The Lost Flight -- Who Knew What and When About Flight AA77 On 9/11?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7140292755378838617&hl=en

The video compares the two main versions of what was known about Flight AA77 on 9/11 before it allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. The versions are

(1) that there was prior awareness for up to about one hour before the crash about the flight at least with the military and the FAA and in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, and

(2) that the FAA lost the flight for 36 minutes and did not inform the military or anyone else about it until four minutes before the crash.

Three important statements by former Transportation Secreatry Norman Mineta are shown in support of the first version. However, the viewer is encouraged to make her/his own conclusions. The material is mainly from the 9/11 Commission's video archives and other public sources and its use constitutes an instance of "fair use" of this material.

I don't know if this is important or if it even EAS AA who changed the entry
or a truther with access to their computers but someone from a IP-number registerd
to American Airlines has changed the WIKI-entry so it now states that none of the 2 planes where
scheduled for flight on 9-11-2001 ..

"* Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September+11,+2001+Terrorist+Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing+757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing+767)."

"* Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September+11,+2001+Terrorist+Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing+757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing+767). Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=50132865

I got into a blog argument with a debunker who provided what *might* be a good debunking of the claim by pilotsfor 911 truth that the final Flight 77 data does not indicate the plane could not have hit the Pentagon.

He says the plane was in a near stall, went into a dive then levelled out at high speed into the Pentagon.

So the question to you is whether or not his anlalysis is crap or not.

Here is his "debunking" followed by my reply:

START PASTE -->
“… So I read a bit of the pilots for 911 truth or whatever. Took me about two minutes to find a glaring flaw. Maybe it is just a typo, or maybe they are lying sacks of shit, I don’t know. And since I don’t know for sure they aren’t lying sacks of shit I really have no opinion on whether they are lying sacks of shit. I should probably read more of your stuff, it usually doesn’t take long to find the errors. So the maneuver that can’t be made;

[The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. That’s 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots] these numbers work no problem here.

Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/240607Data2.htm

Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522&hl=en-GB

Flight 77 Black Box Data Shows Major Flaws in the Official Story
DATA DECODING SHOWS 911 TRUTH IS UNYEILDING!

Gareth Williams
Prisonplanet.com
Sunday June 24, 2007

After several weeks of tireless efforts by pilotsfor911truth.org there has been a startling and very important discovery involving Flight 77.

The painstaking task of processing official data has resulted in a full "decode" of what the NTSB (US National Transportation Safety Board) claim to be the complete raw data output from the Flight Data Recorder of Flight 77.

Pilotsfor911truth have managed to achieve something that only some airlines, the military and one of the very few specialists in crash investigation in the world could normally carry out.

The ‘raw data file’ given out under FOIA request is more or less worthless unless you have access to very specialist software costing upwards of $100,000 USD.

Normally, the chances of a member of the public being able to ever get this type of file decoded are about 10000/1.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

Many thanks to itissoobviuous for finding these interviews with Norman Mineta.

Nobody now can claim Mineta was referring to United 93

I made this little video joining together this newly discovered interview with Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission

Youtube link

Download it directly

The same story was told in the 2002 ABC documentary “September 11th's moments of crisis”.

In the spirit of DRG's latest book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking", i thought i would put together an article for those to help out with the most common so-called "Debunks" of our work.

Claim - There are No pilots at pilotsfor911truth.org

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

All above names who are pilots certified by the FAA can be cross referenced here...
https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/

Claim - The FDR is missing 2-6 seconds of data

FDR Recorders built to .5 sec lag maximum standard
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=7152

Radar Altitude Confirms too high
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4801

Claim - There is altimeter lag in the animation and csv file due to flying outside the aircraft envelope.

Airdata Calibration and Measurement
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=103

FDR Vertical Speed - Altimeter lag issues Addressed
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=73

Radar Altitude Confirms too High
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=4801
more below...

The obtained Flight Data Recorder fdr file shows:

• Flightpath was north of official flight-path (and lamp-posts)
• Altitude was correct for an overflight of the pentagon (273 feet).

Details: http://www.denniskucinich.us/article.php?story=20070326140716784

Now, I ask you all.

• Isn't that enough scientific, bullet-proof evidence?
• Where can we download the original FDR file?
• How big is it, and what is its MD5sum (CRC_checksum)?
• How easy is it to fake the original FDR file? Has it tampering protection built-in (encrypted CRC-check)?

There are INTERNATIONAL specialists that can independently decode it. They then become witnesses. We need specialist witnesses.

Of course there are more questions:

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/05/pilots-for-truth-flight-77-animation-is.html

I called the NTSB yesterday regarding a general inquiry into how they produce their animations for investigation. I did not intend to ask any question with regard to Sept 11. It was a general inquiry...

This was their reply...

Subject: September 11 products
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:56:44 -0400
From: "Lopatkiewicz Ted" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Mr. Balsamo:
I understand that you have recently contacted Mr. Doug Brazy of our staff to inquire about work done following the September 11 terrorist attacks. As you well know, we supported the Federal Bureau of Investigation's investigation into those attacks. Our work product was done on their behalf. Under the Freedom of Information Act, we have released some of that work product, and it can be found on our website. Because this work was done to support another agency, we are not commenting on it, and would refer all inquiries to the FBI. Any future contact with our agency on this matter should be conducted through established FOIA procedures. Please do not contact any NTSB employees directly on this matter.

Ted Lopatkiewicz
Director of Public Affairs
NTSB

May 10th, 2007

RBN's Michael Herzog interviews Rob Balsamo from "Pilots for 9/11 Truth".

Topics covered include:

♦ cell phones
♦ NTSB FDR
♦ AA77 Manuevers
♦ Pandora's Black Box NTSB animation
♦ currently reviewing UA93 FDR information
♦ Hani Hanjor, commercial pilot requirements

(download commercial free mp3)

Also see: Rob Balsamo on Deadline Live (November 27, 2006)

-Culhavoc

Robin Hordon and David Ray Griffin appeared on Carol Brouillet's show last night. Griffin was on air for just a few minutes, plugging his new book; most of the show was Hordon's. For those who are not familiar with Robin Hordon, he is an ex-pilot and ex-flight controller (fired when he went on strike during the Reagan years). Robin Hordon is very level-headed and it seems to me he brings a number of valid points to the debate. He explains in detail how the scramble protocols used to work, how they were changed in June 2001 and exactly what effect it had on the morning of 9-11. He also discusses what the FAA would normally do in the case of a hijacking, and what they were doing on 9-11.

Hordon also discusses the wargames, and how they would affect procedures that day (according to Hordon, they wouldn't). Plenty of other interesting stuff from a guy who knows first-hand how air traffic control works.

The show is already available as a podcast:

1st hour
http://xml.wtprn.com/Brouillet/0705/20070507_Mon_Brouillet1.mp3
2nd hour
http://xml.wtprn.com/Brouillet/0705/20070507_Mon_Brouillet2.mp3
(7 megs each)

(This is a mirror of the Information Clearing House post. -r.)

Barbara Olson’s Alleged Call from AA 77:
A Correction about Onboard Phones

David Ray Griffin
May 7, 2007

In my recently released book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking (1), I claimed that Boeing 757s made for American Airlines did not have seat-back phones or any other onboard telephones.

This claim, if true, would be very important, because one could use it, as I did, to argue that the alleged telephone call from Barbara Olson to her husband, US Solicitor General Ted Olson, could not have occurred. It might be thought, to be sure, that the call could have been made from her cell phone. Ted Olson did, in fact, make this claim at times. As I reported, however, the evidence indicates that cell phone calls from high-flying airliners would not have been possible in 2001, given the cell phone technology of the time. In any case, Ted Olson, after going back and forth between these two claims, finally settled on the claim that the calls were made on a seat-back phone. If Flight 77, being an AA Boeing 757, had no onboard phones, we would have to conclude that Olson’s claim could not be true. I myself drew that conclusion (while saying that this would leave open the question of whether Olson invented the story or was himself a victim, like the relatives of other passengers, of faked phone calls).

My Error

I based my conclusion on conversations that Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan had with American Airlines in 2004 while they were co-authoring book. In this book, 9/11 Revealed, they said: “A call by us to American Airlines’ London Office produced a definitive statement from Laeti Hyver that (AA’s) 757s do not have Airfones. This was confirmed by an email from AA in the US.” (2)

Although this email correspondence was not printed in their book, or in Morgan’s later Flight 93 Revealed, in which it is also reported, (3) they allowed me to print it in Debunking 9/11 Debunking. In reply to their letter asking whether “757s (are) fitted with phones that passengers can use,” an AA spokesman wrote: “American Airlines 757s do not have onboard phones for passenger use.” To check on the possibility that Barbara Olson might have borrowed a phone intended for crew use, they asked, “(A)re there any onboard phones at all on AA 757s, i.e., that could be used either by passengers or cabin crew?” The response was: “AA 757s do not have any onboard phones, either for passenger or crew use. Crew have other means of communication available.” (4)

(EDIT: Please read the May 7, 2007 correction by DRG here. -r.)

(Edited for clarity.)

Jack Blood.com

You can D/L the April 24 Jack Blood show at http://nw0.info - follow the "radio" link. File is .ogg which is the http://www.videolan.org format - (VLC player).

This excerpt starts at the 54:27 mark.

Transcript by "ratcat" at LibertyForum.org;

Jack Blood Radio Show
Apr. 24, 2007
Interview with Prof. David Ray Griffin
Excerpt
Discussion of Prof. David Ray Griffin’s latest book on 9/11:
Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

-------------------------------------------------------

Griffin: Let me tell you a new thing that most people don’t know. This was dug up by Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall who wrote wrote the book, “9/11 Revealed.” ... it has to do with the alleged phone calls from Barbara Olson. Now you know and many of your listeners know that Ted Olson, her husband, who claims he got the call from her from………

Blood: They say he is going to be the new AG (Attorney General). I just had to thump that in. That’s the rumor going around [crosstalk]

Griffin: Yeah, more than likely. But he claims that he got this call from Barbara, his wife, from Flight 77 but he was unclear. First he would say it was from cell phone and then he would say, well no it was from one of the seat back phones. And he’s gone back and forth. So, it turns out now we know that cell phone calls were not possible. So, that makes everybody say, well sure maybe she did it on airfones. It turns out that particular Boeing, American Boeing 757 that Flight 77 was, was not equipped with airfones. This was a stunning development.

Blood: This was a stunning development. How come I haven’t heard that before, David?

Griffin: Because Roland’s book hasn’t got much attention. It’s a shame because it’s such a great book.

Blood: So it only could have been done by cell phone. They had no in flight phones on 77. Is that what you are saying?

Griffin: That’s right. And they checked and they double-checked and I quote all of their correspondence with American on that issue.

Blood: Did we have people on the record, David, saying that people used in-flight phones on that flight where there were no in-flight phones? Do we have them on the record trying to manipulate previous information to that level?

Griffin: Well, it was the call from Barbara Olson that some people have claimed was on the in-flight. I don’t know about other callers.

The Pentagon Controversy: Plane Versus No Plane

Two theories—same conclusion: 9/11 was an inside job

An examination of the Pentagon Controversy and the core issues that must be resolved

9/11 Pentagon theories fall into two main categories:

#1. A plane hit the Pentagon

#2. A plane did not hit the Pentagon

If a plane did not hit the Pentagon it proves an inside job. If a plane did hit the Pentagon it also proves an inside job because no plane should have hit the Pentagon.

Lt Colonel Lankford emailed me the other day in support of our work and wants to be added to our 'roll'. We had a wonderful chat on the phone since and the LtCol is ready for duty.

Experience and qualifications are as follows:

"I am disgusted with the official explanation for 9/11 and I believe
that until the stain of that blatant whitewash job is removed from
our nation, we cannot consider ourselves anything but under the
government of a probable junta composed of suspected mass murderers.
It is either that, or the dumbest and most incompetent collection of
screwballs ever assembled in one place".

Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford
United States Marine Corps (ret)
A-4 Skyhawk, KC-130 (10,000+ hours)
S-2, T-1, F9F, F-11, OV-10, T–2J
303 Combat Missions

It is our honor to welcome LtCol Lankford to the team!

List Of Members

Rob