Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) When Pilots For 9/11 Truth was founded in the late summer of 2006, the objective was to find evidence supporting what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission as many theories were rumored that elements within the US Government might have had something to do with 9/11. Co-Founder Rob Balsamo explains how he was puzzled and motivated to pursue further research into the events of 9/11 in his citation at PatriotsQuestion911.com, which lead to the formation of Pilots For 9/11 Truth. More than four years of solid research through Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests, numerous interviews and expert analysis has revealed no hard evidence supporting or linking to -- and in many instances factually conflicting with -- conclusions made by the 9/11 Commission. Now there is overwhelming evidence which suggests the data that is being provided to the public through the FOIA, is not from an aircraft which has been operated by American Airlines. Read more...
Aircraft Departure Gate Positional Data Conflicts With Government Story
Latitude/Longitude Coordinates Reflect Departure Gate Other THan Reported
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) It has been reported that American Airlines Flight 77 departed Washington Dulles International Airport at approximately 08:20 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001 allegedly from Terminal Concourse D Gate 26 (1). However, the Flight Data Recorder positional data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board tells a very different story. Read more...
Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77
FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact With Pentagon
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Flight Data Recorder Expert Dennis Cimino has confirmed that the data being provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is missing crucial information, which according to Dennis, should be present and link the data to a specific aircraft and fleet. The NTSB provided three sets of data through the FOIA for what they claim is from American 77, N644AA. A csv file, an animation reconstruction and a raw data file. Rob Balsamo of Pilots For 9/11 Truth along with numerous other aviation experts, including trained Aircraft Accident Investigators have analyzed these files and determined they do not support an impact with the Pentagon. The data also exceeds the design limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 by a wide margin. This is based on data, precedent and numerous verified experts, including those who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used for the 9/11 attacks (See - "Flight Of American 77", "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" at Pilotsfor911Truth.org for full detailed analysis and interviews). read more...
Evidence Strengthens To Support WTC Aircraft Speed Analysis
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Since our article on WTC Aircraft Speed Analysis was written, more evidence has been gathered to reflect the research provided by Pilots For 9/11 Truth and in the film "9/11: World Trade Center Attack". A more thorough understanding and explanation of why V speeds are established based on wind tunnel tests performed by the manufacturer is also available virtually making the need to gather documents from Boeing based on wind tunnel testing, moot. We already have their results of such tests in the form of the V Speeds they have established through wind tunnel testing required by definition as outlined in the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics and all other related text. Read more...
Pilots For Truth Continues To Grow - New Core Members Added
In just 4 short years, Pilots For 9/11 Truth has grown to over 300 Verified Pilots and Aviation Professionals, almost 3000 forum members, even more petition signors, and continues to grow.
Visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core to browse the long and growing list of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core Members.
Pilots For 9/11 Truth have made it their mission to determine the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 since it has become the day which has changed the world for us all with an overwhelming and growing number of questions unresolved.
Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the events which took place at the WTC, The Pentagon, and in Shankville, PA based on data provided by government agencies. Numerous presentations, technical papers and articles have been produced with more in the making including analysis of the Air Response on 9/11. Many radio, TV and Speaking engagements throughout the world have been accomplished, with more to come. There is a growing mountain of evidence which conflicts with the Government version of events.
Over the years, Pilots For 9/11 Truth have contacted numerous Government Agencies attempting to get answers for the clear conflicts within their official narrative. They refuse to comment. Hundreds of Media representatives, Aviation Associations and members of Congress have also been contacted and continue to be informed of the evidence. Affidavits have been submitted in support of the victims, litigation remains ongoing. read more...
NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"
06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation. read more...
Whistleblower Reveals "Backdoor" 757 Remote Control And Flight Crew "Lockout" Technology Available Prior To 9/11
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Wayne Anderson, an Avionics Technician is interviewed by Rob Balsamo, Co-Founder, Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Wayne reveals his observations of a remote guidance test on a Boeing 757 in which technology was used to control the aircraft remotely, while also being able to "Lockout" the Flight Crew from overriding the autopilot system in order to regain control of the airplane. The following interview discusses the details of this test which was performed prior to September 11, 2001, the violations of FAA regulations and the possibilities using such technology.
Click here to download interview and full article.
9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE
FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR", cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act. read more...
Physical Damage To Pentagon Impossible Based on Witness Statements/Observations
Thanks to the relentless work of Citizen Investigation Team, many already know a growing list of witnesses in Arlington place the attack aircraft on an approach opposite the physical damage reported at the Pentagon. Some have argued that the aircraft approaching on the observed flight path could still "transition" and line up to cause the physical damage. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have proven such a theory impossible.
Click here for full analysis and discussion.
Wikipedia Displays Blatant Disinformation Once Again
Flight Data Recorder Analysis
03/19/09 - Wikipedia, a primary on-line resource for diverse information, allows anyone to edit their 'wiki' pages. Many are aware through articles published by Reuters and other news organizations that Wiki is a haven for intelligence agencies who also use it as a means of distributing false and misleading information. Recently it has come to our attention that an edit was made to the "9/11 Conspiracies" page containing factual errors and disinformation regarding Flight Data Recorder (FDR) analysis.
Rumsfeld On 2006 Election: Call For Another Attack
05/17/08 - Recently released audio of Rumsfeld describing how another attack is needed to make the American public take the "Terror" threat more seriously. Full article, audio clip and forum discussion.
F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage
Contained within a March 14, 2008 "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT" with the Nevada District U.S. Court, concerning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Mr. Aidan Monaghan (Case #: 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF) to order the production of Federal Bureau of Investigation records concerning the 4 aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose has indicated on behalf of the FBI, that records indicating the collection and positive identification of recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, do not exist.
Defendants motion reads in part:
"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff's request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated "revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . . (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"
However, this claim is directly contradicted by public comments offered by Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman National Transportation Safety Board and Marion C. Blakey, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board, who both indicated in 2002 that FBI director Robert Mueller requested NTSB assistance with 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification and that the NTSB did perform 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification analysis. Full Article
The Lack of Foundation Damage at the Pentagon is Irreconcilable with the Official Reports and Data
Craig Ranke, Rob Balsamo
03/15/08 - The lack of foundation damage at the Pentagon is irreconcilable with the official reports and is strong physical evidence contradicting the 9/11 official story.
The ASCE Building Performance Report has meticulously documented the damage to the building and has come to the conclusion that all damage from the alleged plane impact was limited to the bottom two floors, but primarily below the 2nd floor slab so that 90 tons of jumbo jet would have slid on it's belly across the 1st floor slab all the way through the C-ring. Full Article
Pentagon Survivor April Gallop Suing Rumsfeld, Cheney, Myers
April Gallop, an Army Officer who was stationed at the Pentagon on 9/11 is now suing top govt officials for their possible role in the attack and failure to evacuate the pentagon with prior knowledge of the impending attack. In a recently published article by Raw Story, April's attorney asserts -
"The ex-G.I. plaintiff alleges she has been denied government support since then, because she raised 'painful questions' about the inexplicable failure of military defenses at the Pentagon that day, and especially the failure of officials to warn and evacuate the occupants of the building when they knew the attack was imminent" said Veale in a media advisory.
Gallop.... does not believe that a Boeing 757 hit the building. Her son sustained a serious brain injury, and Gallop herself was knocked unconscious after the roof collapsed onto her office.
The suit also named additional, unknown persons who had foreknowledge of the attacks.
"What they don't want is for this to go into discovery," said Gallop's attorney, Mr. Veale, speaking to RAW STORY. "If we can make it past their initial motion to dismiss these claims, and we get the power of subpoena, then we've got a real shot at getting to the bottom of this. We've got the law on our side."
From the complaint -
"This claim is supported by data from the plane’s supposed “black box”, released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which indicate the plane passed over the building at very low altitude, just as an explosion and fireball were engineered by other means, a planted bomb or bombs and/or a missile."
We have contacted April offering any assistance she may need with this lawsuit.
For full article, full lawsuit complaint, as well as discussion, click here.
Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible
By Rob Balsamo, Pilots For 9/11 Truth
03/13/08 - "Beware The Ides Of March" could not be a more appropriate introduction to this article as it appears the government story regarding the events at the pentagon is officially dead. Thanks to the hard work done by Citizen Investigation Team, they alerted us to review figures regarding topography and obstacles along the flight path of American 77 according to the government story. Physically and aerodynamically, Arlington's unique topography and obstacles along American 77 "final leg" to the pentagon make this approach completely impossible as we will demonstrate. Full Article
9/11 And Air America
by Shelton F. Lankford, Pilots For 9/11 Truth
Written from cabin 4154, Cruise Ship Oosterdam, 2/26/08 sailing South from Mazatlan to Puerto Vallerta, Mexico.
When I signed up for the first Air America cruise, one of my goals was to challenge the open-minded, progressive listeners and radio hosts on 9/11 Truth, or rather the lack of it in their program content. My elevator speech was to the effect that, by attacking all the monsters that have been unleashed by the Bush administration piecemeal - Iraq, Patriot Act, Spying, Torture, Rendition, gutting the Constitution, etc. , it was like attacking a giant squid by grappling with each of its tentacles individually. We don't have enough arms, strength, or endurance to do it. By ignoring 9/11, we, in effect, ignore the body and brain of the monster, and have no hope of defeating it. It isn't a point that is original with me, but I don't mind stealing in an emergency - this is it.
Imagine my elation when one of the hosts, Richard Greene, to whom I had never listened, stood up in the introductory panel and said words to the effect that in order to stop the crimes that are ongoing and that are stealing our country away from us, we must confront and expose 9/11 as a false flag operation. I leapt to my feet and applauded wildly. I was joined by several others. I don't think he was prepared for the response his statement got, and he rapidly set up an impromptu session to show Zeitgeist, Part II and hold a discussion about the issue tonight.
The session went off in front of a couple of hundred people who were about 1/3 9/11 doubters, and the rest divided between government defenders and those who just didn't know what to think. I think it is safe to say that most have now either came over to the doubter category or are well on their way. Early in the discussion following the film, I stood up and announced myself a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, outlined the relevant [Flight Data Recorder] evidence of the flight of American 77, and referred them to the Pilots site for more information, along with the Alan Miller site Patriotsquestion911.com. Full Article and Discussion
Conflicting Data, Hardcore Questions and the Media Blackout
by Rob Balsamo, Pilots For 9/11 Truth
02/29/08 - It almost goes without saying that when a major aviation accident occurs, just the fact that "Black Box" data has been released to the public makes mainstream news, not to mention content and analysis. Recently, the Flight Data Recorder information claimed to be from American 77 (AA77, Pentagon) and United 93 (UA93, Shanksville, PA) has been released to the public via the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). Mainstream Media (and some alternative media) has not reported even the release of this information for such a high profile event. Why? It is interesting to note, CNN has reported an animation made by an independent researcher regarding the events at the Pentagon. The animation supports the government story of an aircraft impact with the pentagon. However, it is not based on any flight data. Why does CNN/Mainstream Media cover an animation based on zero flight data, but does not cover even the release of government provided flight data or the animation constructed and released by The National Transportation Safety Board? Perhaps someone doesn't want to raise curiosity of the content? Full Article
The Pentagon Flyover: Citizen Investigation Team
How They Pulled It Off
02/25/08 - Citizen Investigation Team, through painstaking long hours of research and limited amount of resources travels out into the field to get answers regarding the attack on the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001. Their latest installment, "The Pentagon Flyover", explains the possible military deception used during this event. CIT pieces together witness statements filmed on location, along with conflicting Flight Recorder and RADES Radar data provided by the US Government. Although Pilots For 9/11 Truth does not offer theory at this point in time, it is important to explore such evidence and data through research forming a hypothesis as the US government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers. Former Department Of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta with FAA Deputy Director Monte Belger, along with eywitnesses, describe a flight path in complete conflict with the flight path provided by the National Transportation Safety Board via the Flight Data Recorder. The westerly approach observed in the FDR and Radar data conflicts with the "Down The River Approach" as described by Mineta, Belger, and others. US Government agencies refuse to comment. Discussion and the latest from CIT can be viewed here.
Planes Of September
By Shelton F. Lankord, Core Member, Pilots For 9/11 Truth
Can the Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder
09/16/07 - As many already know, the data supplied by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) does not support the government story of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 (see Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77 for detailed analysis). Some have argued how could the data not support an impact when the FDR was found inside the Pentagon? We feel that is a great question and one we have been trying to get Government agencies to explain. Full Article
Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's
Location of American 77 Flight Data Recorder - Part II
11/30/07 - Many may recall an article we published regarding location of American Airlines Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder (AA 77 FDR) in which we expose the govt story of the flight data recorder being found at the entrance hole and exit hole. Since the article has been published, the MSNBC article we sourced (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3069699/) no longer exists and now redirects to an irrelevant Newsweek page (http://www.newsweek.com/id/38176). Why would MSNBC want to remove a page which explains the recovery of AA 77 FDR? Is it because we exposed the conflicting reports of location? It gets deeper.
Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11
08/25/07 - ...But – here we go. I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.
I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive". Full Article
History Channel Hit Piece Consulted "Experts"?
08/23/07 - The latest hit piece against the 9/11 Truth Movement aired on The History Channel this past Monday. The program went through various events that occurred on September 11, 2001 in a fashion of introducing a "claim" followed by "expert" response. The majority of "expert" response was supplied by Davin Coburn and James Meigs of Popular Mechanics, which is owned by Hearst Publishing (Hearst Publishing is also part owner of The History Channel), which set the standard in Yellow Journalism. Replies from such "experts" did not include any solid rebuttal. It is no surprise that the only "experts" they interviewed were titled as such when in support (read: making excuses) for the government story. The experts who question the government story were instead referred to as "Conspiracy Theorists" and were either given very little airtime to present their research and/or concerns, had details edited out, or were omitted from the program altogether. Pilots For 9/11 Truth, Veterans For 9/11 Truth and Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth, nor eyewitness experts from the Citizen Investigation Team, were never contacted to present information for this program. Was it because the producers of this hit piece were unaware such organizations filled with Experts existed? David Ray Griffin -- who was interviewed for the program -- had this to say when asked if the producers were aware of the above organizations:
Yes, I made a big point of the fact that the main thing that had happened recently was the emergence of these professional organizations. But they of course weren't interested in that, because all the "experts" support the official theory. They didn't want people like you and Richard Gage.
We're not surprised David, and thank you. Popular Mechanics and The History Channel obviously do not want to challenge the real experts with solid research. When they do challenge a handful of experts such as Steven Jones and yourself, they give very little airtime to present analysis and edit content to suit their agenda. It is clear the producers of this hit piece are well aware of the above organizations and their work, they just do not want to present it to the American public. We're not surprised.
Angels For Truth presented this article in their daily email newsletter in response.
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
By Dan Eggen
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.
"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.
A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday.
A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office said its investigation is complete and that a final report is being drafted. Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said she could not comment on the inspector general's inquiry.
In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts last night.
For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.
In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.
Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.
These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.
"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."
Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.
John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.
"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me."
Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True
by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)
The precautionary principle is based on the fact that its impossible to prove a false claim to be true. Failure to prove a false premise true does not automatically make it false but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. After five long years, our government has provided the public with no physical evidence to support its claim that the attacks were the work of Muslim terrorists, or even that the identity of the aircraft that struck their targets on September 11 was the same as those specified in the 9/11 Commission's report. As explained below, it would be a simple matter to confirm the identity of each of the four aircraft, and until such physical proof of identity is forthcoming, no conclusions can be scientifically drawn to support the official story as being accurate. This is a precaution against rushing to judgment. At this point, it could just as easily be assumed that the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with full cooperation of elements within our own government.
In July, 1965 I had just been commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously, and it was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.
As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the
and Systems Management at the Instituteof Safety . In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Universityof Southern California conflict. Vietnam
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even learned of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft --- and in most cases, even determining the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be replaced, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. The plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists with a work order when the parts must be replaced. When the parts are installed, the completed work order will have serial numbers of the parts married to the aircraft registration number and it will be returned to the records section for updating in the aircraft records. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators, pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.
Considering the catastrophic incidents of
September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts, and I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my assessment of these facts.
United Airlines Flight 93
This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a
farm field. Pennsylvania
Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a shallow, smoking hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the alleged crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proven beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any physical evidence that would prove beyond doubt, the specific identity of the aircraft that allegedly crashed at that site. On the contrary, it was reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, was still in operation for several weeks after
September 11, 2001.
American Airlines Flight 11
This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767-200, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including foreign nationals who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.
Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.
United Airlines Flight 175
This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767-200, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.
Once more, the government has yet to produce even one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.
American Airlines Flight 77
This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 16 feet wide.
Following a cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of
September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased, rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Shanksville,
crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the two WTC towers, it appears that heavy aircraft were involved in each case, but no evidence has been produced that would support the government's version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the central problem with the government's 911 story. Pennsylvania
As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to have been involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.
Footnote: It has now been more than five years since the tragic events of
9/11/01, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but the FBI has refused to publicly release any copies of their mandatory investigations. The FBI response to a request for copies of their reports under the Freedom of Information Act was a refusal. The agency claimed that their investigation reports were "in a file", and that the FBI was exempt from FOIA release, "due to the sensibilities of surviving families of the crash victims".