loopDloop Privileged

Join Date: 3 Nov 2011 Posts: 1,106 Threads: 20 Blog Entries: 1 Thanked 6,116 Times in 1,044 Posts

Re: Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls



At 8:29am, after a first failed attempt which did not connect, Amy Sweeney made a successful airphone call. She reached Evie Nunez, a manager in the American Airlines flights services office at Boston Logan Airport. This call lasted just over a minute before it was cut off. A few minutes later she made a second call to the same office, but we are not going to discuss that call in this post. We are going to focus in on this short, one-minute, phone call, and what happened as a result.



To recall the timeline: Flight 11 is said to have taken off at 7:59am. The “hijacking” took place at 8:13. Betty Ong placed her phone call at 8:18. This first call of Amy Sweeney's began therefore about half an hour after take-off, 16 minutes after the hijack commenced, and 11 minutes since Ong had been on the phone.



Amy had plenty of time to prepare herself, and to think about what it was she needed to say. She was a professional, and knew that her actions were critical to the safety of the passengers and crew.



So why did she tell Evie that she was on flight 12, and that it was parked at Gate 32?



Here's the excerpt from the FBI interview with Evie from 9/12/01:



Quote: After 8:30 AM on September 11, 2001, NUNEZ received a

telephone call from a AA flight attendant who did not give her

name and stated that Flight 12 at Gate 32 had two flight

attendants stabbed. In addition, there was a passenger in row 9

who had their throat cut by a passenger in seat 10B. NUNEZ also

learned the hijackers said they had a bomb. The flight attendant

was talking fast and then got disconnected.



B17 FBIs 302s of interest



Amy Sweeney told Evie Nunez that they were on flight 12, at gate 32!!!!



Gate 32 was one of the two gates from which Flight 11 is said to have taken off. It is certainly the gate at which the passengers boarded, according to the FBI interviews of two flight attendants who were present at the boarding.



But of course, the flight was in the air, and had been for 30 minutes according to the official story, so why would Amy Sweeney say it was parked at Gate 32?



Did she really say it was at Gate 32, or did Nunez somehow misunderstand what Sweeney was saying?



This is an impossible question to answer, because we don't have the recording of the phone conversation, but it does seem very odd that Sweeney would even feel the need to mention the departing Gate number for any reason. It is completely irrelevant to the situation. This leads me to suspect that Sweeney did indeed tell Nunez that the flight was parked at the gate, as Nunez thought, because otherwise there does not seem to be any sensible reason to even mention the gate number. As we shall see though, it doesn't matter that we cannot be sure if Nunez understood Sweeney correctly ot not, because it is what happens next which clarifies the situation.



So, what exactly did Evie Nunez do next. Here is the continuation of the quote above taken from her FBI interview:



Quote: NUNEZ immediately

called flight operations for AA to determine the status of Flight

12. NUNEZ learned that it was Flight 11 that had just left and

she ran a computer check to determine the identity/of the

passenger in seat 10B on Flight 11. NUNEZ determined it was

SATAM AL SUQAMI, who purchased an E-Tickef in Fort Lauderdale on

August 28, 2001. NUNEZ provided the investigating Agent with the

printout on AL SUQAMI.



Before she called flight operations and checked the computer, Evie Nunez did something else, which she couldn't bring herself to tell the FBI that morning. Why? Well, let's take a look, and see.



What did Nunez do? She spoke to Michael Woodward, flight services manager, (whether by phone or in person it is not possible to be sure from the transcripts) and asked him to gor down to Gate 32 and see what was going on. Michael, in turn, asked his colleague Elizabeth Williams to accompany him on this mission. Together, the two of them then walked to Gate 32, which was only a matter of two minutes walk from their office.



What did they find when they got there?



There were only two people there who can tell us: Michael Woodward, and Elizabeth Williams.



Michael Woodward, as we will see in posts to come, has an exciting morning ahead of him, but he does not realise that yet, at 8:31am on the morning of September 11, 2001. He will be interviewed several times over the next few days by the FBI, and several more times over the years since then. We will be looking at these interviews in detail in later posts, but at this point let's take a look at what Michael Woodward has said, in several different places, about what he and Elizabeth Williams found when they got to Gate 32 that morning.



Here's what he said on 9/12/01:



Quote: On Septemb.er 11, 2001, WOODWARD came to work at Logan

Airport at 6: 45 .AM. WOODWARD· was one of three managers on duty in the

AA office. Sometime after 8:00 AM, EVELYN NUNEZ, one of the other

managers, told him that two flight attendants had been stabbed and

were administered oxygen. NUNEZ stated the plane was at Gate 32 and

he went with BETH WILLIAMS to see if the plane was still there. They

went to the gate, realized the flight had left and came back

downstairs. Upon returning to the flight service office, WOODWARD

learned that the call between NUNEZ and the flight attendant had been

disconnected.

Shortly thereafter, the AA flight attendant AMY SWEENEY



http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-0...-woodward2.pdf



1.Nunez tells him about the plane at gate 32.

2.He and Williams go to the gate. They “realised the flight had left” and return.

3.ON returning to the office Woodward learns the call between Nunez and Sweeney was disconnected.



Notice here that Woodward doesn't actually say what they saw at Gate 32. He just says that they realised the flight had left.



Woodward was interviewed again two days later, and now the story was morphing:



Quote: At some time between 8:15 a.m. and 8:45 a.m., WOODWARD

was contacted and asked to go to one of the departure gates.

WOODWARD had trouble recalling which gate he went to, but he

believes he went to Gate 31 or 32. Shortly, thereafter, WOODWARD

realized a flight attendant on board one of the flights had

called the Flight Services office to report trouble on a flight.

WOODWARD then proceeded to the Flight Services office, where he

took a phone call from ANY SWEENEY (True Name: MADELINE

SWEENEY), a Flight Attendant on AA Flight 11. The following

information was relayed to WOODWARD by SWEENEY via telephone

(WOODWARD was unsure whether SWEENEY was on the on-board phones

or a cellular telephone):



Fortunately, he is interviewed again in January 2004, and has a chance to clear up the confusion:



January 25 2004



Quote: When flight services were in order, he returned tohis office around the departure

time (he is not sure whether it was the scheduled time or the actual time of take-off). He

said the walk from the departure gate to his office was only a few minutes long. He was

in his office doing paperwork. Around 8:30 a.m. (he is not sure of exactly when) he

heard Evelyn Nunez, whom he shared the office with, taking a call. She was rather loud.

She kept saying "What, what, what? ... Who's hurt? ... What?"

He got up and went into the MOD office and Woodward asked MOD Nunez what the problem was.

She said she didn't know. She had gotten a weird phone call. The caller said that someone was hurt

on Flight 12. She indicated that someone had been hurt, stabbed. The call had gotten

cut-off.



Woodward remembers thinking that perhaps it was air rage because there was a lot of

that type of thing going on at the time. He thought that maybe there was a disturbance in

the terminal. He and Beth Williams (who is another AAL employee) went to the

departure gate where nothing seemed amiss. All the flights in the "morning bank" had

left. At this point, he commented to Beth, "wait a minute - Flight 12 comes in at night. It

hasn't even left Los Angeles yet." He remembered thinking that sometimes the AAL

Operations Center will call when there is a problem on a flight and tell them to meet it

when the aircraft lands. After checking out the gate area, Williams and Woodward

returned to the office. It was about a two-minute walk from the gate area back to their

office.



woodward interviewedhttps://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:p6i80dqNP8cJ:media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00013.pdf+&hl=en&gl=fr&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjidMBXq7 ziHLcxxTfzexyNQt4p_Iwsk0xdNWyNrVJO1x7BTVESXb4YTPt0 Dg6hdXUkqNAmdB5Wq0xeE_TaFUiaIa2Zw9W28EuIFfHBUaW9jm OUyUF_8nSh1o3lkT6kUOCmDjJr&sig=AHIEtbREj6-t6giuPkLTjqYNkR7QZfoXwQ



There seems to be some evasion going on here. Woodward can't get straight when he learned of the call being made, or cut off. And he can't bring himself to remember the gate number easily. He gets it right the first day, then after that its “31 or 32”, then it's gone completely.



There's a reason why Woodward is reluctant to really spell it out that he went down to Gate 32 to see Flight 12 at 8:30am that morning. It's because, approximately one hour earlier, Woodward had been down to this same gate to check out the departing flight 11! He visitted the plane at the gate while it was boarding. He went on board. He spoke to several flight attendants and remembered them by name. He noted that everything was fine. Then he went back to his office.



So, why, one hour later, when Nunez told him there was a problem with flight 12 at gate 32, did Woodward not immediately realise that there must be an issue with the flight number? Woodward, if he was on the ball that morning, in his position as flight services manager, should have responded to Nunez, “hang on, it's flight 11 which was at Gate 32 this morning, and it has left about half an hour ago”.



Perhaps Woodward hadn't had his second cup of coffee yet for the morning. I know I'm only firing on half cylinders until my caffeine levels are up to par. In any case, Woodward didn't twig, and this might explain why he didn't go out of his way to make it all crystal clear to the FBI that he was asked to go to flight 12 at gate 32, when he had only just got back from visitting flight 11 at gate 32.



In any case, let's move on, because while Woodward might have been reluctant to tell us plainly what happened that morning at gate 32, the same was not the case for his colleague Elizabeth Williams. When she was interviewed by the FBI the next day, she didn't try to avoid the issue. She told them plainly and clearly what she saw that morning down at gate 32, but you won't find this reported anywhere subsequently in any of the accounts of the day. If you read about this seemingly minor incident anywhere, it's always Michael Woodward's accounts which are quoted. They went down to gate 32. There was nothing to see there, so they kept moving, according to Woodward.



Not so fast.



What Elizabeth Williams saw that morning has been dropped down the memory hole.



For very good reason: it blows the lid on 9/11.



And here is her inteview, describing what happened when they went down to Gate 32.:



Quote: WILLIAMS stated on September V\_, 2001, at approximately

8a.m., she was working in her office at LOGAN AIRPORT when

MICHAEL WOODWARD, Manager of Flight Services for AMERICAN

AIRLINES AA, advised her that they needed to go to Gate 32

because two flight attendants had been stabbed. Upon arrival at

the gate, WILLIAMS and WOODWARD found an empty airplane.

WOODWARD then got on the phone and contacted EVELYN NUNEZ, an

employee of AA at LOGAN AIRPORT. While WOODWARD was on/the

phone, WILLIAMS searched the gate-side computer for information

for the flight time of the airplane at Gate 32. WOODWARD then

told WILLIAMS that NUNEZ was on the phone with a.flight attendant

that was in trouble. Shortly thereafter, WOODWARD relayed to

WILLIAMS the fact that NUNEZ had lost contact With the flight

attendant. At this time. WILLIAMS and WOODWARD realized they must

have received the wrong information. Both WOODWARD and WILLIAMS

speculated that the individuals they were looking for were the

individuals on the flight that NUNEZ had spbken with. WILLIAMS

and WOODWARD then proceeded to the location of NUNEZ. an empty plane! This is so exciting let's have it again:



Quote: Upon arrival at the gate, WILLIAMS and WOODWARD found an empty airplane .



Certainly not: she says it again:



Quote: While WOODWARD was on the phone, WILLIAMS searched the gate-side computer for information

for the flight time of the airplane at Gate 32.



A plane. That was empty. That is: empty of passengers.



“Flight 11” had not taken off, but the passengers were gone.



Simple as that.



“Flight 11” was still parked at the gate, half an hour after its alleged take-off, but the passengers were gone.



If Elizabeth Williams is telling the truth, if she is not mistaken, or deluded, or mis-reported, then we may have here the the key which unlocks the entire 9/11 puzzle.



Is there any other evidence that “flight 11” simply never took off?



There certainly is: it's the famous NTSB database entry which lists no wheels-off time for the flight for that day.



There have been two explanations for this oddity in the official record: the NTSB say that the data was not reported, in the confusion of the day. The conspiracy theorists say that it proves flight 11 never existed.



But the data does not say either of these things. If we just take the data at face-value, rather than assuming it is incorrect, or misreported, or falsified, what does the data tell us? It tells us that flight 11 existed but that it never took off!



The wheels-off data is recorded automatically and electronically, even if it is not automatically reported. The fact that the entry exists shows that the flight was scheduled. The fact that the data shows the time as 00:00 indicates that the wheels never moved. This corresponds exactly to what Elizabeth Williams saw and described. The plane was there. It had not taken off.



If Elizabeth Williams is correct in what she saw, not mistaken or misreported, then the entry in the NTSB database for Flight 11 exactly matches what she described.



So we have two witnesses now who testify that the plane labelled as flight 11 never took off that morning: Elizabeth Williams, who says it twice, unambiguously, and the NTSB data, which shows that the plane never moved from the gate.



Let's just summarise now the bullet points of the story that is emerging about flight 11 in this thread:



1.The originating number on the airphone records show that the calls were placed from a prepared location, via an external port on the Claircom box, and not from a seatback phone handset.

2.Betty Ong identified the flight as “flight 12” at the beginning of her call

3.The transcript of the Betty Ong call was altered in the first 24 hours after 9/11, so as to make the “flight 12” exchange appear at the beginning of the four-minute recording, when it was not there on 9/11 itself.

4.The information that only four minutes of the Ong call was recorded must be incorrect.

5.Amy Sweeney also identified the flight as “flight 12” on her first phone call, and said it was parked at gate 32.

6.Woodward and Williams went to Gate 32 to check, and found an empty plane.



What's intriguing is that this tale hangs together as a coherent narrative. Here's a possible scenario: the doors of the flight are closed at 7:40am. As soon as that happens, a man stands up on the plane and explains the passengers and crew that they are now involved in a military drill. They are asked to disembark the plane, through the rear doors, where a bus is waiting for them on the tarmac. They are taken somewhere. I have no idea where, but in that location is a prepared Claircom box. Sweeney and Ong are selected, and convinced, to play roles within the simulation, pretending to phone in the details of the imaginary hijacking. It is impressed upon them that they must not give the game away. Betty Ong does pretty well, but in the end, there is really only four minutes near the beginning of the call which could conceivably ever be released into the public domain, so they make up the story about the four minutes of recording, and after a false start, settle on an acceptable transcript by the second day. Amy Sweeney's first call is a complete botch up, and the controllers have to pull the plug on the connection after about a minute, because she is taking too much creative license with the script. They give her a quick pep talk, and then she reconnects for the second phone call (which we haven't discussed yet, but in which she, yet again, misidentifies the flight as flight 12, as we will see). All these flight 12 references are deliberate, to ratchet up the confusion.



The above is just an attempt to fit the facts to a scenario. What's important are the facts, not the scenario. The repeated flight 12 references. The empty plane.



Elizabeth Williams still works for American Airlines. Many of the others in this story were let go in the aftermath of 9/11, as the airline industry went through massive restructure. Woodward left. Vanessa Minter left. Minter comments in an interview that it surprised her to be laid off, as “if they wanted to control what I say about 9/11, it would be better if they left me on payroll”. Well, they didn't keep Vanessa on payroll. But they have kept Elizabeth Williams on payroll. She has a LinkedIn. Here it is, and her photo.



Quote: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/elizabet...ams/10/957/439



Human Resources Specialist

American Airlines

Public Company; 10,001+ employees; AMR; Airlines/Aviation industry

July 2011 – Present (1 year 1 month) Dallas/Fort Worth Area



Purser Manager

American Airlines

Public Company; 10,001+ employees; AMR; Airlines/Aviation industry

May 2001 – June 2011 (10 years 2 months) Boston, MA



Someone might try to contact her and ask her: did you really see an empty plane that day at gate 32, but my guess is that she won't be talking. In this post we are going to look at the circumstances surrounding the first of two phone calls that Amy Sweeney made from flight 11 on 9/11/01.At 8:29am, after a first failed attempt which did not connect, Amy Sweeney made a successful airphone call. She reached Evie Nunez, a manager in the American Airlines flights services office at Boston Logan Airport. This call lasted just over a minute before it was cut off. A few minutes later she made a second call to the same office, but we are not going to discuss that call in this post. We are going to focus in on this short, one-minute, phone call, and what happened as a result.To recall the timeline: Flight 11 is said to have taken off at 7:59am. The “hijacking” took place at 8:13. Betty Ong placed her phone call at 8:18. This first call of Amy Sweeney's began therefore about half an hour after take-off, 16 minutes after the hijack commenced, and 11 minutes since Ong had been on the phone.Amy had plenty of time to prepare herself, and to think about what it was she needed to say. She was a professional, and knew that her actions were critical to the safety of the passengers and crew.So why did she tell Evie that she was onHere's the excerpt from the FBI interview with Evie from 9/12/01:…...........................Amy Sweeney told Evie Nunez that they were on flight 12, at gate 32!!!!Gate 32 was one of the two gates from which Flight 11 is said to have taken off. It is certainly the gate at which the passengers boarded, according to the FBI interviews of two flight attendants who were present at the boarding.But of course, the flight was in the air, and had been for 30 minutes according to the official story, so why would Amy Sweeney say it was parked at Gate 32?Did she really say it was at Gate 32, or did Nunez somehow misunderstand what Sweeney was saying?This is an impossible question to answer, because we don't have the recording of the phone conversation, but it does seem very odd that Sweeney would even feel the need to mention the departing Gate number for any reason. It is completely irrelevant to the situation. This leads me to suspect that Sweeney did indeed tell Nunez that the flight was parked at the gate, as Nunez thought, because otherwise there does not seem to be any sensible reason to even mention the gate number. As we shall see though, it doesn't matter that we cannot be sure if Nunez understood Sweeney correctly ot not, because it is what happens next which clarifies the situation.So, what exactly did Evie Nunez do next. Here is the continuation of the quote above taken from her FBI interview:Actually, no she didn't. This is bullshit right here. Evie Nunez is leaving out the crucial part of the story.Before she called flight operations and checked the computer, Evie Nunez did something else, which she couldn't bring herself to tell the FBI that morning. Why? Well, let's take a look, and see.What did Nunez do? She spoke to Michael Woodward, flight services manager, (whether by phone or in person it is not possible to be sure from the transcripts) and asked him to gor down to Gate 32 and see what was going on. Michael, in turn, asked his colleague Elizabeth Williams to accompany him on this mission. Together, the two of them then walked to Gate 32, which was only a matter of two minutes walk from their office.What did they find when they got there?There were only two people there who can tell us: Michael Woodward, and Elizabeth Williams.Michael Woodward, as we will see in posts to come, has an exciting morning ahead of him, but he does not realise that yet, at 8:31am on the morning of September 11, 2001. He will be interviewed several times over the next few days by the FBI, and several more times over the years since then. We will be looking at these interviews in detail in later posts, but at this point let's take a look at what Michael Woodward has said, in several different places, about what he and Elizabeth Williams found when they got to Gate 32 that morning.Here's what he said on 9/12/01:Let's just get that straight: the order of events is:1.Nunez tells him about the plane at gate 32.2.He and Williams go to the gate. They “realised the flight had left” and return.3.ON returning to the office Woodward learns the call between Nunez and Sweeney was disconnected.Notice here that Woodward doesn't actually say what they saw at Gate 32. He just says that they realised the flight had left.Woodward was interviewed again two days later, and now the story was morphing:Now he's not sure if it was Gate 31 or 32. No mention at all of what they saw down at the gate. And oddly, he now reports that he became aware of Sweeney's first call only AFTER going to the gate.Fortunately, he is interviewed again in January 2004, and has a chance to clear up the confusion:January 25 2004Now that he's had a couple years to think about it, Woodward has it all smoothed out. He was right next to Nunez when the call came in. He heard her on the call, and knew that the line had been cut-off. All this before he went down to the departure gates. He mentions that the caller said “flight 12”, but doesn't mention the gate number. Nor does he say, again, exactly what he saw when he got there except to note that “nothing was amiss”. They “checked out the gate area”, but that's all we learn.There seems to be some evasion going on here. Woodward can't get straight when he learned of the call being made, or cut off. And he can't bring himself to remember the gate number easily. He gets it right the first day, then after that its “31 or 32”, then it's gone completely.There's a reason why Woodward is reluctant to really spell it out that he went down to Gate 32 to see Flight 12 at 8:30am that morning. It's because, approximately one hour earlier, Woodward had been down to this same gate to check out the departing flight 11! He visitted the plane at the gate while it was boarding. He went on board. He spoke to several flight attendants and remembered them by name. He noted that everything was fine. Then he went back to his office.So, why, one hour later, when Nunez told him there was a problem with flight 12 at gate 32, did Woodward not immediately realise that there must be an issue with the flight number? Woodward, if he was on the ball that morning, in his position as flight services manager, should have responded to Nunez, “hang on, it's flight 11 which was at Gate 32 this morning, and it has left about half an hour ago”.Perhaps Woodward hadn't had his second cup of coffee yet for the morning. I know I'm only firing on half cylinders until my caffeine levels are up to par. In any case, Woodward didn't twig, and this might explain why he didn't go out of his way to make it all crystal clear to the FBI that he was asked to go to flight 12 at gate 32, when he had only just got back from visitting flight 11 at gate 32.In any case, let's move on, because while Woodward might have been reluctant to tell us plainly what happened that morning at gate 32, the same was not the case for his colleague Elizabeth Williams. When she was interviewed by the FBI the next day, she didn't try to avoid the issue. She told them plainly and clearly what she saw that morning down at gate 32, but you won't find this reported anywhere subsequently in any of the accounts of the day. If you read about this seemingly minor incident anywhere, it's always Michael Woodward's accounts which are quoted. They went down to gate 32. There was nothing to see there, so they kept moving, according to Woodward.Not so fast.What Elizabeth Williams saw that morning has been dropped down the memory hole.For very good reason: it blows the lid on 9/11.And here is her inteview, describing what happened when they went down to Gate 32.:Elizabeth Williams saw:e! This is so exciting let's have it again:Was this possibly a slip of the tongue, or a misunderstanding, or a transcriber's error?Certainly not: she says it again:At 8:30am on the morning of September 11, 2001, Elizabeth Williams went down to Gate 32, where Flight 11 had boarded an hour previously, and she saw there, with her own eyes, an empty plane.A plane. That was empty. That is: empty of passengers.“Flight 11” had not taken off, but the passengers were gone.Simple as that.“Flight 11” was still parked at the gate, half an hour after its alleged take-off, but the passengers were gone.If Elizabeth Williams is telling the truth, if she is not mistaken, or deluded, or mis-reported, then we may have here the the key which unlocks the entire 9/11 puzzle.Is there any other evidence that “flight 11” simply never took off?There certainly is: it's the famous NTSB database entry which lists no wheels-off time for the flight for that day.There have been two explanations for this oddity in the official record: the NTSB say that the data was not reported, in the confusion of the day. The conspiracy theorists say that it proves flight 11 never existed.But the data does not say either of these things. If we just take the data at face-value, rather than assuming it is incorrect, or misreported, or falsified, what does the data tell us? It tells us that flight 11 existed but that it never took off!The wheels-off data is recorded automatically and electronically, even if it is not automatically reported. The fact that the entry exists shows that the flight was scheduled. The fact that the data shows the time as 00:00 indicates that the wheels never moved. This corresponds exactly to what Elizabeth Williams saw and described. The plane was there. It had not taken off.If Elizabeth Williams is correct in what she saw, not mistaken or misreported, then the entry in the NTSB database for Flight 11 exactly matches what she described.So we have two witnesses now who testify that the plane labelled as flight 11 never took off that morning: Elizabeth Williams, who says it twice, unambiguously, and the NTSB data, which shows that the plane never moved from the gate.Let's just summarise now the bullet points of the story that is emerging about flight 11 in this thread:1.The originating number on the airphone records show that the calls were placed from a prepared location, via an external port on the Claircom box, and not from a seatback phone handset.2.Betty Ong identified the flight as “flight 12” at the beginning of her call3.The transcript of the Betty Ong call was altered in the first 24 hours after 9/11, so as to make the “flight 12” exchange appear at the beginning of the four-minute recording, when it was not there on 9/11 itself.4.The information that only four minutes of the Ong call was recorded must be incorrect.5.Amy Sweeney also identified the flight as “flight 12” on her first phone call, and said it was parked at gate 32.6.Woodward and Williams went to Gate 32 to check, and found an empty plane.What's intriguing is that this tale hangs together as a coherent narrative. Here's a possible scenario: the doors of the flight are closed at 7:40am. As soon as that happens, a man stands up on the plane and explains the passengers and crew that they are now involved in a military drill. They are asked to disembark the plane, through the rear doors, where a bus is waiting for them on the tarmac. They are taken somewhere. I have no idea where, but in that location is a prepared Claircom box. Sweeney and Ong are selected, and convinced, to play roles within the simulation, pretending to phone in the details of the imaginary hijacking. It is impressed upon them that they must not give the game away. Betty Ong does pretty well, but in the end, there is really only four minutes near the beginning of the call which could conceivably ever be released into the public domain, so they make up the story about the four minutes of recording, and after a false start, settle on an acceptable transcript by the second day. Amy Sweeney's first call is a complete botch up, and the controllers have to pull the plug on the connection after about a minute, because she is taking too much creative license with the script. They give her a quick pep talk, and then she reconnects for the second phone call (which we haven't discussed yet, but in which she, yet again, misidentifies the flight as flight 12, as we will see). All these flight 12 references are deliberate, to ratchet up the confusion.The above is just an attempt to fit the facts to a scenario. What's important are the facts, not the scenario. The repeated flight 12 references. The empty plane.Elizabeth Williams still works for American Airlines. Many of the others in this story were let go in the aftermath of 9/11, as the airline industry went through massive restructure. Woodward left. Vanessa Minter left. Minter comments in an interview that it surprised her to be laid off, as “if they wanted to control what I say about 9/11, it would be better if they left me on payroll”. Well, they didn't keep Vanessa on payroll. But they have kept Elizabeth Williams on payroll. She has a LinkedIn. Here it is, and her photo.Someone might try to contact her and ask her: did you really see an empty plane that day at gate 32, but my guess is that she won't be talking. Last edited by loopDloop; 18 Feb 2013 at 11:52 AM .