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.

 

American Airlines Exposes Bush's Big Lie: Flights 11 and 77 DID NOT FLY on 9/11

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Source Link: existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com...


American Airlines itself is the source for information that AA Flights 11 (North Tower) and 77 (Pentagon) did not fly on 911. These flights are critical to the the government's crumbling cover up! Without those flights, Bush and his murderous co-conspirators will have to revise the big lie. They will have to concoct yet another cover story from the ground up! A cover up is on the brink of collapse when those guilty of capital crimes and high treason either turn on one another or are forced to revise the lie!


I know that I have personally seen evidence, photos, videos and document that show that flights 11 & 77 did not fly that day, it's remarkable to see more and more evidence come forward and not even a blink of an eye towards starting an investigation that would get to the bottom of these lies but we all know that the powers that be don't want to get to the truth.




posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Rams59lb
 


WOW, but the powers will not admit to anything - so what do we do?

It makes you realise that people in power are corrupt.

"Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts completely" or something like that.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by spellbound
 


You've got that right. Power does corrupt, especially those in politics absolute. The truth will get out and those responsable will answer eventually.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:46 AM
link   
So what conclusive proof is coming from a blog? Don't get me wrong, I can believe that it was a conspiracy. However, I don't see how a blog is considered credible.

Can't read it though, work computers wont let me get out to it



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Hi, thanks for posting. It looked a little suspicious to me (bad grammar in the wiki edit) so I did some research. I think this one's a hoax. Remember, we only want truth in the 9/11 truth movement.

Go to this page www.dailykos.com... and look for a post by dbunker911 with the title "Airline employee identified". I think he found the guy who did it and I don't think it was official.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Removed double post.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by theyreadmymind]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I checked this myself and didn't find anything on Wikipedia. I have to see this is a hoax as well. Another problem pertaining to this article is that it doesn't explicitly say which Wikipedia entry name this is under. It could be "9/11". "American Airlines", and so on. I did check those 2 in particular and none of them have the so-called new entry as the article claims.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Rams59lb
 


How about a link to the American Airlines official site giving forth this supposed information? Anyone can write a blog and almost anyone can post something on Wikipedia, subject to later review by its editors.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Messayah
I checked this myself and didn't find anything on Wikipedia. I have to see this is a hoax as well. Another problem pertaining to this article is that it doesn't explicitly say which Wikipedia entry name this is under. It could be "9/11". "American Airlines", and so on. I did check those 2 in particular and none of them have the so-called new entry as the article claims.


That's because the Wiki edits happened in May, 2006. This is old news going back to 2007 when Wikiscanner first came out to detect this kind of stuff. It was under the "American Airlines" article.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by theyreadmymind]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
The first person I heard come out with this was John Lear in an interview some time ago. I have given it some thought but at the moment I think it's disinfo.

These are my thoughts on 9/11 disinfo at the moment - not firm conclusions, but I'm starting to make some connections.

I think the NPT thing is disinfo. Sorry to you guys who genuinely go for it, but I do. There is adequate technology (global hawk) to hijack planes fitted with it, and I'm not completely swayed by the stuff I've seen about the various pro-npt threads and videos out there.

But I think that John Lear, quite honestly and unwittingly, is giving out disinfo from sources he thinks are very reliable and trustworthy. And he may say that he's seen demonstrations of the technology involved, and I don't think he's a liar. But just because the technology involved is real doesn't mean it was actually used on 9/11.

If you can get people asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about them coming after you, to paraphrase something I've seen in someone's sig here.

I also think that Mr. Fetzer has attained his position in the truth movement to make it look ridiculous. I'm sure he's well-meaning but I think he's a VERY poor spokesman and not terribly discriminating. He's also mates with a slimeball called Fintan Dunne, whose website, "the CIA fakes" I argued was disinfo in this thread.

For my money, these three (and any favoured associates) should be treated with caution, particularly Dunne, whom I believe to be a real disinfo agent, rather than like Fetzer and Lear who are, I think, honest in what they profess.

Now about whether these flights were scheduled that day... my preferred source on this is the history commons, because it's a community project run by careful people who source information meticulously. On this page the detail the boarding of flight 11:


During this period, all five Flight 11 hijackers check in at Boston’s Logan Airport and board their plane, bound for Los Angeles. The FAA has a program in place called the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS), which is designed to identify those passengers most likely requiring additional scrutiny by airport security (see (6:20 a.m.-7:48 a.m.) September 11, 2001). Ticket records will show that CAPPS selects three of the Flight 11 hijackers at Logan: Since Waleed Alshehri checks no bags his selection has no consequences; Wail Alshehri and Satam Al Suqami have their bags scanned for explosives, but are not stopped. All five hijackers would need to pass through a security checkpoint to reach the departure gate for their flight. Each would have been screened as they walked through a metal detector calibrated to detect items with at least the metal content of a small-caliber handgun. If they’d set this off, they would have been screened with a handheld metal detector. An X-ray machine would have screened their carry-on luggage. However, Logan Airport has no video surveillance of its security checkpoints (see 1991-2000), so there is no documentary evidence of exactly when they pass through them, or if alarms are triggered. According to the 9/11 Commission, none of the checkpoint supervisors later recall seeing any of the Flights 11 hijackers, or report anything suspicious having occurred. [9/11 Commission, 1/27/2004; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 1-2; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 5-6 ] However, a WorldNetDaily article will claim that some Logan staff members recall seeing Mohamed Atta (see (6:50 a.m.-7:40 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [WorldNetDaily, 9/21/2001] The Boston Globe will later comment, “aviation specialists have said it is unlikely that more rigorous attention to existing rules would have thwarted the 10 hijackers who boarded two jets at Logan on Sept. 11. At the time, the knives and box-cutters they were carrying were permitted.” [Boston Globe, 10/17/2001]


Reading through the rest of the reports, it's all a bit of a mess, frankly, but because each assertion is sourced you can make a start at sorting things out.

At the moment I'm very keen on Webster Tarpley's analysis that the drills taking place on that day are key, and once you start looking at the timeline in that light, it starts to make more sense, I think. I have heard that quite a few passengers on the day were connected to defence contractors, which is interesting, and also I heard a long time ago that an Israeli (and possible Mossad agent) was sitting right behind one of the hijackers, and that all the other flights had other agents.

One thing I'd like to see is a breakdown of the passenger lists. That would be interesting.

Of course, if global hawk tech was used, it would have had to have been fitted at some point. When did that happen, one wonders?



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Rams59lb
 


You saw a video of a plane not flying? And a photo? And doccuments?

In all seriousness, could you link your source? As far as the Wiki page being edited that proof of nothing other than someone edited a wiki page from an AA ip. The edit that was made was plagiarized and traceable back to...


Anyway, the AA employee was most likely Ben Anderton, born December 4, 1979, age 27. How do I know this? Well, when reviewing all the edits from that IP address, I found this one: en.wikipedia.org...


he took the quote from here: www.serendipity.li...


On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, these flights are not included in the on-time summary statistics.

But this note was added sometime after November 2003. Before that the same query (but for September 11, 2001, only) produced the page shown here.

In the original BTS database similar queries returned the following pages for UA 93, AA 11 and AA 77. Thus the summary on-time statistics (over any specified time period) for the four flight numbers differ in the current version of the BTS database from the version which existed until sometime in 2004 in this respect: In the original version that summary included data for UA 93 and UA 175 on September 11, 2001, whereas data on AA 11 and AA 77 is explicitly stated to be non-existent. But in the current version, data for all four flights on September 11, 2001, is excluded. This change was made presumably to disguise the fact that Flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist on September 11, 2001.


Here is the wiki edit...

Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines flight 77|Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11|Flight 11 (a Boeing 767). According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights. This page shows how to search the BTS database to see the discrepancies.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Thanks man. This is some very compelling evidence.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Yes, this is old news.
I had gone to the AA site or some site where you could look up schedules for various flights by date.
It is true that 11 & 77 were not scheduled to fly that morning.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


It is very common for Airlines, after a major fatal accident, to immediately purge public access records of the associated flight. These cases had the additional aspect of being associated with crime.

Furthermore, it is customary, out of deference to the memory of crew and passengers, to retire the flight numbers in question.

When I was still flying, I would see the permanent flags that are flying on each Jetway that was used for the departing flights, in Boston and in Newark. (I didn't get to Dulles often, but I'm certain there's one there too).

Ya know, I had another thought I'd like to share. Has anyone noticed, yet, that the flight numbers are all odd integers? There is an historical reason for this, and it surely lends credence to them being valid, and not faked, because very few people would have thought of it.

The reason stems from the early days of the Railroad. First train of the day headed Westbound would usually originate in the East, where the industrial centers existed, and would be designated number "1". A return trip would likely be "2", and so on. North/South routes would be numbered according to the predominant East/West position of the destination compared to the origin.

A casual glance at current Airline schedules will confirm this convention. Of course, this mostly applies to the larger 'trunk', or Major carriers, and not necessarily to a company like, say, SouthWest Airlines, for instance.

Thought y'all might like a little trivia...



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Well, for whatever it's worth (not much), I just heard a guy interviewed on the Alex Jones show yesterday say that he knows a very good friend high level at AA, and when he asked him about it his friend said "It is true that we lost no planes on 9/11."

The phrasing of that was curious. In other words, not necessarily that they did not fly, but that they did not lose any. And not much more was said.

Makes me wanna smack the dude.
Why don't you ask him what happened to the planes and where they are now????



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Messayah
I checked this myself and didn't find anything on Wikipedia.


YOU rely on Wiki ...as a SOURCE...ROTFLMAO...are you kidding me

an 'OPEN' source format that, ANY ONE can post ANYTHING



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Here, read this:

(HTML link didn't work)
Try this pdf:

www.gwu.edu...



[edit on 6/25/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I remember hearing stories of these plane's tail #'s being seen AFTER 911 at other airports. Has this been debunked?



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Well, but that's not a big surprise, is it?

Has anyone thought that a commercial airplain with these measurements actually disappeard through a small hole in the wall of the WTC and the Pentagon.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by thegreatobserver
 


"small hole" at the WTC???
:
:


Did you see the gashes?

Oh, and that Pentagon rubbish again?? Look at the pictures of the OUTSIDE of the building, where the airplane hit, not the stupid hole in the 'E' ring! Sheesh!



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join