Disinformation Comments "Setting The Record Straight"

By Mark Conlon

It is with great angst that I have to write this short blog post, however it is necessary in order to set the record straight regarding false information which is being attributed to me by AnneBeck58 (Anne Beckett) in relation to the 9/11 airplanes research I have conducted. 

I came across the comments on the 5^th January 2020 by Anne Beckett on this website here: http://incamera.info

AnneBeck58 writes about me 

"He seems to believe in (De’ak) missiles. I don’t know how he can go with any of that and not only because silly Grandpa =Yankee yammers on about it, making no sense at all". 

My Response To This Claim 

This is inaccurate, I have never supported Steve De’ak’s “multiple missiles” theory. It is well documented by myself and Steve De’ak that we do not share the same interpretations of the airplane crash evidence. In fact we have had several disputes with each other in the past which is documented on Steve's website.

For Anne Beckett to align my research with Steve De’ak’s is a misrepresentation of my research. I have never suggested “multiple missiles” were involved at any of the airplane crash events. This is also reflected in all the research I did for Chris Hampton’s film - 9/11 Alchemy “Facing Reality”.

Anne Beckett also claimed in her comments that I was “extremely” rude to her. Anyone who knows me will know this to be untrue. I was not rude to Anne Beckett, challenging her assumptions yes, but not rude, even despite her condescending nature towards me during our conversation, whereby she showed no interest or respect for my knowledge in this area of 9/11 studies, publishing over 50 articles along with the various interviews I have done with Richard D. Hall, Unite Planet and my contributions in the 9/11 Alchemy “Facing Reality” film. Perhaps if she had bothered to read my blogs or watch the film she would know my position on the matter. Anne Beckett failed to provide me with any links to her own research after several times of me asking, whereby she cut-off the conversation abruptly unfortunately, or conveniently for her.

It is interesting in further comments she made how Anne Beckett claims she heard Andrew Johnson “talking about it in not the kindest manner”.

In her comment Anne Beckett is implying that Andrew Johnson is making reference to myself and Steve De’ak. This is untrue. She has falsely linked me to De’ak’s “multiple missile” theory as though Andrew was commenting about myself and Steve De'ak. Andrew Johnson knows very well my personal position regarding Steve De’ak’s “multiple missile” theory, that I do not, or ever have in the past or present supported the use of “multiple missiles” on 9/11. For Anne Beckett to suggest Andrew Johnson was talking about myself when possibly making reference to Steve De’ak's theory is grossly inaccurate, but more importantly misquoting Andrew Johnson himself. I suggest Anne Beckett should apologise to Andrew Johnson for using his name inaccurately in her comment above. I am sure Andrew wouldn’t appreciate the inaccurate implication she is making about his comment inferring about myself, when in reality Andrew was most likely talking about De'ak alone.  

My Official Position

I have never supported the idea or theory that “multiple missiles” were involved in the 9/11 airplane crashes. I have pondered the use of a missile that could be cloaked with an airplane image around it, however a missile would not make an airplane shaped hole in a building or ground. So I have believed something more would have been at play to create the airplane shaped holes. I tend to use the term "delivery system" in my later research, not missile as this is biasing what I am observing in the video and photographic evidence. I have learnt since that the military use the term "delivery vehicles". 

I cannot rule out the use of a single “delivery vehicle” projecting a cloaked image projection around itself of an airplane flying through the sky which was not always convincing depending on which angles and locations people were observing, photographing and videoing the airplane, or whether some type of magnetic field interference affected the image projection itself (as Chris Hampton suggests in his film), because of the anomalous issues (missing wings and tail section) of the projected image as the airplane gets closer to the WTC South Tower. Also to be considered, is whether the high quality video cameras captured the airplane image projection midway to being drawn due to the varying shutter speeds of the video cameras as seen in the Luc Courchesen video and also the second hit Naudet video, where 6 frames shows the missing wing, which was also captured in other videos and from different angles. 

I also cannot rule out the possibility that there was external locations were the airplane image was being broadcast/projected from, meaning that there was nothing actually in the sky apart from a projected image of the airplane heading towards the WTC Towers. I can to some degree show evidence of field interference at all 4 airplane crash events and 3 crash sites, indicating the use of directed energy to create the airplane holes in the WTC buildings, Pentagon Building and in the ground at Shanksville which is highlighted in the - 9/11 Alchemy “facing Reality” film, especially in relation to the flashes, magnetometer data, seismic disturbances and water features installed at the 3 crash sites.

I compared the airplane crash holes damage at the WTC towers to the “Hutchison Effect” (also ‘Conspiracy Cuber’ did) along with other “Blooming Effects” captured on the morning news regarding the formation of holes that appeared in the road in New York, before the event itself happened, something which Anne Beckett attempted to take ownership of during our conversation, although she didn’t realise (I don’t believe) at that point it was myself who actually made this discovery and connection to the Hutchison Effect, which I posted in Andrew Johnson’s 9/11 Facebook Group, and was included in Chris Hampton’s film in August 2018, whereby I produced image comparisons inset for use in his film. I did ask Anne Beckett to provide me with links to her own research, however she cut the conversation short at this point and I didn’t hear back from her again afterwards.
 
Conclusion

I can only conclude that this was an attempt by Anne Beckett to spread disinformation about my research position, and ostensibly blacken my character for some reason judging by her comments she has made. It also appears she was trying to caused division, or imply division between myself and Andrew Johnson. This is a common pattern of behaviour I have experienced in the past, due to the nature of the research I am conducting into the airplane crashes and image projection technology. It is an interesting note: Anne Beckett is a supporter of “video fakery” which was a major Psychological Operation (Psy-Op) which I exposed and is something that I have written about extensively on my blog, and those promoting it, which I demonstrated how it was used to conceal and misdirect people away from the image projection technology that was involved, which I am trying to expose which created the illusions of the airplanes in the sky at all 4 airplane crash events on 9/11. 

Photos: From the Ferry in Battery Park

By Mark Conlon

It has been claimed by many 9/11 researchers in the past and present, that no other people's photos exist or have been produced from the same location of Michael Hezarkhani or Carmen Taylor. This is simply incorrect. It is an established fact that both Michael Hezarkhani and Carmen Taylor were situated on the top deck of a ferry in Battery Park during the second airplane impact into the South Tower.

 Photo: Carmen Taylor

Video Still Image: Michael Hezarkhani

I am going to share two other people's photos which were taken just after the second airplane impacted the South Tower. The photos were captured by John McCaskill and Sara Jones. 

Judging by Sara Jones' photo she captured the top of a person's head/hair. Also similar to Carmen Taylor who also captured the top of a person's head/hair. It appears both Sara Jones and Jack McCaskill were located on a lower level of the ferry boat compared to both Carmen Taylor and Michael Hezarkahni. I think this debunks Killtown's theory that no other people were on the ferry boat with cameras.

Update: 5th March 2020

911AnalysisVideo's YouTube Channel posted two new Battery Park ferry boat photos. See below:

 

The photos were taken by Ritsu(Risa Hirayama) and posted at her Instagram profile: She wrote: “Today is 9.11 Memorial Day. This picture took by me 9/11 2001 from Battery park. I'm so scary that bring back to memory that days happened.” https://www.instagram.com/p/s09lu6AHvt/  

(Information Provided By 911AnalysisVideo)

Also watch my "Setting The Record Straight About The Michael Hezarkhani Video" analysis, where I discuss some of the false information that has been circulated about the Michael Hezarkahni video.

United Airlines Tracked a Different Flight 93 Than the FAA

By Mark Conlon 

It is revealed by ACARS radio messages that Flight 93 was lost over Illinois

ACARS (Aircraft Conditioning and Reporting System) is the basic radio-based tool for communication between an aircraft and its company. On 9/11, United Airlines flight dispatchers sent several ACARS text messages to the planes they were responsible for, including Flight 93 and Flight 175.

On January 28, 2002, Michael J. Winter of United Airlines was interviewed by the FBI to help them with the interpretation of the ACARS messages. The full FBI report is appended at the end of this article and can also be looked here (scroll down to the very last interview):
http://www.911myths.com/images/1/1c/Team7_Box11_FBI302s_ACARS.pdf

The actual content of the messages is already known and hardly interesting ("beware cockpit intrusion" etc.), but what makes them toxic for the official story is the plane's approximate position that is attached to each message:

Mr. Winter explained the Aircraft Condition and Reporting System ACARS uses radio ground stations (RGS) at various locations throughout the United States for communication. The messages from the aircraft utilize the RGS in a downlink operating system. A central router determines the strongest signal received from the aircraft and routes the signal/message to UAL flight dispatch.

In other words: if the message denotes (for example) PIT, this means that the Pittsburgh RGS has received the strongest signal and that the plane is in the vicinity of Pittsburgh (usually up to 70 miles, depending on the distance to other RGS's).

Now these positional pieces of information reveal shocking news: Winter explicitly confirms that United 93 received the last ACARS messages when it was near Fort Wayne (Indiana) and, some minutes later, near Champaign (Illinois):

Messages #16 and #17 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Ft. Wayne, IN, FWA as designated in the line "AN N591UA/GL FWA...". The messages were sent to the ACARS printer.

Messages #18 and #19 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Champaign, IL CMI as designated in the line "AN N591UA/GL CMI...". Both messages were sent to the printer and Message #19 also activated an audible signal in the aircraft.

The original ACARS messages can be found here:
http://www.911myths.com/images/8/82/Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf

Not all of the messages enumerated by Winter are listed in the file, but messages #16-#19 are, together with the time when they were received. So it's possible to establish a rough flight path for United 93:

9:22 PIT (Pittsburgh)
9:32 CAK (Canton/Akron)
9:36 CLE (Cleveland)
9:47 TOL (Toledo)
9:51 FWY (Fort Wayne, IN)
10:10 CMI (Champaign, IL)

After Champaign, no message was received by United 93 anymore.

The authenticity of the ACARS messages is beyond doubt. The proper interpretation has been delivered by Michael J. Winter and confirmed by David Knerr, Manager Flight Dispatch Automation, United Airlines. The flight path is consistent with the speed of a commercial airliner (keeping in mind that the plane is up to 70 miles away from the respective radio station), and the tail number of the plane that received the messages was N591UA: United 93.

Does that mean that the official flight path, with United 93 making a U turn over Cleveland, is faked? No, not at all. The U turn is confirmed multiple times by air traffic control radio messages and personal statements from Cleveland Center controllers. I will take a closer look at these sources and their relation to the RADES radar data in forthcoming blog entries. I can already promise that this checkup will further damage the credibility of the RADES files.

In my past research, I have uncovered the duplication of several planes involved in 9/11, but the case of Flight 93 over Illinois is the strongest one due to the authentic power of the ACARS messages. The Flight 93 that was tracked by United Airlines was a different plane than the Flight 93 that was tracked by the FAA.

In this blog entry, I already have presented evidence that Flight 93 was duplicated right from the start. Also note the same dichotomy at Logan Airport: According to ACARS, Flight 175 took off at 8:28. According to the FAA, Flight 175 took off at 8:43.

A pattern emerges...

Appendix - FBI summary of the interview with Michael J. Winter

On January 28, 2002, Michael J. Winter was interviewed at United Airlines UAL, World Headquarters, 1200 E. Algonquin Road, Elk Grove Village, IL. The interviewing Agent identified himself to Mr. Winter and told him, the interview concerned UAL flight 93 on September 11, 2001 and the communications between UAL flight 93 and the flight dispatchers. Mr. Winter voluntarily provided the following information regarding these communications.

In reviewing the Sanitized Time and Text of ACARS messages as provided by the FBI, Mr. Winter said Message #1 was from the aircraft to UAL Dispatch. Message #2 was to the aircraft from UAL Dispatch at John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York, NY and Message #3 was to the aircraft from UAL flight dispatcher ED BALLINGER. Message #4 was from the aircraft to UAL flight dispatcher ED BALLINGER. Message #5, listed as unreadable, was engine data advisory information. Message #6 was from UAL flight dispatcher A.D. "Sandy " ROGERS to the aircraft and Message #7 was from UAL flight dispatcher ROBERT BRITTAIN to the aircraft.

Message #8 was to the aircraft from BALLINGER and Message #9, listed as unreadable, was the engine data advisory information. Message #10 was from UAL flight Dispatcher CHAD McCURDY to the aircraft. Except for Message #13, which was to the aircraft from UAL San Francisco Maintenance, DAVID PRICE, all of the other messages listed were from UAL flight dispatcher BALLINGER.

Mr. Winter explained the Aircraft Condition and Reporting System ACARS uses radio ground stations RGS at various locations throughout the United States for communication. The messages from the aircraft utilize the RGS in a downlink operating system. A central router determines the strongest signal received from the aircraft and routes the signal/message to UAL flight dispatch.

Message #1 was routed from the aircraft through the RGS near Pittsburgh, PA PIT as designated in the line "DT DDL PIT...". Message #2, to the aircraft, was also routed through the RGS near Pittsburgh, A and was directed to the ACARS printer on the aircraft. The routing to the printer is designated by the letters "AGM" following "Smi=AGM" and "STX=AGM.."

Message #3 was a message to the aircraft from Chicago Dispatch CHIDD listed as a Command Response MD type message. The CMD message, designated in the line "Smi=CMD Agy/Num=65535", was sent to the ACARS screen and utilized the RGS near Pittsburgh, PA. In this type of message, the flight dispatcher can also activate an audible signal to alert the flight crew of the sent message but this was not done.

Message #4 was sent from the aircraft to UAL flight dispatch using the RGS near Pittsburgh, PA. The designation "C4" appears just before the sentence "EWRSFO" indicating the message was sent from the aircraft.

Message #5 was an engine data message which was sent automatically to UAL Chicago dispatch and a UAL maintenance computer. The information in the message as N41.20 W080.5" was the latitude and longitude of the aircraft when the date was sent.

Message #6 was a message to the aircraft from CHIDD using a RGS near Akron/Canton, OH CAK and was sent to the ACARS screen. The designation for Akron/Canton, OH CAK appears in the line beginning "AN N591UA/GL CAK"

Message #7 was sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using a RGS near Akron/Canton, OH. The message was sent to the ACARS screen and was a CMD type message.

Message #8 was sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Akron/Canton, OH. The message was a CMD message and also activated the audible signal. The audible signal designated as "BEL" in the line "QUCHIAKUA-1-BL>UA 93".

Message #9 was an engine data message. The latitude and longitude was also listed in the message as "N41.31 W081.06".

Message #10 was sent to the aircraft from CHIDD and was sent to the ACARS screen only. The RGS in this instance was near Cleveland, OH CLE from the line "AN N591UA/GL CLE".

Messages #11 and #12 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Cleveland, OH. These messages also activated the audible signal in the aircraft.

Message #13 was sent to the aircraft from UAL San Francisco, CA line maintenance to the ACARS screen and also activated the audible signal. The RGS for this message was near Toledo, OH as designated "TOL" in the one "AN N591UA/GL TOL".

Messages #14 and #15 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Toledo, OH. The messages were sent to the ACARS printer.

Messages #16 and #17 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Ft. Wayne, IN, FWA as designated in the line "AN N591UA/GL FWA". The messages were sent to the ACARS printer.

Messages #18 and #19 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Champaign, IL CMI as designated in the line "AN N591UA/GL CMI". Both messages were sent to the printer and Message #19 also activated an audible signal in the aircraft.

Messages #20 to #24 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD. However, all of the messages were rejected indicating the aircraft did not receive them.

Also present during part of this interview was David Knerr, Manager Flight Dispatch Automation, UAL WHQ.


Thanks for reading & caring! 

United Flight 175 Was Duplicated: Three Pieces of Evidence

By Mark Conlon

 

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER
;09111323 108575 0574

As I've shown in this blog entry, the ACARS radio messages sent from United Airlines dispatchers to Flight 93 are clear evidence that the plane was over Fort Wayne, Indiana and later Champaign, Illinois when it received its last messages. This doesn't mean that the "official" Flight 93 which turned around over Cleveland didn't exist; there is plenty of FAA material showing that it did exist. Hence the conclusion that United Airlines tracked a different Flight 93 than the FAA is inevitable - a case for duplicated planes and 9/11 being an Operation Northwoods-like maneuver.

Likewise, United dispatchers sent ACARS messages to Flight 175 locating it near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania just when the South Tower was hit (by whatever plane) and near Pittsburgh 20 minutes later. Hence the Flight 175 that was tracked by United Airlines was not identical to the plane that hit the South Tower.

Before featuring the ACARS messages in particular, I'd like to repeat why it's possible to deduce the approximate position of a plane by means of the transmitting ground station that is attached to each message:

Mr. Winter explained the Aircraft Condition and Reporting System ACARS uses radio ground stations (RGS) at various locations throughout the United States for communication. The messages from the aircraft utilize the RGS in a downlink operating system. A central router determines the strongest signal received from the aircraft and routes the signal/message to UAL flight dispatch.
http://www.911myths.com/images/1/1c/Team7_Box11_FBI302s_ACARS.pdf

In other words: if the message denotes (for example) PIT, this means that the Pittsburgh RGS has received the strongest signal and that the plane is in the vicinity of Pittsburgh (usually up to 70 miles, depending on the distance to other RGS's). A map of the RGS's of the relevant part of the United States is here:

Now to the ACARS messages. They have generously been scanned and published by Mike Williams of 911myths.com: http://www.911myths.com/images/8/82/Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf

I have transcribed them and added brief comments. The crucial pieces of information are highlighted in red. The last three letters in the fourth line denote the active RGS, and the last line denotes the date and time which is given in zulu format (09111259 = September 11th, 8:59 EDT).

At 8:59, United aircraft maintenance employee Jerry Tsen sent an ACARS message to Flight 175 via the radio ground station MDT (Harrisburg), indicating that the plane was near Harrisburg, not New York.

DDLXCXA SFOLM CHI58R SFOFRSAM
.SFOLMUA 111259/JER
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUSFOLMUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
I HEARD OF A REPORTED INCIDENT ABOARD YOUR ACFT. PLZ VERIFY ALLIS NORMAL....THX 777SAM
SFOLM JERRY TSEN
;09111259 108575 0543

At 9:03, United flight dispatcher Ed Ballinger sent an ACARS message to Flight 175 when it was still in the vicinity of Harrisburg - exactly when another plane (later believed to be Flight 175) crashed into the WTC South Tower:

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA 111303/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
HOW IS THE RIDE. ANY THING DISPATCH CAN DO FOR YOU...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER
;09111303 108575 0545

Also, at 9:03, United flight dispatcher Sandy Rogers sent another ACARS message to Flight 175.

 DDLXCXA CHIYR CH158R
.CHIYRUA 111303/AD
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
NY APROACH LOOKIN FOR YA ON 127.4
CHIDD AD ROGERS
;09111303 108575 0546

Finally, at 9:23, Ed Ballinger sent the last ACARS message to Flight 175. The message was received while the plane was near Pittsburgh (PIT). This was 20 minutes after the South Tower was hit.

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER
;09111323 108575 0574

The existence of the "official" Flight 175 is undoubtedly substantiated by FAA documents (ATC/pilot transcripts etc.) So like Flight 93, United Airlines tracked a different Flight 175 than the FAA. Another case of plane duplication. And for Flight 175 there is strong additional evidence that the plane was duplicated from start:

-two planes identifiable as United 175 took off from Logan ; one at 8:14 (the official one) and one at 8:23 (this one with tail number N612UA).

We also have the impossible phone call from United 175: Peter Hanson, who was aboard the plane, called his father Lee Hanson at 9:00:03 through a satellite-based GTE airphone. The call lasted 192 seconds, hence ending at 9:03:15, 4 seconds after a plane later believed to be Flight 175 hit the South Tower (9:03:11, according to seismic data). With the detection of a second Flight 175, the phone call suddenly makes sense.

Disregarding the ACARS messages, the recordings of GTE phone calls, and the statement of US Airways pilot Steven Miller who observed United 175 taking off from Boston just before himself, is not an option.

The alternative explanation is straightforward and yields a consistent flight path: United 175, tail number N612UA, took off from Boston at 8:23. Peter Hanson talked with his father from 9:00 to 9:03 when the plane was in the skies over Harrisburg. It continued to fly westbound und was near Pittsburgh when it received its last message at 9:23. It is not clear yet what happened to this United 175 afterwards.

It is clear, however, that the "official" United 175 tracked by the FAA was a different plane. The research will continue.

Thanks for reading & caring!

Two United Airlines "Flight 175" Taking-off From Boston Logan Airport On 9/11: CONFIRMED

By Mark Conlon

In the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) database reveals a strange discrepancy regarding the "wheels-off time" of Flight 175. This is the moment when the plane lifts off from the runway. The BTS notes a wheels-off time of 8:23 a.m., which differs distinctly from the "official" wheels-off time, which is 8:14 a.m. http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/dstat/OntimeSummaryDepatures.xml

This 8:14 a.m. take-off is confirmed by the Air Traffic Control (ATC) pilot radio transcript and various radar data. So, what about the 8:23 a.m.? How was this data generated?

The wheels-off time of is triggered automatically by a mechanical switcher when the plane loses contact to the ground. The data is sent automatically to the airline via Aircraft Communication Addressing Radio System (ACARS), and the airline forwards them to the BTS on a regular base. So no human failure is possible. The fact that the gate departure 7:58 a.m. coincides with the official story suggests that the data is valid.

Being familiar with the duplication of Flight 11 at Logan Airport, I arrived at the conclusion that this was another case of a duplicated plane, with "Flight 175" taking-off at 8:14 a.m. and another "Flight 175" taking off at 8:23 a.m. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=29

To support the 8:23 a.m. take-off time of the duplicate Flight 175, I identified a surprising  eyewitness, who is named Steven Miller who is a pilot of US Airways, and was next in line behind Flight 175 to take-off from the runway on 9/11.

On the taxi-out in Boston, Steven Miller (the pilots of US Airways 6805) waited at the runway's hold-short line, where Miller looked up to watch a United Boeing 767 take-off, (United Flight 175). The final weight and balance calculations from dispatch came over the ACARS at 8:05 a.m., and with that in hand, the crew was ready to fly. Wide-body aircraft produce especially powerful wingtip vortices - horizontal, tornado-like winds off the ends of the wings - which require time to dissipate before another aircraft can take-off, so Miller waited the required three minutes after United Flight 175 departed before he received his take-off clearance.
Source: (Lynn Spencer, "Touching History", p. 58)

A quick check with the BTS database reveals that USA 6805 had a wheels-off time of 8:28 a.m. Miller explicitly describes that he waited 3 minutes before getting take-off clearance; adding a little bit for the timespan between take-off clearance and actual wheels-off, Flight 175 must have lifted off the runway around 8:23-8:24 a.m. It is out of the question that Miller observed a plane that took-off at 8:14 a.m.

The question has to asked; Did Miller see a different United plane? This is very unlikely. Searching the BTS database for other United Boeing 767's delivers no results for the relevant time. There is a very slim possibility that a non-domestic United Boeing 767 took-off just then, because the BTS database lists only domestic flights. However, Miller himself says it was Flight 175, so either he overheard the flight number when taxiing out, or, as someone who was frequently flying from Logan (as he says) he was familiar with the wide-body planes departing at that time.

The BTS database also reveals that the tail number of the plane that took-off at 8:23 a.m. was N612UA. This was United Airlines Flight 175. And there is no proof that the plane that took-off at 8:14 a.m. was N612UA.

Thanks for reading & caring!

Revealing Facts About Simon (Shack) Hytten's Background

By Mark Conlon

In September 2013 I posted a blog showing how Markus Allen (a 'video fakery' promoter) put-out a video claiming the Michael Hezarkhani video had a CGI glitch contained in it, when the airplane's wing passed behind a building in the foreground. This turned-out to be false, and I demonstrated why in this blog post. Following-on in January and July 2014, I also wrote two more blogs showing how Markus Allen's other two claims were false about the Michael Hezarkhani video, where he claimed buildings were missing, in the video and the location where Michael Hezarkhani took his video didn't exist. I demonstrated thoroughly how this was not true.

In this revealing exchange between Markus Allen and Simon (Shack) Hytten, the maker of the September Clues film 2007-8, in the interview he admits to having done work for the European Space Agency. This is revealing because of other interesting family members connections they have. For example, Shack's brother Mario, was a racing car driver and was sponsored by the brother of Osama Bin Laden, and Shack's father worked for the United Nations (UN). Is this just a coincidence? The interview can be found here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/qTCxMpWiL1ah/

No Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) Activated When the Four Planes Crashed on 9/11

By Mark Conlon 

The Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT) are emergency transmitters that are carried aboard most general aviation aircraft in the U.S. In the event of an aircraft accident, these devices are designed to transmit a distress signal on 121.5 and 243.0 MHz frequencies. ELTs are mounted in the airplane, and designed to be triggered upon impact. Activation of the ELT triggers an audio alert, and 406-MHz ELTs transmit GPS position for search and rescue. [Emergency Locator Transmitters – AOPA]. https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/aircraft/aircraft-operations/emergency-locator-transmitters

According to the 9/11 Commission, AAL 11 crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. [The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 7.] However, two and a half minutes earlier, David Bottiglia, an air traffic controller at the FAA's New York Center, received an important message from one of the planes in the airspace he was monitoring. At 8:44 a.m. the pilot of U.S. Airways Flight 583 told Bottiglia: "I just picked up an ELT on 121.5. It was brief, but it went off." (121.5 megahertz is an emergency frequency that ELTs are designed to transmit their distress signals on.) A minute later, about 90 second before AAL 11 crashed into the WTC another plane in the New York Center's airspace reported the same thing. The pilot of Delta Airlines Flight 2433 told Bottiglia: "We picked up that ELT, too. But it's very faint." [Transcript of United Airlines Flight 175] - https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/16/national/transcript-of-united-airlines-flight-175.html 

According to author Lynn Spencer, "several" facilities picked up the ELT signal around this time. [Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 50.]. 

Peter McCloskey, a traffic management coordinator at the New York Center, later recalled that the ELT had gone off "in the vicinity of Lower Manhattan." [Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York Air Route Center Interview with Peter McCloskey." 9/11 Commission, October 1, 2003].

And, around the time AAL 11 crashed into the WTC North tower, a participant in an FAA teleconference stated, "We got a report of an ELT in the area that (the radar track for Flight 11) was in." (Before it disappeared from radar screens, the track for AAL 11 had indicated the plane was about 20 miles from New York's JFK International Airport). [9/11 Air Traffic Control Transcript] https://www.scribd.com/document/13484898/9-11-Air-Traffic-Control-Transcript 

Additionally, while an ELT went off two minutes before AAL 11 crashed into the WTC, it appears that no ELT went off at the time of the crash itself at 8:46 a.m., as it should have done. Likewise with United Airlines Flight 175 (UAL 175), which “allegedly” crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. An ELT signal was transmitted in the New York area four minutes before, at 8:59 a.m. The pilot of Flight 583, who had reported the previous ELT signal, told David Bottiglia at the New York Center that he had noticed another ELT going off. The pilot said, "I hate to keep burdening you with this stuff, but now we're picking up another ELT on 21.5." Again, the same as the previous crash with AAL 11, with the ELT being transmitted four minutes before UAL 175 crashed into the South Tower. Interesting there was no ELT transmission activated at the time of the two crashes themselves, which should have happened.  

Furthermore, there is no evidence cited of any ELTs reported for American Airlines Flight 77 or United Airlines Flight 93 at the times of both crashes. This indicates that none of the four planes listed as being involved on 9/11 crashed at any of the named targets in the official 9/11 narrative.

The ELT activated over Ann Arbor, Michigan at 9:53 a.m.

Interestingly, an ELT was transmitted over Ann Arbor in Michigan at 13:53 p.m. PST, 9:53 a.m. EST. This ELT has not been officially related to any of the four alleged planes listed on 9/11. However, according to this evidence it indicates that a plane crashed in Ann Arbor at 9:53 a.m., but has never been accounted for or addressed by the authorities. Note, in the communication between the two controllers it appears there is an audio drop-out, or has been editing done, just after when the controller says "wait that doesn't make sense", and the other controller replies "yes it does, it... (audio drops-out or is edited)". The controller seems to go on to explain something to the other controller, however there's an audio drop-out or edit towards the end? Why was this information omitted? What was being concealed about this ELT occurrence?

Does this indicate that ELTs were being falsely transmitted which were part of the many military war games training exercises taking place on 9/11, where simulated scenarios of plane hijackings were taking place. The Ann Arbor ELT could explain why ELTs were being transmitted too early in the case of AAL 11 and UAL 175, ahead of their alleged crashes?
       
The official ELT evidence alone implies that none of the four planes crashed at their targets. The evidence of ELT signals being transmitted in the New York area before the World Trade Center towers were hit raises serious questions about the official plane’s narrative on 9/11. If ELTs had been activated, this should have been at the times the airplanes crashed into the towers and not several minutes beforehand. But while a number of Air Traffic Controllers (ATC) mentioned the ELT signals in their interviews with the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 Commission Report offered no explanation for these discrepancies. For example, where the sources of the ELT signals originated from? Or were they from somewhere else? And were the ELT transmitters themselves ever found? After all, according to the FAA, "In most installations the [ELT] is attached to the aircraft structure as far as practicable in the fuselage; or in the tail surface, in such a manner that damage to the beacon will be minimized in the event of a crash impact." 
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgNPRM.nsf/0/ae86aa83c819fdbd86256819006c1c0f!OpenDocument

What we can determine from all the available evidence is, no ELT transmissions were activated at any of the four plane crash impacts on 9/11, which is what should have happened.

Update: Feb 2024

This is document is from the 9/11 Commission investigation files, in relation to an ELT being manually triggered. According to the Commission document, and their experienced pilot testimony of Paul Thumser, ELTs cannot be manually triggered in Boeing 767s.

This is damming evidence, because AA11 which is a Boeing 767 triggered an ELT two minutes too early before it allegedly crashed into the North Tower, which is impossible, but also even more seriously damaging is, there was no ELT at the point of the impact of the plane into the North Tower, where the ELT should have been activated. Also, UA175, which was also a Boeing 767, also triggered an ELT four minutes too early before it allegedly crashed into the South Tower, which again is impossible, and also did not activate an ELT at the point of impact into the South Tower either, which should have happened. Just to add, neither AA77 or UA93 which were Boeing 757s, triggered any ELT either before or at the points of impact which is highly questionable, and seriously damaging for the official plane narratives of the four planes. This calls into question all four plane crash stories, but also indicates that none of the four planes named by authorities crashed into the named targets. Something else took place instead with these four events. The evidence points to this conclusion.