9/11 Intercepted

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
I'd like to get back on topic.

Yes, please, let's do.

Since neither of the Cpt'n Bob's are being forthcoming, we are having to take a shot in the dark on this. Figured a good place to start is at the time of the first/second transponder change. If you are going to swap a plane, that seems like a good time to do it.



As you can see, there are some prime candidates, but none resembling the one in the cartoon, so we may be looking at the wrong time frame. I don't know since the "tampering" with the RADES screen shot used in the cartoon seems to be a closely guarded secret. So, let's add the third dimension to this and see if we can catch those dastardly NWO guys at work.



Whoops, not even a close match in either the measured radar height or Mode C altitude values. Back to the drawing board I guess.

Data Worksheet

Throw us a bone here, we are trying to help you guys out. If those dastardly NWO guys pulled a swap then I would think it would be in everyone's interest to prove it, don't you? Why you guys being so resistant to us knowing how you "tampered" with the screen shots? Just give us the time of the swap or the M3 codes and we'll crack this thing right open. Data is a whole lot better than cartoons

Never mind, I found it. Mode 3 = 4072

Identification of plane:



Positional information:



Altitude information:



Better luck next time. You would think the pilots at P4T would do an altitude check before making such false assertions.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

Wrong. As usual. I'm referring to the alleged AA11, AA77, UA93 and UA175.

Do you know what the word alleged means? Of course you do, and by its use you are implying, and hoping others will infer, that there were no planes that crashed on 9/11/2001. Simply wonderful. I am sure thats going to get a new investigation.

reply to post by robbalsamo1


So, Rob - do you think there were planes that crashed on 9/11/2001 at the Pentagon, the World Trade center towers and near Shanksville, PA.?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Wrong. As usual. I'm referring to the alleged AA11, AA77, UA93 and UA175.

Do you know what the word alleged means? Of course you do, and by its use you are implying, and hoping others will infer, that there were no planes that crashed on 9/11/2001. Simply wonderful. I am sure thats going to get a new investigation.

No, let's not play with words when I've already clarified my position.

I'd like this statement of your clarified

So you get a call that says any one of thousands of planes in the air may be under the contol terrorist with the intent of crashing them.

Are you trying to say that the aircraft in question (better?) weren't identified, located on radar (at least for positional purposes) and deemed to have been allegedly hijacked within minutes of occurring? I'm not talking about the possibility of "thousands of planes" being a threat. I'm talking about at least 4 aircraft that the chain of command within the FAA and NORAD purposely stalled on in taking any action until after the deed was done.

911files

15 pages later and you just "realized" that your "manipulation" accusations are in reality the removal of irrelevant traffic and clutter and colour coding of relevant blips from a direct screen recording of the RS3 RADES program (recorded with a screen recording program). Got it.

So the positional tracks are correct according to you. Got it.

Thank you 911files for acknowledging that the data used in Rob's presentation hasn't been "tampered with"

Why not go to Rob's forum to iron out any other minor issues that you have about the alleged "altitude" of the planes as seen merging in the presentation? You're not banned from there as you well know.

What are you afraid of?

Here's an example of what Rob did (posted by researcher "Tume") which I believe shows the similar methods used to record the possible track of the Andrews fighters on 9/11

Use full screen for better results

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
I'd like to get back on topic.

Yes, please, let's do.

Since neither of the Cpt'n Bob's are being forthcoming, we are having to take a shot in the dark on this. Figured a good place to start is at the time of the first/second transponder change. If you are going to swap a plane, that seems like a good time to do it.

As you can see, there are some prime candidates, but none resembling the one in the cartoon, so we may be looking at the wrong time frame. I don't know since the "tampering" with the RADES screen shot used in the cartoon seems to be a closely guarded secret. So, let's add the third dimension to this and see if we can catch those dastardly NWO guys at work.

Whoops, not even a close match in either the measured radar height or Mode C altitude values. Back to the drawing board I guess.

Data Worksheet

Throw us a bone here, we are trying to help you guys out. If those dastardly NWO guys pulled a swap then I would think it would be in everyone's interest to prove it, don't you? Why you guys being so resistant to us knowing how you "tampered" with the screen shots? Just give us the time of the swap or the M3 codes and we'll crack this thing right open. Data is a whole lot better than cartoons

edit on 24-7-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

Ahem...

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


I like the way you have scrambled with several walls of distraction. Yes, P4T "tampered" with the 84 RADES output to create the impression of a plane swap. This occurred after implanting the possibility in the minds of the viewer by showing excerpts from Operation Mongoose where such a swap was proposed. If they did it using a plane (M3 = 4027) which was actually miles below UAL175 in altitude and not even a candidate for such a swap.

2a : to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse — definition

Either P4T was incompetent and did not check the altitude levels, or they deliberately falsified/mislead. Shame on you guys.

Now of course if the two tracks are UAL175 and UAL93 (just departing from EWR) and the suggestion is a plane swap between them (which of course is ridiculous on its face), I figured I would run that data as well. The closest they came to one another was 15 nautical miles (in 2D) during the minute 12:51 UTC.





Please note there is another good 12,000 foot separation between them in altitude.

Of course if it is UAL93 represented, the same charge stands since the cartoon has them "running together" by extending both tracks and increasing the size of the return icons, hiding the over 15 nautical mile separation.

So which case of tampering are you guys guilty of?


Of course, you understand we are still guessing at which filters and methodology you used to generate your "plane swap" cartoon. Not sure why it is such a closely guarded secret.


And no, I have no intention of either visiting or posting at the P4T forum. I was banned and told I was not welcome to post there. You have enough sock puppets and proxies here at ATS to adequately defend yourself and your little cartoon.


Oh, and how could I have forgotten. Here is the data behind the graphics.

UAL175 UAL93 Worksheet

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

I like the way you have scrambled with several walls of distraction. Yes, P4T "tampered" with the 84 RADES output to create the impression of a plane swap. This occurred after implanting the possibility in the minds of the viewer by showing excerpts from Operation Mongoose where such a swap was proposed. They did it using a plane (M3 = 4027) which was actually miles below UAL175 in altitude and not even a candidate for such a swap.

2a : to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse — definition

Either P4T was incompetent and did not check the altitude levels, or they deliberately falsified/mislead. Shame on you guys.

edit on 24-7-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

Yes, let's redefine what you originally claimed about Rob Balsamo "manipulating" the actual data to "insinuation" when nothing of the sort was done. Talk about trying to save face! Don't say I didn't give you the oppurtunity to do so a few posts back.

Manipulate:
3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.

Where's the "manipulation" in the presentation? Here's a snippet of the area in question:



In a conversation with Colin Scoggins Rob raised this section of his presentation

how many times have you observed two eastbound aircraft, both from a different path, converge and then turn almost 180 degrees westbound - at the same exact time - converging with two other opposite direction westbound aircraft (one of which happened to be allegedly UA93 and another which converged with UA175 earlier).. then stick with and overlap those aircraft in formation... then diverge?

Rob Balsamo

You're really clutching at straws here 911files. You owe Rob Balsamo an apology (one of many).

Man up.

I was banned and told I was not welcome to post there. You have enough sock puppets and proxies here at ATS to adequately defend yourself and your little cartoon.

Lie upon lie...you're a masochist man!

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

how many times have you observed two eastbound aircraft, both from a different path, converge and then turn almost 180 degrees westbound - at the same exact time - converging with two other opposite direction westbound aircraft (one of which happened to be allegedly UA93 and another which converged with UA175 earlier).. then stick with and overlap those aircraft in formation... then diverge?

Rob Balsamo

You're really clutching at straws here 911files. You owe Rob Balsamo an apology (one of many).

Man up.

And we still have not. What Cpt'n Bob described above did not happen. It only happened because he "tampered" with the screen shots. Rob Balsamo can kiss my grits. You cannot produce data to support anything, just cartoons created from misleading screen captures "tampered" with to show something that did not happen.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

I was banned and told I was not welcome to post there. You have enough sock puppets and proxies here at ATS to adequately defend yourself and your little cartoon.

Lie upon lie...you're a masochist man!

How can you guys publicly lie so much? Sounds pathological to me. You can post all the cartoons you want, lie all you want, the data tells another story.

You're done man. Send the next one in.

I want to talk with the alleged "patriots" here about "protocol" and how the 9/11 attacks were enabled.

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF
INSTRUCTION

J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A
DISTRIBUTION: A, B, C, J, S 1 June 2001
AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT
AIRBORNE OBJECTS
References: See Enclosure D.

4. Policy.

a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal point within Department of Defense for providing assistance.
In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional guidance is provided in Enclosure A.

d. DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to
Civil Authorities”

www.dtic.mil...

Department of Defense
DIRECTIVE

NUMBER 3025.15
February 18, 1997

SUBJECT: Military Assistance to Civil Authorities

4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)). Civil authorities shall be informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request.
As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities' written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon as it is available.

REFERENCES

(g) DoD Directive 3025.1, "Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA)," January 15,
1993

www.dtic.mil...

Department of Defense
DIRECTIVE
NUMBER 3025.1
January 15, 1993
USD(P)
SUBJECT: Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA)

4.5. Immediate Response

4.5.1. Imminently serious conditions resulting from any civil emergency or
attack may require immediate action by military commanders, or by responsible officials of other DoD Agencies, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage. When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters, local military commanders and responsible officials of other DoD Components are authorized by this Directive, subject to any supplemental direction that may be provided by their DoD Component, to take necessary action to respond to requests of civil authorities. All such necessary action is referred to in this Directive as "Immediate Response."

www.dtic.mil...

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


This movie was uploaded about a year ago. What is the reason for bring this topic up? It seems to be more a promotion for a certain website than a factual discussion.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Boob,

Your posts are falling on deaf ears. 99% of the truthers are on to you. 100% of the rest of the world have been for years.

Your failing to respond to Mr. Farmer speaks volumes.

Additional socks to Boobs rescue in... 5.....4.....3....2....

No, us 'truthers' are onto you and John Farmer!

Pilots for truth have got you running scared, that is why you can only resort to ridicule, you are no match for their data.