Support 911Blogger


New Evidence Reveals Half of Pilots Were Only Assigned to 9/11 Flights at the Last Minute

Thomas McGuinness, the Co-Pilot of Flight 11
Thomas McGuinness, the co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 11 before it became the first plane to be hijacked in the 9/11 attacks, only assigned himself to be on the flight the afternoon before September 11, 2001, and pushed from it the original co-pilot, who had put his name down for the flight less than half an hour earlier. This new information means that, curiously, half of the pilots and co-pilots originally at the controls of the four aircraft involved in the attacks are now known to have been assigned to the doomed flights at the last minute, very shortly before September 11. Additionally, more than half of the flight attendants and many of the passengers are known to have, similarly, not originally been booked onto those flights.

The details of McGuinness's late assignment to Flight 11 were revealed recently by Steve Scheibner, who was originally going to be the plane's co-pilot. In a short film released on the Internet just before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Scheibner described how McGuinness came to replace him on Flight 11 and thereby saved his life.

FLIGHT 11 HAD 'NO PILOT ASSIGNED TO IT YET'
At the time of the 9/11 attacks, Scheibner was a fundamentalist Baptist pastor and a commander in the Naval Reserves, but he also worked part-time as an on-call pilot for American Airlines. [1] He had been available to fly on September 11. "So at about three o'clock in the afternoon of September 10," Scheibner recalled, "I sat down at the computer and I logged in like I normally do, to check to see if there was any unassigned flying for the next day. And sure enough there was one trip that was available on September 11. It was American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston's Logan Airport to Los Angeles." Scheibner looked at the flight and could see that "there was no pilot assigned to it yet."

Scheibner checked if there were any reserve pilots available to take the flight. But, he said, "It just so happened [that] on September 11, 2001, there was only one guy available to go flying on that day and that was me." He therefore put his name down for Flight 11. He told his wife he would be flying the following day and packed his bags ready for the trip.

Once a particular pilot signed up for a flight, as Scheibner had done, there would follow a "30-minute window of opportunity" during which, if another pilot wanted to take their place, it would be possible for that pilot to push them from the flight. But at the end of that 30-minute period, Scheibner said, the "final assignment" of the pilot to the flight would be made when someone from American Airlines called them and said, "Hey, we wanna let you know you've been assigned a trip." "Once you have that phone conversation," Scheibner said, "even if a line pilot wants to, they can't bump you off that trip." However, on September 10, Scheibner recalled, "I waited for the phone call and the phone never rang." Later on, during the evening, Scheibner had concluded, "You know, they never assigned that trip to me."

ORIGINAL CO-PILOT PUSHED FROM FLIGHT 11
What happened, according to Scheibner, was that in the minutes after he signed up for Flight 11, Thomas McGuinness pushed him from the flight. McGuinness was one of American Airlines' "line holding pilots" who was a "little bit senior" to Scheibner. Scheibner said that, unknown to him, at "about three o'clock in the afternoon" of September 10, McGuinness "went over to the computer and he logged in, and he looked and he saw that [Flight 11] was open, but my name had been penciled in." Since McGuinness was "still in that 30-minute window of opportunity," he called American Airlines and asked: "Am I legal to take this trip? In other words, can I bump Scheibner off that trip?" American Airlines replied, "Yep, you're legal for that trip, but you gotta give us a call back in the next 20 minutes, or else we're gonna finalize the assignment."

Having decided to take the flight, McGuinness called the airline again and said, "Yeah, I'll take that trip." At that moment, Scheibner said, American Airlines "erased my name off the trip [and] they assigned it to Tom [McGuinness]." As a result, McGuinness was the co-pilot of Flight 11 when it took off from Boston the following morning and became a victim of the 9/11 attacks, while Scheibner's life was spared. [2]

For one pilot to take another's place, as McGuinness did, is a rare event. Scheibner recently noted, "I can count three times in 20 years at American Airlines that I've been bumped from a trip the night before." [3]

On September 11, although Scheibner knew about the terrorist attacks, it did not initially click that one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center had been the flight he'd signed up for the day before. He only realized this fact that evening. He had been thinking, "I wonder who was on that flight?" and so went on his computer and logged in with American Airlines. He recalled: "I logged in and when the screen came up in front of me, it looked exactly like it did the day before when it had that trip and it had my name penciled in. Except this time it had this trip sequence, my name wasn't there, and it said these three words: 'Sequence. Failed. Continuity.'" These words are the code the airline uses to say, "The trip never made it to its destination." [4]

THREE OTHER 9/11 PILOTS REPLACED ORIGINAL PILOTS AT LAST MINUTE
While Scheibner's account is remarkable, it is not unique. Several other pilots are known to have similarly narrowly avoided becoming victims of the 9/11 attacks. As well as Thomas McGuinness, at least three more of the eight pilots initially at the controls of the four aircraft involved in the attacks were only assigned to those flights very shortly before September 11.

John Ogonowski, the pilot of Flight 11, was not originally supposed to be on that flight. The original pilot had been Walter Sorenson. But Sorenson was replaced by Ogonowski, who, according to the Georgetown Record, had seniority over him "and requested to fly that day." Sorenson's life was therefore spared by the "last-minute change of pilots." [5]

Either the pilot or the co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, which reportedly crashed into the Pentagon, was not originally scheduled to be on that flight. But, the New York Times reported: "Bill Cheng, an American Airlines pilot who normally flies Flight 77, changed his plans in late August and applied for time off on [September 11] so he could go camping. When another pilot signed up for the slot, Mr. Cheng's application was accepted." Whether Cheng was replaced by Captain Charles Burlingame or by First Officer David Charlebois was unstated. [6]

And Jason Dahl, the pilot of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania, was not originally supposed to be on the doomed flight. But he reportedly wanted to put in extra hours so he could take time off for his wedding anniversary on September 14. [7] Therefore, "At his request, [his wife] Sandy Dahl traded for the flight on their home computer." Days after the request, Dahl "would pilot Flight 93 to San Francisco, having traded a trip later in the month for this one," journalist and author Jere Longman wrote. [8]

MANY FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND PASSENGERS ONLY BOOKED ONTO 9/11 FLIGHTS AT LAST MINUTE
What is more, over half of the flight attendants--13 out of a total of 25--were not originally scheduled to be on the four targeted aircraft, and many of the passengers--including almost half of those on Flight 93--were not originally booked to be on those flights. [9]

Furthermore, these statistics are based only on information that has been reported to the public. It is quite possible that others of the pilots originally at the controls of the aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks were only assigned to the flights at the last minute, and took the place of another pilot. Similarly, there could have been additional passengers and flight attendants who were only booked onto the four flights at the last minute, but this fact has not yet been reported. Certainly, further investigation is needed to look into this possibility. The fact that Thomas McGuinness was only revealed to have been a last-minute replacement for the original co-pilot of Flight 11 in August 2011 shows that important new information about 9/11 can surface even now, more than 10 years after the attacks.

What, though, is the reason for the bizarre and inexplicable finding that so many crew members and passengers on Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 on September 11 were not originally supposed to be on those flights? An unrestrained new investigation of 9/11 needs to examine this matter thoroughly. The official account of 9/11 cannot explain this oddity. The answers investigators find could therefore fundamentally change our understanding of what exactly happened during the terrorist attacks.

NOTES
[1] Margaret Talbot, "A Mighty Fortress." New York Times, February 27, 2000; Dennis Hoey, "Prayers Answered, and a Church Finds Land for New Home." Portland Press Herald, March 1, 2003.
[2] Peter Scheibner, In My Seat: A Pilot's Story From Sept. 10th-11th. August 30, 2011.
[3] "Pilot Reflects on Being Spared From 9/11 Cockpit." WYFF 4, September 10, 2011.
[4] Peter Scheibner, In My Seat.
[5] Sally Applegate, "Flight 11 Crew Not Forgotten." Georgetown Record, September 18, 2003; "A Time to Reflect." Georgetown Record, September 7, 2005.
[6] Elaine Sciolino and John H. Cushman Jr., "A Route out of Washington, Horribly Changed." New York Times, September 13, 2001.
[7] "Pilot: Jason Dahl." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 28, 2001; Jane Pauley, "No Greater Love." NBC News, September 11, 2006.
[8] Susan Besze Wallace, "Legacy of Sept. 11 Pilot Comforts Widow." Denver Post, December 16, 2001; Jere Longman, Among the Heroes: United Flight 93 and the Passengers and Crew Who Fought Back. New York: HarperCollins, 2002, p. 1.
[9] "Last-Minute Pilots, Passengers, and Flight Attendants: The Unexplained Oddity of 9/11." Shoestring 9/11, March 31, 2008.

My previous article on this subject ...

If you have not already read it, be sure to check out my previous article, "Last-Minute Pilots, Passengers, and Flight Attendants: The Unexplained Oddity of 9/11." You can read it here:
http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/03/last-minute-pilots-passengers-and.html

This new piece is a kind of addendum to that article.

Interesting.

Shoestring, I always appreciate your articles! Of course, I have a couple thoughts and questions.

After reading your article, folks should visit the History Commons entry on the subject:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101unscheduledpassengers&scale=0#a091101unscheduledpassengers

Many of the late ticket purchases by passengers seem to be completely benign ( Mark Bingham had a hangover, Todd Beamer delayed his 9/10 flight to spend time with kids, many transferred from Flight 91 to 93 because it departed about "an hour earlier") but, that is not to say there is not more to learn.

Interestingly, if all these people had not booked their flights so late, Flight 93 nearly would have been empty. 16 of 33 passengers for Flight 93 booked their tickets on the day of, or shortly before 9/11.

Quoting the "Staff Monograph on the Four Flights and Civil Aviation Security" :

The 37 passengers (including the four hijackers) represented a load factor of 20 percent of the plane's passenger capacity of 182. This figure is considerably below the 52 percent average load factor for Flight 93 for Tuesdays in the three-month period prior to September 11; indeed, it represents the lowest load factor among these flights during that time span. In this three-month period, Tuesdays were the least traveled day for Flight 93.
http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/staff-report-sept2005.pdf - This link is dead
It is archived at 9/11 Myths: http://911myths.com/index.php/9/11_flight_passenger_numbers

So imagine if half of the 33 passengers had not booked their flight late. The plane would have been flying at an incredibly low load factor of about 10% - 12%. That is a lot of open seats, indeed, almost all of the 180 seats would have been open.

Regarding the pilots: Interesting. The wierdest event seems to be the override of piloting by McGuinness, as it seems it may not be too abnormal for pilots to book flights late. That would be my assumption. There are 3,400 daily flights at American Airlines and something like 12,000 pilots. Essentially in a period of four days, all 12,000 pilots could sit behind the controls of an AA plane. I can imagine a lot of opportunities in that 4 day period arising due to some pilots being sick, forced sleep time, vaction, etc.

http://www.aa.com/i18n/amrcorp/corporateInformation/facts/amr.jsp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines

(This is also assuming, probably incorrectly, that the "12,000 pilots" figure means "pilots" only and not "co-pilots" too. If so, the 4 day period is cut down to 2 days for a full pilot rotation - due to the necessity of at least "pilot" and one "co-pilot' per cabin.)

So, I don't know what to say about it other than I am glad you wrote this.

In related news of the day:

The widow of Flight 93 co-pilot LeRoy W. Homer Jr. is releasing a book this month on the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

Author Melodie Homer’s book is titled, "From Where I Stand: Flight 93 Pilot's Widow Sets the Record Straight." It honors her husband and his role on that day.

http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x290306242/Book-honors-Flight-93-co-pilot-Homer

**I just rolled through a dozen edits pretty quick on this comment, I am done editing now ;)

Those were my thoughts...

... but my question is this:

Were the pilots not killed by the hijackers on Flight 93?

According to one source you mentioned: No.

She sees 10 different scenarios about what happened to her husband on a flight now known for the heroics and cellular calls of passengers and crew. She is sure of only two things.

A coroner has told her Jason died "at the same time everyone else did." Blood testing, she said, determined that his death was from impact.

http://web.archive.org/web/20011216230102/www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,6439~278490,00.html

After reading the History Commons entries for the timeline of Flight 93, it is painfully aware that we know so little about what went down that day.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=ua93&timeline=complete_911_timeline

*edit: removed sentence

Pilots

"Later, passengers reported seeing two bodies outside the cockpit, injured or dead, probably the pilots."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/22/politics/22CND-FLIG.html

Maybe they weren't completely dead, but they were certainly incapacitated.

Now, I doubt the coroner, because he had no experience whatsoever with plane crashes on 9/11:

"He had never been in charge of a case with more than two dead."

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011015newsmaker1015p2.asp

Yet, the same inexperienced coroner's specious comments about paucity of human remains were eagerly lapped up by no passenger theorists and others:

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2007/02/many-misquotes-of-wallace-miller.html

Yet, as your comment and mine show, the pilot(s) died on that flight and were identified from human remains in Shanksville. (Although I hope the coroner got some help with the identification process :-( ..)

By the way, here's Jarrah's passport:

And his plane ticket:

Jarrah with Atta:

Jarrah in Afghanistan:

Mark Bingham's plane ticket:

I know, I know, it's all fake. Northwoods is the thing. Like... David Ray Griffin said it in his book, so let's try to find more evidence to support this theory. It's promising!

Sarcasm in no particular direction aside, I think Northwoods-related conjecture is a dead horse flogged long enough now.

Hints taken

SC,

Thanks for the links.

Calls like Betty Ong's are priceless for containing no lack of clarity to the situation, other things are not as clear to me yet. Nothing to do with swaps or fake anything though....

I hear what you are saying about the coroner. It must have been quite overwhelming for him considering he and his fathers history in the town.

One link to shoestrings blog you mentioned contained this quote from the coroner, "I said that I stopped being a coroner after about 20 minutes because it was perfectly clear what the cause and manner of death was gonna be. It was a plane crash......"

Overwhelming or not, it seems that he was not concerned about finding out if the pilots had been killed before the plane crashed. So, his words about the pilots death mean little: I see that now. Thanks

No doubt though, I am filled with questions and not enough time in a night to address them all.

If I'm prickly

I apologize. It wasn't in any general direction but perhaps Northwoods and its adherents.

I've seen enough of this now to know it's not going anywhere, the PTB have been releasing new evidence which they clearly diligently sat on for ten years, and when they finally release it (it's sort of like that Pentagon video everybody fears will one day be released) several core 9/11 TM claims are rendered impotent.

I don't take government sources and claims as gospel and I encourage asking pertinent questions, but I'm well aware of the unspoken in threads like these. You should see ATS... it's a regular carnival of mis- and disinformation there. I'm not saying that's happening here, but I see more clearly how this works and how it works against us. Especially those theories which drive a wedge between the 9/11 TM and the victims families.

Basically, I believe those pilots died on 9/11 and didn't know what the hell was happening to them.

Take this for example. Excellent article, but what is the cognitive dissonance between seeing an attack coming based on intelligence and informants and orchestrating it all yourself? Somewhat simplified perhaps, to me this means you can't have your cake and eat it too, especially given the larger patchwork of evidence.

Now, if this is seen as "promoting the official story", so be it, because the official story stinks even if completely true. Do people get that? I'm still waiting for in depth mathematical audio analysis to be performed on the CeeCee Lyles and Betty Ong phone calls. Voice morphing leaves empirical traces which can be detected. We're not seeing that analysis because the phone calls were real; with all the concomitant implications.

It seems to me those hijackers were, at times, intelligence-wise, living in a world similar to Jim Carrey's "Truman Show". There were few things they managed to keep secret in the run up to 9/11.

praps a honey pot then

Like muddying the waters in dallas by flooding the place with known hitmen. maybe the changes are just to make us speculate wild theories. stubbling out of control forgetting our occams razors

What is amazing...

...Is that I don't think people vote you down because little bits of sarcasim, which everyone should be able to deal with and understand from one another.

I imagine that people are voting you down because you (along with myself and many others) are completely fine with using the availabable evidence to destroy the official story of 9/11.

Why are people not more aware of the reality of the hijackers?

Hijackers existed people, it's painfully obvious! Who was the CIA monitoring in Kuala Lampur, subsequently allowed into the US to live for almost two years using real names to buy stuff and later buy tickets for 9/11, Santa Claus?

SnowCrash, keep it up. The CIA has likely put moe money into propaganda than plane swaps, that is what you are up against here. People are mis-informed.

Right On

I'm very curious about what's happening with the Secrecy Kills project. Supposed good news that will bring more attention to the subject.

One other curiosity I have is about Sibel Edmonds' apparently valid sources saying that flight 93 was shot down. As I've said before, I've built a lot of trust for Ms. Edmonds and don't think she'd be mentioning it, if it didn't have any validity. I will try to continue to remind her to let us know if she can get any more statements or evidence regarding this.

Maybe the sources were

Maybe the sources were General Albert Stubblebine and Susan Lindauer. Susan exposed that the pilot who shot down flight 93 is sitting in a Florida jail. We should go rescue him :)

Seriously

Do you have a source for that? I had heard about Lindauer a few times, read a few of her columns, and I was trying to evaluate whether she was sane or not. If she truly said that she's obviously loop de loop.

Between her video interview

Between her video interview and appearance on Barrett's radio show, Susan covers all the bases. From no plane at the pentagon to a shoot down in Shanksville. She does have a little twist though! The WTC planes were carrying super thermite bombs aboard which brought the towers down.

Peter B Collins

interviewed Susan in 2010. It was bad. I was surprised Peter didn't cut her microphone really.

http://peterbcollins.com/2011/02/11/susan-lindauers-5-year-patriot-act-nightmare-will-durst-on-reagans-100th/

Jeff points out some of her positions regarding 9/11.

I see Susan L. as a liability and danger to the movement.

NSA and Air Force

I think she said they were high level NSA and Air Force. She said they talked to the 9/11 Commission about it. Russ Tice (NSA whistle blower) said he may or may not have some info about it as well.

wayne madsen

also told me flight 93 was shot down & there was 10+ people @ NSA that monitered that situation & would be available to come forward @ the right time..

Come forward?

When is the right time?

NOW IS THE RIGHT TIME.

Accused Hijackers Existed (Emphasis On Accused)

"Hijackers existed people, it's painfully obvious!"

Of course the accused hijackers existed. Virtually no one contests this. They were observed by many in the weeks and months before 9/11 in casinos, night clubs, making purchases of adult merchandise and services, living with girl friends and so on.

Obvious need for a new 9/11 investigation

Thanks for the good words, Nor Cal Truth.

Regarding your comment, "The weirdest event seems to be the override of piloting by McGuinness, as it seems it may not be too abnormal for pilots to book flights late": Keep in mind what Steve Scheibner said: "I can count three times in 20 years at American Airlines that I've been bumped from a trip the night before." So this indicates that what happened was indeed highly unusual. And it didn't just happen with Scheibner. Something like this happened with at least four of the eight pilots and co-pilots on the planes involved in the terrorist attacks. So this is incredible!

There is, of course, one way the possible significance of this oddity can be determined. That would be for a new investigation of 9/11 to look into it thoroughly. It is as simple that.

The sound of pilots dying

Betty Ong:

If there are statistical anomalies regarding pilot swaps, please prove them scientifically.

wtf is going on here?

What do you guys make of all of this? I am not sure what is going on here. Does anybody have a theory or an explanation? This is really really strange.

Very strange indeed!

Paul: I agree with you completely that this is very strange indeed. Currently we can only make educated guesses regarding the possible significance of all these last-minute pilots, passengers, and flight attendants. As I mentioned above in my reply to Nor Cal Truth, the way to establish the truth would be for a rigorous new investigation of 9/11 to probe this thoroughly. If the investigators could get to the bottom of this matter, I think it would be a good indication that they were doing their job properly.

Going on

In the first clip, you hear captain Jason Dahl and First Officer Leroy Homer being murdered.

In the second, you hear flight attendant Betty Ong explain what's happening on board flight 11.

These aren't theories you hear screaming and talking.

UA 93 CVR Transcript Quotes Hijacker: "Bring The Pilot Back"

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/flight93cvr.html

This alleged comment suggests one or more of the pilots were not murdered.

Snowcrash does not in fact know that either pilot was mudered.

Quoting Snowcrash:

"These aren't theories you hear screaming and talking."

And they are not necessarily pilots being murdered either.

Please stop with the Popular Mechanics style propaganda.

Right.

"Later, passengers reported seeing two bodies outside the cockpit, injured or dead, probably the pilots."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/22/politics/22CND-FLIG.html

Yes, one or both could be dying instead of dead, sure. I yield. Big victory Aidan, and nice smear.

But, I take it this means you accept UA 93's CVR transcript now?

Bolded text = English translation from Arabic


TIME EDT Transcript


09:31:57 Ladies and gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down
keep remaining seating. We have a bomb on board. So sit.

09:32:09 Er, uh ... Calling Cleveland center ... You're unreadable.
Say again slowly.

09:32:10 Don't move. Shut up.

09:32:13 Come on, come.

09:32:16 Shut up.

09:32:17 Don't move.

09:32:18 Stop.

09:32:34 Sit, sit, sit down.

09:32:39 Sit down.

09:32:41 Unintelligible ... the brother.

09:32:54 Stop.

09:33:09 No more. Sit down.

09:33:10 That's it, that's it, that's it,
down, down.

09:33:14 Shut up.

09:33:20 Unintelligible

09:33:20 We just, we didn't get it clear ...
Is that United 93 calling?

09:33:30 Jassim.

09:33:34 In the name of Allah, the most merciful,
the most compassionate.

09:33:41 Unintelligible.

09:33:43 Finish, no more. No more.

09:33:49 No. No, no, no, no.

09:33:53 No, no, no, no.

09:34:00 Go ahead, lie down. Lie down. Down, down, down.

09:34:06 There is someone ... Huh?

09:34:12 Down, down, down. Sit down. Come on, sit down.
No, no, no, no, no. No.

09:34:16 Down, down, down.

09:34:21 Down.

09:34:25 No more.

09:34:26 No more. Down.

09:34:27 Please, please, please ...

09:34:28 Down.

09:34:29 Please, please, don't hurt me ...

09:34:30 Down. No more.

09:34:31 Oh God.

09:34:32 Down, down, down.

09:34:33 Sit down.

09:34:34 Shut up.

09:34:42 No more.

09:34:46 This?

09:34:47 Yes.

09:34:47 Unintelligible.

09:34:57 One moment, one moment.

09:34:59 Unintelligible.

09:35:03 No more.

09:35:06 Down, down, down, down.

09:35:09 No, no, no, no, no, no...

09:35:10 Unintelligible.

09:35:15 Sit down, sit down, sit down.

09:35:17 Down.

09:35:18 What's this?

09:35:19 Sit down. Sit down. You know, sit down.

09:35:24 No, no, no.

09:35:30 Down, down, down, down.

09:35:32 Are you talking to me?

09:35:33 No, no, no. Unintelligible.

09:35:35 Down in the airport.

09:35:39 Down, down.

09:35:40 I don't want to die.

09:35:41 No, no. Down, down.

09:35:42 I don't want to die. I don't want to die.

09:35:44 No, no. Down, down, down, down, down, down.

09:35:47 No, no, please.

09:35:57 No.

09:37:06 That's it. Go back.

09:37:06 That's it.

Sit down.

09:37:36 Everthing is fine. I finished.

09:38:36 Yes.

09:39:11 Ah. Here's the captain. I would like to tell you all to
remain seated. We have a bomb aboard, and we are going back
to the airport, and we have our demands.
So, please remain quiet.

09:39:21 Okay. That's 93 calling?

09:39:24 One moment.

09:39:34 United 93. I understand you have a bomb on board.
Go ahead.

09:39:42 And center exec jet nine fifty-six.
That was the transmission.

09:39:47 Okay. Ah. Who called Cleveland?

09:39:52 Executive jet nine fifty-six, did you understand that
transmission?

09:39:56 Affirmative. He said that there was a bomb on board.

09:39:58 That was all you got out of it also?

09:40:01 Affirmative.

09:40:03 Roger.

09:40:03 United 93. Go ahead.

09:40:14 United 93. Go ahead.

09:40:17 Ahhh.

09:40:52 This green knob?

09:40:54 Yes, that's the one.

09:41:05 United 93, do you hear the Cleveland center?

09:41:14 One moment. One moment.

09:41:15 Unintelligible.

09:41:56 Oh man.

09:44:18 This does not work now.

09:45:13 Turn it off.

09:45:16 ... Seven thousand ...

09:45:19 How about we let them in? We let the guys in now.

09:45:23 Okay.

09:45:24 Should we let the guys in?

09:45:25 Inform them, and tell him to talk to the pilot. Bring the pilot back.

09:45:57 In the name of Allah. In the name of Allah. I bear witness that there is no other God, but Allah.

09:47:31 Unintelligible.

09:47:40 Allah knows.

09:48:15 Unintelligible.

09:48:38 Set course.

09:49:37 Unintelligible.

09:51:17 Unintelligible.

09:51:35 Unintelligible.

09:52:02 Unintelligible.

09:52:31 Unintelligible.

09:53:20 The best thing: The guys will go in, lift up the ...
Unintelligible ... and they put the axe into it. So, everyone will be
scared.

09:53:27 Yes.

09:53:28 The axe.

09:53:28 Unintelligible.

09:53:29 No, not the.

09:53:35 Let him look through the window. Let him look through the window.

09:53:52 Unintelligible.

09:54:09 Open.

09:54:11 Unintelligible.

09:55:06 You are ... One ...

09:56:15 Unintelligible.

09:57:55 Is there something?

09:57:57 A fight?

09:54:59 Yeah?

09:58:33 Unintelligible. Let's go guys. Allah is greatest.
Allah is greatest. Oh guys. Allah is greatest.

09:58:41 Ugh.

09:58:43 Ugh.

09:58:44 Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh the most gracious.

09:58:47 Ugh. Ugh.

09:58:52 Stay back.

09:58:55 In the cockpit.

09:58:57 In the cockpit.

09:58:57 They want to get in here. Hold, hold from the inside.
Hold from the inside. Hold.

09:59:04 Hold the door.

09:59:09 Stop him.

09:59:11 Sit down.

09:59:13 Sit down.

09:59:15 Sit down.

09:58:16 Unintelligible.

09:59:17 What?

09:59:18 There are some guys. All those guys.

09:59:20 Lets get them.

09:59:25 Sit down.

09:59:29 What?

09:59:30 What.

09:59:31 What?

09:59:36 Unintelligible.

09:59:37 What?

09:59:39 Unintelligible.

09:59:41 Unintelligible.

09:59:42 Trust in Allah, and in him.

09:59:45 Sit down.

09:59:47 Unintelligible.

09:59:53 Ahh.

09:59:55 Unintelligible.

09:59:58 Ahh.

10:00:06 There is nothing.

10:00:07 Is that it? Shall we finish it off?

10:00:08 No. Not yet.

10:00:09 When they all come, we finish it off.

10:00:11 There is nothing.

10:00:13 Unintelligible.

10:00:14 Ahh.

10:00:15 I'm injured.

10:00:16 Unintelligible.

10:00:21 Ahh.

10:00:22 Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh Gracious.

10:00:25 In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die.

10:00:29 Up, down. Up, down, in the
cockpit.

10:00:33 The

cockpit.

10:00:37 Up, down. Saeed, up, down.

10:00:42 Roll it.

10:00:55 Unintelligible.

10:00:59 Allah is the Greatest. Allah is the Greatest.

10:01:01 Unintelligible.

10:01:08 Is that it? I mean, shall we pull it down?

10:01:09 Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.

10:01:10 Unintelligible.

10:01:11 Saeed.

10:01:12 ... engine ...

10:01:13 Unintelligible.

10:01:16 Cut off the oxygen.

10:01:18 Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen.
Cut off the oxygen.

10:01:34 Unintelligible.

10:01:37 Unintelligible.

10:01:41 Up, down. Up, down.

10:01:41 What?

10:01:42 Up, down.

10:01:42 Ahh.

10:01:53 Ahh.

10:01:54 Unintelligible.

10:01:55 Ahh.

10:01:59 Shut them off.

10:02:03 Shut them off.

10:02:14 Go.

10:02:14 Go.

10:02:15 Move.

10:02:16 Move.

10:02:17 Turn it up.

10:02:18 Down, down.

10:02:23 Pull it down. Pull it down.

10:02:25 Down. Push, push, push, push, push.

10:02:33 Hey. Hey. Give it to me. Give it to me.

10:02:35 Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.

10:02:37 Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.

10:02:40 Unintelligible.

10:03:02 Allah is the greatest.

10:03:03 Allah is the greatest.

10:03:04 Allah is the greatest.

10:03:06 Allah is the greatest.

10:03;06 Allah is the greatest.

10:03:07 No.

10:03:09 Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.

10:03:09 Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.


So tell me, is the CVR, which was played for a courtroom jury and to victims families, real or fake? And what does "I finished" mean?

Predicted answer

"The CVR has not been released to the public and is evidence coming from the suspect, therefore is nothing more than an unsubstantiated allegation"

"However, I find the evidence to be quite credible when I think it proves you wrong"

Who's taking bets?

“The last words of the

“The last words of the "hijackers" on the tape are “Allah is the greatest”. The last words of a Muslim cannot be these! They are used in the call to prayer, or in an attack at war. On the moment of death, a Muslim must confirm that "There is but one God, Allah, and that Mohammed is his prophet!”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060422&articleId=2314

You can respond that the hijackers were not experts in the Muslim religion. But there is other evidence that communications from the aircrafts allegedly hijacked were faked. View notably other works of the author of this study.

Todd Beamer's Odd Phone Call and the Silent Crash of Flight 93:

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2007/10/todd-beamers-odd-phone-call-and-silent.html

A first suspicious fact :

“The first thing that was odd about this call is the simple fact that Beamer was able to talk to Jefferson continuously for 13 minutes. In her 2002 book, his wife Lisa Beamer revealed that Jefferson had informed her "it was a miracle that Todd's call hadn't been disconnected." The reason: "Because of the enormous number of calls that day, the GTE systems overloaded and lines were being disconnected all around her as she sat at the operator's station outside of Chicago, talking to Todd. [Jefferson] kept thinking, This call is going to get dropped! Yet Todd stayed connected ... all the way to the end." [5] Very fortunate indeed this was, because if the call had become disconnected there would have been no "Let's roll" slogan for the war on terror.”

A second suspicious fact :

“A further oddity was Todd Beamer's remarkable calmness, despite the catastrophic situation he was in. Jefferson recalled: "Todd, when he came to me, he was calm. ... [H]e stayed calm through the entire conversation." [6] In her 2006 book, Called, Jefferson wrote: "[H]is voice was devoid of any stress. In fact, he sounded so tranquil it made me begin to doubt the authenticity and urgency of his call." [7] She told Beamer's wife: "If I hadn't known it was a real hijacking, I'd have thought it was a crank call, because Todd was so rational and methodical about what he was doing.”

A third suspicious fact :

“ The question remains: If Todd Beamer really did not want to talk to his wife because she was pregnant and he was afraid he might upset her, why had be been trying to phone her in the first place? Even if we somehow accept that he'd changed his mind over the space of a few minutes, another question arises: Why had Beamer not instead asked Jefferson to try and put him through to his parents, or one of his sisters, or another relative, or a friend? Instead, he'd apparently been content to talk with a stranger, explaining to Jefferson: "I just want to talk to somebody and just let someone know that this is happening.”

A fourth suspicious fact :

“Perhaps the oddest aspect of the call is what happened after 9:58, when Todd Beamer put the phone down to join the passenger revolt against the hijackers. Jefferson has recalled: "After he said, 'Let's roll,' he left the phone, and I would assume that's at the point that they went to charge the cockpit. And I was still on the line and the plane took a dive, and by then, it just went silent. I held on until after the plane crashed--probably about 15 minutes longer and I never heard a crash--it just went silent because--I can't explain it. We didn't lose a connection because there's a different sound that you use. It's a squealing sound when you lose a connection. I never lost connection, but it just went silent."

A fifth suspicious fact :

“Now how is this possible? Firstly, how could the call have remained connected after the plane crashed? According to the summary of passenger phone calls presented at the Moussaoui trial, Beamer's call lasted "3,925 seconds." [19] This would mean it did not end until 10:49 a.m., about three-quarters of an hour after Flight 93 supposedly crashed. And, secondly, how could there have been silence when the crash occurred?”

So what is the probability that the phone call from Todd Beamer is not faked in one way or another?

Also: "Shockingly Calm": The Phone Calls From the Planes on 9/11

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/07/shockingly-calm-phone-calls-from-planes.html

There are other facts that prove that communications from the aircrafts allegedly hijacked were faked. I do not report it because it is not the subject of this forum.

The hijackings are the crux of the 9/11 plot...

The question whether or not the hijackings are real or faked in one way or another is of the greatest importance, more than the question whether or not these 3 buildings were blown up or collapsed in a natural manner in NYC.
As long as the majority of people still believe or don't doubt the official story concerning all the four hijackings, our progress will stay very limited is what I think, and the PTB still have their argument to have started and continue the WOT.

As for me, I have all kinds of doubts about the official story when it comes to the hijackings. I wouldn't know where to begin with them.

Bearing in mind the utmost importance of the hijakcing-part of the 9/11-operation (creating the image in people's minds of muslim terrorists desperately and ruthlessly wanting to kill lot's of Americans, in order to justify and get the people's support for the WOT) I'm inclined to think that "they" would take the least amount of chance.
Now lemme say that I don't know who "they" is, only that they are mentally insane and extremely powerful.

One could ask: How much work is it to make sure the planes were carrying low numbers of passengers, to track all passengers that would be on those four specific flights, acquire samples of their voices and other specific chracteristics that go along with each individual passenger, to prepare a couple of dozen agents with a certain role to play once the "action" began (among which the roles of Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer and Betty Ong), to acquire all the cellphone numbers and calling the various relatives during the hijackings and then some.

Would it be too much to ask to do this? What are the odds that things could go wrong and out of control?
Does money play a role in this?

Could there have been a room somewhere on 9/11, where a couple dozen agents would act out a carefully instructed play, using their morphed voices of all the people involved on the planes, which could be heard by all the people on the other end of the line? Would it be too much?
I don't know. Considering the importance of the event, I don't know. It would be a very bold move by the perpetrators. But then again, they reasoned they could well just blow up 3 buildings to kingdom come in broad daylight, saying it was fire and gravity that did it, and get away with that (for now at least), so what tells me that "they" haven't thought to themselves "Well, we could just set up a hijackingplay in some room somewhere and pretend to the world that these are real hijackings, while the supposed hijacked planes are flown by RC, guided right into their targets, while we paralize the airdefences through the deft use of a load of wargames"?

Maybe the hijackers were real and they were being set up.
Maybe the hijackers were real and they actually flew those planes to their target (with 93 flying itself nosedown into the ground at 500 mph).
Maybe the hijackers were real but colluded with other "forces" to make sure they could easily hijack those planes.
Maybe the hijackers were fake, and the phoneconversations too, planes on autopilot.
Maybe the hijackers were fake, and the passengers on board were dead right after the planes took off, when the autopilot kicked in
Maybe the hijackers were real but weren't Al-Qaida but instead some other organization, pretending to be Al-Qaida.

What about the absence of punched in hijackcodes? Where the hijackers so damn fast no pilot could achieve this feat? Maybe they were, who knows?
What about the lack of resistance of the pilots?

And about Flight 93, the "passengers fight back"-scenario just sounds a little too good to be true to me. "Let's roll" as a slogan for fighting the WOT, how nicely thought of. I don't know, maybe I'm rating these perps too high.

On a sidenote: The fact that Al-Qaida has never talked about the destruction of the 3 buildings in NYC is somewhat difficult to comprehend for me, what's going on here?
Apparently they think that the OCT about those 3 buildings is true?

When planning these attacks, exactly HOW was Al-Qaida thinking of a way to circumvent the US airdefence system? Or did they perhaps made a phonecall to Dick Cheney asking of he could do something to help them out here?
Did AQ know about the wargames perhaps?

There is something really omninous going here, and it's very hard to put one's finger on it. How deep does the deception go?

Great article, it is a real detective this event.
Nothing wrong with digging ever deeper, it's human nature.

Interesting stuff

Great post, thanks Shoestring. If I understand correctly…

  • Seventeen hours before Flight 11 took off, there was only one pilot available to fly and that was Scheibner, who signed up for the flight.
  • Within minutes, McGuiness saw that Scheibner had signed up and, through seniority, bumped him off the flight. Such a thing had only happened three times in Scheibner’s 20 year career.
  • Similarly, one other pilot was bumped via seniority (also AA11), another asked for vacation (AA77) and another traded his assignment (UA 93). There were no such changes on UA 175 (although we cannot say that all such records have been released).
  • Half of the flight attendants had their assignments changed to be on these flights, and many of the 9/11 passengers were not originally booked on the flights.

I agree that “important new information about 9/11 can surface even now, more than 10 years after the attacks.”

Here are some flight statistics from September 2001. AA bumped their passengers only 0.3% of the time, and UA bumped 1.3% of its passengers. (p 21)
http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/reports/2001/0111atcr.pdf

Shoestring, Thank you so much for this entry.

We appreciate your hard work.

Thanks guys

Thanks for the good words, Kevin and Tom. Glad you liked the post. And thanks for the link to the flight statistics report, Kevin. I hadn't seen that before.

You understand the article correctly, Kevin. And remember that what I've described is only what has been reported to the public so far. There may well have been more pilots, flight attendants, and passengers who were only booked to be on the flights at the last minute, but this has not yet been reported.

A question

Suppose there was indeed a statistical anomaly, what would it prove? The only thing I can think of it would prove is that the pilots, the crew and the passengers were in on it, and that the pilots in particular were purposely assigned to those flights by the perps.

Do you have alternative suggestions? I'm not asking you to commit to a theory, because I already have a fairly good idea of what that might be. What I'm asking is if you can think of scenarios in which a statistical anomaly does not prove the pilots who flew the planes had anything to do with 9/11.

How can this line of inquiry lead to anything other than "9/11 pilots assigning themselves intentionally to the those flights in order to make 9/11 happen"?

I'm emphatically not saying there is anything wrong with "just asking questions", which would be the expected rejoinder for non-committal.

And I still haven't seen any scientifically relevant statistical analysis; anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence and does not by itself justify adjectives such as 'bizarre' and 'inexplicable'.

An example of relevant statistical analysis is that by Alan Poteshman in his peer reviewed scientific paper regarding insider trading.

Suppose there was indeed a statistical anomaly...

"Suppose there was indeed a statistical anomaly..."

another one?
sept. the eleven is the mother-day of all the anomalies,
a calc is needed to enumerate them all!!!

Just the facts

Snowcrash: All I am trying to do here is summarize the information I have found, and then readers can decide for themselves whether or not they think it is significant and worthy of further research. I find this information highly suspicious myself. Others may or may not feel the same.

I feel this matter needs to be looked in by a new 9/11 investigation that will simply follow the evidence, wherever it may lead, and find out the truth.

good job, Shoestring! good job!

thank you Shoestring for your efforts and publishing.
Very interesting post.

Researching is important.
Rising questions is important too!

Statistical Anomallies

Great article as usual, shoestring.

One of the interesting facets of probabilities is the multiplication factor of independent events occuring by chance.

So we already have the put-options - already stated, say, a million-to-one being by chance according to the OCT.

The improbable collapses of the twin towers - say, a millions-to-one being by chance according to the OCT.

And now the passenger and pilot assignments - say a million-to-one being by chance.

We don't have 9/11 OCT being 3 million-to-one being by chance but the multiplication of these "independent event" probabilities...

1 million x 1 million x 1 million to one being by chance. 10 to the power of 18 to 1 probability that the official story is true. Even allowing for a couple of orders of magnitude that is still a pretty good reason for doubting the official story....

CVR transcript and Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport ATIS

another thing that really dont add up is:

in the COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT of UA93 CVR
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/13950218/T7-B17-Flight-93-CVR-Transcript-Fdr-Cockpit-Voice-Redorder-UA-93394]

you can read:

09:41:20.7
RDO
"Cycling through the VHF radio frequency selector. Activating various frequencies"

09:41:33.0
RDO-1
"Warren country ATIS is being received on radio 1 starts"

09:45:51.1
RDO-1
"ATIS transmission stopped on captains radio channel"

09:48:57.2
RDO-1
"Warren tower ATIS starts"

09:50:37.4
RDO-1
"ATIS stops on the captain's radio"

09:51:44.9
RDO-1
"ATIS stars on the captain's radio channe Whiskey"

09:52:39.9
RDO-1
"ATIS stops"

[RDO = radio source]
[ ATIS = "Automatic Terminal Information Service".]

WARREN ATIS is located at: 41° 15.454'N 80° 40.035'O (Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport, OH)

here a map with UA93 path too:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--hIREnRf6nY/Tx31uK97p8I/AAAAAAAAACg/yHqcnxn7okQ/s1600/map_1.jpg

From this official FAA document, we can learn more about ATIS.
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap4/aim0401.html

Two thing in particular we are researching about:
- range
- altitude
at which ATIS can trasmit.

FAA says:

"4-1-13. Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS)
a. ATIS is the continuous broadcast of recorded noncontrol information in selected high activity terminal areas. Its purpose is to improve controller effectiveness and to relieve frequency congestion by automating the repetitive transmission of essential but routine information. The information is continuously broadcast over a discrete VHF radio frequency or the voice portion of a local NAVAID. ATIS transmissions on a discrete VHF radio frequency are engineered to be receivable to a maximum of 60 NM from the ATIS site and a maximum altitude of 25,000 feet AGL. At most locations, ATIS signals may be received on the surface of the airport, but local conditions may limit the maximum ATIS reception distance and/or altitude. Pilots are urged to cooperate in the ATIS program as it relieves frequency congestion on approach control, ground control, and local control frequencies. The A/FD indicates airports for which ATIS is provided."

that is:
- RANGE: "frequency are engineered to be receivable to a maximum of 60 NM "
- ALTITUDE:"and a maximum altitude of 25,000 feet AGL."

from CVR transcript we know the "when":
at 09:41:33.0
and at 09:48:57.2
UA93 surely was reveiving vhf transmission from Warren ATIS

but now, if we go having a look at the NTSB FLIGHT PATH STUDY
[http://www.nps.gov/flni/historyculture/upload/Flight-_Path_-Study_UA93.pdf],
FIGURE 2 - UA93 ALTITUDE PROFILE
we can see that at that time (about 09:41:33) UA93 still was flying at an ALTITUDE of nearly 31000 ft

so, how can this be possible?

31000 ft or 25000 ft?

Yes, I know VHF waves do not stop exactly at a distance: BUT THE QUALITY OF SIGNAL GET WORST AND WORST up to be unintellegible.

And if FAA say "AT A MAXIMUM OF", it means that that has to be considered the maximum range at which signal can be positively received. After that range, signal become proportionally too much low (the more the distance, the more the weak the signal) to be received.

and here we are talking about not few meters/miles, but from 25000 to 31000!

and thisdoes not look "few miles" to me..

LET's KEEP ON INVESTIGATING AND ASKING QUESTIONS

.

maybe

an interesting detail would be the physical appearance of the pilots, in compared.
Was the bumped out pilot, overstating it, a Ju-Jitsu-Fighter or Mike-Tyson-like, changed to someone less trained?

So if they somehow got ordered to "bump out", this would make sense.

selected

For death

Otis holding pattern explained

The F15's scrambled from Otis AFB at 8:52 (hit radar 8:53) were suppose to arrive in New York (153 miles) 3-5 minutes AFTER Flight 175 struck WTC2. This way they could say'"oopps just missed". They were scrambled (after an unexplained delay) at precisely the right time to do this had the pilots followed protocol & travelled Max-SUB sonic (760mph) [as the Langley pilots were later ordered to do]. However,the pilots were 'loose cannons' & violated protocol "in the air before radar kicked in", going,"full blower all the way" [Quotes] SUPERSONIC. This meant they would arrive in New York BEFORE flight 175.
NEADS Commander Col. Robert Marr must have crapped himself realizing a plan 30 years in the making was in jeopardy. He quickly ordered the fighters into a holding pattern to wait for flight 175 to strike BEFORE proceeding to New York. Upon seeing flight 175 strike (from 60 miles away based on pilot comment & in conflict with 911 Commission map) the pilots proceed to New York without orders or FAA clearance (witness testimony).
This explains The huge discrepancy between the 911 Commission map (which shows the Otis fighters only 50 miles out from Otis at 9:03 when WTC2 was struck) and the pilot's comments to the media that they flew,"full blower all the way" for a full 10 minutes (8:53-9:03) which if true they should have been over New York by 9:03 if they knew of flight 175 or not.
In closing the Otis holding pattern was made necessary ONLY because the pilots violated protocol and flew Supersonic. Had they followed protocol they would have arrived several minutes AFTER flight 175 which would have allowed the conspirators to spin it as,"OOppss just missed". 911 WAS an inside job.
Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message

Cont. Langley

The success of the 911 false flag attack depended upon the pilots of the fighter jets, scrambled in response to the reports of hijacked airliners, following protocol. As was shown clearly at Otis AFB,if the pilots were aware of a hijacked airliner heading towards New York or Washington DC they could not be counted on to follow protocol. In the case of Langley AFB protocol meant flying 60 miles East out over the Atlantic & sub-sonic flight (noise abatement rules-[The pilots were specifically told by NEADS to fly sub-sonic-[Filson 2003 pg 65])
Once the attack in New York was finished (9:03) the game then became one of keeping fighters away from Washington DC to allow flight 77 to strike. At 9:09 Major Kevin Nasypany requested that Langley AFB be scrambled. That request was DENIED by NEADS Commander Col. Robert Marr. The reason given for denying that request is one of THE most obvious lies in the 911 Commission report. The stated reason is because the fighters scrambled from Otis AFB were dangerously low on fuel. The problem with this claim is that F-15's have a Combat radius of over 1,200 miles & (according to the official story) they had at this point traveled LESS than the 153 miles between Otis AFB and New York and had only been in the air 16 minutes (Why The Truth Movement hasn't made more is this obvious lie,I don't know). Had Langley been scrambled at this time,those jets could easily have been over Washington DC in time to stop Flight 77 even if they had followed protocol.
At 9:21 NEADS Commander Col. Robert Marr got his 'signal' to go ahead and scramble Langley. The signal came in the form of a telephone call from a Boston air traffic controller named Scroggins. Scroggins reported unconfirmed and mistaken (the call itself was a violation of protocol as the FAA is not suppose to call NEADS directly but only the NMCC in the Pentagon) information that flight 11 (first hijacked aircraft that struck WTC1) was still in the air and headed towards Washington DC. This was Col Marr's signal to go ahead and scramble Langley because only now did he have an excuse to send the Langley fighters North East Away from Washington DC at the very time flight 77 was approaching from the South West.
However,there was still the danger of the pilots discovering that there were reports of not one But two hijacked airlines ('Phantom' Flight 11 [false report] & flight 77) headed for Washington DC at the same time from opposite directions. If word of this got to the pilots,there is no doubt that the pilots would violate protocol & orders and headed straight for Washington DC itself rather chasing after either one. If they had done that,they would have arrived in Washington DC in time to stop flight 77 from striking the Pentagon.
In order for the plan to succeed,they needed to prevent those pilots from getting their mission orders from someone in communication with air traffic controls outside of NEADS who could then tell the pilots about the second hijacked (the real one Fl77) aircraft.
What was done next should be considered one of the biggest smoking guns of 911. When NEADS called Langley with the scramble order (fighters are always scrambled in pairs) they then called back about one minute later and asked to speak with Captain Craig Borgstrum (Supervisor of flying for Langley) telling him to go up as a third pilot in a third plane. As supervisor of flying it was Borgstrum's job to relay the mission order to the pilots & to communicate with civilian air traffic control (From whom he'd learn of Fl77 & tip of the pilots). With him in the air,there would be no one at Langley to do this. As a result when Langley scrambled (9:30) they were told to follow protocol (and did) taking off to the East traveling 60 miles out over the Atlantic at sub-sonic speeds. This insured flight 77 would successfully strike the Pentagon.
However,military plans are made with redundancy. There's always a back up plan. One of which I think I've discovered,but because it was never used,we'll know. At about the time that NEADS got the call reporting (falsely) that flight 11 way still up & headed towards Washington DC. A super secret Government plane (E-4B-Doomsday plane) took off from a base near Washington DC and began circling the city. These planes are so secret they do not file flight planes with the FAA.
I believe that had the Langley pilots discovered that there were reportedly two hijacked aircraft headed towards Washington DC at the same time from opposite directions & violated protocol traveling straight for Washington DC that this Doomsday plane would then have began flying towards New York (North East of Washington DC). The pilots would be told that Flight 11 had turned around & was headed towards New York. With New York having already been attacked twice that morning,the pilots would have no choice but to pursue it to the North East allowing Flight 77 to strike from the South West. When the Langley fighters intercepted they would have discovered it was their own super secret aircraft. It would be considered an example of something that could only happen in a government far too incompetent to pull off 911! Something that only larger defense budgets could fix.

Don't think much was left to chance

IMHO- the operation was planned extensively from start to the current day continuing denial of a real investigation. Stock market profits to OBL's fallguy status, little was left to chance. Why would you think that any evidence disclosed or uncovered could or would not be tainted at this point? Of couse mistakes and mishaps in any operation are possible, residual evidence of thermite may very well have been overlooked.

However the strongest evidence that this was an inside job comes directly from the lack of real inquiry from reporters, media, politicians, government officals and many more in the face of overwhelming facts that the official story cannot be true. Any doubt that the string pullers exist at the highest strata should be put aside just from this fact alone.

Hijacker training, along with the quick exposure of "culprits" are tell tale signs that the operation included details involving the percieved hijackers themselves. IMHO i favor the idea of either patsies or even still being alive somewhere over the official martyr status.