Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject: NK - A Dialogue With Gerard Holmgren
|A DIALOGUE WITH GERARD HOLMGREN
by Nick Kollerstrom
The Holmgren Thesis:
The official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77 flew on Sept. 11, 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did not exist. This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for the Pentagon and North WTC tower incidents.
This still leaves unanswered the question of what happened to the passengers alleged to be aboard the non-existent flights. In the case of AA 77, while one can always speculate about the most plausible scenarios, I prefer to wait until some real evidence emerges. However in the case of AA 11, I think it is worth noting that UA 175 left from the same airport, at the same time for the same destination as that normally applicable to AA 11. Therefore, although there is no direct evidence to support the claim, it would seem reasonable to speculate at this stage that any passengers who were regular fliers on AA 11, and asked to booked on it that day, went to the airport, expecting to get on AA 11, as per the normal routine. They were then told that there was a last minute problem with the flight which could not be fixed within a reasonable period of time, and were offered a flight on UA 175 as compensation.
http://members.surfeu.fi/11syyskuu/holmgren.htm, plus his (recommended) 911 guide is at: http://thewebfairy.com/911closeup
VERIFICATION TEST FOR HOLMGREN THEORY
Concerning your important discovery over the two 911 AA planes not being scheduled, may I make some queries?
1. I presume you are implying they were 'de-scheduled' that Tuesday morning - i.e., no-one could have rung up on Monday and been told that plane 11 was not flying on the 11th. That would have been too risky.
2. The schedule adjustment made that morning was such that it could not be 'adjusted' back to normal that evening.
3. This suggests that it happened automatically by the decision to remove the planes from service, i.e. the computer system altered the schedule record as they were taken out.
4. If so, some schedule alteration was made that very morning.
Hoping this is of interest, and that you may wish to comment,
I'm not sure that it works like that. Something which I neglected to mention in the article and will add in any future version, is that BTS reporting regulations (which you can find, by following the links from the homepage) state that any flight for which a computerized reservation system is initiated, must be reported to the database, unless the flight is cancelled more than 7 days prior to departure date.
This would seem to indicate that the airlines do not have a "continue till cancelled" reporting
regime for specific flights, but have to actively enter the schedule for each flight, as they
commence booking passengers. So it would seem that its not necessary for it to have been
scheduled and then removed. The airline could well have simply never scheduled AA77 on that day.
Alternatively, they might have originally scheduled it, but cancelled it no later than Sept 4, in which case it would not have be included in the database. I'm speculating that there may have been a few regular commuters , who often caught that flight, and for whom it was so routine, that they phoned up for a booking, assuming that it would fly as normal and were misled verbally into believing so; or, perhaps people who had booked Sept 4 and earlier, were not told of the cancellation. This is a little messy, as it would require some shenannigans at the booking desk - either complicity of the booking agent, or else the agents themselves not being aware that the flight was not travelling that day.
The other way of looking at it, is that we have no real evidence that any of the people who are purported to have died on AA 11/77 ever went to the airport at all, or even that they existed. Some might be completely fictitious, some may have been murdered beforehand, some might be agents of some sort faking the death of a current ID. We do now have some research (not written up yet) indicating that none of the alleged legal S11 pilots actually had current licences at the time, and that at least some of the alleged passengers are cases of ID theft.
But back to the reservation system. This is an important point, because it means that by definition, the "passenger lists" for AA11 and 77 that we've seen in the media are not official. If the flights somehow actually happened but "under the counter" from the BTS, then it can't be claimed that the passenger lists are official, because the regulations cited earlier mean that you cant have an "official " passenger list with an "unofficial" flight. Thus the passenger lists as cited by the media are effectively nothing more than hearsay.
And if they can fabricate flights and get away with it, then it should be even easier to fabricate passengers - which are much harder to verify.
Dear Gerald Holmgren,
Thanks very much for your reply. There is one point that strains my credulity, and may I just focus on that? You raise the possibility that there were no real deaths by passengers on the 'virtual' AA flights 11 & 77. To quote your comment: "we have no real evidence that any of the people who are purported to have died on AA 11/77 ever went to the airport at all, or even that they existed. Some might be completely fictitious, some may have been murdered beforehand, some might be agents of some sort faking the death of a current ID."
There are lists on various websites of the passengers, with addresses and vocations. Surely grieving relatives have been visited and interviewed? Journalists would have been keen to do this, with the personal stories that they like. To resolve this big question, all we really need to know is (a) they really died, and (b) on what date they bought their 911 tickets. Just a few grieving relatives would be adequate to settle this vital issue. Surely this has been done? Second, an 'autopsy' was put out of passengers in flight 77 supposedly interred in the Pentagon crash: www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm
Let's assume those autopsies were all bogus and there were no bodies there. Clearly, they would not have dared put out that list, unless it was certain that those 'flight 77' passengers were really dead, would they?
GHos letter of April 4th:
We can't assume anything about "grieving relatives". Firstly, we can't assume that journalists must have visited them. The standards of journalists are notoriously poor. They just copy whatever lands on their desks. Most journalism is just plagiarism of hearsay. Read my witness article on the pentagon crash to get some examples of this, if you haven't already run across it first hand.
Secondly, even if a journalist has interviewed the relative, there's no guaruntee that the relative isn't a plant. It would only take a few of them to create the general impression in the media that there are lots of real relatives: notice how its mostly the same few getting all the publicity? Hoglan (Binghams mother), Beamer, Push. We've done a fair bit of background research on Bingham and there's significant evidence that its ID theft from a Terrance Bingham, who died as an infant.
Here's an example of the lies that can be got away with. On Sept 17, 2001, the Chicago tribune published a story about a designated "5th hijack plane". AA 43, from Logan to LA, scheduled to depart at 8.10 was grounded minutes before take off with a mechanical fault. FBI agents searched the plane for suspected terrorists, and are "very interested" in finding some passengers of middle eastern origin. They believe that the plane had been designated as a 5th hijacking ,which was only averted because of its cancellation.
A BTS search reveals this story as total fiction. There was no such flight as AA 43 from Logan to LA. There was an AA43 from Newark, but it was neither cancelled nor even delayed, and was flying normally when it was diverted as were all planes in flight that day. American Airlines even issued a statement confirming this, but it was universally ignored by the western media, who all picked up the exciting and sinister story of the 5th hijack plane. World wide, I found three sources which told the truth about it - one from NZ, one from Japan and one from Namibia.
The rest of the western press spread this outrageous lie and never corrected it - in spite of the fact that there is presumably a whole plane load of passengers and crew from AA43, who were there and know what really happened.
Now here's an example of probable ID theft for an alleged AA 11 passenger. There's a group called "families for peaceful tomorrows". It opposes a violent response to Sept 11 (while not challenging the official story). A prominent member is Kristina Olsen, a singer songwriter who lost here sister Laurie, on AA 11, and can be found on various places on the web , hawking a song called "Song for Laurie." It just so happens that i know Kristina Olsen - indirectly. I've never met her, but I'm in the music industry, and a good friend of mine has played with her quite a lot - going back to 1995.
I initially thought "Wow, Kristina's sister! So that passenger at least is real." Not so fast! By a miraculous co-incidence there are 2 Kristina Olsens. The one my friend has played with has a long track record in the music industry - many CDs and many international tours. She had to publish something in response to all the mail she was getting about her sister's death and requests for the song - to say that this is nothing to do with her, she never had a sister named Laurie, and never did any such song.
It was only then that the other Kristina Olsen piped up and published something saying "What an amazing co-incidence! there's two of us ! " She has no track record in the music industry prior to "Song for Laurie." If they can fabricate flights, then fabricating passengers is easy by comparison. Websites- news reports - this all just hearsay. Where are the official records? Birth certificates, death certificates? Phone book records? But please note, that I am not necessarily suggesting that all of the passengers are pure fabrication. Some may well be real people, and some real innocent victims. Murdered before hand, or perhaps put aboard UA175, as suggested in the article.
Regarding AA77, some research on the alleged passengers shows that an extraordinary number of them just happened to have high-level military or quasi military jobs - many of them involved in activities too secret tot share with their families. The odds against so many of these kinds of people being randomly on the same flight are astronomical. Perhaps some of them faked their deaths. Perhaps some of them had become inconvenient, and were murdered beforehand. They were the kind of people who's families were used to them being secretive about where they going and when they would be back, and wouldnt be missed for a few days.
I'm stopping short of saying exactly what happened to this passenger or that. But simply because some website or media article talks about a lost loved one - that means nothing. This is supposed to be a criminal investigation. Who ever heard of murder investigations being conducted on the basis of something that someone posts on a website, purportedly proving someone's ID ? BTW, the FAA has a registry of all pilots and their qualifications. Of the alleged legal pilots on the four planes - not one of them had a current licence.
On Sept 11, SF mayor Willie Brown, and a whole lot of clergy went to SF airport on Sept 11 to meet with and console and counsel, the relos of the UA 93 victims. Normal practice. Whenever there is an air disaster, relos gather at the airport for info, and support, and perhaps hoping against hope that their loved one somehow missed the flight or survived the crash. Guess what? Brown and the clergy went home after *nobody* turned up! The media explanation was that UA started phoning relatives with the news and telling them what had happened and not to come to the airport. What a load of BS! "Mrs Smith? yes, we can confirm that your son Johnny was on the plane, and he's dead, so don't come to the airport."
They couldn't even produce a passenger list where the summation of those on board matches the list of names. Count the names on the UA 93 passenger list in the compilation I sent you. 33. So why does the summation say 45? None of the lists match up. See the article by Gary North. They were making this up as they went along. Just to clarify my position, I am not alleging with certainty that any particular alleged victim is fictitious (although I have seen enough to have strong suspicions about some of them). That takes careful research. But what I am saying is that we don't have a shred of actual evidence for any of them - even less what actually happened to them.
>Dear Mr Holmgren,
> Thanks very much indeed for your most interesting comments concerning passenger ID theft. I'm sure loads of people are asking you this, but I would be grateful if you could comment upon the recent article about two possible bays where Flight 11 departed from Logan on 9/11: 'Flight 11 ... was scheduled regularly for 7:45 a.m. at Terminal B, Gate 32. And so it was on Sept. 11, as this radio transcript shows: "7:45:48 -- Ground Control 1: American eleven heavy Boston ground gate thirty two you're going to wait for a Saab to go by then push back"'
>(article by ''Woody Box' at http://globalfreepress.com/article.pl?sid=04/03/14/212247)
> He gives one or two quotes from passengers who were scheduled to fly that morning on that flight.
I've only given this article a cursory examination, but on the basis of that I'm not impressed with it. I think its does a good job in digging up some important facts - which indicate that according to media reports there were two flight 11s. However it then makes a serious reasoning error in assuming that just because the media talks about 2 flight 11s, that there actually were two flight 11s. More likely the process of fabricating the mythical AA11 resulted in stuff ups in the cover story, resulting in duplication. What needs to be remembered is that the BTS data is official documentation. Media reports are just hearsay. In the previous mail, I mentioned the story about AA43 -complete fiction, but reported in the media as if it were fact. Since then another one has come to light, one more directly relevant to the alleged AA11. Stories were published in the media that the crew of US583 on the morning of Sept 11 picked up signals from AA11 and discussed them with ATC. transcripts were even published.
More total fiction. US 583 was not even scheduled to take off until 10.50 and thus was cancelled that day - confirmed by BTS records. Furthermore, even if it had taken off, its flight path takes it nowhere near the area that the media report says that it was supposed to be in. I have the exact details somewhere if you want to see them.
Thus we have direct evidence that not just a flight, but a communication transcript for the mythical flight has been fabricated , and published in the media as if it were official - for the purpose of shoring up the story of the mythical AA11. A lie to sell another lie.
This demonstrates that media reports about which flights are supposed to have gone where, don't mean anything. neither do alleged transcripts published in the media. Here's another one. There was a media report , very early on Sept 11 that a plane landed at Cleveland due to a bomb scare, and the passengers were interrogated for several hours by FBI agents. interestingly , it said that United Airlines identified the flight as UA 93.
Later, this was switched to be delta 1989. How could the two have been mixed up? A flight
requesting an emergency landing has to identify itself. How could UA93 have been mistaken for DL 1989 ? (Or vice-versa). This leads me to suspect that UA 93 may have actually landed at Cleveland. No prooof, but something is really fishy about this, and DL 1989 emerges as a flight of interest in our search to unravel this.
The point of this is that its further evidence that media reports about which plane went where are nothing more than hearsay.
What annoyed me about Woody's article is that it seemed to treat as fact, things which were
printed in the media about the alleged AA11, while reducing the missing BTS data to a single line- nothing more than an annoying lack of official information.
As far as I'm concerned, the balance of evidence is that AA11 wasn't scheduled and that mistakes and contradictions in the media were made in trying to construct its fabricated timeline.
Perhaps its possible that some kind of charter flight - sold to the passengers as AA11 happened - "under the counter" so to speak, but Woody's article didn't express any interest in this possibility.
There's really only two possibilities. 1) AA11 didn't exist. or 2) Something masquerading as AA 11 existed , possibly illegal, going to considerable lengths to circumvent reporting requirements. Woody's article didn't address this fundamental choice, but simply uncritically assumed that because media reports indicated two AA11's, then there were two AA11's.
Regarding Ogonowski - what they fail to mention is that according to the FAA airmen's registry, Ogonowski didn't have a valid pilot's licence on sept 11, 2001 - so what was he doing piloting a flight, which according to BTS data didn't exist ? I think the example of the fictitious transcripts from the fictitious US 583 demonstrates how much credibility we can allow these media reported transmissions. In fact, According to the FAA airmen's registry - none of the alleged legal pilots or co-pilots had valid licences. Some of them have no record at all of their existence. This is not yet written up in a coherent fashion, but its been pretty well researched.
Thanks, that's very interesting. Mr 'Woody Box' says that only the first 4 mins of the Betty Ong call were recorded. We're being given a a story of the 10 members of 911 Commission having 'hardly a dry eye' between them after listening to quite long calls by Flight 11 stewardesses Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney. Am I right that we didn't hear about these long and vividly-descriptive calls in the 2 previous years? Box reckons that 'the authenticity of the calls is doubtful' because of their mutual inconsistences. The 911 Commission seems to be claiming to have listened to long phone calls from these two - whereas all the ones we had previously heard about were fairly abrupt. Earlier exhaustive web-analyses of the phone messages found more or less no evidence of any Muslim hijackers given in them, and here suddenly their names are given.
Returning to the earlier discussion, One thing I would have thought was unfakeable, was the group of grieving AA employees mourning in silence at Gate 32 on Sept 11, 2002 at 7.55 am.
Yours sincerely, Nk
I won't comment further on the grieving AA employees until I have a closer look at the documentation for it. But in general, one can't be too careful with this sort of thing. A closer analysis of some of the rescue operations at the pentagon has shown them to be photoshopped fakes. Wrong shadows, the damage and smoke in the background radically shifting in relation to the foreground compared to the previous photo - that sort of thing. A lot of the photos of Saddams statue coming down were faked. I saved hard copies of them from the Sydney Daily telegraph and found all sort of things wrong with them (even a different statue in one of them !) One photo of the cheering Iraq's from London paper was a photoshop job - three groups of three people pasted into the crowd in three different spots, and even a disembodied arm floating around the crowd in two different spots. The Orwellian rewriting of history, or creation of fake history is well and truly here. And its worse: Orwell didn't foresee the kind of digital manipulation technology we've now.
Dear Mr Holmgren,
Thanks for your vitally important and interesting comments. I do agree about the 'virtual reality' era we are living in: on April 9th 2003 the UK's 'Evening Standard' had the shockingly faked picture of 'cheering crowds' you mention on its front page, as Saddam's statue was pulled down in Baghdad: a real 'psy-op' triumph to convince everyone the invasion was justified. Not a single voice was ever heard in the British media even mentioning that a constructed, illusory image had been used - not one. One could only read about it on 'indymedia' website, that's all!
I may have missed something, but does not the extended dialogue between AA Flight controls and the pilot of Flight 77 (on weblink below) indicate that it took off and flew that day?
Its given by Dick Eastman who says he got it from, Transcript of American Airlines Flight 77 (NY Times) www.september11-tribute.org/NewsArticles/AAL77Transcript.htm
I would appreciate your thoughts about this
The question is where the NY times got it from. This is the trouble with the mainstream media. They simply print things, without any sources or verifications, and we are expected to treat it as fact, simply because its "in the press". There's a general convention that press reports are to be considered as true, unless evidence emerges to the contrary. (I think that even that is being overly generous, on the basis of the track record that we can show)
But even then, in this case we have official documentation saying that it did not. Lets review the track record on this. The media and the airlines say that AA11 flew. The BTS says it did not. One is official documentation, the others are simply unsupported hearsay. To back up the story of AA11, the media says that US583 picked up a transmission of it and released a transcript. The BTS says that US583 did not fly.
The media says that AA43 from Logan was cancelled minutes before take off. The BTS says that it left as scheduled from Newark. (Even AA put out a statement to this effect, which the media universally ignored.) The media has given us lists of those who were the alleged legal pilots and co-pilots. The FAA records say that not one of these people had a current license. The media constantly reminds us of who the 19 hijackers were, and even gives us their seat numbers, even though we have oodles of evidence that none of these people were on the planes, and even the FBI has admitted this.
The media and airlines tell us that N591UA and N612UA crashed on Sept 11, but FAA records say the planes are still valid and registered. And one UA employee let slip in his private website that he travelled on N591UA after sept 11, apparently not realising the significance of the planes ID.
The media has an appalling track record on this for everything which can be checked against
official documentation. So if the NY times says that AA77 flew and the BTS says it didn't, then I'll put my money on the BTS unless I get better reason than simply that the media keeps saying it did, and releasing transcripts, which have as much credibility as the transcripts of US583.
This one is a smoking gun. Not only does it show in the BTS as cancelled that day, but it wasn't even scheduled until 10.50 - long after, all flights were being cancelled - so how could it have been in the air before 8.45 ? It left 2 1/2 hours early- and then showed up as cancelled in the BTS due to a clerical error? And added to that, its scheduled flight path took it nowhere near the area in which it was alleged to be flying.
This is absolute proof that the media has published a totally fictitious transcript from one
fictitious flight - for the purpose of shoring up the evidence that another fictitious flight existed. A lie to sell another lie. So why should we treat the NY times transcript of AA77 communications with anything other than total contempt, when we have BTS data saying that
the flight wasn't scheduled?
Dear Mr Holmgren,
Thanks very much and I may be slowly getting the picture. I presume that by N591UA and N612UA you are alluding to flights UA 175 and UA 93: to the 'planes' ID' as you put it - as if these numbers were written on them somewhere, whereas UA 175 and UA175 were the flights they were scheduled to make. That seems most a important distinction, tho I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere! Does the BTS allude to the planes in these terms?
So, when Mr Friedman says he flew on plane N591UA on 4th Oct 2003, on his website, you are saying that this must necessarily have been physically the same plane which was scheduled to take off from Boston as flight UA 175 on the 9/11 morning, two years earlier? I surmise that you obtained the 'plane ID' for flight UA 175 from the BTS site.
Your website says 'click on detailed statistics' on the BTS site do you mean 'departure statistics?' One obvious suggestion, is that after the catastrophe someone in charge of BTS decided to delete Flights AA11 & AA77 from the records only for that morning - maybe they were just emotionally distraught. You seem very confident that no-one could have done that. I mean, you are making an awful lot depend upon it not being feasible.
As Sherlock Holmes would have said to Watson, it only needs one family of allegedly bereaved relatives, down as having lost a member on that Flight 77, to be candidly interviewed by someone reliable, for the case to be decided.
Each plane has both a serial number and a tail number. The official spin in the media has tail numbers as mentioned in my evidence kit. The BTS data records tail numbers for each flight,( although sometimes not if the flight is cancelled )and confirms that the official spin is correct for the flights UA 93 and 175. Their tail numbers were N591/612UA. So both of these planes should appear as destroyed in the FAA registry.
The situation of the UA employee who reports N591UA is intriguing. I checked the BTS database for the flight he mentioned, and it said that the tail number for that flight was N594UA, so I thought the employee might have made a mistake. But on checking back, he also mentions another ID code for the plane (exactly which escapes me just at the moment) and that code also matches up with the plane which has the tail number quoted. The chances against him making a mistake with both codes and having the two mistaken codes match up for a particular plane ID are astronomical. So combined with the valid status of 591, this would strongly indicate that this is the plane.(the one that was UA 93 on Sept 11)
However, against that we have the BTS record saying that it was 594. I would venture a guess, but not with a lot of confidence, that UA is falsifying its reporting to the database to make 591 into 594. But if so, what about 594? I checked that in the registry and its a valid plane. If 591 is actually 594, then whats the real 594 doing? This is quite puzzling. In theory, with enough time, I could start tracking 594 back through all its flights to see if I can find a switch somewhere, but this could take forever.
Open verdict on this: what we can say is that, whatever's happening, the airlines have a hell of a lot of explaining to do.
Yes, departure stats. Another researcher claims to have repeatedly written to the BTS to ask them why AA77 isn't listed. Although their enquiry line promises a 24 turnaround for enquiries, they kept ignoring him, and when he persisted, kept fobbing him off, saying that they were "researching it", but as far as I know, they never answered him. An airline can request a waiver for the reporting of a particular flight, and must supply reasons for it, but the BT certainly didn't come up with one for AA77.
I suppose anything's possible, but I find it difficult to believe that after endlessly splashing the gruesome fate of the these alleged flights across the media and reporting every nuance of the tragedy , that they would then say "we must keep it off the BTS database out of respect for the lost ones." I'm sure that every time the families see another media special on the flights, they'll take comfort in knowing that at least the flight isn't listed on the BTS database.
I guess its a matter of weighing probabilities and applying consistent standards to both sides of the argument. We can come up with all kinds of bizarre possibilities for why the planes might not be on the database, but that indicates a mindset which assumes something as a default truth and then tries to twist everything to that preconception. If we're going to do that, we could also come up with all kinds of bizarre possibilities to say that they actually left from different airports and crashed in different locations. It doesnt seem consistent to accept some things uncritically and unquestioned as in "AA11 hit the Nth tower", but then twist and speculate get super critical in relation to another piece of data which doesnt fit that assumption.
I guess anythings possible. Perhaps, somehow those flights actually existed and got left off the database. What I'm saying is "the only real official aviation documentation we have says that those flights did not exist." Thats a fact. If someone wants to suggest that the official documentation is wrong, then the onus of proof is on them to find some evidence for it. It seems that the only real evidence is that the media , airlines and govt tell us so.
Given the medias record on related matters, as discussed earlier, I think we can dismiss that as having any real value. Ditto the govt. I mean, Tenet has just lied under oath as the 9/11 commission. So what we're left with unofficial statements from the airlines against official statements. The balance of credibility should lie with the official statements, unless there something quite compelling comes along to upset that balance.
Correspondence with Mr Dulce Decorum in a web chat room, he wrote:
When we look at the BTS database for the departure times of those flights,
the story already begins to crumble. When we check the FAA database for the low down on the aircraft, the story is ripped asunder. When we check the victims against the Social Security Death index, TWO YEARS AFTER THE EVENT,we find the overwhelming majority of them, passengers and office workers, absent.
Hi, can i trouble you on a 911 hijackology matter? Gerald Holmgren gave me your address. But, please ignore this if you are too busy. He claimed that all the pilots and co-pilots of the 4 planes lacked valid licenses, implying that they could not have flown that day. I haven't heard anyone else claim that. Is it true?
Here is some more info about the original pilots of those planes who are ALL required to have and maintain a current ATP (Airline Transport Pilot license) in order to ply planes with passengers. I believe that the copilots are required to have ATPs because they very frequently fly the return trip and in any case, they must be prepared to take over in case anything happens to the pilot. Apart from this, you will soon discover for yourself that the stories we are told in the mainstream press are NOT backed up by the FAA database. For example, Charles Burlingame was a fighter jet pilot -- who needed to wear corrective lenses. No way they would have let him into the top gun academy in the sixties. The dates and so many other things are wrong for the original pilots. They are just as bad as the hijacker pilots -- some of whom are STILL ALIVE.
When we put the results of the SSDI and the FAA database together, this is what we have.
John Alexander Ogonowski, pilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
Thomas Francis McGuinness Jr, copilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
N 334AA Serial 22332
Registration: Cancelled/ plane destroyed on 1/14/2002
Charles Frank Burlingame, pilot, DECEASED as of September 11, 2001.
David Michael Charlebois, copilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
N 644AA Serial 24602
Registration: Cancelled/ plane destroyed on 1/14/2002
Jason Matthew Dahl, pilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
Leroy Wilton Homer Jr, copilot, apparently STILL ALIVE.
N 591UA Serial 28142
Registration: Valid/ PLANE STILL ABLE TO FLY.
Victor Saracini, pilot, DECEASED as of September 11, 2001
Michael Horrocks, copilot, DECEASED as of September 11, 2001
N 612UA Serial 21873
Registration: Valid/ PLANE STILL ABLE TO FLY.
If you say that a pilot is still alive, eg JA Ogonowski, does that mean someone sees him walking around? Or is it just an official record? Could you explain to me what SSDI is and how its archives and records compare with the FAA. I presume that the date when a plane is destroyed or has its registration cancelled is given in the FAA? You seem to be claiming that not one of the four planes supposedly involved in 911 is registered as destroyed on that date, in the FAA archives. If this is so, I am puzzled that the media have not picked up on this!
OK, lets see if I can answer your questions. First of all, here is the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg& forum=125&topic_id=10112&mesg_id=10112, on the Democratic Underground, Forums, Foreign affairs, 9:11 forum, p.2 called The pilots and the planes.
No, the media have not picked up on the planes' registrations, and I do not think that anyone really wants them to.
The FAA keeps fairly decent records on civil planes. It has to. International and federal law prohibit the plane from flying out of ANY airport if the FAA records for US registered planes are not readily available. Since the civil airports own the runways and refueling stations, a civil plane which is not properly registered is not going to make it off the ground anywhere on planet earth unless it goes to a military base and the military will usually shoot down a civil plane that is trying to land there. Recently a plane with the US registered tail number N4610 landed in Zimbabwe and was discovered to be carrying a plane-load of mercenaries on their way to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea. The US State Department said that the plane was not a US plane but the FAA records show otherwise and the person who is the US registered owner has been cursing the FAA like you would even believe. So I would say, that this entire episode lends the FAA some credibility in its registry database.
As for the pilots, no-one has come forward and said that they have seen the 9:11 passengers or casualties or pilots walking around. But the Cambodians on Ogonowski's farm are being deported and AA and UA have gagged ALL employees. Which leads us directly to the SSDI.
The Social Security Death Index is the registry of all US Social Security numbers which belong to persons who are deceased. In order to EXIST in the US, one needs must have a Social Security number. Without it you cannot bank, cash checks, be employed, attend school, drive etc etc. EVERY SINGLE THING you do in the US is tied in to your Social Security number. Now, when someone dies, the SS number is "retired" and a note is made in the SSDI. The overwhelming majority of persons supposed to have died on September 11, 2001 do NOT appear in the SSDI. Therefore, it does not appear as if they are actually dead. Many of them do not appear to even have existed prior to September 11, 2001. Large numbers of them appear to have active Social Security numbers by which I mean to say that the numbers appear to still be in use. Take this article for example.
Now, the interesting part is that the FBI does not appear to be overly concerned about this. How come this kid has not been questioned? How come Homeland Security et al has not run a make on the SS numbers used by the alleged hijackers? The SS numbers are NOT random. The Social Security Administration can tell just by looking at a number, where and when it was issued and in some cases even the race/nationality of the recipient. So an Arab hijacker roaming around and trying to do some banking would VERY RAPIDLY wind up on a watch list if not in INS (Immigration) custody within a very short period of time. Remember, the SS number is tied in to any and all records, birth, death, driving, rental, banking, taxes, school, etc. The taxes are the worst. The IRS (Internal Revenue Service) is greatly feared worldwide. If the hijacker was making large transactions with that US issued SS number and not paying US taxes, you had better believe that the kid would have been so busted a long long long time ago. Furthermore, neither the IRS nor the INS are known for their compassion or sense of humor. That one single incident involving one single solitary SS number demonstrates that this entire operation is an inside job, -- unless you can somehow come up with an explanation as to how a fugitive caveman on dialysis has managed to outwit just about every single federal agency you can name.
NK queried Helen Stace (who works with Dewdneys Operation Pearl team) on: 1. the Holmgren thesis, and 2. Does not the extended dialogue between AA Flight controls and the pilot of Flight 77 indicate that it took off and flew that day?
Okay, here's some brief comments.
1. Flight AA77 was a regular daily service from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles. The point about Gerard's finding is that there is NO DATABASE FIELD for either AA77 or AA11, empty or filled, on September 11, 2001. This means that they were NOT SCHEDULED, which is technically different from cancelled. It is impossible to account for their absence from the database by (a) human error forgetting to fill the database fields due to the day's crisis conditions, or (b) some database artefact, such as a 'time-out'. You will have noticed that after the stand down, flights that were in the database are noted in the fields as 00.00 for departure, take-off, arrival, etc.
The fact that Flights UAL175 & UAL93 have database fields that record departure & takeoff & 'diverted' indicates that these flights were genuine.
2. There are no official transcripts in the public domain. The NYT transcripts are not official,
despite a superficial appearance that they may be. I have the distinct impression that either the FBI or the pentagon immediately impounded all FAA logs (voice tapes, radar tapes, etc.), and anything that was released subsequently was possibly doctored. No, almost certainly was doctored, if not outright fabricated. I have been analysing these transcripts, and have 2 articles in prep. One of these is on the discussion board at the members' forum at physics911.org. It's been rewritten but not yet resubmitted.
Note on 18th April letter from GH: the site he alluded to http://friedmanfamily.org/ua2003/
13th October NK to GH:
it seems that the BTS database has now been altered to put AA 11 & 77 on for 9/11 after all, are
you going to make any public statement about this? Dare I ask, do you or anyone else have a copy
of a BTS search showing how these two flights did not earlier show up?
One of our london group Simon A. has found that flight UA93 in effect only flew for the first time that day: www.thoughtcrimenews.com/flight93notscheduled.htm He used the BTS database from a different point of view, going in at: www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/oai/ontime_js.pl Plug in the relevant details and sort by Origin and Destination Airports. Then you get the following results (Short URLs used for ease) http://tinyurl.com/43wot, http://tinyurl.com/6phcw
13th October 2004 Holmgren:
I have back ups for the original data, I'll forward them to you. They stuffed the cover-up. You'll see that there is no departure time, so now the official data says that they were scheduled but were cancelled. They've also tripped up in saying that the flights are not in there because they were hijacked. If that was the case why do the UA flights still show departure, while the AA flights do not. And finally, they also altered the summary stats. Originally they had the UA flights as diverted and the AA flights as not existing. Now they've withdrawn the info they previously had for the UA flights, to try to make it consistent with the lack of data for the AA flights.
So they've made a hash of it.
Also, the comments page of my original article is evidence, because even the most sneering critics are agreeing that the flights are not in there and trying to explain why they're not there.
I am grateful to Gerard Holmgren, Dulce Decorum and Helen Stace for allowing their letters to be posted here.
NB 12th November from Holmgren (slight error here corrected, in above letter 18 april):
From: Dave Lemmon,
Early in 2004 Helen Stace and I were exchanging information about the events of 9-11, including her essay, "Operation Pea and Thimble," your pioneering discovery that AA11 and AA77 did not exist on 9-11, and the New York ATC transmissions as published in transcript form in the New York Times of October 16, 2001. Helen mentioned that the communications from "USA 583" seemed suspicious, and suggested that I see what could be found out about that flight on September 11, 2001. Since USA583 was not on the US Air schedules early this year, I checked some historical US Air info and found that USA583 had been a regularly-scheduled flight from Charlotte to Atlanta in
September, 2001, with a departure time around 10:55AM from Charlotte. Checking the BTS "on-time" database, I verified that, and also found that F583 had been canceled on 9-11. So, since F583 was from Charlotte to Atlanta (some 500 miles from New York ATC space), did not depart until around 10:55 AM and was cancelled on 9-11, it certainly seemed anomalous that several transmissions from "USA583" to New York Center before 9:00 showed up in the ATC transcripts published in the Times.
I sent this information to Helen and also to you. However, in recent correspondence with Frank Levi, he pointed out that USA583 did not ORIGINATE in Charlotte, but in Albany, New York. I checked the BTS database and found that to be the case. USA583 took off from Albany at 8:18 AM and arrived at the gate in Charlotte at 10:11 AM. The Charlotte-to-Atlanta flight was canceled, no doubt because of the general shutdown of all flights which was in effect by then.
So, by failing to check the BTS data "upstream" from Charlotte for USA583, I missed the fact that that flight did indeed fly on 9-11. It flew from Albany to Charlotte, and would have been in New York ATC airspace at the times reported in the transcripts. I apologize for this error, and hope it does not cause undue inconvenience in your own research, nor in the overall work we are all doing to discover what really happened on 9-11.
Note: After this correspondence, Gerard Holmgren regrettably became associated with the no-planes viewpoint, according to which no real planes crashed into the Towers on 9/11. I have never followed him on this.
|A DIALOGUE WITH GERARD HOLMGREN
by Nick Kollerstrom
|| Gerald Holmgren3.htm
|| 90.6 KB
|| 67 Time(s)
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung