Tuesday, June 28, 2005
 Most 9/11 researchers who have been payng attention know that it is very hard to reconcile the forensic evidence at the impact sites with the crash of a Boeing 757 airliner. Here's an update on the state of "no-airliner" research from Gerard Hlomgren: In Nov 2003, I published records from the Bureau of transportation, which logs detailed records of every domestic flight scheduled from any US airport by any carrier which accounts for more than 1% of domestic air traffic.
These records confirm that on Sept 11, 2001, there was no such flight as American Airlines 11 or AA 77. Immediately after I published this information, the BTS showed consciousness of guilt by shutting down the website. They then moved it to a different location and didn’t leave a forwarding address at the old address - highly unusual behaviour for a govt department.
10 months later, they doctored the database to include the flights, but even now, the flights are shown as scheduled but not taking off. In any case, I had backed up the original search results and they are posted on my site in this article.
Since there was no such flight as American Airlines 11, it's hardly surprising that they had to fabricate the passenger lists. Four alleged passengers on AA11 even managed to also die on United Airlines 175! See here
And since there was no such flight as AA11, it goes without saying that it did not hit the North tower as alleged by the govt. And even without the supporting documentation I supplied, the video of the object shows quite clearly that it is not a large passenger jet.
And so it's hardly surprising that eyewitness reports, although confused and contradictory, as eyewitness reports always are, say overwhelmingly that it was anything but a large passenger jet.
Some of that is compiled in this post to Portland Indymedia
The flight alleged to have hit the South tower , UA 175 was flown by the plane N612UA. This plane is still registered as valid in the FAA aircraft registry, so there goes the idea that it crashed anywhere.
Go to the FAA aircraft registry: http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm -- and do an "n number" search for N591UA ( UA 93 on Sept 11) and N612UA (UA 175 on Sept 11). BTW, UA 93, alleged to have crashed in PA is also still registered.
And the documentation is backed up by the video evidence which shows quite clearly that the plane is a fake. It lacks perspective (real objects look bigger when they are closer and smaller when they are further away).
It passes through the wall without making a hole and without breaking off any parts,like disappearing into a bucket of water without making a splash.
It exceeds its maximum speed at low altitude while banking sharply and flying in the opposite direction to what its banking. It hip hops, stationary one frame, supersonic the next. There is something wrong with the shape of its underbelly. See http://thewebfairy.com/911 and http://911hoax.com.
[...]
The BTS database also shows that there was no such flight as American Airlines 77 that day, so whatever hit the Pentagon that day, it clearly wasn't AA 77.
A thorough analysis, showing that it could not have been a plane anywhere near that size is here.
Attacks against that article have been of such a vague and generalized nature with no specific arguments against any of its specific points.
The article methodically works through every conceivable manner in which such a plane could have impacted, and tries to find a way to make it possible. I even made the huge concession of assuming that the hole extended right to top of the building ! That is , I treated the post collapse hole as the pre- collapse hole, allowing all kinds of scenarios with sharp banking, scenarios which are clearly ridiculous as the pre collapse hole did not extend to any significant height.
And since no big plane hit the Pentagon, its hardly surprising that eyewitness evidence does not confirm a large plane hitting the building.
.....---
.....| Posted at 15:26 | PERMA-LINK |
|
FEED
TOTAL411 PODCAST
SELECTED VIDEO ]
