9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

[frenat]

I don't call it a pod, I call it an unusual fairing.

Except nobody with actual knowledge of the planes thinks it is unusual.

My bet is that the ground personnel for that particular aircraft that day would not have said a thing, because there was a training exercise going on. More than half of them probably never even noticed it.

What exercise? Please provide proof of such. You realize the MILITARY exercises didn't involve civilian aircraft right?

[mrbusdriver]

Except nobody with actual knowledge of the planes thinks it is unusual.

What exercise? Please provide proof of such. You realize the MILITARY exercises didn't involve civilian aircraft right?

Im'm pretty well convinced that he is not at all familiar with military exercises. Particularly exercises involving live aircraft. Flight experience? Maybe as a passenger...

[skyeagle409]

The fairings were on that airplane, and there is a reason for that.

Yepper, there was a very good reason for those fairings.

Where's The Pod?

Claim: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images—the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

Read more: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Planes - Popular Mechanics

[skyeagle409]

Im'm pretty well convinced that he is not at all familiar with military exercises. Particularly exercises involving live aircraft. Flight experience? Maybe as a passenger...

He has posted in ways that told me that he is not a pilot and his comments shows a lack of aeronautical knowledge as well. He has posted a certain reference from the FAA, FAR that had nothing to do with the flight skills of the terrorist who flew American 77 into the Pentagon. The argument pertained to an Airline Transport Rating, ( ATR) which was another misstep because a real pilot would have known better than to post that reference as a response to a certain comment about pilot skills.

To sum it up, he BLEW it!!

[Dis Pater]

We would like to see a clear picture of these external irregularities please. Show us the best ones. The ones that clearly show something beyond the stock wing/body fairing. I've seen the ones claiming a pod, they just call the fairing a pod and consider the debate over...

eta: Isuspect that everything you "know" about the 767 came from conspiacy sites...

Clearest pictures i could find were the ones on this site-it does look unusual but it could just be shadows..

My link

[Q24]

You realize the MILITARY exercises didn't involve civilian aircraft right?

The NORAD Amalgam Virgo II exercise (planned prior 9/11) involved an unscheduled, though very real, Delta 757, piloted and crewed by staff of that airline. The aircraft was loaded with military personnel acting as civilian passengers. Departing Salt Lake City, FBI agents onboard posing as “hijackers” would divert the aircraft to Elmendorf AFB. The FAA and law enforcement on the ground were kept in the dark about how the siuation would unfold. A NORAD spokesman said of the exercise that it was, “very intense, very realistic”.

A few links: -

• "Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."
  A White House spokesman said Sunday that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD exercises. But the exercises using real aircraft show that at least one part of the government thought the possibility of such attacks, though unlikely, merited scrutiny.
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
  
• One plane, a Delta Air Lines 757, took off from Salt Lake City and was headed to Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska.
  The other was a Navy C-9 airlifter, acting as another airliner, which traveled from Whidbey Island Naval Air Station at Oak Harbor to Vancouver, B.C., International Airport.
  Both were packed with military personnel acting as civilian passengers.
  http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Joint-U-S-Canadian-hijacking-drill-takes-off-1088691.php
  
• They are a joint U.S.- Canadian terrorism exercise run by NORAD called Amalgam Virgo II. Now the two planes, a Delta 757, with actual Delta pilots in the flight deck, will be hijacked by FBI agents as it makes its trip from Salt Lake City to Honolulu. That plane will be diverted in midair to Elmendorf Air Base in Anchorage, Alaska.
  The other plane, a Navy C-9, acting as commercial DC-9, will be hijacked by Royal Canadian Mounted Police as is it goes from Whidbey Island at Naval Air Station to Vancouver International airport. Amalgam Virgo II was planned before Septmber 11th, and involves 1,500 participants, no live fire, though, and no paying passengers on board. These are not scheduled flights.
  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0206/04/lt.08.html
  
• Snyder said a Delta plane from Utah and a Navy C-9 from Washington State are among aircraft being used in the exercise. "Hijackers" and "law enforcement role players" are part of the scenario, he added. The Delta plane will fly to Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base, he noted, and the Navy C-9 will travel to Vancouver, Canada.
  http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43789
  

Was there a similar scenario using real civilian aircraft during the Vigilant Guardian hijacking exercise that took place on 9/11? And which prompted NORAD staff to ask for the first half hour after real world events began on the morning…

“Is this real-world or exercise?”

“Think we put the exercise on the hold. What do you think?”

“I've never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.”

“—I think this is a damn input, to be honest”

Were the exercises scheduled to assist the 9/11 false flag?

It cannot be disregarded in lieu of a thorough investigation.

[flyingswan]

Clearest pictures i could find were the ones on this site-it does look unusual but it could just be shadows..

My link

There are similar exaggerated highlights on both the engines, so it is very likely an effect of the lighting.

[Dis Pater]

There are similar exaggerated highlights on both the engines, so it is very likely an effect of the lighting.

Yeah-i think the bottom of the plane was polished aluminum on the United Airlines(could be wrong) at that time so that would probably over exaggerate any shadowing...

[Babe Ruth]

Except nobody with actual knowledge of the planes thinks it is unusual.

What exercise? Please provide proof of such. You realize the MILITARY exercises didn't involve civilian aircraft right?

ANYBODY with a minimal knowledge of 767 in airline service knows it is unusual. You might be an exception, but that's a personal problem.

And apparently your knowledge of Vigilant Guardian and affiliated military exercises being conducted that day is insufficient. They have been covered in a variety of news sources and books. Try the Toronto Star, and the book "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert. The knowledge is out there, should you choose to seek it. Q provides some information about it from several sources.

Actually, I worked with a man who personally witnessed a Boeing with a fake paint job on it that was participating in one of the VG exercises early in the morning of 11 September. He was retired from a career in USAF as crew chief on B-52. After the fact, and because of his military experience, he realized he had seen elements of VG being played out, and yes, a faux civilian airliner was involved, just as the Pentagon-provided scenario called for.

You might also investigate the statements of the first officer on Delta 1989 that day. It will show you just how involved civilian airliners were in MILITARY exercises.

You're way behind the power curve, Frenat.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Babe Ruth

[frenat]

ANYBODY with a minimal knowledge of 767 in airline service knows it is unusual.

Sure they do. But you won't post a simple link to prove it.

And apparently your knowledge of Vigilant Guardian and affiliated military exercises being conducted that day is insufficient. They have been covered in a variety of news sources and books. Try the Toronto Star, and the book "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert. The knowledge is out there, should you choose to seek it. Q provides some information about it from several sources.

Q talked about a DIFFERENT exercise or didn't you get that?

Actually, I worked with a man who personally witnessed a Boeing with a fake paint job on it that was participating in one of the VG exercises early in the morning of 11 September. He was retired from a career in USAF as crew chief on B-52. After the fact, and because of his military experience, he realized he had seen elements of VG being played out, and yes, a faux civilian airliner was involved, just as the Pentagon-provided scenario called for.

Sure they were. But you won't post a simple link to prove it.

You might also investigate the statements of the first officer on Delta 1989 that day. It will show you just how involved civilian airliners were in MILITARY exercises.

Sure they were. But you won't post a simple link to prove it.

I'm seeing a lot of incredible statements from you but no proof. Why is that?

[Babe Ruth]

Frenat

If you want to read the comments of airline pilots saying what I just said here, go to PFT and read to your heart's content. There are plenty of such observations over there.

Or, do not, and embrace your inner deficient knowledge. This is not rocket science.

Did you notice in my earlier post I said "VG and 'affiliated exercises'". How is that so difficult to understand? There were numerous exercises affiliated with VG. IF you are actually curious, you might check out Operation Tripod too. That would be FEMA's Tuesday morning exercise in Manhattan.

There is no link silly. The guy saw it with his own eyes, and he and I are both of the old school--computer dark ages. You know, life did proceed BEFORE links existed. There IS a reality that exists AWAY from the internet.

Again, if you spend some time at PFT (yes, you will have to search around) you can find the story told by the first officer of 1989. In the meantime, I will try to find it and provide that "link" you need to knowledge.

[frenat]

Frenat

If you want to read the comments of airline pilots saying what I just said here, go to PFT and read to your heart's content. There are plenty of such observations over there.

Or, do not, and embrace your inner deficient knowledge. This is not rocket science.

Did you notice in my earlier post I said "VG and 'affiliated exercises'". How is that so difficult to understand? There were numerous exercises affiliated with VG. IF you are actually curious, you might check out Operation Tripod too. That would be FEMA's Tuesday morning exercise in Manhattan.

There is no link silly. The guy saw it with his own eyes, and he and I are both of the old school--computer dark ages. You know, life did proceed BEFORE links existed. There IS a reality that exists AWAY from the internet.

Again, if you spend some time at PFT (yes, you will have to search around) you can find the story told by the first officer of 1989. In the meantime, I will try to find it and provide that "link" you need to knowledge.

Lots more posting but still no proof. Just as I expected. Still waiting on a pic clearly showing these supposed fairings/attachments on the 767. Not holding my breath though. I doubt you'll ever post it to try to prove your contention. Sad really.

[Babe Ruth]

Lots more posting but still no proof. Just as I expected. Still waiting on a pic clearly showing these supposed fairings/attachments on the 767. Not holding my breath though. I doubt you'll ever post it to try to prove your contention. Sad really.

Dis Pater just provided the link to that picture of the fairing above. R U 4 real?

[frenat]

Dis Pater just provided the link to that picture of the fairing above. R U 4 real?

The one he even said looks like light and shadow? Are you for real? There is no physical object there besides the wing root/landing gear area that is on EVERY 767. Plus YOU didn't post it. Sad really the lengths you go to to avoid proving your own claims.

[booNyzarC]

Clearest pictures i could find were the ones on this site-it does look unusual but it could just be shadows..

My link

There are similar exaggerated highlights on both the engines, so it is very likely an effect of the lighting.

Yeah-i think the bottom of the plane was polished aluminum on the United Airlines(could be wrong) at that time so that would probably over exaggerate any shadowing...

Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-222. You can find images of other 767-222's here at airliners.net and specifically of N612UA as well. Most of the images give more of a side view, but there are plenty which show the bottom as well especially in the first link.

As far as I'm concerned there is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary in the images that some have claimed contain a pod or protrusion. Like most conspiracy claims, this is just a non-starter pushed by people grasping at straws.

Cheers

[Dis Pater]

Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-222. You can find images of other 767-222's here at airliners.net and specifically of N612UA as well. Most of the images give more of a side view, but there are plenty which show the bottom as well especially in the first link.

As far as I'm concerned there is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary in the images that some have claimed contain a pod or protrusion. Like most conspiracy claims, this is just a non-starter pushed by people grasping at straws.

Cheers

Thanks-i did get the airline company wrong.About right...

[mrbusdriver]

The NORAD Amalgam Virgo II exercise (planned prior 9/11) involved an unscheduled, though very real, Delta 757, piloted and crewed by staff of that airline. The aircraft was loaded with military personnel acting as civilian passengers. Departing Salt Lake City, FBI agents onboard posing as “hijackers” would divert the aircraft to Elmendorf AFB. The FAA and law enforcement on the ground were kept in the dark about how the siuation would unfold. A NORAD spokesman said of the exercise that it was, “very intense, very realistic”.

A few links: -

• "Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."
  A White House spokesman said Sunday that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD exercises. But the exercises using real aircraft show that at least one part of the government thought the possibility of such attacks, though unlikely, merited scrutiny.
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
  
• One plane, a Delta Air Lines 757, took off from Salt Lake City and was headed to Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska.
  The other was a Navy C-9 airlifter, acting as another airliner, which traveled from Whidbey Island Naval Air Station at Oak Harbor to Vancouver, B.C., International Airport.
  Both were packed with military personnel acting as civilian passengers.
  http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Joint-U-S-Canadian-hijacking-drill-takes-off-1088691.php
  
• They are a joint U.S.- Canadian terrorism exercise run by NORAD called Amalgam Virgo II. Now the two planes, a Delta 757, with actual Delta pilots in the flight deck, will be hijacked by FBI agents as it makes its trip from Salt Lake City to Honolulu. That plane will be diverted in midair to Elmendorf Air Base in Anchorage, Alaska.
  The other plane, a Navy C-9, acting as commercial DC-9, will be hijacked by Royal Canadian Mounted Police as is it goes from Whidbey Island at Naval Air Station to Vancouver International airport. Amalgam Virgo II was planned before Septmber 11th, and involves 1,500 participants, no live fire, though, and no paying passengers on board. These are not scheduled flights.
  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0206/04/lt.08.html
  
• Snyder said a Delta plane from Utah and a Navy C-9 from Washington State are among aircraft being used in the exercise. "Hijackers" and "law enforcement role players" are part of the scenario, he added. The Delta plane will fly to Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base, he noted, and the Navy C-9 will travel to Vancouver, Canada.
  http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43789
  

Was there a similar scenario using real civilian aircraft during the Vigilant Guardian hijacking exercise that took place on 9/11? And which prompted NORAD staff to ask for the first half hour after real world events began on the morning…

“Is this real-world or exercise?”

“Think we put the exercise on the hold. What do you think?”

“I've never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.”

“—I think this is a damn input, to be honest”

Were the exercises scheduled to assist the 9/11 false flag?

It cannot be disregarded in lieu of a thorough investigation.

OK, they used civilian airframes and pilots, I accept that.

I think we can call these "contract flights", along the same lines as the use of civilian freighters and pax flights ferrying military pax and cargo to and from overseas locations. These don't carry or involve non-participating civilians.

Did these exercise flights stop squawking, stop communicating with ATC, and divert from their flightplan course and altitudes? I'm betting they didn't. I'm also sure that the AV players on the ground knew that it was an exercise hijack scenario they were dealing with, which indeed doesn't diminish the intensity. On 9/11, noone knew what was happening...no comms, no squawks, nothing, flights barreling through controlled airspace under no conrtrol. You don't have that in exercises...even the targets are being controlled by someone, who is able to coordinate as required with the fighter controller.

[skyeagle409]

If you want to read the comments of airline pilots saying what I just said here, go to PFT and read to your heart's content. There are plenty of such observations over there.

Apparently, the Airline Pilots Association, International, and Allied Pilots Associaton, do not agree with 4PT.

Edited April 15, 2012 by skyeagle409

[mrbusdriver]

Frenat

If you want to read the comments of airline pilots saying what I just said here, go to PFT and read to your heart's content. There are plenty of such observations over there.

Or, do not, and embrace your inner deficient knowledge. This is not rocket science.

Did you notice in my earlier post I said "VG and 'affiliated exercises'". How is that so difficult to understand? There were numerous exercises affiliated with VG. IF you are actually curious, you might check out Operation Tripod too. That would be FEMA's Tuesday morning exercise in Manhattan.

There is no link silly. The guy saw it with his own eyes, and he and I are both of the old school--computer dark ages. You know, life did proceed BEFORE links existed. There IS a reality that exists AWAY from the internet.

Again, if you spend some time at PFT (yes, you will have to search around) you can find the story told by the first officer of 1989. In the meantime, I will try to find it and provide that "link" you need to knowledge.

Was Operation Tripod really affiliated with VG? How much interatcion between the two had been planned? Any documentation on those connections, or just a chance coincidence in timing?

[skyeagle409]

ANYBODY with a minimal knowledge of 767 in airline service knows it is unusual. You might be an exception, but that's a personal problem.

You do realizie that Untied Airlines and American Airlines reported they each lost a B-767 in New York City on 9/11/2001.

And apparently your knowledge of Vigilant Guardian and affiliated military exercises being conducted that day is insufficient. They have been covered in a variety of news sources and books. Try the Toronto Star, and the book "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert. The knowledge is out there, should you choose to seek it. Q provides some information about it from several sources.

Apparently, you have proven that you are not familiar with the way we conduct exercises nor aware that we were conducting such exercises long before the 9/11 attacks.

Actually, I worked with a man who personally witnessed a Boeing with a fake paint job on it that was participating in one of the VG exercises early in the morning of 11 September.

What does that have to do with it?

Painting an airliner leaves a long paper trail that can be easily tracked and furthermore, American Airlines and United Airlines have already reported the loss of their aircraft, which simply means that the aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks were not modified aircraft at all.

He was retired from a career in USAF as crew chief on B-52. After the fact, and because of his military experience, he realized he had seen elements of VG being played out, and yes, a faux civilian airliner was involved, just as the Pentagon-provided scenario called for.

What does that have to do with considering that the United States received intelligence reports from around the world that foreign terrorist were planning to use civilians airliners as missiles?

You might also investigate the statements of the first officer on Delta 1989 that day. It will show you just how involved civilian airliners were in MILITARY exercises. You're way behind the power curve, Frenat.

It is YOU, who is behind the power curve.

[Q24]

OK, they used civilian airframes and pilots, I accept that.

I think we can call these "contract flights", along the same lines as the use of civilian freighters and pax flights ferrying military pax and cargo to and from overseas locations. These don't carry or involve non-participating civilians.

Did these exercise flights stop squawking, stop communicating with ATC, and divert from their flightplan course and altitudes? I'm betting they didn't. I'm also sure that the AV players on the ground knew that it was an exercise hijack scenario they were dealing with, which indeed doesn't diminish the intensity. On 9/11, noone knew what was happening...no comms, no squawks, nothing, flights barreling through controlled airspace under no conrtrol. You don't have that in exercises...even the targets are being controlled by someone, who is able to coordinate as required with the fighter controller.

Are you sure that none of the actual 9/11 aircraft were involved in an exercise in any way that morning, before it went real-world? Those NORAD quotes I provided do fit the suggestion. Ok, so what was the hijacking scenario of Vigilant Guardian? Oh… I don’t think anyone has let us in on that. Hmm.

[Babe Ruth]

Bus

No sir, VG and Tripod were not related, at least as far as I know.

2 different agencies. They happened to coincide on the same day, but I doubt they were affiliated. Who knows?

[Q24]

No sir, VG and Tripod were not related, at least as far as I know.

2 different agencies. They happened to coincide on the same day, but I doubt they were affiliated. Who knows?

Yes NORAD and FEMA – affiliated in so far as both were under direction of the Bush administrion.

Likewise the NRO who simulated a civilian aircraft departing Dulles on 9/11 and crashing into their government building just 30 miles West of the Pentagon. If you think that bears a resemblence to the real world event, consider that the alleged Flight 77 also passed over at just the time and location of the simulated crash – Chantilly at 09:32. Even a government spokesperson described the coincidence as “bizarre”.

All of these exercises which mimicked the real world attacks were scheduled to sow momentary confusion and ensure the aircraft reached their targets.

[skyeagle409]

Yes NORAD and FEMA – affiliated in so far as both were under direction of the Bush administrion.

What about American Airlines and United Airlines? After all, they reported the loss of their aircraft, which were American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175 on 09/11/2001.

[Q24]

What about American Airlines and United Airlines? After all, they reported the loss of their aircraft, which were American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175 on 09/11/2001.

I would usually ignore your pointless stating of the obvious but I have something to say…

What about Air America? After all, publicly they were a ‘civilian airline’ though were actually covertly owned and operated by the CIA for 26 years in which there was a fluidity of aircraft between themselves and the USAF.