[donate to cat] [contribute a story] [Tips for writing] [contribute a story] [donate to cat]
Catskills Workshops Get Involved! | The Sydney IMC is an open publishing website. Upcoming events: the place to view and list activist events in sydney
Sydney Activists! Email the Features group (imc-sydney-content@lists.cat.org.au) to have your piece highlighted as a feature on the front page.

[independentmedia centre]

IndyMedia Radio

The Sydney IMC video channel

Sydney Indymedia Newswire via email

You must enter a privacy password. This provides only mild security, but should prevent others from messing with your subscription.
Do not use a valuable password as it will occasionally be emailed back to you in cleartext. Once a month, your password will be emailed to you as a reminder.

Pick a password:
Reenter password to confirm:
Would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest? No Yes



(leave blank if you wish to browse by medium)

Making indymedia:

contributed stories
up to the minute coverage of the issues and protests.

publish your stuff
instantly upload your audio, video, photo or text directly from yourbrowser

story administration
linking, editing and deleting stories

help with multimedia
How to hear the sounds and see the videos.

story resources
Need help getting started or have a burning issue you wantto see covered?

Organising indymedia:

frequently asked questions

about us

How to get involved

contact us:
- general enquiries
- journalists
Lists for organising and discussing Sydney Indymedia
list archives
browse through our past discussions

internal news
where we share info that helps us organise indymedia

support us
Support indepedent media - non-profit, voluntary, activist.


imc oceania
active - stuff for social change:

Global indymedia:

satellite tv

south africa

thunder bay

East Asia

estrecho / madiaq
euskal herria
united kingdom
west vlaanderen

Latin America
puerto rico


South Asia

United States
danbury, ct
minneapolis/st. paul
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
ny capital
rocky mountain
rogue valley
san diego
san francisco bay area
santa cruz, ca
st louis
tallahassee-red hills
western mass

West Asia

fbi/legal updates
indymedia faq
mailing lists
process & imc docs

technology by cat@lyst and IMC geeks
- this site is brought to you by free software including active version 1-7-0.

contribute an article | administration | quick search | find us

email this story | download as PDF | print article

What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11, 2001
by Gerard Homgren 8:44am Thu Nov 13 '03 (Modified on 9:56pm Tue Dec 2 '03)

The flights alleged to have hit the Nth WTC tower and the Pentagon did not exist. They were not scheduled to fly that day.

What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11 2001
by Gerard Holmgren . Copyright. Nov 13, 2003


This material may be freely reproduced without permission providing that it is not for commercial
purposes. Please include the author's name, the URL where you found it and the copyright notice.

On the basis of photographic and physical evidence, it has now been established for some time that on Sept
11, 2001 the damage to the Pentagon was caused by something other than the hijacked Boeing 757,
American Airlines Flight 77 claimed by the government to have crashed into the building.

Hunt the Boeing

Physical and Mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash. Oct 2002
Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined. June 2002
The amazing Pentalawn.

More recently, its become widely accepted on the basis of video evidence that the object which hit the
North Tower of the WTC at 8.46 that morning was not the hijacked Boeing 767, American Airlines Flight
11, as claimed in the official story.


In response to these observations, both supporters of the truth and blind deniers of it agree on one thing. It
raises the question - "If these flights did not hit the buildings as alleged, then where did they go?'

We are now in a position to answer that question.

First lets recap on the official story of what happened to four planes that morning.

AA 11 left Boston for LA at about 8 am, was reported as hijacked about 8.25, and hit the Nth Tower at
about 8.46.
UA 175 left Boston for LA at about the same time, was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Sth
Tower at about 9.03
AA 77 left Dulles for LA about the same time , was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Pentagon at
about 9.45
UA 93 left Newark for SF at about the same time, was reported hijacked about 9.45 and crashed in PA at
about 10.10.

The Bureau of transportation website contains search pages, where one can pull up detailed statistics about
the history of which flights have been scheduled for which airports on any given day. Go to


and click on "detailed statistics" where one can search records of scheduled and actual departure times,
arrival times, diversions and cancellations by departure airport, arrival airport, airline and flight number.
Searches for Sept 11 2001 reveal that the flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist. They were not scheduled
that day. Here are the search results which I encourage everyone to check for themselves.

A search for UA flights from Newark on Sept 11, 2001 shows 0093 to SF was scheduled at 8.00 and
actually departed at 8.01. It is listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination.

A search for UA from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and actually departed
at 7.58. Also listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination.

The term "diverted" does not specify any differentiation between legally diverted, hijacked or crashed, so
the data gives no indication one way or the other as to truth of the official story about what happened to
them, but it does confirm that they departed as per the official story and did not arrive at their destinations.

A search for AA flights from Boston that day does not list 0011. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA
that day was 0181 at 11.00

A search for AA flights from Dulles that day does not list 0077. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA was
0135 at 11.15.

Here's a different search method. By returning to the search page URL listed earlier, and clicking on
�summary statistics �, one can find the historical reliability and punctuality of specific flights over a period
of time, by specifying the airline and flight number and defining the time period. The search then returns
figures on average delays in departure and arrival times and percentages of cancelled or diverted flights.
If one searches specifically for UA 175 or UA 93 narrowed down to sept 11 only, the search returns the
result of "diverted" for each flight. A similar search for either AA 11 or AA 77 on that date returns "no data

If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you will find that they were regularly scheduled flights
right up to Sept 10. AA 11 was scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00, and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at
7.45. On Sept 11, they were not scheduled. Not cancelled. Just not scheduled.
On Sept 12, they re-appear in the schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20
when both flights change their numbers.

Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77
flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did
not exist. This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for
the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents.

This still leaves unanswered the question of what happened to the passengers alleged to be aboard the non
existent flights. In the case of AA 77, while one can always speculate about the most plausible scenarios, I
prefer to wait until some real evidence emerges. However in the case of AA 11, I think it is worth noting
that UA 175 left from the same airport, at the same time for the same destination as that normally applicable
to AA 11. Therefore, although there is no direct evidence to support the claim, it would seem reasonable to
speculate at this stage that any passengers who were regular fliers on AA 11, and asked to booked on it that
day, went to the airport, expecting to get on AA 11, as per the normal routine. They were then told that
there was a last minute problem with the flight which could not be fixed within a reasonable period of time,
and were offered a flight on UA 175 as compensation.

The data in this search indicates that we have been systematically lied to about the alleged flight paths and
hijacking sequence of AA 11 and AA 77, as well as the alleged phone calls made from the planes.

It also indicates probable complicity by American Airlines in the events of Sept 11 , 2001.

For the benefit of any NWO operatives reading this, just in case you�re thinking of trying to pressure the
Bureau into playing hanky panky with the records, the search results pages have already been backed up
and widely distributed. Nevertheless, I do encourage all readers to do the searches themselves and back up
the results pages, just in case this happens.
Make a quick comment on this article.
your name
your email (optional)
comment heading
add your own longer comments (including web links and multimedia uploads)
Comments may be edited or hidden according to these policy guidelines
Make a rating on this article.

by captain spastic 9:33am Thu Nov 13 '03 (Modified on 9:57pm Tue Dec 2 '03)

And all the people who were in the planes are still alive.

and all their grieving relatives were acting and are in on the deal with the govt.
Make a rating on this comment.

where are the passengers???
by bobbie 9:49am Thu Nov 13 '03

there were lists and comments from friends mourning deaths

were the passengers killed?????

why haven't they been reported alive??????
Make a rating on this comment.

by windsor 11:25am Thu Nov 13 '03

Thanks for digging all this stuff, out.

I suspect the people who died, were all on Flight 93, eh--the one that got shot down over Pennsylvania?

Now the question is, "Does anybody care, who can do something about it?"
Make a rating on this comment.

by mark goldman 1:01pm Thu Nov 13 '03 (Modified on 2:56pm Thu Nov 13 '03)

Regarding your comment about "passengers alleged to be aboard," are you suggesting that those alleged passengers were not on board and that they didn't die. Is this plausible?
Make a rating on this comment.

by Gerard 3:33pm Thu Nov 13 '03

If the flights didn't exist then its axiomatic that the passengers weren't on board. And the official documentation appears to show that the flights did not exist.
However this cannot be extrapolated to an automatic claim that they're still alive. If they are dead, which would seem to be the default assumption, then they died by some means other than being aboard the planes in question.
Make a rating on this comment.

i cant believe
by spaz 4:23pm Thu Nov 13 '03

people are taking this seriously..

i saw the footage of the FIRST and second planes, over and over,,.//

there is clear footage of BOTH planes Crashing!!!!!
Make a rating on this comment.

Capricorn One
by old lawson 5:34pm Thu Nov 13 '03

Spot on!
It was all a film set and the yanks sure got fooled. Fake planes, fake people. It was like the Towering Inferno, fake buildings and all.

That hole in lower Manhattan is all special effects.

At least you stopped clawing yourself long enough to get onto the keyboard for a while.
Make a rating on this comment.

read properly
by paris 6:00pm Thu Nov 13 '03

Hey guys!

You've to read properly!
The article suggests that the passengers of Flight 11 actually were in Flight 175 (theoretically no problem as there has been lots of seats free) and the article only says that Flight 11 was not scheduled. No word about Flight 175.
Moreover the fact that Flight 11 was not schedulded does not mean that nothing hit the WTC. It just says that it wasn't Flight 11. So therefore it demands the answer to the question: What actually hit WTC instead?
Make a rating on this comment.

Flight 587, November 12 2001?
by Ron Harvey 9:19pm Thu Nov 13 '03

Wierd isn't it that none of the planes that crashed had taken off from an alleged airport, including Flight 587, New York, November 12 2001

Was that event also faked?
Make a rating on this comment.

Brillaint research!
by werewolf 1:18am Fri Nov 14 '03 (Modified on 5:54am Tue Dec 9 '03)

Brilliant research! Two of the four 911 planes were apparently coming from nonexistent flights, flights that were not scheduled and not listed any place.

WTC plane crash #1 does not appear to be a plane at all. The images on the link are quite good. Something cigar-shaped appears to have been shot down at the north tower. Bush, however, said that he saw plane crash #1 on 911 before he entered his classroom to spend his lazy afternoon chatting about goats while NYC was being destroyed and another jet was streaking (unimpeded by any nasty NORAD air defenses!) towards Wash. DC. But there was no known film of plane crash #1 until 9/12/01, so Bush must have been watching the direct feed from the laughing high-fiving Israeli Mossad film crew!

The Pentagon, was also apparently struck by a missile, not a plane. Planes leave plane wreckage when they crash. Planes also cause plane-sized damage when they crash into something.

Also, the Pennsylvania plane left an eight mile trail of debris before finally crashing. that is not consistent with an alleged passenger revolt overpowering the hijackers. it is consistent with the plane having been shot down. In addition, the whole story about the hijackers moving all the passengers to the back of the plane (all in a nice group so that they could plan some action) and telling them to call home (on cell phones that could not have worked) because they were about to die, makes zero sense. Real hijackers on such a mission would have told the passengers to remain calm and strapped in their seats and that they'll be OK.

Also, you can see how the Secret Service behaves when there is a REAL threat, like a couple of days ago when some plane approached Washington air space without clearance. Jets were immediately scrambled and the retard in chief was immediately whisked away. Compare that to what happened on 911!

So none of the official 911 cover story makes any sense at all, starting with the fact that there weren't even any Arabs on the 911 planes
Make a rating on this comment.

The 911 Hoax
by werewolf 10:02am Fri Nov 14 '03

I would be very interested to know what the private conversations of commercial pilots are regarding the 911 story. I think it would also be extremely interesting to hear from air traffic controllers who were on duty, or know or knew those controllers who were on duty on 911.

The last i heard about that was that the controllers on duty were strictly forbidden to speak of the events of 911 even with their immediate families. That was quite a while ago. Of course the government has kept all the air traffic tapes and black box conversations top secret. Where are those air traffic controllers now? Are they still alive, or have they all committed "suicide" or been in "accidents" by now? Also, how about the security people who were manning the airport metal detectors on 911? What do they have to say about ALL the hijackers managing to pass through ALL the metal detectors with all their hijacking gear?

Thousands of unanswered questions, and the so-called free media and the politicians are doing their level best to stonewall all of them.

Make a rating on this comment.

What about
by hey 10:56am Fri Nov 14 '03

Surveillance cameras? Any and all government building are usually surrounded by close circuit video cameras. Why was the pentagon alleged plan crash not captures on one of these? I mean of all places, you think the Pentagon would have video surveillance inside and outside the compound.
Make a rating on this comment.

Regarding 587
by Gerard 11:36am Fri Nov 14 '03

Regarding the comment about 587, that was an international flight. They are not included in that database. Its just for the domestic flights for the major airlines. I checked every domestic flight thats crashed within the time period and search parameters of whats covered by that data base and every one of those flights is there. Planes which crashed on landing are described as "arrived" with the punctuality stats supplied and planes which crashed on take off are described as "cancelled".
What does prevent us from an absolute rock soild proof of how to interpret the data is that I could not find any domestic flight within the time period and search parameters which had crashed between landing and take off (apart from 175 and 93) which were listed as "diverted." I checked sites such as airdisaster.com, and then matched up the details of any crashes with the data base. Everything I found clearly indicated that planes which crash upon landing are listed as arrived, planes which crash upon take off are listed as cancelled,and if one accepts 175 and 93 as examples, then planes which crash inbetween are listed as diverted.
If anyone can find a flight which fits the time period and search parameters of the database, and has been similarly disappeared from the records, then I'll need a serious rethink of the allegation I've made.
However ,I'll reiterate, 587 is not a valid example,and I've failed to find any such example,which was something I checked for quite extensively before writng this, so the hunt is on to find something which does support the objection that planes which crash between take off and landing are for some reason removed entirely from the data base.
If any such exaample is found, then we need to ask why 93 and 175 were not removed.
Make a rating on this comment.

Regarding Nth Tower hit
by Gerard 12:39pm Fri Nov 14 '03

Spaz writes
[[I cant believe people are taking this seriously..
i saw the footage of the FIRST and second planes, over and over,,.//
there is clear footage of BOTH planes Crashing!!!!!]]

175 ( alleged Sth Tower hit) is not under discussion in this article. 11 (Nth tower) is.

The links supplied in the article are of video and stills of the Nth Tower hit. I'm not sure what it is, but I'm sure as hell what its not - and thats a Boeing 767. Remember that even if it was a B767, that wouldn't prove that it was necessarily AA 11, although in the absence of any specific evidence to the contrary, there would seem to be no reason to disbelieve it.
However the video clearly shows that its not a B767,all early reports described it as a small plane, and the Bureau of transportation stats state that the flight alleged to have been respionsible was not scheduled to fly that day.

So, we dismiss video evidence because the video doesn't show what we want it to, we dismiss witness reports because they don't say what we want them to, and we dismiss official govt documentation, because it doesn't show what we want it to.

The video, the witness reports and the official documentation all support each other. The belief that the object was AA 11 depends soley upon a predetermined position to believe that the witness reports were all wrong, the video is doctored,and the Bureau of transportation stats are doctored.
Make a rating on this comment.

by tom 4:18pm Fri Nov 14 '03

I found these on a web search - please give your comments:

Make a rating on this comment.

Departure of Flight 93
by woody 5:09am Sat Nov 15 '03

I was not successfull in establishing the link, but that's interesting:

"A search for UA flights from Newark on Sept 11, 2001 shows 0093 to SF was scheduled at 8.00 and
actually departed at 8.01. "

The official story is, its departure time was delayed for 41 minutes, actually departing at 8:42. Check Paul Thompsons timeline!

It was very busy in Newark this morning. Flight 93 had to wait for a dozen other planes to take off.
Make a rating on this comment.

Another discrepancy
by woody 5:33am Sat Nov 15 '03

"A search for UA from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and actually departed
at 7.58. Also listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. "

What does Paul Thompson say?

"8:14 a.m.  Flight 175 takes off from Boston's Logan Airport, 16 minutes after the scheduled departure time. [CNN, 9/17/01, Washington Post, 9/12/01, Guardian, 10/17/01, AP, 8/19/02, Newsday, 9/10/02]"

I think, we have some confusion here. So 7:58 was the scheduled departure time and 8:14 the actual departure time? Or 8:00 the scheduled time and 7:58 the actual time?

7:58 is a strange "scheduled" departure time, isn't it? Usually they have even numbers, 8:00, 9:30, 10:15 or something like that.
Make a rating on this comment.

someones got some splainin to do...
by Brad 2:48pm Sat Nov 15 '03

Has anyone tried to contact AA UA and ask them their official story?
This is something we should be able to pu our finger on.
surely their had to be AA UA attandants confirming reservations, boarding people? did anyone see the pilots at the airport, co-workers? computer and paper trails, not to mention witnesses should be abundant to figure this out.
FAA records should corroborate, and if they dont, then someone has to say exactly why those records were different, if they were changed "after" the fact or not?
and especially WHY ???

this does start to fit together well with the radio controlled planes/? as well

Make a rating on this comment.

The discrepancies
by Gerard 6:59pm Sat Nov 15 '03

Compared to official figures from the Bureau, reports from the media about when a plane was scheduled for, and when it departed are just hearsay. What was the source used by the media for these calims? The default position must be that the Bureau's data is correct, unless and until someone can come up with compelling counter evidence from a similarly first hand source.
The work done by Paul Thompson, and Jared Israel on the hijacking sequences and the lack of air force response was excellent, but it was based on the assumption that we were told the truth about the scheduling, departure and flight paths and times of the planes. According to the Burueau's data, we were not told the truth.
Make a rating on this comment.

The discrepancies - clarification and confusion
by woody 8:43pm Sun Nov 16 '03

I've found one source claiming that UA 93 had his scheduled departure time at 8:00, left the gate at 8:01 and took off at 8:42 because it had to wait for a lot of other planes this morning.

So maybe the "scheduled departure time" 8:01 mentioned by the official media refers to the "gate departure time". This could explain the discrepancies.

But I've found another one: Flight 11's scheduled departure time on 9-11 and the days before was 7:45, not 8:00, according to all media reports. Its actual departure was at 7:59. Look here (scroll down a bit):


Keep in mind the transponder data of the (alleged) Flight 11. There was a plane, but was it a Boeing 767 with passengers on board?

Let me throw a hypothesis into the debate: maybe on Boston Airport we had a "Bumble planes light" scenario. There was a plane taking off at 7:59, but with no passengers, and another one taking off at 8:14 (flight 175) with additional passengers?
Make a rating on this comment.

Correction, my mistake
by gerard 9:04am Mon Nov 17 '03

In response to the comment directly above from Woody, I rechecked the scheduled depature times for AA 11 and 77 on sept 10 on the BTS database, and found that I had incorrectly transcribed them in the article, an error which I will remedy in future versions of this article. The correct reading of the BTS database is 7.45 for 11 and 8.10 for 77. When writing the article , I somehow got this as 7.45 for 77 and 8.00 for 11.

These departure times correspond with those claimed in the article sourced by Woody in the above comment. It would appear that the article cited by Woody was using the correct times for the normally scheduled departures of those flights.
Nevertheless, they are not in the schedules for Sept 11.
Make a rating on this comment.

And why were those 911 planes so sparsely occupied
by werewolf 9:49am Mon Nov 17 '03

And why were those 911 planes so sparsely occupied? All of them were strangely mostly empty. Anyone who has flown in recent years, including the years preceeding 2001, knows that airlines have been using their computerized systems to cram in as many passengers per plane as they could. So why were all of the 911 planes, all on popular prime time routes, mostly empty?

Thousands of questions, thousands of "anomalies" (lies), but zero answers from the Bush gang and its whore media.

Make a rating on this comment.

Funny Departure Times
by Woody 2:05am Tue Nov 18 '03

Refering to the postmag.com-article which contains the officially released data, these funny "scheduled departure times" 7:58 and 8:01 of flights 175 and 93 resp. don't let me rest. Why don't they say simply 8:00 and take instead the "gate departure times"? And why don't they do it with flights 11 and 77 - obviously taking the planned scheduled times?

Maybe it's not important, but my inner Sherlock Holmes is scenting something strange behind these numbers.
Make a rating on this comment.

Evidence for No Departure of AA11 and AA77
by Nico Haupt, http://news.globalfreepress.com 9:59am Sun Nov 23 '03

Evidence for No Departure of AA11 and AA77:

Mirrors of the Search results of <a href="http://news.globalfreepress.com/ewing/airline_boston911.html" target="_blanK">AA11(Boston)</a> and <a href="http://news.globalfreepress.com/ewing/airline_dcdulles911.html" target="_blank">AA77 (DC-Dulles)</a>
Make a rating on this comment.

by Nico Haupt 10:02am Sun Nov 23 '03

AA11(Boston) and http://news.globalfreepress.com/ewing/airline_dcdulles911.html
AA77(DC Dulles)
Make a rating on this comment.

So did flight 77 and 11 take for a non-civilian purpose ?
by aauaplanes09112001whathappened 12:41pm Sun Nov 23 '03

So did flight 11 and 77 really take off if they were not scheduled for civilians ? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe American Airlines was ordered to keep them down, and used them later on another flight number. Maybe the planes were requisitionned by some military men. What did they do with them ? Did they fly some of them somewhere in a military base and replace some of them with a missile or a Global Hawk (we think of flight 11 because the thing that hit the North tower was very fuzzy and a witness, Flore Mongin, saw it zigzagging) ? Or did they load both of them with bombs, which could explain how the Pentagon was pierced through three of its rings as reported by the NY Times as soon as on September 12 and how the flying object going into the North Tower made a white flash before the big explosion (for sources see http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/inv2.html down the page, http://geocities.com/aauaplanes09112001whathappened/pictures911.html or www.propagandamatrix.com/150903dvdcensored.html).

Maybe passengers for AA 77 boarded another plane, which crashed West of Washington. Maybe they boarded flight AA 599 for Dallas or UA 205 for San Jose at 9am. Xymphora was speaking about errant planes, particularly over Colorado (xymphora, October 15, 2001, but I couldn't find more about that). Were flight AA 599 or UA 205 destroyed ? According to the BTS, they began to fly again a little bit later than other planes.

I also think that some companies may be accomplices in hiding the truth, since airline companies were silent about the list of passengers on the night of September 11 : "federal authorities" forbade the airline companies to release the lists of the passengers (NYT, 12/09/2001, p.A16).

Make a rating on this comment.

by bkmc 2:37pm Sun Nov 23 '03


I've been sceptical about 9-11 conspiracy theories but this meticulously researched and documented article adds considerably to the mountain of doubt forming around the "official" version of events.


...But not all of the eye-witnesses to the 9-11 slaughter were so saddened. On September 11, five Israeli army veterans were arrested by the FBI after several witnesses saw them "dancing", "high-fiving", and "celebrating" as they took pictures of the World Trade Center disaster from across the river in New Jersey. Steven Gordon was the lawyer who volunteered to represent the five Israelis. He was asked by a Hebrew newspaper why the five men were being detained by the FBI. Here�s what Gordon told Yediot America:

"On the day of the disaster, three of the five boys went up on the roof of the building where the company office is located," said Gordon. "I'm not sure if they saw the twin towers collapse, but, in any event, they photographed the ruins right afterwards. One of the neighbors who saw them called the police and claimed they were posing, dancing and laughing, against the background of the burning towers�.

Make a rating on this comment.

on the fake AA77, look who bundled into AA77 flight story, conveniently disappeared
by repost 9:36am Tue Nov 25 '03

know what happened to flight 77("Pentagon" plane) fake deaths?or intentional? (english)
report from peter, what ya think? 3:02pm Sat May 25 '02 (Modified on 8:27pm Mon Jan 13 '03)

This was a comment at another post, I thought worthy of briging up to the wire for discussion as well as NOTIFICATION! original at:
"winged missle;757 Boeing;Predator;small jet"-witnesses differ yet data points!

Sounds as mysterious as all the dozens of missing or dead microbiologists in the past several months. Was someone getting rid of alot of sensitive witnesses? or are these people successfullly disappeared?

I know what happened to flight 77

I started researching FLight 77 and its passengers. Approximately 16 to 21 of the 58 passangers work at classified positions in the defense sector!!!! Look at how many of them are aerospace engineers. One is a lifetime CIA operative who works for veridian as an aerospace engineer, Yamnicky is his last name. The first passenger listed, Caswell, led a team of 100 scientists for the navy. Several work for Boeing and Raytheon on the Global Hawk in El Segundo, California.

I think many people faked their deaths. Perhaps a remote control center was riding with these folks on the C130 transport plane many witnesses saw at the same time as the missile attack on the pentagon. Here's is the list of people in aerospace/defense/bush associates that were on the plane that disappeared (into the shadow gov?). I'm sorry this is a rough draft, these are all excerpts from AP, Boston Herald, W Post, NYT, and other mainstream sources. The passenger list must be scrutinized to figure out what happenned to the alleged flight 77.

Remember Olson's wife, (was) disappeared using this flight as well. Another angle to research is the stuff I have seen on his wife (and his) background.

read some of the 'official' disappeared from AA77 at link:


come back and add to this thread though, please.
Make a rating on this comment.

Discrepancies again - wheel-off times
by woody 12:00am Fri Nov 28 '03

Finally I was able to check out the bts data base for myself (thanks, nico).

I took a look at the "wheel-off times" of flights 175 and 93. (The "actual departure time" indeed refers to the moment when a plane rolls off its gate, ie. the gate departure).


According to the bts, flight 175 took off at 8:23. This is 9 minutes later than the official wheel-off time (8:14)!

According to the bts, flight 93 took off at 8:28. This is 14 minutes earlier than the official wheel-off time (8:42)!

Here's a summary:

Scheduled dep. Actual dep. Wheel-off

175 bts 8:00 7:58 8:23
official 7:58 ? 8:14

93 bts 8:00 8:01 8:28
official 8:01 ? 8:42

What do we do now?

Make a rating on this comment.

Why they aren't there?
by Skip Baker 8:45pm Fri Nov 28 '03

"Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77 flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing."

Thanks! That sure solves a problem for me. I kept thinking "where could they have "Put those people" and now I see how they did it. Like the phone calls, they just weren't there in the first place! Like the WMD in Iraq that weren't there either, and the Yellow Cake from Niger. this is how Bush gets by with killing freedom and America. The people will never know because they don't want to know.

Skip Baker
Make a rating on this comment.

All material is free for non-profit reuse unless otherwise noted by the author. All opinions are those of the people contributing to the site; sydney indymedia doesn't necessarily agree with them.