Are Some of the 9/11 Passengers Still Alive?...and other disturbing questions.
TvNewsLIES Radio LIVE - Wednesday, April 7th, 2010
Our Guest: Phil Jayhan of LetsRoll Forums
Are Some of the 9/11 Passengers Still Alive?...and other disturbing questions.
I am the first one to admit that there are a lot of far fetched theories and allegations floating around about what really happened on September 11th, 2001, none crazier however than the official explanation. But the latest information to come my way, courtesy of our guest Phil Jayhan of the LetsRoll Forums, has left me stumped and thirsting for answers, which some of you out there may be be able to provide.
I am asking for your help. If you can shed some light on the disturbing questions that we are going to raise during our broadcast we may be able to put some of our suspicions to rest, or - if not - we may just have found some solid proof that the events of 9/11 involved more people than any of us could have imagined.
Out of respect for the victims of 9/11, some topics have been completely taboo, even among 9/11 researchers. Well, I have to tell you that I have seen too much disturbing information about the people on the flight lists for me to ignore this topic. And that information is the focus of this week's radio broadcast.
Please join me, Jesse Richard, as my guest Phil Jayhan, 9/11 Researcher, investigator and founder of the LetsRoll Forums, shares some disturbing discoveries related to the people on the 9/11 passenger lists. And like me, Phil is seeking more information that may serve to answer the questions raised by the evidence, and that is why he is going public on our radio show.
So please tell your friends to tune in so that maybe some of you can help put the pieces of this disturbing puzzle together.
Your calls and instant messages will be welcome.
Jesse Richard, Founder and Editor of TvNewsLIES.org
- shadow7's blog
- Login to post comments
We want to promote this do we?
Look at this pic....
http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/34b99de684383a.jpg
If you look closely the very bottom part of Barbara Olson's right earlobe is showing, and it seems to be identical to the bottom part of Olson's new wifes' earlobe, proving that Olson's new wife is actually still Barbara Olson who negleted to get plastic surgery done on her earlobes. Think I am insane for saying this? This is what THEY are saying and will probably discuss on the show. So if I wanted to make the truth movement look insane how would I top this?
Direct quote from a moderator at the site...
"I think they're both pretty hot! check out what little you can see of her earlobe. they are IDENTICAL!"
http://letsrollforums.com/flight-77-passenger-lady-t20525.html
Phil Jayhan agrees...
"Ya, I agree. Lady Booth is a 'dead-ringer' for 'Babs Olsen'"
Cheers-
Phil
http://letsrollforums.com/flight-77-passenger-lady-t20525.html
They also go after Mike Rivera of whatreallyhappened.com because he is not a pentagon no planer, so he's "In on it" and is a 9-11 mass murderer,....
http://letsrollforums.com/another-9-11-passenger-t20589.html
How is this not incredibly embarrassing?!?!
1940 - Theodore Olson, U.S. Solicitor General
Ted Olson's B'day was on 9/11 by coincidence. It's hard enough to lose your wife...but on your birthday? You would think she'd be there to celebrate his special day.
http://www.historyorb.com/birthdays/september/11
She delayed her flight as long as possible
"You would think she'd be there to celebrate his special day."
She was. That's why she stayed and had breakfast with him that morning, when she had an appearance to make on Politicaly Incorrect Television show that afternoon, in L.A.
A Few Observations
First, I really think it is a nearly futile exercise to control speculation of what happened, in the absence of a proper investigation.
Second, I think people are too sensitive about the notion that the Truth Movement is being held back by such speculation. This sensitivity arises, I believe, from taking to heart the propaganda from the other side. They assert that such speculations demonstrate that everyone in the Movement is a crank. That's just ridiculous on its face. The fact that many may have believed that Nixon orchestrated the Watergate burglaries was no reason not to investigate and follow the leads of the stronger claims - that his Administration covered-up the crime. That is to say that when the Mainstream media or "debunkers" use fringe speculation as a method of attack, I do not think that is a reason to be defensive. It's a false argument and it can be defeated on its face. Where you have (1) an Official Story that is demonstrably false, (2) an Investigation that is demonstrably deficient and incomplete, and (3) admitted withholding of the evidence (or cover-up of the evidence) supporting and surrounding the Official Story .... then that is sufficient and is not diminished by natural speculation. So when the other side attacks on the basis of unproven speculation - one should not buy into that.
Third, some of this speculation is reasonable, and I just cannot see attacking people for entertaining reasonable ideas for what happened. That's not to say that speculation should be the face of efforts to get the government and media to do their jobs - it shouldn't. But understand ... the resistance of government and the media from doing their jobs (which involves inexcusable direction of duties) is not caused by aggressive speculation. The same is true with "debunkers." The idea that if the Truth Movement were pure, factual and disciplined, then the mainstream media, government and debunkers would all of a sudden change is naive. It's no different than the debunkers saying for so long - "If you have legitimate science, then get it published in a peer-reviewed journal." And so that happened and did they change? No. The fight is not with the Mainstream Media, Government and Debunkers. The fight is over the minds of the Public - win the Public and the Media and Government must follow. Until then - they'll resist, regardless of how "pure," factual and disciplined the movement is.
Fourth, let's take a look at the speculation regarding the notion that some of the victims are alive and that planes were switched. (A) That is how it was drawn up in Operation Northwoods, so there is a historical blueprint for that method. (B) If you look at the passengers on the Pentagon flight .... it's a whose who of the Military Industrial Complex. And (C) Ted Olson has been caught in lies about Barbara, which is a major red flag (though this idea of his current wife seems bizarre).
Would I use those facts and speculation to get my foot in the door with newbies and the Public? No, there is no need to. In that setting - you should stick with the basics. This "Graduate Level" stuff should not be involved as an Introduction to the deficiencies of the Official Story and if the opposition tries to raise it ... you simply hold firm to the basic points and themes and not go there.
But I would not attack those who do speculate about some of these things. Remember some of them may be right. They are on the right side. And some of them are intelligent and honest people. And remember the opposing forces want in-fighting and discord. Don't give 'em what they want here -- just because they've built a false argument around the existence of natural speculation, in the absence of a proper investigation and a proper explanation consistent with known facts.
Thanks, TG.
DITTO!!!
Natural speculation
Is to be not only allowed and expected but encouraged. It's the truth we are looking for, no matter how horrible it may look! Topgun, you explained it so well! Thankyou
lillyann
Some of the hijacker passengers are still alive.Let them be seen
John MITCHELL
Herblay FRANCE
bonjour,
for a long time there is a lot written about some of the 911 hijackers who were also passengers on the planes, are still alive :
1) BBC ==> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm
2) David Ray Griffin ==> http://www.911blogger.com/node/22866
David Ray Griffin says hijackers were alive after 9/11/2001
3) and many others ==>
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&rlz=1G1ACAW_FRFR360&q=hijackers+alive+911&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
4) On 911blogger.com ==> http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/749
5) Kevin Barrett's "bounty hunt" ==> http://www.911blogger.com/node/8336
http://www.google.com/custom?hl=fr&cof=BIMG:www.911blogger.com/%3BS:http://www.911blogger.com/%3BLC:%23000000%3BGALT:%230000ff%3BGFNT:%23808080%3BGIMP:%23ff0000%3B&domains=www.911blogger.com/&sitesearch=www.911blogger.com/&q=hijackers+alive+%22kevin+barrett%22+hunt&start=10&sa=N
6) Film "ZERO" by Giulietto Chiesa treats the "some hijackers
are still alive"
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&rlz=1G1ACAW_FRFR360&q=zero+film+hijackers+italien+%22still+alive%22+911+Giulietto+Chiesa&btnG=Rechercher&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
How is it possible that we have not yet had any internet photos/videos reportings on these hijackers still alive ? 911blogger is worldwide. Are there not some readers on this blog able to help us get in to contact with the hijackers still alive ?
As far as I know Kevin Barrett's "bounty hunt" see reference 5)
has not produced any video reporting.
http://mujca.com/waleed.htm
If I was one the hijackers still alive, I would be scared for my life, because the CIA has a permit to kill with Obama's approval. With or without help from drones.
http://hubpages.com/hub/licensetokillamercians
Yours John
This is a total dead end
I'm not sure why this appears on 911blogger.
lol
wtf am I still doing here
In light of the Northwoods Documents,
it's not an inappropriate avenue of speculation. I second TopGun's comment above.
Also, I understand what TopGun means about the whole "speculation" thing. There is a difference between research and street activism and this site functions for both purposes. There are certainly some claims and ideas I will entertain on a blog but won't promote with a huge sign on a street corner. I don't think you'll find anyone posting in this thread is going to anytime soon be holding a big sign on the street saying "9/11 PASSENGERS STILL ALIVE!!!"
From the Northwoods Documents (bolding mine):
It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[16] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
So if the senior military joint chiefs of staff could dream of such plans in 1962 regarding "fake passengers," it's not out of the bounds of reasonable speculation that such a thing is the case in 2001; either the passengers still being alive or never existing at all.
Also, we know for a fact that several (maybe even ALL) of the hijackers are still alive. And contrary to what the BBC and the debunkers would try to have people believe, these are NOT cases of a simple mistaking of two faces with the same name. No, these are the actual people, name and face; and in the case of one of them, he came forward and said, "That's my name and face on the list; I'm here, alive, and working for a Saudi airline company!" To this day, however, the FBI has not revised its list. It's almost as if there are a few good eggs within the FBI who WANT people to know what a farce the official story is.
You must be right...
...just a "dead" end simuvac. Must have been 19 arabs with box-cutters.
It seems absurd, but is it a hook?
I have to wonder if this is being used as a hook to get people interested in the issues related to the Barbara to Ted Olson phone call. It is certainly one of the more conspicuous anomalies of the entire 9/11/01 OTC.
sensitive?
>>Second, I think people are too sensitive about the notion that the Truth Movement is being held back by such speculation.
But the sensitivity of the family members who you claim are lying and hiding relatives or victims who are lying and living elsewhere is not important?
To say that passengers are alive is saying that numerous people were willing to deceive their own FAMILIES and pretend to have been killed, or that numerous FAMILIES agreed to pretend their loved one was killed -- apparently for the rest of their lives! It's so far out there it really only serves to make us all look nuts.
This is not only speculative, it is offensive. Why? Because the speculation -- not based in science or reason -- is put ABOVE the more basic facts that suggest that real planes hit real buildings and real people were killed to start a war.
That Phil Jayhan, pod and missile creator, is being interviewed in 2010 is insane. I'm sorry.
I can see now what TVNewsLies is really about.
Sigh...
Maybe my italics and boldface failed to get through to you above, as to why this is NOT an "offensive" area of thought and investigation, and why it's NOT "so far out there." Maybe I should use underline as well. Once again, from the northwoods documents that our own government military dreamed up:
At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases.
...and a little further down...
From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status.
Pretty "out there," huh Vic? But it was proposed in 1962 and rejected by JFK who was eliminated the next year. Now I know you're going to vote this post down but I'd love to actually see a well reasoned response to my point here.
Rejected
>>proposed in 1962 and rejected
Likely because it wouldn't have worked. How many carefully chosen passengers? Dozens? Hundreds? Whose families would have to show up in court rooms and press conferences and lie, lie to their extended families for the rest of their lives?
Many things are POSSIBLE.
But there is no meaningful evidence that plane swapping occurred on 9/11 -- there is speculation that it occurred, in this case, by a person who asserts that the planes that hit the WTC had pods attached to them that fired missiles into the buildings . . .
you speculate too
You said "Likely because it wouldn't have worked."
Now isn't that speculation too? ;-)
But my point is that you consider it so "offensive" and "so far out there" to even speculate down this avenue. You, Zombie and Jim are expressing profound chagrin over the fact that this blog entry even got published and that the moderators are being irresponsible for even allowing it.
But the mere fact that such a similar scenario was proposed 50 years ago shows that it was NOT "out there."
And it wasn't just that part of the Northwoods Documents that was rejected, it was the entire thing. Much if not all of Northwoods involves plots much less ornate than what actually happened on 9/11.
The reason Northwoods was rejected was because JFK had a conscience, and we know what happened to him. McNamera also felt uneasy about it. NOT because they didn't think it would work.
So in other words, if just two extra human beings had approved the plan beyond the joint chiefs who already did approve it, it would have been a reality.
By YOUR logic, the CD of the WTC "wouldn't work" either, as it's too massive an operation to keep secret, supposedly. What about the people who planted the explosives? Don't you think such a massive plane "likely wouldn't work?"
Methinks Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld don't have as good a conscience. Hence 9/11 went through.
Thanks for at least responding though, even though I disagree with your point of view.
With regard to Jayhan
First, I'm far from convinced by the "pod" and "flash" theory. Even when I first watched "In Plane Site" in 2005, I was convinced by most of the film, but not the pod section. (For one thing, even though von Kleist was trying to convince me otherwise, I never was convinced that the flash occurred before the plane hit.)
I have no idea if Jayhan still clings to the pod theory as rigidly as he did 4 years ago.
All of us can be wrong, and many of us have egos. Those egos allow us to cling to pet theories long after they've been debunked. My observation is that you yourself exhibit this tendency when it comes to defending various facets of the official narrative, such as the Pentagon impact narrative.
But if we go beyond the messenger and look at the actual subject of speculation, it's not "out there" at all. Certainly no more "out there" than the massive job of secretly rigging the WTCs.
Insane
Yup. This is pure DISinformation. I will be candid here, because if this is what passes through the moderating staff here as relevant to furthering the cause of 9/11 truth, then I'll be happy to take the consequences of calling this BS like it is.
And the same cast of characters come around to defend it..
And finally
I don't think anyone here disputes that, certainly with the WTC, that "real planes hit real buildings and real people were killed to start a war."
This is a non-sequitur because all of us here understand that point.
We know they needed their 4-figure body count to anger the public enough to support a war.
But as we understand 9/11 to be a massive lie, we can not accept on faith any aspect of the official narrative. It is the government's duty to prove the official story true, every aspect of it, and in the absence of such proof I have to be very skeptical about every aspect of the official story.
To mine and most others' satisfaction, it has been proven that real planes hit the WTC which is why I reject TV fakery claims.
But not ALL claims that might SOUND "out there" actually ARE "out there."
Integrity is a two way street
There are some things which seem insane, but aren't. You know the difference, Vic. It would be nice if you could walk the walk. Yes, this one seems like BS. A person as prominent as Ted Olson could not just invent a new history for his wife(whom he helped murder). I think Ted Olson's conduct on 9/11 stinks to high heaven, but I don't believe Barbara survived. Whether she was on AA77 is an open question. I suspect Danny Lewin is quite dead, but seriously doubt it was due to being shot^h^h^h^hstabbed.
Well TVNewsLies banned me years ago
I was banned from TVNewsLies forum for posting about the political affiliations of the people involved in the WTC Privatization agreement. Come to think of it...
I do want to make it crystal clear
that am NOT endorsing the specific claims of Phil Jayhan. Please do not interpret my defense of this entry being published as an endorsement of his claims.
I was simply making the point that it's not at all "out there" to consider the possibility of "fake" or "alive" passengers given what we now know about the Northwoods Documents; the mere concept should not invite scorn or ridicule.
However, Jayhan's claims of Mike Rivero actually being Flight 11 passenger John J Wenckus, and that Lady Evelyn Booth is actually Barbara Olson of Flight 77, are definitely the personal theory of one person and are in no way conclusive, and, are most likely wrong.
Just defending the right to question, not endorsing specific claims!
If it's possible doesn't make it reasonable
>>However, Jayhan's claims of Mike Rivero actually being Flight 11 passenger John J Wenckus
To stick with the logic here, since it's not IMPOSSIBLE that Mike Rivero is actually Flight 11 passenger John J Wenckus, let's spend the next 6 months researching it! Then we can really get to the bottom of it once and for all . . .
Sorry, but that's the level of evidence there is for plane swapping also. Speculation. It can be used to create a swamp to keep people distracted with nonsense until 10 years has passed since 9/11.
I actually agree with you
I actually agree with you here regarding one point but not the other.
Upon closer examination of Jayhan's claims, I find them to be ludicrous. Although there are some similarities in appearance, the notion that it's the same person is pretty silly. There is nothing legitimate or productive about his specific line of questioning; HOWEVER, my defense of a line of questioning in this regard in general still stands even though Jayhan's findings are ridiculous.
But there does indeed seem to be scientific evidence, based on physics as well as official data, that the planes that hit the towers could not possibly have been unmodified stock 767's or piloted by rag tag Muslim hijackers.
Evidence available here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19732&st=0
The fact that Jayhan's claims are ludicrous does not negate the real legitimacy of the "plane swapping" question. Just as a false identification of the "Harley Guy" does not negate the strong evidence for CD.
Barbara Olsen
It has not been proven that Flight 77 did fly into the Pentagon. Adam, are we not allowed to "naturally speculate" about what may have happened to the passengers if there was a swapped plane? Why is the truth movement so against the speculating of swapped planes being used on 911, especially when we know past administrations have seriously considered that?
I think truthers refuse cit's work because it then forces us to consider what happened to the real planes and passengers. Victronix wants to keep the TM contained in a neat little box that the media will like to open. Our speculations may look absurd or ugly, but to look the other way is uglier. We must leave no stone unturned in the rubble.
Lillyann
Please be aware,
Lillyann, that the vast majority of the truth movement does NOT refuse CIT's work. The opposition to them comes from a small group of about 7 or 8 people who are almost entirely from truthaction.org.
True
"the vast majority of the truth movement does NOT refuse CIT's work"
Actually, the vast majority (99%) of those I know in the truth movement, accept CIT's work. But this is off topic, because there is very little if any speculation in CIT's work.
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA
More From Wikipedia On Aircraft Take Off
Bruno,
here is more from Wiki on commercial aircraft taking off automatically at high speeds:
"Fixed-wing aircraft designed for high-speed operation (such as commercial jet aircraft) have difficulty generating enough lift at the low speeds encountered during takeoff. These are therefore fitted with high-lift devices, often including slats and usually flaps, which increase the camber of the wing, making it more effective at low speed, thus creating more lift."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeoff
Well, Flight 77 was at cruising speed (530 mph) as it approached the Pentagon, which would have had it fly over the Pentagon, just as Flight 77's black box indicates it did! How about that!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
The Physics of a 757 Flying at 530 mph
Lillyann,
as an airfoil increases speed, the pressure under the wings INCREASES, while the air pressure over the wings DECREASES. The airfoil will then move in the direction of the lower pressure. That means as Flight 77 approached the Pentagon, speeding up at full throttle to 530 mph, the aircraft would have actually LIFTED automatically.
It's interesting that the physics of Flight 77's final seconds is devoid of physics. Why is physics good for the WTC, but not for Flight 77's final seconds.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Physics Rule
Kerberos,
the ludicrous approach that Flight 77 was said to have made as it approached the Pentagon should have already clued you in to what really hit the Pentagon. Your insistence that a 757 flew several feet off the ground at 530 mph is embarrassing. Please stop your nonsense.
The last I heard from you on this subject was when you were pushing the following article 'Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect':
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml
Well, even the author Jeff Scott agrees that "The Bernoulli theory of lift tells us that a wing creates lift because the air moving over the upper surface of the wing is at a lower pressure than the air beneath the wing. This difference in pressure creates a lift force that pulls the wing upward" (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml).
So you like Jeff Scott when he talks about Ground Effect (though he discusses Ground Effect only in relation to the wings' "angle of attack", forgetting all about the role increases in air pressure plays on an aircraft as it approaches the ground at higher than normal approach speeds), but when he talks about LIFT you don't like what he has to say! Sorry, that just won't fly!
Not only can't a 757 get within a half wings length from the ground at 530 mph, the cruising speed that Flight 77 was said to be traveling (530 mph) just before impact would have automatically caused the aircraft to lift according to your hero Jeff Scott!
The math behind air flight:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bern.html
Anyone who knows anything about air flight knows that even at approach speeds commercial aircraft experience ground effect (the buildup of air pressure under the wings as the aircraft gets within a wingspans length off the ground). That effect would be exacerbated according to the Bernoulli theory as the air pressure under the wings increases as the aircraft approaches 530 mph!
As a matter of fact, Jeff Scott forgot to discuss in his article 'Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect' the role air pressure under the wings plays as the aircraft gets closer to the ground while speeding up. His article only discusses the role an "angle of attack" plays on Ground Effect, forgetting that air pressure and Ground Effect are also tied together!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Yawn. Show the math.
I want to see the calculations which prove that the approach of AA 77 to the Pentagon was impossible. In fluid dynamics, Bernoulli's principle states that for an inviscid flow, an increase in the speed of the fluid occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure or a decrease in the fluid's potential energy.
Next!
Math Shown
Kerberos,
how is it you don't know Bernoulli's equation relates to aircraft lift? The Wiki link you provided discusses Bernoulli's equation as it relates to airfoil lift:
Real world application
In modern everyday life there are many observations that can be successfully explained by application of Bernoulli's principle.
Bernoulli's Principle can be used to calculate the lift force on an airfoil if you know the behavior of the fluid flow in the vicinity of the foil. For example, if the air flowing past the top surface of an aircraft wing is moving faster than the air flowing past the bottom surface then Bernoulli's principle implies that the pressure on the surfaces of the wing will be lower above than below. This pressure difference results in an upwards lift force.[nb 1][18] Whenever the distribution of speed past the top and bottom surfaces of a wing is known, the lift forces can be calculated (to a good approximation) using Bernoulli's equations[19]—established by Bernoulli over a century before the first man-made wings were used for the purpose of flight. Bernoulli's principle does not explain why the air flows faster past the top of the wing and slower past the underside. To understand why, it is helpful to understand circulation, the Kutta condition, and the Kutta-Joukowski theorem. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle
Since you like Wiki, here's another nice quote from Wiki on aircraft lift at cruise speeds:
"For most aircraft, attempting a takeoff without a pitch-up would require cruise speeds while still on the runway." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeoff
As it so happened, Flight 77's final approach towards the Pentagon was cruise speed! 530 mph.
We also have two 757 engines each spewing 21.5 tons of hot jet blast as Flight 77 overflies the traffic jam on Washington Boulevard. Flight 77 was so low that it clipped an antenna on a stalled car, but somehow the two engines each spewing 21.5 tons of hot jet blast miraculously left the vehicular traffic untouched! The hot jet blasts also didn't leave a scorched trail on the Pentagon lawn!
Frank Probst:
"An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee
stalled in traffic not far away." -- http://www.oilempire.us/eyewitnesses.html
Dean Jackson Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Hollywood
If I were a hollywood writer, I would use the passengers as hostages to make sure all the players remained quiet. In other words, if planes were switched, according to the Hollywood scenario, the passengers for that flight would be selected as close relatives of those who pulled off 9-11. Certainly the Olson case would fit that scenario. But I am not a hollywood writer.
There is a lot of deception out there, and it is important to examine every aspect of the government's story. Any discripancy may shed some light on the truth, and this includes information on passenger lists, etc. At the same time, it is perhaps better to put more flesh on the bones before making it available for public consumption.
However unlikely something may seem, evidence trumps speculation.
Or perhaps
People who you did not want to ever testify ...........say some engineers who worked for someplace like Raytheon....or some deep operatives who thought they were part of an anti-terror drill.......or perhaps just a real patriot who happened to be married to a real traitor.........the subplots are endless.