The "unknown" statistic logged in relation to Flight 11 on
9/11 in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data-base is often used as proof that Flight 11 never took-off on 9/11, yet
there are 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's no data at all
available for August 7, 2001. In all other instances AA-11 (Flight 11) appears to have
flown on all Tuesdays before 9/11.
American Airlines "Flight 198" was the flight number with the plane tail number N334AA, which is a pendulum flight with Flight 11. Flight 198 arrived at Gate 32 in Boston, Logan Airport early in the morning on September 11, 2001.
Although the reported date is 9/10/2001, the plane took-off from SFO on the west coast at
21:49 on 9/10 and actually landed at BOS on the east coast at 6:03 the next day on 9/11.
Apparently this detail created lot of confusion among 9/11 researchers,
however this is the last tracked Flight for the plane - tail number N334AA before becoming
the infamous AA11 on September 11, 2001.
In this short analysis I will show through the use of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recording transcripts that Flight 93's transponder was still switched on at 10:05 a.m. after the "official" crash time in Shanksville. I will also touch briefly on other supporting evidence to show that Flight 93 did NOT crash at 10:03 a.m. as stated by the 9/11 Commission and also point-out other supporting evidence which indicates that Flight 93 did NOT crash at all on 9/11, as Flight 93 was located 15 miles past the "official" crash site heading towards the Washington D.C. area.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Transcript below: 1405 (10:05am)
ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet
doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred
ntmo-e: southeastbound still
doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him
ntmo-e: correct
doug: ok buddy
14 06 (10:06am)
ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three
Please Note: This strengthens the case that something took place in
Shanksville at 10:06 a.m. NOT 10:03 a.m. the "official" crash time. The question is
why was it so important to have the "official" crash time of 10:03 a.m., when
all the evidence including the seismic readings place a trace recording in the ground at 10:06 a.m.? See the seismic readings below:
The 9/11 Commission lent on the
seismologists to support the 10:03 a.m. official crash time, when clearly the evidence says different. Other evidence which suggests the plane shaped hole was made in the ground at 10:06 a.m. is the magnetometer data readings. See magnetometer readings data below:
Notice the sharp dip fluctuation in the reading from 10:03 a.m. to 10:06 a.m.
No Electronic Locator Transmitter (ELT) distress signal indicating a plane
had crashed was picked-up at the time when Flight 93 "allegedly" crashed.
The FAA’s
Cleveland Center, which had the last contact with Flight 93 before it crashed,
suggests that no distress signal indicating a plane crash had occurred or was
picked-up at the time Flight 93 went down. Flight 93 reportedly crashed in rural Pennsylvania at 10:03a.m. An “ELT” is an emergency locator transmitter,
a device carried on most general aviation aircraft in the US that is designed
to automatically start transmitting a distress signal if a plane should crash,
so as to help search and rescue efforts in locating the downed aircraft The
Cleveland Center controller’s information, as an FAA timeline will later state,
therefore indicates that “No ELT signal has been picked up in the area where
Flight 93 apparently crashed at this time.” Someone at the FAA’s Command Center
in Herndon, Virginia, acknowledged the controller’s communication, responding,
“Copy that, Command Center.”
Whether anyone will subsequently report picking up
an ELT signal in the area where Flight 93 apparently crashed is unclear. Major
Allan Knox, who works at the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, which is
“the contact for credible” ELT signals, tells the 9/11 Commission that he “does
not recall an ELT detection being brought to his attention”. (9/11
Commission, 10/1/2003).
Also, does this part in the FAA - Air Traffic Control transcription
strengthens the case that Flight 93 was close to Washington D.C. as it was west of Dulles, furthermore strengthening the already overwhelming evidence of a landing
at 10:28 a.m. at Reagan National Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Transcript below:
14:07 (10:07am)
ntmo-e: sixteen south of Johnstown where they lost united ninety three and it was heading turning one four zero heading
doug: which will put him to what do you think
ntmo-e: uh I guess that put him down coming right just west of Dulles
doug: ok
SUMMARY:
Flight 93 switched on the transponder at 10:05 a.m. (two minutes after the "official" crash time), and the transponder indicated an altitude of 8200 ft. It was also heading southeast. One minute later, at 10:06 a.m., radar contact
with Flight 93 is lost, at the position 39,51 north, 78,46 west. This
point is about 15 miles southeast of the "official" crash site and around 15 minutes flying time from Washington D.C.
All the evidence points to Flight 93 landing at Reagan National Airport at 10:28 a.m. I will outline in more detail evidence to support this in my following blogs about Flight 93.
I edited this short video together which was made by someone else which was a much longer version. The creator exposes Simon Shack promulgating "false" information in his September Clues forum. Shack claims the video and photographs are all fake on 9/11, however this video shows how he exploits parallax and different viewing perspectives and also different times in motion to promote video and photographic fakery.
Shack even tries to claim that a piece of video footage from the Bataclan attack had a "missing door" in it, which was provably false.
This video appears to demonstrate attempts by Simon Shack to implant and promote misinformation.
In this study analysis I am going to compare two videos which captured an anomaly involving "alleged" Flight 175's plane wing briefly disappearing before impacting the South Tower. I will also explore some of the most common explanations which have been put forward to try and explain these anomalies.
Many 9/11 researchers have tried to explain away some of the anomalies captured in the "Flight 175" videos. One such case is the video footage showing the plane wing disappearing in some of the videos.
Some researchers believe that video compression was responsible for the plane wing's disappearance, while others say it is because of the background and the sky. To some degree these can be valid arguments put forward. To demonstrate these two points I have used below two videos taken of regular planes in the sky to demonstrate how these two factors affect the video camera's ability to register the "real" plane's wings and tail section depending on the colour of the sky and also the colour of the plane itself. See below:
As you can see in the image above taken of a "real" plane, the sky is grey and the colour of plane is similar in colour which makes it difficult for the video camera to differentiate, however we still see the wings and tail section in the video.
In the video below taken of a "real" plane you can see that for one frame the tail section's left-hand wing looks transparent, almost disappearing. The merging against the blue sky demonstrates a natural transparent looking plane wing for one video frame. So it is possible for this anomaly to happen in video footage and give the appearance that the tail section wing has disappeared, so this is a natural anomaly, laws of optics, not a fake video or CGI plane.
The difference in the next two examples below is, it shows neither of those two explanations above can account for the disappearance of the plane wing documented in the two pieces of 9/11 video footage below:
The difference with this study is the videos are taken from two different directions and using two different video cameras both capturing the same missing wing anomaly. This proves that this was an anomaly captured from the "perceived" object in the sky and not an anomaly or malfunction of the video camera recording equipment itself. So then explanation of compression or sky backdrop and light can be ruled-out. Not in (Fig A & B) this was captured using high quality video camera equipment, and in (Fig C & D) the video camera was of a lower quality, and only captured the missing wing for one video frame only.
In the 6 still images below taken from the Naudet video second plane hit, they captured the "alleged" plane for 6 frames in sequence where it shows the "alleged" plane's wing to be missing. See below:
See enlarged image below: Plane wing missing!
Over the 6 frames it shows no wing after the plane engine. The footage was taken using high quality video equipment. Was this why it picked up the missing wing for 6 frames instead of only one frame in the lower quality other video camera footage showing the plane wing missing? Was the high quality video recording equipment key to capturing this anomaly of the "perceived" object in the sky? Was this why we have never seen any professional news camera crew footage of the plane from the ground on 9/11? Were the news camera teams kept away in case they captured more anomalies like this of the plane in their higher quality equipment?
Below: Luc Courchesne was using professional video camera recording equipment and he also captured the missing wing anomaly in several frames in his video footage.
Luc Courchesne - Missing Wing Video:
In this case it could be that the shutter speed of the video camera was open for a shorter period of time, example 1/60th of a second as the video camera was facing into the sunlight on the east-side of the sky. Because of the camera's shutter being open for a shorter time-frame did it catch the "image projection" of the plane in mid drawing of the projection, thus "not" displaying a full image of the plane in the sky? (Example, if you imagine a strobe light, which flashes quickly and capturing it in between cycles of light and dark phase).
Also we must take into account the high quality of the video camera used, which would have played a major role in capturing the anomaly, as it captured several frames not just one frame of the missing wing like other video camera's of a lower quality and with a longer open shutter speed exposure.
Conclusion:
What I can positively conclude is, we are NOT looking at a "real" plane captured in the 9/11 video footage, and the anomalies were NOT caused by compression artifacts or video malfunctions. The anomaly issues are with the object itself in the sky which were captured by numerous video cameras from different locations, thus depending on the quality of the video camera and the location perspective of the video camera would explain to some degree how the anomaly (missing wings) would have been captured in the video footage.
Impossibility of Video Fakery, CGI Planes & Compositing...? This also definitely rules-out any suggestion of inserted CGI graphic planes or composited planes into the TV media footage or the amateur video footage later. Why would the perpetrator's insert CGI planes which were NOT convincing enough or full of glitches? This is just not logical. Also how did they control all of the eyewitnesses in NYC of those who witnessed a planes hitting the buildings, and please note; before even seeing anything on TV or media coverage? Impossible. Yet we have NOT seen any videos put into the public domain showing no plane at all in the video footage, one would have thought at least one video over the last 17 years would of surfaced or slipped through the net of control depicting such claims made by the "video fakery" promoters. No matter what anybody tells you there are reliable eyewitnesses who seen what they took to be a plane in the sky and hitting both buildings. The "video fakery" promoters never critically analyses this accounts, yet make accusations calling all the eyewitnesses, videographers and photographers liars or being part of a big conspiracy. They have provided no credible evidence to support their claims.
Thanks you reading and caring!
Update: 12/12/19 Here's another study I have done. The video shows the wing disappearing for 6 frames.
This
is now 3 videos showing a consistent missing "right" wing for 6 frames.
This cannot be explained as digital artifact fault of the camera
because we have two other videos showing exactly the same issue with the
wing disappearing for 6 frames.
This is a brief study and outline of the magnetometer evidence in relation to the "alleged" four plane crashes on 9/11... Something strange was happening to the Earth's magnetic field at the exact time the plane crashes took place in NYC, Washington D.C and Shanksville P.A. on 9/11.
Between
8:15am and 5:20pm the earth’s magnetic field shows a continuous disturbance:
The disturbance started at approximately 8:15 a.m. and was deflecting downwards reaching its
minimum point at 8:46 a.m. (at the time of the first plane crash at 8:46 a.m.), then begins to rise upwards again and recovers, then
continues upwards reaching a maximum at 9:02 a.m. (the time of the second plane crash at 9:02 a.m.).There is also disturbances at 9:37 a.m. (at the time of the plane crash at the Pentagon), and also another disturbance at 10:03 a.m. and 10:06 a.m. (at the time of the plane crash in Shanksville P.A.). They all correlate with the four alleged plane crash events.
North Tower: 8:46 a.m. &
South Tower: 9:02 a.m.
Pentagon Event: 9:37 a.m.
Shanksville Event: 10:03 a.m. - 10:06 a.m.
The Earth’s
magnetic field data was measured by 6 different instruments run by the
University of Alaska. Dr. Judy Wood
downloaded the raw data from the magnetometers and put it into an excel spread
sheet.
A question which needs to be considered is. Do you think
that plane crashes can affect the Earth’s magnetic field? The instruments were
based approximately 3500 miles away from the events. We are
talking about energy effects. All of the evidence points to energy effects! None
of it points to traditional explosives, mini nukes, nukes or bombs. Or ‘THERMITE’.
Dr. Judy Wood, author of 'Where Did The Towers Go?' Book has outlined the same disturbances when the North and South Tower's were destroyed, along with WTC 7. All seven events of the day show fluctuations and spikes during the event as a whole.
Once you accept that airplane crashes do not cause the Earth's magnetic field to behave like this you have to ask yourself a question as to what really caused these disturbances. I have outlined documented data/evidence, so this is not a theory. Some else was at happening on 9/11, and it had nothing to do with airplane crashes, or bombings in the building or thermite.
I have done a video analysis of claims made by 9/11 researchers - Killtown and Ace Baker, in relation to "alleged" audio fakery in the
Michael Hezarkhani video. I will demonstrate in my analysis that their
was a deliberate attempt to mislead people towards the wrong
conclusion and cast doubt in peoples minds over the authenticity of the
Michael Hezarkhani video.
It has takes some explaining because of the nature
of their deception, however I thought it was best to explain it using
video format rather than writing it in an article format. I didn't find
it easy to present this analysis and it took me half an hour to explain
it all in the video, however I have known about this deception for 4
years and thought it was time to put the record straight and expose
those two shills for what they are. I know I'm not the best film editor,
but hey my message and analysis is honest.
I may consider adding some written notes to this post in the future to add more information, however for now I think the video explains the deception and misdirection carried out by both Killtown and Ace Baker.
I
came across this fascinating video called "Who is Alexander Ace
Baker". As part of my research I have been studying some of the background
connections Ace Baker has... His arrival and presence in the
"No-Planes" movement is somewhat dubious following the strange
behaviour that followed involving him "faking" his own suicide on Jim
Fetzer's show, while causing division in the
"No-Planes" community.
It has also has been shown that he was deliberately promoting "false"
video fakery misinformation, thus consequently casting doubt in people's mind over
the authenticity of the video evidence record of "Flight 175". He
also denounced the use of holographic technology.
Video information below:
Published
on 14 Jul 2009: Who is Alexander Ace Baker
Alexander
"Ace" Baker AKA Alexander Collin derives his YouTube name from
Alexandra Kollontai http://www.youtube.com/collinalexander
Reilly, Ace of Spies:
This British adventure series is a dramatisation of the fantastic real-life
adventures, from 1903 until the mid-1920s, of the Russian-born British agent
Sidney Reilly AKA Sidney Rosenblum, who worked for MI6 (British Military
Intelligence) as Agent ST-1.
The programme is based on books by Robin Bruce Lockhart - "The amazing
true story of the world's first international super spy."
Other
background information about Ace Baker:
Ace
Baker and his wife work extensively for the media, both TV and Hollywood. Ace
and his wife Claire Marlo, also have a production company called “Invisible Hand
Production”.
They
have worked for companies such as: NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS and Paramount, Columbia,
Disney, Franchise. Hollywood was busy paving the minds for the 911 attacks!
What is Ace doing among them? Ace Baker has produced the musical scores mostly
for films by Fred Olen Ray and John Puch - Franchise Phoenician Entertainment. Some films below produced by Phoenician Entertainment, note: the themes of these films; involving plane crashes, hijackings and terrorism.
He
has also awarded a gold medal for his beat programming of ICE-T records. Ace
also works with Reality Check Studios who is a software partner of Vizrt.
Vizrt’s
product suite is used by the world’s leading broadcasters including: CNN, CBS,
Fox, BBC, Sky, ITN, ZDF, Star TV, TV Today, CCTV and NHK. Also, many
world-class production houses and corporate institutions, including both the
New York and London Stock Exchanges, utilise Vizrt solutions. The 2002 VIZRT-
Missile Defence Agency Connection which also works with Directed Energy Weapons,
is confirmed since 1996. Vizrt are also connected to 3D holographic imaging. The type of technology Ace Baker was trying to steer people away from being involved on 9/11. Other research
shows that Vizrt/RealityCheck/realityx is actually an Israeli Defence Company: http://www.vizrt.com/news/press_releases/article1347.ece.
Does this show indirect links to holographic technology and directed energy?
My conclusion:
Does this suggest Ace Baker’s role was to infiltration the “No-Planes” community, and smoothly
gain confidence and trust from the 9/11 research community. Jim Fetzer played a major role in helping Ace Baker promote the idea
of “video fakery” using compositing through his radio shows - The Dynamic Duo and later the The Real Deal. Ace Baker claimed that compositing techniques such as 'Luma Keying' was used
to insert a fake plane into the live TV coverage of 9/11. However there
is one problem with this theory. Luma keying was shown to not be possible in the Chopper 5 video, plus not ALL eyewitnesses could be faked or actors. There would be no way of controlling all the photographers and videographers in
the New York area who really captured what they took to be a plane crashing into the
towers.
Does it also suggest Baker's role was to create a cover story by providing an explanation to
explain all the anomalies captured in the video footage such as, disappearing wings and the non-existent collision
defying Newtonian Physics between the South Tower building and the plane, captured in the video evidence footage. Was the “video fakery” explanation used as a form of perception management to cover up
the use of an advanced 3D Volumetric image projection hologram, which was potentially captured by many photographers, videographers and seen by the eyewitnesses?
It is not known to many people that Ace Baker was also hired to produce his film (The Great American Psy Opera) promoting "video fakery" while also
discrediting Dr. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds and other 9/11 researchers. This
information came to light due to the late Gerard Holmgren disclosing
Ace Baker's e-mail asking Holmgren to be involved in his film. Ace Baker has since disappeared after faking his own death on Jim Fetzer's radio show, in a bizarre fake suicide. It was established that Baker was still alive and did the stunt as a piece of "art performance".
I will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions about Ace Baker's role in the 9/11 research community.
