This is a continuation of my prior blog Plane Flyover; Explosives Planted Inside The Pentagon.

This blog is also available as a single page at my Github Gist which averts the 65 kilobyte limitation of the Steem blockchain which forced me to divide the blog into 3 parts here.

Explosives Planted Inside The Pentagon (…continued)

[…]

Kevin Ryan has an excellent blog From renovation to revolution: Was the Pentagon attacked from within? on this topic, excluding the erroneous bit about the plane actually hitting the Pentagon and Rumsfeld forsaking his duties for 30 minutes (which was a now disproven alibi for not coordinating NORAD response). I excerpt some his key correct points:

These questions should be considered along with the fact that U.S military and “Homeland Security” expenditures since the 9/11 attacks have totaled approximately $8 trillion […] The renovation project was originally planned during the first Bush Administration, when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) […] Early in the project, oversight was provided by John Deutch, the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DEPSECDEF). Deutch came to the job after a career in academics and at the Department of Energy. He was associated with Mitre Corporation, which in 1999 was in collaboration with a company called PTech to “look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force, in case of an emergency.”[6] Investigator and author Jamey Hecht has written that “The [very important →] Ptech story is a crucial piece of 9/11 because the software was used to simultaneously coordinate the FAA with NORAD and the Secret Service.” […] Of course, the Pentagon is the center of the U.S. military industrial complex and therefore the people running its programs would have stood to benefit from the extraordinary increase in military spending after 9/11.

The new plan and the environment in which it was drafted

In 1997, a new plan for the renovation project was crafted by Hamre, reportedly in response to the mid-1990s terrorist attacks in Oklahoma City and abroad. This new plan appeared to be an effort to improve the resistance of the exterior of the building to an explosive impact, with additional actions taken to reduce the possibility of fire damage. The following improvements to the building were planned:

Former NSA executive and whistleblower Thomas Drake said that former NSA Signals Intelligence Director (#3 at NSA) Maureen Baginski told a group of more than 50 staff just weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the worst intelligence failure in US history since Pearl Harbor, leaving almost 3000 dead: “You have to understand, 9/11 is a gift to NSA. … We are going to get all the money we want.”

Ryan also explained why self-proclaimed eye witness Frank Probst (pictured below) can’t be credible. I had pointed out in my prior 9/11 blog that Probst refused to be interviewed by CIT.

No Credible Conflicting Witnesses

The claim by disingenuous detractors (disinformation propagandists and even disinformation infiltrators of 9/11 truth movements such as John Wyndham of “Scientists for 9/11 Truth”) that there’s even one strong witnesses supporting the (conflicting) south side flight path is simply incorrect because on closer analysis of the details — as I detailed witness-by-witness in one of my prior blogs — their multitude of claimed witnesses either in some cases aren’t credible due to stating conflicting details, being unsourced, out-of-context, misleading, misattributed, and/or even doctored. Or in the other cases demonstrably didn’t have either a clear view of the plane’s path until it hit the building or its relative position to the Citgo. For example, witnesses who embellished their story by claiming they saw the plane hit yet also admitted they ducked, hit the ground, or failed to admit their view of the actual impact hole was obstructed. This isn’t a very arguable point for those who have sincerely studied the details (c.f. also).

The alleged disinformation infiltrator (c.f. also) Jim Hoffman wrote:

^{They neglect to show the reader that the C-130 is a four-engine straight-wing turboprop, and they neglect to mention that the E4B, a four-engine Boeing 747, was not less than several thousand feet above. Given those assiduously avoided realities, neither plane could have been mistaken for a 757 flying away from the explosion.}

The claim that the plane would have been seen flying over is not a refutation because at least one credible witnesses Roosevelt Roberts, Jr. did actually see it flyover and others such as Maria De La Cerda and Erik Dihle heard it at “the other side” and said, “some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going.” Yet the possibility of many people seeing it flyover wasn’t so great due to the complex topography in the area, plus the waterways and evacuated national parks on the other side of the Pentagon from which the plane emerged. There may have been more sightings that were covered up because in Arlington (but not in New York) all 9-1-1 calls were sequestered and never released to the public! Also there was the white E4B or "mystery plane" and the C-130 plane which ostensibly served as a decoy to confuse some of the eye witnesses, as depicted in one of the photos at the top of this blog and mentioned by Erik Dihle et al. Fetzer Claims (c.f. also) his friend Roy Schaeffer at JFK research told him about trucker Dave Ball who had seen the plane fly over the Pentagon, but Dave was reticent to be interviewed and was found dead a couple of weeks later.

The following video begins approximately 1 minute after the explosion which caused the plume shown, seems to have recorded the C-130 from the 1:04 mark. The 1:32 mark has an ironic Twilight Zone-esque “American Air Services” van pass in front of the camera with a male passenger making a devil worship hand signal with a grimaced facial expression. Remember the official story alleges American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The mushroom cloud plume is due to an explosive upward force, which is not the signature of a plane crash.

Craig Ranke explained:

Furthermore, there is no mention of the voluminous eyewitness testimony that supports the conventional path in line with the path of destruction.

There are ZERO eyewitnesses on record who could see the Citgo station as the plane flew past it and place the plane on the “conventional path,” i.e. south side of the station, where it had to be in order to hit the downed light poles, generator trailer, and building as already admitted by you. On the other hand, there are now over a dozen on record who could see the Citgo gas station and place the plane on the north side flight path.

If we were “cherry-picking” witnesses then the witnesses who “erroneously” place the plane on the north side would be greatly outnumbered by the witnesses who “correctly” place it on the south side. It would therefore be much easier to find south side witnesses than north side witnesses. And yet, in nearly four years since the release of The PentaCon and our four initial north side witnesses, which Jim Hoffman baselessly called a “hoax” at the time, none of our detractors, who have spent a combined total of countless thousands of hours arguing against the north side approach online, have been able to locate and interview a single one. Meanwhile, every person that we have interviewed since releasing The PentaCon who could see the Citgo gas station corroborated the initial north side reports that Hoffman had quickly branded a “hoax.” Why do you think this is?

Furthermore, all witnesses are not created equal regarding their ability to answer the question of which side of the gas station the plane was on. The majority of the witnesses could not see the Citgo as the plane flew past it. We have interviewed the witnesses who, out of the entire known witness pool, were in the absolute best locations to judge where the plane flew in relation to the Citgo, and they consistently said that it was on the north side.

Craig Ranke also provided some computations indicating greater than 2 seconds minimum reaction time (for those who didn’t flinch or duck) of witnesses to the sound of the plane incoming and/or the explosion for turning their head to view either. Thus for some (of the many on I-395) the confusion of turning the head one direction to locate the sound of the incoming plane and then whipping it back the other direction for the explosion. This is (plausibly one of the reasons) why it was critical for the plane to be flying nearly 500 knots speed in order for the false-flag deception to be achieved. Also Craig points out that it’s not unusual to hear the sound of an airplane in “close proximity” of the area as these are approaching and departing in the immediate airspace around the building every 2-4 minutes all day every day. And even sometimes overflying the Pentagon:

The "action" that people would have been "riveted" to would have been the massive fireball as the Pentagon exploded, not the extremely common sight of a low flying aircraft in "close proximity" to the Pentagon.

The alleged disinformation infiltrator Jim Hoffman also wrote:

^{More to the point of this essay, The PentaCon [aka CIT], like any good magician, selectively presents imagery of the Pentagon and its surroundings in an apparent attempt to insulate its audience from the physical realities next to which the flyover theory looks so absurd. Those realities are obvious to anyone who drives by the Pentagon on its many surrounding highways and access roads or flies into Reagan National Airport on its north approach just east of the normally-empty airspace over the vast office building. Fortunately, those realities can now be obvious as well to anyone with a web browser thanks to Google Earth™, Google Maps™, and the Street View feature of Google Maps.}

Craig Ranke rebuked Hoffman:

A full response to Hoffman’s article is beyond the scope of this rebuttal and will have to wait for another time, but one of the more egregious things wrong with it is the fact that he relies on unrealistic-looking, computer generated images (CGI) of the area around the Pentagon created from Google Earth that do not remotely represent the true point of view (POV) of someone driving on the highways. All trees, landscape, and even other structures in the area are removed. He claims that these images “show what would be seen at each vantage point for each of the five points in time,” yet in the next sentence he contradicts himself and admits that this is not the case at all since “[Google] Street View shows visual obstructions such as trees and small buildings that are not realistically rendered in Google Earth.”

In spite of this admission, he embeds the deceptive computer generated “snapshots” in the article, not the much more realistic images from Google Street view which DO show “visual obstructions such as trees and small buildings” (and walls, overpasses, fences, street signs, etc).

Furthermore, even though they are an improvement over his deceptive CGI, Google Street view images are also inaccurate because they were taken from a camera mounted several feet above the roof of a car.

For more accurate POV shots from the surrounding highways you would have to provide images/video from inside a car as we have in our presentation CIT Jettin' Crosstown.

Sgt. William Lagasse

Disingenuous detractors attempt to discredit CIT witnesses by emphasizing one case. North side witness Sgt. William Lagasse had previously in 2003 defended the official story of the airplane hitting the Pentagon. Sgt. Lagasse wrote in anger to the original progenitor of the north-side flyover hypothesis Dick Eastman, ostensibly because Sgt. Lagasse had clearly seen the airplane — as it flew on the north (i.e. “starboard side”) of his location at the Citgo gas station — without yet understanding the implications of the north side approach. He ostensibly assumed the plane he saw passing over him had hit the building, presumably because without knowing the implications of the north side approach the plane impact was a possible explanation of all the damage he encountered upon arriving at the Pentagon “30-40 seconds after” the explosion. Yet he admitted his view of the alleged Pentagon impact was obscured and thus implicitly also the alleged clipping of the light poles was also obscured from his view. Thus it logically follows that he was merely presuming that the official story must be true.

I was on the Starboard side of the aircraft.

How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27 blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated. I did however see it in person BEFORE any EMS/Fire arrived and it was fully engulfed in flame 30-40 seconds after impact literally torn in half.

In that 2003 email and in his 2001 recorded testimony, he insinuates that there wasn’t much recognizable debris on the lawn nor was he able to stay very long at the impact zone due to ongoing explosions and difficulty to see with all the smoke. Thus his angry 2003 email claim — that he had seen part of a turbine inside the Pentagon — was likely an embellishment of the recollection of some glancing view of the entangled mess inside the Pentagon (analogous to seeing shapes in clouds) during the height of his adrenaline, cortisol rush (which tends to shut down the pre-frontal cortex) “30-40 seconds after” obviously sprinting from the Citgo to the site of the explosion.

In that 2003 email, Sgt. Lagasse had explained why many of those supposed conflicting witnesses on the roadways near the Pentagon couldn’t have possibly judged correctly what they saw (because of the topography blocking their view except for just a second or split-second glimpse of the plane):

Because of the Doppler effect no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already in the building, identifying its position and trajectory from that angle would have been difficult if not impossible […] there is a small grove of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft until it was literally on top of them...again not much time to make the assessment.

Later as Sgt. Lagasse became aware of the inviolable implications of his sighting of the plane on the north side approach, he no longer objected to the flyover conclusion. Craig Ranke wrote:

We sent our DVD The PentaCon to Sgt. Lagasse and Sgt. Brooks, and they stuck by the north side flight path, even AFTER being made aware of the implications. Sgt. Brooks called our video an "eye-opener," and admitted that "anything is possible" in terms of him being fooled about the impact. (This too is explained in National Security Alert).

And wrote:

Sgt. Lagasse has been made aware of the implications of the plane flying on the north side of the gas station. He still stands by his account, and has said that he would testify to the plane flying on the north side of the station in a court of law.

No Credible Plane Debris at Pentagon

Besides the conclusively-planted debris at already explained farcical, implausible C-Ring “exit” hole, multiple photos, videos, and eye witnesses (← click that link!) confirm no plane debris inside nor on the lawn even though that facade of wedge 1 had been recently hardened with 2 feet thick of steel-reinforced concrete and masonry to prevent penetation by such an attack.³

Except for what appears to be a very few select pieces that appear to have been planted. That could have plausibly been planted during the multiple chaotic evacuations or dropped from the helicopter⁴ that Honneger noted was seen by radar departing from the heliport just moments before the alleged impact! An expert helicopter pilot eye witness even noted the erratic meandering of said helicopter at a low altitude.

For example, based on its position relative to the alleged impact being so close to the wall of the far north edge of the heliport tower, it seems implausible for the following plane debris to have ricocheted from the front wall of Pentagon unless of course instead it was planted perhaps by “the soldier” in the tower that Sean Boger says “went downstairs to the restroom” immediately before the explosion.

Ostentatious reports of plane debris inside the building such as the “an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached” suspiciously lack sufficient photo evidence, ostensibly to avert the independent scrutiny that might unmask the deception.

³ _{I already noted in §Explosives Planted Inside The Pentagon that the debris strewn on the heliport far from alleged impact hole was likely office debris blown out of the non-blast-proof windows on wedge 2.}

⁴ _{Which is much more plausible than Professor Fetzer’s hairbrained hypothesis that the debris was dropped from the C-130 circling high above. Fetzer also posited the incorrect theory of molten lead not being silver-grey color when attempting to refute the molten iron (not steel) (c.f. also) flowing out of the WTC. Fetzer myopically cites only 1.4% of total structural steel was in the 14 floors above the impact zone at the north tower, which ignores the mass other than the steel such as the concrete slabs.}

Disembarkment of the 9/11 Passengers

Barbara Honegger noted the glaring inconsistency that although the government attributed the unidentified DNA alleged but unproven to be from the Pentagon to the hijackers, according to her the FBI states that “no Arab DNA” was discovered in what is alleged to be human remains from the Pentagon. Is this legalese in that does an “Arab DNA” category even exist in genetics?

_{A rescue dog doesn’t seem to be very interested in finding any “remains”
(Photos: FEMA News/Jocelyn Augustino).}

There’s no “independent chain of custody” linking “these alleged DNA samples“ remains verifiably retrieved on the crash sites:

[…] fragments of a shoulder blade bearing Geoff’s DNA were found among Trade Centre rubble at a landfill site.

Analogous to the BTS disclaiming any accuracy of data that had appeared on their website but hence disappeared (c.f. footnote ⁶ in §Consolidation of the Passengers below), apparently the passenger manifests (which apparently aren’t manifests) have never been officially released by the government. All we have are documents published by unofficial sources which we’re supposed to assume are copies of official documents. We’re being played like a fiddle. This is a farce!

Honegger also stated that the plane which departed Dulles alleged but not officially reported to be American Airlines flight 77 — which descended very rapidly 6000 ft as officially reported by the FAA controllers in Indianapolis — couldn’t have possibly been the plane that flew to the Pentagon because the said descent isn’t present before the turn East in the data on the FDR released by the NTSB. Although I note the time discrepany cited by Honegger could plausibly be the clock on the plane advanced by ~6 minutes. She somewhat convincingly speculates that because it was a military plane as seen only by military transponder mode (which the 9/11 Commission didn’t sufficiently investigate), it didn’t trigger a (direct) military interceptor response.

“Flight of the Bumble Planes” had already in 2002 figured out some facets of the plot. The recently updated “Operation Pearl” by Professor Dewdney is somewhat closer to what I independently assimilated below. Dewdney explains on page 20 the likely fate of the passengers if they were murdered while on the tarmac or after deplaning. But I think the scenario suggested by the anonymous “Pilot A” in James Perloff’s blog is less risky of detection and failure:

I agree that the passengers were killed early on [but] . . . I just took your idea about a gas canister and thought about it from a pilot’s perspective. Why would I use a poison gas canister when the air in the cabin circulates back into the cockpit too? I risk potentially poisoning myself and fellow hijackers!

Pilot A came up with a much safer, more efficient way that the hijackers would have killed the passengers and flight attendants: depressurizing the cabin.

By switching off the AC packs and opening the outflow valves. Once the cabin altitude hits 12-14,000 feet the masks deploy and the passengers have an average of 15 mins oxygen. The flight crew [in the cockpit] have hours of oxygen at their disposal. This is what I think they did to MH370 during the initial phase, because Kuala Lumpur radar said that the B777 climbed above 40,000 for a brief time, which is highly unusual. This would asphyxiate the passengers quite quickly if the cabin was depressurized, but still allow the crew to survive. The flight attendants have a few portable O2 cylinders in the cabin, but they don’t last very long if you’re scared and hyperventilating as you watch passengers fall into unconsciousness and die. And above 40,000 feet you almost need pressurised air forced into your lungs as air on demand is not enough to get over the pressure differential.

I disagree with Dewdney’s scenario of the pilots of flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 cooperating under the pretense of military exercises (unless they were complicit undercover agents). Instead the pilots were probably killed (by undercover agents on board) as part of simulated hijacking. I agree it’s likely that most of the others who cooperated (and thus were complicit) were compartmentalized by and/or under the impression (or at least have the excuse in a court-of-law) that they were ordered to participate in simulations of terrorist hijackings.

For the following reasons the “inside-job” planners of 9/11 didn’t want to risk having the passengers on the planes that were actually precision remote guided into the WTC buildings and precision timed flown over the Pentagon:

1. There was no way to fly an actual plane into the Pentagon and achieve the death and destruction of a myriad of intended targets previously mentioned, such as the auditors and records for the $2.8 trillion missing from DoD budget which Rumsfeld had announced the day before 9/11. The plane wreckage itself would have conflicted with the death and destruction due to the explosions. Ditto the destruction of evidence at WTC7 which housed records for many government agencies:

   

2. Military planes (or drones) outfitted with remote guidance pods (such as the pod alleged to be seen on the plane that crashed into the south tower) couldn’t be boarded at passenger gates without potentially being noticed as an anomaly. Outfitting commercial planes (even if possible to hide the artifacts externally) would be at risk of detection from commercial airline maintenance workers. There’s no way the planners would risk these to kamikaze pilots willing to die for the cause. Nor could a human pilot accomplish the precision required.

3. Risk of (being intercepted or destroyed if) flying as the radar tracked planes low and slower speeds for extended periods of time so that passengers could make (aforementioned otherwise proven impossible) cell phone (and inoperative on 757s airphone) calls to their relatives. Instead hide from radar the planes carrying victims to eventual death by asphyxiation. The hero narrative for flight 93 was necessary to galvanize support for the Islamophobia wars (and the war on our freedoms to enslave us like sheep) goals that the 9/11 false-flag was designed to achieve.

4. Inability to tightly control the DNA evidence. It seems that most of the passengers were either complicit, impostors, voice “morphing” simulations (for example) or didn’t exist.

5. Risk of nothing-to-lose, gung-ho passengers actually disabling the plane. For example imagine the passengers somehow disabling the electronics by breaking into the floor or somehow punching a hole in the fuselage which is only 2–3mm thick aluminum. Although that’s 20 times thicker than a Coke can, note a pointy object can easily rip a hole. If any one of the remote guided planes was crashed over a major population center in a way such that it was not totally destroyed in a containable manner, potentially evidence proving the complicitly of the inside perpetrators would be recovered.

Since we know beyond any reasonable doubt that a plane didn’t crash at the Pentagon, speculation on what happened to the passengers on 9/11 is aided by analysis of the anomalies of the flight paths.

Flight times and paths of “hijacked” planes

Flights 11, 77 and 93 were flown into primary radar blind-spots as the transponders — which identify the aircraft and provide altitude data — stopped broadcasting. These holes in radar coverage were created when coincidentally and conveniently “the FAA began dismantling certain primary radar installations in 1999.”

Pay attention to the location of the Cleveland airport marked as “CLE” on (the south side of Lake Erie in) the image above, because it’s where flight 93 may have actually landed.

Additionally although not shown on the images, flight 175 also probably flew into the same radar blind-spot (aka gap) as flight 93 by both planes flying in each others’ vertical radar shadow with transponder off on at least one of them planes so that it was impossible to detect them as separate objects on primary radar.

So the most plausible explanation of what transpired is as depicted in the images below, the originating flight 11 plane was flown away into the gap in the radar coverage after its transponder was turned off. Flight 11’s flight path on radar was continued by two drone “planes” (flying horizontally close together as one radar blip as seen by FAA ATC because their non-military transponders are off) which had flown down through the gap to meet flight 11 before it peeled off. Both the drones and flight 11 could also have been hidden in the Vigilant Guardian wargames exercise on that day which simulated attacks by Russian bombers coming over Canada.

Alternatively flight 11 flew along with the 2 drones (horizontally close enough to be in the same radar blip) and peeled off close enough to 175 to also be hidden in flight 175’s radar blip. If instead flight 11 peeled off into the radar gap, then it could fly freely undetected. Otherwise if it peeled off hidden in 175’s radar blip then it must stay in 175’s vertical shadow (at any vertical altitude separation) until it descends low enough to be undetectable on radar so it could have possibly landed at Lehigh Valley International Airport near Allentown. Allentown is quite populated and Lehigh airport doesn’t look like is has any secure enough isolated area. Ditto Reading Regional Airport and Harrisburg International Airport. Horsham Air Guard appears to be more isolated, although a commercial flight would standout landing at a small military base in still somewhat populated area.

Much more likely the flight 11 instead peeled off into the radar gap over Green Mountain National Forest where it could descend below radar altitude (mimicking the descent of the imposter drone now posing as flight 11 which will hit the north tower) and subsequently fly over very sparsely populated forests (such as as Silver Lake Wilderness and Independence River Wild Forest) to land undetected on Wheeler Sack Army Air Field at Fort Drum out in the middle of nowhere to coincide with the FAA order by that time for all 4500 planes still in the air to land at the nearest airport.

Regardless of which direction flight 11 peeled off, these two military imposter planes continued flying horizontally close enough to be in each others’ radar blip until they meet with flight 175 at 8:37am. Then the imposter drone for flight 175 peels off to fly hidden in flight 175’s radar blip. When the drone “plane” hits the north tower, flight 175 turns off its transponder but stays hidden within the same radar blip as the second drone. Flight 175 descends down below radar altitude so it can wait for flight 93 to catch up as drone peels off to make its turn back towards the south tower. Then flight 175 flies in flight 93’s radar shadow until both planes enter the next radar gap near to Cleveland, Ohio. A passenger who called from flight 175 thought they might be headed to Chicago. That radar gap was confirmed by the FAA on 9/11:

We were finally able to deduce by the airplanes talking back to us which was the airplane not talking to us, and that was Flight 93.

There’s some evidence that Flight 93 and/or 175 may have eventually landed at the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport and been quarantined at the NASA Glenn Research Center there. The suspected-to-be-hijacked Flight 1989 also landed at Cleveland ostensibly to create confusion for obscuring that 93 and/or 175 also probably landed there as confirmed by an eyewitness whose position on Hwy 480 made it impossible for them to see (and mistake it for) flight 1989 on the south end of the runway:

On the ground, the entire city was put on full alert, buildings were evacuated (source)

The confusion included the landing time and identity of the plane:

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight. (source) [emphasis added]

Still, the flight landed uneventfully in Cleveland at 10:10 a.m. (source)

Delta Flight 1989 made an emergency landing at Hopkins about 10:45 a.m. (source)

Delta Flight 1989, another LA flight from Boston that took off shortly after Flight 175 passes very close to Flight 93 just after it makes its U-turn over Cleveland airport. (source)

Col Alan Scott spoke about Delta 1989 in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. However, he referred to the flight as Delta 89 for some reason, and talks of it landing around an hour before it actually did, which has led some to speculate that this was an entirely different plane:

9:27, Boston FAA reports a fifth aircraft missing, Delta Flight 89 -- and many people have never heard of Delta Flight 89. We call that the first red herring of the day, because there were a number of reported possible hijackings that unfolded over the hours immediately following the actual attacks. Delta 89 was not hijacked, enters the system, increases the fog and friction if you will, as we begin to look for that. But he lands about seven of eight minutes later and clears out of the system...

At 9:41, FAA reports that Delta 89, which had been reported as missing, is now reported as a possible hijacking. So again he is in the system. He is kind of a red herring for us… 9:47 is when Delta 89 clears the system by landing in Cleveland. So he is not a hijack… (source)

And confusion about the number of passengers and location of quarantined debriefing:

The plane sat on airport property between the terminal, the NASA Glenn Research Center and the International Exposition Center […] The 69 passengers and nine crew members then walked down a portable staircase and onto the buses, which took them to the FAA headquarters nearby [beside the I-X
Center]. (source)

The plane was evacuated of its 78 passengers shortly before 1 p.m. They were taken to NASA Glenn Research Center to be interviewed by FBI agents. (source)

On a remote taxiway at Hopkins International Airport at Cleveland, Delta Flight 1989 is quarantined. (source) [emphasis added]

[first officer David Dunlap⁵ allegedly wrote] the tower told us to turn right off the runway. I figured that the normal path to the gates was clogged and they were taking us around the other end. As we backtracked down the taxiway we were told to “turn left onto taxiway bravo and wait there.” I looked at the airport diagram and noticed that taxiway bravo was in a very remote part of the field, about as far from the terminal as you could be. (source)

At the Cleveland airport, [an alleged passenger of Delta 1989] said their plane was kept in an isolated area, far from buildings and other planes. (source)

After our emergency landing, our plane was directed to go to an isolated area of the airport (source)

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport because of concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. The plane was sitting on a runway at the airport’s west end with approximately 200 passengers on board. The mayor had said earlier that the plane was being evacuated, but an airport spokeswoman said the passengers remained inside […] The airplane landed at about 10:45 a.m., but the airport released no information about the plane's intended destination. Normally, planes of this size do not land at Hopkins […] He said airport officials reported that a second airplane in distress had passed through Cleveland airspace earlier Tuesday morning before being handed off to Toledo. Officials at Toledo Express Airport did not immediately have any information about a plane headed from Cleveland. (source) [emphasis added]

Cleveland Mayor Michael White said at a news conference this morning that a Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport because of fears a bomb was aboard. He reported that air traffic controllers could hear screaming aboard the plane. The 200 passengers were reportedly released from the plane at 11:15 a.m., though White said the pilot was still concerned that a bomb remained. White reported that another plane was diverted from Hopkins toward Toledo. (source) [emphasis added]

The shadows on the tail of the plane in the photo of Delta 1989, place the photographer on the west or south side of the plane if taken before noon. Else on the east or north side. North side would be consistent with the taxiway. The quotes above, trees in the background and an additional point below, all indicate the Delta plane was at the south end of the runway:

 

To make sure that flight 1989’s landing approach is southeast so it didn’t end up at the northwest end of the runways where the NASA center is located:

And now, preparing for landing, Werner has more important things to worry about. He was too close to Cleveland when he got the order to land. So he loops back, over Michigan, and heads toward the city. (source)

Dewdney wrote:

If Flight UAL 175 had proceeded directly from Boston to Cleveland, instead of turning south, as the official story alleges, it would be landing at this very time in Cleveland, having traveled at an average speed of 310 mph (takeoff & landing allowance included) […]

Strangely enough, a second Flight, thought to be DAL 89 [aka Delta 89], came in for a landing at 10:45 am with little excitement […] It proceeded to another remote area of the airport, beside the NASA Glenn Research Center. At 11:15 about “200 passengers” were evacuated into the Center. It is thought that Flight DAL 89 was one of the aircraft being used in the ongoing war-games exercises. This would explain the confusion that surrounds its real identity […] When DAL 89 was first cleared to land, it was apparently not in the correct position to land easily and found it necessary to fly as far as Toledo, Ohio before turning around and coming in at the time stated. Had it come in when first cleared it would be landing at approximately the right time to be Flight UAL 93 […]

It would have been possible to have passengers of either UAL 93 (from Newark) or UAL 175 (from Boston) to have boarded Delta equipment, thanks to a prior arrangement with the airlines involved. United and Delta have a history of cooperation and there may be some overlap in the respective boards of directors […] However, it might well be that an aircraft with United markings could also pass for Delta 1989 for the simple reason that a) only one or two of the most senior people were in the tower at the time […] one has the simpler job of feeding the tower personnel the right story, given their knowledge of the war-games, […] “We’ll have two Delta Flights coming in as United […]”

Augmenting aforementioned numerology, remove 19 fictitious hijackers from ‘1989’ yields ‘89’. Subtract 9 - 8 = 1 then concatenate ‘1’ with ‘19’ reversed yields the date ‘911’. Also flight 11 with 81 (8 + 1 = 9) passengers and crew of 11.

More about Delta 89:

“Delta 89” was the codename for a plane participating in the ongoing wargames […] Colin Scoggins was the controller who sent the “Delta 89” messages to Rountree. Scoggins was the “military liaison” […] The exercise status of “Delta 89” also explains why it was tracked by Scoggins (Boston Center) when it was already deep in Cleveland Center airspace […] Col. Scott himself says that “Delta 89” landed at Cleveland. But he gives the bizarre landing time of 9:47 […] It might be hard to find witnesses who actually have observed Flight X. There are, however, people who have observed fighter jets forcing an airliner to land at Hopkins:

I’m sure there was a fifth plane involved that was headed toward Camp David;however, that plane was forced (yes forced, militarily) to land in Cleveland. I thought the target could also have be NASA’s Glen/Lewis Research Center that is right next to the Cleveland Airport. The news reported that the plane landed because of a suspected bomb on board but they haven’t released anyone that was on that plane. The closed NASA and transported everyone that was on the plane there for questioning.

[…] The 9/11 Commission tells us that NEADS sent fighters from Michigan and Ohio. But these fighters never came in contact with Delta 1989. The Ohio fighters took off at 10:17, seven minutes after the landing of Delta 1989. The Michigan fighters, despite being airborne at 9:40, landed at their home base shortly thereafter (source)

When NORAD‘s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, New York, was notified of the first real-world hijacking at 8:38 a.m., its mission crew commander, Major Kevin Nasypany, thought this was part of the exercise, which he'd helped to design. He said out loud, “The hijack‘s not supposed to be for another hour.” [8] NEADS was in fact alerted to the suspected hijacking of Delta 1989 almost exactly one hour later, at 9:39 a.m. [9] This was therefore around the time it was due to be notified of the simulated hijacking in the exercise, and supports the contention that Delta 1989 was playing the targeted aircraft in that exercise.

DELTA 1989 INDICATED THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HIJACKED

[…] Just after 9:39 a.m., when a radio transmission was heard coming from the hijacked Flight 93 in which a hijacker said, “There is a bomb on board,” […] the crew of Delta 1989 missed the hand-off to their new frequency. The new sector controller dealing with Delta 1989 called out to the plane several times but received no response from its pilots […] this news soon reached an FAA teleconference.

[…] “One anomaly that perpetuated concern” at the TRACON was that Paul Werner “never used the ‘heavy’ designator in his communications.”

[…] Members of the SWAT team, who’d taken up a position just behind the aircraft, saw Paul Werner with blood running down his face as he leaned out of the window to give them the “all clear” signal […]

MILITARY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WRONGLY REPORTED DELTA 1989 AS HIJACKED

[…] when the second plane hit the World Trade Center, FBI agents called the FAA's Cleveland Center and warned its controllers to keep an eye on Delta 1989 […] Colin Scoggins, the center's military liaison, reported that the flight was a possible hijack […] And it appears that Scoggins had no evidence that the flight had been targeted (source)

Three minutes after the Pentagon was hit, a strange aircraft with call sign “Delta 89” popped up on the radar screens of air defense commander Kevin Nasypany’s crew. It signaled a hijacking and was tracked by NEADS for three minutes before it suddenly disappeared again […] 90 seconds before Delta 89 appears on stage, NEADS receives a verbal message from Colin Scoggins, the military liaison controller at Boston Center, regarding Delta 1989 […] they detect two planes “really close together” — Delta 89 and Delta 1989 — and obtain the squawk code of one of them: 7112. This is not Delta 1989’s code, which is 1304, so it must be the code of Delta 89. The first digit “7” indicates that it’s not the ID code of an usual civilian airliner - they never begin with a 7. Instead, the 7 is reserved for emergency cases […] By squawking 7112, Delta 89 manages to pop up on the NEADS radar screens and signals a hijacking […] At 9:44, Delta 89 is suddenly “lost” […] Obviously the pilot has turned off the transponder, making himself virtually invisible [at that low altitude landing at Cleveland by 9:47].(source)

If the Cleveland FAA Control Center had any valuable data that it hadn’t already revealed, one could plausibly imagine it conveniently destroyed due to another mysterious evacuation:

Later that tense day, after most planes had landed, Oberlin police warned the center of a small plane still flying and headed toward the center. That warning resulted in a brief evacuation except for essential employees. Mr. Kettell said that plane simply flew past and was never identified. (source)

So that no one would expect to see the other passengers from 93 and/or 175 depart the airport, the flight 1989 passengers:

We were then escorted out of the airport without going through the main terminal to avoid what the FBI called a "media circus" because the mayor of Cleveland was holding a press conference stating that there was a bomb on our plane and a hijacker in the cabin.

⁵ _{Dunlap quit flying and either was never certified to fly or is David Caris Dunlap.}

Consolidation of the Passengers

Unraveling The Mysteries Of Flight 11 is a must read, including the (correct link to the) cited forum thread. Read first the summary. Also note that United Airlines personnel were subjected to a surprise training exercise 12 days before 9/11 that was so realistic that some of them ended up in tears or became physically sick.

Flight data recorders for flights 11 and 175 were never recovered and for flights 77 and 93 the FDR serial numbers weren’t disclosed.

The “officially” non-existent⁶ BTS wheels off time for flights 175 and Delta 1989 were 8:23 and 8:25. Flight 175 thus plausibly flew in Delta 1989’s radar shadow as “Delta 89” (or “UAL 1898”) landing at 9:47 (or 10:10 or 10:45) in Cleveland. According to the ACARS data reported by United, the other (as tracked by radar, e.g. possibly as a war exercise) “flight 175” departed (the ground) at 8:14.

SMOKING GUNS: flight 175 was verifiably routed nearer to Pittsburg and Cleveland long after its alleged crash on the WTC. Also, passenger Peter Hanson allegedly thought flight 175 was headed west to Chicago, not east to the WTC. Click here for more:

• FBI has no records linking wreckage to FAA registered aircraft.
• NTSB says flight 175 took off from a different airport.
• Flight 93 was still radio handshaking over ACARS (while positioned nearer to Illinois) after it allegedly disintegrated into tiny pieces scattered over 8 miles at Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Flights 11 and 77 never officially departed and those planes were deregistered 14Jan2002 as “destroyed”. Whereas, the planes for flights 93 and 175 were deregistered in 2005 only as “canceled” meaning they could still be in service with different tail numbers in other countries or in the military. There’s some evidence, reports, anomalous testimony and conjecture indicating flight 11 was consolidated with flight 175 (aka “Delta 89” or “UAL 1898”) or even Delta 1989 with its 299 pax seating. Victims were plausibly consolidated on war exercise obfuscated (load factor) flights landing in Cleveland. Complict and/or non-exist passengers could have boarded instead the duplicates which were radar tracked until they were swapped for drones. Flight 77’s victims (if any) could have been flown up the aforementioned radar blind-spot corridor to land much earlier at Cleveland, or flown to Newark for consolidation with flight 93 which was delayed. The consolidation could have been merged and obfuscated along with the transfer to flight 93 of passengers from cancelled flight 91. Flight 93’s “officially” non-existent⁶ BTS wheels off time of 8:28 disagrees with the 8:42 according to the aforementioned ACARS data reported by United and reiterated by FBI which noted the anomaly as “leaves” instead of “departs”.

It’s highly implausible that any Boeing 757 crashed at the farcical preexisting “wings-shaped” strip mine “gouge” hole in Shanksville where no debris was visible according to FBI agents who first arrived on the scene. The remaining most plausible explanation being (per the prior section) is flight 93 landed at Cleveland at 10:45. The possibility that all 199 passengers from the four alleged hijacked flights landed at Cleveland, concurs with the aforementioned report that “200 passengers” were at the “west end” near the NASA center.

(click to view)

Note although the preexisting gouges on the following alleged 1994 USGS satellite photos don’t precisely match the one on 9/11, they do indicate this site wasn’t likely a random event chosen by a plane falling out of the sky at a random location. That land had been worked since 1994 to fill those gouges providing cover for planting a bomb there.

James Perloff is positing that the passengers were flown over the Atlantic ocean through a refueling stop at Lajes Air Base in the Azores islands before proceeding to Israel. This seems less likely because of the aforementioned ACARS evidence that both flight 93 and 175 were flown out near Cleveland and didn’t crash. Perhaps there would be less control and more risk factors flying out of the domestic airspace which was highly controlled and obfuscated with ongoing military exercises. Really doesn’t matter because the outcomes and implications are the same regardless. Note there was a US Today article that mentioned, “three jets over the Atlantic Ocean are sending out distress signals, the Coast Guard reports.”

⁶ _{Indeed the “tail numbers” are garbled as displayed on transtats.bts.gov/ONTIME/ for flights from 01Jan2001 to 28Feb2002. Original source was removed sometime after 18Nov2016.}

(this section is not yet completed, please check back as I will add an aerial photo of the gouge at Shanksville years before 9/11 and more)

…this blog is continued in Debunking Mark Roberts’ 9/11 Disinformation Tactics

---

_{Disclaimer: some of the sources I linked to (especially for example where I linked to a specific mark in a video where I intend only the intended portion to be referenced) contain some (for example) debunked disinformation which I’m not espousing.}