Plane Swap Over Pennsylvania

Flight 93 and his Doppelganger - by Woody Box

January 16th, 2006

When beginning my research into the emergency landing of Delta Flight 1989 at Cleveland which resulted in The Cleveland Airport Mystery, I stumbled into a mess of conflicting reports making it impossible to obtain a clear picture of the fate of this airplane. I soon realized, however, that the numerous contradictions could be elegantly solved by postulating the existence of two different airplanes. Now, by a process comparable to the untangling of two twisted phone cords, it was possible to establish a consistent timeline for each of both planes.

This article deals with the last ten minutes of Flight 93 over Pennsylvania and, encountering the same contradictions, uses the same methods to solve them. The available accounts on Flight 93 are contradictory concerning its radar status, altitude, and flight path while being in Pennsylvania airspace.

The best explanation: there were two different airplanes.

http://www.team8plus.org/content.php?artic...

Dear Ms. Ashley, dear Mr. Hoffman,

recently, a friend of mine told me that you've published a short review of my article "The Cleveland Airport Mystery":

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/911reve...

How excited I was when I opened the page where you mentioned the article (as part of a review of the book "9/11 revealed")! Can you imagine my disappointment when I learned that you view the article as a "hoax"?

Be assured, the facts gathered in the article are no hoax. Be assured, I don't spend hours, days, weeks in front of my computer screen, browsing the net for all possible combinations of certain keywords, only to publish a "hoax" to tease or deceive the 9/11 community.

The old, venerable BBC rule to support every claim with two independent sources was a strict guideline for me. These are the final words of the article: "Everybody who denies the occurring of two emergency landings should be able to provide us with clear answers to these five questions: When did the plane land, when was it evacuated, how many passengers dit it carry, where were they interviewed, where was the plan sitting at the airport. For every answer, he should also be able to disprove the contradicting two (or more) sources."

You obviously failed to fulfill these conditions, so I give you opportunity now to retrieve that. Your objection that the Cleveland events were nothing more than an "instance of confusion" is hardly a credible refutation, and, worse, it misses the point. Two different airplanes, both labeled as "Delta 1989", landed in Cleveland on 9/11. You certainly will agree that airplanes, unlike electrons, are no quantum objects, so Delta 1989 cannot have been at two different places at the same time. So if we assume one of the planes was indeed Delta 1989, what company and flight number was the other one?

"The Cleveland Airport Mystery" has been recommended not only by the authors of "9/11 revealed", but so different researchers like A.K. Dewdney, Nico Haupt, Mike Ruppert ("excellent research") and, just recently, Dylan Avery. My suggestion: let the readers of your review decide themselves if the article is a hoax, and install a link to the original URL:

http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/new...

Sincerely,

Your Woody Box

An authentic eyewitness account from 7/7:

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag," he said.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/regio...

No bag, no backpack, no backpack bomber, but a big hole in the floor and the metal pushed upwards.

Has the suicide bomber been underneath the train?

When the 9/11 Commission report was published, it revealed a big surprise: The so-called Phantom Flight 11. It was reported up to 45 minutes after the North Tower crash, "on its way to Washington".

The 9/11 Commission is positive this was an erroneous info: "We were unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information."

So who was thinking flight 11 was still airborne?

p. 21: 8:48: Air Controller (Dave Bottiglia), FAA manager (Mike McCormick) were watching Flight 11 on the radar screen:



p. 22: 8:55: Regional managers discussed the hijacked Flight 11 (surely NOT the plane that hit the North Tower - the connection was not established yet):



p. 26: 9:21: Boston Center informs NEADS that Flight 11 is still airborne. The information came from FAA headquarters:



p. 37: The NMCC deputy director for operations, Charles Leidig, forwards news of the still airborne Flight 11 to a teleconference via a phone bridge:



ALL this people were thinking that Flight 11 was still airborne after the North Tower crash, yet the Commission wants to make us believe this was just an "erroneous information" from FAA headquarters?

The phone bridges were established since 8:45. Enough time to correct the "erroneous information", if it was one in fact erroneous.

The 9/11 Commission report describes meticously how FAA and the military have to handle a suspected hijack (p. 18):



(The reason I highlighted this one sentence will become clear later.)

This is the theory. Now let's take a look how it worked out in the case of Flight 11 (p.19):



So the information chain within the FAA worked, but the top FAA official didn't pass the info to the military. Why not? A big blunder, handled by the commission with astonishing nonchalance! But wait (p. 37):



So at 9:29, the NMCC is finally aware of the hijacking of flight 11. Obviously it was informed by the FAA in the meantime, but Mr. Kean and his confrères don't tell us when this happened. And, very strangely, the North Tower was burning since 43 minutes already, allegedly hit by Flight 11!

But this alleged phantom flight 11 is not what I want to talk about. What I find absolutely UNBELIEVABLE is that the NMCC didn't issue a warning to its boss, Mr. Rumsfeld, about a hijacked plane heading toward Washington! Not only that the NMCC deputy director didn't follow the protocol (see my first quote), he also ignored the possibility that the Pentagon itself was a target (the twin towers were burning, after all)!

It still gets better (p. 38):



Pardon? The NMCC "requested" to add Rumsfeld to the conference? That's like a firefighter "requesting" to fight a fire! It's the job of the NMCC to establish communication with the Secretary of Defense, they don't even have to call him, being in the same wing of the Pentagon they just have to walk some yards and knock on his door!

Questions:

Why didn't the FAA headquarters pass the hijack info at once to the NMCC, as requested by the protocol? Or did they?

Why didn't the NMCC deputy director at once seek approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance, as requested by the protocol? Or did he?

Why was Mr. Rumsfeld still doing phone calls in his office when a hijacked plane was approaching and threatening Washington?

I was just browsing through Ron Harvey's brillant compilation of Pentagon witnesses They saw the aircraft and stumbled over this statement. It was aired on CNN immediately after the attacks. The woman, "Barbara", was the wife of a friend of CNN correspondent David Ensor and tried to take the Memorial Bridge exit from Interstate 395 when:

"On the left-hand side, there was a commercial plane coming in, and was coming in too fast and the too low, and the next thing we saw was it go down below the side of the road, and we just saw the fire that came up after that."

"It was coming on less than a 45 degree angle, and coming down towards the side of the -- of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us, and then you saw the boom -- the fire come up from it."

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/witnesses...
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.cen...

so you believe it was a commercial airliner that was hitting the Pentagon?

"Yes, and I'm not sure exactly where the Pentagon, where it was in relationship to where the plane went down but they are relatively close to one another. ... whether it hit any part of that pentagon, I'm not sure.

Now look at this map:




You see the little dot near the Potomac bridge marked "10c"? This is exit "Memorial Bridge" of Interstate 395, and this is where Barbara was sitting in her car, looking towards downtown Washington.

So if a Boeing 757 crashed into the west side of the Pentagon, how the hell could she see that? Did she have eyes in her backhead? Don't tell me she saw it in the car mirror.

And what the hell did she see going down "below the side of the road"?

Her description is perfect if a plane crashed into the Pentagon Lagoon, the little Potomac branch east of the Pentagon. But it doesn't fit at all to a plane crash at the Pentagon's west side. I think she has neither eyes in her backhead, nor an X-ray view.

Maybe that's why she said:

"Yes, and I'm not sure exactly where the Pentagon, where it was in relationship to where the plane went down but they are relatively close to one another. ... whether it hit any part of that pentagon, I'm not sure."

Did Barbara witness a plane crashing into the Pentagon Lagoon?

Remember the "Happy Hooligans"? They are the F-16 pilots from Langley who were ordered to go west over the Ocean at 9:30 before they headed back to Washington at 9:36, arriving 5 minutes after the Pentagon crash.

Maybe there is an explanation for this peculiar flight path.

The "Happy Hooligans" are the 119th wing of the North Dakota ANG. They were stationed in Langley for only one week (source: Jere Longman, "Among the heroes", p. 64):

Two pilots had rotated in from North Dakota for a week...a week at Langley was a time to relax, watch television, work out, spend time on the computer, catch up on business. Like firemen, the pilots sat and waited for something to happen. When it did, they were usually scrambled to escort Navy jets with transponder problems to their home bases. Or to find doctors lost over the ocean in their Beechcraft Bonanzas. Or, occasionally, to sniff out drug runners. It was a sleepy job. Dozing for dollars, they called it.

So the pilots started their job at Langley probably on Monday - they have weekends, too - , and September 11 was their second day there. But, September 11 was also the second day of "Vigilant Guardian". (Source)

Did the Happy Hooligans take part in "Vigilant Guardian"? Is this speculation too far away?

This is a quote from Dean Eckmann, the lead pilot (source: 9/11 Commission report, p.45):

I reverted to the Russian threat...I'm thinking cruise missiles from the sea. You know you look down and see the Pentagon burning and I though the bastards snuck on us...

Eckmann's statment that he reverted to the Russian threat is remarkable: first, Vigilant Guardian was a simulation of a Russian aerial attack - and second, the term "reverted" implies that he dealt with a different threat before, a cruise missile attack from the sea.

A cruise missile attack from the sea, however, is as exotic as a Russian bomb attack from the North, i.e. : the pilots knew they reacted to simulated threats. So the thesis that they were part of Vigilant Guardian seems to be very reasonable.

But now: If the Happy Hooligans were part of the exercise - who was left to protect Washington? If their task was to play wargames, no fighters apart from Otis were on alert, leaving Washington completely unprotected. Did no NORAD official realize the big defense gap when planning the wargames?

This smells of high treason.

This is a story how New York was left out in the cold by American air defense (source: 9/11 commission report).

9:08 - Kevin Nasypany, mission crew commander with NEADS and responsible for the air defense, learns of the second WTC crash (p.23). He decides to scramble the Langley fighters, but is overvoted by his superiors who order "battle stations only at Langley" at 9:09 (p.460, note 137). So the Langley fighters don't take off. The official reason: "They might be called on to relieve the Otis fighters over New York City if a refueling tanker was not located" (the Otis fighters were allegedly running out of fuel).

But at 9:09, the Otis fighters are far away from New York. They have been scrambled at 8:53 from Cape Cod and are just commencing their "holding pattern" off the Long Island coast (p.20). They stay in this holding pattern until 9:13 "to avoid New York area air traffic". Then they fly to New York, arrive at 9:25 finally and establish a combat air patrol (p.24). Where are the fuel problems?

So let's repeat. The Langley fighters stay grounded after an initial scramble order, allegedly to be able to "relieve" the Otis fighters over New York - but the Otis fighters are not there, quite to the contrary, they interrupt their flight to New York to enter a holding pattern beyond Long Island.

It looks like someone wanted all of these fighters off New York City. But New York was the primary object to protect after the crashes. So who left New York unprotected - and why?

And this is the comment of Robert Marr, NEADS battle commander: "The plan was to protect New York City." (p. 460, footnote 137).

Since 9/12/01 we are told that the passengers of AA 11 were waiting at gate 26 and boarding the plane there.

Now look at this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/16/national...

///// 7:45:48 -- Ground Control 1: American eleven heavy boston ground gate thirty two you're going to wait for a Saab to go by then push back. /////

Gate 32???

The distance between gate 26 and gate 32 is about 1000 ft.

Any comments?

According to Paul Thompsons timeline,

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...

the passengers began to attack the hijackers at 9:58. Everybody, especially the "heroes", was running to the cockpit.

Everybody?

What did Jeremy Glick do?

He was talking with his wife in the rear.

From Jere Longman, "Among the heroes", p.147:

//////
Were they going to crash his plane into the WTC? Jeremy wanted to know.

"No", Lyz said, almost laughing. "They are not going there."

Why? Jeremy asked.

One of the towers had just fallen. ((9:59))

"They knocked it down," Lyz told him. The north tower, was wounded, too. //////

And the phone call is not finished yet. So let's get straight: There was a fight in the cockpit going on, there were screams, there was a wobbling plane going down rapidly .

And Jeremy Glick is sitting in the rear and talking with his wife about the WTC.


This story of the "heroes of flight 93" is complete bogus.