IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Aircraft Swap - Scene From 9/11: Intercepted

Rating 5 V
 
rob balsamo
post Jun 9 2011, 06:33 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,682
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 9 2011, 07:13 PM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 375
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



Dear Mr Balsamo

VERY VERY likely, don't you think?

Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 9 2011, 09:08 PM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,911
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



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....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Culper721
post Jun 9 2011, 09:52 PM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 210
Joined: 2-January 07
Member No.: 396



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


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 9 2011, 10:02 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,682
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
weneedanswers
post Jun 10 2011, 01:59 AM
Post #6





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 4-June 11
Member No.: 5,963



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Culper721
post Jun 10 2011, 08:36 AM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 210
Joined: 2-January 07
Member No.: 396



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Culper721
post Jun 10 2011, 08:43 AM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 210
Joined: 2-January 07
Member No.: 396



Also, I have no link for the image; it's just a file.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 10 2011, 08:51 AM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 375
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 10 2011, 08:58 AM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,682
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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

http://photobucket.com/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cheap Shot
post Jun 10 2011, 09:20 AM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 26-August 07
Member No.: 1,857



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 10 2011, 10:02 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,682
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shadow7
post Jun 10 2011, 11:02 AM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 16-July 07
Member No.: 1,463



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.org we 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 10 2011, 09:30 PM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,911
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cheap Shot
post Jun 10 2011, 10:41 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 26-August 07
Member No.: 1,857



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 10 2011, 11:12 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,682
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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 penetrating Washington Class Bravo from the west, 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 10 2011, 11:40 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,682
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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 threat penetrating Washington Class Bravo from the west, 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jun 11 2011, 08:15 AM
Post #18





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,099
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



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 BTS database 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 the online BTS, 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.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jun 11 2011, 12:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cheap Shot
post Jun 11 2011, 10:25 AM
Post #19





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 26-August 07
Member No.: 1,857



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 penetrating Washington Class Bravo from the west, 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 11 2011, 12:40 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,682
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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 "power" 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. Survivors 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th August 2014 - 04:13 PM