A Little Known Fact About the 9/11 Planes

It is not a theory but a fact — one that is well known within the 9/11 truth movement — that the 9/11 Commission failed to ensure that at least one of the appropriate government agencies: the NTSB, the FBI or the FAA was commissioned to positively identify the aircraft which were allegedly involved in the murders of nearly 3,000 people, on September 11, 2001.

One does not need to be a Harvard Law School graduate to know that the first and most important requirement in any murder investigation is to determine the cause of death, which often leads to a requirement to identify, and trace to its origins, a murder weapon, or, in the case of 9/11: weapons.  And there can be no doubt that each of the four planes which were allegedly hijacked on the morning of  9/11 was posited as being a murder weapon by the U.S. administration and the 9/11 Commission, yet there is absolutely nothing which firmly connects the four allegedly-hijacked planes to any of the 9/11 crash sites.

In fact, it is not fanciful to suggest that if a lawyer, even of a far lower calibre than that of an Alan Dershowitz, were engaged to defend the airport security companies that allegedly allowed 19 box-cutter-carrying Arabs to get on to those planes, he would immediately call for the dismissal of such an action on the grounds that the planes which allegedly hit the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the one which crashed near Shanksville had never been forensically identified as the planes which, allegedly, had been hijacked that morning.

And such a motion could not possibly be denied, as I will explain.

The planes in question were alleged to have been: American Airlines flight 11 (Tail Number: N334AA), North Tower;  United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), South Tower;  American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA), the Pentagon, and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA), which supposedly crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.  But the truth is that they could well have been different planes that had arrived on the scenes from quite different locations, because the crash debris recovered from those four crash sites has never been forensically linked to the planes that allegedly took off from Logan International, Boston; Dulles International, Washington and Newark International, New Jersey, and which were, allegedly, hijacked shortly thereafter.  Therefore, they cannot possibly be linked, without a reasonable doubt, to breaches of security at those airports.

So it would be a remarkable irony, and quite possibly a unique circumstance in the annals of American jurisprudence, if the assumptions used as reasons for launching wars against two sovereign nations, as well as the more generalised ‘War on Terror’ would not stand up as evidence in either a criminal prosecution or a civil damages suit in an American court of law.

Air-crash investigations in the United States are normally carried out by the NTSB’s air accident investigation division, and there are several documentary television series featuring this government agency’s painstaking approach when investigating the causes of air crashes. During many such investigations, serial numbers from recovered parts are cross checked with the airline-in-question’s purchase and maintenance records, to try and identify the reason for an accident, when it is suspected that mechanical failure may have been the cause.

However, the NTSB has confirmed that — apparently for the first time from its inception, in 1967, since when it has investigated more than 124,000 other aviation accidents — it took no part in investigating any of the air crashes which occurred on September 11, 2001.  So the world has been asked to take it on faith and hearsay that the four planes involved were normal scheduled flights which were hijacked by Arab terrorists, some of whom, are, allegedly, still alive.

Even more disturbing is the fact that documentation exists, and is available on the Internet, which indicates that the FBI, backed up by a separate letter from the Justice Department, has refused to release any information under the Freedom of Information Act about any debris recovered from the crash sites, including the serial number of the “Black Box” Cockpit Flight Data Recorder allegedly found near the alleged crash site of United Airlines Flight 93.  It may be recalled that a transcript taken from this recorder formed the basis for several TV dramas and one Academy-Award winning feature film.

By no means finally, but just as disturbing, the core of a jet engine, which can be seen in several 9/11 videos falling out of the northern face of the WTC’s South Tower, and which hit a building on its way down, and was photographed and videoed — in the presence of FBI personnel and at least one FBI vehicle — where it came to rest at the junction of Church and Murray streets, was later photographed, prior to its [alleged] burial in a land fill on Staten Island.  So much for what murder investigators are usually so concerned about:  The chain of custody and preservation of important evidence, pending its identification.

The events of 9/11 had consequences far beyond the destruction of life and property in the United States; they were the reasons for the launching of three wars.  Yet it is obvious that a leader writer of an influential newspaper, the Washington Post, could not spare the time to look into such a serious matter — one that people with far fewer resources than he or she has access to have managed to do — before launching a scathing attack on a member of the Japanese parliament and the world-wide 9/11 truth movement, in general.

Just because the 9/11 Commission did not do its job properly is no excuse for newspaper writers not to do theirs.  Unless, of course, newspapers such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times are playing a conscious role in a conspiracy to prevent the truth about these events from surfacing.  In which case their editors and owners would almost certainly be guilty of misprision of felony.

I would like to stress that the identity of the planes is not the only reason why the 9/11 Commission’s findings should be regarded as invalid, and its members found guilty, at the very least, of gross oversights in the collection of the evidence which was used in the writing of its Final Report.  Even a cursory look at the visual evidence of the collapsing World Trade Center’s Twin Towers and WTC 7 should have instilled grave doubts about the findings of some of the experts from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST.

But, for my money, the real smoking guns were, and still are, the four aircraft that were used as weapons on that terrible day, and for them not to have been identified breaks every rule in any book which seeks to teach the art of solving crimes.

Anthony Lawson is a retired, international-prize-winning TV commercials director, cameraman and editor, and a professional voiceover artist living in Thailand. His entire catalog of YouTube videos can be viewed online. Read other articles by Anthony.

14 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Melissa said on March 19th, 2010 at 9:35am #

    Truth is cascading.

    Watch the masters try to concoct a black op to discredit the truthers.

    Call everything into question.


  2. Mulga Mumblebrain said on March 19th, 2010 at 9:37am #

    The events of 9/11 were the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ that the Zionist ‘neo-cons’ of the Project for a New American (Israeli) Century so presciently foretold.It was the excuse for the long planned ‘Zionist Plan for the Middle East’ to be put into practise,and the bodies of the innocents will go on piling up for decades. This all represents the greatest and most coolly calculated war of aggression since the days of Hitler,which, given the religion of most of the perpetrators, makes for a truly chilling irony.

  3. Melissa said on March 19th, 2010 at 9:58am #

    Aye, mulga. Chilling.

  4. bigdog said on March 19th, 2010 at 1:56pm #

    Anthony, I believe 100% that there is a big coverup similar to the Kennedy assassination. But though your point about ID of the planes may be correct, it doesn’t address real life events. I have a few questions that should be answered before your claim can be considered valid.

    1. If those planes didn’t crash as claimed, where are they?
    2. How do you account for all the dead people who were known to have been in those planes, including the pilots and crew who were known to have boarded those planes?
    3. How do you explain the documented cell phone calls from inside at least two of the planes to family members?

    There’s plenty of damning evidence against the official version of 9/11. I don’t think it’s valid to make your point here unless you can explain the hard evidence that those four planes did in fact crash into the towers, the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania.

  5. MylesH said on March 19th, 2010 at 5:54pm #

    “documentation exists… and is on the Internet”
    Wow, I’m convinced.

  6. Anthony Lawson said on March 19th, 2010 at 9:52pm #

    bigdog: Your questions should not be addressed to me, they should be addressed to a new panel of enquiry; I can only theorise or make a guess. The whole point of going back to basics is to stop conjecture and theorising and concentrate on what really matters. What really matters is that the 9/11 Commission, quite clearly, did not do its job. Solution: Re-Investigate.

    Think of it this way: When an accused person is found innocent, by a jury, the judge doesn’t say: “Well if he didn’t do it, who did?” He passes the case back to the prosecutors and the police in the hope that they will do better next time. That the 9/11 murder weapons were never identified is a huge, gigantic, insuperable issue, and this is what everyone should be concentrating on, because it really is a fact, not a conspiracy theory.

  7. ffolly said on March 19th, 2010 at 10:39pm #

    The 9/11 Commission, like the Warren Commission investigating JFK’s assassination, was bogus. Its purpose was to perpetuate, with only necessary minor modifications, the government’s official/original conspiracy theory. There is a wealth of resources on the net and in print that effectively undermines the validity of this position. Currently, I am reading “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” by David Ray Griffin, who is considered one of the best apologists of the 9/11 truth movement. (Yes, there are some crackpots out there with cockamamie theories. Assign them their well deserved space in File 13 and move on.) Because 9/11 became the basis for the “War on Terror,” our justification for invading Afghanistan, Iraq and whoever is next on our hit list, it becomes even more imperative that the truth be known. Let there be a ground swell demanding the same. Knowing the reality behind the events of 9/11 is one of the few things that will deliver us from our current warring folly. Plus, I would like to see the evil perpetrators of this dastardly deed, and its associated fallout, brought to justice.

  8. albury smith said on March 20th, 2010 at 4:06am #

    Good grief; 9/11 “truth” nuttiness must be a degenerative disorder. Mr. Lawson has gone from imaginary, redundant explosives in the WTC buildings to faked planes, and has lied about too much here to address properly. Contact both airlines and give them your new information on what happened to four of their scheduled flights, Anthony.

  9. Anthony Lawson said on March 20th, 2010 at 5:14am #

    albury smith: Do you realise how foolish you have made yourself look? But this is par for the course for people who attack the messenger, rather than the message.

    First come the insults: “…nuttiness must be a degenerative disorder…” Then the made-up accusations: “Mr. Lawson has gone from imaginary, redundant explosives in the WTC buildings to faked planes…”. Imaginary is right, because, clearly, Mr Smith prefers to imagine what someone might have written, rather than apply himself to the simple task of reading and attempting to comprehend what was actually written. I did not mention explosives, redundant or otherwise, or faked planes. Finally, comes the libellous statement and the phony claim that he is unable to spare the time to back up the accusation: “…and has lied about too much here to address properly.”

    Note the cop-out clause “too much here to address properly”, it is favoured by people like Albury Smith who wouldn’t even know where to begin in order to refute the accuracy of the statements that I have made. And I very much doubt that you could address an envelope, properly.

    If you are one of those people who are paid to troll these kinds of dissident websites in an attempt to defuse the growing anger and concern about the way our world is being manipulated, then you are not worth whatever you are being paid. If you are doing it off your own bat, then I feel sorry for you, because you obviously haven’t got the kind of enquiring mind that can distinguish between truth and fiction.

    Finally, whatever happened to the planes which were allegedly hijacked, they did not belong to Boeing; they belonged to United Airlines and American Airlines, but you couldn’t even get a simple fact like that right.

    I’ll have to mark your post: Zero out of 100, I’m afraid, and I very much doubt that you could do better, but please try again.

  10. Anthony Lawson said on March 20th, 2010 at 5:56am #

    Here we go again. jon s is another person who can’t read properly. Please tell up, Oh Wise One, how you know that the planes were hijacked? Have you not heard of “Home Run” or “Global Hawk” technology? Obviously not. You only “know” that the planes were hijacked because the 9/11 Commission said they were hijacked, and we all know that such bodies tell lies, or do not bother to look too closely into things. But, let me allow you the time to answer two questions:

    1. How do you know, without a shadow of a doubt, that the planes were actually hijacked?

    2. How do you know, without a shadow of a doubt that the planes that we were told hit the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a farmer’s field near Shanksville, were the hijacked planes; if they were hijacked, that is?

    Keep it simple, just cite your source or sources, then we can get on with finding out who is the crackpot.

  11. bigdog said on March 20th, 2010 at 7:31am #

    Wow, Anthony. I’ll repeat–I think the official explanation of 9/11 is a pack of lies. But I also think your point about identification of the planes is irrelevant. Interesting and annoying, but irrelevant.

    Why? Because the evidence–not conjecture, not speculation, but proof–that the four planes indeed crashed in those locations on 9/11 is clear to anyone whose mind is not closed. You admit this but brush it off. Why?

    I checked with an attorney friend, and he confirmed that even if there is no documentation of identity for the planes, other proof that the planes did indeed crash into the towers, the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania is solid gold in a court of law. Just like if you are accused of a crime, you can’t prove where you were at the time of the crime, but you have proof that someone else did it. End of case.

  12. Don Hawkins said on March 20th, 2010 at 8:24am #

    911 seems no great mystery what happened after 911 was a bit different. Cool smart minds I think not. Turning a good part of the Earth into black and white highly intelligent and must have taken years of schooling.

  13. Kim Petersen said on March 20th, 2010 at 9:42am #


    With all due respect, you contradict yourself. You argue against Lawson, and then you reposit Lawson’s argument: the need for evidence.

    Then you cite some nameless attorney friend, and people should be convinced??

  14. albury smith said on March 20th, 2010 at 2:43pm #

    A.L.: “Finally, whatever happened to the planes which were allegedly hijacked, they did not belong to Boeing; they belonged to United Airlines and American Airlines, but you couldn’t even get a simple fact like that right.”

    Great straw man, Anthony, but when did I ever say that the 4 hijacked airliners belonged to Boeing?

    Btw, here’s a simple fact for you: Global Hawks don’t look anything like Boeing wide-bodied twins, and they’re roughly 1/10 the size of a 757.