Nothing Unusual About UA175 & UA93's Deregistration Claims By Prominent 9/11 Researchers...

 By Mark Conlon

A lot has been made of the deregistration process of UA175 and UA93, with it taking up to 4 years for both these planes to be deregistered on 28th Sept 2005. In reality this is nothing out of the ordinary, although some 9/11 researchers such as Jim Fetzer and others cite this as unusual when in fact it is not.

One only has to take a look through the FAA Government Records to see it is not unusual for an aircraft to be deregistered many years later of its initial retirement of certification. So myself I would not use this point of fact to try and prove anomalies with UA175 and UA93 as some "prominent" 9/11 researchers have been doing over the years, as it simply proves nothing.

I have listed some case examples below of planes which have taken a longer period of time to be deregistered.  Anyone can checkout tail numbers at the FAA Registry - Aircraft - N-Number Inquiry: https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/nnum_inquiry.aspx

Example 1:

28 December 1978; United Air Lines DC8; N8082U, flight 173; Portland, OR: This was a scheduled domestic flight from Denver, CO to Portland, OR. After the landing gear was lowered, there were several indications of a landing gear - problem, including unusual noises and no indication that one of the landing gear had deployed properly. The crew went into a holding pattern while investigating the problem. The aircraft ran out of fuel while holding for landing and crashed in a residential area. Two of the eight crew members and eight of the 181 passengers were killed. No one on the ground was injured or killed. This plane was cancelled on Oct 13th 1981... nearly 3 years later.

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N8082U

Example 2:

4 March 2001; United Air Lines 767-300; N666UA; flight 42; near Kona, HI: The aircraft was on a scheduled domestic flight from Kahului, HI to Los Angeles, CA. The aircraft experienced a dual engine power loss while climbing through 24,000 feet. According to the FAA, the crew had performed a precautionary shutdown on one engine due to fuel mismanagement, and the second engine shut down due to fuel starvation. The crew was able to restart both engines and divert to the airport at Kona, HI. None of the 250 passengers and crew on board were injured. It took 4 years to cancel the plane and be deregistered.

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N666UA

Example 3:
  
Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 was a scheduled flight from Los Angeles, California, to San Francisco. On 7 December 1987, the British Aerospace 146-200A, registration N350PS, crashed in Cayucos, California, as a result of a murder–suicide by one of the passengers.It was not cancelled until 1993. (Thanks to 'Conspiracy Cuber' for this case example).

 
https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N350PS&fbclid=IwAR0vXW5CzhNTscbkrX7tpBFt-3AhL070Zjay9Ln9IpYGm2Pezi4kfeVu204


Conclusion:

So there we have it fokes, again we have 9/11 researchers not fully checking the facts before promoting "alleged" anomalies which are not valid anomalies at all.


Thanks for reading and caring...

MUDDLE-UP ALERT!!! - No Planes on 9/11? What Struck the Towers James Perloff and Jason Goodman

     By Mark Conlon 


Also, featuring reflective thoughts and observations from Julia Ratsey.

MUDDLE-UP ALERT!!!!

I see the "muddle-up" has now began after a somewhat deafening silence from the '9/11 Research' community in response to the 9/11 Alchemy "Facing Reality" film...

I came across a video uploaded to YouTube titled - No Planes on 9/11? What Struck the Twin Towers? With Special Guest James Perloff, by a YouTube channel called 'Crowdsource the Truth 2'. 

What I noticed throughout the the discussion between James Perloff (JP) and Jason Goodman (JG) was the "phony bones of contentions" they create. What the video does demosntrate is, that both men have NOT fully investigated the subject matter to which they are discussing, especially surrounding holographic technology or the links to the contractors who were directly involved in the investigation of  9/11, who have also developed such holographic 3D image projection technology which played a major role in the 9/11 airplane crash events.

Neither appear to have researched all the plane crash crime scenes sufficiently or understand the connection of directed energy to all four crash events, or studied the video evidence enough to offer any thoughtful insight or reflections regarding the disappearing wing of the airplane or the actual plane crash crime scenes evidence. Neither explored this area in any "real" depth. 

I also noticed the type of language being used by Jason Goodman like "ridiculous" and also the inclusion of theories, not evidence is quite misleading throughout the video. Another telling area is the inclusion of already disproven claims of thermite, mini nukes and controlled demolition being used to destroy the towers.

Also note where JP claims the Hezarkhani video was shown on the day of 9/11, which is incorrect. It was shown on 12/9 at 12:15am.

Another area where the viewers are being is to choose between drones vs real planes, leading leading the viewer to make a choice between two "false" options, as neither are based any evidence, and certainly NOT based on the video evidence. Even if "real" drones were used they still did not account for the visual issues captured in the video evidence of the "alleged" second plane UA175. This was completely over-looked by both JP and JG.

Whether a "real" plane or drone hit the towers, you would not have six frames of the plane wing disappearing...See my analysis of 6 frames of missing Naudet video & the disappearing and re-appearing wing study. 

Note: JP talks about "Pinocchio's Nose" in the Chopper 5 Fox News coverage. Interestingly, it was Ace Baker who named the nose-out "Pinocchio's Nose". Unfortunately again this show that both JP or JG have not fully investigated this subject area, because it has long been shown by 9/11 researcher 'Conspiracy Cuber' that the "alleged" "Pinocchio's Nose" is a dust ejection, captured in multiple video camera sources. See below for Conspiracy Cuber's "nose-out" analysis. 

Also noticeable JG attempts to re-write Newton's Laws of physics with some very poor examples.

Also JP mentions the ACARS data, which he cites 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth'. After many years of analysis of their findings  I suggest this organisation can no-longer be trusted to present the evidence objectively. See my ACARS Data article, which is why I can say this with such conviction.

We also have the suggestion of pre-planted explosives, yet no mention or exploration of the magnetometer data readings with all 4 crashes, or seismic evidence. This is extremely revealing evidence which has been completely over-looked... WHY?

New York  AA11 UA175 "alleged" plane crash events at 8:46am & 9:02am disturbances in the earth's magnetic field. 

 

Pentagon AA77 "alleged" plane crash event at 9:37am disturbance in the earth's magnetic field.

Shanksville UA93 "alleged" plane crash event at 10:03am & 10:06am, disturbance in the earth's magnetic field.

Also see article: "Alleged" Plane Crashes and the Earth’s Magnetic Field on 9/11…

Also we have the subtle comment saying that Richard D. Hall did a "pretty good job" with his 'Flight 175 3D Radar Model'. The use of the words "pretty good" is used to create doubt towards the research that Richard did. Note, he speaks as though he is the "expert" or in a position of authority to critique Richard's research, when in reality JP has NOT attempted to undertake such research to create a 3D model himself. I suggest this is NLP at it's best in the way he used the phrase, to get the desired effect of doubt, suggesting that maybe Richard's research wasn't quite good enough or incomplete or was somehow lacking... which is NOT, however it is very thorough. 

I would say this is a demonstration of a more "passive" muddle-up, leading the viewer to buy into as though both men are really looking for the truth, while being very leading to guide the viewers down the wrong paths with "false" choices to make that leads to nowhere, which is what we have had for the last 17 years.

Also an interesting note is, JP used information about Flight 11, which I only just put-out a few days ago.... Very interesting! 

  

Reflective insights and observations from Julia Ratsey...

What a supreme muddle up. Everything but the kitchen sink thrown into the mix as they call everything a "theory", indulge in speculation, and kick the can down the road and blame Israel ... or not. The timing is right for a hologram debunk given the popularity of Chris's film.

Jason Goodman is such a smoothie. I wouldn't trust him an inch. No mention of zero deceleration evident as the "planes" impact, but plenty of collaborative speculation to muddy the water. Of course they don't mention Chris's film and the new evidence of 3D image projection and SAIC's connection to that technology that he has presented. Nobody, including these two, names SAIC except the few who are aware of this highly secretive multi-billion dollar defence contractor's involvement in 9/11 through WDTTG and Dr Wood's Court case and thereby can rationalise the SAIC/DEW connection to the WTC destruction and the existence of weaponised free energy technology. That has to be the litmus test for any genuine 9/11 truther from now on given that SAIC and its affiliates' capability to supply both of the major technologies deployed on 9/11 has now been made public on the internet. This capability also makes them the best qualified to provide the strategy and the tactics for the cover ups and any necessary damage limitation arising from the WDTTG etc revelations.

They specifically damn at least three pieces of evidence from Chris's film: the airborne holographic projectors, the jet plane crash test and the Gulf War "Allah" hologram. Operation Northwoods and "pods", also in Chris's film, are brought up.

They have engaged in a character assassination of John Lear, for piloting the CIA drugs trafficking, who contributed to Morgan Reynolds Court case which was also in Chris's film.

Seems like Jason Goodman has a lot of technical knowledge about holograms, DEW's, the causes of plane wings disappearing from slo-mo videos, but it may all be nonsense, like Newtonian physics alternative theories involving ping pong balls and pillows. Apart from the attempts to debunk Newton, I wonder if SAIC are feeding them counter arguments for the use of their advanced technology; no-one could do that better than them; or are they just improvising with any old bunk?

I know about the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Auto Pilot because I used to watch McConnell and Hawkins live-streams a few years back when they talked about it. Again, it's used by Perloff and Goodman for more speculation. For a smart guy Goodman often projects an image of innocence which I find unconvincing.

They make a point of stressing their differences of opinion over "popular theories" so that one is left feeling that it's normal and OK, even for truth opinion leaders, to have conflicting views of these theories (most of which have been concocted by the members of the controlled opposition, anyway) . That seems to me to be the main function of the "truth movement", ie to keep the truth train from ever arriving at its destination by taking our train of thought back again and again to cover old ground and reinforce worn out theories speculate with new ones and end up going nowhere .... at least for "50 to 100 years" anyway according to Goodman, by which time the train will have run out of steam. But at least they know "who did it" and we are told that is more important for us than "what did it", because to know what did it would lead to knowledge of the existence of free energy technology, what this whole charade is designed to prevent from entering into the global consciousness.

I'd like to thank Julia Ratsey for her reflections and observations about this discussion between Jason Goodman and James Perloff.

Thank you for reading and caring...

9/11 Plane Passengers and the Victims Compensation Fund

 By Mark Conlon

9-11 Victims Compensation Fund

 

This is where the US government opened up the Treasury and gave family members of those who lost their lives that day lots of money. In return, these families were basically told to shut-up about anything else concerning 9-11. (Considering all the lies surrounding this horrific event, you can see why.) Here are the results below:

Flight 11: of the 92 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 20 are listed in the SSDI (22%)
Of these 20 people, only three are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

Judy Larocque
Laurie Neira
Candace Lee Williams 
  

===================================
 

Flight 77: of the 64 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 14 are listed in the SSDI (22%)
 

Of these 64 people, only five on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

William Caswell
Eddie Dillard
Ian Gray
John Sammartino
Leonard Taylor

===================================
 

Flight 175: of the 65 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 18 are listed in the SSDI (28%)

Of these 65 people, only three are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

Michael C. Tarrou
Gloria Debarrera
Timothy Ward

===================================
 

Flight 93: of the 45 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 6 are listed in the SSDI (13%)

Of these 45 people, none are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:
Not one!

===================================  

Have you noticed anything strange yet? Of the passengers and crew of Flight 11, 77, 175 & 93, only 22%, 22%, 28%, 13% respectively are in the SSDI.  

Of the 266 people that we were told died on these jets, only 11 relatives applied for compensation. Can you believe that not a single relative from Flight 93 applied for compensation? Were all the relatives of the victims so rich that they weren't eligible to receive compensation? No, that's not it. (The minimum federal award was $250,000, and the average pay-out was about $1.8 million. The recipients only had to make agreement: they couldn’t sue the airlines.)
 

You should also know that most lawyers told their clients to take the money and run (which is what most lawyers would do - take the sure money). Ellen Mariani clearly elaborated on this point during her appearance on the Black Op Radio show edition 156.
 

Oddly, but consistent with everything concerning 9-11, the actual complete list of the people who benefited has been omitted from this report. Even without this, it does contain an interesting fact. According to the report, 98% of all the people who suffered a loss on 9-11 took the fund money. The average payment was $1.8 million.
 

But here's where it gets strange. According to the government, here are the number of people who accepted the compensation fund:

Out of a total of 92 people on Flight 11, only 65 accepted the 9-11 fund (71%)
Out of a total of 65 people on Flight 175, only 46 accepted the 9-11 fund (71%)
Out of a total of 64 people on Flight 77, only 33 accepted the 9-11 fund (52%)
Out of a total of 45 people on Flight 93, only 25 accepted the 9-11 fund (56%)
 

Does any of this seem a little odd to you?

So there you have it; yet another glaring 9-11 inconsistency invoving the planes and passengers.

Thanks for reading and caring!

Flight 11 and the BTS Data-Base Discoveries Before 9/11

By Mark Conlon

The "unknown" statistic logged in relation to Flight 11 on 9/11 in the BTS data-base is often used as proof it never took off on 9/11, yet there is other instances showing the same statistic of "unknown" during the year of 2001 involving Flight 11.

(Flight 11 appears as a regular flight between BOS and LAX also on Tuesdays).

The BTS system returns "UNKNOWN" along with the usual 00:00 data for September 4 and July 10, 2001. Also, there are no data at all available for August 7, 2001. In all other instances AA-11 appears to have flown on all Tuesdays before 9/11.

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

AA 07/10/2001 11 UNKNOWN LAX 07:45 00:00 366 0 0 00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AA 08/07/2001 11 N/A LAX N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AA 09/04/2001 11 UNKNOWN LAX 07:45 00:00 366 0 0 00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Did Gerard Holmgren check these other flights, or mention them as being "unknown" with Flight 11 on different dates before 9/11? Please let me know if anyone knows the answer to my question. Thanks!

Regards,
Mark Conlon.

State of play so far: 9/11 Airplanes....

By Mark Conlon

State of play so far: 9/11 Airplanes....

I have been asked by some people if I could offer a summary of where the research and investigation into the airplanes on 9/11 is so far.  I haven't included any links in this post, as the research is still in its early stages. Most of the research I mention in this summary can be found in my previous blog posts for more indepth information on a particular area.


Flight 93 – Landed at Reagan 10:28am. All relevant evidence indicating this took place. (Documented on my blog and also in Chris Hampton's film - 9/11 Alchemy "Facing Reality)

Flight 11 – Heading towards the Washington area. Evidence confirmed on FAA & NORAD official recordings, including tail number. (Documented in previous posts here and at my blog)

Flight 175 – Heading over Connecticut, 175 captured on 'Flight Explorer' system on MS-NBC 1.5 hours after the "alleged" crash , confirming UA175 was still in the air. It appears UA175 was heading back to Boston Airport. This is also suggested because of reports by Boston Tower of an “unidentified aircraft” approaching along the coast towards them. The tower was on high alert.

Flight 77 – I suspect because of the location of the “alleged” attack at the Pentagon, Flight 77 was heading towards the Washington area. I am still working and researching this flight, so I am looking for supportive evidence. Please pass it on if you have anything which can help me.

My Thoughts:

The Washington area offers a secured No-fly zone radius which would make an excellent “controlled area” for the planes to be kept secret. Flight 11 was spotted by Flight 175, and the ATC recordings indicate planes did indeed take-off and the radio contact with the pilots seemed very realistic. Flight 93 was spotted by a VFR. So it appears that visuals did happen with the planes. Interesting we have unidentified aircrafts being mentioned, which I believe was the status of those planes after the "alleged" crashes occurred, because they could not be identified as it would contradict the official narrative, although three planes are officially identified after the crash, these were Flight 11, in the FAA & NOARD recordings with tail number of Flight 11, along with Flight 11’s last coordinates placing it 5.77 miles past its "alleged" crash target the North Tower. Also, Flight 175 which was captured on MS-NBC on Flight Aware which is “real time” data offering updates every 10 seconds. Also we have Flight 93’s last coordinates 15 miles past the crash site and also Hagerstown and Reagan National Airport landing on Flight Aware screen shot at 10:28am. I have not included all evidence here, just a brief summary.

All 3 flights 11, 93 & 77 could have landed at Reagan National Airport, which is indicated by the official narrative and also evidence gathered. This may explain why Reagan National Airport was evacuated and closed-down for 23 days. Something was happening at that airport and it appears it was the only airport which was closed down like that after the attacks. I believe all flights to be "real" at this stage, in the sense that they were part of training exercises, meaning the pilots were taking part in an exercise simulating hijackings, similar to this training exercise planned by NORAD for June 2002 called Amalgam Virgo 2 exercise. The exercise involves two simultaneous commercial aircraft hijackings. One, a Delta 757, with actual Delta pilots and actors posing as passengers, will fly from Salt Lake City, Utah, to Honolulu, Hawaii. It will be “hijacked” by FBI agents posing as terrorists.

John Ogonowski (Flight 11 Pilot) was ex-navy. He was NOT SCHEDULED to fly on 9/11, and he didn't want to either because he had two important dates on this day. But one day before, he called up the pilot who was scheduled to fly Flight 11 - His name is Walter Sorenson. As the senior pilot Ogonowski had the authority to make this call and change the pilot schedule. Speculation; Did Ogonowski get a sudden call from the military to take part in Vigilant Guardian (or another exercise)? This is the best explanation I have for Ogonowski’s behaviour. John Ogonowski didn’t want to fly on September 11th. That was the day people were coming to tour the dozen acres of Asian crops flourishing amid the hay and pumpkins at White Gate Farm. Ogonowski and his wife, Peggy, had hosted such events before, and he told project director Hugh Joseph he would do his best to be around for this one.

I haven't included other research here of the passengers or phone calls yet, and there is still much research to do on Flight 77. I cannot include it all here, so please take this post as a brief summary so far only, it is still a work in progress and changing as new evidence or information is found.

Regards,
Mark Conlon.


 

Events at Reagan Airport on 9/11...

By Mark Conlon

Events at Reagan Airport on 9/11...

(9:55 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Reagan Airport Control Tower Evacuated due to Report of Approaching Aircraft

The air traffic control tower at Washington’s Reagan National Airport is evacuated, after it is informed that a suspicious aircraft—presumably Flight 93—is heading its way.

Warning of Approaching Aircraft - In the control tower, supervisor Chris Stephenson receives a call from the FAA’s Herndon Command Center, telling him: “You have another [aircraft] headed your way. Confirmed bomb on board.”

This information also makes it to the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) at the airport. Around this time, the Command Center changes the information it has for Flight 93’s flight plan, so that it shows a destination of Reagan Airport (see 9:55 a.m. September 11, 2001). This means air traffic controllers are now able to track the flight on their situation displays. But in response to the news that the approaching aircraft has a bomb on board, the facility manager at Reagan Airport becomes concerned about the safety of his employees and decides to evacuate the control tower.

Tower Controllers Evacuated - Dan Creedon, a controller in the TRACON, tries calling the tower repeatedly, to pass on the manager’s instruction to evacuate, but he is unable to get through. He therefore leaves his post and takes the elevator up the tower. Once he reaches the control tower cab, he announces that there are to be “minimum bodies” in the tower, with only a skeletal staff remaining. Four controllers therefore volunteer to leave. [Spencer, 2008, pp. 215-216] 

Seven or eight controllers usually work in the tower during a given shift, so this would mean three or four controllers remain there. [9/11 Commission, 7/28/2003 pdf file]

Terminal Being Evacuated - When they make it down to the airport terminal, the controllers find that it too is being evacuated. Police are yelling at the crowd: “Everybody’s got to go! There are no more flights! Leave your stuff! Just go! It doesn’t matter where you go, just get away from the airport.”

Other Controllers Head to Mobile Unit - The controllers who had remained behind decide they too should leave the tower and relocate to an emergency mobile unit. Before doing so, they temporarily turn over the command and control of their airspace to Washington, DC, police helicopters. They are then escorted by members of the Secret Service down from the tower and through the terminal. [Spencer, 2008, pp. 216]

Information above has been copied from this website: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a955towerevacuation&scale=0#a955towerevacuation

Reagan National Airport stayed closed for 3 weeks after 9/11. The only airport to do so apparently...

I find this very revealing if you consider the evidence of Flight 93 and 11. It ties in nicely with the Washington Flight routes and landing of Flight 93 at Reagan National at 10:28am and also we have evidence of Flight 11 heading towards the Washington area after it "allegedly" crashed into the North Tower, which I discovered in the FAA and NORAD tape recording communications. 

Is this another coincidence? What was going on at Reagan Airport for 3 weeks to be shut down?

The Near Death of Reagan National Airport After 9/11 | Transportation Nation | WNYC
https://www.wnyc.org/story/285294-the-near-death-of-reagan-national-airport-after-911/

George Bush Re-opens Reagan National Airport - 2nd October 2001, after a 3 week shut-down

Was there more to this story for the evacuation and closure for 3 wees of Reagan National Airport? We have supporting evidence of two planes heading towards the Washington area. Flight 11 and Flight 93, which filed a new route plan to land at Reagan Airport at 10:28am. Was the airport evacuated and closed down so the two planes could land in secret at the airport and be dealt with during the 3 week shut-down?

Thanks for reading!

Flight 11 - Still In The Air After It "Allegedly" Crashed on 9/11

 By Mark Conlon

In this analysis and research I have conducted over the last few months shows that Flight 11 appears to be still in the air after it "allegedly" crashed into the North Tower. It appears from the FAA and NORAD communications recordings that Flight 11's last known coordinates were located 5.77 miles away from the North Tower after the crash.

Some debunkers have tried to distort this fact by saying it was mixed-up with Flight 77. This isn't correct, as the tail number:  N334AA is reported in the communications and shows it was Flight 11 and NOT Flight 77 as suggested. Flight 11 was heading towards JFK Airport which is off-course towards the North Tower. 

Flight 11's last coordinates were (40'38N 074'03W) which locates Flight 11 - 5.77 miles away from the North Tower after the crash. It is said in the communications that it was heading towards the Washington area. See below:

In this short video I made using FAA and NORAD communication recordings I include the relevant communication segments which I edited together to present here.
Again this has raised serious questions for me as to why 'Pilots For 9/11 Truth' have NOT covered this evidence? I am beginning to see a pattern in their research and presentation of evidence in relation to the planes.

Official Explanations for this "Damning" Evidence...

In the aftermath of 9/11 the scramble of Langley Fighters has been described by the Defence Department as a response to the hijacking of American 77, or United 93, or some combination of the two. Yet the report of American 11 heading towards Washington as the reason for the Langley Fighter Jets to be scrambled is not just reflected on the taped conversations at NEADS, but in taped conversations at FAA centres, on chat logs compiled at NEADS and NORAD, and other records.

In reality at 9:24am when fighter jets were scrambled from Langley, NEADS wasn’t even aware that American 77 or United 93 were hijacked. Why did the Defence Department lie about this?

Shortly after 9/11, a timeline provided by senior Defence Department officials to CNN will state, NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley in order to “head to intercept” American 77.

Major General Larry Arnold, the CONR commander, will give a different explanation. He will tell the 9/11 Commission, “we launched the aircraft out of Langley to put them over top of Washington DC, not in response to American Airline 77, but really to put them in a position in case United 93 were to head that way.”

Neither story is truth.

Major Nasypany will tell the 9/11 Commission that the real reason for the Langley jets are scrambled and directed toward Baltimore area is to position them between the reportedly southbound American 11 and Washington, as a “barrier cap.”

It seems NORAD deliberately misled Congress and the 9/11 Commission by hiding the fact that the Langley scramble takes place in response to the report that American 11 is still airborne.



Thanks for reading, watching and caring...