Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

What follows (over multiple posts) is a piece of research first posted on the Let's Roll Forums on July 13th, 2012, by a member calling himself loopDloop. The piece is no longer available, and is now difficult to find. It had to be scraped, post by post, image by image, from web.archive.org - a notoriously tedious process.

Everything has been copied out and faithfully reproduced below (images and all, there are many), just as it all appeared in 2012.




The Thread will remain closed until every post and upload is in place. When complete, it will be opened for discussion. And I hope there is some. The data that follows is fascinating, important, and deeply troubling. Much of the information will be new to many people (it was new to me). If you have even a passing interest in the events of 9/11, this is essential reading.

It's long though, but it needs to be. Have patience however, and keep reading.

We have a lot to cover, so let's start.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

These are the original posts of loopDloop from the summer of 2012. The words are his words except where I interject [Mark: my comment]. Links, where possible, have been updated with links to web.archive. Youtube videos (also where possible - some have been removed from Youtube) have been embedded within the text. Any copy errors present are from the original text.

Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls
loopDloop

Let's Roll Forums > The U.S. Government Conspiracy of 9/11 > The Mystery of Flights 11, 77, 175 & 93 [web.archive link]

Posted 13 Jul, 2012

The “hijacking” of American Airlines Flight 11 is the opening event in the orchestrated chaos of September 11 2001. It is the first of the four flights to take off, the first to be taken over, and the first to crash, into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

Flight 11 was crucial to the success of the entire operation. Many different elements had to come together. It was a masterpiece of planning.

What happened on Flight 11?

After recent discoveries made in the threads here, particularly on John Ogonowski, the captain, and on Daniel Lewin, the Israeli antihijacking Special Agent genius billionaire with the “Hijacker” model Swatch, I became very curious about Flight 11, and decided to read, and reread everything I could find online.

I came loaded down with the usual accumulated prejudices of ten years on the 911-was-an-inside-job. There was no flight 11. There were no hijackers. The phone calls were faked. These were my mantras. Except that I've learned since I came to Let's Roll that everything I thought I knew about 9/11 was wrong, so I was ready to unlearn what I thought I knew.

And I was right: I was completely wrong.

I found that there was a lot of fresh material on Flight 11 which seemed to have made it's way online relatively recently, within the last year it seems. It's a huge trove: full transcripts of many phone calls, including the two which were said to be from the flight itself, detailed phone logs, and most fascinating of all, many original FBI interview notes from the days and weeks immediately after 9/11. I don't know who has uploaded these materials, or when, but they have done a huge service.

I realised that I had no idea how little I really knew about flight 11 and the two phone calls. What I thought I knew was part of a jumble of things I'd read about all of the flights, and all of the calls. I decided to focus. Rather than try to understand all of the flights, and all of the calls, I would focus on Flight 11, and the two calls from Ong and Sweeney. As I began to read, and compare, and cross-correlate, a picture began to slowly come together.

By comparing the various accounts from different participants, taken in the days immediately after 9/11, it's now possible to recreate in detail the circumstances surrounding the two phone calls from Flight 11. What emerges is a story which is different in many key respects not only from the government narrative (no surprise there), but also to much that has been written by 911 researchers over the last ten years.

In this series of posts, I am going to work slowly through a fairly lengthy catalogue of inconsistencies, oddities and downright impossibilities. There's a lot of material, and, frankly, it's a little boring I fear. To get to the bottom of all this, there's no alternative but to go into the fine detail of these calls. Hopefully, however, it's worth it, because hidden in the details are the keys to understanding what happened on Flight 11.

A final comment before beginning. I'm not setting out to prove anything. As per the loopDloop doctrine, as Culto has kindly called it, I'm just going to try to let the evidence speak for itself. But I think it might help at the start to simply state the conclusion that I have come to after immersing in these materials. It can be summed up in one word.

Confusion.

Everything about Flight 11 is designed, from the get-go, for maximum confusion. The reason that all the clues don't seem to add up is that they were designed that way. The confusion is a deliberate signature of the design of the exercise.

Many researchers have already come to the conclusion that Flight 11 was a live hijacking exercise conducted as part of the wargames under way that morning, including Vigilant Guardian and Virgo Amalgam. This seems to be exactly where the evidence that I present in this series leads. But there's something more.

The deliberate confusion seems to be intended to conceal the fact that what appeared to be “Flight 11” was not a normal airline flight at all. It is a whole sequence of substitutions and doublings designed to create an illusion. It is a theatrical presentation of a flight, assembled out of props.

“Flight 11” is, in reality, a multiplicity of events, operations, equipment. It's a magic trick, an illusion, in which the appearance of a flight is created by combining different elements originating from multiple locations and sources. It is, yet again, a pea and thimble game.

There's a new model here which goes beyond the familiar planes versus no-planes argument. What we have here in Flight 11 is multiple events, multiple flights, stitched together, with the edges blurred.

But if we follow the details closely, it is possible to see the seams.

In this series, I am going to bring forward various details which have been lost, overlooked, forgotten. The story of Flight 11 as it has been told, by all sides, has been smoothed over, and it's the bits that have been left out which turn out to be the most fascinating.

So, it's all about the phone calls, and the details of how these were handled.

Everything we know about what happened on Flight 11 comes from the two phone calls received from flight attendants Betty Ong, and Amy Sweeney, (with the exception of some brief transmissions received by air traffic control). There was much controversy for many years about whether these were cell phone calls or airphones. This was resolved by release of the airphone records, which can be seen here. These show exact details of the start and end of each call, and other technical information, so that there's no doubt as far as the official narrative goes: the calls were made from the onboard airphones installed in the back of passengers seats.

Earlier this year, a blog entry appeared on LetsRoll by rwagner66, which contains a fascinating snippet of information. If this is insight is true, then it may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Flight 11.

http://letsrollforums.com/blog.php?b=1129
[link dead, see: https://web.archive.org/web/20140708...og.php?b=1129]

These are calls that went through the "Claircom box" on AA77, the plane that hit the Pentagon. This is the box that handles seatback phones, but calls did not originate from seatback handsets. It appears they came from something plugged into external port #4 of the Claircom box.

My hypothesis is someone put a picocell (cell phone base station) on the plane and plugged it into Claircom box in order to get a connection to ground stations. The implications are:

.. Someone other than hijackers was involved. The Claircom box was not accessible from the passenger compartment. The picocell must have been installed days beforehand.

.. Cell phone calls were legit. The calls seen here were operator assisted, but calls from United planes, which used a different seatback phone system, might have passed through normally so as to show the caller's cell phone's number on the recipient's CallerID.

I believe calls did not come from seatback phones because HandsetID shows ffff, computer code for -1, meaning unknown. I believe they came from port #4 because Originating # shows 9045550004. The 555 in the middle (NXX) indicates is not a working telephone number, but rather for internal use. Area code (NPA) 904 is in Jacksonville FL. They had to put some three digit number to fill the space. Perhaps software was developed in JAX. The last four digits (NNNN) contain the useful information. I think 0004 means external port #4.

This information about the originating call number seems crucial, and, if it is true, it gives the game away. This "Claircomm" box is the control box from which the airphone calls are sent to the outside world, from the plane, or wherever it is installed.

The phone number from which the calls originated decodes how they were made: via external port #4 on the Claircomm box.

This means that the calls were not made from the body of the plane, via normal installed airphone headsets installed in the backs of the passengers seats, but from a specially prepared location.

This is a crucial clue, particularly in light of further clues to come, as we shall see.

But for now, lets just observe that at the beginning of the Betty Ong call, the operator asks repeatedly what seat she is sitting in. Ong has to be prompted several times before she eventually replies, and says that she is sitting in her flight attendant's jumpseat, 3R.

You can listen to the tape that has been released of this call on youtube, here.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=q-Tr0u35Tek

It is obvious that she doesn't want to answer the question about her seat number. Why?

Airphones are fitted in front of the passenger, mounted in the rear of the seat in front. Are airphones fitted in the rear of the last row of seats? Surely not. Why would they be? There would be no way for any seated passenger to use them.

If this is correct, then how could a flight attendant sitting in the jump seat make an airphone call?

Flight personnel are actually forbidden under regulations to have any contact with anyone outside of the plane without going through the cockpit, so there would be no circumstances under which a flight attendant would need an airfone. So jump seats dont have airphones, and neither do the rear of the back row of seats. These kinds of details are hard to verify, but it's not important. It's the phone number that blows her cover.

It's the little things which give the big picture away. Betty Ong was talking into a headset which was plugged into external port #4 on a Claircomm box. She wasn't anticipating the question about her seat number. It took her a while to formulate her answer. It was a pretty good response given the circumstances. Jump seat is a logical place to be. Except that there is no airphone there. Still, good attempt “on the fly”.

Betty Ong was taking part in a simulation, an exercise. These transcripts and interviews prove it. To do so, in the posts that follow, we're going to take a long, detailed look at the circumstances surrounding this phone call, and the other one from Flight 11, from Amy Sweeney.

Did I say Flight 11? There was some confusion about that on the morning of September 11 2001. The two flight attendants on the plane both made a persistent error that day. They both referred to the flight as “Flight 12”. Was this a case of multiple slips-of-the-tongue? Or was it part of the deliberate confusion that marked the day? In the next post, now that the introduction is out of the way, this series will begin by taking a close look at the question:

Flight 11, or flight 12?

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 2

Here's the location in the rear of the plane, jumpseat 3R, from which Betty Ong is said to have made the call:



If she made the call from an airphone, it would have had to be in the rear of the last row of seats, which seems wrong, and is proven wrong by the phone number.

Here's the airphone call record:



From this page:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Betty_Ong_call

You can see that the number from which the call is made is the same as rwagner66 discusses for Flight 77. Both the calls from Flight 11, or I should say, all the calls, from the two flight attendants, are made from this same number, 904 555 0004.

If these calls were made from genuine seat-back airphones then they would have shown different, genuine originating phone numbers! It was perfectly possible to make a call to these airphones, and each had its own number. But not these calls apparently.

Here's the screen grab of the transcript showing the pause when asked which seat she is in:



This is from the beginning, or near the beginning, of the call. The pause is even more pronounced when you listen to the call. She ignores several requests to state where she is sitting.

Notice also the "Flight 12" response. Have a listen also to that on the tape. Notice anything odd? That's where the next post begins....

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 3


Two flight attendants from Flight 11 made contact with the outside world via airphone: Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney. Both identified the flight as Flight 12, at least twice, each, at the beginning of their respective conversations. Once would be a slip-of-the-tongue. Twice would be carelessness. But when two flight attendants both make the same “mistake”, at least twice, in circumstances where accuracy is of the utmost importance, this is beyond the possibility of error. Why did they do this?

To try to answer the question, we are going to look at each of these calls, and the circumstances surrounding them, including the flight 12 references, in close detail. The first call received was from Betty Ong. It came in at 8:18am that morning. It seems Betty called the general American Airlines reservation number. Her call went into the system, and was randomly routed to a reservations center in North Carolina.

The call was answered by Vanessa Minter. We're going to be hearing a lot from her later on, and she has some fascinating things to share. After all, she happened to be in a very special time and place in history. When the call came in, and Betty Ong told her there was a hijacking underway, this was the very first moment when the world received the first notice that the 9/11 event was underway. Vanessa was at the pointy end of it all, chosen by fate and destiny to be the one that Betty Ong was connected to that day.

Did she do America proud?

Errr, not exactly, as far as the story goes. She panicked. She knew what she had to do. She had to push the emergency button. But there was a problem: she couldn't find the emergency button. It had to be around here someplace. Big red button on the front of the phone. Nope. Can't see it.



Unable to find the emergency button to activate the emergency, Vanessa did what anyone would have done. She called someone. That was Winston Sadler, in a department on the other side of the building. Vanessa explained what was going on. There was a hijacking, and could Winston help out here because Vanessa couldn't find the emergency button? Winston said, put the call through to me, which she did. Then, Winston finally hit the emergency button.

The reason that this emergency button is so crucial to our story is that when it is pushed it automatically begins the recording of the conversation. So this is where the tape that you can listen to on Youtube begins: at the moment when Winston Sadler pushes the emergency button which Vanessa Minter couldn't locate.

The tape ends exactly four minutes later, so that only those four minutes of the entire conversation are said to have been recorded. The reason given why the entire conversation was not recorded is that the Rockwell system had recently been upgraded, and as a result of the upgrade, the automatic recording facility for emergency calls had been changed so that instead of recording the entire call, it now recorded only the first four minutes. This is, of course, scarcely believable, as no one would ever “upgrade” a system that way, or design an emergency phone recording system designed to shut off after four minutes, but let's leave that aside for the moment.

The point is that the recording does indeed go for four minutes, and we've been told that the system automatically shut off after four minutes: so the clear and inescapable implication is that the four minutes of audio released to the public, the four minutes that you can hear on youtube, is the complete audio recording made that day.

Except that it's not. There's a problem. To see the problem, we now turn our attention to the exchange about “flight 12”, right at the beginning of the tape. Actually, it's not quite at the beginning. There is a short exchange beforehand. Before we get to that, it's important that you listen to Betty Ong saying “Flight 12”, if you can. When you do, you will hear something very odd: it sounds like her voice splits into two different voices when she says it. Have a listen a couple of times, and compare it with the audio either side. There is clearly something unusual about the way she says “Flight 12”. It's as if two people are saying it at the same time.

Indeed, that's what the official story actually says. Even though the transcript shown above taken from the youtube on-screen transcript shows “Betty Ong” said those words, the official transcript shows something different. Have a look. First, here is the link to two documents with the transcripts discussed in this post:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13499778/T...on-Transcripts

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14094215/T...ntire-Contents

Here's the way the transcript (in the first document linked above), describes it:

It says that Betty Ong and Vanessa Minter said Flight 12 at the same time!

Just imagine for a moment that the government transcript is accurate: that it really is both of them saying those words at the same time. What is happening? Recall Vanessa has taken the call, and then involved Winston Sadler. It is Sadler who is asking which flight it is. It is now several seconds after the emergency button has been pushed. Now, if both Minter and Ong answer at the same time, this means that Ong must have already identified the flight as flight 12 to Minter!

Let's just be clear about this. Flight 11 was an institution at Boston Logan Airport. The daily morning flight to LAX was one of the prestige routes. It had been flight 11 for many years. This is not like getting bus routes mixed up in a city you've never visitted. Flight 11 was part of the profesional furniture of these people's lives. They knew it was Flight 11. And it was, supposedly, being hijacked, so accurate information is of the essence. Under the circumstances, the idea that Ong could have clearly identified the flight as Flight 12 TWICE during the first minutes of her phone call, is very strange.

But does Vanessa Minter really say flight 12 at exactly the same time as Ong? Have another listen to it. The two voices are so in sync that it is hard to believe it could be two people. It sounds rather like some weird effects filter has been applied to Ong's voice to make it sound doubled. Could the tape have been manipulated in any way?

Yes, it was.

As I mentioned in the first post in this thread, there is now a cache of materials online, including interviews and transcripts dating from the first days after 9/11. Two of these documents are linked above. This is the one we are going to be looking at now:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14094215/T...ntire-Contents

If you scroll down to page 11 of this pdf, you will find a transcript of the Betty Ong phone conversation that was made by the FBI investigation on September 12, 2001. The next day! You can go through line by line and compare it with the transcript made available today, and the audio which you can listen to on youtube, and it is all the same. No problem there. To be clear: the transcript from September 12, 2001 is identical to the transcript we have today, and to the audio.

Now scroll back up to the beginning of the document that I linked to above. Beginning from page 2 is a transcript of a phone call that took place on September 11 2001, at 12:28pm. On one end of the line was Larry Wansley, managing director of corporate security for American Airlines. On the other was Nydia Gonzalez. Nydia was the supervisor that morning. When Winston Sadler hit the emergency button, Gonzalez was notified and was able to take part in the call also.

At 12:30pm on the day of 9/11 itself, Nydia took part in a recorded phone conversation with Wansley, during which she played the tape of the Ong phone call from that morning. The entire phone call between Wansley and Gonzalez, including the playing of the Ong phone call tape, was transcribed, and appears following page 2 on the above linked document.

This gives us the opportunity to compare the transcript of the Ong phone call recording made on 9/11, with the transcript released the next day. Are they the same? Were any changes made in the transcript between the two versions?

To find out, I printed out both transcriptions, laid them out side-by-side, and started to compare the two, from the beginning. But there was an immediate problem. The beginnings of the two transcripts are completely different! What was going on?

It took me a while to sort out the confusion. I had to get highlighters in different colours, and several cups of coffee before I had figured out what was going on. Here's what happened: the tape of the Ong call played on September 11 consists of two copies of the four-minute audio spliced together. This double-loop (dare I say loopDloop? ) was then played from a point about one-third of the way into the four-minutes. It then plays through to the end of the four-minutes, but instead of ending there, the audio loops back to the start of the four-minutes. It then plays through the full four-minutes to the end, where this time it stops.

As a result, the tape of the Ong call played by Gonzalez for Wansley on 9/11/2001 consists of the equivalent of about seven minutes of audio.

I hope I have described this clearly! To recap: when Gonzalez played the tape of the Ong call to Wansley, it began, not at the beginning, but a third of the way through. It played to the end, and then looped back and played the complete call a second time.

You can verify this for yourself by going through the two transcripts line by line, but it is certainly not obvious. Neither Wansley or Gonzalez seemed to notice. Neither did the transcriber. No one did. But there's no doubt about this. The Ong call was played on a loop.

How could this have happened? There's only two possibilities, isn't there. It was either an accident, or it was deliberate. But let's not get hung up on this point for now, because there's more.

I've previously commented somewhere on a thread that, for the perps, the anxiety is in the transitions. The moments of greatest stress for the operation are the scene changes. Pay close attention to the points in the story where the shifts occur, and you can often glimpse the mechanics of the illusion. And so it is here.

What we are going to do now is to focus in on the “beginning” of the Ong phone call, as it appears in the Gonzalez-Wansley transcript of 9/11. By “beginning”, I mean the beginning of the four-minute call as we have it today, but of course, if you've been able to follow the above, you will be clear that this “beginning” actually occurs in the middle of the “looped” version of the call on 9/11.

There's no ambiguity about where this “beginning” occurs. We know exactly where the four-minute version ends, with Betty Ong saying they have tried to get medical help, “but they can't get a doc....”. She is cut off half way through the word “doctor”.

Here's the end from 9/12:



Now let's go to the point in the Gonzalez-Wansley 9/11 version where the tape loops back to the beginning. Here it is: you can see where the "ending" should be..."ah somebody's calling medical and we can't get them". That's the end right there, where the four minute tape finishes. But of course, it keeps going in this 9/11 transcript. Let's have a look:



Now let's have a comparison with the first few lines of the transcript as it appeared from 9/12/01 onwards. Here's the beginning of the conversation again, from 9/12:



Compare the two version closely and you will see the problem. The 9/11 version has an unidentified male saying, twice, is anyone there, then immediately follows the exchange about which seat she is in.

But in the 9/12 version, this unidentified man's voice is missing. Instead we have a line from Betty Ong which she seems to repeat several times during the conversation, (" the cockpits not answering" etc).

The two versions are so different that it cannot simply be that lines were overlooked. Somethings been spliced. And in particular:

The exchange about “flight 12” which occurs in the 9/12 transcript is completely missing from the 9/11 transcript!!!

Now, in this case, there is no chance that the lines could simply have been overlooked, or, omitted by the 9/11 transcriber. We also can be sure that there is not some kind of confusion over the exact start point of the recording.

There can be no doubt: the “flight 12” exchange was simply not on the tape as it was played by Gonzalez to Wansley on 9/11/01 in the place where it can be heard in the 9/12/01 version!

In fact, the Flight 12 exchange is absent not only from the “beginning” of the conversation, but it does not appear anywhere in the entire tape of the call played on 9/11.

This observation has far-reaching implications. What is happening here is this: the flight 12 exchange between Sadler and Ong (and Minter?) does not occur within the four minutes of recorded audio of the call, as transcribed on 9/11/01. It does however appear, right at the very beginning, in the transcript released the next day.

The conclusion is unavoidable. The transcript and audio were altered between 9/11 and 9/12. The recording of the flight 12 exchange has been inserted into the four minutes, but it must have come from outside the four minutes, originally.

What I am trying to say here is this: the information that only four minutes of the call was recorded must be false. The exchange about flight 11 which is now part of the four-minutes, was not originally part of the four-minutes, and therefore, more of the phone call than just four minutes must have originally been recorded.

Here is what I think happened. The beginning of the genuine recording is earlier than what has been released. The story about Vanessa Minter being unable to locate the big red flashing button on the front of her telephone is obviously bogus. They are trying to buy a little time here, because there were things said at the beginning of the call which were not entirely suitable for public release. So they had to start the supposed recording some little way in.

This decision was hurriedly made on the morning of 9/11. Perhaps the looping of the tape was deliberate confusion to blur over this difficulty with the beginning. But then, by the next day, when they had some time to think about, someone decided that one piece of the tape had to be inserted into that “beginning” section. For some reason, it was critical to splice in the exchange between Sadler and Ong about flight 12.

Why bother? If it was just a slip-of-the-tongue, why not just leave it out? Why was it necessary to cut and splice this exchange about flight 12 into the “beginning” of the Ong call recording? Surely it just makes Ong look momentarily clueless?

Unless what we are seeing is a deliberate plan to create confusion.

There's lots more to be said about the Ong call, but in the next post, we'll continue on the flight 12 theme, and see how Amy Sweeney was caught up in the same confusion.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 4

That last post was not easy to follow, so here is a summary, with colour coding.

The Betty Ong call transcript, in every version you will see online, since 9/12/01, begins like this:



and ends like this:



So the red box shows how it begins, and the blue box shows how it ends.

Now lets look at the transcript that was made on 9/11/01, from the Wansley-Gonzalez phone call. Here we are in the middle of the transcript, where the tape of the Ong conversation loops from the end to the beginning.



Look at the blue first, and see that this is indeed the end of the conversation.

Now compare the two red boxes. To create the 9/12 version out of the 9/11 version requires first removing the "Unidentified male", then splicing in new material: the first line of Betty Ong followed by the flight 12 exchange. After that, the two versions are the same, with Sadler asking Ong repeatedly which seat she is in.

So there is no doubt at all: the transcript of the Ong call was altered between 9/11/01 and 9/12/01, with the purpose of the alteration being to insert the "flight 12" reference.

With that cleared up, we turn attention to the Amy Sweeney call. Again, as with the Betty Ong call, we are going to go into extensive detail about the handling of this call, but let's just start with the basics. Sweeney made two phone call that were connected that morning. She called into the American Airlines FLight Services office at Boston Airport.There has been considerable confusion over the years as to what time the first call was made. Even today, if you look at some of the 9/11 timelines online, you will read that the call was made at 8:20.

But it was much later than this: her first call was made at 8:29, according to the records of the call released. What happened as a result of this call is one of the most fascinating episodes of the entire day, and that will be the subject of the next post, but just before we look at what happened there, I want to ask the question:

Why did Amy Sweeney make her call at 8:29am?

Think about it for a moment. There are 81 passengers. There are 9 flight attendants. Two of these have been stabbed. So now we are down to 7 active flight attendants. One of those (Ong) is on the phone. She's been on the phone since 8:18am, and is connected, and is now dealing directly with the Dallas Operations Control Center. She's been assured by this time that security, and everyone, has been notified. So with Ong on the phone, that leaves just 6 flight attendants now, to keep the calm, deal with the situation, including two stabbed flight attendants and a dying passenger.

You would think there was plenty to do. You would think that placing a second, entirely redundant phone call, to the flight services office at Logan, would be an entirely pointless exercise. But that's what Amy did with the last ten minutes of her life. She sat, according to her own reported account, next to Betty Ong, so she knew that Betty had the situation covered, but instead of re-assuring passengers, helping save lives, Amy's decided there are things to be done on the phone.

So she gets herself composed, ready, makes the call: and what do you know, identifies the flight as "flight 12" yet again. It's now ten minutes since Betty made the same mistake. It's almost as if, gee, do you think, they were trying to tell us something. Let's take a close look at Amy Sweeney's first phone call.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 5

In this post we are going to look at the circumstances surrounding the first of two phone calls that Amy Sweeney made from flight 11 on 9/11/01.

At 8:29am, after a first failed attempt which did not connect, Amy Sweeney made a successful airphone call. She reached Evie Nunez, a manager in the American Airlines flights services office at Boston Logan Airport. This call lasted just over a minute before it was cut off. A few minutes later she made a second call to the same office, but we are not going to discuss that call in this post. We are going to focus in on this short, one-minute, phone call, and what happened as a result.

To recall the timeline: Flight 11 is said to have taken off at 7:59am. The “hijacking” took place at 8:13. Betty Ong placed her phone call at 8:18. This first call of Amy Sweeney's began therefore about half an hour after take-off, 16 minutes after the hijack commenced, and 11 minutes since Ong had been on the phone.

Amy had plenty of time to prepare herself, and to think about what it was she needed to say. She was a professional, and knew that her actions were critical to the safety of the passengers and crew.

So why did she tell Evie that she was on flight 12, and that it was parked at Gate 32?

Here's the excerpt from the FBI interview with Evie from 9/12/01:
Here's the excerpt from the FBI interview with Evie from 9/12/01:

Quote:

After 8:30 AM on September 11, 2001, NUNEZ received a
telephone call from a AA flight attendant who did not give her
name and stated that Flight 12 at Gate 32 had two flight
attendants stabbed. In addition, there was a passenger in row 9
who had their throat cut by a passenger in seat 10B. NUNEZ also
learned the hijackers said they had a bomb. The flight attendant
was talking fast and then got disconnected.

B17 FBIs 302s of interest

Amy Sweeney told Evie Nunez that they were on flight 12, at gate 32!!!!

Gate 32 was one of the two gates from which Flight 11 is said to have taken off. It is certainly the gate at which the passengers boarded, according to the FBI interviews of two flight attendants who were present at the boarding.

But of course, the flight was in the air, and had been for 30 minutes according to the official story, so why would Amy Sweeney say it was parked at Gate 32?

Did she really say it was at Gate 32, or did Nunez somehow misunderstand what Sweeney was saying?

This is an impossible question to answer, because we don't have the recording of the phone conversation, but it does seem very odd that Sweeney would even feel the need to mention the departing Gate number for any reason. It is completely irrelevant to the situation. This leads me to suspect that Sweeney did indeed tell Nunez that the flight was parked at the gate, as Nunez thought, because otherwise there does not seem to be any sensible reason to even mention the gate number. As we shall see though, it doesn't matter that we cannot be sure if Nunez understood Sweeney correctly ot not, because it is what happens next which clarifies the situation.

So, what exactly did Evie Nunez do next. Here is the continuation of the quote above taken from her FBI interview:

Quote:

NUNEZ immediately called flight operations for AA to determine the status of Flight
12. NUNEZ learned that it was Flight 11 that had just left and
she ran a computer check to determine the identity/of the
passenger in seat 10B on Flight 11. NUNEZ determined it was
SATAM AL SUQAMI, who purchased an E-Tickef in Fort Lauderdale on
August 28, 2001. NUNEZ provided the investigating Agent with the
printout on AL SUQAMI.

Actually, no she didn't. This is bullsh!t right here. Evie Nunez is leaving out the crucial part of the story.

Before she called flight operations and checked the computer, Evie Nunez did something else, which she couldn't bring herself to tell the FBI that morning. Why? Well, let's take a look, and see.

What did Nunez do? She spoke to Michael Woodward, flight services manager, (whether by phone or in person it is not possible to be sure from the transcripts) and asked him to go down to Gate 32 and see what was going on. Michael, in turn, asked his colleague Elizabeth Williams to accompany him on this mission. Together, the two of them then walked to Gate 32, which was only a matter of two minutes walk from their office.

What did they find when they got there?

There were only two people there who can tell us: Michael Woodward, and Elizabeth Williams.

Michael Woodward, as we will see in posts to come, has an exciting morning ahead of him, but he does not realise that yet, at 8:31am on the morning of September 11, 2001. He will be interviewed several times over the next few days by the FBI, and several more times over the years since then. We will be looking at these interviews in detail in later posts, but at this point let's take a look at what Michael Woodward has said, in several different places, about what he and Elizabeth Williams found when they got to Gate 32 that morning.

Here's what he said on 9/12/01:

Quote:

On September 11, 2001, WOODWARD came to work at Logan
Airport at 6: 45 .AM. WOODWARD· was one of three managers on duty in the
AA office. Sometime after 8:00 AM, EVELYN NUNEZ, one of the other
managers, told him that two flight attendants had been stabbed and
were administered oxygen. NUNEZ stated the plane was at Gate 32 and
he went with BETH WILLIAMS to see if the plane was still there. They
went to the gate, realized the flight had left and came back
downstairs. Upon returning to the flight service office, WOODWARD
learned that the call between NUNEZ and the flight attendant had been
disconnected.
Shortly thereafter, the AA flight attendant AMY SWEENEY

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-0...-woodward2.pdf

Let's just get that straight: the order of events is:

1. Nunez tells him about the plane at gate 32.
2. He and Williams go to the gate. They “realised the flight had left” and return.
3. ON returning to the office Woodward learns the call between Nunez and Sweeney was disconnected.

Notice here that Woodward doesn't actually say what they saw at Gate 32. He just says that they realised the flight had left.

Woodward was interviewed again two days later, and now the story was morphing:

Quote:

At some time between 8:15 a.m. and 8:45 a.m., WOODWARD
was contacted and asked to go to one of the departure gates.
WOODWARD had trouble recalling which gate he went to, but he
believes he went to Gate 31 or 32. Shortly, thereafter, WOODWARD
realized a flight attendant on board one of the flights had
called the Flight Services office to report trouble on a flight.
WOODWARD then proceeded to the Flight Services office, where he
took a phone call from ANY SWEENEY (True Name: MADELINE
SWEENEY), a Flight Attendant on AA Flight 11. The following
information was relayed to WOODWARD by SWEENEY via telephone
(WOODWARD was unsure whether SWEENEY was on the on-board phones
or a cellular telephone):

Now he's not sure if it was Gate 31 or 32. No mention at all of what they saw down at the gate. And oddly, he now reports that he became aware of Sweeney's first call only AFTER going to the gate.

Fortunately, he is interviewed again in January 2004, and has a chance to clear up the confusion:

January 25 2004

Quote:

When flight services were in order, he returned to his office around the departure
time (he is not sure whether it was the scheduled time or the actual time of take-off). He
said the walk from the departure gate to his office was only a few minutes long. He was
in his office doing paperwork. Around 8:30 a.m. (he is not sure of exactly when) he
heard Evelyn Nunez, whom he shared the office with, taking a call. She was rather loud.
She kept saying "What, what, what? ... Who's hurt? ... What?"
He got up and went into the MOD office and Woodward asked MOD Nunez what the problem was.
She said she didn't know. She had gotten a weird phone call. The caller said that someone was hurt
on Flight 12. She indicated that someone had been hurt, stabbed. The call had gotten
cut-off.

Woodward remembers thinking that perhaps it was air rage because there was a lot of
that type of thing going on at the time. He thought that maybe there was a disturbance in
the terminal. He and Beth Williams (who is another AAL employee) went to the
departure gate where nothing seemed amiss. All the flights in the "morning bank" had
left. At this point, he commented to Beth, "wait a minute - Flight 12 comes in at night. It
hasn't even left Los Angeles yet." He remembered thinking that sometimes the AAL
Operations Center will call when there is a problem on a flight and tell them to meet it
when the aircraft lands. After checking out the gate area, Williams and Woodward
returned to the office. It was about a two-minute walk from the gate area back to their
office.

Now that he's had a couple years to think about it, Woodward has it all smoothed out. He was right next to Nunez when the call came in. He heard her on the call, and knew that the line had been cut-off. All this before he went down to the departure gates. He mentions that the caller said “flight 12”, but doesn't mention the gate number. Nor does he say, again, exactly what he saw when he got there except to note that “nothing was amiss”. They “checked out the gate area”, but that's all we learn.

There seems to be some evasion going on here. Woodward can't get straight when he learned of the call being made, or cut off. And he can't bring himself to remember the gate number easily. He gets it right the first day, then after that its “31 or 32”, then it's gone completely.

There's a reason why Woodward is reluctant to really spell it out that he went down to Gate 32 to see Flight 12 at 8:30am that morning. It's because, approximately one hour earlier, Woodward had been down to this same gate to check out the departing flight 11! He visitted the plane at the gate while it was boarding. He went on board. He spoke to several flight attendants and remembered them by name. He noted that everything was fine. Then he went back to his office.

So, why, one hour later, when Nunez told him there was a problem with flight 12 at gate 32, did Woodward not immediately realise that there must be an issue with the flight number? Woodward, if he was on the ball that morning, in his position as flight services manager, should have responded to Nunez, “hang on, it's flight 11 which was at Gate 32 this morning, and it has left about half an hour ago”.

Perhaps Woodward hadn't had his second cup of coffee yet for the morning. I know I'm only firing on half cylinders until my caffeine levels are up to par. In any case, Woodward didn't twig, and this might explain why he didn't go out of his way to make it all crystal clear to the FBI that he was asked to go to flight 12 at gate 32, when he had only just got back from visitting flight 11 at gate 32.

In any case, let's move on, because while Woodward might have been reluctant to tell us plainly what happened that morning at gate 32, the same was not the case for his colleague Elizabeth Williams. When she was interviewed by the FBI the next day, she didn't try to avoid the issue. She told them plainly and clearly what she saw that morning down at gate 32, but you won't find this reported anywhere subsequently in any of the accounts of the day. If you read about this seemingly minor incident anywhere, it's always Michael Woodward's accounts which are quoted. They went down to gate 32. There was nothing to see there, so they kept moving, according to Woodward.

Not so fast.

What Elizabeth Williams saw that morning has been dropped down the memory hole.

For very good reason: it blows the lid on 9/11.

And here is her inteview, describing what happened when they went down to Gate 32:

Quote:

WILLIAMS stated on September 11, 2001, at approximately
8a.m., she was working in her office at LOGAN AIRPORT when
MICHAEL WOODWARD, Manager of Flight Services for AMERICAN
AIRLINES AA, advised her that they needed to go to Gate 32
because two flight attendants had been stabbed.

Upon arrival at the gate, WILLIAMS and WOODWARD found an empty airplane.

WOODWARD then got on the phone and contacted EVELYN NUNEZ, an
employee of AA at LOGAN AIRPORT. While WOODWARD was on/the
phone, WILLIAMS searched the gate-side computer for information
for the flight time of the airplane at Gate 32. WOODWARD then
told WILLIAMS that NUNEZ was on the phone with a flight attendant
that was in trouble. Shortly thereafter, WOODWARD relayed to
WILLIAMS the fact that NUNEZ had lost contact With the flight
attendant.

At this time. WILLIAMS and WOODWARD realized they must
have received the wrong information. Both WOODWARD and WILLIAMS
speculated that the individuals they were looking for were the
individuals on the flight that NUNEZ had spoken with. WILLIAMS
and WOODWARD then proceeded to the location of NUNEZ.

Elizabeth Williams saw: an empty plane! This is so exciting let's have it again:

Upon arrival at the gate, WILLIAMS and WOODWARD found an empty airplane.

Was this possibly a slip of the tongue, or a misunderstanding, or a transcriber's error?

Certainly not: she says it again:

While WOODWARD was on the phone, WILLIAMS searched the gate-side computer for information for the flight time of the airplane at Gate 32.

At 8:30am on the morning of September 11, 2001, Elizabeth Williams went down to Gate 32, where Flight 11 had boarded an hour previously, and she saw there, with her own eyes, an empty plane.

A plane. That was empty. That is: empty of passengers.

“Flight 11” had not taken off, but the passengers were gone.

Simple as that.

“Flight 11” was still parked at the gate, half an hour after its alleged take-off, but the passengers were gone.

If Elizabeth Williams is telling the truth, if she is not mistaken, or deluded, or mis-reported, then we may have here the key which unlocks the entire 9/11 puzzle.

Is there any other evidence that “flight 11” simply never took off?

There certainly is: it's the famous NTSB database entry which lists no wheels-off time for the flight for that day.

There have been two explanations for this oddity in the official record: the NTSB say that the data was not reported, in the confusion of the day. The conspiracy theorists say that it proves flight 11 never existed.

But the data does not say either of these things. If we just take the data at face-value, rather than assuming it is incorrect, or misreported, or falsified, what does the data tell us? It tells us that flight 11 existed but that it never took off!

The wheels-off data is recorded automatically and electronically, even if it is not automatically reported. The fact that the entry exists shows that the flight was scheduled. The fact that the data shows the time as 00:00 indicates that the wheels never moved. This corresponds exactly to what Elizabeth Williams saw and described. The plane was there. It had not taken off.

If Elizabeth Williams is correct in what she saw, not mistaken or misreported, then the entry in the NTSB database for Flight 11 exactly matches what she described.

So we have two witnesses now who testify that the plane labelled as flight 11 never took off that morning: Elizabeth Williams, who says it twice, unambiguously, and the NTSB data, which shows that the plane never moved from the gate.

Let's just summarise now the bullet points of the story that is emerging about flight 11 in this thread:

1. The originating number on the airphone records show that the calls were placed from a prepared location, via an external port on the Claircom box, and not from a seatback phone handset.
2. Betty Ong identified the flight as “flight 12” at the beginning of her call
3. The transcript of the Betty Ong call was altered in the first 24 hours after 9/11, so as to make the “flight 12” exchange appear at the beginning of the four-minute recording, when it was not there on 9/11 itself.
4. The information that only four minutes of the Ong call was recorded must be incorrect.
5. Amy Sweeney also identified the flight as “flight 12” on her first phone call, and said it was parked at gate 32.
6. Woodward and Williams went to Gate 32 to check, and found an empty plane.

What's intriguing is that this tale hangs together as a coherent narrative. Here's a possible scenario: the doors of the flight are closed at 7:40am. As soon as that happens, a man stands up on the plane and explains the passengers and crew that they are now involved in a military drill. They are asked to disembark the plane, through the rear doors, where a bus is waiting for them on the tarmac. They are taken somewhere. I have no idea where, but in that location is a prepared Claircom box. Sweeney and Ong are selected, and convinced, to play roles within the simulation, pretending to phone in the details of the imaginary hijacking. It is impressed upon them that they must not give the game away. Betty Ong does pretty well, but in the end, there is really only four minutes near the beginning of the call which could conceivably ever be released into the public domain, so they make up the story about the four minutes of recording, and after a false start, settle on an acceptable transcript by the second day. Amy Sweeney's first call is a complete botch up, and the controllers have to pull the plug on the connection after about a minute, because she is taking too much creative license with the script. They give her a quick pep talk, and then she reconnects for the second phone call (which we haven't discussed yet, but in which she, yet again, misidentifies the flight as flight 12, as we will see). All these flight 12 references are deliberate, to ratchet up the confusion.

The above is just an attempt to fit the facts to a scenario. What's important are the facts, not the scenario. The repeated flight 12 references. The empty plane.

Elizabeth Williams still works for American Airlines. Many of the others in this story were let go in the aftermath of 9/11, as the airline industry went through massive restructure. Woodward left. Vanessa Minter left. Minter comments in an interview that it surprised her to be laid off, as “if they wanted to control what I say about 9/11, it would be better if they left me on payroll”. Well, they didn't keep Vanessa on payroll. But they have kept Elizabeth Williams on payroll. She has a LinkedIn. Here it is, and her photo.

Quote:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/elizabet...ams/10/957/439

Human Resources Specialist
American Airlines
Public Company; 10,001+ employees; AMR; Airlines/Aviation industry
July 2011 – Present (1 year 1 month) Dallas/Fort Worth Area

Purser Manager
American Airlines
Public Company; 10,001+ employees; AMR; Airlines/Aviation industry
May 2001 – June 2011 (10 years 2 months) Boston, MA

Someone might try to contact her and ask her: did you really see an empty plane that day at gate 32, but my guess is that she won't be talking.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 6

As mentioned in previous post, the reason that they came up with as to why only four minutes of Betty Ong's call was recorded, is, supposedly, because of a recent upgrade to the Rockwell system. Previously, a call in which the emergency button was depressed, would automatically be recorded in its entirety. But after the “upgrade”, the recording would shut down after four minutes. I can't find the quote now, but it's covered in one of these FBI interview documents in an interview, with, I think, a guy called Troy Wregglesworth, who ran the system at American Airlines.

In any case, you can also see that they are not completely convinced that this cover story is going to stick. Here is Nydia Gonzalez, from the phone call to Larry Wansley, corporate security head at American Airlines, on 9/11/01, at 12:38pm. Here's the exchange that took place between them, after the Ong tape stopped playing.

Quote:

Recording concluded.
GONZALEZ: That's as far as it goes.
WANSLEY: Okay. The conversation lasted another five or ten
minutes but that's all the recording we have?
GONZALEZ: Right.
WANSLEY: Okay.
GONZALEZ: Communications is checking into it to find out why
cause the emergency button was on the whole time.

As far as Gonzalez was aware, and she was the supervisor in operations, so she should have known, if the emergency button was on, then the entire conversation should have been recorded.

Winston Sadler thought so too, and assured Betty Ong that:

WINSTON SADLER:Yeah. I'm taking it down. All the information. We're also,
you know, of course, recording this. At this point...

So as far as Winston Sadler was concerned, there was no issue with recording being shut down after four minutes. “Of course”, they were recording the conversation.

Now look at the exchange that immediately follows this line of Sadler's:

NYDIA GONZALEZ: This is operations. What flight number arc we talking about?
WINSTON SADLER: Flight 12.
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Flight 12? Okay. I'm getting ...
BETTY ONG: No. We're on Flight 11 right now. This is Flight 11.

This is the moment in the conversation when Nydia Gonzalez breaks in. As we will see later, she has just phoned Craig Marquis at the Dallas Fort Worth Operations Center for American Airlines, so she is trying to get her information correct. She asks for the flight number, and Sadler tells her it is flight 12, before Ong corrects him. "No, we're on Flight 11 right now."

Here is the reason why they had to splice in the “flight 12” reference at the purported beginning of the recording of the four minutes. If that initial reference is missing, as it was on the version of the tape played 9/11/01, then Sadler's comment seems extremely odd. Why would he suddenly blurt out that it was flight 12, when that had not been mentioned yet (according to the 9/11/01 transcript)?

It would seem that someone realised this on the afternoon of 9/11/01. If Sadler was the first to make the flight 12 reference, then where did that come from? They had to make sure that it was clear the origin of the error was Betty Ong. Otherwise, it looks suspiciously as if Sadler already knew about the flight 12/flight 11 labelling discrepancy. This would have looked pretty bad once the flight 12 references from Amy Sweeney were made public also. It would have looked as though Sadler had advance knowledge that there was a drill involved.

So they decided to risk exposing the fact that they had more than four minutes of recording. They retrieved the exchange about flight 12 which occurred earlier, before the tape was supposed to have started, and spliced it in there at the “beginning” of the tape. And no one noticed until now.

There is yet one more indication that there was some anxiety about the four minutes. On the first couple of pages of one of these FBI documents are some hand written notes. They are clearly written by someone inside the investigation, because some of the handwritten names have been redacted in the same style as throughout the rest of the document. One of these notes is intriguing. It's from the document called “Team 7 Box 13 Flight Call notes and 302s”. A “302” is an FBI term for an interview, or something like that. In any case, the handwritten line, in between a note about Daniel Lewin serving in the IDF, and a comment about Vanessa Minter and Betty Ong, reads:

Quote:

“Have a 302 that explains the 4 minutes”.

It's not clear whether this means they “have” the explanation yet, or they need to “have” it, but either way, someone felt an explanation was going to be needed.

One last observation about the flight 12 references in the Betty Ong conversation. After the initial reference to flight 12, she uses “flight 11” throughout the rest of the conversation. She corrects Sadler when he responds to Gonzalez that it is “flight 12”.

So what is going on here? If that recording and transcript of Betty Ong saying flight 12 is genuine, in the sense of being part of the entire conversation, then she started off saying “12”, then changed to “11”. On the other hand, if that flight 12 exchange is faked, synthesised, inserted from another source entirely, then perhaps Betty Ong wasn't confused.

They just wanted us to be.

Consider that it was a mighty feat of logistics and planning that morning, and there was no guarantee it was all going to work out as the perps planned. They needed to leave a clear trail of apparently genuine alerts from within the planes, from flight attendants, (and on other flights, passengers), trying to call for help. But at the same time, they did not want to trigger too efficient a response from the authorities that were not in on the plot.

So one of the purposes of this "flight 12" business was to inject a measured amount of confusion into the picture; to leave a believable trail of emergency phone calls, but to put a few banana skins on the road, as it were, to slow down any would-be heroes.

We're still not quite done with the flight 12 references, and that's before we start looking in detail at the rest of the contents and circumstances of the Ong and Sweeney phone calls. I did give fair warning this might get boring but the only way to make sense of this material is to go slowly through it with a fine tooth comb. So we need to go through all of the "flight 12" references, and there's still a couple more to go...

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 7

To quickly recap: at the start of her phone call, at 8:18am, to the North Carolina Reservations Center, Betty Ong told Vanessa Minter she was on Flight 12, and then repeated it to Winston Sadler.

Then, Amy Sweeney, in her first phone call at 8:30am to Flight Services at Boston Airport, told Evie Nunez that she, too, was on flight 12.

Remember how Nunez described it?

Quote:

NUNEZ immediately called flight operations for AA to determine the status of Flight 12. NUNEZ learned that it was Flight 11 that had just left

As I noted, she omitted the entire part about sending Woodward and Williams down to Gate 32, but it is also interesting what she says she did do: she made a phone call, to flight operations, and she looked up the computer to check the flight details.

There is, amazingly enough, a transcript of this phone call that she made in the FBI files, but it is not obvious. In this document here, are transcripts of the phone calls involving Betty Ong, and then a whole series of internal phone calls between employees at American Airlines. Many of these involve Ray Howland, who was a manager at the Operations Centre in Dallas Fort Worth. We are going to be looking at some of these calls in more detail later. However, there is a problem with trying to understand these transcripts: there are no times given for when the calls took place. And most of the names, other than Ray Howlands, have been redacted. So it is not easy, if not impossible, to tell who the calls are between and exactly when they took place.

But there is one call where it is possible to figure it out with a little sleuthing. The two names redacted are both shorter than “Ray Howland”. This means both participants must have short names, of 7 or 8 characters or so. I will spare you the full Sherlock Holmes details, but in this case the two names are Evie Nunez and Kelly Cox, who was the base manager for American Airlines flight services in Boston.

It makes perfect sense that Nunez would place her first call to Cox, who was her supervisor. Cox then immediately phones Dallas Fort-Worth, and is put through to Howland. The time of the call is therefore just after 8:30. Here's the full page of the call (actually there's a little more on the next page, but not relevant).




Here's what's happening. Cox has Rowland on one line, and Nunez on the other. Cox tells Rowland that flight 12 has been hijacked. Then, the transcipt records Nunez, on the other line, in the very moment of looking up the flight details on the computer and realising there is a problem. Read her reaction again, above, in italics. It is telling.

Nunez has realised with a shock that the flight is actually flight 11, but she had thought the called had said flight 12. Her instinctive reaction is that she, Nunez, must have made the mistake. This is an entirely natural human reaction. It would seem impossible that the flight attendant could have made the mistake. So she doubted herself. And there we have the moment, recorded on the transcript, Nunez in the background, suddenly realising that something isn't right.

Then Howland quickly corrects Cox, all at the same time, and everyone then is on the same page, referring to it as flight 11.

Is it possible that Nunez could have mis-heard, or mis-understood?

Consider what an extraordinary co-incidence this would be, given that Ong had already, 12 minutes earlier, identified the flight incorrectly as flight 12, possibly as many as two times.

But in fact we can be certain that Nunez did not make the error. It was definitely Amy Sweeney, and the reason we can be certain is that she did it again, when she called back the second time. Again, we are going to pull this second call apart in detail later on, but for now, we're just looking at these flight 12 references. Without going into the details then, it's Michael Woodward who (eventually) takes Amy Sweeney's second call, at 8:34am. Recall that it was Woodward who went down to Gate 32, to check on “flight 12”, and then realised it was “flight 11”, and returned to the office.

So Woodward is primed now to not be fooled a second time. He knows this is flight 11. He knows there is an issue. He might not have had his second cup of coffee, but he is alert and on his A-game now, surely. He takes over the second Amy Sweeney call. Instinctively, he grabs notepaper to make important notes of the call. Also a pen. All set. Talk to me Amy, I am ready.

And what is the very first thing he writes down.

Check it out.




He wrote down 12!

Then crossed it out and wrote 11!

So, don't worry Evie, you didn't make the mistake. You didn't take the flight number down incorrectly. That would be an astronomical co-incidence, because Betty Ong gave it as flight 12 (twice), and Amy Sweeney gave it as flight 12 on her second call, or at least, that's what Michael Woodward wrote down. Before she corrected it to 11. It was definitely Ong and Sweeney who were the ones referring to flight 12, before they corrected themselves.

Eleven, twelve. Twelve, eleven. Flight 11, flight 12. Flight 12, flight 11.

There really was a flight 12, by the way. Flight 12 was the afternoon flight which came in to Boston from LAX. It was normal for the same aircraft to be used. So, a particular airplane would be flight 11, flying from Boston to LA. Then it would turn around, and become Flight 12, and make the trip from LAX back to Boston.

Flight 11, flight 12.

Here's my take on it. I think that “flight 11” on September 11, 2001, was a scripted exercise.

There seems to be a theme, or a pattern, running through the elements of this script, if that's what it is. Here's a list of things about flight 11, or flight 12 as it was called.

It boarded from two gates: Gate 32 and gate 26, according to the various discrepant reports.

There were two security checkpoints, (at Gate 32) according to the 9/11 Commission report.

There were two flight attendants who made phone calls, one of whom made two calls.

There were two flight attendants stabbed.

There were two rental cars associated with the “hijack team” on this flight.

Mohammad Atta checked two bags which were not transferred to Flight 11.

Ong reported two hijackers were involved.

Two of the “hijackers” sat in seats 2A and 2B.

The flight makes two course corrections.

The alleged security photo of Atta and his partner, the two of them, going through the security checkpoint, shows two date stamps.

Atta. American Airlines AA. 11.

Do you see a pattern here? .

Everything that happens to do with flight 11 happens in pairs.

Confusion.

If there's two of every thing, it's always harder to keep track.

It's almost as if there is a Script Director behind the scenes working to a formula. Deliberate confusion by doubling.

Now, of course, I could be overthinking this. Perhaps this run of pairs is indeed just a co-incidence. Nevertheless, it's an interesting idea, isn't it, that a professional scriptwriter could have been engaged to co-ordinate these complex, psychologically-crucial storylines.

Wait a minute: there was a scriptwriter on Flight 11: David Angell.

[Mark: my comment: David Angell was co-creator of the sitcom, Frasier. He was on Flight 11, and died that day, September 11th. In the clip below we see references to “Flight 11” in an episode of Frasier called “Odd Man Out” that aired May 27, 1997.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UDG1TIq6qYE

There is an excellent thread here on David Angell. There is also an excellent page at Clues Forum here:

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?t=1195

There is no chance that this is a co-incidence. Co-incidences don't smell like this. Genuine co-incidences have their own unique peculiar fingerprint, and this is not one of those. This is a complete set-up, a blatant calling-card left in the filing cabinet by David Angell. Forgetaboutit. This phone message, repeated twice, do you notice, is completely unnecessary to the plot. For the script to specify American Airlines flight 11, and then for Angell to meet his demise in that very flight, is out of the realm of co-incidence.

Indeed, let's really work this point. Angell and his wife had a lifelong relationship with Cape Cod, and Massachusetts. They would commute back and forward between LA and Boston. Obviously, David Angell knew all about the institution of flight 11, the morning flight from Boston back to LA.

So when the scriptwriters of Frasier had American Airlines flight 11 coming into Seattle, where Frasier is set, David Angell knew full well that there was a double meaning here, and there's that word again.

So what was David Angell doing putting the AA flight 11 into Frasier?

The answer is provided by another incredible clip created and archived by Clues Forum..

[taken down from Youtube]

see: https://web.archive.org/web/20140814...?v=MFa30_o0PJA

Ahuh, so, bit of an obsession here apparently. As Clues Forum astutely observe:

Quote:

"My number is 11"
~ Aleister Crowley,*The Book of Law

"Frasier*actor Kelsey Grammer has purchased a $6.5 million four-bedroom apartment for his new mistress, without the knowledge of his soon-to-be-ex-wife Camille, the New York Post reported. The new apartment is at 100 11th Avenue."
~*TheRealDeal.com

So co-incidence piles on co-incidence. David Angell, celebrated scriptwriter, dies in American Airlines flight 11, and has the flight inserted into an episode of Frasier four years earlier. He is sitting, with his wife, next to Mohammad Atta, in business class. And right behind, in 9B, is Daniel Lewin, wearing his titanium swatch, which only he knows is actually the “Hijacker” model.

So there's a whole bunch of co-incidences all sitting there next to each other up the front of flight 11.

you know what, I'm going to come out and say it: I think David Angell wrote this script that has the back-and-forth between flights 11 and 12. I think it's a tall story.

Now here's a funny thing. Look at this quote, from a friend of David's, made at a memorial service, September 16, 2001. He tells an anecdote, about David the scriptwriter coming in to pitch his ideas. And then these two sentences appear:

Quote:

Which gave me lots of time to notice that the page he was reading from was atop an alarmingly tall pile of identical pages.

I think he came in with 11 or 12 stories.

His First Meeting
Written by Les Charles
(From the October 2001 issue of "Written By")

This is a transcript of remarks made on September 16, 2001, at a memorial service in Los Angeles for David and Lynn Angell. Thanks to Sally Reeder for contributing personal photos of the Angells.
http://web.archive.org/web/200112172...1/angells.html

I think he came in with 11 or 12 stories.

Tall stories, that would be.

Yes, I think David Angell came in with the 11 or 12 stories too. I'm not sure that's what Les Charles meant, but he said it. Just another one of those co-incidences I guess...

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 8

Ok, well, that's the introduction out of the way. I'm not necessarily claiming to be breaking new ground here. What I want to do is tell the flight 11 story in such relentless detail as to leave no possibility of doubt.

Ah, I try to stay rational, with jokes, but there's a burning white-hot anger here too. Flight 11 is pivotal. The entire plot telescopes down to Flight 11. It had to work. It opened the show. In many respects, it didn't matter if things went pear-shaped after that. As long as flight 11 stuck to the script, it would play out.

Flight 175 is really the flipside of flight 11. Both take off from Boston Logan. They actually cross paths in time and space, which is an interesting moment. The other two flights are almost besides the point. American Airlines were so preoccupied with flight 11 that they barely registered flight 77. And flight 93 was off on it's own trip.

So in many ways, it all came down to flight 11, just as in terms of the towers, it was, in a strange way, all about the north tower. The south tower is in the middle of some kind of vacuum, or vortex, or something, because no one at all is in it, or leaves it, or goes into it. It's kind of like it doesn't even exist.

So everything telescopes down to flight 11. And it is locked down tight. This is a military operation, let's not f**k around shall we. Nothing is as it seems. It's theatre, in both senses of the word: it's military theatre of operations, and it's the theatre of dreams, the theatre of make-believe.

And it's a pea and thimble game. You have to be paying attention, and watching carefully, and alert at the transitions.

So we've cracked the lid off it. The Claircom box. The flight 12 recording spliced into the transcript after the first 24 hours. The stabbing at gate 32. The constructed confusion over the flight 12/flight 11 references. We know it's a nest of lies. David Angell, and Daniel Lewin. David Angell with his flight 11 references woven into Frasier and Daniel Lewin with his Hijacker swatch watch f**k you both if you're still alive.

Like I say there's a white hot anger here which burns in my breast, and has done since the first week of 9/11, and the more I learn, the more I discover, the fiercer my anger grows.

Culto's work. The Connections documentary. October 17 1978. Do you remember where you were then? The empty towers. The "flight 911". The blackout on 9/11, if you write the date as the English do.

F**k them. F**k them. F**k them.

OK, I think we're ready for the next instalment. Let's shine the spotlight on: Vanessa Minter.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 9

I want now to focus on the Betty Ong phone call.

There are so many people involved in both phone calls that we really need a white board to keep track. So let's just start out here by laying out who was involved in the call.

Betty Ong called, supposedly, the general reservations number for American Airlines. Her call was then randomly assigned to one of six call centres, and it went through to Raleigh, North Carolina.

It was answered by Vanessa Minter.



As we've seen, Vanessa panicked when she could not find the emergency button (the big red button on the front of the phone), so she called Winston Sadler, in International Department, and asked him to help out. Winston was patched into the call, and hit the emergency button.

This alerted Nydia Gonzalez, who was then able to listen in to the call. After about 2 minutes, Nydia then placed a call through to American Airlines Operations Center in Fort Worth Dallas, where she was connected to manager on duty Craig Marquis. Gonzalez stayed on the phone with Ong on one line, and with Marquis on the other, until the call was disconnected, which was about 40 seconds or so before so-called "impact" of flight 11 into WTC1 at 8:46am.

One other person listens in on the phone call, without saying anything. His name is Ray Scott, and he is the general manager of operations at Raleigh.

There's nothing particularly suspicious about these various handovers, as such.

Huh! As if that would be true. Just kidding round, there is something utterly suspicious about these handovers, as you would by now expect.

To find out what it is, you have to subject yourself to listening to a 15 minute interview with Vanessa Minter. Now. I don't want to be rude. {snip: bit harsh}

Anyway, it's madness to even try to parse what Vanessa Minter says because she is one of those people who just makes **** up as they go along.

For example, for Vanessa, Betty Ong's call came in at "approximately 7:59am".

Ok, well, excuse me, but come on. If it's 7:59am, it's not approximate, and it if it's appromixate, it's 8am. So this is just crazy talk, but that's her claim: Betty Ong phoned in at 7:59am.

Now, if you want, you can pick this up and run with it as some kind of evidence of some kind of cover-up, but it's not evidence of anything except Vanessa Minter's grasp on reality that morning. Seriously. It was 8:18am forgetaboutit, when Ong phoned in, from wherever, or whatever, but it wasn't 7:59am, so well done Vanessa, great contribution there to the faithful recording of world history.

Oh there's more. Do we have to catalogue it? Vanessa was on the phone to Betty, but, get this, she didn't find out what happened to the flight till 4pm that day. Say what? She must have been the last person in Christendom to hear what happened. Did they put her in a pit? Seriously wtf?

Anyway, where was I: oh yes. She does offer one fascinating snippet. Vanessa Minter says that the FBI arrived, on the scene, in person, at the Rayleigh facility, within five minutes of the Betty Ong call being received!

With all due allowance for Vanessa Mintnter's bizarre recollections, this one sticks. The FBI were on the doorstep. Straight away. Huh.

Well how did that happen?

How did the FBI come to be at the Raleigh Reservations center of American Airlines within five minutes of the Betty Ong call being recieved?

Vanessa Minter doesn't know. Don't ask her.

How? How did they get there so fast? It wasn't even really clear in the first five minutes that it was a hijacking.

I have a suggestion.

The whole thing is a faked, scripted, bull**** exercise, like the rest of the 20th century, and the 21st the way it seems to be panning out.

FBI turning up within 5 minutes. And what did they do? They pulled Vanessa Minter off the line, and put Ray Scott, manager, on instead. His role was to listen. And he did. Didn't say a word.

Didn't say a word. Not a word. Just listened.

Here's the link to the Vanessa Minter interview:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10111156/

Vanessa and her husband worked for the US military in Japan. She had undergone anti-terrorist training or some such. But I highly doubt she was selected for this special role. I think it was just Vanessa's lucky/unlucky day.

But whether she was picked or not to play this role, she has provided a valuable clue. The FBI were on site within 5 minutes.

Like the Angell flight 11 video, like the Connections documentary: that's foreknowledge.

So Vanessa Minter was pulled off the call after five minutes by the FBI, according to her own recollections of the day. What else does she say in the interview? Oh yes, a great quote about being laid off by American Airlines, and how if they had wanted to control what she said they should have kept her on payroll.

Yeah, that's great Vanessa. I don't think they were too concerned for some reason.

Elizabeth Williams they kept on payroll. Vanessa Minter, they let go.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 10

This thing about Vanessa Minter bugs me. It might seem like she is playing a minor bit-part in the drama of the day, but there is a moment in space and time when Vanessa Minter IS 9/11.

When she answers that call from Betty Ong, it is the very first notice that the rest of the world has received that something is happening, and that the 9/11 event has begun.

Very shortly, there will be a huge number of people responding to the unfolding events, but in those initial moments, there is only one. Fate is a funny thing. For that first minute or two, Vanessa Minter is the window between the 9/11 operation and the rest of reality. During those short moments, she is, in a sense, the representative of all of us. She took the call on behalf of humanity.

It might seem like I am making too much of this point, and perhaps I am, but I confess to being fascinated by these sideplots, these seemingly insignificant details, in the unfolding drama of the day. Was it Confucius, or Chairman Mao, who said, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step? Well, the journey of 9/11 began with a single phone call, and just like the entire thousand miles is encapsulated in that first step, so the entire operation of 9/11 is contained like a seed in the exchange between Ong and Minter.

What I'm trying to get at is this: Vanessa Minter was a metaphor that day for America, for the world. We took the call as she took the call. How she responded is a litmus test of how we responded. Her response IS our response. On 9/11, we are all Vanessa Minter.

So, how did we respond?

You know how we responded, and how we are still responding. We didn't get it then, and we aren't getting it now. We had no clue what was happening. And we still don't. We didn't see it coming, and when it did, we had no idea what to do, and we couldn't even find the big red flashing emergency button right in front of our eyes.

As Vanessa Minter goes, so we all go.

So let's now go through in way-too-much-detail the circumstances of the Ong-Minter portion of the call. It only lasts for a very short time, but it is long enough to catch the reflection of the group mind. Here we go then:



There's the “approximately 7:59” quote. Elsewhere in these interviews, the FBI actually comment that they tried to explain to her that this time was way off, but she insisted on it. Can't put my finger on the quote right now, but they just shrugged. Ong's call came in at 7:59am, approximately, according to Minter.

Seriously, who does this? Misremembers a key time from a crucial event, so drastically, when surrounded by clocks and timepieces and other people? We do, it seems. Is this not remarkable, that the very time of this first contact between the operation and the outside world should have such drastic confusion attached to it?

Ong's first words apparently, here we go, the very first words of the very first communication: “I think we're being hijacked”. Consider the circumstances of the story as we are asked to believe it. The “hijacking” commenced four minutes earlier. Two people have been stabbed, and another has had his throat cut. Mace has been released into the cabin. The cockpit has been stormed, and the controls taken over.

Ong makes her call, gets through, and what does she say: “I think we're being hijacked”.

She “thinks”? She's not sure? She's still trying to figure it out?

This is a very strange thing to say. You don't say in english, “I think we're being hijacked”. You say: “we are being hijacked”.

OK, well, perhaps it's a figure of speech, or Minter hasn't quite remembered it right. But, no, here it is at the very beginning of the recorded section, in the transcript from the second day: “I don't know, I think we're being hijacked”.

This line in the transcript is very curious. It's the line that does not appear in the transcript from the first day. Like the line about “flight 12”, it has been spliced into the audio tape and transcript as it appeared on 9/11/01.

So let's break this down: either Ong said twice “I think we're being hijacked”, the first time to Minter before the emergency button was pushed, and then again after the emergency button was pushed, OR: she said it once at the beginning to Minter, when the call was supposedly not being recorded, but it actually was being recorded, and this part of the tape was spliced into the alleged four-minutes of recording before the 9/12/01 transcript.

So she said it twice, or she said it once, and they're lying about the four minutes.

Once, or twice, consider again those words: “I think we're being hijacked”. Why does she say “think”? I have a suggestion. Betty Ong was real, and she was, like all of us, a fundamentally good person, a decent human being. She is honest, and she is not used to lying. She doesn't like to lie. She's been brought up to believe in telling the truth.

On the morning of 9/11/01, Betty Ong has been persuaded to play a part in a military drill simulating a hijacking. It's acting, which is different from lying. But, still. A part of Betty's mind is uncomfortable, at some level, with lying. So it's not easy for her to simply come out and say “we are being hijacked”. It's a bald-faced lie and a bit brutal.

Betty is working from a script, or a prompter, but she’s been encouraged to put the lines into her own words. So that's why “we're being hijacked” comes out as “I think we're being hijacked”. It's a pyschological escape clause.

Nobody would say, in a real hijacking, with throats cut and mace and screaming and pilots being overpowered, “I think we're being hijacked”. Just wouldn't happen.

Betty Ong's very first words, “I think we're being hijacked” tell the whole story. It's a cry for help alright. She's telling us that it's make-believe.



The button, the button, she couldn't find the button. Have you pushed the button? No, I couldn't find the button.

This is insane. Think about it. Cubicle. PC. Telephone. That's it. It's not the deck of the USS Enterprise. It's not the warp drive controls you're looking for. It's a big, red, illuminated button on the bottom right of the phone. There. Right there. What do you mean you can't see it?

Remember, as Vanessa goes, so we go. We couldn't find the emergency button. We were taken completely by surprise. Oh, sure, we've all done the training, yada yada yada, but we weren't really paying too close attention were we. So when the real thing happened, we panicked. We literally metaphorically anyway-you-like were unable to see the big red flashing button right in front of our noses. We panicked, and we didn't know what to do.

So we let Bush and Cheney and the criminal psychopaths invade Afghanistan, then Iraq, and unleash insane surveillance in the USA, and then around the world, and mostly we cheered them on as they did it. We couldn't find the emergency button.

In another alternative timeline of human history, Vanessa Minter could have stopped the entire operation in its tracks, right there. She could have replied “you think you're being hijacked? That sounds bogus. Who are you? What is going on? Do you understand that false reporting of an incident like this is an extremely serious criminal matter. Please immediately clarify yourself ma'am”. And Betty Ong might have replied “oh crap, you know what, I can't do this. Listen, they're forcing me to do this, it's a military drill, quick, let the world know there's a false flag operation under way”.

Well, probably that's too much to ask or expect, but locating the big red flashing button, that should have been a given. Just like it should have been a given that the people of the USA, and the world, should have realised immediately that there was a massive problem in the narrative, and refused to go along with it. But we didn't. We went along with it. Oh yes, I know you twigged at a certain point, and we went to the anti-war marches for a while, or whatever, but mostly, it's been iphones and flatscreen tvs since 9/11 and that's whats really got us excited.



Ong was relaying information. Couldn't see what was going on.



Kept repeating herself

Ok, now let's look at the movements of Ray Scott. First according to Nydia Gonzalez:



Compare to how Minter tells it:



Now Scott in his own words:





It is not stated anywhere in these documents, but Vanessa Minter spilled the beans in her online interview (link above): the FBI were on site within 5 minutes of the Ong call coming in, and they were the reason that she was pulled off the call and Ray Scott put in her place. I have no idea what is going on here. Of course, how did the FBI get there so fast? But also: why was it so critical to take Vanessa off the call, and have Ray Scott listen in on her line? And what's with all the business about the headphones? Didn't Ray Scott have his own phone? Why did he need to listen in? What was his role in all of this? This whole passing of the line back and forwards between Minter and Scott, because of the FBI, makes no sense. Unless they were monitoring the whole thing from the beginning, and realised that Minter was making a hash of the whole thing and had to be whisked out of the frontline as quick as possible.

Another curiosity: Minter didn't find out what happened to flight 11 until 4pm:



We've seen from the circumstances of the call that there are many anomalies which suggest that it was part of a drill, rather than a response to a genuine hijacking emergency. These include the confusions over flight 11/flight 12, the clear evidence that the transcript and audio recordings were altered in the first two days, and Vanessa Minter's recollection that the FBI were on the scene at the Raleigh call center within five minutes of the call coming through.

But what about the contents of the call itself?

To put it bluntly, it is impossible to reconcile Betty Ong's comments and description of what is happening with any kind of real-world, genuine, in-flight emergency.

But let's see what happens when we try, shall we.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the official story describes accurately what happened. The plane was taken over by hijackers. Two flight attendants were stabbed and a passenger's throat slashed. The cockpit has been stormed. Mace has been released into the cabin. The plane is carrying 81 passengers, each of whom is sitting in front of a working airphone installed in the seat in front of them.

Now, let's have a think about that.

No passenger apparently placed a phone call. Not one. 81 people, sitting in front of working airphones. Hijack taking place. Stabbings. Mace. Should I call someone, or not? Might be expensive. Probably better not. Times 81.

So already there's a dog that didn't bark, or 81 of them. 81 passengers who didn't make phone calls to loved ones, despite having a working phone literally inches in front of their faces, and their lives about to end in troubling fashion. But we can't just give up here, we must go through this relentlessly, like a catalogue, no matter how boring.

Betty relates during the conversation that the passengers in coach aren't aware of what has transpired in first and business class. She also relates that the first and business class passengers have been moved into coach, because of the mace.

Do you suppose the first and business passengers preferred to keep their experiences to themselves, rather than sharing them with the riff-raff in coach? Perhaps they did. But the Mace? Mace does not respect the divisions between classes inside an enclosed space like an aeroplane. I can hardly believe this, but I seem to remember years ago they used to allow smoking on planes. But only up the back, in a special smoking section. Can that be true, it seems archaic? In any case, there was just one tiny flaw in the arrangement, unless I am making this all up, and that is the smoke did not tend to stay in the rows it was assigned to.

I'm guessing, because I don't have personal experience of this, but I would expect that if you let off a canister of Mace in business class, it is going to be detectable in coach. At the very least.

The only way the coach passengers could be unaware something was going on would be if the three stabbed people made no sound, the mace stayed in first class, and none of the business or first class passengers happened to mention what they had witnessed to any coach passenger when they were evacuated from the front of the cabin.

Obviously, all of this is ridiculous and impossible. If three people were stabbed, mace released, and the first/business class passengers relocated to coach, then everyone on the plane knows what is going on.

And people are going to start grabbing those airphones and frantically placing calls to loved ones. But as we know none do.

Obviously, clearly, beyond any shadow of doubt, Betty Ong cannot be describing a real world scenario. She's only saying no one in coach is aware to cover for the fact that no one is placing frantic calls to loved ones.

Winston Sadler said he thought she was relating things being told to her by someone else. Vanessa Minter said she kept on repeating the same things. Indeed she did. In the transcript, it is as though she has a list of talking points which she just keeps repeating, ad nauseum. Two flight attendants have been stabbed, we can't contact the cockpit, there's mace or something.

Funny thing though, in the midst of all her concern for the two flight attendants who've been stabbed, she never actually mentions Daniel Lewin, the passenger, who is dying from having his throat slashed, until much later in the conversation when she is asked about it specifically. Over and over she mentions the flight attendants, but doesn't mention the passenger. They're ok, but he's dying. You would think he would be mentioned.

If it was real. If it was real, and a passenger, a customer, a man, was dying from having his throat cut, you would mention it. It wouldn't slip your mind. There was plenty of time.

She uses many phrases which strike the ear as odd, if this was real-world. “Nobody knows who stabbed who”, she says. That's a funny way to express it. Nobody knows who did the stabbing, and nobody knows who got stabbed. All a big mystery. All we know for sure is that there were stabbings, but as for the details, that's all a bit hazy.

Impossible. Ridiculous.

“The guys have jammed their way up into the cockpit”.

The guys? Again, that's not real world. The hijackers arent “guys”. Guys are people on your team, on your side, part of your crew.

These “guys”, the hijackers, have disappeared from the cabin. They did some things, some stabbings, released some mace. We're not sure who they were, or how many there were, but they have gone now. And we're not totally sure where they have gone. We THINK they've gone up into the cockpit. We can't be completely certain of that. They might, for example, have gone for a walk on the wing of the aircraft, though, admittedly that is unlikely. But, shoot, we just can't find them around here anywhere.

We will get to the question of the identification of the hijackers in a post to come, but for now, it's enough to note that the official story is a complete mess here. Supposedly there are five hijackers on flight 11, though neither Betty Ong nor Amy Sweeney ever identify that many. But let's stick with the official story for now, five hijackers. The guys. Two, three, five, whatever.

According to Betty, all the hijackers are now missing, but we think they are in the cockpit.

Let's go into the cockpit and have a look. Now, it's pretty cramped in there. We have the pilot and co-pilot, and now, five additional individuals, or three, or two, who cares how many now, and we're all squeezed in with the door shut and locked behind us. There's been a struggle, with knives, and blood has been spilt. Arteries have been cut, so blood is squirting everywhere, on the seats, on the instruments, on the controls. Nevertheless, the five/four/three men are maneuvring the bodies of the pilots out of the way, so that they can take control...

OK, stop right there, this is just getting out of hand.

Obviously, five hijackers did not manage to “jam” their way into the cockpit because that is just an insane story. Or four, or three. Let alone do it on four aircraft.

Have you called anyone else, asks Nydia Gonzalex.

“No”, replies Betty, “someones calling Medical and we can't...”

Click. Recording ends there.

No wonder. Say what again?

We haven't called anyone, but someone's calling Medical.

This was the point beyond which they couldn't let any more of Betty's comments through onto the tape. Actually, the entire transcript only runs to a few short pages. There are a lot of pauses, and back-and-forth clarifications in that four minutes. Hardly amounts to anything. But when she said that they were calling Medical, but they weren't calling anyone, that's when they had to pull the plug.

Nothing in this phone call sounds like it ought to, if it was indeed a genuine real world hijacking.

And it's not just the strangeness of the things that she does say. It's also the things that she doesn't say. For example: why is Betty even making the call? This is a fascinating question, precisely because we are not supposed to ask it. If this was a genuine hijacking, then Betty would be calling for one reason only: to get help. Of course.

But nowhere in her call does Betty even come close to asking for help, or advice, or information, or assistance. It is said she asked them to pray for her towards the end of the call. But nowhere in the transcript does she say anything like, help, or what should we do, what can be done, or really anything. She's just phoning in for a breezy chat. She's relaxed to the point where her tone of voice is as if she's placing her order at the Italian restaurant.

There's no urgency in her voice, and she's not calling to ask for anything.

In reality, she is not calling to try to obtain some assistance for her and the other passenger and crew on the plane. She is calling, from within the drill, to advise the world what is supposedly happening on flight 11. The purpose of her call is purely and simply to establish a narrative of what happened on the plane.

This is why she does not ask for help. She is not calling for help. She doesn't need any help. She is participating in a drill. She has a piece of paper in front of her with a list of talking points, and she has handlers by her side ready to provide answers to questions.

Looked at in that light, the transcript of the Betty Ong call makes sense. Considered as a true and faithful account of a call from a hijacked aircraft, it is impossible to take seriously.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 11

We're not done with Betty Ong yet. The post above is only dealing with the four minutes of recorded conversation, but the call itself continues for another twenty minutes or so. In the next posts, we will look closer at the rest of the call. As we do so, we are going to compare the timelines of the two calls with the timeline of flight 11 itself.

The times at which the Ong and Sweeney calls were made is well documented, but for some of the other related calls, the information is missing. It is however possible to work it all out by various events that happen simultaneously in different calls. So that's what I've done. I've put all the timelines together, and sorted out when all the different calls start and end.

At this point, I realised I needed to make myself a nice coloured chart to keep track of everything. Which I did, and it has turned out to be quite useful and revealing. In any case, it's essential for keeping track of the next posts.

So here it is below. It should be self-explanatory. It shows the time on the left in increments of minutes, starting from just before "hijack", to "impact". The Betty One related phone calls are in red. The Sweeney related calls are in yellow. The start and end time of each call is given in each coloured section. On the right are shown the events in the flight 11 timeline. Detailed discussion of this chart and what it reveals will follow. Click on the chart to open a better resolution version in separate window.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 12

I'd like to pick the up the story again by going back to Betty Ong's phone call.

In an earlier post, in the discussion of the flight 11/flight 12 discrepancy, we saw that there was a major problem with the official claim that only four minutes of that phone call was recorded. In this post, I'd like to add to that pile of evidence, and prove beyond any doubt that the recording and transcript of the Betty Ong phone call which has been released has been, shall we say, tampered with.

It's worth going over this slowly and in detail because it really goes to the heart of the 9/11 coverup. Recall that this is the first phone call, from the first flight "hijacked" that day, and also the first flight to "crash into" the WTC. It's where the whole day began, and it's where the lies began.

The problem for the official narrative is that they've now released two different versions of the four minute conversation into the public domain. This is part of the document dump which took place a year or so ago, and comprises all kinds of interviews, transcripts and other materials from the early investigation. I really am not sure where or how all this material came to be online, but it doesn't really matter. It's all genuine, no doubt about it, and it is extremely revealing.

To recap from the earlier post: on the very morning of September 11, 2001, the head of security at Americam Airlines took a phone call from the supervisor at the Raleigh reservation center, who played for him over the telephone a recording of the Betty Ong phone call. We know this because the transcript of the conversation has been released. So within this conversation is contained the Betty Ong recording from the first day.

The next day, September 12, 2001, a second version of the conversation was transcribed. This second version is the one that has become the official version to this day. When the tapes of these conversation were released last year, or was it the year before now, the tape of the Betty Ong phone call that you hear is the same as the transcript from September 12, 2001. It is four minutes long. This is the length of time that the new improved system that had just been installed recorded emergency phone calls for, before shutting off. After all, why would you ever need any more than the first four minutes of an emergency phone call? The old system recorded the entire call, apparently, but due to a recent "upgrade", it now cut off after four minutes.

This rather unbelievable story can be now proven to be false by simply comparing the two transcripts. We started to do that earlier in the thread, but there is more to it than the flight 11/flight 12 reference. Before we get to that though, there is this very odd business of the tape being looped. If you'll permit me saying so.

It's hard to describe, but I'm going to try again. The transcript from the first day starts about one third of the way through the "four-minute" conversation as we now know it. It goes along then to the end of the "four-minute" transcript. Then it loops back to the beginning, and plays the entire four minutes, to the end, where it stops.

So this first transcript accounts for around seven minutes of dialogue, but it is simply the four minutes played through (nearly) twice. It's a very odd thing. When you first start reading these transcripts it throws you right off. It took me ages, and a bunch of coloured pencils to figure out what was happening, because it's actually still not quite as "simple" as I've described.

The interesting part is the seam where they have spliced the "ending" onto the "beginning", which occurs about half way through the first transcript. What's apparent when the dust has settled is that the two "beginnings" are not the same at all. Like I say, it's difficult to describe, so I made this graphic below so you can just see it in front of you.



On the left hand side is the section of the transcript from the first day where the ending has been spliced onto the beginning.

On the right hand side is the transcript from the second day. At the top is the end of that transcript. Then below it is the beginning of the transcript. You can see hand written annotations on the transcript which show the time that has elapsed. These annotations occur throughout the documents that were released, and they also contain some revealing information as we shall see.

I've boxed the ending of the conversation in red. If you compare both red boxes, left and right, you'll see that the transcripts are essentially the same. Betty Ong cuts off right in the middle of talking about calling a doctor.

Now please look at the yellow box on the right hand side. This is the beginning of the Betty Ong phone call as it appears officially today. It is what you will hear if you listen to the tape released by the government, which you can do on youtube.

Then below that I've put a blue box. If you now compare the blue boxes from the right side to the left, again, they are essentially the same, and you can see that the two transcripts track each other.

But if you now look at the yellow box on the left hand side, you can see the problem. It is completely different from the yellow box on the right hand side.

Let's recall who was talking to who. The call came in and was answered by Vanessa Minter. Now I owe Vanessa a huge apology for getting her name consistently wrong in the first part of this thread, an error I have now corrected. As for the rest, no apology though. Her story is a bizarre concoction full of hair-raising detail (like the FBI turning up within 5 minutes) and completely unbelievable twaddle (like having no idea what had happened until 4pm that afternoon). She gets crucial details completely wrong, like the time of the phone call, unless...no, she gets it completely wrong.

Now remember Vanessa had all that trouble finding the big red button on the telephone in front of her, so she got her supervisor involved. That's Winston Sadler. So maybe that's Winston Sadler in the yellow box on the left hand side picking up the phone and asking, naturally enough, is anybody there? or maybe it's someone else.

The point is this comment is entirely missing from the transcript on the right hand side, from September 12. And in it's place we have a bunch of dialogue which doesn't appear anywhere in the transcript from September 11.



There's only one possibility for how this could have happened: they had additional tape recording of the conversation which was not part of what was played on September 11, and which was spliced into the revised version of the transcript released the next day.



Nothing wrong with that. Tampering with evidence. Not as if this is a federal crime. Oh wait, yes it is.

So now let's look at the content of the yellow box on the right. We've already discussed the flight 12 weirdness. That leaves the first line, which is a variation on a list of things that Ong rattles off several times during the four minutes, as if she's reading from a script, or list.

But the comment I really want to shine a bright light on is this one:

Quote:

I don't know, I think we're getting hijacked.

Let's just say this explicitly here: this statement was spliced into the tape here at the beginning.

She must have said this at some other time. It must be before the call was handed over to Sadler. Which means that they must have been recording the phone call from the beginning, or soon after. Do you think maybe Vanessa's story of not being able to find the big red button might be a big fat cover story?

We can be certain that it is, because she tells it plainly, when she was interviewed recently by her local paper.

Quote:

Cary airline operator took call from hijacked plane on 9/11

"The first thing out of her mouth is, 'I think we're being hijacked,'" Vanessa Minter recalled Friday. "There was something in her voice that said, 'Okay, this isn't funny. This isn't a joke. This is real.'"
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10111156/

The "first thing out of her mouth" was a minute or so before Ong is supposed to be recorded on the tape. Vanessa spoke with her for some period of time before transferring her to Sadler, when the tape supposedly starts. Yet her opening words have ended up spliced into the beginning of the four minute conversation.

Tampering with evidence.

The FBI noticed this remark also. The person who wrote the annotations on the transcripts left this note on the front cover:



So there can be no question about it. Between the first and the second day, someone created a fake version of the Ong phone call by splicing together bits of the tape recording which had been made on the first day. And they had plenty more than four minutes.

You can see that they were shaping the story from the get-go. Think of it as a little creative license. "All we were trying to do was clarify the narrative for the american people. It was a hijacking, we just needed that story line to be very clearly spelled out."

And what about this whole business of the tape being looped on the first day? What's that about? Who would have done that and why?

Well, I'm not sure why, but I think I know who...

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 13

Meet Troy Wregglesworth.


Troy is a deacon at the Walnut Street Church of Christ in Cary, North Carolina. Cary is right next to Raleigh.

http://www.peopleforjesus.org/

Unless I have the wrong Troy, in which case, woops, he was the person who was in charge of the technical side of the telephone system at Raleigh Reservation Center that day. Here are the transcripts from his FBI interviews in the first days.







Perhaps it was a simple editing error in the heat of the moment. That sounds plausible. Or maybe there is more to it. Maybe it's connected to the tape splicing that took place before the next day. Or maybe it's not. But I would imagine that if anyone knows how the tape ended up being looped on that first day when it was played for the head of security, he would.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 14

To summarise the point of my last two posts, which were admittedly kind of long and a bit repetitive: the claim that the American Airlines system only recorded four minutes of the Betty Ong phone call is proven to be false. The clear implication of the four-minute cover story is that they cannot afford to release the tape of the full conversation because it contains details which will not easily support the official narrative of a hijacking.

That's because they weren't genuine hijackings but some kind of simulation. This all becomes even more obvious when we look at the Amy Sweeney calls. In this post, I'd like to discuss the second call she made.

We've already seen how in her first call, answered by Evie Nunez, Amy claimed that "flight 12" was parked at gate 32 and two flight attendants had been stabbed. Nunez dispatched Michael Woodward and Elizabeth Williams to check out the situation by walking down to the gate. When they got there, Williams reported seeing an "empty plane" sitting at gate 32.

Woodward and Williams then returned to the office, by which time Amy Sweeney had phoned back again. This time the phone was answered by Jim Sayer, who also worked in the Flight Operations department.

The phone conversation between Jim Sayer and Amy Sweeney is one of those piece of the 9/11 story that have been dropped down the memory hole. Like Elizabeth William's report of the "empty plane", Jim Sayer's story that morning blows the cover off 9/11.

In a moment, we will read his FBI interview notes, but as his name is redacted out from that page, we first have to establish that it was actually he who answered that second call from Amy Sweeney. It is by no means reported in all versions of what happened that day.

To get it straight, here's Michael Woodward a couple of years later:



No doubt about that then. Woodward took the call over from Jim Sayer. But he hasn't told it like that every time. Here's Woodward in the FBI notes:



In that version, Woodward manages to leave out Sayer's role. Here's another version, also in which Sayer is left out:



If you watch the BBC documentary, or look around on youtube, you will see plenty about Michael Woodward's involvement in the Amy Sweeney phone calls, but Jim Sayer barely gets a mention. To find out why, let's now look at Jim Sayer's interview with the FBI the day after. As noted, his name has been redacted everywhere it occurs, but this is Jim Sayer.



Say what now?



There are some problems here.

The first one is that there was a doctor and nurse on the plane caring for the injured man. No there wasn't. There were no doctors on board. Or nurses. The passenger lists do not list anyone with known medical qualifications. This was confirmed by Betty Ong in the other phone call.

That's where the "four-minute" tape cuts out, remember? "Somebody's calling medical and we can't get a doc-"

"Somebody's calling medical" is an interesting expression too. Who exactly would that be?

The point is they couldn't get a doc-......

But perhaps this was true earlier in the flight, at the end of the first "four-minutes" of Betty Ong's recorded conversation, but maybe later they found a doctor and a nurse on board, and that was who Amy Sweeney was talking about?

No, that's not possible either, because Betty Ong confirms later that they do not have any doctor in attendance. This is on the conversation between Nydia Gonzalez, from the Raleigh reservations Center, and Craig Marquis, at the Dallas Control Center. The transcript also includes comments that Nydia was making while she was on the other line with Betty Ong and Winston Sadler, and Ray Scott, and possibly Vanessa Minter.

And here at the 16 minute mark of that conversation, which corresponds to about 8:39am, there is this:



No doctors on board.

I feel that it is absolutely necessary to really underline these points, to really push them home. Iraq. Afghanistan. Drones. TSA. The War on Terror.

There were no doctors on board. So what was Amy Sweeney doing when she was telling Jim Sayer that a doctor and nurse were attending to the man with the slashed throat?

She was workshopping.

Amy Sweeney was a trained professional. She would not have said there was a doctor and nurse if there were no doctor and nurse. And there were no doctor and nurse. So Amy Sweeney was not in a genuine hijacking situation. She was in some kind of drill, or exercise, but quite frankly, Amy was not sticking to the script.

In fact, Amy was just cold making stuff up. She was free associating. She was getting waaaaaay too into it. Next there was the bomb, with red and yellow wires. Like a cartoon, road runner style. Think about that bomb for a moment: what, exactly, were they going to do with a bomb? The pilots throats were going to be slit, wasn't it, with those boxcutters? So where do the bombs, with the yellow and red wires, come into the plot exactly? And what was that, cabin baggage?

There were no doctor and nurse. There was no bomb with red and yellow wires.

And then there's this: she told Sayer that they were in the air over New York City.



Here's where my colour-coded diagram above comes in handy. You can see where Amy Sweeney's second call begins: 8:32. Sayer is only on the phone with Sweeney for 2-3 minutes max, because Woodward is then on the phone with her for 12 minutes or so, until the "crash" at 8:46am.

So Amy Sweeney tells Jim Sayer that they are in the air over NYC at approximately 8:34am at the latest. At this stage, they are over 100 miles away from New York, at 29,000 feet. This is still before the plane has made it's final turn, to the south, and its descent, which begins at 8:37.

They weren't anywhere near New York City when Amy claimed to be in the air, above it, and they weren't even heading in that direction.

Indeed: no one at 8:34am had any idea at all that New York City was the target. But somehow, Amy Sweeney knew. And she told Jim Sayer. And he told the FBI. And they dropped it right down the memory hole.

Jim has kept a low profile since 9/11, but his story was told on the tenth anniversary:

Quote:

Little noted or known, they bear scars of that day
At the ticket counter, baggage ramp, tarmac, and beyond, Logan workers were left to come to terms on their own, or to try, after the hijacked flights roared into history.
- See more at: http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas....5DzZu3ty.dpuf

IN AN OFFICE in the belly of Terminal B, Jim Sayer is on the phone, scribbling down everything Amy Sweeney says, trying not to miss a thing. Two flight attendants in first class stabbed; in business class, a passenger’s throat slit. The plane is flying low, maybe toward New York.

Sayer, heart racing, hears and writes feverishly, no time to picture things in his head. Sweeney sounds so composed, he thinks.

A manager who knows Sweeney grabs the receiver, instructing Sayer to call their boss. As Sayer turns, the Flight 11 crew list catches his eye on a computer screen, Jean Roger’s name standing out. Friends from the academy - Barbie boot camp, they called it - they shared a tender Christmas their first year as flight attendants, alone in a leaky hotel on a Texas layover, exchanging goofy gifts as a Fort Worth rain turned into snow.

Sayer moved to the office the following year, becoming an assistant to Kelley Cox, who oversees American’s 1,200 Boston-based flight attendants. He reaches Cox at home, about to leave. Air rage, she thinks, pounding the kitchen counter. She envisions an awful day, full of difficult calls, a media circus. She hopes no one is badly hurt.

....

JIM SAYER RETURNS to flying reluctantly, after American downsizes his office role in 2004. Given all the layoffs and cutbacks, he is glad to have a job.

Back on the line, as flight attendants call it, he sticks with narrow-body planes, 737s and MD-80s, when others bid to work 767s. Their lone aisle and their galleys are cramped, but they do not remind him of that day.

Much of the joy has been drained from flying, gone with the meals in coach. He used to think of it as customer-service work. Now, it is so much about vigilance and suspicion.

He holds it together, just as he had at Logan. He thinks of himself as having two brains, one to focus on the work at hand, one to sequester his emotions.

Sayer decides he has had enough. He returns to teaching, his first career. He takes classes to become a massage therapist, a thought entertained since visiting ground zero in 2002, and learning of the comfort massage therapists provided to rescue workers and volunteers.

He keeps in touch only with Cox, his former boss, the one who notified the flight attendants’ families that day; she left the airline, too, moving to Washington, D.C. But no matter how much time elapses, the emotions and the memories remain; Sayer can still hear Amy Sweeney’s voice.

More spiritual now, he believes that he, and everyone, was in a certain place that day by fate. “Every time something odd happens to me in my life I sit there and think, ‘What’s the purpose, what’s it trying to tell me?’ ’’ he says. “There has to be a reason.’’

Notice how the plane is now said to have been "flying low, maybe towards New York". That's not quite what Jim said that Amy said back on September 13 2001. The plane was certainly not low at that point: it had not begun its descent. And she said it was in the air over New York, not "possibly heading that way".

Jim asks himself: "What is the purpose? What is this telling me? There has to be a reason."

I can't speak for Jim, but what all "this" is telling me is that Amy Sweeney was participating in an exercise, a drill, a simulation, a fake hijacking.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 15

Quote:

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

- Silver Blaze, by Arthur Conan Doyle

In this series on the phone calls from flight 11, there is still one more conversation to be discussed. This is the final ten minutes or so of Amy Sweeney's second phone call, in which she talked with Flight Services Manager for American Airlines at Boston Logan Airport, and her friend and colleague of ten years, Michael Woodward.

Before we get to that though, in this post I would like to discuss the 72 phone calls from flight 11 which did not take place.

Just as in the Sherlock Holmes story, it is the equivalent of the curious incident of the dog in the night, which did nothing, which holds a giant clue for cracking the mystery of flight 11.

I'm talking about the 72 passengers on flight 11, who each sat with a working airphone directly in front of them, and yet who all separately decided to make no calls. The dog who didn't bark is the 72 passengers who didn't make phone calls to loved ones in the final 30 minutes of their lives.

This is an important point which has been all but overlooked. On it's own, it solves flight 11. The passengers made no phone calls. In order to really break this down, let's start with a graphic showing where the passengers were seated.



Betty Ong told us in her first 4 minute recorded phone call that there was mace or something like that in business class which was preventing them getting access to the front of the plane.

But then, at the 3.00 minute mark of the conversation in which Nydia Gonzalez is relaying what Betty is saying to Craig Marquis at Dallas SOC, Nydia says:

Quote:

OK no how are all the passengers?
So this is all happening in first class, coach is not aware of what's going on?
ok.

Then again at 7:00 minutes

Quote:

It seems like the passengers in coach might not be aware of what's going on right now

At this stage, it is hard to understand what exactly Betty means here. If the business class is full of mace, so that no one can breathe to get in there, then one would assume that the passengers must be out of there by now.

On the other hand, it is hard to imagine how the business and first class passengers could come back into coach, expelled by mace, having just witnessed three stabbings, and for no one in coach to suspect that anything out of the ordinary was happening.

So were the passengers still in first-class, or not? Finally, Betty clears it up, through Nydia, at the 16:00 minute mark

Quote:

So you've gotten everyone out of first class?

yeah she's saying that they have. They're in coach.

This is at approximately 8:39am, so there is still 7 minutes until impact.

We know that by this time, at the very latest, the first and business class passengers must have been evacuated to the coach class. If you go back and look above at the graphic, you can count 22 such passengers, not counting "hijackers" or Daniel Lewin. Now look at the seating in coach. Most of these first and business class passengers will have to move right through the cabin to the rear to find a vacant seat.

The point is, that by now, all of the passengers in coach surely know that something very strange is going on. But even this is besides the point: the business class and first class passengers certainly know what is going on, as they have witnessed the stabbings, the mace gas, and even the bomb with red and yellow wires which Amy Sweeney describes.

And now, with at least 6 minutes to go, all of those 22 people are now sitting in coach in front of a working airphone.

We know they were working because if there really were working airphones in the jumpseats for the flight attendants, then there certainly were working airphones for the passengers.

So, now, the dog that did not bark. The weak suggestion that the passengers in coach could not have known what was going on is impossible to sustain for more than a few minutes after the beginning of the event, but in any case, with 7 minutes to go, on Betty Ong's own account, every passenger knew for sure they were being hijacked, and was in a position to place a phone call to a loved one. Yet none did.

Consider also that there was certainly no hijackers in the cabin telling them what they could or couldn't do. All of the hijackers, according to both Ong and Sweeney, were in the cockpit. They assumed, because they certainly weren't in the cabin. So the passengers were free to do whatever they wanted.

It is just inconceivable that not one of those 72 passengers attempted to call a loved one. Actually, correction, I think from memory there is one call logged offficially which did not connect and lasted for 0 seconds. That aside, none of the passengers made any attempt to phone home.

That is impossible, which means that the story that Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney were relaying was not what was happening. As is now becoming increasingly obvious, if not already proven beyond a doubt, they were participating in a drill, and working from some kind of script.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 16

On July 18 2002, ABC's Primetime broadcast an item about the Flight 11 phone calls, which included interviews with Michael Woodward, Nydia Gonzalez, Vanessa Minter and others. Full transcript available here.

In that interview, the following fascinating exchange takes place:



We still haven't begun looking at the Michael Woodward-Amy Sweeney phone call in detail, but notice: he says that Amy told him that the passengers were under the impression it was a medical emergency.

It seems important for them to establish that the passengers had no idea what was going on. So it's important for us to really demolish this idea.

Betty Ong told Nydia Gonzalez that they had evacuated everyone from first class, but what about business class? Perhaps she meant that only first class had been evacuated? That would make it less likely to arouse the suspicions of the other passengers. So is it possible that only first class was evacuated?

There were only five passengers in first class, not counting the "hijackers". They were said to be evacuated to coach class, which means they were not evacuated to business class. However, there were more than enough seats for them to have sat in business class. So, this can only mean that business class was also evacuated, which is what would make sense, if mace really had been let off in the front of the cabin.

There is also the small matter of three stabbed people, including the critically injured and dying, or possibly dead, Daniel Lewin. These people cannot have been left in business/first. They too must have been evacuated.

So this entire idea of the passengers being unaware of what was happening, or remaining calm in the face of an unnamed medical emergency, can only be a complete fantasy. If there really were two stabbed flight attendants and a passenger dying from a slashed throat, there would be extremely intense scenes in that aircraft cabin.

Taking it one step further, we have noticed that none of these passengers made any phone calls during this time, but there is something else that they also apparently failed to attempt to do, and that is to save themselves, to save the pilots, to save the plane.

Why not?

Some mace was sprayed. Well, that must have been around 8:14am when the plane was taken over, because since then the hijackers have been absent. The airconditioning was working. After some time had passed, it must have been possible to re-enter the first class section. Why did no one try? The door was locked. They must have had a key. Why not have someone walk up into first class, unlock the door to the cockpit, and open it?

Worth a try? Apparently not. They all just sat in their seats, made no calls, made no attempts to retake the cockpit.

No wonder they have spun this idea that the passengers had no idea what was going on. And until you read the transcripts closely, and compare them with a fine tooth comb, it might seem vaguely plausible.

But the more we stack up the details of what is supposed to have happened inside flight 11, the more absurd it becomes. Five hijackers, all squeezed into the cockpit, with the door locked. 72 passengers, 7 crew still standing, all they have to do is open the door and kick these scrawny guys asses, and its game over.

Something's not right with the picture, is it.

Five hijackers? How did they come up with five anyway? That's not what Betty or Amy reported. In the next post, we'll take a look at the question of how they ID-ed the hijackers.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 17

The official version of the flight 11 story is that five hijackers took over the plane. Let's keep it very simple, and refer just to the seat numbers that they supposedly sat in, which were:

2A, 2B, 8D, 8G and 10B.

How did they figure out that these were the seats of the hijackers?

Simple. They were the ones with Arabic names sitting in first and business.

But what did Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney actually describe? Keep in mind that they were sitting next to each other, according to Michael Woodward. They both had every incentive to provide true and correct information, which at the very least would suggest that they should relate essentially the same information. In fact, they gave very different versions of how many hijackers there were, and where they were seated.

First, the Betty Ong version: recall that while Betty Ong is on the phone to Winston Sadler, Nydia Gonzalez is listening in on the call and relaying the information to Craig Marquis, in Dallas. All through this call, Nydia keeps referring to Betty describing two men from first class who have apparently stormed the cockpit. She asks her about them a couple of times, then eventually at the 7:00 minute mark of the conversation, (8:27am), Nydia says "they were sitting in 2A and 2B".

She confirms again, that they are in the cockpit with the pilots. This continues to be a theme of the conversation as various others are brought in. But then, 7 minutes later, at around 8:34am, Betty tells Nydia that a passenger might be fatally stabbed. Clearly this is Daniel Lewin. She identifies the hijacker who stabbed him as Satam al Suqami in seat 10B. Then Nydia tells Craig Marquis the following:

Quote:

"Apparently one of the passengers thats in the cockpit the name that they got was Tom al Zukami, (Satam al Suqami) and he was in 10B not 9A and B as they previously stated"

That's what it says. "Not 9A and B as previously stated". There are two odd things here. First of all, she had previously stated 2A and B, not 9A and B. So there is some kind of slip here. It's an odd slip to make when we review Amy Sweeney's version, but for now, let's just note that in terms of the conversation between Nydia Gonzalez and Craig Marquis, they simply assumed that the reference was to the earlier 2A and B.

They then kept returning to this point, asking Betty for example at the 17:00 minute mark "do we know who the second passenger might be?" They kept on referring to two guys in the cockpit, but Betty never did clarify where the second one was seated.

It is perfectly clear from reading the transcript though that Gonzalez and Marquis interpreted what Betty was saying to mean that there were only ever two men who got into the cockpit, and that though she had initially reported these were from seats 2A and B, this information was incorrect. She now said one was from 10B, but never got around to saying where the other was seated.

So Betty Ong's final answer: 2 hijackers, from 10B and unknown seat.

Now Amy Sweeney. Still jumping ahead of the story a bit, but Sweeney talks to Michael Woodward, who makes notes, which are then used by Nancy Wyatt who phones Ray Howland. Wyatt tells Howland that Amy said the hijackers are in 10B, 9D and 9G.

These seats are reported in several slightly garbled versions by different participants, but Wyatt seems to get Sweeney's version right. Now let's just compare:

Government: 2A, 2B, 8D, 8G and 10B = total 5
Ong: 10B, ? = total 2
Sweeney: 10B, 9D, 9G = total 3

This raises several obvious questions:

Why did Ong revise her initial information about the men in seats 2A and 2B?

Why did Ong make a slip of the tongue and mention seats in the same row as Sweeney idenfied?

And why did they both mention seats in row 9, when according to the government, the hijackers were not in row 9 at all, but in row 8?

There was much talk about what a splendid job Ong and Sweeney did in conveying to the authorities the information they needed to identify the hijackers, but the transcripts tell a very different story.

Again, let's suppose that it was a real hijacking. The first and business class passengers have been evacuated. It is a very simple task to do a quick headcount and ID and work out exactly who is missing, and therefore who must have jammed their way up into the cockpit.

How could two flight attendants sitting right next to each other not even agree on the basic count of the number of hijackers? How could the seat numbers be off?

If this was real-world, then the flight attendants did about as poor a job as one could imagine in identifying the hijackers. Their answers were inconsistent with each other, changed over time, were incomplete and ambiguous. Almost a text-book example of sloppy communication. You don't think!

But it wasn't real world. In real world, if you are planning a hijack with five guys, you don't have it in the plan that everyone piles into the cockpit. That's a comedy movie, not a serious Bruce Willis action pic. Obviously, if we are whiteboarding this, we aren't going to get five guys into the cockpit, are we. It's just not going to work. But here's an idea: why don't we leave a couple of guys out in the cabin making sure everything stays calm and nobody tries any heroics. Or maybe I have been watching too many movies.

Someone has. Five hijackers in the cockpit is ridiculous. They didn't think that one through. Of course, neither Betty or Amy tried to sell such a nutty scenario. Two or three guys jamming their way into the cockpit, that's semi-believable. But five?

All they did was run the passenger list and count the Arab names in first/business. 1,2,3,4,5. Case closed, still time for lunch.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 18

We've been working our way slowly through these phone calls from flight 11. Now it's time to take a close look at the final conversation which took place, between Amy Sweeney and Michael Woodward, who was Flight Services Manager for American Airlines at Boston Logan airport.

Let's just first recap the various phone calls and how they play out.

Betty Ong, flight attendant on flight 11, called Raleigh Reservation Center at around 8:18am. Her call was answered by Vanessa Minter, but soon passed to Winston Sadler to handle. His supervisor Nydia Gonzalez listens in, and relays the information to Craig Marquis, at Dallas SOC. As we've seen, there are transcripts and tapes of the first four minutes of the Ong-Sadler call, and the full conversation between Gonzalez-Marquis, which includes overheard snippets of Gonzalez talking to Ong on the other line.

Amy Sweeney called Boston Logan Airport American Airlines Flight Services around 8:29am. The call was answered by Eve Nunez. Amy told her flight 12 (?) was parked at gate 32 and two people on board had been stabbed. Nunez sent Michael Woodward and Elizabeth Williams to Gate 32 to see what was happening. As covered earlier in this thread, Williams reported seeing the plane parked at the gate, and empty of passengers, a fact which does not seem to have received wide coverage over the years.

Woodward and Williams returned to the office. Meanwhile Sweeney had phone back again, after the first call was cut off. The call was answered by Jim Sayer. When Woodward returned to the office, he took the call away from Sayer, and then spoke to Sweeney for the next 14 minutes or so, until impact.

About 7 minutes after Woodward began talking to Sweeney, Nancy Wyatt who was in the office standing next to him, phoned Ray Howland, also at Dallas SOC for American Airlines. Wyatt first relayed to Howland the contents of some notes that Woodward had taken from the first few minutes of the call, and then she continued to relate information as Woodward and Sweeney talked up until the impact.

There are no tapes or transcripts of the Sweeney-Sayer, or Sweeney-Woodward conversations, but there is a complete transcript of the Wyatt-Howland exchanges.

Ok, so that's a quick overview guide to help keep track of the names. Esssentially, for the last 15 minutes or so, there are two flight attendants phoning in to two different locations, neither of which is taping. However, these conversations are both being listened to by another person, who is relaying the details as they happen by phone to American Airlines central command location Dallas SOC. Even here though, the two calls are not coming in to the same person, but to two different people.

So no apologies if this is all a bit boring, but I think it is important to see the overall architecture of what is happening here. There are two parallel, but isolated, channels, which I make into a simple diagram like this:

1. Betty Ong ---> Winston Sadler :: Nydia Gonzalez ---> Craig Marquis

2. Amy Sweeney ---> Jim Sayer/Michael Woodward :: Nancy Wyatt ---> Ray Howland

Amy Sweeney's calls are really very strange. Her first one, in which she says flight 12 is at gate 32 with two stabbed passengers, we have already discussed. But the second one is really even stranger. Let's just summarise what she said was happening on the flight, compiling the list from what both Jim Sayer and Michael Woodward have reported:

• two hijackers are in the cockpit but there were three hijackers total, in 10A, 9D, 9G,
• there are two attendants and a passenger stabbed and a doctor and nurse are attending to them. the passenger looked like he might not make it.
• the hijackers have a bomb consisting of two boxes interconnected with red and yellow wires, which they showed to her
• she was the first, around 8:32am, to name New York as possible target, and she claimed to be in the air over the city when they were still 15 minutes flying time away

In every respect, this information is all different from what Betty Ong was reporting, though Woodward says they were sitting next to each other. Ong said there were only two hijackers, and that they were both in the cockpit. Sweeney says two were in the cockpit, but gives three seats. She says to Woodward that Lewin is fighting for his life, whereas Ong says simply that he has died. Ong makes it clear that there are no doctors or nurses on board. This is correct: there are no known doctors or nurses listed amongst the passengers. Yet Sweeney told both Sayer and Woodward that a doctor and nurse were attending to Lewin.

And then there's this business of the bomb. There is no "mistake" here. She tells this to both Sayer and Woodward. Two boxes connected by red and yellow wires. A "bomb", that they showed her, and then took into the cockpit.

Again, this cannot be real world. There are no bombs required in the plot, so bringing one along for no reason is only going to attract attention from security and not contribute in any way to the overall success of the mission. You're not going to bring a bomb along on the hijacking. You're not going to be needing a bomb. Leave the bomb at home.

Amy Sweeney is off on a tangent. It's as if she is observing a completely different set of events. Or making up a completely different version of the story. Which ever it is, they dropped her down the memory hole in those early years. Betty Ong was the hero, while Amy Sweeney's role was forgotten.

It's not hard to see why. Her role playing was a little over-the-top and didn't really help sell the official narrative with her timelines so mixed up. Over the years, they have eased her story back into the narrative a bit more, but they don't mention the bomb. Or the empty plane. Or being over New York. Or getting the number of hijackers and where they were sitting different from the official story.

They don't like to mention Jim Sayer either. Over and again when you read online about his phone call, he is not named, or described as "befuddled", and the impression is given that he only spoke briefly to Sweeney before Woodward took over the call. It's quite odd, this business of the handover from Sayer to Woodward, because in fact, Sayer managed to get nearly all of the information from her in his short exchange with her that Woodward then apparently managed over the next quarter of an hour. Sayer took notes on all of this, signed them, and turned them over the FBI, but very curiously, they are just about the only item missing from all of these now-released public records. No sign of Jim Sayer's notes. Woodward's notes however are easily found and very public.

There are some oddities about these notes, which will be the subject of the next post.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 19

It's time now to look in detail at the circumstances surrounding Michael Woodward's interaction with the second Amy Sweeney phone call.

Recapping the story: after Amy Sweeney's first phone call at 8:29, to Evie Nunez, Michael and Elizabeth Williams went to Gate 32, then returned to the Flight Services office. In the meantime, at 8:32am, Sweeney had phoned back again, and the phone answered by Jim Sayer. When Woodward re-entered the office, he took the call over from Sayer and spoke to Sweeney then until the impact.

At 8:41 or so, Nancy Wyatt phoned Ray Howland to relay the contents of the Woodward Sweeney conversation.

What we are going to do now is carefully track the flow of information, from Sweeney, to Sayer, to Woodward, to Wyatt and to Howland, and compare this with the flow of events as they were unfolding according to the official narrative. As has been the flavour of this thread, there's quite a bit of detail to work through, but the results are worth it. Just as with the spliced opening to the Betty Ong tapes, there are some gaping anomalies in the Sweeney call which lay bare the entire operation.

Let's start with the two pages of notes that Michael Woodward made. Here they are, signed and dated:





For now, these are just for reference. We'll come back to these in a moment, but first, let's back up the story to Jim Sayer's conversation with Amy Sweeney again.

Sayer answered the call at 8:32am. Woodward left the office around 8:30am, for the two minute walk to Gate 32, and back. Let's say he was back around 8:35am. This would imply that Sayer was on the phone to Sweeney for around 3 minutes. Certainly, he managed to get a good deal of information from her in that time. He also stated in his FBI interview that he made notes about the conversation, signed and dated them, and handed them to the investigation.

It would be interesting to see those notes, but as I mentioned, they don't appear to have been released. However, we do have Sayer himself describing writing those notes in an interview.

Quote:

IN AN OFFICE in the belly of Terminal B, Jim Sayer is on the phone, scribbling down everything Amy Sweeney says, trying not to miss a thing. Two flight attendants in first class stabbed; in business class, a passenger’s throat slit. The plane is flying low, maybe toward New York.

Sayer, heart racing, hears and writes feverishly, no time to picture things in his head. Sweeney sounds so composed, he thinks.

A manager who knows Sweeney grabs the receiver, instructing Sayer to call their boss.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708..._11/?page=full

Here are again is the page from his FBI interview:



If you go over what Jim Sayer describes, in both interviews, and then compare it to the list of items on Michael Woodward's two pages, they are almost the same. If anything, Sayer has additional details, but in general, they seem to have been given largely the same information by Sweeney.

There's some anomaly with hijacker's seat numbers, which we will come back to, but there is one glaring problem with one piece of information which appears in both Sayer's and Woodward's notes, and that is the report by Sweeney that the plane is flying low. In the FBI interview it is "in the air over New York City", and in the newspaper interview, it is "the plane is flying low".

The problem here is that Sayer was talking to Sweeney from 8:32 am to 8:35am during which time the plane is stable at 29,000 feet. It does not begin its steep descent until 8:37am, when it starts rapidly descending at 3,200 feet per minute.

To see this on Woodward's notes makes perfect sense. Betty Ong also reports this steep descent at the same time in the Gonzalez-Marquis transcript. Everything is in sync on this point, with the glaring exception of Jim Sayer's account, which has Amy Sweeney describing the plane much lower than it was, in addition to naming New York as the destination, something over which the guys at SOC were still speculating on 15 minutes later...

Of course, one possible explanation for this is that Jim Sayer was simply mistaken about Sweeney saying the plane was low, and over New York. But the fact that the rest of his information tallies with Woodward makes this seem unlikely. The other explanation then is that, somehow, Amy Sweeney's account was out of sync with the real-world timeline.

If this was the only glitch, then we'd have to put it down to Sayer getting it wrong. That's what they want us to think....

This is how it was put in the big reveal article in 2004 when the tapes were first played to the families:

Sweeney slid into a passenger seat in the next-to-last row of coach and used an Airfone to call American Airlines Flight Service at Boston’s Logan airport. “This is Amy Sweeney,” she reported. “I’m on Flight 11-this plane has been hijacked.” She was disconnected. She called back: “Listen to me, and listen to me very carefully.” Within seconds, her befuddled respondent was replaced by a voice she knew.

“Amy, this is Michael Woodward.” The American Airlines flight service manager had been friends with Sweeney for a decade, so he didn’t have to waste any time verifying that this wasn’t a hoax. “Michael, this plane has been hijacked,” Ms. Sweeney repeated. Calmly, she gave him the seat locations of three of the hijackers: 9D, 9G and 10B. She said they were all of Middle Eastern descent, and one spoke English very well.
Seconds? Befuddled?

No, it was minutes, at least. And there is no sign Jim Sayer was befuddled. His recollection in the interview is detailed, lucid, orderly.

Lots to comment on in that article. Notice how they have Sweeney slipping into a passenger seat to make the call? Ong said however she was in her jump seat, and Woodward says Sweeney was sitting next to her. Perhaps someone realised that there were not two phones available for the two jump seats next to each other. Indeed right from the beginning Woodward reported that she called on either a cell phone or airphone. More ambiguity. So here is the first reports above, claiming it was a passenger seat. Finally, the story settles down: both on jump seats. We know the real answer of course: external port 4 on the Claircomm box.

But for now, notice that Sayer's role is erased. They don't want us to look to closely there, so naturally enough, that is exactly where we have to look hard.

We've seen that the Woodward note could almost have been written by Sayer, given that it contains nearly the same information. Nearly, but not quite. There are some fascinating differences between the two. There are some items on the Woodward notes which are not mentioned at all by Sayer. In the next post we will take a look at these.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

POST 20

Let's zoom in now on the question of the hijacker's seat numbers as reported by Amy Sweeney. We have four different versions of this! First, Jim Sayer reported that she gave the seat numbers as 10B, 9C and 9G. Then Woodward says that Sweeney told him "10B, 9C and 9G, or 9D and 9G"

Nancy Wyatt passes this information to Ray Howland as 10B, 9D and 9G

Next day, Jane Allen, VP of Flight Operations, tells the FBI in her interview that Sweeney told Woodward there were three hijackers, seated in 9B, 9E, 9G and 10C. Three hijackers and four seats but never mind.

With all due allowance for the chaos of the day, this is pretty sloppy work all round. For starters, seats "9C" or "9E" do not actually exist! You can confirm this with a glance at the seating chart posted on previous page, yet three of these four highly trained American Airlines professionals included one of these non-existing seats in their account of what Sweeney said!

Jane Allen's version is the wildest. She gives Daniel Lewin's seat number, 9B, just sayin' , the non-existent 9E, and she has 10C instead of the 10B that all the others agree on.

Michael Woodward's version is a close second in terms of how rubbish it is. After 14 minutes on the phone with Amy, he gives the list of seat numbers as "10B, 9C and 9G, or 9D and 9G" . I suppose what he means by this is that he is confident on 10B and 9G, but he was unclear whether she said 9C or 9D.

The American Airlines Flight Services Manager could have cleared up the confusion by consulting a seating plan of the American Airlines flight 11, which would have shown him that there was no seat 9C on that flight!

How could Michael Woodward have got so tangled up over this? After all, he took detailed notes didn't he? Why did he not just refer to his notes to clarify what she had told him? Let's have a look at the relevant section on those two pages he wrote down. It is at the top of the second page. Here is what Woodward wrote:



The 10B is clear enough. But what is this chicken scrawl underneath? Seriously, wtf? It looks like "9D + G" at the end of the line, maybe, but what comes before that is indecipherable. These are numbers? Letters?

Why such endless confusion over the hijacker's seat numbers? Why so many versions, and why does every version differ?

And another question: why has Woodward written "No Idea" at the top left of the second page of notes? Have a look. He wrote: "No Idea 10B".

This is one of those things you can look at a hundred times without stopping to notice.

No Idea.

What an odd thing to write down. It doesn't apply specifically to any of Sweeney's other comments on Woodward's notes. Was she telling him she had "no idea" about something, and he wrote this down? of course that is plausible, but it seems a strange thing.

It gets stranger. After Woodward had been on the phone for about 7 minutes or so with Sweeney, Nancy Wyatt placed a call to Ray Howland at Dallas SOC. She begins the call, after quick introductions, by telling Howland she is going to read out Woodward's notes. She then proceeds to read from the contents of the second page. Oddly, she doesn't mention anything from the first page of the notes at any time during the conversation with Howland. So, she begins to read out to Howland from the second page of notes. Here is the relevant section in the transcript:



So she has taken Woodward's chicken scratch and extracted the only readable characters in regards to the seat numbers, and provided them to Howland as 10B, 9D and 9G. At least these three seats exist, which is more than could be said for the lists provided by Sayer, Woodward and Allen, just sayin'.

But notice something else, just in the line before: she says:

I have no idea how to do that

Well, that is quite bizarre. Wyatt has in her hands the second page of Woodward's notes, which she is about to summarise and read out, beginning from the top, where Woodward has written the words "no idea", and Wyatt's previous sentence before she starts reading out the note includes the words "no idea".

I have "no idea" whether or not this is significant.

It could be just one of those quirky things, but here again, just as with Jim Sayer, we have a comment that appears to be out of time sequence. First Woodward wrote " no idea", for no apparent reason. Then Wyatt happened to say "no idea" as she read the notes.

Normally, I wouldn't give something like this a second thought. It's just a co-incidence. Nothing to see here, keep moving. But then I noticed a second odd comment on Woodward's notes, and this one is a little harder to put aside so easily.