Two writings provide evidence for these facts:
1) An article from researcher “Woody Box” from which I used many of the facts and opinions to form my conclusion regarding the events of 9/11 in Cleveland.
2) My article from September 2010 in which I endorsed the account that passengers landed in Cleveland on 9/11 based in part on the above Woody Box research and my own. Note that I favor United 175 as being the flight that carried them. I now believe it was likely both United 175 AND United 93.
What is the significance of the number 200?
The total number of alleged passengers on all alleged flights associated with the events of 9/11 is also approximately 200. Counting all crewmembers, passengers and alleged hijackers, the total number is 265. Of course, if only United 93 and United 175 flew, it may make sense to discount the crewmembers of American 11 and American 77 (11 and 6, respectively, or 17 total). This would lower the number to 248. Cutting out the number of alleged hijackers, 19, brings the total number down to 229.
Two of the flights were unscheduled and did not fly (American 11 and 77). A check of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics records, in original and in “amended” form, proves this fact.
One of my articles contains both the original and tampered sets of records. It is still ranked over a year later as #27 all-time out of thousands for diaries (articles typically less than 500 words) on OpEd News.
Who shows up for an unscheduled flight?
Only one who knows about such a flight or fake flight. In the case of 9/11, it could only be someone familiar with the plot (i.e. an agent). Otherwise, to a non-agent, there would appear to be no purpose for being there.
Further hypothesis: We should assume, for the sake of this argument, that the passengers alleged to have gone on the non-existent flights of American 11 and American 77 “passengers” were agents.
All “passengers” showed up at Boston or Newark Airports. Those alleged to have flown on 11 and 175 take United 175 from Boston. Those alleged to have flown on 77 and 93 take United 93 from Newark.
Interestingly, there are reasons to believe that Flights 175 and 93 were delayed, perhaps to load additional passengers. I give my reasons for this idea about Flight 175 in Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11 (pages 36-41) and about Flight 93 in my article with Jim Fetzer, “The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What Happened to Flight 93?”
Readers are also encouraged to see Woody Box’ discussion of “Flight 11”:
Both United 93 and 175 land in Cleveland. Again from “The 9/11 Passenger Paradox,” Cleveland is the most likely destination for both flights when one considers ACARS, the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System used to track messages sent from on-ground locations to planes and vice-versa.
ACARS, as explained to us by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and others, shows Flight 93 heading west over ILLINOIS minutes AFTER it supposedly crashed in Shanksville, PENNSLVANIA. It also shows Flight 175 to be flying over western Pennsylvania minutes after it allegedly crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center.
Add to this information the news reports of mysterious people, likely to have been passengers, in Cleveland, and the hypothesis of the planes landing in Cleveland is reasonable.
Why did the planes go to Cleveland?
Logic: They had agents present who obviously played or role in the plot or their presences makes no sense. With the fake passenger plane crashes having been accomplished, it appears likely the plotters needed help with the cover-up.
So the agents take the passengers to a place where no one would recognize them. Their identification would ruin the plot. The media would soon report, falsely, that United 175 had struck the World Trade Center Building Two and that United 93 had crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. All passengers in each flight were said to have been killed instantly.
The plotters were likely concerned about what the public knew about the two flights. They would have to make sure the passengers did not communicate with the public or have their identities revealed as that would tie the plotters hands as to what to reveal to the public about the flights. So, here is a timeline of the events as they related to United 93 and 175 that day:
(Source: 911timeline.net unless otherwise noted. All times Eastern)
9:03 AM - United 175 allegedly crashes into World Trade Center 2
9:22 AM – United Airlines sends advisory to dispatchers that United 175 was involved in an “accident” in New York (HC)
9:23 AM – ACARS message receipt shows United 175 still flying near Pittsburgh, PA (Pilots for 9/11 Truth)
9:40 AM - Secretary of Transportation Mineta orders all planes to land
10:03 AM – United 93 allegedly crashes at Shanksville, PA
10:10 AM - The FAA orders all planes to land at nearest airports
10:10 AM – ACARS message receipt shows United 93 still flying near Champaign, IL (Pilots for 9/11 Truth)
10:15 AM – United acknowledges to employees that aircraft has landed near Jonestown, PA and “believed that this was Flight 93” (History Commons)
10:45 AM – Mystery plane arrives in Cleveland Airport. (Local Cleveland Media)
11:26 AM - United Airlines publicly reports that Flight 93, en route from Newark, New Jersey, to San Francisco, has crashed in Pennsylvania, southeast of Pittsburgh.
11:53 AM - United Airlines confirms that Flight 175, from Boston to Los Angeles, has crashed with 56 passengers and nine crewmembers aboard.
So how did the agents cover-up the evidence of 9/11 plot in Cleveland?
As noted above, the group of approximately 200 people, which included agents and non-agents, were seen going to a NASA building at the Cleveland Airport.
To answer this question, one need only to look at the mathematics, again using the Wikipedia statistics:
Number of alleged passengers from American 11 and 77 is (76+53) or 129
Number of alleged passengers and crewmembers from United 93 and 175 is (40+60) or 100.
So, the agents outnumbered the non-agents. They could then easily “persuade” them to go to a “debriefing” at the NASA building. The sheer use of numbers would negate the need for any overt threats or use of public violence, which in turn would have ruined the plot.
What happened to the passengers?
We could first ask what the plotters needed from them. We now know that the plotters would claim to have matched DNA samples from the “crash scenes” with samples given to authorities by the family members. Perhaps DNA samples (hair, blood, etc.) were taken here.
But even more importantly, the plotters needed to keep the passengers and the fact that they did not die in plane crashes an absolute secret. It boils down to how they could best do that.
The obvious solution would have been for the agents to kill the passengers. This would have kept the secret, but one might reasonably ask why none of the relatives have publicly questioned government involvement in the plot.
What could account from this silence? We are talking about people who say they have lost people close to them. The natural thing for those who have suffered a loss through murder is to find out who did it. It is not reasonable to believe that every relative believes the official theory without question, given the obvious holes and discrepancies in it.
Is it possible that the plotters struck a deal with the relatives ahead of time: they would promise to keep the relatives alive in exchange for the relatives’ agreement not to pursue the matter (and perhaps, some money). Maybe after some period of time, after the plotters reason no one would suspect anything, the passengers will be released back to the public.
Some might call this a Faustian bargain, the idea that the families made a deal with the devil. But there is so little we know about the relatives. Are they connected to intelligence or were they otherwise selected by the plotters? Are they just ordinary people whose relatives were victims of the plot?
Conclusion: Finding Falsifiable Assertions
Without cooperation from the alleged relatives, we cannot ascertain the identities or even the true number of passengers. The main problems of getting this conclusion revolve around the fact that there is no way to prove, or falsify, the most plausible hypotheses, while other hypotheses are untenable.
Hypothesis 1: The passengers and relatives are genuine (real people and real names used). The passengers boarded Flights 175 and 93 under their true names and went to Cleveland. The relatives sincerely believe them to be dead.
Problem: They most certainly did not die at the alleged crash scenes. So the authorities have lied to the families and yet we are expected to believe that none of them have figured this out?
Hypothesis 2: The passengers and relatives are genuine. The passengers boarded Flights 175 and 93 under their true names and went to Cleveland. The relatives are told the passengers died in Cleveland.
Problem: It would not take long for any of the family members to realize that the plotters would be responsible for their relative deaths. That they would keep quiet about such an outrage is laughable.
Hypothesis 3: The passengers and relatives are genuine but are also in on the plot. The passengers boarded Flights 175 and 93 under their true names and went to Cleveland. The relatives strike a deal with the plotters – silence in exchange for the promise that the relatives are somewhere, unharmed.
Problem: It is hard to believe that people would accept their relatives’ absence unquestioningly, even for money. Also, how do we prove a deal was made, or even that there is a connection between the relatives and the plotters? If money were involved, how would it be traced?
Hypothesis 4: The passengers use false names and/or false photographs are later used to “identify” them. The relatives are genuinely related and could use false identities themselves. The passengers boarded Flights 175 and 93 under false names and went to Cleveland. The relatives strike the same deal as in Hypothesis 3.
Problem: The same disbelief as to why the relatives would go along with this. The same questions as to proof, which are made more complex because of the use of false identities. The same issues over money linger as well. But the ease in which the passengers could be brought back to society increases as the identities make it harder for researchers to make connections. Fake pictures (see the vicsim pictures on sites like Lets Roll Forums and September Clues) provide even more cover. The issue of proof involves the ability of researchers to find the fake identities and trace the people to find out if they had any history before 9/11. Some have noted this is an issue with Lady Booth Olson, who married Ted Olson after Barbara Olson’s “death.”
Hypothesis 5: Variation of Hypothesis 4. The passengers could have all been agents using fake names and fake pictures. They could have gone to Cleveland and then checked in with a new identity after 9/11. But how can this agency be proven and why waste so many agents on these flights?
I refuse to give up. On a personal note, my parents are both computer programmers. One of the first words I learned as a child was “debug,” or clear errors out of a program. I would watch them make guess after guess as to what was keeping their program from succeeding until they found the correct one. It was very much like the idea of generating and testing hypotheses until one worked.
So I took another look at pictures on Let’s Roll Forums and September Clues. I re-read an article on the latter as to how a picture of one alleged victim, Honor Elizabeth Wainio, could be used to make several pictures of her. With her and with other alleged passengers, there are different pictures with the same lighting and facial expression, which would be highly unlikely of real people.
If even one picture and corresponding identity were faked, I reasoned, any or all of the others could be faked as well. So I came up with a new hypothesis based on Hypothesis #5 in narration form:
Early on the morning of September 11, 2001, approximately 200 intelligence agents showed up, some of them at Boston Airport and others at Newark Airport.
Upon orders from a connection to the plot, they take their false identities and board Flight 175 (Boston) and Flight 93 (Newark). In both cases, separate groups of people arrive late and fill the plane with more passengers than officially indicated.
Photographs and false identities have already been created for all of the alleged passengers. Some names of real people, like Barbara Olson, are used as well to create the impression that only real names are used. These photographs are kept handy until time to release some of them to the media.
The two flights clear the area and head toward Cleveland, where they land after the orders are given by the FAA for all airplanes to land as soon as possible. Flight plans are altered and images on screens are tampered with to create the impression that Flight 175 came back and went to New York and that Flight 93 came back and went to Pennsylvania. Similar trickery is done for the fake flights of 11 and 77.
The agents/passengers land in Cleveland and, after a short time of detention on their planes, they head quietly to the NASA building. There some of the plotters de-brief the agents as to what has happened on the East Coast.
The agents wait in Cleveland for further instructions. During this time, some of the agents work with the plotters to knock down stories in the media, such as the one in which Cleveland Mayor White stated that United 93 landed in Cleveland. They write disinformation to steer the public away from this idea and feed it to the media.
The plotters release the names of some of the passengers over the next few days and some of the “relatives” get clearance from the plotters to speak to the media. They create a narration of hijacked passengers who died as part of the “War on Terror” against Islamic fundamentalists. The relatives are so loyal to the official theory that one may reasonably wonder if they are themselves agents, perhaps even the same ones!
After a delay, the agents go to their new assignments. Can you falsify this