United 93 left little to no evidence of it ever existing, and American 77? Well…there’s a bit more to that one.
 
http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=American_Airlines_Flight_77​
 
This website shows all the questions that are still unanswered regarding Flight #77. Lovely list, isn’t it?
Do you see any questions there that you have asked yourself? Discussions raised at the dinner table, or in your local bar?
 
Let's look at this event from angle to angle. 
First we'll start at the hole: the hole created in the wall of the Pentagon was only 16 feet wide.
The fuselage of a Boeing 757 is a little under 13 feet wide, but its total wingspan is 124 feet, and it was the wings that left no signs of impacting the building at all.
Remember how some laughed at the "roadrunner-type airplane shape" in the Twin Towers?

Well, this is what an airplane impact looks like without that shape.
Not very realistic looking, is it?

There's a reason for that, and that reason will hit you in a little while. So be patient.
Some of the windows around the impact zone were still intact. 

Sure, they were reinforced and designed not to break, but they should have been completely pulverized by the impact of something that size and travelling at that speed. And if they were REALLY that strong, they should have knocked the vertical stabilizer right off of the plane and left it right there on the lawn together with the tail cone and the horizontal stabilizers.
Because that's what should have happened when trying to squeeze an aircraft of that size into a hole that small. 

It would have been nice to see exactly what took place on that wall that day.

So many questions would have been answered if the surveillance footage from surrounding locations had been released.
The video tapes of the 86 surveillance cameras around the Pentagon (including those of the nearby Citgo gasstation, store, Sheriton hotel, etc.) were confiscated.  Only 5 frames of one of the Pentagon parkinglot videos was released to the press, and not one of those frames shows anything even remotely resembling an aircraft.
A spokeswoman for the Pentagon said “the aircraft must have entered right between the frames”.

<start your facepalm now>
 

Flight simulation tests show (though I don't know who performed these simulations) that this aircraft could not physically take that speed (a little over 400 kts), and the real world aircraft specs confirmed this, at that altitude (150 feet) for the period of time it was flown (almost a mile), which Hani Hanjour (the worst of the 9/11 pilots according to his instructor at JetTech in Arizona) apparantly managed. 

The simulation also shows that in his path there were several light posts which had to have been knocked over, as well as a small knoll which had to be avoided. The light posts probably would have cut the wings open, spilling fuel that everyone would have smelled.
And how about that little knoll?
The plane would have scraped it with its belly, resulting in the plane being catapulted off the line it was being flown in and possibly even launching it over the building.
Another interesting tidbit someone in internet land proposed: why go for the side of the building, which is a difficult target for an unexperienced pilot, and not just plunge the plane on top of the building?
Certainly that would have resulted in even more carnage?
This also raised a question regarding United 93, but we'll get to that later.

I mentioned the smell of fuel.

Jet fuel leaves a very strong odor and some recall smelling jetfuel (though some of the witness statements are heavily exaggerated).
 

Alan Wallace usually worked out of the Fort Myer fire station, but on Sept. 11 he was one of three firefighters assigned to the Pentagon's heliport. Along with crew members Mark Skipper and Dennis Young, Wallace arrived around 7:30 in the morning. . . . Wallace and Skipper were walking along the right side of the truck . . . when the two looked up and saw an airplane. It was about 25 feet off the ground and just 200 yards away -- the length of two football fields. They had heard about the WTC disaster and had little doubt what was coming next. "Let's go," Wallace yelled. Both men ran. 
          . . . Wallace hadn't gotten far when the plane hit. "I hadn't even reached the back of the van when I felt the fireball. I felt the blast," he says. He hit the blacktop near the left rear tire of the van and quickly shimmied underneath. "I remember feeling pressure, a lot of heat," he says. He crawled toward the front of the van, then emerged to see Skipper out in the field, still standing. "Everything is on fire. The grass is on fire. The building is on fire. The firehouse is on fire," Wallace recalls. "There was fire everywhere. Areas of the blacktop were on fire." 
          . . . His boots were on fire. His fire pants filled with debris. The fire alarm was blaring. 
[ SOURCE "Washington's Heroes - On the ground at the Pentagon on Sept. 11," Newsweek, 9/28/01 ]

​

But aside from jetfuel, another smell arose. One that shouldn't have been there.
Inside the Pentagon, around the immediate area of the impact, someone smelled cordite.

And cordite is part of the fuel in a cruise missile, whereas jet fuel, which is used in airplanes, smells so much different.

http://www.911review.com/attack/pentagon/witnesses.html

http://jpdesm.pagesperso-orange.fr/pentagon/pages-en/th-cruism.html
 
Okay, let’s go back to the hole in the Pentagon again, which was around 16 feet. Give or take a few inches.
A Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missile, the kind that uses the cordite mentioned earlier (!), has a fuselage diameter of 20.4 inches, and a wingspan of 8’ 9”. Not a lot, is it? Not even close to 16 feet.
But take a look at this:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On the left a picture of a precision strike in 1999 at the home of Slobodan Milosevic, and it was carried out by a NATO missle.
Of course when they say “NATO” they mean “United States”. But that aside, can you see the size of the hole?
Now look at the picture on the right, Sept. 11 2001, Pentagon, Washington DC.
Need I say more?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

We’ve all heard them or read about them; the myths and conspiracy theories, and unbelievable stories surrounding the planes of 9/11. 

Or better yet, the lack thereof.
I’m an openminded guy, and in the case of the JFK assassination in 1963 I’ve even always been on the side of the conspiracy nuts because there is too much evidence facing away from Lee Harvey Oswald being the only person involved.
But in the case of 9/11, what conspiracy theorists will have us believe is “what you see isn’t always what you get”.
On tv we see an airplane go into the second tower, but they’re telling us it’s a figment of our imagination.

The news networks created that blurry airplane, and the proof of it is that it looks very dark and more like an Airbus A-320.
The explosion is real enough, and the subsequent deaths are real enough too, but no airplanes impacted the towers.
What the Naudet brothers filmed wasn’t real either. It was all staged.

And the damage inside the lobby of WTC 1 was from the impact 80-something floors above it.
 
In the case of Washington (American 77) and Shanksville (United 93) I am a bit sceptical, because there were no airplanes to be found at either crash site. We’re told they completely disintegrated. 
But in fact, some say that crater (which was more like a gouge) in Somerset County, had been there since 1995.

The actual smoking crater appeared on 9/11, letting us believe an entire Boeing 757 disappeared into it.

​

The only crashes that come even remotely close to United 93 are:

United Airlines flight 585, 10 years earlier, in 1991, and PSA flight 1771 in 1987.
 

United 585 was a 737-200 that dove nose first into the ground just outside Colorado Springs Municipal Airport.
Most of the aircraft was destroyed beyond recognition, being pushed deep into the scorched earth upon impact.
BUT key is that around the impact zone there was enough debris to indicate the presence of an aircraft.

On December 7 1987, Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771, on a flight to San Francisco, crashed at the speed of sound on a mountainside in rural San Luis Obispo County, California. All 43 people on board were killed. 
The aircraft, a BAE-146-100, dove nose first into the ground with such force and speed that the debris field was littered with tiny pieces of aircraft and paper. There were no actual visible airplane parts. Even the seats and passengers were missing!

This impact was so powerful that there wasn't even a fire. The debris field was littered with unburnt papers.
Remarkably the FDR and the CVR were recovered, and even more fantastic was the fact that the CVR tape was still intact.

Due to the latter, investigators were able to determine the cause of the crash.
 
In the case of the WTC, the argument is made that aluminium wings are too flexible and too thin to cut through steel, even at over 400 knots (nearly 500 mph), and therefore the airplanes should have bounced right off of the building.

The explosions were real, and were caused by high grade thermate explosives that were planted beforehand, but the airplanes were edited into the pictures as soon as the illustrators knew where exactly the explosives were planted.

In the case of WTC 2, the images were carefully made, making sure a smoking WTC 1 was in full view first.
Yeah, ooookay. Use of explosives aside, that deserves a facepalm.
 
I understand the argument of aluminium not being able to cut through steel under normal circumstances.

I’ve flown often enough and sat in full view of the wing and seen it flap in the air, so I know how light and flexible they are.

They're designed specifically to move in the air, much like the wings of a bird.
I know how they behave during taxi and during flight. But we’re to believe that those four airplanes never took off (because the two AA planes weren’t scheduled to fly that day?), that the ATC transmissions were acted out, that the AA and UA families that mourn their lost loved ones are all actors, and that the airplane debris found in New York was all planted?
How do you plant an aircraft engine without people noticing?? Surely there wasn’t THAT much confusion on the ground?
 
Oddly enough there were a few people on the ground who stated that a small commuter jet flew into the Pentagon.
That might have been an American Connection or American Eagle plane, but then what happened to American Airlines flight 77?
And that's the part that really made me think.
 
Why is it that the US Government couldn't see that the only thing they were doing was turning their own people against them by purposely causing innuendos? All they've managed to accomplish was to make people think everything was being covered up for some reason, which in turn led people to believe it was all for war and to make money. 
Speculations became the norm. People started digging to find their own truth.

"Put options" on AA, UA and the WTC were discovered, and naturally this fueled the conspiracy nuts even more, which in turn led to heated debates on tv. But unfortunately "put options" are very common.
It just so happens that this time they all happened to be severely effected, which more or less drove American Airlines to file for "chapter 11 bankruptcy". 

But in the background all is well, AA was saved, and life carried on as always.
 
Okay. Stop.
I'm not going to leave you with happy thoughts just yet.
It's been mentioned several times, and every time I ignored it: Operation Northwoods.
I refused to believe that the US Government was actually able to conjur up something so grotesk, it would purposely kill many of their own civilians on their own soil. Until I read it. After all, it was declassified now. Why not read it?
And after I had, I wondered why the USG was so STUPID to a) put this in writing and b) declassify and release it to the public instead of just destroying it?
I was feeling a little sick to my stomach now.
Every tiny feeling I had earlier about a country in that much spotlight and who raises their flags for every little occasion just disappeared when I read what Northwoods was all about.
And the results of 9/11 had every ingredient of being a carbon-copy of the events in that document.

DEFENDING THE SKIES
Norman Mineta (Transportation Secretary) said in an interview:

"During the time then, the airplane coming into the Pentagon ... uhm there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President 'the plane is 50 miles out ... the plane is 30 miles out ...' and when he got down to 'the plane is 10 miles out' ...uhm the young man also said to the Vice President ... 'do the orders still stand?' ... and the Vice President turned, whipped his neck around and said 'Of course the orders still stand! Have you heard anything to the contrary?'  .... well at the time I didn't know what all that meant and uhm ... " and then he was interupted.
This interview was omitted from the official 9/11 Commission Report.

So how did they know the distance if it had the transponder off? Didn't people say they were invisible to ATC?
No, not really. An airplane with its transponder off is still visible on radar, it just doesn't show its callsign, speed, altitude or heading. 

It becomes a visible little moving blip called a "primary target".
And that little bit of information always kind of gnawed in the back of my mind: that American 11 and United 175 were "invisible to ATC". Because they couldn't have been.
Depending on the state of the radar equipment used:

 

AMERICAN 11 ..... transponder off - blue primary
UNITED 175 ....... transponder code changed - altitude, speed and heading were still visible to ATC, but no visible callsign
AMERICAN 77 ..... transponder off - red primary - entered restricted P-56 airspace without military response
UNITED 93 ......... transponder off, then back on again - had to have been visible as primary

 

Well I will say this: despite being blips on the screen, the busier the airspace (like the area between Newark and Boston), the harder it is to track a blip, much less know what it is.
Have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0GI-1gja5Q
This is the Arlington/DC area on 9/11. Note the number of blips. And this is near a restricted airspace!

But I am going to explain this particular video a little later on, because its very important.

 

There were various exercises underway on the morning of 9/11 (Vigilant Guardian and Global Guardian were just two of them), various jets had been scrambled to Western Canada and Alaska to perform in other exercises there, leaving just 4 ... yes FOUR fighter jets to defend the North-East coast of the continental US against any form of attack. FOUR!

And just ten more for the rest of the country.
This is the area of the continental US most likely to ever be attacked! And this is a coincidence?? No fucking way!
NORAD states that their eyes are usually on the coasts and the borders, and attacks coming from there.

It's the duty of the FAA and ATC to watch the skies within the borders.
Who approved this idea?

Then there seemed to be confusion surrounding who was allowed to make what call in the case of such an emergency.
The FAA is in charge of all civilian flights. When they feel a civilian aicraft is non-responsive for too long, they have to follow procedures and contact the Pentagon to send up fighters. 
They tried this, but no one was around to take the call! NO ONE!
So the FAA Ops Manager, Ben Sliney, went outside the procedures and contacted Otis Airbase directly, which added to the confusion because at first THEY thought it might be part of the exercise that was being conducted by NEADS.

The following is the list of people who called the shots that day:

 

FAA Command Center      Ben Sliney                             Ops Manager             first day on the job
FAA Headquarters            Lt. Gen. Mike Canavan           Hijack coord.             in Puerto Rico - didn't assign a replacement
NMCC                             Capt. Charles Leidig               Acting NMCC dir.        newly certified - first day
NEADS/NORAD                Col. Marr / Maj.Gen. Arnold    COs                          Gen. Arnold in a meeting - couldn't be disturbed
NORAD                           Gen. Ralph Eberhart               Commander              Incommunicado - car commute
Sec.Defense                    Donald Rumsfeld                    SecDef                     Incommunicado - somewhere in the Pentagon

 

In an effort to at least do SOMETHING, it was Ben Sliney who eventually went outside of procedures to find some help.
With the wargames still not being suspended, Sliney decided to halt all civilian take-offs and to immediately land all remaining airborne flights ASAP. This potentially saved a lot of lives. Kudos Ben!

But what about this P-56 airspace? Heavily restricted? No-fly zone? What happens if someone penetrates that airspace?

Do they get shot down?
Well, that brings us to the fuzziness of the self-defense systems in DC. Some say there are, some say there aren't.
Those who say there are, say they don't do much good against a civilian jet anyway.

Others say that shooting down something over a populated area is not even an option.
So how restricted is P-56?
First left me start with focussing on the closest airport: Reagan National Airport (KDCA).
Look at this: https://airnav.com/airport/DCA

 

A take-off from runway 1, which heads North, takes you over the Washington Monument, and exceptionally close to the White House.

The latter is of course very restricted airspace.
A take-off from runway 33, which heads North-West, takes you close to the Pentagon.

One of the remarks for this airport clearly states: "LEFT-HAND TURN-OFFS FROM RY 33 TO TWY 'K' PROHIBITED."

 

On a side note: "BE ADVISED SOME AIRCREWS MISTAKE RY 15 FOR RY 19."
Yeah, in my humble opinion, these aircrews shouldn't be allowed to fly!

There's a difference between flying a heading of 150 and flying a heading of 190.
That's only 40 degrees!

 

Here's something important: "RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL ARPRT (KDCA) IS AN EMERGENCY USE ONLY FIELD FOR ALL DOD OWNED AND OPERATED ACFT."
DOD = Department of Defense.

But nowhere on that page does it say that northbound take-offs from runway 1 should turn immediate West.
Or that Northbound traffic is prohibited at all, from which the conclusion may well be drawn that the White House is less important than the Pentagon! The Jeppesen charts, as well as the charts on FlightAware, clearly state that landing on runway 19 requires authorization.
Approaches are over the Potomac, NOT over the White House, and follow an almost zig-zag pattern down the glide slope, until lining up with the runway during short final. 
No wonder runways 15 and 19 are often mistaken!

Aircrews have to fly a heading of 142 down the Potomac before turning 191 to line up with runway 19.
Runway 15 has a magnetic heading of 152, but a true heading of 143.
But that aside.

 

The sectional chart of the DC airspace very clearly shows the entire P-56 area, and the Pentagon is inside it.
Even more, the airport KDCA is in the dead center, which is why it is off limits to regular air traffic.
In any case, the argument "but I see airplanes flying over the Pentagon, or close to it, all the time" doesn't apply to conventional civilian airlines. These aircrafts are cleared for this airspace and are, most likely, government (DoD) owned / operated, of which the aircrew has undergone certain security checks.
Any civilian passenger or cargo planes that DO land there, are AUTHORIZED.

 

If the Pentagon has a self defense system, it most likely won't respond to an IFF signal ... civilian aviation aircrafts don't use IFF signals, so American #77 should have been shot out of the sky by it as soon as it entered the Pentagon restricted airspace without a military escort, or unless it was authorized. Keep this in mind for later.
IFF = Identification Friend or Foe
This signal is needed around that area because it is basically a no-fly zone. Military aircrafts from Anacostia, Andrews or elsewhere, will transmit an IFF code when going near that area.
So either the Pentagon self defense system was turned off that day, or it didn't respond because it was an aircraft that transitted an IFF signal. And "self defense system" doesn't necessarily mean a missile battery. It could just be an alarm that rings.
And if it transmitted an IFF signal, it must have been a friendly military aircraft, and not a civilian airliner.

Now for the airspace radar video around the DC area around the time of the Pentagon event.
First look at this list of some of the aircrafts you will see: http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=136

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0GI-1gja5Q
At around 3:37 in the center left of the screen, a red blip (called a primary target) enters the screen. This is "American 77".
At 9:10 two controllers in the background can be heard noticing the "primary target heading for P-56 West-10West fast moving"
Listen at around 11:34, the 757 is noticed and GOFER 06 has his eyes out.
As GOFER 06 descends to 2000 ft to chase the 757, it reports at 13:55 that "it looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir."

It stands out for me that this controller kept saying GOFER 86 instead of GOFER 06, so this controller had issues that day.
The controller doesn't seem very upset by it, but it also doesn't sound like GOFER 06 confirmed it either.

He didn't actually see the aircraft impact. "It LOOKS LIKE"

I watched that ATC/radar segment from start to finish several times, and this is what stood out for me:

 

BOBCAT 14  unarmed Hawk T-2 aircraft seemed to occupy the controller called "Flukie", especially with reference to VORs Montebello and Linden

BOBCAT 17  unarmed Hawk T-2 aircraft seemed to occupy the controller called "Flukie", especially with reference to VORs Montebello and Linden
WORD 31     took off from Andrews @ 2:14 and headed Westbound, disappearing on the left of the screen @ 17.000 ft / 430 kts at the 14:00 mark 
GOFER 06    the famous C-130 took off @ 8:42
VENUS 77    designated by some as "the white plane", took off @ 20:20 (a full 16 mins after Word 31 and 10 mins after GOFER 06)

VENUS 22    (a Gulfstream) flies a very SE erratic pattern at 4100 ft / with speeds between 170-230 kts, then NE, seemingly heading to Andrews,                      then comes back after the impact of "AA77"

 

Both WORD 31 and VENUS 77 are E4-B "DoomsDay planes".
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a943secondnaoc
(see the 9:03 section, last paragraph)
(the 9:27 section focuses on VENUS 77, but states in the 2nd paragraph that WORD 31 took off at 9:37, not 9:27 ... flightstrip info was incorrect?!)
It also states that the E4-B was "launched", as opposed to taking off.

What?? Since when do airplanes launch when not on an aircraft carrier??

WORD 31 and VENUS 77 were both to participate in "Global Guardian".

In fact, WORD 31 was en route to Offutt AFB in Nebraska with Bush's new adviser, Karl Rove.

BUT ... Peter Jennings, from ABC News, reports @ 9:41 EST that an "unidentified white airplane is circling the Capitol and White House."
So if WORD 31 was already airborne @ 9:27 and heading West, and VENUS 77 didn't take off until 9:43, which plane was Jennings seeing?
Well, (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a943secondnaoc) states in the 9:27 section, 2nd paragraph, that it took off at 9:37. So we're to believe WORD 31 was the "white plane" everyone saw.
However, radar shows it heading West immediately after taking off, not heading North to circle the Capitol and White House.
So with that we can erase the time of 9:37 and say that WORD 31 did infact take-off at 9:27.

 

VENUS 77, according to radar images seen near the end on this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0GI-1gja5Q), circled in a "teardrop" pattern as it climbed. 
It did eventually leave the P-56 airspace, despite being obviously equipped with an IFF transmitter and, according to the official statement in the 9:45 section of http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a943secondnaoc it left the area and settled into a holding Pattern above Richmond, Virginia.
But we can't see that in the video.

 

Back to the radar video ... @ 9:10 ATC controllers in the background become aware of a "primary target heading for P-56, West10West, fast moving". At this very moment, BOBCAT 14 is cruising at FL210 @ 310kts with BOBCAT 17 at 17.200 ft @ 330 kts.

These were Hawk T-2 jets. Though unarmed, why weren't they notified, or asked to go down for a look?
The airspace around BOBCAT 14 wasn't too crowded, so he could have easily, and safely gone down for a closer look.
Why wait for that big, sluggish C-130 to get close enough?

 

But then, just when you think there is no more weird stuff: the A-3 Skywarrior
http://www.hoaxofthecentury.com/911PentagonStory1.htm
Just saying! Sorry, I had to do that. :-))

AMERICAN 77
Now at this point I was kind of stuck with my part of the American 77 research.

I was ready to disprove a 757 entirely, until I came across this website:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/
Now these guys are brilliant.

The amount of research they've done, the interviews they've performed, some of the people they've talked to.
They managed to talk to THREE Pentagon cops! 

 

One is Pentagon Police Officer, William Lagasse who described the aicraft flying "the FOB2 area" (ibid. the Navy Annex), "from west to east", "at about 150 feet AGL".
I love how Americans always refer to everything by compass heading; North, South, East, and West. They always know exactly what direction they are going, or looking at.

I was, however, pleasantly surprised he used the term "AGL", since it is typically used by people in the aviation community.

 

Then there is, Chad Brooks, a fellow officer of Lagasse, who said he saw the same thing and in the five years after the event, he and Lagasse had NEVER talked about the event at the Pentagon during 9/11.
NOT ONCE?? In 5 years? A bit strange, but okay. I mean, this was something that hadn't happened before.

Were they restricted from talking about it amongst themselves or something?

 

But both these officers distinctively said the plane flew North of the Citgo station, and NOT South.
Why is this important? It changes the damage path and impact zone drastically. The answers are on the CIT website.

There were witnesses that are very sure the big airplane didn't impact the Pentagon, but that something else, that was very close to it, did. The big plane could be described as a decoy plane, as described by Pentagon Police Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr, who saw the plane flying away immediately after the explosion.

 

Officer Roberts, Officer Lagasse, and Officer Brooks, were told by their superiors NOT to talk to the media again.

 

Various residents of the nearby area, described the plane that flew by as being "white" with a "maroon" or "red" stripe on it.
That description almost resembles that of the Honeywell Boeing 757.
One witness described three black numbers on the tail, but then she also mentioned a blue stripe instead of the red stripe.
http://www.air-and-space.com/20100201%20N757HW.htm#20130809

The images shown on CNN shows an obvious 747 (old series 100 or 200), and is described as a 4 engine plane.
Further inspection of these images shows this aircraft to be a USAF E4-B, a modified Boeing 747-200.

Its "official" nickname? "The DoomsDay Plane", like its E4-B brothers.
Why this creepy nickname? Not just because of its top secret nature, but mostly due to the fact that it was designed as a flying battle operations center, from which attacks are coordinated and viewed. 
Much like the AWACS E3-A, only more covert. And they are called NAOC; National Airborne Operations Center.
This E4-B is part of a fleet, and several of them were airborne at the time of 9/11, hip deep in the exercises that were planned for the day. The key part in causing the mass confusion of that morning in Arlington/Washington, was to have TWO airplanes close to each other and BOTH of them close to the Pentagon. Which is why the C-130 was mentioned so often.
That way conflicting stories would find themselves into mainstream media, and one would always cancel out the other one.

And it worked.

From whatever angle you look at this chapter of the 9/11 attack, every little bit of evidence and testimony steers away from an American Airlines Boeing 757.

The official story is that an Americans Airlines Boeing 757-200, supposedly flight #77, flew low, on the south side of the former Citgo gas station, knocked over a few light posts (sent one flying into a cab on the overpass, but not putting one tiny scratch on the hood of said cab), and then impacted the front of the Pentagon.

Not only that, but it was followed by a C-130, commanded by Col. Steve O'Brien.

However eye witnesses, the ones above are just a handful, have seen a white aicraft with a single stripe on it (one witness noticed black numbers on the tail), and that it flew low at the North side of the Citgo gas station, on a West to East trajectory.

And then, depending on which witness you listen to, it pulled up and flew off, or just disappeared out of view. 
None of them saw a second aicraft near this white aircraft. Nothing that clearly resembled a C-130.
However all of them remember the aircraft having just one engine under the wing.

So, they didn't see the E4-B either, and that's good. Because that's a very noticable aircraft shape.

It's also very large and not easy to pull up at high speeds.
It DID however fly low over the DC area, and even over the White House.

This initially caused concern with the Secret Service detail of the White House, but since they didn't respond by shooting it down, one can only conclude it was a military aircraft transmitting an IFF signal that stopped the Secret Service from shooting it down.

That's why there is such a signal.
Still, they were worried.

Alright, so that covers the visual aspect of American #77.
What about the phone calls that were made from that plane? 
Okay.

THE PHONE CALLS OF 9/11

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html

 

United Airlines flight #93        N591UA    Boeing 757-222        (cn 28142/718)        GTE airphones    
United Airlines flight #175      N612UA    Boeing 767-222        (cn 21873/41)          AT&T seat back phones
American Airlines flight #11    N334AA    Boeing 767-223/ER   (cn 22332/169)        AT&T seat back phones
American Airlines flight #77    N644AA    Boeing 757-223        (cn 24602/365)        American Airlines had no airphones installed on their 757s

 

An excerpt from the above website: ........ regarding to airphones on AA #77
----------------------------------
By settling on this version of his story, nevertheless, [Ted] Olson at least appeared to make defensible his claim that the calls occurred. We say this because of the extremely strong evidence that her reported calls could not have been made on a cell phone, given the cell phone technology in 2001. 

Cell phone calls from an airliner were, as DRG [David Ray Griffin] has argued extensively elsewhere, generally possible only if it was flying slowly and low, but Barbara Olson’s first call, according to the 9/11 Commission, occurred “at some point between 9:16 and 9:26,” when the plane was flying too fast and too high for cell phone calls to have been possible.

According to the Flight Data Recorder information released by the National Transportation Safety Board, the plane at 9:16 would have been over 25,000 feet, which is far too high (as well as too fast: 281 knots [324 mph]), while at 9:26 the plane would have been flying at 324 knots (370 mph), which is much too fast (as well as still too high: almost 14,000 feet). By settling on the claim that his wife used an onboard phone instead of a cell phone, Ted Olson avoided this problem. But was a call from an onboard phone even possible?

In 2004, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, having asked American Airlines whether their “757s [are] fitted with phones that passengers can use,” received this reply from an AA spokesperson: “American Airlines 757s do not have onboard phones for passenger use.” 
To check on the possibility that Barbara Olson might have borrowed a phone intended for crew use, they then asked, “[A]re there any onboard phones at all on AA 757s, i.e., that could be used either by passengers or cabin crew?”

The response was: “AA 757s do not have any onboard phones, either for passenger or crew use. Crew have other means of communication available.”

Henshall and Morgan then found this information corroborated on the AA website, which, while informing travelers that telephone calls are possible on AA’s Boeing 767 and 777, does not mention its 757. On the assumption that the AA spokesperson and this website were talking about AA 757s as they had been for several years, not simply as they were at the time of the query (2004), Henshall and Morgan concluded that, in the words of an essay written by Morgan, “Barbara Olson’s Call from Flight 77 Never Happened.”

David Ray Griffin, interpreting the information in the same way, wrote in the first edition of his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking:

“Given the evidence that Barbara Olson could not have called from Flight 77 using either a cell phone or an onboard phone, we have very good evidence that the calls to Ted Olson, like the call to [flight attendant] Renee May’s parents, were fabricated---unless, of course, he simply made up the story.”

Another problem I have with all these phone calls that were supposedly made, was that US media have us believe more than 4 were made. When we listen to the background when Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney called, it's abnormal that there is no hysteria to be heard in the background. Plus, with these 'muscle hijackers' in the plane to watch over these passengers, it seemed impossible they would allow any calls to be made, much less calls that lasted as long as they did.
Cell phone calls at high speeds and high altitudes were impossible to make in 2001 with the available cell phone technology of that time, so hiding in a corner with your phone was also out of the question.

THE MEDIA
Also think of this: there are countless documentaries regarding the 9/11 attacks, conspiracy theories, and so forth.
Regarding the events in New York, the History Channel, National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, BBC, NOVA, and many more, have done official documentaries with government approval.
These tell the overal story, show in-depth interviews, and known video footage.
With regards to a formal documentary surrounding the mysteries of American Airlines flight #77, that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, and United Airlines flight #93, that supposedly plummeted into the ground near Shanksville, PA, there has never been an official documentary. Why?
Who's stopping that?
Who is controlling the networks from digging into the truth of it all?

Didn't it also seem like some news stations were told beforehand about the falling of WTC 7?
Reports had been made on live tv of building #7 having fallen, when you can still see it in the background!
Remember that?
So someone had their hands on the media, right?
On November 23rd, 1963, Walter Cronkite mentioned a letter that was in Oswald's military personell records, and this letter incriminated Oswald against Gov. John Connally, giving him motive to kill Connally. It's odd that so few wondered how Cronkite got his hands on this letter. This was evidence in the murder of the President!
But it's obvious that someone gave the media access to certain information.

UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT #93
Now, what do we know about United #93?
Well first there are the reports of United Airlines flight #93 landing safely in Cleveland. Well, here's the explanation of that:
Both United Airlines and Delta Airlines reported to have planes non-responsive, but eventually Delta #1989 was diverted to land at Cleveland because they feared they might have a bomb onboard.
The confusion was not only caused by Associated Press and WCPO-TV, but also by United Airlines who claimed (or hoped) it was their plane that had landed at Cleveland. Alas, this wasn't the case.
 

Here's what we DO know:

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

- very minimal aircraft debris at the crash site.
- supposedly the entire aircraft disappeared into the hard ground (not mud, not swamp, but dry dirt)
- no bodies
- no scorched ground, grass or trees
- no smell of aviation jet fuel
- no fire
- minimal smoke
- small white jet seen before the "crash"  (could this have been another A-3 Skywarrior?)
- phone call discrepencies (supposedly made between 14.000 and 39.000 feet altitude)
- erratic maneuvering at high speed 
- the "let's roll" comment by one of the United #93 'heroes' seems like it was from a bad script from an even worse movie

 

Now, supposedly there was some Arabic talk in the cockpit just before the passengers attacked the hijackers and flew the plane into the ground. The hijackers are then heard saying, in Arabic of course, "no not yet, wait until they're in the cockpit"... and then moments later the ever popular "Allahu Ackbar!" was exclaimed.
Then came the impact.
Now, the whole purpose of hijacking an airplane was to fly it into a very populated area to kill as many people as possible. 

So if you have a hunch you won't make it to your target, why keep flying until you're over a scarcely populated area?

Why not look for a town to crash on?

So both Ziad Jarrah and Hani Hanjour didn't quite understand the objective of their mission?
That's highly unlikely. We're told they had been preparing for this attack for a long time.
 
But we still have two large planes unaccounted for: American #77 and United #93.
Is it possible the world was tricked into thinking these two planes crashed? And that their loved ones grieving over them weren't real either? Of course if that was staged, that also means that we're missing 9 hijackers.
From there it's a small step to the next question: if AA #77 and UA #93 didn't happen, who's to say AA #11 and UA #175 did?
And if that didn't happen either, we go from 10 hijackers to none at all.

Now personally I'm a firm believer that two airplanes struck the Twin Towers.
I like to think I know what I saw.

But that part, the seeing, is what is being withheld from us regarding the events of the Pentagon.

If we're to believe that American #77 wasn't scheduled by American Airlines to fly that day, (like some claim American #11 wasn't either) then what DID enter the Pentagon?

Was it a cruise missle after all, and those small fragments of airplane debris at the scene were mysteriously planted?

The small turbo fan found on the Pentagon lawn wasn't from a Boeing 757, that's for sure.
It did, however, fit better with the propulsion system of a cruise missle, but also with a small commuter plane like an Embraer 145, which American Eagle and American Connection happen to own and use.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

MYSTERIES OF THE DAY
The above is a screenshot of the BTS website http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/ once posted in a forum.
The top of the list shows American Airlines flight #11 with an unknown tail number, taxi-out time, wheels-off time, and departure time, followed by a large number of American Airlines flights scheduled to depart Boston Logan International Airport (KBOS) that day. 

And this, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, is the sole claim of American Airlines flight #11 not existing that day. 

But look at the rest of the list and notice how many AA flights share that same issue.
It just proves that American Airlines either had problems with filing their flights that morning, or they were just lax at it.
 
Because there was some kind of mix-up between the airline not filing their flights, and then BTS not adding them to the rosters, theorists believe these planes never took off, and that the flights weren't real.
And when BTS noticed the cock-up, they added the flights (but not until after the events in New York had taken place), and then still added the flights WITHOUT the aircraft tailnumbers.
This whole affair led people to conclude flights AA #11 and UA #175 never really happened.
Then came the rest of the bullshit, when people started claiming that American #77 wasn't scheduled to fly that day either.
So that leaves United #93. Is this plane as mysterious as the magic bullet in the JFK assassination conclusion?
Did United #93 hit both towers, then the Pentagon and then disappear into the ground in Pennsylvania??
Get real here!
 
So let's say AA #11 and AA #77 didn't fly that day. What then is the story on UA #175?
How do you cover up passenger manifests?
Granted the AA manifests could have been completely fabricated, but the UA birds presumabley still flew right?
ATC transmissions surrounding American #11 and United #175, which I've heard over and over again over the years, had to then have been fabricated also? No, bullshit. I know what I heard.
Or was the ATC that day actually convinced those two birds were in the air?
If they weren't real, someone sure pretended to be their respective pilots before the line went dead.
 
When people say "look at those images of United #175, you can see, clear as day, something is attached to the belly of that plane."
If you're an average passenger about to board an airplane with something attached to its belly that you know isn't supposed to be there, would you still board it? I wouldn't. And I'm very average. 
So no, people wouldn't board it.
Therefor United #175 was a regular 767 en route to LAX from Boston.
 
So what is it people are seeing in those images? Some said they were shadows, other say "no, it's actually a 3d object".
Well, for some reason some of the United Airlines planes have a reflective strip added to the bottom of the plane.

Add some sunlight from the right angle, and who knows what it will look like.
Then people are seeing a small explosion at the spot the airplanes enter the buidings, and just before impact.
So what was that? These airplanes don't have a fuel source at the front, so they can't explode there just by impacting.
The answer: I don't know what it was.

But since it's only visible in ONE of the 43 videos I've seen of that impact, I think it's fair to say that it wasn't an explosion of any kind. 
It's farfetched to say that the pilots aimed for a spot where the demolition team had placed explosives, and that said team then detonated that one spot upon impact.
It's just a lot to ask for.
 
So here you have two possibilities:
 
A) it was a military 767 (either fit with remote control or piloted by someone with a deathwish), and the pilot pretended to be the AA crew

    using its callsign. This would also mean that the military pilot knew he or she was about to kill thousands of innocent Americans.            
    (not very patriotic, is it?) And keep in mind that it was a filed flight, which means that someone cleared it for take off somewhere.

B) it was actually United 175, so now you can stop clinging to weird theories.
 
The choice is yours.

Not so fast.
Because the choice was made for you!

CREATING THE BAD GUYS FOR THE PUBLIC TO FEAR AND HATE
In the early 1980's, America supplied weapons and training to the Afghan rebels, the Mudjahaddin, who were fighting the Russian forces. The Stinger missiles became the best assett the Afghans had to defeat the evil Russians, and these missiles were manufactured and delivered by the CIA. This made a good basis for several American box office hits, but despite the truth being shown in these movies, it also pictured America as being the hero of the story.
With this new training, and the weapons that were now being replenished, the Afghan rebels were now able to take their crusade further, and their numbers grew. The Mudjahaddin culminated into Al Qaeda, which meant The Base, under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, and they turned their attention to Iraq. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, something Osama bin Laden was very much against.

It was seen as treason against Islam. But Iraq had a well trained Army, instead of a militia.
When bin Laden turned to his wealthy family in Saudi Arabia for support, and they turned him down, he sought to overthrow them. 

The bin Laden family, and the rest of the Saudi government, decided to support Kuwait.

And they did so with the help of their good friends in the American Government.
George Bush to the rescue.
And this was the actual first step to a counter attack on American soil.
However, what the American public was blissfully unaware of, was that small fractions of the new Al Qaeda were already installed throughout the continental U.S.
And they behaved as sleeper cells.
For years they stayed quiet and seemed harmless.

They became one with the rest of the country.

​

==========================================================
When we look back at that early period of the 80's, why DID Soviet troops invade Afghanistan?

   Did they know something the rest of the world refused to acknowledge?
    http://www.e-ir.info/2010/01/03/the-soviet-union%E2%80%99s-last-war/
==========================================================

 

If only the Americans hadn't interfered and let the Soviets slaughter the Mudjahaddin.

Perhaps Al Qaeda wouldn't have become what it did, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, Iraq wouldn't have been overthrown, and ISIS would still just have been known as the name of an ancient Egyptian goddess. Food for thought, eh?

If we, as a species, have proven ONE thing, it's that we've allowed religions to take over and destroy us.
Ever since the first cavemen, where tribes were divided between those who worshipped an animal or sun, and those who didn't, it became clear that religion divides us.
Either we all follow ONE religion, or we follow none at all. That should be the case. Of course that is the goal of ISIS too.
Until that day comes, there will always be wars and holy wars.

On several occasions, the Clinton administration had the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden in his own camp.

CIA intell places him at specific locations and the fingers were on the green button to fire Tomahawk missiles at these locations.

But the green light was never given. Either there would have been too many civilian casualties, or there was a possibility of children in this camp he was in, or he was seen with UAE dignitaries, who KNEW who he was!
In all these cases, the US Government showed too much backbone, sympathy, and compassion for those who chose to be around this terrorist. Of course it was evident these swingsets, that were seen in this one camp which indicated to the CIA there might be children there, could have either been a clever trick, or they belonged to bin Laden's own children.

Hatred towards Islam: members of radical Islam movements have openly spewed their outrage towards Egypt, Israel and America for years, and to this day they still do this.
After the 1993 bombing of the WTC in New York, many Americans have openly spewed their hatred towards Islam.
New York Muslims say this isn't right, and that Islam isn't the problem but that "the Fundamendalist Extremist Muslim Movement is the problem." Tension in NYC persists and spreads throughout other states. Not all, but some.
After 9/11, this of course grew.
 

"America has brought this upon themselves", Al Qaeda says as they hide behind their religion, unaware or perhaps not caring that they are condemning their own people. The innocent Muslims who live in the U.S. are scrutinized, and their religion is put under a spotlight.

And that spreads to other Western countries.
It's said that anyone who prays 5 times a day and constantly chants "Allahu Ackbar" (God is mighty), has to be brainwashed.

And it would certainly seem that way.

Despite bin Laden never being officially charged with the attacks of 9/11 (remember, a wanted poster doesn't make anything official until the Justice Department issues a warrant for his arrest/capture), he was seen as the mastermind behind it all.

But why, like some news articles and documentaries suggest, should we doubt his involvement?
I mean it's pretty evident he was up to no good. Even his own family pretty much disowned him.

But where his funds kept coming from, we'll probably never know. Al Qaeda had been on the FBI, CIA, NSA and DSS radar for years.

The Clinton administration struggled taking them down, and at the end of their tenure, they perhaps didn't even pass on their information regarding this band of merry henchman to the new administration.

But they really didn't need to, because the Bush family knew the bin Ladens very well.
In the film Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore attempted to show this to the American people. And they didn't take him seriously.

They were shocked to find the Bush-bin Laden connection so public, but it was Moore who was labelled as subversive, liberal and Anti-American. The American people just don't want to know the truth, or perhaps can't handle it.
Who can blame them?

If your own government constantly lies to you, and keeps important information from you, who can you trust? 
The chubby guy in the weird ballcap, or a politician you know is more crooked than a questionmark?

 

If there were NO planes, and thus NO hijackers, why is it that the US Intelligence apparatus knows so much about the movement of some of these men, like Ramzi Yousef and Mohammed Atta?

 

STRANGE:     Why would 5 men, all Arabic, be let on a commercial airliner with boxcutters?
                    One man with a boxcutter wouldn't have been strange, but FOUR or FIVE??
                    How is it that airport security failed to see this as something out of the ordinary??
ANSWER:      It became clear that the FAA, despite receiving 52 separate warnings, failed to upgrade their security checkpoints.
                    Tests were done by so-called FAA "Red Teams" and it became evident that these armed agents got through security

                    without problems, and WITH weapons.

And the objective of the 9/11 events: have the people believe their security has been breached by foreign militants and strike back by going to WAR.
Much like Operation Northwoods suggested in the 60's.
A "False Flag" operation.

Mission accomplished?