No Plane Crash

FOIA Request of 9/11 FAA Phone Calls: 1st hit "can't be American [Airlines]"

2008-10-19T07:22:00.000-07:00

October 18, 2008
FOIA Request of 9/11 FAA Phone Calls: 1st hit "can't be American [Airlines]"

By ewing2001
FOIA Request of 9/11 FAA Phone Calls: 1st hit "can't be American" Airlines.
picked up at:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/18187
Submitted by Kevin Fenton on Sat, 10/18/2008 - 6:18am.

see also Evidence that Flights AA 11 and AA 77
Did Not Exist on September 11, 2001

Successful FOIA Request: FAA Phone Calls on Day of 9/11
I have obtained a new document via FOIA request. It is an FAA memo comprising a transcript of calls between various FAA facilities and other institutions on the day of 9/11, and was referenced in the 9/11 Commission Report, in endnote 128 to Chapter 1 (on page 459). It is not spectacularly exciting, but touches on awareness of all four hijacks, in particular the last three. You can find it here.

...page 9/49
UNK know i mean what hit the world trade center what hit the world trade center can't be american
UNK can't be american not enough damage
...
ZNY we suspect american eleven and united one seventy five is the best we
can ascertain
ATCSCC where did you hear that one seventy five uh where is he to and from do you know
...
ATCSCC how how bout can you tell me if we know for sure it was american eleven that went into the trade center
AAL
...
AAL dulles 1a and they both uh apparently been hijacked and eleven we're
pretty sure is in the in there and uh and uh seventy seven we were
talking to them uh according to indianapolis center about forty five
minutes ago
...
AAL and i don't' know how he got touh to uh back to the trade center i
have no idea if that happened..

Please, Watch "September clues"

2008-10-16T11:02:00.000-07:00

South Tower Anomalies III - Addressing the Debunkers

2008-08-16T12:37:00.001-07:00

Theory of Ghostplane

2008-07-27T10:26:00.000-07:00

Shows how it was done!

"Originals" are on Killtown's 2nd hit page, which is a collection of the extant versions of the "2nd hit" on the South Tower of the Trade Tower complex September 11, 2001.

"Is it Real?" "Check it Out?"

2008-07-27T09:51:00.000-07:00

5k Reward for providing Video of South Tower "Hit" that does not break "Laws of Newton"

2008-07-16T09:35:00.000-07:00

Dear Jim and Molly,

Can we turn our interview time into something postivie rather than esoteric squabbles amonst the elite? I have enough of theat myself.

There is a ballot initiative that has more teeth in it that the one Les is passing around...as a matter of fact he took it from the creators.

Molly also likes to have positive notes to end on.

Would you be open to this?

I am ccing the appropriate parties

cheers!
Paula

-----Original Message-----
From: "James H. Fetzer"
Sent: Jul 15, 2008 5:50 PM
To: Paula Gloria
Cc:
Subject: Response to.... (fwd)

Paula,

For background in relation an interview about video fakery/no planes.

Jim

------------ Forwarded Message ------------
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:40 PM -0500
From: "James H. Fetzer"
To:
Subject: Response to ...

ON THE SCIENCE OF 9/11 RESEARCH

Minor bad news and good news: I'm in the middle of a spat with Jim Fetzer, who told me a few months ago that he'd cool it on the video fakery stuff, but instead has been flogging it harder than ever on the Dynamic Duo radio show, which has misled some folks into thinking I share his opinions, which I most emphatically do not.

The good news is that this may serve as a wake-up call that will push him to do some solid scholarly work. Stay tuned for the awful details next week.

--...
July 2008

In response,

As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, it has never crossed my mindthat all of us should share all and only the same opinions about 9/11--ever! Indeed, the only official statements of the society are our Press Releases, which are meant to represent positions of Scholars. In the case of video fakery/planes or not at the Twin Towers, one press release has appeared, "Mounting Evidence of 9/11 Video Fakery", 28 July 2007, which anyone can access. In light of his present views, I would observe that I even quoted Kevin in that release stating that, given this new evidence, he might have to take these possibilities "more seriously", which I certainly appreciated at the time. As to his current stance, I am less certain.

..., like many others in the 9/11 movement, does not seem to me to have a firm grasp of the nature of science. In particular, he appears to confound the place of finished research reports with actual ongoing inquiry. Finished reports are the kind of thing found in scientific journals.
Actual ongoing inquiry reflects the state of investigation prior to reaching such firm conclusions as to justify their presentation in the form of finished research reports. Indeed, it is easy to confound one with the other, because "finished research reports" do not always represent good science, and good science is not confined to published reports. I think Kevin has largely confounded one with the other. Here is an illustration.

A paper by Steve Jones, "REVISITING 9/11/2001: Applying the Scientific Method", for example, appeared in THE JOURNAL OF 9/11 STUDIES, where it can be found. This, presumably, is an example of "good science" in Kevin's view. But that is not an opinion that I happen to share. If you visit 911schololars.org and scroll down to "The Science of 9/11", you can find several discussions I have devoted to this paper, including one entitled, "On Scientifi Method and 9/11 Research", which is archived in audio on the "The Dynamic Duo", 17 May 2007 (Part 1, Part 2), but is also transcribed as "The Manipulation of the 9/11 Community". Click on the icon for "(transcript)" and you will have it at hand to copy and to read at leisure.

In my opinion, the paper I was critiquing was not a publishable paper, for the reasons I enumerated there. (It may have been changed in the meanwhile, since I have noticed that Steve tends to make unannounced changes--even though this is a paper that appears in a journal--just as he did after Chandler, when I pointed out that a photo he had used in support of the presence of molten metal beneath the towers where a group of responders is peering into a chamber that is aglow had to have been faked, since the temperature of the metal would be somewhere around 3,000*F and would be melting the skin from their bodies! (Think about whether you would be willing to put your face over the open spout of a tea kettle when it starts to whistle--water that is only turning to steam around 212*F.)

If ..... wants to challenge my qualifications to render judgments about papers and their publishability, of course, he is welcome to do that.

Check out my experience in this field on my academic site at and you will find that I co-edited SYNTHESE for ten years, founded and edited MINDS AND MACHINES for another ten, and have served on many editorial boards. I know well that the key to a successful journal is appointing members who are highly qualified and of the first rank. I encouraged Steve to do that from the beginning, but, so far as I have been able to discern, he never took my advice. That means, in my view, the journal has fallen short of what it should have been and, with appropriate changes, could still become, namely: a significant venue for the publication of serious research. I am afraid it still falls short.

.... thinks differently, which is fine, but not all opinions are on a par. I have noticed that, instead of encouraging research into controversial aspects of 9/11, such as what happened at the Pentagon, whether unconventional methods were used to destroy the World Trade Center, and the possibility of video fakery (with or without planes) simply do not qualify. I know of serious contributions to one or more of these areas that have been rejected by the journal and, in my view, it was not because of any lack of scholarship by the author(s). On the contrary, while we can find variations upon certain themes there in abundance--it is THE PLACE TO GO for more on thermite/thermate/and possible variations--other issues are not addressed. And this appears to be a matter of policy, not the formal policy of the journal but its de facto informal policy. They won't go there!

This week was an odd week for .... to be attacking me on this subject for more reasons than one. I had just published a column entitled "Libertarian assails Iran myth", 8 July 2008 in OpEdNews, where it can be found archived as follows:

zer-080708-537.html.

It would be difficult for readers not to interpret this as a strong endorsement for...'s candidacy. Moreover, that week I featured Joe Keith as my guest on "The Dynamic Duo", Tuesday, 8 July 2008, which I reran on Thursday, 10 July 2008. During this program, Joe and I discussed what I take to be five of the most important, if not the five most important, arguments for video fakery. If Kevin were serious about all of this, then he should be studying them; but that, alas, does not appear to be his style. Here are the five with sources:

(1) Multiple experts (including the FAA, the Royal Air Force, and so on) have calculated the speed of United 175 as reflected by the Michael Herzarkhani video at approximately 560 mph (averaging their estimates). While that corresponds to the cruise speed of a Boeing 767 at 35,000 feet altitude, it would be impossible at 700-1000 feet altitude, where the air is three times more dense, as Joe Keith, an aerospace engineer and designer of the Boeing "shaker system" has explained, in the video entitled, "Flight 175 - Impossible Speed", which is archived at While Anthony Lawson has claimed such a plane could reach that speed in a dive, the plane is clearly not diving.

(2) The way in which the plane enters the building appears to be impossible as well. Go to killtown.blogspot.com and scroll to (what is now) the sixth image and you can view the plane interacting with the building. It is passing into the steel and concrete structure without displaying any signs of impact, where the wings, the engines, the fuselage and other component parts all remain intact. It should have been the case that massive debris was breaking off and the plane was being dismantled by the interaction between the moving plane and the stationary building, as early critics and late--from the Web Fairy to Morgan Reynolds--have been maintaining for years now. So this is yet another physical impossibility.

(3) As Joe Keith has observed, the interaction observed here also violates all three of Newton's laws of motion. According to the first law, objects in motion remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. According to the second, an object accelerates in the direction of the force applied. According to the third, there is an equal and opposite reaction. But the plane moves at uniform motion through both air and building, which would violate Newton's laws unless the building provides no more resistance (force) than air, which is absurd. By most counts, the plane moves its length through air in 8 frames and also moves its length into the building in the same number of frames, which cannot be the case if these are real objects and real interactions. Joe's argument has been archived here:.

(4) Neither the impact of United 175 with the South Tower nor the impact of American 11 with the North show the damage done to the steel and concrete in the form of the "cut outs" that subsequently appear at the time they were allegedly being "caused" by the planes' impacts there. A study of the Naudet brothers footage reveals a secondary explosion after the initial impact and fireballs that actually causes the cut out in the North Tower. Indeed, an extension of the right wing's cut out was even "penciled in". Take a look at the study of this phenomenon under "9/11 Amateur, Part 2", which can be found at the following URL: . Presumably, the same technique was employed to create the cut out images in the South Tower as well.

(5) The same student of the videos has examines the Evan Fairbank's footage and found ample grounds to dispute it. Certainly, it shows the same smooth entry as the Herzarkani footage and the same lack of debris from the encounter. However, it goes further in considering the angle of the shot and how he came to take it, which suggests that he is lying through his teeth. He claims he saw a "white flash" and was able to determine it was a jet. But the time line is so brief that this explanation appears to be a complete fabrication. View this study at "9/11 9/11 Amateur, Part 3",. Killtown has now extended the uniform motion argument to Evan Fairbank's video, as youcan see in the very first image currently archived on his site, killtown.blkogspot.com.

The evidence is so visual and easier to assess in video format that I find it more than a little puzzling why Kevin insists that these arguments should be presented in scholarly, written papers. But the fact of the matter is that Morgan Reynolds has already done that in his exceptional study, "Plane Deceit at the World Trade Center", which runs 58 pages with 71 footnotes. I am attaching it here for your consideration. Morgan, of course, is an accomplished scholar with at least a half-dozen books to his credit and innumerable articles. This is a fine piece of work which clearly qualifies as a scholarly, written paper. It may not be first first time you have seen it, but perhaps this will be the first time that you read it. It appears to me to satisfy your scholarly desiderata.

What is most powerful about these arguments, of course, is that they display the occurrence of events that would require violations of laws of physics, which is not possible. Laws of physics cannot be violated and cannot be changed. Which means that, if they are being shown in videos, those videos cannot be authentic. Video fakery and no planes are not the same thing, however, since, although the planes must have been present if the videos were authentic, they might or might not have been present if the videos are fake. They could have been faked for the purpose of concealing features of the planes or of their interaction with the buildings. But there is considerable circumstantial evidence suggesting that, in this case, video fakery may have been required to conceal the absence of planes.

As I explained during the email exchange that led up to ....'s "challenge", the debris often cited in support of the existence of real planes has been repeatedly challenged itself. The engine found on the sidewalk in New York appears to have come from a Boeing 737, not a 767. A piece of debris from an American Airlines crash found at the Pentagon has been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995. Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.) has observed that each of these planes had thousands of uniquely identifiable component parts, not a single one of which has been recovered from any of the four "crash sites". And John Lear has pointed out that, before any commercial carrier can pull away from the terminal, the captain must submit an "envelope" certifying that the plane was ready for flight. Yet not one of these envelopes has been produced, either. That seems rather strange.

Perhaps even more importantly, Elias Davidsson has completed a masterful study of the absence of evidence that any of the alleged hijackers were ever aboard any of these planes. I know that ..... is familiar with his work, because I attached a copy of his study to an earlier reply in the course of this debate, and .... had him as a featured guest on "The Dynamic Duo", 11 July 2008. I don't know what he makes of all of this, but the available evidence could be explained with a high likelihood if there were no planes and all of this had to be faked. Indeed, the studies of alleged witnesses in New York further suggests that there were rather few who claimed to have seen any planes and fewer yet who could identify them. I imagine .... will claim that their reports are decisive, but it is easy to fake eyewitness reports and false memory syndrome is a common occurrence. Violations of laws of physics, however, which cannot possibly occur, are a different matter.

The weight of the evidence has led me to conclude that video fakery took place in New York on 9/11. I am inclined to believe that, in all likelihood, no planes were present as well. That appears to be the preferable hypothesis, given the state of the evidence, but more study would be appropriate to move the matter to the point of being beyond reasonable doubt. I submit that any rational mind who considers the evidence I have presented here will similarly conclude that video fakery took place in New York and that there is a very strong possibility that the planes were an illusion. How else is this evidence to be explained? What would be a reasonable alternative explanation? More study still remains to be done,I would agree, but I cannot resist in observing that anyone with a sincere interest in 9/11 truth who denies these conclusions must be either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Kevin's concerns cause me concern.

Jim

----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:20:28 -0500
From:
Reply-To: jfetzer
Subject: Re: About video fakery . . .
To:

Here's an article that Joe has posted on Morgan Reynold's web site.
He has offered $5,000 for anyone who can prove that he is mistaken.

Joe's Law
Joseph Keith
Retired Aerospace Engineer
June 13, 2008

Joe's Law. It's immutable. I named it after myself. If it weren't immutable, I wouldn't have put my name on it! Before I explain, let me paraphrase what some historically famous people have said. Thomas Jefferson once declared: "Truth needs no defense, only lies need to be protected." The famous German philosopher Schopenhauer once explained: "Truth goes through three stages; first it's violently opposed, then it's highly ridiculed, and finally it's accepted as an obvious fact." Adolph Hitler once wrote: "Little people tell only little lies. They don't dare tell big lies because they justifiably think that nobody would believe them. However, when big people, or
Governments, tell big lies, little people believe them because they think that nobody would say something so outlandish unless it was an absolute truth."

At present we are faced with refuting probably the biggest lie of all time: 19 Arabs armed with box cutters hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into buildings, but were thwarted in the fourth airliner by passenger heroics. Oh, I forgot, they were led by a tall bearded Arab who lived in a cave in Afghanistan whose intel improvised a stand down by the U. S. Air Force's NORAD. And, unfortunately, a great many of the little people believe this BIG LIE. In defending this lie, The Media is putting THE TRUTH through its second stage, the ridicule stage. But, of course, this lie really needs defending! If it had any semblance of truth it could stand on its own.

Now, let me get on by explaining Joe's Law. Joe's Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton's three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed.

3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe's Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe's Law states:

"AIRPLANES DON'T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!"

By now, I suspect that you have figured out that I formulated Joe's Law for the expressed reason to expose the televised fakery of the 9/11/01 debacle.

So, here's how to apply Joe's Law in order to find the truth:

Buy a DVD of this 9/11/01 debacle. Any DVD of that catastrophic event will do. However, my favorite one is: In Memoriam, New York City, 9/11/01. I like this one because Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the narrator, which gives it good official credibility; and the alleged crash of United Airlines Flight 175 is forthcoming in about four minutes, so you don't have to waste a lot of time waiting. Play the DVD, and when the plane first comes into view, hit the pause button on your remote and then do the following: Mark the screen at the tip of the plane's nose and then use your remote's single step button to advance the plane while you count the frames it takes for the
airliner to fly its own length. Then just keep hitting the single step until the plane just touches the tower, and then count the steps it takes for the plane to be completely absorbed into the tower, all the while noticing what happens to the immediate environment during each single step. Wow! What astounding truth you will become aware of! You will learn that the plane takes the same number of frames to fly its own length through thin air as it does to fly through the steel and concrete tower, thus violating Newton's first and second laws of motion. You will see a plane that seemingly flies directly into the face of a half million ton building without decelerating. You
will also notice that the plane causes no damage to itself or the tower as it melds into it; and even though the plane enters at an angle, the leading wing causes no reaction as it first strikes the tower, thus violating Newton's third law of motion. In fact, you will see no reactions whatsoever caused by the plane smoothly gliding into the building. You will also notice that no objects are falling during this smooth entry. Thus, Joe's Law, which is absolutely immutable, appears to have been violated(1).

This result can only be described as TV fakery!

Now, you may ask: "What good does proving TV fakery do? We already know that 9/11 was an inside job." Well, here's what it does: it not only shows U. S. Government complicity, but it also shows the co-complicity of The Establishment Media. And, because of this The Media have, albeit not so cleverly, designed a last resort method to protect itself. It claims to have proof that all videos which show frontal WTC2 views of Flight 175 entering the tower were taken by freelance reporters and sold, along with all rights, to the networks. The name of these freelancers are: Michael Hezarkhani(2), Evan Fairbanks(3), and Luc Couchesne(4). The Media's defense will be: "We didn't fake these videos, we merely bought them, believing them to be actual videos of the catastrophe as it occurred!" The question now is: When this fakery is exposed, will the little people still believe THE BIG LIE?

For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe's Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided.
Email Joseph Keith

(1) A video showing that Joe's Law is immutable.
(2) Michael Hezarkhani video, real time

Michael Hezarkhani video, slow motion.

(3) Evan Fairbanks video, real time and slow motion.

Evan Fairbanks, slow motion.

(4) Luc Courchesne video, real time.

Luc Courchesne video, real time and slow motion.
Quoting J. Fetzer:

> Here's a preliminary response about the uniform motion proof that thevideos are faked, which comes from Joe Keith, an aerodynamic engineer, who will be my guest

on "The Dynamic Duo" this coming Tuesday, namely:

> Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 17:48:25 -0700 [07/05/2008 07:48:25 PM CDT]
> From: Joseph Keith
> To: jfetzer
> Subject: Re: Uniform Motion
> Headers: Show All Headers

> Hi, Jim,

Yes, I am a source that in the crash videos, the plane moves in uniform motion through thin air and through the steel and concrete tower. If you count the frames for the plane to fly its own length through thin air and through the steel and concrete tower, you find that you count the same number of frames. Impossible. And, I have given my demonstrations to dozens, maybe hundreds, of people who have allagreed with me thatthese videos are all fake. Planes don't meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!!! How do you meld with people who claim that thevideos are for real???? They must be disinfo perps!!!
Joe Keith
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From:
> To: "Joseph Keith"
> Cc:
> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 4:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Uniform Motion
>
>
> Joe,
>
> I thought you were the source of the argument that the plane moves in uniform motion through air and through the steel-and-concrete tower, which of course violates all three of Newton's laws of motion. Am I wrong to think this was your very elegant argument--which can even b illustrated by marking off equal units of distance in equal units of time (the camera running at constant speed)? I thought it was yours.
>
> Jim
>
While I do not infer that Rolf or others who insist the videos are notfake are "disinfo perps", I find it very puzzling that he insists upon the existence of debris from the impacts, when there appears to be no debris whose authenticity can be confirmed. Does he mean, for example, the engine found lying on the street, which turns out to be, not from a Boeing 767, but from a Boeing 737? Where is the debris that should be extending from the impact area? Does he not know that other debris was planted at the Pentagon, for example, where a piece of fuselage has been traced back to a crash in Calais, Columbia, that occurred in 1995? I think he needs to satisfy his ownstandard with proof of real debris.
>
> Has he not paid any attention to Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), whohas observed on many occasions that each of these planes had hundreds, even thousands, of uniquely identifiable parts, yet not one of these uniquely identifiable parts has ever been found? Does he not know the point made by John Lear, a pilot with extraordinary qualifications, that no commercial airliner can depart from the gate without completing its "envelope" certifying preparations for departure, yet no envelope has been presented for any of these flights? Has he not heard me explain that FAA records show two of these planes not being deregistered until 2002 and the other two not until 2005? I am very diappointed in Rolf.
>

---------- End Forwarded Message ----------

"Propaganda is not meant to fool the intelligencia,
it is merely meant to provide them an excuse to avoid
seeing ugly realities, they'd sooner not believe."

-- Joseph Goebbels
Nazi propagandist,
Nuremburg War Crimes Trials

Interview with Joseph Keith

2007-12-23T17:57:00.001-08:00

This originally was posted on Ningen's Blog, and then copied to Pilots, Architects, and others websites.
He explains how jetliners COULD NOT have it the towers at low altitude with the reported speeds.

The audio interview (pumpitout) is much better than the transcript...
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/joseph_keit...1607_planes.mp3

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=..._planer_resigns

" Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer who worked in the aerospace industry and just resigned from a professional group known as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) founded by Canadian scientist, A.K. (“Kee”) Dewdney. The website is www.physics911.net. Curious about why he resigned (I’m still a SPINE member), I interviewed him from his home in southern California.

Q: Why did you resign from SPINE?

A: Well, I was a founding member in 2002 but I have little patience. With all the arguments I have gone through with Kee, I’ve spent so much time with Kee, it’s led nowhere. A plane never hit the second trade center tower, WTC 2, that’s what started our disagreement about 4 years ago.

Leonard Spencer first came out with what I thought was a smoking gun, the pod. I thought that pod must be a smoke screen device to hide the fact that a real airliner flew by but did not hit the building. And then editors doctored the tape after the fact.

Later on I decided the pod was a distraction since I determined that the video was fake. Case closed.

Q: Why is the video phony?

A: The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!

Q: Why would the establishment elite pull off a phony video?

A: The video had to be phony because the Illuminati, or whatever we want to call them, had to eliminate all possibilities of a foul up. They needed the hijacking scam to implicate the Muslims, but they couldn’t afford any risk. They had to Keep-It-Simple-Stupid so they faked the crashes.

Since we know that the rich will always hang together, have their children intermarry, and do anything to protect their wealth, they must have an organization, an interlocking directorate, if you will, that is compartmentalized. I could have done a better job, but they faked the video in an amateurish way. A friend of mine could have done a much better job of faking an airplane crash—break a wing off, break a part of the body, throw some fluff in and then I wouldn’t have noticed anything wrong.

Q: When did you realize something was amiss about 9/11?

A: I watched 9/11 on TV that day and my next-door neighbor is a pilot for SkyWest Airlines. We were good friends and when 9/11 happened I called up right away and said, “Turn on the TV.” He came over to my house. I said, “It’s fake.” “Yes, it’s fake,” he said. Later, we decided that the networks did not get the real-time feed of the crash and simulated it instead. In about a week we were convinced by neighbors that the networks were displaying the real thing. His wife is an American Airlines flight attendant and she’s very outspoken. Every 9/11 anniversary they put out a big display about praying for 9/11 flight attendants and all that. She thinks I’m a stupid conspiracy nut. Kee used to ask David, through me, airline questions, but now David is not allowed to talk to me. I don’t know if Kee is personally contacting him now.

Q: You knew right away it was an inside job because the WTC hit was faked?

A: I have spent lots of time trying to figure out how the New World Order could screw up so badly, and the only conclusion I can come to is that there must be some high-ranking insider, or possibly group, that is trying to warn the world of the danger of allowing such a powerful force to rule. In another era, the most powerful force in the World was the Holy Roman Empire and it was brought down by an insider who exposed the document that gave it its power as a fraud. I can’t go into the details now but it later led to the Reformation. I wrote a paper on it 50 years ago.

Q: You say anyone can prove the video is fake. How?

A: First get any video. They’re getting harder to find. A good example is “In Memoriam, New York City 9/11/01” from HBO, narrated by Rudy Giuliani, because the plane crashes at the beginning. Start the DVD and as the plane comes into view, hit the pause on your remote and then go frame-by-frame until the plane goes into the building, step by step.

Carefully watch the plane go into the building: it’s like a hot knife cutting through butter. Marvel at how a plane can meld into a steel-concrete building. A plane should crash against the building. It makes one curious! It should make you think about how a plane would enter a steel-concrete building.

Q: One argument we hear is that all the videos can’t be fake.

A: Well, get all 30 of ‘em and run ‘em, I have four. One of mine doesn’t show the actual crash, two of them show a plane banking, one doesn’t.

Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing. No nothing.

Q: Isn’t that impossible in reality?

A: Yes. Then after absorption of the plane, you see the building closing up and then an explosion. Meanwhile, nothing fell from either the building or the plane.

Q: That’s compelling evidence of video fakery. What else?

A: One more test is to pause with the plane on the screen. Take a magic marker or tape and mark the nose of the plane and then count frames until the tail passes the mark. You’ll find that the number of steps the plane takes while the plane is in thin air is the same as the number of steps the plane takes as it melds into the building.

Q: So there’s no deceleration?

A: Right. It violates all Newton’s laws of motion. I’ll state them:

1. An object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion remains in motion until a force is applied.

2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force. When an object in motion hits stationary resistance, the force acts in the opposite direction of the object and therefore the object decelerates.

3. Newton said, “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction” but I say, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.

Q: So, for example, a diver speeds through thin air but slows in the resistance of the water unless he has a new energy source to maintain speed.

A: Right. It’s like this TV show I was watching called Myth Busters. They dumped this dummy from 100 feet and it registered 16 G’s when it hit water. That can kill you, we can only take about 10 G’s. Then think about hitting steel and concrete.

Q: Believers in Boeing 767s hitting the twin towers always bring up kinetic energy as the big explanation for how an aluminum plane could fly right through the wall of a steel and concrete tower. Speed squared is supposed make us believe the plane-like outline of the holes in the towers.

A: The more kinetic energy, the more damage the speeding object will do when it hits, but they’re claiming that it punched right through. The plane should have continued right through the building like a bullet through paper. Sure, in the bullet case, little kinetic energy is lost. No plane deceleration also means the plane never lost kinetic energy. Victor Thorn and the others, even though they’re good on demolition and no plane at the Pentagon, are afraid to come out for the No Plane Theory (NPT).

When Jerry Longspaugh, an aerospace engineer and SPINE member, saw a photo of a hole in one of the towers and thought he saw the core, he wrote to Kee and me, “It looks like the NPT is true.” Maybe Kee said something to him, I don’t know.

Kee’s got to be a phony. He’s been saying how sorry he was about the hassle I’m suffering from the plane huggers. That kind of thing is not unusual in my life.

Q: Why won’t Kee do the video test?

A: His university won’t let him.

Q: But he’s done a lot exposing 9/11 lies like proving the cell phone calls were impossible.

A: Kee is allowed some freedom but NPT is the key to the kingdom. It would topple the kingdom, so he won’t go there. Physics911.net has this “What may have happened” and “What did not happen” and he won’t use ‘em. He won’t run your article. They have to have Arab hijackers, so they have to have airplanes.

Q: So do you believe there were no planes?

A: Logic tells me there were no airliners involved. They never showed any wreckage, the hole was empty, and the government showed a few parts but no serial numbers, no part numbers.

Q: The government could have crashed a plane, say, in Pennsylvania, by remote control.

A: Too many problems. Somebody could pick up a part with a serial number.

Q: What about the controversy over high-energy explosives at the WTC?

A: Well, I tend to agree with those who believe they were used but my problem has always been the video. It was fake and that was the end of it for me. Case closed!

Q: Is SPINE or Scholars for 911 Truth doing any good?

A: Absolutely not, they haven’t done anything for a couple of years. SPINE is defunct. In 2004, for example, I sent something by Gerard Holmgren against the plane huggers to Kee and nothing came of it. SPINE never puts up anything controversial so it is just safe stuff, orthodoxy now.

Q: Nila Sagadevan is a big defender of planes at the WTC.

A: When he joined SPINE I called him up because he lived in southern California and found he lived only 6-7 miles from me. We talked about going for a beer but when I got around to the NPT, he said that was nonsense. “My friend Greg Szymanski visited ground zero and reported a jet engine so I know a plane hit the bldg,” and he hung up. Nila has some weird beliefs and I forwarded an email from him to Kee and wrote, “Ask this guy if he’s ever interviewed an ET.” Nila wants to get on talk shows, peddle his weird beliefs, and he depends on the media to sell his books. Gurus are liars.

Q: Why is there such resistance to NPT?

A: NPT is a direct attack on the head of the snake. You can go after Bush, Cheney and that whole compartmentalized entity but not the head of the snake. NPT is the only thing that we have direct evidence of, so it is very threatening. The media control everything because they can point the finger at anybody. The media is the enforcement arm of the head of the snake that controls everything. It can topple any government. And NPT is direct proof of their enforcement of the 9/11 scam. It’s the propaganda arm of the ruling class and NPT would break it all open. They’d be done."

F-4 Phantom Test compared to Moving Images Alleged to Hit South Tower 11th of Sept. 2001

2007-11-08T16:43:00.001-08:00

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.htmlrocketsled

This video proves that in a high speed crash between a plane and a wall much of the material should bounce off on the outside.

[in the moving images flaunted on TV the "plane" enters without slowing down. In this above vid it does not enter but breaks apart entirely. Why are the two in any way analogous?]

You don't see, in this above Sandia example, some of the material turning to dust while some of it survives intact. You don't see the plane penetrate the wall even slightly (though according to a report on the test crash the f-4 penetrated some 60mm), as the "plane" appeared to do completely in the videos of the 9/11 South Tower event.

It's true that the F-4 is perhaps made of harder material and more sturdily built, since it's made to travel at higher speeds and that it is smaller than a commercial airline. But if it is harder, then why isn't it even less likely, than a 767, to disintegrate into nothing upon impact?

[Obviously, the "767" image portrayed on TV *does not* disintegrate upon inpact with the steel grid wall - it is shown to penetrate it. It is shown to remain intact while entering the building! Whereas the F-4 disintegrates entirely.]

So the proponents of the authenticity of the Media videos have it both ways - the "plane" is hard enough to penetrate the outer rigid wall of steel columns, but disintegrates to nothing once it gets inside - where it presumably is met with a lot of air and some central columns.

Did "it" lose momentum upon breaking the shell of the building? As one would assume. (But how could "it" lose momentum, if the side of the building appeared to give no resistance?)

[ the TV images portray an object which does not slow down upon alleged contact with the side of the building. The TV images portray, upon close inspection, an object which *does not* lose momentum upon alleged contact with the outside of the building.]

To follow this "logic" of no loss of momentum: would "it" then allegedly hit the central core with the same force "it" hit the outside of the building? Why then, no immediate severe damage to the central core? Enough to cause the top of the building to slouch, crumple or tip?

Yet how would this then be enough energy to disintegrate the "plane," when hitting the steel grid and the cement floors would not?

Where is the force, after the "plane" enters the Tower whole, to totally disintegrate the invincible "plane?"

[The Purdue cartoon moving image shows the "plane" disintegrating into thin air, once it gets inside.]

Or if not, would the alleged intense fires burn up all the plane parts?

Yet, if a fire from a plane crash can burn up all the parts and leave no debris, why is it this has never happened before? (I fully expect the Media perps/suggestibility specialists to start occasionally to stage such "events" from now on, to normalize freaky occurrences.)

Why were supposed plane parts, which don't even match the parts of a 767, then found in the neighborhood? (I should say "put on display" there?). When none were shown to fall away in the video presented? Why weren't these parts found in the regular rubble of the "pile?" But instead all about in the street? (Especially when there is no exit hole on the North side of the South Tower for any of this debris to have exited?)

If the Sandia test plane breaks up so well upon impact with an immovable object

and

Steel columns, attached to the side of a Trade Tower, are relatively immovable and attached to a 500,000 pound Tower

then

Why did the 767 "plane," in the moving images everyone was shown of the event on TV, remain intact, i.e. not do the same thing the real plane did in the test above?

Here's an example of the Trade Tower columns immovability:

None of the steel column segments appear to break off from where they were attached i.e. pop-out, when allegedly "hit." That implies extreme rigidity of the exterior lattice with the whole of the building. That image implies an extreme integrity of the building as a whole.

So the columns must've been pretty well secured and attached, according to the physics implied in the universe the moving image allegedly represents.

In all the images, the Trade Tower does not appear to sway or react to the impact of the "plane." That means the image implies the wall of the Trade Tower was very secure and solid and put up strong resistence to the alleged impact? Since the Tower is made of metal and cement, not of butter?

The set-up was rigid enough so that when a force was applied THE WHOLE BUILDING MOVED (according to witnesses inside the building, which belies the story told by the evidence of the moving images shown on TV - which show the building *not reacting at all* when allegedly hit by a 767 commercial aircraft.)

What is the implication?:

If the Tower did *not* sway, why not, since it was allegedly hit with an object with such alleged kinetic force. And in that case too, the "plane" itself would've absorbed the full shock/force of the impact. In that case, why did "it" not break apart? And if the plane *did not* absorb or react to the force of the impact, why didn't the Tower? Where did the force of the impact, at the moment of impact, go, as portrayed by the moving images shown on TV?

If the Tower *did* sway, why did that not show up portrayed in the movie images flaunted?

Also, if the Tower did sway, as some testified, why did the rivits which held the steel grids to the side of the building hold when the "plane" shown in the moving image on TV came in contact with the steel grids, if that depiction was real?

If the rivits holding the steel outer lattice did fail, why did not the steel grid lattice break off in a sheet?

Where was the force to cause the clean shearing of the steel columns?

If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of the building, why didn't the building sway? Since the shearing implies that the side of the Tower held tight while the "plane" cut in. Could it have held *that* tight? When it's engineered to sway with the force ofthe wind?

If there *were* resistence, the image should've shown evidence of that.

If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of South Tower, that means a section of wall, in the outline of a plane, put up no resistance to the entry of the "plane."

If the wall *had* put up resistance, some of the plane would've broken up and the Tower would've swayed.

If the Tower had put up no resistence, the building wouldn't end up swaying. If the building was soft as butter, and put up no resistence, then you'd see no swaying as a result of the "hit" - which *is* in fact what the TV moving images portray.

According to the presented images, the steel columns were just, supposedly, cut through, as with a cookie cutter - without being dislodged from whereever they were attached to the rest of the building from below.

That would mean the mass of the entire South World Trade Center was behind the "kick" it received from the "plane." Wouldn't a real plane crash?

The "impact" didn't punch out the entire column. So this implies the columns were all quite well attached and that the side of the building was, of a piece, a relatively rigid barrier. Made of steel, which is stronger than AL. Planes are made of AL for its lightness. So the side of the building was strong compared to the plane.

The wall, shown in the test video above, is made of a specially prepared cement-like material - which one would assume is softer than steel. It's meant to cushion any impact, so as not to be penetrated, as it would be if more rigid, less giving? That's why bumpers in bumper car arcade are made of soft rubber. If the material impacted on is more "forgiving'' and softer, there is less damage. If a bumper car hits a *solid* wall, there is more more likelihood the wall wil be damaged. I beleive the bumper the jet hits up against is cushioned - that' why it itself does not break up on impact.

The Trade Tower sides were also all designed to "give" upon having force applied. That is how they withstood wind storms. Witnesses state that the building swung upon "impact." (Not sure how many reading this have felt that swing of a Trade Tower in the wind, from inside of one. But you could feel it quite clearly on a windy day. It induced fear in me, and a kind of sea sickness.)

So even though both "rigid" barriers were designed to "give" upon impact, in only one case, if you compare the video representations of what happen to South Tower on 9/11 and the test for nuclear power station safety at Sandia shown in the vid above, did you see the plane break up *completely* upon impact, and the barrier successfully and totally resist penetration. That was the Sandia test. So the barrier portrayed in the 9/11 TV moving images, the wall of the Tower, did not do what it was designed to do, according to those images.

And the Sandia, we assume, was in a real world test? Why the discrepancies between the records? The cement barrier looks hardly scratched.

So why wasn't any material repelled by the wall of the WTC Tower, if it was indeed hit by a real plane? Why did the "plane" totally penetrate the wall of the Tower like a hot knife into butter?

Why isn't the hole/scar on the South Tower even big enough to allow the supposed "plane" entry, as it is shown in the videos of the event? Why is no plane debris visible in either "mouth"/scar of the World Trade Towers' wounds?

Why isn't there an exit hole on the North side of the South Tower building, even though numerous videos show material and a nose-like object, timed with where the "plane nose" would've been seen, had "it" continued on its apparent trajectory without impediment, exit on that side??

To quote a structural engineer, Pegelow, who spoke recently on the Alex Jones show, ~"The Trade Towers were not a House of Cards, where one event could push their stability over the edge, and trigger a complete collapse."

So there is more than one thing strange about the TV and 9/11 Commission Report depiction of events on September 11th.

NO PLANES NO PASSENGERS They Fooled Us Once

2007-11-06T05:03:00.001-08:00

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: GR8BENWA®
Date: Nov 6, 2007 3:52 AM

NO PLANES NO PASSENGERS They Fooled Us Once
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Zarina Jada-Zakori, Psy.D.
Date: Nov 5, 2007 10:54 PM

See mom, No planes

How does GW put it? "Fool me once, shame on me...uh..shame me.. you're not going to shame me again." Whatever.

Well GW - You fooled us once, shame on you, but you are not going to fool us twice, then it would be shame on me!

Source: http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html

BTS Data reveal no Passenger Planes Destroyed on 9/11

If the subject were not so controversial, one might assume that a very powerful blow to the story of four hijacked airplanes on 9/11 would be Holmgren’s discovery that two of the four flights connected to that day’s events did not exist and the other two alleged participating aircraft were not destroyed until four years later. As Holmgren writes, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) keeps detailed records of flight times, tail numbers, taxi out times, wheels off times, and so on for every scheduled flight from a U.S. airport, in part for liability insurance considerations. Holmgren found that the original BTS records of take offs that day did not list flights for AA77 (Pentagon crash) and AA11 (North Tower, the first hit).[18]

Of the first hit on the WTC North Tower at 8:46, Holmgren notes that when one looks closely at the video (which wasn’t broadcast until 16 hours later "when the official story of four large planes had already been put into the public’s mind") all one can see is "a brief flash and then the explosion." Holmgren claims that whatever the object is, it "is certainly not a Boeing 767 or any kind of large passenger jet." The object is "way too small. It dive bombs into the tower in a manner which would appear to [be] impossible for a large airliner." Although, he writes, "the natural tendency is to think it is just too fast to see on the video…a frame by frame enlarged analysis…shows a very strange looking object, or possibly several objects flying in close formation. A pulsating blob or group of blobs is probably the best description."[19]

Holmgren argues that the passenger lists seem to be fabricated "because there are impossible contradictions between the lists published by different media outlets…." Nor, he claims, are there any reliable witnesses to support a large jet of the first strike. "All early reports say that it was a small plane or missile," and others who say they simply didn’t see any plane. According to Holmgren, the first strike became a "large plane after people saw the second strike live on TV, leading to the assumption that the first strike had been the same thing," and after American Airlines declared that it had lost AA11 in the crash.

The Illusion -- Live on TV?!

Holmgren then deconstructs the "the South Tower strike – the second hit, the one shown live on TV" and acknowledges that superficially it certainly appears to be a large jet." Yet, he argues, "a close examination reveals that it is not a real plane." To support this assertion Holmgren provides a score of links to the work of researchers Rosalee Grable (aka Webfairy), Nico Haupt, Morgan Reynolds, Ivan Amato[20] and his own supporting articles.[21]

Holmgren finds that the plane shown on TV is not real because it "shows impossible physical characteristics and behavior." The argument that I find most convincing and easiest to understand is his claim that one can see in a frame-by-frame analysis that the alleged plane "passes through the wall like a ghost without making a hole and without breaking off any parts." Holmgren concludes that the plane is "simply a cartoon, which has been animated into the footage."[22]

According to Holmgren, despite popular misconceptions that many real time videos of the plane striking the South Tower exist, there was only one live video of this plane and that video did not show it hitting the building, but rather it shows the plane passing behind the building "giving the impression that it impacted the hidden face," an effect easily achieved "with commercially available real time animation technology. The other videos, which seem… to show the plane actually hitting the building did not appear until hours later."

Holmgren makes short work of flight UA 93, the one alleged to have crashed in Shanksville, PA. This was also "a bona fide flight, but the plane –N591UA – was also still registered as valid for more than four years after Sept 11…The alleged crash site in Pennsylvania shows absolutely no evidence of a plane crash."

To drive home his point that no planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks, Holmgren makes much of the lack of evidence of any wreckage of any of the four planes. He suggests that if real planes had crashed, it would be an easy matter for the government to produce some portion of the tons of normally identifiable wreckage.

Likewise Morgan Reynolds finds that the most obvious defect of the official story is an absence or near absence of conventional airplane wreckage.

Government could have ended controversy over planes long ago by allowing independent investigators to examine part numbers and compare them to each plane’s maintenance logbook. This did not happen following the 9/11 crashes. Government has not produced a single airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration.

Of the two Boeing 767’s, which vanished into the Twin Towers, Reynolds asks:

How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel towers and disappear with no deceleration visible, no plane wreckage visible in gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone?

Reynolds finds a "stunning lack of evidence" that "no confirmed debris exists from two alleged 767 high speed crashes into skyscrapers within 17 minutes of each other. Furthermore Reynolds finds that

physics rejects any theory that posits an invincible airplane (a plane remaining intact after an abrupt collision with a steel skyscraper) that also disintegrates (flimsy) in the next instant in the same general physical environment (temperature, etc.)…. (my emphasis)

Another problem says Reynolds is that the maximum spread across the north tower hole is 126 feet and the south tower is only 103 feet, opening insufficient to accommodate a 767 wingspan of 156 feet." "Wings with momentum do not "fold back onto themselves" in order to slip through an undersized hole along with the fuselage." Summing up this line of argument, Reynolds writes:

defenders of the 767 theory want their cake and eat it too: supposedly powerful 767s easily penetrated steel walls and floors yet identically crumbled within a fraction of a second and vanished inside despite huge fuselage length and wingspan ¾ the length of a tower wall. Both 767s were never seen again from any side of either tower, a dazzling combination of imposing strength and fragility within a tenth of a second.

Idea snipers today, rescued sheep tomorrow, Truthers forever

2007-11-05T16:24:00.000-08:00

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pan Man
Date: Nov 5, 2007 8:20 PM

I have well over 3000 friends at myspace. They have well over 900,000 friends...and the friends of their friends number well in to the millions. When I post a bulletin that's worth a shit, it gets reposted by my friends and their friends until it comes up for view by all kinds of people who are NOT my friends, many of whom find the things I say rather unbelievable and objectionable.

Some take offense and let me know about it. I have converted many of those who originally thought I was the anti-Christ for my statements about Bush, Cheney, 9/11, the New World Order, etc etc. The idea snipers who don't receive mail from any one who is not their friend have the ability to make hit and run critical comments with impunity. Sooner or later, they will come around. Until then, I just have loads of fun fuckin with their little zombie heads!

The great danger of having friends who all believe as we do is that we become insulated and all of our preaching is to the choir. Since our position as Truthers, particularly regarding subjects like 9/11, gives us the intellectual high ground, "debates" with sheep usually aren't difficult to win and our converts become rabid evangelists for Truth once awakened.

That's the best part of all this for me. When you are alone in a room with someone who knows and believes just as you do, there's really not that much left to talk about except the old mutual admiration trivia and how ignorant everyone else is. It's fun, to be sure, but it won't win the war of ideas when our competition is mass media "programming" that sings the
opposition's music all day every day, relentlessly.

Do what you can with whoever you can whenever the opportunity presents itself. The people who shoved the red pill down my throat 13 months ago still write me once in a while to praise my efforts... and that really makes it all worth while to know I am passing it along to people who were just as asleep and clueless as I was in Sept, 2006. We are all just shepherds in search of lost sheep! Bring some home today...before they get fleeced, shorn and slaughtered by the false shepherds and Judas Goats they are still following blindly to the abattoir!

Peace and Truth!
Pan

The surprising adventures of Stanley Praimanth

2007-09-14T12:14:00.000-07:00

I THEN JUMPED OVER
A HEDGE ABOUT NINE FEET HIGH

The Surprising Adventures of Stanley
Praimnath

© Gerard Holmgren: Oct 25 2006 This
article or any part of it may not be reproduced without express permission
from the author in writing. This prohibition excludes quotation for
reasonable reference purposes, providing that the article is linked
to.

The claim made in the title comes from a novel by Rudolp Erich Raspe
entitled The Surprising Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

It is just one of the many surprising exploits narrated by the Baron.
Of course, the novel is a lot of fun but not meant to be taken seriously.
It seems however that when equally surprising assertions are made by
people claiming to have seen a plane fly into the South Tower of the
WTC on Sept 11, then the standards of plausibility are somewhat lowered
by those eager to lap up "eyewitness accounts" of the event.
This article examines the surprising adventures of one Stanley Praimnath
in the WTC on Sept 11 2001.

For those not already familiar with the reason for this article, analysis
of the videos of the alleged plane strike and the resulting forensic
scene proves conclusively that no big plane flew into the South tower (or the North
tower, but this article deals with an alleged witness report to the former ).

The plane which we saw on TV hitting the the Sth tower was a fake -
a cartoon, an animation, a computer generated insert. Whether the South
tower was hit by some other kind of much smaller flying object or whether
it was merely an internal explosion is still a subject for debate, but
whatever caused the explosion it was not a large passenger jet. The
Flight UA 175 to which the impact is attributed is better described
as Cartoon 175.

Due to the inability to make any coherent counter argument on the basis
of video or physics evidence, the large plane theorists obsess with
witness reports, ignoring both the fact that witness reports don't support
any such conclusion anyway, and even if they did, where witness evidence
contradicts video and physical evidence, then it is the latter which
is more reliable.

Even in cases where witness testimony must be relied upon because is
the only form of evidence available, it is normally required that a
witness report should be intrinsically plausible. Witnesses to a large
plane hitting the WTC however, seem to enjoy an exalted status, aloof
from the rigorous cross examination and detailed deconstruction normally
applied to something which purports to be important witness evidence
relating to a crime.

Stanley Praimnath is a case in point. The witness report attributed
to this individual is the equivalent of the above claim attributed to
Baron Munchausen. This has not stopped it from being triumphantly presented
to me via email debates as proof that a big plane hit the Sth tower.
Such presentations have been frequent enough that I felt it necessary
to write this article.

First, here are some sources for the Praimnath report. His story is
all over the web, so I've selected just a few here, giving priority
to those which best fulfill some combination of the following 4 requirements.

1. The earliest. 2. From recognized news outlets. 3. Contain significant
variations from other versions. 4. Praimnath directly quoted rather
than described as a narration.

1.The
Independent Terror in America: Escapees - One week on, survivors
tell. Sept 18 2001 by Thomas Sutcliffe

2.The
Power of Prayer Sept 18 2001

3.Community People
News Undated but the copyright notice indicates 2001/2

4.The
Age June 1 2001

5.CNN
Saturday Morning News Sept 7 2002

6.An
Improbable Escape CNN Sept 9 2002

7.Sept
11 One year On The Guardian August 18 2002

You can read these accounts yourself, and search for more if you like,
but below is the basic outline of the story that Praimnath tells, bearing
in mind that it differs somewhat from one account to another. Where
a significant point is contained only in certain accounts or contradicted
by other accounts, I have inserted the number of the relevant account
in brackets, to make it easier for you to get an overview of which account
says what.

He worked on the 81st floor of the South Tower. He was on the phone
and he looked up and saw a big plane heading towards him. He said "I've
got to go. There's a plane aiming for me." He dropped the phone
and jumped about 6 feet across the room to his desk. Just before doing
this he was "eyeball to eyeball" with the jet - "the
biggest thing I've ever seen". He was close enough that he could
see red letters on the fuselage and the wing (2), and the writing on
the underside (1) and then it banked and headed directly towards him
(4). In accounts 5 and 6, the plane is heading straight at him from
the moment he sees it, and he freezes in repose. After jumping across
the room he dived under his desk -which as it turned out, was about
130 ft from where the nose hit. In account 7 he was already at his desk.
.One account (3) says that he first placed his bible on the desk before
crawling under it, although another account (2) indicates that the bible
was already on the desk. He curled up into a fetal position under the
desk and started crying and praying. All this happened before the impact.
When the impact happened he was miraculously protected as the wing sliced
through his office. Later, in watching the video of the impact, and
seeing a slight deviation that the plane supposedly made just before
hitting the building, he came to believe that the prayer he said just
before impact induced God's hand to spare him by causing that slight
change of direction which saved his life. In other accounts he says
that cried out to Jesus just as the plane hit.(3).

In some accounts (3) he immediately started crawling through the rubble
in an attempt to find his way out before someone arrived to help him.
In other accounts, he is trapped under a collapsed wall (1), and had
to be pulled free by his rescuer. In others, the exits are blocked so
he punches a hole in the standing wall (2,4,6) which separates him from
the staircase, to allow his rescuer to get to him. In accounts 3 and
5, the hole in the standing wall was already there.

When he made it down to the concourse, he was trapped by flames and
so after wetting himself under the building's sprinkler systems, he
ran through the flames to safety. I don't find any account where he
talks of having suffered any burns.

It's difficult to make a precise examination of a story which keeps
changing it's important details (which doesn't do it's credibility a
lot of good to begin with.) So for the purpose of the examination below,
I'm going to take one version which represents a reasonable composite
of those above and treat that as "the story".

It was originally published by CBN. We don't know the exact date, because
the original CBN link is now dead, but we know that it was prior to
March 11 2002, because a blog
with that date refers to and links to the CBN dead link. The blogger
(who is not disputing that a plane hit the tower) makes some good points
about the implausible nature of Praimnath's story.

The blog quotes only a small part of the CBN article,so here is a later
posting which contains more of it.

Brotherhood
Forged in the Carnage of the Twin Towers

On the anniversary of 9/11 a hero and the man he saved talk about their
bond. David Smith reports.

An interesting anomaly. The linked article attributes Stanley's story
as told below to "the anniversary of 911" - that is Sept 11
2002 - but we know from the blog reference that CBN published this much
earlier. There isn't anything particularly suspicious about this, it's
probably just the normal poor standards of verification of the media
in not giving good information about their original sources. So the
anomaly isn't important to our analysis. It's just that I'm a stickler
for keeping the highest possible standards of source verification and
taking a note of any anomalies as routine process.

So here is the plane strike part of Stanley's story as quoted from
the article linked above.

[['I was looking
towards the Statue of Liberty and telling her no, I'm fine. Something
caught my eye: a giant airplane, with U on the tail. I said, "I
have got to go. A plane is aiming for me." I dropped the phone
and jumped towards my desk, which was six or seven feet away.

'I said, "Lord,
I can't do this. You take over," and I went into the foetal position.
I just huddled under my desk and prayed and cried.

'Just before I jumped
there I saw this plane eyeball to eyeball, the biggest thing I've ever
seen coming towards me. But it was happening in slow motion, giving
me time. I could hear this ripping engine sound, and the bottom wing
just swiped right through my office. It crash-landed and the bottom
wing was stuck in my office door 20ft from where I was. Everything looked
like a demolition crew ripped the entire floor apart.

'I thought, if I
don't get electrocuted, the plane is gonna blow, I'm gonna die. If that
don't get me, the air pressure's going to suck me out. I'm trapped under
the only desk that stood firm - my Bible's on top of that. ]]

First let's look at the timing elements of this story. The mythical
plane is generally claimed to have been doing about 500mph. That's about
250 yards a second. From the time between dropping the phone and the
plane hitting, what does Stanley do? He jumps 6 or 7 feet across the
room and dives under his desk. For a person of average athleticism this
takes about two seconds if they move quickly and efficiently - which
you certainly can't do if you're still watching the plane instead of
the desk under which are aiming to dive. Then he huddles into the foetal
position and says a prayer. How do we know that he says the prayer before
the plane hit ?

For this we have to add something from the original CBN article which
was omitted from the linked article above. Unfortunately, I have not
been able to find a copy of the CBN article , otherwise we would be
able to see all of this text in one place. But the CBN article contained
the identical text quoted above, plus this.

[[Later on, when
I watched TV, I saw the plane swerve, that little turn that it made,
whatever reason it did that for. I was able to rationalize that I said
what I did when I prayed that prayer. I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt
that my Lord's giant hand pushed this plane a fraction of an inch.]]

You can find this part of the text referred to in this
blog (scroll almost to the bottom to the Post entitled "God
Saves One Man, Leaves Others to Die".

I received this text from a Praimnath supporter in an email dated July
2004, linking to the CBN article, but the link had gone dead by the
time of writing this up on my website.

So in the story as published by CBN, Stanley took two seconds to jump
across the room and dive under the desk and then took more time to huddle
up in the fetal position and say a prayer before the plane hit. That's
because he thinks that his prayer changed the direction of the plane,
so he's obviously claiming to have prayed before the plane hit. So let's
give that another two seconds. This means that the last he saw of the
plane - when he dropped the phone - was at least 4 seconds before impact.
That doesn't sound like a lot, but when we are dealing with something
coming towards us at 500 mph, that means that it was at least 1000 yards
away, when he got his last glimpse of it. More than 1/2 a mile.

This would be an alarming sight, but not consistent with

[[Just before I
jumped there I saw this plane eyeball to eyeball, the biggest thing
I've ever seen ]]

If this were true, he wouldn't have had time to do anything. And it
makes this observation an impossibility

[[Something caught
my eye: a giant airplane, with U on the tail ]]

Particularly when this observation was alleged to have been made before

[[I said, "I
have got to go. A plane is aiming for me." I dropped the phone
]]

This takes at least another 2 1/2 seconds. So it was something like
2125 yards away - at least - that's about 1.2 miles away - nose straight
at him, "aiming at him" but he could see the U on the tail.

Setting aside the distance factor for a moment, here is a photo of
a United Airlines
767 ,with the U on the tail displayed prominently. As you can see,
to view the U, you need to be at least somewhat side on to the plane.
So even if Stanley could make out the U from more than a mile away,
in order for him to be able to see the U on the tail and have the plane

[[aiming for me
]]

it would have be flying at least somewhat sideways.

Not as ridiculous as the above, but still worth noting as not particularly
plausible is that when dealing which such unfamiliar sizes and speeds,
there is no way that Stanley could have known with such certainty that
the plane was "aiming" for him from such a distance. Certainly,
there may have been alarm that the plane should have not have been there,
and the thought that there was a danger of it hitting the building,
but those kind of speeds and distances are well outside the range of
what human perceptions can actually gauge in any coherent way.

I was once involved in a near collision of two jets as we flew into
Melbourne. I saw the other plane through the window. But I have absolutely
no idea of how close we actually came, whether it was really close or
just an "incident", even though I saw the other plane pass
over the top of ours. There simply isn't anything on which to base any
sort of reference point at those speeds and sizes and distances.

As we were well into our descent, I saw another plane well off in the
distance, it's path roughly at right angles to ours. It didn't even
look close at first, but I vaguely realized that we shouldn't really
be seeing another plane at all. As it drew closer, I felt our plane
descend quite suddenly, and saw (I think) the other plane lift upwards.
As I got my final view of it as it passed overhead, I really had no
idea whether it passed directly overhead or whether it was some distance
in front of us and I really had no idea at all of how far above us it
was. It all happened in a few seconds, and there was simply no comprehending
anything accurate at those speeds and distances. All I knew was that
we weren't meant to have been that close. At the time, it was a surreal
and detached feeling with no fear. I suppose that somewhere there was
an awareness for a moment that a collision seemed possible, but the
situation was too fast and dynamic and dealing with such incomprehensible
speeds and distances, that any such awareness couldn't be translated
into any kind of identifiable reaction. It was more like detached curiosity
than anything else.

I guess it must have been reasonably close, because when I mentioned
it to a friend a few days later, she said that she had heard something
on the news that there might have been a collision if "someone
hadn't noticed something". But that still gives me no real idea
of what kind of distances were involved.

Of course my situation involved two moving objects, which makes it
more dynamic than Stanley's situation, and different people react in
different ways, but the idea that someone in a 70 yard wide building,
situated about 115 yards from the top of the building could catch a
glimpse of a plane from more than 2000 yards away and instantly know
that it was

[[aiming for me
]]

is of very dubious plausibility.

When all of these factors are added up, it makes it clear that Stanley
would be a serious rival for Baron Munchausen in the story telling stakes.
This alone does not prove that Stanley is making everything up. Perhaps
he's just wildly embellishing, but the basic substance of the story
- catching a glimpse of a plane - is true. Viewing the report in isolation
so far, there is no way to disprove such speculation. However even a
plausible and consistent witness has an uphill battle to claim to trump
physical and video evidence. When it is proven that the witness is -
at the very best - wildly embellishing, then the report loses any claim
to be taken seriously.

But the fun is only just beginning.

[[It crash-landed
and the bottom wing was stuck in my office door 20ft from where I was.]]

Hmm. What is one of the most memorable images of the Sth tower strike
?

The huge fireball which erupts after impact. In case you don't remember,
this
photo should refresh your memory.

Supposedly, this was the plane's full load of fuel exploding. Stanley
would have been right in the middle of this fireball.

The Baron must be getting very nervous about his tall tale crown now.
Not only did Stanley survive this conflagration, I don't find any mention
of him suffering any burns at all, even though he then ran through another
fire shortly after being softened up by being right in the middle of
an enormous explosion.

In fact, article 2 as linked above notes that after the crash

[[Miraculously,
Stanley was unhurt.]]

And it's not that Stanley is too stoic to mention minor injuries and
discomforts. From the same article, the following discomforts were apparently
worthy of note.

[["We hobbled
our way down...Cut and bloodied, with clothes tattered and wearing a
borrowed shirt, Stanley finally made it home hours later..."I'm
so sore, but every waking moment, I say 'Lord, had you not been in control...]]

Article 3 above notes

[[I was bruised
and gashed.]]

Article 4 above relates

[["You must
jump," Clark told Praimnath, whose hand and left leg were now bleeding.]]

According to article 6

[[Both men now had
open wounds on their hands. ]]

So it's not as if the minor injuries were stoically ignored in these
stories. But being right in the middle of a huge explosion,and then
running through another fire after that didn't leave Stanley with even
any temporary burns worthy of mention.

It's worth clicking on the link to article 6 above, because there's
a few photos of Stanley. He shows no evidence of any permanent skin
damage despite having been in the middle of a massive explosion involving
about 20,000 gallons of kerosene. An explosion which allegedly blew
a giant aircraft to smithereens.

By contrast this photo from Newsday
is entitled

[[A young woman
sits in a bed at Gardez Civil Hospital after suffering severe burns
to her arm caused by an explosion of kerosene fuel as she was trying
to light an oil lamp.]]

So Stanley, who was right in the middle of a huge fully fueled plane
exploding in spectacular fashion into a massive fireball, blowing out
several stories of a building and blowing the plane out of existence,
came off better than someone who had an accident with a kerosene lamp.

The dethroned Baron is slinking out the door...

Not only should a witness be plausible, they should be consistent.
Uncertainty about minor details and minor changes over time as memory
becomes clouded are of course acceptable. But there should be a basic
thread of fundamental consistency each time the story is told. Let's
look at some contrasting passages from various versions of the Praimnath
report.

(2) [[ "I looked
up and it was like eyeball to eyeball with the plane. It was coming
right at me. "I took out my Bible and put it on the top of his
desk. I crawled under the desk just as the plane came through the window.]]

Taking out the bible and putting it on the desk adds at least 3 seconds
to the time, which adds 750 yards to the distances deduced above. So
it was "eyeball to eyeball", with a U on the tail when it
was 2800 yards away? Unless of course in this version, he didn't take
the time to say "I have to go, there's a plane aiming at me."

Another interesting anomaly. Notice how the quote switches from first
person [[I took out
my Bible]] to third person
[[and put it on the top of his desk.]] within the same sentence.
It is possible that this is just a speech mistake from Stanley or a
transcription error, but it is equally possible that some writer is
just making this up and got mixed up about where they were attributing
quotes to Stanley and where they were writing narrative.

(4, 7) [[The body
of the United Airlines jet grew larger until he could see a red stripe
on the fuselage. Then it banked and headed directly toward him.]]

CBN.[['I was looking
towards the Statue of Liberty and telling her no, I'm fine. Something
caught my eye: a giant airplane, with U on the tail. I said, "I
have got to go. A plane is aiming for me."]]

(5,6) [[ I just
happened to raise my head, watching toward the Statue of Liberty and
as I watched I saw this giant aircraft -- big, great plane -- is coming
in slow motion towards me. Eye level, eye contact. And I just froze.]]

So it was aiming right for him the whole time from the moment he saw
it ? Or it was initially flying somewhat side on, enabling him to see
the red stripe from more than a mile away, and it only started aiming
for him later after taking a a sharp change of direction? Who cares
? It appears that witnesses to a large plane at the WTC enjoy special
immunity from the standards of consistency normally demanded of important
witnesses.

(1) [[He had time
to read the writing on its underside]]

From over 1000 yards away ? At the same time as noticing the U on the
tail? Which probably would have been obscured anyway with a view that
showed the underside. And he also saw the red stripe on the fuselage
from the same angle ? In relation to the distance factor, he saw all
of this from at least 1000 yards away ? Unless he was reading the wings
at the same time as jumping across the room, taking out his bible, and
placing it on the desk, and sizing up his dive under the desk, the lack
of focus on his movements not adding any extra time and therefore distance
traveled by the plane during this action.

(5,6) [[And I just
froze.]]

Perhaps he just forgot to mention the freeze in the CBN report. Fair
enough, but that adds maybe another half second to the time, adding
another 125 yards to the distance. So now he's reading the underside
of the wing (and perhaps the tail and the fuselage at the same time)
from about 3000 yards away or maybe more (depending on whether he did
or didn't stop to take out the bible and put it on his desk, and whether
he did or didn't take the time to say "I have to go, there's a
plane aiming at me" and depending on whether he was looking at
it somewhat side on or whether it was already "aiming" at
him - a perception which would have impossible to discern with such
certainty when it was nearly two miles away.

(2) [[Stanley then
dove under his desk. "My Testament [Bible] was on top of my desk,"
explained Stanley. "I knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the
Lord was going to take care of me once I got there." ..."I
don't know where I got this power from, but the good Lord, He gave me
so much power and strength in my body that I was able to shake everything
off. I felt like I was the strongest man alive."..."I felt
goose bumps all over my body and I'm trembling, and I said to the wall,
'You're going to be no match for me and my Lord.' " Moments later,
he punched his way through the wall...]]

CBN [['I thought,
if I don't get electrocuted, the plane is gonna blow, I'm gonna die.
If that don't get me, the air pressure's going to suck me out]]

(6) [[And, I'm shuddering.
And I'm trembling. And I'm crying. Lord, don't leave me to die...And
I'm screaming, (to his rescuer Brian Clarke ) "I'm right here,
this is Stanley Praimnath from the Loans Department, don't leave me
to die."...And Brian said, jump. And I said I can't jump. He said
if you jump over this wall, I'm going to grab you. And as I jumped I
grabbed and I held on to this wall.]]

Stanley seems to have conflicting memories about whether the power
of the Lord caused him to laugh in the face of danger and perform feats
which make James Bond look like a whimpering weakling or whether he
was feeling helpless and doomed and crying out desperately in his despair
and frailty.

In closing, I'd like to digress ever so slightly and make an observation
about Stanley which relates not to the implausibility of his report
but to the subconscious ethical message.

"I held my
wife and my two children and we cried," said Stanley. After thanking
God for sparing his life, Stanley told God whatever he did, it will
always be for His glory... "I'm
so sore, but every waking moment, I say 'Lord, had you not been in control,
I would not have made it.'

"For some divine
reason, I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the good Lord's mighty
hand turned the plane a fraction from where I was standing," said
Stanley. "Because when it crash-landed, it was just 20 feet from
me. I don't care who would rationalize -- what people would say now
or years from now, but I know it was the handiwork of the Lord that
turned that plane. My Lord Jesus is bigger than the Trade Center and
His finger can push a plane aside!"]]

Divine intervention to divert the plane in such a manner that Stanley
was saved - quite possibly at the expense of someone else who might
not have been killed if not for the Lord's little diversion - is truly
the measure of an all powerful and universally loving God.

Well... that's how Stanley sees it.

As one of the
previously mentioned bloggers observed

[[I'm disturbed
that Stanley seems to think that the Lord is just there for his life
and nobody else's. A greater miracle would've been if the Lord's hand
had pushed that plane away from the building averting profound death
and catastrophe]]

CONCLUSION

Just because Stanley is telling self centred
whoppers and cynically exploiting the events of that day, doesn't in
itself prove that he wasn't there and that he didn't see a plane. Perhaps
he just decided to add a little fizz to his story. Well... a lot of
fizz actually.

Nevertheless, if a witness is identified
as a proven liar, then we lose any reason to believe anything they say
unless there is something else which actually proves that they are not
lying about some particular aspect. ( In which case we don' t need them
anyway to prove the point) The video and physics evidence only provides
more evidence that Stanley is also lying about the fundamental idea
of having seen a plane.

Just because Stanley is lying doesn't prove
in itself that anyone else who claims to have seen a plane hit the building
is lying. Whenever a notable event occurs there will always be those
who see an opportunity to exploit it whether in little ways or big.
If someone makes up a little lie about having seen Hendrix at Woodstock
that doesn't mean that Hendrix wasn't there. On the other hand, we are
not using this person's testimony as important evidence in determining
whether or not Hendrix was there.

The fact that this modern day Munchausen
is taken seriously as a witness at all tells us something about the
mindset of those eager to believe that a plane hit the tower. The fact
that the media presents his tale as a real event indicates the eagerness
to push such a view with no semblance of any critical thought whatsoever.
If someone says they saw a plane under whatever circumstances, that's
good enough to be news.

Why ? After all, the media loves to catch
a cynical fraud, and exposing Stanley doesn't in itself necessitate
disputation of a plane hitting the tower. He could just be presented
as having told self centred whoppers about his particular experiences
on Sept 11. The media doesn't mind exposing people who have falsely
claimed victims money.

Neither of the Bloggers linked earlier
expressed any doubts about the basics of planes hitting the buildings.
But they at least both had the good sense to be highly critical of Praimnath
- one of the grounds of plausibility, and the other on the grounds of
religious ethics.

But such insight appears to be all too
rare.

Stanley is even on the speaking circuit
with this garbage. The reverential treatment of Stanley Munchausen
as a serious witness is an indicator that for many people, any form
of critical thinking whatsoever in relation to Sept 11 and it's supposed
planes is a form of treason.

In the case of the two bloggers who were critical of Praimnath,
regardless of what else I might not agree with them on, they at least
showed enough independence of thought on that occasion to realize when
their intelligence was being grossly insulted, even if they bought the
bigger lie behind it.

But many in the so called "truth movement" haven't
got as far as those two bloggers in their basic thinking processes.
Many of them continue to promote Praimnath as evidence.

When Praimnath has been presented to me
in email debates, it is even forgivable that a person might not have
properly thought it through before presenting it, and needs someone
to point out the problems with the report to help them come to their
senses.

But on some occasions when I and others
have provided deconstructions of this report, it has often simply provoked
anger and fierce support of Praimnath's credibility.

I can only describe such reactions as a
form of mental illness. Whatever the merits of any other arguments which
might be presented in support of a large plane hitting the South Tower,
the staunch support of Stanley Munchausen as a supposedly serious witness
report indicates that some people are desperate to believe in planes
and damn what the evidence says.

"I clearly saw United Airlines written on the plane"

2007-07-18T20:32:00.000-07:00

Click to enlarge, please.

Too bad it was allegedly (according to the government's lies) American Airlines.

Logan Departure

2007-06-30T05:00:00.000-07:00

BTS - Airline Information - Airline On-Time Statistics - Detailed Statistics - Results

Skip to Content

Skip to Search

Skip to Left Navigation


Numbers to Move People	Site Map \| Feedback \| Help

Airline On-Time Statistics

Summary Statistics
Detailed Statistics
Special Reports

Detailed Statistics > Departure Statistics

Departure Statistic(s): Actual Departure Time

Airport(s): BOS

Airline(s): AA

Month(s): September

Day(s): 11

Year(s): 2001

NOTE: A complete listing of
TITLE="Carrier/Airline Code/Name List">airline and
TITLE="Airport Code/Name List">airport
abbreviations is available. After the entire table is displayed on your screen,
you may download a CSV (comma separated values) file
of this table.

**Airport: Boston, MA - Logan International (BOS)**
Carrier Code	Date (MM/DD/YYYY)	Flight Number	Tail Number	Destination Airport	Actual Departure Time
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0145	UNKNOW	TITLE="San Jose International" >SJC	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0153	N232AA	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	8:29
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0163	UNKNOW	TITLE="Los Angeles International" >LAX	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0181	UNKNOW	TITLE="Los Angeles International" >LAX	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0189	N3BMAA	TITLE="Seattle Tacoma International" >SEA	8:43
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0193	UNKNOW	TITLE="San Francisco International" >SFO	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0195	UNKNOW	TITLE="San Francisco International" >SFO	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0197	UNKNOW	TITLE="San Francisco International" >SFO	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0223	UNKNOW	TITLE="Los Angeles International" >LAX	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0225	UNKNOW	TITLE="San Diego International-Lindberg" >SAN	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0259	UNKNOW	TITLE="San Jose International" >SJC	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0269	N636AA	TITLE="San Jose International" >SJC	7:57
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0277	UNKNOW	TITLE="San Diego International-Lindberg" >SAN	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0363	UNKNOW	TITLE="Austin-Bergstrom International" >AUS	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0401	UNKNOW	TITLE="Luis Munoz Marin International" >SJU	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0449	UNKNOW	TITLE="Miami International" >MIA	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0461	N255AA	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	6:39
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0489	UNKNOW	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0583	UNKNOW	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0645	N3BLAA	TITLE="John F Kennedy International" >JFK	6:01
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1011	UNKNOW	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1019	N078AA	TITLE="Luis Munoz Marin International" >SJU	7:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1025	UNKNOW	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1079	UNKNOW	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1101	UNKNOW	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1115	UNKNOW	TITLE="Miami International" >MIA	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1117	UNKNOW	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1121	UNKNOW	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1135	N2CFAA	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	6:51
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1141	UNKNOW	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1285	UNKNOW	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1353	UNKNOW	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1367	UNKNOW	TITLE="Miami International" >MIA	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1547	N321AA	TITLE="Orlando International" >MCO	7:26
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1555	N3BBAA	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	5:54
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1629	UNKNOW	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1633	UNKNOW	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1663	N521AA	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	7:05
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1711	N061AA	TITLE="Miami International" >MIA	6:04
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1757	N3CLAA	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	7:37
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1797	UNKNOW	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1811	N2CBAA	TITLE="Ronald Reagan Washington National" >DCA	6:37
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1813	UNKNOW	TITLE="Ronald Reagan Washington National" >DCA	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1821	UNKNOW	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1837	UNKNOW	TITLE="Ronald Reagan Washington National" >DCA	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1849	UNKNOW	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1857	N630AA	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	8:14
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1859	UNKNOW	TITLE="Ronald Reagan Washington National" >DCA	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1861	UNKNOW	TITLE="Ronald Reagan Washington National" >DCA	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1887	UNKNOW	TITLE="Ronald Reagan Washington National" >DCA	0:00

**Airport: Boston, MA - Logan International (BOS)** (Continue)
Carrier Code	Date (MM/DD/YYYY)	Flight Number	Tail Number	Destination Airport	Actual Departure Time
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1901	UNKNOW	TITLE="Miami International" >MIA	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1971	N5EPAA	TITLE="Luis Munoz Marin International" >SJU	8:09
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1983	N3BRAA	TITLE="Ft Lauderdale-Hollywood International" >FLL	6:32
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	2027	UNKNOW	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	2055	UNKNOW	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	0:00

The total number of the records found for this query: 55

Download CSV(Comma delimited) version of this table

U.S. Department of Transportation

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

400 7th Street, SW • Room 3103 • Washington, DC 20590

L'Enfant Plaza Metrorail Station (7th and D Streets)

800-853-1351 •
answers@bts.gov

Directions

Forensic Evidence

2007-06-29T23:17:00.003-07:00

Video Evidence

2007-06-29T23:17:00.001-07:00

No Departure for Alleged Highjacked Planes in BTS Database.

2007-06-29T22:43:00.000-07:00

BTS - Airline Information - Airline On-Time Statistics - Detailed Statistics - Results

Skip to Content

Skip to Search

Skip to Left Navigation


Numbers to Move People	Site Map \| Feedback \| Help

Airline On-Time Statistics

Summary Statistics
Detailed Statistics
Special Reports

Detailed Statistics > Departure Statistics

Departure Statistic(s): Actual Departure Time

Airport(s): IAD

Airline(s): AA

Month(s): September

Day(s): 11

Year(s): 2001

**Airport: Washington, DC - Washington Dulles International (IAD)**
Carrier Code	Date (MM/DD/YYYY)	Flight Number	Tail Number	Destination Airport	Actual Departure Time
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0075	UNKNOW	TITLE="Los Angeles International" >LAX	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0135	UNKNOW	TITLE="Los Angeles International" >LAX	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0143	UNKNOW	TITLE="Los Angeles International" >LAX	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0371	UNKNOW	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0397	UNKNOW	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0510	UNKNOW	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0573	UNKNOW	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0599	N871AA	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	7:49
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0771	N3BFAA	TITLE="Luis Munoz Marin International" >SJU	6:57
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	0975	N3CAAA	TITLE="Miami International" >MIA	7:34
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1217	N2ANAA	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	6:26
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1223	UNKNOW	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1229	UNKNOW	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1247	UNKNOW	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1309	UNKNOW	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1319	UNKNOW	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	0:00
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1361	N493AA	TITLE="Dallas/Ft.Worth International" >DFW	6:17
TITLE="American Airlines" >AA	09/11/2001	1787	UNKNOW	TITLE="Chicago O'Hare International" >ORD	0:00

The total number of the records found for this query: 18

Download CSV(Comma delimited) version of this table

No 77 Plane Found in Official Database

2007-06-29T22:01:00.000-07:00

BTS - Airline On-Time Statistics - Summary Statistics

Skip to Content
Skip to Search
Skip to Left Navigation


Numbers to Move People	Site Map \| Feedback \| Help

Airline On-Time Statistics
Summary Statistics Detailed Statistics Special Reports

Summary Statistics

Airline: American Airlines (AA)

Flight Number: 0077

Time period: September 11, 2001 to September 11, 2001

No data found for the above selection. Please click your browser's Back button or ALT+Left Arrow to return to the previous page and try again.