Did a Phantom Plane Hit the 2nd Tower?
Talk at 911 Vancouver Hearings by NK
1. Witness Testimony
‘Of course it was a real plane!’ a New York fireman said to me – he had been on the other side of the Hudson river on the morning of 911, working as a fireman, and saw the plane flying in towards the 2nd Tower at 9.02 am. He also heard it, with the sound lagging somewhat behind the visible plane, and reckoned that about three hundred other people there had also seen it.1
But, judging by written witness-testimonies of those who saw the plane – or whatever it was – that morning2, not many believed it was a Boeing passenger jet. For example, here is how fireman Mr Faisel Abed described his experience, the very next day:
We are about a half mile out, halfway from the World Trade Center and we see this shiny object coming and me and my partner are going, what the hell, what’s wrong with that plane? What is wrong with that plane? There is something not right with that plane! And he just — the tower blew.
Here is another fireman testimony by Mr A. Bartolemey, unusual in that it describes both plane impacts:
Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building.
Then as we were starting to treat some more patients , we heard rumbling. We thought maybe it was debris falling from the tower. You look up and you see the flame of the plane hitting the second building. When you see the footage on TV, you see it fly in one side and the fireball shot out through the other side. We actually saw the fireball shot out from the north side of that building.
He hears various different accounts of what impacted the first Tower, then sees ‘the flame of the plane’ hitting WTC-2, and a plume shoot out from its other side (which many would view as having been physically impossible.) Generally speaking ‘first-responder’ accounts diverge widely as regards what they saw going into the 2nd Tower, as an analysis by Andrew Johnson of five hundred ‘first-responder’ accounts concluded.3
2. The Impossible speed
No passenger plane could have flown at that speed, at that low altitude.
This fact conclusively demonstrates, that whatever impacted the Tower was no Boeing passenger plane! Because this has astonishing implications, let us here set it out in a Table, where a conversion factor of 1.15 turns knots into miles per hour:
Ground speed of ‘Boeing 757’ WTC-2 Knots m.p.h
Actual estimated speed 510 knots 580 mph
Maximum possible operating speed: 350-370 400-430
Optimal speed for guidance: 240-260 280-300
The estimate of 510 knots first appeared in the 2002 National Transport Safety Board4 study, then years later Pilots for 911 Truth reaffirmed it5 with the additional information that Boeing sets its maximum passenger plane speed for a 757 at 360 knots at sea-level or low-altitude. But, more relevant is the speed at which such a passenger plane can be steered: no pilot could have hit the WTC Tower at that maximum speed – as various people have ascertained using the flight simulators for Boeing planes now available: it just cannot be guided at that high velocity. An ‘intelligent terrorist’ would want to drive it at around 250 knots in order to have a hope of hitting WTC the target.6 A Boeing can indeed fly at over five hundred knots, but only high up above thirty thousand feet altitude, because the atmosphere there is only one-third its density at sea-level. Planes climb to that height in order to achieve such cruising speeds.
This data demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that no Boeing passenger plane impacted the 2nd Tower that morning! If it wasn’t a real plane, what was it?
3. A ‘No-planes theory’?
A new British theory has been developed by Richard Hall (RH) concerning what it was that flew into the 2nd tower that morning,7 which builds upon the research by Morgan Reynolds. May I say that over all the years when the London 911 truth group was functioning, I didn’t notice anyone espousing what would be scornfully alluded to as the ‘no-planes’ theory. One could see that the impact-images were not right, but no-one wanted to go to so dire a conclusion. But, we’ll see how whatever impacted the Tower that morning seems to have left a radar track, i.e. it wasn’t ‘just a hologram’ or whatever.
Richard Hall has been concerned to refute the ‘video fakery’ argument of ‘September Clues’ whereby the appearance of a Boeing aeroplane was explained by inserting such images into news-footage film, as if there had been no eyewitnesses. Real film was taken and people really saw it.
If perchance we should want to use the term ‘no planes’ theory, then we need to be clear that it means, no credible plane wreckage appears at any of the four sites. None of the four alleged Boeing passenger planes went anywhere near the four ‘crash sites’ on that morning. That was the illusion! Real planes did take off that morning with real passengers on board, however they were not hijacked.
4. Which planes flew?
We backtrack now to review some primary databases, primarily those of the FAA (Federal Aviation Authority), the BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics), and the SSDI (Social Security Death Index) – the latter for who really died. These are all civilian and permit me to suggest that the military intelligence that organized and perpetrated 911 could not readily invade or corrupt these civilian sources. If we are wondering why no credible wreckage of planes was found at any of the four sites, then one answer to that would be, that whoever organized the Greatest Conjuring Trick of All Time could manipulate the military and top-level civilian authorities, but there would be a whole lot of medium and low-level civilians who could not easily be manipulated or corrupted. If you ask, “Why would they not have just flown two passenger planes into the Towers?”, then one answer is, there would have been a whole lot of bureaucratic complications resulting, that the military intel – Israeli and US – would not have wanted to have to deal with.
Of the four planes which were allegedly hijacked and crashed that morning, two were United Airlines and two were American Airlines. The plane United Airlines flight 175 took off from Boston Logan airport probably at 8.23am, carrying passengers who believed they were bound for Los Angeles. An earlier Boston to LA flight had been cancelled that morning: the American Airlines flight 11. This was a regular-as-clockwork daily flight, so people would have just turned up for it that morning expecting to leave at 8 am, and instead have presumably got onto the UA Flight 175 which left shortly after.8
Entering into the BTS database, one saw that the last-ever scheduled departure of AA Flight 11 was on September 10th. Passengers could book up for a flight on the 10th. It was not scheduled to depart the next day, and then for the week following it was scheduled but cancelled – grounded, like other passenger planes, in the aftermath. What then started flying again, as the morning flight from Boston to LA, had a different code (which needn’t concern us). Likewise Flight AA77, a Boeing 757 from Washington to LA, made its last-ever flight on the day before 911.
Because American Airline flights 11 and 77 had always been daily and regular as clockwork, did people turn up that morning just expecting them to fly?9 United Airlines’ Flight 175 left from the same airport, at the same time, for the same destination, as that of the suddenly-cancelled Flight 11, and we may therefore accept ‘Holmgren’s hypothesis’ that passengers expecting to board Flight 11 were simply re-scheduled into Flight 175. Planes must be cancelled seven days in advance for the flight not to be recorded by the BTS (Bureau of Transportation Stats).</span
There was no problem explaining what happened to these two American Airline planes or their passengers, Holmgren explained, because they never flew. Only with the two United Airlines planes, i.e. those which are alleged to have flown into the Second WTC Tower and crashed in Pennsylvania, do we have a problem of real passengers having been on board. Here is a Table summarizing the identities of these two planes which did really take off:
|Boeing 767||UA175||N612UA||Boston||LA||Hit WTC2|
|Boeing 757||UA93||N591UA||NY||SF||Crashed in Pennsylvania|
Thus the plane uniquely identified as N612UA its ‘tail number’ did take off that morning, but did not crash. Four different kinds of plane identity are here shown: the design of Boeing aeroplane, then its flight code, then the permanent ID number painted under its wings, and lastly its specific flight on a given day – passengers would only know the last of these.
The first person to have understood the significance of the two American Airlines planes having been cancelled for that morning was the late Gerard Holmgren. One used to be able to go to this official government database to check this out. Then in October 2004 the BTS finally fiddled their own database, making it state that the AA Flight 11 had flown on that morning of the 11th – however, there exist copies of its earlier, untampered – with database.
(While on the subject of the BTS database, permit me to mention a discovery made by one of the UK 911 truth group Simon Aronowitz in 2004, concerning the ‘maiden flight’ of what was called UA flight 93: he found that the BTS had recorded its flights for only a few days and this was its first-ever Tuesday flight: the first United flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco on a Tuesday was on the day of 9/11. This was not a regularly scheduled flight, but had been newly-inserted into the system. The Mayor of San Francisco turned up at the Airport shortly before noon to share the grief of the bereaved families after the crash of flight 93 was announced, a US tradition with plane crashes: after a couple of hours he went home, because nobody showed up.10)
The SSDI database – which has nothing comparable in the UK – is a registry of all US Social Security numbers belonging to deceased persons. It is slow and can take years for the deceased’s unique number to come through onto this database. Focussing on UA Flight 175, its captain Victor Saracini is registered as having died on that day with an Endowed Flight Scholarship established by his wife, Ellen, in memory of him. But in general very few of the flight crews given for the four planes showed up on the SSDI in the years after 911. Flight AA11 which supposedly crashed into the North tower, had a flight crew of eleven according to published lists, including pilot John Ogonowski and flight attendants Betty Ong and Madeleine Sweeney. The SSDI list cites only one of these eleven persons as having died on that day, whereas of the given passenger list of 76, 11 registered as being dead.
For UA Flight 93, of its seven listed crew members not one showed up on the SSDI even years after the event.11 That means none of the crew members died – e.g., Jason Matthew Dahl registered on the FAA database as pilot of Flight 93, appears to be still alive. Sixteen of the alleged passengers turned up via last-minute changes in schedule, and not one of these showed up on the SSDI. Of the remaining 24 listed passengers, ten did come up onto the SSDI list, and with one exception I found that their average age was 65.12 So in general rather few deaths appear from plane passengers.
There is very little crossover of the passenger SSDI counts allegedly from the four planes and those families who came forward to claim from the Government’s 911 Compensation Fund!13 If a family did not come forward to claim the huge compensation offered – on the sole condition that they shut up, they do not talk about what happened to anyone – then we surely ought to assume that they were not a real family.
We are I suggest not obliged to answer the anguished question ‘What happened to the passengers?’ But, there is a useful comparison here to Operation Northwoods, masterminded in 1962 by General Lemnitzer. That envisaged something comparable, a plane shootdown with real passengers on a civilian plane having to be disposed of. The civilian airliner would have to be converted into a remote-controlled drone and be shot down over Cuba. This fiendish plot had civilian passengers given new identities – not killed, then casualty figures placed in US newspapers would ‘cause a wave of national indignation.’ For Operation Northwoods, disposing of a planeload of civilian passengers was evidently no problem.
5. Summary: the Fourfold Pattern
The FAA database records airworthy planes, i.e. those in flight service. It was recording one labelled N612UA as being still airworthy four years later – and that had been UA Flight 175; as likewise it recorded N591UA as still airworthy, and that was UA Flight 93. We find the latter plane again flying according the UA employee Mr Friedman, who innocuously recorded how he flew on it on 10th April, 2003.
Let us therefore be crystal-clear, that two American Airline planes which allegedly flew into the Pentagon and WTC-1, did not do so because they did not fly that morning; while the two United Airline planes, one which allegedly flew into WTC-2 and the other crashed in Pennsylvania, did not do so because they were both registered as still airworthy after the event.
That is a no-hijacker scenario, or a no-plane crash scenario, and many allude to it as the ‘no-planes’ theory. If you want to use the latter term, be aware that it has very negative connotations, which you may not readily be able to control.
The acceptance of this fourfold framework is the essential basis for evaluating the fabric of deception perpetrated upon the world that morning.
6. Richard Hall’s Theory
It is unknown, for many of the videos, who exactly took them and where they were taken from – as if there was pressure upon those who took the videos to shut up. Famously, Mr Michael Hezarkhani took the video of the plane merging like butter into the 2nd Tower,14 which CNN took off him to use on its News, and he would not say anything more about it to anyone.15 Another with a close-up film of the impact was paid quite a lot by CNN to hand over his film and keep quiet. Simon Shack (‘September Clues’) argued that CNN did so in order to insert ‘planes’ into the photograph, but RH believes they rather wanted to check how their optical illusion appeared at the ‘impact’ point.
They had to fly their phantom plane at too fast a speed, he argues, because the illusion would not work if done more slowly. He also noted that, of all the video clips of this impact from the ground, none were filmed by professional news media team, as if the latter were somehow restrained: their higher-resolution cameras might have seen it as a phantom.
Have a look at the video of the so-called ‘ball’16 approaching the second Tower – two years ago, RH proposed that this object had ‘really’ hit the tower but approaching from a different angle from what he saw as the faked plane-images: it then took him two years of hard work to realize that in fact this path was the very same as that of the ‘plane’ videos, i.e. it was the same object! His conclusion then became inescapable: the ‘plane’ was some kind of apparition, maybe a hologram, which only really ‘worked’ seen from below against a clear blue sky – when seen from above as in this video (probably taken from a helicopter) with a hazy view of New York in the background, it just looked like a sphere. Yet, some felt there were some hints of wings on it, or trying to be on it – as you might conjecture of whatever went earlier into the First Tower.
There are various other arguments here, which you have probably heard before: the absence of credible plane wreckage falling down, the impossible appearance of the cutout images in the WTC walls, the impossible way huge explosions blow out from the North side of the WTC-2 opposite the impact as if the plane had gone right through, the strangely phantom appearance of the plane just before impact, as its port (left-hand-side) wing fades away.17 Mr Denis Cimino explained to me that, as an experienced plane pilot, the ‘dead giveaway’ for him was the way the apparition coming up to the towers flipped its wings more than ninety degrees in half a second – which, he explained, would cause the wings to break off. We are here dealing with exotic technology but at least we now have some idea what it is we are looking for.
We are here concurring with the position outlined by Jim Fetzer:18
… the possible use of sophisticated holograms to project the image of a plane that is in fact not there. We have support for this possibility from John Lear, one of our nation’s most distinguished pilots, who has not only given affidavits about the impossible speed of the plane in the videos we are discussing but has observed that the absence of strobe lights on the top and bottom of the fuselage indicates we are viewing a fake plane.19 I like this hypothesis, because it accounts for the impossible speed, the fake entry into the building, and reports from witnesses who claim to have seen the plane, such as Scott Forbes, whom I interviewed on 10 September 2010, and Steven Brown, on 27 August 2010, on “The Real Deal”, radiofetzer.blogspot.com…. Scott, who worked in the South Tower, told me he saw the building “swallow the plane”, while Steven had recently taken a course on holography at Cambridge and supported its technical feasibility.
This is indeed a strange concept. . Our analysis of what planes flew where has basically derived from insights of the late Gerard Holmgren. That seems compatible with the important new theory of Richard Hall, concerning what flew into the 2nd Tower. The videos were real and the plane was fake, – not a fake video of a real plane as some have alleged, he concluded.
Appendix: Two Radar Paths?
Did two different sources of radar data record the incoming path of what was allegedly the Boeing 175, that impacted into WTC-2, one civilian and the other military? Did they diverge, apparently making two separate paths about 1400 feet apart? If so, the civilian radar trace went into the Tower, the other missed it.
We earlier alluded to a Radar Data Impact Speed Study by Daniel Bower for the National Transport Safety Board which mapped the flight path of the Boeing 175 (taken from ‘EWR ASR Radar returns’). RH ascertained that the flight paths as caught on many videos matched this path. While possibly not an ‘official’ NTSB report, it is one person’s interpretation of it. Regrettably, Mr Daniel Bower is no longer alive, to answer the vital questions…
The Military radar data ‘RADES System 3 US Military Radar Software’ should have generated more accurate data: given in GPS co-ordinates plus altitude values in feet, it used web-available USAF data,20 with one position given per 12 seconds. Why did this path miss the 2nd Tower? Likewise for flight 11 into the North Tower, the given military radar flight-path missed the Tower! Bloggers wondered whether this could be a mere systematic error due to the radar dish being sixty miles away? Or, could this somehow be one of the ‘terror drills’ on that perilous day?
Of the dozens of video-records of whatever flew into WTC-2 that morning, RH found that ‘There are between fifty and sixty publicly-known videos recording the event which caused the damage to the South Tower’. In a 3-D reconstruction, he showed they were all concordant with the civilian radar flight-path by Mr Daniel Bower.
Chronology of a Phantom Flight21
8:23 AM – United 175 takes off from Boston Airport (Bureau of Transportation Statistics)
9:03 AM – United 175 allegedly crashes into World Trade Center 2
9:23 AM – ACARS message (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) says United 175 still flying over western Pennsylvania (Pilots for 9/11 Truth)
10:45 AM – Mystery plane ‘Delta 89’ arrives in Cleveland Airport. (Local Cleveland Media)
11:53 AM – United Airlines avers that Flight 175, from Boston to Los Angeles, has crashed with 56 passengers and nine crew members aboard.
Notes and References
1. Testimony given to me by Dave Murphy, formerly a New York volunteer fireman, in conversation June 1212.
2. Taken from data published as oral histories by over 500 Emergency Service “First Responders” to 9/11, as posted on the New York Times Website.
3. Andrew Johnson, ‘Going in search of planes in NYC’ based on the above ‘oral histories’.
4. NTSB Radar Data Impact Speed Study 2002 by Daniel R. Bower.
5. Pilots for 911 truth: 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed, 2011. For more detailed evaluation, see: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18314
6. This was explained to me by pilot Dennis Cimino.
7. New 911 analysis by Richard Hall.
8. Dean Hartwell’s account would seem currently the most likely: ‘The 157 passengers for American 11 and United 175 get on United 175 in Boston and take off from there en route to Cleveland…the real United 175 was given a new identity as Flight 89 and under the false pretense of a bomb threat, it performed an emergency landing at Cleveland.’ Planes without Passengers, the Faked Hijackings of 9/11, 2011, p.97.
9. There is a major problem with this view, whereby ‘real people’ turned up for a flight, in the lack of real deaths or of families claiming the compensation offered – see below.
10. Likewise for the three planes bound for the Los Angeles airport, only two ‘grieving relatives’ seem to have turned up, with the entire airport closed down that morning, presumably to prevent anyone noticing that no such relatives had turned up: ‘September Clues Epilogue.’ Air-crash protocols here are quite strict: ‘Each air carrier is responsible for getting a clergyman or woman and counselors and make preparations to bring the grieving relatives into a secure area and then console them and brief them about the loss they just incurred.’ (Dennis Cimino, Vancouver hearings)
11. These flight crew numbers – 11 for flight AA11 and 9 for flight UA 93, are far too large and suggest some funny business was going on: Let’s Roll forum, Clive, ‘Ideas about the passengers:’ normally one flight attendant is provided per 50 passengers.
12. Of the 45 listed as dead from flight UA93 that morning, ‘none of the families came forwards for the 9/11 Compensation Fund list: not one.’ (Sammartino) This investigator found that, of the passengers and crew of flights 11,77,175 and 93, only 22%, 22%, 28% and 13% respectively were in the SSDI.
13. Let’s Roll forum, ‘Victims listed in SSDI’ ‘Victim’s compensation fund victims’: passengers 6%, crew 3%, with only 4 out of 212 passengers (1.9%) listed in both SSDI and Victim Compensation fund.
14. Hetzarkhani Fake flight video on 911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stdfd6hLGWA
15. There are two phone calls to Hetzarkhani on this topic by Jeff Hills, fortunately archived by Andrew Johnson.
16. Shown in September Clues, 11 minutes into the video, as from NBC archives.
17. Flight 175 hitting the 2nd tower’ This the Evan Fairbanks video.
18. Jim Fetzer, ‘Was video fakery employed on 911?’ Above Top Secret.
19. Mr Lear also testified: (in 2008) ‘The spars of the wing, which extend outward, could not possibly have penetrated the 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns placed 39 inches on center and would have crashed to the ground.’
20. Concerning the RADAS Radar Data: “In October 2007 the cause f 911 truth received a major boost when the US Air Force released its radar data from September 11, 2001. This was in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by an independent 9/11 investigator named John Farmer…. The radar data covered all four flights..A cover letter explains that all of this material was compiled on September 13, 2001 by the US Air Force’s 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron (RADES)…at the request of the FBI. John Farmer has since made this data available to other 9/11 investigators. The RADES data as it has come to be known, in comprised of surveillance data from long-range radar facilities operated by NORAD and the FAA…a 9/11 researcher named Marco Bollettino created a helpful animation from the RADES radar data, which is readily obtainable on the Internet.” Mark Gaffney, The 9/11 Mystery Plane, 2008, p.80 John Farmer appeared on the Randi forum re RH’s theory, explaining how he obtained the RADES data from the USAF.
21. Taken from Dean Hartwell’s Planes Without Passengers, 2011.
This paper was given at the Vancouver 911 Hearings. Extra comments are added from discussions with conference participants, chiefly Dean Hartwell & Dennis Cimino. It’s somewhat based on my earlier article Nine keys to 911, which Jim Fetzer originally gave as the title of the talk; maybe see also my web-post What hit the 2nd Tower? composed just before this event.