Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Latest News _ Aircraft Swap - Scene From 9/11: Intercepted

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 9 2011, 06:33 PM

Be sure to use the 'Like', Tweet and Share buttons at the top left to spread this important information!

According to RADES Radar, several aircraft targets seemingly go out of their way to converge and then 'split-off' from the aircraft reportedly used for the attacks on 9/11. Was an Aircraft swap occuring at these points?




Visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org to order the full analysis in high quality.



Thank you for your support!

Posted by: 23investigator Jun 9 2011, 07:13 PM

Dear Mr Balsamo

VERY VERY likely, don't you think?

Robert

Posted by: amazed! Jun 9 2011, 09:08 PM

Well in the first place, the radar system was spoofed, and that means only that the data might be compromised. Might be, or might not be.

But assuming that the data is accurate, it's likely that other aircraft were brought in to switch identities with other aircraft.

I know a USAF veteran who saw what he just knew in his heart to be a staged event, military style.

And that was an out of place Boeing in Binghampton NY that morning. It took off just in time to participate in some spoof like that, if needed. After all, Vigilant Guardian was being conducted that morning....

Posted by: Culper721 Jun 9 2011, 09:52 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 7 2011, 09:33 PM) *
Be sure to use the 'Like', Tweet and Share buttons at the top left to spread this important information!

According to RADES Radar, several aircraft targets seemingly go out of their way to converge and then 'split-off' from the aircraft reportedly used for the attacks on 9/11. Was an Aircraft swap occuring at these points?


Rob,

A few years ago when I joined this site I explained to how a friend of my father's, a physicist who was watching the screens that day in September, explained to me why the pilots who carried out the attack "weren't good; they were PERFECT."

It had nothing to do with the converging of the planes and everything to do with each and every plane exploiting classified information regarding holes in the primary radar.

In theory a plane swap could have taken place within the holes in the primary radar. However, for purposes of legal and logical relevancy, it is far more important to show the clear and convincing evidence of the exploitation of classified information regarding the whereabouts of said holes in the primary radar. That knowledge exploited that day necessitates at the very least a treasonable design; i.e. someone 'on our side' assisting in an attack on our soil.

Since I don't know how to post a picture on these fora, perhaps you can send me an email and I can forward you a breakdown of where and when the planes exploited the holes in the primary radar. Particularly amusing is the flight path of AAL 11.

Regards,

Bob



Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 9 2011, 10:02 PM

QUOTE (Culper721 @ Jun 9 2011, 09:52 PM) *
Since I don't know how to post a picture on these fora, perhaps you can send me an email and I can forward you a breakdown of where and when the planes exploited the holes in the primary radar. Particularly amusing is the flight path of AAL 11.

Regards,

Bob


Hi Bob,

The photo of radar coverage is analyzed in our first film "Flight Of American 77" as well as "9/11: Intercepted".

Here it is...



As to how to post a photo.... look at the toolbar above your reply window when replying. You will see several buttons. Hover your mouse over them. One is for "Insert an Image". The rest is pretty self explanatory. Basically you need to wrap the image link with tags......

CODE
[img]insert image link here[/img]


Hope this helps...

Posted by: weneedanswers Jun 10 2011, 01:59 AM

That is very interesting.

Years ago I read someone's theory that they called "Flight of the Bumblebees". They were talking about how tracking planes on radar that fly close together is like trying to follow one bee buzzing around with others.

Quick question: I see other truth tellers who sell videos still post them online where people can watch for free. Is that something P4T does as well, or must they be purchased?

I hope that passengers on real planes that may have been swapped for drones (Northwoods style) are in the Witness Protection System instead of killed in some way.

Posted by: Culper721 Jun 10 2011, 08:36 AM

Rob,

That was classified information. There were no planes, except those four on that day, that knew of the whereabouts of those holes in the primary radar.

What I have is an overlay of the actual flight paths onto the eastern seaboard portion of that map along with highlights on the timeline; e.g. when points indicating when transponders were switched off, etc.

Posted by: Culper721 Jun 10 2011, 08:43 AM

Also, I have no link for the image; it's just a file.

Posted by: 23investigator Jun 10 2011, 08:51 AM

QUOTE (Culper721 @ Jun 10 2011, 10:13 PM) *
Also, I have no link for the image; it's just a file.



Dear Culper

Please don't give up, it will be very interesting to see what you have got.

Robert

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 10 2011, 08:58 AM

QUOTE (Culper721 @ Jun 10 2011, 08:43 AM) *
Also, I have no link for the image; it's just a file.

http://photobucket.com/

Posted by: Cheap Shot Jun 10 2011, 09:20 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 7 2011, 08:33 PM) *
According to RADES Radar, several aircraft targets seemingly go out of their way to converge and then 'split-off' from the aircraft reportedly used for the attacks on 9/11. Was an Aircraft swap occuring at these points?


I know you and I have never had the chance to talk, but it is pretty common for aircraft to cross over each other in the ATC system, just look at the airways even though they mostly go direct now.

Also what would be the point of AAL11 and UAL175 swapping with each other when they both intend to hit the same target, doesn't make sense.

I can confirm that they did cross, as a matter of fact ATC requested UAL175 give us an estimated altitude on AAL11. The aircraft had been issued FL350 from FL290, and had never responded. UAL175 estimated the altitude to be at FL290.

cheap shot

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 10 2011, 10:02 AM

QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ Jun 10 2011, 09:20 AM) *
I know you and I have never had the chance to talk, but it is pretty common for aircraft to cross over each other in the ATC system, just look at the airways even though they mostly go direct now.

Also what would be the point of AAL11 and UAL175 swapping with each other when they both intend to hit the same target, doesn't make sense.

I can confirm that they did cross, as a matter of fact ATC requested UAL175 give us an estimated altitude on AAL11. The aircraft had been issued FL350 from FL290, and had never responded. UAL175 estimated the altitude to be at FL290.

cheap shot


Hello CS.

The cross of AA11 and UA175 is not the location of a possible swap to which we are referring. Obviously, they didn't overlap. And yes, I am well aware aircraft cross paths all the time.

However, how many times have you observed two eastbound aircraft, both from a different path, converge and then turn almost 180 degrees westbound - at the same exact time - converging with two other opposite direction westbound aircraft (one of which happened to be allegedly UA93 and another which converged with UA175 earlier).. then stick with and overlap those aircraft in formation... then diverge?

Watch the above video in full and follow the tracks westbound.

I never seen it (unless I were flying intercept for formation), nor heard of it, until now. There are others with such occurrence in the RADES data.

Since you are here, can you please tell me who exactly is the source for the AA11 report of still being airborne after the alleged impact... which you reported? You have claimed it came from Washington, but Washington claims they never heard of such a report. The audio is in our film.

Also, can you please tell me why you repeatedly reported last known position of AA11 as 15 East of JFK and 8 East of JFK?? This report (done by you), caused Panta 45 and 46 (Otis Fighters) to be routed south of Long Island into W-105 instead of direct to the Z Point closer to NYC, according to the audio.

When you get done with those, i'll have more for you. Sorry I didnt have a chance to call you during the production of the film, but I figured i would get a chance to ask you at some point.

Thanks for stopping by. Looking forward to your answers.

Posted by: shadow7 Jun 10 2011, 11:02 AM

We can discuss the pros and cons of this possibility forever. Point remains that there is no way of getting this discussion on the main stream, corporate owned, deceptive and distorting media. At http://tvnewslies.orgwe are the #1 search hit - of millions - for 9/11 facts. Over the years, millions have been exposed to facts, not theories, and the topic remains taboo.

This is the problem that has to be solved, somehow. We're still trying. Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RMX__oMKNA, where the editor of TVNL explains the problem very clearly. Spread that word...and maybe, just maybe, people will open their eyes.

For the record....when bin Laden was killed. Our site was hit by tens of thousands of searches for 'Who is bin Laden' and WHEN WAS 9/11!!!! Reality check is needed. It's a new generation that grew to maturity under the Bush propaganda era and the media lies.

Posted by: amazed! Jun 10 2011, 09:30 PM

Cool maneuvers you describe Rob. I must confess I did not watch it all the way through.

I wonder if they ever rehearsed the maneuvers?

Posted by: Cheap Shot Jun 10 2011, 10:41 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 8 2011, 12:02 PM) *
Since you are here, can you please tell me who exactly is the source for the AA11 report of still being airborne after the alleged impact... which you reported? You have claimed it came from Washington, but Washington claims they never heard of such a report. The audio is in our film.

I was on a security telcon with FAA HQ, I couldn't tell at the time who they were or even what office it was. Later I found out it was Dave Canoles office, can't tell if it was him or not but at least some one from his office. Some time after both towers had been hit it was claear as the day that it was, someone on this telcon said that AAL11 was still in the air. I hem and hawed for about a minute before I called NEADS becasue I thought they may be swamped with phone calls, turns out I was about the only one calling them. I passed them the information that I had just heard that AAL11 was still in the air. I never saw another target that may have been the aircraft it was based strictly on that transmission over the telcon. For several years I never knew who I was talking to, but then during some research from an article in USA today, from I beleive September 20th, 2001, I read where Dave Canoles had reported that a large aircraft was 6 miles SW of the white house, same telcon, same people. So that is how I put the same information together that it had to be his office. I talked to one of the researchers who said they talked to Dave Canoles and he couldn't recall anything about AAL11 being in the air after the impact. So there it is my word I guess against whom ever, but I relayed exactly as I heard on that telcon to NEADS.

Cheap Shot, More later, I saw the video on the link all the way through I still don't see anything abnormal. May be I am not seeing exactly what you want me to see, I'll watch it again.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 10 2011, 11:12 PM

QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ Jun 10 2011, 10:41 PM) *
I read where Dave Canoles had reported that a large aircraft was 6 miles SW of the white house, same telcon, same people. So that is how I put the same information together that it had to be his office.


You told NEADS that "AA11"... "had to be somewhere over NJ... or somewhere towards the South". You said nothing about "6 SW of White House". Matter of fact, your position report of AA11 "somewhere over NJ..." caused QUIT 25 and 26 (Langley Fighters) to be routed to W-386 out over the Atlantic and not direct towards Washington. Due to this bogus report, all eyes were focused on a hijack coming in from the Northeast, and away from the threat http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21210, allegedly AA77. You stated clearly on the audio that this "was a report from Washington Center", not FAA HQ telcon. When Washington Center was contacted by NEADS, they knew nothing about it. It's all in our film.


QUOTE
I talked to one of the researchers who said they talked to Dave Canoles and he couldn't recall anything about AAL11 being in the air after the impact. So there it is my word I guess against whom ever, but I relayed exactly as I heard on that telcon to NEADS.


In other words, you do not have a direct source and the person you thought was the source, knows nothing about it. Hmmm....

You also didn't answer my questions with respect to your inaccurate position reports "15 East of JFK" which caused bad routing/change in routing for the Otis fighters.

QUOTE
More later, I saw the video on the link all the way through I still don't see anything abnormal.


In that case, can you please explain to us why ATC would turn two eastbound aircraft from separate paths, nearly 180 degrees westbound, to fly virtually in formation with two other transport category aircraft flying in opposite direction? Isn't ATC suppose to separate such traffic?

It was HIGHLY abnormal, especially converging on alleged aircraft used on 9/11. That is why it is in the above video and more analysis is covered in the full film.



QUOTE
May be I am not seeing exactly what you want me to see, I'll watch it again.


Good idea.

Also, since you are speaking from a position of expertise and experience, and some already know who you are (or can find out through a simple google search), can you please introduce yourself and your role on 9/11/2001 for the rest of the readers?


@amazed

You should watch it. It's only 3 mins long. Very interesting maneuvers. Stood out like a sore thumb to me and others I consulted. Including Capt Jeff Latas, Commander Ralph Kolstad... etc.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 10 2011, 11:40 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 10 2011, 11:12 PM) *
You told NEADS that "AA11"... "had to be somewhere over NJ... or somewhere towards the South". You said nothing about "6 SW of White House". Matter of fact, your position report of AA11 "somewhere over NJ..." caused QUIT 25 and 26 (Langley Fighters) to be routed to W-386 out over the Atlantic and not direct towards Washington. Due to this bogus report, all eyes were focused on a hijack coming in from the Northeast, and away from the http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21210, allegedly AA77. You stated clearly on the audio that this "was a report from Washington Center", not FAA HQ telcon. When Washington Center was contacted by NEADS, they knew nothing about it. It's all in our film.


And as a followup to the above, here is the audio....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Scoggins_Phantom_AA11.mp3 - 2.8mb Download mp3

or... just click play button to left.


Another question, why did you assume it was "headed towards Washington" when you claimed it was somewhere over NJ? Why not Philly? Philly certainly has some national targets, no? Interesting you assumed Washington before Philly, and then coincidentally that was the next city attacked, albeit from a supposed target from the west, and not some Phantom Jet everyone was looking for coming from the Northeast.

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jun 11 2011, 08:15 AM

Here I have a bit tryied in the 84Rades data to track some of the planes involved in the scabrous "UA93"encounter :


I find interesting that a plane from this encounter -the M3-2230 later flyies closely around the Shanksville site even before anything bumps there; and later quite very exactly above Pentagon just after the attack, long before the Langley fighters arrive there. There's also another plane M3-6774, comming quite fast and straight from southwest, which arrives at Shanksville site and quite clearly circles it just less than 8 minutes after the M3-1527 - "UA93" disappears from the radar some 1.3 mile north of the Shanksville site.

Please note that I'm not asserting a swap occured in this multiple planes shell game encounter - the radar data don't allow me to firmly conclude something like that, the blips appear to have positions too far from each other and the MC indicates several thousand of feets different flight levels.

From my long lasting research of 84Rades radar data I must confirm there are the "holes" in the radar coverage - as Culper721 suggests. The M3-1527 - "UA93" was out of booth primary and secondary radar consistently for almost 15 minutes over Pensylvania so any swap could well occur throughout whole this period (13:47:15 - 14:01:44 UTC) anyway - if one likes such playful ideas.
-But to my knowledge there's no publicly available proof that the thing which allegedly crashed near Shanksville PA was indeed the "UA93" or that it was even a B-757 tailnumber N591UA (in fact there is officially available evidence to the contrary - see the ** note) - which took off from EWR and later encountered the swirling planes over the Jefferson and Clarion counties in PA showed in the picture above.
The thing which crashed near Shanksville - if anything crashed there - could well be also the M3-6774 whose radar track also disappeared over the site at 14:14:02 UTC at MC 6300ft - exactly at the moment when the C-130 from ADW passed around - as we know the very same C-130 which also encountered the "AA77" and surveilled the Pentagon just after the attack.

...I somehow don't remember the C-130 pilot Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien to tell anything to the meaning he had ever seen a plane circling the Shanksville site, I somehow don't remember absolutely anybody talking about a plane circling Shanksville site at an altitude of more than kilometer AGL... whistle.gif

-----------------
**
The http://xmarinx.sweb.cz/BTS-911planes.xls indicates for N591UA/UA93 (EWR-SFO flight) Departure: 8:01, Taxi out time: 27 min and Wheels/off at 8:28
There indeed are two planes taking off from EWR around ~8:28 -one disappears far south in Georgia and another the M3-3374 flyies far west, over big lakes, even crosses to Canada airspace passing from NY state to southern Michigan (where just btw is very bad NORAD radar coverage under 8000ft and almost no coverage under 5000 ft), where it looks like being apparently abruptly grounded - I can't say exactly, because the radars don't see there so low - maybe in Grand Rapids or more likely in Battle Creek (where just btw is National Guard Airbase) or at other numerous smaller airports around.
If somebody would ask me where the plane was originally bound to I would take http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/index.xm, loudly read what is to this very days written there, take a map, draw the quite straight line, scratch my head with my Occam razor (briefly invoking the notions of Gate 32/26 and 26/20,21 questions together with the "UA175" sudden appearance inmiddle of the Boston bay...), thinking something like that I should after all believe not the media propaganda but the serious official sources of evidence...

...and whisper SFO. rolleyes.gif

...contrary to the M3-3374 the M3-1527 track marked red on the above picture absolutely clearly took off from EWR at ~8:42 - which is a number, which despite all the torture of the common sense last 10 years still somehow doesn't look to me nonono.gif as the number 8:28, somehow logically comming after the 27 min taxiing, after the 8:01 departure of N591UA at United Airlines flight 0093 from EWR to SFO on 9/11 2001.

...so I hope nobody would be too much angry at me if I after all don't much care whether the M3-1527 swapped itself with one of the fancy colored radar tracks above or not.

Posted by: Cheap Shot Jun 11 2011, 10:25 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 9 2011, 01:12 AM) *
You told NEADS that "AA11"... "had to be somewhere over NJ... or somewhere towards the South". You said nothing about "6 SW of White House". Matter of fact, your position report of AA11 "somewhere over NJ..." caused QUIT 25 and 26 (Langley Fighters) to be routed to W-386 out over the Atlantic and not direct towards Washington. Due to this bogus report, all eyes were focused on a hijack coming in from the Northeast, and away from the threat http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21210, allegedly AA77. You stated clearly on the audio that this "was a report from Washington Center", not FAA HQ telcon. When Washington Center was contacted by NEADS, they knew nothing about it. It's all in our film.


In other words, you do not have a direct source and the person you thought was the source, knows nothing about it. Hmmm....

You also didn't answer my questions with respect to your inaccurate position reports "15 East of JFK" which caused bad routing/change in routing for the Otis fighters.

I was trying to explain to you why and who I thought it was, but obviously you missed the point, I didn't anser the 15 East of JFK becasue I speciffically said I would get back to you later. But you have not given the me the chance. I have no problems answering questions, and I beleive your readers on this blog might be interested in what I have to say. Yes I said they were over NJ or possibly even Deleware. Why would I think that instead of Philly, maybe the source of power in this country comes out of DC and not Philly. I made about 40 phone calls that day to NEADS only about 20 were recorded. As far as my name it is Colin Scoggins, I was on duty at Boston Center that morning and still am the Airspace & Procedures and Military Specialist at Boston Center as I was on that day. I notice most people on blogs never use thier real name, in ATC when talk over recored lines we always have to say our Initials. My initials are "CS", some controllers use the phonetic language "Charlie Sierra" others like my self make up thier own, "Cheap Shot". Am I trying to hide something no I am not. Never have. I have never backed away from talking about 9-11, and what I did, and I can answer any questions that I know the answer to, or was involved in. Do I beleive in all of the conspiracy theories out their, hardly; however, I won't stop people from asking questions and trying to get answers. I will not try answer questions I know nothing about, I wouldn't know a thing about thermite, or how the WTC was built, or if it was blown up, becasue I don't have a clue. So I am either welcome here or not.

My location 15 East had nothing to do with the F-15's being sent into W-105, but had everything to do with NEADS not being able to find the target. If they would have launched earlier they would have got thier earlier, and then only if New York Center would have worked them. As far as Dave Canoles not knowing about who said AAL11 was still in the air, I have never seen a video or have read anything about him denying it, so until someone interviews him I won't know for sure, all I have heard is hear say. I get on the blogs every couple of weeks, I only knew about this issue because I get a notification on my Comcast account.

I do visit the the govt loyalist site site, and write on the site over thier, I know you have been ripped over there many times I don't rip people for thier beliefs, everyone is entitled to thier opinion, but if I am attacked personally I won't hold back. If you want me to answer questions over hear I would be gald to, if you don't I won't have a problem never coming back.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 11 2011, 12:40 PM

QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ Jun 11 2011, 10:25 AM) *
I was trying to explain to you why and who I thought it was, but obviously you missed the point, I didn't anser the 15 East of JFK becasue I speciffically said I would get back to you later. But you have not given the me the chance. I have no problems answering questions, and I beleive your readers on this blog might be interested in what I have to say.


Good morning Colin,

Anytime you wish to answer my questions, feel free.

QUOTE
Yes I said they were over NJ or possibly even Deleware. Why would I think that instead of Philly, maybe the source of power in this country comes out of DC and not Philly.


I never heard you say Delaware and it is not on the recordings i provided above. This doesn't mean you never said it, but the recordings speak for themselves. The rest of the people reading will just have to take your word i suppose. With that said, what made you assume a "source of power in this country" was the next target when a Civilian target was just attacked, twice....? Philly has a lot of civilians, no? Philly has quite a source of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_Nuclear_Power_Plant" as well.

QUOTE
My location 15 East had nothing to do with the F-15's being sent into W-105, but had everything to do with NEADS not being able to find the target.


False. Your inaccurate position report had everything to do with a change in routing for the Otis Fighters from the Z-point into W-105.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/ZpointNYC.mp3 - 648kb download

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/15EofJFK.mp3 - 155kb download

There is more but I'll need to do a bit more digging.

Again, anytime you wish to answer my questions, feel free. Why did you repeatedly report last known position of AA11 as 15 East of JFK and 8 East of JFK?? If it was a mistake, do you always make mistakes like this and repeat them through the system? I've seen ATC get a cardinal direction wrong, heck, i've done it myself, but i never seen anyone in such a position repeat such a mistake. It is usually corrected in the same sentence.

QUOTE
I do visit the the govt loyalist site site, and write on the site over thier, I know you have been ripped over there many times I don't rip people for thier beliefs, everyone is entitled to thier opinion, but if I am attacked personally I won't hold back. If you want me to answer questions over hear I would be gald to, if you don't I won't have a problem never coming back.


"Ripped"? Hardly. Libel is more like it. I tried once to register over there --using my real name-- to defend myself, but my registration was denied. I also find it odd that one has submit their real name (and i believe their zip code?) in order to register at their board. I have heard stories of "Truthers" being suspended/banned until they could come up with 3 forms of ID and fax it to their moderators. That place is a joke...

As far as one being "ripped for their beliefs", we don't have a "belief" Colin. We are seeking answers. The data doesn't add up to their story and govt agencies refuse to comment. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit who attempt to get answers through the courts, end up with a Judge who is related to Bush. But we promise not to "rip" on you for your beliefs based on what you been told.

Again, anytime you wish to answer my questions, feel free. I will have more for you when you get done with the first set.

Posted by: Cheap Shot Jun 11 2011, 01:48 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 9 2011, 02:40 PM) *
I never heard you say Delaware and it is not on the recordings i provided above. This doesn't mean you never said it, but the recordings speak for themselves. The rest people will just have to take your word i suppose. With that said, what made you assume a "source of power in this country" was the next target when a Civilian target was just attacked, twice....? Philly has a lot of civilians, no? Philly has quite a source of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_Nuclear_Power_Plant" as well.

False. Your inaccurate position report had everything to do with a change in routing for the Otis Fighters from the Z-point into W-105.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/ZpointNYC.mp3 - 648kb download

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/15EofJFK.mp3 - 155kb download

Again, anytime you wish to answer my questions, feel free. Why did you repeatedly report last known position of AA11 as 15 East of JFK and 8 East of JFK?? If it was a mistake, do you always make mistakes like this and repeat them through the system? I've seen ATC get a cardinal direction wrong, heck, i've done it myself, but i never seen anyone in such a position repeat such a mistake. It is usually corrected in the same sentence.

In one of my transmissions I did say Deleware as well, maybe it was not recorded, I also had several calls with FACSFAC VACAPES regarding AAL11 still in the air, but those recordings were never retrieved.

I made at least six position reports regarding AAL11, they never identified the aircraft, they beleive they may have got one hit on my last report 8 East of JFK. If they would have departed earlier we would have got them towrads the plane. They wouldn't depart without an ID.

As far as what I determined was thier next target that was me trying to do my job, it was my guess, AAL11 was heading down towards the coast so that was my call. We assumed at Boston Center that the aircraft was landing JFK. The groundspeed on the aircraft had slowed considerably so we had assumed the aircraft had descended. When on the telcon thay said the aircraft was still airborne we were confused, the only assumption was it must be staying low and heading down the coast. That is also why I called FACSFAC VACAPES (Giant Killer) becasue they had additiional radar sites along the coast.

To no avail because there never was an aircraft.

When I stated the location reference JFK it was not the airport it was the VOR, regardless the VOR lat/long is about a mile from the center point of the airport lat/long, so they are still close.

cheap shot

Posted by: Cheap Shot Jun 11 2011, 01:57 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 9 2011, 02:40 PM) *
Again, anytime you wish to answer my questions, feel free. I will have more for you when you get done with the first set.

I will answer them when ever I get a chance, I have never been advised by the FAA not to talk about 9-11, I don't need to make stuff up becasue then I wouldn't be credible. I can't give an accurate chronology of events, I have tried numerous times but my mind fails me due to so many events over a short time period. I try my best, you question me saying Deleware, it might not be on the recording you heard but I did say it, just can't remember to who. So ask away, I'll try not take it to personal when you disagree. I worked with DRG on several occasions we don't agree much but our discussions are always with respect. I would like to try and keep it that way with you and your site as well.

cheap shot

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 11 2011, 02:04 PM

Hi Colin,

If you heard AA11 still airborne from FAA HQ, why did you tell NEADS the report came from Washington Center?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Scoggins_Phantom_AA11.mp3

I agree with you that the targets could have been intercepted if the Fighters were launched earlier and it is covered in our presentation. But other factors were involved as well, such as inaccurate position reports repeated through the system.

Now lets get back to the original question....

Can you please explain to us why ATC would turn two eastbound aircraft from separate paths, nearly 180 degrees westbound, to fly virtually in formation with two other transport category aircraft flying in opposite direction?

Again, this stuck out as a sore thumb to me and many pilots I have consulted, many of which are Fighter Jocks. It looked like a Fighter Intercept, but it could have also been an aircraft swap.

Posted by: amazed! Jun 11 2011, 05:18 PM

CS

Welcome to the forum.

It appears you have a long row to hoe... whistle.gif

Posted by: Cheap Shot Jun 11 2011, 06:29 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 9 2011, 04:04 PM) *
If you heard AA11 still airborne from FAA HQ, why did you tell NEADS the report came from Washington Center?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Scoggins_Phantom_AA11.mp3

I never siad that I got this information from Washington Center, and I said it was en route to Washington, in the second voice clip, Huntress states that they say I got it from Washington (they are assuming it was Washington Center), as far as the 180 degree turns I will look at them tomorrow.

Cheap Shot

Posted by: Sergio Jun 11 2011, 06:32 PM

Hi Cheap Shot,
I would like to take this opportunity to ask you some questions related to an interview you gave some time ago on http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Phantom_flight_11. It's exactly the same issue discussed in this topic, so it would be great if you could provide some additional information I need.

QUOTE
911myths: Why did you believe that Flight 11 may still be in the air?
CS: I was listening on a Telcon with some people at Washington HQ, and other facilities as well, but don't know who they were. Didn't know the people at FAA HQ either. It was some kind of security telcon. I was in contact with many people at that time, UAL175 had crashed. NEADS was interested in Tail Numbers of AAL11 and UAL175. I believe it was either Dan Bueno the Supervisor in charge, or Bo Dean who made some initial calls to the airlines requesting if their aircraft were down, and tail number information. UAL Airlines replied within minutes that they could confirm UAL 175 was down, and they had the tail number. AAL Airlines was totally different. They do what I think they are supposed to do, by locking down their computer after an aircraft crashes, but when they did that, they couldn't access passenger lists, route of flight, it locks everyone out. So we never got confirmation that the plane was down. Somehow this either got misconstrued, and ended up in FAA channels, indicating the plane never crashed, or what I think happened is that someone in HQ knew that AAL77 was missing, and when they were talking about AAL77 they may have dropped the numbers and were reporting that AAL was still missing or still flying but no one knew where. I think this ended up on the telcon as AAL 11 is still airborne. From my point of view the aircraft was heading south at low altitude and we had lost radar, my only guess was he was heading for Washington DC. I found out years later and I am 99% certain the person who made that call on the telcon was Dave Canoles, he has since retired. I took the information I received and called NEADS almost instantly, can't tell you who I told that to, I talked with so many people there the whole day.
911myths: Several 9/11 researchers authors have reported that the “phantom flight 11” was spotted on radar. Is that true?
CS: I have no idea where that came from. Once we lost the aircraft we never even had a hint of another target. I even called FACSFAC VACAPES which has radar up and down the coast, to look for targets, they didn't come up with any.
911myths: If it was never on radar, why say it was going to Washington?
CS: Again it was just my hunch, as where they were heading. The aircraft would have enough gas to get there even at low altitude, but if the aircraft was heading to Cuba, it would never make it at low altitude. Couldn't think of any other important targets on the east coast, so that was where my mind was. I also tried to guess where the aircraft would be at the speed it was traveling.


First you say:
I took the information I received and called NEADS almost instantly, can't tell you who I told that to, I talked with so many people there the whole day.

Then you say:
From my point of view the aircraft was heading south at low altitude and we had lost radar, my only guess was he was heading for Washington DC.

Was it an information or was it just your point of view then? Which of these statements within the same interview is true? This makes a big difference.
You said there was no target on the radar, right? Nor you can recall any identified source for that information (the name Dave Canoles only emerged later thanks to a researcher, according to your own words). Right? Now my question is: how can someone call NORAD to inform that a target he never saw on the radar (your own words) is flying from New York to Washington somewhere over New Jersey (your own words), assume that such a target is Flight 11 (who apparently had crashed into the North Tower more than half an hour before) without any real information or any reliable identified source? Are you telling us it is normal to inform NORAD based on pure assumptions? Was your task as military liaison at Boston FAA to inform NORAD also about hear say or pure speculations? Sorry, but I can hardly believe this and nothing you said so far helped much to clarify my doubts.

Moreover, I can hardly imagine how someone at FAA HQ or Washington Center could mistake the missing Flight 77 with the phantom track of Flight 11. At 9:21 (the time you called NORAD) apparently nobody in Washington or in the USA knew about the position of AA-77. Flight 77 was lost at 8:56 somewhere between the Ohio and Kentucky border. Indianapolis ATC believed it crashed. Wherever Flight 77 was at 9:21, in no way it could be between New York and Washington DC and honestly I can't figure out how someone, no matter who or from where in the telcom, could make such an assumption. How could a plane which had been lost hundreds of miles West of Washington be mistaken with a plane flying North East of Washington and coming from New York at 9:21? You had no target on the screen, you had no clear identifiable source you could recall at a glance, you had no reliable information. In spite of this, you called NORAD at 9:21 informing that Flight 11 was still airborne somewhere over NJ. In my humble opinion, either your call was based on some real information you're hiding us for some unknown reasons or we must conclude that it is a normal practice for military liaisons to call NORAD and give false reports based on pure speculations, which of course I can hardly believe.

Sorry, I don't mean to be aggressive nor I am blaming you for anything. I understand you made 40 calls to NORAD that day, I understand how frantic those moments must have been. Still I find there are a lot of blatant contradictions in your story and your answers so far have been very vague and unclear.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 11 2011, 06:43 PM

QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ Jun 11 2011, 06:29 PM) *
I never siad that I got this information from Washington Center,


Yes you did.

Listen to it again Colin, this is exactly what you said when referring to "AA11 somewhere south over NJ".

I'll bold your own words for you...

"...this is a report here from Washington Center, you might want to get someone on another phone to Washington Center... see if they have him tracked up..."


Listen to your own words at 36 seconds, in the following recording.




That is your voice... yes?

The second voice clip on the above recording is NEADS talking to Washington Center asking them about AA11 still airborne. ZDC replies they were under the impression AA11 already crashed into the towers.

I ask again...

If you are now claiming you heard AA11 still airborne from FAA HQ, why did you tell NEADS the report came from Washington Center on Sept 11, 2001?

Posted by: CuriousGeorge2 Jun 11 2011, 08:16 PM

This story is PUBLISHED at 911NewsCentral.com. Link: http://bit.ly/lC3Bem

Posted by: Obwon Jun 12 2011, 09:23 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 10 2011, 07:51 AM) *
Dear Culper

Please don't give up, it will be very interesting to see what you have got.

Robert


I understand you have image files on your computer that you'd like to post
here?

Then you need to upload them to an image hosting site, there are many.
Use google to find one you like, probably a free one. Then get the url
of the image and post it here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I posted here a long time ago, "Flight of the Bumble Planes":
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=flight+of+the+bumble+planes&cp=22&qe=ZmxpZ2h0IG9mIHRoZSBidW1ibGUgcA&qesig=117U_wJcrbx1NXDi6Hth-w&pkc=AFgZ2tnTP2mFUnXmBFkIcKsVQiGVP937tyH2ypEfz-vng6nqtZWKDXwRsL1ian4L-dw6F2zVzbeEsKtvogqer1qDiC1jo_J-Mw&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=flight+of+the+bumble+p&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5014d35bb6efb157&biw=683&bih=380

Stuck with me, not because it was so "on point", because
at that time, it seemed rather foolish and was being ridiculed
widely. But, there did seem to be within it, some rational elements
of deception, that might later prove useful, in explaining what had
occurred that day. And so it has come to pass.

If you think about 9-11 in terms of an operation so big, that to
conduct it you'd need official approvals, then you'd expect that,
like "Northwoods", the only rational way to sell such a plan, would
be to offer that no citizen would be harmed.

Next, try to separate 911 into it's separate elements: radar presentations,
audio presentations, visual presentations, boarding gate control, security
video control, physical evidence presentations, witness presentations and
narrative control, etc., you get the idea of how many compartments are
necessary and how much coordination is needed, to accomplish the
illusion that skyjacked planes, loaded with real passengers were crashed,
when they really were not. (Northwoods style)

These "higher ups" are going to be watching things closely as the plan
unfolds, so the "escapes" for the real passengers must be credibly there
for presentation to these officials. However, once the mission is underway,
these officials who gave their approvals, are "locked in" for the ride! So,
they would not be very easily fooled, into approving a plan that they
could see might go wrong and make them responsible for atrocities that
could plague their conscience.

However, they could not know that -- although they had the air segment
of the plan covered, by requiring verified reports regarding passenger safety,
after the planes had been switched out -- that the people in the buildings,
might not be able to escape, as it had been represented that they would.
Those who approved of the plan, would want to speak with the passengers,
or hear and see them, after they'd been taken to safety. Otherwise they'd
order the plan scrapped and switch to some other plan, probably making
scapegoats of those who failed to implement the plan "properly", and call
the rest of it off.

Instead, the passengers would be confirmed to be safe, thereby letting
the operators proceed with the second part of the plan. Which would probably
have been to make it appear that planes had struck the towers, in such a
way that those in the buildings would have time to evacuate. This is the
point where the plan went "wrong". The stairways were made impassable,
meaning that people who should have evacuated, could not. All that would
take is to add a few more explosives to the stairwells, than should have been
there.

One could reason, under the above postulates, the plan to invade Iraq would
not be allowed to go forward, if there were no deaths of Americans, because
the whole thing would be more "controllable", and those who gave initial
approval, would be free to back out, using some other plan 'b'. But with
these deaths, they were locked in, since things had escalated to levels much
higher than anyone had thought. So that everyone involved must now
resort to covering things up, and that involved placing blame and fixing it.
Which is what the invasions did. Cries of "Patriotism" drowned out all else.
If so, the invasions and wars prolonged those cries.

But I digress...

Funny thing that, although this knowledge of these radar holes was around
and known for a very long time, no one has thought to examine this factor
for so long.

This is going to provoke quite a bit of new theorizing, in the attempt to
understand what this new feature means in the scheme of things. Hats
off to Rob for bringing it to the fore. thumbsup.gif handsdown.gif

Obwon








Posted by: Obwon Jun 12 2011, 11:57 AM

http://www.public-action.com/911/bumblebee.mid

Obwon rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Cheap Shot Jun 13 2011, 01:02 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 9 2011, 08:43 PM) *
Listen to your own words at 36 seconds, in the following recording.


<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="audioUrl=http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Scoggins_Phantom_AA11.mp3" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" width="400" height="27" quality="best"></embed>

That is your voice... yes?

If you are now claiming you heard AA11 still airborne from FAA HQ, why did you tell NEADS the report came from Washington Center on Sept 11, 2001?

I stand corrected I never listened to the tape that carefully. I did say Center, but I heard it from FAA HQ and I called NEADS eith the information. So another mistake that I made on that day, I'll add it to my list, I should have said HQ.

Cheap SHot

Posted by: Cheap Shot Jun 13 2011, 01:35 PM

QUOTE (Sergio @ Jun 9 2011, 08:32 PM) *
I would like to take this opportunity to ask you some questions related to an interview you gave some time ago on http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Phantom_flight_11. It's exactly the same issue discussed in this topic, so it would be great if you could provide some additional information I need.



First you say:
I took the information I received and called NEADS almost instantly, can't tell you who I told that to, I talked with so many people there the whole day.

Then you say:
From my point of view the aircraft was heading south at low altitude and we had lost radar, my only guess was he was heading for Washington DC.

Was it an information or was it just your point of view then? Which of these statements within the same interview is true? This makes a big difference.
You said there was no target on the radar, right? Nor you can recall any identified source for that information (the name Dave Canoles only emerged later thanks to a researcher, according to your own words). Right? Now my question is: how can someone call NORAD to inform that a target he never saw on the radar (your own words) is flying from New York to Washington somewhere over New Jersey (your own words), assume that such a target is Flight 11 (who apparently had crashed into the North Tower more than half an hour before) without any real information or any reliable identified source? Are you telling us it is normal to inform NORAD based on pure assumptions? Was your task as military liaison at Boston FAA to inform NORAD also about hear say or pure speculations? Sorry, but I can hardly believe this and nothing you said so far helped much to clarify my doubts.

Moreover, I can hardly imagine how someone at FAA HQ or Washington Center could mistake the missing Flight 77 with the phantom track of Flight 11. At 9:21 (the time you called NORAD) apparently nobody in Washington or in the USA knew about the position of AA-77. Flight 77 was lost at 8:56 somewhere between the Ohio and Kentucky border. Indianapolis ATC believed it crashed. Wherever Flight 77 was at 9:21, in no way it could be between New York and Washington DC and honestly I can't figure out how someone, no matter who or from where in the telcom, could make such an assumption. How could a plane which had been lost hundreds of miles West of Washington be mistaken with a plane flying North East of Washington and coming from New York at 9:21? You had no target on the screen, you had no clear identifiable source you could recall at a glance, you had no reliable information. In spite of this, you called NORAD at 9:21 informing that Flight 11 was still airborne somewhere over NJ. In my humble opinion, either your call was based on some real information you're hiding us for some unknown reasons or we must conclude that it is a normal practice for military liaisons to call NORAD and give false reports based on pure speculations, which of course I can hardly believe.

Sorry, I don't mean to be aggressive nor I am blaming you for anything. I understand you made 40 calls to NORAD that day, I understand how frantic those moments must have been. Still I find there are a lot of blatant contradictions in your story and your answers so far have been very vague and unclear.

First was it personal point of view or Information, it was both, the information about AAL11 still being in the air, second my point of view he was flying loa en route to Washington. The last radar hits I had the aircraft was low and slow, and he was near JFK near the coast my assumption was DC.


1st paragraph
Never called NORAD I called NEADS, which is Rome, NY and under the authority of NORAD. I based my assumption on the last heading I saw the AAL11 traveling, I did see the aircraft all the way towards Long Island, and my realiable source was FAA HQ. I never assumed the flight that had hit the tower at this exact point was none other than AAL11 until FAA HQ stated on the phone that AAL11 was still airborne. I was not in a court of law so I could give two hoots about hear say and speculation. At this time we had been told of another possible three hijacks en route from Europe, I wasn't going sit on my arse and speculate or contemplate what was being said over a Security telcon at FAA HQ, I had information and I felt it was my duty to pass it on. Don't care to much about your doubts either, but thats besides the point.

2nd paragraph
I don't beleive they confused AAL77 with the possible location of phantom AAL11. I know a little of what occurred in Indy Center, but I am no means an expert on the matter. The only real information I got was from the Telcon, I had one airline United who confirmed that thier aircraft had hit the tower. I have another airline American Airlines who won't confirm a thing about thier aircraft. So when I received a call that it was still airborne I had no other choice but beleive it was true, I di not assume, and I had no other choice but to pass it on to NEADS.

3rd paragraph
I'm used to CT's questioning everything that happened that day, and I admit to mistakes as in the previous post. I have nothing to lie about, but I won't go around and around on the same subject. It give me a headache. I didn't have to come over to this site, and I know much of what I say here will be ridiculed, but I was thier on 9-11, I lived it and I have nothing to hide. The opportunity is there for P4T bloggers to ask me questions. If some one gets really bad here I'll just ignore them or go away. Nothing against others who have posted here, but you can ask questions to a controller who worked 9-11 or you can beleive someone who was at Boston Center 30 years ago. As far as contradictions bring them forward and I will try to clear them up for you, try numbering your questions it will make it easier on me now that I am old and gray.

Cheap Shot

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 13 2011, 05:24 PM

Hello Colin. Hope you had a nice weekend.

QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ Jun 13 2011, 01:02 PM) *
I stand corrected I never listened to the tape that carefully.


I gave you the recording 3 times over the past two pages.



QUOTE
I did say Center, but I heard it from FAA HQ and I called NEADS eith the information. So another mistake that I made on that day, I'll add it to my list, I should have said HQ.


I think you are mistaken again. The call you had with FAA HQ is also well documented.

In your own words...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkGBE0AM5BI

The above call is the call you had with NEADS where you reference "6 SE of the White House" (then you later claim it was "6 SW"). You say in the above recording that you just got off the phone with FAA HQ. It appears you are confusing the above call with the earlier call you made regarding AA11 still airborne "...somewhere over NJ", where you sourced Washington Center.

Regardless, you cannot provide a direct source (name) for the original claim which is basically what I was initially asking. This is pertinent and should alarm even you as such a report ("AA11 still airborne... somewhere over NJ") was bogus (one could even call it disinformation intentionally being spread through the system) which caused all eyes to focus on a Phantom aircraft coming in from the Northeast, and away from the real threat penetrating Wash Class Bravo from the west. It also caused Langley Fighters to be launched out over the Atlantic, instead of direct to DC. It wasn't until there was an explosion at the Pentagon that the Langley fighters turned inbound to DC, much too late to do anything. Langley fighters were called to battlestations more than 30 mins prior to the attack on the Pentagon. Plenty of time to intercept had they got airborne instead of being fed disinformation. Again, it's all covered in our film with audio and radar data provided by govt agencies.

Now, for perhaps the fourth time....

Can you please explain to us why ATC would turn two eastbound aircraft from separate paths, nearly 180 degrees westbound, to fly virtually in formation with two other transport category aircraft flying in opposite direction?

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 13 2011, 05:36 PM

QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ Jun 13 2011, 01:35 PM) *
1st paragraph
Never called NORAD I called NEADS, which is Rome, NY and under the authority of NORAD. I based my assumption on the last heading I saw the AAL11 traveling, I did see the aircraft all the way towards Long Island, and my realiable source was FAA HQ.


Yet you cannot name a direct source. See reply above.

QUOTE
I never assumed the flight that had hit the tower


Wrong again Colin. Listen carefully please (so I don't have to post it another 3 times).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Scoggins_AA11_WTC_Impact_0854.mp3 - 2.1mb download or click play...


The above is your voice, yes?


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Confirmed_AA_Into_WTC.mp3 - 1.0mb download or click play...


QUOTE
So when I received a call that it was still airborne I had no other choice but beleive it was true, I di not assume, and I had no other choice but to pass it on to NEADS.


But yet you cannot provide a direct source/name.

QUOTE
I'm used to CT's questioning everything that happened that day, and I admit to mistakes as in the previous post. I have nothing to lie about, but I won't go around and around on the same subject. It give me a headache. I didn't have to come over to this site, and I know much of what I say here will be ridiculed, but I was thier on 9-11, I lived it and I have nothing to hide. The opportunity is there for P4T bloggers to ask me questions. If some one gets really bad here I'll just ignore them or go away. Nothing against others who have posted here, but you can ask questions to a controller who worked 9-11 or you can beleive someone who was at Boston Center 30 years ago. As far as contradictions bring them forward and I will try to clear them up for you, try numbering your questions it will make it easier on me now that I am old and gray.

Cheap Shot


Colin, no one has ridculed you. You have been treated with respect. However, when you ignore questions repeatedly, ignore sources we give you (I had to gave you the audio three times and transcribe it for you before you actually acknowleged and listened to it), it shows the readers that you don't have any respect at all in anything we have to say and perhaps are here to only toot your own horn. It's up to you if you wish to stick around and answer questions, but please don't threaten us (eg, "Be nice to me or i'll leave!") nor call us names such as "CT". Many here are Americans just like you, many of which have served in our Military. We are trying to be as polite as possible to you and show you respect. Please treat us the same. If you continue your evasive and holier than thou attitude, I will personally have no problem showing you the door. But i guarantee you, you will not be able to escape these questions.

Posted by: Cheap Shot Jun 13 2011, 09:27 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 11 2011, 07:24 PM) *
Hello Colin. Hope you had a nice weekend.



I gave you the recording 3 times over the past two pages.





I think you are mistaken again. The call you had with FAA HQ is also well documented.

In your own words...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkGBE0AM5BI

The above call is the call you had with NEADS where you reference "6 SE of the White House" (then you later claim it was "6 SW"). You say in the above recording that you just got off the phone with FAA HQ. It appears you are confusing the above call with the earlier call you made regarding AA11 still airborne "...somewhere over NJ", where you sourced Washington Center.

Regardless, you cannot provide a direct source (name) for the original claim which is basically what I was initially asking. This is pertinent and should alarm even you as such a report ("AA11 still airborne... somewhere over NJ") was bogus (one could even call it disinformation intentionally being spread through the system) which caused all eyes to focus on a Phantom aircraft coming in from the Northeast, and away from the real threat penetrating Wash Class Bravo from the west. It also caused Langley Fighters to be launched out over the Atlantic, instead of direct to DC. It wasn't until there was an explosion at the Pentagon that the Langley fighters turned inbound to DC, much too late to do anything. Langley fighters were called to battlestations more than 30 mins prior to the attack on the Pentagon. Plenty of time to intercept had they got airborne instead of being fed disinformation. Again, it's all covered in our film with audio and radar data provided by govt agencies.

First of all I had a great weekend my grandson's 9 year-old baseball team won thier two key games and are now the number one seed in the city tournament.

I heard the above recordings all three times and I even went back to youtube to hear it again, and I said "I stand corrected that I did say Washington Center on the recording that you have above"; however, I had not talked to Washington Center at all up to this time period, I receved the call over the Security telcon that was running from Dave Canoles office. There were several people in that office and I do not have a source of the person's name that told me AAL11 was still in the air. When you mention later that I may be confusing this call with the call where I stated the direction from White House, I did not mistake that call, it was the same telcon. I had been on that telcon for about 30 minutes up to that point, I never got off it, it was on speaker phone for Dan Bueno and myself. Joe Cooper was also near by and listening to the same telcon.

As far as the planes out of Langley they were launched becasue of the phantom AAL11 call. I don't see how that could be disinformation when this is the information that generated the scramble call. As far as the wrong direction that was a lapse in some one not passing the target information to FACSFAC VACAPES who put them on the standard scramble route out of Langley.

Prior to my call to NEADS at I beleive 9:27 regarding the aircraft reference "6 SE of the White House" and then later I state "6 SW" no one knew about AAL77's location. A controller at Dulles had just picked up the fast moving primary target about the same time.

Also at that time NEADS realized that they had departed out over the water and were not heading towards DC. They were heading 090 I beleive which had nothing to do with the location of the phantom AAL11.

I have no idea whose mistake that was, whether it was VACAPES or Washington's Center or NEADS, my understanding was they were going to be launched towards DC.

I have to agree with you on the battlestation call they should have been launched in enough time to get to DC. However I disagree with you that they were routed over water for the Phantom AAL11, they were requested to go to DC, but someone miscommincated that request, who I don't have a clue.

I want to apologize for the use of the term CT, I didn't think it was offensive. I have to agree with you as well that I am sure that a lot of your bloggers are very proud ammericans, military and exmilitary. Don't get me wrong either, I think you should all ask ton's of questions, if there is something out thier that doesn't sound right then it should be questioned. I'm here just giving you information on what I know. You don't have to beleive it. Do with it as you beleive.

Cheap Shot P.S I have not looked at the radar piece again that you asked me to look at, I think I may have some free time tomorrow and I will look at it again. I'll try to answer your question about the 180 degree turns.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 13 2011, 09:54 PM

QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ Jun 13 2011, 09:27 PM) *
When you mention later that I may be confusing this call with the call where I stated the direction from White House, I did not mistake that call, it was the same telcon. I had been on that telcon for about 30 minutes up to that point, I never got off it, it was on speaker phone for Dan Bueno and myself. Joe Cooper was also near by and listening to the same telcon.


Colin, the above recordings are not all the same recording. Please slow down, read, and listen to them all again.

In one call to NEADS you claimed Washington Center told you that AA11 was "Somewhere over NJ". In a later call to NEADS, you then told them an aircraft was "6 SE of the White House" and claimed it came from FAA HQ. These are different calls at different times. Hence the reason you specified two different locations and sources. You then later claimed here on this board you never sourced Washington Center whereas you were proven "mistaken".. What could have possibly made you think to tell NEADS that the report of AA11 came from Washington Center when you claim you were on the phone with FAA HQ the whole time?

Again, whether or not you were on the phone with FAA HQ or Washington Center during this entire time is moot as you cannot provide a direct source. As of right now, the only person with a name who has provided information into the system which turned out to be untrue, is you. No offense, but those are the facts.

QUOTE
As far as the planes out of Langley they were launched becasue of the phantom AAL11 call. I don't see how that could be disinformation when this is the information that generated the scramble call.


Wrong again Colin. They were initially called to scramble at 0908 direct NYC due to the second tower impact. It was then changed to battlestations. After "AA11 still airborne somewhere over NJ" was repeated through the system... they were launched at 0924 and told to hold in W-386 until someone was able to get a pin-point location for the Phantom AA11. Once an explosion occurred at the Pentagon, Langley fighters were then turned direct DC from W-386 out over the Atlantic. Again, it's all on radar according to RADES and well covered in our full film.

Had the bogus disinformation regarding a Phantom AA11 not been repeated through the system, the Langley Fighters would have launched at 0908 direct NYC. When Washington noticed a high speed target penetrating Washington Class Bravo from the west, Langley fighters would have been over DC at that time, in perfect position to intercept.




QUOTE
Prior to my call to NEADS at I beleive 9:27 regarding the aircraft reference "6 SE of the White House" and then later I state "6 SW" no one knew about AAL77's location. A controller at Dulles had just picked up the fast moving primary target about the same time.


Are you claiming controllers do not notice targets which penetrate the west side of the http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21210 nearly 30 miles west of IAD?

And if they didn't on 911, why do you think that was?



QUOTE
I want to apologize for the use of the term CT, I didn't think it was offensive.


Are you claiming you don't think people use the term "CT" in a negative connotation? Perhaps you feel it is a neutral term, or perhaps even a positive term? C'mon, Colin, please don't play such a game. You'll lose. Clearly you also have not read the mission statement on top of our home page. I suggest you do before you offer more stereotypes which you "think" may not offend.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

Pay close attention to the underlined sentence.

QUOTE
I have to agree with you as well that I am sure that a lot of your bloggers are very proud ammericans, military and exmilitary. Don't get me wrong either, I think you should all ask ton's of questions, if there is something out thier that doesn't sound right then it should be questioned. I'm here just giving you information on what I know. You don't have to beleive it. Do with it as you beleive.


I think you may want to review the list of people who are reading your posts.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

QUOTE
Cheap Shot P.S I have not looked at the radar piece again that you asked me to look at, I think I may have some free time tomorrow and I will look at it again. I'll try to answer your question about the 180 degree turns.


Anytime you're free Colin, feel free to answer. As you can tell, I don't have a problem reminding you, considering this is perhaps the fifth time you been asked, and perhaps the third time you replied, "I'll look at it tomorrow". Some might call such behavior... evasion. smile.gif

Posted by: 23investigator Jun 14 2011, 03:48 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 14 2011, 11:24 AM) *
Colin, the above recordings are not all the same recording. Please slow down, read, and listen to them all again.

In one call to NEADS you claimed Washington Center told you that AA11 was "Somewhere over NJ". In a later call to NEADS, you then told them an aircraft was "6 SE of the White House" and claimed it came from FAA HQ. These are different calls at different times. Hence the reason you specified two different locations and sources. You then later claimed here on this board you never sourced Washington Center whereas you were proven "mistaken".. What could have possibly made you think to tell NEADS that the report of AA11 came from Washington Center when you claim you were on the phone with FAA HQ the whole time?

Again, whether or not you were on the phone with FAA HQ or Washington Center during this entire time is moot as you cannot provide a direct source. As of right now, the only person with a name who has provided information into the system which turned out to be untrue, is you. No offense, but those are the facts.



Wrong again Colin. They were initially called to scramble at 0908 direct NYC due to the second tower impact. It was then changed to battlestations. After "AA11 still airborne somewhere over NJ" was repeated through the system... they were launched at 0924 and told to hold in W-386 until someone was able to get a pin-point location for the Phantom AA11. Once an explosion occurred at the Pentagon, Langley fighters were then turned direct DC from W-386 out over the Atlantic. Again, it's all on radar according to RADES and well covered in our full film.

Had the bogus disinformation regarding a Phantom AA11 not been repeated through the system, the Langley Fighters would have launched at 0908 direct NYC. When Washington noticed a high speed target penetrating Washington Class Bravo from the west, Langley fighters would have been over DC at that time, in perfect position to intercept.






Are you claiming controllers do not notice targets which penetrate the west side of the http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21210 nearly 30 miles west of IAD?

And if they didn't on 911, why do you think that was?





Are you claiming you don't think people use the term "CT" in a negative connotation? Perhaps you feel it is a neutral term, or perhaps even a positive term? C'mon, Colin, please don't play such a game. You'll lose. Clearly you also have not read the mission statement on top of our home page. I suggest you do before you offer more stereotypes which you "think" may not offend.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

Pay close attention to the underlined sentence.



I think you may want to review the list of people who are reading your posts.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core



Anytime you're free Colin, feel free to answer. As you can tell, I don't have a problem reminding you, considering this is perhaps the fifth time you been asked, and perhaps the third time you replied, "I'll look at it tomorrow". Some might call such behavior... evasion. smile.gif



Dear Mr Balsamo.

I have not had the opportunity to view the full DVD --Intercepted-- and do not want to get out of step with your discussion with Mr Scoggin, so have addressed this question to him through you.
There was report of a --helicopter--, and a --light aircraft-- from an airtraffic control operations manager at (TRACON), New York terminal, that they observed in the period immediately the North Tower was impacted.
The track reported, was from an air field some 70 miles north of Manhattan.
The report was later discarded, the information recorded, "destroyed", apparently.

The report I have read suggests a "Mr White" --suggested over a "teleconference" that the first aircraft to hit the WTC was a small twin engine plane.

My question is, was Mr Scoggin, aware of the --helicopter-- and --light two engined aircraft-- being tracked on radar, contemporaneous, with what is known as "AA11" --?

Would this possibly be why Mr Scoggin had a continued interest in an aircraft flying away from New York, which he could have thought was "AA11" --?


Robert

Posted by: 23investigator Jun 17 2011, 01:04 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 14 2011, 05:18 PM) *
Dear Mr Balsamo.

I have not had the opportunity to view the full DVD --Intercepted-- and do not want to get out of step with your discussion with Mr Scoggin, so have addressed this question to him through you.
There was report of a --helicopter--, and a --light aircraft-- from an airtraffic control operations manager at (TRACON), New York terminal, that they observed in the period immediately the North Tower was impacted.
The track reported, was from an air field some 70 miles north of Manhattan.
The report was later discarded, the information recorded, "destroyed", apparently.

The report I have read suggests a "Mr White" --suggested over a "teleconference" that the first aircraft to hit the WTC was a small twin engine plane.

My question is, was Mr Scoggin, aware of the --helicopter-- and --light two engined aircraft-- being tracked on radar, contemporaneous, with what is known as "AA11" --?

Would this possibly be why Mr Scoggin had a continued interest in an aircraft flying away from New York, which he could have thought was "AA11" --?


Robert


Dear Mr Balsamo.

In the same spirit as my previous post, I bring forward this bit of information, which I have just placed on Youtube as, 23investigator aircraft proportion tower two.
With respect I believe that it could be pertinent in the consideration of 'aircraft swap'.

Tower Two is the most prolific situation of 'said' video footage and still photograph.
I have no doubt at all, that all the images that have been released, still and moving, have been concocted.

For some considerable time what I was seeing in the 'editing mess' was strongly suggestive that the actions taken, were to disguise a KC10 Extender or DC10 -30, involved in the 'actual impact' with Tower Two.

I now believe I was in error in this consideration, although it does appear that there is a 'mish mash' of composed image that has been used to disguise the actual aircraft that 'impacted' Tower Two.
For that I am sorry, particularly to any body associated with the KC10 Extender, previously and currently, please accept my apology.

But, that does not alter the fact that the images, which are many and varied, are not of a Boeing 767 222.

More and more it is appearing that the actual aircraft that has been disguised in the images, is much smaller than a Boeing 767 222, and of course even smaller again compared to a Boeing 767 300 or KC 10 Extender.

There are a number of factors which I am currently working through which point to a particular aircraft, but until I can be as absolutely definite as possible, I am not bringing forward any more consideration of what I believe the aircraft to be.

It is sufficient to say that the aircraft is not United Airlines Boeing 767 222 N612UA, which of course means that there had to have been a swap over with that aircraft, if in fact it was involved in the overall deception.

With admiration of all you are doing, and the many others involved with you.

Robert







Posted by: woody Jun 18 2011, 02:28 PM


QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ Jun 14 2011, 01:27 AM) *
Prior to my call to NEADS at I beleive 9:27 regarding the aircraft reference "6 SE of the White House" and then later I state "6 SW" no one knew about AAL77's location. A controller at Dulles had just picked up the fast moving primary target about the same time.


If my recollections are correct, your warnings came at 9:37, i.e. immediately before the impact, and more important, Kevin Nasypany reported an unknown primary target at 9:36, east of the White House, even before your messages. Am I right?


Posted by: Maha Mantra Jun 21 2011, 03:46 AM

Hi Colin, glad to see someone who was there, interested in shedding light into the events of 9-11.

I was wondering, since you also mentioned potential hijacked aircraft coming from the east, from Europe, why only a couple of fighters were launched and redirected or put into a holding pattern ?
I am very interested to hear from authorities regarding the state of rediness and what the standard or non-standard responsiveness was on 9-11.
Not because I'm a Russian spy, but because I am an ordinary American citizen who may harbor misconceptions about reality involving US military rediness and day to day monitoring of aviation activities.

I kind of think it was and/or is real stupid to have cockpit doors that are so easy to break through, and their (now you've got me doing it) may be an entire list of stupid things that go unnoticed in the realm of national security.

Is it possible that there is a lot of complacency and even a bureaucratic aspect even to national security positions ?

Is there more interest in getting along and scratching each other's back than there is in doing a superb job ?

I'm just curious. Could there have been a lot of ass-covering after the events of 9-11, and could it be so well, crude, that we wouldn't think anything about trashing Iraq to hold that up as an example that the government is really capable of protecting the US citizen and showing some might after the fact and towards the wrong country ?

I digress, sorry. But specifically, on such an occasion when there are potentially multiple hijack events with obvious horrific intent, wouldn't there be a lot more fighters scrambled to cover the potentially numerous hostile attacking targets ? Two to four fighters just seems like a small response. I think American taxpayers would want to know if their monies are being squandered.

If not conspiracy theory, should it be 'stupidity theory' ?

Thanks Colin. I appreciate your time and perhaps tolerance of what might appear to be aggressive inquiry.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 21 2011, 08:38 AM

QUOTE
QUOTE (Colin)
Cheap Shot P.S I have not looked at the radar piece again that you asked me to look at, I think I may have some free time tomorrow and I will look at it again. I'll try to answer your question about the 180 degree turns.


QUOTE (Rob)
Anytime you're free Colin, feel free to answer. As you can tell, I don't have a problem reminding you, considering this is perhaps the fifth time you been asked, and perhaps the third time you replied, "I'll look at it tomorrow". Some might call such behavior... evasion.


Devil's in the detail I've always found.

Don't know if it's worth a "shot" but...bump?

Edit:

QUOTE (Colin)
As far as the planes out of Langley they were launched becasue of the phantom AAL11 call. I don't see how that could be disinformation when this is the information that generated the scramble call. As far as the wrong direction that was a lapse in some one not passing the target information to FACSFAC VACAPES who put them on the standard scramble route out of Langley.


What is the "standard scramble route out of Langley"?

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 21 2011, 01:54 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 21 2011, 08:38 AM) *
Devil's in the detail I've always found.

Don't know if it's worth a "shot" but...bump?


"Fight or flight" comes to mind... clearly Colin has chosen "flight" with respect to the above question. Of course i'm sure he will use the excuse "they were mean to me!" (sniffle)

Reason being, he doesnt have an answer.

But as i have http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21411&view=findpost&p=10799216, he will not be able to escape such a question.


There are 3 possibilities here to describe the behavior of Colin Scoggins over the past several pages.

Colin is incompetent.

Colin is a dupe.

Colin was involved.

Your mileage may vary.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 22 2011, 10:36 AM

QUOTE (Rob)
"Fight or flight" comes to mind... clearly Colin has chosen "flight" with respect to the above question. Of course i'm sure he will use the excuse "they were mean to me!" (sniffle)


Jeez, he should tae a wander over to his OCT buddy forums and experience some "quality time" at the brunt of those nasty ass entities...
His answers reminded me of the duhbunkeresque answers to valid questions. Broad sweeping statements that avoid the meat o the bones of the question or (as in Colin's case) no answer at all. I thought the posters here were very civil given the 10 years of running into 404ed pages and lies when he had the opportunity to clear some thing up for us "CTs".

On his statement about the Langley fighters "standard scramble route" (I know you're watching Colin), is this a statement of fact? Were those guys at Langley making things up about going against protocol when Langley Air Force Base was left without an on the ground co-ordinator? That all three were on separate communcation channels? That two of them actually thought they were looking at the New York skyline when in fact they were looking at the Pentagon smoke plume (just to give an idea how messed up they were)? And that they were ordered to travel at "Max Sonic" (that is, to not break the sound barrier)? That the first one of them heard about either of the tower impacts was through a phonecall from his girlfriend?

Well worth the read Colin:

http://es.scribd.com/doc/13653324/T8-B22-Filson-Materials-Fdr-Interview-of-Capt-Borgstrom-and-Leslie-Filson

CT my arse.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jun 22 2011, 10:44 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 22 2011, 10:36 AM) *
On his statement about the Langley fighters "standard scramble route" (I know you're watching Colin), is this a statement of fact?


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 13 2011, 09:54 PM) *
They were initially called to scramble at 0908 direct NYC due to the second tower impact. It was then changed to battlestations. After "AA11 still airborne somewhere over NJ" was repeated through the system [initiated by Colin]... they [Langley Fighters] were launched at 0924 and told to hold in W-386 until someone was able to get a pin-point location for the Phantom AA11. Once an explosion occurred at the Pentagon, Langley fighters were then turned direct DC from W-386 out over the Atlantic. Again, it's all on radar according to RADES and well covered in our full film.

Had the bogus disinformation regarding a Phantom AA11 not been repeated through the system, the Langley Fighters would have launched at 0908 direct NYC. When Washington noticed a high speed target penetrating Washington Class Bravo from the west, Langley fighters would have been over DC at that time, in perfect position to intercept.



Posted by: Anthony Jun 24 2011, 12:48 PM

Do you realize what you are doing?

I can see the necessity of switching planes. To conceive and plan such a massive crime require that every contingency be guarded against. Where four passenger-laden planes are to be hi-jacked within an hour, the possibility that crew members or passsengers could overpower hi-jackers is a distinct threat; especially with instant communication afforded by cell phones.

How could this be done? Easy. The hi-jack could be effected without the slightes show of force or cause for alarm. At the appointed time, an operative, masquerading as an appropriate government official, would direct the plane to land immediately owing to a mechanical problem. Passengers would then be requested to shut off their cell phones on the pretext they would interfere with the plane's navigation system.

Once on the ground, passengers and crew would be put to death and reduced to molecules. Everyone of them had to be done away; you simply cannot ask, and expect, some 250 unwilling participants in an unprecedented crime to hold their tongues.

If drones were xubstituted for the "hi-jacked" passenger jets, a whole new set of questions arises.

For example, "What happened to the passengers?" Certainly, they couldn't be allowwed to tell their tales; so, "How were they killed... how were their bodies disposed of... fire... dumped in the ocean?"

Also, can you trace the merging aircraft back to their airports? Then, can you obtain these airports' departure logs to ID the merging aircraft? This leads to additional questions.

Further, most 9-11 victims were identified by their DNA. For this to be valid, there has to be a verifiable chain of possession from crime scene to lab. You need names, their reports, shipping docs, among others.

Agencies involved are required to retain these docs. If they do not exist or have been destroyed, you need names of those who destroyed such docs; for, you have found some who are complicit.

Anthony

Posted by: Culper721 Jun 24 2011, 05:14 PM

Rob,

Here's the overlay I was talking about.



Posted by: Culper721 Jun 24 2011, 05:18 PM

Anthony,

"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora" ["It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less"]. Thus, according to Ockham, we ought never to postulate the reality of any entity unless it is logically necessary to do so.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/o.htm#ockh

Posted by: 23investigator Jun 25 2011, 07:38 AM

QUOTE (Culper721 @ Jun 25 2011, 06:48 AM) *
Anthony,

"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora" ["It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less"]. Thus, according to Ockham, we ought never to postulate the reality of any entity unless it is logically necessary to do so.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/o.htm#ockh



Dear Culper

Thankyou for persevering.

It would be good to better understand what you consider the 'map' shows.

Robert

Posted by: Culper721 Jun 25 2011, 09:58 AM

QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 23 2011, 10:38 AM) *
Dear Culper

Thankyou for persevering.

It would be good to better understand what you consider the 'map' shows.

Robert


Simply put, the map shows that the those pilots weren't good; they were perfect. Just focusing on AAL 11, you have a perfect exploitation of a hole in the primary radar that day; i.e. turning off the transponder just when it hits the cusp of the hole. The exploitation of information that was classified that day necessitates the existence of a treasonable design at the very least.




Posted by: amazed! Jun 25 2011, 10:39 AM

Good to see you back Bob. thumbsup.gif

Posted by: Anthony Jun 26 2011, 03:28 PM

'Culper721'

You wrote, "Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora"

So… how does Occam’s Razor connect to my comments?

It is the nature of inquiry that each fact leads to a theretofore unasked question.

It is compellingly obvious a passenger plane did not strike the Pentagon.

Flight AA77 disappeared from radar screens for several minutes… then reappeared.

The video, ‘Intercepted’, depicts two aircraft merge paths, based on government-provided data. The second continues on the other’s path while the other peels off and descends from view.

These facts lead to a very logical and on-point question, “What happened to the passenger-laden planes… and their passengers?”

To be more concise, “Are they prisoners… or were they murdered?”

Then, “How long must we dawdle while they wait for rescue… or for someone to bring justice to their memories?”

By the way, one of my favorite Latin maxims is, ‘fiat justitia ruat cćlum’. A loose, and gentle, translation, “Let justice be done, and let artificial blinders be damned.”

Anthony

Posted by: woody Jun 26 2011, 04:16 PM

QUOTE (Culper721 @ Jun 25 2011, 01:58 PM) *
Simply put, the map shows that the those pilots weren't good; they were perfect. Just focusing on AAL 11, you have a perfect exploitation of a hole in the primary radar that day; i.e. turning off the transponder just when it hits the cusp of the hole. The exploitation of information that was classified that day necessitates the existence of a treasonable design at the very least.


Hi Culper,

talking about radar holes - do you refer to the map originally published by Frank Levi on his website? The one with the circles?


Posted by: WetBlanket Jun 28 2011, 08:23 PM

I'm not sure they had to kill all the passengers. Since a search of the Social Security Death Index says Todd Beamer died in 1997 he probably wasn't going to squeal. Wonder how he made the phone call?
Does anybody here know any of the victims personally?

Posted by: zoeken Jun 28 2011, 11:27 PM

QUOTE (WetBlanket @ Jun 28 2011, 07:23 PM) *
I'm not sure they had to kill all the passengers. Since a search of the Social Security Death Index says Todd Beamer died in 1997 he probably wasn't going to squeal. Wonder how he made the phone call?
Does anybody here know any of the victims personally?



That Todd Beamer has a different middle initial and birth date.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 29 2011, 09:02 AM

QUOTE (woody @ Jun 26 2011, 09:16 PM) *
Hi Culper,

talking about radar holes - do you refer to the map originally published by Frank Levi on his website? The one with the circles?


Bump for Culper.

That's a very interesting angle. And very useable in a court of law/ of the people. Do you guys mind expanding on the cusps in the radar for the laymen amongst us? Did the other flights do the same?

Cheers

OSS

Posted by: Culper721 Jun 29 2011, 09:37 AM

QUOTE (woody @ Jun 24 2011, 07:16 PM) *
Hi Culper,

talking about radar holes - do you refer to the map originally published by Frank Levi on his website? The one with the circles?


Frank Levi drew up that map (i.e. the one I posted) at my request.

Posted by: Culper721 Jun 29 2011, 09:54 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jun 27 2011, 12:02 PM) *
Bump for Culper.

That's a very interesting angle. And very useable in a court of law/ of the people. Do you guys mind expanding on the cusps in the radar for the laymen amongst us? Did the other flights do the same?

Cheers

OSS


Flights 11 and 93 are the most obvious. In terms of legal relevancy the path and actions of flight 11 is sufficient to establish knowledge of classified information on behalf of the perpetrators. The burden then shifts to the party purporting that the 'official' story is complete and correct to account for this. Expanding on the technicalities of flights 77 and 175 as they relate to avoiding radar detection would only be cumulative per the burden shift supplied by flight 11. The important fact is that the position and timing for flight 11 was PERFECT. That necessitates the inference of knowledge of classified information which in turn necessitates a source of said classified information which in turn necessitates a treasonable design at the very least.

Evidence of a treasonable design requires, if prudence dictates anything, an internal investigation across the board regarding the events of 9/11.

Posted by: REDSHIFT Jun 30 2011, 12:36 AM

Remember the mystery emergency landings at Hopkins Airport in Cleveland of two planes, in the morning of 9/11?
Even the mayor of Cleveland couldn't keep the facts straight. Here are some untwisted twists and turns.
http://911review.org/inn.globalfreepres ... stery.html

QUOTE
Update (06/21): WoodyBox found new witnesses, which point on two different "quarantined" planes at Cleveland Hopkins (see "comments")

WoodyBox ("Flight 11 - The Twin Flight") new article is yet another groundbreaking analysis.
It appears, that the majority of 9/11 Researchers and the 9/11 family members, who lost their loved ones, have to compile a new list of questions about an airport, which didn't receive much attention yet: Cleveland Hopkins, Ohio.
Among the disturbing new details are two flights, which apparently had been part of yet another "mirror flight" scenario. "Both" got grounded in Ohio.
One of them was Delta1989, the other one was identified as, most shocking: "Flight 93"!
But there are also many new questions about some "200 passengers" of that day...

The Cleveland Airport Mystery

200 passengers got lost on 9/11 - by mailto:woody_box2000@yahoo.de Woody Box

Exclusive for INN Report -May 30

Inmidst the chaos breaking out in the hours after the WTC and Pentagon attacks, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m an airplane made an emergency landing at Cleveland Hopkins Airport . Rumours were going around that it was hijacked or had a bomb on board. The FBI evacuated the plane and searched it with bomb-sniffing dogs after the passengers had left. It turned out to be false alarm. The plane - Delta flight1989 - was not hijacked, and there was no bomb.

However, a closer examination reveals a bunch of conflicting statements concerning Delta 1989. Neither the moment of landing, nor the number of the passengers, nor the location of the grounded plane is clear. For every aspect of the incident there are two different versions. Not one or three or four versions, but two.

This article will prove that not one, but two planes made an emergency landing in Cleveland - in close succession. The proof is based on local newspaper and radio reports from September 11th and 12th (mainly from the Akron Beacon Journal and the Cleveland Plain Dealer), statements of eyewitnesses and internet postings in the morning of 9/11 (people were listening to the radio and immediately submitted the breaking news to the net). One of the flights was indeed Delta 1989. We don't know the identity of the other one, so we call it "Flight X"...

We start with a short summary of the events in Cleveland. At 10 a.m., the airport was evacuated. Without doubt, this had to do with the rumours that a hijacked plane was going to land. The passengers had to leave the airport but were not allowed to take their car. They had to walk or got a ride at the highway. Busses were not allowed to leave the airport. People around the airport were told to go home. It was a very tense situation. These facts are undisputed.

Cleveland Mayor Michael White held a televised news conference at 11 a.m., after the emergency landing. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, he said there was an unconfirmed report that the plane might have been hijacked or was carrying a bomb. But in the middle of the news conference, he reported that it had not been hijacked, and later in the day he said no bomb had been found. This was not the only detail that changed in the course of the day. In the morning, White said that air controllers could hear screaming on the plane. In the afternoon, he didn't mention the screams anymore.



This is just the tip of the iceberg, there is much more to read on this page.
I'm also going to post some of the other links from it, too.
QUOTE
The Toledo Plane



White reported that another plane was diverted from Hopkins toward Toledo. Akron Beacon Journal 9/11/01

He said airport officials reported that a second airplane in distress had passed through Cleveland airspace earlier Tuesday morning before being handed off to Toledo. Officials at Toledo Express Airport did not immediately have any information about a plane headed from Cleveland. Associated Press, 9/11/01

So we have another obscure plane in an emergency situation, and in the light of the new evidence, we might ask if the Toledo Plane is identical to Flight X. It seems that Mayor White was not the best informed person in Cleveland since he changed his statements a couple of times during the day.


and more from the above link:
QUOTE
A disturbing first-hand statement comes from Virginia Buckingham. She was not only security chief of Boston Airport on 9/11, but also CEO of MA Port Authority.

By 9:30, the FAA had grounded all flights out of Boston and New York. By 9:40, all US flight operations were halted. As we tried to account for all Boston-originating flights already in the air, we received word that a Delta flight out of Logan, bound for the West Coast, had lost radio contact with air traffic control.

When exactly did Delta 1989 loose radio contact? At 9:36, Cleveland Center warned the plane to stay away from UA 93, and this USA Today report confirms that the pilot asked the controllers to land in Cleveland shortly before 9:45 when the FAA released an order to ground all planes. So until about 9:40-9:45 Delta 1989 was in contact with Air Traffic Control.

Victoria Buckingham: I felt sick to my stomach. It would be more than an hour before we received word that the flight had landed safely in Cleveland.



So it took more than an hour after the lost radio contact that Mrs. Buckingham learned of the safe landing of the flight. This must have happened at about 10:45-11:00 and perfectly fits the landing time of Flight X. Did she refer to Flight X? Delta 1989 landed at 10:10 in Cleveland, and it is unbelievable that the pilot allowed the passengers to make phone calls but didn't inform his airline about the safe landing. If Mrs. Buckingham was talking about Delta 1989, why did she had to wait more than half an hour to get the reassuring message that the plane and the passengers were okay?



http://911review.org/brad.com/Woodybox/ ... ht_93.html
Lots to read with good explanations of what was shown on radar, and the strange fact that the transponder suddenly "turned back on" before impact.
Some conflicting witnesses, make two planes seem more likely.
QUOTE
Apart from the various graphics, worthful hints to the exact position of UA 93 in Pennsylvania are hard to find in verbal reports. It follows a compilation.

* But emergency operations officials in Allegheny County and Pittsburgh hadn't trained for what happened Sept. 11. They had never rehearsed what to do about a hijacked plane flying just nine miles south of Pittsburgh International Airport, heading east along the Allegheny-Washington county line. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

* According to Dennis Fritz, air traffic manager of Johnstown Airport, UA 93 was approaching Johnstown from the south. It was twenty, then fifteen miles away from the airport before it turned south. It did not fly over Johnstown. (Jere Longman: Among the heroes, p. 197)

These two accounts are compatible with the official flight path if we accept that Fritz meant "southwest" when he said "south" of Johnstown. The following sources, however, are not:

* The 9/11 Commission Report, referring to FAA files, has UA 93 flying 20 miles northwest of Johnstown (p. 30).

* Many reports and witnesses confirm that UA 93 flew over Johnstown before it crashed:

John Hugya, an administrative assistant to U.S. Rep John Murtha, said he has been told that the plane initially flew over Cambria County Airport in Johnstown. There was no communication from the plane, and the plane was not responding to Cleveland Center, which is how they knew it was one of the hijacked planes." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, said last night he could only guess that the plane's likely target was "a second shot at the Pentagon or the Capitol or the White House itself." "The destination sure wasn't an open field," he said. "It's fortunate it didn't come down sooner, on Johnstown." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

"There was a lot of disbelief," Mary Miller said. "You live in Shanksville or Johnstown, and you think you live in a rural area where it’s safe. You don’t think about terrorists in your back yard."
Yet there they were on September 11, flying above her, banking toward the Johnstown Airport, wings unsteady, the Boeing 757-200 coming in at an odd angle, then turning awkwardly, headed for Shanksville ten miles away, where the airliner would slam into an old strip mine, killing everyone aboard.
"Before we could even move, we were then told to evacuate the building immediately because an unidentified jet was on its way to Johnstown Airport at less than 6,000 feet and not responding to the air control tower," she said. She went outside to her car. United Flight 93 came into view, low, headed toward the airport. "It was wobbling," she said. "It wasn’t flying slow and steady. The wings weren’t stable the way you’d expect. And I thought, ‘What is going on up there?’ " Mary Miller, Vice President of Associates of Vietnam Veterans of America

Johnstown, Pa., airport director Joe McKelvey called 911 as Flight 93 passed overhead. The plane kept going lower and there was no radio contact. Los Angeles Times

And last not least, Dennis Fritz! - who claimed somewhere else that UA 93 did not overfly Johnstown The plane passed over Johnstown veering south, Fritz said. Akron Beacon Journal Note that Fritz confirms Mary Miller's observation here that the plane turned south right over Johnstown!

So the evidence is overwhelming that UA 93 did indeed fly over Johnstown, in spite of Fritz' various denials. Fritz' credibility is seriously damaged by his own contradictions, which is very significant because he is the only one who supports the official flight path: UA 93 approaching Johnstown from southwest, creating a flat bulge.

The many Johnstown witnesses are strong corroboration for two UA 93's over Pennsylvania:

UA-93-South passed Pittsburgh along the Washington/Allegheny County line and was lost from radar (transition A) somewhere southeast of Pittsburgh.

UA-93-North passed north of Pittsburgh, turned on the transponder (transition B), approached Johnstown from northwest and turned south over Johnstown.

Posted by: Maha Mantra Jul 6 2011, 02:17 AM

I'm sorry if I offended Colin and that's why he left.
It might be the fact that he said there were more possible hijacks coming from Europe, I guess to explain the repositioning of the scrambled two fighters over the ocean, but doesn't have an answer why more than two fighters weren't scrambled with such fears in mind.
If the flight computers can be hacked from remote locations, someone would think there could be a huge event in the works requiring massive aerial deployment. Even if not, once two towers were hit, why wouldn't there be hundreds of fighters put up across the country ? Cuz we knew dem hijackers were only interested in the East Coast ? Specifically two unwanted buildings that would cost billions to disassemble and one that had been prepared for the occasion for two years ? Well, maybe we just didn't hear about a massive deployment for security reasons.

I thought the story said UA 93 taxied over to a NASA building and the passengers were evacuated into it.

Northwoods had CIA agents with highly developed aliases for the passengers.

Could modified aircraft have been substituted at an earlier time (explaining the seemingly super-performance) eliminating the need to swap aircraft or get rid of bodies outside the aircraft impacts, and the odd flight manuevering have been involved with the war-games to eliminate alarm from the Air Force, who may not have even known whether these aircraft were real or simulated ?


Posted by: Quest Jul 6 2011, 08:54 PM

Haven't read the entire thread but IMHO, "aircraft swap" infers plains hit everywhere on 911. We already know that didn't happen in Shanksville in the infamous "gash", nor did a plane hit the Pentagon. Interesting that the Operation Northwoods ABC story with James Bamford came out coveniantly when it did to support a plane swap and Ruppert Murdoch gave us a 'gift' with the season premier of the "Lone Gunman" featuring a "radio controlled plane" about to hit the WTC.

I hate to be a party pooper but "plane swaps" are a red herring.

Posted by: amazed! Jul 7 2011, 09:15 AM

I think that swapping planes is very possible indeed. Back in the glory days of drug smuggling, swapping airplanes was a good way to defeat the system, and I know 2 former smugglers who claim to have done just that.

Whether or not it was employed on 11 September I can only guess.

It seems that when one has the power to completely spoof the radar system and displays, it doesn't seem all that necessary. Of course anything is possible.

Posted by: Quest Jul 7 2011, 01:58 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jul 7 2011, 02:15 PM) *
I think that swapping planes is very possible indeed. Back in the glory days of drug smuggling, swapping airplanes was a good way to defeat the system, and I know 2 former smugglers who claim to have done just that.

Whether or not it was employed on 11 September I can only guess.

It seems that when one has the power to completely spoof the radar system and displays, it doesn't seem all that necessary. Of course anything is possible.


Oh, don't get me wrong, planes swaps are indeed possible given today's technology, but like the "pod" under the plane 2nd WTC plane "hit" which gets you talking about what kind of plane hit as opposed to wether or not a plane hit at all, "plane swaps" leads one to think, "Why would they bother swapping planes if no planes were used?"

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 7 2011, 02:02 PM

QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 6 2011, 08:54 PM) *
Haven't read the entire thread but IMHO, "aircraft swap" infers plains hit everywhere on 911.

snip...


I hate to be a party pooper but "plane swaps" are a red herring.



So, you havent read the thread yet you deem a criticism?

Makes as much sense as those who i argue with that support the govt story blindly.

C'mon Quest, i expected better of you.

Have you watch the film? Or at the very least, the video in the OP?

QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 7 2011, 01:58 PM) *
"Why would they bother swapping planes if no planes were used?"


Witnesses saw planes at every location. Planes were used Quest. Whether or not the aircraft caused the damage at those specific locations, there is a lot of conflicting evidence and information which needs to be investigated using subpoena power. Hopefully we will one day get a Judge to actually look at the evidence before throwing it out.. and hopefully one who isnt related to one of the suspects as was one of the last Judges.

Posted by: Jupiter Jul 8 2011, 03:38 AM

Dear Mr. Scoggins,

I woule like to ask you two questions : At what time do you personally think you received the information concerned with "phantom Flight 11" and do you remember having received other informations of this type?

Thank you,

@Rob Balsamo,

I think you were quite rube to Mr. Scoggins. Were you in such a hurry, Rob, not to let Mr. Scoggins take some time, to re-read the thread and to answer more with more details? Mr. Scoggins had been treated like a debunker while he is not. He is just a key witness of what happened on that terrible day and can help us to better understand the burning issues raised here.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 8 2011, 09:09 AM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Jul 8 2011, 03:38 AM) *
@Rob Balsamo,

I think you were quite rube to Mr. Scoggins. Were you in such a hurry, Rob, not to let Mr. Scoggins take some time, to re-read the thread and to answer more with more details? Mr. Scoggins had been treated like a debunker while he is not. He is just a key witness of what happened on that terrible day and can help us to better understand the burning issues raised here.


Please feel free to point out exactly where you feel i was being "rube" to Mr. Scoggins prior to his evasive behavior and insult.

I was a pussy cat compared to what Mr. Scoggins will experience on the stand if he were to be so assuming, evasive and non-responsive in his answers as seen throughout this thread. No doubt in my mind a Judge would declare Mr. Scoggins a hostile witness and be treated as one if he exhibited the same behavior seen here.

Perhaps you like to repeat yourself over and over, providing audio of the witness over and over, finally having to transcribe such audio due to witness evasion? After awhile, my patience wears thin.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 8 2011, 10:27 AM

QUOTE (Jupiter)
Mr. Scoggins had been treated like a debunker while he is not.


QUOTE (Cheap Shot)
I do visit the the govt loyalist site site, and write on the site over thier (sic)




Ahem...

Posted by: Quest Jul 8 2011, 02:30 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 7 2011, 07:02 PM) *
So, you havent read the thread yet you deem a criticism?

Makes as much sense as those who i argue with that support the govt story blindly.

C'mon Quest, i expected better of you.

Have you watch the film? Or at the very least, the video in the OP?



Witnesses saw planes at every location. Planes were used Quest. Whether or not the aircraft caused the damage at those specific locations, there is a lot of conflicting evidence and information which needs to be investigated using subpoena power. Hopefully we will one day get a Judge to actually look at the evidence before throwing it out.. and hopefully one who isnt related to one of the suspects as was one of the last Judges.


Ah, you are right, Rob, I should at least have watched the entire video first. I'll check it out this weekend.

Posted by: Aldo Marquis CIT Jul 8 2011, 02:37 PM

QUOTE (Jupiter @ Jul 8 2011, 07:38 AM) *
Were you in such a hurry, Rob, not to let Mr. Scoggins take some time, to re-read the thread and to answer more with more details?


Not let him?!?!? Where did Rob stop him from replying? Did he stand in front of Colin Scoggins' computer and physically push him away every time he tried to reply? Rob was courteous but persistent in trying to get his questions answered. Rob could have posted five more times and it wouldn't have prevented Colin from responding to the questions or at least say "I will be back as soon as possible to answer these questions, please be patient". I think rob summed it up when he said Colin is concerned about the mounting problems with the official story which is giving him an ignorance is bliss outlook on life and 9/11 in general. That is cowardice and borderline treason IMO. He has no idea what type of world and perhaps legacy he is leaving for his grandchildren. I know I want to feel I at least tried.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 8 2011, 03:30 PM

I think Jupiter needs to take some time and re-read the thread as Colin has been given nearly a month to reply to questions he repeatedly promised to answer the next day.

As i said elsewhere, Colin evaded such questions for so long because he doesnt have a rational and benign answer. The only possible answer probably scares him.


Posted by: zoeken Jul 8 2011, 08:00 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 8 2011, 09:27 AM) *


Ahem...


Is that the "the govt loyalist site" people refer to?



edit--- oh, nevermind. I typed in something else and it changed to that, so now I know

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 10 2011, 09:46 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 8 2011, 03:27 PM) *


Ahem...


If Mohammed won't go to the mountain..


DELTA 1989

http://imageshack.us/f/691/csdelta.png/

WOODY AND "PHANTOM FLIGHT 11:

http://imageshack.us/f/135/cswoody.png/

http://imageshack.us/f/809/csaa11.png/

http://imageshack.us/f/191/csaa112.png/

OTIS:

http://imageshack.us/f/847/csotis.png/

http://imageshack.us/f/593/csotis1.png/

MODEC

http://imageshack.us/f/687/csmodec.png/

MISC:

http://imageshack.us/f/832/csplanes.png/

Helped with the Flight 93 propaganda film:

http://imageshack.us/f/703/csfl93.png/

http://imageshack.us/f/89/cstruthers.png/

Do these touch on any questions raised (and ignored) by this guy?

Posted by: Tamborine man Jul 11 2011, 09:56 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 9 2011, 12:46 AM) *
If Mohammed won't go to the mountain..


DELTA 1989

http://imageshack.us/f/691/csdelta.png/

WOODY AND "PHANTOM FLIGHT 11:

http://imageshack.us/f/135/cswoody.png/

http://imageshack.us/f/809/csaa11.png/

http://imageshack.us/f/191/csaa112.png/

OTIS:

http://imageshack.us/f/847/csotis.png/

http://imageshack.us/f/593/csotis1.png/

MODEC

http://imageshack.us/f/687/csmodec.png/

MISC:

http://imageshack.us/f/832/csplanes.png/

Helped with the Flight 93 propaganda film:

http://imageshack.us/f/703/csfl93.png/

http://imageshack.us/f/89/cstruthers.png/

Do these touch on any questions raised (and ignored) by this guy?


OSS, your dedication and your tenacity is overwhelming.

Love You.

Cheers





Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 11 2011, 10:51 PM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Jul 11 2011, 02:56 PM) *
OSS, your dedication and your tenacity is overwhelming.

Love You.

Cheers


Wow TM. It's hard enough for me to respond to compliments mate! Cheers!

Posted by: mrmitosis Jul 12 2011, 02:16 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 11 2011, 09:51 PM) *
Wow TM. It's hard enough for me to respond to compliments mate! Cheers!


I booked you guys a hotel room...panoramic views, champagne on ice, lots of privacy.

wink.gif

Posted by: tumetuestumefaisdubien Jul 12 2011, 03:03 AM

QUOTE (Culper721 @ Jun 24 2011, 10:14 AM) *

I have couple of questions to the picture I would like to have clearly answered here:

1. why picture suggests the "Flight 175" switched the transponder off at 8:47 when the radar data conclusively show from multiple radars the plane never switched the transponder off and only what it did at 8:47 was that it changed squawk code from 3020 to 3021.

2. Why the picture suggests that "Flight 93" svitched the transponder off 9:42 when we know from the radar data that it happened already at 9:40.

3. Why the picture suggests that the "UAL Flight 93" "crashes in Shanksville" at 10:06 when the FDR and radar data show it happened at 10:03

4. Why the picture suggests that the "AA Flight 77" departed Dulles at 7:59, when the OCT claims the AAL-77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77.

(NOTE: Although we additionally off course know that the alleged "AA77" FDR shows not only that the plane bearing it on board didn't departed the Gate D-26 - where the AAL-77 according to numerous wittness accounts collected by FBI was boarded - but also that the plane with the FDR on board didn't departed its gate before 8:12:25 - more than three minutes later than the OCT claims for AAL-77, moreover we positively know from multiple radar records there indeed was an unidentified plane M3-7020 which took off from the same RW30 ~3 minutes before the plane bearing the FDR on board and followed the simmilar westbound flightpath as the plane M3-6553 whose flightpath is on the radar more or less identical with the flightpath recorded in the alleged FDR. Were there two "AA77"? Apparently it very much looks like it is the case and what is quite clear that the plane, which beared the FDR on board and didn't departed the gate D-26 and at all didn't departed its gate at 8:09 - as the OCT claims for the AAL-77 - but did departed the gate after 8:12:25 WASN'T the N644AA.)

Aren't four apparent mistakes not explainable either with the OCT story nor the alternative theories based on serious officially released data studies too much for one picture which purports to prove something?
Or am'I missing something?

Moreover where from comes the information that the "Flight 77" turned the transponder off at 8:56?
Is there any publicly accessible source for the "Flight 77" flightpath over the Ohio airspace between 8:51 and 8:56?
What exactly radar coverage is meant for the red shaded areas - civilian, military? What radar network is meant here?
Who is the author of the picture?

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 12 2011, 08:32 AM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Jul 12 2011, 07:16 AM) *
I booked you guys a hotel room...panoramic views, champagne on ice, lots of privacy.

wink.gif


Haha. I was wondering who was going to be the first.

Posted by: 23investigator Jul 12 2011, 09:33 AM

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jul 12 2011, 04:33 PM) *
I have couple of questions to the picture I would like to have clearly answered here:

Who is the author of the picture?


Dear Tume.

Your last question, is the KEY question.

Culper made extra effort to get the 'picture' on the Forum, he seems your best bet for an answer I would think.

Robert

Posted by: Tamborine man Jul 12 2011, 12:03 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 10 2011, 11:32 AM) *
Haha. I was wondering who was going to be the first.



Hehe, must confess that i probably had a few glasses of Cab Sav too many!

To be fair, had i being stone sober, i don't think i would have written it, but

surely would still have thought the same, a little bit more subdued perhaps,

and then simply kept it to myself.

So really no regret from this end! thumbsup.gif

Cheers






Posted by: woody Aug 14 2011, 05:18 PM

QUOTE (Culper721 @ Jun 29 2011, 01:37 PM) *
Frank Levi drew up that map (i.e. the one I posted) at my request.


Sorry, I didn't have some sort of copyright in my mind when I asked the question.

The thing is, the map on Frank's website - I found it here -

http://media.photobucket.com/image/radar%20holes/911conspiracytv/NORAD_Radar_Network_withadditional51ATC.png

shows the situation at Ground Level 5000 ft. I.e. the circles reflect the radar-controlled area if you make a horizontal cut at 5000 ft. So these radar holes you are referring to exist only at this level. But the planes at 9/11 were flying at cruising altitude when they turned off their transponders. If you make a horizontal cut at 30000 ft, the circles have a radius six times bigger than at 5000 ft., i.e they are overlapping each other three, four times. Apart from certain rare spots in montainous areas, there are certainly no radar holes at 30000 ft.

I'm really sorry to say that. I myself was pretty exited when the thing came up at the team8+ website. But after realizing that the map referred to an altitude of 5000 ft, it was clear to me that radar holes don't cut it. I told Frank, Nico and John Doe II. They agreed.







Posted by: realitycheck77 Aug 31 2011, 04:42 PM

QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jul 8 2011, 01:37 PM) *
Not let him?!?!? Where did Rob stop him from replying? Did he stand in front of Colin Scoggins' computer and physically push him away every time he tried to reply? Rob was courteous but persistent in trying to get his questions answered. Rob could have posted five more times and it wouldn't have prevented Colin from responding to the questions or at least say "I will be back as soon as possible to answer these questions, please be patient". I think rob summed it up when he said Colin is concerned about the mounting problems with the official story which is giving him an ignorance is bliss outlook on life and 9/11 in general. That is cowardice and borderline treason IMO. He has no idea what type of world and perhaps legacy he is leaving for his grandchildren. I know I want to feel I at least tried.

Posted by: SeniorTrend Sep 18 2011, 01:04 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 9 2011, 06:02 PM) *
Hi Bob,

The photo of radar coverage is analyzed in our first film "Flight Of American 77" as well as "9/11: Intercepted".

Here it is...



As to how to post a photo.... look at the toolbar above your reply window when replying. You will see several buttons. Hover your mouse over them. One is for "Insert an Image". The rest is pretty self explanatory. Basically you need to wrap the image link with tags......

CODE
[img]insert image link here[/img]


Hope this helps...



~ I'm going to attempt to overlay Google Earth over the radar hole geo area and look for possible locations where the original aircraft could have set down. i.e. Old SAC bases? Anything large enough to land the aircraft, even if it was short and required full beta and standing on the brakes - It needs to be able support the landing weight, and be wide enough to accommodate the span of the landing gear......... 911 is a mighty big elephant and requires lots of little bites........ I'm brand new to the forum, but been in and around aviation and flight test for many years - I'll peer down the radar hole (like Alice peering down the rabbit hole), and see what I can see...........

Posted by: 23investigator Sep 19 2011, 08:07 AM

QUOTE (Culper721 @ Jun 10 2011, 11:22 AM) *
Rob,

It had nothing to do with the converging of the planes and everything to do with each and every plane exploiting classified information regarding holes in the primary radar.

In theory a plane swap could have taken place within the holes in the primary radar. However, for purposes of legal and logical relevancy, it is far more important to show the clear and convincing evidence of the exploitation of classified information regarding the whereabouts of said holes in the primary radar. That knowledge exploited that day necessitates at the very least a treasonable design; i.e. someone 'on our side' assisting in an attack on our soil.


Dear Culper

If you don't mind, it seems an appropriate time, to come back to the above comment you made.

An earlier part of the progress of flight AA11 arriving over the radar blind spot, was an instruction given for the aircraft to turn 20 degrees right, and to climb to a new altitude.
Within this process there has been reference to a MD80 approaching flight AA11.

It does not seem clear, whether the 20 degree turn was because of the approaching MD80 or not.
A map found, showing the path of the MD80, does not help much with understanding, as it appears the MD80
was approaching from the northeast, which seems a strange reason to turn flight AA11 20 degrees to the right.
There has been separate comment suggesting the MD80 was coming from, 'yet', another direction.

This may have been previously covered.
But perhaps the pilot of the MD80 is a member of P4T, and could have recollection of sighting flight AA11.
It would be interesting to learn their recollection.

If this information is already known, could somebody please point towards it.

Robert

Posted by: woody Sep 21 2011, 03:45 PM


I repeat myself: the radar holes in the diagram refer to an altitude of 5000 ft. At 30000 ft, there are no radar holes. Flight 11 and Flight 93 did not turn off their transponders in a radar hole. Please leave this trail alone.

QUOTE
The thing is, the map on Frank's website - I found it here -

http://media.photobucket.com/image/radar%2...tional51ATC.png

shows the situation at Above Ground Level 5000 ft. I.e. the circles reflect the radar-controlled area if you make a horizontal cut at 5000 ft. So these radar holes you are referring to exist only at this level. But the planes at 9/11 were flying at cruising altitude when they turned off their transponders. If you make a horizontal cut at 30000 ft, the circles have a radius six times bigger than at 5000 ft., i.e they are overlapping each other three, four times. Apart from certain rare spots in montainous areas, there are certainly no radar holes at 30000 ft.

I'm really sorry to say that. I myself was pretty exited when the thing came up at the team8+ website. But after realizing that the map referred to an altitude of 5000 ft, it was clear to me that radar holes don't cut it. I told Frank, Nico and John Doe II. They agreed.



Posted by: 23investigator Sep 23 2011, 03:19 AM

QUOTE (woody @ Sep 22 2011, 05:15 AM) *
I repeat myself: the radar holes in the diagram refer to an altitude of 5000 ft. At 30000 ft, there are no radar holes. Flight 11 and Flight 93 did not turn off their transponders in a radar hole. Please leave this trail alone.


Dear 'woody'.

'Assuming' your consideration that the location of "radar blackout" was only applicable upto a certain altitude.

It does not alter the consideration that flight AA11 was directed in the direction of the said
"radar blackout location" by an 'airtraffic controller'.
Is it then just coincidence that the 'pilot' or whoever was in control of flight AA11 then decided to make a left turn after this location?
--It appears no instruction was given, only attempt to make contact with the 'pilot'--.
There appears little doubt in published information that the transponder of flight AA11 was not available in the period of flight through part of the "radar blackout location" and subsequently.

Obviously, unless the published flight path of flight AA11 has been "made up", by somebody, there was primary radar return, "from an aircraft", that has been said to have been flight AA11.

Can you, with any sense of certainty, say that was the case?

Robert

Posted by: gerryc60 Nov 18 2011, 11:54 PM

Gentlemen,

I am new here as a member, but have been a researcher from time to time on this board.

This is a Great Board with many highly knowledgable and professional people.

There is another website that I also post in.

They are looking at 911 from many different angles.

http://letsrollforums.com/index.php

The answers to many of your questions can be found.

Please check it out!!!

Thank you again for this Site.


Posted by: almerie Apr 7 2012, 06:32 AM

Hello,


Apparently I am a little behind events here, as this thread is almost 6 mths old now.

I have just seen '9/11 Intercepted', which I found very well made and interesting.

The possible plane swap was of particular interest, but I have some questions that I did not get answered from the video:

1. Did the two aircraft converging from west have any radar identification that shows type, departure and destination?

2. At what location did the swap take place as in Lat-Lon?

3. What was the separation between the two aircraft trailing each other.

4. Did the two aircraft trailing each other follow an airway, if so between which fixes?

5. Did the two aircraft converging follow an airway?


Thanks

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 7 2012, 02:11 PM

Hi almerie.... let me see if I can be of service...

QUOTE (almerie @ Apr 7 2012, 06:32 AM) *
Hello,


Apparently I am a little behind events here, as this thread is almost 6 mths old now.

I have just seen '9/11 Intercepted', which I found very well made and interesting.


Thank you for the compliment. I'm glad you found it informative.


QUOTE
1. Did the two aircraft converging from west have any radar identification that shows type, departure and destination?


None of the target tracks in the RADES data have that information.

QUOTE
2. At what location did the swap take place as in Lat-Lon?


Not really sure, but you can take a screenshot and overlay it on Google Earth if you need a precise lat/long.

QUOTE
3. What was the separation between the two aircraft trailing each other.


Standard separation is usually 5 miles in trail. They were much closer as you could see.

QUOTE
4. Did the two aircraft trailing each other follow an airway, if so between which fixes?


Yes and no... some were on Jet Airways while other were not. As to the fixes, you'll have to pull the charts and look it up. I don't have mine handy at the moment. You can probably find some online through a google search.

QUOTE
5. Did the two aircraft converging follow an airway?


Depends on which two you are referring. Many different targets were converging and then diverging, on airways and off. Again, you can probably get your answer when you look up the charts.

Wish I could be of more help... but hopefully the above will be somewhat helpful.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 20 2012, 10:27 AM

Our old friend John Farmer is claiming that the RADES data (the animation in the film) has been "altered" rolleyes.gif

Sorry to bring this up but I'm having achinwag with the old fart at ATS...

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 20 2012, 10:39 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jul 20 2012, 10:27 AM) *
Our old friend John Farmer is claiming that the RADES data (the animation in the film) has been "altered" rolleyes.gif

Sorry to bring this up but I'm having achinwag with the old fart at ATS...


lol... wow, what a mess. Look at them all coming out of the woodwork. No one addressing the actual topic, all of it character assassination. Why am I not surprised. They're all worried about our sales on a film they can watch for free on a website loaded with ads.... lol. Wasn't Farmer supposed to be coming out with a book himself like a year ago? ATS used to be a cool place for discussion. Now it's just a Romper Room. They need new moderation over there. But it is fun to register a new sock there from time to time and kick up the Hornet's nest. Many of those "duhbunkers" must sit there and refresh the ATS page all day long.. just waiting for something to argue.... sad... lol

No, nothing is "altered" in our film. It is a direct screen recording of the RS3 RADES program recorded with a screen recording program. The only thing which may be considered as "altered" are the colors from default, so people can see the tracks better in the film. None of the tracks/data are altered as claimed by Farmer, this is why he is unable to specifically show what has been "altered". I'm surprised he doesn't recognize the RS3 RADES program and considers it a "cartoon". Clearly he is unfamiliar with how to isolate/filter tracks and change default colors in the program.

Farmer is known for blatantly lying, but wow, this takes the cake as anyone can check it for themselves. Or it could be that Farmer aka "911files" aka "BCR" aka "spcengineer" is having "Senior Moments" at increased frequency. I know he complained a lot of having "Senior Moments".

Click here for more on Farmer, his lies, and continued flip-flopping.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5083

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15715

Farmer should spend the little time he has left on this planet with his grandkids and stop obsessing online over people he thinks are nuts. Especially when his credibility has been shot to hell many times over. The poor ol' timer.... i wish him the best...

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 21 2012, 04:42 PM

Probably old news to you guys but I've never heard this before. Allegedly recorded at 09:44am

http://www.rutgerslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/special/911/Audio/(31)%200944%20Washington%20has%20no%20clue.mp3

QUOTE
ID Tech: (Sigh). Ok Mo, the aircraft that you said was by the White House is now near the Pentagon. I don’t know where the hell they’re getting their info. I said Washington (Center) has no clue, when I called Washington (Center)about it. They didn’t know what the hell was goin’ on.


Who's Mo? Or the ID Tech?

Posted by: paranoia Jul 21 2012, 05:02 PM

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LBz4gSPEi_8J:www.yuricareport.com/911/911_LiveTheNORAD_Tapes.html+Maureen+%E2%80%9CMo%E2%80%9D+Dooley&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

QUOTE
The first human voices captured on tape that morning are those of the "ID techs"—Senior Airman Stacia Rountree, 23 at the time, Tech Sergeant Shelley Watson, 40, and their boss, Master Sergeant Maureen "Mo" Dooley, 40. They are stationed in the back right corner of the ops floor at a console with several phones and a radarscope. Their job in a crisis is to facilitate communications between NEADS, the civilian F.A.A., and other military commands, gathering whatever information they can and sending it up the chain. Dooley—her personality at once motherly and aggressive—generally stands behind the other two, who are seated.



eta - see also:
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=maureen_dooley_1


Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 21 2012, 05:17 PM

Legend!

It was hidden and out of synch with a load of other recordings so I thought it was worth a sniff.

The description doesn't fit the alleged E4B flightpath



If you guys want to move this go ahead?

Posted by: kawika Jul 22 2012, 11:27 AM

This would fit the low flier reported over the WH heading east. This was captured by CNN, (maybe) , seen by someone south of the mall (McNerny) and may be the same flier captured at the Goss interview at the Capitol.

It does not show up on the radar scope files, but we have not had the expertise available to determine if it is shown in the data files.

I'm ready to assist as soon as someone steps forward to help figure this out.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 23 2012, 11:10 AM

QUOTE (kawika @ Jul 22 2012, 11:27 AM) *
It does not show up on the radar scope files, but we have not had the expertise available to determine if it is shown in the data files.


It shows up in the RADES RS3 software and is covered in 9/11 Intercepted, along with the first E4B that departed ADW which circled around the alleged "AA77". I changed their target colors to white for the E4B's so people can see their tracks better from the RADES software recorded for our presentation.

Here is a screenshot from our film of the RADES RS3 software and the two E4B tracks.


Posted by: kawika Jul 24 2012, 10:22 PM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 21 2012, 01:10 PM) *
It shows up in the RADES RS3 software and is covered in 9/11 Intercepted, along with the first E4B that departed ADW which circled around the alleged "AA77". I changed their target colors to white for the E4B's so people can see their tracks better from the RADES software recorded for our presentation.

Here is a screenshot from our film of the RADES RS3 software and the two E4B tracks.

mod edit - removed image


These appear to be V22 and SWORD31. Do either of these satisfy a WH overflight? V77 certainly doesn't fit the WH scenario. As far as I can see none enter the P-56 area.

V77 fits the CNN video high flier heading North turning east.

The low flier on the CNN video is impossible to say with certainty where it was filmed. Just because it was seen after the high flier was captured does not mean it was the same plane. The low flier could be headed east or it could be headed north. It all depends upon where the camera is.

Still searching for more details.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 25 2012, 03:08 AM

QUOTE (kawika @ Jul 24 2012, 10:22 PM) *
These appear to be V22 and SWORD31. Do either of these satisfy a WH overflight? V77 certainly doesn't fit the WH scenario. As far as I can see none enter the P-56 area.

V77 fits the CNN video high flier heading North turning east.

The low flier on the CNN video is impossible to say with certainty where it was filmed. Just because it was seen after the high flier was captured does not mean it was the same plane. The low flier could be headed east or it could be headed north. It all depends upon where the camera is.

Still searching for more details.


Hi Kawika,

it's been awhile since i researched it, but if i recall...

Word 31 is the E4B which circled "AA77" and then headed off to the midwest.

Venus 77 is the E4B which circled the White House passing north of P-56 and caught on CNN, and then headed south.

Venus 22 is a Gulfstream III which eventually returned to Andrews.

Again, this is all according to govt provided official reports and should be taken as such. All of the above are represented in the RADES RS3 files...

Hope this helps...

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 25 2012, 11:37 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 20 2012, 10:39 AM) *
No, nothing is "altered" in our film. It is a direct screen recording of the RS3 RADES program recorded with a screen recording program. The only thing which may be considered as "altered" are the colors from default, so people can see the tracks better in the film. None of the tracks/data are altered as claimed by Farmer, this is why he is unable to specifically show what has been "altered". I'm surprised he doesn't recognize the RS3 RADES program and considers it a "cartoon". Clearly he is unfamiliar with how to isolate/filter tracks and change default colors in the program.

Farmer is known for blatantly lying, but wow, this takes the cake as anyone can check it for themselves. Or it could be that Farmer aka "911files" aka "BCR" aka "spcengineer" is having "Senior Moments" at increased frequency. I know he complained a lot of having "Senior Moments".

Click here for more on Farmer, his lies, and continued flip-flopping.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5083

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15715

Farmer should spend the little time he has left on this planet with his grandkids and stop obsessing online over people he thinks are nuts. Especially when his credibility has been shot to hell many times over. The poor ol' timer.... i wish him the best...


Just a followup to the above.

Farmer fabricated some images from what he claims is the RADES data in a poor attempt to baffle with BS in supporting his claims that we "tampered" with the RADES software.

I put this short clip together using his fabricated chart overlay-ed on top of the RADES RS3 radar tracks I recorded for "9/11: Intercepted"



It's a perfect match. Nothing was "tampered with", "manipulated" or "altered" as claimed by Farmer.

Farmer also provided altitude information. And when he gets the nads to http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=15715&view=findpost&p=10805999, I'll educate him on that as well. But for now, not many people are interested in his BS (i don't blame them, Farmer has pretty much lost all credibility)... just posting this here for archival purposes.

John, I highly suggest you review the full film several times before you make yourself look more a fool.

Posted by: kawika Jul 25 2012, 11:58 AM

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 23 2012, 05:08 AM) *
Hi Kawika,

it's been awhile since i researched it, but if i recall...

Word 31 is the E4B which circled "AA77" and then headed off to the midwest.

Venus 77 is the E4B which circled the White House passing north of P-56 and caught on CNN, and then headed south.

Venus 22 is a Gulfstream III which eventually returned to Andrews.

Again, this is all according to govt provided official reports and should be taken as such. All of the above are represented in the RADES RS3 files...

Hope this helps...


SWORD31 left Andrews, passed well south of P-56. I cannot imagine anyone mistaking this for being over the WH or circling the WH.

V77 left Andrews (see track in Post #92) went north of the P-56. When CNN caught it over Jackson Place it was ~7-8,000 feet according to the scope views and the dataset. It continued to gain altitude through its turn heading east, then south of P-56.

This track cannot be the low flier caught by CNN.

If not V77 or SWORD31 then what is it?

Given the fact that CNN did not release their footage to Pinnacle until 2006(?) and no interview with the cameraman was ever done, we cannot be certain that the low flier was captured from Lafayette Park, nor can we be certain of the timing suggested by the tape. My experience with video in the WTC area suggests heavy manipulation of both content and chronology. Rarely do we see true "raw" footage with end to end connections.

The brief scene of the white jet captured by an ABC cameraman upon his hasty exit from the WH grounds comports with the V77 before it turns north over P-56. It is headed west at this time ~9:42.

http://img824.imageshack.us/i/abce4b942am.jpg/

You can see this footage here at mark 6:00: (It is not live)
http://archive.org/details/abc200109111036-1118?start=179.5

Do we have anyone in DC who can take a field trip to scope out locations? Please PM me for details.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 25 2012, 12:18 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Jul 25 2012, 11:58 AM) *
SWORD31 left Andrews, passed well south of P-56. I cannot imagine anyone mistaking this for being over the WH or circling the WH.


I havent seen anyone make that claim.

QUOTE
V77 left Andrews (see track in Post #92) went north of the P-56. When CNN caught it over Jackson Place it was ~7-8,000 feet according to the scope views and the dataset. It continued to gain altitude through its turn heading east, then south of P-56.


Yeah, that's pretty high as compared to the video. The video resembles something closer to maybe 1500-2000 feet. When I get a chance, I'll check the altitudes in the RADES data as well. If it matches what you're saying, the "low flier" E4B filmed by CNN was not Venus 77 as claimed by govt reports and loyalists.

This reminds me of the many witnesses for "United 93" where they stated it passed over at 500-2000 feet, but yet the FDR data shows it at 8,000-10,000 at those locations. This is covered in our film "Flight Of United 93". Laymen would not mistake 500-2000 feet for 8-10k. That's just absurd.

I'll keep you posted after I look at the RADES altitudes. If you don't hear from me for awhile about it, just shoot me a reminder.

Good find kawika.

Posted by: paranoia Jul 25 2012, 04:01 PM

hey K, i wasnt aware (though i now understand) that there was more than one e4b, or at least - more than one e4b captured on tape - so im a little lost in this discussion, but i am aware of this:


9:48am (also seen in the natgeo dc witness doc)
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a948capitolevacuate#a948capitolevacuate

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html?_r=1

QUOTE
As New York and Washington were under attack on Sept. 11, 2001, a film crew happened to come upon John Kerry leaving the Capitol. The brief moment of footage, included in a BBC documentary called ''Clear the Skies,'' tells us something, perhaps, about Kerry in a crisis. The camera captures Congressional aides and visitors, clearly distraught and holding onto one another, streaming down the back steps of the Capitol building in near panic, following the bellowed instructions of anxious police. Off to one side of the screen, there is Kerry, alone, his long legs carrying him calmly down the steps, his neck craning toward the sky, as if he were watching a gathering rainstorm. His face and demeanor appear unworried. Kerry could be a man lost in his thoughts who just happens to have wandered onto the set of a disaster film.

''I remember looking up at the sky as I walked down the steps,'' Kerry told me recently, when I asked him about the film clip. He said that he and other members of the Senate's Democratic leadership had just watched on television as the second plane hit the World Trade Center, and shortly after that they heard the sonic boom of an explosion and saw, through a large window, the black smoke rise from the Pentagon. ''We'd had some warning that there was some airplane in the sky. And I remember seeing a great big plane -- I think it was a 747 or something -- up there, but it wasn't moving in a way that, you know, I was particularly concerned. I remember feeling a rage, a huge anger, and I remember turning to somebody and saying, 'This is war.' I said, 'This is an act of war.'''


very likely what he saw when he looked up:




-is that what you are referencing as "the low flyer", or is this the "high flyer"?

btw - you also mentioned the goss clip, and though i know some still disagree and are trying to move goss physically over to the pentagon and place the timing of that clip as simultaneous to the arrival of the "attack" jet, im fairly certain (99.9%) that the boom heard in that clip happened at 10:08am (give or take 2 minutes).

anyhow, i hope that clears up the timing of at least one of the planes.

salute.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 25 2012, 04:23 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Jul 25 2012, 04:01 PM) *
hey K, i wasnt aware (though i now understand) that there was more than one e4b, or at least - more than one e4b captured on tape - so im a little lost in this discussion,



Hi p,

Basically what were are discussing....., there were two E4B's which departed Andrews according to govt reports. No one really disputes this...

Word31 (sometimes referred to as Sword31), which departed before the attack on the pentagon and headed west after doing a "dosey-do" with "AA77", and then later another E4B, Venus77 which departed just after the attack.

We all are aware of the infamous video from CNN showing a low flying E4B over DC. Of course the govt stonewalled such inquires into this aircraft for many years... but the flood of inquires perhaps became too much.

Govt reports and loyalists now claim that the low flying aircraft which was seen in the CNN video was Venus 77. However, according kawika, the radar shows Venus77 at 7000-8000 feet at the locations reported (near the White House). Some of this, yes, was captured on video at such higher altitude, but I also recall seeing video of an E4B around 1500-2000 feet in the area.

If this is the case, there were 3 (three!) E4B's in the DC skies that morning, one of which is unaccounted for..... the low flying E4B.

Hope this helps....

Posted by: paranoia Jul 25 2012, 04:30 PM

QUOTE
Hope this helps....

-it does - immensely, thanks man!

QUOTE
then later another E4B, Venus77 which departed just after the attack... Govt reports and loyalists now claim that the low flying aircraft which was seen in the CNN video was Venus 77.

-can you expand on that please - whats the implication? are they trying to use it to deny that the decoy jet flew east of the potomac?


Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 25 2012, 04:31 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Jul 25 2012, 04:30 PM) *
-can you expand on that please - whats the implication?


Don't know my friend... that's what we're trying to figure out.... :-)

Posted by: paranoia Jul 25 2012, 04:40 PM

doh1.gif

laugh.gif

cheers.gif

Posted by: kawika Jul 25 2012, 04:52 PM

The screenshot above shows the high flier, probably the V77 on its N/westward track.

Contrast that shot with the CNN low flier that drifts slowly behind some trees (unknown time and location).

http://img256.imageshack.us/i/e4blow.jpg/

You can see this whole clip here at mark 5:15

CNN--E4B --1/2 way down page, three videos, CNN Unknown,

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

The Goss clip indicates a low flier as the sound level is quite distinct. We do not know when this was taken, but it appears Goss was looking east while the camera was facing SW from the Southeast corner of the Capitol.

http://img840.imageshack.us/i/gossmap.jpg/

Again, there is no way the high flier could get that low to be seen and heard.

We need to nail down where the low flier was captured from and when.

Posted by: paranoia Jul 25 2012, 05:07 PM

this low flyer:
http://imagesource.cnn.com/imagesource/ViewAsset.action?viewAsset=&cnnId=91040520&searchResultsActionBeanClass=com.cnn.imagesource.action.search.BrowseActionBean
(starting at 01:21:25)

was filmed from near here (Old Executive Building can be seen in the clip above):
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/sec-ports-dc/sec-ports-dc.htm


re: goss - i - DO know when it was filmed, 10:08am. i heard that boom live that day, it shook my house. im not saying i know what plane is flying over in the goss clip (my guess is its a fighter jet though i am NOT saying the jet caused the boom), but i can tell you for a fact that that distinctive boom happened at exactly 10:08am (according to the clock on my cablebox or vcr), because i made sure to mark it outloud with a friend who was present with me that day.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 25 2012, 05:18 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Jul 25 2012, 05:07 PM) *
this low flyer:
http://imagesource.cnn.com/imagesource/ViewAsset.action?viewAsset=&cnnId=91040520&searchResultsActionBeanClass=com.cnn.imagesource.action.search.BrowseActionBean
(starting at 01:21:25)


Yes.. .that's it!


Save that video folks... do what you can.

The video starts of a high flying aircraft near 7000-8000 at 1:21:35 clip...... then a edit/cut to a low flying airplane... probably around 1500-2000 feet which goes behind trees, then another cut/edit to people jogging.

Save it if you can... i am currently not in a position to screen record.

I'll cross-check it with the RADES altitudes of Venus 77 when i can.

Posted by: kawika Jul 25 2012, 05:29 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Jul 23 2012, 07:07 PM) *
this low flyer:
http://imagesource.cnn.com/imagesource/ViewAsset.action?viewAsset=&cnnId=91040520&searchResultsActionBeanClass=com.cnn.imagesource.action.search.BrowseActionBean
(starting at 01:21:25)

was filmed from near here (Old Executive Building can be seen in the clip above):
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/sec-ports-dc/sec-ports-dc.htm


re: goss - i - DO know when it was filmed, 10:08am. i heard that boom live that day, it shook my house. im not saying i know what plane is flying over in the goss clip (my guess is its a fighter jet though i am NOT saying the jet caused the boom), but i can tell you for a fact that that distinctive boom happened at exactly 10:08am (according to the clock on my cablebox or vcr), because i made sure to mark it outloud with a friend who was present with me that day.


The screenshot I made is from a different source, note embedded timer. We cannot be sure of the timing or the location, though it suggests Lafayette Park because front and back of it is the Park area. I am not convinced though.

Re the 10:08 Boom, this couldn't be the V77 because it was long south of P-56 by that time. It has been suggested that it was caused by the fighters arriving. Can you help me with your location in relation to the SE Capitol camera vantage point?

My ear hears something more ground level, down towards the mall, the way people react.

The jet engine whine in the Goss interview suggests a low/slow big jet, not F-16, and it is heard after the Boom.

@Mark 14:40 Porter Goss, explosion, plane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIfwsjF8X5U


Good discussion here. Keep momentum going.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 25 2012, 05:39 PM

I made a video a few months back trying to piece together the movements around the skies of the White House. It's probably irrelevant now because I hadn't realized there were two alleged E4Bs but towards the end of the video there's a screen grab from MSM footage with the timeframe 09:42:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V106NvMdQY

I can't confirm or vouch for the timeframe. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

Great work guys!

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 25 2012, 05:43 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Jul 25 2012, 05:29 PM) *
The jet engine whine in the Goss interview suggests a low/slow big jet, not F-16, and it is heard after the Boom.


I agree with you kawika. That is the sound of high bypass turbofans, multiple turbofans... low flying.. you can hear a bit of a growl in them... almost like a turboprop... it's a signature sound any pilot can recognize.... certainly not the ripping sound of an F-16 single turbofan (or two F-16's) with afterburn capability.

Posted by: paranoia Jul 25 2012, 06:40 PM

QUOTE (rob)
The video starts of a high flying aircraft near 7000-8000 at 1:21:35 clip...... then a edit/cut to a low flying airplane... probably around 1500-2000 feet which goes behind trees, then another cut/edit to people jogging.


rob, i got the (possibly erroneous) impression that both shots in that clip were of the same plane, but the second one was a zoomed-in shot of the same plane (which would probably be a natural reaction by a camera operator) moments later . also, i had til now, assumed that the zoomed-in plane in that cnn image archive clip is the same one caught above the capitol building in the john kerry clip, but was filmed from a different location.




QUOTE (k)
Can you help me with your location in relation to the SE Capitol camera vantage point?


i was in arlington less than a half a mile directly west of the sheraton, but the boom shook things and was heard as far west as alexandria (there is a thread around here dedicated to that second explosion or "boom", check it for more details - "military testimony of a second explosion" is the title).

QUOTE (k)
It has been suggested that it was caused by the fighters arriving... .


it has indeed, and many even think to today that the boom was a sonic boom caused by the fighter jet or jets. check the goss thread, ive detailed at least 3 if not 4 accounts of people who heard and or felt the boom, then saw a fighter jet in the sky very shortly or almost immediately after. to be clear, im not saying the fighter jets caused the boom, but i am saying they arrived at roughly the same time as this boom, and therefore there's a good chance that that is whats heard flying over in the goss clip.

QUOTE (k)
The jet engine whine in the Goss interview suggests a low/slow big jet, not F-16, and it is heard after the Boom.


thats the thing, the fighter jets were not flying very fast when they passed over this region. i recall seeing one that day - after the boom shook my house, me and my buddy rushed outside and found a stream of others also coming outside at the same time to see what was going on. sometime in the minutes after (tho it could have been seconds - im just not sure) we heard a plane and all looked up to seen an f16 going by in the east sky, flying roughly right to left (north to south) or vice versa. but it wasnt super sonic, it was probably going about the same speed as planes normally do upon takeoff from national. also note, ive seen the videos of the fighter jets over dc that day, and even there they are not flying supersonic.

but since i cant distinguish with any certainty the different sounds of planes, i defer to rob's expert ear on the matter, it may very well be something other than an f16 swooping over in the goss clip.

Posted by: rob balsamo Jul 25 2012, 06:56 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Jul 25 2012, 06:40 PM) *
rob, i got the (possibly erroneous) impression that both shots in that clip were of the same plane, but the second one was a zoomed-in shot of the same plane (which would probably be a natural reaction by a camera operator) moments later .


I hear ya.. i felt the same when i first saw it.... but i took a second (and third and fourth... etc) look, thanks to kawika....

The cam operator zooms into the plane as it is flying at 7-8000 feet. Then there is a cut/edit.... then it seems to be a wider shot of an aircraft much lower... hence the fact the trees are in pretty good focus as the aircraft goes behind the foliage.

If the cam were zoomed in for such a close shot on an airplane at 7-8000, i would expect one or two (very out of focus) leaves to obscure the video as the aircraft passes behind the trees.

With that said... i am not a cam expert.... i learned how to fly airplanes....so.... we take it from there.

QUOTE
i cant distinguish with any certainty the different sounds of planes, i defer to rob's expert ear on the matter


Actually, you don't have to. Just find some takeoff or low flying videos of transport aircraft and listen closely... and do the same for F-16's without afterburn.

The sounds are very different. Fighters have a ripping sound (sharp sound), while high bypass turbofans on transport aircraft have a growl similar to turboprops (lower flat octave). It's really not that hard to distinguish the sounds. Even on youtube videos.

Posted by: paranoia Jul 25 2012, 07:01 PM

gotta run, be back later tonight - but thanks for the insights rob/kawika/oss!
cheers.gif


Posted by: onesliceshort Jul 25 2012, 07:13 PM

Here are a few alleged testimonies from the fighter pilots

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/e6v8m3grjkesrr4/images/6-fe005e0b67/000.jpg

http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/e6v8m3grjkesrr4/images/8-ea02602400/000.jpg

http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/9449/f161hour.jpg

This one may be of interest on the alleged slower speeds which paranoia described

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/9230/f16maxsonic.jpg

Posted by: kawika Jul 26 2012, 01:00 PM

Compare sky colors.

High flier over Jackson Place

http://img27.imageshack.us/i/cnnrawjacksonplchighflyn.jpg/


Low Flier (unknown location)

http://img201.imageshack.us/i/cnnrawlowfly.jpg/


This doesn't look like the same sky color. You would expect light blue sky close to the horizon as we see well below the high flier.

Posted by: kawika Aug 11 2012, 03:34 PM

Now it appears that there were two separate cameras capturing the same low flier.

Compare the CNN footage with this unknown source. I say different trees.


http://img850.imageshack.us/i/e4blowtrees2cnn.jpg/


http://img818.imageshack.us/i/e4blowtrees1.jpg/


It is being said (by others) that these shots are long-range zooms of the V77 on its east heading, at about 10,000 feet altitude. If that were the case the leaves would be a blur.

They are saying that V77 is about 7 miles away. Does this make sense to you?

Note also the small gap between the left wing and the tail on the CNN version. Note also that the wing tip is seen behind the tail on the unknown version.

Compare side by side.

http://img829.imageshack.us/i/eb4.png/

Posted by: elreb Aug 11 2012, 08:05 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Aug 11 2012, 09:34 AM) *
Compare side by side.

"One is more nose down."

Posted by: amazed! Aug 12 2012, 10:29 AM

My bet is that NEITHER of those aircraft are at 10,000, assuming the observer was more or less at sea level.

Posted by: kawika Oct 14 2012, 10:34 AM

Found another shot with E4B and trees:

http://img29.imageshack.us/i/bbce4b1051am.jpg/

Pilots, is this 7-8,000 feet?

Posted by: amazed! Oct 15 2012, 10:15 AM

IMO Kawika, that airplane is 2000' max.

Posted by: onesliceshort Oct 15 2012, 11:34 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 15 2012, 03:15 PM) *
IMO Kawika, that airplane is 2000' max.


The image can be deceiving too if it's zoomed in(?)

Really hard to tell.

I remember seeing a video short/still of the E4B in Loose Change(?) and it was taken from a street with rows of houses. It looked like it was at low altitude. 

Correction: it's higher than I remembered...

@55sec mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFNY8r_lrIs

Whereas the  E4B seen flying over the White House right at the end of the video I posted is at high altitude

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V106NvMdQY

Sorry if I'm confusing you more kawika!


Posted by: onesliceshort Oct 15 2012, 11:52 AM

At 01:55mins in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4jaijNqyo&feature=related

..the C130 is said to be at @1000ft agl



Might be a reference to work with?

Posted by: kawika Oct 15 2012, 01:54 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Oct 13 2012, 01:52 PM) *
At 01:55mins in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4jaijNqyo&feature=related

..the C130 is said to be at @1000ft agl



Might be a reference to work with?


I believe he was told by ATC to maintain 3000. Scopes show him at 2300 climbing.

Posted by: kawika Oct 15 2012, 01:57 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Oct 13 2012, 01:34 PM) *
The image can be deceiving too if it's zoomed in(?)

Really hard to tell.

I remember seeing a video short/still of the E4B in Loose Change(?) and it was taken from a street with rows of houses. It looked like it was at low altitude.

Correction: it's higher than I remembered...

@55sec mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFNY8r_lrIs

Whereas the E4B seen flying over the White House right at the end of the video I posted is at high altitude

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V106NvMdQY

Sorry if I'm confusing you more kawika!


I don't think you are confusing me. The CNN footage with townhomes shows him very high. Scopes at this time show him at 7-8K climbing to 10K. Following this is a very low right bank craft going behind trees. I don't see any connection possible between the two. We still don't know where the trees footage(s) were taken.

So far I have shown three different tree/aircraft clips. We need to figure out where they were taken and when.

Posted by: onesliceshort Oct 16 2012, 11:43 AM

QUOTE (kawika @ Oct 15 2012, 06:54 PM) *
I believe he was told by ATC to maintain 3000. Scopes show him at 2300 climbing.


I stand corrected thumbsup.gif

Posted by: kawika Oct 25 2012, 10:09 AM

Quote: Whereas the E4B seen flying over the White House right at the end of the video I posted is at high altitude

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V106NvMdQY

To my knowledge there are no videos of a plane flying over the WH. None of these images show a plane even over the P-56 area.

Just because people leaving the WH looking up north see a plane at 7-8K feet does not qualify as "over the WH". Just because Peter Jennings says so doesn't prove anything because we don't have anything more.

Having said this I still think there was a low flying plane that could have been perceived as being a threat to the WH, but the radar data at the end of the video shows no such plane--either at low altitude or over the WH.

Posted by: onesliceshort Oct 25 2012, 11:33 AM

QUOTE (kawika @ Oct 25 2012, 03:09 PM) *
Quote: Whereas the E4B seen flying over the White House right at the end of the video I posted is at high altitude

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V106NvMdQY

To my knowledge there are no videos of a plane flying over the WH. None of these images show a plane even over the P-56 area.


Well, "over the White House" isn't meant to be taken so literally. There is video footage of an aircraft flying over the White House area in that video.



QUOTE
Just because Peter Jennings says so doesn't prove anything because we don't have anything more.


That he mentions an aircraft at all and was provided notice of this prior to 09:40am which just so happens to coincide with the timing of the Pentagon explosion and after the groundstop was announced was the main point I was making in the video.

QUOTE
Having said this I still think there was a low flying plane that could have been perceived as being a threat to the WH, but the radar data at the end of the video shows no such plane--either at low altitude or over the WH.


That was the main point of the video. There was a low altitude aircraft seen circling from Washington, over the Potomac River and back towards the Pentagon which contradicts the official "loop" of "Flight 77" where the radar data has it completely west of the Potomac at all times. And that the E4B shouldn't be confused with this sighted aircraft whether it flew over the White House or not.

The RADES data for the C130 was contradicted by both witnesses on the ground (seen approaching from the Northwest instead of south) and the pilot himself (places himself further north) And the same data for "Flight 77" doesn't show this East of Potomac flightpath.

Even ATCs queried the official flightpath compared to what they'd seen on their screens.


Random alert....

Am I right in saying that the E4B (Venus77) was ommitted from the original RADES data when it was first released?


Posted by: kawika Apr 13 2013, 02:12 PM

Is there a reply from OSS in here on 9 APR 2013? I saw it listed on the board index, but I don't see anything later than 23 OCT 2012.

Posted by: elreb Apr 13 2013, 06:20 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 13 2013, 08:12 AM) *
Is there a reply from OSS in here on 9 APR 2013? I saw it listed on the board index, but I don't see anything later than 23 OCT 21012.

Kawika,
There maybe a glitch on this forum…

I have seen more than one example of incorrect dating of a post.

Apparently, older new posts keep an old date.

Posted by: rob balsamo Apr 14 2013, 08:16 PM

There is nothing wrong with the forum. I bumped the thread.

If you see a thread that appears in the index with a new date/time, but when reading the last post of the thread has a different date... it means the thread was bumped.

I usually do such action when I get emails asking for further details on a specific topic.... so I reply with a link to the thread.. and bump the thread so it is easier to find for those looking.

Posted by: elreb Apr 14 2013, 08:44 PM

Totally…off topic…

I have visited the half dozen or so other forums; of which I am not a member of any.

Robs forum is the best…bar none…and the most fair.

I’m simply depressed with the lack of contributions.


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