Skip to content

A Version of 9/11 That Takes Issue with Matthew’s

September 14, 2010

I’m only interested in the truth, Let the chips fall where they may.

That being the case, I publish what Steve (I guess I should not publish his last name lest he not want the publicity) has said on Multi-Dimensional News discussion group so that you can make up your own mind.

Steve has taken the article on Matthew Ward and jutxtaposed his own comments. Where it says “Steve’s comment,” that is the other Steve.

Incidentally I was just speaking with a reporter for American Free Press before opening this email, who said that the people at the Pentagon who say they saw an airplane were plants. I have no idea whether that is true or not myself. You have to decide.

I personally trust Matthew, but everyone needs to make up their own minds and it works best to have as much information, pro and con, to do that as possible.

Thanks to Bre for passing the item along.

Matthew Ward: The Truth about 9/11

by Steve Beckow

Let’s begin then with Matthew’s recitation of what he says actually occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

…”The planes were remotely controlled by measures designed to override any manual maneuvers by pilots.

Steve’s comment: While Matthew is correct about the remote control, he is not correct about ‘overriding the manual control of the pilots, as the planes used to attack the U.S. on 9/11 were military ones, not civilian airliners. Flights 11 & 77 never flew that day, (nor did they ever fly on Tuesday’s. More:

Evidence that Flights AA 11 and AA 77 Did Not Exist on September 11, 2001
The four commerical jetliners allegedly departed from the airports, and with the flight numbers, shown below:

Airport location    Name    Flight no.
Newark, NJ    Newark Liberty International    UA 93
Boston, MA    Logan International    UA 175
Boston, MA    Logan International    AA 11
Washington, DC    Dulles International    AA 77

The U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics website is: The Bureau is reported to log every domestic flight scheduled from a US airport and conducted by a carrier accounting for more than 1% of domestic air traffic, and the database is required to include all scheduled flights, whether actually completed or not, unless the flight is cancelled more than seven days prior to the departure date.
Let us see what the original BTS webpages have to say. Click on the links below to see copies (saved in November 2003) of the “Departure Statistics” pages for September 11, 2001, for United Airlines flights and for American Airlines flights at the relevant airports:

UA: Newark, NJ — Newark International
UA: Boston, MA — Logan International
AA: Boston, MA — Logan International
AA: Washington, DC — Washington Dulles International

Date     Flight no.     Destination     SchedDepart    Tail no.  ActualDepart

Sept. 11       UA 93           San Francisco           8:00         N591UA      8:01
Sept. 11       UA 175           Los Angeles           8:00         N612UA      7:58
Sept. 11       AA 11          No record exists
Sept. 11       AA 77          No record exists

Thus for September 11, 2001, and for Flights UA 93 and UA 175, the destination, tail number and departure time are the same as that given above. But for Flights AA 11 and AA 77 the situation is totally different — these flights are not scheduled at all. The implication is that Flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist on September 11, 2001.

Go to this page on the BTS website: and select “Newark, NJ”. On the next page select “United Airlines” and September 11, 2001. Three planes are listed as being diverted, namely, UA 81, UA 83 and UA 641. But in the original records UA 93 (with tail number N591UA) was also listed as being diverted. Click here to see a copy of the original page.

Now check the diversion statistics in the same way for the other airports. The original BTS pages can be seen by clicking on the links below:

UA: Newark, NJ — Newark International
UA: Boston, MA — Logan International
AA: Boston, MA — Logan International
AA: Washington, DC — Washington Dulles International

Flight#     Diversion record exists in: original BTS records, in current BTS records

UA 93                                 yes                       no
UA 175                                 yes                       no
AA 11                                 no                       no
AA 77                                 no                       no

Thus the records for the diversion (alleged hijacking) of UA 93 and UA 175 were removed from the BTS database. This was presumably done to disguise the fact that although, in the original database, there were records for the diversion of UA 93 and UA 175, there were none for the diversion of AA 11 and AA 77. The reason why there were no records for the diversion of AA 11 and AA 77 is that these flights did not exist.
Further evidence for this can be found by considering the Airline On-Time Statistics. Go to BTS website:

Select “United Airlines”, flight number “0093” and the date range September 10th to 11th, 2001. A page appears which gives data for UA 93 on September 10th, but above this is a note:

On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, these flights are not included in the on-time summary statistics. But this note was added sometime after November 2003. Before that the same query (but for September 11, 2001, only) produced the page shown here.

In the original BTS database similar queries returned the following pages for UA 93, AA 11 and AA 77. Thus the summary on-time statistics (over any specified time period) for the four flight numbers differ in the current version of the BTS database from the version which existed until sometime in 2004 in this respect: In the original version that summary included data for UA 93 and UA 175 on September 11, 2001, whereas data on AA 11 and AA 77 is explicitly stated to be non-existent. But in the current version, data for all four flights on September 11, 2001, is excluded. This change was made presumably to disguise the fact that Flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist on September 11, 2001… clip..

“Both the Pentagon and the plane that crashed in the field were hit by scalar beam weaponry. Regarding the Pentagon, the beams were aimed at the section where a communications group had been recently relocated.

Steve’s comment: The Pentagon is clearly hit by a missile, as evidenced by the small hole, (16 ft in diameter), that is the same size at the exit, (6 reinforced concrete walls later.) A missile has a hardened projectile in the nose, and thus can penetrate bunkers, etc., and thus can pierce reinforced concrete; whereas, a jumbo jet is made out of lightweight aluminum, that disintegrates when impacting reinforced concrete. People that worked at the Pentagon stated they smelled cordite, a military explosive, and propellant used in missiles.

As for the Shanksville craft, it was hit by a missile, not a scalar weapon. I have spoken with people from Shanksville, and there are a number of eye witnesses to the missile striking the jet. There is a 5 plus mile-wide debris field, that could only have occurred, from the craft having been destroyed in the air. This 5 mile wide debris field is reported by the NBC and FOX News the AM of 9/11:

Flight 93 — No plane, no crash site, no nothing, September 11, 2001 early news footage from FOX and NBC:

” no one saw any plane approaching that building and there was no way a plane could have struck as the damage showed without being seen at near ground level.” (1)

Steve’s comment:    There were LOTS of witnesses to the plane approaching the building, including Pentagon cops that were interviewed by some of the 9/11 Truth folks, in a video exposing the presence of two aircraft, (one that overflew at low altitude, and another that hit the Pentagon, flying in lower that the larger plane, creating the small, very deeply penetrated hole.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Matthew has ‘some’ of the information correct, but he is so far off in other areas, that he creates uncertainty concerning anything he says that is correct, as he is wrong to often to be considered a reliable source.

Susie Ward is a sweet and sincere lady, but he channeling of Matthew is far from accurate, and thus is something I discontinued using as a source many years ago. Much Love, Steve

3 Comments leave one →
  1. September 15, 2010 7:24 pm

    A few comments from Matthew I found curious to my feelings of truth, but overall I feel Matthew is a good source of information.

  2. dave permalink
    September 15, 2010 9:01 am

    Sorry, I’m sticking with Matthew on this one.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: