Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175
By John Bursill – Licensed Avionics Aircraft Engineer, Boeing 767/737/747 Series
For most 9/11 Truth Advocates the question of what hit the World Trade Centres on 9/11 is valid, though it is generally accepted likely that it was as reported, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. It has been suggested by some that the aircraft were drones or military cargo aircraft, but this hypothesis has failed to develop beyond some anomalies found in the grainy video of that day and a few witness reports. This ambiguous evidence of something other than AA11 and UA175 was predominantly brought to light by Dave von Kleist in his popular film “In Plane Site”. Von Kleist asked questions about the flights that hit the WTC; in particular, what he suggested was an appendage to the lower fuselage of Flight 175. He argued that this appendage or “pod”, as it came to be known, was not consistent with a standard Boeing 767-200 and could indicate a military aircraft. While interesting and not being dismissed by many pilots and industry professionals, this argument has been left behind by most as inconclusive and problematic. I for one have never dismissed out of hand the possibility that aircraft were swapped on the 11th of September 2001, but have chosen to accept the official version due to a simple lack of clear evidence of another.
Just when we seemed to move on, a much more problematic suggestion of “no planes” hitting the WTC on 9/11 raised its head in 2008. This assertion was thought completely ridiculous and immediately dismissed by the vast majority of the 9/11 Truth Movement, many of whom in New York City knew people that saw the planes. Unfortunately, a small minority of people picked up the issue as the “real truth” and dug in their heels. Rather than seeing this hypothesis as a possible disinformation campaign to distract the public from the real questions and to discredit our movement in general, some found it plausible and took great offence to it being ignored. In their minds, the censorship we all oppose about 9/11 Truth was apparently being used on them. I and many other researchers did not think the issue would have any traction at all due to its ludicrous nature and were surprised when we saw a very vocal group fighting hard for this hypothesis to be considered both scientific and as based in evidence. Obviously, this was helped by the usual suspects, Reynolds, Fetzer, Haupt, et al., getting behind the campaign. The "no planers" produced films, did interviews with “experts” (?) and moved to attack our best web sites proclaiming us, the “non-no plane” believers as agents, idiots, gatekeepers and fools. This is when some of us put aside important work to nip this hysteria in the bud, by debunking the claims made.
Examples of the work of advocates of the no-plane at the WTC theory are easy to find! Some of the more prominent ones are films such as “September Clues” and more recently “Continuos Pieces – 9/11”. There have been many articles pulling these films and ideas to pieces, so that now we can say the hypothesis of video fakery, holograms and implausible debris are obviously false, even to the gullible layperson, if fully considered. There was only one thing that I saw as an argument that still had some legs--the “impossible speed” of AA11 and UA175.
Impossible Speed of AA11 and UA175?
It was after viewing a YouTube of an interview done by Project Camelot with pilot John Lear talking about “no planes” (found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes) that I became extremely concerned! Lear stated during this interview that AA11 and UA175 demonstrated “impossible speed”. This obviously needed to be addressed and debunked, especially due to the fact Lear was an experienced and qualified pilot. I spent a day and debunked his video in an e-mail I sent out widely, which was also posted on the Net. Unfortunately, the problem persisted due to Lear being a member of “Pilots for 9/11 Truth” and the logistical difficulty of proving his “impossible speed” argument clearly false. Consequently this interview was still seen by many as credible regarding the capabilities of the 767-200, thereby keeping the “No Planers” alive a little longer.
I thought I could solve this problem by addressing the need to revoke Lear’s membership at Pilots for 9/11 Truth as a way of undermining his credibility. So I wrote to Robert Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, to discuss this video and Lear’s membership. He subsequently refused my request to remove him from Pilots for 9/11 Truth and actually defended his right to his opinion, as he was “qualified to have it.”
Lear brought up one other issue that I found very concerning in this interview which I will mention here briefly. Lear stated that remote control of a 767-200 was basically impossible. This statement, made as if fact, then gave credence to his no plane argument (straw man). I agree it would be truly very difficult to hit those towers in a 767 at that speed, even for an experienced pilot, using just manual control. Luckily this statement had little or no credibility, as most well informed researchers know Boeing had flown aircraft themselves during testing by remote control and it is well known that Autopilot Systems these days can do nearly anything. From my own experience as an Avionics Engineer I know that the installation of such a system is no big deal at all. (See http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf.... for technology plausibly used on 9/11.) I personally believe the most likely scenario was the use of remote control via a remote flight management program and parts of the aircrafts autopilot system, with the aid of GPS; for all the hijacked flights on 9/11.
Let’s now get to the question of Lear’s statement regarding the “impossible speed” at which both AA11 and UA175 were flying, according to official reports. Here are the simple facts relating to the Boeing 767-200’s AA11 & UA175 on 9/11;
1. The speed of the aircraft that hit the WTC was officially reported as between 500mph and 560mph ground speed, calculated by the observed point to point distance covered over time.
2. A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively.
3. The speed of sound at approximate sea level is 761 mph on a standard day. Therefore the theoretical maximum speed the 767-200 can reach intact is, conservatively, .86 x 761mph = 654mph or approximately 100mph above the officially reported speed of AA11 or UA175.
4. The 767-200 is an aircraft that’s considered highly powered due to its requirement to function with only one engine for ETOPS - Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards. It is capable of taking off fully loaded with only one engine.
5. Lear’s argument: The normal maximum operating speed at sea level is 360Knots/h (Nautical miles) which equates to 415mph (a lot less than seen on 9/11). It is not, as Lear stated in his interview 360mph, which is considerably less. This maximum operating speed (Indicated) used is something that is decided by Boeing in conjunction with the operator and is not a structural or performance limit; rather it has been determined to be a safe speed at which to operate with commercial passengers on board and to prevent the need for increased maintenance.
6. The 767-200 is considered by pilots and aviation professionals to be a “slick” or “low drag” aircraft, being without bulbous construction and with highly swept 31.5 degree wings. It is well known that it is difficult to keep the 767 aircraft from over-speeding during decent; due to its low drag/high power configuration.
Considering all of these facts we are still left with the question: Can a 767-200 make 560mph ground speed at sea level or the equivalent of .74 of Mach speed? We know that it is definitely within its design parameters and that it can do so at high altitude (not in question), but can it do this at sea level (higher air density)? Considering that 560mph is 145mph faster than its recommended maximum operating speed (Lear’s argument), it is simply not possible to test this speed in a commercial 767-200 aircraft; it would be against the aircraft manufacturer’s recommendations, outside of standard company operating procedures and against the authorities’ rules (FAA in US). For these reasons we will not see a 767-200 attain 560mph in operation unless it is in the middle of an aircraft incident or accident. The only way to test this is in an accredited Full Flight Simulator.
Boeing 767-300 Simulator Experiment on the 29th of April 2009
The idea of using a Full Flight Simulator accredited by the FAA or relevant authority to test the maximum attainable speed for a Boeing 767-200 is only possible if you have the thousands of dollars it costs to hire such or access to one through your vocation. Well it just so happens that during my training in Sydney I worked in our Simulator Centre as a technician where Australian 767 pilots are trained and certified. The simulators are extremely busy and it is difficult to get access during the day or evening. On the 29th of April, after I had completed my work for the night shift, I drove to the Simulator Facilities at our Flight Training Centre at the Jet Base. I rang the nightshift maintenance staff and gained access to the building at just after 3am on the 29th of April 2009. Being licensed on the 767 and familiar with the facilities, I asked if I might access the simulator under the supervision of the technician on duty, Daniel Gazdoc. He agreed to help and I explained what I wanted to do and why.
We boarded the simulator (#2) which was configured as a GE powered 767-300 (marginally different from the 767-200, being a little longer and a bit heavier) and booted up the computers, placing the aircraft at 2000ft above Sydney (This altitude was set to prevent us hitting any obstacles if I lost control, resulting in an insignificant 6mph difference compared to AA11 and UA175; that is compared to Mach speed). We set the aircraft weight to 130,000kgs (286,000 pounds), approximately what it would have been on Flight 11 and 175; that is, lightly loaded. We pulled the aural warning circuit breakers on the overhead panel so that we would not be annoyed by configuration and over-speed warnings during our test. I sat in the pilot’s seat and pushed the throttles to the stops, maintaining wings level and a flat trajectory. To my surprise, within a few seconds we had exceeded the maximum operating Indicated Air Speed of 360Knots/h (415mph); then the needle continued to rise until it hit the stop on the indicator at over 400Knots/h (460mph). At this very fast speed you only have the Mach indication to go off, as IAS (Indicated Air Speed) is off the scale. The aircraft continued to increase speed until it reached .86 Mach (654mph), which is its rated airframe Mach speed limit. This makes complete sense, as the manufacturer does not want you to exceed this but wants you to have the maximum thrust available in case of emergency. At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to maintain my attitude once the aircraft was trimmed.
Originally thinking I was going to have to do a dive to attain the speeds of AA11 and UA175 due to the engines possibly struggling to make enough thrust, I thought it would be good to see what speed we could achieve in a shallow dive. We took the aircraft to 10,000ft and I commenced a 5 degree dive to 2,000ft and found that the aircraft attained and maintained a speed of .89 Mach (approaching 700mph) and was reasonably easy to control for a non-pilot. We did these tests a couple more times to be sure and then at about 3:45am I left the simulator. Daniel was happy for me to record his name.
How accurate are Full Flight Simulators and how does the 767-300 compare to the 200?
The flight simulator in which I carried out this test is considered to be an exact representation of the real aircraft. It takes into account all of the test data gathered during the initial flight testing of the 767-200/300 and ongoing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders and observed performance. The instrumentation is exactly the same as the actual aircraft and can be put into service in a real aircraft. The performance of the aircraft engines and the aircraft’s structure are modelled so that a pilot can remain current without doing as many actual flight hours. Basically it is fair to say that what you can do in the simulator can be done in real life, especially as relates to thrust, lift and drag.
After doing this test I then spent a few days on the flight line checking whether the average 767 pilot thought that the engines could achieve .86 Mach at sea level considering what I found in the sim. Mostly they agreed--due to the exceptional power to weight ratio of the 767 series, and its low drag airframe, it was probable it could do just that. I also asked the older pilots that flew in the Pratt and Whitney (JT9-7R4) powered 767-200 series aircraft if those aircraft were similar to fly to the 767-300 General Electric (CF6) powered aircraft they now fly (current simulator configuration). They said they were very similar, having a little less power but being a little shorter and lighter, thus giving them nearly exactly the same power to weight ratio. Once again this was no surprise to me as this is what the manufacturer does--matches the airframe to the power plant to meet the performance specifications which are basically the same for 200 and the 300 series Boeing 767.
Conclusion: Is it probable that the 767-200 can make 560mph at sea level?
It is highly probable that AA11 and UA175 could easily make the airspeeds quoted in the official reports and as seen in the video footage. Here is a summation of the facts;
1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11, 2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or team of experts, so it stands as fact.
2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 Mach by a margin of .12 Mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of reported speed of .74 Mach.
3. The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive.
4. Considering the large margins demonstrated here, we can now conclude that the “Impossible Airspeed” stated by John Lear et al. is false.
Obviously there will be the usual suspects that may complain that I have not caught this on film and I have left out some of the details of exactly where I did this test (you can figure it out). I have done this because I like my job and our campaign is not part of my function there. What I would say to the “No-Planers” is why don’t Lear et al. hire a simulator and prove me wrong. I would have thought that John Lear, being a rich, well-connected pilot so outspoken on this issue would have already done so.
It is my hope that this puts the final nail in the “No Planes at the World Trade Centre on 9/11” hypothesis and we will see an end to this great time waster!
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175
Friday, May 22, 2009
Documents recently found in the National Archives cast doubt on the integrity of the 9/11 Commission’s Executive Director Philip Zelikow. In an e-mail exchange with author Philip Shenon, Zelikow claimed that he first learned of a dispute on the commission over the investigation of false statements made by NORAD and FAA officials after it had been “percolating for a while” and was not involved in the initial stages of the argument. However, an e-mail chain (scroll down) found in the Archives by History Commons contributor paxvector shows that Zelikow had been involved in the issue from very near the beginning.
Zelikow made the claim he was not involved in the initial stages of the dispute in response to an allegation made by commission staffer John Azzarello and relayed by Shenon. After the staff investigators drafted a memo for the commissioners in early April 2004 outlining why they thought NORAD and FAA officials had deliberately lied to them to overstate the military’s readiness during the attacks, Zelikow “just buried that memo,” according to Azzarello. In response, Zelikow claimed that he had not even known of the issue at the start. The implication was that, as he had not known of it, it could not be him that was orchestrating–or even involved in–a dispute between the staff investigators and the commission’s lawyers, Daniel Marcus and Steve Dunne.
However, the newly found e-mail chain shows Zelikow did know of the issue in April, raising the question as to why he falsely told Shenon he did not. Zelikow is not known to be linked to the FAA, but, if the commission had referred the matter to the Justice Department and it had started a perjury investigation against NORAD officials, this would certainly have had the potential to embarrass his friends at the Pentagon. Zelikow is alleged to have husbanded the issue to ensure a less potentially embarrassing referral to the inspectors general of the FAA and Defense Department, who in the end blamed the false statements on innocent mistakes and poor logkeeping.
Zelikow wrote to Shenon at some length about the issue in preparation for a book-length history of the commission Shenon was preparing (emphasis added):
- On the later  question of a later criminal or IG referral of NORAD and FAA, there was indeed a dispute on how to handle these issues between the team and Dan & Steve. So they [the team] did have a dispute with “the front office.” [Marcus & Dunne were part of the ‘front office’] I later deduced that this dispute had been percolating for a while, building up some tension and perhaps also some misunderstanding.
The issue was them bumped up to me, hitting me for the first time as I returned to DC from a trip out of town. I well remember being startled when I came back and read a message on this, addressed or cc’d to me for the first time, in which emotions were already riding pretty high and people were mistakenly assuming that I’d been involved in this seemingly long-running dispute all along.
The recently discovered e-mail chain, which apparently contains the e-mail where “emotions were already riding pretty high” – sent at 1:11 in the morning and accusing Marcus of distorting what had taken place at a previous meeting – shows that Zelikow was already aware of the matter.
The first e-mail in the chain is from John Farmer, the leader of the commission’s team investigating the failed air defense on 9/11 and is dated June 1, 2004. In it, Farmer discusses a call placed to him by 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean and writes that Kean “knew nothing of the April 6 interim report” – the memo Zelikow allegedly buried. Farmer assumes that Zelikow knows exactly what he is talking about, indicating that Farmer and Zelikow had discussed the issue before.
It is also interesting how Farmer emphasizes that it was Kean that contacted him: “Gov. Kean reached out for me over the weekend regarding the June hearing. I had made no effort to reach him, directly or indirectly.” Early in the commission’s investigation, Zelikow had tried to prevent staff talking directly to commissioners, to centralize all contacts through himself. Although this rule was formally rescinded following protests from at least one commissioner, the fact that Farmer, one of the commission’s most senior staffers, felt the need to write this may indicate it continued to operate informally.
Zelikow replied a few hours later and, instead of claiming to know nothing of the issue, repeatedly stated he knew exactly what Farmer was talking about: “I believe that I discussed this matter with him [Kean] in April. I’ll talk to him and see if he agrees. The issue was certainly discussed with Lee [Hamilton, the commission’s vice chairman], who had a view. But first, just so we don’t all start suffering from a collective case of Alzheimer’s, let’s try together to remember what the issues were in April, when this topic was originally discussed, and the last time anyone discussed it with me.”
Zelikow then outlines the options mentioned at the April meeting and writes that “my initial judgment of these questions in April led me to propose the option of immediate referral to the two IGs [at the FAA and the Pentagon]…” Finally, he discusses how to proceed and says he thinks they should make a decision on referral.
This e-mail is followed by one from Marcus, who sets out what he thinks they agreed to do in April, then the emotional, early morning one from four staff members, Kevin Schaeffer, Miles Kara, Dana Hyde and Azzarello. Despite the clear emotional undercurrent, this e-mail is written in unusual, highly formal language, with sentences like, “We disagree with Dan’s characterization of our position at that meeting.”
It is this e-mail that Zelikow evidently referred to in his exchange with Shenon as being the first notice he had of the issue. He told Shenon that “I quickly tried to collect everyone, clear the air, and start working this,” and in his response to the emotional e-mail he does just that, calling a meeting for 10:30 a.m. the same day.
It is also interesting to note the second sentence of Zelikow’s response: “Receiving e-mails like this makes me wonder if all of you have lost the ability to use the telephone or, in Dana’s case, walk ten feet to my office.” One cannot read that sentence without thinking that perhaps Zelikow would have preferred not to have this disagreement in writing. After all, Zelikow sent some of the staffers an e-mail, and they replied by e-mail. What could be so very wrong with that?
The e-mail chain therefore shows that Zelikow had had various interactions on the issue before the first one he claimed in his exchange with Shenon:
(1) He attended the April 22 meeting, and may have read Farmer’s interim memo on the topic;
(2) He “believes” he discussed the issue with Kean, who was certainly aware of the vague allegations, as is shown by his later call to Farmer;
(3) There was also a discussion with Hamilton, which either Zelikow was involved in or learned of later;
(4) He received the June 1 e-mail from Farmer;
(5) He replied to Farmer;
(6) He received the e-mail from Marcus that led to the emotional e-mail.
Either these six, and possibly more interactions just slipped Zelikow’s mind when he was replying to Shenon’s inquiry, or he lied deliberately. The explanation that they slipped his mind is unlikely due to (a) the high number of the interactions, (b) the fact the inquiry was by e-mail, giving Zelikow more time to consider his response than in an ordinary face-to-face interview, (c) the extreme seriousness of the matter – they were discussing possible perjury by high-ranking military officers regarding events in which 3,000 people were murdered, and (d) Zelikow’s claim to Shenon that he “well remember[ed]” the emotional e-mail.
In addition, Zelikow’s claim that the staffers were “mistakenly assuming that I’d been involved in this seemingly long-running dispute all along” is false. This assumption was not at all mistaken, and in one of the e-mails Zelikow admits to having attended the April meeting. One of the things that upset the investigators most is Zelikow’s characterization of what happened at that meeting–that the “sense of the group” was to essentially do nothing for two months.
After Shenon’s book, The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Commission, was published in 2008, some of the commission’s staff banded together to attack Shenon and claim he had been overly critical of Zelikow. However, on this issue Shenon sat on the fence, writing it was “almost impossible to sort out the truth” between Zelikow and Azzarello, but then implicitly favoring Zelikow’s version by pointing out a subsequent business relationship between Farmer and Azzarello and highlighting Azzarello’s emotional involvement in the investigation–two of his family had died in the WTC.
In the light of the e-mail chain, it seems that, if anything, Shenon took it easy on Zelikow. We have to ask the question: why did Zelikow lie? The logical option would seem to be to cover up the fact he had maneuvered against a criminal referral of the false statements to the Justice Department as a favor to his friends at the Pentagon, but this is not yet certain. Finally, it’s worth asking if Zelikow lied about his involvement in this issue, did he lie about anything else? If he did this for Stephen Cambone, what would he do for Condoleezza Rice?
Monday, May 18, 2009
After the last words were spoken, it was obvious that the press would not have an opportunity to ask questions, so Jeremy and Bruno moved quickly, crammed against the wall, toward the podium in an effort to create an opportunity to ask a question. We were at an advantage with our hand held cameras, and we actually found ourselves right next to Biden as he moved chairs aside to fulfill requests for photos with residents in attendance. The moment generated many smiles and laughter, and genuine joy could be seen in the faces of all the residents. Biden stood and addressed the residents, and the instant that the photo op was finished, Jeremy engaged him: Vice-President Biden, Im Jeremy Rothe-Kushel with WACLA Media. Biden said, “If I had your hair, I would be President!” Jeremy couldnt disagree with that and offered up that Biden could have some since there was enough to go around. Then it was time to get serious and Jeremy jumped right into the preliminary part of his question.
It seems like with the kind of work that Esparanza and communities around the world are doing in terms of rejuvenating themselves, we could all rejuvenate our communities. So, I want to ask you about the role, the foundational role, [that] restoring the rule of law has in terms of rejuvenating our economy because there was a recent scientific paper that came out, I dont know if you know about it, but it basically is conclusive that the World Trade Center was blown up by very high, advanced explosives and it should have been and continue to be the very highest news story right now. So, my question to you is, when are you and President Obama going to ask the Department of Justice to start a criminal investigation in terms of who produced this advanced nano-thermite and who put it in the World Trade Center?
The space had gone silent, and every single person, including the press, the residents, the politicians and the Secret Service were listening intently to Jeremy’s question, and they all could not help but witness Biden’s discomfort and his loss for words. At this point Biden asked to see the report and took it to into his hands to look at it.
With the paper in the Vice-Presidents hands, Jeremy finished up the question by asking: And if you all are not going to do that, is it possible for We the American People to trust you with our economy if we cant trust you with restoring the rule of law? Biden, obviously caught in an awkward moment, handed the scientific paper back to Jeremy, and said “Yes,” then said thank you to everybody, and quickly turned to leave. While leaving the scene, offered up a little bit more in terms of his ambiguous answer. That its possible to trust—you can trust us.
Unsatisfied with the evasiveness and ambiguity of the Vice Presidents answer, Jeremy continued to call out to Biden, asking him to clarify his position in regards to the 9/11 cover-up, but Biden did not clarify his position any further. Are you going to do an investigation? Sir, are you part of the treasonous cover-up of 9/11 or are you going to help clear this up? Vice President Biden, this is about treason under Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.
Today we managed to get the only question asked, and every single person present walked away from that event with Jeremy’s question about scientific proof for military grade explosives used in the destruction of the Twin Towers on their mind. On our way out, a reporter complained to Jeremy that “it doesn’t matter what story you are after you should always keep it with the agenda of the moment,” to which Bruno’s pleasant response was, “When is 9-11 ever the agenda of the moment?” The reporter bowed his head and walked away.
As we stood in the street, smiles on our faces for having just had an intense experience of engaging high rank politicians about 9-11 and treason, the same Secret Service agent we had interacted with before the press conference came walking out. He smiled and pointed at us, “Great work guys!” then he saluted us! Yes, a Secret Service agent saluted us for asking the Vice President a hard question about scientific proof of the controlled demolition of the towers on 9-11. Bruno called out to him “Thank you! You did a great job running a smooth operation!”
Friday, May 8, 2009
Here's the photo that caused so much commotion in New York City and has now cost a White House official his job:
Today Louis Caldera, the director of the White House Military Office and the man who authorized the low flight of one of the Air Force One planes and two F-16s over New York City, resigned. Caldera's resignation was reported by the Associated Press, The New York Times and other news outlets. This news came as the White House released one picture from the photo-op, which was conducted to update the Air Force One photo library.
The photo was taken by Master Sgt. Andrew N. Dunaway of the Air Force combat camera squadron in Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina, according to news accounts. President Obama was reportedly furious about the April 27 flyover and ordered a review.
Also today Sen. John McCain's office released a letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates saying the estimated mission cost for the three-hour photo op was between $300,658 to $328,835. "I am concerned that this highly public and visable mission did not include an appropriate public affairs plan nor adequate review and approval by senior Air Force and DoD officials," Gates wrote.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The $328,835 snapshots of an Air Force One backup plane buzzing lower Manhattan last week will not be shown to the public, the White House said yesterday.
"We have no plans to release them," an aide to President Obama told The Post, refusing to comment further.
The sole purpose of the secret photo-op, which sent thousands of New Yorkers running for cover, was to take new publicity shots of the presidential jet over the city.
"The photos . . . are classified -- that's ridiculous," Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., said.
The photos have not technically been "classified," a White House aide said, but they are being kept from public view.
New Yorkers said they could not understand how a president who shares intimate snapshots from the White House could justify keeping these secret.
"So we're not gonna see the fruits of this cruel joke?" said Frank Antonelli, 39, one of the Wall Street traders spooked by last week's flyover.
"I'm not surprised. Obama . . . wouldn't further all the bad publicity by putting out those pictures."
1. Was the $328,835 charged to the American tax payers?
2. Will these photos be used for future government sponsored terror propaganda campaigns?
Monday, May 4, 2009
Dear Friends Around the World,
We, the 9/11 Family Members, First Responders and Survivors who make up the Executive Council of the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now, would like to announce our profound dedication to establishing an independent, impartial, subpoena-powered investigation into the events of September 11, 2001. We stand together with you, our fellow citizens, to place this important referendum on the New York City ballot on November 3, 2009.
Each one of us has a different story and a different reason for becoming part of this journey, but we have united for this purpose and this purpose alone: to establish an independent, impartial, subpoena-powered investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.
As 9/11 Family Members, First Responders and Survivors of those tragic moments, our lives were irreversibly devastated. Below, we describe our pain and our quest for closure. We hope you will join us in this quest – it is of paramount importance for our personal and collective healing, and for the betterment of our world.
Donna Marsh O’Connor, Mother of Vanessa Lang Langer:
As the world moves further and further away from the actual events of 9/11/2001 both in time and spirit, and as 9/11 effaces into yet another simple story cast in history, as the parent of Vanessa Lang Langer lost as the towers fell, I want to let it go. I want to stop talking about 9/11. I am tired of the questions unasked and unanswered. I am tired of the effort to burst yet another happiness bubble in our collective American psyche. And, too, I am tired of talking about Vanessa's death. Better for my family, in the immediacy of trying to live out our present days, to focus on Vanessa's life. To laugh at her memories and revel in pictures of her beautiful face. If it were only for the present and the joys I can still share with my children, my family and my fellow citizens, not just of this country but the world, I would let it go. I would so let it go.
But there is, after all literally, the future. And the future never relied so heavily on redress of questions unanswered in the present. To first ask and then answer what happened that day. Who committed this crime? Who should be held accountable? That is why I support the NYC CAN Ballot Initiative, and I ask for your support as well. It is beyond time for an investigation. It is beyond time.
Helen and Bob McIlvaine, Parents of Bobby McIlvaine:
Dear Citizens of New York City,
We lost our son Bobby on September 11, 2001. The death of a child is a pain like no other, compounded by the fact that this wonderful young man was murdered. When a crime as heinous as this takes place, it is assumed that justice will be served and the perpetrators will be discovered and punished. Much to our dismay, this has not taken place. We only want the truth.
Our only hope, at this juncture, is to support the NYC CAN Ballot Initiative, calling for an unbiased and non-political investigation of our son’s murder.
Jean Canavan, Sister-in-Law of Sean Canavan:
On September 11, 2001, my brother-in-law, Sean Canavan, was taken from our family in such a tragic way that there is no “getting over it”. That day was devastating for so many people but the pain is worsened when so many questions are left unanswered and no one is held accountable. How is it acceptable that the 9/11 Commission resulted in more questions than answers? How is it acceptable that Co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, are able to publish a book stating that the Commission was “Set up to fail” and that they were lied to by NORAD officials? Are we to just accept what the government has told us? The truth is that we don’t know what happened because the truth hasn’t been told. There will continue to be speculation until an impartial, independent investigation is done and the truth is told, whatever that may be. New York City CAN do it.
Reverend Edith Beaujon, First Responder:
I was a First Responder at Ground Zero with the Red Cross working for several days without a mask. I have had numerous health problems that are related to working at Ground Zero including pneumonia, and an autoimmune syndrome that has been identified as related to being at Ground Zero. Now I have excess toxins in my body including mercury, lead, tin and others that are causing health issues, for which I have had to spend thousands of dollars.
I do not believe there was a thorough investigation of the events of 9/11 and I would like to see an independent investigation conducted.
Janette MacKinlay, Survivor:
As I watched the events of 9/11 unfold before my eyes from my apartment window directly across the street from the World Trade Center towers, I never dreamed it would change my life and the lives of people around the world in such a profound and destructive way. I was covered with dust as debris poured into our burst window. Every breath brought dust into me. At that penetrating and traumatizing moment September 11th became a permanent part of me. My recovery from PTSD has been one of art to heal my soul and psyche, and activism to right the wrongs committed that day.
The well-documented omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report have left a black cloud of doubt over America. A new independent investigation is imperative to lift this cloud. The future safety and well being of our children and grandchildren depend on this, as does the future safety and well being of everyone around the world. It is for these reasons I pray we can have the unity of purpose to support NYC CAN. All of our support is critical. Every person counts. We need to seize this moment.
William Rodriguez, Survivor:
The events of 9/11/01 changed my life forever. I came to work that day not expecting to be a hero, but by the end of the day, I was. And yet, though they say I am a hero, they, the government officials, the 9/11 Commission and the major media, have all ignored my story: many explosions occurred that morning, explosions that were not related to the impact of the planes. As I learned later, my story did not fit the story the government told. They covered up my testimony. At long last though, the New York Coalition for Accountability Now, sponsors of this ballot initiative, are aiming to bring about a real investigation of what really happened that day. That is why I wholeheartedly endorse their efforts and have agreed and am honored to join their Executive Council. We need to bring closure for the victim’s families and friends, for us all, and the only way to do that is to bring about a full and thorough investigation of 9/11. NYC CAN can do it!
Thank you for your continued support.
Donna Marsh O’Connor
Helen and Bob McIlvaine
TruthgoneWild is PRO America. TruthgoneWild is not, in any way, connected to, or supportive of, any person(s) who engage in violent acts towards anyone or anything, for any reason. TruthgoneWild is not, and will never be, associated with, or support, any person(s) who are involved with any kind of religious, extremist, occultist, terrorist organization(s). TruthgoneWild is not responsible for any of the people who read the TruthgoneWild blog. TruthgoneWild posts consist of information copied from other sources and a source link is provided for the reader. TruthgoneWild is not responsible for any of the authors' content. Parental discretion is advised.
TruthgoneWild is exercising our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. Those who attempt to hinder this right to free speech will be held accountable for their actions in a court of law. TruthgoneWild is not anti government. TruthgoneWild is anti corruption. And we the people have every right to know who in our government is corrupt.