9/11 Intercepted

Originally posted by thegameisupNo, 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.

I'm still waiting for your data Cpt'n Bob to support your cartoons. I give you data and facts, all I get in return is ridicule and cartoons. I have only addressed one aspect of the RADES screen capture "tampering" so far, just one. Shall I continue?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Man up.

So what is the closest distance another aircraft got to any one of the hijacked aircraft, including altitude distance ?

Why do the radar returns in your cartoon look like the US was attacked by a giant centipede on Sept 11 ?

Do radar returns normally look like that ?

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by thegameisupNo, 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.

I'm still waiting for your data Cpt'n Bob to support your cartoons. I give you data and facts, all I get in return is ridicule and cartoons. I have only addressed one aspect of the RADES screen capture "tampering" so far, just one. Shall I continue?

Continue? You're finished!

You've just admitted that the "manipulation" accusations were fake. The video I posted shows that you're a liar and have waste, what, 16 pages?

I have to laugh every time you mention the word "cartoon" when I see your efforts at doing exactly what Rob has done making a screen capture of the data. Only you do it badly



The above video is under 911files other persona "spcengineer"

The "spcengineer" name is also registered at this forum

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Apart from being against the rules (surprise, surprise that another GL can do whatever the hell he wants here), it shows the hypocrisy of the guy every time he utters the word "sock"

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by waypastvne

Do radar returns normally look like that ?

Actually Colin Scoggins would be the "expert" on that. Sadly though, they are too busy calling him a liar instead of actually learning something from someone who was there.

Actually, Scoggins was very evasive and had "memory problems" when Rob posted recordings of exactly what he said on 9/11.

The conversation can be read starting here:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Decide for yourselves. Guess what? Just like the other GL cowards here he ran away. At least he had the cojones to post at the forum. Difference is that at Pilotsfor911Truth, childish, halfarsed JREFian type two-liners aren't tolerated as a form of "debate". You will be found out.

That's why Mr Scoggins split and John Farmer lies about being banned. What are the excuses of other GLs here?

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by thegameisupNo, 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.

I have only addressed one aspect of the RADES screen capture "tampering" so far, just one. Shall I continue?

No, you haven't. You made an accusation that you've pulled back on.

Irrelevant clutter and traffic was removed. Stated in the presentation.

Colour codes were used to identify aircraft. Stated in the presentation.

The tracks match the data



All you have is spin.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminerYou've just admitted that the "manipulation" accusations were fake. The video I posted shows that you're a liar and have waste, what, 16 pages?

No sir, I never accused anyone of "manipulation", I accused them of "tampering" with the screenshots. They extend the histories on the tracks and increased the size of the targets to make it appear that the two tracks merged. In truth, the tracks did not merge.

Stay tuned.

And FYI, yes I was banned from posting at P4T forum. Regardless of how many times you jump up and down and lie about it Cpt'n Bob. I shall not return.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
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...

Bump

I'm done pandering to 911files' drip, drip, drip build up to falling flat on his face while not having the stones to confront Rob Balsamo himself. I'm not a "sock". Each time I answer his drivel, I'm accused of being a "sock". So what's the point?

I'm moving on.

See the protocol on hijackings and "immediate response" posted above? Why wasn't any of it followed on 9/11?
Any "patriots" here like to have a first stab?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

See the protocol on hijackings and "immediate response" posted above? Why wasn't any of it followed on 9/11?

It was. Prove it wasn't. You can't. There was an immeadiate response.

reply to post by hooper


Sorry but there was not at all a immediate response ...i have listened to hours and hours and hours of norad tapes from the day....there was so much confusion....One of the best remarks was there is so much Real life goping on during exercises....there was confusion right from the start...and you know it hooper...why lie.....remember according to the OS we are the liars....so get with the program.

Leave the lying to the professionals...We the truthers are the ones acused so if your going to lie...why not changes sides and come on over to the truth because you have told us enough that the truth =lies.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by hooper

 

Sorry but there was not at all a ommediate response ...i have listened to hours and hours and hours of norad tapes from the day....there was so much confusion....One of the best remarks was there is so much Real life goping on during exercises....there was confusion right from the start...and you know it hooper...why lie.....remember according to the OS we are the liars....so get with the program.

Leave the lying to the professionals...We the truthers are the ones acused so if your going to lie...why not changes sides and come on over to the truth because you have told us enough that the truth =lies.

So on these "hours and hours" of NORAD tapes, they were talking about the hijacked planes - correct? That is an immeadiate response. Sorry. And by the way, there wasn't confusion caused by exercises, one officer asked during the response if it was real life or exercise - something they ask all the time - and the answer was given immeadiately that it was real life - total "confusion" time was a matter of seconds. Not that it matters, the people respond the same either way, that is the reason for exercises - so that when the real thing comes along you act accordinlgy. When the fire alram goes off in the office do you act differently depending on whether you think its a drill?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

See the protocol on hijackings and "immediate response" posted above? Why wasn't any of it followed on 9/11?

It was. Prove it wasn't. You can't. There was an immeadiate response.

Really? At what point? I'll stick to what you supposedly go by. The OCT.

Here?

i1067.photobucket.com...

That was the alleged point where "AA11" stopped responding at 08:16am.

Fair enough, maybe they thought there were technical difficulties.

How about at 08:19am?

Quoted from the Massauoi trial..

At 8:19 a.m., a flight attendant on board Flight 11 contacted the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Office in Cary, North Carolina by air-telephone to report an emergency aboard the flight. The flight attendant, Betty Ong, stated, "The cockpit's not answering, somebody's been stabbed,in business class and . . . I think there's mace . . . that we can't breathe . . . I don't know, I think we're getting hijacked." Ms. Ong's air-telephone call with the Reservations Office lasted approximately 25 minutes, until 8:44 a.m., the approximate time of Flight 11's collision into the North Tower.

A "stabbing" can't be confused with anything but a stabbing. The alleged call was said to have lasted for the entire duration.
The cockpit wasn't "answering". "Mace". The actual word "hijacked".

Couple that with ATC not getting a response. Within how long should somebody have done something?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
You're not banned 911files.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jesus...

edit on 25-7-2012 by ThePostExaminer because: (no reason given)

An update..

pilotsfor911truth.org...

By request, I revised the graphs and plotted 4 relevant aircraft.

1) UAL175 - Red
2) UAL93 - Yellow
3) BTA4369 - Blue
4) Midex 7 (Touching History fame) - Aqua

The scales are in nautical miles (distance from radar site in x,y) and the altitude (z vector) in feet is added to the targets annotation.

The data worksheet can be downloaded here.

The ARSR sweeps once every ~12 seconds. I plotted the data into 15 second segments ending at the time indicated on the plot time stamp. With these I aligned and added the ZNY R42 audio for the same time period (adjusting for the ~25 second offset found in the NEADS time stamp).

In other words, I made my own cartoon. Distances from each aircraft at any given time can be estimated via the x, y scales and altitude annotations.



Okay Cpt'n Bob, don't see any "swapping" going on. I showed you my data and methodology, now show me yours.

Cross-posted at JREF

reply to post by hooper


Are you seriously saying because they are talking action has been taking place....why not go read the transcripts from just one of the tapes.....

Neadsconrnorad-Fdr-Transcript-Neads-Cha nnel-2-Mcc-Upside

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

Within how long should somebody have done something?

Betty Ong's call started in 8:19AM. Two pilots were getting suited up and heading to their F-15's by 8:34. Thats 900 seconds between the first affirmative indication of a hijacking to the pilots preparing for take off.

No, that not an immeadiate response.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


you know what is interesting here...she says mace(she thinks)..then she says...we can't breath...well for not breathing well she apparently handles the call quite well.



also where is the external aircraft noise....I have been on many flights...quietest aircraft i have ever heard.

where is the whine of the engines...especially since this plane is apparently flying full out....Is it just me or does that seem a bit strange.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

See the protocol on hijackings and "immediate response" posted above? Why wasn't any of it followed on 9/11?

It was. Prove it wasn't. You can't. There was an immeadiate response.

Really? At what point? I'll stick to what you supposedly go by. The OCT.

Here?

i1067.photobucket.com...

That was the alleged point where "AA11" stopped responding at 08:16am.

Fair enough, maybe they thought there were technical difficulties.

How about at 08:19am?

Quoted from the Massauoi trial..

At 8:19 a.m., a flight attendant on board Flight 11 contacted the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Office in Cary, North Carolina by air-telephone to report an emergency aboard the flight. The flight attendant, Betty Ong, stated, "The cockpit's not answering, somebody's been stabbed,in business class and . . . I think there's mace . . . that we can't breathe . . . I don't know, I think we're getting hijacked." Ms. Ong's air-telephone call with the Reservations Office lasted approximately 25 minutes, until 8:44 a.m., the approximate time of Flight 11's collision into the North Tower.

A "stabbing" can't be confused with anything but a stabbing. The alleged call was said to have lasted for the entire duration.
The cockpit wasn't "answering". "Mace". The actual word "hijacked".

Couple that with ATC not getting a response. Within how long should somebody have done something?

08:20am?

"But then, 8:20 a.m., American 11 abruptly changes course, turning to the northwest"

- 911myths

Failed communication between ATC and cockpit. Maybe still early days but allegations of "hijacking", "stabbing" and "mace" from on board. Now an unauthorized change in course.

08:21?

9/11 Commission Report and 911Myths

At 8:21 a.m., the transponder on Flight 11 was turned off in the cockpit making it more difficult for air traffic control centers to identify the flight and monitor its flight path. Also at 8:21 a.m., one of the American Airlines employees in the Reservations Office who was speaking with Ms. Ong on the air-telephone, Nydia Gonzalez, simultaneously established telephone contact with a manager on duty at the American Airlines System Operations Control ("SOC") center in Forth Worth, Texas, Craig Marquis. Ms. Gonzalez then maintained telephone contact with both Ms. Ong, on board Flight 11, and Mr.Marquis until Flight 11 collided with the North Tower.

Zalewski: I then saw the transponder shut off. 

Martins: And I’m thinking, “Well, maybe there’s really something wrong. First there’s no radio, now we lost this transponder."
Every commercial airplane is equipped with a transponder that transmits a constant signal. The signal gives controllers on the ground a steady flow of information—displayed on radar screens in a “datablock” such as this one. Think of it as the airplane’s vital signs containing the carrier, flight number, speed and altitude. If the transponder’s not working, the plane is simply blip on radar. Controllers can see only the location, and the speed of the plane. 

Zalewski: And so, I very quietly turned to the supervisor and I said, “Would you please come over here?” I said, “I think something is seriously wrong with this plane.” 

Brokaw: Did you suspect hijacking at that point?

Zalewski: Absolutely not. No way.

(American 11 has been NORDO for six minutes...)

[...]

But that too, fails. There is still no reply — the silence increasingly ominous as the jet, now drastically off course, flying in a northwesterly direction, toward Albany, New York. Controllers are scrambling to keep create a safe zone around the runaway plane, moving every other flight in the area out of the way, from the ground, all the way up to 35,000 feet.

Roberts: We had pretty much moved all the airplanes from Albany to New York to Syracuse, New York out of the way because that’s the track he was going on.

Martins: And I didn’t know if he was gonna turn back on course...

Roberts: And we had no altitude information. So, it’s not just clearing the altitudes of conflicting traffic...

Martins: It was that whole altitude stratum from the ground, up to 35,000.

No communication with cockpit, unauthorized change in course, alleged phonecall from plane ("hijacked", "mace", etc), now we have no transponder and a path being pushed through air traffic.

How about now? The "immediate response"?