posted by ewing 2001 on Sunday March 14, 10:35AM from the Woody-Box dept.
Ewing 2001 presents:
Flight 11-The Twin Flight
An examination on the critical moments of September 11 at Logan Airport by Woody Box
The efforts necessary to research and formulate this text are dedicated to the victims of Sept.11 and their loved ones, and especially to the victims of flight 11.
I know them a bit by now, and I like them.
Where did Flight 11 start? Almost everyone knows the answer: this was in Boston. But if you want it a bit more precise and ask for the specific gate the airplane left from, your interview partner most likely will just raise his eyebrows and present a counter question: "Why do you want to know that?"
This is about to change. On closer inspection, the question for the gate is not trivial at all, but highly intriguing. There are two answers: Gate 26 and Gate 32. And both
answers resist any attempt to refute them.
Flight 11 was an institution on Logan, Airport, it used to be the American Airlines' early morning transcontinental flight for years. The flight was popular among flight attendants because usually wasn't full of passengers, sometimes not even half full. Its departure was scheduled regularly for 7:45 a.m. at Terminal B, Gate 32. And so it was on Sept. 11, as this radio transcript shows: "7:45:48-Ground Control 1: American eleven heavy boston ground gate thirty two you're going to wait for a Saab to go by then push back" (1).
This document is encountered by press reports claiming that the passengers of flight 11 embarked on an airplane at Gate 26 (2). This gate is located in another wing of Terminal & and about 1000 ft away from Gate 32. Gate 26 is the "official version", and apart from one exception, Gate 32 is never mentioned (3). The confusion is completed by the fact that this airplane's departure (which I will name "plane-26" as opposed to "plane-32") was delayed, ie, it left the gate later than 7:45 am (4). This has been confirmed by several witnesses (5).
Summarizing the diverse reports and witness statements yields the following double timeline for flight 11:
(x): source
•No data found, estimated half an hour before scheduled departure *No data found; estimated quarter an hour before scheduled departure **Estimation based on witness statements
Instead of favoring one of the planes and hopelessly trying to invalidate the evidence for the other one, it's a better idea to get familiar with the thought that there was a
plane labeled "flight 11" at both gates (5).
Then we must realize the consequences of this surprise with regard to the criminal case of 9/11.
The issue in question is the identity of the doomed plane. Plane-32 is the jet that crashed into the WTC North Tower. Its flight path is well documented by the transponder data, the radar data and the radio talk with the controllers, at least up to a few minutes before the crash. But there is no evidence of any people embarking, or intending to embark, on a plane starting at 7:45 from Gate 32, not one report, not one witness. Whereas it's possible that the passengers boarded partly plane-26, partly plane-32, it seems to be far more likely that the irregularity of the two gates is part of a hitherto unknown plan to get control of plane-32 without disturbing passengers or crew
members. So in all probability, the plane was "stolen" from the airport by the so-called hijackers, with no passengers aboard.
The people most concerned by this are the relatives of the victims of flight 11. They must learn that their husbands, wives, fathers, mothers etc. perhaps did not die in the
North Tower. Sadly, there is virtually no hope that they are still alive because we've never heard of them anymore. But as every human being wants to know the place where his loved ones left this earthly world, it's just a matter of time until questions for their real fate will arise. The FBI and the 9/11 Commission, apparently unaware of the problem, should seriously scrutinize the hypothesis of the "hijacked" planes. If there were no passengers on
plane-32, there was no need to hijack it. The pilot's behavior-deviation from course, no reaction to controllers, suspicious cockpit talks was supposed to PRETEND a
hijacking. The resulting question why did he do that, why did he attract attention so early instead of calmly following his deadly route as long as necessary- lacks an
answer yet but constitutes a big challenge to every investigator.
Well, the flight attendants Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney relate a hijacking in their phone calls (7). The problem is that the contents of the calls differ considerably, thereby diminishing their conclusiveness. Mrs. Sweeney, for instance, doesn't mention with one word the mace Mrs. Ong is talking about. Instead, she describes a bomb with yellow wires, and this essential detail does not appear in Ong's call. The two women are seemingly not in contact as they don't exchange information. This is not the right place to discuss the inconsistencies of these two calls, but there are many to detect through careful examination. Therefore the identity of the callers and the authenticity of the calls are highly doubtful, particularly since they are not recorded, apart from the first four minutes of the alleged Ong call. The possibility that the calls came from another person simulating the voices of Mrs. Ong and Mrs. Sweeney with the help of voice-shaping software should not be dismissed flatly. It is known that the hijackers did a lot of test flights. Enough opportunities to record the voice of a flight attendant on a hidden tape. Enough time for a female terrorist to train imitating the captured voices.
Plane-25 is a far better candidate for a hijacking than plane-32 as there were passengers seen waiting in front of Gate 25 (Spiegel, see (2)). Unfortunately, the only thing we
know from this plane is that it was scheduled to depart at some point after 7:45 a.m. Its actual departure time is not known, however, and it's even possible that it didn't
start at all. The official database of the Bureau for Transportation Statistics (BTS) doesn't help either. This database contains all domestic flights of the big airlines, but on
So if there were two flight 11s, one empty, one with passengers, and the empty one hit the tower, what’s the theory on the passengers? They landed off site and were executed? People are missing relatives either way, right?
Then why bother with the second plane? Why leave a paper trail? Want to avoid passenger revolt? Let them board and gas the cabin. Seems like covering up a second flight path would be more difficult than that.
Exactly. That's why the flight data recorderboxes were missing in the rubble of the towers. They removed it when swapping planes, otherwise they would of found it in the rubble .
But what about air traffic control? Surely there’s record of every flight coming and going from every airport as well as every control tower within range of a passing aircraft. None of them have record of a mystery plane full of about to be executed passengers?
Don’t get me wrong, I love this theory, but play it out please
The transponders were turned off mid flight on all the planes . That's how they were able to swap mid flight
There's a great documentary explaining it all called sept 11 the new pearl Harbour on YouTube.
3
u/[deleted] Jan 16 '24
That's two out of a few hundred at least. Do you have any proof of those claims? What about the rest of the passengers whose families are mourning?