Thank you, Mark for your continuing work on 9/11 Planes Research. You give me courage. We all know from experience that people prefer not to know the truth.
This is odd! If Betty was, in fact, taking part in some kind of drill, what are we to assume about what became of her afterwards - witness protection of some kind?
Is the gentleman pictured here really Harry, Betty's brother?
From photos I have of the Ong family, including the parents, it appears he is Betty's brother. Like Cee Cee Lyles, who my United Airlines contact worked with Lyles, and she told me that she never seen her again after 9/11. I suspect both were murdered, after unwittingly being part of these training drills. It is possible they were put into a new life under new identities. I covered a case with a United flight attendant on UA175 who disclosed to her father that she had been doing hijacking exercise drills. He father said, he felt she wanted to say more, but stopped herself. Maybe that was a NDA?
This is really interesting stuff, what actually happens to these participants in such cases. And how any NDA's can be in any way legal. How do they keep families and friends in the dark etc.
I think, to be honest, that you're overthinking things. I do not believe that Betty Ong is a real person. A trivial corollary to that is that I do not believe that anybody claiming to be her brother is telling the truth. ANd, of course, since Betty is not a real person, there was no need for her to enter witness protection of any kind!
Have you tried to contact Harry, Betty's brother? You seem to think things a lot, but that is all it is, a "belief" she doesn't exist. You don't actually have evidence really to prove she doesn't exist.
Just my opinion, but I believe the planes with the passengers who were supposedly flown into the twin towers, but were not, were flown over the ocean somewhere and “disposed of.” They were killed. They’re not on some tropical islands urging on a beach or in some South American country under an assumed name. Our gov’t had no problem killing 2000+ people on 9/11, so I believe they killed the passengers on all planes allegedly involved in 9/11.
If they were not going to fly planes into the towers (and of course, they did not, the whole notion is ridiculous!) why on earth would they fly planes into the ocean? The whole planes side is nothing more or less than a hoax.
In short, you're overthinking things. Oh, and by the way, they did not kill 2000+ people on 9/11. It''s easy to realize that. There was a 7 billion dollar victim compensation fund set up to compensate the family members of the (alleged) victims. Why on earth would the criminals kill thousands of real people and then compensate a bunch of random people for their loss when they could just kill fictitious people and steal the money?
I said “over the ocean.” Berry Berenson was a personal friend of mine. She “supposedly” died in the plane that was first to hit one of the twin towers. She’s disappeared off the face of the earth. Gone. I don’t agree with your over thinking of the monetary compensation. The money angle is so minor to the players of this heinous crime that it’s almost incidental.
Mark, can you please contact me. I know a person that could possibly add to your body of research because he was the AA11 pilot that alternated flying the Boston-LA route with Ogolnosky (sp!) He is my cousin and I just realized that I had sent him one of your articles last year. He might be a reluctant witness, but with careful and gentle questioning, he might be able to add some helpful tidbit to your research. We talked briefly last summer, and I believe that he said that he knew both Sweeney and Ong.
Hi, have you got a contact email, so I can email you? I cannot use the chat because it doesn't work in the UK. I would love to discuss further with you and work something out. Thanks!
Consider the first photo above. Harry Ong is holding a picture of his beloved sister Betty. Isn't there any photo of Harry and his sister together? I honestly do not believe that such a photo exists. If that is the case, is that not strange?
Hi Jonathan, I totally get where you are coming from. I have managed to obtain family photos, and with Betty and Harry together. I will cover your evidence also, and the reply I got from GWSF, who were not helpful at all. I'd love to chat with you in private. I have your email, so will forward the message conversation with GWSF.
It has been 24 hours since you wrote the above and I have not received any email from you. You say that you have managed to obtain family photos -- of the Ong family presumably. Where are these family photos you're talking about?
I have emailed you 3 photos of interest for you with Betty Ong with her Family. Plus, my personal contact messages with the George Washington High School Alumni Association, S.F.
Keep your hair on, there is a time difference between us both, as I am in the UK, and I don't have all day just to spend on 9/11. You will receive the email shortly. Plus, I doubt anything I send you will change your position, as you seem very set that she doesn't exist, even though you don't have evidence to prove that conclusively.
The burden of proof is difficult I know, and don't mean that as a put down. I am open to it, but just not convinced either way at the moment.
Betty could have easily been a real person and a flight attendant who was selected to take part in a scripted hijacking exercises that were happening on 9/11, not knowing that the exercise she was taking part in was going to end the way it did, with her been killed, after making the airphone call, and after the plane landed, or was blow-up over the ocean, as some researchers suggest. If you read my articles, one such United flight attendant spoke of taking part in these types of hijacking exercises shortly before 9/11 to her father. Her father said in an interview that he felt his daughter wanted to say more about the exercises, but refrained from doing so.
Look, the fact of the matter is that you reason in very strange ways. The bottom line is that Betty Ong is a character from a ficititious narrative. There is no reason for her to be a real person and she almost certainly is not.
Constantly asking your interloctuor (me, in this instance) to prove a negative, i.e. that this person is not real, is really just a sophomoric debating trick.
Another aspect of this discussion is that, for me, it is like discussing colour with a blind man. Certain things can be obvious but the other person, lacking whatever sense, simply cannot perceive it. How do you know that this thing in the ground is a lup of shit? Maybe it's really a lovely piece of chocolate mousse. Well, you could get into such a "debate" with somebody who lacks of sense of smell.
The Betty Ann Ong foundation is allegedly an initiative that comes from Betty's (alleged) family. So that text was written presumably by people who really knew her. Do you think that the person who wrote that knew this person?
Maybe you possess a sense of smell but you have not developed it very much.
The fact is Jonathan, you have not proven that Betty Ong doesn't exist. I could say you have fuzzy logic, and much confirmation bias. You draw many conclusions based on YOUR opinion only, not through any solid evidence.
I sent you photos that you said you wanted, but as predicted they would not satisfy you, and you say they are photoshopped? What evidence do you have to prove this? So easy to say that to disregard the photos.
You also say because Ong's mother and father aren't smiling that somehow there is something wrong with the photo, along with Ong's brother not looking like his parents? These are merely YOUR opinions, not fact.
I will remain open and will continue to investigate the Ong story.
Perhaps you have been reading too much on the September Clues forum or too listening much to the proven liar and deceiver Simon Hytten (Shack)? I The Vicsims crowd seems like a cult, and don't seem to offer much evidence to prove anything.
By the way, I shall be in touch soon with someone who knew Ong, so I will write more about that, if anything comes of it?
It is the first photo in that article. I had seen it before. I am pretty sure that this is just a crude paste job. The photos of the Ong parents look like ID photos that are pasted into the photo.
But, aside from your attempt to pass this kind of material off as convincing, there is a deeper problem here. Mark, I don't know how to put this diplomatically, but I am drawing the conclusion that you never really grew up. Part of growing up is coming to some understanding of the difference between real facts and storytelling. The whole Betty Ong thing is just part of a story!
So, what you are doing here is that you are just repeating a story and demanding that I somehow prove that it is untrue! You could just as well claim that the Loch Ness monster or the abominable snowman exist because I cannot prove that they don't.
I could invent any fictitious character and insist that the person is real because you can't prove that the person never existed!
Was that written by somebody who knew the (alleged) person? The whole thing stinks. Betty supposedly became a flight stewardess so she could travel and see the world. How come there is not a single photo of Betty in front of some landmark, like the Eiffel Tower or such?
Oh, and why do you think that the Alumni Association of the high school she (allegedly) attended gave you the runaround?
Thank you, Mark for your continuing work on 9/11 Planes Research. You give me courage. We all know from experience that people prefer not to know the truth.
Hi Marcella, Many thanks for your kind words. I appreciate it very much.
Hi Mark
This is odd! If Betty was, in fact, taking part in some kind of drill, what are we to assume about what became of her afterwards - witness protection of some kind?
Is the gentleman pictured here really Harry, Betty's brother?
From photos I have of the Ong family, including the parents, it appears he is Betty's brother. Like Cee Cee Lyles, who my United Airlines contact worked with Lyles, and she told me that she never seen her again after 9/11. I suspect both were murdered, after unwittingly being part of these training drills. It is possible they were put into a new life under new identities. I covered a case with a United flight attendant on UA175 who disclosed to her father that she had been doing hijacking exercise drills. He father said, he felt she wanted to say more, but stopped herself. Maybe that was a NDA?
This is really interesting stuff, what actually happens to these participants in such cases. And how any NDA's can be in any way legal. How do they keep families and friends in the dark etc.
Because the current system is more invested in rules than truth.
I think, to be honest, that you're overthinking things. I do not believe that Betty Ong is a real person. A trivial corollary to that is that I do not believe that anybody claiming to be her brother is telling the truth. ANd, of course, since Betty is not a real person, there was no need for her to enter witness protection of any kind!
Have you tried to contact Harry, Betty's brother? You seem to think things a lot, but that is all it is, a "belief" she doesn't exist. You don't actually have evidence really to prove she doesn't exist.
Just my opinion, but I believe the planes with the passengers who were supposedly flown into the twin towers, but were not, were flown over the ocean somewhere and “disposed of.” They were killed. They’re not on some tropical islands urging on a beach or in some South American country under an assumed name. Our gov’t had no problem killing 2000+ people on 9/11, so I believe they killed the passengers on all planes allegedly involved in 9/11.
If they were not going to fly planes into the towers (and of course, they did not, the whole notion is ridiculous!) why on earth would they fly planes into the ocean? The whole planes side is nothing more or less than a hoax.
In short, you're overthinking things. Oh, and by the way, they did not kill 2000+ people on 9/11. It''s easy to realize that. There was a 7 billion dollar victim compensation fund set up to compensate the family members of the (alleged) victims. Why on earth would the criminals kill thousands of real people and then compensate a bunch of random people for their loss when they could just kill fictitious people and steal the money?
I said “over the ocean.” Berry Berenson was a personal friend of mine. She “supposedly” died in the plane that was first to hit one of the twin towers. She’s disappeared off the face of the earth. Gone. I don’t agree with your over thinking of the monetary compensation. The money angle is so minor to the players of this heinous crime that it’s almost incidental.
Mark, can you please contact me. I know a person that could possibly add to your body of research because he was the AA11 pilot that alternated flying the Boston-LA route with Ogolnosky (sp!) He is my cousin and I just realized that I had sent him one of your articles last year. He might be a reluctant witness, but with careful and gentle questioning, he might be able to add some helpful tidbit to your research. We talked briefly last summer, and I believe that he said that he knew both Sweeney and Ong.
Hi, have you got a contact email, so I can email you? I cannot use the chat because it doesn't work in the UK. I would love to discuss further with you and work something out. Thanks!
Ok, many thanks. I have screen shot your email. You may want to delete or edit your message to redact your address.
Consider the first photo above. Harry Ong is holding a picture of his beloved sister Betty. Isn't there any photo of Harry and his sister together? I honestly do not believe that such a photo exists. If that is the case, is that not strange?
Hi Jonathan, I totally get where you are coming from. I have managed to obtain family photos, and with Betty and Harry together. I will cover your evidence also, and the reply I got from GWSF, who were not helpful at all. I'd love to chat with you in private. I have your email, so will forward the message conversation with GWSF.
Regards!
It has been 24 hours since you wrote the above and I have not received any email from you. You say that you have managed to obtain family photos -- of the Ong family presumably. Where are these family photos you're talking about?
Hi Jonathan,
I have emailed you 3 photos of interest for you with Betty Ong with her Family. Plus, my personal contact messages with the George Washington High School Alumni Association, S.F.
Regards!
Keep your hair on, there is a time difference between us both, as I am in the UK, and I don't have all day just to spend on 9/11. You will receive the email shortly. Plus, I doubt anything I send you will change your position, as you seem very set that she doesn't exist, even though you don't have evidence to prove that conclusively.
The burden of proof is difficult I know, and don't mean that as a put down. I am open to it, but just not convinced either way at the moment.
Betty could have easily been a real person and a flight attendant who was selected to take part in a scripted hijacking exercises that were happening on 9/11, not knowing that the exercise she was taking part in was going to end the way it did, with her been killed, after making the airphone call, and after the plane landed, or was blow-up over the ocean, as some researchers suggest. If you read my articles, one such United flight attendant spoke of taking part in these types of hijacking exercises shortly before 9/11 to her father. Her father said in an interview that he felt his daughter wanted to say more about the exercises, but refrained from doing so.
Look, the fact of the matter is that you reason in very strange ways. The bottom line is that Betty Ong is a character from a ficititious narrative. There is no reason for her to be a real person and she almost certainly is not.
Constantly asking your interloctuor (me, in this instance) to prove a negative, i.e. that this person is not real, is really just a sophomoric debating trick.
Another aspect of this discussion is that, for me, it is like discussing colour with a blind man. Certain things can be obvious but the other person, lacking whatever sense, simply cannot perceive it. How do you know that this thing in the ground is a lup of shit? Maybe it's really a lovely piece of chocolate mousse. Well, you could get into such a "debate" with somebody who lacks of sense of smell.
Consider this description of Betty here: https://www.bettyannong.com/the-foundation
The Betty Ann Ong foundation is allegedly an initiative that comes from Betty's (alleged) family. So that text was written presumably by people who really knew her. Do you think that the person who wrote that knew this person?
Maybe you possess a sense of smell but you have not developed it very much.
The fact is Jonathan, you have not proven that Betty Ong doesn't exist. I could say you have fuzzy logic, and much confirmation bias. You draw many conclusions based on YOUR opinion only, not through any solid evidence.
I sent you photos that you said you wanted, but as predicted they would not satisfy you, and you say they are photoshopped? What evidence do you have to prove this? So easy to say that to disregard the photos.
You also say because Ong's mother and father aren't smiling that somehow there is something wrong with the photo, along with Ong's brother not looking like his parents? These are merely YOUR opinions, not fact.
I will remain open and will continue to investigate the Ong story.
Perhaps you have been reading too much on the September Clues forum or too listening much to the proven liar and deceiver Simon Hytten (Shack)? I The Vicsims crowd seems like a cult, and don't seem to offer much evidence to prove anything.
By the way, I shall be in touch soon with someone who knew Ong, so I will write more about that, if anything comes of it?
Best wishes!
Mark, first of all, the three photos you sent me are about as convincing as the average UFO photo. The first of the three appears here: https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_14460439
It is the first photo in that article. I had seen it before. I am pretty sure that this is just a crude paste job. The photos of the Ong parents look like ID photos that are pasted into the photo.
But, aside from your attempt to pass this kind of material off as convincing, there is a deeper problem here. Mark, I don't know how to put this diplomatically, but I am drawing the conclusion that you never really grew up. Part of growing up is coming to some understanding of the difference between real facts and storytelling. The whole Betty Ong thing is just part of a story!
So, what you are doing here is that you are just repeating a story and demanding that I somehow prove that it is untrue! You could just as well claim that the Loch Ness monster or the abominable snowman exist because I cannot prove that they don't.
I could invent any fictitious character and insist that the person is real because you can't prove that the person never existed!
Meanwhile, nothing about this Betty Ong story is convincing. Consider, for example, the description of Betty here: https://www.bettyannong.com/the-foundation
Was that written by somebody who knew the (alleged) person? The whole thing stinks. Betty supposedly became a flight stewardess so she could travel and see the world. How come there is not a single photo of Betty in front of some landmark, like the Eiffel Tower or such?
Oh, and why do you think that the Alumni Association of the high school she (allegedly) attended gave you the runaround?
This is WILD!! Epic finding Mark!