This photograph is "allegedly" of American Airlines "Flight 77" at
Dulles Airport on 9/11, taken by Gwen Faulkner. This is the same lady who
took two other photographs of some of the passengers at Gate D26, which I
shared in a previous blog post. Gwen took photographs of the school pupils who won a National Geographic
competition who were being accompanied by their teachers on the trip on 9/11.
Here's the other two photographs below, taken by Gwen Faulkner, of the school children with their teachers, and two National Geographic
Channel people on the right at Dulles Airport on 9/11.
The photograph below was taken at the boarding gate D26, when the school children and
teachers were boarding the plane, along with capturing some of the other
passengers too who boarded Flight 77.
List of Passengers:
A: Dora Marie Menchaca
B: Dong Chul Lee
C: Sara M. Clark
D: Robert Penninger
E: James D. Debeuneure
F: Asia S. Cottom
G: Karen Ann Kincaid
H: Rodney Dickens
This is an interview which I found worthy of a share on my blog. It is from 2007 with Rowland Morgan who
is the author of the book - Flight 93 Revealed: What Really Happened on the
9/11 "let's Roll" Flight? This interview was conducted by Guns &
Butter in 2007.
This is a short blog to inform people of a new 2nd plane (UA175) video captured by Kevin Westly on 9/11 which was uploaded to YouTube on 24th February 2022. The video was taken from the top deck of the ferry in Battery Park, close by to where the famous Michael Hezarkhani video was taken, along with Carmen Taylor's photographs she took.
Here's the original video source from Kevin's YouTube
channel, which can be found here: https://youtu.be/o6t31R4tI10
Interestingly, Hezarkhani can be seen in the video when Kevin Westly pans around the ferry boat. Hezarkhani was clearly is not using a tripod which was claimed by Steve De'ak. See below:
The 4 photos below show Carmen Taylor's location on the ferry boat. 3 of the photos are Carmen Taylor's personal photos which she posted to Canadian researcher Jeff Hill on his pumpitout forum after disclosing her location to him during a phone call, explaining where she was located on the corner of the ferry boat, wedged in between the metal box and guard rail, which she shows in her 2 photos.
If anything, I hope it clears up the matter regarding Michael Hezarkhani and Carmen Taylor being present on the ferry boat in an elevated position which I have maintained for many years since doing various analysis and studies of the video and photos.
For those who watched the new 9/11 Alchemy "A Big Idea" documentary film by Chris Hampton of Wolf Clan Media, and are interested in the patent myself and Chris discussed
regarding the 3D volumetric "ghost image" projection technology in relation to the airplanes on 9/11, here's
a link so you can study the patent in more depth and its potential uses and claims
outlined in the document. Source: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ad/27/1c/baede7d8638bd6/US20200041236A1.pdf
New technology under patent by the U.S. Navy could
shift the odds in the favour of stealth aircraft: leveraging lasers to produce
plasma bursts that could trick inbound missiles into thinking they’ve found a
jet to chase that would actually be little more than a hologram. See Sandboxx video here at this linkhttps://youtu.be/MDSVJfuyJlk, or watch the embedded video below:
Evidence shows that AA77 did not turn around on the
Kentucky and Ohio boarder like we are led to believe and head back to Washington
to crash into the Pentagon on Sept 11th 2001. Other supporting evidence shows
this also, showing that it flew over Missouri.
CNN showed the real-time Flight Explorer flight path
location of AA77, showing the plane was transmitting its positional location.
Meaning the transponder was on. This now indicates that the black box data
flight path study could not have been from AA77's flight path, which could go
some way to explaining the discrepancies in the flight path study its self as
presented by NTSB.
This is a very important presentation by Calum Douglas, who is a researcher for 'Pilots For 9/11 Truth'. Calum presents his investigation into the "official" flight data recorder information from American Airlines 'Flight 77' which hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, The data was obtained under
the US Freedom of Information Act. Play video from this link here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XrlUc0nDRvji/ Or play the video embedded below:
Video of his presentation was recorded 8th June 2007 at the Indian YMCA in London. Opening sequence by Calum Douglas, produced by flamesong.com - okulomedia.com
One thing we can say for sure, those who called their relatives from their cell
phones could not of placed those calls while the plane was inflight.
Minutes after the fourth plane had crashed in Pennsylvania, news reports were
already circulating that several passengers had made phone calls with their
cell phones from the hijacked planes. The problem is, in 2001 it was
practically impossible to make a cell phone call from a plane at cruising
altitudes. Cellular phones use low power transmitters, both to preserve battery
life, and to keep the cost of unit down. It is up to the receiving towers on
the ground to pick up and boost their signal, before they route it through the
system. It is commonly known that beyond 10,000 feet, cell phones become
useless, and passenger planes usually cruise at 30,000 feet and beyond.
In 2005 The Washington Post wrote:
“Most cell phones can’t reach a station from beyond 10,000 feet. Another
technical hurdle is to find a way that cell phone calls could be handed off
from one cell phone tower to another on the ground, when an aircraft is
travelling at 500 miles per hour.”
Analysis of the official Evidence
Only in two cases did the authorities openly state that a cell phone was used.
One is a call placed at 9:58 a.m. by Edward Felt, who allegedly locked himself
in the toilet.
The second call is Flight Attendant Cee Cee Lyles, who called
her husband Lorne Lyles, who was surprised to have received the phone call from
her cell phone, which he expressed in a television documentary called Portrait
of Courage: The Untold Story of Flight 93.
Lorne described that, after the call got disconnected: "I looked at the
caller ID, and noticed that it was a call, and it was from her cell phone. And
I'm like, OK, wait a minute. How can she call me from on the plane from a cell
phone, because cell phones don't work on a plane? That's what I'm thinking."
See video below:
Video Source: Portrait of Courage: The Untold Story of
Flight 93.
It’s one thing the cell phone calls that authorities admitted to, it’s another
the number of cell phone calls which were actually made. In the days following
9/11, the FBI interviewed relatives who received phone calls from their
relatives on the planes, and their reports tell a very different story.
One of the FBI’s report states:
Starting at approximately 6:30 a.m. PST (which is 9:30 a.m. New York time),
Deena Burnett received a series of three to five cellular phone calls from her
husband Thomas Burnett. Deena was able to determine that her husband was using
his own cellular phone because it showed his cell phone number. Only one of the
calls did not show his caller ID because she was on the phone to another caller
when Thomas called her. Source: FBI FD302a – intelwire.com
According to the official documentation, Thomas Burnett made a total of 3
calls. One at 9:30:32 a.m. lasting 28 seconds, one at 9:37:53 a.m. lasting 62
seconds and one at 9:44:23 a.m. lasting 54 seconds. This means that two of
these calls if not all three were made from Thomas Burnett’s cellular
phone.
At 9:30 a.m. United 93 was flying at 32,000 feet, and
climbing. At 9:37 a.m. it had reached 37,000 feet, and was still climbing. At
9:44 a.m. the plane had descended to 22,000 feet, while accelerating reaching a
speed of 400 miles per hour, making it impossible for any of Thomas Burnett’s
cell phone calls to have been made from the plane at those altitudes and speed
the plane was traveling.
According to another official report, Jeremy Glick used his cell phone to call
Makely his step-mother, to report the hijacking. Glick then asked to talk to
his wife Lyzbeth. According to the FBI report, Lyzbeth could not hear any
unusual sounds in the background of the call, and the connection was extremely
clear, as if he was calling from the next room. The document also states, that
cell phone call communication was lost at 9:55 a.m. Source: FBI FD302a –
intelwire.com
Glick called at 9:37:41 a.m. which means the communication
lasted uninterrupted for 18 minutes, while the plane was flying between 37,000
feet and 10,000 feet at an average speed of almost 400 miles per hour.
It is impossible that Glick’s cell phone call was able to be maintained for
that duration of time while the plane was travelling at such high altitudes and
speed, without the call dropping out or having interruption problems with the
hand off signals between the cell phone towers on the ground.
Lauren Grandcolas had a cell phone, and it revealed in the
FBI documents that Lauren borrowed her cell phone to Honor Wainio, who called
her parents at 9:53:43 a.m., and the call lasted 269 seconds. The plane would
have been at 10,000 feet at this time, travelling at close to 400 miles per
hour.
Linda Gronlund also used her own cell phone to call her
sister at 9:46:05 a.m. and the duration of her call was 71 seconds. The plane
was traveling at 17,000 feet and travelling at almost 400 miles per hour.
Marion Britton was also a passenger on United 93. Britton contacted her
boyfriend, Fred Fiumano on a cell phone that Britton had borrowed from another
passenger according Fiumano in the FBI document. Britton’s call to her
boyfriend was at 9:49:12 a.m. and the duration was 232 seconds. United 93 was
traveling beyond 13,000 feet at this time, and travelling at a speed of 420
miles per hour.
Peter Hanson, a passenger on United 175 contacted his mother on his cell phone
and informed his mother that his flight had been hijacked. Peter’s father Lee
Hanson said, that he resisted the temptation to call his son back as he didn’t
want to put his some in more danger by having his cell phone ring on the
plane. Source: FBI FD302a – intelwire.com
Peter Hanson called his parents twice at 8:52:00 a.m. with a
duration of 99 seconds, and at 9:00:03 a.m. with the call duration lasting 192
seconds. At 8:52 a.m. United 175 was at 30,000 feet, and it was climbing in
altitude. And at 9:00 a.m. the plane flying at over 18,000 feet in altitude,
while accelerating at 586 miles per hour at sea level.
Brian Sweeney was also a passenger on United 175. After learning of the attacks
said the FBI, his wife Julie Sweeney arrived home to learn that her husband had
left a message from his cell phone at approximately 8:58 a.m. on their
answering machine. Sweeney made his call at 8:58:45 a.m. and the duration was
28 seconds, when the plane was at 25,000 feet in altitude.
While anyone of these phone calls could have been connected
through a fortunate set of coincidences, it should be obvious that all these
cell phone calls as a whole could not have been made from the cruising planes.
Question:
Given the known limitations of a cellular phone system in 2001, can you provide
any evidence that the cell phone calls made by the passengers reported by the
FBI could have been made from the altitudes , speeds, and for the durations
indicated for each of them?
The answer is NO.
Scientific Experiments Conducted:
A. K. Dewdney who is a scientist, conducted a series of experiments using cell
phones from a small propeller aircraft, over the city of London, Ontario in
Canada. (He noted that, "not only is the cell phone technological base
in Canada identical to its U.S. counterpart, but Canadian communication
technology is second to none, Canada being a world leader in research and
development."
Source: http://physics911.net/projectachilles
Dewdney found:
Cell phone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8,000 feet are essentially
impossible, while those below 8,000 feet are highly unlikely down to about
2,000, where they become merely unlikely. Moreover, even at the latter altitude
(and below), the handoff problem appears. Any airliner at or below this
altitude, flying at the normal speed of approximately 500 mph, would encounter
the handoff problem. An aircraft traveling at this speed would not be over the
cell site long enough to complete the electronic "handshake" (which
takes several seconds to complete) before arriving over the next cell site,
when the call has to be handed off from the first cell site to the next one.
This also takes a few seconds, the result being, in the optimal case, a series
of broken transmissions that must end, sooner or later, in failure. Source:
http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93
An article published by the Travel Technologist shortly after 9/11 stated:
"Wireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air
communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the
calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as
long as they did."
Source: http://www.elliott.org/technology/2001/cellpermit.htm
Wireless Review similarly commented:
"Because wireless networks are designed for terrestrial use, the fact
that so many people were able to call from the sky [on September 11] brings
into question how the phones worked from such altitudes. Alexa Graf, AT&T
spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes,
suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations."
Source: http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/mag/wireless_final_contact/
United 93 hijacking time discrepancy:
This opens the way to the disturbing possibly which seems to support that the
passengers were forced to call their relatives under duress, pretending to be
on the plane. To support of this hypothesis, there is evidence to study.
If we study the call Todd Beamer had with GTA airphone operator Lisa Jefferson,
during the alleged hijack of United 93. It is through this phone call with
Jefferson that the world learned of the famous call to action “Let’s Roll”. The
9/11 Commission established the hijacking took place at 9:28 a.m. Yet Todd
Beamer was connected to Jefferson at 9:43 a.m. which is 15 minutes into the
hijacking. Yet the FBI report confirms Jefferson received the call from Beamer
at approximately 8:45 a.m. Central Time (which is 9:45 a.m. Eastern Time). Yet
the contents of Beamer’s conversation with Jefferson are at odds with the
official narrative.
According to Jefferson, “Beamer called to state that the plane was about to
be hijacked.” He stated, “that three individuals, two wielding knives,
the third with a bomb strapped to his waist with a red belt, were preparing to
take control of the flight”. Source: FBI FD302a – intelwire.com
Jefferson estimated she spoke to Beamer for 7 minutes, before two hijackers
armed with knives entered the cockpit.” Source: FBI FD302a –
intelwire.com
This would place the hijacking around 9:52 a.m., yet officially the hijacking
took place at 9:28 a.m. This is a major discrepancy in the official story of
the when the hijacking took place, which leads to the question, of how could
Beamer be describing events that are supposed to be happening in front of his
eyes, when in fact they had already happened approximately 25 minutes
earlier?
How could the terrorists be “preparing to take control of the flight” at
9:45 a.m. when they had already been in the cockpit for 15 minutes?
Moreover, the FBI also wrote, that “Jefferson noted that the call had
unusually low amount of background noise.” This was also noted by Lyzbeth
Glick, who noticed with her phone call she received from Jeremy’s phone call.
Furthermore, the records show, Beamer’s phone call lasted 3,2925 seconds,
approximately 1 hour. The strange element is, it is alleged by Jefferson that
the phone line was left open for another 45 minutes after the crash, which
would have been impossible, being as airphones are powered by the plane’s
electrical system, which is also inconceivable considering, the plane was
allegedly destroyed into tiny pieces at the crash site.
Jefferson stated:
“We didn’t lose a connection, because there’s a different sound that you
use. I never lost connection it just went silent.” Source: “I Promised I
wouldn’t Hang Up” beliefnet.com
The FBI stated:
“Jefferson stayed on the phone until she learned Flight 93 had crashed.”
Source: FBI FD302a – intelwire.com
All these discrepancies indicate that Beamer was not on the plane observing
real events unfolding, but seemingly describing an imaginary pre-scripted
situation from a different location. It must be considered that the passengers
and crew were part of a hijacking training exercise scenario, either knowingly,
or unknowing, where they did not know their end fate?
12 days before 9/11, such a training scenario of hijacked plane including
cell phone calls being made as part of the scenario was carried out.
On the 31st August 2001, the US Department of Transportation
(DOT), Crisis Management Center engaged in a war game training exercise which
involved the scenario of cell phone calls being made from a hijacked plane.
According to Ellen Engleman, the administrator of the DOT’s Research and
Special programs Administration, commented that this was “actually much more
than a tabletop drill”. She went on to add, “during that exercise, part of the
scenario, interestingly enough, involved a potentially hijacked plane and someone
calling on a cell phone, among other aspects of the scenario that were very
strange when twelve days later, as you know, we had the actual event. Source:
Mineta Transportation Institute, October 30th, 2001, p. 108, in
C/11T
Conclusion
A question to consider is, is it plausible to suspect, that a hijacking training scenario was being carried
out on 9/11? We know that many training exercises were happening on 9/11, and
it was not just a normal day in aviation, in fact just the opposite of what we
have been led to believe. It was a very busy day with many war games and
training exercises, with scenarios of planes being hijacked and flown into
buildings along with simulated inserted blips on radar screens.
