Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,609 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 668,266
Pageviews Today: 1,380,650Threads Today: 513Posts Today: 12,629
08:07 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all

 
Wissbank
04/24/2005 09:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
[link to www.physics911.net]
911 and the Precautionary Principle: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government´s theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government´s 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country´s history.
Wissbank
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
Evidence is also accumulating that one of the planes that hit the towers wasn´t a 767 at all but closer to a 737! Whether anybody pulls hard enough on this loose thread to reveal what actually happened is still improbable given the enormous momentum of the official science fantasy version of 911.

Karl Schwarz has a 1 minute, 52 second, video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwarz says clearly shows a Boeing 737 airliner striking the south tower.

"We tracked down the filmmaker and he acquired the original WTC segment from the Canadian News Service," said Schwarz, adding that he has had the tape analyzed by experts proving it´s not a fake. "We are tracking down the original photographer and want to get to him before the government does in order to prove its authenticity.

"This segment, however, conclusively shows a 737 hit the south tower, not a 767 as previously reported. This in itself should be the smoking gun, which proves the whole story given to us by the government about 9-11 is untrue."

Originally, the government claimed the second jetliner en route to Los Angeles was a Boeing 767. However, Schwarz said the video will not only show the airline dimensions to be those of a 737, but that he also has evidence that the engine recovered in the WTC wreckage was a model type CFM56, which propels a 737, not a 767. "Not even two CFM56´s could get a 767 off the ground," added Schwartz.

See: [link to www.americanfreepress.net]
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
Dudya´s lies and crimes have caught up with him.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
"... has a 1 minute, 52 second, video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwarz says clearly shows a Boeing 737 airliner striking the south tower. "

Disinformation - continuing the sucessful work of almost four years. So that people refuse to believe the obvious - no planes did ever hit the towers.
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
ok, so where is George Nelson now?

is he down on the White House steps being covered by CNN live telling his story to millions of viewers?

is he making the rounds of the mainstream media bs nightly news ´programming´?

everyone´s got a problem with the official story, yet no one does anything about it besides spew useless words

WTF?
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
"On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation."

Yes. By me. Several times on this forum.

United Airlines employee Mr Friedman kept a log of all the flights he flew on during 2003, including details about their crews and the tail number (N-number) of the planes. He recorded that on April 10, 2003, he flew on a United Airline Boeing 757 with tail/N-number N591UA. This is the tail number of Flight UA 93, which was supposed to have crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. See his log at:

[link to friedmanfamily.org]

and the entry of this plane in the FAA registry with the same N-number at:

[link to 162.58.35.241]

As independent confirmation that the tail number of Flight UA 93 is 591UA, see the beginning of the second paragraph under the header "Background" at:

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Look in Friedman´s log under the date column 04/10/03 for the row named "Tail" (the tail number). The tail number he gives for the flight he was on that day is N591UA.

Moreover, he correctly lists the type of plane as a Boeing 757. Given that, according to his log, he flew on nine different types of planes between 01/02/03 and 04/10/03, the chance of him flying on a Boeing 757 on April 10 is about 10%.

Either:
1. his log is a subtle joke to fool 9/11 conspiracy investigators for whom he has no time. If that is the case subtle is the word, for not even many such investigators would recognise the tail number of Flight 93 if they read it, whilst the log is a single, obscure webpage and not part of a personal website, so he is not trying very hard to advertise his misinformation;
2. Friedman accidently made a false entry that coincided with BOTH the type of plane that was supposed to have crashed on 9/11 AND with its 3-figure tail number (what are the chances of that?!);
3. Flight 93 did not crash into a field in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001 and United Airlines was still using this plane in April, 2003.

You decide.
Wissbank
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
"So that people refuse to believe the obvious - no planes did ever hit the towers."

Oh planes hit the towers alright! Fuel sprayed all over and burned, their impact was felt by surviors in the buildings, and a smoking engine fell in the street.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
Oh, and don´t offer the explanation for the same tail number being used on another similar plane that it was merely transferred. If that were the case, why has the new (similar!) plane not been registered with the FAA as another plane even though it has been given the same tail number? Isn´t flying a plane without registering it illegal? LOL. The FAA database contains only one entry with that tail number - the one that was supposed to have crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.
BUSH 04
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
THIS JUST IN:

You are stupid.


Other than the video(S) CLEARLY showing airplanes hitting objects in realtime with predictable results, there is no proof that 911 happened.

What a bunch of total dipshits. Good Job!!
Wissbank
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
Col. Nelson closes his article with the following words: "a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country´s history."

Does anyone have any idea why so many oath swearing American personel, in a position to really know the facts, have gone along with the fantasy but official, 911 version?
I dream of Woo Woo
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
>>>Col.<<< Nelson, now is it? (I guess he got the customary bump in rank upon retirement. Last I heard he was a Major.)

He better watch out, if Col. Bellows hear´s he´s spouting paranoid theories, he´ll finally have him comitted. And I don´t think even Jeanie can spring him from club X-Ray!!

[link to imdb.com]
MangoMan
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
"Oh planes hit the towers alright!"
So tell me, who were the pilots?
Wissbank
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
13075: "hear´s he´s spouting paranoid theories, he´ll finally have him comitted"

Col Nelson is primarily complaining about the lack of forensic investigation which is conventionally done in air disasters. Asking why it wasn´t done seems to be a good question for many people.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
Okay - my wife and I had a very good friend on the plane that hit the second tower. He was a field engineer for an avonics company (avonics are the electronics on airplanes) and a pilot. We went to his service and have seen his widow several times over the last few years - if the plane did not hit the tower, what happened to him?
Circuit Breaker
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
"if the plane did not hit the tower, what happened to him?"

You won´t get an answer to that one. The government conspiracy woo-woos have no answer for that one... or they think that hundreds of people volunteered to be kept from their families in some form of "witness relocation" program.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
I figured I wouldn´t get an good answer. I remember that morning well - my wife had gone to work early and I took the kids to school (we are on the west coast). My boss called to tell me the news and said he was closing for the day until it all got sorted out. About lunch time, my wife call in tears as they found out the flight nubmers and confirmed he was on the plane. That was all I could think about as they kept showing the footage of that plane hitting the tower over and over.
rather not say who
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
I want to see someone pull both the ground view moving film of those men talking below the WTC building, seemed to be tourist, when the said plane flew directly into the WTC complex above them.
This film was shown on ABC.This film was also complete with sound, which is very important?

Secondly I would like to see the NBC held from Today studio live, series of motion pictures, of the second jet plane, flying into the WTC tower?

The second series of film is very revealing, as there is something in that second film, that defiantly identifies that what type of airplane this is and whether or not this second plane is a hologram.

If this is false information, then NBC would have had to have taken the film from some other identified source?

You can get a federally contested court order and have those said engines exhumed??
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
Point of order in this thread.

The last reported location of that tail number, as mentioned, please?
Wissbank
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
Circuit Breaker: "You won´t get an answer to that one."

Well, if the government had been more forthright in the release of data, and avoided the appearance of a coverup of something, real answers to many of the obvious questions would exist.

Circuit Breaker, and his childish "woo woo" name calling, slander about half of New Yorkers who believed the whole 911 thing was fishy (The Zogby Poll) from the getgo

Here´s a broader view:

The top 15 reasons to doubt the official story of Sept. 11, 2001

1) The 9/11 Commission Fraud: Conflicts, Collapse and Cover-up
2) The Hundreds of Still Unanswered Questions, the Scores of Documented Lies
Motive Issues: Cui Bono - Who Profits Most?
3) Instant Fulfillment of Neocon Wish List
4) Political Bonanza for Bush/Rove team
5) Scale and Diversity of Profiteering
Means and Opportunity Issues: How to Make it Happen
6) Ignored Foreign Warnings
7) Quashed Domestic Investigations
8) Incapacitated Oversight
9) Disabled Air Defenses
10) The Amazing Disappearing National Chain of Command
11) The Pakistan Intelligence Chief Who Loved Everyone At Once
Aftermath Issues: How to Keep the Lid On
12) The Bitter Fight Against Investigations
13) The Amazing Disappearing Evidence
14) The Amazing Disappearing Demand for Accountability
Wildcard Issues: Just How Stupid They Think We Are
15) The Ripley Believe It or Not Sideshow of 9/11 Miracles
See:
[link to www.911truth.org]

Zogby 9/11 Poll
[link to inn.globalfreepress.com]
ShadowDancer
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
The NWO kickoff date was Sept 17 2001

Imagine the possibility that it was a ruse to bring about the stripping of the Constitution and the dwindling Bill of Rights? Imagine the possibility tptb/nwo to create the war they tried for many yrs prior to 911 to promote. Cheney himself did it several times. The fact that gw had also...or the questioning of rumsfield by Rep Cynthia McKinley regarding the DynCorp sexual pedophile problem, their continued contracts from the USA and the FACT that 4 wargames were going on during the ´actual´ attack...Yes what about those things or are they imagined with video? It is out there and I have seen it. It is evident that the majority of the usa populace do not realise this fact-pretty basic...think of all the things that are being misrepresented and being believed-a mountain, and we are just starting to see the tip.

hard copy of some info
[link to www.insightmag.com]
/detail/storyid/163052.html


[link to www.progressivetrail.org]
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
Imagine telling me where all the people, including one I knew personally, went?
Wissbank
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
If the government had only been more forth coming and avoided the appearance of deception. If only the 911 Commission would have interviewed people to get the truth.
Take this black box article that names names by Greg Szymanski at:

[link to www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com]
Snippets:

FBI Tells 911 Rescue Worker to ´Shut Up´ Over Finding Airplane "Black Boxes."
Two ground zero workers go public about finding cockpit and flight data recorders from Flight 11 and 175. Government claims ´black boxes´ from the doomed 911 flights were never found. 911 Commission ignores information and fails to interview rescue workers.

A 911 rescue worker said this week he was told by FBI agents to "keep his
mouth shut" about one of the "black boxes" found at ground zero, contradicting
the official story that none of the flight and cockpit data recorders were ever
recovered in the WTC wreckage.

Honorary firefighter Mike Bellone claims he was approached by unknown bureau
agents a short time after he and his partner Nicholas DeMasi, a retired New
York firefighter, found three of the four "black boxes" among the WTC rubble
before January 2002.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
for all you debunkers AND non debunkers-i just googled N591UA and there are 6 diff pictures of this aircraft in flight,on the ground, way before 911 and the 2 antennas on the belly of the plane are there as they are on others,plus that mound?? on the underneath--you can see them at www.airliners.net or just google N591UA. Im still goooooogellling so lets see
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
"Imagine telling me where all the people, including one I knew personally, went?"

4 planes crashed that day, did they not? 4 planes, incidently, that took off only filled to 25% capacity, on each plane.

3 hit their targets. The last to crash "crashed" in PA after passengers "attempted to regain control of the plane".
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
Yes - four planes crashed that day. The question being raised is if the planes listed actually hit the towers (including the one carriny my friend). For the people who claim that different planes were used (in fact, one link claims that listed flights were not even flown that day) still have to answer the one basic question - where is my friend?

He was very knowledgable about airliners since he sold equipment for them. If he was supposed to get on a 757 and it was a 737 he would have know immediately. And since that plane could not fly across country like his ticket said, he would have thrown a fit!

So - if the flights did not fly that day - where is he? If the flights flew that day but were diverted so radio controlled 737 aircraft could be used - where is he? In short his wife and daughter would like to know - where is he?
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
I NEVER FOLLOWED THIS(DIFF PLANE # AND SCHEDULES)
BUT THIS IS DOWNRIGHT SPOOKY.

They have 1 plane landing in detroit before it took off from chicago-and 3? of those planes diverted the day before-heres the link and ill post some of the copy-- [link to 911search.bravehost.com]


On Sept 10th tail #591UA was recorded at 2 places at one time, thats just the beginning!
flight 93 (or was it?) backtracking tail #´s the 2 591´s


The official timeline of Sep11th is breaking apart.
Atta´s Portland flight did not exist; various official "terror" flights or the tail numbers of their precursors existed twice; new, recently unknown terror drills show, that the scenario of 9/11 was well known; the new "flight plans" and meeting points of the alleged hijacked flights included too many coincidences; the planners of the "hijack" must have had inside knowledge about other flights and their cancellations as well.

1) The "twin tails" of pre-Flight 93

Findings by Brad M, ewing2001 and Frank Levy

October 18, 2004

On September 11th, 2001, "Flight93" was officially listed by the FAA with Tail Number N591UA.
The latest findings of Brad M, ewing2001, Frank Levi, and others, show that something appears to be fishy with the history of this tail number, which suggests a possible swap scenario of this Flight, for whatever reasons.

The question is, if it really was this Flight, who departed Newark on that morning, and if this tail was still around after Sep11th

Currently, a new hunt within the BTS database, shows clearly, that something is irregular in the Timeline of N591UA...

On Sept 10th 2001, Flight 0078 (=N591UA) arrived in Newark from SFO (San Fransisco) at 6:54 wheel on time. However, Flight 0507, with the same tail number, 591UA departed Boston Logan for ORD (Chicago) at 7:39 wheel off time, as current screenshots show. How is this possible?

Also, Boston does not have records of N591UA arriving at Logan that day and Newark only has it departing once at 19:40 PM EST.

There seems to be a problem here. It had 45 mins from touchdown in San Francisco before it left in another city.

Recently reestablished, the "official Flight 93" began as a scheduled service from EWR (Newark) to SFO on September 5th 2001, but the first Tuesday flight in 2001, was on 9-11; there was no Newark to SF flight before.

On September 11th, BTS shows 591UA for "Flight93" with a Wheels-off Time at 08:28 AM EST, but which tail departed?
And did it really reach Shanksville?...................GETS WIERDER IF YOU CHECK THE LINK
NOW IM HOOKED
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
HOW can it be in Cleveland and the towers at the same time?

Reported by 9News Staff
Web produced by:Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did not say how many people were aboard the flight. United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.

On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights.
Wissbank
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
AC 1694 "So - if the flights did not fly that day - where is he?"

I very sorry about your friend, I am very sorry for his family, and his close friends like you. As to where he is now, I don´t think anybody outside the perps knows for sure. The same question arises for the whereabouts of Flight 77 passengers. In 77´s case the public evidence now is many times more persuasive, than "substituted planes" in the tower hits, that it didn´t cause the hole in the pentagon walls. As is becoming usual, the video recordings from cameras monitoring the scene of impact, which might put the matter to rest, have been withheld from the public.
Wissbank
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
DID AA OFFICIALS POSITIVELY IDENTIFY THE CRASHED PLANES ?

[link to www.globalresearch.ca]

In order to obtain insurance benefits, owners of a crashed plane must positively identify the plane as theirs. Yet, in the case of the reported crashes of the four planes on September 11, 2001, no evidence could be found in the public domain that airline experts positively identified the crashed planes from the planes’ wreckage. If such expertise did take place beyond public gaze, why would American or United Airlines not announce such positive identification on their website or in a press release? The Report by the Congressional Inquiry Commission does not either, for its part, refer to any positive forensic identification of the aircraft by the airlines or by public agencies.

According to the "official account", the aircrafts were the weapons with which the passengers were killed. In a proper criminal investigation, one of investigators’ first tasks is to identify the owner of the murder weapon and find out how that weapon reached the scene of the crime. Yet, no reference to such an investigation could be found in the allegedly "comprehensive" report by the Congressional Commission of Inquiry.

The lack of positive identification of the aircraft means that the families of the dead or missing passengers cannot know with certainty where and how their beloved ones actually died nor who caused their deaths.
Anonymous Coward
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
How about all the cell phone calls for the passengers to their families during the hijacking? Are all the family member involved in this cover up too?
Wissbank
12/08/2005 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: George Nelson Col USAF (ret.) says "any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as all
One opinion on cell phone communication.
[link to www.sianews.com]

The cell phone calls from the aircraft could not have happened. I am a National Security Agency trained Electronic Warfare specialist, and am qualified to say this. My official title: MOS33Q10, Electronic Warfare Intercept Strategic Signal Processing/Storage Systems Specialist, a highly skilled MOS which requires advanced knowledge of many communications methods and circuits to the most minute level. I am officially qualified to place severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft.

It was impossible for that to have happened, especially in a rural area for a number of reasons.

When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is that your cell phone needs to contact a transponder. Your cell phone has a max transmit power of five watts, three watts is actually the norm. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to 1. Contact a tower, 2. Tell the tower who you are, and who your provider is, 3. Tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and 4. Establish that it is in a roaming area before it passes out of a five watt range. This procedure, called an electronic handshake, takes approximately 45 seconds for a cell phone to complete upon initial power up in a roaming area because neither the cell phone or cell transponder knows where that phone is and what mode it uses when it is turned on. At 500 miles an hour, the aircraft will travel three times the range of a cell phone´s five watt transmitter before this handshaking can occur. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible. The calls from the airplane were faked, no if´s or buts.





GLP