Hidden in Plane Sight
June 13, 2003
After spending some time carefully examining a website that published photos of the aftermath of 9/11 at the Pentagon, it became very clear to me that there was a missing plane and 64 missing people.
I decided to check the manifest of those killed on Flight 77, which informed me that there were only 50 passengers and 6 crew listed. Apparently, there were families who didn't want to list the names of their loved ones killed on the flights of 9/11. (See also: HERE)
Both of the above linked sites lists the names of those killed on flight 77. There's also an area to click on for those who were killed at the Pentagon, and the other flights.
Now, what strikes me as curious is the number of people claimed to have been killed at the Pentagon: 125 fatalities. I was under the impression that this was a construction zone where it was not likely that the offices would be occupied. In fact, in many of the Pentagon photos, you can see large spools of cable near the point of impact. Next, if you look at the damage sustained by the building, it seems hard to believe so large a number of fatalities. It seems like a lot of people for such a small area.
Going back to consider the victims on Flight 77, I wanted to know a little bit more about them. This was an event that I grieved over for weeks and I wanted to know the human beings I was grieving for. As I read the list, I also began to want some answers.
Well, if you look at the occupations of the passengers of Flight 77, you get a strange feeling that something is wrong with this picture:
There were also a number of children along with their teachers, who were chosen by National Geographic Alliance Coordinators for this trip. One of the teachers had this said about the trip: "She was originally supposed to go to Florida, but two weeks ago they changed it and told her she was going to California,"
And of course, there was Barbara Olsen, attorney, CNN Commentator and wife of the United States Solicitor General.
Family members of one of the flight attendants commented that "she was trained five years ago in how to deal with a hijacking.
One of the passengers, John D. Yamnicky Sr, was a retired naval aviator who worked for Veridian Corp., a defense contractor, since his retirement as a captain in 1979.
One of the passengers, William E. Caswell, a graduate of Princeton University, was a third-generation physicist whose work at the Navy was so classified that his family knew very little about what he did each day. They don't even know exactly why he was headed to Los Angeles on the doomed American Airlines Flight 77.
As you can see, it's a pretty impressive manifest. A lot of knowledgeable and skillful people. I haven't checked the passenger occupations for the other flights lost on September 11. But with just this one flight, a lot of questions come to mind.
With so many questions coming up, I decided that I wanted to know more, and it seemed obvious to try to find what the witnesses of the crash had to say. So, I went looking for the stories of the eyewitnesses.
One of the witnesses, an Army Captain named Lincoln Liebner, reported the following:
Helicopter? Fire truck? Do they always have fire trucks sitting at the Pentagon?
Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives. However, it is hard to credit this when looking at the photos.
Could it be that the plane deliberately targeted an area of the Pentagon where someone knew there wouldn't be as many people because of the construction? But that still doesn't answer the question about why the lawn was not torn up. How could something that big, hit that fast and that close to the ground, without tearing up the lawn and causing a hole only:
Also note the lack of broken windows around the impact site.
Something just does not fit here.Where are the wings, engines, baggage, seats or bodies? Wouldn't there have been fuel splattering everywhere? Every crash I've ever seen on the news or in photographs show a whole - whole - lot of debris. Did this plane just disintegrate into thin air? We are supposed to believe that the fire burned hot enough to turn the plane and everything in it to ash, but if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon released by Time, Newsweek and People Magazine, you'll see:
So, where's the plane and all the people? Where's the wreckage? A Boeing 757 has a wingspan of 124 ft., 10 in., an overall length of 155 ft., 3 in., a tail height of 44 ft., 6 in., and the maximum fuel capacity is 11,489 gallons. But there is absolutely nothing in the photographs of the Pentagon crash to support the claims that a plane of this size plowed into the building.
The pictures that were released to the public of the actual crash, and there are many duplicate sites, all show the second picture in the series brighter, with even the ground having a blue cast in areas as if to cover shadows. Also, this second picture appears to be framed in a circle. The Pentagon in the first shot is so blurred, it's hard to see the small building that's built very close to it. The second picture, the impact picture, illuminates this building and brings it into focus. You can see the trees to the left of this small building.
One site has a picture showing the Pentagon's lawn, the second from the bottom. In this picture of Mr. Rumsfeld and two other men, you can clearly see that same building. Is this an optical illusion? Or is this small building actually closer to the Pentagon than it appears in the traffic survelliance pictures?
What we discover in all of this is that there are far more questions than answers. And the few answers that come to mind are deeply disturbing.
The implications are that the Pentagon, the U.S. military, the government and the media are engaged in one of the biggest frauds and manipulations in the history of this country, if not the world.
But what about all those eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the building? Are they liars? Are they "Media Plants?" or is there another possible solution here?
Was the flying and crashing plane a hologram?
Is it conceivable that such an event could be merely a stage production utilizing some sort of new technology that we aren't aware of?
We know that Army Captain Liebner claims he saw an American Airlines passenger jet. But he wasn't the only witness. Other accounts reported in the American press, immediately after the event, suggest either a smaller aircraft or a winged missile.
But what happened to the people listed on the passenger manifest of flight 77? In fact, WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO FLIGHT 77?
Well, it seems that there is no way of knowing this because the plane turned off its transponder. In other words, no one can be sure what was flying in that air space. Could Flight 77 have been replaced by a drone?
I decided to interview an experienced airline pilot myself. He informed me that transponders give off a code so air traffic control can identify the plane. I asked if it would be possible for one plane to "piggy back" another and not show up on radar. He explained that when several military planes fly in formation, they file for clearance as "a flight of two, three, four, etc., and only the lead aircraft will squawk (display) the transponder code for tracking. This avoids the confusion of two or more planes in close proximity. He said the close proximity of the aircraft may even appear as if there only one plane flying because the radar blips tend to merge together.
The article quoted above goes on to say that "the radar installation near Parkersburg, W.Va., was built with only secondary radar -- called 'beacon-only' radar. That left the controllers monitoring Flight 77 at the Indianapolis center blind when the hijackers apparently switched off the aircraft's transponder."
Getting back to our problem: We KNOW it was flight 77 because Barbara Olsen called her husband, the US Solicitor General, to tell him they were being hijacked! But, did she really call him and if so, when? The research on this question lead us to:
My research lead me to a site that examines this issue in some depth. What stood out like a sore thumb was the following remark:
What seems to be true is that the story about Barbara Olsen is what "activated the American psyche, generated mass loathing, and enabled media manipulation of the global population."
It was the story about Barbara Olsen that clarified for us that our "enemies" were Arab Hijackers, and that they were sent by the evil Osama Bin Laden.
Without the story about Barbara Olsen, there would be NO “War on Terror” in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine.
Clearly, this issue and the issue of what REALLY happened to Flight 77 is the crux of the matter.
The story on CNN ran:
When we look further into this matter, we discover that Ted Olson NEVER made any direct personal reference to the death of his wife until he was interviewed by London Telegraph reporter Toby Harnden, with his exclusive story “She Asked Me How To Stop The Plane.” This story never appeared in any American newspaper. The above article states "if he is ever challenged by a Senate Select Committee about the veracity of his claims, the story could not be used against him because it was published outside American Sovereign territory."
In case you didn't know what a Solicitor General's Office does, they supervise and conduct government litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to the US Solicitor General Theodore Olson:
What I would like to ask is: How could Barbara Olsen have made a collect call from a credit-card activated only phone system? Ted Olsen has just told us that Barbara did not have a credit card with her.
Again: What REALLY happened to Flight 77 and it's passengers?In closing, I would like to say, this article was not written to cause any more pain to the families and friends of those who were killed, or are missing from the events of 9/11. I mean no disrespect to the victims, families or friends. I think many of us have unanswered questions that won't go away until the truth is known. And if there were this many questions surrounding the death of someone I loved, I would definitely be demanding some answers.
A reader comments on this article:
I did some quick research on this issue, and found out:
a) use of
cell phones are banned in commercial jets (while in the air) -- this,
of course, would not be an issue if hijacked ;-)
When in the air (a certain distance), your cell-phone actually has much *better* connectivity because you have no line-of-sight obstacles. However, this leads to another problem (and one that annoys the cell-phone providers) -- you actually will have connectivity to multiple "cells" available. This is what is called "bridging", and means that you will connect to several different areas at once. Cell-phone providers do *NOT* like this -- they assume that either you are using your phone from an aircraft, or that your phone has been "cloned" and someone is using it illegally.
The higher you go in the air, however, the less receptivity that you will have, because the "cells" start to look smaller and smaller.
In a high-altitude, non-moving aircraft, you would probably have some difficulty getting a signal. In addition, the claim that in a high-speed aircraft you would be leaving cells too quickly to get a connection is probably true -- this was indicated as a definite problem.
The "air phone" in aircraft is not a cell phone, but actually a radio-phone, so it is not subject to cell-phone problems. In summary, the claim appears to be correct.
Another Reader Comments
cellular antennas are designed to be very directional. if you check out a local tower, the antennas for cellular communications are the small vertical ones, sometimes arranged 3 in a row on each side of the tower. these antennas are typically mounted so that they are angled slightly down towards the ground. so while line of site is improved, reception would be worse. also, the average cell tower provides coverage for maybe a few km away from the tower, say 3-5km. if you're flying at 35,000 ft, that's 10km up in the air. so in addition to the terrible angle, the cell phone user on the airplane would be about 2 times too far away from the antenna on the tower. of course, cell size and transmitter powers vary based on the type of service, and even how the provider sets up the cells in a certain area. so all my numbers are approximate.
one cell phone should never be allowed to connect to more than one base station (the tower and associated equipment for one cell). providers have databases that track if you are using your phone and what base station your phone is communicating with. the base stations communicate with one another via landline data links. assuming everything is working properly, no one should ever be able to make a call with your phone's "ID number" when you are using your phone. now, if you're traveling, the base stations will communicate with each other (and with your phone, depending upon the type of service) and decide which base station you should be talking to. then it switches you over to that base station, but the switch is fast and usually invisible to the user.
if you're cruising at 500 mph, that's 0.2 km/s, which means you'll be moving between cells maybe every 30-60 seconds. it might still work, because handoffs can occur very quickly, if i remember correctly. but getting the initial connection could be a bit tricky...
I have to agree that it is highly improbable that a call was made from either aircraft.
You are visitor number .