Previous Update

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)
April 14 - 20, 2015

Warren Stutt's Entry to the 9-11 Controversy

I apologize for all / some of the pictures from my files, presented in the last update, having non-working links until recently. I neglected to include "photos" in some of the URL addresses. I feel so bad about this. I remember that, part way through the update, I reminded myself not to forget the inclusion of "photos".

This discussion is part of an exposure of "free world's" pitiful condition in days where something like an Armageddon scenario seems to be shaping up. The following chart, showing the last 12 seconds for Flight 93 on 9-11, is an example of government fraud. All the numbers outside the square brackets are from the fraudsters as per their black-box figures. The black box gave data for the last half-hour of the hijacking...because, miraculously, the terrorists turned the transponder back on, just as though the terrorists wanted to help the government create their nose-dive details.

Let's not be so naive. At first, they declared that these figures didn't exist due to the poor condition of the black box, but as they decided to create the numbers, it had the purpose of showing them to someone(s). The numbers expose the flight pattern they chose to go with in the crash scenario. My purpose here is to get you familiar with the chart numbers to imagine the shape of the nose dive, and to assess whether it's credible, reflective of eye-witness accounts, or even possible. In the first of twelve seconds on the list, the plane is relatively horizontal, but seems to me to be over 45 degrees off horizontal at the last second. Try to get a feel of the changes in nose directions as the seconds tick on.
Ask whether the figure, 6066, was intentional.

10:02:55.......453 mph.....6210 ft above sea level = 4028 feet above the crash crater
10:02:56.......455 mph.....6066 ft/sea...[144-ft drop]
10:02:57.......459 mph.....5950 ft/sea...[116] drops far less than in the previous second. why?
10:02:58.......486 mph.....5760 ft/sea...[190] large drop as compared to the previous second
10:02:59.......490 mph.....5556 ft/sea...[204] steady drop
10:03:00.....475 mph.......5341 ft/sea...[215] steady drop
10:03:01.....482 mph.......5123 ft/sea...[218] steady drop
10:03:02.....488 mph.......4818 ft/sea...[305] large drop after three seconds of slow-down
10:03:03.......497 mph.....4430 ft/sea...[388] large drop followed by a small drop
10:03:04.......504 mph.....4019 ft/sea...[411]
10:03:05.......513 mph.....3642 ft/sea...[377] the yo-yo effect continues
10:03:06.......527 mph.....3148 ft/sea...[494] in the process of a huge drop
10:03:07.......561 mph.....2182 ft/sea...[966] hits dirt more vertical than horizontal

As these figures are fabricated, ask whether there was an important reason for the three-second slow-down. When a plane's nose is lowered for descent, the plane naturally picks up speed, unless the pilot eases on the "gas pedal." We don't expect the terrorists to ease up on the gas while in the throes of crashing the plane. The black-box script reveals that the terrorists had decided to crash the plane by this point:

...Jarrah began to roll the airplane left and right to knock the passengers off balance. He told another hijacker in the cockpit at 9:58:57, "They want to get in here. Hold, hold from the inside. Hold from the inside. Hold."...

The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of crashing, screaming, and the shattering of glass and plates. Jarrah stabilized the plane at 10:00:03. Five seconds later, he asked, "Is that it? Shall we finish it off?" Another hijacker responded, "No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off" [no logic there]. Jarrah once again pitched the airplane up and down [what for?]...Nevertheless, the passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:17, a male passenger said, "Turn it [the nose up!" A second later, a hijacker said, "Pull it down! Pull it down!"...The airplane plummeted into a nosedive with the yoke turned HARD TO THE RIGHT [caps mine]. The airplane rolled upside down...the aircraft picked up speed, whooshing and shrieking picked up on the recorder, and then finally plowed into an empty field...The last entry on the voice recorder was made at 10:03:09. The last piece of flight data was recorded at 10:03:10...

If you like fiction, you can go read the rest. In radio fiction, there's no visuals to relay to the audience what's going on. Therefore, the words need to be more descriptive of what's going on. The point in using "Turn it up" is to reveal to the audience that the hijackers had been doing a considerable descent by this time.

When "Jarrah once again pitched the airplane up and down," it's for mere effect, to have the audience imagine a very bumpy ride. In reality, pitching the nose up and down would do nothing to dissuade the people from trying to bang the door down. This is a large plane that cannot be jiggled with pitching. The fraudsters must be using an example of the pitching where you see a drop of only 116 feet at 10:02:57. The previous second had a drop of 144 feet, and the following second a drop of 190, meaning that the nose went up for only a second, changing the plane's angle only slightly. It's not going to knock anyone off their feet, and only delays the crash. In other words, it's illogical, terrorists wouldn't have done it in reality. But why was it part of the script?

To see what pitch looks like, see it here. Pitch occurs during flight, and is similar to, but not the same as, what I call the tilt at crash. If a plane arches to the ground without being pitched manually, it will still have potential to tilt over (at ground contact).

There is another instance of an upward pitch at 10:03:05, just three seconds before the crash. Would the terrorists have been concerned with pitching this late? The plane is at a steep angle by that point, and the ground is virtually upon them? Why bother with a slight pitch at that time, which only serves to make the plane more horizontal before the crash? I have a theory: an upward pitch coming immediately before the final, deep part of the dive might reduce the tilting action that causes a tumble effect upon contact with the ground. The fraudsters needed as little tumbling effect as possible. In the original plot (before 9-11), they were going to have a straight-down crash with virtually zero tumbling effect, but after they changed their minds (after 9-11), going with an angle far less than straight-down, they had the problem of tumbling to deal with. A plane is not going to disappear into the ground no matter what, but as they had foolishly committed themselves to such a picture, they needed to deal with the tumble problem. They had the task of convincing pilots and aerodynamic experts that a plane crashing with a 40-degree angle had little tilt / tumbling action.

10:02:55.......453 mph.....6210 ft/sea...[4028 feet above the crash crater]
10:02:56.......455 mph.....6066 ft/sea...[144] = 8,640 ft/min descent
10:02:57.......459 mph.....5950 ft/sea...[116] levels out a bit for a second
10:02:58.......486 mph.....5760 ft/sea...[190] nose pitches back down
10:02:59.......490 mph.....5556 ft/sea...[204] why hasn't the descent rate increased substantially?
10:03:00.....475 mph.......5341 ft/sea...[215] why hasn't the descent rate increased substantially?
10:03:01.....482 mph.......5123 ft/sea...[218] why hasn't the descent rate increased substantially?
10:03:02.....488 mph.......4818 ft/sea...[305] larger nose-down after three-second slow down
10:03:03.......497 mph.....4430 ft/sea...[388] steep angle achieved
10:03:04.......504 mph.....4019 ft/sea...[411] = 24,660 feet per minute
10:03:05.......513 mph.....3642 ft/sea...[377] nose up for a second, relieves tilting action
10:03:06.......527 mph.....3148 ft/sea...[494] a big dive, how did it happen so fast?
10:03:07.......561 mph.....2182 ft/sea...[966] hits dirt more vertical than horizontal

How do we explain the reduction in velocity at 10:03:00? The wind wasn't blowing northwest against the plane. Terrorists bent on crashing wouldn't slow the plane, would they? Aren't they expected to put the foot to the gas pedal at this time? A plane slows down when pitching the nose up, but the slow-down occurs while altitude is being lost at an ear-popping rate of over 12,000 feet per minute. The last update shared from LaBTop (user name) that the fraudsters had the plane turning upside-down for the first time seven seconds before the crash, or at the 10:03:00 point, exactly where they have a reduction in speed. Therefore, they saw fit to reduce the velocity while the plane had vertical wings momentarily.

The average velocity in the last six seconds was 515 mph, and 475 mph in the six seconds before that. The average in all 12 seconds is 495 mph = 726 feet per second for a total flight path of 8,712 feet = 1.65 miles. However, this path was not perfectly horizontal, meaning that the last 12 seconds covered less than 1.65 miles of ground. It was significantly less because the plane was 3/4 of a mile up 12 seconds before crash. In aviation, there is true wind speed, and then another thing called "ground speed," "the horizontal speed of an aircraft relative to the ground.". As an extreme example, a plane moving hundreds of mph straight down has 0 ground speed.

Moreover, to whatever extent the faked Flight 93 was curving, it needs to be figured in the 1.65 miles covered over the last 12 seconds. My measurement to Viola Saylor's home was 1.7 miles from the crash site. LaBTop measured roughly the same; others have a lower number. It can be understood that the plane was past Viola's house even 12 seconds before crash, meaning that the faked black-box numbers did not respect her testimony concerning the upside-down plane. This unknown craft made a significant turn from southeast to south after passing the houses of both Kelly Leverknight and Viola, as well as a south-to-southeast turn after passing Paul Muro's house. In consideration of these things, the plane was likely above Muro's house (said to be a half mile south of Viola) 12 seconds before crash.

But at seven seconds before the crash time, it was flying exactly one mile (my fast figure = .994 mile) from the crater, as the plane flies, which can explain the erroneous reports online that Viola's place was just a mile from the crater. These reports may have been let out by desperadoes (insiders), but even while some truthers were seeking Viola's address at that time (2008/9) with concern for this issue, Viola decided to reveal it, at 1318 Pompey Hill Rd in lambertsville...", which is NOT a mile away.

In the chart, I have three velocity numbers indented for the three-second slow-down. That's because the plane was flying 490 mph before the slowdown, but did not re-achieve that velocity for about three seconds. Where I asked three times, "why hasn't the descent rate increased substantially?", that's where they had the plane flip upside-down. As soon as they had it flipped over, they gave it an extremely steep descent. Here's a look at the angles:

10:02:55.......664 ft/sec.....6210 ft
10:02:56.......668 ft/sec.....6066 ft/sea...[144 / 668] roughly 9.7 degrees
10:02:57.......672 ft/sec.....5950 ft/sea...[116 / 672]
10:02:58.......712 ft/sec.....5760 ft/sea...[190 / 712]
10:02:59.......718 ft/sec.....5556 ft/sea...[204 / 718]
10:03:00.....696 ft/sec.......5341 ft/sea...[215 / 696]
10:03:01.....707 ft/sec.......5123 ft/sea...[218 / 707]
10:03:02.....715 ft/sec.......4818 ft/sea...[305 / 715]
10:03:03.......728 ft/sec.....4430 ft/sea...[388 / 728]
10:03:04.......738 ft/sec.....4019 ft/sea...[411 / 738]
10:03:05.......752 ft/sec.....3642 ft/sea...[377 / 752]
10:03:06.......773 ft/sec.....3148 ft/sea...[494 / 773]
10:03:07.......822 ft/sec.....2182 ft/sea...[966 / 822] +45 degrees (using ground-speed velocity)

To read, 144 / 668, it means 144 feet down per every 668 feet of travel. The question is, what kind of travel? The speed as the plane moves through the air? Or ground speed? I've been looking at these angles for hours. It looks like the perpetrators are in trouble. Take out a piece of paper and draw a good-sized square. Have the plane start flying at the top-left corner. Get a ruler out. You need to find and make a point or dot in the box that's 966 feet downward (use any scale your want), and 822 feet ahead of the plane. Don't do ground speed, but true airspeed. When you find the spot, call me for your $100,000 reward.

It's impossible for a plane, moving 822 feet, to reduce altitude by 966. True, a plane can be moving forward in any direction while simultaneously dropping, but the latter effect is a contributor to the overall air speed. The plane can't be moving both horizontal and vertical at the same time (i.e. can't have both a horizontal and a vertical speed), but rather moves in one direction only that is a combination of horizontal and vertical. There is only one speed regardless of what the specific combination is, and regardless of whether the nose points up or down. If it moves 822 feet in one second, it can't descend 966 feet. Have I got that right? I hope so...because I don't have the money.

Put it this way, that a plane can be maintained horizontal even while descending. One might then ask whether there are two different speeds, the horizontal and the vertical, and whether the on-board instruments record only the horizontal speed but not the vertical. No. For, every part of the horizontal plane, including the instruments that measure wind speed, are moving in a line of descent. Such a plane is NOT moving a perfect horizontal. Secondly, the black-box numbers do not have a horizontal plane. (Aircraft speedometers register air pressure in calculating wind speed; the faster the flight, the lower the air pressure on the instruments; that's because air moving along a surface reduces air pressure upon it).

Therefore, if a plane moving 822 feet per second cannot descent 966 feet in one second, the 822 velocity figure must be for ground speed. It makes sense because ground-speed calculations require satellite assistance, and as transponders send signals to satellites, it's safe to assume that satellites inform the black box on the plane's earthly coordinates on a constant basis.

Having made that conclusion, let's go back to your square. You can make each inch equal to 200 feet, or each centimeter equal to 100 feet. Measure 822 feet (4.1 inches / 8.2 centimeters) left-to-right across the top or bottom of the square, and put a tick there. Then measure 966 feet (4.8 inches / 9.6 centimeters) down the left side of the square and put a tick there. Draw two lines within the square, one horizontal and the other vertical, from the two ticks. Where the two lines intersect is where the plane was at crash time. The second before that, i was at the top-left corner. Therefore, draw a third line from the top corner to the intersection, and you will have the angle of the plane -- more than 45 degrees -- at the last second. Therefore, why do pilotsfortruth say that the angle was 35 degrees?

One can use the method above for 12 boxes, one per second, to view the entire flight path.

Just so you know, I've drawn the angles for 11 of the final 12 seconds while viewing the velocity figures as true airspeed (I was unable to draw the line for the last second for the reason stated above). To do this for the second-last second, measure 494 feet from the top-left corner down the left side of the box, and put a tick there. Draw a horizontal line from the tick, and finally find the spot on the horizontal line that measures 773 feet. This line, you will see, approaches fairly close to 45 degrees, and it's not the final second yet where the numbers call for a much greater angle. Therefore, viewing the velocity figures as true airspeed does not work. But if one is determined to view the velocity in this way, one could get the impression of a straight-down nose dive in the final second. Perhaps the numbers were created to be capable of both scenarios so that the perpetrators could choose.

Let's look at the ground-speed scenario further, where the angle is greater than 45 degrees at the second of crash. That's a plane striking the ground more vertical than horizontal. It'll have a large change in angle over the last few seconds, and therefore has an enormous force of tilt=rotation -- with back end of the plane moving forward faster than the front end -- tending to send the plane for a tumble when the nose strikes ground friction. But a fuselage can't do a tumble because it's too flimsy. Instead, it will just break up.

Here are the angles that are approximate using a formula that I personally created (I don't have a protractor yet) when viewing the velocity figures as true airspeed:

10:02:55.......664 ft/sec.....6210 ft
10:02:56.......668 ft/sec.....6066 ft/sea...[144 / 668] 9.7 degrees
10:02:57.......672 ft/sec.....5950 ft/sea...[116 / 672] 7.8 degrees
10:02:58.......712 ft/sec.....5760 ft/sea...[190 / 712] 12 degrees.
10:02:59.......718 ft/sec.....5556 ft/sea...[204 / 718] 12.4 degrees
10:03:00.....696 ft/sec.......5341 ft/sea...[215 / 696] 13.4 degrees
10:03:01.....707 ft/sec.......5123 ft/sea...[218 / 707] 13.4 degrees
10:03:02.....715 ft/sec.......4818 ft/sea...[305 / 715] 18.2 degrees, big dip, why?
10:03:03.......728 ft/sec.....4430 ft/sea...[388 / 728] 20.5 degrees, another big dip, why?
10:03:04.......738 ft/sec.....4019 ft/sea...[411 / 738] 21.5 degrees, less than expected angle
10:03:05.......752 ft/sec.....3642 ft/sea...[377 / 752] 19.1 degrees, what? going backward after big slams?
10:03:06.......773 ft/sec.....3148 ft/sea...[494 / 773] 25.5 degrees, big dip again
10:03:07.......822 ft/sec.....2182 ft/sea...[966 / 822] impossible

There is no way for a plane to arch down somewhat like a ball shot out of a cannon, as these numbers indicate, unless the plane is put into a sharp turn continuously. If the pilot were lowering the nose continually by dropping the tail-wing flaps, the plane would do a circular loop rather than a cannon-ball arch. A plane becomes like a cannon ball (like any falling object) when the wings approach a vertical direction. The wings need to be maintained on a vertical in order to create a fall on a cannon-ball arch, but according to the crater shape, the plane landed with wings horizontal...meaning that the perpetrators can't appeal to wings maintained vertical to explain the sharp increase in plane angle after 10:03:02.

Let's keep in mind that they have the plane flying upside-down at 10:03:00. The sharp drop starts immediately after being upside-down for the first time. LaBTop, who got access to the black-box data, as well as the report on upside-down flight, did not say that the plane flipped right-side up again. We must conclude from the official storyline that the plane flew upside-down for seven seconds to the crater. The false witness, Lee Purbaugh, and at least one other witness, said that the plain wobbled to the crater (not a spiral), but Paul Muro said that the plane was "normal" (not wobbling / flipping over) when it was supposedly upside-down.

When I say that the descent path is akin to that of a cannon ball, it's because the last six seconds has 2940 feet of descent over a ground distance of 4528 feet. However, they have the path of the plane levelling out a bit at 10:03:05 (lower fall rate than previous second), a thing a cannon ball doesn't do. Why do they have the plane using its wings to level out a bit three seconds before crash? Perhaps to "prove" that the wings were horizontal at that time.

A large dip starting at 10:03:02 already has the plane falling at a rate of 18,300 feet per minute, and the rate of descent picks up drastically from there to 23,280 fpm in the very next second. But the webpage below says: "You can't descend too fast because it would rip the wings off at more than 10,000 feet per minute" (= 114 mph). I didn't see wings fallen to the ground in the crash-scene photos.;wap2

Google is horrendous, perhaps deliberately, for finding aircraft information, especially on descent rates. The insiders must check out the phrases that truthers search, and ask Google to hide articles that normally come up with them. For example, Google offers virtually nothing when searching "dangerous angle of descent" or "dangerous descent angle." In all the world, supposedly only three articles include "critical angle of descent". Is that not unbelievable?

The goons (not the terrorists) had false witnesses claiming a sharp-and-maintained right turn all the way to crash. But the accounts of other witnesses deny that picture. It didn't happen, not even with the faked Flight 93 down Lambertsville Rd. The last update showed why the plane had to turn mildly left at the last few seconds. The fact that the goons gave the world a tampered aerial shot of the "crash site," having crisp, nicely-detailed wing scars, suggests strongly that the plane was not turning when it landed. Try to imagine a plane hitting the ground with one wing way down, and the other up, while on a turn? The plane is going to want a cartwheel effect. Moreover, the TIP of the lower wing will strike the ground to produce maximum leverage force upon the wing. Such a wing would be in super-tumble mode, hardly expected to bury itself into the ground.

The dirt at the crater (dead-center of image, this is not a tampered image) does not suggest a crash with one wing low. Such a crash would have one wing hitting the ground further back of the other.

Therefore, when you take the perpetrators to court (ha), ask them, which is it? Did the plane fly in on a turn, or did it come in straight? If they say that it came in on a turn but happened to hit the dirt with wings horizontal, ask how the plane's wing line is perpendicular (not parallel) with the service road, for if the plane flew southeast over Kelly's and Viola's before doing a long right turn to crash, the wing line at crash should be parallel with the service road.

I wonder, do black boxes get confused when flying upside-down? Can they still calculate altitude and correct plane angles while flying upside-down? Hmm. How do we suppose the plane calculates the angle of the fuselage? With a level? But if the plane is upside down, might this on-board instrument register its black-box figures upside-down? What would that do to the figures above released as the official black-box data?

Or, if it calculates specific angles by bouncing radio waves off the ground and catching them again, wouldn't the receivers be pointed to the ground? Perhaps not if it's flying upside-down. A pilot would know the answers to these questions?

It was interesting that their average speed of descent, at the final second, was 966 (a little like "666") feet per second, for as I rounded that off to 660 mph, I recalled that the floor / foundation of the Washington Monument is 55 feet wide and long, which works out to 660 inches wide and long. You can see online that the height of the monument is 555 feet, working out to 6,660 inches, a number like their black-box altitude figure, 6066 feet. Three seconds later, their altitude figure is 5556 feet, perhaps a long-standing (old) number known by certain Masons as code for 555 feet, six inches, = 6,666 inches. .

So, I kept looking into their black-box figures, deciding to get the most-accurate figure for the feet per minute of their 394 knots, which is their velocity figure for 10:02:55am, the second before they have the altitude at 6066 feet. It turns out the 394 knots works out to 665 feet per second (I had 664, rounded off). If the black-box figure is just a little more than a perfect 394 knots, such as 394.6, it turns out to be 666 feet per second. Did the goons leave satan's signature in the black-box figures? Were they able to kill people, and cut body parts, because they owe it to their satan?

From 911Research: "Authorities had previously [before 2006] claimed that all but the voice recorder on Flight 93 were either not recovered or too damaged to yield data." They had a lot of time to make up the numbers we see above, and to figure out how to do it to make it look authentic. But these were government operatives who had a handle on other government agencies, with a president in support. It would have been an impossible task to feign the black-box data had it not been a government-sponsored hoax. Asking why they changed their minds on whether they had the numbers, I suppose they felt the need to "prove" a certain flight path to the crash. I suppose the rise of truthers who wouldn't give up had something to do with it. Too bad that the truther movement fizzled away when Obama came to office.

The New Stutt Angle

Pilots For 9/11 Truth came out to question the government of George Bush when certain pilots had a hard time with various scenarios. However, this organization was unable to make the claim that no planes hit the twin towers. That alone nullifies the "truth" in their name. It should be clear that, as there were no planes on the ground either in Pennsylvania or at the Pentagon, neither did they use planes at the twin towers. The witnesses who saw planes ramming into the towers were false witnesses. No mystery whatsoever. The use of the Pentagon for part of the 9-11 hoax was a disaster for the perpetrators, revealing that the military was involved in the hoax, and in murdering some of its own workers. The perpetrators / military have many friends that, for a price, can be purchased for providing false testimony. Once the deal is made, the witnesses become criminals and therefore generally unable to admit their crime. They go to their grave with their secret. But it's no secret any longer. My website is not influential, wherefore I can speak frankly; pilotsfortruth doesn't tend to use such language, afraid of backlash.


January 5, 2008 - We now have the additional Flight Data Recorder information in full which we obtained May 2007. We have analyzed this newly obtained csv file data (excel spread sheet) and animation provided by the National Transportation Safety Board thoroughly in our new documentary recently released, Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Three - Flight Of United 93. Click here for your personal copy [for a price]. The associated press release can be viewed here.

The page tells of, and shows, a 40-degree pitch angle of the plane, but upon a descent angle of 35 degrees. It just means that the plane, as it flies the 35-degree path, has a nose pointed slightly more to the ground than the path angle. See green arrows representing the plane. My beef is with the 35-degree angle. How did they get that? If that's wrong, so is the 40-degree pitch.

It gets worse: here is from another pilotsfortruth page: "...the Flight Data Recorder shows a 35 degree angle with up-sloping terrain, further reducing impact angle." So, now, the claim is that in incoming angle relative to the ground was less than 35 degrees, working excellently for the perpetrators as concerns the tilting action. The lower the angle at ground contact of any spear-like object, the less that tilting (it's a true rotation around the plane's center of gravity) tends toward a tumble reaction. But if the crash is at more like 50 degrees, tumble will be greatly enhanced.

Pilotsfortruth doesn't show much on its webpages (in this regard) because it's been releasing its findings only to those who pay for it. Ask if it's right to charge money for government data that is available to the public virtually for free. Yes, it was difficult to get the data, because the government breaks its own rules in withholding certain information, but the data belongs to the people without charge. Pilotsfortruth decided that making money on it is more important than allowing the data to get around fast. Pilotsfortruth has its nose pitched to the ground. As a consequence, hardly anyone online is discussing this matter, or, if they are, Google is repressing their webpages. There are other ways to make money, and, besides, not much money is needed simply to share information with the world.

I can't see where my plus-45-degree angle of descent is wrong. The official data has a descent distance of 966 feet in the last second while the plane traveled 822 feet horizontally in the same second. How else can this be interpreted but an angle that is more vertical than horizontal? If we assume that the ground slope decreases the angle by as much as the plane pitch increases the angle, we are still left with an angle greater than 45.

Do the perpetrators want their cake and eat it too? Do they want a very steep angle for nose-dive purposes, and a shallow angle to eliminate tumble? There is no doubt that we're dealing with schizofroids, perverts who make up their stories as they go along, regardless of contradictions to their previous claims. They are the kings knowing no shame who need answer to no one, not even to the courts.

Try finding information online about this, for Google suppresses it. For example, when searching "flight 93" along with some of the numbers in the black-box list, the Google computer acts like (is programmed to respond as though) nobody else in all the world wrote on this topic...over a period of six or seven years since the numbers were publicized. It's a great topic to discuss for exposing a broad, fraudulent government machinery that many, 14 years later, still can't grasp. Yes, people knew that many/most politicians were corrupt, but never did they think a government could conduct a crime like this and afterward extend their crimes in the ensuing cover-up with virtually all politicians worldwide closing their eyes. These plotters have got to be of the same vein that puts Bilderberg conferences together.

Let me go on, a Google search pretends not to know, and deliberately represses the term, "ULMSG," even though the letters are used by an assortment of truthers. It's only when one searches "ULMSG ACARS" that Google straightens out and provides some pages. But how many pages does it repress deliberately even then??? This is not fair ball. It's called quasi-criminal activity. Google plays the criminal, breaking the rules that need not be written.

Was the original plot to have a perfect nose-dive? Was it to have an upside-down plane? Below midway at the following page, you can see an aerial image of the crater with a plane inserted in an upside-down, straight-down nose-dive position that makes some sense of the crater shape. However, a plane crashing upside-down needs to have a cavity, for the smashing down of the fuselage, in the right place, which it isn't. If the upside-down plane was truly at a much-lower angle than straight-down, the fuselage would have made a long / oval cavity where we don't see anything but very happy grass. The perpetrators have shot themselves in the foot by claiming a shallow angle in the ballpark of 40 degrees.

Why did they change their minds from a straight-down to an angled entry into the dirt? It may have had to do with complications in the hoax while the FBI had charge of its recovery effort. If for example, when they started to excavate straight down to several feet, some non-insider kept dropping into the dig, the stupids would have needed a good reason to explain it, and moreover they would have needed to get rid of the non-insiders. It's a little rude to ask a local politician / policeman to not come to the dig, but after some time, they could have managed this. In other words, the presence of non-insiders at the initial dig can explain the official claim that the plane entered the ground at an angle, ending up buried beside the crater. By the time that they started to dig beside the crater, the non-insiders were no longer coming in to check, and so the bulk faked debris could be brought in day after day. But not all the debris they claimed for that hole was brought in, of course. The likely way for debris to be brought in was to have the Rollock scrap yard look after it, probably at night.

The excavation was not done off-the-cuff. It was planned beforehand. One blogger arguing on behalf of the official story says: "The FBI held a press conference stating that they gave the remains [of the plane] o UA." There you have a great explanation for why most of the plane didn't need to be at the dig. They fabricated a scenario where the plane parts went back to United Airlines, which company is thus proven to be complicit with this crime. UA has easy access to plane parts matching those of Flight 93, should anyone be able to force it, by court order, to give up some of the dug-up items. UA could also claim that they sent the debris to the scrap step, melting. Then same blogger, whose only purpose is to bash the truther, says: "The FDR and CVR were found at 15 and 25 feet respectively. This was reported by FBI spokesman Bill Crowley, and Arlen Spector." The writer takes this as fact just because the FBI said so, and portrays the truther as a nut for not taking it as fact.

Here's one truther on the same page: "This is the first time in American history that four airplanes crashed in one day and our government turns their back by refusing to investigate these alleged air crashes." Yes indeed, the plane parts should have gone to investigators the way all crashed-plane parts are inspected, but in this case, the FBI supposedly handed them to the airliner.

Here's a good point from page one of the blog: "The ambassadors at the Flight 93 memorial, who recite the official story, are telling visitors that about 80% of Flight 93 was in the ground...Empty Boeing 757 = about 60 tons...80% = 48 tons...48 tons = about 24 American cars..." That's a lot of material to pull out of the ground and ship by truck to some other location. But this is why they did not truly plant that much debris. The fake job involved mostly the mere claim to the debris, not actual debris at the crater site.

Think about it. The FBI, the national law-enforcement agency, committing a crime of this nature before all the people, unashamed, unrepentant...and unchallenged but by a few lowly "truthers" (now a dirty word) in no position to lose anything (much) by speaking out. Where could the world go from here when this is the situation at this time? The 9-11 event had the purpose of pillaging certain areas of the Middle East in such a way as it included tens of thousands of murders of Arabs and other Muslims. The story still has not come to en end 14 years later. I repeat this unless anyone thinks that 9-11 is a passed-away story. It must never be a yawn. The criminals are still with us, and they will do still more, kill their own people if that's what it takes to achieve their global ambitions. People are to them tools for use, or obstacles to remove. If they think the world has too many people, they'll think nothing to kill a hundred million people. There are people in ordinary circles who think war is a good thing for dealing with too-crowded a world. Imagine.

Someone is doing a lot for free on what he claims is fully voluntary. And claims to be able to decode the data shared by LaBTop:

UAL93 FDR Decoder

This program decodes the raw Flight Data Recorder (FDR commonly called "black box") file for United Airlines Flight 93 (UAL93) included by the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) on CDROMs provided in response to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests for information regarding the events of September 11th 2001.

...You can download output files generated by the program from here. As I am providing this program free of charge, it is provided as is.

"Here" in that quote takes one to this page,, sharing charts for downloading. The first one can be opened without being saved, but the next two forced me to save them in order to view them. Suspicious. People with files downloaded such as this can be placed on an insider to-be-watched list. For this discussion, you don't need to save any of the files, just open the first one, or trust that I'll share the numbers accurately below.

In the charts, the times are at Greenwich (Universal Time); where it reads 4:03:06pm as the final second, it was 10:03:07am at the crater. The chart has "06" instead of "07" as the final second, but one row at the 6th-last second is given no time, wherefore I'm assuming that the final second is likewise at 10:03:07. The altitude figure they use for the final second is 2189 instead of the 2182 for the chart that I obtained from LaBTop. All of the altitude figures for the last 12 seconds are different than in the LaBTop chart (and the 6066 is gone). Is the Stutt data a re-vamping of their storyline?

The following shows the last 12 seconds with the "decoded" numbers. The Stutt charts don't have velocity figures, wherefore I'll include the velocities from the LaBTop chart:

10:02:55.....664 ft/sec.....6135 / versus 6210 in the other chart
10:02:56.....668 ft/sec.....5984 / 6066
10:02:57.....672 ft/sec.....5813 / 5950
10:02:58.....712 ft/sec.....5618 / 5760
10:02:59.....718 ft/sec.....5402 / 5556
10:03:00.....696 ft/sec.....5173 / 5341
10:03:01.....707 ft/sec.....4886 / 5123
10:03:02.....715 ft/sec.....4552 / 4818
10:03:03.....728 ft/sec.....4157 / 4430
10:03:04.....738 ft/sec.....3750 / 4019
10:03:05.....752 ft/sec.....3294 / 3642
10:03:06.....773 ft/sec.....2764 / 3148
10:03:07.....822 ft/sec.....2189 / 2182

Ahh, the angle in the final three seconds is significantly lower (than in the other chart), which might explain the 35-degree angle. We'll see. But why are there two varied sets of black-box data? Very suspicious. What is this decoded claim? On a page explaining HIS decoded program: "Although the NTSB provided CSV files generated from the FDR file which were also included on the CDROMs, I have created this [decoder] program so that parameters can be selectively included in the CSV files resulting in files with fewer columns and also to decode some information not included in the NTSB CSV files." I see. He's claims only to add a few things to the NTSB figures (the ones shared by LaBTop), but his figures are completely different from the NTSB figures. He claims to have received the NTSB numbers, but, very suspiciously, he doesn't share them along with his decoded numbers...perhaps indicating that the insiders don't want those numbers known.

The second-per-second changes in plane angle are smoother in the Stutt-decode job. Here are the drops:

10:02:55.....664 ft/sec.....6135 = / versus 6210 in the other chart
10:02:56.....668 ft/sec.....5984 [151-ft drop / versus 144 in the other chart]
10:02:57.....672 ft/sec.....5813 [171 / 116]
10:02:58.....712 ft/sec.....5618 [195 / 190]
10:02:59.....718 ft/sec.....5402 [216 / 204]
10:03:00...696 ft/sec.......5173 [229 / 215]
10:03:01...707 ft/sec.......4886 [287 / 218]
10:03:02...715 ft/sec.......4552 [334 / 305]
10:03:03.....728 ft/sec.....4157 [395 / 388]
10:03:04.....738 ft/sec.....3750 [407 / 411]
10:03:05.....752 ft/sec.....3294 [456 / 377]
10:03:06.....773 ft/sec.....2764 [530 / 494]
10:03:07.....822 ft/sec.....2187 [575 / 966]

Hey hey, they did away with their two nose-ups, probably because it's not credible to have manually-performed (not wind turbulence) nose-ups over a single second. Instead of an up-and-down drop rate of 144 > 116 > 190, they now have a smooth 151 > 171 > 195. As for the nose-up at the third-last second, instead of a drop rate of 411 > 377 > 494, they now have a smooth 407 > 456 > 530. Is this an attempt to confuse the world?

Their last second is now no longer impossible at true airspeed, with a final drop rate of 575 feet at a velocity of 822 feet per second. I forgot to pick up a protractor while in town, but the angle for the last second now looks to be 35 degrees:

10:02:55.......664 ft/sec.....6210 ft
10:02:56.......668 ft/sec.....[151 drop / versus 668 fpm]
10:02:57.......672 ft/sec.....[171 / 672]
10:02:58.......712 ft/sec.....[195 / 712]
10:02:59.......718 ft/sec.....[216 / 718]
10:03:00.....696 ft/sec.......[229 / 696]
10:03:01.....707 ft/sec.......[287 / 707]
10:03:02.....715 ft/sec.......[334 / 715]
10:03:03.......728 ft/sec.....[395 / 728]
10:03:04.......738 ft/sec.....[407 / 738]
10:03:05.......752 ft/sec.....[456 / 752]
10:03:06.......773 ft/sec.....[530 / 773]
10:03:07.......822 ft/sec.....[575 / 822]

One imagines that the velocity figures have been changed so that the ones above are not to be in the chart. But how does one calculate the angle at the last second unless the velocity is known? If they don't want the figures in the NTSB chart to be known anymore, the Stutt figures for velocity would not match, for that would only give merit to the first chart.

We now have the opportunity of searching Google with "stutt" included in the search phrases. One finds this from Mr. Stutt: "On 28th July 2011, I sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through their online request web page concerning the Flight Data Recorder (FDR commonly called "black box") file for United Airlines Flight 93 (UAL93). My aim was to get a copy of the original FDR file and the data frame layout used in the file. I received a CDROM containing them." Is he an insider? He claims to be "a private New Zealand citizen permanently residing in Australia; however I am prepared to make the information I have requested publicly available on the internet". One would think that the insiders would want to avoid this situation that Stutt threatens. Was there no one in the United States that requested the same information, and received it for sharing online? Mr. Stutt requested the information years after the NTSB data was released to Pilots for 9/11 Truth. He claims to have expertise in computer work.

Stutt speaks to the NTSB figures while claiming that his numbers are more correct:

I previously thought that the reason why my AAL77 FDR Decoder decodes almost 4 seconds more data from the raw Flight Data Recorder (FDR commonly called "black box") file for American Airlines Flight 77 (AAL77) than appears in the Comma Separated Value (CSV) file produced by the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for that flight was that the software they used did not decode incomplete frames from the end of flights.

Why does the Stutt chart have the last second seven feet above the crater? Is that supposed to be more credible? Or, was it merely assumed (wrong) that the altitude at the crater was exactly 2182 feet above sea level (the altitude in the LaBTop chart)? Why does Stutt not give the reader a page showing the velocity figures?

At the top of my chart with the Stutt figures, the drop is steady for four seconds, each having roughly 20 feet more drop than the previous second. But between 10:03:00 and 10:03:01, when the plane supposedly flipped upside-down, the drop is 58 feet more than the previous second. But why take Stutt seriously? Who can verify his decoder program? Below, Bambooboy at pilotsfortruth has found an online page with what is ALMOST the data decoded by Stutt, but the few differences are being kicked around as potential method of exposing Stutt as a fake / liar: "On SCRIBD you can download the "T7-B18-UAL-Jumpseat-Fdr-Entire-Contents-UA-175-and-UA-93-Emails-and-Document" { link: }...No one of those FLoc id are PRESENT in the document uploaded by Warren [Stutt]!!!" And a second writer responds:

Funny, bambooboy. I was digging exactly into this issue when your post showed up.

...One thing we can say is that the screenshot on page 9 in "T7-B18-UAL-Jumpseat-Fdr-Entire-Contents-UA-175-and-UA-93-Emails-and-Documents-562" is clearly taken from a different document than the PDF of the ARINC logs publicly available. It is possible that both documents contain basically the same data and that the reason for the differences outlined above is the fact that they were printed and/or processed at different times. While these differences can have a plausible explanation, one thing we can say for sure is that it is not the same document. Possibly two different versions of the same data, but definitely not the same document.

No one else responds to these two writers, a sad testament for something calling itself "PILOTS for truth." Where are the expert pilots whom have joined the organization? Who can shed light on these pages if not pilots? Sergio, the last writer above is being generous, supposing that different FLoc numbers on two versions of the same document might mean nothing of a conspiracy to alter facts. He has the following (long) page showing official data to confirm that Flight 175 did not crash in New York on 9-11:

For most, if not all the questions raised by this article no conclusive evidence can still be presented after almost 11 years. Several official records are still classified, other have been apparently declassified but are of dubious authenticity or have been surprisingly released with shaded information. Finding the "truth" within this tangle of omissions, conflicting reports, missing logs, different "FLoc" numbers etc. is beyond us. While we won't speculate here about the possible reasons for such omissions and discrepancies, it is an unquestionable fact that Ed Ballinger sent an uplink to United 175 at 9:51 EDT [after the plane was supposedly crashed at 9:03 EDT into one of the towers].

He writes that after telling a logical thing, that if a pilot or plane's communication system does not confirm the receiving of an ACARS message from someone on the ground, the sender of the message receives a return-message on a screen for the purpose of indicating that there could be a serious problem with that pilot / plane. The fact that Ballinger received no undeliverable / error message means that Flight 93 received the message after it had crashed (i.e. it did not crash; it was still flying). And Sergio also shares that Ballinger (definitely an insider), who was in control of Flight 93 that morning too, sent out a message that Flight 175 was "found" after it was "missing." On 9-11, Ballinger didn't know or believe that truthers would arise, due to a poorly-conducted hoax, to get hold of his messages on that day. When he said that Flight 175 was found, he must have been sending a message to another insider to confirm that all was well with the plot.

Sergio writes: "how could possibly Ballinger send an uplink to United 93 at 9:40 ending with "United 175/93 missing" and one minute later another message to United 93 ending with "United 175/93 found" if he had not received in the meanwhile (from some unidentified source) information suggesting that United 175 was in fact still airborne?" He was sending a message to the pilot of Flight 93, an insider, to indicate all was well with the plot, and, probably, a message to indicate that Flight 93 should now go ahead to conduct the next part of its script.

The article says that Ballinger was "officially notified about the crash [of 175] by Andy Studdert" at 9:24. Sergio goes on: "and finally, what did Ballinger actually mean with '[United 175] was not acting appropriately'? How could a dispatcher with 44 years of professional career possibly overlook a failure report and keep on trying to contact his aircraft for almost one hour after the alleged crash time if he hadn't some information that led him to conclude that the aircraft was in fact not 'lost'? The whole UAL dispatch in Chicago was focused on both United aircraft considered as hijacked. How could possibly all of them miss a failure [to-receive-message] report in their logs?" What are the chances that these unexpected / non-routine things should occur to one of the four a planes involved in 9-11?

One may gather the possibility that Sergio is a no-planer, or at least dealing with a topic that allows a no-plane scenario (the planes seen on the news were from insider-doctored video i.e. planes were pasted in) in which case the silence of pilots at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth blog is expected.

It is likely that all four planes on that morning had pre-planned flight paths to re-route the passengers, and, we may gather, to eliminate them. The killing of a few hundred Americans was as-nothing to these imposters, heartless monsters. We should never think that way. We must never view humans as disposable for a "higher" purpose.

After Sergio's piece, Bambooboy has a piece, followed by a piece by Dennis Cimino. By the way, those who were following my treatments on the Chimney surname, it's interesting that the Cimino surname is listed with the Como surname, expected as per the namers of Como in Lombardy. The variations of the Como surname are expected with the Contevilles, the Comyns, and with Herod liners at Comminges (southern France).

After Cimini's high-tech article (which I passed on trying to understand), Sergio has another piece on Warren Stutt's data. It's interesting that I would trace the Stutt surname (Stuttgart, Germany, likely) to the Stout-surnamed vikings (raven symbol) that included the raven-using Rothes surname. There is an arrow, a Rothschild symbol, in the Cimini/Como Coat. The German Stutt Coat (ANGEL in Crest) shares the same fleur-de-lys as the German Bush's, and Scottish Stutts were first found in the same place (Yorkshire) as English Bush's / Walkers / Wagers. The latter, suspect from the Wagrian Northmen, share the heart with the Stutts. I actually traced Herod liners to the Varni that lived on the Warnow river along with Wagrians. The Varni worshiped the same goddess as the neighboring Angles, who are likely in the ANGEL/Angle surname.

To make Sergio's initial point shorter for reading here: "One of the several problems with [Stutt's] claim is the fact that, if we accept this theory, then we must necessarily conclude that United 93 constantly flew within the Pittsburgh's RGS coverage area with no discontinuity from 9:23 EDT to 10:12 EDT without being detected by any other RGS with stronger signal for almost one hour." As you can see, Sergio believes that Flight 93 was still flying at 10:12, nine minutes after it reportedly crashed. His argument is that Mr. Stutt had the wrong ground stations in his data, and was hiding the true ground stations that Flight 93 should have reported to in routine ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) messaging.

I'm not so sure that Sergio is attacking Stutt's claim, for he could be pointing out a contradiction generally between his claim and the official storyline, and thus possibly attacking the official storyline. Sergio says: "After 9:37 EDT the [Flight 93] began the second part of its U-turn heading SE to the direction of the Akron/Canton's RGS (CAK) while remaining at moderate distance from the CLE RGS. During this timeframe several messages were sent to the aircraft from [United Airlines] dispatchers, yet not one single occurrence for "CLEXX" or "CAKXX" is reported as "Stn=" in any ULBLK block..." That is, although the plane was supposedly nearest to the Cleveland or Canton ground stations, according to the storyline, these stations were not used for the plane's communications, suggesting that the plane was somewhere else. Stutt's data had it nearer to Pittsburgh at the time.

Sergio's discussion is very compelling, and serves to reveal, in my first glance, that Flight 93 was NOT near Cleveland at around 9:30am, and that the insiders were either helpless to change the incriminating data before it got to Mr. Stutt, or were asleep at the wheel not knowing that it was going out to him. At first glance, this tends to argue that Stutt's altitude numbers were not intended as an insider trick. However, caution is the word. The needs of the insiders, to protect themselves for court purposes, changed over the years depending on what truthers or the suspicious dredged up as evidence against them. If there was some severe complication for them in having the plane land at Cleveland, then they might provide proof that it wasn't near Cleveland. Yes, this would ruin their official storyline, but after 2011, hardly anyone was listening anymore to the debate (i.e. small damage done). Truthers are looking for the means to make the country interested again.

Of the many messages sent from the cockpit to ground that morning, "There is only one reference to the Cleveland's [ground station]..., and the time was 9:03 am (happens to be the minute that Flight 175 supposedly struck a tower). Sergio, immediately after mention of the statement above, adds, "Coincidentally there is a radar hit from the DAN site in the 84 RADES Radar Data Spreadsheet file which shows exactly the same Zulu time, 13:03:06,600 [9:03 Pennsylvania time]. The radar position reported is 4045'09.713"N 07649'05.680"W" central Pennsylvania. In fact, these coordinates are to the near-north of Harrisburg, where Ed Ballinger's messages to Flight 175 were routed at 9:03 time. I looks like both planes were near one another at 9:03.

If you want to follow Sergio's discussion, you might want to upload the third file on the page below (Microsoft Internet refused to load the page for me in six consecutive tries, but Firefox loaded in immediately), and look under the M, N and O columns showing the ground stations that Flight 93 communicated with. At the far-right, in column AG, one can discover that communications to ground stations in column M are called, DLBLK = DownLink Block, the emphasis being on "down" = plane-to-ground communication. Conversely, for all communications in column O, the term in the AG column is, ULBLK, or UpLink, from ground-to-plane. But for column N, the term in AG is always ULMSG. I didn't check every last line, but will add that there is no DLMSG for any case using a ground station. I can't realize as yet the difference between ULMSG and ULBLK. In some cases, the time is shown in column F, but never is there a time indicated for down links from the cockpit.

The tail numbers for three of the "crashed" flights (175 is not included) are in columns Q, R and S, and the flight numbers are in column V. Details for Flight 11 begin at the top of the chart, as far down as line 374. After that line, details are for Flight 93 as far down as 886. I'll be concerned only with Flight 93.

On line 557 in the O column, at a time of 9:03:03 -- the time of the RADES coordinates above -- the first and only uplink to a Philadelphia ground station is in use. Many previous communications from the EWR = Newark ground station were in use. After the Philadelphia communication, there are what must be routine pilot downlinks (column M) to the various ground stations in the area. For expedience, let's take it down to the first uplink through the Pittsburgh ground station at line 622 (9:21:25am); this station is used exclusively for uplinks of the ULBLK kind (column O) all the way to line 862. In the meantime, there are ULMSG uplinks (column N) from various ground stations including CAK = Canton/Akron, Cleveland, Toledo, Fort Wayne and CMI = Charleston. Why the inconsistency for the same flight?

The Pittsburgh uplinks in column O are from the new data presented to the world by Warren Stutt, who, I have read, claims that the corresponding communications in column N were not received by the cockpit, and that they should therefore all be ignored. I've not read from his own words what he thinks of column N, which includes the insider storyline. Why was Warren coming out swinging against the old storyline? Whom does he represent?

Line 862 (the last, consecutive Pittsburgh communication) comes with the time of 10:11:50, a few minutes after crash time of 10:03. Big question mark. The way I understand this, truthers have claimed that the ground stations appearing in column N appear only because messages were sent. If the uplink messages were attempted but not not sent due to a failure report, they would not appear in a list of ground stations used for communications. It's a good argument because column N has only six attempts (lines 854 - 882) to contact the plane after crash time, and it's from a ground station in CMI = Champaign, Illinois. No one expects the communication attempts to Flight 93, in the Pennsylvania crater, to be routed through far-off Illinois. Therefore, this is excellent reason to believe that, if the ground station communication appears in column N, or in any other chart presented by airline documents, it's there only because a message to the cockpit was successful. And for truthers, that means Flight 93 did not crash, and that it received a message after crash time in the vicinity of Champaign.

If we argue as would the insiders, that the six communications from Champaign were merely unsuccessful attempts to communicate with the cockpit, then ask, why only six attempts? If we entertain the storyline of the plane in a Pennsylvania crater, it is too obvious that attempts from Champaign would fail due to the great distance of roughly 500 miles. It begs the question of why ground stations much nearer to the crater were not used. The Pittsburgh station, for example, should have been peppering the plane for some response. But, no, nothing, no communications anywhere, except from Illinois. This was very troublesome for the insiders, but lucky for them, the truthers were not successful in opening the eyes of the world to this hoax based on this information. Still, the threat remains.

And it's that threat which provides a motive for the Stutt factor, for he has introduced communications to the crashed plane from Pittsburgh. But it's too little too late, and too-obviously a faked plot, or at least it should be. It gives the faithful a hope of explanation whereas the Illinois scenario did not.

In column N, there are only three communications through a Cleveland ground station, the first one at 9:36:07 (line 768), the second at 9:41:10, and the third 17 seconds later. But column N is not the Stutt story. Column N includes the official storyline, with a plane coming south from Cleveland. At 9:50:35, the plane is communicating with Toledo i.e. it's curving around to fly south. The storyline has it flying to Pennsylvania and the crater, too simple. But then Champaign is some 350 miles WEST of Cleveland. ??? It's not supposed to be that far west according to the storyline. This is the death of insider credibility if only people would spend the time to look at it.

Mr. Stutt has claimed that the messaging from the people trying to contact the flight tended to route through the Pittsburgh station rather than the closest one to the plane at any given time, but no one can easily agree with him, and this is the Achilles Heel of the Stutt factor. Anyone who agrees with him puts their credibility on the line. It's a new and stretchy twist, and here's hoping that the dopes will go for it.

In column O for lines 855 - 875, we see that the Pittsburgh and Dulles computer systems combined are trying to contact the plane every ten seconds, for a total of about 20 attempts, which is to make the public believe that the plane is not receiving the messages because it's inside the crater...or crashed somewhere between the crater and Washington (are the Stutt people secretly feeding the shoot-down scenario?). There is no way to read these particular numbers aside from a pure fabrication by the Stutt team.

The first of these fabricated attempts occurs at 10:10:59, even while column N, just one line earlier (854), shows the same time, 10:10:59, for a communication through the Champaign ground station. Such a contradiction and a coincidence all at once, but it can't be coincidental, suggesting (for me anyway) that the Stutt people want us to think that the Champaign entry was somehow an error while the truth is in their column-O data instead. They even skip (fail to show) one of the every-ten-second Pittsburgh communications at line 861, yet that line has another Champaign communication (column N again), and it's just one second off from the ten-second timing...once again giving the impression that the Champaign communications were mistaken for the Pittsburgh attempts to contact the crashed plane. In other words, the Champaign communications supposedly never happened; they mistakenly entered the data field.

You can just imagine the slobs at their meetings, trying to figure a way to get that Champaign threat off their backs for the long term, and there, apparently, is how they decided to try it. It's high time the world looked beyond their business suits to the filthy conditions of their hearts.

Three other Champaign messages come later (between 878 and 882) that do not match the ten-second intervals, but that's because the Champaign data was out before the Stutt data came out (i.e. the Stutt team didn't have the ability to change the Champaign times). However, to prove what I'm saying, just take a look at all the messages in column N, for they are given a corresponding message, at the very same second, in column O...just as if the Stutt data were seeking to replace everything in column N. And Stutt claims as much when he says he has the data decoded properly. If you want to be a fish for his lure, it's a free world.

For an easy read on how ground stations are chosen for random communications, and also on why Flight 175 did receive Ballinger's messaging after it supposedly crashed into a tower, see this article:

As we can be certain that neither United Airlines nor the insiders would include the Champaign communications into their scheme, that's how we can know that the following scenario was yet another fabrication:

04/28/09 ( - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after its alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.

... 1405 (10:05 a.m.)

ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet

doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred

ntmo-e: southeastbound still

doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him

ntmo-e: correct

doug: ok buddy


ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three

doug: all right

This sounds like a true and reliable conversation that puts Flight 93 in the sky at 8,200 feet at 10:05, two minutes after the black-box data claimed a crash. The government is clearly in a bind here, but has responded by not responding, just like a guilty party would. But on the question of whether the conversation was real versus fabricated, how do we reconcile a Flight 93 east of the crater with a message to the plane from out-west Champaign at 8:10:59?? We can't. One of the two scenario's can't be true. The pilot webpage above: "Further confirmation [of cockpit transponder switched on] comes in the form of latitude and longitude positions reported by ATC. N39 51 - W78 46 were reported as the last known radar position of United 93. It is unclear if the position is reported as Degrees, Minutes or Decimal, however, standard aviation terminology is in Degrees, Minutes. With that said, both positions are well past the alleged United 93 Crash site." That is, about 15 miles southeast of the crater. Champaign says: it didn't happen.

By what coincidence does the transponder go on, after being off, at 10:05? It sure speaks to the possibility of a faked communication, unless the insider pilot accidentally turned it on. Fat chance under the circumstances. The plotters had the transponder turned on because they wanted to feed this story as fact to their faithful. The country should not allow itself to be spoon fed garbage like this.

As Flight 93 landed in Cleveland, according to two reliable accounts (the mayor and United Airlines), shortly after its alleged crash time, one needs to re-visit that part of the story to decide whether it was flying 15 miles southeast of the crash site at 10:5/6. Cleveland is under 200 miles from that spot, less than 30 minutes of flight.

For further reading on the ACARS problems, which, keep in mind, might be based on the Stutt data, see here when you have time to spare:

Follow the Bouncing, Wayward Plane

From the Stutt figures on one of his charts (accessed here), 9:03:06 shows an altitude of 34,997 while cruising at 35,000 feet. Aside from the time and elevation, the chart gives little other data. It becomes obvious that Mr. Stutt has received / shared numbers from the insiders. The first the flight achieves 35,000 feet is at 9:01:39, and maintains this elevation until 9:34:10, as might a normal pilot, but begins to rise to a maximum of 40,838 feet (9:38:26), not holding it, then settling down and holding at roughly 40,700 for a short time until 9:39:56. The flight no longer looks normal. Why? What message are these numbers sending us? That the terrorists were in control at this time? Wikipedia: "Jarrah [terrorist] instructed the autopilot to turn the plane and head east at 09:35:09. The aircraft ascended to 40,700 feet (12,400 m) and air traffic controllers immediately moved several aircraft out of Flight 93's flight path." Yip.

From 9:39:56, there is a steady descent to 20,000, achieved at 9:45:13, but instead of holding 20,000, it bounced down to 19,104 (9:45:33), not holding it, only to ascend again as high as 20,558 feet (9:46:20), not holding it. It then descended steadily to 10,000 (achieved 9:54:47) without holding any altitude, nor did it hold 10,000. If these numbers were not fabricated, then the insider pilot in Flight 93 (or a second, faked 93) was instructed to fly a chaotic flight to make it appear abnormal.

After reaching 10,000, the drop rate accelerates noticeably, achieving: 9,000 feet at 9:55:34; 8,000 at 9:56:21; 7,000 at 9:57:07, 6,000 at 9:57:53; 5,000 at 9:59:01; then dipping to 4,973 (all figures above sea level) maximum before rising again to 9,902 at 9:2:13 (50 seconds to crash). From there it is a steady descent to crash. It never comes to 100 or 200 feet above ground across Viola's. Demon lovers played a sad trick on the country, to change the country, to strap its freedom, to spread fear, to make the country believe that a Middle-East agenda was necessary.

Here's Woody Box and some Italian names: "Rob Balsamo of published additional corroborative evidence in two articles (2, 3). In 2012 Italian researchers started a website especially dedicated to ACARS...In response to Balsamo's articles, 9/11 researcher Warren Stutt published another document, obtained by an FOIA request: the ACARS records of ARINC (Aeronautical Radio Incorporated), the company that manages the communication between the airlines and their aircraft...The publishing of the ARINC file ignited a fierce debate on diverse forums (9, 10, 11, 12). Stutt's bottom line is that the ARINC file refutes the findings of Balsamo, Sergio and myself." Hmm.

Keep in mind that the ARINC term is fundamentally attached to Mr. Stutt, like the two were conspiring together. Woody shows (article above) United Airlines admitting that messages were sent to Flight 93 from Champaign. Woody makes mention of the Stutt-ARINC record receiving ACARS messaging only through Pittsburgh between 9:22 and crash time, but does not necessarily deny the official story because he (Stutt) claims that the plane could have been flying across Cleveland even while communications at the time went through Pittsburgh's ground station.

Woody's interpretation of the Stutt data is far-more logical: "According to the ARINC position data, the plane ceased flying westwards and instead circled over Pittsburgh after 9:23." If Stutt is an insider pawn thrown onto the cheeseboard by the dirty rats, what would be the purpose in having all communications through Pittsburgh after 9:22, followed by some communication with Dulles after crash time? There is basically nothing more than that added to the crock pot; it shouldn't be hard to glean the purposes and goals. Should we start to believe that ARINC had some sort of axe to grind with the insiders, and that, after a decade, it was taking that axe out for a hefty swing? That could be theory two. I think theory one makes more sense, that the Champaign factor needed to be dealt with. The Dulles entry after Pittsburgh, and after the crash, is like a throwing of red meat to the truthers, to make them swallow this thing, to focus on a fly-by over the crater, and leave the Champaign factor alone.

In other words, so long as I can remember it in the coming years, I am rejecting the theory, spread by truthers, that Flight 93 flew over the crater and was 8200 feet over Indian lake minutes after the crater explosion. This idea may have been introduced online by insiders posing as truthers in order to take focus away from the Champaign factor.

Woody explains: "Stutt goes so far as to claim that the position data reflect the plane's predetermined flight plan only and are not adjusted when the plane changes its route, i.e. there is no correlation at all between the position in the printout and the plane's actual position. But this is an unproven claim." Mr. Stutt is suggesting that all communications can be with Pittsburgh because, before the flight took off, it was predetermined (by flight overseers) that all communications would go through Pittsburgh. But others point out that this is not -- an CANNOT -- be the way it works. Instead, for obvious reasons, all communications go to the ground stations having the best signals. It would be absolutely reckless (and yes absurd) to use Pittsburgh when its signal is weak, or even if it's only 30 percent weaker than another ground station. Flight overseers would not be that careless. It therefore appears that Stutt is altering the truth for a sinister purpose.

"Stutt declares Winter to be in error" concerning the path to Champaign. Winter was the United-Airlines dispatcher on 9-11. There is not necessarily true friction between Stutt and Winters, however; the "controversy" could be a planned one with both in agreement with the end-game plot to eradicate the Champaign factor.

Woody goes on to tell that the last seven messages from Champaign were, according to Winter and his boss (Knerr), non-receivable by Flight 93, and of course the reason is that the messages were after crash time. Therefore, the seven error messages that the ACARS system spit out (that Woody shows) were fabricated in some way (probably not too hard). Woody contends that if the message was sent at all, it was also received. He argues that, if the "handshake" (open line) between two computers is not made, the message won't be sent, which is true. But how can Woody or anyone else prove that the messages were sent and received versus sent with failure to find a handshake? Woody was arguing that there is no such thing as a message sent with failure to find a handshake.

The man on the street, such as myself, would argue like so: in order to go to the handshake mode, the message needs to be sent. That is, a dispatcher needs to hit the send button, which automatically activates the handshake mode, which is basically a test to see whether there is a clear line through to the plane's communication systems. If there is no clear line through, one can still say that the message was sent, just as when I send an email but it's non-deliverable. I still sent it.

The important question is: if the dispatcher sends a message that finds no handshake, will that communication appear as a communication in the spit-out record keeping? Although I am unqualified to answer that question, I feel compelled to give, yes and no, as my opinion. There must be a machine spit-out (in writing) that indicates an error or non-deliverable message, but this failed communication probably does not appear on lists such as we see in column N, for if that were the case, there should be a code included indicating the failures. Without these codes, the entire picture is muddy. Try making sense of column N not knowing which communications were successful versus failures? It's therefore a no-brainer that, if failures were included in the list, they would be indicated in some way for the benefit of anyone trying to read the data. I therefore sense that everything in column N was successfully sent, and that failures are indicated in some other place.

It should be easy to fabricate a non-deliverable message if all the pilot needs to do is turn off the plane's communication systems for a few minutes while the dispatcher sends the final messages. The handshake for verbal communications will then not take place. Real error messages would be generated, no printing of faked copies needed.

The one thing I find common between the most-respected truthers is that they are slow to accuse, and too kind by never calling the fiends names. For me, demonic slobs need to be described, if they are the topic, or the reader might get the impression that the insiders are worthy of some respect. If you lose respect for me when using a term like, slob, to describe a 9-11 accomplice, the loss is not mine. "Demonic" refers to the deceit used, and "slob" refers to their spiritual filthiness. I have my own spots to deal with, but I guarantee you that I would never think of playing the game they are guilty of. From day one, they were caught without realizing it. Their need to cover up their crimes is a part of their punishment. Don't look over you left shoulder, because someone might attack you on your right. There is no peace for the wicked.

On January 28th, 2002, Mr. Winter gave an interview to the FBI [= chief 9-11 accomplice] at United Headquarters. During this interview, Mr. Winter reviewed a list of ACARS messages, explaining the contents, and which messages were received or rejected by the plane. The messages provided below are the most significant and fatal to what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission. Two messages were routed through the Fort Wayne, Indiana remote ground stations (FWA), followed by two more messages which were routed through Champaign, IL (CMI), showing a westward flight path -- away from Shanksville.

In other words, even if Winters managed to "prove" that the Champaign communications didn't get through to Flight 93, the fact remains that the plane was flying out that way. And that's why the Stutt factor can never win this game, try as it may.

The page above has a print-out with Winter's words for message 18 and 19, two communications from Champaign minutes after the crash time of 10:03. Although the airlines had claimed that these messages didn't get through, these words by Winter were later uncovered, and they include the claim that the two messages "activated an audible signal in the aircraft." So, they did get through after all. However, Winter claims (not that I believe him, I don't) that subsequent messages from Champaign did not go through to the aircraft, which for me can indicate that one of the early storylines was to have the plane crash after 10:11:04, the time of message 18. Or, message 18 was before 10:03 but later altered manually in the records to show, 10:11:04. All six (or seven?) of the Champaign messages are in column N of the Stutt-provided chart, yet we see no codes/evidence to show that two were received and the rest rejected. Why should we believe Winter on this?

Try as they may to suggest that the aircraft, minutes after the crash, had an electric organ still alive that could detect and receive a signal, their problem will always be Champaign. The great distance to the crater blows the cork off their bottle; they may as well be drunk if they try to find a way to explain this away. Hold their feet to the Champaign fire; never mind the Stutt factor. It is impossible to understand how a station 500 miles or more from the crater could transfer a ground-to-air message well beyond the maximum range of such messaging.

The real mystery is how Winter could look the FBI straight in the face while making that claim. There is only one answer, and it involves a winking FBI in collusion with the plot: no one was supposed to realize the problem, and, probably, no one on the outside was to hear of the impossible statement.

Here's Woody digging into Stutt:

Open Letter to Warren Stutt re: ARINC logs


on your website you have created a special ACARS page...

As an independent researcher, I welcome your efforts to unveil official documents which might be helpful in answering some of the most urging questions of the official 9/11 story. However, I have some objections regarding the ARINC logs as presented by you. I miss date and number of the FOIA request, and the person who initiated it. Also, I miss a header in the document itself - no reference number, no date, no names which would guarantee authenticity.

There are additional questions...Why do the data suggest that United 93 never was in the Cleveland area?...

Woody asks Warren why he didn't include the data for Flight 175. The letter is dated January, 2012, which was not so long ago. This game is still on, and there will be a loser. Unfortunately, I'm not finding important posts after 2012.


Especially for new or confused readers
shows where I'm coming from.

For serious investigators:
How to Work with Bloodline Topics

Here's what I did when I had spare time on my hands:
Ladon Gog and the Hebrew Rose

On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence
-- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find --
that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.

If you have received emails supposedly from me, and they look like advertisements
or anything unflattering and unexpected from me,
they were not from me but by someone using my email box to send it.

The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents

In 2014, the latest Firefox browser no longer gave the option of surfing with javascript turned off.
With javascript turned off, one can copy and cut from the write-ups at houseofnames, but when its on, one cannot.
Try another browser if you are working with houseofnames.

web site analytic