen, Ballet career, or toes, or what she was doing on the 9/10/01.

[Abe Linkman]

10. Not a problem at all, "lared"

The Devil (or, in this case, Osama) is in the details, and the woman aka Barbara Olson was needed to provide those critical details (Arab men, red hankies or bandanas etc.).

You did exactly what the Disinfo agents do: You tried to change the issue! What's critical is whether or not HER alleged calls to Ted actually happened. By trying to change the subject, it appears that you agree they never happened.

That IS why you did that, right?

[Bolo Boffin]

14. I point these things out because I'm a...

Master of the Obvious!

Here's what's incredible about this Abe post:

LARED quotes a part of the article that's at the heart of this thread and refutes it.

Abe says LARED's changing the subject.

Abe, LARED is talking about the issues raised in the article! He's not changing the subject, he's discussing the article in good faith!

Why don't you deal with the points he raised rather than use these tired little equivications? You brought that article to this forum, now defend it!

Joe Vialls claims only Barbara Olson's calls were a matter of public record on 9/11 and 9/12. LARED did a Lexis search and disproved it handily in a matter of seconds.

Crying about "Disinfo Agents" isn't getting you out of this fix, Abe. Do over.

[LARED]

25. Let me see if I understand your new position

What's critical is whether or not HER alleged calls to Ted actually happened

OK, That what you believe. That's fine, but you will need to explain why you believe this is critical to maintain the official Story.

Back to square one.

[seatnineb]

16. Lets spin!

"All four were Middle Eastern, Sweeney told Woodward."
http://www.directsourceradio.com/links/0920200105.html

Was Madeline Sweeney refering to these 2 men within that group of 4?
..........


Name: Waleed Iskandar
Age: 34
Residence: London, United Kingdom
Occupation: Chief of Digital Strategy for Europe, Monitor Group
Location: AA Flight 1


Name: Peter el-Hachem
Age: 40
Residence: Tewksbury, MA, United States
Occupation: senior software engineering manager, Teradyne
Location: AA Flight 11

[dinyc]

17. "scuse me while I miss this guy"

Can you tell me on what published passenger list Mr. Ishkandar (Iskandar) appears? I don't see him on CNN's that is for sure. But I see a lot of tributes to him and he is on this graphic http://www.1918redsox.com/aa11.htm which shows both he and Mr. Hashem in economy class.

Thanx in advance.

[seatnineb]

21. No! I should thank you!

For the flight manifest.
I have been waiting to see that for 2 1/2 years.
Very interesting.

Dinyc......
Waleed is on the C.N.N site.........
Although I do believe he was not included in the initial lists published shortly after the disaster.

Waleed J Iskander
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/people/4115.html

Peter Hashem(Peter El-Hashem)
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/people/1402.html

[dinyc]

35. "No problem, but"

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

This is what I thought was the official list. His name isn't there. Looking over the graphic again there is another name not there...Berry B. Perkins. But there are 92 people on both the list and the graphic. Just not the same 92. Is my link that old? If you search for "Flight 11" this is the first CNN site that pops up.
Hmm.

[seatnineb]

36. 2 names.One woman.

This woman(A passenger aboard flt AA11)is known by 2 names.



In this list she is known as Berry Berenson
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.htm...

In this list she is known as Berry Berenson Perkins
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/people/1346.html

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Just as I thought, more Joe Vialls balderdash

Or the same Joe Vialls balderdash, I should say. But Abe couldn't bring himself to actually identify the article he was quoting.

Typical. As LARED points out below, there were plenty of cell phone calls from the airplanes being discussed on 9/11 and 9/12. Mr. Vialls is in error when he states otherwise.

Again, the Olson phone calls are not the instrument of destruction that you or Mr. Vialls imagine them to be, Abe. They are simply a part of the picture, and if Ted Olson stands discredited, his lies would not belie the other family members who received phone calls from their loved ones that day.

You will note that although Abe now claims the discussion of the possibility of cell phone calls from airplanes is a OS defender distraction, Mr. Vialls is the one talking about the possibility of cell phones from planes in this seminal article. Since the ability to make cell phone calls is a part of Mr. Vialls' argument, and has been from the beginning of this meme, showing cell phones to be operable at high altitudes is not a distraction but an actual attempt to discuss the issue. Your apology on this, Abe, will be highly appreciated.

[Abe Linkman]

11. As always, bolo shoots the messenger & avoids the substance

More bolo balderdash. I've seen better from a Disinfo Agent.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. The article is substance-free

There was no substance to avoid - there was only Joe Vialls' behind flapping in the wind.

:spank:

[Abe Linkman]

19. WIPE OUT! Feel better now, bolo? See the mirror?

Mommy, mommy!

[Bolo Boffin]

22. If by those non-sequiters

...you mean to say, "I admit I was wrong, I have no excuse for saying the things I did, and I'd like to drop the subject never to bring it up again,"...

...then consider your apology accepted, Abe.

[Abe Linkman]

23. bolo: You've Been Served!

No one here believes the Ted Olson fairy tales, and you can't spin them away anymore, either.

You've finally admitted that Ted is lying (okay, you sort of danced around it, like a good spinner would) about those crucial phone calls his "wife" supposedly made -- so the question now is: What OTHER parts of the "Wacky Cavepeople Did It" Official Conspiracy Theory are you willing to admit are also lies?

Go ahead, bolo. There's plenty of Crow left on your plate and more on the stove. Try taking bigger bites this time.

[MercutioATC]

26. Actually, I think Bolo said (again) that the Olson call isn't a big deal.

...something I agree with. It's ONE element that supports the claim that Al-Queda was involved. The case hardly unravels without it. Some people seem to have a problem grasping that.

Why all the controversy over this when there are more basic questions to be answered (that ARE central to some of the conspiracy theories presented here)? If not Al-Queda, who (and how)? There are still some people who'll attack elements of the "official" version while refusing to:

1) present an alternative scenario, and

2) provide responses to the inconsistencies others have found in their claims.

Why can't these questions just get honest answers instead of being ignored repeatedly?

[Abe Linkman]

27. It's the Box Cutters, mercutio

One of the main reasons the Gov't got Ted to lie about Barbara's bogus cell phone calls is that it allowed Ted to tell the world that the "hijackers" used Box Cutters (important for potential airline litigation claims)...and to give a rationale for how the alleged hijackers were supposedly able to control a relatively large number of people.

YOU may not think his lies are important, and they may not make YOU wonder about what other lies the public has been told, but for many thinking people, it raises all kinds of questions about the rest of the
bogus "Wacky Cave People Did It" Official Conspiracy Theory.

Why can't the salesmen for that fairy tale just leave the premises to those of us who want to know what really happened on 9-11? They haven't convinced one person in more than two years, but they have served as a major pain in the neck with their constant spinning, distractions, and disinformation.

[MercutioATC]

28. The "boxcutters" mean nothing, except in liability claims...

They certainly aren't central to the argument.

Of course it makes me question the accuracy of what we've been told, but it doesn't lead to any MIHOP scenario directly. There are still no credible facts that lead to MIHOP.

Just because my parents told me there was a Santa Claus doesn't mean I think they were involved in the white slave trade.

[Abe Linkman]

30. No, of course it doesn't mean anything to YOU.

btw - Did your parents tell you that Osama plotted, planned, and carried out the 9-11 attacks alone -- without even any assistance from Barbara Olson? No? Then, who told you? Other than Ted Olson.

Incredible as it seems to thinking people, there is still not a shred of evidence that Osama was anything more than a Patsy. There just isn't any evidence that the "Wacky Cave People Did It" Conspiracy Theory is
credible at all. Yet, you still believe it. (Yes, I know, I know...you don't necessarily believe every single thing you've been told to believe, and you aren't 100% sure how it all could have happened the way you would like to think it happened, but basically, Osama hasn't called you up & told you he had nothing to do with it, so he MUST have...right?)

Back to your CRT.

[MercutioATC]

34. What proof do you have that he DIDN'T do it?

You're demanding proof of hijackers. There are admitted holes in the "official" story, but absolutely NO proof of MIHOP. If not Al-Queda, who? If not the way it "officially" happened, how?

[demodewd]

37. Speaking of "credible facts"...

There are no credible facts that 19 "Arab" men hijacked 4 planes on 9-11 .

[LARED]

29. I love the smell of irony in the evening

spinning, distractions, and disinformation.

Ha! From the guy that finally posts an article, and it's from the Vialls - its immediately identified as sophistry - then you start complaining about spinning distractions and disinformation.

Really Abe, do you have any capacity for shame?

[Abe Linkman]

31. Really, lared, why can't you ever refute the MESSAGE?

Your little tactic of trying to smear every messenger who isn't a disinfo agent is boring and amateurish.

Really, is that your best talent, lared? Cheap shots at people whose message you can't refute? I think you're the ONLY one left who still trys to sell Ted Olson's lies as truth. How's that make you feel?

[LARED]

32. Really Abe, can't you ever answer a simple question?

without changing the subject.

BTW, the message and messenger were refuted. He is a disinfo agent as shown by the lies I exposed.

Also you still have not provided any evidence of any kind, that indicates why the cell call is so important (whether Olsen lied or not).

You do plan on answering that question at some point? Yes? After all that is the central point of this post.

Your post.

[Abe Linkman]

39. Really, "lared" is their any legitimate reason for you being here?

Other than to show off your poor command of the language and your inability to add to the dialogue, why are you here? Are you one of "those"?

[LARED]

46. Well one reason I can think of

for being here is to expose the nonsense posted by you. The stuff you pretend is legitimate dialog.

Exposing the lies propagated by you must be embarrassing, but resorting to insults will not fool anyone into thinking you actually add anything to the dialog.

I was hoping you were a bigger person.

[DulceDecorum]

42. BOLOboffin said that???

The same BOLOboffin who wrote this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5415.html#27

TRUTH SUPPRESSION TECHNIQUE NUMBER ELEVEN
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candour that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=2134

Unfortunately for some,
this entire Barby the Harpy story
has so backfired
that the charade could only be perpetuated by introducing the testimony of yet another person.
Meet Renee May.



On American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon with 53 passengers and six crew onboard, flight attendant Rene May and passenger Barbara Olson, wife of Solicitor General Ted Olson, made calls.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/05/28/911.calls/

[Bolo Boffin]

44. Dulce?

Thanks for that blast from the past, but what exactly do you think you're proving here?

Here's my post from back then:

boloboffin (268 posts)
Dec-26-02, 11:02 AM (ET)
Reply to post #23

27. Every story except this one....


The one that's been in my signature for quite some time:


On September 11th, 2001, Flight 77
turned off its transponder. Its radar image
was still clearly picked up, however, and
air traffic controllers watched this airplane
fly over Washington, DC and begin to circle
the Pentagon. Cellphone calls from Flight
77 confirm that the plane had been
hijacked by terrorists. Eyewitnesses saw a
757 circling the Pentagon in the exact
place where air traffic controllers
observed Flight 77 on their screens. Flight
77 descended, flew across a interstate
filled with rush hour traffic, and then
crashed into the Pentagon. The fire raged
and part of the Pentagon collasped. After
the fire was contained, pieces of Flight 77
were pulled from the lawn and the
wrecked building, along with the mortal
remains of Flight 77's passengers.

But I digress, as you meant to happen when you threw out the red herring of the Pentagon hole picture. (By the way, a great deal of the hole is obscured from view by the smoke coming from the ruined white car, but you already knew that, didn't you, Dulce?)

Now let's sum up what you've "proven" in your post: There are lots of reports that Barbara Olson used her cell phone, but Ted Olson said she used the seatback phone. And then he said cell phone in another interview.

Is there such a drastic difference between the seatback phones and a personal cellphone? One goes to satellites, the other to ground towers. Don't they experience the same problems in transmission from airplanes? Is it so grevious a sin to refer to the seatback phone as a cellphone? Evidently it is, in Dulce's world.

Ted Olson said "cellphone"; therefore Flight 77 didn't fly into the Pentagon. Oh, but I forgot, you don't do conclusions...so once again, I ask: What is your point for all of this?

Hmmm. Seems I've been asking you what the point is for about two years now. Are you making a point now?

Would you like to share it with the rest of us?

What exactly do you see conflicting in the above post, and my stating that Ted Olson's story isn't the big deal that Joe Vialls and Abe are making it out to be?

You and Abe are certainly making a lot of noise about it, but you're not making any sense.

[DulceDecorum]

117. Yup, definitely a Number 11.

TRUTH SUPPRESSION TECHNIQUE NUMBER ELEVEN
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candour that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=2134

[tngledwebb]

118. a favorite technique

of politicians: When caught in Big Lie, admit little lie, as in present Admin where No. 11 comes in handy so often its hard to keep up- We never said uranium from Niger, we said uranium from Africa, and someone else wrote that anyway, but sorry... and we never said there was any connection between Saddam and OBL, we meant there were some contacts between some people in that part of the world, once, sorry for the misunderstanding... and we never SAID 'Mission Accomplished', somebody put up a banner behind us. And yes, we had some warnings about planes being used as weapons and being crashed into buildings before 9/11 but they were so vague and we didn't know what to do, sorry about that...We promise to do better next time, what we really have to do is to win this War on Terror, now watch this drive..

[Abe Linkman]

119. Thank goodness, at DU, we don't have to contend with truth suppression.

It only seems like it, sometimes. I know that on occasion, maybe someone here has said something that might SEEM like truth suppression, but now, thinking back on it, I'm sure it was just the mistake of an innocent seeker of truth. A higher truth. One that is true to the cause. Of PNAC. Halliburton. Carlyle. bushco. And the very noble profession of Manufacturing Consent.

[MercutioATC]

120. Yet you encourage those who disagree with you to leave the forum...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x16152#16187

Hmmm...seems to me free speech is only important when it says certain things...

[Abe Linkman]

121. I only encourage those who aren't interested in the truth to leave.

You've said that you just post "facts". You don't even purport to be interested in the truth. I don't know why that is. Maybe you'll tell us. < when you do, put attn: Blue Boy on your message. that'll be ME, over in the corner. holding my breath. >

[MercutioATC]

122. But you're only interested in YOUR view of the "truth".

I believe it's the "truth" that the majority of the basic elements of the 9/11 "official story" happened as advertised. That doesn't make it "spin", that means we see things differently. As long as you insist of labeling everybody who doesn't agree with you "PR flacks"", you're not exactly projecting an aura of truth-seeking.

I believe that the facts help reveal the truth. That's why I post facts.

I believe that, while they may differ, evaluations of these facts are important.

That's why I don't take issue with the people who have theories that differ from mine. I may take issue with the facts the theory is based on, but not the right of the poster to have that opinion or their right to post here.

[Abe Linkman]

123. Yes, I am interested in pointing out what I believe to be PR & BS.

The public needs to know that there are people here who have already decided what they believe to be the truth about 9/11 --- and see it as their mission (or, in some cases, maybe their job) to try and undermine those of us who don't buy the "basic elements" of the "Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory that you support.

You are one funny dude! You say that you "post facts", but if I say there was a pod, you say that's NOT a fact!

Contradictions, selective facts, distractions, BS, half-truths, belief in bushco/OBL conspiracy theories...yeah, you post "just facts" allright. My foot.

[MercutioATC]

124. As do I. We're both posting our interpretations of what we've seen.

However, I'm not suggesting that people who see things differently leave the forum.

Actually, the "pod" is not a fact. The light and dark areas visible on the fuselage are the fact.

Some interpret them as a "pod".

Some believe it must be something else, because a "pod" in that place would eliminate the right main landing gear.

It seems I've addressed this issue with another poster here. Facts are facts. Interpretations of those facts are just that - interpretations. Too often, people try to base a theory on supposed "facts" that are really interpretations.

[DougFir]

125. more bogus nonsense pretending to expose 9/11

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

we should all be honored that the 9/11 truth movement is having
enough political successes in shifting public consciousness to
understand that 9/11 was not a surprise attack that the powers-that-be
feel it necessary to create fake films and bogus websites to hide
the real evidence for official complicity behind a blizzard of bullshit


"cellphones can't be used in airplanes"


The articles on the web that discuss cellphones in planes vary in their opinions about the feasibility of this. An experiment to replicate these claims would need to know the exact altitudes and phone companies and be in the same locations -- which is probably impossible to do.

The implication is that the calls that WERE made were (1) not made from an Airphone (which clearly DO work), and (2) were military psyop campaigns to spread the myth of the cellphone calls about the hijackers.

While it is certainly true that fake audio and video is much easier to make these days, this is probably the meme most calculated to alienate "911 researchers" from the family members. It is very unlikely that a spouse would not know they were having a phone conversation with their partner, and the extra complication to the operation this would require makes this theory one of the least credible. There is enough provable evidence of official complicity without claiming that 9/11 family members really didn't talk with their loved ones on the phone.


 

[Abe Linkman]

24. Take off your PRose colored glasses & stop being in denial.

Which part of the substance makes you the most nervous, as a spinner?
Are you now trying to go back on your confessional that YOU TOO agree that Ted is lying? Wow, bolo: How much more of the indefensible you've been defending would you like to acknowledge is probably ca ca?

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Silly Abraham

None of Joe Viall's "substance" makes me nervous.

I didn't say that I agreed Ted Olson WAS lying. I said that it's a possibility. And I do agree that it's more than a slight possibility based on his unsavory past and statements about lying. This is something I've never denied...

...and yet still I maintain that whether or not Ted Olson is lying:

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Two things you say are established by Barbara's calls alone: boxcutters and Arab hijackers.

You are correct about the boxcutters. No other passenger on any other plane mentioned boxcutters. They all spoke of variations of knives, mace/pepper spray, and bomb threats, but no one else mentioned boxcutters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54385-2004Jan27?language=printer

But Arab hijackers is another matter. Based on several flight attendants' testimony, passengers were identified as the hijackers. The path those passengers took to arrive at the plane was quickly traced through credit card and ATM transactions (purchasing of tickets, then other purchases on the credit or debit cards). The passengers were shown to be associates, and were shown to be connected with other al-Qaeda members.

So the only real evidence you throw into question by disputing Ted Olson's account is whether or not boxcutters were used on Flight 77. That's it.

It's hardly the foundational lie about the 9/11 attacks that you claim it to be. From the very beginning, people were reporting cell phone calls from every airplane that crashed that day. People were discussing them in every medium. Barbara Olson was used a lot for two reasons: her husband was (and is) Solicitor General of the US, and she worked for CNN.

Let's type out all the possibilities about Barbara's phone calls.

1. They are a total fabrication. Barbara never called, Ted made the whole damn thing up for whatever reason he could have.

2. Barbara called, but Ted lied about the content, number, and/or duration of those calls.

3. Barbara called and Ted reported the general truth about these calls.

Since the only real item that hinges on the truth being reported about the phone calls is the use of boxcutters on Flight 77, I still maintain that it doesn't matter whether Ted Olson lied or not - not in determining who or what caused the attacks to happen.

Now if you want to say that Ted Olson lied about what Barbara said so as to help deflect airliner liability claims, it's quite possible that that is true. There's hella motivation. American and United could have gone completely under following the 9/11 attacks, and a devastating punch to America's economy would have been that much worse. Approaching Ted with the need to lie about what Barbara said to protect American corporate interests sounds just like what the Bush Administration was all about.

And Ted would have done it with a clear conscience. By looking at it as stopping the terrorists from destroying two American corporations, with hundreds of jobs at stake, Ted could have rationalized it by assuming that Barbara would have agreed.

But it's also at least as possible that Ted's completely being honest about what Barbara said. The Flight 77 hijackers may have used boxcutters instead of knives for whatever reason: chance, who knows?

And when you use the possible falsehood of Ted Olson's story to cast doubt on the identity of the hijackers (which was determined using far more evidence than Barbara's phone calls), then you have wandered off into Fantasyland.

I double dog dare you to respond to this post in good faith, in like manner. I don't think you can, Abe. Prove me wrong.

[LARED]

38. Whoa -- a double dog dare

Pulling out the big guns I see. :wow:

I hope you're not holding your breath waiting to be proved wrong.

[Abe Linkman]

40. boloboffin -- You work in the world of fantasies, right?

That's what you've said (among other things), and your messages certainly are consistent with someone like that. I'll bet they really impress "lared" and the alleged ATC employee.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Tsk, tsk, Abraham.

How typical, and how disappointing.

[seatnineb]

43. Bolo

In the case of flt 77.....
And all the other flights bar flt 11......

Those b.s phone calls ARE neccessary.......
And you know it.

Imagine IF Barbie and Renee May HAD NOT made their calls to Ted Olson and Nancy May respectively from flt 77........
Then all the F.B.I would have had were the 3 suspects who were tied to OTHER individuals involved in the bombing of the U.S.S Cole.......

1)Khalid Al-Midhar
2)Nawaf Al-Hamzi
3)Salem Al-Hamzi

The F.B.I would have had to have proven beyond reasonable doubt that these 3 men had hijacked and deliberately crashed flt 77 into the Pentagon.

It is like a chemical equation that needs to be balanced.

Remember that neither Barbie or Renee gave the seat numbers of the hijackers of flt 77.

Lets Hypothesize......

Barbie And Renee Phone Call + Suspects Tied To U.S.S Cole = Hijacking = WAR ON TERROR

Barbie And Renee Phone Call + NO suspects Tied To U.S.S Cole = A Hijacking Without Being Able To Prove Who EXACTLY Are The Hijackers =
NO WAR ON TERROR

NO Barbie And Renee Phone Call + Suspects Tied To U.S.S Cole = A Hijacking Without Being Able To Prove Who EXACTLY Are The Hijackers =
NO WAR ON TERROR


Without Barbie(and Renee)the F.B.I would have only have had the litany of phone calls from the other 3 flights which would have led them to believe that flt 77 had been hijacked the same way.

BUT

Without those phone calls and just the suspects aboard flt 77 the connection would have been that much more tenuous.In fact this could be applied TO ALL the flights.

AS far as the U.S public is concerned IN A PRE-9/11 context....
Without there having been phone calls.......
If a suspicious(ties to Al-Quaida) character had been aboard a plane that was subsequently hijacked and crashed it would not have meant that he had committed the crime in question.

Granted their is a probability that the suspicious character had been involved BUT nothing more than that.Certainly NOT enough to warrant a retaliation that involves the invasion and bombing of a WHOLE country.

IN A POST 9/11 context.....
A plane could crash into a national or military landmark and the world wide public would accept that it is Al-Quaida even without any phone calls being made from passengers aboard the hijacked jet.
And it would warrant the invasion of a WHOLE country......

Which is why 9/11 has been conceived in this compact way......
Always more than one passenger phoning from the hijacked jet in question,so as to consolidate and amplify the myth.
Having more than one passenger make a phone call from a hijacked plane adds a veneer of authenticity.....and provides continuity.........

And having more than one plane involved in 9/11 also adds in the same way........
The myth of each plane backing up the myth of the other....


Imagine if flt 11 crashes into the North Tower on 9/11
Imagine that is the only plane to be hijacked and crashed on 9/11.
Imagine there are 5 arabs aboard but no phone calls are made.
The F.B.I tells us that these 5 arabs must have hijacked and crashed the plane deliberately because several of them had ties to Sheik Mohamed who in 1995 said he wanted to crash planes into the WTC.

Could Bush have gone into Afghanistan within 4 weeks of this happening?
I think yes..He could have.......
But not without looking extremely f*****g dodgy.......

Put simply
Phone Calls + Arab Suspects + Crashed Planes = 9/11

Maybe for you Bolo
But not for me.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. I don't agree with your assessment.

No calls from Barbara or Renee + suspects tied to the Cole bombing + THREE OTHER PLANES HIJACKED AND CRASHED = War on Terror

You admit as much:

Without Barbie(and Renee)the F.B.I would have only have had the litany of phone calls from the other 3 flights which would have led them to believe that flt 77 had been hijacked the same way.

And this belief would have been a reasonable one. Even without Renee's calls, nothing would have been different at all. Nothing.

Though there is reason to doubt Ted Olson's integrity in this matter, there is absolutely no reason to question Renee's calls. Yes, even though Renee's calls tend to support Olson's account, that doesn't call them into question in the minds of rational people. Renee's calls are judged on their own merits, and their support is then given to Ted Olson's account.

You understand that your unstated premise (9/11 was committed to frame al-Qaeda and justify a War on Terror) remains to be proven by you or anyone. Therefore, any point you prove with this premise remains unproven until you justify belief in the premise.

I understand that you may not like what the untainted evidence clearly shows, but that is not the evidence's problem, nor is it mine. The evidence supports the other evidence, and rationality will prevail.

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

[seatnineb]

47. Wrong!

Bolo,my friend........

According to the parameters of your beloved fairy tale.......

Only 2 of the 16 individuals who made phone calls from the 4 planes positively identified the passengers(via their seat numbers) who were doing the dastardly deeds.And they both were on the same plane.
You know who they are.
But I bet you would not want to quote the seat numbers that they relayed to a ground supervisor and reservation agent respectively.

Go ahead and prove me wrong.

As for the other callers ,the content of their calls amounted to no more than the proverbial "They are Arab looking" and "We are being hijacked by guys with knives" to even "there is just a little problem with the plane".
This is not testimony that can stand by itself....
Only when allied by the details of the flight manifests that revealed the presence of individuals who were suspected by the C.I.A
(Atta,Jarah,Al-Midhar) of having ties to terrorist organizations
does the fairy tale gain momemtum.

But that fairy tale is hemorrhaging.
Go find me Ong's and Sweeney seat numbers.
And then you will realize why Mercutio is distancing himself from the testimony of these 2 flight attendants.

[Abe Linkman]

48. bolo's "excellent" Fairy Tale, Chapter Two

"I understand that you may not like what the untainted evidence clearly shows"

I understand that you may not like to admit that there is NO untainted evidence that shows clearly (or cloudily) that the "Wacky Cave People Did It Alone" Conspiracy Theory is anything more than a poorly scripted fairy tale, but that is the reality.

At this point, there is no reason to believe Renee's calls actually took place. Until fairly recently, you were still claiming that Ted wasn't lying. Now, you say he might be. What makes you so certain that Renee's calls aren't as bogus as Barby's?

[Abe Linkman]

49. What in the world are you trying to say, bolo?

"Even without Renee's calls, nothing would have been different at all. Nothing."

What's the "nothing" you're talking/spinning about?

[Abe Linkman]

51. Fake cell calls = Fake evidence that FL 77 crashed.

One of the most basic reasons for promoting the FL 77 fake cell phone calls is to fool the public into believing that FL 77 crashed. Since the only evidence of a crash at the Pentagon is inconsistent with a large jet having crashed there, the fake cell phone calls are a clever way to mask the false claim that FL 77 crashed...anywhere.

It is entirely reasonable to conclude that the most basic purpose of the fake cell phone calls from the other flights was to establish that the planes that crashed at the WTC had passengers on them.

I agree with those who say that the fake cell phone calls were needed to help support the frame-up of Osama & the Cave Men (evil doers who plotted, planned, and carried out the 9-11 attacks without any assistance from anyone outside of al Queda), to fool the public into believing the other parts of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Arab terrorists, carrying out Osama's evil plot), and to
protect the airline industry from litigation (the hijackers didn't have guns on the aircraft).

Very important false evidence, in support of the Big Lie propaganda used to fool the public into accepting a fairy tale, in lieu of credible, verifiable evidence.

[MercutioATC]

52. Ok, so where IS that big honkin' airplane?

More importantly, how did they get it there and where is any proof that they did so?

Primary radar returns, Abe...you keep forgetting the primary radar returns...

[Abe Linkman]

53. Good question.

You're asking the wrong person. I don't know where the "big honkin' airplane" is. Ask American Airlines or the 9/11 Commission, or maybe American's insurance carrier.

All I know is that AA FL 77 didn't crash at the Pentagon. And, the answer to your question won't change that basic fact.

WhereDIDDY go?

[MercutioATC]

54. See, but you don't refute one piece of critical infomation...

the radar returns. In fact, nobody has. The problem with that is the returns don't show the plane (or any of them, in fact) going anyplace else than where they were said to have gone.

Given that these airplanes definitely had returns and given that they don't support what you claim, how do you support your statements?

[seatnineb]

55. Mercutio.......

So sure are you that all 4 planes on 9/11 were returning primary radar signals?

Would you like to enlighten other DUERS how civilian air traffic controllers like yourself are effectively blinded when a plane switches off its transponder when it is in an area blanketed BY SECONDARY RADAR ONLY....


For flight 77:

"Why did the Boeing 757(flt 77) simply DISAPPEAR from radar screens for a HALF-HOUR OR MORE, turn around over southern Ohio and get back into Washington airspace before anyone noticed it or knew that it had
been hijacked? "

"The answers to the mystery of the aircraft's disappearance begin with the fact that the hijacking took place in an area served by only ONE TYPE OF RADAR, FAA officials confirmed."

"The radar installation near Parkersburg, W. Va., was built with ONLY SECONDARY RADAR -- called "beacon-only" radar. That left the controller monitoring Flight 77 at the Indianapolis center BLIND when the hijackers apparently switched off the aircraft's transponder, sources said."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2

For flight 175:
"They searched, WITHOUT SUCCESS, for the third(flt 175), which also plowed into the World Trade Center. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2


"LAST RADAR CONTACT with the aircraft(flt 175) WAS BETWEEN NEWARK , NJ
AND PHILADELPHIA, PA."
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=105&STORY=/www/story/09-11-2001/0001570417


For flight 11:

"But then, when given permission to climb to 35,000 feet, communications fell silent, and the "BLIP" on the radar screen that was Flight 11 WENT BLANK, because someone on the plane turned off the transponder that sends out signals to controllers."
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/3848801.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Mercutio........
Ever heard of a plane that returned primary radar AFTER it was supposedly DESTROYED......

Well seems like Flight 11 DID.....

8:46 A.M.: TOWER ONE
"I remember somebody running into the Ops Room," Deskins said. "They said they'd just seen on CNN that an aircraft hit the World Trade Center."

"BOSTON CENTRE WAS STILL TRACKING A BLIP BELIEVED TO BE FLIGHT 11."

"Dooley grasped for a way the fighter pilots could identify it. "I was fighting to get the (plane's) tail number," she said. "We were trying to grab at anything we could."

For Flight 93:

"At 10:02, United 93, LAST RADAR DATA and the ESTIMATED impact time
for United 93 is 10:03."
http://www.n6mrx.com/uncle2.htm

So Mercutio.....last radar contact for flt 93 IS AT 10:02AM

But according to these reports the plane doesn't crash until 10:06AM:

"Several leading seismologists agree that Flight 93 CRASHED LAST SEPT. 11 AT 10:06 A.M. AND FIVE SECONDS, give or take just a couple of seconds."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/751327/posts

Mercutio,
This is a chance to demonstrate your undoubted ATC prowess and explain
why you will predictably disagree with all the above.....

But perhaps you would care to elaborate on the following which applied before 9/11 in the U.S.......

"There are a number of locations ACROSS THE INTERIOR of the United States that OPERATE SOLELY WITH SECONDARY RADAR".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2

[MercutioATC]

57. Sure, I'll give it a shot...

I'll try to address the issues in the order you raised them.

1) Different facilities use radar data differently.

Approach Controls use a the data from a single radar site. They see the radar "sweep" that most people have probably seen in movies. If that site fails, they are effective "blinded".

ARTCCs (Centers) use a radar mosaic system. The data from multiple radar sites is processed by a computer which generates a display. There is no "sweep".

The key here is "multiple radar sites". If one site fails, the computer automatically assigns a different radar site as the "primary". Every square mile (at least east of the Mississippi) is covered by two, if not three sites at altitudes above local terrain (radar is a line-of-sight tool and doesn't see through mountains, so if you're flying at 1000' with a 3000' mountain between you and the radar site, it won't see you). The Parkersburg, W.V. site is one of 2 or 3 that serve that area. The other sites still return primary data.

As far as what we consider "radar contact", it can mean the loss of the primary target or the loss of positive identification of an aircraft. If an aircraft switches off its transponder while our attention is elsewhere, we need to positively verify the primary target that is where that plane should be is the actual plane. We'll tell the pilot that "radar contact has been lost" and ask him to try his transponder again. If that fails, we issue 30-degree turns to identify the target. We've "lost" radar contact, but we never lost the primary target. Loss of the actual primary target at altitudes above terrain issues is not an issue. In 13 years, I have never failed to see a primary target at an altitude above 5000'MSL (due to terrain issues). In most places, we see the targets all the way to the ground.


2) "the "BLIP" on the radar screen that was Flight 11 WENT BLANK"...

Nothing ever "goes blank". If the plane blows up, we still have it's data block displayed. If it turns off its transponder and turns, the data block doesn't track the primary target. We still see something. What would have happened if the controller was looking someplace else at the time is that the primary target wouldn't be where he expected it to be and the data block would have blank altitude and speed fields (and wouldn't be "attached" to the primary target).

If a data block and primary target become disassociated, it IS possible to "lose" the plane in the sense that you no longer are sure which primary target is the plane you're looking for. That doesn't stop the display of the primary target nor does it stop anybody (in an investigation) from paying closer attention at the moment when the transponder was turned off and simply watching where the primary target goes.

3) I really have no idea why there is a discrepency between our radar tapes and the seismological report. In the Shanksville area, our radar sees nearly to the ground. I don't see a way for the plane to take an additional 3 minutes to crash once it was that low.

I truthfully don't have an answer for this.

4) There are also areas across the interior of the United States that operate with less redundant radio frequency coverage than we do. Things are done differently east of the Mississippi, mostly due to terrain issues and the fact that the traffic density is much lower. Hell, over the ocean, we don't use radar at all...

We, however, are talking about the most densely populated, busiest airspace on the planet. We have redundant systems both for frequencies and radar.

I'll try to answer anything else you'd like. If I don't know the answer, I'll tell you.

[k-robjoe]

60. Both

Thanks 9b, for your post, and thanks Merc, for your answers.

Sure isn´t easy to find an answer to this.
I just came across this site http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=57418;title=APFN , and comparing the third and the fifth picture on this site, it just seems impossible that a vertical tailfin could have hit that wall.

It´s like whichever way you see it, there´s something wrong.
But the things like the tailfin and the wings, and etc. etc. are more
crystalclear than Mercs assurances about there being no way that fl. 77 could have been swapped, I mean they did loose it from radar.

If it was flight 77, it must have exploded just before it hit(?)
Do you have a theory what happened to the tailfin?

[seatnineb]

75. Primary radar vs Secondary radar

Mercutio.........
Your ATC expertise and knowledge is appreciated and acknowledged.
Thank You.

But I would like you to consider the following....

In a pre-9/11 ATC world.......

Could it be that the Nashua(Boston) En – Route center that was monitoring flight 11 was only using SECONDARY RADAR.

“PRIMARY RADAR is normally used ONLY AS A BACK UP, and is usually TURNED OFF by controllers handling aircraft AT ALTITUDES ABOVE 18,000 feet because it clutters their screens. All aircraft flying above 18,000 feet are required to have working transponders. “
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2


Flight 11 was at roughly 29000ft when its transponder was turned off..

Could the above explain the following ...........

“And the "BLIP" on the radar screen that was Flight 11 WENT BLANK, because someone on the plane turned off the transponder that sends out signals to controllers."
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/3848801.htm?template=contentM...

Would it be reasonable to assume that the controller at Nashua then did the following......
“If a plane simply DISAPPEARS FROM RADAR SCREENS , most controllers can QUICKLY SWITCH ON THE PRIMARY SYSTEM, which should display a small plus sign at the plane's location, even if the aircraft's transponder is not working. “
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2


“If the above is true............
How many milli–seconds, seconds or minutes elapsed before flight 11 re-appeared on screen.

Mercutio says
“Every square mile (at least east of the Mississippi) is covered by two, if not three sites at altitudes above local terrain”

The F.A.A also informs us that.........
“Primary surveillance radar uses a continually rotating antenna mounted on a tower to transmit electromagnetic waves which reflect or backscatter from the surface of aircraft up to 60 miles from the radar.”
http://www.faa.gov/and/and400/AND440/asr11/Public/FactSheet.htm

But that did not stop this from happening............

“They searched, without success, for the third(Flight 175), which also plowed into the World Trade Center. “
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2
The above statement refers to the loss of Flight 175’s PRIMARY RADAR TARGET........


Because..........
According to the transcript for flight 175

The transponder of flight 175 was turned off at some point BEFORE 8:51 AM ...........
Soliciting this response from the ATC ...........

8:51:43 R42: UAL 175 RECYCLE TRANSPONDER SQUAWK CODE 1470

8:51:53 R42: UAL 175 New York

8:52:09 R42: UAL 175 do you read New York

So flight 175’s primary target was being surveyed from roughly 8:50 AM(or earlier) TO 9:00AM
When this happened ..............

"LAST RADAR CONTACT with the aircraft(flt 175) WAS BETWEEN NEWARK , NJ
AND PHILADELPHIA, PA."
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=105&STORY=/www/story...


There is still another 3 minutes before this plane will crash into the South Tower.

In fact if we summarise.......

Flight 77 :30 minutes UNSEEN by civilian ATC’s
Flight 175 :3 minutes UNSEEN by civilian ATC’S
Flight 93 :1 to 4 minutes UNSEEN by civilian ATC’S
Flight 11 :The time taken to switch on a primary radar back-up system(hopefully Mercutio might tell us how long this takes).

In the mean-time ........Multi-planers and even No-planers....
Feast on the above as much as you all wanna!

[MercutioATC]

76. Ok, more replies...(about radar)

1) The statement about turning off primary radar above 18,000' is completely false. There's nothing above 18,000' except IFR flights, so there is nothing to clutter our screens.

2) "Lost radar contact" means that we no longer are positive where the aircraft is. If a transponder is switched off when our attention is elsewhere, we have "lost radar contact" until we positively re-identify the plane (even though there may well be a primary radar target displayed). "Lost radar contact" does not necessarily mean the the target disappears.

[Abe Linkman]

56. See, but YOU have no evidence showing that FL 77...

crashed at the Pentagon. In fact, nobody has. The problem is, the only
crdible evidence of airplane parts found at the Pentagon are from a small, single engine aircraft.

Given that FL 77 was a multi-engine, large commercial airliner (B757), and given that the airplane parts found at the Pentagon don't support your claim that FL 77 crashed there, how do you support the notion that
FL 77 ended there?

[MercutioATC]

58. "a small, single engine aircraft"...If that's the case, can you tell me

exactly what aircraft the parts were from?

I mean, if it's been proven that the parts found at the site were from a small, single-engine aircraft, they'd be identifiable as such. I'll even accept something as vague as a manufacturer. Was it a Cessna? A Beechcraft? A Piper?


It's easy for a layperson to look at a crash site, see little pieces, and conclude that a small plane crashed. However, if the pieces WERE from a smaller plane, they'd be identifiable.

I'm not a crash expert, but knowing that 1) the radar target led to the Pentagon and 2) the pieces, regardless of how small they were, weren't from a small plane I'd blame the crash for the "tiny bits", not some farfetched conspiracy.

[Abe Linkman]

59. What is it that you're denying?

Are you saying that more than ONE engine was found? Are you saying that parts from a B757 were found?

Just what kind of far-fetched conspiracy theory are you pedaling? I thought the only one you promote is the "Wacky CavePeople Did It, All By Themselves" Conspiracy Theory.

[MercutioATC]

61. I don't promote ANY theory, you know that, Abe...

I'm still asking what small airplane parts were found.

[Abe Linkman]

62. Why weren't any parts from a LARGE airplane found?

Wait, wait. I know: Because no large airplane crashed at the Pentagon.

Regarding your interest in what parts from a small airplane were found, I don't have a list, but there's probably one somewhere. Is there some particular reason why you want to know that?

[MercutioATC]

63. Yes, because YOU claimed that a small airplane crashed into the Pentagon.

If you have proof of this, I'd love to see it.

Parts of a large airplane WERE found at the Pentagon, just not enough of them according to some people. I have no idea what a crash into a fortified building at that speed would leave, but I'd suggest that possibly very little in the way of recognizable debris (seems to me that aerial photos of UAL93's crash site didn't show big pieces, either...maybe that's what happens when you take an aluminum tube that's built to be light and crash it into a hard object at high speeds).

[Abe Linkman]

64. Saying it's so, doesn't make it so.

"Parts of a large airplane WERE found at the Pentagon"

What parts are you referring to? Only one engine was found. Only one seat was found, and only small airplanes have one engine and one seat.

A B757 is what you would refer to as a "big honkin' airplane". I agree.
So, if a big honkin' airplane crashed at the Pentagon, wherdy go? And, while you're at it, wherdy MUSH go? Bolo doesn't know; do YOU?

[MercutioATC]

65. You realize that 757s and small planes use different engines, right?

If one 757 engine and one commercial airliner seat were found, they were 757 parts, NOT "small airplane" parts.

By your admission, 757 parts were found at the Pentagon, just not many of them. Where were ANY "small airplane" parts if, in fact, one crashed there?

[Abe Linkman]

67. You're MISstating what I said. NO large airplane parts were found. NONE.

It wasn't a 757 engine (too small to be from a 757), and the only seat that was found was a pilot's seat...like one you'd find on an F-16.

That wasn't even a "good" attempt to tell an untruth. Maybe you should just get back to your CRT and leave the propaganda stuff to one of the others.

[LARED]

69. Speaking of propaganda

It wasn't a 757 engine (too small to be from a 757), and the only seat that was found was a pilot's seat...like one you'd find on an F-16.

[demodewd]

70. it doesn't happen here...no no no

And our government doesn't spin any propanganda to fill the heads of suckers like you? hahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh I forgot, we're the righteous ones and you're a righteous American. Things like that don't happen in a "democracy" like the USA...only in evil Arab countries with all those evil Arab extremists. After all, its our capitalist right to control their oil and resources. What right do they think they have over them? They deserved to be maimed and to suffer for the very thought. God bless BP and Exxon-Mobil. They have a right to exploit the American public and to use our military youth as cannon fodder for their just cause of dollar hegemony and world control of the oil. But lets make sure that we program the public in thinking that we are truly over there to liberate the people. They the American people love to feel so righteous and full of righteous indignation. And after 9-11 it been soooo easy to exploit this human tendency and weakness. With all those freepers and lareds and fearful security oriented ones out there ... its rather an easy trick...fooling them and using their tax revenues to be squandered by the DOD and all the globalists like the Bush family and the Clintons and all their associate felons.The masses get duped....again.

[Abe Linkman]

71. You have evidence to the contrary? Bring it on.

"lar lar" - Make history: Prove a point. Just once. Come on. It'll be a new experience for you. Us, too. We've been waiting a long time. More than two years. Watching and waiting. So far, all we've gotten are cheap shots and BS. You've seen the photo of that engine.
Got PROOF it's bigger than it is?

[LARED]

72. Abe, Abe, Abe

You're mixed up about who needs to provide evidence. It is you my lad that need to back up your claims that the engine is too small to be from flight 77 and the seat is from something like a F-16.

I'll be waiting.

One link from a credible source would be nice. Abe are you capable of providing evidence just spouting BS?

[Abe Linkman]

73. lar lar --- If it's a 757 engine, then where is the OTHER ONE?

YOU say it's from a 757, right? Then, where is the OTHER ENGINE, lared?
Forget the fact that the only engine found is too small to be from a 757. Assume it IS large enough. Then, SHOW ME THE OTHER ONE, lared.

You can't. Because no 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

[MercutioATC]

77. How do you know the engine was too small, Abe?

I've never seen that reported. Maybe you could provide a pic or a link.

As far as the other engine, it could very well have been destroyed in the crash. If one 757 engine was found, it obviously came off a 757 regardless of whether the second engine was located.

[Abe Linkman]

78. Here's a secret for you. It's about what happened to that other engine.

I heard that one of Osama's boys went in there (during all the confusion, don't you know)...and snuck off with it. I'm not sure if he made off with the other seat or not.

Osama thought of EVERYTHING, didn't he? Smart dude. We oughta have him working for US, right? Oh. Okay, then. Never mind.

[MercutioATC]

79. If there was little left intact, why do you insist on finding two engines

when just one would prove what type of aircraft crashed there? If a 757 didn't vrash there, where did the 757 engine come from?

[Abe Linkman]

80. If a 757 crashed, there would be two engines. It wasn't a 757. Sorry.

But, you already know that FL 77 didn't crash at the Pentagon...or anywhere else. Why not try to fool us with some more mumbo jumbo ATC stuff? It would be more fun for US than responding to these silly attempts to sell ghost planes. Notice that even bolo & "lared" don't try that one anymore.

[MercutioATC]

83. This has to be one of the sillier arguments I've seen here.

There was only one 757 engine instead of two so it couldn't be a 757 that crashed?? If that's the case, where DID the one existing 757 engine come from?

BTW, any time you'd like to refute any of my "mumbo jumbo ATC stuff" give it a try.

...and I'm STILL waiting for you to tell us what profession you're engaged in that gives you ANY technical expertise...

[LARED]

81. Why do you need to have two engines when

one 757 engine proves flight 77 crashed into the pentagon.

Also do you ever run out of silly distractions?

[Abe Linkman]

82. Because a 757 has two engines, lared. So you'd need two 757 engines...

if you want to claim that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon. In case you haven't been following along...two people here (three counting you) have claimed that a B757 crashed at the Pentagon, but the evidence doesn't substantiate their claim. If you have some you'd like to offer, I'm sure everyone here will give it careful consideration.

[MercutioATC]

84. Abe, what if the other 757 engine was damaged beyond recognition?

(like the majority of everything else in the Pentagon crash)?

Again, if a 757 engine was found and a 757 didn't crash there, where did the 757 engine come from?

[Abe Linkman]

85. No evidence that a 757 engine was found

Why do you keep coming on this forum and claiming that a 757 engine was found at the Pentagon?

[MercutioATC]

88. See Post #26 (and please stop double-posting questions)

Care to answer the questions I've been asking you for some time now?

[Abe Linkman]

86. Actually, only part of an engine was found, and it's too small for a 757.

So, if the only part of a jet engine that was found was too small to be from a 757, then you can't rule out the very plausible idea that an F-16 crashed into the Pentagon. Some believe that the engine part found is from a Global Hawk, so that possibility would also be consistent with other known facts.

Like the majority of everything else in the amazing Fairy Tale adventure
story starring Osama bin Laden as "Patsy", the disinformation campaign to fool the public about what really happened at the Pentagon on 9-11 is slowly unraveling.

[MercutioATC]

87. Actually, it's not too small...

"The plane debris observed in the various photographs does indeed comport with that of a 757, at least to the limited degree with which they can be compared to actual 757 parts or the manufacturer's detail drawings, as shown above. The engine compressor or turbine disk appears to be approximately the correct diameter to have been used in a Rolls Royce RB211-535E4B engine, as used in American Airlines 757 aircraft. The fragment of the high pressure combustor casing also comports with the string of fuel inlet nozzle holes, the mounting bosses of which have the correct number of screw holes (6). The combustor is definitely not from a Pratt and Whitney PW2037, which is the other make of 757 engine used in the airline industry, nor is it from a General Electric CF6-80C2.

Some observers have claimed that these engine parts are too small to have come from a 757. The confusion is because the RB-211 engine configuration is dominated by the large turbofan at the front of the engine, which is what people expect a 757 engine should look like. However, because the RB-211 is a "high bypass" engine, the high-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and turbine are all much smaller than the turbofan, as shown in the small overview figure at the top left of the drawing. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what happened to the turbofan -- but the compressor disk and the combustor case do look like 757 parts."

http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm

(and that's from a CT site)

[Abe Linkman]

92. Wrong. It's too small to be from a 757. (tons of similar info @google)

A series of photographs taken by an official federal photographer at the Pentagon crash site show what appears to be an easily identifiable piece of a small-diameter turbofan engine. If the government wants to prove that a Boeing 757-200 crashed into the Pentagon, why is no one willing or able to identify which part from which engine this is?

The photographs show a part of a turbofan jet engine and were taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a photographer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), at the Pentagon crash site on September 13, 2001. The round piece appears to be less than 3 feet in diameter and is propped up against what appears to be part of the engine housing and thick pieces of insulating material.

A Boeing 757 has two large engines, which are about 9 feet in diameter and 12 feet in length. A Pratt & Whitney PW2043 engine, used on some 757 aircraft, has a fan tip diameter of 78.5 inches. Nothing this large is to be seen in the FEMA photographs.

[MercutioATC]

94. My turn to ask...did you READ the info I posted?

Again:

"Some observers have claimed that these engine parts are too small to have come from a 757. The confusion is because the RB-211 engine configuration is dominated by the large turbofan at the front of the engine, which is what people expect a 757 engine should look like. However, because the RB-211 is a "high bypass" engine, the high-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and turbine are all much smaller than the turbofan, as shown in the small overview figure at the top left of the drawing. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what happened to the turbofan -- but the compressor disk and the combustor case do look like 757 parts."

It's not the turbofan that's pictured, it's the high-pressure turbine.

[Abe Linkman]

96. An opinion about high-pressure turbines & it proves nothing.

Did you READ the info I posted? In any event, the opinion you cited IS evidence. It just isn't proof that a 757 crashed at the Pentagon. After almost three years, that very basic, crucial claim is still unproven, and given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, there's almost no reason at all to conclude that AA FL 77 crashed on 9-11.

I won't say that you're intentionally promoting propaganda, but if all if you have is one person's opinion about what "might" be an engine part
large enough to be from a 757, you're on very thin ice.

A 757 has two engines. Only part of one engine was found. That one part is too small to be from a 757. < if you were going to "plant" false evidence, you'd want the smallest, lightest piece that you could use & get someone to opine that it "COULD" be from a 757 >

Give it up, mercutio. If that's all you got, you're a very long way from ever being able to provide even reasonable proof that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

Only in a fairy tale, told by a lying Administration, full of the sounds of BS, propaganda, and disinformation -- signifying nothing more than the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the world since the first "Pearl Harbor".

Why do you want to be associated with THAT?

[MercutioATC]

97. The point is, it provides an explanation that is plausible...

...that's the key. Plausibile.

Planting plane parts, firing missiles, replacing four commercial planes in flight, organizing the controlled demolition of multiple buildings...these things just aren't plausible, especially when you try to include them all at the same time.

The point of my link about the plane parts at the Pentagon was that, whether you choose to believe it or not, there IS a factual explanation for the size of the engine parts that were found and they could well be from the high-pressure stage of a 757 engine. That's at least as much "evidence" as exists for the "F-16" or "Global Hawk" claims.

You're right that it's just one piece of evidence. It, alone, didn't convince me. What did was the damage on the ground along the 757's approach path (the lightpoles, etc) and the numerous eyewitness reports claiming to have seen a large commercial plane. Other eyewitness reports dealt with the lack of debris at the crash site, explaining how small pieces of the plane had rained down on their cars on the highway. My point is that there are numerous pieces of data that all add up to the same conclusion: a 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

[Abe Linkman]

99. Yes, it provides a plausible explanation that it was an F-16, not a 757.

Unless you are a PR person or a disinformation agent, the too-small-to-be-from-a-757 engine part, and only one pilot seat, only raises even more doubts about the plausibility of the Official Conspiracy Fairy Tale. No, I won't concede that maybe "Amazin' Hani" is a Top Gun pilot. More likely, he's only part of an illusionist's act, and his character role is "Patsy".

As you must know, but maybe can't tell (and I won't ask why), the weight of the known evidence fits only one scenario that is consistent with what IS known about what happened at the Pentagon...FL 77 didn't crash there.

[MercutioATC]

108. Ok, Abe. Tell me how an F-16 sheared off the light poles or why

numerous witnesses reported seeing a large commercial plane.

.. while you're at it, show me an F-16 with landing gear as big as the one found at the Pentagon...


witness reports:

http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0054_2_A_list_of_witness_at_or_near_Pentagon.pdf

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/pentagon_eyewitness_accounts.htm

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/ffdd.html

[objection]

114. the weight of the known evidence

Dozens of witnesses saw the plane. They found the black boxes in the Pentagon and passengers were identified by the autopsy.

So it could not possibly have been Flight 77 then could it?

[LARED]

100. Two black boxes???? and a Seat

From Newsweek

September 28, 2001, Newsweek Web Exclusive


Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Burkhammer and another firefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near the impact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the two spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long. They'd been told the plane's "black boxes" would in fact be bright orange, but these were charred black. The boxes had handles on one end and one was torn open. They cordoned off the area and called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board who confirmed the find: the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 77. "We wanted to find live victims," says Burkhammer. But this was a consolation prize. "Finding the black box gave us a little boost," he says.


Makes me wonder if fighter military aircraft have both black boxes. The flight data recorders (CDR) and the voice data recorder (VDR) or just a combo combined Cockpit Voice and Flight Data Recorder (CVFDR). It is my understanding that most fighter military aircraft use a CVFDR.

Hummmmmm? Does anyone know?

If that is true it is certainly powerful evidence that the f-15-F-16- truck bomb theories can finally be flushed to sea.

Also one would think an intact cockpit seat from an military fighter jet is a tad bit different than a boeing 767. Something someone might notice.

[Abe Linkman]

101. "looking -- after midnight" in the garden of good & Evil Doers.

I think that was a misprint. Those were really two night farmers, not firefighters. Their "harvest" included "black boxeS" (or a black box), and an "intact seat from the plane's cockpit" (F-16 cockpit?).

"The Nightime Is The Right Time" to plant and harvest strange and bitter fruit. (thanks, Nina)

[LARED]

103. How surprising

When additional information is brought to light. Rather than address it, Abe attempts a distraction.

How about it Abe. Do F-16's have two recorders or one? This could be a very enlightening piece of information.

Do you think the cockpit seat from a boeing 767 is significantly different enough from a F-16 so that a fireman would notice?

[MercutioATC]

107. Yes, I don't think a 757 pilot seat has an ejection mechanism...

...but I could be wrong...


:)

[LARED]

109. I'm pretty sure you're right

as there is no canopy, ejecting through the roof of a 767 has gotta hurt.

[vincent_vega_lives]

116. Nope not wrong.

Huge difference.

[LARED]

111. Flight data recorders in the F-16 program

http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/article/CA178107?pubdate=10%2F25%2F2001

In the late 1970s, in part under the auspices of the US Air Force F-16 program, Smiths Industries Aerospace began to implement CPM (Crash Protected Memory) in FDRs. CPM units use memory chips rather than magnetic tape as their recording medium. The chips increase reliability, because units using chips have fewer moving parts. Since the mid-1980s, all new recorders have used CPM as their storage media and combine both CVR and FDR in one crash-resistant unit. Replacing tape with CPM in CVRs increases recording times from 30 minutes to two hours before rewriting occurs. An example of the latest technology is Smiths Industries Aerospace's IDARS (Integrated Data Acquisition and Recording System, Figure 1). The IDARS initially targeted the military market, but it is now also used in commercial aviation. This integrated architecture offers obvious benefits. The IDARS provides both required data recording (CVR and FDR) and an FDAU (the equivalent of the QAR) in one unit. It provides separate power to the CVR and FDR to maintain electrical isolation for the recorders, as required by law.

Not exactly proof, but it sure seems to indicate the F-16's use a single box.

[objection]

98. Only part of one engine was found?

According to who or what was only a part of one engine found? Do you have a reference to any report which said so? Can you name one person present at the scene of the crime who is willing to subscribe to that?

According to Charles H. Krohn, the Army's deputy chief of public affairs "One of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area between the main building and the new loading dock facility".

How could he possibly lie about that? This happened in broad daylight. The Mall parking area is a public space, in full view for all to see.
http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010917/aw48.htm

[vincent_vega_lives]

115. He doesn't have to

Forget the fact that the only engine found is too small to be from a 757. Assume it IS large enough.

If it is ONE engine from a 757 then it was a 757. Show me an aircraft that would mount ONE of those engines.

[demodewd]

66. attn: Mercutio

Mercutio...you should take the time to review the innumerable anomalies associated with the Pentagon crash.The extreme intensity of the fire( more akin to a fire generated by explosives),the apparent "white flash" preceding the secondary explosion,the smell of cordite, The hole in the A-E drive that is difficult to explain when the fire/explosion is located so near the front of the building,the lack of apparent fire damage north of the planes entry point,the odd location for a hijacker with limited flight experience to zero in on,the apparent pin point accuracy of the "hit" just clearing the generator,the apparent lack of second floor destruction by the alleged #77 nose and fuselage that would have had to penetrate that area if the engines didn't scrape the ground..and they didn't, the lack of body parts on the Pentagon lawn and the highway(but there were reports of the plane's interior and an oxygen bottle found scattered outside the building),the lack of predictable evacuation protocol when the Pentagon brass knew full well that there were two planes heading for the DC area,the crash being centered in the most fortified area of the building insuring minimal destruction but killing many naval intelligence officers who may have had the goods on Bush et al.

[Abe Linkman]

68. Unfortunately, I think mercutio already knows all that.

demodewd: You know the old saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see". Of course, here at DU, speculating about someone's motivation isn't covered under freedom of speech rules in effect here, so I won't try & speculate about a poster's motivations.

[MercutioATC]

89. I admit that I haven't reviewed the Pentagon crash as much as the WTC

crashes, but what I've seen does lead me to believe that a 757 crashed there. I'll admit that I'd like to see the analysis of the wreckage, but there were numerous eyewitness reports of a large passenger plane hitting the Pentagon. Those, combined with the wreckage we DO see and the radar data lead me to believe that a 757 did, indeed, hit the Pentagon.

[Abe Linkman]

90. Some people will believe anything they're told...especially if they hear

it from their employer, or their ideological heroes.

[MercutioATC]

91. ...or if the alternatives just make no logical sense...

[Abe Linkman]

93. Fairy tales make no sense. without evidence, that's what you're pedaling

You are avoiding the issue of proof, because you don't have any, and everyone here knows it...legitimate seekers of truth, spinners, and disinfo agents, too.

[MercutioATC]

95. I could say much the same about your theories.

I, however, have common sense on my side.

[demodewd]

102. common sense

common sense=herd mentality.
All truth passes through three stages
First,it is ridiculed
Second,it is violently opposed
Third,it is accepted as being self evident
Shopenhauer

[LARED]

104. Fan of Nietzsche ?

I alway thought that his so called "productive" years coinciding with his death from syphilis would have lessened his influence; or was that his flatulence. I always forget.

[demodewd]

105. ppffffft.

You're right, it was syphillus. The flatulence is all in your head.

[LARED]

110. Really, are you a fan of Nietzsche?

I was just wondering as he carries a lot of baggage if you take his ravings seriously

The Third Reich loved the guy.

He did not view democratic principles as having any value.

He did espouse an aristocracy as a superior system

Many people believe he was nuts and point to his writing to establish those beliefs.

He oftentimes signed his name as God.

In short he was not a rational guy.

[demodewd]

112. No.

No. I'm a Cincinnati Reds fan.

[demodewd]

113. re: that German dude

I was just wondering as he carries a lot of baggage if you take his ravings seriously YOU BROUGHT HIM UP,HE'S THE LAST THING ON MY MIND

The Third Reich loved the guy.SO WOULD DICK CHENEY

He did not view democratic principles as having any value.DICK CHENEY

He did espouse an aristocracy as a superior system DAVID ROCKEFELLER,THE ROTHECHILDS,THE BILDERBERGS,TRILATERAL COMMISSION,UNBRIDLED GLOBAL CAPITALISM,BRITISH ARISTOCRACY,EUROPEAN ARISTOCRACY,THE LIBERAL EASTERN ESTABLISHMENT,HENRY KISSINGER

Many people believe he was nuts and point to his writing to establish those beliefs.NIHILISM IS ULTIMATELY DEVESTATINGLY DESTRUCTIVE

He oftentimes signed his name as God.THE ABSOLUTE EGOIST

In short he was not a rational guy.HOW DO YOU DEFINE RATIONAL?

[MercutioATC]

106. Ah, I see I'm on the right track, then...

(judging by your reactions)

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[k-robjoe]

20. Off topic

There is a very interesting ( 1-page ) piece up, called "A parable for understanding 911", at http://www.rense.com/general53/oarabl.htm

It is using as a parable a very violent bank robbery, and it´s interesting reading. One thing that I can´t really pinpoint what the parable is referring to is the "City´s comptroller" in this passage (Maybe someone can help me) :

"The Mayor's youngest brother is a director of the company providing security to the bank, and the City's comptroller (in charge of the money) came from a company in charge of remotely accessing the bank's electronics (which could explain the lack of transmission of an alarm at the start of the robbery)."


It is not refering to Dov Zakheim, but he sure could have a place in the parabel too. Just look at this :

" In the context of 9/11 it also needs to be pointed out that Rabbi Dov Zakheim was Chief Executive Officer of System Planning Corporation's International Division (*) until President George W. Bush appointed him Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon. Not long before Rabbi Zakheim rose to power over the Pentagon's labyrinthine, bottomless accounts, he co-authored an article entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" which was published by The Project for a New American Century in September 2000, exactly a year before 9/11; in this article, on page 51, it is stated that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor"! Voila! 9/11!"

(*) "System Planning Corporation designs, manufactures and distributes highly sophisticated technology that enables an operator to fly by remote control as many as eight different airborne vehicles at the same time from one position either on the ground or airborne."

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=57214;title=APFN

Other things that could have been in the parabel : The surveillance cameras malfunctioned.
&
Something equivalent to the missing black boxes / flight recorders. Etc. Etc.

[k-robjoe]

50. Atta

There´s a very interesting piece called :
"Mohamed Atta loved pork chops, and 49 other things you may not know " up at http://www.breakfornews.com/Mohammed-Atta.htm

How Dekkers and Hilliard were being protected in their drugtrafficking.

And rewarded (!) after 9/11, it seems.

And quotes like this one : " A former Huffman executive, speaking about the hijackers: "Early on I gleaned that these guys had government protection. They were let into this country for a specific purpose. It was a business deal.""

[k-robjoe]

74. Continued

From the parable : "...the City's comptroller (in charge of the money) came from a company in charge of remotely accessing the bank's electronics (which could explain the lack of transmission of an alarm at the start of the robbery)."

(Probably is referring to Dov Zakheim.)

And it´s interesting, after this, to read quotes like this one :

"There are no indications in the Flight77TowerConversations of a hijacking. (...)
What is clear from these conversations is that there is no indication of a takeover of the cockpit by hijackers. The pilot was in contact with the air traffic control, and presumably hijackers bursting into the cockpit and manually killing both pilots or wresting control, would take enough time for an experienced, a former Navy Captain, and Top Gun and Vietnam veteran fighter pilot, to shout some kind of alarm. But the controller says, we were talking to him and all of a sudden it just went silent. "

http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Flight77.shtml