What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11, 2001?
The flights alleged to have hit the Nth WTC tower and the Pentagon did not exist. They were not scheduled to fly that day.

On the basis of photographic and physical evidence, it has now been established for some time that on Sept 11, 2001 the damage to the Pentagon was caused by something other than the hijacked Boeing 757, American Airlines Flight 77 claimed by the government to have crashed into the building. More recently, its become widely accepted on the basis of video evidence that the object which hit the North Tower of the WTC at 8.46 that morning was not the hijacked Boeing 767, American Airlines Flight 11, as claimed in the official story.

In response to these observations, both supporters of the truth and blind deniers of it agree on one thing. It raises the question - "If these flights did not hit the buildings as alleged, then where did they go?'

We are now in a position to answer that question.

First lets recap on the official story of what happened to four planes that morning. AA 11 left Boston for LA at about 8 am, was reported as hijacked about 8.25, and hit the Nth Tower at about 8.46. UA 175 left Boston for LA at about the same time, was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Sth Tower at about 9.03 AA 77 left Dulles for LA about the same time , was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Pentagon at about 9.45 UA 93 left Newark for SF at about the same time, was reported hijacked about 9.45 and crashed in PA at about 10.10.  The Bureau of transportation website contains search pages, where one can pull up detailed statistics about the history of which flights have been scheduled for which airports on any given day. Go to
http://www.bts.gov/ntda/oai/index.shtml
and click on "detailed statistics" where one can search records of scheduled and actual departure times, arrival times, diversions and cancellations by departure airport, arrival airport, airline and flight number. Searches for Sept 11 2001 reveal that the flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist. They were not scheduled that day. Here are the search results which I encourage everyone to check for themselves.

A search for UA flights from Newark on Sept 11, 2001 shows 0093 to SF was scheduled at 8.00 and actually departed at 8.01. It is listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. A search for UA from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and actually departed at 7.58. Also listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. The term "diverted" does not specify any differentiation between legally diverted, hijacked or crashed, so the data gives no indication one way or the other as to truth of the official story about what happened to them, but it does confirm that they departed as per the official story and did not arrive at their destinations. A search for AA flights from Boston that day does not list 0011. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA that day was 0181 at 11.00 A search for AA flights from Dulles that day does not list 0077. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA was 0135 at 11.15.

If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you will find that they were regularly scheduled flights right up to Sept 10. AA 11 was scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00, and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at 7.45. On Sept 11, they were not scheduled. Not cancelled. Just not scheduled. On Sept 12, they re-appear in the schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20 when both flights change their numbers. Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77 flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did not exist. This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents.

This still leaves unanswered the question of what happened to the passengers alleged to be aboard the non existent flights. In the case of AA 77, while one can always speculate about the most plausible scenarios, I prefer to wait until some real evidence emerges. However in the case of AA 11, I think it is worth noting that UA 175 left from the same airport, at the same time for the same destination as that normally applicable to AA 11.

Therefore, although there is no direct evidence to support the claim, it would seem reasonable to speculate at this stage that any passengers who were regular fliers on AA 11, and asked to booked on it that day, went to the airport, expecting to get on AA 11, as per the normal routine. They were then told that there was a last minute problem with the flight which could not be fixed within a reasonable period of time, and were offered a flight on UA 175 as compensation. The data in this search indicates that we have been systematically lied to about the alleged flight paths and hijacking sequence of AA 11 and AA 77, as well as the alleged phone calls made from the planes. It also indicates probable complicity by American Airlines in the events of Sept 11 , 2001. For the benefit of any NWO operatives reading this, just in case you' re thinking of trying to pressure the Bureau into playing hanky panky with the records, the search results pages have already been backed up and widely distributed. Nevertheless, I do encourage all readers to do the searches themselves and back up the results pages, just in case this happens.

        Gerard Homgren 8:44am Thu Nov 13 '03

It has been observed the Twin Towers fell straight down, at close to free-fall speed. This is a similar characteristic of a controlled demolition.

Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors and intact steel support columns the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis."

". . . there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."

Frank Cruthers, Chief (F.D.N.Y.) Citywide Tour Commander

It is often pointed out that no steel building before or since the 9-11 attack has collapsed as the result of fire.

 Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, Morgan Reynolds, said the common account of the WTC collapse is "bogus" and suggests a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. He also questioned the involvement of commercial jets stating that "North Tower's hole wasn't big enough for a Boeing 767."

Before his death in February, 1986, Minoru Yamasaki, architect and designer of the WTC, stated, "We designed the towers to take multiple 707 jet strikes."

Why would eyewitnesses and victims only report an explosion in their 911 calls and not what they thought was an airplane crash?

Why do the emergency first responders now have cancer?

Why do most people believe everything they see and hear from the media?

Supposedly the "experts" and "analysts" that "investigated" the "attacks" said that when the "planes" struck the towers the "impact" somehow "blew away" the fire retardent from the steel beams allowing them to "buckle" under the intense heat.

Um, what the f*ck planet do you live on? Are you people f*ckin' retarded? That doesn't even sound like something that could happen. Because most americans are special needs children, I will break it down for you;

It is very strange and unfitting for a plane impact that the majority of the explosive substance appears in all photos to be delivered to the north side of South Tower. This would let us assume that there was no core formed of numerous massive steel core columns in between the collision trajectory and the resulting explosion formation.

In the first place, the explosion of a real plane would have occurred the instant the wings touched the outer skin of the steel skyscraper. However, the explosion was delayed for nearly one second and occurred deep inside the tower. Inexplicable unless the above true explanations are used: missiles and bombs.

PBS can spread propaganda too.

Lets start with the World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers. How did they collapse? The explanation so far is that the temperature from the burning jet fuel of the two planes was sufficient to weaken the steel trusses supporting both buildings. This made their collapsing inevitable. End of story.
However, a lot of people are wondering why both buildings collapsed so neatly. Why were there no major amounts of debris in contact with neighboring buildings?
Other questions are being posed, such as:

• How were the laws of physics changed to permit the heat from the burning jet fuel to fatally weaken buildings with 150,000 - 200,000 tons of steel?
  
• Why did the South tower collapse, since most of the jet fuel apparently was ignited in the fireball accompanying Flight 175s crash?
  
• Why did the sections of both towers that were above the fires disintegrate as soon as they collapsed rather than landing as large blocks? (Both buildings collapse from top to bottom very similarly to what demolition experts call a smooth wave.)
  
• Why did World Trade Center 7, which wasnt hit by an aircraft or falling debris, collapse at all? Apparently it is the first large building in history that completely disintegrated from a fire.
  

To add further fuel to the raging discussion, the WTC changed ownership just eleven weeks before they went down. In addition, we've been recently informed that key surveillance tapes and maintenance logs were destroyed in the disaster. Finally, the speed with which Controlled Demolition Inc. removed and shipped away the debris is drawing criticism. CDI is reportedly the same firm that also swiftly removed the debris from the Oklahoma City bombing.

1. The continuation of the economic sanctions on Iraq, which human rights groups have said have resulted in a million Iraqi civilian deaths;
2. Unconditional support for Israel, which has been in violation of UN 242 for 34 years now (and in the opinion of most of the world) regarding its continued use of the occupied territories;
3. The USs supporting and arming of various dictatorships in the Middle East.

In bombing Afghanistan George W. Bush has handed Osama bin Laden a major victory. Bin Laden and his group use legitimate injustices to recruit new followers in their Holy War against the west. The bombing campaign, which is killing civilians outright as well as making it impossible for the UNs World Food Program to deliver food into the area via truck convoys, is an enormous propaganda tool for bin Laden to utilize.

In the pics below, the hole upper-left from the initial damage is clear. A fire had broken out in that area, and these are pictures after that fire.
The question is, if the fire broke out from inside the building, then would it damage the outer cement columns?
These closeups show clearly that the columns are damaged.

aluminum planes hitting steel & concrete buildings

just think about it for a while each day.

a plane could hit a building, a plane could knock down a small building, but a plane could never melt like butter then cause a fireball explosion. It would begin to break apart at impact. NO OTHER STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDING IN THE WORLD HAS EVER COLLAPSED FROM FIRE.

The airspace around the pentagon is some of the most heavily surveiled in the world yet there is not one image or any footage of an airplane striking it. The official report doesn't even mention a plane. Only the outer ring was damaged. The damamge did not match the wingspan of a jet that size at any point of impact.

Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building? The building is 26 yards high.

Some of you know. Some of you don't. If you know and don't say anything, then you are part of the problem.

1-you can't turn off a airliners transponder

2- the laws of video perspective make all network 9/11 footage fake

3- skyscrapers do not "collapse"

4- you can't have a plane crash without a plane

5- who's side are you on?

P.S.

Almost all 9/11 "truth" movements are phoney. They are shills who get paid to misinform.