FBI Refuses To Confirm Identities Of 4 Aircraft Used During 9/11 Attacks

Originally posted by 1111111111111
But I'd keep my eyes and hears open. 9/11 was just to perfect to have been done by anyone from Iraq or Afghanistan, 1st off those countries are poor.

Iraq might be a poor country; but its leadership was not. All the revenues from the food for oil program never made it down to the people...

The thing is that the government had plenty of warnings that somethign was goinf to happen. So either they faled to stop it or let it happen.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

The discrepancy of a jet landing at Hopkins

Could you elaborate please? I'm not familiar with that. Flight 93 was reported landing at Cleveland and confirmed by UA.

It was not Flight 93 that landed at Cleveland, it was Delta Flight 1989. Should do a little more research.

I did plenty of research on it at the time. There was a news report that stated that Flight 93 was reported as landing at Cleveland AS WELL AS DAL1989, and that the landing of Flight 93 was confirmed by UA. There was even talk of how the passengers might have been moved to a near by NASA facility located next door. Cleveland was also mysteriously shutdown and people forced to walk for miles, having being told to leave their cars. There is video regarding this, too.

Unless this was firmly debunked since then, I thought this was still an area with a lot of questions. I was looking for clarification on the comment further up regarding Flight 77. My comparison to Flight 93 was for illustrative purposes only.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I did plenty of research on it at the time. There was a news report that stated that Flight 93 was reported as landing at Cleveland AS WELL AS DAL1989, and that the landing of Flight 93 was confirmed by UA. There was even talk of how the passengers might have been moved to a near by NASA facility located next door. Cleveland was also mysteriously shutdown and people forced to walk for miles, having being told to leave their cars. There is video regarding this, too.

From the reports i have seen only flight 1989 landed at Cleveland. The air traffic controllers got confuesd and mixed up flight 93 and 1989 becuse they joined in flight and with the transponders off they were confused as to which was which for a while.

256.com...

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 12:19:40 EDT
Subject: A close brush with death and happy to be alive

Dear Friends,

Many of you knew that [my spouse] and I and many [fellow] employees were on an 8 am flight from Boston to LA on Tuesday morning. I am happy to be alive and to be able to tell you of the events of our harrowing journey. Even though it has been only 48 hours since we departed Logan, it feels as though a lifetime has passed.

[My spouse] and I and six other fellow [...] employees were on the 8 am flight from Boston to Los Angeles on Tuesday, but we were on the Delta flight [1989], the one out of three 8am flights departing Logan that did not get hijacked. Instead, we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight. Also, there was an irregularity in the passenger manifest because there were two people [with the same middle eastern name] who were listed but only one aboard.

After our emergency landing, our plane was directed to go to an isolated area of the airport, and we waited for over two hours in quarantine before FBI agents and bomb sniffing dogs came out to the plane. Just after we landed, the pilot gave us permission to make one very brief telephone call before we were banned from any further telephone use. The sixty or so passengers were thus able to gather some alarming details of the unbelievable fates of the other two LA-bound planes and the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, the suicide bombing of the Pentagon as well as reports of other plane crashes in PA and LA (LA proved unfounded) before we were cut off from any further communication. Unfortunately, all this information only added to the alarm and confusion we felt as we waited for over two hours far away from the gates of the airport.

Finally, a caravan of cars bearing FBI and Treasury agents and bomb sniffing dogs approached our airplane. About twenty or so armed FBI agents and police officers boarded the plane and said there were concerns about our flight and that they were taking precautions to rule out any further danger. We finally were allowed off the plane, told to take all of our personal items and leave everything at the edge of the tarmac. While our personal effects were examined we were taken to a secure building at the airport where for three hours we were interrogated at length about any unusual or suspicious activities we observed at Logan that morning or during our flight. We were all alarmed and distraught about the dribs and drabs of information we were slowly getting from our telephone calls (none of us was able to see a TV or listen to a radio) and feeling unbelievably lucky to be alive.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The thing is that the government had plenty of warnings that somethign was goinf to happen. So either they faled to stop it or let it happen.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Could you please provide me with your source for this statement???? I have yet to see anything official saying that they were aware of the attacks.

Oh and for the record...if the gov't had "warnings that something was going to happen" then you are contradicting your gazillion posts that the gov't did it. If they did it, why would they need a warning that you claim they ignored????

reply to post by cw034


YOu're making the fundamental fallacy that to speak about the "government" is to speak about the entire government. The "government" has perhaps evenmillions of employees. No matter what happens they can't all be in on it. YOu're going to have a majority who will do their jobs. But then those at the top and in key "mole" positions can work towards a different ends. "They" are the ones expected to act on the warning given yto them by their faithful do-gooders, or foreign intelligence services. It's too bad the 'big whigs' had all the warning in the world, yet not only didn't act on them, they actually did the opposite of what you would have expected them to in many cases. Spend a couple nights in Thompson's 9/11 Timeline, and you'll see the clear trend of ignoring abundant warnings and direct facilitation on virtually all levels.

Things like no planes, no hijackers, no NTSB reports and so on are all there to keep people distracted from the clear trends of ignoring the warnings and obscene facilitiation.

reply to post by WyrdeOne


i was born here i don't want this government and i'm going to do every thing i can to fight it and probably die for it. i just think that general statments like that are bad.

Originally posted by cw034
Could you please provide me with your source for this statement???? I have yet to see anything official saying that they were aware of the attacks.

Well if you really read my posts i never said the government did it, i do reaserch to find out what really happened. If the evidnece goes against the government. oh well.

Here are a few sources for you about the warnings.

www.ctstudies.com...

Early '01 Memo Warned of Al Qaeda Threat
….The memo, from former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, had been described during the hearings, but its full contents had not been disclosed…..(Reuters, 12 Feb 05)

Bush team tried to suppress pre-9/11 report into al-Qa'ida
Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the 11 September 2001 terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida were planning aircraft hijackings and suicide attacks, according to a new report that the Bush administration has been suppressing….(Belfast Telegraph, 11 Feb 05)

Terror warnings to FAA detailed
The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months prior to Sept. 11, 2001….(AP, 11 Feb 05)

Memo warned Bush of al Qaeda threat
A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush
administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world, a warning that critics said went unheeded by President George W. Bush until the September 11, 2001, attacks….(Reuters, 11 Feb 05)

Sept 11 warnings ignored: report
United States aviation officials failed to respond to dozens of warnings of a possible terrorist threat months before September 11, 2001, according to a previously undisclosed report by the panel that probed the attacks….(Reuters, 11 Feb 05)

FAA ignored pre-9/11 terror alerts
In the months before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and al- Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission…..(New York Times, 10 Feb 05)

9/11 Commission: FAA Was Alerted to Potential Attacks
Federal Aviation Administration officials received 52 warnings ….(AP, 10 Feb 05)

9/11 Report Cites Warnings About Hijackings
U.S. aviation officials failed to respond to dozens of warnings….(Reuters, 10 Feb 05)

[edit on 9-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

This is the crux of the mystery. It confirms that one flight was missing. That is the plane that flew in behind DAL 1989, flight 93. But that plane had over 250 passengers on it...parked and debarked at a distant part of the airport. The evacuation of the airport, on foot only, was unprecedented (and illegal) and spells out the crucial nature of this event. IF that plane was carrying the passengers of all the alledged hijacked planes...IF the impacting aircraft were actually, windowless drones...IF the Pentagon was struck by a cruise missle instead of an airliner...IF the phone calls, as unlikely as they are, were as suspicious as they sounded from flight 93...the Cleveland mystery is the lynchpin that holds the whole conspiracy together.

Originally posted by 1111111111111


It's something to think about, when researching, why after 9/11 has the US Gov been after all the poor middle eastern countries? AND why do they question anyone who questions them?

"Question" I think is a understatement, if you question this administration you can bet there will be retaliation against you, the Plame case is just one minor example. I would say that the 911 antrax attacks were the "big STFU" from the administration to anyone from "within" that might go against the grain.

reply to post by Black_Fox

recovery and positive identification of debris from the commercial aircraft allegedly used in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (N334AA, N612UA, N644AA, N591UA), has been denied.

Oh no don't go there.

The FBI have to get the proper planes, crash and burn them to
pass the substitutes. First the impounded parts, have to be stolen,
then the substitutes recovered as the real 9/11 parts.

This is so easy working for the terror government.

Is that Alex Jones again. Its a good thing to point out the bad.

reply to post by revelator7


I do recall the Cleveland landing.
There is no mention of DAL 1989 in this time line:

Complete 911 Timeline


Substitute planes but are plane's bereaved family members at the WTC
during memorial services each year.

You can't substitute that.