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

[rob balsamo]

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

9/11: INTERCEPTED



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

Narrated by Chris Kelley.

Thank you for your support!

[CuriousGeorge2]

This story is PUBLISHED at 911NewsCentral.com.

Link: http://pligg.911newscentral.com/story.php?...1-truth-forum-1

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

This post has been edited by CuriousGeorge2: Feb 15 2011, 11:39 AM

[wilddaddy]

Just ordered it! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)

[mick]

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

[CaptBill46]

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

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

[aerohead]

Awesome, ill be ordering mine shortly. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

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

And they were '69 models. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

This post has been edited by aerohead: Feb 16 2011, 03:15 AM

[Westgate]

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

[Omega892R09]

Great stuff Rob. I'll certainly be dropping in to buy a copy or three. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[tumetuestumefais...]

I think this alone would blow their ™ mind . if they in their state of degeneration are able to even understand what is it all about... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[Ret737Driver]

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

[ScaffoldRider]

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

[amazed!]

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

Spoofed radar systems is what it looks like to me.

[dadeets]

Rob,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dwain

[rob balsamo]

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

Rob,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

http://www.governmentattic.org/docs/NORAD-..._9-11_Tapes.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dwain

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

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


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

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

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

[Craig Ranke CIT]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Cary]

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

[bill]

Excellent !



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

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

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

Good Job !

eta

I agree, Cary

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

This post has been edited by bill: Feb 17 2011, 11:49 AM

[Omega892R09]

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

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

[rob balsamo]

Excellent !



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

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

Possible aircraft swap.

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

I also animated it.

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

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

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


@Omega

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

It's a dance move where two people circle around each other. Here is a picture i found with a quick search...
http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/14455...063851723JUEeTU

This is kinda what the radar looks like with the E4B circling with the unidentified target. A Dosey-Doe. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)


Good to see you Cary!