Dark Doppelganger of Delta 1989
Total 9/11 Info | January 25 2005
It is already known that Delta 1989 made an emergency landing in Cleveland on 9/11, and that the plane had a mysterious doppelganger who landed half an hour later as an emergency, too.
Now take a look at the 9/11 commission report, a really interesting book. What do we learn about Delta 1989? Is it possible to establish a timeline for the flight? Let's try.
At 8:25, Delta 1989 took off from Boston Airport (this is not documented in the 9/11 report, but in the BTS database, http://www.bts.gov ).
At about 9:00, Delta 1989 crossed the border between Boston Center and Cleveland Center, the two long-range Air Traffic Control centers. This estimation is easy to do because we know roughly the speed of the aircraft, and because we know Delta 1989 was over Cleveland at 9:40. Take a look at page 15 of the 9/11 report, there is a map of the FAA Control Centers. So after 9:00 or at most 9:05, Cleveland Center was in charge of Delta 1989.
At 9:19, the FAA Command Center advised Cleveland controllers to send a cockpit warning to Delta 1989. (9/11 report, p.455, footnote 68).
At 9:27, Boston FAA reports a fifth aircraft missing, Delta Flight 89. This is a statement from Col. Alan Scott to the 9/11 Commission.
Why Boston? The plane was now in Cleveland Center Airspace.
At 9:28, a controller from Cleveland Center notices screams and strange voices ("we have a bomb on board"), apparently coming from Delta 1989 - but he is in contact with the pilot, and the pilot reports nothing unusual. No screams on Delta 1989. [ABC News].
At 9:41, Boston Center calls the military to identify Delta 1989 as a
possible hijacking. But the Cleveland controllers are still in contact with
the pilot, and the transponder is not off. So why does Boston Center send the warning and not Cleveland Center? And why does NEADS warn Cleveland Center to watch Delta 1989 - they were watching it anyway?
So we have a terrible mess here; we have a flip-flop between Boston Center and Cleveland Center despite the fact that clearly Cleveland was responsible for Delta 1989 after 9:00; and we have conflicting reports that the plane was "missing" and "possibly hijacked" despite the fact that transponder and radio contact were never off.
There is an elegant possibility to clean up this mess:
Delta 1989 had a dark doppelganger, not only when it landed at Cleveland Airport, but when it was flying, too. This doppelganger started probably in Boston, too. It was part of the wargames which were taking place on this day. It was a "live-fly exercise".
The transponder of the doppelganger was off from start. When Boston Center called NEADS at 9:27 to report that Delta 1989 was "missing", this warning was in fact meant for the doppelganger flight. Its radar blip was hidden behind the blip of Delta 1989 from now on.
The screams at 9:28 were not coming from Delta 1989, but from the
doppelganger flight. That's why the Cleveland controller was so confused: he determined the origin of the screams by "Radio Direction Finding", a standard technique, and they were coming from Delta 1989's position. The controller was not involved in the wargames, so he didn't know that there was a plane hiding behind Delta 1989.
On board of the doppelganger flight, a simulated hijacking took place.
Boston Center - or a department of Boston Center - was apparently in charge of the wargame, this explains why Boston Center was still involved at 9:27 resp. 9:41. Note that Boston Center reported directly to the military.
At 9:41, the doppelganger left its cover, so its radar blip was visible.
This was the moment when it was reported hijacked, falsely labelled as Delta 1989. The doppelganger was reported in the broadcast news as the "fifth plane."
So what happened to the passengers of Delta 1989's doppelganger?
Blow-up of video confirms fox news reporters FIRST HAND EYEWITNESS testimony that plane had strange "circular logo" on nose [inconsistent with United Airlines markings] and had "no passenger windows".
Actual file picture of United Airlines jet, blurred for comparison, still readily shows a dark bank of passenger windows both fore and aft, even though the Large WHITE "United Airline" Banner is unreadable.
The photo [Left] also shows that the markings do not indicate anything resembling a circular logo as we see on the nose of the actual plane that struck the second tower. U.A. uses no such logo on the nose! So what is one doing on the plane that struck the WTC?
See also this link Still more things not right....?
Other flights show strange anomalies.
Here's a different search method. By returning to the search page URL listed earlier, and clicking on â summary statistics â , one can find the historical reliability and punctuality of specific flights over a period of time, by specifying the airline and flight number and defining the time period. The search then returns figures on average delays in departure and arrival times and percentages of cancelled or diverted flights. If one searches specifically for UA 175 or UA 93 narrowed down to Sept 11 only, the search returns the result of "diverted" for each flight. A similar search for either AA 11 or AA 77 on that date returns "no data found".
If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you will find that they were regularly scheduled flights right up to Sept 10. AA 11 was scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00, and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at 7.45. On Sept 11, they were not scheduled. Not cancelled. Just not scheduled.
On Sept 12, they re-appear in the schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20 when both flights change their numbers.
Thus 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 Nth 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.
The data in this search indicates that we have been systematically lied to about the alleged flight paths and hijacking sequence of AA 11 and AA 77, as well as the alleged phone calls made from the planes.
It also indicates probable complicity by American Airlines in the events of Sept 11 , 2001.
What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11, 2001 by Gerard Homgren
http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/noplane/
Gerard Homgren Updates his above material.
Note that since his report, some of the flight info material was
doctored by the Bureau of Transportation.
HOME INDEX OF SEPT 11 ARTICLES
What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11, 2001.
by Gerard Holmgren . Copyright. Nov 2003
This material may be freely reproduced without permission providing that it is not for commercial purposes. Please include the author's name, the URL where you found it and the copyright notice.
(Author’s note Jan 9 2005 : This article was originally published here. Shortly after I published this article the BTS moved it’s database to a new location—and didn't leave a forwarding address. The new address is
http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_statistics/
10 months after I published, they finally got around to doctoring the database as predicted at the end of this article. Links to back ups of the original BTS search results done in Nov 2003 are here 1 2 3 4
[If unavailable at above links click here: 1 2 3 4 ]
By visiting the original article, one can see that in Nov 2003, no-one in the comments column was disputing that I had accurately represented the contents of the data base. When I update this article, I will show how the BTS has made a mess of the cover up. Below is the article as originally published}
On the basis of photographic and physical evidence, it has now been established for some time that on Sept 11, 2001 the damage to the Pentagon was caused by something other than the hijacked Boeing 757, American Airlines Flight 77 claimed by the Government to have crashed into the building.
Physical and Mathematical analysis of pentagon crash. Oct 2002
Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined. June 2002
More recently, its become widely accepted on the basis of video evidence that the object which hit the North Tower of the WTC at 8.46 that morning was not the hijacked Boeing 767, American Airlines Flight 11, as claimed in the official story.
http://home.earthlink.net/~whatzit
http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/index2.html
In response to these observations, both supporters of the truth and blind deniers of it agree on one thing.
It raises the question - "If these flights did not hit the buildings as alleged, then where did they go?'
We are now in a position to answer that question.
First, lets recap the official story of what happened to four planes that morning.
___________
AA 11 left Boston for LA at about 8 am, was reported as hijacked about 8.25, and hit the Nth Tower at about 8.46.
UA 175 left Boston for LA at about the same time, was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Sth Tower at about 9.03
AA 77 left Dulles for LA about the same time , was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Pentagon at about 9.45
UA 93 left Newark for SF at about the same time, was reported hijacked about 9.45 and crashed in PA at about 10.10.
The Buruea of transportation website contains search pages, where one can pull up detailed statistics about the history of which flights have been scheduled for which airports on any given day. Go to
http://www.bts.gov/ntda/oai/index.shtml
and click on "detailed statistics" where one can search records of scheduled and actual departure times, arrival times, diversions and cancellations by departure airport, arrival airport, airline and flight number. Searches for Sept 11 2001 reveal that the flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist. They were not scheduled that day. Here are the search results which I encourage everyone to check for themselves.
A search for UA flights from Newark on Sept 11, 2001 shows 0093 to SF was scheduled at 8.00 and actually departed at 8.01. It is listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination.
A search for UA from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and actually departed at 7.58. Also listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. The term "diverted"
is not clarified as to whether it includes hijacking and/or crashing, so the data gives no indication one way or the other as to truth of the official story about what happened to them, but it does confirm that they departed as per the official story and did not arrive at their destinations.
A search for AA flights from Boston that day does not list 0011. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA that day was 0181 at 11.00
A search for AA flights from Dulles that day does not list 0077. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA was 0135 at 11.15.
Here's a different search method. One can find the historical reliability and punctuality of specific flights over a period of time, by specifying the Airline and flight number and defining the time period. The search then returns figures on average delays in departure and arrival times and percentages of cancelled or diverted flights.
If one searches specifically for UA 175 or UA 93 narrowed down to sept 11 only, the search returns the result of "diverted" for each flight. A similar search for either AA 11 or AA 77 returns "no data found".
If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you will find that they were regularly scheduled flights right up to Sept 10. AA 11 was scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00, and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at 7.45. On Sept 11, they were not scheduled. Not cancelled. Just not scheduled.
On Sept 12, they re-appear in the schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20 when both flights change their numbers.
Thus 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 Nth 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 booked for AA 11 that day, and went to the airport, expecting to get on AA 11, may have been 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.
The data in this search indicates that we have been systematically lied to about the alleged flight paths and hijacking sequence of AA 11 and AA 77, as well as the alleged phone calls made from the planes.
It also indicates probable complicity by American Airlines in the events of Sept 11 , 2001.
For the benefit of any NWO operatives reading this, the search result pages have already been backed up and widely distributed, so there's no point in trying to pressure the Bureau into playing hanky panky with the records. Nevertheless, I do encourage all readers to do the searches themselves and back up the results pages, just in case this happens.