Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Latest News _ 9/11: Intercepted - New Release

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 14 2011, 10:37 PM

War Games, Simulated radar tracks, aircraft exceeding their max operating limits by more than 130-150 knots, inaccurate aircraft position reports, false aircraft target reports, aircraft converging -- flying virtually in formation with -- and then diverging from reported 9/11 aircraft, fighters launched in the wrong direction, aircraft seemingly still airborne after the alleged attack, poor communications, phones not working.... What happened in the skies on the morning of September 11, 2001? Why were our defenses ineffective? Pilots For 9/11 Truth analyze NORAD response, audio recordings as well as Radar data provided by government agencies.

9/11: INTERCEPTED



Order the full analysis produced by Professional Pilots at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store

Narrated by http://voice123.com/chriskelley.

Thank you for your support!

Posted by: CuriousGeorge2 Feb 15 2011, 11:38 AM

This story is PUBLISHED at 911NewsCentral.com.

Link: http://pligg.911newscentral.com/story.php?title=911-intercepted-new-release-pilots-for-911-truth-forum-1

911NewsCentral.com proudly publishes the research of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, the CIT, and other quality sources.

Posted by: wilddaddy Feb 15 2011, 12:30 PM

Just ordered it! handsdown.gif

Posted by: mick Feb 15 2011, 03:03 PM

Will we ever see a world class forensic investigation into the events of 9/11 ?
Is the "truth" to big to handle ?
Are other countries involved in the cover-up?

Posted by: CaptBill46 Feb 15 2011, 04:10 PM

QUOTE (mick @ Feb 15 2011, 02:03 PM) *
Will we ever see a world class forensic investigation into the events of 9/11 ?
Is the "truth" to big to handle ?
Are other countries involved in the cover-up?

Yes. In order of degree of involvement: #1 Israel (big-time), #2 Pakistan(small-time), #3 United Kingdom(bit-part).

Posted by: aerohead Feb 16 2011, 02:59 AM

Awesome, ill be ordering mine shortly. salute.gif

btw- We could launch a whole squadron (12) of F-4's
in under 10 minutes back in 95.

And they were '69 models. laughing1.gif

Posted by: Westgate Feb 16 2011, 05:07 AM

Just ordered mine Rob - thanks for all the hard work, yet again.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Feb 16 2011, 03:31 PM

Great stuff Rob. I'll certainly be dropping in to buy a copy or three. thumbsup.gif

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Feb 16 2011, 10:11 PM

I think this alone would blow their ™ mind . if they in their state of degeneration are able to even understand what is it all about... thumbsup.gif

Posted by: Ret737Driver Feb 16 2011, 10:12 PM

Fantastic presentation Rob!
Another well-researched and documented FACTUAL testimonial.
Something is indeed rotten in these United States at high levels...

Posted by: ScaffoldRider Feb 16 2011, 10:53 PM

Thanks, excellent presentation!!!! There's a lot of people I will be sending this video to! I've been attacked for almost
10 years for my opinions of what I believed occurred on 9/11 and why it is so imperative for a new independent
investigation. This video will definitely open some eyes, no matter how blind you may be!

Posted by: amazed! Feb 16 2011, 11:04 PM

You're right Mick--the truth is too big to handle for many.

Spoofed radar systems is what it looks like to me.

Posted by: dadeets Feb 17 2011, 12:31 AM

Rob,

I find it to be an excellent production. The professional sounding voice gives it a lot of credibility. and I think it does an excellent job of showing the confusing information that was inserted into the mix, targeted at those professionals tasked with responding to the emergency. (Note that the word "emergency" either never, or almost never came up. It should have, rather than "hijackers."}

I don't know if you are open to suggestions for "improvements" at this point, or not, but I certainly understand if that is not what is now needed.

Here are some things that came to my mind as I viewed it:

The first part, once some flight activity was noted, seemed to be in real time. Yet, it was hard to know if it was, or not. If it was, it would make the point of how slowly FAA ATC was responding (or. at least, the FOIA information indicated that it was. There is the question, since accurate response to FOIA requests was noted, on whether this information is accurate). They seemed to be in a "business as usual" frame of mind. However, if the viewer knew that it was being presented to them in slower than real time, then that concern would go away immediately. I, at this time, don't know if it was presented faster, the same as, or slower than real time.

I don't think the V-N diagram is going to mean anything to the average viewer, unless it is explained a little bit. In fact, the alleged speed of 150 or so beyond VMO is beyond the chart. I don't know what color code it should be given -- it is beyond red. Maybe you could assign another "color" to where it was, maybe a flashing red. Then if you show the cartoon image of the airplane in flashing red, the viewer could grasp the idea that it was "off the chart." I personally would rather see that indicated by a "flashing red" airplane, rather than an airplane breaking up. (Since, it could have been, as you indicate, a modified (replacement) airplane able to fly at that higher speed.

I think one of the most interesting new pieces of information is the evidence some of the planes were still flying after they allegedly had crashed. But maybe that's because I didn't already know about them.

I think the NORAD Z-POINT needs to be defined.

The Arlington Police officer testifying that an AAL airplane crashed into the Pentagon is a new one to me. Do we know who that was, by name?

When Norm Minetta is shown testifying, was that to the 9/11 Commission? If so, it would be good to indicate that. Also, I understand all of the records of Minetta's testimony have been removed from the 9/11 Commission's archives. If so, that would be a good piece of information to add. (I can run that down if needed.)

Dwain

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 17 2011, 01:34 AM

Thank you all for your kind words everyone....

QUOTE (dadeets @ Feb 16 2011, 11:31 PM) *
Rob,

I find it to be an excellent production. The professional sounding voice gives it a lot of credibility. and I think it does an excellent job of showing the confusing information that was inserted into the mix, targeted at those professionals tasked with responding to the emergency. (Note that the word "emergency" either never, or almost never came up. It should have, rather than "hijackers."}


Thanks Dwain. Yes, Chris did an excellent job. That is his band playing through the credits at the end by the way... him singing.

QUOTE
I don't know if you are open to suggestions for "improvements" at this point, or not, but I certainly understand if that is not what is now needed.


Here are some things that came to my mind as I viewed it:

The first part, once some flight activity was noted, seemed to be in real time. Yet, it was hard to know if it was, or not. If it was, it would make the point of how slowly FAA ATC was responding (or. at least, the FOIA information indicated that it was. There is the question, since accurate response to FOIA requests was noted, on whether this information is accurate). They seemed to be in a "business as usual" frame of mind. However, if the viewer knew that it was being presented to them in slower than real time, then that concern would go away immediately. I, at this time, don't know if it was presented faster, the same as, or slower than real time.


The time was presented on-screen. It is a bit faster than real time. Especially when you consider AA11 departed at 0800, and was reported to crash into the North tower at 0846. Thats 46 mins for just the first aircraft path, the movie needed to be less than 44 mins (if it ends up going on TV... an hour show with commercials).

Here are all the NORAD audio tracks if you care to download and listen. I listened to them all. There was lots of confusion when the reports started to come in... it seems i captured the essence according to your statements, which is what i wanted to do.

http://www.governmentattic.org/docs/NORAD-USNORTHCOM_9-11_Tapes.pdf

QUOTE
I don't think the V-N diagram is going to mean anything to the average viewer, unless it is explained a little bit. In fact, the alleged speed of 150 or so beyond VMO is beyond the chart. I don't know what color code it should be given -- it is beyond red. Maybe you could assign another "color" to where it was, maybe a flashing red. Then if you show the cartoon image of the airplane in flashing red, the viewer could grasp the idea that it was "off the chart." I personally would rather see that indicated by a "flashing red" airplane, rather than an airplane breaking up. (Since, it could have been, as you indicate, a modified (replacement) airplane able to fly at that higher speed.


Agreed. But again, we needed to keep it under 44 mins and all the above is covered in "9/11: World Trade Center Attack", which was sourced by the narrator.

QUOTE
I think one of the most interesting new pieces of information is the evidence some of the planes were still flying after they allegedly had crashed. But maybe that's because I didn't already know about them.


Our article on UA93 is here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/united-93-still-airborne.html

woody did a lot of the work on the ACARS. I expanded upon it while also checking with Dennis. You can find some of his work in our forum with a search. Woody also provided the ACARS map.


QUOTE
I think the NORAD Z-POINT needs to be defined.


It was defined by lat/long. It was a waypoint to send the fighters until the report came in "15 east of JFK", which was a false report and repeated through the system. Due to the false location, the Otis Fighters were then sent to W-105 off the south coast of LI.

We covered this in the presentation and again it could have been expanded upon, but again, we were trying to keep it to 44 mins.

QUOTE
The Arlington Police officer testifying that an AAL airplane crashed into the Pentagon is a new one to me. Do we know who that was, by name?


I dont know who it was. Aldo and Craig can expand on this i'm sure.

QUOTE
When Norm Minetta is shown testifying, was that to the 9/11 Commission? If so, it would be good to indicate that. Also, I understand all of the records of Minetta's testimony have been removed from the 9/11 Commission's archives. If so, that would be a good piece of information to add. (I can run that down if needed.)

Dwain


The first Minetta statements were in front of the 9/11 Commission as indicated by speaking with Lee Hamilton in a Congressional Hearing setting. The second interview was done with MSNBC. I forgot to source it, but it's easy to find on YT.

I also wanted to expand on his statements of the flight path while talking with Monte from the FAA, as the flight path they describe conflicts with the NTSB flight path, but again, i needed to keep the presentation to 44 mins. If i do a directors cut (which i probably will), I'll include all of the above.


Thanks for your comments Dwain, this is what the forum is for.. .so people can ask questions and we can expand on our presentations. Hope this helps.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 17 2011, 01:47 AM

Incredible bro. Excellent job. And thanks for suggesting that you don't find the data authentic.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Feb 17 2011, 02:50 AM

QUOTE (dadeets @ Feb 17 2011, 04:31 AM) *
The Arlington Police officer testifying that an AAL airplane crashed into the Pentagon is a new one to me. Do we know who that was, by name?


Lagasse says he immediately called it in and said an AA jet hit so it could have been him.

Obviously Mineta does not say the name of the officer that he is talking about (nor do I think he ever knew a name).

There is more than one channel for the dispatch but the recording only gets one.

At least that's how they described it when they played us the tape at the Arlington County Communications building.

Nobody on the dispatch recording was close enough to see the Pentagon from what I recall.


But yeah great job Rob! The quality of the production is awesome.

Posted by: Cary Feb 17 2011, 09:08 AM

Outstanding documentary Rob. We got to get you on Alex Jones' show now and then as a regular to help spread the word. I'll be calling in to ask him to get you on.

Posted by: bill Feb 17 2011, 11:47 AM

Excellent !



Two suggestions, since this seems targeted to average viewers (which I applaud !)

the radar video at 18 minutes seemed confusing to me -- not sure what I was supposed to get from it .....

for non- pilots a brief desciption of ACARS would be helpful

Good Job !

eta

I agree, Cary

although I have some mistrust of AJ he clearly has a large audience and that is the only way we are going get the new investigation pushed --- get lots of people calling for it.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Feb 17 2011, 12:32 PM

Very good, although some language elements go past me, for example what's a 'dozey doe' (sounds like) WRT that section on the Airborne Command Center approaching from the West as it nears other targets?

It is near the end, had a power outage and lost the page so would have to fetch again to give exact timing.

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 17 2011, 01:28 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Feb 17 2011, 10:47 AM) *
Excellent !



Two suggestions, since this seems targeted to average viewers (which I applaud !)

the radar video at 18 minutes seemed confusing to me -- not sure what I was supposed to get from it .....


Possible aircraft swap.

What are the odds two high speed targets from different courses from the west, perform a 180 degree course change to converge on aircraft which had converged with UA175 and UA93 near the WTC?

I also animated it.

I found this to be the most alarming evidence in the data.

QUOTE
for non- pilots a brief desciption of ACARS would be helpful


The narrator briefly explains it is a device for communicating with aircraft.


@Omega

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosey_Doe

It's a dance move where two people circle around each other. Here is a picture i found with a quick search...
http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/1445526213063851723JUEeTU

This is kinda what the radar looks like with the E4B circling with the unidentified target. A Dosey-Doe. wink.gif


Good to see you Cary!

Posted by: consequential Feb 17 2011, 02:51 PM

Excellent job, Rob! So good to see Pilots offering up another superbly researched presentation.. you guys continue to impress me more and more with each new effort - keep up the great work!

Posted by: Bruce Sinclair Feb 17 2011, 04:15 PM

Hi Rob:

Watched the "sneak peek" today and loved it! I am very happy to see that my small monthly contribution is being put to such amazing important work.

Well done!

Fondest regards,

Bruce

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 17 2011, 10:34 PM

Mindblowing work Rob!

handsdown.gif

Posted by: signalfire Feb 18 2011, 02:39 AM

From the beginning of the NORAD audio tapes: "I've never seen so much real world stuff happen during an exercise!"

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 18 2011, 06:09 PM

I don't know if these blogs from 2007 are still relevant today but put a bit of meat on the bones of the radar returns, ATC communications and anomalies (here's hoping the blogger "Woody" can shed some light on this here - is he still "active"?)

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/08/where-was-flight-77-after-856.html

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/03/dulles-airport-controllers-on-loop-of.html

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/04/mineta-and-elusive-plane-crash-at-camp.html

Watched the presentation again today. 5 stars man.

Posted by: KP50 Feb 18 2011, 07:03 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 19 2011, 10:09 AM) *
I don't know if these blogs from 2007 are still relevant today but put a bit of meat on the bones of the radar returns, ATC communications and anomalies (here's hoping the blogger "Woody" can shed some light on this here - is he still "active"?)

I've seen new blogs from Woody within the past couple of months. Pretty sure he is still active.

Posted by: wilddaddy Feb 18 2011, 07:12 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 18 2011, 05:09 PM) *
I don't know if these blogs from 2007 are still relevant today but put a bit of meat on the bones of the radar returns, ATC communications and anomalies (here's hoping the blogger "Woody" can shed some light on this here - is he still "active"?)

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/08/where-was-flight-77-after-856.html

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/03/dulles-airport-controllers-on-loop-of.html

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/04/mineta-and-elusive-plane-crash-at-camp.html

Watched the presentation again today. 5 stars man.


How are you guys watching it so quickly? I ordered about 10 minutes after it was available and still haven't received it!

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 18 2011, 07:14 PM

QUOTE (wilddaddy @ Feb 18 2011, 06:12 PM) *
How are you guys watching it so quickly? I ordered about 10 minutes after it was available and still haven't received it!



I sent out a sneak peak a few days ago.... you should have your DVD today or tomorrow. Check the tracking.

Posted by: wilddaddy Feb 18 2011, 07:54 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 18 2011, 06:14 PM) *
I sent out a sneak peak a few days ago.... you should have your DVD today or tomorrow. Check the tracking.



No problem. Just looking forward to it....

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 18 2011, 08:14 PM

QUOTE (wilddaddy @ Feb 18 2011, 06:54 PM) *
No problem. Just looking forward to it....


Thank you for your support wilddaddy!

Yeah... you should have yours soon. Just keep an eye on the tracking... they're usually pretty accurate. If you have any problems, just let me know....

Posted by: A. Syed Feb 20 2011, 05:42 PM

Excellent work, Rob! thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif

Posted by: onesliceshort Feb 20 2011, 10:37 PM

QUOTE (KP50 @ Feb 19 2011, 12:03 AM) *
I've seen new blogs from Woody within the past couple of months. Pretty sure he is still active.


Is he? Nice one.

The guy seems more informed than anybody regarding the ATC communications. Do you have any links handy KP?

I always got lost trying to piece together the information/transmissions until I saw this video.

Posted by: KP50 Feb 21 2011, 12:01 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 21 2011, 02:37 PM) *
Is he? Nice one.

The guy seems more informed than anybody regarding the ATC communications. Do you have any links handy KP?

I always got lost trying to piece together the information/transmissions until I saw this video.

Well from

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/

you can see all his archived articles. Nothing since November 2010 and he seems to value quality over quantity (which is a good thing).

Posted by: Rickysa Feb 21 2011, 05:12 PM

Rob, if you want to merge this with the other thread, please do so...it is just that the presentation is SOOOOOOOOO good, I wanted a new thread to highlight the great work you have done.

It is superb. handsdown.gif

I think you could have made a DVD on the overlapping flight paths alone!!! I've been following this for how many years now (?) and never made that insight.

I think I've watched the animated u-turn about twenty times now.

Awesome overlap of radar/voice/map/etc to make everything understandable.


Folks, scrape up the dinero and support this kind of work. You want to blow the lid off of this whole damn thing (?), well I believe the folks here are going to be a major player in doing so.

Rick

Posted by: Ken Feb 23 2011, 12:03 AM

Sorry, I'm a non-professional (not even an amateur) with respect to aviation, but I am very interested in the material, and I have to say that if I weren't I would be put off by the dramatic tone of the narrator's voice and the music (at least in the trailer). I would have to say the same thing about collaborating with Alex Jones (or even Geraldo, for that matter) - my guess is that it probably smacks of sensationalism in the average viewer's mind.

Posted by: wilddaddy Feb 23 2011, 02:38 PM

Just finished your video Rob. The phantom flight and the convergences were new to me. There was an excellent youtube video that talked about the flight paths crossing over an air force base. I'll look for the video and post it here if that is OK.

I wish I were an expert at video editing. I have been learning about it the last few months on my MAC and enjoy it immensely but only now do I have an appreciation for how difficult it is.

Rob,
I have no right to ask you this and am embarrassed to do so, but I wish you could make a 20 minute or so condensed version of your CD's. Use this new one as a base. You started to do it with this video but fell short IMHO. When talking about the CIT info., throw the two officers' testimony in ("I would have to have eyes in back of my head for the plane to be there") and then explain briefly why a North path makes the governments case impossible. Definitely throw in the faulty Black Box data. Throw a quick G force lesson/ground effect lesson about the pentagon attack. Please always add the fact that most experienced pilots are unable to hit the towers at max speed, let alone disintegration speed, in simulation. And then end it. Forget the buildings falling at free fall speed. Forget the dramatic voice. Etc.

Rob,
Feel free to travel Europe and enjoy your life and never think about 911 again. You have done more than anyone could or should ever do. You have rapidly become one of my heros and that is a very short list. So please take my comments with a grain of salt.

In my opinion, you have long ago proved, beyond any reasonable measure of doubt, that 911 was some sort of inside job.

Thanks for all you do.

PS. I will post the video here next if I can find it. Please move it if it is inappropriate here.

Posted by: wilddaddy Feb 23 2011, 02:52 PM

This is the video I mentioned. Haven't viewed it in some time but I remember being very impressed with the amount of info covered, in a very short and well done format. I see the guy mentions some mistakes he made and will be doing a new video with the new info. Anyway, for what it's worth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW23PuBKiA0

Posted by: remo Feb 23 2011, 04:04 PM

Indira Singh. PTECH.
The consideration of PTECH technologies in the computer systems of all major players allowed interoperability.
Back door real time interactions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x142316

Christopher Bollyn reports the connections of PTECH through Michael Goff.

Posted by: Alan H. Feb 23 2011, 07:16 PM

"Intercepted" looks, from the trailer, to be very professional, and I can't wait to see it. Any idea when you might make the full presentation available for streaming? I would eventually like to get DVDs of all your presentations--all of which, after watching again [thanks again for posting the links, Rob], I found to be very well produced, sourced, and informative. I think I understand most of the stuff concerning the two air-speeds, one in knots and one in Mach, and their reason for being. I am a little confused, though. If I understand this correctly, then, 360 knots is not equal to .86 Mach (if you were to convert both to MPH I think it would help laymen understand and appreciate these concepts more thoroughly); 360 knots is the max operating speed at or near sea-level, and .86 Mach is the Max speed [for the aircraft] at cruising altitudes. If I understand, though, 360 knots is far less fast than .86 mach.
So, those two air-speeds are not the same, correct? It makes sense that you would be able to fly much faster in the thinner atmospheres, and that at sea-level anything over 500 knots would probably cause structural failure.
I watched a show recently[ Discovery Science] in which the commentator speculated that there was a high probability than we now have aircraft capable of hyper-sonic speed--over 5 times the speed of sound. Some believe they've reached up to 10 or 12 Mach! With those kind of speeds, an aircraft could fly from Groom Lake (aka Area 51) to New York City in about 10 to 15 minutes!

The day 9/11 happened I knew it had been allowed, because there's simply no way the most secure and expensive "defense" systems in the world all failed--for a period of two hours--on the same day. That second plane should never have made it to the WTCs; the first plane should have been the 1st & last one to strike. Yet it appears that the only aircraft possibly shot down (UA93) was one way outside its target. BTW, someone posted, on YOUTUBE, supposed communications between VENUS 77 (supposedly the EB4 plane) and someone in air-traffic control. It sounded like they were a bunch of idiots, and not highly trained aviation officials and pilots.

Also, some of the actions of people in our government seem to indicate they were truly frightened (by 9/11) and not "in the know." So, if this was an "inside" job, I think it was very limited in scope. I can't see them getting enough people involved to carry thousands of pounds of thermate or other explosives into 3 buildings. Not impossible, but highly improbable. Of course, three steel-frame buildings all collapsing on the same day is highly improbable, too--especially when it comes to WTC building 7. But I also know humans are very, very bad at keeping secrets...But then again, we didn't find out about Operation Northwoods until 40 years after it was rejected. And so it goes--back and forth. I don't know if a new investigation could prove anything, since so much evidence was destroyed, but there is the big question of why this was allowed, and why weren't the people responsible for the destruction of Federal evidence not prosecuted!

I must say, the aircraft as seen by the naked eye do seem to be moving really fast, but would any of you professional pilots, based on visual observation, put the air-speeds at close to 500 knots? And if so, how did they hit the targets? Is it easier to remote fly an airliner? Or have them "called in" to a specific location by some type of GPS system? Still lots of questions...

But thank you, PF9/11 truth, for your dedication, professionalism, and expert analysis. I'm really looking forward to seeing "Interception."

Posted by: Atomicbomb Feb 24 2011, 04:04 AM

Outstanding work and the way it was presented helped me to understand some aspects of the possible plane swap very well. A couple new tidbits of info in the presentation for me that I was not aware of. As soon as I get some decent income I intend to purchase the complete pack of presentations! I wish I could be more supportive right now but my belt is super tight.

Posted by: KILL YOUR TV! Feb 24 2011, 05:00 AM

What a fantastic presentation. A huge congratulations to Rob and team.

9//11 Intercepted makes a clear and punchy point: that flight data provided by government agencies just doesn't support the official 9/11 narrative.

I found the film brought a great insight into how air defence and air traffic control operates, and how they were set up to fail on the day.
Not to mention the ridiculous coincidences, strange incongruencies and pure imposibilities that have simply not been brought to our attention - until now..

The film takes thorough research and expert analysis and breaks it down for the layman - highly recommended for everyone from hardcore researchers to everyday folk looking for simple answers.

A invaluable addition to the case against the OCT.


KYTV

@Rob - the new voice-over is fantastic! I do hope you intend to go back and redub the previous presentations too. Not that I have anything against your voice smile.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 24 2011, 05:30 AM

Good to see you KYTV!

(for those who dont know, KYTV is the person responsible for our awesome logo)

Thanks for the compliments (and to all).

Yes, Chris is fantastic. He does voice-overs for ESPN, CNN, TruTV, TNT, TBS... etc etc. He's been on TV for over 22 years. Great guy. He's been following our work (and the work of others), for years. He knows all about the deceptions and corruption taking place in our govt.

I agree, his voice is much better than mine. (although i do get a lot of compliments for my "radio voice" when speaking with ATC)... smile.gif

Posted by: lunk Feb 24 2011, 09:30 AM

i just ordered 2 copies!

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 24 2011, 05:30 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 24 2011, 08:30 AM) *
i just ordered 2 copies!



and your package is on its way.... smile.gif

Thanks for your support lunk!

Posted by: GroundPounder Feb 26 2011, 04:18 PM

a polished professional work indeed! great job rob! handsdown.gif

Posted by: woody Mar 4 2011, 02:57 PM

Excellent job, Rob!

Somehow I only now managed to watch the piece - therefore my late reaction.

I especially like the calm, smooth style of the presentation. The speaker is brilliant.

Thanks for crediting me. The United ACARS messages definitely deserve more attention, IMO.

The audio tapes of Boston Center (with UA 175) were completely new to me. Very interesting.

Great job, again, and move on.

Posted by: rob balsamo Mar 16 2011, 09:28 AM

Thanks woody... glad you liked it.

Yes, i agree, the ACARS information needed much more exposure. Thanks for helping out with that segment!

Posted by: lunk Mar 22 2011, 08:36 AM

Just got the videos in the mail!

...Just watched it.

excellence!

Posted by: lunk May 14 2011, 09:29 PM

QUOTE
9/11: Intercepted


Perfect choice for the name!

Posted by: rob balsamo May 15 2011, 12:12 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ May 14 2011, 09:29 PM) *
Perfect choice for the name!


Yes... i agree... smile.gif

Posted by: albertchampion May 15 2011, 02:14 AM

have i earned a copy?

Posted by: rob balsamo May 15 2011, 02:51 AM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ May 15 2011, 02:14 AM) *
have i earned a copy?



I sent you a contributors copy before i even made the announcement it was available on the site. You didnt get it?

I'll send another.... and of course you have earned a copy...

Posted by: bambooboy Jun 17 2011, 12:58 AM

definitively UAL ACARS (Remote Ground Stations+time) are the key.
absolutely.

PS:
hi Woody

Posted by: woody Jun 18 2011, 03:00 PM

QUOTE (bambooboy @ Jun 17 2011, 04:58 AM) *
definitively UAL ACARS (Remote Ground Stations+time) are the key.
absolutely.

PS:
hi Woody


Hi Bambooboy.

ACARS for president!

Posted by: bill Sep 12 2011, 09:00 AM

I had not seen this vid before

interesting in the first part of the vid about the gaps in RADAR coverage and the ease of swapping aircraft



Posted by: 23investigator Sep 12 2011, 12:05 PM

QUOTE (bill @ Sep 12 2011, 10:30 PM) *
I had not seen this vid before

interesting in the first part of the vid about the gaps in RADAR coverage and the ease of swapping aircraft


Dear Bill

It most certainly is.
If you don't mind this seems a very good opportunity to introduce these considerations.

With the amount of activity going on that particular morning with 'radar screens being filled with aircraft' it is not beyond the realms of possibility that two aircraft --that ultimately-- hit the two towers could have discretely taken off from some airport/s and loitered around for a short time to substitute the two --"passenger aircraft" that have been considered to have hit the towers, which very conveniently turned off 'transponders' at even more convenient locations.

The substitute aircraft could have come from some considerable distance away, or even very close to the flight path of the two "passenger aircraft" probably loitering up at a considerable altitude.

In the case of 'flight 11' it took a very convenient detour to place itself over the area of radar --blockout-- to then turn left to take it very close to a certain airfield, which could well accomodate an aircraft of its size.
Allowing the -substitute aircraft to continue on to the North Tower.

Interesting thing that, that particular airfield had considerable--upgrading-- in the year following 9/11.

Flight 175 had a convenient cross over with Flight 11 it seems from what data has been presented.

It could possibly be that the substitute for Flight 11 was not on its own at this time, with the cross over allowing for a further substitution, Flight 175 continuing on with its transponder off, the substitute aircraft,
presenting itself as the 'radar target' to continue on its way towards Tower Two.
There has been considerable witness account to the consideration that the aircraft that was seen to be considered to have hit the South Tower was a smaller aircraft than a Boeing 767.

Interesting enough on the Youtube where the video you have placed is, there is a video showing an "aircraft" flying towards and hitting the South Tower.
When that footage is considered it would be a better description to say that something pretending to be a Boeing 767 was moving a cross the screen like a 'caterpillar' with all sorts of strange artefact around it, at one point stretching out in length considerably.

If when the 'caterpillar' is carefully watched when it comes up to the south wall of the South Tower it appears to enter for quite a distance before an eruption of black smoke appears, ''which could well have been something to do with the real aircraft that hit the South Tower, being smaller than the 'caterpillar' and back some distance from its nose, would have been likely to have happened.

Then even more foreground interference comes in to play with a large leaf vigorously waving around in front of the camera, blocking clear view of something that came out of the north east corner of the South Tower, which could well have been part/s of the true aircraft that hit the South Tower.

Robert

ps/ In the mean time the true flight 175 could have been flying on south confusing the issue for people to consider it as Flight 11, to then land somewhere, or perhaps continue on till it ran out of fuel, with perhaps more passengers on it than what every body thought.
There was another airfield in the general proximity of the first one mentioned that came into some serious upgrade too, immediately after 9/11.
That particular field seemed to have connection with --helicopters--, as well as fixed wing capability of considerable size.

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Sep 12 2011, 12:45 PM

Yes Robert, the video you mention is very interesting, to say the least.

I'm no camera or video expert but when I see the "aircraft" fly in front of the crane's cables and yet behind the crane - that seems mighty fishy to me.




Posted by: SeniorTrend Sep 19 2011, 02:55 PM

QUOTE (wilddaddy @ Feb 15 2011, 08:30 AM) *
Just ordered it! handsdown.gif


I ordered all 5 DVD's on the 16th, USPS shows it out for delivery today - I would call that pretty darned good service! (Thanks Rob!)
I downloaded most of the files while waiting for the DVD's and have been analyzing the data presented. The amazing thing is that the perps have created such an absurd scenario with all of the events - They either think Americans are gullible, just plain ignorant, mesmerized, or just don't care. The reality is I think that they (the perps) just don't really care - in their mind they are above the law. The sad truth seems to be that the majority of the American people willingly took the "blue pill" - We just have to stick to our knitting, and dissect the data element by element as is reflected in Pilots for 911 Truth, and hope that, like in the Matrix, we can reach critical mass. At 10 years and counting...... we seem to be well away from that criticality.

Posted by: onesliceshort Sep 19 2011, 03:57 PM

QUOTE (SeniorTrend)
The reality is I think that they (the perps) just don't really care - in their mind they are above the law.


Ditto.

Edit: In the Drysden crash video can anyone explain what appears to be an electrical flash above the left engine at the 7 - 8 second mark? Followed by a few sporactic lights. Video issue or..?

http://youtu.be/f4BOL_LFpjY

Posted by: paranoia Sep 19 2011, 08:04 PM

oss - that (and the other "flashes") look to me like hair/fiber stuck on old film (the kind you had to watch on a projector), not an electrical arc.

Posted by: onesliceshort Sep 19 2011, 09:41 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Sep 20 2011, 01:04 AM) *
oss - that (and the other "flashes") look to me like hair/fiber stuck on old film (the kind you had to watch on a projector), not an electrical arc.


Cheers mate. thumbsup.gif


Posted by: 23investigator Sep 20 2011, 04:00 AM

QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Sep 13 2011, 02:15 AM) *
Yes Robert, the video you mention is very interesting, to say the least.

I'm no camera or video expert but when I see the "aircraft" fly in front of the crane's cables and yet behind the crane - that seems mighty fishy to me.


Dear Barry

Talking about 'fishy'.

Both aircraft, AA11, UAL175, involved with impact of the WTC towers, are said to have been Boeing 767, which departed from Boston Logan airport, bound for, Los Angeles.
It appears from what has been reported that neither aircraft was carrying anything like a full load of passengers.
But, the aggregate of the two, would have filled one aircraft.

It has been --puzzling--, when considering a transcript, why the 'pilot' of flight AA11, would have been so insistent to be allocated ("runway 4 right", today).
This appears to have then taken him out over the water, in a sweeping right turn, to get back to the westerly flight direction for his stated destination.
Perhaps some pilots, may be able to offer an explanation.

Before 'roll back', ground control (BOS), issued a number of instructions for the 'pilot' of flight AA11 to allow other aircraft clearance.
Perhaps some pilots, may be able to confirm this was the case, that is, they may have been the pilots of the aircraft involved, and can confirm they observed AA11 'whilst parked at the terminal, gate 32'.

There appears, to have been some aircraft instructed to 'hold', during the 'taxi' progress of AA11 to "runway 4 right".
Perhaps some pilots, may be able to confirm this.

Flight UAL175, is stated as intending to fly to Los Angeles, by a different 'flight route', than AA11.
Flight UAL175 also used a different runway for takeoff, "runway 9", only 7000 feet long.
A much shorter runway than "runway 4 right", 10005 feet long, used by AA11.
It appears by use of, "runway 9", this also caused flight UAL175 to have to go out over the water.
Although published map depictions of the flight, that have been presented, do not suggest this.

Perhaps some pilot here, may be able to offer an explanation, for the possible reason, for choice of different runway.

The transcript, is very brief, in respect to UAL175 whilst on the ground, but perhaps there may be some pilot who was involved in aircraft movement whilst UAL175 was on the ground, and could confirm this was the case.

To a non pilot, the following in respect to UAL175, seems inconsistent with procedures, although an explanation was given in a transcript interpretation, that the air traffic controller involved was very busy with flight AA11, at the time.
But even prior to this, there was a significant difference between AA11 and UAL175 whilst on the ground, besides the different choice in runways used.

Transcript shows, 'taxi' instruction, was issued flight AA11 at 0756:27.
Transcript shows AA11 began takeoff roll at "runway 4 right" at 0800:00.
An elapsed time in round figures of three and a half minutes.

Transcript shows, 'taxi' instruction, was issued flight UAL175 at 0804:55.
In round figures, eight and a half minutes after flight AA11.
Transcript shows, UAL175, did not begin takeoff roll at "runway 9" until 0814:00.
An elapsed time in round figures of nine minutes.
A considerable amount of time longer than for flight AA11.

The start of "runway 4 right" and "runway 9" are at the 'southern aspect'' of the airport.
In fact flight AA11 had to 'taxi' past the end of "runway 9".
The start of "runway 4 right", almost at the water edge of the airport southern perimeter.

In the following transcript.

The BOS 'taxi' instruction to flight AA11.

7.45.58 AAL11 --After the Saab cleared to push, and we're gonna need four right today, American eleven heavy.
7.46.09 Ground control 1 --American eleven heavy uh understand you need alpha roger. Push back after the Saab is approved.
7.46.15 AAL11 --OK. Yeah what I said was we're going to need runway four right today, American eleven heavy.
7.46.21 Ground control 1 --American eleven heavy. Roger plan on runway four right.
7.49.20 AAL11 --American eleven heavy taxi november.
7.49.23 Ground control 1 --OK American eleven heavy, just hold right there i'll move you shortly.
7.50.00 Ground control 1 --American eleven heavy, you're going to give way to the Dornier and the regional jet on the opposite side. Taxi to the bravo hold point via kilo bravo. Expect four right for departure.
7.53.23 Ground control 1 --And American heavy, I'm gonna have to give you sierra then alpha to the bravo point so just hold short of sierra for now.
7.53.59 Ground control 1 --American eleven heavy giving way to that Embraer off your right turn right on sierra alpha kilo one bravo to the bravo hold point for now expect four right.
7.55.14 Ground control 1 --American eleven heavy, taxi to the bravo hold point. Continetal's waiting for you. Monitor tower one two eight point eight. Expect runway four right, thanks.
7.56.27 Local control west --American eleven heavy, Boston tower. taxi to runway four right via bravo and monitor the tower one one niner point one.
7.57.31 Local control east --American eleven heavy, Boston tower. Good morning. Move right up to hold short of four right after departure maintain three thousand.
7.57.57 Local control east --American eleven runway four right taxi into position and hold traffic departing niner.
7.59.02 Local contol east --American eleven heavy traffic's orbiting north of the field at thirty five hundred feet. Maintain three thosand runway four right cleared for takeoff.
7.59.11 AAL11 --Maintain three cleared for takeoff on four right. What are the winds?
7.59.14 local control east --Wind three three zero at niner.
8.00.11 Local control east --American eleven heavy, contact departure that traffic's now in your ten o'clock and two miles thirty four hundred feet.

The detail recorded for UAL175 is 'stark'.
There is no conversation, how UAL175 came away from the terminal, or how it 'taxied' to "runway 9".

The first recorded entry.

8.12.21 UAL175 --Position and hold runway niner United one seventy five heavy.
8.13.26 Local control east --United one seventy five heavy runway niner cleared for takeoff traffics holding in position on four right.
8.13.32 UAL175 --Cleared for takeoff runway niner Unites one seventy five heavy.
8.13.34 Local control east --United one seventy five heavy contact departure.
8.14.36 UAL175 --Departure Uniteds one seventy five heavy.
8.14.44 UAL175 --Approach, United one seventy five heavy with you out of twelve hundred.
8.14.46 Boston departure radar. --United one seventy five heavy, Boston departure radar contact. Climb and maintain one four thousand.
8.15.41 Boston departure radar --United one seventy five heavy, turn right heading two one zero.
8.16.51 Boston departure radar --United one seventy five heavy, turn right heading two seven zero.
8.17.09 Boston departure radar --United one seventy five heavy, contact Boston approach. One seven point two good day.

The immediate above is an abridged version of --Transcripts of Flight 11 and Flight 175 -NYTimes.com.

There are the questions that have been raised in the above text, but more questions linger, why was it so important for AAL11 to have access to "runway 4 right", what was going on with UAL175 at the terminal, was the "taxi" route instructed AAL11 anything to do with the circumstances relating to UAL175, which runway would be more suited to a fully laden Boeing 767.
Those questions are just for starters.
No doubt others can add plenty more.

It would be good to hear from any pilots who were at the Boston Logan airport at the time of the events involving AAL11 and UAL175, or from any pilot who has heard along the --grapevine-- things that could be of interest in gaining better understanding.

Robert

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)