It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BETTY ONG / FLIGHT 11 Was A Mock Hijacking Exercise.

page: 14
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 

It certainly is strange we don't hear of any other revolt, considering that Betty states clearly that people on her flight were actually physically trying to get into the cockpit door. If this were a true call, they could have easily propped this up as a case of revolt, since the people on Flight 11 couldn't "get into the cockpit, the door won’t open."




posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willie911


Another idea is to look at records, from individual pilots' logbooks, or just from their 'pay sheets' in the first few days of Sept 2001 to see if Flight 11 and FLight 12 existed, because they would have been operated, most likely, before the 11th.


On 9/10 there was a flight 11 (N321AA) which arrived at LAX at 10:42 (from BOS). N321AA goes to BOS (at 12:54) as flight 12. On 9/10 flight 12 (N321AA) arrived at Boston (BOS) at 21:47. It would be interesting to know whether Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney were on that flight. Note that N321AA left Boston on 9/11 as flight 1547, and went to Orlando (MCO) at 7:26 (wheels-off time 7:39).


I edited for brevity, and am not addressing my question to you. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention. Your point on 9 hours is also highly interesting.

How did alleged plane ID N321AA leave for Orlando at 7:26 am on 9/11/2001, and still remain in Boston to become alleged Flight 11?

If I understood you correctly in another post, you also mentioned someone from Logan went to the gate to check to see if Flight 12 had left Boston. Again, no question to you.

If Flight 12 is arriving in Boston, and Flight 11 was leaving Boston, why was someone checking for Flight 12 leaving Boston?



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by eyewitness86
 

It certainly is strange we don't hear of any other revolt, considering that Betty states clearly that people on her flight were actually physically trying to get into the cockpit door. If this were a true call, they could have easily propped this up as a case of revolt, since the people on Flight 11 couldn't "get into the cockpit, the door won’t open."



Correct. The tapes were proof that staged info to support the perps story was being relayed from front to back, from Sweeny to Ong. Betty was merely relaing allegations unfounded by any evidence at all. Betty says " WE cannot breath in business class', as if quoting another person, because she was not in that class and she was not coughing. There is NO SOUNDS of coughing,,or anything else that would be normal on a flight being attacked by radical crazies.

Ikagine this: An entire plane of passengers sits mutely by as people are slashed to death, maced, assaulted, throats cut, etc. Don't you think that some raised voices would be heard? Especially when a passenger sees someone on a phone, they would by nature want to interrupt and ask questions and pass along info. If people were being gassed in the front of the plane, would they not stampede to clean air in the rear? of course! But none of that happens.

What happens is that Barbara Olson says ( on a nonexsitent call) that tells Ted that she wants instruction to give the pilot!! The pilot was supposedly kind enough to hand over the cockpit and join the rest of the crew and passengers in the rear of the plane. Except that the highjackers never hearded the passengers from the front sections: they must have been content to mace and kill them and leave them thetre, silent as always.

The entire official story is an insulting fairy tale meant to placate a dull witted populace and a controlled media. Nothing else can account for them geting away with it.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
[

Originally posted by DogHeadI vote... interesting. So are there other examples of terrorism drills or hijacking drills on board planes prior to 9/11 for comparison? Are there other tapes from bona fide and drill hijackings and so on for comparison?


There are too many, infact the FAA requires them every 3 years.(hijacking and terror drills)



GOOGLE " Mock hijacking" "Plane crash exercise" there you will find plenty of examples.



[edit on 13-1-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
[

Originally posted by DogHeadI vote... interesting. So are there other examples of terrorism drills or hijacking drills on board planes prior to 9/11 for comparison? Are there other tapes from bona fide and drill hijackings and so on for comparison?


There are too many, infact the FAA requires them every 3 years.(hijacking and terror drills)



GOOGLE " Mock hijacking" "Plane crash exercise" there you will find plenty of examples.



[edit on 13-1-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




Friends think Flight 11
Israeli was 'executed'
Daniel Lewin, named in FAA shooting memo, was officer in elite unit of Jewish state's military

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 1, 2002
7:10 p.m. Eastern


By Paul Sperry
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com


WASHINGTON -- In another tragic irony of Sept. 11, three of the five Islamic hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11 were seated next to an elite Israeli commando. And it may just have gotten that Jewish passenger killed before all the others.

In fact, his friends and associates are now sure of it, after reading a secret government memo naming Israeli-American Daniel C. Lewin as a gunshot victim on the flight.

WorldNetDaily published the Federal Aviation Administration memo in an exclusive article Wednesday. The FAA, while confirming the document is authentic, claims the report of Lewin's shooting, written several hours after the Sept. 11 hijackings, was premature and inaccurate.

His friends don't buy it.

"Danny was an officer in a secret unit of the Israeli army called 'sayeret matkal,'" said Yehuda Schwartzberg, a childhood friend from Jerusalem. "My guess is that he did something in some way to stand up against the hijackers, and was executed because of it."



Here is the anti hijacking unit like the one Danile lewin the passenger that was allededly shot on Flight 11





[edit on 3-2-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willie911


Another idea is to look at records, from individual pilots' logbooks, or just from their 'pay sheets' in the first few days of Sept 2001 to see if Flight 11 and FLight 12 existed, because they would have been operated, most likely, before the 11th.


On 9/10 there was a flight 11 (N321AA) which arrived at LAX at 10:42 (from BOS). N321AA goes to BOS (at 12:54) as flight 12. On 9/10 flight 12 (N321AA) arrived at Boston (BOS) at 21:47. It would be interesting to know whether Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney were on that flight. Note that N321AA left Boston on 9/11 as flight 1547, and went to Orlando (MCO) at 7:26 (wheels-off time 7:39).

On 9/10 there was a flight 198 (N334AA, which would become flight 11 on 9/11) which arrived at BOS at 06:03 (from SFO).

All of that can be found on www.bts.gov... .

I didn't notice it before, but why does it take 21:47-12:54 = ~9 hours to get from LAX to BOS, or am I missing something???


Hello Willie911, thanks for finding that info.

Sorry Mods, if the quote is too long, but it's my way of seeing what I am writing about.

I'll start with Willie's last question...there was a Flight 12, American Airlines regularly scheduled LAX-BOS on 9/10/2001. You noted the OUT and IN times as 1254 and 2147, and the nearly 9 hours. Those are easy to explain...they refer to local time. When you allow for the three hours timezone change, you find the the actual block-to-block time is 5:53.

For you airline fans out there, you will know that the ACARS onboard records everything in UTC (used to be called GMT) and sends the data in a downlink to the airline's computers. We called them 'OOOI'...'out, off, on, in'... (pronounced 'oohwee').

This info not only updates the FIDS screens at airports to provide arrival ETAs, it keeps Dispatch apprised, it links to Maintenance to track all they need for the various parts that have hourly limits, to predict when and where the next scheduled inspection has to occur, to log the number of 'cycles' on the airframe, etc. AND, it is the basis for crew pay! (most important to me...)

Here's an interesting point I haven't heard anyone mention yet. The United States was still observing Daylight Saving Time on Sept 11, 2001. I mention this as a, slightly, off topic observation that may explain the 'Building 7' question, specifically the reports about British news announcing its collapse before it happened...everyone should know that in Britain they don't always switch from what they call 'Summer Time' back to standard on the same cycle as the US. Could this account for a 'discrepancy'? Would be interesting to research, but not on this thread...

Just food for thought.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orionstars,

Up above you 'edited' Willie911's post for 'brevity', then asked how the 'alleged' AA N321AA could have 'left for Orlando at 0726 and still be there to be Flight 11?' (edit to add, I paraphrased, didn't have your exact quote in front of me...)

I believe you should re-read Mr. Willie's post in more detail, please. As he researched, and discovered, that airplane operated flights 11 and 12 on 10 Sept. The airplane over-nighted in BOS, and was dispatched on Sept 11 to MCO at 0726. Let's check the 'N'-number of the 'alleged' accident airplane on the Sept 11 flight 11, OK?

[edit on 3-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
If Lewin was shot, how come no proof of any guns? It stinks. Lewin may have found He may have paid for the act with his life. Think about it, what are the ODDS that a guy like Lewin, from the most secret forces in Israel would ' just happen ' to sit next to the ' highjackers ? No way.

Lewin was probably tailing the men as the Israeli's followed all the highjackers all over the USA, lived near them; they were running the thing, of course!! It is an Israeli operation thru and thru, and Lewin didn't get the lessage in time to get off the plane, or he was dispatched with a shot to the . to stop him from interfering with the plan once it got going.

he may have thought he was simply being thorough and following the guys from Saudi Arabia but had no idea he got in the way of an operation.

It is NO coincidence he was there, that mush is for sure. His role? Who knows, but a guy like that did not get taken out by some amateur highjackers...and there was never any proof of a gun found anywhere in the wreckage, now was there? of course not. Lewin may have been loaded on that plane dead:

He may have been part of the passengers told that this was an acting job for the games, and smelled a rat and tried to get off or warn others and was shot. No highjacker had any guns, and no gunshots were reported...it all is a huge lie and I am geting so sick of the dreadfully stupid American public not paying any attention to what is going on; they may not deserve what is coming, but they will get it anyway.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Flight 11 was not scheduled to fly out on 9/11/2001 per BTS:

nomoregames.net...


III. Phantom Flights

Before examining physical evidence-our principal task-many facts about the alleged flights subvert the official account. The Colgan Air flight 5930 Portland-Logan is riddled with questions1 and AA Flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled that day.2 Official BTS data are meticulously kept because of liability issues. The two American Airlines Boeing 767s in question - tail numbers N334AA and N644AA - were deregistered January 14, 2002, months late but with no proof they were involved in the alleged flights.3 Mohammed Atta supposedly left a rental car at Portland International and absurdly left a second car full of incriminating evidence at Logan, in other words, government agents over-planted evidence. And was Gate 26 or 32 used for the unscheduled flight 11? The two United Airlines aircraft that allegedly crashed that day-tail number N612UA for Flight 175 and N591UA for Flight 93-were in the BTS data base but only deregistered four years later on September 28, 2005, despite a requirement that destroyed aircraft be deregistered within 24 hours.4


I validated myself that BTS did not have an Flight 11 scheduled out of Logan on 9/11/2001. Of course, that was prior to 2007 when BTS personnel decided to "correct" that discrepancy in the "official" reports. Since BTS orginally stated there was no scheduled Flight 11 on 9/11/2001 to the west coast, then any Flight 12 could not be a returning east coast flight labeled Flight 11 on 9/11/2001.

www.serendipity.li...

portland.indymedia.org...



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion,

You quoted from an outside source, nomoregames.net, and it immedieately (edit - immediately) jumps out that it contains an factual error...it refers to ...'two American Airlines Boeng 767s...'

I believe it is abundantly clear, by now, that no reputable source would claim that there were anything other than two B767s and two B757s that day...one of EACH from AA and UA!!!

In other words, just to be clear...AA lost a B757 and a B767, UA lost a B757 and B767. N'est pas?

So, my point here is simply this --- when you cite a 'source' that makes such an obvious mistake, how can you claim that 'source' to be credible?

For example: Let's say I wish to promote a theory of mine that I find to be so near and dear that I cannot let anything that refutes my 'pet' theory get in the way, hence I 'cherry-pick' the facts I want to include, and ignore the inconvenient ones that argue against my idea. In politics, and I daresay, in Law too, it is called 'spinning'. Call it the 'art of winning' an argument...at any cost.

Now, the foregoing paragraph was merely me hypothesizing, not accusing anyone of anything. This is a forum of free thought and discussion. I simply wish to point out that the TRUTH can get smeared and warped so easily by different factions with different agendas that it requires a crucible of severe investigation to cut through the layers of deceit, if they exist, to find that nugget of TRUTH at the center.

I bring to the table what experience I have, and try to convey it to the best of my ability, taking into account the limitations of a writtten forum such as we are using. I have no agenda...except inasmuch as I worked in the Airline Industry and thus, have a perspective. I wouldn't even be on ATS if I did not think that conspiracies exist...so, I do consider myself open-minded. But, I also realize that things don't add up sometimes. Problem is, I hate to sit idly by when I see others out there say that THEY see something that 'doesn't add up' and it turns out that the reason they drew that conclusion is because they don't have all of the facts, or the experience, to comprehend the information they have been given.

Seems to me that the original intent of the OP on this thread was to convey his/her opinion that, if I am understanding correctly, a 'Mock Hijacking Exercise' that encompassed four airliners nearly simultaneously was a 'cover' for for a most heinous operation planned by 'someone'...a plan to further a political agenda in order to manipulate a horrified Nation so that some 'agenda' could then be implemented, to what end? Who knows??

If I have a bias, it is this: In my opinion, if ANY citizen of any nation were to discover undeniable proof that a 'faction' within their own government were capable of such an atrocity then by all means, it would be time to rise up and begin a revolution. However, one MUST be darn sure, very darn sure, that they aren't being played as pawns in some OTHER agenda.

The discussions on this board are lively, no doubt about that. But, innuendo and links to unverifiable sources should not be automatically accepted as FACT unless there is a preponderance of evidence....verifiable evidence....to conclude that a statement or an observation is indeed a FACT!

Communication is the key here...we wouldn't be Human without it. But, given all of our abilities to communicate, there are equal abilities to mis-communicate, and therein lies the dilemma. Perhaps if we try our best to eliminate the emotion (very hard to do) we will find better understandings.

Sorry if I may have veered off-course at the last there. I'm not exactly a professional 'spin-master'!!!

Cheers!



[edit on 3-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


My point was there was no Flight 11 scheduled to LAX out of Logan on 9/11/2001. I found something else odd. A plane alleged to be out of Logan, labeled Flight 11, spent a great deal of time flying in and out of JFK, not Logan.

I was rather amazed that not one alleged plane was stated to have left JFK instead. Why Logan? Why not JFK? JFK is so much closer to Manhattan. In fact, Newark would have been closer. Why some unexplained trip, leave a rental vehicle in Portland, and then fly out of Portland, Maine, to Logan? It makes no logical sense for such an extreme case of alleged pre-planned crashing planes into two twin towers. Then leave all that "evidence" so conveniently located so swiftly, in some rental auto at Logan. Not only that, start a ruckus at Logan immediate prior to 9/11/2001 flight time.

All, of the prior, has already been covered and confirmed in other discussions.

No Flight 11 scheduled out of Logan on 9/11/2001 came from BTS until 2007, which more than a few people checked out years ago and again. I confirmed the original BTS information myself at least a couple of years ago prior to 2007 alteration by BTS or someone able to alter BTS website.

When I went back to reconfirm very recently, because I located a site, which said it had been altered in 2007, I then confirmed it had indeed been altered in 2007, and still mistakes existed on alleged planes. Other people found the same when they did the same.

I gave three references in one prior post, and there are others, to be found on the Internet, confirming what I and others stated. I seriously doubt all others failed to discover and confirm the BTS data alterations themselves. I certainly did. We could not have known of the alterations, unless we had checked before and after.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
So once again we are back to the massive conspiracy that would be necessary for Orion's assertions to be true. Airline personnel, family members that were expecting to pick up their loved ones when Flight 11 arrived at LAX, government employees.....and none of the cast of thousands has come forward?



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion, I can only reply to your first paragraph, up above, about your assertion that no Flight 11 was scheduled BOS-LAX on 11 Sept 2001. What is your source for this allegation?

Secondly, you refer to a 'flight 11' from JFK to LAX, but give no airline identifier to that flight number. Do you think that '11' was unique to only one airline?!? I can state with experience it was, has been, and will be common for different airlines to utilize the same numbers. I mean, think about it logically...

It happened more times than I can count, we would be on the same frequency with ATC, and another airline would check in with their callsign that was similar enough (except, of course, for the airline name) that the controller was obligated to advise caution, because of the similarity. Ask any Air Traffic Controller, they will confirm that this happens, day in, and day out.

Here's a real example: In the 1980's a new airline called 'America West' was started. Their ATC callsign was 'America West xxx(whatever number)'. After a few years, and as HP (their Industry code) grew, it began to be confusing because an American Airlines flight on the same frequency might respond to a transmission intended for an America West flight, or vice versa. So, HP was directed to find a new callsign, and they agreed with the FAA to use 'Cactus' to help alleviate the problem. Of course, HP is now USAir, after the merger, so it's moot. (Since now, of course, it is 'USAir xxx')...

Trivia: The old PanAm Airlines used the term 'Clipper', in honor of their heritage from the 1930s. British Airways uses 'Speedbird'...(don't know why)...but, I digress.

The Airman's Information Handbook (AIM) and the guidelines that ATC personnel follow regarding comm transmissions and radio discipline are set out, and are pretty standard, but shorthand tends to crop in, due to familiarity and repetition, and human nature.

Just read a few transcripts from incidents and accidents from the year 2000 and earlier. If you are not a pilot, or a controller, they will seem odd. Unfortunately, too many novices get their information (and base their opinions) from what they see in movies...

Of course, conversations on a telephone or an interphone are different than radio comm using VHF. You see, just like a walkie, you are using a transceiver. You press to talk, then release the button to listen. It is not a two-way open line. When the transmit button (PTT) is pressed, you will not hear anything on that transceiver. If two stations, whether airborne, or on the ground, attempt to transmit at the same time on the same freq, then there is a loud RF interference that is basically a 'squeal'. We call that being 'blocked', or 'covered', as in 'That last transmission was blocked. Say again.'

Try this--buy a radio receiver that will tune to the aviation comm band. It is above FM radio, starts at 118 MHz to 136 MHz, go to your local airport and listen for a while. It will make more sense, what I just wrote.

Cheers.

ps...DO NOT try to get a transmitter and try to be a joker...that happens too sometimes, and there are severe penalties imposed by the FAA and FCC (if in the US).



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion, I can only reply to your first paragraph, up above, about your assertion that no Flight 11 was scheduled BOS-LAX on 11 Sept 2001. What is your source for this allegation?


BTS' own records. I stated that in two posts and gave three separate sources, including a cite from one in a recent previous post. I am not going to repeat it in this one. Both posts should not be far above this one.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion, I see your post on page 14 of this thread.

I responded to it, calling it's veracity into question. I asked you to provide proof of no AA11 on 11 Sept 2001, and you refer me BACK to the same post that I questioned!!

I am referring to something YOU pulled from a place called 'nomoregames.net', then in the box, with the chapter title 'III Phantom FLights' there are blatant mistatements of the facts of that day. I do not find that citation you posted as credible, no do I find your circular reasoning credible. What is more, you have not adequately addressed my other comments (please do not ask me to repeat them....).

So, what other 'sources' have you?

Thanks



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion, I see your post on page 14 of this thread.

I responded to it, calling it's veracity into question. I asked you to provide proof of no AA11 on 11 Sept 2001, and you refer me BACK to the same post that I questioned!!



More than a few people witnessed that BTS had that information. One of the links had an accounting of how BTS reported all 4 alleged flights. I saw myself BTS did not report it prior to 2007, and then I witnessed myself someone altered BTS record in 2007. I have have provided what I could provide. If you think you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt any alleged Flight 11 actually flew on 9/11/2001, please do so.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


IvanZana,

Thanks to your reference to 'plane crash excercise'. But, that kind of stuff is designed as a drill for people in Crash and Rescue capacities on the ground...AFTER an accident. And many accidents within an airport's boundaries are NOT caused by Air Piracy incidents.

As to the 'in flight' drills, I will say it again: I had 22 years with a major in the USA and never heard of it. We, of course, were trained and re-trained, in a classroom setting, with lectures and videos. The 'common strategy' was emphasized, and encouraged.

A 'live' flight exercise would have been prohibitively expensive (except, maybe, for ElAl airlines!). A modern passenger jet will cost, with today's fuel prices, maybe $4000 to $6000 per hour to operate. Not to mention, the jet takes up ATC airspace, there are landing fees associated with each major airport, those vary, it would be disruptive to normal operations of the ATC system...

Perhaps IF...and that's a big IF...a US major conducted such live 'drills' it would occur in military airspace. However, I still maintain that the thinking of the days leading up to 11 Sept 2001 was that re-current training annually to all flight crews was sufficient, and THAT WAS mandated by the FAA.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Participants take part in a disaster drill for a staged plane crash at Ivalo airport in Finnish Lapland


MOCK SECURITY HIJACKING ALARMS INDIANS, INCLUDING SOME OFFICIALS

MOCK SECURITY HIJACKING ALARMS INDIANS, INCLUDING SOME OFFICIALS
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 17, 1987
LEAD: Indian security forces staged a mock hijacking of a commercial plane by supposed Sikh extremists today in an operation so realistic that for hours several officials said they believed a real hijacking was under way.

Indian security forces staged a mock hijacking of a commercial plane by supposed Sikh extremists today in an operation so realistic that for hours several officials said they believed a real hijacking was under way.

The mock hijackers were reported to have seized the plane after takeoff from New Delhi, flown it to Aurangabad, 400 miles away, and demanded a million dollars and the release of prisoners held in the city of Bhopal.

At one point, the authorities told a leading Indian news agency that the four gunmen had thrown the body of a slain passenger onto the tarmac.

As it turned out, officials said, there were no regular passengers aboard the plane, only Government personnel taking part in the mock exercise.

It was not clear which of the people reporting the hijacking were deliberately spreading a false version of the events and which believed that a hijacking was under way. Alarm and Confusion

The incident spread alarm and confusion throughout the country before the Press Trust of India, the leading news agency here, told subscribers in the late afternoon that the agency's report was not true.

Official Indian spokesmen had said for most of the day that the hijacking was only a security exercise, but the Press Trust, while disseminating their statement, continued to quote other authorities as saying the hijacking was still under way



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Here is a well put together timeline of Betty Ong and Flight 11.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...




top topics



 
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join