1810 replies to this topic

[Dis Pater]

booNyzarC, on 15 April 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

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]

Q24, on 15 April 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

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....-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...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.c...6/04/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.g...e.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]

Babe Ruth, on 15 April 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

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 by skyeagle409, 15 April 2012 - 04:03 PM.

[mrbusdriver]

Babe Ruth, on 15 April 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

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]

Babe Ruth, on 15 April 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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]

mrbusdriver, on 15 April 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

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]

Babe Ruth, on 15 April 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

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]

Q24, on 15 April 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

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]

skyeagle409, on 15 April 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

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.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 15 April 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

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

Go right ahead and say it.

Quote

What about Air America?

What about Air America? I first saw a silvery C-123 in the makings of Air American at Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand decades ago and knew what its mission was, but you still cannot switch airframes between a C-123 either and as I have said, each airframe is unique.

I was tagged in 1970 as a courier to accompany a special aluminum box to Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand from Hill AFB, Utah. I rode aboard a civilian C-130 from HIll AFB to Travis AFB, CA. and then transferred to an Air Force  C-141 from Travis AFB  to Bangkok, Thailand and from Bangkok, I rode  aboard an Air Force C-130 to Ubon.

The Defense department has been using civilian aircraft for support missions and have been doing so for decades. You have to understand the nature of what CIA and DoD missions are all about? My cousin is currently a B-767 captain and has been supporting DoD missions for years and he doesn't support the 9/11 Truthers either.

American Airlines reported the loss of American 11 in New York City, which was confirmed, and American 77 at the Pentagon, which was also confirmed.

Quote

  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.

It still doesn't matter who owns the airframes and once again, each airframe is unique whether it is owned by the CIA, the Air Force or privately-owned. You can switch a privately-owned  C-130 with a CIA-owned C-130 and it would still take me less than 30 minutes to reveal the switch. You must understand that aircraft of the same models share common parts and equipment and order those parts from the same vendors who keep their own records along with those of the FAA and aircraft manufacturers.

I have been working in the world of aviation for over 40 years to know that there is no way to switch airframes and not detect a switch. Each airframe is unique and there is no way to switch those airframes and not attract attention. As I have said before, I can uncover a switched airframe in 30 minutes or less and I would know exactly what to look for. After all, aircraft airframes and jet engine components were just a few of my specialties in addition to over 40 years as a pilot. In fact, I have developed airframe components and equipment used by the Air Force and defense contractors and I was sent TDY by the Air Force and Raytheon Aerospace to Pensacola, Florida to developed a new repair technical manual for the inlet of the TF-33C jet engine, which is used on the Air Force's C-5 transports.

As a result, I became the first recipient of the combined U.S. Air Force and Raytheon Aerospace 'Civilian of the Quarter' award, 60th EMS, Travis AFB.

When I read from the 9/11 Truthers that the airliners were switched, I simply say that they have no idea what the they are talking about.

Edited by skyeagle409, 16 April 2012 - 06:01 AM.

[Czero 101]

* snip *


Nevermind...




Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 16 April 2012 - 05:38 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 15 April 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

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

But, what does that have to do with foreign terrorist crashing four airliners on 9/11/2001?

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 16 April 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

The Defense department has been using civilian aircraft for support missions and have been doing so for decades. You have to understand the nature of what CIA and DoD missions are all about?

Where civilian aircraft are involved in covert CIA and DOD operations, what it is about, is deceiving someone, or other, to give a flight the appearance of something which it really is not.  Yes, it has been practiced for decades.  These days the possibilities are even greater, with mercenary contractors, private individuals and foreign intelligence more pronounced on the scene.

skyeagle409, on 16 April 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

American Airlines reported the loss of American 11 in New York City, which was confirmed, and American 77 at the Pentagon, which was also confirmed.

You fail to discern the AA statement from newspeak - the former reported loss of the aircraft, the latter inserted the locations in the report.  Further apparent, you forever fail to realise this is irrelevant – everyone agrees AA lost two aircraft.

skyeagle409, on 16 April 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

You can switch a privately-owned  C-130 with a CIA-owned C-130…

Oh can you now?  That is interesting.

skyeagle409, on 16 April 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

… and it would still take me less than 30 minutes to reveal the switch. You must understand that aircraft of the same models share common parts and equipment and order those parts from the same vendors who keep their own records along with those of the FAA and aircraft manufacturers.

You must understand that the switch would occur very shortly before the aircraft destruction, and thereafter component serial numbers were not matched to records.  You must understand the FBI have confirmed that no serial number investigation was carried out that would positively confirm identity of the 9/11 aircraft.  You must understand that a switch could be confirmed or refuted if you looked in the correct place, but the official investigation declined to do so.

You must understand this basic fact has been explained to you many times and all you do now is repeat false impressions which the most cursory of research will reveal as misinformation.  You must understand that your argument (argument, not position) has no credibility with anyone on these boards.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 16 April 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

Where civilian aircraft are involved in covert CIA and DOD operations, what it is about, is deceiving someone, or other, to give a flight the appearance of something which it really is not.  Yes, it has been practiced for decades.  These days the possibilities are even greater, with mercenary contractors, private individuals and foreign intelligence more pronounced on the scene.

The keywords that I have been using were American Airlnes and United Airlines. There was no way to modify the airframes of American 11, American 77, United 93, and Umited 175 and not set off alarm bells. In other words, those airframes are excluded from DoD and CIA operations because they were regularly scheduled airliners whose maintenance histories are logged in computer systems across the country.  The Air America aircraft I saw were bright and shiny with the Air America logo on the side of the fuselage. All a person had to do to understand that Air America had nothing to do as a scheduled airline was to simply check its aircraft maintenance record and flight log. Southern Air, Trans America, and Saturn,  also used  the C-130, but they were known as L-100s.

It is no secret that there have been civilian airframes of the C-130 and even the the C-141, which is designated as the L-300. The problem for the 9/11 Truther is, claiming that the airframes of the airliners involved in the 9/11 attacks were somehow modified by the U.S. government and what I am saying that there was no way that could have been done with those airframes and not draw attention. Their recorded flight, servicing, and maintenance histories will sum it all up. If an aircraft was grounded for a length of time, its service history will reflect the grounding. Airlines make money when their aircraft are flying, not sitting on the ground.

Quote

You fail to discern the AA statement from newspeak - the former reported loss of the aircraft, the latter inserted the locations in the report.  Further apparent, you forever fail to realise this is irrelevant – everyone agrees AA lost two aircraft.

And it is very important that everyone agrees that American Airlines lost two aircraft, American 11 and American 77,  and it is just a matter of examining their flight and maintenance histories.

We can also log in on records regarding landing and gate fees, taxes paid, fuel, oil, and other servicing cost associated with those airframes to track their locations in addition to time and dates of their scheduled maintenance checks  and engine replacements and I might add that jet engines have their own serial numbers, maintenance, and replacement histories as well, so it wouldn't take very much of an investigation to confirm that neither of those aircraft were modified  by the U.S.  government for the purpose of flying them under remote control. Rememeber, American Airlines has inspectors as well.  

Quote

Oh can you now?  That is interesting.

Yes indeed because as I have said; "You can switch a privately-owned  C-130 with a CIA-owned C-130 and it would still take me less than 30 minutes to reveal the switch." Not difficult for me at all and neither for highly experienced aviation and insurance investigators.

Quote

You must understand that the switch would occur very shortly before the aircraft destruction, and thereafter component serial numbers were not matched to records.

The black boxes would identify the aircraft and any examination of certain engine parts could also identify the aircraft they were attached. So what you are implying is that the aircraft were switched in flight. Am I correct? You still have to acount for the original airframes, engines, APUs,  passengers and crew of American 11 and American 77.

Another question, how would you get a replacement aircraft above FL 180 without attracting attention? Remember, even a non-working transponder will not make an aircraft invisible to radar and any unidentified bogie trying to enter airspace above FL 180 without a workng transponder will attract attention from ground controllers.

Quote

...  You must understand the FBI have confirmed that no serial number investigation was carried out that would positively confirm identity of the 9/11 aircraft.

Were any black boxes recovered? Only a certain number of those aircraft models were built and even in the absence of serial numbers, it wouldn't have taken much to deterimine which aircraft were involved in the 9/11 attacks. It is just a simple matter of calling upon the process of elimination.

  

Quote

You must understand that a switch could be confirmed or refuted if you looked in the correct place, but the official investigation declined to do so.

There was really no need to do so. Where are you going to get two B-767 airframes to switch with? Remember, only a certain number of the B-767-200 models were built and they are not stealthy by any means and could very well be tracked back to their initial takeoff locations even without transponders. Trying to get a B-767 into controlled airspace for a switch without a working transponder has its own set of problems. We flew 67 children last Saturday at McClellan airfield in Sacramento, California, and one of the things we had to be extra carefull for was to avoid the controlled airspaces around Sacramento International airport and Sacramento Executive airport. You do not dare attempt to enter controlled airspace without a working transponder or do so without authorization.

People think at a swtch could have been easily  performed, but there are ways that such a switch could have been easily revealed.

Quote

You must understand this basic fact has been explained to you many times and all you do now is repeat false impressions which the most cursory of research will reveal as misinformation.  You must understand that your argument (argument, not position) has no credibility with anyone on these boards.

I have been in aviation long enough to know what is disinformation and what is fact and I have visited P4T as well and noticed that they have been posting false and misleading information, which I have brought to the attention of other commercial, military, and private pilots, some who were surprised and unaware that there were people claiming aircraft were switched in flgiht. I was going to have Babe Ruth fly here and talk with those pilots personally and explain to them his position.

Needless to say, he would have gotten an earful from those pilots as well. They were not angry, just surprised!

Edited by skyeagle409, 16 April 2012 - 08:36 PM.