9/11: Intercepted - New Release, PilotsFor911truth.org Rating Options

[KILL YOUR TV!]

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

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

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

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

A invaluable addition to the case against the OCT.


KYTV

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

This post has been edited by KILL YOUR TV!: Feb 24 2011, 05:04 AM

[rob balsamo]

Good to see you KYTV!

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

Thanks for the compliments (and to all).

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

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

[lunk]

i just ordered 2 copies!

[rob balsamo]

i just ordered 2 copies!

and your package is on its way....

Thanks for your support lunk!

[GroundPounder]

a polished professional work indeed! great job rob!

[woody]

Excellent job, Rob!

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

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

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

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

Great job, again, and move on.

This post has been edited by woody: Mar 4 2011, 03:00 PM

[rob balsamo]

Thanks woody... glad you liked it.

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

[lunk]

Just got the videos in the mail!

...Just watched it.

excellence!

[lunk]

9/11: Intercepted

Perfect choice for the name!

[rob balsamo]

Perfect choice for the name!

Yes... i agree...

[albertchampion]

have i earned a copy?

[rob balsamo]

have i earned a copy?

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

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

[bambooboy]

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

PS:
hi Woody

[woody]

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

PS:
hi Woody

Hi Bambooboy.

ACARS for president!

[bill]

I had not seen this vid before

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

[23investigator]

I had not seen this vid before

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

Dear Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert

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

[BarryWilliamsmb]

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

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

[SeniorTrend]

Just ordered it!

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

This post has been edited by SeniorTrend: Sep 19 2011, 02:57 PM

[onesliceshort]

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

Ditto.

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

http://youtu.be/f4BOL_LFpjY

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 19 2011, 04:19 PM

[paranoia]

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