Former Mayor Michael R. White of Cleveland
Read Planes without Passengers, 2nd edition - available on Amazon here!
When does a current event become history?
I used to think something became history when I would see a movie about it. But with 9/11 I realize I had it wrong…
The events of 9/11 have always been best understood as a movie. The official sources gave us the story complete with the villain, Osama bin Laden, the plot, “the bad guys are about to destroy our freedoms,” the heroes, the passengers of United 93 who “fought back,” a battle cry “Let’s Roll!” and even an appeal to action, “Get them over there before they get us here (again)!”
My focus is on the planes and passengers. The official story tells us that they perished in plane crashes engineered by nineteen radical hijackers acting under bin Laden’s orders. They were the supporting cast in that the official story is supported by the presence of the planes and passengers and the actions, namely phone calls, of the passengers.
The mainstream media, speaking for our leaders, persuaded us to assume that passengers lined up in front of boarding gates, got on these flights and went on to become the first victims in the “War on Terror.” They persuaded us to assume that all passengers died at the scene of the “crashes” in New York, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania and that we should mourn their losses.
But no one forced us to make these assumptions.
Letting go of assumptions can lead to discovering facts, and even the most relevant ones at that. Instead of starting the story of the supposedly two hundred plus passengers boarding planes at Boston, Dulles and Newark airports, let’s start the story somewhere else.
Let’s try the Midwestern United States...
Editor's Note: Dean Hartwell will speak further on this topic at the Vancouver Hearings in June.
Did the United 93 Passengers Survive the Flight?” I have proven that these passengers did, in fact, do just that. This answer leads to new questions, much like fitting a piece into a jigsaw puzzle leads to the possibility that other pieces will fit as well.From a previous essay, “
If the plane landed safely, was there really a hijacking?
If there was a hijacking, it could not have been at all as the official theory tells us. The official theory tells us of hijackers who took over the plane and flew it into the ground in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
The facts, as noted in “Did the United 93 Passengers Survive the Flight?”, tell us that the plane flew west and was identified as being in Indiana minutes after the time of the alleged crash.
Why would hijackers (especially those with a political cause) quietly fly a plane full of passengers and land it somewhere?
Why would hijackers allow phone calls to be made in the first place? The calls could have allowed relatives to inform the authorities with key details such as the location of the flight.
It seems quite safe to say that no hijackings took place.
If there were no hijackings, what were the cell/air phone calls all about?
Much has been said, and rightfully so, about the difficulty of making cell phone calls from the altitudes that commercial planes like United 93 typically fly. But even if one stipulated that all of the alleged calls were made, the substance of the calls are at odds with a plane that lands:
The Telegraph reported the following about the calls:
In five calls, passengers and crew members said they intended to revolt.
Jeremy Glick told his wife they had voted to tackle the terrorists to try to regain control on the plane.
At 9.57am, several ended calls, saying the revolt was beginning. "Everyone's running up to first class. I've got to go. Bye," said one.
Can we identify the passengers?
Consider how the “relatives” of the passengers responded, or rather, did not respond. One would think that they would have gone to San Francisco airport to greet or to mourn the deaths of the passengers, as is customary. However, then-Mayor Willie Brown was on his way to visit the relatives at the airport when he got word that none of them showed up.
Did these passengers use their real identities and call their relatives or did they use fake identities?
Do the relatives know more than they have let on?
Did the Passengers of United 93 Survive the Flight?
Consider the following facts:
Many of the United 93 passengers were scheduled to be on United 91 but switched within a few days to United 93. The scheduled take-off time for United 93 was only ONE HOUR before United 91. Also, United 93 was making its debut Tuesday flight on September 11, 2001.
Why would so many make a switch to a new flight scheduled to leave just one hour earlier? It raises questions as to who the passengers were and who told them about the new flight.
United 91 never took off, anyway.
How Do We Know The United 93 Passengers Actually Boarded the Plane?
We have evidence of boarding passes and Bureau of Transportation Statistics records of the flight schedule and take off.
How Do We Know That United 93 Did Not Crash in Shanksville?
There is no debris traceable to the specific plane that was United 93 that day. We also have an ACARS indication that the flight was near Ft. Wayne, Michigan a few minutes after the “crash” in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
What Conclusion Can Be Drawn as to the Passengers?
The plane and its passengers landed safely.
Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11 advances the theory that neither flight 175 nor 93 crashed that day but were instead flying long after the times of their alleged crashes.Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an organization dedicated to uncovering what happened on 9/11, previously confirmed that United 175 received a message at least twenty minutes after it allegedly crashed into the World Trade Center. It has now proven that United 93 was flying over 500 miles away from its alleged crash site AT THE TIME IT SUPPOSEDLY CRASHED! The book
See the Pilots site here.