Conflicting Data, Hardcore Questions and the Media Blackout

Conflicting Data, Hardcore Questions and the Media Blackout

by Rob Balsamo, Pilots For 9/11 Truth

02/29/08 - It almost goes without saying that when a major aviation accident occurs, just the fact that "Black Box" data has been released to the public makes mainstream news, not to mention content and analysis. Recently, the Flight Data Recorder information claimed to be from American 77 (AA77, Pentagon) and United 93 (UA93, Shanksville, PA) has been released to the public via the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). Mainstream Media (and some alternative media) has not reported even the release of this information for such a high profile event. Why? It is interesting to note, CNN has reported an animation made by an independent researcher regarding the events at the Pentagon. The animation supports the government story of an aircraft impact with the pentagon. However, it is not based on any flight data. Why does CNN/Mainstream Media cover an animation based on zero flight data, but does not cover even the release of government provided flight data or the animation constructed and released by The National Transportation Safety Board? Perhaps someone doesn't want to raise curiosity of the content?

As analyzed and published by Pilots For 9/11 Truth, the Flight Data Recorder information provided by the National Transportation Safety Board claimed to be from AA77 and UA93 does not support the government story or observed events. It is clear why the Corporate owned Mainstream Media (and perhaps some alternative media) do not want to cover even the release of the "Black Box" information, as this will no doubt raise curiosity of what the data contains. It appears Media outlets would prefer to cover third party animations, constructed without any flight data, as long as it supports the government story. It is clear media outlets do not want to even mention the release of flight data provided by the government as they would be forced to cover the content and more professionals/experts would be aware to analyze the data finding it does not support the government story and/or observed events.

A recent article published by Aidan Monaghan regarding the mysterious absence of "Black Box" serial numbers for the 9/11 Flights -- where the recorders were reportedly recovered -- reveals unprecedented events in reporting. Aidan sources many situations where "Black Box" serial numbers are reported among past high profile, major aviation accidents, including those under the jurisdiction of the FBI, setting precedent. US Government agencies have refused (apparently giving unlawful excuse) to provide serial/part numbers via the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) in order to establish positive identification of the aircraft reportedly involved on September 11, 2001. Think CNN, Fox or any other Mainstream Media outlet will cover such such blatant disregard for exposing the truth?

Reportedly, the BBC is gearing up for a sequel to their last hit piece covering questions regarding 9/11. Let's hope they contact some experts this time, and the experts they do contact and use, they give fair time. Please see our article, "History Channel Consulted "Experts?" in our articles section.

There comes a time when silence is considered complicity...

Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. for full member list.

Voting down?

Now who would vote down an article exposing media silence on such an issue? Perhaps those who do not want this issue to break mainstream?


From a Delta Crew Member

I think shes right... :-)


Edit to add: 03/04/08 - I think we now know who is voting this down and not wanting this information to break mainstream. Just read through the comments. It makes one wonder of the motivation. hmmmm.....


voted you up Rob, and want to say thanks for the dedication in the quest for the truth. You really hit the nail on the head when you said corporate owned media.
Combine that with the best politicians money can buy, and you have one very powerful bullshit machine.
The control of the major media is as important an issue as the quest for the truth about 9/11.
Americans need to wake up soon.
Thanks again Rob You do America proud.

Is this the Smoking Gun ?

I think the analysis of the alleged 911 flight recorders is the most significant of all the evidence demonstrating the complicity of underground government dark agents in the events of 91101 than any other. Either the data released by the NTSB is bogus or it is genuine. If it is bogus then why would a government agency release fake data that bolsters the 911 truthers case?
If it is genuine then it proves that in the case of the Pentagon strike, AA77 could not have been the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, that there must have been two aircraft.
Are there whistle blowers out there playing a subtle game? Lets face it. Not every police officer or FBI or CIA agent is corrupt.

Although we rarely speculate....

If you ask me, i do think there is a whistleblower at the NTSB based on my experience of working hundreds of hours pouring over this data. I just wish he/she would contact us... we can keep him/her anonymous.

Thanks for the vote up troops...


Hey Rob ...

Nice compliment you gave Aidan M. on your forum

Aidan M

Aidan does excellent work. I wish to know more about the man... but i think he prefers to be more private. Either way, much respect to him and his obvious experience level and knowledge of the FOIA.

My opinion? I think hes a lawyer. Speaking of which... When will we see a "Lawyers For 9/11 Truth"? I can already predict the ad homs from the "Duh-Bunkers". :rolleyes:


Thanx Rob

Lets all of us continue to apply pressure upon this government until we can obtain an investigation with subpoena powers.

Time is short.

Actually, I was educated and employed for a while as an electronics engineer.

My FOIA lawsuit is still developing with the FBI to obtain the docs that prove that they positively ID'd the wreckage. Serving 2 U.S. Attorney's, the Attorney General and the FBI, takes time. Then the FBI has so many days to respond so they may take full advantage of every one.

I'm worried that an announcement of a KSM trial and the possibility of a Moussaui retrial may be taken advantage of by the FBI to continue holding this footnote info that would just happen to prove their claims.

I dont expect that I or anyone will ever see the docs I'm requesting because I suspect that the serial numbers obtained from the wreckage did not match the serial number data on file with the FAA. If forced to produce the info, I think we'd find out that the government destroyed that docs, just as they did the Able Danger data.

The FBI seems to have both ends of the information: 1). Info obtained from the wreckage. 2). Info on file with the FAA. I think the reason that the FAA provided me with it's unlawful response to the request for info is because the FBI probably seized the records and stll has them.

Perhaps WAC can obtain a Q&A segment with the FBI's Robert Mueller.

; )

Excellent development!

This could be the grand-daddy of contradictions. Another vote-up for you, Rob. Could you provide a little more info on exactly how the NTSB report contradicts the official story? Does the NTSB say where they found the Flight Data Recorder for Flight 77? And how it is at odds with the official story.

This is something that Kucinich should look into, as well as the NYC group if the ballot initiative passes. Good work, Rob!

Its all on our site...

Just click around, mainly our Press Releases.

By the way, Kucinich gets every article/presentation/documentary/blurb we publish through our media contacts list which includes numerous alternative and MSM contacts.

For the record, Alternative media such as Alex Jones and Air America has not touched any of our work. Might want to call in to ask why? We expect to be shunned by MSM, after all, they didnt even cover the release of the NTSB animation based on (what tthe NTSB claims) actual flight data. But i didnt think AJ or AAR would turn a blind eye. Not sure why.

Meh, we're growing regardless. Eventually, no one will be able to ignore it. Just picked up a CEO of an Aviation Corporation who also has command time in the aircraft dispatched as UA93 and UA175. Keep an eye out for the announcement in the near future.


"For the record, Alternative

"For the record, Alternative media such as Alex Jones and Air America has not touched any of our work. Might want to call in to ask why?"

Probably because they know the Pentagon issue is a honey pot. Sorry, but 9/11 has long been proven an inside job, but no-plane at the Pentagon relies on speculation that vast amounts of evidence were faked including hundreds of recorded witness statements, plane parts including landing gear, light pole damage, and more.

Alex Jones:

“For over four years we have remained neutral on the subject, agreeing that unanswered questions need to be explored but warning against the Pentagon issue becoming the core focus of the 9/11 truth movement. The danger is clearly that the government will use its media mouthpieces in particular Fox News to hype this until it becomes the de facto keystone of alternative explanations behind 9/11. At the point when that crescendo reaches its peak crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon will be released, knocking down the straw man argument that the establishment itself erected. The government is steam valving this issue so as to garner as much interest as possible before blowing the entire matter out of the water. We know for a fact that the FBI seized the gas station camera footage and footage from hotels across the highway which would show the entire sequence of events and prove exactly what happened at the Pentagon. The fact that they have again chosen to release grainy and foggy images which only lead to more speculation tell us two things.

1) The government truly is frightened to death of releasing any images which accurately depict what happened at the Pentagon because it doesn't jive with the official version of 9/11.

2) Or the government knows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and has clear footage of the incident, but is deliberately releasing these speculative images in order to stoke the debate so it can later release the high quality video and use it to debunk the entire 9/11 truth movement.

The media obsession with this one facet of an entire smorgasbord of 9/11 questions, and their refusal to address more hardcore 9/11 evidence, leads us to fear the latter explanation is the case.

Why no discussion of Building 7 and the comments of Larry Silverstein? Why no discussion of the hijackers being trained by the US government? Lt. Colonel Steve Butler of the Monterey Defense Language Institute was suspended from duty after he accused Bush of allowing 9/11 to happen. Why no discussion of the NORAD stand down? Because none of these issues are honey pots, none of them are speculation because the cards are laid out on the table for everyone to see and the evidence is clear.

Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op: Intended to create circus of interest around 'no plane' theories, later debunk them:
Arabesque: 911 Truth


They dont have to put their name, faces and professional reputations on the work. We do. Matter of fact, we record the FBI and NTSB. With our real names!. All they have to do is report it. They have the audience. Why not report it if it has no bearing on their own credibility?

The fact that MSM hasnt even mentioned the release of the data speaks volumes when they report Mike Wilsons fabricated animation based on zero flight data.. I dont expect you to understand Arab. But other aviation professionals do. Its probably why we are growing rapidly and you remain behind your screen attacking others.

However, even if AJ and others dont want to cover AA77 FDR due to it being a "honeypot".. Whats the excuse for UA93 FDR, Common Strategy, our concern with Pilot/hijacker experience level and the numerous other articles/interviews we have published?


...apparently quoting a Alex Jones

...apparently quoting a Alex Jones article in response to your statement is an "attack" these days...

The MSM has ignored a lot of 9/11 questions, but one of the questions that they have repeatedly highlighted is the no-plane at the Pentagon issue, as Alex Jones explained. Criticism is not an "attack". It's unfortunate that some choose to spin it that way.

The RADES radar data shows no flyover. There are no witnesses. How much more evidence is necessary? The video? None of the videos released show any hint of a flyover (, and one of them was on a highway in perfect view to potentially capture it--at the very least witness it with his fellow in-traffic potential witnesses. Sure, I'd like them to release all of the videos so I don't have to be accused of "supporting the official story" when a plane impact has no "impact" on 9/11 being an inside job, with much more important questions to be answered (that the MSM is ignoring) and even more pressing smoking guns leaving a trail.
Arabesque: 911 Truth


Do you have any concerns why MSM would cover an animation fabricated by an independent researcher not based on any flight data whatsoever yet refuse to cover an animation produced by the NTSB based on what they claim is flight data? Does this not concern you? Especially considering it is unprecedented? Would you care to stick to topic?

This thread is not about witnesses, flyover.. .etc. This is about MSM Blackout based on what the govt claims is flight data. Can you address the topic?

Every single blog i post, you always trot out the same exact spun up tripe, Even in our UA93 FDR Blog, completely off-topic. You avoid questions, Your agenda is clear, your tactics are getting stale.

People have to ask themselves, Why are so many people putting their name, faces and professional reputations on our work. If anyone will get answers from the govt, it will be those listed at The only thing Arabesque has contributed are posts on Blogger and his own blog, anonymously from behind his screen, in order to influence thinking and the tide of the "movement". Will Arabesque ever get answers from the govt? No! He refuses to put his name on his work, refuses to go out into the field to film on location as CIT, uses statements found on the web, some fabricated, some completely spun. Uses absence of evidence as evidence of absence (which in fact is intellectually dishonest because there are witnesses who claim a plane 'peeled away' at time of explosion, Arabesque conveniently omits this little tidbit in every one of his spun up comments, and we constantly have to remind him/her/it. ). Think about that.

Arabesque, i had my doubts about your objective in the past. Each time you post, your objective becomes more clear.


On the other hand

It seems to me there might be a much simpler explanation for withholding the videos of Flight 77:

Flight 77 maneuvered in an extremely difficult way as it came in toward the Pentagon. Civilians, mentally unprepared for a jetliner charging down into the city like that, apparently but understandably missed that peculiar maneuvering, a dead giveaway that this almost certainly couldn't have been a case of some half-baked pilot at the controls (as the official account would lead us to conclude).

Release of the videos would lay that bare.

So what was it: Concealing the odd jet maneuvering, or setting up the 9/11 truth movement for a fall by getting it to falsely suspect that it wasn't a real jet at all coming in?

At this juncture, I give equal weight to either thesis.

I think Norman Mineta's testimony

is a honey pot.

Just a small piece out of a big pie

Mineta's testimony is just a small piece of the evidence implicating that what happened is indeed what happened. Potentially if we got an investigation, we could put him and others (i.e. Cheney, the Manager at the FAA that Mineta was talking to on the phone about the incoming plane, the young man, other witnesses, etc.) under oath to get at the truth. The worst that can happen is that his testimony is completely false. But guess what--it doesn't change the fact that air traffic controllers were aware of the incoming plane. It doesn't change the fact that the FAA notified NORAD about these planes. And it doesn't change the fact that nothing was done about it. All of this is extensively documented and only SUPPORTS mineta's testimony. If his testimony did not exist it would not discount this other evidence.

So your honey pot theory doesn't hold much weight.
Arabesque: 911 Truth

re Air America


9/11 truth hasn't been tolerated on Air America for some time. For example, yesterday Air America's Bill Press admonished a caller who hinted at LIHOP that "we don't ever go there" and cut her off. Ed Schultz openly ridicules 9/11 truth callers. In the past I've heard AAR's Thom Hartmann and Randi Rhodes discuss 9/11 truth. I don't know about lately. My guess is that AAR has made clear to its hosts that 9/11 truth is an embargoed topic, as it is on most other for-profit broadcast outlets.

Mike Malloy is probably the guy you want. He's on Nova M radio. Nova M's flagship station is 1480 KPHX, Phoenix, AZ. Malloy is scathingly hilarious; you'd probably like his show. He used to discuss 9/11 truth regularly when he was on Air America. But then they fired him...go figure.



I have exchange emails with Thom and spoken with Randi on air. Both seemed very interested in our work. Matter of fact, we picked up quite a few members from the Randi Rhodes on air call in. Lasted only ~3 mins. Randi seemed very interested. But hasnt shown any interest since. They both are on our media contact list and get every article.. etc. Lionel is on the list too... Never heard from him.


I'd try this...

Mike Malloy 's website is The site shows his e-mail address as I don't think you can go wrong by contacting him.


Thank Jeff

I have added him to our media contact list and emailed him this blog entry. However, the best way to break this information into mainstream, is for all of you to call in to shows and ask the host if they checked out our work. Remember, it is our name on the line, not yours.. .so dont try to debate the information.. just keep asking them why they havent covered the information or contacted us. Be sure to tell them they can see our documentaries for free on google as many disinfobots like to use the excuse we're just trying to make money off DVD sales.

With that said, we are trying to raise funds to stay in orperation through our sales. A very trying task when faced with accusations of "being in it for the money". Perhaps part of cointel design. Imagine if patriot groups had the budget of Fox or CNN. Im sure the world wouldnt be in this mess.

Anyhow.... Thanks for Mike's contact info and your support.



My concern is that the group makes the statement that "we do not offer theory or point blame," yet then its media page links to the "PentaCon" banner at the top.

PentaCon advocates a theory that almost no one supports and has major errors and false claims that should never be being advocated to the public, especially with the caveat that "We do not offer theory or point blame" on the same website.

A non-biased site would include a link to the critique along with the banner.

If you haven't read the critique, I recommend it --

Dont be sour Vicky

When you spend your own resources and time filming witnesses on location, we'll link to you too (oh wait.. arent you part of S911TJ?. Steve Jones does great work, he is a member of our organization).. But the fact remains, P4T does not offer theory or point blame at this point in time.. no matter how you would like to spin it.

We link to Killtowns' 250 smoking guns as well. I think its great work. Does that mean we're No planers? Nico constantly calls us plane huggers. I guess we're going to get it from both sides no matter what. I guess the only thing to do is to determine who attacks and who moves forward with research putting their names, faces, and professional reputations on the line.


evidence, not emotions

>>Dont be sour Vicky

Why try to shift this to the personal? To names, faces, etc?

What I'm talking about isinformation that is not supported by the evidence being advocated by a site that claims to be neutral. The link exposing how it is not supported is provided.

Killtown is banned from most forums and the site includes holograms, which isn't suprising given how connected it is to the Webfairy.


When professionals speak out on 9/11 who are certificated by a govt agency, record FBI/NTSB who have the power to come up with any excuse to ruin a career... it becomes personal. I would hope you would understand after seeing what happened to your colleagues?

Bottom line, you will not be able to quote any claim published by P4T that is speculative in nature. If you want to try to attack us by linking to others who do speculate, you are certainly entitled. But its not recommended. As we link to your organization as well.



>> If you want to try to attack us by linking to others who do speculate

Critique is not attack.

Falsely framing civil discussion, criticism, and critique as an “attack” is a straw-man used to try to close down legitimate criticism.

>> it becomes personal. I would hope you would understand after seeing what happened to your colleagues?

I'm not talking about anyone else in this discussion except your site and my critique of your promotion of a hoax promoting video.

It sounds like you're trying to make it personal by describing me as "sour" and calling me a name, rather than simply addressing the legitimacy of the Pentacon banner you put out to the public. Are you suggesting that the Pentcon is the product of "professionals"?

>> But its not recommended. As we link to your organization as well.

I don't limit my critiques based on whether someone might "remove" a link to our organization, sorry. I base my work on science and reason. Pentacon is neither.

Civil Discussion


If you would like to discuss why, or why we dont link to certain site from our site, please feel free to email me for my number. I believe i gave it to you the last time we exchanged emails, however i will be happy to give it to you again. Prof Jones also has my number and i give him permission to share it with you regarding your concerns. For now, the blog topic is regarding the FDR information provided by govt agencies and the unprecedented media blackout regarding said FDR release/content/analysis. Would you care to offer your concerns on this matter? Or does it not concern you.

That last time someone yelled at us for linking to another organization was Eric Huff-N-Puff, for linking to Scholars (before the split). Our phone call lasted about 5 mins. 4 mins of that time was him yelling at me, then he hung up. After that, we were reported as being "Zionists". We have never been criticized since for linking to any particular site. I hope our exhange will be more pleasant should you decide to call and express your concerns regarding who we link to from our media page.

As for CIT offering "hoax". I prefer not to speak for them. But since claims are being made against them by those who know they are unable to defend themselves... I disagree with "Hoax". I feel they have taken upon themselves a great task which no other "researcher" has done before. They took on this task with limited resources while knowing full well they would come under harsh criticism, not to mention venturing into an unfamilar place they feel is loaded with opposition. That takes courage.. Many elect to attack CIT from behind their screen instead of going out and doing the same exact thing for a rebuttal. I understand CIT frustration which perhaps triggers less than diplomatic replies from CIT at times. No one has to agree with the conclusions CIT has offered, however, one must respect the invaluable information they have gathered and provided to the rest of us, with their own resources. You are more than welcome to make the phone calls. grab the cam, ship out to Arlington, knock on doors and film on location.

In my opinion, CIT are ordinary men, taking upon an extraordinary task, to share with the rest of us.


Loyalty vs Truth, Emotion vs Science

My concern is not with CIT taking on a task or not -- that's about loyalty, not truths -- it's that what they did in the name of a serious investigation amounts to a hoax, since it is completely unscientific and has been refuted, yet describes itself as a real investigation.

Promoting that effort seems to be more about friendship and loyalty and who is on who's side than about real truths gleened in serious methods which are supported by professionals and researchers. While some may feel that evidence doesn't support FL77 having hit the building, do those people then agree that a FL 77 must have flown over the building? Based on PentaCon?

I think people can assume the position that they don't think AA77 hit there without having to make the extreme assumptions that CIT requires people do, such as the idea that the lampposts were spontaneously destroyed to make it appear that a plane hit them, that all the damaged items at the scene were planted ahead of time, that witnesses were planted, that all the original witnesses were fake, etc.

>>Many elect to attack CIT from behind their screen instead of going out and doing the same exact thing for a rebuttal.

There are already a significant number of errors inherent in the effort, which is internally contradictory. Trying to say that all the original eyewitnesses at the scene of a crime are all to be brushed aside is unscientific, I'm sorry. I know, I do research for a living.

I see you talking about courage and good people and ordinary men. What about scientific truths?

When we deal with the evidence itself in a scientific way, emotionals, loyalty, courage, etc. are simply not factors.

While I agree that some evidence cannot be determined given the tools we have, PentaCon did the opposite of an investigation by trying to negate the original eyewitness reports by providing new ones, far after the event in time, which were internally contradictory to the premise.


the anti-CIT people have their own substantial methodological issues. For example, I would treat any eyewitness account that was filtered through the post-9/11 mainstream media very skeptically. It's really too bad that oral histories were not amassed back then in the way that they were for NYC first responders. In lieu of that, new interviews might be done with some of those same people (and some *have* been done.) Moreover, statements need to be weighted in accord with physical evidence -- i.e. it is irrelevant if a witness claims to have seen the plane hit the Pentagon if in fact her line of sight makes that a physical impossibility.

Furthermore, using the highly loaded word "hoax," which imputes bad faith to people on the other side of a debate, is a very questionable tactic. I think you'd better be as sure as you can possibly be that a DELIBERATE attempt to mislead is at work before you use that word. Otherwise, there is most certainly an emotionally-based attempt to persuade involved.

If you do research

Then you should know that Craig Ranke's methods result in more reliable eyewitness accounts.


Actually, our entire justice system in the US is based on eyewitness evidence from those at the scene and the existing evidence comes from many accounts which are massively redundant.

CIT has to wipe those away to make room for thier flyover theory, which is not supported in the existing evidence, and unfortunately, not even in their own evidence.

I repeat...


For now, the blog topic is regarding the FDR information provided by govt agencies and the unprecedented media blackout regarding said FDR release/content/analysis. Would you care to offer your concerns on this matter? Or does it not concern you. Are you happy that the media covers an animation fabricated by an independent researcher sans NTSB based on what the NTSB claims is actual flight data?

Rob Balsamo

Please keep it civil and on

Please keep it civil and on topic folks. No unfair generalizations (calling someone's work a hoax), no personal references (calling someone their first name), and keep it on topic. If you can't do that much, then please refrain from posting in these blogs.


Suggestion for ROB:

It would go a long way to bolstering your case if an independent laboratory came to the same conclusions as your group.

Can you hire a reputable lab to get the data (directly from the government, not from you) and to prepare a detailed analysis?

This might not be cheap, but you pilots make a decent salary.

I'm sure you could put together something like that, and you might make some new important allies as a result -- IF the lab comes to the same conclusion.

Think about it.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

Better solution perhaps?

Why not just read the words of our most harsh critics? Who also claim to be "FDR Experts" and aviation professionals.

If you are still concerned that perhaps we "hired mass controlled opposition", well then, you would have to ask yourself, why do we go into "the lions den" by recording the FBI/NTSB looking for answers, putting our certificates on the line, gaining support on a regular basis from heavy jet time pilots who join?

What "independent" organization do you expect we pay money for just to satisfy you because you do not have basic aeronautical knowledge? This information is as easy to interpret as 2+2=4, if you have any aeronautical knowledge above a private pilot license.

I tell you what johndoraemi. Why dont you go to your local flight school. Take the NTSB data to a CFI, and pay him to interpret it. May cost you 50 bucks. Interested? Let us know what he says, and if he puts his name on his work.

Let it be clear, We are not here to give you ground school lessons on aviation. We are here to expose the lies. We have the knowledge and experience to do so. Again. we put our names on the line.. not you.


Surely you jest

Rob Balsamo writes:

"Reportedly, the BBC is gearing up for a sequel to their last hit piece covering questions regarding 9/11. Let's hope they contact some experts this time, and the experts they do contact and use, they give fair time."

Sure, sure. BBC is going to clean up its act, be real fair this time. In fact, they'll give extra time to 9/11 truthers to make up for giving them so little last time.

I hear they're even going to have on those BBC reporters who prematurely announced the collapse of Building 7 as it stood looming behind them. They're going to come clean about exactly where they got the incorrect information that it had already collapsed, and apologize to international audiences for having performed so ineptly that day.

(The foregoing, in case anyone is wondering, is sarcasm.)

How to glean a response from the NTSB?

Isn't there any way the NTSB could be forced to comment on the discrepancy between their data and the official story?

What about legal avenues? If it is clear that there is a discrepancy...


Legally, the NTSB can refuse to comment every way till Sunday.. (and not this Sunday).

Reason being, that when an aircraft accident is determined to be of a criminal nature, FBI has jurisdiction and they are the only ones who can comment. The FBI can task the NTSB to provide technical assistance in such circumstance, but the NTSB gets a pass for having to answer anything. The FBI are the ones to pinpoint and/corner to answer questions.

We knew this going in on our first phone call to the NTSB looking for comment. We knew they would dodge, obfuscate and pawn it off.. But, we wanted to call the NTSB first, specifically the man who signed off on the report, to make him aware of the data they provided. Jeff Hill, considering he is not a pilot, did an excellent job with that call and the followup. You can listen in here...

The most telling part of that call is that the man who signed off on the report, failed to recognise the event by flight number.

Just what we expected, just what we wanted.

We then went on to record the FBI. Unfortunately, its not yet up on youtube, but it is available on our DVD. I keep meaning to get it up on youtube.. but keep getting distracted with other work.

Bottom line, the FBI said they would get back to us.. never did. Follow up calls went unanswered. Eventually, a spokesperson for the FBI said the team who could answer is now dismantled. (PENTBOM). so there wont be any answers from the FBI.

The only way we will get answers, is by exposing the information to the masses, forcing any one agency to address it when it hits critical mass. We already know of every excuse in the book they could possibly use. Lets just say, When they are forced to address the FDR(s), they will be shooting themselves in the foot. This is no doubt the main reason why it has never been covered in MSM, unprecedented.

Hope this helps...

Before Flight 800

that was not the case, if I recall correctly. A law was passed after jurisdictional conflicts between FBI and NTSB over investigation of Flight 800.


I now understand the obstackles better.

I wish you guys could organize an event for piloting professionals and others in which you present these issues.

We're working on it Vesa... :-)

hey i tried

I gave you honest good faith advice on how to bolster your credibility, so we don't have to just trust your word for your version of the pentagon attack.

You responded like an asshole.

"Let it be clear, We are not here to give you ground school lessons on aviation. We are here to expose the lies. We have the knowledge and experience to do so."

Says you. I believe that was the point of contention.

This isn't a rudimentary question about "lessons on aviation" either. That's disingenuous in the extreme.

This is about a specific data set, its validity, and its relation to objects on the ground, with margins of error to be accounted for, etc.

If you AREN'T willing to subject your findings to an independent analysis by a qualified laboratory, then I guess that says something too.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

As i said...

We arent here to give basic lessons regarding aeronautical knowledge. I know you feel confused johndoraemi, due to the fact you do not have the basic knowledge. However, that can be readily rectified. Either we can give you lessons as we are certified to do by the FAA, or, we can spend our time researching the net in order to pay a "Third Party" to analyze basic aeronautical knowledge to the satisfaction of "johndoraemi" on 911Blogger... or... we can give you suggestions on how to interpret the data to your satisfaction as i have done above.... Or, we can just ignore you as another internet persona who wants others to pay for your education because you feel we are obligated. I think the cheapest for all.. is to just watch our member list grow on and

If you feel we are lying about our growth/experience/credentials. .feel free to cross check any Airman certificated by the FAA at

Finally, Feel free to keep asking us to pay for your education, and when we dont.. .feel free to call us "assholes".

Again johndoreami... to put this in perspective.. to make it clear. You are asking us to hire a third party to verify 2+2=4.. for you. Would you do it?


Seems to me that pilots for truth

should go to the next conference & present your data & become an open part of the 9/11 community.


We actually have been trying to organize our own event, but that takes funds. Being attacked for "being in it for the money" when we offer DVD's for sale, yet also offer the same content for free on the web, its difficult to raise enough to put something together. As i said, elsewhere, perhaps part of cointel design.

Basic combat tactics really. Attack the support structure first. If you can make your enemy feel guilty trying to support his cause, the battle is almost won.

Its also an easy "tell" when you want to expose "operatives" among the "movement". When they try to attack support structure first.

Mr. Balsamo - Thank you for all your fine work

Didn't you guys come to Chandler, AZ a year ago to present and get the run around from K.K.? ( I was really looking forward to that presentation, too)

Perhaps the group in Seattle could organize an event where you could present all your findings to date, right in Boeing's FRONT YARD! I would definitely love to help make that happen. [Town Hall is a very nice venue and would make an excellent location for shooting a video of your presentation, we ( did a DRG shoot there last May)


BTW - My daughter's 19 year-old boyfriend is a licensed pilot and loves your site. He did all the calculations from the FDR and found them very interesting and quite revealing. He's interested in becoming a commercial pilot and a flight instructor, but is concerned that if he gets involved with 9/11 truth he will seriously impair his chances for working in the industry and realizing his goals (I've told him that there are less public ways to spread the truth). I will keep encouraging him to contact you and P4T.

Keep up the great work, we're all in this together and every little bit helps.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

I have a small question.

How does anyone know that what was released by the freedom of information act as regards these airplanes is pristine and untampered with?

When I first spoke with Mr. Balsamo...

... we quickly came to agree on at least one simple thing; There IS a big lie in here somewhere. EVEN IF Rob, or myself, or a dozen other pilots are walking around telling disgusting lies about 9/11, trying to aid and abet AlKada, to unhinge and undermine the credibility of our government, by falsely claiming that the government has been inconsistent in it's Official Version of Events... that same government has AT LEAST been quite uninterested in clearing up the matter, NOR then, interested in knocking my door down to tazzer and spirit me off through extraordinary rendition.

Of course I don't want that to happen... so the way I help insure my general safety, in the face of such an absurd contradiction during the time it takes to flush this out... I put my name on the line.

Again, I'm NOT daring these bastards to pluck me out of the night... but if they did try such a stunt... I live in a better peace trusting that at least a few of my friends would eventually notice my complete absence.

So, even if Rob is somewhat mistaken in his methods, or motives... or that he is one of the most talented psy-operators of all times... it really doesn't matter. Ironically then, he has still presented a most extraordinary contradiction resting wholly within the government's own lap. A truly amazing stunt for a 'nasty psy-op bastard' like Rob.

I don't know what magical immunity-armor I'm walking around in... but I often consider the patriot's and pilot's sites for playing some role in that. How foolish for Alan and Rob, the nasty bastards they be. : )