Support 911Blogger


American Airlines Flight 77

Ways the 6 foot men could overcome 5.5 foot hijackers

Hani Hanjour, supposedly on Flight 77, was about 5 feet tall and the other hijackers ranged from 5.5 to 5' 7". They were of slim build.

Captain Charles Burlingame of Flight 77 was over 6 feet, a Navy Captain, weight lifter, and a boxer. The OCT says pilots like him gave up their planes to these puny weaklings with box cutters? The story makes no sense.

There are many ways the 6 foot men on the flights could have overcome them.
1. Take a seat cushion as a shield, and punch the hijackers out.
2. Pour hot tea or coffee in their face, then move in to disarm them.
3. Throw luggage at them, then move in for the tackle
4. Take a scarf or towel and snap them in the face
wrap their hand, then turn the box cutter on them.
5. Two or more passengers could overpower each one of the hijackers
6. Push the snack cart down the middle and ram the hijackers
7. Take a fire extinguisher, spray at the terrorists, then move in.

Any more ideas?

David Griscom PhD's analysis of 9/11 Flight path anomalies

Did you ever notice anything suspicious about Flight 11 and Flight 175?

The paths and plane sites are right in plain sight.
Millions have seen this animated graphic on USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gflightpath2/images/flash.swf
Click on "See All Flights", then "Go"

Why did Flight 11 from Boston turn Northwest instead of Southwest towards NYC?
Why did Flight 11 "just happen" to cross paths "almost colliding" with Flight 175?
Could terrorists have executed such perfect timing? Coincidence?
Why would terrorists waste 1/2 hour on a detour, and risk being shot down?
Why would they fly in the directon of Griffiss, Stewart, and McGuire Air Bases?

Dr. Griscom explains in his New Hypothesis paper, linked from his new web site
www.DavidGriscom.com

He received his PhD in Physics from Brown University, worked for 33 years as a scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory, and has published 190 scientific research studies to date. He was also selected by NASA to study lunar rock samples.

Pilot's 9/11 position

Pilot’s 9/11 position

Staff Reports

Monday, September 20, 2010

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/sep/20/pilots-911-position/

Re: George Welle’s Sept. 13 letter, “Simple answers”:

A quote of mine referenced in different letters printed by The Star (Woody Holmes published Sept. 8 and George Welle Sept. 13, require my response.

Al Qaeda's Top Gun

by Jeremy R. Hammond
Foreign Policy Journal, April 17, 2010

An examination of the documentary record reveals a clear pattern of willful deception on the part of the 9/11 Commission with regard to alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour in an apparent effort to manipulate the facts to suit the official theory.

Hani Hanjour is the hijacker who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001, according to the official account of terrorist attacks. “The lengthy and extensive flight training obtained by Hani Hanjour throughout his years in the United States makes it reasonable to believe that he was the pilot of Flight 77 on September 11″, concluded FBI Director Robert S. Mueller.[1] The story is that while Hanjour had difficulties learning to fly at first, he persevered, overcame his obstacles, and became an extraordinary enough pilot to be able to precisely hit his target after performing a difficult flight maneuver.

Dawn Vignola’s Account vs. CIT’s Methods by Erik Larson

*Revised and corrected 1/24/10

From their apartment, Dawn Vignola and her roommate Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman saw American Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, September 11, 2001. Shortly afterward, they gave witness accounts to local and national TV media. In 2007, they were interviewed by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), who attempted to discredit their testimony. I interviewed Dawn and her husband, Dan Ferrigno, January 5, 2010 at that same apartment and found them credible; they talked openly with me, their accounts have not changed since they were first offered, and I saw for myself that Dawn and Tim could have easily seen what they claimed to have seen.

"Fake" Phone Calls? What The Evidence Shows

There seems to be a bit of controversy in the so called "9/11 Truth Movement" on whether the phone calls from the planes were fake or not. The most well known proponent of this theory is David Ray Griffin and his take on the Barbara Olson phone calls to her husband Ted Olson. Let's examine this closely and see if there is any merit to this "fake Phone calls" theory. I would hope that the 9/11 truth crowd is serious on promoting the truth, and solid evidence, being responsible and promoting well researched factual "evidence".

The "Fake" Phone calls According to David Ray Griffin (DRG)...

"Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI"

"The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights."

"In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted "0 seconds."

Aircraft Parts and the Precautionary Principle - © 2006

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

The deep state does not respond to FOIA requests: profile of Aidan Monaghan

Flight 77 image of file properties from flight data recorder

Published in the September, 2009, Rock Creek Free Press

In an attempt to get to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11, citizen investigator Aidan Monaghan has filed dozens of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with federal agencies such as the FBI, SEC, Department of the Navy, and the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey. Agency after agency has refused to comply with his requests, instead claiming that the information cannot be found, does not exist, was never properly filed, or even, from the FAA, that it was simply “not in a position to release said records at this time.”

A Good Theory

Jon Gold
9/3/2009

"A good theory explains most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted." - Dr. David Ray Griffin

There are many theories concerning what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. The reason these theories exist is because those who should be able to answer our questions, REFUSE TO DO SO. That being said, some of the theories promoted are contradicted by information, and a common practice in the movement is to proclaim those contradictions as "fake" or "planted." In my opinion, it is irresponsible to proclaim something "fake" or "planted" simply because it doesn't coincide with what you THINK happened. Especially if there is no information to suggest that something is "fake" or "planted."

The most common theory is that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. There IS information that exists that contradicts this theory. To my knowledge, here are those contradictions:

Affidavit in support of April Gallop...

Attorney William Veal asked if I were interested in supporting April Gallop's lawsuit against Cheney, Rumsfeld and Meyers and if I could make some statements from my perspective and analysis being a pilot and former Air Traffic Controller. I agreed to do so and provided a lengthy [and less than professionally written] affidavit covering the aviation, NORAD, radar and other data research and conclusions which I have accumulated so far.

Its important to note that I believe that the FDR for AA77? has been tampered with and any conclusions based upon that data is subject to such errors, but I made some points based upon the FDR anyway. The same goes for the RADES radar data that I have been able to analyze...I believe that the RADES radar data has been scrubbed or compromised also. However, it is data that has been made available to us and we need to look at it for what it is.

Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Pentagon Flyover Theory (and Neither Do I) – Erik Larson

Hyperlinks here:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/peter-dale-scott-does-not-endorse-the-pentagon-flyover-theory-and-neither-do-i-...

Dr. Peter Dale Scott, researcher, author and UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus, recently praised the latest video from CIT, ‘National Security Alert’. However, due to receiving many emails critical of CIT’s work, he issued a qualifying statement, which I asked for and received permission to post publicly. CIT’s film presents witnesses whose statements indicate, or seem to indicate, that American Airlines Flight 77 did not fly the path that we have been told knocked down light poles and caused the damage at the Pentagon, as well as the testimony of an apparent eyewitness to a plane that flew over the building. The film also contends that it is “conclusive” that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, that instead it flew over the building. However, in his qualifying statement, Dr. Scott says, “I do not personally believe it.” He explains, “All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses…. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does.”

This is Dr. Scott’s statement at CIT’s website:

"Phantom Flight 11" Calls

I made YouTube videos of three calls on the NEADS tapes (channel 7). They are calls by Boston Center military liaison Colin Scoggins to NEADS about "Phantom Flight 11." The first two are mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report, but the third one isn't, so I guess that's the one that's really interesting. ;)

(audio links below the fold)

Tune on in.

Director Jason Williams and Producer Michael Gull on The Morning Blend.

New Day
01/23/2009

Robert and Alison Logan were married less than a year when Alison
boarded American Airlines Flight 77 on the morning of September 11th,
2001. Later that morning, Robert watched in horror as televised news
reports told him that Alison's fight had been hijacked and crashed into
the Pentagon.

Eight years later, Robert has pulled his life back together and
relocated to the Midwest. Still haunted by the memory of Alison, he has
married Rachel, a clinical psychiatrist, and they share an idyllic life
with Rachel's daughter Carly.

The peaceful calm of Robert and Rachel's life is torn apart when a
research project Rachel is working on includes a brain damaged patient
at a secure hospital who bears a striking resemblance to Alison. Both
Robert and Rachel embark on their own personal investigations, for
separate reasons, to discover the truth about the woman in the
hospital.

Their inquiries attract the attention of the ruthless Agent Ross, who
will stop at nothing to keep the identity of the woman in the hospital
a secret.

Successful FOIA Request: FAA Phone Calls on Day of 9/11

I have obtained a new document via FOIA request. It is an FAA memo comprising a transcript of calls between various FAA facilities and other institutions on the day of 9/11, and was referenced in the 9/11 Commission Report, in endnote 128 to Chapter 1 (on page 459). It is not spectacularly exciting, but touches on awareness of all four hijacks, in particular the last three. You can find it here.

Continued here.