This essay is now part of the book Questions I Wasn't Supposed to Ask
Planes without Passengers, the 2nd edition takes from the first edition the proven theory that no hijackings took place on 9/11 and goes further by concluding that the passengers were really agents who assisted with the plot.
The book's conclusions are based primarily upon two facts: (1) the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), which maintains information on all commercial flights in the United States, in its original form, stated clearly that while United 175 and United 93 were scheduled to fly and flew on 9/11/01, American 11 and American 77 were not scheduled and did not fly and (2) ACARS, a system much like electronic mail and GPS, shows that United 175 and United 93 were flying over the Midwestern part of the United States long after their supposed "crashes" on the east coast.
Agents pretending to be passengers were seen at the Cleveland Hopkins Airport late that morning. They walked toward A NASA building to make calls to the media to straighten out an impression many had that the Internet reported that United 93 had landed in Cleveland.
The author says in the Afterword that the United States' public is not ready to hear this message. People talk about corruption in high places and how they want change but most are ultimately too comfortable with the status quo to change it.
CLICK ON IMAGE TO FIND OUT MORE OR TO BUY!
_ From a previous essay, “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.
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?
Dean Hartwell keeps pursuing the truth about those who govern us.