The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

[booNyzarC]

UA93 claims debunked? I haven't had time to go through this in great detail, but I thought people might be interested in viewing this particular bit of information from Warren...

Cheers.

And a hearty salute from me to you Warren, should you happen upon this post for any reason.

[Czero 101]

UA93 claims debunked? I haven't had time to go through this in great detail, but I thought people might be interested in viewing this particular bit of information from Warren...

I think the post deserves to be re-posted here in its entirety, just in case Rob "Ad Hominem attacks are all I know how to do" Balsamo decides to get all uppity once again and delete it.

Hi,

There is a file (1369kB PDF) that has been released under FOIA and that contains details of the ACARS messages to and from flights AAL11, UAL93 and AAL77.

Here is a screen shot of the file showing the message with ACARS message ID 0658 in the printout P4T have been working from and referenced as message #14 in the Michael J. Winter interview with the FBI that P4T has asserted was transmitted from the TOL RGS station. I have added highlights:

In the screen shot there are 3 blocks of information separated by blank lines. In the first line of each block there is a word which I have highlighted in red indicating the type of data in the block. The first block has the type ULMSG which is an ACARS message as received from the airline to be transmitted to the aircraft. The second block has the type ULBLK which is an ACARS message as transmitted to the aircraft. The third block has the type DLBLK which is an ACARS message as received from the aircraft.

In the first block we can see TOL which I have highlighted in blue which P4T has asserted is the RGS station through which the ACARS message was transmitted to the aircraft.

In the second and third blocks we can see PIT which I have highlighted in green and is the actual RGS station through which the ACARS message was transmitted to the aircraft in the second block and an ACARS message from the aircraft acknowledging receipt of the ACARS message from the airline was received from the aircraft in the third block.

Therefore despite the testimony of Ed Ballinger and Michael J. Winter, we can see that although the ACARS message from the airline was supposed to be transmitted through the TOL RGS station, it was actually transmitted through the PIT RGS station.

Also the file shows that there are no type DLBLK blocks and therefore no ACARS messages received from UAL93 after the official time of the crash.

Warren.

In short, what Warren is presenting is evidence from what appears to be the ACARS log from ARINC. In it we see the message as received from the message originator (Ballinger in most cases) by the DSP / CPS, the message after it has been reformatted for uplinking, and then the acknowledgement message from the aircraft.

What this shows is that when the message was sent from UA to ARINC's system, it was configured to use the TOL (Toledo) RGS location as its "Target Stn" (Target Station, or Target RGS). In other words, when Ballinger sent the message, there was an assumption - perhaps "prediction" is a better term - made somewhere on his end that the aircraft would be near the Toledo RGS location. How this prediction was arrived at we don't yet know, but it strongly suggests that the aircraft's original flight plan may have been used in some way.

However, when the message was formatted for uplink, we see the station chosen by the DSP / CPS was the PIT (Pittsburgh) RGS. How this determination was made by the DSP is not yet known, but a fair assumption to make is that it most likely has to do with the "media advisory" or tracking messages or last known location information previously mentioned.

This definitely has some very interesting implications, and will definitely require a bit more research.

ETA...

At the very least, one can now say that the original FOIA ACARS log from Ballinger's printer is even more incomplete than previously assumed. It seemingly only shows the messages as he sent them from his desk, and is not necessarily completely representative of what the DSP / CPS sent, or attempted to send, to the aircraft.

Unfortunately this file does not seem to contain any of the messages sent to UA175, or at the very least, a cursory text search of the document produces no results.

Cz

Edited December 14, 2011 by Czero 101

[skyeagle409]

They're both important in the sense that both Ballinger and any techies in charge of the underlying system would want to know why Ballinger's messages weren't received by the aircraft. But unlike any potential techies, Ballinger can't spend precious time figuring out what went wrong from a technical standpoint; he's got live aircraft in the skies that he's got to look after, and so instead of trying to figure out exactly what went wrong, he's got to make quick decisions. The decisions he made on that day exemplify this; he repeatedly tried to get in touch with UA 175. After repeated attempts, he determined that it was probably hijacked.

Repeated attempts were made, but unsucessful, and here is another reason why.

Statement of United Airlines about its two plane crashes:

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

11:17 AM: United Airlines confirms the loss of Flight 93 and states that it is "deeply concerned" about Flight 175.

11:53 AM: United Airlines confirms the loss of its two airplanes.

My link

[Scott G]

Have you found any evidence whatsoever that any of Ballinger's ACARS messages were truncated in any way?

Yes. The simple fact that the DSP / CPS will send two separate acknowledgement messages back for each successful uplink message it receives proves that the ACARS listing we are seeing in the FOIA document is not a full and complete listing of the ACARS messages sent and received that day, and is not the full ACARS message log that Knerr and Winter used for their audits.

I think you're mistaken, but I'm bringing it up over at PFT to see what they have to say on this.

Scott... please read the documentation provided so far. It is very clearly set out that the acknowledgement / failure messages are separate messages from the DSP / CPS, not part of the message being set to / from the aircraft.

Please take note of item 2 and item 7 highlighted above. They represent separate, individual messages.

A lot of terminology in that diagram that I don't understand. I'm not sure what MAS or LDS mean, guessing that CRC is stands for Cyclic Redundancy Check. That being said, what's this about "seperate, individual messages"? Looks to me like number 2 would be the sent (from the dispatcher to the aircraft) time stamp and number 7 would be the received (from the aircraft) time stamp.

And even IF the timestamps were added to and became part of the uplink message itself, the only limit that is imposed by he ARINC / ACARS protocols is that messages longer than 220 characters are split into block of up to 220 characters. Each block then becomes an individual transmission. Theoretically, someone could send a novel as an ACARS message, but it would be split up in to blocks of up to 220 characters and take a very long time to transmit and be very susceptible to errors because of that length.

Which was my point.

Let's see if and how you answer the above questions. I think at that point, it'll be clear who's on tenuous footing here.

Seems clear to me that the person who hasn't read (or perhaps hasn't understood) the documentation provided, and then tries to make a point based on nothing but his own opinion and an "if I ran the zoo" scenario is the one on tenuous footing. Simply relying on Balsamo et al to spoon-feed you the answers is certainly not doing you the good you seem to think it is.

I get information from Balsamo and other members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth because some of them clearly -did- 'run the zoo'; Balsamo himself was a commercial airline pilot and who knows, perhaps there's even a dispatcher amoung them (would ofcourse be awesome if there was a UA dispatcher amoung them, time will tell), but clearly I still need to understand it to truly make it my view. This process of understanding it all isn't can sometimes take some time, but I definitely think it's better then trying to learn it all through reading pdfs and such alone. I think I'll bring up some of the points in your post to confirm my interpretations, but I think I'm on the right track.

[Scott G]

In short, what Warren...

...really needs is a lot of help from Pilots for 9/11 Truth to understand what he's talking about. Balsamo's responded to the message you're referring, and pointed out a bunch of mistakes he's made, both in previous claims of his, as well as his current one. Balsamo debunked his post:

"..by the way, next time highlight the full text, "PITC6", this may give you a clue as to why Ed and Michael work(ed) for United Dispatch, and you do not. "PITC6" is not "PIT". The message you refer to was routed through TOL as stated by those who received a paycheck from United for this very purpose, ability to read an ACARS, among others. The above message was routed through CMI 7 mins after [and 500 miles away from] the alleged crash, and "activated an audible signal in the aircraft" as stated by Winter."

I added the 500 miles bit, Balsamo mentioned it earlier in his post.

[skyeagle409]

...really needs is a lot of help from Pilots for 9/11 Truth to understand what he's talking about. Balsamo's responded to the message you're referring, and pointed out a bunch of mistakes he's made, both in previous claims of his, as well as his current one. Balsamo debunked his post:

"..by the way, next time highlight the full text, "PITC6", this may give you a clue as to why Ed and Michael work(ed) for United Dispatch, and you do not. "PITC6" is not "PIT". The message you refer to was routed through TOL as stated by those who received a paycheck from United for this very purpose, ability to read an ACARS, among others. The above message was routed through CMI 7 mins after [and 500 miles away from] the alleged crash, and "activated an audible signal in the aircraft" as stated by Winter."

I added the 500 miles bit, Balsamo mentioned it earlier in his post.

Scott, I visited your link and read post #2. What does it say about ground stations and flight plans in regards to routing purposes?

[Scott G]

Scott, I visited your link and read post #2. What does it say about ground stations and flight plans in regards to routing purposes?

You mean Aldo's post quoting JREF?

[skyeagle409]

You mean Aldo's post quoting JREF?

Yes, that is the one. Last Saturday, we had our Christmas party at the Nut Tree airport, and our group consist of military, airline, and private pilots. I brought up ACARS, to a couple of members of our group, both airline pilots, one of whom checked me out in a Piper Cub, and the other, has served with me in the Air Force.

An interesting note, the second time stamp is the time the message was sent by the provider, not an indication the aircraft received the message. We can relate that to Mr. Ballinger's ACARS message to United 93 where he received a response. He sent his message to United 93 at 9:23, and the message was relayed to the aircraft at 9:24, which is shown on the ACARS message, but Mr. Ballinger didn't receive a response from United 93 until 9:26.

At 9:26 a.m. Ballinger received a response to his 9:23 a.m. ACARS message to Flight 93 (which was transmitted byAIRINC at 9:24 a.m.):

My Link

Now, look on page 14, on the following link and note both time stamps in the message sent to United 93, one for 9:23, and the second time stamp of 9:24, and remember, Mr. Ballinger didn't receive a response from United 93 until 9:26.

United 93 MESSAGE, Page 14

That explains the two time stamps for United 175 at 9:23, eventhough the aircraft crashed at 9:03. The first time stamp is when Mr. Ballinger sent the message, and the second time stamp is when his message was relayed to United 175, which did not respond, either to the 9:03 or the 9:23 messages because it had crashed in New York City 20 minutes before the last message was sent.

Also on page 14, you can read where United Airlines confirmed that United 175 had crashed.

Edited December 14, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Edited December 14, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Czero 101]

I'm not at my computer at the moment (postinf from my iPhone right now) so I won't be able to provide specific document quotes, but I will answer a few points:

I think you're mistaken, but I'm bringing it up over at PFT to see what they have to say on this.

Your time would be better served actually reading the documentation and developing an understanding on your own, but that's just my opinion.

A lot of terminology in that diagram that I don't understand. I'm not sure what MAS or LDS mean, guessing that CRC is stands for Cyclic Redundancy Check. That being said, what's this about "seperate, individual messages"? Looks to me like number 2 would be the sent (from the dispatcher to the aircraft) time stamp and number 7 would be the received (from the aircraft) time stamp.

The terminology is defined in the documentation.

Your correct on CRC.

MAS, if memory serves (I will double check the specific acronym later) refers to the Message Assurance System, which is part of the "guaranteed message delivery" that ARINC promises with their service. This is the way it let's the message originator know that a message was received.

LDU (not LDS) is the acronym for Linear Data Unit.

As for separate individual messages, what part of "SP sends message ACK to ATC" and "SP sends MAS to ATC" us unclear to you...?

SP refers to the Service Provider, or DSP, which in this case is ARINC.

ACK is the abbreviation for Acknowledgement.

MAS has been defined above.

ATC means Air Traffic Control, which refers to the message originator.

Which was my point.

Perhaps we are adressing the same issue from different angles, but it appeared to me that your point was that adding a time stamp to a message would reduce the amount of space for the free text portion of the messages sent between the ground and the aircraft. I showed you that this was not the case by explaining that longer messages are handled by splitting the message into smaller blocks and would have no effect on the amount of text that could be sent. Your appatent misunderstanding of this is yet another clear indication that you should really invest some time in reading the documentation so that you can resolve these fundamental misunderstandings.

The bottom line here though is that the documentation that you seem to actively refuse to read for yourself clearly indicates that the ACK messages are separate individual messages and are not added to the original message.

I get information from Balsamo and other members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth because some of them clearly -did- 'run the zoo'; Balsamo himself was a commercial airline pilot and who knows, perhaps there's even a dispatcher amoung them (would ofcourse be awesome if there was a UA dispatcher amoung them, time will tell), but clearly I still need to understand it to truly make it my view. This process of understanding it all isn't can sometimes take some time, but I definitely think it's better then trying to learn it all through reading pdfs and such alone. I think I'll bring up some of the points in your post to confirm my interpretations, but I think I'm on the right track.

Well, if you prefer taking the (imo) "lazy" route and have someone continue to spoon-feed you the information, rather that investing the time to read the documentation provided for you, that's your choice. The amount of mistakes you've made and fundamentals you seem to not have a grasp on thus far would indicate that your way isn't working so well for you up til now.

Cz

[booNyzarC]

...really needs is a lot of help from Pilots for 9/11 Truth to understand what he's talking about. Balsamo's responded to the message you're referring, and pointed out a bunch of mistakes he's made, both in previous claims of his, as well as his current one. Balsamo debunked his post:

"..by the way, next time highlight the full text, "PITC6", this may give you a clue as to why Ed and Michael work(ed) for United Dispatch, and you do not. "PITC6" is not "PIT". The message you refer to was routed through TOL as stated by those who received a paycheck from United for this very purpose, ability to read an ACARS, among others. The above message was routed through CMI 7 mins after [and 500 miles away from] the alleged crash, and "activated an audible signal in the aircraft" as stated by Winter."

I added the 500 miles bit, Balsamo mentioned it earlier in his post.

I still haven't taken the time to go through all of this in detail, but I highly doubt if Balsamo debunked Warren's post.

I find it funny that he decided to muzzle Warren though. Very similar to what he did with Q24 actually. He didn't like the information coming out and so removed the posts in question claiming that it was disinformation. Shouldn't he be able to adequately refute said disinformation if it really is wrong instead of censoring it?

My bet? He wants the ambiguity to remain for as long as possible in the hopes that more poor unsuspecting souls might buy one or more of his DVDs. Just a guess on my part though...

[Q24]

My bet? He wants the ambiguity to remain for as long as possible in the hopes that more poor unsuspecting souls might buy one or more of his DVDs. Just a guess on my part though...

For a number of reasons, I honestly think there’s more to it than that.

COINTELPRO

If not, it must be said the objectives of such a program are at least brilliantly imitated here.

As they say, “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck…”

Pilots for 9/11 ‘Truth’ are not to be trusted… that’s coming from someone who entirely buys into an inside job.

[bee]

Pilots for 9/11 ‘Truth’ are not to be trusted… that’s coming from someone who entirely buys into an inside job.

what do you think their motives are then? If they're not to be trusted...

[booNyzarC]

what do you think their motives are then? If they're not to be trusted...

$$$$$

[booNyzarC]

...really needs is a lot of help from Pilots for 9/11 Truth to understand what he's talking about. Balsamo's responded to the message you're referring, and pointed out a bunch of mistakes he's made, both in previous claims of his, as well as his current one. Balsamo debunked his post:

"..by the way, next time highlight the full text, "PITC6", this may give you a clue as to why Ed and Michael work(ed) for United Dispatch, and you do not. "PITC6" is not "PIT". The message you refer to was routed through TOL as stated by those who received a paycheck from United for this very purpose, ability to read an ACARS, among others. The above message was routed through CMI 7 mins after [and 500 miles away from] the alleged crash, and "activated an audible signal in the aircraft" as stated by Winter."

I added the 500 miles bit, Balsamo mentioned it earlier in his post.

So I took a bit of a closer look at Warren's posts and Balsamo's retorts. Scott, Balsamo hasn't even come close to debunking Warren's information. Don't let him trick you into thinking that he has debunked anything here. Just look at the arguments he's offering in response and his suppression of Warren's ability to continue explaining by muzzling him.

He brings up the "activated an audible signal in the aircraft" portion of Winter's statement.

Tell me Scott, what do you think this means exactly? Do you think that it means that a bell actually rang in the cockpit? Or that the message format includes a command which should ring a bell when/if the message is received? Cz mentioned this point to me in a PM and I think I'll let him explain this part to you because I think he organizes his posts better than I do in general.

His other point is regarding other RGS stations which apparently also received the DLBLK. Supposing they did receive it, those RGS locations certainly aren't outside of range for receiving the transmissions. This isn't surprising when you consider that the VHF transmission from the aircraft are omnidirectional (meaning, they are sent in all directions).

This documentation provided by Warren really does open up a lot of insight into the mechanics of routing and message transmissions. Cz made a very good point in his post that it appears as though the airline sends a target RGS along with it's message to the DSP. It appears as though this RGS is the one that we've been referring to as the routed RGS in previous discussions, and I agree with Cz that it looks a lot like this is based on the original flight plan.

There is a lot more to look into I think, but the point is that Balsamo hasn't even come close to debunking the information presented. On the contrary, the information presented by Warren appears to confirm that Balsamo has been wrong all along.

[Q24]

what do you think their motives are then? If they're not to be trusted...

Please read the link.

$$$$$

Except the videos are available online for free.

And here’s another point that gets me - there is enough genuine information out there to make a factual yet equally controversial documentary. It is not necessary to fill a video with false claims to sell a DVD. There is no doubt in my mind that those producing the videos know full well some of their claims are false – they ain’t stupid, they know.

Would you put in five years of non-stop work selling your soul in deceiving thousands of people and risk being exposed as a most despicable fraud to make what must be a modest amount of money?

We need to understand this in context of the bigger picture. By 2006 the truth movement was at full steam, public awareness was on the increase, prominent individuals were flooding forward to speak out, Time magazine that year described it as, “a mainstream political reality”. It was going well. Then came a major counter offensive…

By the end of 2006, President Bush had come out with a strange statement to cover their backs should the WTC demolition come out. Former Bush administration official Morgan Reynolds had succeeded in splitting Scholars for 9/11 Truth with his Directed Energy Weapon theory (what odds Bush’s chief economist coming up with this). And… the same year… Pilots for 9/11 Truth were founded.

What coincidence the only two truth movement cases which have got near a court happen to be the ridiculous Directed Energy Weapons and Pentagon flyover. Except they are not genuine and/or agreed upon truth movement positions at all.

They do however discredit the truth movement to the wider audience.

They do cause infighting and disruption within the truth movement.

They do give skeptics something to get their teeth into and reason to ignore more difficult areas.

They do distract genuine researchers from their course.

Notice how this board is now talking about planes still in the air after the crashes and no impact theories (a complete diversion from genuine evidence of inside complicity). Notice how genuine and pressing evidence regarding issues such as the intelligence actions have been left by the wayside.

That is COINTELPRO at its best: “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize”.

Click the link - these programs are very real.

[booNyzarC]

Are you saying that you think Balsamo and crew are part of the government coverup?

[Q24]

Are you saying that you think Balsamo and crew are part of the government coverup?

I’m saying that previous counter intelligence programs are on record. I’m saying that numerous troublesome political groups have been on the receiving end. I’m saying that the truth movment is a form of political movement. I’m saying the actions of some individuals who claim to be a part of the truth movement are having an effect that happens to be exactly the objective of such counter intelligence programs.

9/11 does not have to be a false flag for this to be true. Even if the attack were solely down to bin Laden and nineteen terrorists, the truth movement is damaging to the current U.S. establishment; it harms domestic and foreign credibility of the U.S. government. I’m suggesting that neutralizing such a movement would be precisely the reason these type of counter intelligence programs exist.

I mean come on… Bush’s chief economist for the Department of Labour comes up with… Directed Energy Weapons (basically space lasers which brought down the WTC buildings) and uses this to discredit and divide the largest truth movement group at the time.

You think he’s for real? Or that he believes what he’s saying? Or that he wants to make money out of it? Or that he really thought it would be a success in court?

Not a chance – it’s deliberate disruption.

I don’t believe Morgan Reynolds is the extent of it…

There are genuine questions about the 9/11 aircraft and they are being trashed by association with false claims.

To your question – I think it very possible leading members are on a payroll (not from DVD sales).

[booNyzarC]

Could be I suppose, but that's not the impression I get from Balsamo. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he makes a ton of money on his DVD sales, but I do think that he's trying to push those sales as much as possible. Your other points aren't lost on me, but just because it seems suspicious doesn't mean that it actually is what you think it might be.

Back to Balsamo and crew... Is P4T a non profit? Aren't non profits legally required to publish their income tax forms if requested? I wonder if anyone has ever asked Rob for that...

[skyeagle409]

I get information from Balsamo and other members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth because some of them clearly -did- 'run the zoo'; Balsamo himself was a commercial airline pilot and who knows, perhaps there's even a dispatcher amoung them (would ofcourse be awesome if there was a UA dispatcher amoung them, time will tell), but clearly I still need to understand it to truly make it my view.

After what I have read, I have come to the conclusion that Balsamo is NOT a commercial pilot at all.

After talking to airline pilots in my group who have used ACARS, it is clear that Balsamo does not understand the true workings of ACARS. I have never used ACARS in my flying experience, but those who have, have contradicted what Balsamo has claimed. In other words, Balsamo is just parroting disinformation and misinformation and his messages has nothing to do with ACARS experience in the real world of commercial aviation.

[AdealJustice]

just for adding to motives list ( that it is a false flag). It was used to justify iraq ivnasion, and increased military presence in mid east and south asia. furthermore is it by chance the plane ( or missile) that hit the pentagon hit the one side that was being repaired and no real damage was done? The physics of it make no sense and here i see people are talking about plane technicalities. I think were in denial. False flag attacks happen. if every country is evil why is the U.S any different? Lusitania sank even though the warnings were out for several weeks to avoid going into those waters, yet intentionally it was done to join a WW, then Pearl harbour was done, knowingly from warnings from other nations that were sent several weeks before the attack. Interestingly the corporations and valuable cargo was moved and it was seen strictly as an attack on America yet it was far more profitable to America to enter the war, also the bankers made alot of money. oil companies? We can see the gulf of tonkin incidence aswell..... made up b.s. It obvious enough. just my thoughts.

just for adding to motives list ( that it is a false flag). It was used to justify iraq ivnasion, and increased military presence in mid east and south asia. furthermore is it by chance the plane ( or missile) that hit the pentagon hit the one side that was being repaired and no real damage was done? The physics of it make no sense and here i see people are talking about plane technicalities. I think were in denial. False flag attacks happen. if every country is evil why is the U.S any different? Lusitania sank even though the warnings were out for several weeks to avoid going into those waters, yet intentionally it was done to join a WW, then Pearl harbour was done, knowingly from warnings from other nations that were sent several weeks before the attack. Interestingly the corporations and valuable cargo was moved and it was seen strictly as an attack on America yet it was far more profitable to America to enter the war, also the bankers made alot of money. oil companies? We can see the gulf of tonkin incidence aswell..... made up b.s. It obvious enough. just my thoughts.

[booNyzarC]

After what I have read, I have come to the conclusion that Balsamo is NOT a commercial pilot at all.

I've looked into it skyeagle. He was a commercial pilot (or co-pilot as the case may have been). I don't think he is any longer, but he was. He's posted this picture of himself on his web site:

That much is confirmed anyway.

After talking to airline pilots in my group who have used ACARS, it is clear that Balsamo does not understand the true workings of ACARS. I have never used ACARS in my flying experience, but those who have, have contradicted what Balsamo has claimed. In other words, Balsamo is just parroting disinformation and misinformation and his messages has nothing to do with ACARS experience in the real world of commercial aviation.

This I mostly agree with. He doesn't have as solid of an understanding regarding ACARS as he would like the general public to believe. I'm not a pilot, commercial or otherwise, and I'm confident that I have a better understanding of ACARS than he does after researching for just a few weeks.

[skyeagle409]

I've looked into it skyeagle. He was a commercial pilot (or co-pilot as the case may have been). I don't think he is any longer, but he was. He's posted this picture of himself on his web site:

That much is confirmed anyway.

This I mostly agree with. He doesn't have as solid of an understanding regarding ACARS as he would like the general public to believe. I'm not a pilot, commercial or otherwise, and I'm confident that I have a better understanding of ACARS than he does after researching for just a few weeks.

Thanks, BooN! I was having doubts about him because of what other airline pilots were saying.

[Obviousman]

No, he was a commercial pilot. He's never flown heavys, IIRC. He's also got an unenviable record on the internet forums, known for shutting down discussion on anything he dislikes and making threats towards people... including people who were on his side.

[Q24]

Could be I suppose, but that's not the impression I get from Balsamo. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he makes a ton of money on his DVD sales, but I do think that he's trying to push those sales as much as possible. Your other points aren't lost on me, but just because it seems suspicious doesn't mean that it actually is what you think it might be.

It is not the impression I would get either, looking at the individual. Yet the whole basis of an agent provocateur is exactly to give a false impression – to appear as something they are not. The very nature of the role suggests it would be difficult to detect based on impressions alone. It is more the evident and damaging results of the actions which are suggestive. These people destroy the truth movement from within.

They could have made a full length video about the Northwoods plane swap and staged crashes/shoot downs, intelligence owned airlines, Boeing remote guidance technology, non-identification of the 9/11 planes, the manoeuvres involved, the inept hijackers, the failed air defense response, gagging of ATC, lack of investigation, included testimony from pilots and much more. It would all have been entirely truthful, thought-provoking and could sell with a bold headline statement.

But no, they chose to promote as proven fact a new and ridiculous theory that the plane flew over the Pentagon, with a hell of a lot of work put into deliberately biased analysis, obviously selective eyewitness testimony and numerous non-starters like this ACARS subject. That was not necessary to selling DVDs.

And another point that bothers… at the same time as pushing the above theory, leading members of the group have set out to disprove the Flight 93 shoot down. That is incongruent with the long held truth movement position. They are going against all that the evidence suggests in both directions - first to promote nonsense and then to discredit the reasonable.

It is the same as Morgan Reynolds did. He split Scholars for 9/11 Truth. And now we have an information war between scholars and the pilots groups causing further divide. It is a war the latter are winning for they only need disrupt and discredit by association, not ever prove their case.

The skeptics understandably have a field day with it and those who are open to the truth are led astray becoming irrelevant.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Q24