911 inside job - for what?

[poppet]

Well ,Well, Well another truther I see with Poppet,Is poppet the short little pirate on THat movie ,Pirates of the Caribbean ? Just what we need another Truther ! Four Aircraft went in that day, Eight Engines,Lots of Lives !

im the poppet who has trouble seeing 757 's even though im told with a subliminal message in the left hand corner that it is a plane impact.

when the government released these "convincing" images it seemed to be enough for the majority of people but this poppet was expecting to see something more on the lines of this.

now if you want to show me some official images showing something a bit more credible then i will hold my hands up and say i was wrong ,but you can't and neither are any images likely be open to public scrutiny any time soon.

i wonder why ?

[shrooma]

im the poppet who has trouble seeing 757 's even though im told with a subliminal message in the left hand corner that it is a plane impact.

when the government released these "convincing" images it seemed to be enough for the majority of people but this poppet was expecting to see something more on the lines of this.

now if you want to show me some official images showing something a bit more credible then i will hold my hands up and say i was wrong ,but you can't and neither are any images likely be open to public scrutiny any time soon.

i wonder why ?

.

I don't understand what you mean?

and bear in mind that i'm looking at these pics on a mobile phone not a computer, so they only measure 2''X 1'', and aren't very clear.....

[skyeagle409]

im the poppet who has trouble seeing 757 's even though im told with a subliminal message in the left hand corner that it is a plane impact.

when the government released these "convincing" images it seemed to be enough for the majority of people but this poppet was expecting to see something more on the lines of this.

now if you want to show me some official images showing something a bit more credible then i will hold my hands up and say i was wrong ,but you can't and neither are any images likely be open to public scrutiny any time soon.

i wonder why ?

That doesn't work for you, so Is that the best you can do? We can tie the path of damaged light poles and the generator, which was struck by American 77. Your post is the reason why 911 Truthers cannot be taken seriously.

Edited April 21, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Sky the same people who were involved in this mystery are most likely trying to cover it up...probably manipulating the information at hand.

The government couldn't even do a good job of covering up the Watergate scandal, so how could the government have covered up 911, and not get caught? Fact of the matter is, there was no way the government could have pulled it off and not get caught. You see, it is like this, remains of passengers and crew of those flights were recovered and have been identified and only a certain number of those aircraft were built and accounted for. It would have been easy for me to uncovered a switched airliner, and in fact, it would have taken me less than 30 minutes to do so. Each aircraft, even those of the same make and model, is different and have certain signatures that are as unique as a fingerprint, but it seems that. 911 Truthers, who have been concocting unfounded conspiracy theories to that affect, are not aware of those signatures regarding each aircraft.

For years, and in the months leading up to the 911 attack, countries around the world had warned the United States that the terrorist were planning to attack the America, and in some cases, the warnings were of the use of aircraft as missiles which were to be flown into the Capitol building, the Pentagon, the White House, CIA headquarters and other American landmarks. There was nothing in those warnings that implicated the United States. Later, Osama bin Laden admitted that he was responsible for the 911 attacks, which should have been no mystery since Osama bin Laden had declared war on the United States before the 911 attacks.

Edited April 21, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Poppet

I hope you know that the third picture in your collection above is faked.

Kinda funny really, somebody has photoshopped a Boeing in there.

[skyeagle409]

Poppet

I hope you know that the third picture in your collection above is faked.

I don't think that Poppet had noticed.

[poppet]

Poppet

I hope you know that the third picture in your collection above is faked.

Kinda funny really, somebody has photoshopped a Boeing in there.

the first image is from a blogger named Killtown who was involved in the dis-information program a few years back and the photoshopped boeing is from this site and under the image it states.

a newly-made video shows the true size of a 757, precisely calculated from published measurements, as well as engineering drawings from the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). This video displays what the Pentagon security camera would have recorded, had the official story been correct.

http://physics911.net/pentcrashvideo/

[skyeagle409]

the first image is from a blogger named Killtownwho was involved in the dis-information program a few years back and the photoshopped boeing is from this site and under the image it states.

But, the original wasn't 'photoshopped image.' Do you know why?

This video displays what the Pentagon security camera would have recorded, had the official story been correct.

The official story of which can be confirmed by the evidence.

Edited April 21, 2013 by skyeagle409

[shrooma]

Poppet

I hope you know that the third picture in your collection above is faked.

.

THIRD picture?!

I can only see TWO pictures!!

whassappenin'??

am I being conspired against?

it's coz i'm british isn't it! you bloody yanks are all the same!!

*sulks*

:-D

[Babe Ruth]

Awesome, Poppet! Thanks for that--I get it now. Very effective, once you understant the point.

[skyeagle409]

Awesome, Poppet! Thanks for that--I get it now. Very effective, once you understant the point.

Actually, Poppet crashed and burned because Poppet didn't do the homework.

[lightly]

Reann, on 21 April 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

Maybe commercial planes ought to have an remote auto pilot control system set up with the airforce , where as, if ever someone did try to take one over , they would not be able to do so, like an airforce personal would be able to operate full conrol of the plane, dismantle any attempt for the plane to be flown by highjakers..

.

that technology has been around for 30yrs.

civil aviation authorities have been remotely flying large passenger aircraft since the 80's, mainly with the intention of crashing them, to better understand the mechanics of plane disasters, but NASA/Dryden have also tested systems to take-off, fly, and land passenger aircraft too, to see if the technology was feasable, with a 100% success rate on a dozen flights, so your idea may yet come about reann!

I thought i had heard and read about such anti highjacking remote control systems. And, being installed on commercial airliners by the 70's? (can't seem to find info about it on the web anymore¿)

all i can find now are 'conspiracy' sites on the subject.

http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm

New Questions about remote control and 9-11

By Jerry Russell

British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings. If this were true, it would raise some very interesting questions. On the one hand, if the systems were used to control the aircraft and pilot them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then who was at the controls? How did they get access to the secret codes?

But on the other hand: if these systems were on the aircraft, and they were not compromised by some enemy trick of espionage, then why weren't they used on September 11 to save the four ill-fated flights?

quote from Vialls, who posted in October 2001:

In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

http://911review.com...otecontrol.html

All modern jetliners have sophisticated flight control computers, which allow the planes to be flown with at least the precision of a skilled human pilot. The 757s and 767s used in the 9/11/01 attack were developed in the 1970s and employ similar avionics. Both contain integrated flight management computer systems (FMCS) which provide automatic guidance and control of the aircraft "from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing." ¹

Researcher Don Paul was among the first to describes the possible use of remote and programmed control in the execution of the 9/11/01 attack, in his 2002 book Facing Our Fascist State: e x c e r p t title: Facing Our Fascist State authors: Don Paul

Home Run and Global Hawk

If the supposed pilots are impossible or unlikely prospects for flying a Boeing 757 or 767 through sharp turns and complex maneuvers, how COULD those airliners otherwise have been flown?

In an interview with the German newspaper Tagesspeigel on January 13, 2002, Andreas von Buelow, Minister of Technology for the united Germany in the early 1990s, a person who first worked in West Germany's Secretary of Defense 30 years ago, told about a technology by which airliners can be commanded through remote control.

The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'

...one more

http://www.kolki.com/peace/Home-Run.htm

Edited April 21, 2013 by lightly

[skyeagle409]

Reann, on 21 April 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

Maybe commercial planes ought to have an remote auto pilot control system set up with the airforce , where as, if ever someone did try to take one over , they would not be able to do so, like an airforce personal would be able to operate full conrol of the plane, dismantle any attempt for the plane to be flown by highjakers..

I thought i had heard and read about such anti highjacking remote control systems. And, being installed on commercial airliners by the 70's? (can't seem to find info about it on the web anymore¿)

all i can find now are 'conspiracy' sites on the subject.

http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm

New Questions about remote control and 9-11

By Jerry Russell

British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings. If this were true, it would raise some very interesting questions. On the one hand, if the systems were used to control the aircraft and pilot them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then who was at the controls? How did they get access to the secret codes?

But on the other hand: if these systems were on the aircraft, and they were not compromised by some enemy trick of espionage, then why weren't they used on September 11 to save the four ill-fated flights?

quote from Vialls, who posted in October 2001:

In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

http://911review.com...otecontrol.html

All modern jetliners have sophisticated flight control computers, which allow the planes to be flown with at least the precision of a skilled human pilot. The 757s and 767s used in the 9/11/01 attack were developed in the 1970s and employ similar avionics. Both contain integrated flight management computer systems (FMCS) which provide automatic guidance and control of the aircraft "from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing." ¹

Researcher Don Paul was among the first to describes the possible use of remote and programmed control in the execution of the 9/11/01 attack, in his 2002 book Facing Our Fascist State: e x c e r p t title: Facing Our Fascist State authors: Don Paul

Home Run and Global Hawk

civil aviation authorities have been remotely flying large passenger aircraft since the 80's,

... with the intention of crashing them, to better understand the mechanics of plane disasters, but NASA/Dryden have also tested systems to take-off, fly, and land passenger aircraft too, to see if the technology was feasable, with a 100% success rate on a dozen flights, so your idea may yet come about reann!

In an interview with the German newspaper Tagesspeigel on January 13, 2002, Andreas von Buelow, Minister of Technology for the united Germany in the early 1990s, a person who first worked in West Germany's Secretary of Defense 30 years ago, told about a technology by which airliners can be commanded through remote control.

The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'

...one more

http://www.kolki.com...ce/Home-Run.htm

Did you really think that American Airlines and United Airlines would have allowed their aircraft to be grounded for up to 6 months or longer in order for them to be illegally modify their aircraft into drones and do so under the nose of their mechanics, inspectors and FAA inspectors?

The B-757 and the B-767 are not fly-by-wire aircraft and as a result, any illegal modifications would have been detected during aircraft system checks conducted by the aircrew. One of my specialties was the modification of aircraft and jet engines and some of those modifications were of my design which were approved by Air Force engineers at Kelly AFB, TX. In fact, the U.S. Air Force and Raytheon Aerospace sent me on a mission to Pensacola, Florida to develop a new techical repair manual for the TF-39 inlet, which is used on the C-5 transport. One of my inventions took 7 years, from development to Air Force approval, to incorporate into all new Air Force C-5B transports which were on the assembly line at that time.

One of the fatal mistakes that 911 Truthers tend to make is that they don't really understand what they are posting. As I have said before, it would have taken me less than 30 minutes to reveal a switched aircraft because I would know what to look for. Once again, there was no way for the government to modify an airliner as drone not get caught.

1. How could anyone fly an illegally modified B-767 in the colors of an airline into an airport and not draw attention to airline and airport officials? The alarm will have gone off even before the aircraft left the ground if they attempted to file a flight plan. Try flying that aircraft into Boston airport in the colors of United Airlines without a flight plan and see what happens.

2. How can you switch an airliner in controlled airspace and not draw attention from ground controllers?

If the supposed pilots are impossible or unlikely prospects for flying a Boeing 757 or 767 through sharp turns and complex maneuvers, how COULD those airliners otherwise have been flown?

Complex maneuvers? I've conducted similar maneuvers as a student pilot with less than 30 hours of total flight time. There was nothing spectacular about the Hani maneuver by any means and in fact, it was nothing more than a boring maneuver to say the least. Take 4 minutes to walk one complete circle and you will get the idea just how boring that maneuver really was.

I might also add that Hani didn't complete a full circle.

Edited April 22, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

the first image is from a blogger named Killtown who was involved in the dis-information program a few years back and the photoshopped boeing is from this site and under the image it states.

a newly-made video shows the true size of a 757, precisely calculated from published measurements, as well as engineering drawings from the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). This video displays what the Pentagon security camera would have recorded, had the official story been correct.

http://physics911.net/pentcrashvideo/

I think there is a bit of a problem here. Look at that second image. What is the height of the Pentagon? What is the height of a B-757?

BTW, I guess it is time to reveal what is unknown to 911 Truthers, and that is, the "no-plane at the Pentagon claim" was actually a hoax on the same level as that WTC7 hoax video. What happened was that 911 Truthers grabbed some false information and ran off to the Internet races without doing any homework as to where the original story originated and it is clear to me that Babe Ruth was one of the victims of the "no-plane" hoax, but I decided to keep quiet to see how far he was willing to go since I knew he would not bother to do his homework anyway, and he didn't.

Edited April 22, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

...one more

http://www.kolki.com...ce/Home-Run.htm

You've got to be kidding, Right?!

Once again, did you really think the airlines would have grounded their aircraft for many months in order for someone to illegally modify their aircraft? Did the aircrew notify ground controllers of any trouble before they were hijacked? The fact that the hijackers were identified by flight attendants before the aircraft crashed underlines the fact that the aircraft were hijacked by terrorist from the Middle East and nothing to do with the U.S. government. The flight data also confirms the aircraft were not flown by professional pilots after they were hijacked.

Edited April 22, 2013 by skyeagle409

[DONTEATUS]

Its is so sad that the people that died that day,and all the Families that lost loved ones might read this dribble some day ! THe Facts are the Facts ! The Four Aircraft went in and people died ! No Government plots involved at all!

Get a Life people ! Skyeagle what are we going to do wit deez peep`s ?

[skyeagle409]

Its is so sad that the people that died that day,and all the Families that lost loved ones might read this dribble some day ! THe Facts are the Facts ! The Four Aircraft went in and people died ! No Government plots involved at all!

Get a Life people ! Skyeagle what are we going to do wit deez peep`s ?

I don't know, but I thought it was time to reveal that the 911 "no-plane" claim was actually a hoax.

[lightly]

Ok, thanks sky eagle, your the aeronautics expert. So, None of the airliners involved had flight computers that could be taken over somehow and controlled from outside the aircraft??

I just like the explanation of remote control... if it were true, then you would not need "Highjackers" on the planes at all... Or you could have some dudes on the plane that thought they were going to a meeting somewhere.

I still can't get over how 19 guys were identified and their pictures posted on the news 25 hours later... with no mistakes.. no additions or subtractions since. I can't buy that one.

[frenat]

I still can't get over how 19 guys were identified and their pictures posted on the news 25 hours later... with no mistakes.. no additions or subtractions since. I can't buy that one.

Except it didn't happen that way. The official list with pictures was not released until September 27th, 16 days later, which is why before that (and only before) there were stories of hijackers still being alive (mistaken identity because the official list had not yet been released.) CNN identified the wrong people 5 days after on the 16th

http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:HIJACKSUSPECTS.avi So no, they were not identified with pictures posted on the news 25 hours later.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive

[Babe Ruth]

Lightly

High quality autopilots have been in use for decades by the airlines. They have had "autoland" for decades. Not on all airplanes, but on many. Category A operations are what the FAA calls such landings.

But drone aircraft have been a reality in the military since about 1947 or so. Aircraft with no humans onboard, controlled by radio signals from somebody miles away. Obviously, today they are very common.

My theory is that the 2 aircraft that struck at WTC were drones. I doubt the authenticity of the Naudet video, and am of the opinion that the first aircraft to strike was a smaller aircraft of some sort. No doubt the second aircraft to strike was a Boeing 767.

The hijackers did not actually do any hijacking that day. That was all a story told by way of the media. Impossible cell phone stories primarily.

[trish1997]

So that the American people would become so angered.

It would be "our choice" to fight the oil fight.

George Bush created problems to solve them , to guide us around by the nose.

Gov continues to do this... EVEN the firefighters that were there to help have stated , there were explosions in the lower

part of the buildings.. BUT don't listen to them.. RIGHT... TO this day

not 1 piece of aircraft has been found at the Pentagon site,,,,,,,THE GOV says is was burned up,,,, NEVER has a fire been so hot as to burn evey piece of an airplane... THE airplane burned up, not 1 piece left,,, BUT get this,,,,, THEY FOUND THE HI_JACKERS backpack he had on during the flight.....

YOU can let them guide you by the nose, and beliee evey word they say... I believe the firefighters over the GOV any day of the week..................................

[AlnilamPhiSiriusly]

So that the American people would become so angered.

It would be "our choice" to fight the oil fight.

George Bush created problems to solve them , to guide us around by the nose.

Gov continues to do this... EVEN the firefighters that were there to help have stated , there were explosions in the lower

part of the buildings.. BUT don't listen to them.. RIGHT... TO this day

not 1 piece of aircraft has been found at the Pentagon site,,,,,,,THE GOV says is was burned up,,,, NEVER has a fire been so hot as to burn evey piece of an airplane... THE airplane burned up, not 1 piece left,,, BUT get this,,,,, THEY FOUND THE HI_JACKERS backpack he had on during the flight.....

YOU can let them guide you by the nose, and beliee evey word they say... I believe the firefighters over the GOV any day of the week..................................

THIS IS WHY JESSE VENTURA IS NOT ALLOWED ON LIVE TV!

http://www.minds.com...-flag-operation

"Every War Starts With A False Flag Operation"

Edited April 22, 2013 by AlnilamPhiSiriusly

[Babe Ruth]

Trish

Actually there was SOME debris from an aircraft at the Pentagon, according to pictures. Assuming it was not planted there.

Trouble is, what debris was in pictures WAS NOT consistent with a 757. It was more consistent with some sort of single engine aircraft.

[skyeagle409]

Ok, thanks sky eagle, your the aeronautics expert. So, None of the airliners involved had flight computers that could be taken over somehow and controlled from outside the aircraft??

Nothing that the aircrew could not have overcome in the cockpit in overriding a remote controlled system. In addition, because of the installed systems of the B-767 and the B-757, the control system of each aircraft would have had to be redesigned and incorporate the new control system into each aircraft, so once again, did you really think that American Airlines and United Airlines would have allowed their aircraft to be grounded for a long period of time just so their aircraft could have been illegally modified to fly under remote control and done so under the nose of its mechanics, inspectors and the FAA? I don't think so! 911 Truthers don't think of all the little problems associated with modifying large aircraft and you can't switch airliners either without getting caught, which would have presented another problem because each aircraft is unique, even those of the same make and model.

You also need to remember that the flight attendants were instrumental in the identification of the hijackers by phone, so we know the hijackers were known even before the airliners had crashed. In addition, the flight path data shows that the aircraft were not flown under remote control at all and in the case of American 77, you can see in the data where the autopilot was disconnected and reconnected and disconnected again at which point the sloppiness of the flying technique being performed by the terrorist pilot became clearly evident, and just another indication the aircraft was not flown under remote control by a professional pilot.

.

I just like the explanation of remote control... if it were true, then you would not need "Highjackers" on the planes at all... Or you could have some dudes on the plane that thought they were going to a meeting somewhere.

Once again, we know the hijackers were on board because they were identified by the flight attendants, and the flight path data shows that the autopilot was disconnected and reconnected and disconnected again and that the transponders tampered with in the cockpit, and to recap, the sloppy aero skills of the pilot was evident in that data as well.

I still can't get over how 19 guys were identified and their pictures posted on the news 25 hours later... with no mistakes.. no additions or subtractions since. I can't buy that one.

The flight attendants were instrumental in the identification of the hijackers and other details. Check it out.

Transcript of Flight Attendant Betty Ong

INTRODUCTION

At 7:59 A.M. on September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767 took off fourteen minutes late from Boston's Logan Airport. The plane, under the command of Captain John Ogonowski, was bound for Los Angeles with 81 passengers and 11 crew members aboard. Among the passengers were five Islamist terrorists, including Mohammad Atta, the terrorists' leader. As the plane was sitting on the runway waiting for clearance to depart, Atta placed a cell-phone call to Marwan Alshehhi, a terrorist aboard United Airlines Flight 175, to confirm that the coordinated hijacking plot planned for that day was under way.

At 8:13 A.M., the last routine communication took place between the aircraft and ground control. Over the next several minutes, as ground control operators could get no response from the pilot and the plane's IFF ("identify friend or foe") beacon was turned off, they began to consider that the plane had been hijacked. By 8:20, the plane was dramatically off course, and at 8:24 any doubts ground control had were dissipated when the plane made a 100-degree turn to the south. Also at 8:24, ground controllers heard the voice of one of the hijackers, who said simply "We have some planes." At 8:33, ground controllers again heard the voice of a hijacker telling the passengers, "Nobody move, please, we are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves."

At 8:37 A.M., the plane entered New York airspace. At about 8:38, Mohammad Atta likely replaced the captain at the controls of the plane, although the time when this occurred is uncertain. Meanwhile, ground controllers had contacted the U.S. military, which scrambled fighter jets to pursue the plane.

At 8:46:26 A.M., Flight 11, traveling at a speed of about 470 miles per hour, slammed into the north tower of New York City's World Trade Center between the 94th and 98th floors. At 10:28, the tower collapsed, structurally weakened by 10,000 gallons of burning jet fuel. It was later speculated that the terrorists deliberately targeted a transcontinental flight because its large complement of fuel would maximize the damage it would cause.

At 8:20 A.M., flight attendant Betty Ong placed an Airfone call to an American Airlines reservation desk, where she spoke to Vanessa Minter (the "female voice" below). About two minutes later, Minter patched her supervisor, Nydia Gonzalez, into the call. In turn, Gonzalez later patched in American Airlines manager Craig Marquis (the "male voice" in the second portion of the transcript below).

SIGNIFICANCE

Betty Ong provided the authorities with crucial information about the hijacking. By providing the numbers of the seats occupied by the hijackers, she enabled the authorities to determine their identities. By maintaining her resolve, the information she relayed to ground control over a 25-minute period confirmed that a hijacking was under way. Authorities assumed that other planes might have been hijacked that day, but that their plans were thwarted as the scope of the attacks rapidly became clear and flights were grounded.

Betty Ong was not the only flight attendant who placed a call to the ground that morning. Also on an Airfone was Madeline "Amy" Sweeney, who at 8:20 A.M., placed a call to Logan's flight services manager Michael Woodward. "Listen, and listen to me very carefully," she told Woodward. "I'm on Flight 11. The airplane has been hijacked."

Over the next 25 minutes Sweeney, too, remained on the phone and provided details about the hijacking (her call was not recorded, but reconstructed from Woodward's notes). At one point she said that the hijackers had stabbed the two first-class flight attendants. She also noted, "A hijacker cut the throat of a business-class passenger, and he appears to be dead." At another point she said that the hijackers had shown her a bomb. Still on the phone at 8:45, with the plane flying very low and ground controllers attempting to determine its location, she told them chillingly, "I see the water. I see the buildings.

I see buildings." After a pause, she said quietly, "Oh, my God." At about the same time, Betty Ong was repeatedly saying, "Pray for us. Pray for us."

http://find.galegrou...ial&version=1.0

Edited April 22, 2013 by skyeagle409

[lightly]

Thanks for responding skyeagle