2521 replies to this topic

[Lilly]

Do not allow this discussion to degenerate into swapping insults. Stick to the discussion at hand.

[Wandering]

Quote

You would throw in a NOTAM. Was there a NOTAM issued for such an exercise that day?

Again, you answer a question with a question...So you're not really answering are you. Was their War Games being performed on 9/11? Yes or No?

[bubs49]

Wandering, on 18 October 2011 - 12:28 AM, said:

Again, you answer a question with a question...

Don't expect a single answer from him. His tactic is diverting and sidetraking the discussion from the real focus.

Filtering all the clutter, we have two facts here:

• Fact 1. BTS database provides inconsistent takeoff times both for United 175 and United 93. His answer? None.
  
• Fact 2. We have a strange "rendezvous" in the skies at 08:46 involving United 175, United 93 and a third unidentified target, all this virtually at the same time when American 11 hits the North Tower and United 175 changes its squawk code twice. His explanation? None.

Aliens, UFO, Elvis, a lot of speculation about drones that can't be flown in a controlled airspace or, if any, did not originate from Stewart AFB either, B-767 that can't be modified by the most powerful government in the world, passengers recovery, victims, everything.  

But not a single explanation about the facts and the questions raised in this thread. Faced with facts and evidence, he reacts with a personal view of the real world (and he calls it evidence, of course).

[Wandering]

Quote

Don't expect a single answer from him. His tactic is diverting and sidetraking the discussion from the real focus.

Filtering all the clutter, we have two facts here:

    Fact 1. BTS database provides inconsistent takeoff times both for United 175 and United 93. His answer? None.
    Fact 2. We have a strange "rendezvous" in the skies at 08:46 involving United 175, United 93 and a third unidentified target, all this virtually at the same time when American 11 hits the North Tower and United 175 changes its squawk code twice. His explanation? None.



Aliens, UFO, Elvis, a lot of speculation about drones that can't be flown in a controlled airspace or, if any, did not originate from Stewart AFB either, B-767 that can't be modified by the most powerful government in the world, passengers recovery, victims, everything.

But not a single explanation about the facts and the questions raised in this thread. Faced with facts and evidence, he reacts with a personal view of the real world (and he calls it evidence, of course).

[booNyzarC]

Wandering, on 17 October 2011 - 08:12 AM, said:

--
BoonY, you ask questions and people have answered them here, why not acknowledge you were incorrect, or had at least assumed incorrectly instead of just ignoring it? I'll be honest, I completely expect it from skyeagle but I would hope some people on here are above acting the way he does.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly what I had incorrect.

[Wandering]

Quote

I'm still waiting for you to tell me exactly what I had incorrect.

I have already made a post about it BoonY, your 'apples and oranges' reply does not take away from the fact you repeatedly said there was no break in the radar data (may I add you got that information through skyeagle as far as I'm aware), when there in fact was.

Edited by Wandering, 18 October 2011 - 03:18 AM.

[booNyzarC]

Wandering, on 18 October 2011 - 03:17 AM, said:

I have already made a post about it BoonY, your 'apples and oranges' reply does not take away from the fact you repeatedly said there was no break in the radar data (may I add you got that information through skyeagle as far as I'm aware), when there in fact was.

If you had actually read the related posts you'd realize that my information didn't come from skyeagle and that so far the information I've provided hasn't been refuted by anyone.

First of all, the data I was discussing with bubs was related to Flight 175.  I was discussing that flight because...  he was discussing that flight.  (Apples)

Secondly, the post you quoted as somehow invalidating the information I had provided was related to Flight 77.  (Oranges)

But by all means, please share with me how the information about Flight 175 was incorrect.

[Wandering]

So I did.


facepalm


I should have quoted

Quote

Minutes later, United 175 turned southwest without clearance from air traffic control. At 8:47, seconds after the impact of American 11, United 175's transponder code changed, and then changed again. These changes were not noticed for several minutes, however, because the same New York Center controller was assigned to both American 11 and United 175. At 8:51, the controller noticed the transponder change from United 175 and tried to contact the aircraft. There was no response. Beginning at 8:52, the controller made repeated attempts to reach the crew of United 175. Still no response. The controller checked his radio equipment and contacted another controller at 8:53, saying that "we may have a hijack" and that he could not find the aircraft.

So there is a gap in communications & in people watching the radar.

Edited by Wandering, 18 October 2011 - 03:39 AM.

[booNyzarC]

Wandering, on 18 October 2011 - 03:30 AM, said:

So I did.


facepalm

No worries, we are all human.

[bubs49]

booNyzarC, on 18 October 2011 - 03:25 AM, said:

If you had actually read the related posts you'd realize that my information didn't come from skyeagle and that so far the information I've provided hasn't been refuted by anyone.

[...]

But by all means, please share with me how the information about Flight 175 was incorrect.

If you are referring to the United 175's radar continuity we were debating about two days ago, you're not incorrect. Nobody denies that information.

Problem is: radar continuity itself might only be apparent. It does not prove alone that the aircraft squawking code 1470 was actually the same aircraft squawking code 3020, and then 3321 seconds later. As shown in the footage, another target literally overlaps on the track of the original United 175. As a result, code 3321 might come from the new radar target which then heads to WTC2 after a south turn.

There is an overlapping. You can't deny this. Therefore your information is not necessarily incorrect, it just doesn't prove that the plane that hit the South Tower was actually United 175 after that "rendezvous". The perfect synchronization with the first impact against the North Tower, the double squawk change and the presence of United 93 are strong suspects that a swap occurred and United 175 actually deviated West (Cleveland), while the third target headed to New York.

Edited by bubs49, 18 October 2011 - 10:42 AM.

[ValkyrieWings]

bubs49, on 18 October 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

United 175 actually deviated West (Cleveland), while the third target headed to New York.

There is more evidence that "UA175" deviated west. "UA175" was receiving ACARS messages from stations in Harrisburg, PA and Pittsburgh after the second strike at the WTC.

Scroll forward to 36:50 here for the specific scene on "UA93" and "UA175" still airborne after the crash.

[bubs49]

ValkyrieWings, on 18 October 2011 - 12:12 PM, said:

There is more evidence that "UA175" deviated west. "UA175" was receiving ACARS messages from stations in Harrisburg, PA and Pittsburgh after the second strike at the WTC.

Scroll forward to 36:50 here for the specific scene on "UA93" and "UA175" still airborne after the crash.

Exactly. ACARS information were discovered by Woody Box years ago. United 175 received an ACARS message at 9:23 while flying over Pittsburgh, this is well 20 minutes after its alleged crash on the South Tower. This is an additional evidence that United 175 deviated its course West after the rendezvous, while the unidentified third target continued its route to New York.

Bottom line: the real United 175 did not hit the South Tower. The plane that hit the South Tower (drone, manually controlled aircraft, whatever) was not United 175.

[Scott G]

bubs49, on 18 October 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

Exactly. ACARS information were discovered by Woody Box years ago. United 175 received an ACARS message at 9:23 while flying over Pittsburgh, this is well 20 minutes after its alleged crash on the South Tower. This is an additional evidence that United 175 deviated its course West after the rendezvous, while the unidentified third target continued its route to New York.

Bottom line: the real United 175 did not hit the South Tower. The plane that hit the South Tower (drone, manually controlled aircraft, whatever) was not United 175.

I love this type of info. Thanks guys.

[bubs49]

At 9:23 Ed Ballinger sends the last ACARS message to Flight 175.
Here's the ACARS message:

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111323 108575 0574

I marked in red the most relevant information.
PIT = Pittsburgh. The ACARS message was received by the Pittsburgh RGS (radio ground station). This means that at 9:23 the Pittsburgh RGS was the ground station with the strongest signal, therefore United 175 was in that area (within a radius of 70 miles, if my recollections are correct).  Also, the fact that the message was sent to "N612UA" is a conclusive evidence that it was sent and received by the real United 175, no doubts.

Bottom line: At 9:23 the real United 175 was far from New York, approximately in the Pittsburgh area. United dispatcher Ed Ballinger sends a message to United 175 "BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C". This proves conclusively that United was tracking the real United 175 and not the supposed United 175 that hit WTC2 at 9:03.

It also proves that the real United 175 did not hit WTC2.

[skyeagle409]

Wandering, on 18 October 2011 - 12:28 AM, said:

Again, you answer a question with a question...So you're not really answering are you. Was their War Games being performed on 9/11? Yes or No?

Of course! We conduct them throughout the year and if they involve aerial exercises near airways, then NOTAMS are issued.