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!

Dear Mr Balsamo

VERY VERY likely, don't you think?

Robert

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....

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

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......



Hope this helps...

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.

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.

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

http://photobucket.com/

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.



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.





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.

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.

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...

-----------------
**
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.

...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 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.

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.

Good morning Colin,

Anytime you wish to answer my questions, feel free.



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.



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.



"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.

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

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

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.

CS

Welcome to the forum.

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

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

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 911 myths. 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.

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?

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

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":
Google Results

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.

Obwon

To hear the Bumble Planes, press here

Obwon

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

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

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.

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?

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



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

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Scoggins_...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...




But yet you cannot provide a direct source/name.



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.

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.

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 Washington Class Bravo 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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

Edit:



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

"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 stated, 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.

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-F...d-Leslie-Filson

CT my arse.

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

Rob,

Here's the overlay I was talking about.

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

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.

Good to see you back Bob.