In 1993 terrorists bombed the parking garage below the World Trade Center in an obvious attempt to topple it.

The very next year, 1994, a deranged man crashed his Cessna aircraft into the White House.

It is amazing and dismaying that, in addition to all the other red flags that went up in the months preceding "9/11", these events were lost on the US intelligence community.

Considering the six figure salaries that these buttheads make, can you just imagine them sitting up and down a large oak table at the Pentagon, the NSA, CIA, FBI and the rest of them, brainstorming thus:

"Well, we know they're targeting the World Trade Center. And we know in '94 an airplane was crashlanded into the White House. Despite the hijackings of the '60's, we don't require cockpits to be hardened, or even for the door to be locked because of course the pilot has to have access to the head, and get head, without being so encumbered. Any ideas?

"Gee, no boss. I like my split-level in Fairfax. Everything is just peachy. Why should I be the maverick here and risk my career by being a fraction as creative as the terrorists. No clouds on my horizon."

By the way, several lanes of traffic drive down the heart of the Robert Moses Power Project in Lewiston, NY. The public has repeatedly questioned whether the Power Project is at risk from a Timmy McVeigh-style attack. NYPA and local politicians have displayed the same head-in-the-sand attitude that got us 2500+ dead in Lower Manhattan.

Jim Hufnagel

Anonymous1

This was perhaps Scott's best show yet!

I liked the fact that Enver stayed the whole show. Don't take heat for that.

With regard to the posting by JAMES HUFNAGEL--

I find his comment about the cockpit activities of pilots to be as offensive and ungentile as any I have seen. Is this a family site?   That man needs censure.

The comment about the Robert Moses Parkway and the WTC One and Two is crass and an obvious attempt at scare tactics for the removal of the parkway. 2500 people and a hydro plant have absolutely nothing in common. Absolutely nothing. If he thinks that this will advance his cause, he should have another think coming. This has not helped the credability of that project one bit.

>"The very next year, 1994, a deranged man crashed his Cessna aircraft into the White House."

What is deranged? Who makes that call? As I recall it, it was a relatively young kid. If I'm wrong about the particular incident, then I will say that whatever a Cessna could carry is of relative little danger in crashing into the WH. As the writer should know, that building too was hardened with special windows etc. prior to 911. Sooo? The point is lost.

>"Considering the six figure salaries that these buttheads make, can you just imagine them sitting >up and down a large oak table at the Pentagon, the NSA, CIA, FBI and the rest of them, >brainstorming thus:"

I have friends in two of the above named agencies and I doubt that condemnation of the entire staff is appropriate.  I personally don't like them all being called butt--anything.

HE writes about pilots:
>"Well, we know they're targeting the World Trade Center. And we know in '94 an airplane was >crashlanded into the White House. Despite the hijackings of the '60's, we don't require cockpits to >be hardened, or even for the door to be locked because of course the pilot has to have access to >the head, and get h#*d, without being so encumbered. Any ideas?"

THIS IS WAY OUT OF LINE ON THIS BOARD!!!!!!!!

>"Gee, no boss. I like my split-level in Fairfax. Everything is just peachy. Why should I be the >maverick here and risk my career by being a fraction as creative as the terrorists. No clouds on my >horizon."

MOST OF THE GUYS that have been indicted in the JH missive can not afford to live in a "split level in Fairfax." Too bad the writer didn't know that. Is this just another indictment of "the Man." There are "six-figure" school teachers around too.

>"By the way, several lanes of traffic drive down the heart of the Robert Moses Power Project in >Lewiston, NY. The public has repeatedly questioned whether the Power Project is at risk from a >Timmy McVeigh-style attack. NYPA and local politicians have displayed the same head-in-the-sand >attitude that got us 2500+ dead in Lower Manhattan."

>Jim Hufnagel

I FIND THE ABOVE A VERY POOR EXAMPLE, A BAD PARALLEL and IN POOR TASTE. FEAR MONGERING AT ITS WORST.

From reports and research conducted independently, and from Anonymous1---

Cell Phone Experiments in Airliners

Since the topic discussed above seems to be of utmost importance, I decided to make my own experiments while traveling from Chicago, IL, to Burlington, VT, to a family anniversary of a friend.

• Audiovox CDM 9000 with Verizon Wireless network.
  
  
  
  
  
• Nokia 8260 with Cingular Wireless network.
  

1. Trip: Aircraft: Airbus A320. United Airlines Flight 568. Take off from Chicago O’Hare on Friday, July 18, 2003, nominal take off at 18:05 central summer time. Weather conditions: sunny, only a few clouds at both start and arrival in Burlington, VT, at 20:54 eastern summer time.

2. Trip: Aircraft: Airbus A319. United Airlines Flight 397. Take off from Burlington, VT, on Sunday, July 20, 2003, 17:40 eastern summer time. Weather conditions: sunny, only a few clouds at both start and arrival. Arrival at Chicago O’Hare at 19:00 central summer time.

While starting, only the Audiovox phone was used. While the plane was still accelerating on the runway(18:23), I dialed into my voice message box and received a clear and immediate connection just when the plane took off. I hung up right away and dialed again(18:24). As the plane ascended quickly, I received another immediate and clear connection, but this time I entered my PIN number waiting for the message service to grant me access to my messages. However, the connection was lost, and any attempt to reestablish a connection failed. After another minute, the phone complained with a loud alarm tone that no service was available. According to a later inquiry with the pilots, the plane reached an altitude above ground of 15,000 ft (4,575 m) within five minutes.

During this high altitude flight at 37,000 ft, no service was ever available. As soon as the plane started to descend toward Burlington, both cell phones were switched back on in an attempt to get any service. As soon as the phones gave up on searching service, they were turned off and turned on again so that the phones would again search for service. Several minutes before the pilot put out the landing gear at 20:49 EST, both phones indicated that they had found service, but any attempt to get any connection to the voice message boxes with either of the phones failed. On 20:51(20:49 acc. to bill), two minutes after the landing gear was pulled out, a clear and stable connection to the voice message system could be established by both phones. This connection could be reestablished at will until the plane touched down at 20:54. Asked for his assistance, the pilot explained that he had put out the landing gear at an altitude above ground of 2,000 ft (610 m) at a speed of 200 knots (230 mph/371 km/h).

Since no information could be gained about the exact altitude above ground for the exact time when a cell phone connection gets interrupted during take off—not even this point in time is exactly known—no experiments were done at take off from Burlington.

When descending toward Chicago, the Nokia/Cingular phone could not establish any service at any time until after the aircraft had landed. The Audiovox/Verizon cell phone managed to get service just as we flew in over Lake Michigan from the east at an estimated altitude above ground of around 6,000 feet. However, none of the uninterruptedly made attempts to get a connection was successful. This cell phone signal was lost again as we flew out toward the center of the lake, and was reestablished as we approach the west coast of Lake Michigan. Uninterrupted attempts to establish a connection to the mailbox continued to fail until one minute after the pilot had pulled out the landing gear some 6 to 8 miles west of the coast of Lake Michigan at 18:56. The first successful connection appeared at 18:57(18:57). The second one established right thereafter was immediate and clear until the plane touched down at 19:00. According to the pilot, the landing gear must be pulled out when flying at an altitude of 1,500 ft at the latest (457.5 m). He could not remember exactly at which height he actually pulled the gear, but stated that it was well above that mark, probably at some 2,200 to 2,500 ft (671-762.5 m) at a speed of some 200 knots (230 mph/371 km/h).

Whereas the Nokia phone user was seated one seat away from the window in both descends, the Audiovox user was seated two seats away from the window during the first descent toward Burlington, but right at a window during the descent to Chicago. As a matter of fact, this cell phone was held only 10 cm away from a window to ensure best reception.

Burlington, VT, lies within a more rural area, whereas Chicago is the third largest city of the U.S. with one of the best developed cellular networks. In spite of this, the results were similar in both cases for the Verizon Wireless network, which prides itself on being the best developed in the U.S. The reason why the second phone failed to establish any service in the Chicago area until after landing is unknown.

Cell phones traveling in airliners can get a service signal at heights up to some 6,000 ft, but it is not possible to make a connection, at least not while traveling at the usual cruising speed of a normal airliner (500-550 mph). Since in all cases (if at all) connections could only be established well after the pilots have pulled out the landing gear at some 2,000 ft and at a cruising speed of 230 mph or less, it seems safe to conclude that in summer of 2003, no connection could be made with a cell phone from an airliner flying in the U.S. when above an altitude above ground of 2,000 ft (610 m) and when traveling with a speed over 230 mph. Considering the fast descent of the planes and the fact that they kept slowing down as they approached the runway, the height at which a connection could be established might actually be as low as 1,500 ft (457.5 m), and the speed around 200 mph.

The reason why a connection could only be established at some 1,500 ft above ground despite the fact that a signal was present already at some 6,000 ft may be that the speed of the traveling aircraft was too high at higher altitudes. It seems safe to say that the speed must be under 230 mph in order to establish a stable connection, a speed which an airliner can reach only during landing, with landing gear, air brakes and flaps all the way out.

It is generally agreed upon that all the airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001, flew at a high cruising speed of 500 mph and more until they crashed. Thus, it seems safe to say that no cell phone of any type could have established any stable connection to any cell site at that speed, no matter which height the planes flew at. This is particularly true for United Airlines flight 93, which did not only fly at high speed but also at a relatively high altitude during the time when the alleged cell phone calls were placed.

Anybody who is willing to provide his own input on this problem by testing his cell phone’s capability to make connections from aircrafts during descent is more than welcome. We will publish such data either with the name of the experimenter or anonymously if indicated. Please provide the following data:

• type of phone, network used;
  
  
  
  
  
• plane flown, airline, flight no., date and time of take off (nominal) and landing (actual);
  
  
  
  
  
• weather conditions prevailing when landing;
  
  
  
  
  
• exact times when you did what or when you succeeded to establish a connection, and since pulling out the gear is a nice reference point, make a note of this as well and ask the pilot while deplaning at what height he pulled the gear.
  

Source: The Revisionist 1(3) (2003), pp. 271f.

What happened to the 64 poeple on board this plane? How can you explain that this plane vanished? I actually know 2 poeple who were at work that day. I only talked to one of them. That first day the gag order was not in place and these employees talked to family and friends. Told them of first hand account of the rescue effort. They had an area that all of the bodys/parts were taken. The first responders were saying that hundreds were killed. The sad truth turned out to be that these were body part from a much smaller number that had been found scattered across the whole site.

I have to stand by my statement that poeple saw pieces of that plane. When ranks were closed, all involved were gaged. But the first responders, including government employees know what they saw.

Cel phone use is possible at low altitude passenger flights. But when you reach higher altitudes, it becomes nearly impossible. Calls from 20,000 ft. such as flight 77's alt., have barely a one-in-a-hundred chance of succeeding. Here's a SCIENTIFICALLY CONDUCTED EXPERIMENT: http://vho.org/tr/2003/3/Dewdney248-271.html    Read the material, and think about how likely it is that a plane flying at 32,000 ft. had not one, but multiple clear, uninterrupted cel phone conversations.

The bodies were supposedly moved to a morgue in Dover, after having been driven off to Arlington first, which is much closer. The plane was most likely diverted to Dover in the first place, the occupants neutralized, and then the plane hidden in a hangar.

Some people claim to have seen the plane fly past them. When's the last time you saw something go by at 450 miles per hour? Did you get a good look at it? Your eyes don't even move that fast reflexively. Video shot immediately afterward shows only a few tiny pieces of scrap which were being picked up off the ground by people in office clothing, not first responders with gloves, boots or uniforms. I have seen one helicopter shot of a skirmish line of people in regular clothes walking the grounds and looking for tiny pieces of evidence. Why were they doing that?

I know this sounds speculative and even cynical, but why does this version make so much more sense than the governments' flimsy explanation? It angers me that something of this magnitude has happened, and worse, it was planned and carried out by ourselves.

I beg of you, show me the plane debris at the Pentagon, show me the bodies, show me the flight recorders, show me something conclusive that will clear our government of atrocity, deception, & murder.

Anonymous1

I have been on the scene of three fatal airplane crashes. I've also been in a close call or two. I have seen airborne aircraft pass at a cumulative speed of over seven-hundred miles and hour--600+knots. That's faster than anything anyone here except flyers or fighter jocks would ever see first hand. Let me tell you, there's very little to be seen.

O.K., on to the "bodies." Did anyone see the fuselage of the plane that crashed in PA? UNLESS there was some remnant of the aircraft body--there would be NO BODIES for ID. Yeah, some blood and DNA evidence--BUT NOT ONE identifable body (or body part in lots of instances). Not one. All that was found in that PA field was dust, smoke, burnt grass, smoldering flesh, bone fragments and melted aluminum. Period. No "bodies."

One thing that is getting lost here is speed. Going from one cell site to another--cell phones do not acquire their signals fast enough to compensate and continue an uninterrupted cell phone call. Here's another one...the plane that crashed in PA was over rural areas. Anyone try to get a signal in say the Southern Tier? Adirondacks? A plane moving at speed, combined with the rural cell sites spells COVER_UP. Wanna talk about flight 800 off the coast of LI next?

Dear PT:

I think I'm falling in love!

Your mind IS a wonderful thing!

The link below provides several eye witness recounts of the pentagon hit.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

Several photographs of aircraft parts photographed inside the Pentagon

I spent 2 hours looking at those photos and found nothing that resembled wreckage of a large jet.

The only fragments shown belong to something much smaller, like a drone aircraft. Other than that all I saw was building material, cable spools, fencing and rubble. The section of the building that was damaged was half the size of the plane they said hit it. Where'd it all go?

I think MC and PT have a valid argument, and the right to be angered.