Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls by loopDloop 2012-2014 as posted at letsrollforums.com 12 July 2012 The “hijacking” of American Airlines Flight 11 is the opening event in the orchestrated chaos of September 11 2001. It is the first of the four flights to take off, the first to be taken over, and the first to crash, into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Flight 11 was crucial to the success of the entire operation. Many different elements had to come together. It was a masterpiece of planning. What happened on Flight 11? After recent discoveries made in the threads here, particularly on John Ogonowski, the captain, and on Daniel Lewin, the Israeli antihijacking Special Agent genius billionaire with the “Hijacker” model Swatch, I became very curious about Flight 11, and decided to read, and reread everything I could find online. I came loaded down with the usual accumulated prejudices of ten years on the 911-was-an-inside-job. There was no flight 11. There were no hijackers. The phone calls were faked. These were my mantras. Except that I've learned since I came to Let's Roll that everything I thought I knew about 9/11 was wrong, so I was ready to unlearn what I thought I knew. And I was right: I was completely wrong. I found that there was a lot of fresh material on Flight 11 which seemed to have made it's way online relatively recently, within the last year it seems. It's a huge trove: full transcripts of many phone calls, including the two which were said to be from the flight itself, detailed phone logs, and most fascinating of all, many original FBI interview notes from the days and weeks immediately after 9/11. I don't know who has uploaded these materials, or when, but they have done a huge service. I realised that I had no idea how little I really knew about flight 11 and the two phone calls. What I thought I knew was part of a jumble of things I'd read about all of the flights, and all of the calls. I decided to focus. Rather than try to understand all of the flights, and all of the calls, I would focus on Flight 11, and the two calls from Ong and Sweeney. As I began to read, and compare, and cross-correlate, a picture began to slowly come together. By comparing the various accounts from different participants, taken in the days immediately after 9/11, it's now possible to recreate in detail the circumstances surrounding the two phone calls from Flight 11. What emerges is a story which is different in many key respects not only from the government narrative (no surprise there), but also to much that has been written by 911 researchers over the last ten years. In this series of posts, I am going to work slowly through a fairly lengthy catalogue of inconsistencies, oddities and downright impossibilities. There's a lot of material, and, frankly, it's a little boring I fear. To get to the bottom of all this, there's no alternative but to go into the fine detail of these calls. Hopefully, however, it's worth it, because hidden in the details are the keys to understanding what happened on Flight 11. Because there is so much material, I am going to present it as a series of posts. While I do this, I am holding off on allowing comments in the thread. Once the series is complete, I will open the thread up for discussion. A final comment before beginning. I'm not setting out to prove anything. As per the loopDloop doctrine, as Culto has kindly called it, I'm just going to try to let the evidence speak for itself. But I think it might help at the start to simply state the conclusion that I have come to after immersing in these materials. It can be summed up in one word. Confusion. Everything about Flight 11 is designed, from the get-go, for maximum confusion. The reason that all the clues don't seem to add up is that they were designed that way. The confusion is a deliberate signature of the design of the exercise. Many researchers have already come to the conclusion that Flight 11 was a live hijacking exercise conducted as part of the wargames under way that morning, including Vigilant Guardian and Virgo Amalgam. This seems to be exactly where the evidence that I present in this series leads. But there's something more. The deliberate confusion seems to be intended to conceal the fact that what appeared to be “Flight 11” was not a normal airline flight at all. It is a whole sequence of substitutions and doublings designed to create an illusion. It is a theatrical presentation of a flight, assembled out of props. “Flight 11” is, in reality, a multiplicity of events, operations, equipment. It's a magic trick, an illusion, in which the appearance of a flight is created by combining different elements originating from multiple locations and sources. It is, yet again, a pea and thimble game. There's a new model here which goes beyond the familiar planes versus no- planes argument. What we have here in Flight 11 is multiple events, multiple flights, stitched together, with the edges blurred. But if we follow the details closely, it is possible to see the seams. In this series, I am going to bring forward various details which have been lost, overlooked, forgotten. The story of Flight 11 as it has been told, by all sides, has been smoothed over, and it's the bits that have been left out which turn out to be the most fascinating. So, it's all about the phone calls, and the details of how these were handled. Everything we know about what happened on Flight 11 comes from the two phone calls received from flight attendants Betty Ong, and Amy Sweeney, (with the exception of some brief transmissions received by air traffic control). There was much controversy for many years about whether these were cell phone calls or airphones. This was resolved by release of the airphone records, which can be seen here. These show exact details of the start and end of each call, and other technical information, so that there's no doubt as far as the official narrative goes: the calls were made from the onboard airphones installed in the back of passengers seats. Earlier this year, a blog entry appeared on LetsRoll by rwagner66, which contains a fascinating snippet of information. If this is insight is true, then it may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Flight 11. http://letsrollforums.com/blog.php?b=1129 Quote: These are calls that went through the "Claircom box" on AA77, the plane that hit the Pentagon. This is the box that handles seatback phones, but <b>calls did not originate from seatback handsets</b>. It appears they came from something plugged into external port #4 of the Claircom box. My hypothesis is someone put a picocell (cell phone base station) on the plane and plugged it into Claircom box in order to get a connection to ground stations. The implications are: .. Someone other than hijackers was involved. The Claircom box was not accessible from the passenger compartment. The picocell must have been installed days beforehand. .. Cell phone calls were legit. The calls seen here were operator assisted, but calls from United planes, which used a different seatback phone system, might have passed through normally so as to show the caller's cell phone's number on the recipient's CallerID. I believe calls did not come from seatback phones because HandsetID shows ffff, computer code for -1, meaning unknown. I believe they came from port #4 because Originating # shows 9045550004. The 555 in the middle (NXX) indicates is not a working telephone number, but rather for <i>internal use</i>. Area code (NPA) 904 is in Jacksonville FL. They had to put some three digit number to fill the space. Perhaps software was developed in JAX. The last four digits (NNNN) contain the useful information. I think 0004 means external port #4. This information about the originating call number seems crucial, and, if it is true, it gives the game away. This "Claircomm" box is the control box from which the airphone calls are sent to the outside world, from the plane, or wherever it is installed. The phone number from which the calls originated decodes how they were made: via external port #4 on the Claircomm box. This means that the calls were not made from the body of the plane, via normal installed airphone headsets installed in the backs of the passengers seats, but from a specially prepared location. This is a crucial clue, particularly in light of further clues to come, as we shall see. But for now, lets just observe that at the beginning of the Betty Ong call, the operator asks repeatedly what seat she is sitting in. Ong has to be prompted several times before she eventually replies, and says that she is sitting in her flight attendant's jumpseat, 3R. You can listen to the tape that has been released of this call on youtube, here. It is obvious that she doesn't want to answer the question about her seat number. Why? Airphones are fitted in front of the passenger, mounted in the rear of the seat in front.