Go Back   Let's Roll Forums > The U.S. Government Conspiracy of 9/11 > The Mystery of Flights 11, 77, 175 & 93
Connect with Facebook

Bookmark and Share Thread Tools
Old 13 Jul 2012 , 01:26 AM   #1
Join Date: 3 Nov 2011
Posts: 1,104
Threads: 20
Blog Entries: 1
Thanked 6,067 Times in 1,042 Posts
loopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond repute
Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls

The “hijacking” of American Airlines Flight 11 is the opening event in the orchestrated chaos of September 11 2001. It is the first of the four flights to take off, the first to be taken over, and the first to crash, into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

Flight 11 was crucial to the success of the entire operation. Many different elements had to come together. It was a masterpiece of planning.

What happened on Flight 11?

After recent discoveries made in the threads here, particularly on John Ogonowski, the captain, and on Daniel Lewin, the Israeli antihijacking Special Agent genius billionaire with the “Hijacker” model Swatch, I became very curious about Flight 11, and decided to read, and reread everything I could find online.

I came loaded down with the usual accumulated prejudices of ten years on the 911-was-an-inside-job. There was no flight 11. There were no hijackers. The phone calls were faked. These were my mantras. Except that I've learned since I came to Let's Roll that everything I thought I knew about 9/11 was wrong, so I was ready to unlearn what I thought I knew.

And I was right: I was completely wrong.

I found that there was a lot of fresh material on Flight 11 which seemed to have made it's way online relatively recently, within the last year it seems. It's a huge trove: full transcripts of many phone calls, including the two which were said to be from the flight itself, detailed phone logs, and most fascinating of all, many original FBI interview notes from the days and weeks immediately after 9/11. I don't know who has uploaded these materials, or when, but they have done a huge service.

I realised that I had no idea how little I really knew about flight 11 and the two phone calls. What I thought I knew was part of a jumble of things I'd read about all of the flights, and all of the calls. I decided to focus. Rather than try to understand all of the flights, and all of the calls, I would focus on Flight 11, and the two calls from Ong and Sweeney. As I began to read, and compare, and cross-correlate, a picture began to slowly come together.

By comparing the various accounts from different participants, taken in the days immediately after 9/11, it's now possible to recreate in detail the circumstances surrounding the two phone calls from Flight 11. What emerges is a story which is different in many key respects not only from the government narrative (no surprise there), but also to much that has been written by 911 researchers over the last ten years.

In this series of posts, I am going to work slowly through a fairly lengthy catalogue of inconsistencies, oddities and downright impossibilities. There's a lot of material, and, frankly, it's a little boring I fear. To get to the bottom of all this, there's no alternative but to go into the fine detail of these calls. Hopefully, however, it's worth it, because hidden in the details are the keys to understanding what happened on Flight 11.

Because there is so much material, I am going to present it as a series of posts. While I do this, I am holding off on allowing comments in the thread. Once the series is complete, I will open the thread up for discussion.

A final comment before beginning. I'm not setting out to prove anything. As per the loopDloop doctrine, as Culto has kindly called it, I'm just going to try to let the evidence speak for itself. But I think it might help at the start to simply state the conclusion that I have come to after immersing in these materials. It can be summed up in one word.


Everything about Flight 11 is designed, from the get-go, for maximum confusion. The reason that all the clues don't seem to add up is that they were designed that way. The confusion is a deliberate signature of the design of the exercise.

Many researchers have already come to the conclusion that Flight 11 was a live hijacking exercise conducted as part of the wargames under way that morning, including Vigilant Guardian and Virgo Amalgam. This seems to be exactly where the evidence that I present in this series leads. But there's something more.

The deliberate confusion seems to be intended to conceal the fact that what appeared to be “Flight 11” was not a normal airline flight at all. It is a whole sequence of substitutions and doublings designed to create an illusion. It is a theatrical presentation of a flight, assembled out of props.

“Flight 11” is, in reality, a multiplicity of events, operations, equipment. It's a magic trick, an illusion, in which the appearance of a flight is created by combining different elements originating from multiple locations and sources. It is, yet again, a pea and thimble game.

There's a new model here which goes beyond the familiar planes versus no-planes argument. What we have here in Flight 11 is multiple events, multiple flights, stitched together, with the edges blurred.

But if we follow the details closely, it is possible to see the seams.

In this series, I am going to bring forward various details which have been lost, overlooked, forgotten. The story of Flight 11 as it has been told, by all sides, has been smoothed over, and it's the bits that have been left out which turn out to be the most fascinating.

So, it's all about the phone calls, and the details of how these were handled.

Everything we know about what happened on Flight 11 comes from the two phone calls received from flight attendants Betty Ong, and Amy Sweeney, (with the exception of some brief transmissions received by air traffic control). There was much controversy for many years about whether these were cell phone calls or airphones. This was resolved by release of the airphone records, which can be seen here. These show exact details of the start and end of each call, and other technical information, so that there's no doubt as far as the official narrative goes: the calls were made from the onboard airphones installed in the back of passengers seats.

Earlier this year, a blog entry appeared on LetsRoll by rwagner66, which contains a fascinating snippet of information. If this is insight is true, then it may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Flight 11.


These are calls that went through the "Claircom box" on AA77, the plane that hit the Pentagon. This is the box that handles seatback phones, but <b>calls did not originate from seatback handsets</b>. It appears they came from something plugged into external port #4 of the Claircom box.

My hypothesis is someone put a picocell (cell phone base station) on the plane and plugged it into Claircom box in order to get a connection to ground stations. The implications are:

.. Someone other than hijackers was involved. The Claircom box was not accessible from the passenger compartment. The picocell must have been installed days beforehand.

.. Cell phone calls were legit. The calls seen here were operator assisted, but calls from United planes, which used a different seatback phone system, might have passed through normally so as to show the caller's cell phone's number on the recipient's CallerID.

I believe calls did not come from seatback phones because HandsetID shows ffff, computer code for -1, meaning unknown. I believe they came from port #4 because Originating # shows 9045550004. The 555 in the middle (NXX) indicates is not a working telephone number, but rather for <i>internal use</i>. Area code (NPA) 904 is in Jacksonville FL. They had to put some three digit number to fill the space. Perhaps software was developed in JAX. The last four digits (NNNN) contain the useful information. I think 0004 means external port #4.
This information about the originating call number seems crucial, and, if it is true, it gives the game away. This "Claircomm" box is the control box from which the airphone calls are sent to the outside world, from the plane, or wherever it is installed.

The phone number from which the calls originated decodes how they were made: via external port #4 on the Claircomm box.

This means that the calls were not made from the body of the plane, via normal installed airphone headsets installed in the backs of the passengers seats, but from a specially prepared location.

This is a crucial clue, particularly in light of further clues to come, as we shall see.

But for now, lets just observe that at the beginning of the Betty Ong call, the operator asks repeatedly what seat she is sitting in. Ong has to be prompted several times before she eventually replies, and says that she is sitting in her flight attendant's jumpseat, 3R.

You can listen to the tape that has been released of this call on youtube, here.

It is obvious that she doesn't want to answer the question about her seat number. Why?

Airphones are fitted in front of the passenger, mounted in the rear of the seat in front. Are airphones fitted in the rear of the last row of seats? Surely not. Why would they be? There would be no way for any seated passenger to use them.

If this is correct, then how could a flight attendant sitting in the jump seat make an airphone call?

Flight personnel are actually forbidden under regulations to have any contact with anyone outside of the plane without going through the cockpit, so there would be no circumstances under which a flight attendant would need an airfone. So jump seats dont have airphones, and neither do the rear of the back row of seats. These kinds of details are hard to verify, but it's not important. It's the phone number that blows her cover.

It's the little things which give the big picture away. Betty Ong was talking into a headset which was plugged into external port #4 on a Claircomm box. She wasn't anticipating the question about her seat number. It took her a while to formulate her answer. It was a pretty good response given the circumstances. Jump seat is a logical place to be. Except that there is no airphone there. Still, good attempt “on the fly”.

Betty Ong was taking part in a simulation, an exercise. These transcripts and interviews prove it. To do so, iIn the posts that follow, we're going to take a long, detailed, possibly even boring look at the circumstances surrounding this phone call, and the other one from Flight 11, from Amy Sweeney.

Did I say Flight 11? There was some confusion about that on the morning of September 11 2001. The two flight attendants on the plane both made a persistent error that day. They both referred to the flight as “Flight 12”. Was this a case of multiple slips-of-the-tongue? Or was it part of the deliberate confusion that marked the day? In the next post, now that the introduction is out of the way, this series will begin by taking a close look at the question:

Flight 11, or flight 12?
loopDloop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13 Jul 2012 , 04:31 AM   #2
Join Date: 3 Nov 2011
Posts: 1,104
Threads: 20
Blog Entries: 1
Thanked 6,067 Times in 1,042 Posts
loopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls

Here's the location in the rear of the plane, the jumpseat 3R, from which Betty Ong is said to have made the call:

If she made the call from an airphone, it would have had to be in the rear of the last row of seats, which seems wrong, and is proven wrong by the phone number.

Here's the airphone call record:

From this page:

You can see that the number from which the call is made as the same as rwagner66 discusses for Flight 77. Both the calls from Flight 11, or I should say, all the calls, from the two flight attendants, are made from this same number, 904 555 0004.

If these calls were made from genuine seat-back airphones then they would have shown different, genuine originating phone numbers! It was perfectly possible to make a call to these airphones, and each had its own number. But not these calls apparently.

Here's the screen grab of the transcript showing the pause when asked which seat she is in:

This is from the beginning, or near the beginning, of the call. The pause is even more pronounced when you listen to the call. She ignores several requests to state where she is sitting.

Notice also the "Flight 12" response. Have a listen also to that on the tape. Notice anything odd? That's where the next post begins....
loopDloop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14 Jul 2012 , 01:40 AM   #3
Join Date: 3 Nov 2011
Posts: 1,104
Threads: 20
Blog Entries: 1
Thanked 6,067 Times in 1,042 Posts
loopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls

Two flight attendants from Flight 11 made contact with the outside world via airphone: Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney. Both identified the flight as Flight 12, at least twice, each, at the beginning of their respective conversations. Once would be a slip-of-the-tongue. Twice would be carelessness. But when two flight attendants both make the same “mistake”, at least twice, in circumstances where accuracy is of the utmost importance, this is beyond the possibility of error. Why did they do this?

To try to answer the question, we are going to look at each of these calls, and the circumstances surrounding them, including the flight 12 references, in close detail. The first call received was from Betty Ong. It came in at 8:18am that morning. It seems Betty called the general American Airlines reservation number. Her call went into the system, and was randomly routed to a reservations center in North Carolina.

The call was answered by Vanessa Minter. We're going to be hearing a lot from her later on, and she has some fascinating things to share. After all, she happened to be in a very special time and place in history. When the call came in, and Betty Ong told her there was a hijacking underway, this was the very first moment when the world received the first notice that the 9/11 event was underway. Vanessa was at the pointy end of it all, chosen by fate and destiny to be the one that Betty Ong was connected to that day.

Did she do America proud?

Errr, not exactly, as far as the story goes. She panicked. She knew what she had to do. She had to push the emergency button. But there was a problem: she couldn't find the emergency button. It had to be around here someplace. Big red button on the front of the phone. Nope. Can't see it.

Unable to find the emergency button to activate the emergency, Vanessa did what anyone would have done. She called someone. That was Winston Sadler, in a department on the other side of the building. Vanessa explained what was going on. There was a hijacking, and could Winston help out here because Vanessa couldn't find the emergency button? Winston said, put the call through to me, which she did. Then, Winston finally hit the emergency button.

The reason that this emergency button is so crucial to our story is that when it is pushed it automatically begins the recording of the conversation. So this is where the tape that you can listen to on Youtube begins: at the moment when Winston Sadler pushes the emergency button which Vanessa Minter couldn't locate.

The tape ends exactly four minutes later, so that only those four minutes of the entire conversation are said to have been recorded. The reason given why the entire conversation was not recorded is that the Rockwell system had recently been upgraded, and as a result of the upgrade, the automatic recording facility for emergency calls had been changed so that instead of recording the entire call, it now recorded only the first four minutes. This is, of course, scarcely believable, as no one would ever “upgrade” a system that way, or design an emergency phone recording system designed to shut off after four minutes, but let's leave that aside for the moment.

The point is that the recording does indeed go for four minutes, and we've been told that the system automatically shut off after four minutes: so the clear and inescapable implication is that the four minutes of audio released to the public, the four minutes that you can hear on youtube, is the complete audio recording made that day.

Except that it's not. There's a problem. To see the problem, we now turn our attention to the exchange about “flight 12”, right at the beginning of the tape. Actually, it's not quite at the beginning. There is a short exchange beforehand. Before we get to that, it's important that you listen to Betty Ong saying “Flight 12”, if you can. When you do, you will hear something very odd: it sounds like her voice splits into two different voices when she says it. Have a listen a couple of times, and compare it with the audio either side. There is clearly something unusual about the way she says “Flight 12”. It's as if two people are saying it at the same time.

Indeed, that's what the official story actually says. Even though the transcript shown above taken from the youtube on-screen transcript shows “Betty Ong” said those words, the official transcript shows something different. Have a look. First, here is the link to two documents with the transcripts discussed in this post:



Here's the way the transcript (in the first document linked above), describes it:

It says that Betty Ong and Vanessa Minter said Flight 12 at the same time!

Just imagine for a moment that the government transcript is accurate: that it really is both of them saying those words at the same time. What is happening? Recall Vanessa has taken the call, and then involved Winston Sadler. It is Sadler who is asking which flight it is. It is now several seconds after the emergency button has been pushed. Now, if both Minter and Ong answer at the same time, this means that Ong must have already identified the flight as flight 12 to Minter!

Let's just be clear about this. Flight 11 was an institution at Boston Logan Airport. The daily morning flight to LAX was one of the prestige routes. It had been flight 11 for many years. This is not like getting bus routes mixed up in a city you've never visitted. Flight 11 was part of the profesional furniture of these people's lives. They knew it was Flight 11. And it was, supposedly, being hijacked, so accurate information is of the essence. Under the circumstances, the idea that Ong could have clearly identified the flight as Flight 12 TWICE during the first minutes of her phone call, is very strange.

But does Vanessa Minter really say flight 12 at exactly the same time as Ong? Have another listen to it. The two voices are so in sync that it is hard to believe it could be two people. It sounds rather like some weird effects filter has been applied to Ong's voice to make it sound doubled. Could the tape have been manipulated in any way?

Yes, it was.

As I mentioned in the first post in this thread, there is now a cache of materials online, including interviews and transcripts dating from the first days after 9/11. Two of these documents are linked above. This is the one we are going to be looking at now:


If you scroll down to page 11 of this pdf, you will find a transcript of the Betty Ong phone conversation that was made by the FBI investigation on September 12, 2001. The next day! You can go through line by line and compare it with the transcript made available today, and the audio which you can listen to on youtube, and it is all the same. No problem there. To be clear: the transcript from September 12, 2001 is identical to the transcript we have today, and to the audio.

Now scroll back up to the beginning of the document that I linked to above. Beginning from page 2 is a transcript of a phone call that took place on September 11 2001, at 12:28pm. On one end of the line was Larry Wansley, managing director of corporate security for American Airlines. On the other was Nydia Gonzalez. Nydia was the supervisor that morning. When Winston Sadler hit the emergency button, Gonzalez was notified and was able to take part in the call also.

At 12:30pm on the day of 9/11 itself, Nydia took part in a recorded phone conversation with Wansley, during which she played the tape of the Ong phone call from that morning. The entire phone call between Wansley and Gonzalez, including the playing of the Ong phone call tape, was transcribed, and appears following page 2 on the above linked document.

This gives us the opportunity to compare the transcript of the Ong phone call recording made on 9/11, with the transcript released the next day. Are they the same? Were any changes made in the transcript between the two versions?

To find out, I printed out both transcriptions, laid them out side-by-side, and started to compare the two, from the beginning. But there was an immediate problem. The beginnings of the two transcripts are completely different! What was going on?

It took me a while to sort out the confusion. I had to get highlighters in different colours, and several cups of coffee before I had figured out what was going on. Here's what happened: the tape of the Ong call played on September 11 consists of two copies of the four-minute audio spliced together. This double-loop (dare I say loopDloop? ) was then played from a point about one-third of the way into the four-minutes. It then plays through to the end of the four-minutes, but instead of ending there, the audio loops back to the start of the four-minutes. It then plays through the full four-minutes to the end, where this time is stops.

As a result, the tape of the Ong call played by Gonzalez for Wansley on 9/11/2001 consists of the equivalent of about seven minutes of audio.

I hope I have described this clearly! To recap: when Gonzalez played the tape of the Ong call to Wansley, it began, not at the beginning, but a third of the way through. It played to the end, and then looped back and played the complete call a second time.

You can verify this for yourself by going through the two transcripts line by line, but it is certainly not obvious. Neither Wansley or Gonzalez seemed to notice. Neither did the transcriber. No one did. But there's no doubt about this. The Ong call was played on a loop.

How could this have happened? There's only two possibilities, isn't there. It was either an accident, or it was deliberate. But let's not get hung up on this point for now, because there's more.

I've previously commented somewhere on a thread that, for the perps, the anxiety is in the transitions. The moments of greatest stress for the operation are the scene changes. Pay close attention to the points in the story where the shifts occur, and you can often glimpse the mechanics of the illusion. And so it is here.

What we are going to do now is to focus in on the “beginning” of the Ong phone call, as it appears in the Gonzalez-Wansley transcript of 9/11. By “beginning”, I mean the beginning of the four-minute call as we have it today, but of course, if you've been able to follow the above, you will be clear that this “beginning” actually occurs in the middle of the “looped” version of the call on 9/11.

There's no ambiguity about where this “beginning” occurs. We know exactly where the four-minute version ends, with Betty Ong saying they have tried to get medical help, “but they can't get a doc....”. She is cut off half way through the word “doctor”.

Here's the end from 9/12:

Now let's go to the point in the Gonzalez-Wansley 9/11 version where the tape loops back to the beginning. Here it is: you can see where the "ending" should be..."ah somebody's calling medical and we can't get them". That's the end right there, where the four minute tape finishes. But of course, it keeps going in this 9/11 transcript. Let's have a look:

Now let's have a comparison with the first few lines of the transcript as it appeared from 9/12/01 onwards. Here's the beginning of the conversation again, from 9/12

Compare the two version closely and you will see the problem. The 9/11 version has an unidentified male saying, twice, is anyone there, then immediately follows the exchange about which seat she is in.

But in the 9/12 version, this unidentified man's voice is missing. Instead we have a line from Betty Ong which she seems to repeat several times during the conversation, (" the cockpits not answering" etc).

The two versions are so different that it cannot simply be that lines were overlooked. Somethings been spliced. And in particular:

The exchange about “flight 12” which occurs in the 9/12 transcript is completely missing from the 9/11 transcript!!!

Now, in this case, there is no chance that the lines could simply have been overlooked, or, omitted by the 9/11 transcriber. We also can be sure that there is not some kind of confusion over the exact start point of the recording.

There can be no doubt: the “flight 12” exchange was simply not on the tape as it was played by Gonzalez to Wansley on 9/11/01 in the place where it can be heard in the 9/12/01 version!

In fact, the Flight 12 exchange is absent not only from the “beginning” of the conversation, but it does not appear anywhere in the entire tape of the call played on 9/11.

This observation has far-reaching implications. What is happening here is this: the flight 12 exchange between Sadler and Ong (and Minter?) does not occur within the four minutes of recorded audio of the call, as transcribed on 9/11/01. It does however appear, right at the very beginning, in the transcript released the next day.

The conclusion is unavoidable. The transcript and audio were altered between 9/11 and 9/12. The recording of the flight 12 exchange has been inserted into the four minutes, but it must have come from outside the four minutes, originally.

What I am trying to say here is this: the information that only four minutes of the call was recorded must be false. The exchange about flight 11 which is now part of the four-minutes, was not originally part of the four-minutes, and therefore, more of the phone call than just four minutes must have originally been recorded.

Here is what I think happened. The beginning of the genuine recording is earlier than what has been released. The story about Vanessa Minter being unable to locate the big red flashing button on the front of her telephone is obviously bogus. They are trying to buy a little time here, because there were things said at the beginning of the call which were not entirely suitable for public release. So they had to start the supposed recording some little way in.

This decision was hurriedly made on the morning of 9/11. Perhaps the looping of the tape was deliberate confusion to blur over this difficulty with the beginning. But then, by the next day, when they had some time to think about, someone decided that one piece of the tape had to be inserted into that “beginning” section. For some reason, it was critical to splice in the exchange between Sadler and Ong about flight 12.

Why bother? If it was just a slip-of-the-tongue, why not just leave it out? Why was it necessary to cut and splice this exchange about flight 12 into the “beginning” of the Ong call recording? Surely it just makes Ong look momentarily clueless?

Unless what we are seeing is a deliberate plan to create confusion.

There's lots more to be said about the Ong call, but in the next post, we'll continue on the flight 12 theme, and see how Amy Sweeney was caught up in the same confusion.

Last edited by loopDloop; 18 Feb 2013 at 12:10 PM.
loopDloop is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 21 Users Say Thank You to loopDloop For This Useful Post:
Old 16 Jul 2012 , 15:02 PM   #4
Join Date: 3 Nov 2011
Posts: 1,104
Threads: 20
Blog Entries: 1
Thanked 6,067 Times in 1,042 Posts
loopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls

That last post was not easy to follow, so here is a summary, with colour coding.

The Betty Ong call transcript, in every version you will see online, since 9/12/01, begins like this:

and ends like this:

So the red box shows how it begins, and the blue box shows how it ends.

Now lets look at the transcript that was made on 9/11/01, from the Wansley-Gonzalez phone call. Here we are in the middle of the transcript, where the tape of the Ong conversation loops from the end to the beginning.

Look at the blue first, and see that this is indeed the end of the conversation.

Now compare the two red boxes. To create the 9/12 version out of the 9/11 version requires first removing the "Unidentified male", then splicing in new material: the first line of Betty Ong followed by the flight 12 exchange. After that, the two versions are the same, with Sadler asking Ong repeatedly which seat she is in.

So there is no doubt at all: the transcript of the Ong call was altered between 9/11/01 and 9/12/01, with the purpose of the alteration being to insert the "flight 12" reference.

With that cleared up, we turn attention to the Amy Sweeney call. Again, as with the Betty Ong call, we are going to go into extensive detail about the handling of this call, but let's just start with the basics. Sweeney made two phone call that were connected that morning. She called into the American Airlines FLight Services office at Boston Airport.There has been considerable confusion over the years as to what time the first call was made. Even today, if you look at some of the 9/11 timelines online, you will read that the call was made at 8:20.

But it was much later than this: her first call was made at 8:29, according to the records of the call released. What happened as a result of this call is one of the most fascinating episodes of the entire day, and that will be the subject of the next post, but just before we look at what happened there, I want to ask the question:

Why did Amy Sweeney make her call at 8:29am?

Think about it for a moment. There are 81 passengers is it (?something like that). There are 9 flight attendants. Two of these have been stabbed. So now we are down to 7 active flight attendants. One of those (Ong) is on the phone. She's been on the phone since 8:18am, and is connected, and is now dealing directly with the Dallas Operations Control Center. She's been assured by this time that security, and everyone, has been notified. So with Ong on the phone, that leaves just 6 flight attendants now, to keep the calm, deal with the situation, including two stabbed flight attendants and a dying passenger.

You would think there was plenty to do. You would think that placing a second, entirely redundant phone call, to the flight services office at Logan, would be an entirely pointless exercise. But that's what Amy did with the last ten minutes of her life. She sat, according to her own reported account, next to Betty Ong, so she knew that Betty had the situation covered, but instead of re-assuring passengers, helping save lives, Amy's decided there are things to be done on the phone.

So she gets herself composed, ready, makes the call: and what do you know, identifies the flight as "flight 12" yet again. It's now ten minutes since Betty made the same mistake. It's almost as if, gee, do you think, they were trying to tell us something. Let's take a close look at Amy Sweeney's first phone call.
loopDloop is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to loopDloop For This Useful Post:
Old 18 Jul 2012 , 02:22 AM   #5
Join Date: 3 Nov 2011
Posts: 1,104
Threads: 20
Blog Entries: 1
Thanked 6,067 Times in 1,042 Posts
loopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls

In this post we are going to look at the circumstances surrounding the first of two phone calls that Amy Sweeney made from flight 11 on 9/11/01.

At 8:29am, after a first failed attempt which did not connect, Amy Sweeney made a successful airphone call. She reached Evie Nunez, a manager in the American Airlines flights services office at Boston Logan Airport. This call lasted just over a minute before it was cut off. A few minutes later she made a second call to the same office, but we are not going to discuss that call in this post. We are going to focus in on this short, one-minute, phone call, and what happened as a result.

To recall the timeline: Flight 11 is said to have taken off at 7:59am. The “hijacking” took place at 8:13. Betty Ong placed her phone call at 8:18. This first call of Amy Sweeney's began therefore about half an hour after take-off, 16 minutes after the hijack commenced, and 11 minutes since Ong had been on the phone.

Amy had plenty of time to prepare herself, and to think about what it was she needed to say. She was a professional, and knew that her actions were critical to the safety of the passengers and crew.

So why did she tell Evie that she was on flight 12, and that it was parked at Gate 32?

Here's the excerpt from the FBI interview with Evie from 9/12/01:

After 8:30 AM on September 11, 2001, NUNEZ received a
telephone call from a AA flight attendant who did not give her
name and stated that Flight 12 at Gate 32 had two flight
attendants stabbed. In addition, there was a passenger in row 9
who had their throat cut by a passenger in seat 10B. NUNEZ also
learned the hijackers said they had a bomb. The flight attendant
was talking fast and then got disconnected.

B17 FBIs 302s of interest

Amy Sweeney told Evie Nunez that they were on flight 12, at gate 32!!!!

Gate 32 was one of the two gates from which Flight 11 is said to have taken off. It is certainly the gate at which the passengers boarded, according to the FBI interviews of two flight attendants who were present at the boarding.

But of course, the flight was in the air, and had been for 30 minutes according to the official story, so why would Amy Sweeney say it was parked at Gate 32?

Did she really say it was at Gate 32, or did Nunez somehow misunderstand what Sweeney was saying?

This is an impossible question to answer, because we don't have the recording of the phone conversation, but it does seem very odd that Sweeney would even feel the need to mention the departing Gate number for any reason. It is completely irrelevant to the situation. This leads me to suspect that Sweeney did indeed tell Nunez that the flight was parked at the gate, as Nunez thought, because otherwise there does not seem to be any sensible reason to even mention the gate number. As we shall see though, it doesn't matter that we cannot be sure if Nunez understood Sweeney correctly ot not, because it is what happens next which clarifies the situation.

So, what exactly did Evie Nunez do next. Here is the continuation of the quote above taken from her FBI interview:

NUNEZ immediately
called flight operations for AA to determine the status of Flight
12. NUNEZ learned that it was Flight 11 that had just left and
she ran a computer check to determine the identity/of the
passenger in seat 10B on Flight 11. NUNEZ determined it was
SATAM AL SUQAMI, who purchased an E-Tickef in Fort Lauderdale on
August 28, 2001. NUNEZ provided the investigating Agent with the
printout on AL SUQAMI.
Actually, no she didn't. This is bullshit right here. Evie Nunez is leaving out the crucial part of the story.

Before she called flight operations and checked the computer, Evie Nunez did something else, which she couldn't bring herself to tell the FBI that morning. Why? Well, let's take a look, and see.

What did Nunez do? She spoke to Michael Woodward, flight services manager, (whether by phone or in person it is not possible to be sure from the transcripts) and asked him to gor down to Gate 32 and see what was going on. Michael, in turn, asked his colleague Elizabeth Williams to accompany him on this mission. Together, the two of them then walked to Gate 32, which was only a matter of two minutes walk from their office.

What did they find when they got there?

There were only two people there who can tell us: Michael Woodward, and Elizabeth Williams.

Michael Woodward, as we will see in posts to come, has an exciting morning ahead of him, but he does not realise that yet, at 8:31am on the morning of September 11, 2001. He will be interviewed several times over the next few days by the FBI, and several more times over the years since then. We will be looking at these interviews in detail in later posts, but at this point let's take a look at what Michael Woodward has said, in several different places, about what he and Elizabeth Williams found when they got to Gate 32 that morning.

Here's what he said on 9/12/01:

On Septemb.er 11, 2001, WOODWARD came to work at Logan
Airport at 6: 45 .AM. WOODWARD· was one of three managers on duty in the
AA office. Sometime after 8:00 AM, EVELYN NUNEZ, one of the other
managers, told him that two flight attendants had been stabbed and
were administered oxygen. NUNEZ stated the plane was at Gate 32 and
he went with BETH WILLIAMS to see if the plane was still there. They
went to the gate, realized the flight had left and came back
downstairs. Upon returning to the flight service office, WOODWARD
learned that the call between NUNEZ and the flight attendant had been
Shortly thereafter, the AA flight attendant AMY SWEENEY

Let's just get that straight: the order of events is:

1.Nunez tells him about the plane at gate 32.
2.He and Williams go to the gate. They “realised the flight had left” and return.
3.ON returning to the office Woodward learns the call between Nunez and Sweeney was disconnected.

Notice here that Woodward doesn't actually say what they saw at Gate 32. He just says that they realised the flight had left.

Woodward was interviewed again two days later, and now the story was morphing:

At some time between 8:15 a.m. and 8:45 a.m., WOODWARD
was contacted and asked to go to one of the departure gates.
WOODWARD had trouble recalling which gate he went to, but he
believes he went to Gate 31 or 32. Shortly, thereafter, WOODWARD
realized a flight attendant on board one of the flights had
called the Flight Services office to report trouble on a flight.
WOODWARD then proceeded to the Flight Services office, where he
took a phone call from ANY SWEENEY (True Name: MADELINE
SWEENEY), a Flight Attendant on AA Flight 11. The following
information was relayed to WOODWARD by SWEENEY via telephone
(WOODWARD was unsure whether SWEENEY was on the on-board phones
or a cellular telephone):
Now he's not sure if it was Gate 31 or 32. No mention at all of what they saw down at the gate. And oddly, he now reports that he became aware of Sweeney's first call only AFTER going to the gate.

Fortunately, he is interviewed again in January 2004, and has a chance to clear up the confusion:

January 25 2004

When flight services were in order, he returned tohis office around the departure
time (he is not sure whether it was the scheduled time or the actual time of take-off). He
said the walk from the departure gate to his office was only a few minutes long. He was
in his office doing paperwork. Around 8:30 a.m. (he is not sure of exactly when) he
heard Evelyn Nunez, whom he shared the office with, taking a call. She was rather loud.
She kept saying "What, what, what? ... Who's hurt? ... What?"
He got up and went into the MOD office and Woodward asked MOD Nunez what the problem was.
She said she didn't know. She had gotten a weird phone call. The caller said that someone was hurt
on Flight 12. She indicated that someone had been hurt, stabbed. The call had gotten

Woodward remembers thinking that perhaps it was air rage because there was a lot of
that type of thing going on at the time. He thought that maybe there was a disturbance in
the terminal. He and Beth Williams (who is another AAL employee) went to the
departure gate where nothing seemed amiss. All the flights in the "morning bank" had
left. At this point, he commented to Beth, "wait a minute - Flight 12 comes in at night. It
hasn't even left Los Angeles yet." He remembered thinking that sometimes the AAL
Operations Center will call when there is a problem on a flight and tell them to meet it
when the aircraft lands. After checking out the gate area, Williams and Woodward
returned to the office. It was about a two-minute walk from the gate area back to their

woodward interviewedhttps://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:p6i80dqNP8cJ:media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00013.pdf+&hl=en&gl=fr&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjidMBXq7 ziHLcxxTfzexyNQt4p_Iwsk0xdNWyNrVJO1x7BTVESXb4YTPt0 Dg6hdXUkqNAmdB5Wq0xeE_TaFUiaIa2Zw9W28EuIFfHBUaW9jm OUyUF_8nSh1o3lkT6kUOCmDjJr&sig=AHIEtbREj6-t6giuPkLTjqYNkR7QZfoXwQ
Now that he's had a couple years to think about it, Woodward has it all smoothed out. He was right next to Nunez when the call came in. He heard her on the call, and knew that the line had been cut-off. All this before he went down to the departure gates. He mentions that the caller said “flight 12”, but doesn't mention the gate number. Nor does he say, again, exactly what he saw when he got there except to note that “nothing was amiss”. They “checked out the gate area”, but that's all we learn.

There seems to be some evasion going on here. Woodward can't get straight when he learned of the call being made, or cut off. And he can't bring himself to remember the gate number easily. He gets it right the first day, then after that its “31 or 32”, then it's gone completely.

There's a reason why Woodward is reluctant to really spell it out that he went down to Gate 32 to see Flight 12 at 8:30am that morning. It's because, approximately one hour earlier, Woodward had been down to this same gate to check out the departing flight 11! He visitted the plane at the gate while it was boarding. He went on board. He spoke to several flight attendants and remembered them by name. He noted that everything was fine. Then he went back to his office.

So, why, one hour later, when Nunez told him there was a problem with flight 12 at gate 32, did Woodward not immediately realise that there must be an issue with the flight number? Woodward, if he was on the ball that morning, in his position as flight services manager, should have responded to Nunez, “hang on, it's flight 11 which was at Gate 32 this morning, and it has left about half an hour ago”.

Perhaps Woodward hadn't had his second cup of coffee yet for the morning. I know I'm only firing on half cylinders until my caffeine levels are up to par. In any case, Woodward didn't twig, and this might explain why he didn't go out of his way to make it all crystal clear to the FBI that he was asked to go to flight 12 at gate 32, when he had only just got back from visitting flight 11 at gate 32.

In any case, let's move on, because while Woodward might have been reluctant to tell us plainly what happened that morning at gate 32, the same was not the case for his colleague Elizabeth Williams. When she was interviewed by the FBI the next day, she didn't try to avoid the issue. She told them plainly and clearly what she saw that morning down at gate 32, but you won't find this reported anywhere subsequently in any of the accounts of the day. If you read about this seemingly minor incident anywhere, it's always Michael Woodward's accounts which are quoted. They went down to gate 32. There was nothing to see there, so they kept moving, according to Woodward.

Not so fast.

What Elizabeth Williams saw that morning has been dropped down the memory hole.

For very good reason: it blows the lid on 9/11.

And here is her inteview, describing what happened when they went down to Gate 32.:

WILLIAMS stated on September V\_, 2001, at approximately
8a.m., she was working in her office at LOGAN AIRPORT when
MICHAEL WOODWARD, Manager of Flight Services for AMERICAN
AIRLINES AA, advised her that they needed to go to Gate 32
because two flight attendants had been stabbed. Upon arrival at
the gate, WILLIAMS and WOODWARD found an empty airplane.
WOODWARD then got on the phone and contacted EVELYN NUNEZ, an
employee of AA at LOGAN AIRPORT. While WOODWARD was on/the
phone, WILLIAMS searched the gate-side computer for information
for the flight time of the airplane at Gate 32. WOODWARD then
told WILLIAMS that NUNEZ was on the phone with a.flight attendant
that was in trouble. Shortly thereafter, WOODWARD relayed to
WILLIAMS the fact that NUNEZ had lost contact With the flight
attendant. At this time. WILLIAMS and WOODWARD realized they must
have received the wrong information. Both WOODWARD and WILLIAMS
speculated that the individuals they were looking for were the
individuals on the flight that NUNEZ had spbken with. WILLIAMS
and WOODWARD then proceeded to the location of NUNEZ.
Elizabeth Williams saw: an empty plane! This is so exciting let's have it again:

Upon arrival at the gate, WILLIAMS and WOODWARD found an empty airplane.
Was this possibly a slip of the tongue, or a misunderstanding, or a transcriber's error?

Certainly not: she says it again:

While WOODWARD was on the phone, WILLIAMS searched the gate-side computer for information
for the flight time of the airplane at Gate 32.
At 8:30am on the morning of September 11, 2001, Elizabeth Williams went down to Gate 32, where Flight 11 had boarded an hour previously, and she saw there, with her own eyes, an empty plane.

A plane. That was empty. That is: empty of passengers.

“Flight 11” had not taken off, but the passengers were gone.

Simple as that.

“Flight 11” was still parked at the gate, half an hour after its alleged take-off, but the passengers were gone.

If Elizabeth Williams is telling the truth, if she is not mistaken, or deluded, or mis-reported, then we may have here the the key which unlocks the entire 9/11 puzzle.

Is there any other evidence that “flight 11” simply never took off?

There certainly is: it's the famous NTSB database entry which lists no wheels-off time for the flight for that day.

There have been two explanations for this oddity in the official record: the NTSB say that the data was not reported, in the confusion of the day. The conspiracy theorists say that it proves flight 11 never existed.

But the data does not say either of these things. If we just take the data at face-value, rather than assuming it is incorrect, or misreported, or falsified, what does the data tell us? It tells us that flight 11 existed but that it never took off!

The wheels-off data is recorded automatically and electronically, even if it is not automatically reported. The fact that the entry exists shows that the flight was scheduled. The fact that the data shows the time as 00:00 indicates that the wheels never moved. This corresponds exactly to what Elizabeth Williams saw and described. The plane was there. It had not taken off.

If Elizabeth Williams is correct in what she saw, not mistaken or misreported, then the entry in the NTSB database for Flight 11 exactly matches what she described.

So we have two witnesses now who testify that the plane labelled as flight 11 never took off that morning: Elizabeth Williams, who says it twice, unambiguously, and the NTSB data, which shows that the plane never moved from the gate.

Let's just summarise now the bullet points of the story that is emerging about flight 11 in this thread:

1.The originating number on the airphone records show that the calls were placed from a prepared location, via an external port on the Claircom box, and not from a seatback phone handset.
2.Betty Ong identified the flight as “flight 12” at the beginning of her call
3.The transcript of the Betty Ong call was altered in the first 24 hours after 9/11, so as to make the “flight 12” exchange appear at the beginning of the four-minute recording, when it was not there on 9/11 itself.
4.The information that only four minutes of the Ong call was recorded must be incorrect.
5.Amy Sweeney also identified the flight as “flight 12” on her first phone call, and said it was parked at gate 32.
6.Woodward and Williams went to Gate 32 to check, and found an empty plane.

What's intriguing is that this tale hangs together as a coherent narrative. Here's a possible scenario: the doors of the flight are closed at 7:40am. As soon as that happens, a man stands up on the plane and explains the passengers and crew that they are now involved in a military drill. They are asked to disembark the plane, through the rear doors, where a bus is waiting for them on the tarmac. They are taken somewhere. I have no idea where, but in that location is a prepared Claircom box. Sweeney and Ong are selected, and convinced, to play roles within the simulation, pretending to phone in the details of the imaginary hijacking. It is impressed upon them that they must not give the game away. Betty Ong does pretty well, but in the end, there is really only four minutes near the beginning of the call which could conceivably ever be released into the public domain, so they make up the story about the four minutes of recording, and after a false start, settle on an acceptable transcript by the second day. Amy Sweeney's first call is a complete botch up, and the controllers have to pull the plug on the connection after about a minute, because she is taking too much creative license with the script. They give her a quick pep talk, and then she reconnects for the second phone call (which we haven't discussed yet, but in which she, yet again, misidentifies the flight as flight 12, as we will see). All these flight 12 references are deliberate, to ratchet up the confusion.

The above is just an attempt to fit the facts to a scenario. What's important are the facts, not the scenario. The repeated flight 12 references. The empty plane.

Elizabeth Williams still works for American Airlines. Many of the others in this story were let go in the aftermath of 9/11, as the airline industry went through massive restructure. Woodward left. Vanessa Minter left. Minter comments in an interview that it surprised her to be laid off, as “if they wanted to control what I say about 9/11, it would be better if they left me on payroll”. Well, they didn't keep Vanessa on payroll. But they have kept Elizabeth Williams on payroll. She has a LinkedIn. Here it is, and her photo.


Human Resources Specialist
American Airlines
Public Company; 10,001+ employees; AMR; Airlines/Aviation industry
July 2011 – Present (1 year 1 month) Dallas/Fort Worth Area

Purser Manager
American Airlines
Public Company; 10,001+ employees; AMR; Airlines/Aviation industry
May 2001 – June 2011 (10 years 2 months) Boston, MA

Someone might try to contact her and ask her: did you really see an empty plane that day at gate 32, but my guess is that she won't be talking.

Last edited by loopDloop; 18 Feb 2013 at 11:52 AM.
loopDloop is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 22 Users Say Thank You to loopDloop For This Useful Post:
Old 19 Jul 2012 , 00:26 AM   #6
Join Date: 3 Nov 2011
Posts: 1,104
Threads: 20
Blog Entries: 1
Thanked 6,067 Times in 1,042 Posts
loopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls

As mentioned in previous post, the reason that they came up with as to why only four minutes of Betty Ong's call was recorded, is, supposedly, because of a recent upgrade to the Rockwell system. Previously, a call in which the emergency button was depressed, would automatically be recorded in its entirety. But after the “upgrade”, the recording would shut down after four minutes. I can't find the quote now, but it's covered in one of these FBI interview documents in an interview, with, I think, a guy called Troy Wregglesworth, who ran the system at American Airlines.

In any case, you can also see that they are not completely convinced that this cover story is going to stick. Here is Nydia Gonzalez, from the phone call to Larry Wansley, corporate security head at American Airlines, on 9/11/01, at 12:38pm. Here's the exchange that took place between them, after the Ong tape stopped playing.

Recording concluded.
GONZALEZ: That's as far as it goes.
WANSLEY: Okay. The conversation lasted another five or ten
minutes but that's all the recording we have?
GONZALEZ: Communications is checking into it to find out why
cause the emergency button was on the whole time.
As far as Gonzalez was aware, and she was the supervisor in operations, so she should have known, if the emergency button was on, then the entire conversation should have been recorded.

Winston Sadler thought so too, and assured Betty Ong that:

WINSTON SADLER:Yeah. I'm taking it down. All the information. We're also,
you know, of course, recording this. At this point...
So as far as Winston Sadler was concerned, there was no issue with recording being shut down after four minutes. “Of course”, they were recording the conversation.

Now look at the exchange that immediately follows this line of Sadler's:

NYDIA GONZALEZ: This is operations. What flight number arc we talking about?
NYDIA GONZALEZ: Flight 12? Okay. I'm getting ...
BETTY ONG: No. We're on Flight 11 right now. This is Flight 11.
This is the moment in the conversation when Nydia Gonzalez breaks in. As we will see later, she has just phoned Craig Marquis at the Dallas Fort Worth Operations Center for American Airlines, so she is trying to get her information correct. She asks for the flight number, and Sadler tells her it is flight 12, before Ong corrects him. "No, we're on Flight 11 right now." (i.e. it's "11" now, but a little while ago it was called "12"....)

Here is the reason why they had to splice in the “flight 12” reference at the purported beginning of the recording of the four minutes. If that initial reference is missing, as it was on the version of the tape played 9/11/01, then Sadler's comment seems extremely odd. Why would be suddenly blurt out that it was flight 12, when that had not been mentioned yet (according to the 9/11/01 transcript)?

It would seem that someone realised this on the afternoon of 9/11/01. If Sadler was the first to make the flight 12 reference, then where did that come from? They had to make sure that it was clear the origin of the error was Betty Ong. Otherwise, it looks suspiciously as if Sadler already knew about the flight 12/flight 11 labelling discrepancy. This would have looked pretty bad once the flight 12 references from Amy Sweeney were made public also. It would have looked as though Sadler had advance knowledge that there was a drill involved.

So they decided to risk exposing the fact that they had more than four minutes of recording. They retrieved the exchange about flight 12 which occurred earlier, before the tape was supposed to have started, and spliced it in there at the “beginning” of the tape. And no one noticed until now.

There is yet one more indication that there was some anxiety about the four minutes. On the first couple of pages of one of these FBI documents are some hand written notes. They are clearly written by someone inside the investigation, because some of the handwritten names have been redacted in the same style as throughout the rest of the document. One of these notes is intriguing. It's from the document called “Team 7 Box 13 Flight Call notes and 302s”. A “302” is an FBI term for an interview, or something like that. In any case, the handwritten line, in between a note about Daniel Lewin serving in the IDF, and a comment about Vanessa Minter and Betty Ong, reads:

“Have a 302 that explains the 4 minutes”.
It's not clear whether this means they “have” the explanation yet, or they need to “have” it, but either way, someone felt an explanation was going to be needed.

One last observation about the flight 12 references in the Betty Ong conversation. After the initial reference to flight 12, she uses “flight 11” throughout the rest of the conversation. She corrects Sadler when he responds to Gonzalez that it is “flight 12”.

So what is going on here? If that recording and transcript of Betty Ong saying flight 12 is genuine, in the sense of being part of the entire conversation, then she started off saying “12”, then changed to “11”. On the other hand, if that flight 12 exchange is faked, synthesised, inserted from another source entirely, then perhaps Betty Ong wasn't confused.

They just wanted us to be.

Consider that it was a mighty feat of logistics and planning that morning, and there was no guarantee it was all going to work out as the perps planned. They needed to leave a clear trail of apparently genuine alerts from within the planes, from flight attendants, (and on other flights, passengers), trying to call for help. But at the same time, they did not want to trigger too efficient a response from the authorities that were not in on the plot.

So one of the purposes of this "flight 12" business was to inject a measured amount of confusion into the picture; to leave a believable trail of emergency phone calls, but to put a few banana skins on the road, as it were, to slow down any would-be heroes.

We're still not quite done with the flight 12 references, and that's before we start looking in detail at the rest of the contents and circumstances of the Ong and Sweeney phone calls. I did give fair warning this might get boring but the only way to make sense of this material is to go slowly through it with a fine tooth comb. So we need to go through all of the "flight 12" references, and there's still a couple more to go...

Last edited by loopDloop; 18 Feb 2013 at 11:53 AM.
loopDloop is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to loopDloop For This Useful Post:
Old 25 Jul 2012 , 06:20 AM   #7
Join Date: 3 Nov 2011
Posts: 1,104
Threads: 20
Blog Entries: 1
Thanked 6,067 Times in 1,042 Posts
loopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls

To quickly recap: at the start of her phone call, at 8:18am, to the North Carolina Reservations Center, Betty Ong told Vanessa Minter she was on Flight 12, and then repeated it to Winston Sadler.

Then, Amy Sweeney, in her first phone call at 8:30am to Flight Services at Boston Airport, told Evie Nunez that she, too, was on flight 12.

Remember how Nunez described it?

NUNEZ immediately called flight operations for AA to determine the status of Flight 12. NUNEZ learned that it was Flight 11 that had just left
As I noted, she omitted the entire part about sending Woodward and Williams down to Gate 32, but it is also interesting what she says she did do: she made a phone call, to flight operations, and she looked up the computer to check the flight details.

There is, amazingly enough, a transcript of this phone call that she made in the FBI files, but it is not obvious. In this document here, are transcripts of the phone calls involving Betty Ong, and then a whole series of internal phone calls between employees at American Airlines. Many of these involve Ray Howland, who was a manager at the Operations Centre in Dallas Fort Worth. We are going to be looking at some of these calls in more detail later. However, there is a problem with trying to understand these transcripts: there are no times given for when the calls took place. And most of the names, other than Ray Howlands, have been redacted. So it is not easy, if not impossible, to tell who the calls are between and exactly when they took place.

But there is one call where it is possible to figure it out with a little sleuthing. The two names redacted are both shorter than “Ray Howland”. This means both participants must have short names, of 7 or 8 characters or so. I will spare you the full Sherlock Holmes details, but in this case the two names are Evie Nunez and Kelly Cox, who was the base manager for American Airlines flight services in Boston.

It makes perfect sense that Nunez would place her first call to Cox, who was her supervisor. Cox then immediately phones Dallas Fort-Worth, and is put through to Howland. The time of the call is therefore just after 8:30. Here's the full page of the call (actually theres a little more on the next page, but not relevant).

In the middle of this call, this fascinating exchange takes place:

Here's what's happening. Cox has Rowland on one line, and Nunez on the other. Cox tells Rowland that flight 12 has been hijacked. Then, the transcipt records Nunez, on the other line, in the very moment of looking up the flight details on the computer and realising there is a problem. Read her reaction again, above, in italics. It is telling.

Nunez has realised with a shock that the flight is actually flight 11, but she had thought the called had said flight 12. Her instinctive reaction is that she, Nunez, must have made the mistake. This is an entirely natural human reaction. It would seem impossible that the flight attendant could have made the mistake. So she doubted herself. And there we have the moment, recorded on the transcript, Nunez in the background, suddenly realising that something isn't right.

Then Howland quickly corrects Cox, all at the same time, and everyone then is on the same page, referring to it as flight 11.

Is it possible that Nunez could have mis-heard, or mis-understood?

Consider what an extraordinary co-incidence this would be, given that Ong had already, 12 minutes earlier, identified the flight incorrectly as flight 12, possibly as many as two times.

But in fact we can be certain that Nunez did not make the error. It was definitely Amy Sweeney, and the reason we can be certain is that she did it again, when she called back the second time. Again, we are going to pull this second call apart in detail later on, but for now, we're just looking at these flight 12 references. Without going into the details then, it's Michael Woodward who (eventually) takes Amy Sweeney's second call, at 8:34am. Recall that it was Woodward who went down to Gate 32, to check on “flight 12”, and then realised it was “flight 11”, and returned to the office.

So Woodward is primed now to not be fooled a second time. He knows this is flight 11. He knows there is an issue. He might not have had his second cup of coffee, but he is alert and on his A-game now, surely. He takes over the second Amy Sweeney call. Instinctively, he grabs notepaper to make important notes of the call. Also a pen. All set. Talk to me Amy, I am ready.

And what is the very first thing he writes down.

Check it out.

He wrote down 12!

Then crossed it out and wrote 11!

So, don't worry Evie, you didn't make the mistake. You didn't take the flight number down incorrectly. That would be an astronomical co-incidence, because Betty Ong gave it as flight 12 (twice), and Amy Sweeney gave it as flight 12 on her second call, or at least, that's what Michael Woodward wrote down. Before she corrected it to 11. It was definitely Ong and Sweeney who were the ones referring to flight 12, before they corrected themselves.

Eleven, twelve. Twelve, eleven. Flight 11, flight 12. Flight 12, flight 11.

There really was a flight 12, by the way. Flight 12 was the afternoon flight which came in to Boston from LAX. It was normal for the same aircraft to be used. So, a particular airplane would be flight 11, flying from Boston to LA. Then it would turn around, and become Flight 12, and make the trip from LAX back to Boston.

Flight 11, flight 12.

Here's my take on it. I think that “flight 11” on September 11, 2001, was a scripted exercise.

There seems to be a theme, or a pattern, running through the elements of this script, if that's what it is. Here's a list of things about flight 11, or flight 12 as it was called.

It boarded from two gates: Gate 32 and gate 26, according to the various discrepant reports.

There were two security checkpoints, (at Gate 32) according to the 9/11 Commission report.

There were two flight attendants who made phone calls, one of whom made two calls.

There were two flight attendants stabbed.

There were two rental cars associated with the “hijack team” on this flight.

Mohammad Atta checked two bags which were not transferred to Flight 11.

Ong reported two hijackers were involved.

Two of the “hijackers” sat in seats 2A and 2B.

The flight makes two course corrections.

The alleged security photo of Atta and his partner, the two of them, going through the security checkpoint, shows two date stamps.

Atta. American Airlines AA. 11.

Do you see a pattern here? .

Everything that happens to do with flight 11 happens in pairs.


If there's two of every thing, it's always harder to keep track.

It's almost as if there is a Script Director behind the scenes working to a formula. Deliberate confusion by doubling.

Now, of course, I could be overthinking this. Perhaps this run of pairs is indeed just a co-incidence. Nevertheless, it's an interesting idea, isn't it, that a professional scriptwriter could have been engaged to co-ordinate these complex, psychologically-crucial storylines.

Wait a minute: there was a scriptwriter on Flight 11: David Angell. There is an excellent thread here on David Angell. There is also an excellent page at Clues Forum here:


Clues Forum have archived the clip from Frasier which mentions Flight 11. This is absolute dynamite as far as I am concerned. Here it is:

There is no chance that this is a co-incidence. Co-incidences don't smell like this. Genuine co-incidences have their own unique peculiar fingerprint, and this is not one of those. This is a complete set-up, a blatant calling-card left in the filing cabinet by David Angell. Forgetaboutit. This phone message, repeated twice, do you notice, is completely unnecessary to the plot. For the script to specify American Airlines flight 11, and then for Angell to meet his demise in that very flight, is out of the realm of co-incidence.

Indeed, let's really work this point. Angell and his wife had a lifelong relationship with Cape Cod, and Massachusetts. They would commute back and forward between LA and Boston. Obviously, David Angell knew all about the institution of flight 11, the morning flight from Boston back to LA.

So when the scriptwriters of Frasier had American Airlines flight 11 coming into Seattle, where Frasier is set, David Angell knew full well that there was a double meaning here, and there's that word again.

So what was David Angell doing putting the AA flight 11 into Frasier?

The answer is provided by another incredible clip created and archived by Clues Forum..

Ahuh, so, bit of an obsession here apparently. As Clues Forum astutely observe:

"My number is 11"
~ Aleister Crowley,*The Book of Law

"Frasier*actor Kelsey Grammer has purchased a $6.5 million four-bedroom apartment for his new mistress, without the knowledge of his soon-to-be-ex-wife Camille, the New York Post reported. The new apartment is at 100 11th Avenue."
So co-incidence piles on co-incidence. David Angell, celebrated scriptwriter, dies in American Airlines flight 11, and has the flight inserted into an episode of Frasier four years earlier. He is sitting, with his wife, next to Mohammad Atta, in business class. And right behind, in 9B, is Daniel Lewin, wearing his titanium swatch, which only he knows is actually the “Hijacker” model.

So there's a whole bunch of co-incidences all sitting there next to each other up the front of flight 11.

you know what, I'm going to come out and say it: I think David Angell wrote this script that has the back-and-forth between flights 11 and 12. I think it's a tall story.

Now here's a funny thing. Look at this quote, from a friend of David's, made at a memorial service, September 16, 2001. He tells an anecdote, about David the scriptwriter coming in to pitch his ideas. And then these two sentences appear:


Which gave me lots of time to notice that the page he was reading from was atop an alarmingly tall pile of identical pages.

I think he came in with 11 or 12 stories.

His First Meeting
Written by Les Charles
(From the October 2001 issue of "Written By")

This is a transcript of remarks made on September 16, 2001, at a memorial service in Los Angeles for David and Lynn Angell. Thanks to Sally Reeder for contributing personal photos of the Angells.
I think he came in with 11 or 12 stories.

Tall stories, that would be.

Yes, I think David Angell came in with the 11 or 12 stories too. I'm not sure that's what Les Charles meant, but he said it. Just another one of those co-incidences I guess...

Last edited by loopDloop; 18 Feb 2013 at 11:50 AM.
loopDloop is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to loopDloop For This Useful Post:
Old 26 Jul 2012 , 12:06 PM   #8
Join Date: 3 Nov 2011
Posts: 1,104
Threads: 20
Blog Entries: 1
Thanked 6,067 Times in 1,042 Posts
loopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls

Ok, well, that's the introduction out of the way. I'm not necessarily claiming to be breaking new ground here. What I want to do is tell the flight 11 story in such relentless detail as to leave no possibility of doubt.

Ah, I try to stay rational, with jokes, but there's a burning white-hot anger here too. Flight 11 is pivotal. The entire plot telescopes down to Flight 11. It had to work. It opened the show. In many respects, it didn't matter if things went pear-shaped after that. As long as flight 11 stuck to the script, it would play out.

Flight 175 is really the flipside of flight 11. Both take off from Boston Logan. They actually cross paths in time and space, which is an interesting moment. The other two flights are almost besides the point. American Airlines were so preoccupied with flight 11 that they barely registered flight 77. And flight 93 was off on it's own trip.

So in many ways, it all came down to flight 11, just as in terms of the towers, it was, in a strange way, all about the north tower. The south tower is in the middle of some kind of vacuum, or vortex, or something, because no one at all is in it, or leaves it, or goes into it. It's kind of like it doesn't even exist.

So everything telescopes down to flight 11. And it is locked down tight. This is a military operation, let's not fuck around shall we. Nothing is as it seems. It's theatre, in both senses of the word: it's military theatre of operations, and it's the theatre of dreams, the theatre of make-believe.

And it's a pea and thimble game. You have to be paying attention, and watching carefully, and alert at the transitions.

So we've cracked the lid off it. The Claircom box. The flight 12 recording spliced into the transcript after the first 24 hours. The stabbing at gate 32. The constructed confusion over the flight 12/flight 11 references. We know it's a nest of lies. David Angell, and Daniel Lewin. David Angell with his flight 11 references woven into Frasier and Daniel Lewin with his Hijacker swatch watch fuck you both if you're still alive.

Like I say there's a white hot anger here which burns in my breast, and has done since the first week of 9/11, and the more I learn, the more I discover, the fiercer my anger grows.

Culto's work. The Connections documentary. October 17 1978. Do you remember where you were then? The empty towers. The "flight 911". The blackout on 9/11, if you write the date as the English do.

Fuck them. Fuck them. Fuck them.

OK, I think we're ready for the next instalment. Let's shine the spotlight on: Vanessa Minter.

Last edited by loopDloop; 18 Feb 2013 at 11:53 AM.
loopDloop is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to loopDloop For This Useful Post:
Old 26 Jul 2012 , 12:43 PM   #9
Join Date: 3 Nov 2011
Posts: 1,104
Threads: 20
Blog Entries: 1
Thanked 6,067 Times in 1,042 Posts
loopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls

I want now to focus on the Betty Ong phone call.

There are so many people involved in both phone calls that we really need a white board to keep track. So let's just start out here by laying out who was involved in the call.

Betty Ong called, supposedly, the general reservations number for American Airlines. Her call was then randomly assigned to one of six call centres, and it went through to Raleigh, North Carolina.

It was answered by Vanessa Minter.

As we've seen, Vanessa panicked when she could not find the emergency button (the big red button on the front of the phone), so she called Winston Sadler, in International Department, and asked him to help out. Winston was patched into the call, and hit the emergency button.

This alerted Nydia Gonzalez, who was then able to listen in to the call. After about 2 minutes, Nydia then placed a call through to American Airlines Operations Center in Fort Worth Dallas, where she was connected to manager on duty Craig Marquis. Gonzalez stayed on the phone with Ong on one line, and with Marquis on the other, until the call was disconnected, which was about 40 seconds or so before so-called "impact"of flight 11 into WTC1 at 8:46am.

One other person listens in on the phone call, without saying anything. His name is Ray Scott, and he is the general manager of operations at Raleigh.

There's nothing particularly suspicious about these various handovers, as such.

Huh! As if that would be true. Just kidding round, there is something utterly suspicious about these handovers, as you would by now expect.

To find out what it is, you have to subject yourself to listening to a 15 minute interview with Vanessa Minter. Now. I don't want to be rude. {snip: bit harsh}

Anyway, it's madness to even try to parse what Vanessa Minter says because she is one of those people who just makes shit up as they go along.

For example, for Vanessa, Betty Ong's call came in at "approximately 7:59am".

Ok, well, excuse me, but come on. If it's 7:59am, it's not approximate, and it if it's appromixate, it's 8am. So this is just crazy talk, but that's her claim: Betty Ong phoned in at 7:59am.

Now, if you want, you can pick this up and run with it as some kind of evidence of some kind of cover-up, but it's not evidence of anything except Vanessa Minter's grasp on reality that morning. Seriously. It was 8:18am forgetaboutit, when Ong phoned in, from wherever, or whatever, but it wasn't 7:59am, so well done Vanessa, great contribution there to the faithful recording of world history.

Oh there's more. Do we have to catalogue it? Vanessa was on the phone to Betty, but, get this, she didn't find out what happened to the flight till 4pm that day. Say what? She must have been the last person in Christendom to hear what happened. Did they put her in a pit? Seriously wtf?

Anyway, where was I: oh yes. She does offer one fascinating snippet. Vanessa Minter says that the FBI arrived, on the scene, in person, at the Rayleigh facility, within five minutes of the Betty Ong call being received!

With all due allowance for Vanessa Mintnter's bizarre recollections, this one sticks. The FBI were on the doorstep. Straight away. Huh.

Well how did that happen?

How did the FBI come to be at the Raleigh Reservations center of American Airlines within five minutes of the Betty Ong call being recieved?

Vanessa Minter doesn't know. Don't ask her.

How? How did they get there so fast? It wasn't even really clear in the first five minutes that it was a hijacking.

I have a suggestion.

The whole thing is a faked, scripted, bullshit exercise, like the rest of the 20th century, and the 21st the way it seems to be panning out.

FBI turning up within 5 minutes. And what did they do? They pulled Vanessa Minter off the line, and put Ray Scott, manager, on instead. His role was to listen. And he did. Didn't say a word.

Didn't say a word. Not a word. Just listened.

Here's the link to the Vanessa Minter interview:


Vanessa and her husband worked for the US military in Japan. She had undergone anti-terrorist training or some such. But I highly doubt she was selected for this special role. I think it was just Vanessa's lucky/unlucky day.

But whether she was picked or not to play this role, she has provided a valuable clue. The FBI were on site within 5 minutes.

Like the Angell flight 11 video, like the Connections documentary: that's foreknowledge.

So Vanessa Minter was pulled off the call after five minutes by the FBI, according to her own recollections of the day. What else does she say in the interview? Oh yes, a great quote about being laid off by American Airlines, and how if they had wanted to control what she said they should have kept her on payroll.

Yeah, that's great Vanessa. I don't think they were too concerned for some reason.

Elizabeth Williams they kept on payroll. Vanessa Minter, they let go.

Last edited by loopDloop; 18 Feb 2013 at 12:10 PM. Reason: was a bit harsh...
loopDloop is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to loopDloop For This Useful Post:
Old 2 Aug 2012 , 03:21 AM   #10
Join Date: 3 Nov 2011
Posts: 1,104
Threads: 20
Blog Entries: 1
Thanked 6,067 Times in 1,042 Posts
loopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond reputeloopDloop has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls

This thing about Vanessa Minter bugs me. It might seem like she is playing a minor bit-part in the drama of the day, but there is a moment in space and time when Vanessa Minter IS 9/11.

When she answers that call from Betty Ong, it is the very first notice that the rest of the world has received that something is happening, and that the 9/11 event has begun.

Very shortly, there will be a huge number of people responding to the unfolding events, but in those initial moments, there is only one. Fate is a funny thing. For that first minute or two, Vanessa Minter is the window between the 9/11 operation and the rest of reality. During those short moments, she is, in a sense, the representative of all of us. She took the call on behalf of humanity.

It might seem like I am making too much of this point, and perhaps I am, but I confess to being fascinated by these sideplots, these seemingly insignificant details, in the unfolding drama of the day. Was it Confucius, or Chairman Mao, who said, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step? Well, the journey of 9/11 began with a single phone call, and just like the entire thousand miles is encapsulated in that first step, so the entire operation of 9/11 is contained like a seed in the exchange between Ong and Minter.

What I'm trying to get at is this: Vanessa Minter was a metaphor that day for America, for the world. We took the call as she took the call. How she responded is a litmus test of how we responded. Her response IS our response. On 9/11, we are all Vanessa Minter.

So, how did we respond?

You know how we responded, and how we are still responding. We didn't get it then, and we aren't getting it now. We had no clue what was happening. And we still don't. We didn't see it coming, and when it did, we had no idea what to do, and we couldn't even find the big red flashing emergency button right in front of our eyes.

As Vanessa Minter goes, so we all go.

So let's now go through in way-too-much-detail the circumstances of the Ong-Minter portion of the call. It only lasts for a very short time, but it is long enough to catch the reflection of the group mind. Here we go then:

There's the “approximately 7:59” quote. Elsewhere in these interviews, the FBI actually comment that they tried to explain to her that this time was way off, but she insisted on it. Can't put my finger on the quote right now, but they just shrugged. Ong's call came in at 7:59am, approximately, according to Minter.

Seriously, who does this? Misremembers a key time from a crucial event, so drastically, when surrounded by clocks and timepieces and other people? We do, it seems. Is this not remarkable, that the very time of this first contact between the operation and the outside world should have such drastic confusion attached to it?

Ong's first words apparently, here we go, the very first words of the very first communication: “I think we're being hijacked”. Consider the circumstances of the story as we are asked to believe it. The “hijacking” commenced four minutes earlier. Two people have been stabbed, and another has had his throat cut. Mace has been released into the cabin. The cockpit has been stormed, and the controls taken over.

Ong makes her call, gets through, and what does she say: “I think we're being hijacked”.

She “thinks”? She's not sure? She's still trying to figure it out?

This is a very strange thing to say. You don't say in english, “I think we're being hijacked”. You say: “we are being hijacked”.

OK, well, perhaps it's a figure of speech, or Minter hasn't quite remembered it right. But, no, here it is at the very beginning of the recorded section, in the transcript from the second day: “I don't know, I think we're being hijacked”.

This line in the transcript is very curious. It's the line that does not appear in the transcript from the first day. Like the line about “flight 12”, it has been spliced into the audio tape and transcript as it appeared on 9/11/01.

So let's break this down: either Ong said twice “I think we're being hijacked”, the first time to Minter before the emergency button was pushed, and then again after the emergency button was pushed, OR: she said it once at the beginning to Minter, when the call was supposedly not being recorded, but it actually was being recorded, and this part of the tape was spliced into the alleged four-minutes of recording before the 9/12/01 transcript.

So she said it twice, or she said it once, and they're lying about the four minutes.

Once, or twice, consider again those words: “I think we're being hijacked”. Why does she say “think”? I have a suggestion. Betty Ong was real, and she was, like all of us, a fundamentally good person, a decent human being. She is honest, and she is not used to lying. She doesn't like to lie. She's been brought up to believe in telling the truth.

On the morning of 9/11/01, Betty Ong has been persuaded to play a part in a military drill simulating a hijacking. It's acting, which is different from lying. But, still. A part of Betty's mind is uncomfortable, at some level, with lying. So it's not easy for her to simply come out and say “we are being hijacked”. It's a bald-faced lie and a bit brutal.

Betty is working from a script, or a prompter, but she\s been encouraged to put the lines into her own words. So that's why “we're being hijacked” comes out as “I think we're being hijacked”. It's a pyschological escape clause.

Nobody would say, in a real hijacking, with throats cut and mace and screaming and pilots being overpowered, “I think we're being hijacked”. Just wouldn't happen.

Betty Ong's very first words, “I think we're being hijacked” tell the whole story. It's a cry for help alright. She's telling us that it's make-believe.

The button, the button, she couldn't find the button. Have you pushed the button? No, I couldn't find the button.

This is insane. Think about it. Cubicle. PC. Telephone. That's it. It's not the deck of the USS Enterprise. It's not the warp drive controls you're looking for. It's a big, red, illuminated button on the bottom right of the phone. There. Right there. What do you mean you can't see it?

Remember, as Vanessa goes, so we go. We couldn't find the emergency button. We were taken completely by surprise. Oh, sure, we've all done the training, yada yada yada, but we weren't really paying too close attention were we. So when the real thing happened, we panicked. We literally metaphorically anyway-you-like were unable to see the big red flashing button right in front of our noses. We panicked, and we didn't know what to do.

So we let Bush and Cheney and the criminal psychopaths invade Afghanistan, then Iraq, and unleash insane surveillance in the USA, and then around the world, and mostly we cheered them on as they did it. We couldn't find the emergency button.

In another alternative timeline of human history, Vanessa Minter could have stopped the entire operation in its tracks, right there. She could have replied “you think you're being hijacked? That sounds bogus. Who are you? What is going on? Do you understand that false reporting of an incident like this is an extremely serious criminal matter. Please immediately clarify yourself ma'am”. And Betty Ong might have replied “oh crap, you know what, I can't do this. Listen, they're forcing me to do this, it's a military drill, quick, let the world know there's a false flag operation under way”.

Well, probably that's too much to ask or expect, but locating the big red flashing button, that should have been a given. Just like it should have been a given that the people of the USA, and the world, should have realised immediately that there was a massive problem in the narrative, and refused to go along with it. But we didn't. We went along with it. Oh yes, I know you twigged at a certain point, and we went to the anti-war marches for a while, or whatever, but mostly, it's been iphones and flatscreen tvs since 9/11 and that's whats really got us excited.

Ong was relaying information. Couldn't see what was going on.

Kept repeating herself

Ok, now let's look at the movements of Ray Scott. First according to Nydia Gonzalez:

Compare to how Minter tells it:

Now Scott in his own words

It is not stated anywhere in these documents, but Vanessa Minter spilled the beans in her online interview (link above): the FBI were on site within 5 minutes of the Ong call coming in, and they were the reason that she was pulled off the call and Ray Scott put in her place. I have no idea what is going on here. Of course, how did the FBI get there so fast? But also: why was it so critical to take Vanessa off the call, and have Ray Scott listen in on her line? And what's with all the business about the headphones? Didn't Ray Scott have his own phone? Why did he need to listen in? What was his role in all of this? This whole passing of the line back and forwards between Minter and Scott, because of the FBI, makes no sense. Unless they were monitoring the whole thing from the beginning, and realised that Minter was making a hash of the whole thing and had to be whisked out of the frontline as quick as possible.

Another curiousity: Minter didn't find out what happened to flight 11 until 4pm:

But again: this is a metaphor. We, the people, didn't realise what had happened, until later. We saw, but we didn't see. We knew, but we didn't knew. Vanessa Minter actually took the call from the flight attendant on the hijacked aircraft, and yet, did not know what happened until that aircraft until 4pm. That's self absorption right there. To be so wrapped up in your experience of the event that you actually have no conscious clue what actually happened. Except your own fuzzy inner world of half-baked emotions. All choked up. Couldn't find the button. And had no idea what happened until 4pm. That's Vanessa Minter. That's you and me, if you can handle it.

Last edited by loopDloop; 18 Feb 2013 at 12:11 PM.
loopDloop is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to loopDloop For This Useful Post:

Let's Roll Forums > The U.S. Government Conspiracy of 9/11 > The Mystery of Flights 11, 77, 175 & 93

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Ad Management by RedTyger