American Airlines Flight 11 - An Independent Analysis

A Study of the Evidence and Data

Introduction

In this analysis I present some of the discrepancies in relation to American Airlines "Flight 11”. (AAL 11). The information in this analysis is in the public domain, and from official sources. My hypothesis has been carefully considered from the telemetry data, Bureau of Transportation Statistics data-base, Air Traffic Control communications, Airline employee witness statements and media reports.

The official narrative of American Airlines ‘Flight 11’

American Airlines ‘Flight 11’ (AAL 11) was a domestic passenger flight that was hijacked by five al-Qaeda members on September 11, 2001, as part of the September 11 attacks. Mohamed Atta deliberately crashed the plane into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing all 92 people aboard and an unknown number in the building's impact zone. The aircraft involved, a Boeing 767-223ER, registration N334AA was flying American Airlines' daily scheduled morning transcontinental service from Logan International Airport in Boston to Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. Fifteen minutes into the flight, the hijackers injured at least three people (possibly killing one), forcibly breached the cockpit, and overpowered the captain and first officer. Atta, an al-Qaeda member and licensed commercial pilot, took over the controls. Air-traffic controllers noticed the flight was in distress when the crew was no longer responding. They realized the flight had been hijacked when Mohamed Atta's announcements for passengers were transmitted to air traffic control. On board, flight attendants Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong contacted American Airlines, and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.

The Mystery of Gate 32

One of the earliest discrepancies surrounding AAL 11 is the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) has no record of AAL 11 departing on September 11^th 2001, as the BTS should. This discovery was made by Gerard Holmgren. The data is automatically generated and recorded electronically when a flight takes off, so there is not human error involved in this process. To compound matters further, early mainstream media reports suggest that two different gates from which AAL 11 departed from, Gate 32 and Gate 26.

The Boston Globe: http://archive.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0912/Crashes_in_NYC_had_grim_origins_at_Logan+.shtml

The Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340686/At-8.46am-the-world-changed-in-a-moment.html

The Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/articles/sept_11_2001.html

Gate 32 was the scheduled gate, which the flight controller transcripts say, and that is what the 9/11 Commission accepted. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/16/national/16TEXT-FLIGHT11.html?ex=1071378000&en=4b6d66a63bf99b3a&ei=5070

Ground crew accounts in this video clip below, chief ground crew Donny Bennett recalls after a flight cancellation he was assigned to AAL 11. No gate number is mentioned in his account, although he talks of AAL 11 getting ready for push-off into the taxi way. Another crew member Howard Crabtree recalls attending to ALL 11, while another ramp crew member Richie Sorbello recalls waving-off Pilot John Ogonowski. No gate number is mentioned in their accounts in this video, it is only implied with a video of Gate 32. Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Gm8M40NjT2Vk/

Adding further confusion to the discrepancy is flight attendant Betty Ong’s phone call at 8:18 a.m. to the North Carolina Reservations Center, where Betty Ong told Vanessa Minter she was on Flight 12, and then repeated it to Winston Sadler. To compound matters further, Amy Sweeney in her first phone call at 8:30 a.m. said: “Flight 12 at Gate 32 had two flight attendants stabbed.” Phone Call Transcription FBI Document: https://www.scribd.com/document/14094215/T7-B17-FBI-302s-of-Interest-Flight-11-Fdr-Entire-Contents

According to the BTS database entry which lists no wheels-off time for AAL 11 for that day, there has been two explanations for this discrepancy. In the official record, the NTSB say that the data was not reported, in the confusion of the day. The “conspiracy theorists” say that it proves AAL 11 never existed. But the data does not say either of these things. If we just take the data at face-value, rather than assuming it is incorrect, misreported, or falsified, what does the data tell us? It tells us that AAL 11 existed but that it never took off. See below:

The wheels-off data is recorded automatically and electronically, the fact that the entry exists shows that AAL 11 was scheduled. The fact that the data shows the time as 00:00 indicates that the wheels never moved. Another fact is, the 9/11 Commission alleged that some passengers boarded AFTER pushback from gate, which is troubling. 

Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) discrepancies 

The Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC and the airline, to the aircraft depending on its location and vice versa.https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Aircraft_Communications,_Addressing_and_ReportingSystem 

According to the official ACARS data contained in the PDF document - 5 AWA 898 Printout between 11:47:30 a.m. (7:47:38 a.m. EST) and 12:00:15 p.m. (8:00:15 a.m. EST) American Airlines Flight 11's ACARS (Downlink) messages sent from the airplane indicates a discrepancy in the identity of the flight number. The flight number is identified as: AA0000. This should not be the case. Note, there is a noticeable 9 minute gap in the ACARS data communications when the discrepancy occurs just before AAL 11 is due for take-off at 8:01 a.m. EST. The anomalous flight number AA0000 does not exist, yet lists the correct tail number N334AA. In the other instances, it shows the correct flight number AA0011 and correct tail number N334AA. Why is there a 9 minute gap in the ACARS data?

The ACARS data is sent automatically to the airline, and then the airline forwards the data to the BTS on a regular basis. Ostensibly, no human intervention is involved, thus no human failure is possible, suggesting an airplane with the tail number N334AA took-off without an assigned flight number to it, which was not recorded in the BTS data base? Does this explain the BTS listing for AAL 11’s tail number as “unknown”, indicating that it was a different airplane that was at Gate 32, which was not AAL 11, and did not take-off, which was recorded in the BTS data base? This potentially explains the official discrepancies in relation to AAL 11 and answers the confusion why the BTS data-base reported AAL 11 as not taking off, and the account of Amy Sweeney in her first phone call at 8:30 a.m. (“Flight 12 at Gate 32 had two flight attendants stabbed.”) indicating that the airplane was still grounded at Gate 32?  Phone Call Transcription FBI Document: https://www.scribd.com/document/14094215/T7-B17-FBI-302s-of-Interest-Flight-11-Fdr-Entire-Contents

AAL 11 still airborne after it "allegedly" crashed at 8:46 a.m.

In the official narrative it has never been adequately explained why information of AAL 11 still being airborne after it "allegedly” crashed into the North Tower were officially reported. It appears from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) communications recordings that AAL 11's last known coordinates were (40'38N 074'03W) which locates AAL 11 - 5.77 miles past the North Tower according to the ATC communications, and heading towards the Washington, DC. area.

Below is a short video I made from the FAA and NORAD communication recordings, and I include the relevant communication segments of interest:

Official Explanations for this Evidence:

In the aftermath of 9/11 the scramble of Langley Fighters has been described by the Defence Department as a response to the hijacking of AAL 77, or United 93 (UAL 93), or a combination of the two. Yet the report of AAL 11 heading towards Washington, DC. as the reason for the Langley Fighter Jets to be scrambled does not reflect what is captured in the taped conversations at NEADS or in taped conversations at FAA centres, on chat logs compiled at NEADS and NORAD. In reality at 9:24 a.m. when the fighter jets were scrambled from Langley, NEADS wasn’t even aware that AAL 77 or UAL 93 were hijacked. Why did the Defence Department lie about this? Shortly after 9/11, a time-line provided by senior Defence Department officials to CNN will state, NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley in order to “head to intercept” AAL 77.

Major General Larry Arnold, the CONR commander, will give a different explanation. He will tell the 9/11 Commission, “we launched the aircraft out of Langley to put them over top of Washington DC, not in response to AAL 77, but really to put them in a position in case UAL 93 were to head that way.” Major Nasypany will tell the 9/11 Commission that the real reason for the Langley jets are scrambled and directed toward Baltimore area is to position them between the reportedly southbound AAL 11 and Washington, DC, as a “barrier cap”. It seems NORAD deliberately misled Congress and the 9/11 Commission by hiding the fact that the Langley scramble takes place in response to the report that AAL 11 still airborne. 

No Emergency Locator Transmission (ELT)

According to the 9/11 Commission, AAL 11 crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. [The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 7.] However, two and a half minutes earlier, David Bottiglia, an air traffic controller at the FAA's New York Center, received an important message from one of the planes in the airspace he was monitoring. At 8:44 a.m. the pilot of U.S. Airways Flight 583 told Bottiglia: "I just picked up an ELT on 121.5. It was brief, but it went off." (121.5 megahertz is an emergency frequency that ELTs are designed to transmit their distress signals on.) A minute later, about 90 second before AAL 11 crashed into the WTC another plane in the New York Center's airspace reported the same thing. The pilot of Delta Airlines Flight 2433 told Bottiglia: "We picked up that ELT, too. But it's very faint." [Transcript of United Airlines Flight 175] - https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/16/national/transcript-of-united-airlines-flight-175.html 

According to author Lynn Spencer, "several" facilities picked up the ELT signal around this time. [Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 50.]. 

Peter McCloskey, a traffic management coordinator at the New York Center, later recalled that the ELT had gone off "in the vicinity of Lower Manhattan." [Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York Air Route Center Interview with Peter McCloskey." 9/11 Commission, October 1, 2003].

And, around the time AAL 11 crashed into the WTC North Tower, a participant in an FAA teleconference stated, "We got a report of an ELT in the area that (the radar track for Flight 11) was in." (Before it disappeared from radar screens, the track for AAL 11 had indicated the plane was about 20 miles from New York's JFK International Airport). [9/11 Air Traffic Control Transcript] https://www.scribd.com/document/13484898/9-11-Air-Traffic-Control-Transcript 

Moreover, while an ELT went off two minutes before AAL 11 “allegedly” crashed into the North Tower, it appears that no ELT went off at the time of the crash itself at 8:46 a.m., as it should have done. 

Many researchers have tried to attribute the origin of the ELT transmission to AAL 11, however this is called into question in the 9/11 Commission’s own unclassified document, when they interviewed expert pilot Paul Thumser, who explains that an ELT cannot be activated manually by the pilot in Boeing 767 aircrafts, which AAL 11 was, indicating that the ELT could not have originated from AAL 11. The fact the ELT was not activated at the time of the impact into the North Tower is also very strange, and indicates that the AAL 11 did not crash into the North Tower, thus supporting the official NORAD evidence that AAL 11 was still airborne and heading towards Washington, DC.

Conclusion

The mystery surrounding the gate discrepancy could suggest that AAL 11 did not take-off, as reflected in the BTS data-base, which recorded AAL 11 as not leaving the ground. Along with ACARS data, which indicates a discrepancy with a non-existent flight number, which happens leading up to AAL 11's "alleged" take-off, which could explain the BTS data indicating that AAL 11, did not leave the ground. Furthermore these two pieces of evidence cited could indicate that perhaps another airplane actually took-off instead, which could explain the discrepancy regarding Gate 32 and Gate 26 departures.

Additionally, evidence suggests that an airplane identifying itself as AAL 11 with the (correct) tail number: N334AA was 5.77 miles past the North Tower according to Air Traffic Control's last known "official" latitude-longitude coordinates. Also, the official lack of an ELT at the time of the actual crash into the building alone does not support AAL 11 crashing into the North Tower, which confirms and supports the NORAD communication recordings, indicating that AAL 11 was heading towards Washington, DC. area.

Based on this evidence, it is likely that AAL 11 landed at Reagan National Airport where UAL 93 landed at 10:28 a.m. Interestingly, Reagan National Airport was the only airport to close for 23 days after 9/11. My hypothesis is also supported by reports of a airplane heading towards Washington, DC. which passed-by the White House, heading from the direction that AAL 11 would have been flying. An added note is, none of airplanes bound for Los Angeles (LAX) were listed on the arrivals board, and even more strangely none of the passenger's relatives were at the airport to meet any of the passengers, which could be expected, even taking into to account of what unfolded. 

On a final note...

I have suspected for a long time that the four airplanes allegedly involved on 9/11 where part of a "real world" simulated hijacking, which was most likely part of the war-games exercises happening on 9/11. I consider none of the airplanes which were named by the 9/11 Commission crashed into their alleged targets. Something else took place at each event that did not involve the four airplanes. The evidence does not support the official narrative and I feel the evidence cited here in this blog-post goes someway to support my suspicions.

Thank you for reading and caring!