The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

[skyeagle409]

Sky

Thanks for the info, but I've been aware of the serial numbers on those aircraft for several years. I don't keep them written down, because they don't really prove anything. I know that maybe 2 years back, 1 of those airplanes involved was actually for sale. Thus it still existed a few years ago, and was on the FAA registry.

That would have been impossible because all four aircraft were destroyed on 9/11/2001.

United 175

United 93

American 11

American 77

However, look at the expiration date of an aircraft that crashed on November 15, 1987. It had an expiration date of 6/30/2011.

My link

And, the specifics covering the crash of Continental 1713.

Continental 1713

Edited December 28, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Q

Do your own research to discover how many times the Pentagon, NOT the NTSB, investigates civilian airliner crashes, so that you will believe it.

The only time I'm aware of it was 93. Even with TWA800 the Pentagon was not involved.

I have not denied this to begin with – it’s a new point you have introduced. One that I do not see leads to the conclusion there was no aircraft. And you have not provided any of the previous evidence I requested to back your ‘no plane’ assertions either.

I may as well throw the truth in the pot here: Flight 93 was shot down.

Now it is certain that some will say, “out with one wacko theory, in with another”.

Though the difference between my theory and the ‘no plane’ theory of Babe Ruth, is that I can provide evidence in support of all the following: -

1. That the military wanted to intercept that aircraft.
   
2. That the military were prepared to stop that aircraft.
   
3. That fighters were within range to do just that.
   
4. That to all appearances the military did shoot it down.
   

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this, is that it is not necessarily any indication of a 9/11 inside job; it can fit with the official narrative as the USAF doing what they are there to do (and then followed by avoidance of a public relations disaster).

This was the widely held theory until certain PfffT members poisoned the well with ‘no plane’ stupidity.

[booNyzarC]

I have not denied this to begin with – it’s a new point you have introduced. One that I do not see leads to the conclusion there was no aircraft. And you have not provided any of the previous evidence I requested to back your ‘no plane’ assertions either.

I may as well throw the truth in the pot here: Flight 93 was shot down.

Now it is certain that some will say, “out with one wacko theory, in with another”.

Though the difference between my theory and the ‘no plane’ theory of Babe Ruth, is that I can provide evidence in support of all the following: -

1. That the military wanted to intercept that aircraft.
   
2. That the military were prepared to stop that aircraft.
   
3. That fighters were within range to do just that.
   
4. That to all appearances the military did shoot it down.
   

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this, is that it is not necessarily any indication of a 9/11 inside job; it can fit with the official narrative as the USAF doing what they are there to do (and then followed by avoidance of a public relations disaster).

This was the widely held theory until certain PfffT members poisoned the well with ‘no plane’ stupidity.

I find this quite curious on many levels, but alright I'll bite. Can you share the evidence alluded to above?

In particular I'd like to see the evidence of the final bullet point. I don't personally doubt the first bullet point, the second I find plausible, and the third I still question; but the fourth... That's the one I really want to see some evidence for.

Cheers.

[skyeagle409]

Do your own research to discover how many times the Pentagon, NOT the NTSB, investigates civilian airliner crashes, so that you will believe it.

Let's take a look in another way.

Flight Safety Foundation

11-SEP-2001 Boeing 767-223ER N334AA American Airlines New York, NY

11-SEP-2001 Boeing 767-222 N612UA United Airlines New York, NY

11-SEP-2001 Boeing 757-222 N591UA United Airlines near Shanksville, PA

11-SEP-2001 Boeing 757-223 N644AA American Airlines Washington, DC

Flight Safety Data Base

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AirDisaster Data Base

My link

Edited December 28, 2011 by skyeagle409

[booNyzarC]

This post is in response to two points raised by Sergio at P4T

*snipped the full content for brevity, but go back and read the full post if you haven't already*

Another point raised by Sergio is also now explained:

The CLEA2 (at Cleveland) transceiver was operating at a frequency of 130.025MHz and was able to receive a DLBLK from UA93 at 13:03:06 UTC since the transceiver on UA93 was tuned to that frequency at that time. The transceiver on UA93 was then tuned to 136.800MHz and remained on this frequency for the remainder of the flight and therefore the CLEA2 transceiver was unable to communicate with UA93 even when it was flying much closer to the transceiver. The PITC6 (Pittsburgh) transceiver was however operating at 136.800MHz and could therefore communicate with UA93 for the remainder of the flight.

Warren.

Hey Warren, I took another look at this post of yours today and I think it is highly likely that you're right.

Have you had a chance to look through the logs for AAL11 and AAL77 for corroboration? After a quick look through the PDF I noted 5 CLE hits for AAL77:

FLoc 300150938 on page 177 CLEB2

FLoc 300169679 on page 177 CLEA2

FLoc 302721532 on page 178 CLEB2

FLoc 302748300 on page 178 CLEA2

FLoc 304749926 on page 179 CLEB2

I didn't see any uplinks with :; auto-tune labels for AAL77, but I didn't spend a great deal of time searching through the PDF either. Given what you presented in the quoted post, it would appear to indicate that AAL77 was operating at a frequency of 130.025 MHz as well. I'll wait for the full OCR of AAL77 and AAL11 before commenting further, but so far I'd say that what you've presented is well substantiated and very likely to be accurate.

You may have noticed that Woody Box decided to protect his supposedly good reputation by not giving our discussions any more reaction over on the PffffT forum... I find that quite funny myself. He hasn't even bothered to read my blog in full and he's now burying his head in the sand from any additional information which could prove him wrong. His choice I guess, but if he really thinks that avoiding the issue makes him look good then I guess that's his problem.

You probably also noticed Rob's particularly vitriolic stance... LOL, what a hypocrite. He comes here under a pseudonym (ValkyrieWings) and then accuses people like myself and Cz of being cowards because we don't use our real names on a forum...

Rob... from me to you:

I don't care that you've put your name behind your claims; in fact I pity you for embarrassing yourself so publicly. You've been proven wrong with documented facts and you still refuse to take down your falsified articles. If that is something that you're proud to have your name associated with it isn't my problem.

As far as non-real names on forums go, I'd say that is pretty normal. Or didn't you realize that? Most people who participate on forums use a name that isn't their actual name. Is it because they are cowards? No, it's because it is normal to do so; and wise. After all, when you've got maniacal whack jobs such as yourself who are willing to expose peoples' IP addresses just because they've expressed disagreement with you ON ANOTHER FORUM ALTOGETHER, and publish trace routes to people that you've MUZZLED BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH THEIR INFORMATION, what do you expect?

The name isn't important Rob; the information is. And the information we've provided proves you wrong. It isn't speculation, it isn't hypothesis, it isn't theory; IT IS FACT. YOU ARE WRONG and your ACARS CONFIRMS mythology is debunked. You can avoid this reality as much as you want with your mudslinging and other garbage, but it doesn't change the reality.

Maybe you should have listened to your own advice before publishing those nonsensical articles:

Someone may want to inform the 'duhbunkers" that "beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt" is required.

I guess you screwed the pooch on that one with your articles didn't you?

You want me to join your forum and expose myself to the kind of tyrannical BS that you've put so many others through? Forget it. I'm perfectly content pointing out how ridiculously stupid you look with your falsified claims from afar and outside of your abusive reach.

G'head... throw another tantrum and call me some more names.

Cheers.

[wstutt]

Hi booNy,

Hey Warren, I took another look at this post of yours today and I think it is highly likely that you're right.

Have you had a chance to look through the logs for AAL11 and AAL77 for corroboration? After a quick look through the PDF I noted 5 CLE hits for AAL77:

FLoc 300150938 on page 177 CLEB2

FLoc 300169679 on page 177 CLEA2

FLoc 302721532 on page 178 CLEB2

FLoc 302748300 on page 178 CLEA2

FLoc 304749926 on page 179 CLEB2

I didn't see any uplinks with :; auto-tune labels for AAL77, but I didn't spend a great deal of time searching through the PDF either. Given what you presented in the quoted post, it would appear to indicate that AAL77 was operating at a frequency of 130.025 MHz as well. I'll wait for the full OCR of AAL77 and AAL11 before commenting further, but so far I'd say that what you've presented is well substantiated and very likely to be accurate.

I found the following the following auto tune ULBLKs for AAL77:

FLoc 292540786 on page 160 <SOH>2.N644AA1:;P<STX>130025<ETX> (130.025MHz)

FLocs 304549879,304637654,304738442 on page 178 <SOH>2.N644AA<NAK>:;F<STX>136800<ETX> (136.800MHz)

There are three ULBLKs for that last auto tune, since the first two were not acknowledged. Your last CLE hit was after the last auto tune ULBLK but it is an acknowledgement DLBLK for the auto tune ULBLK which is transmitted by AAL77 on the old frequency before the AAL77 transceiver was changed to operate on the new frequency in the the auto tune ULBLK.

So, you are correct, the AAL77 was operating at 130.025MHz when it transmitted the DLBLKs which the CLEB2 and CLEA2 transceivers received.

I did find some auto tune ULBLKs for AAL11 as well, but no CLE hits.

I'm still working on the OCR for AAL11 and AAL77.

You may have noticed that Woody Box decided to protect his supposedly good reputation by not giving our discussions any more reaction over on the PffffT forum... I find that quite funny myself. He hasn't even bothered to read my blog in full and he's now burying his head in the sand from any additional information which could prove him wrong. His choice I guess, but if he really thinks that avoiding the issue makes him look good then I guess that's his problem.

If I understand Woody Box correctly, he is saying that the Cleveland RGS station would have had to have been shut down when the UAL93 transceiver was changed to operate on 136.800MHz since it no longer communicated with UAL93. Does he really think this? Does a radio station shut down when one tunes to a different radio station?

You probably also noticed Rob's particularly vitriolic stance... LOL, what a hypocrite. He comes here under a pseudonym (ValkyrieWings) and then accuses people like myself and Cz of being cowards because we don't use our real names on a forum...

Rob... from me to you:

I don't care that you've put your name behind your claims; in fact I pity you for embarrassing yourself so publicly. You've been proven wrong with documented facts and you still refuse to take down your falsified articles. If that is something that you're proud to have your name associated with it isn't my problem.

As far as non-real names on forums go, I'd say that is pretty normal. Or didn't you realize that? Most people who participate on forums use a name that isn't their actual name. Is it because they are cowards? No, it's because it is normal to do so; and wise. After all, when you've got maniacal whack jobs such as yourself who are willing to expose peoples' IP addresses just because they've expressed disagreement with you ON ANOTHER FORUM ALTOGETHER, and publish trace routes to people that you've MUZZLED BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH THEIR INFORMATION, what do you expect?

The name isn't important Rob; the information is. And the information we've provided proves you wrong. It isn't speculation, it isn't hypothesis, it isn't theory; IT IS FACT. YOU ARE WRONG and your ACARS CONFIRMS mythology is debunked. You can avoid this reality as much as you want with your mudslinging and other garbage, but it doesn't change the reality.

Maybe you should have listened to your own advice before publishing those nonsensical articles:

I guess you screwed the pooch on that one with your articles didn't you?

You want me to join your forum and expose myself to the kind of tyrannical BS that you've put so many others through? Forget it. I'm perfectly content pointing out how ridiculously stupid you look with your falsified claims from afar and outside of your abusive reach.

G'head... throw another tantrum and call me some more names.

Cheers.

Rob also claims that I had "run away with his tail tucked firmly between his legs" after he has told me "If you answer the questions posed, acknowledge the fact that there is no "altitude divergence... increasing as the plane descends" (even based on your own calculations) I will approve your posts." . In other words I have to agree with him before I can engage in further debate with him! If that is the rules of debate, why would one bother to "ever confront us directly"? (us being P4T).

Warren.

[Q24]

Rob also claims that I had "run away with his tail tucked firmly between his legs" after he has told me "If you answer the questions posed, acknowledge the fact that there is no "altitude divergence... increasing as the plane descends" (even based on your own calculations) I will approve your posts." . In other words I have to agree with him before I can engage in further debate with him! If that is the rules of debate, why would one bother to "ever confront us directly"? (us being P4T).

Warren.

Identical experience here for the record.

It is not a place for honest research and open debate - it is a propaganda exercise.

For some specific examples of how they treat people who disagree with them, please see my post #125 here.

If their arguments stood up this would not be necessary.

Yes, there are many who know where you are coming from and support your case booNyzarC and Warren.

[Djeminy]

Rob also claims that I had "run away with his tail tucked firmly between his legs" after he has told me "If you answer the questions posed, acknowledge the fact that there is no "altitude divergence... increasing as the plane descends" (even based on your own calculations) I will approve your posts." . In other words I have to agree with him before I can engage in further debate with him! If that is the rules of debate, why would one bother to "ever confront us directly"? (us being P4T).

Warren.

No, Warren, there's no 'in other words'.

Rob is asking you directly to be honest. I.E. 'to answer the question posed'.

So if you 'acknowledge the fact that there is no "altitude divergence... increasing as the plane descends"

he will approve your posts.

You have not yet addressed this question, in one way or the other, and that's why he thinks you're being

dishonest and utterly evasive.

You could always prove him wrong, by answering the question posed above here in this thread -

so lets hear it. Is he right, or have you got a better answer??

Cheers

[pinch]

After all, when you've got maniacal whack jobs such as yourself who are willing to expose peoples' IP addresses just because they've expressed disagreement with you ON ANOTHER FORUM ALTOGETHER, and publish trace routes to people that you've MUZZLED BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH THEIR INFORMATION, what do you expect?

Calling Balsamo a "maniacal whack job" is being disrespectful to maniacal whack jobs. Show some respect.

And unless I'm mistaken, does it look like "Capt" Bob Balsamo deleted or removed or moved (as he likes to do so he can do his little "I didn't delete anything" excuse even though its difficult to find the post in question) that post about the IP address you referenced above? I believed it showed up, IIRC, right after Aldo's post in the PfT thread talking about this subject nand it ain't there anymore. Perhaps the Israelis got him! Alas "Capt" Bob...we hardly knew ye!

"Capt" Bob likes to talk about everyone else "obsessing" over his little boy's club when he is the one going out tracing IP numbers and talking about "enemy's lists" and getting all chubby about "trials" and "executions" and basically being more paranoid and displaying more obsessive control over his little digital slice of the internet (thank God that is the only thing he is in control of these days...can you imaging being a bum on a seat in an aircraft he was flying?) than Kim Jong Il did over NORK...come to think of it, have we ever seen those two in the same place before? Coincidence?? Perhaps not.

Anyhow, nice job with the ACARS discussion, to both you and Warren. Your scholarship, demeanor, and respect for logical presentation are all a breath of fresh air in the increasingly fetid miasma that results anytime PfT gets involved with anything. The fact that all PfT can do is attack a picture of Warren Stuff is prima facie evidence that their heads are shoved so far up their exhaust pipe that they wouldn't know which side of the football bat to use to butter their soup sandwich.

Well done, gentlemen. Let's hope that PfT moves on to their next sMoKiNg gUn!!!!@@!! I'm hard pressed to think of what they haven't turned into a mockery of common sense, though...11.2 g's, cockpit doors never opened ever on multiple pre-9/11 transcontinental flights, an inability to understand the ADW Camp Springs 1 departure, the claim that an aircraft will break apart *1* knot over its "design speed", etc so on and so forth. I only hang around to see what is coming up next! It *is* entertaining, though.

[booNyzarC]

Hi booNy,

I found the following the following auto tune ULBLKs for AAL77:

FLoc 292540786 on page 160 <SOH>2.N644AA1:;P<STX>130025<ETX> (130.025MHz)

FLocs 304549879,304637654,304738442 on page 178 <SOH>2.N644AA<NAK>:;F<STX>136800<ETX> (136.800MHz)

There are three ULBLKs for that last auto tune, since the first two were not acknowledged. Your last CLE hit was after the last auto tune ULBLK but it is an acknowledgement DLBLK for the auto tune ULBLK which is transmitted by AAL77 on the old frequency before the AAL77 transceiver was changed to operate on the new frequency in the the auto tune ULBLK.

So, you are correct, the AAL77 was operating at 130.025MHz when it transmitted the DLBLKs which the CLEB2 and CLEA2 transceivers received.

I did find some auto tune ULBLKs for AAL11 as well, but no CLE hits.

I'm still working on the OCR for AAL11 and AAL77.

Excellent! Yes, the more I look at this the more your explanation makes sense.

Some additional resources I've collected regarding ACARS frequencies just in case you haven't seen these already:

Frequencies assigned for ACARS in the US.

Frequencies by airline in NE US.

Current Jeppesen Charts.

If I understand Woody Box correctly, he is saying that the Cleveland RGS station would have had to have been shut down when the UAL93 transceiver was changed to operate on 136.800MHz since it no longer communicated with UAL93. Does he really think this? Does a radio station shut down when one tunes to a different radio station?

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense does it? I don't think he's taken the time to understand what you've explained. Much like he's been avoiding all of our information for the most part. It invalidates a good chunk of his work over the last several years. That can't be easy to take.

Rob also claims that I had "run away with his tail tucked firmly between his legs" after he has told me "If you answer the questions posed, acknowledge the fact that there is no "altitude divergence... increasing as the plane descends" (even based on your own calculations) I will approve your posts." . In other words I have to agree with him before I can engage in further debate with him! If that is the rules of debate, why would one bother to "ever confront us directly"? (us being P4T).

Warren.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people actually appear to admire this guy when he does things like this to so many people.

[booNyzarC]

Calling Balsamo a "maniacal whack job" is being disrespectful to maniacal whack jobs. Show some respect.

My bad...

And unless I'm mistaken, does it look like "Capt" Bob Balsamo deleted or removed or moved (as he likes to do so he can do his little "I didn't delete anything" excuse even though its difficult to find the post in question) that post about the IP address you referenced above? I believed it showed up, IIRC, right after Aldo's post in the PfT thread talking about this subject nand it ain't there anymore. Perhaps the Israelis got him! Alas "Capt" Bob...we hardly knew ye!

Yes, that was the one alright. And you're correct, it is no longer there.

"Capt" Bob likes to talk about everyone else "obsessing" over his little boy's club when he is the one going out tracing IP numbers and talking about "enemy's lists" and getting all chubby about "trials" and "executions" and basically being more paranoid and displaying more obsessive control over his little digital slice of the internet (thank God that is the only thing he is in control of these days...can you imaging being a bum on a seat in an aircraft he was flying?) than Kim Jong Il did over NORK...come to think of it, have we ever seen those two in the same place before? Coincidence?? Perhaps not.

Anyhow, nice job with the ACARS discussion, to both you and Warren. Your scholarship, demeanor, and respect for logical presentation are all a breath of fresh air in the increasingly fetid miasma that results anytime PfT gets involved with anything. The fact that all PfT can do is attack a picture of Warren Stuff is prima facie evidence that their heads are shoved so far up their exhaust pipe that they wouldn't know which side of the football bat to use to butter their soup sandwich.

Well done, gentlemen. Let's hope that PfT moves on to their next sMoKiNg gUn!!!!@@!! I'm hard pressed to think of what they haven't turned into a mockery of common sense, though...11.2 g's, cockpit doors never opened ever on multiple pre-9/11 transcontinental flights, an inability to understand the ADW Camp Springs 1 departure, the claim that an aircraft will break apart *1* knot over its "design speed", etc so on and so forth. I only hang around to see what is coming up next! It *is* entertaining, though.

Thank you pinch. The work has been quite satisfying.

[Djeminy]

Actually, I'mnot, but really, my age has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

I wasn't talking about your "age"!

I guess it depends on who you consider to be the "goodies". From the sounds of your posts, I'm going to assume that you mean those who support the ludicrous conspiracy theories about there being either no plane impacting the Pentago, or the equally silly "fly-over" theory.

Unfortunately for you and your "goodies" they haven't produced anything conclusive to support their ideas, just a lot of speculation, ignorance and anti-government bias.

So by your response here, i gather you think 'the government' are the 'goodies', and by implication you would be a 'goodie' too!!

And your ample use of condescension, haughtiness, scorn, ridicule, derision etc. etc., would in your mind prove that you're a 'good' person!!

Lets face it. Lets face fact. Your government would never approve of you being honest. That would be against their policy, and that would

be considered a violation against 'national security'.

If ever you Czero, would let us in about what you know as facts, you would be put in the slammer for life, just as they probably are going

to do with the poor Manning bloke!

Please produce your "absolutely certain" documentation.

That's available on PF9/11T, but as you'll never visit that forum, what's the point of given you the link!!

More idle speculation with not one shred of proof.

'you would say that, wouldn't you!

Sorry, but you're not my "friend" .....

No, but i could have become one, if you would had risen out of and above the world of horrible 'darkness' you

at present find yourself in. But from the gist of this and most of all your other posts, this will probably

never happen.

But as far as i'm concerned, i'll of course remain a true friend of yours and always be near if you truly need

one, except that in this lifetime you'll undoubtedly never become aware of this fact.

Cz

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

AA and UAL could not even get the passenger manifest right that day. It took several attempts before they included "the hijackers". Why then must they be so accurate as to which airframes were lost?

There are many things you are not aware of sir, and that's rather the point. One of those airplanes, can't remember which, was listed as "For Sale" several years later.

Thank you for making my point about DOD v. NTSB investigations of civilian airliner accidents--it has never happened before, EXCEPT on that fateful day. That little factoid might mean nothing to you, but it means alot to those of us who read the NTSB monthly reports on a regular basis.

You may like to dismiss the reports of local newspapers, but I do not. That is not to say that everything they write is accurate, but it does provide alot of insight into the events of the day.

I'll bet you are not aware that 2 airliners landed at Cleveland that day, and that passengers were deplaned NOT at the terminal building, but at 2 government buildings on the other side of the field.

You see a vertical fin at the Pentagon? That's rich. Now see if you can find either of the two very large engines, or any of the very large landing gear assemblies. Remember, we're talking Boeing here, not some smaller airplane.

[wstutt]

Hi Djeminy,

No, Warren, there's no 'in other words'.

I used the term "in other words" to spare everyone a history lesson on what lead up to Rob's post, starting from the paper I co-authored with Frank Legge.

Rob is asking you directly to be honest. I.E. 'to answer the question posed'.

So if you 'acknowledge the fact that there is no "altitude divergence... increasing as the plane descends"

he will approve your posts.

You have not yet addressed this question, in one way or the other, and that's why he thinks you're being

dishonest and utterly evasive.

You could always prove him wrong, by answering the question posed above here in this thread -

so lets hear it. Is he right, or have you got a better answer??

Cheers

Rob is wrong. There is altitude divergence based on my calculations. I will go into the details if you want them.

Warren.

[wstutt]

<snip>

Anyhow, nice job with the ACARS discussion, to both you and Warren.

<snip>

Thanks for the kind words Pinch.

Warren.

[wstutt]

<snip>

Some additional resources I've collected regarding ACARS frequencies just in case you haven't seen these already:

Frequencies assigned for ACARS in the US.

Frequencies by airline in NE US.

Current Jeppesen Charts.

<snip>

Thanks for the links booNy. I had not seen them before.

Warren.

[wstutt]

Identical experience here for the record.

It is not a place for honest research and open debate - it is a propaganda exercise.

For some specific examples of how they treat people who disagree with them, please see my post #125 here.

If their arguments stood up this would not be necessary.

Yes, there are many who know where you are coming from and support your case booNyzarC and Warren.

Thanks for the kind words Q24.

I am aware of a number of people who have been suspended for disagreeing with Rob, some of which were once close to him. Your case is one more to add to the list and you were only asking questions and seeking clarification. Yet he continues to ask that people debate him there. Perhaps that is because as far as I am aware he gets banned from any other forum that he or his associates do not control .

Warren.

[Czero 101]

There's only a few things that are worth responding to here:

Lets face it. Lets face fact. Your government would never approve of you being honest. That would be against their policy, and that would

be considered a violation against 'national security'.

"My government"... Really... ? My government...?

Maybe you should take your head out of your hind end (or is that Rob's..?) and have a look around. If you're able to do that, perhaps you'll see that I'm not an American.

That's available on PF9/11T, but as you'll never visit that forum, what's the point of given you the link!!

Provide the link, if you can. If its anything like their "ACARS CONFIRMS" fantasy, it shouldn't take too long to show it for the misunderstanding / misinformation it most likely also is.

The parts on the pentacon lawn have obviously been planted.

More idle speculation with not one shred of proof.

'you would say that, wouldn't you!

Well, yes, I would say that when its true...? You don't have one believable, verifiable shred of proof that the wreckage was "planted" there. If it was so "obvious" as you claim, then providing the proof for it should be easy...

No, but i could have become one

Sorry to disappoint you again, but friends like you and the ones you have of at PfT are not the kind of people I want or need as friends.

But as far as i'm concerned, i'll of course remain a true friend of yours and always be near if you truly need one

You DO realize how creepy and stalker-ish that makes you sound, right?

Please... keep your "friendship" to yourself. You appear to be developing an unhealthy fascination with me, and it would be to your benefit to get over it and yourself.

Good day.

Cz

[skyeagle409]

Sky

AA and UAL could not even get the passenger manifest right that day. It took several attempts before they included "the hijackers". Why then must they be so accurate as to which airframes were lost?

People had confused the victims list with the passenger manifest. Since the hijackers are not considered victims, their names were not added to the victims list, however, here is a passenger manifest for United 93 and you will notice the names of the four hijackers on the manifest. You can also find the names of hijackers on the passenger manifest of United 175, American 11, and American 77.

There are many things you are not aware of sir, and that's rather the point. One of those airplanes, can't remember which, was listed as "For Sale" several years later.

Once again, you cannot guess at these things. United and American Airlines reported the loss of their aircraft and you should know that the airlines must account for each of their aircraft. If any aircraft survived, we would have tons of evidence, yet there are no radar tracking data, ATC communications transcripts nor ACARS records of those aircraft landing anywhere within CONUS and neither airline reported the sale of those aircraft nor are no FAA records indicating a sale for N334AA, N612UA, N591UA, nor N644AA.

In addition, if such aircraft were sold, there would be financial and insurance records indicating a sale because commercial aircraft are very expensive to buy, operate, and maintain. There would be aircrew records, landing and gate fees to contend with, along with fuel and maintenance cost and schduled maintence checks. In addition, such a sale would leave a long trail of paperwork and operations must be in compliance with FAR Part 121-1. United and American Airlines did not report a sale of either of those aircraft and since there are no records for any such sale anywhere, no sale occurred.

Thank you for making my point about DOD v. NTSB investigations of civilian airliner accidents--it has never happened before, EXCEPT on that fateful day. That little factoid might mean nothing to you, but it means alot to those of us who read the NTSB monthly reports on a regular basis.

Did the NTSB provide tracking data for all four aircraft?

I'll bet you are not aware that 2 airliners landed at Cleveland that day, and that passengers were deplaned NOT at the terminal building, but at 2 government buildings on the other side of the field.

I know about Cleveland and I know that United 93 did not land in Cleveland. Here is another case where the 9/11 Truth folks got it all wrong because they didn't know the rest of the story. Check it out.

Rumor: United 93 Landed in Cleveland

Former Mayor White hardly ever talks to the media now, so Free Times contacted his former press secretary Della Homenik.

"It has always been my understanding that United flight 93 diverted from its intended flight plan while it was in Cleveland air space," Homenik writes in an e-mail. "I never heard a single report, from any source, either on September 11 or in its aftermath, that flight 93 landed in Cleveland."

A review of WEWS Cleveland Channel 5's live coverage of White's comments that day show that he never suggested that the grounded plane parked at the end of a Hopkins runway was United 93.

"Let me walk through the most current situation that we are grappling with," says White at the brief press conference. "At this moment, we have a Boeing 767 in a secure area of Hopkins International Airport. The initial reports were that this plane was hijacked and that there was a bomb on board. There was, before this, an additional plane in our airspace. I am told through unconfirmed reports that we could hear screaming in the control tower. This plane has been diverted from Cleveland and at last report was in the Toledo airspace."

Later, we would learn that this 767 was Delta flight 1989. It had originated from the same Boston airport as United 93, but was cleared by inspectors after landing at Hopkins. It had not been hijacked, and there was no bomb. And United 93, by the way, was a 757...

In other words, the 9/11 Truth folks did not follow-up as they should have done and instead, ran off with the money before it was determined the money were counterfeit. Now, for the rest of the story concerning the second aircraft.

Rumor Two: United 93 deboarded at NASA Glenn Research Center and its passengers were taken away in an unmarked shuttle

"A KC-135 had to come back to the hangar," says Wessel, as if realizing for the first time that this aircraft may have caused some undue confusion. A team of scientists from the Johnson Space Center in Houston had flown to Cleveland on this KC-135 to conduct micro-gravity experiments. (Also known as "the vomit comet," KC-135's are used to simulate weightlessness. The plane soars to high altitudes, then falls back toward the ground, giving passengers a few seconds of zero-G experience. Scenes for the Tom Hanks movie Apollo 13 were filmed in one.)

The visiting scientists could not return to Houston as scheduled on 9/11 once the FAA ordered all planes to land. "After the facility closed, we had to take those scientists to a hotel." The scientists, dressed as civilians, were boarded onto shuttle buses.

My link

So here is where the 9/11 Truth folks confused a KC-135 with United 93 because they did not do their part to ascertain the rest of the story. In addition, it was reported by United Airlines that they lost United 93, which should have told the 9/11 Truth folks that United 93 did not land in Cleveland.

United Airlines Statement on Plane Crashes

The Associated Press Septmember 11, 2001

Following is a statement issued by United Airlines on the crash of Flight 93 near Pittsburgh and Flight 175 in a location that was not immediately disclosed:

United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed.

UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, N.J. at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers on board, two pilots, five flight attendants.

UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers on board, two pilots and seven flight attendants. United has confirmed it will dispatch a team to Johnstown, Pa., as soon as possible to assist, in every way possible, with the investigation and to provide assistance to the family members.

My link

Edited December 28, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

Perhaps you have me confused with one you call a "911 truther". I am not that.

I am a private citizen who does not believe the official story for the simple reason that there is no evidence to support the official story. Yes, it is true that 2 Boeing type aircraft struck the towers, but that's about it.

From impossible aeronautical maneuvers, to the absence of crash site debris consistent with the story, to the OBVIOUS use of explosive devices for what is said to be a gravitational collapse, the official story does not pass even the most superficial scrutiny.

I have speculative theories about what might have happened that day, and I do not offer them as proof of anything.

What is absolutely CERTAIN to this social security recipient is that the government lies and covers it up with the assistance of the media. It's been lying since I was a kid in the US Army and before.

Why is it NOT lying now?

I'm not here to convince anybody of anything, but just to see if somehow or the other somebody can make the government's case in a way that makes sense.

So far, no joy.

[skyeagle409]

You see a vertical fin at the Pentagon? That's rich. Now see if you can find either of the two very large engines, or any of the very large landing gear assemblies. Remember, we're talking Boeing here, not some smaller airplane.

Keep looking at that short video and play it back as often as needed, and you will see the while smoke trailing the aircraft and the verfical stabilizer as well just before impact.

The landing gear wheel of American 77 at the Pentagon.

B-757 landing gear

This is how American 77 approached the Pentagon just before impact. You can see the vertical stabilizer and while smoke trailing in the background.

Now, take a look at this aerial view and note the white trail leading toward the Pentagon.

Edited December 28, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

I find this quite curious on many levels, but alright I'll bite. Can you share the evidence alluded to above?

In particular I'd like to see the evidence of the final bullet point. I don't personally doubt the first bullet point, the second I find plausible, and the third I still question; but the fourth... That's the one I really want to see some evidence for.

Cheers.

I will state the case for the first three points just to reaffirm and set background for the rest of the evidence.

To begin, some testimony from NORAD commanders provided to the 9/11 Commission and media: -

Their story, in a nutshell, was one of being caught off guard initially, then very quickly ramping up to battle status—in position, and in possession of enough situational awareness to defend the country, and the capital in particular, before United 93, the fourth hijacked plane, would have reached Washington.

Major General Arnold explained to the commission that the military had been tracking United 93 and the fighters were in position if United 93 had threatened Washington. "It was our intent to intercept United Flight 93," Arnold testified. "I was personally anxious to see what 93 was going to do, and our intent was to intercept it."

Colonel Marr, the commanding officer at neads on 9/11, had made similar comments to ABC News for its one-year-anniversary special on the attacks, saying that the pilots had been warned they might have to intercept United 93, and stop it if necessary: "And we of course passed that on to the pilots: United Airlines Flight 93 will not be allowed to reach Washington, D.C."

When I interviewed him recently, Marr recalled a conversation he had had with Arnold in the heat of the attack. "I remember the words out of General Arnold's mouth, or at least as I remember them, were 'We will take lives in the air to save lives on the ground.'" In actuality, they'd never get that chance.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

That final sentence is media commentary repeating the official narrative.

Of real interest are the four direct quotes above from NORAD commanders.

The article also features NORAD discussing earlier on the morning how they might go about a shoot down, prior to 09:20: “My recommendation, if we have to take anybody out, large aircraft, we use AIM-9s in the face…. If need be.”

The 9/11 Commission further confirms that the fighers scrambled from Langley AFB to defend Washington were armed: “Two of the three Langley fighters were fully armed (i.e., with missiles and guns); the third fighter carried only guns.”

Another fact: at 09:37, the fighters were approximately 150 miles from the Pentagon. This would place the fighters approximately 280 miles from the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania. This means that the fighters would be required to travel an average speed of approximately 650 mph to reach the final location of Flight 93 by 10:03. Well… I’ll let you lookup the combat radius and top speed of an F-16. There is no doubt the fighters could have been there.

Now, if you have followed all of the above, the main points to take from this post: -

• NORAD intended to intercept.
  
• The aircraft would not be allowed to reach Washington.
  
• The possibility of shoot down had been discussed.
  
• The cost in lives in the air was deemed the lesser of two evils.
  
• The fighters were armed and able to reach Flight 93.
  

Oh, everything was set to do what they had to.

The 9/11 Commission estimates that Flight 93 was only 10-20 minutes from Washington. So when were NORAD planning to act? Time was fast running out, the confirmed threat was approaching, three other targets had been hit. It was now or never for NORAD.

Of course, the 9/11 Commission tried to refute this possibility. The report claims that NORAD were not aware of Flight 93 until after the crash and highlight that no shoot down authorisation had been granted. Well no, at that time, the President and Vice President were too busy chatting on the phone. The Secretary of Defence was playing rescue worker on the Pentagon lawn in disregard of his role. None were available to authorise that shoot down order.

The 9/11 Commission did find the issue contentious enough to be worthy of discussion: -

• “It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President, but given the gravity of the decision to shoot down a commercial airliner, and NORAD’s caution that a mistake not be made, we view this possibility as unlikely.
  NORAD officials have maintained that they would have intercepted and shot down United 93. We are not so sure.”
  

Yes it certainly is possible, “that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President” (especially as the Vice President was unavailable). A show of hands for those who give a damn what the 9/11 Commission think is “unlikely” or are “not so sure” about? Anyone who has read the full report knows they have very little credibility in these areas of speculation.

Then comes the official narrative that Flight 93 crashed singularly due to a passenger revolt. It would be quite a coincidence that occurred shortly before the aircraft reached Washington, meeting the NORAD objective. Saved NORAD a job didn’t it… hmm… didn’t it? I don't think so. We will see with the evidence to follow that is but a cover story…

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

I wonder what sort of aircraft you flew? Did you say USAF?

Anyway, let's consider that picture you offer of the Boeing one inch off the ground before it strikes the building. Do we agree that is essentially very precise terrain-following flight?

And since you (or was it Q?) that references the various radar tracks flown by 77, have you considered the actual maneuver that the airplane had to fly to end up in that position in your picture?

[Q24]

Ok, so evidence more direct to the shoot down of Flight 93 which I will split into five main headings…

ATC comments

We saw in the previous post how fighters were within range to intercept the aircraft and that it was NORAD’s intention to do so.

Listen to this…

Bill Keaton, Cleveland ATC, when asked if fighters were in the vicinity of Flight 93: “I know what you're getting at. But that goes beyond the scope of what I can comment on. I'm sorry to be evasive. There were a few little things that happened that day that I can't comment on.” Ok, not very interesting, other than to confirm there is something there which is not public knowledge and that ATC have been told not to comment on.

But how about this…

The Nashua controllers have learned through discussions with other controllers that an F-16 fighter stayed in hot pursuit of another hijacked commercial airliner until it crashed in Pennsylvania, the employee said.

Although controllers don't have complete details of the Air Force's chase of the Boeing 757, they have learned the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet, the employee said.

"He must've seen the whole thing," the employee said of the F-16 pilot's view of United Flight 93's crash near Pittsburgh.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/13/investigate-collide.htm

Now we are getting somewhere - hot pursuit, a chase, 360-degree turns, saw the whole thing.

I find it difficult to explain why ATC or USA Today would make that up… though understandable why official sources might want to cover it up.

The call of Edward Felt

The above named individual was a passenger on Flight 93. At 9:58, five minutes prior to the crash, Felt made a 911 emergency call answered by dispatcher John Shaw and listened in on by his supervisor Glen Cramer.

On September 19th the FBI were advised by Cramer: -

The caller advised hysterically that he was locked in the bathroom of United Flight #93, a 757 jet with lots of passengers, which was en route to San Francisco from Newark. He heard the caller repeat several times that the aircraft was being hijacked, that he believed the aircraft was going down, and that some sort of explosion had occurred aboard the aircraft. The male caller also stated that there was white smoke somewhere on the plane.

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-ed-wart.pdf

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a958edfelt

An explosion, smoke, going down… I don’t need to explain.

The FBI confiscated the tape and Shaw later denied that Felt had made the comment. The issue was ignored in the 9/11 Commission report, even the name of Edward Felt appearing only as a footnote.

Again, I find it difficult to explain why Cramer would make this up… though understandable why official sources might want to cover it up.

The Secondary Debris Field(s)

A video: -

Excerpt from the video: -

“We don’t want to speculate about this large debris field, but it seems to me from covering a number of plane crashes on the scene that if nothing else, you can say this is not typical for a plane crash to be spread across an area this large.”

“It certainly doesn’t make sense because most of the debris has been found in a very compact area within 100 yards, 200 yards, maybe a little beyond that and then all of a sudden they are telling us 6 miles away they have another concentration of debris. They say it’s very small pieces, most of these are very small pieces, most of the pieces here are no bigger than the size of a briefcase they say and the pieces 6 miles away may be even smaller than that… And as to whether it broke up on the way, we don’t know that, the FBI is being very tight-lipped about that. But again, it leads to that possibility – it certainly leads to a number of questions.”

The reports are not of a continuous trail of debris outward from the crash site. The reports are of distant and isolated debris fields. This, as the reporters suggested, indicate that the aircraft suffered a trauma in flight - pieces broke away and/or the fuselage was punctured.

This damage is in turn suggestive of a shoot down – remember, the aim is not to blow up the whole aircraft but to take out an engine in attempt to force a landing.

There has been a concerted attempt to disprove this possibility through the claim that journalists misinterpreted distance of the secondary debris field(s) – the claim is that a route-planner was used rather than measuring ‘as the crow flies’. But, I do not see this article makes a mistake: -

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93site.html

Eyewitnesses

There is nothing conclusive here but the area is worth a mention.

What we have are eyewitnesses who describe: -

• Military aircraft in the area at the time of the crash.
  
• A large silver plane at the time of the crash.
  
• The sound of “high-pitch screeching” overhead thought to be a missile.
  
• The sound of a sonic boom.
  
• Flight 93 trailing smoke and flames in one instant.
  

Whilst some of the above is contained in mainstream media articles, parts are also unsourced, i.e. the reference to “trailing smoke and flames”. At least, I can’t find the source journalists used for it.

Two articles describing the above are found here: -

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/mirror_whatdidhappen.html

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/flight_93.html

The report of the large silver aircraft which flew toward the crash site and then headed back in the direction it had come from is particularly interesting in conjunction with this account: -

In April 2002, Anthony Kuczynski will tell the University of St. Thomas’s weekly newspaper that he had flown toward Pittsburgh alongside two F-16s on 9/11. He says he was piloting an E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, which has advanced radar and surveillance equipment that can be used to direct fighter jets to their targets. He was just about to intercept Flight 93 when it crashed. He says, “I was given direct orders to shoot down an airliner.” (E-3s are unarmed, so, if this account is accurate, the order presumably applied to the fighters Kuczynski was accompanying.)

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1006fighterstrailing#a1006fighterstrailing

In all, it can be said there is a body of eyewitnesses who believe there was military activity in the area at the time of the crash. Perhaps not convincing in itself but, combined with everything else I have presented, I’m certainly not going to say they were wrong.

The Rumsfeld comment

Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defence.

If anyone knows what happened that morning, it’s him right?

Another video from 2004 (listen for the slip): -

Did we all get that?

“… shot down the plane over Pennsylvania… ”

“… shot down the plane over Pennsylvania… ”

“… shot down the plane over Pennsylvania… ”

Now I’m not daft – I’m well aware it is possible to get tongue-tied, fluff your lines and misspeak. Indeed, that is what the Pentagon claimed had happened in their follow-up here. Heh yeah, it was damning enough for the Pentagon to make a retraction.

The thing is, it’s not a slip that can be swept under the carpet. To come out and say, “shot down the plane” (something that absolutely did not happen, never ever, no siree!)… in my evaluation, that thought had to have been at the back of his mind. Yes, somewhere in his head, for some reason, Rumsfeld holds that thought that Flight 93 was shot down. And right there, in mid-flow of his sentence, it slipped.

Add to everything else.

All indication is that the air defense response finally got their act together.

Please note: none of this necessarily precludes a passenger revolt on the aircraft. It can fit as well with one version of events as another. Though a cover up is a cover up, whatever its cause or origin.

If any point is not clear please let me know.

[Q24]

And since you (or was it Q?) that references the various radar tracks flown by 77, have you considered the actual maneuver that the airplane had to fly to end up in that position in your picture?

When I mention the radar tack, that is in reference to the aircraft approaching the Pentagon and not witnessed to leave the area. Regarding the actual manoeuvre, it was helluva risk which the aircraft succeeded in one for one attempt… I don’t think it in the slightest likely that Hanjour was at the controls.

Edit: please see my post #49 here from earlier in the thread.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Q24