NTSB: No Records Pertaining To Process Of Positive Identification Of 9/11 Aircraft Wreckage

Within a July 18, 2008 Freedom of Information Act response from the National Transportation Safety Board, the NTSB indicates that it possesses no records indicating how wreckage recovered from the 4 aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was positively identified as belonging to the 4 planes reportedly hijacked that day or even if such wreckage was positively identified at all.

Within a similar March 18, 2008 FOIA response from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI states the following:

"The identity of the three hijacked aircraft has never been in question by the FBI, NTSB or FAA"


However, NTSB factual reports pertaining to the Flight Data Recorders allegedly belonging to American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA), do not cite a "Flight Data Recorder Group", that would normally consist of Federal Aviation Administration and airline officials, in possession of records pertaining to a given aircraft and unique serial numbers pertaining to each FDR. The absence of published FDR part and serial numbers within each NTSB FDR report suggests that the NTSB were not provided access to such records that would allow them to confirm the identities of the FDRs studied by them.

Many FDRs possess unique memory configurations that are identified by serial numbers contained within a given aircraft's records. Such serial numbers are required to facilitate FDR data readouts. Presumably, if the recovered AA 77 and UA 93 FDR's did not possess the memory configurations indicated within FAA and airline aircraft records, a mismatch could become apparent to NTSB investigators.


The FDRs in question were apparently recovered by NTSB personnel.

Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, referring to the NTSB:

"I ... assured FBI Director Mueller that we would assist in any way we could ... he called and said, "Could you send us some people to help find the black boxes and help identify aircraft parts."


Marion Blakey, Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, referring to the NTSB:

"Over 60 Safety Board employees worked around the clock in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and at our headquarters in Washington, D. C., assisting with aircraft parts identification"


The text of the July 11, 2008 NTSB FOIA request:

"I respectfully request copies of records revealing the process by which wreckage recovered from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified as belonging to: American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA).

The afore mentioned aircraft are identified within numerous public NTSB records. Positive wreckage identification was presumably obtained through the use of unique serial number identifying information contained by the said aircraft's wreckage. Within U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 14, Part 45, it is indicated that all U.S. commercial civil aircraft are required to contain numerous components bearing unique serial number data "secured in such a manner that it will not likely be ... lost or destroyed in an accident"."

Not in question.

"The identity of the three hijacked aircraft has never been in question by the FBI, NTSB or FAA"

Wow! They meant that literally.

Excellent work, Aidan.

Great work Aidan

Apparently the FBI and the NTSB forgot all of their standard proceedures that day. i guess they were too busy helping all those "witnesses" remember what they saw.


So both the NTSB and the FBI officially deny the existence of any records documenting the positive identification of any wreckage from any of the 9/11 aircraft? Is that what you have established?

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

In Fairness To The NTSB

It seems that they were simply aiding the FBI in its 9/11 investigation.

The FBI are the ones who seem to have put the NTSB in the position of saying to the public regarding 9/11: "Take our word for it."

The NTSB are normally very transparent and thorough. The NTSB only provided a fraction of the normal amount of info regarding 9/11 because thats how the FBI apparently wanted it.

However, their Quality of Information guidlines allow for records provided by other organizations to speak for themselves. If this were the case regarding the aircraft ID's (i.e.: FBI documents alleging certain plane IDs) such records should be available for release by the NTSB in the interest of transparency.

"The NTSB maintains and issues documents from other sources as part of its accident investigation dockets. The assurance for the quality of these documents is limited to maintaining them as they were provided to and used by the investigative staff. Correction to the content of these documents is the sole responsibility of the authoring individual or organization."


But as it stands, there seem to be no source records upon which the NTSB can base the views of the aircraft IDs.

And that "smells" of political pressure.

Evidence Chain Gaps

There seem to be only 2 reasons for the gaps in the information source chain:

- The FBI cut corners.


- The FBI is trying to hide something.

And the latter may revolve around the Flight Data Recorders.

The Text Of The FOIA Appeal

This is the text of the appeal that should be on the desk of the NTSB managing director by noon tomorrow. (USPS overnight)

To his credit, in the past he has provided lengthy appeal response information that according to him he didn't have to, so I look forward to hearing from him.

This appeal responds to an adverse response to a FOIA request for records of the National Transportation Safety Board for information "revealing the process by which wreckage recovered from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified as belonging to: American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA)."

For the following reasons, the requester believes that records responsive to the FOIA request that is the subject of this appeal, do exist:

- The afore mentioned aircraft are identified within numerous public NTSB records.

- NTSB personnel participated in the identification, collection and examination of the said aircraft's wreckage. Such wreckage includes Flight Data Recorders and Cockpit Voice Recorders that are attributed to 2 of the said aircraft. (American Airlines flight 77 - N644AA and United Airlines flight 93 - N591UA)

- Physical examination of the wreckage in question alone, cannot provide for a satisfactory basis for the affirmative determination made by the NTSB regarding the identities of the wreckage described herein.

- The requester believes that the NTSB's affirmative aircraft identification determination in this case, must be based on some tangible record provided to the NTSB, as allowed for by the NTSB's Quality of Information Disseminated by the National Transportation Safety Board: Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality of Information.

"The NTSB maintains and issues documents from other sources as part of its accident investigation dockets. The assurance for the quality of these documents is limited to maintaining them as they were provided to and used by the investigative staff. Correction to the content of these documents is the sole responsibility of the authoring individual or organization."


Can Hardly Believe It Myself

I keep saying to myself: "They must have cut corners" or something.

But assuming that FDR data recovery was wanted ASAP, why would the FBI NOT provide the aircraft paperwork containing the FDR serial numbers required to facilitate the FDR data readout?

The NTSB indicated the following on June 16, 2008:

"We usually work around the part numbers and or serial numbers. Most recorders have internal parts that are also serialized and the recorder manufacturer can trace a particular internal sub-part back to a finished unit. So we are usually able to reverse generate a part number and serial number for a recorder (if needed)"

Presumably, reverse generating part and serial numbers would be a time consuming exercise, that could have been avoided had the FBI shared the aircraft records with the NTSB. (which apparently they didn't)

However, if the FDRs that were recovered from AA 77 and UA 93 were FALSE (if the recovered AA 77 and UA 93 FDR's did not possess the memory configurations indicated within FAA and airline aircraft records), a mismatch could become apparent to NTSB investigators possessing both the genuine records and the false FDRs.

Unless there is a re-examination of the AA 77 wreckage, there may be no other information available for release regarding the Pentagon.

Thanx all.

Excellent. Aidan, one

Excellent. Aidan, one question--have you ever submitted a request for photographs of the wreckage of Flight #93 after it was supposedly pulled out of the hole in the ground into which it supposedly disappeared?

I find the absence of photos for this flight in particular to be a glaring omission similar to the ones you have discovered.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Trying To Obtain More Info Via Court Suit

Oral aruments are scheduled for August 18, 2008. To be honest, the language in my civil complaint is flawed. Although I successfully was able to force the FBI to admit that they never positively IDd the aircraft wreckage (including the Flight Data Recorders), I may have "closed the door" so to speak on obtaining additional info. (like the "other" evidence the FBI refers to as corroborating their opinions of the aircraft IDs.) I want very much to obtain the FAA aircraft records that I suspect the FBI has. Any additional photos would be "icing"

Getting additional information via this lawsuit may require some "verbal judo".

More on the NTSB

Looking back 12 years to TWA 800:

NTSB 2006 Annual Report - FOIA section stats

From NTSB 2006 Annual Report, FOIAs


This annual report is very interesting reading re FOIA process and stats. "No records" makes up a 58 of 358 of total reasons for denial. However, note that on appeals, there is a fairly good chance of getting additional disclosure.

B. Disposition of initial requests

1. Number of total grants
2. Number of partial grants
3. Number of denials

a. number of times each FOIA exemption used (counting each exemption once per request)

(1) Exemption 1 0
(2) Exemption 2 21
(3) Exemption 3 24
(4) Exemption 4 41
(5) Exemption 5 64
(6) Exemption 6 55
(7) Exemption 7(A) 1
(8) Exemption 7(B) 0
(9) Exemption 7(C) 4
(10)Exemption 7(D) 0
(11)Exemption 7(E) 0
(12)Exemption 7(F) 0
(13)Exemption 8 0
(14)Exemption 9 0

4. Other reasons for nondisclosure

(total) 358
a. no records 53
b. referrals 50
c. request withdrawn 27
d. fee-related reason 0
e. records not reasonably described 0
f. not a proper FOIA request for some other reason 10
g. not an agency record 3
h. duplicate request 3
i.. other (specify) 212


A. Numbers of appeals

1. Number of appeals received during fiscal year 4
2. Number of appeals processed during fiscal year 13

B. Disposition of appeals
1.Number completely upheld 2
2. Number partially reversed 3
3.Number completely reversed 0

Great work, Aidan

I wonder who at these agencies made the decisions to carry out their "investigations" in such an unusual way, and what the people below them thought of it. FOIAing internal correspondence, email and paper, related to the "investigations" might be useful.

EDIT- and records of phone calls, meetings and minutes, etc.- whatever documentation

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Complete 9/11 Timeline

Excellent work

The failure to provide evidence that would stand up in a court of law is, as Andreas Hauß commented in "Unter Falscher Flagge", where we need to focus. The government's case is simply unproven and would not withstand public scrutiny without the complicity of the MSM.

The provenance of the American Airlines flight 77 black boxes, like so much pertaining to 9/11, is mired in contradiction and obscured by official secrecy.

One of several building collapse specialist who happen to have multiple roles in the 9/11 story (see also Jerome Hauer, Mark Loizeaux), Allyn E. Kilsheimer, the CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, claimed to have discovered the black box at the pentagon in the afternoon: “I stepped on the plane’s black box by accident.” "I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” George Washington Magazine, Spring 2002.

Allyn Kilsheimer was responsible for rebuilding the Pentagon under the Phoenix Project as the head structural engineer and was an "expert" the government turned to for an analysis of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

His claim to have found one of the flight recorders on the afternoon of 9/11 is purveyed by Popular Mechanics and Wikipedia

However, according to the Washington Post of 14/09/01 members of the FBI Evidence Response Team found both flight recorders on Friday, September 14, 2001.

The Washington Post of 19/09/01 further reported that firefighters Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz found both flight recorders Friday, September 14, 2001 while working their way through burned-out offices and passed them to the Federal investigators.

There are only two black boxes - so who's lying - the blast expert, the firemen or all of them?

According to CBS News the cockpit voice tape “appears to be blank or erased.”

Pilots for 9/11 have made a very strong case, in my view, using the data derived from the alleged American Airlines flight 77 FDR, that it could not have been recovered from whatever struck the pentagon. The recorded trajectory is inconsistent with a strike on the building. When asked why the flight data they published is inconsistent with a strike on the pentagon the NTSB refuse to discuss it and refer callers to the FBI. I suppose they take the view that the FBI supplied them with the boxes, they had no means of verifying them, so it's not their responsibility. One assumes that in a normal civil accident investigation they would not be so eager to shirk their investigative responsibility. Needless to say the FBI are equally unforthcoming.
Jeff Hill calls NTSB and FBI

Stop confusing the "flight animation" with the "black box" data

"When asked why the flight data they published is inconsistent with a strike on the pentagon the NTSB refuse to discuss it and refer callers to the FBI."

In fact, the "flight data" you are referring is inconsistent with the black box data it is supposedly based on. A flight animation is reconstructed based on the black box data. The black box data is consistent with the trajectory of the official flight path. Any assertion that the "animation" is more relevant than the black box data is not particularly credible, since the data seen in the animation is "supposed" to come from the black box data.


"So I looked at how 70 degrees translated into that animation. I capped a frame of the plane passing over the Navy Annex area, nearly centered on what I determined to be Southgate Road (at a mag heading of 70 it says) and mapped that. Lo and behold, the path from there to the Pentagon, the path taken in the video, is NOT a 70 degree heading! It's 80 degrees, a full ten degrees off!"

I don't know why the data is wrong, but it is wrong, and it's certainly not "evidence" of what happened at the Pentagon. Unless you believe they fabricated the black box data but made a "correct" animation based on it. But this is not possible since the magnetic inclination is factually incorrect in the "animation". So, to recap, the animation data that isn't even with the correct magnetic inclination and does not match the black box data it was "constructed from" is continuously promoted as somehow being evidence of something that happened on 9/11. The explanation simply could be as simple as the flight animation was incorrectly made. This seems like the most reasonable explanation since the magnetic inclination is wrong and it does not match the black box data. Even more strange, is that the 9/11 commission had a different animation (matching the official flight path of course). Now isn't that weird? Why are there two different animations? I'm not saying I have all the answers, because I don't. This is a weird situation that has not been fully explained, but jumping to conclusions is where you start to get in hot water.

This often repeated claim that the "flight animation" is credible evidence that the official story about the flight path is wrong is an example of misinformation. This is why fact checking is so critical, and simply repeating unsubstantiated claims is destructive and ultimately a diversion from the real issues that can be confirmed.
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Neither a black box nor an animation based on it

comes even close to the authenticity provided by the Citizen Investigations Team (CIT) through questioning numerous eyewitnesses


or the real-time accounts of Air Traffic Controllers in charge of Flight 77. We have the explicit statement of the Operations Manager of Washington Center that Flight 77 has never been visible on radar on its way back to Washington despite controllers where desperately looking for it.

Source: NORAD Tapes, Channel 4, at about 9:30.

More evidence that Flight 77 didn't fly back to Washington here:


Face it, finally. Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

Interesting RADES radar analysis...

Woody Box, who ever you are...I have some info to share...and some questions.

First, I do not agree with all your conclusions posted here...but they are all very worthy, all very nearly correct, and are very helpful in the investigation about AA77. The FBI is simply holding back far too much information regarding all of this, specially the FAA radar data etc.

I do object to your wording in that it was AA77 that popped back up on radar as a primary target some 8 minutes after being lost to radar contact. How do you know this? And shouldn't it be stated that...

"an eastbound primary target appeared eight minutes after AA77 was lost to positive radar contact".

In stating it the way that you do, you help establish the "party line" that this unknown primary radar target WAS AA77...and this is only "possible".

Second, I am somewhat familiar with "how" the FAA RDP...[Radar Data Processing]...computers "could" have several problematic issues regarding its incapacity to display a primary radar target in that area. But, I would need to see some intricate RDP data records and system parameter set-ups in order to establish what and how such radar incapacities existed in that region on 9/11.

Also, there is a line of thought that the RDP systems were hacked from the outside to eliminate primary radar returns in the radar sort boxes that covered that area...and thusly, this "'primary radar return data exclusion" could have been inadvertently, OR deliberately subverted within the FAA radar operational structures. Again, further investigations are required.

Moving on...a few points, and the Qs...

I have done some very simple work at looking into the locations "where" AA77 was lost to radar contact and "where" the primary target in question "popped up" some eight minutes later. My curiosity became "peaked" when it shows that this primary radar target "popped up" in the vicinty of Diana, WV.

Diana lies right in between two high ridges of the Appalachian Mountains whose lengthy peaks run in a northeast-southwest orientation. And, towards the northeast end of this valley lies Camp David. And just to the west of this valley is the region in eastern Ohio where AA77 was lost to radar contact just as it was seen beginning a descent.

Its my understanding that there is NO RADAR COVERAGE, either primary or secondary, down in this valley between these two high ridges.

In being asked to analyze some RADES radar data by some researchers and and author of an upcoming book discussing "The Mystery Plane"...or planes, I was alert enough to seek the altitudes of the floors of the radar coverages of the military radar site that was used for the RADES radar data source, and which was used by the NORAD system in the basic coverage of the WDC area. The radar site is located at The Plains and its identifier is PLN. PLN is situtaed atop a 1000 foot hill, ridge or rise, just to the east of the aforementioned ridges and it appears to be able to "see" radar targets at or below 500 feet in the Pentagon-WDC-Andrews-DCA river bottom area. Indeed, I have concluded that this RADES data does show such coverage at those surprisingly low altitudes.

To the western quadrant of the PLN radar sweep, it appears that the floor of the radar coverage in the vicinity of Diana [where the "primary target" popped up] is between 7000 and 9000 feet. I am quite interested in the 7000 foot possibility as this altitude shows up as the same altitude of the "target" that made the infamous descending turn into the Pentagon...the target that most presume is AA77.

Since PLN does NOT have any altitude estimation system as some of the NORAD radar sites have, the knowledge of the altitude of this primary target had to come from another source. The FAA radar could not tell the altitude because its FAA transponder was turned off. The PLN radar could not tell the altitude. The RADES radar data that I analyzed did not have any terminal radar included, and again, if it was FAA terminal radar data, it would not show an altitude. So, this leaves either, an altitude that was discovered by SOME Military IFF radar capabilities at some unkown radar facility IF the target had an IFF transponder aboard [which may have nullified any missle defense systems if they were operational], or, it came from the FDR which is the subject of this thread.

Additionally, it is now very clear that when in the PEOC...Cheney was getting radar updates from a completely seperate radar system/facility than that of the radar updates that Belger-Minetta were getting from the FAA systems.

Do you know the "source" of the 7000 foot altitude at which the "alleged" AA77 started its descending turn?

Also, are you aware of the reports that there were two roofers in the vicinity of Camp David that reported an airliner crash AT Camp David?

If AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, it had to go somewhere and here are some ideas.

1. After being lost to radar contact in an area where there was no primary radar covergage, it could have either continued a descent below primary radar coverage in the valleys, or stayed at higher altitude and slowed down making it look like just another VFR aircraft...and flown to either:

...Camp David where it was crashed?...or
...a secretive military base/airport to land and be disposed of...

2. It overflew the Pentagon and somehow hooked up with/shadowed by the "Gopher" C-130 which appears to have headed directly towards Camp David after it overflew the Pentagon...OR... peeled off away from the C130 somewhere northwest of WDC and was VFR to the secretive military airfield to be disposed of....

Regarding the above...there are quite a few large aircraft operating in and around WDC during this time period...and they are not AA77...

Just thought that I'd ask.

BTW...a primary target that was either BELOW 7000 feet near Diana, or was AT 7000 feet WEST of Diana, would NOT be seen by PLN, until it flew further eastbound at 7000 feet, or climbed to 7000 feet in the valley near Diana thus enabling the PLN radar site to now "see" this primary target at those points.

Interesting aye?

Robin Hordon

Dear Robin Hordon

regardless of who I am, I'm certainly familiar with the most authentic sources for the space-time coordinates of the planes - i.e. where has which plane been at what time - to judge that 9/11 was an Operation Northwoods-like maneuver. Planes were swapped.

Here's what the manager of Washington ARTCC reported to NEADS at about 9:30 with regard to AA77:

"so what we have done at the surrounding centers here is tell everyone to look out for limited codes, primary targets, or whatever the case may be. And that was the last time, that was about fifteen minutes ago since I talked to the Indianapolis Center Operations Manager."

Source: NORAD Tapes, Channel 4

We're not talking about a little radar hole beteween two ridges. Flight 77 completely vanished at 8:56 and didn't reappear anywhere in WV. And it was certainly not flying for 20,30 minutes through Washington Center airspace. Controllers were specifically looking for its primary radar. They didn't spot any radar target. Conclusion: Flight 77 was not there.

When it comes to the real-time statement of this manager versus an anonymous black box/animation version, I take the gentleman. Sorry for that.

For you're asking: I am indeed pretty familiar with the Camp David crash rumor. It has a lot to do with UA 93, but certainly nothing with AA 77. Please read

"Mineta and the elusive plane crash at Camp David"


Radar holes are interesting...

Woody Box...just making a point to the bloggers who operate anonymously...my name is Robin Hordon, and what I write I mean and stand by...regardless of who asks!

Don't miss my point here...A LOT can be done when there is no radar coverage...

In eastern Ohio it was a computer ? glitch causing no primary radar covergae...HMMM? Over Diana, where this primary target that everyone has been made to think is AA77, suddenly "popped up" on radar coverage and remained in such coverage until the Penatgon area.

There is no PLN radar coverage below 7000-8000 feet over Diana...but there IS radar coverage at 7000 feet EAST of Diana...HMMM?.

Within the valleys, there can be a lot of aviation activity below the ridge tops that is NOT recordable on radar data dics and tapes.

Please think for a minute about the interesting similarities between the bottom of the radar coverage floor over Diana as being 7000-8000 feet, and that "someone", "somewhere" established that the "unidentified target" that performed the descending turn into the Pentagon? began at 7000 feet. This is very intriguing to me.

AA77 could have done ANYTHING when in the "primary radar hole" in the Indy Center's airspace...such as slowing down and keeping its transponder OFF or, turning on a VFR code and flying anywhere to the west or south that it wanted to...while remaining unidentified. To FAA and military radars, AA77 would have simly blended into all the other VFR aircraft operating in those regions because most VFR aircraft were yet to be made aware of any "must land now" orders.

Or, it could have flown east a bit, popped over the ridge forming the western peaks along the valley in which Diana lies...then it could have dropped right down UNDER radar coverage and flown up towards Camp David or to the southwest...ALL remaining undetected and not recorded.

I seem to remember some testimony that I read somewhere, [although it sounded a bit whacky], from a woman who talked about seeing a very large airliner operating in the general area of such ridges and valleys, and being "swallowed up" by a mountain? But that might have been closer to Shanksville...which is not all that far away from Camp David, nor is it all that far from the primary radar hole in eastern Ohio. Lots of interesting stuff all around this region.

Moving on...

I am VERY familiar with the Air Forces' capabilities for very low flying as I used to be part of running what was called OB [Oil Burner] routes. These were low altitude routes flown by SAC [Strategic Air Command] bombers that flew along carefully chosen terrain up in the New England area [other areas too] where the exact route of flight was chosen because if one flew it, the route would be VERY similar to the low altiude bombing routes that would be flown should we have to bomb Moscow, or Lenningrad etc.

These are VERY low, and VERY accurate aviation activities, and if the Air Force wanted to plot out such a low altitude route along the valley in question, it could do so easily, and Burlingame could have programmed and flown it easily. And, even though its a huge airliner, it has very quiet engines when throttled back, and designing a flight path that weaves over a routing that kept it clear of cities, busy highways and even farms would not be any problem at all.

So, what "could have been" that primary target that "popped up" over Diana at 09:05-ish? My analysis of the RADES radar data that I was given estabilshes that there IS primary radar available to the WEST of Diana at higher altitudes ABOVE 7000-8000 feet from the PLN radar site. And this is an area IN BETWEEN the radar "FAA radar hole" over eastern Ohio, and Diana...but still east of the 8 minute radar gap? So, IF any primary target were in this airspace between Diana and the FAA's radar hole over Ohio, and it was ABOVE 7000-8000 feet, it "should have been detectable WEST of Diana via the PLN radar site, and such radar data should have been displayed. Well, It wasn't displayed, and again, AA77 was allegedly up at very high altitudes here. Thompson's "Timeline" states that the FAA radar data "saw the target" all the way...and that this target was not shown to the controllers...yet it states that primary radar coverage in the area is poor...and it also acknowledges that the target for AA77 was lost for 8 minutes.

Take your pick here because without the FAA radar data readouts and parameters on 9/11 in this area, its hard to establish too much for sure about the "availability" of target data. But there are radar holes in which some interesting "stuff" could happen.

To encapsulate here...AA77 was lost to radar about 08:56AM...and the first acknowledged "unidentified primary target" was picked up over Diana at about 09:05AM? about 8 minutes later?. BUT, since there was primary radar coverage from PLN WEST of Diana up at higher altitudes, if it WERE AA77 up at its asigned altitude, then it would have been detected before 09:05AM?.

BUT...if it were another air vehicle that was flying at around 7000-8000 feet, it would NOT be picked up by PLN primary radar until it reached or was a bit east of Diana.

So, if there were a swap, the air vehicle that was "swapped in" could have been a low flying craft flying undetected below the high ridges and could be scheduled to be over Diana about 09:05AM-ish or so. Not that this tight timing would be all that important...but there had to "some" close proximity just for overall timing sake. And, such a low flying air vehicle could have been almost anything that could fly at fairly high speeds in the military's asset list. It could have been flying undetected BELOW 7000 feet until it went east over the eastern ridge line towards Dulles.

So, in 8 miuntes of lost radar contact, the real AA77, flying slowly at lower altitudes, and giving the appearance of an untracked/unkown VFR aircraft, could have gone anywhere and done anything from crashing at Camp David, to flying to any secured airfield within HOURS of eastern Ohio because it had enough fuel on board.

AND...whatever military asset that was chosen to take AA77's place in this scenario could have flown undetected throughout the Appalachians [undetected by FAA radar as it would have been seen by military IFF radar sites], BUT...eventualy it would have to climb up OVER the eastern valley ridge east of Diana...and thusly, it would eventually HAVE to be picked up on primary radar from SOME radar site. This is an important part of the swap scenario...seeing the "swapped in" air vehicle, but NOT seeing the swap itself. Again, the 7000 foot number jumps out at me here.

a brief aside...

Now, here is where Barbara Honegger and I merge with some information. She claims that whatever flew past Dulles and on towards the Penagon, HAD to be a military air vehicle with a military IFF transponder on board...BECAUSE WITHOUT AN IFF TRANSPONDER...the air vehhicle might have been shot down as it might have triggered the ground-to-air missle defense system protecting P56...[if there was one].

This casts an interesting and perhaps "differing light" on the Cheney-Minetta story because...IF INDEED...it was a military asset, and it DID have an IFF transponder on board thus "shutting down" the missle defense system automatically, then eventually the press would ask, "appropriately", if indeed it WAS a military asset that made it past the missle defense system and NOT AA77.

So, there may have been a GREAT NEED for another explanation for the penetration of P56 by an "unknown" air vehicle.

It is possible that the "Cheney-Mineta" vignette, was Cheney "covering for" the fact that it WAS a military asset that made it past the missle defense system...and he did so by "taking one for the team" by yapping about the existance of a "stand-down order". Thusly, this is the ONLY way that it could be concluded that it WAS a civilian aircraft that did not have an IFF transponder...in this case, AA77. And we all know that Cheney could, did, and will again lie about anything.

Moving on a bit...

Although the PLN radar is a military radar site, the "target" seen by this site that represents AA77 on the RADES data, could have been either a primary target, or an IFF target, or both. This was not made clear to me about the base data. For sure, it was NOT an FAA transponder target because Dulles Tracon would have seen it. The IFF transponder data could have easily been scrubbed from this RADES radar data and thusly, this evidence may have been manilpulated similar to how some other evidence in the AA77 saga seems to have been so "hacked". OR, once again...the RADES target data flying past Dulles and on into the Penatgon loop could have simply come from a military/IFF transponder on board a military air vehicle [Dulles' FAA radar scopes would not display the IFF transponder].

Now, there are some issues with the RADES radar data that I was given and I cannot "KNOW" all of the above for sure because SOME of the radar data was deliberately EXCLUDED from my analysis by the person who did the FOIA for this data. I think that it would not have made a difference because the scrubbed data had to do with LOCAL traffic in and around WDC. SO, what I saw, I saw and its certainly interesting...if valid!

[BTW...as soon as I discovered the "pre-filtering" of radar data for me to analyze...I terminated that relationship...you gotta be kidding me...asking me to analyze data that has been pre-hacked!]

Anyway, all of this is very complicated, but ANY of these scenarios are well within he scope and capacities of the US Military...a simple piece of cake actually.

With the exception of the Honegger conclusion that came a year later and, both the RADES radar data and the "Camp David" possibilty that came to me only four months ago, this entire "swap scenario" had been shared on my blogging on P4T regarding the saga of AA77 about two years ago.

Upcoming stuff...

Mark Gaffney has written a book about "The Mystery Plane"...or "planes" that were flying all around WDC when indeed, they shouldn't have been there. The book is due out this September and there are quite a few scenarios etc that can be considered. However, IF there was a swap, it had to take place somewhere, and in the vicnity of Diana is one clear possibiity. If its an overflight, then being "shadowed/covered" out towards Camp David, OR perhaps it could have become one of the..."unkown", but "denied', yet "seen and photographed" by multiple eyewitnesses AND two news camera sources...LARGE aircraft operating in and about WDC on 9/11...when there should NOT have been such activity.

I have not read Mark Gaffney's entire book and have only contributed my ATC, visual and radar analysis in his research, but it shoud be stimulating and very informative regarding the AA77 saga.

Please remember that what I am stating about these "swap scenarios" are nothing more than postulations .

Some of the hard radar data and analysis IS completely valid. This can combine well with other research and reports from existing work. In the end, if AA77 did not strike the Pentagon, then regarding "where it went", there are a few possibilities that seem quite reasonable...and certainly easily doable within a 9/11 Attacks War game Scenario.

Robin Hordon


...Am I correct that you believe that the other three airliers were swapped out also?

...Do you have the source of the fact that the target that made the descending turn at the Pentagon was AT 7000 feet...and when it was established?

BOTH are inconsistent with a strike

With respect - I didn't confuse them. My comments referred to the flight trajectory determined from the raw Flight Data Recorder binary data file (.fdr file) and decoded by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This was supplied by the NTSB and contains radar altitude (omitted from NTSB animation) which matched the pressure altitude - both of which indicated the plane was too high to strike either lightpoles or Pentagon.

Specifically, the raw data file shows the plane never lower than 273 feet. The Pentagon is 71 feet tall, the lightposts are about 40 feet tall, so the trajectory is inconsistent with a strike.
A further problem (as Woody mentions) is that this flightpath contradicts the signed testimony of witnesses including two Pentagon police officers.

The NTSB animation supposedly derived from the same data file has more problems because it shows the plane coming in from the wrong angle too. I can imagine no simple explanation for errors in the animation resulting from an innocent mistake because it is generated automatically by software from the data file. Any effort to correct the angle results in the plane taking off from somewhere other than the airport! It suggests serious tampering.

Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files

The animation is a psy-op...

The NTSB Flight Path Study of AA77, including an addendum, the testimony of the Indianapolis ATC working AA77, and possibly the FAA RDP [radar data processing] data shows that AA77 began a descent while in its left turn at the end of the western leg of its flight just before it was lost to positive radar identification. And, the left turn WAS NOT SHOWN AS BEING COMPLETED TOWARDS Washngton, DC and the last heading was actually southwesterly.

This is why the Indy ATCs looked towards the southwest for a crashed airliner. Its really simple to understand.

So, well before ANY analysis of what AA77 actualy did at the Pentagon [according to the "animation"] is considered as being accurate, the falsity of the animation itself was already established AT the end of the western leg where the animatuon DID NOT SHOW any descent...AND...it did show a full 180 degree turn back towards WDC.

On Pandora's Black Box, in which my voice adds some background, the ONLY reason that the "disclaimer" that the aircraft seen may NOT have been AA77 was because I had to scream at P4T that the animation was wrong and that the aviation activities shown at the "Pentagon Senario" could NOT BE TRUSTED.

I suggested that the NTSB data [including the Addendum] also be shown at the point that the descent in the turn began, but the answer was: "There has been too much work that has already gone into this video to make any changes now."

So much for the Truth part in P4T. But they do some very good work.

It is my EXPRESS opinion that this animation was cleverly handed out by the HI PERPS through a FOIA request to a "British Citizen"???, and then handed back to P4T SOLELY to get this animation out into circulation as much as possible...and P4T obliged.

If one looks at the history of the "tracks" of AA77 from the beginning news reporting, one will see that over time, the "dotted lines" showing an "unconfirmed flight path for AA77", slowly turned into solid lines, and thusly began to CONFIRM that this target was AA77...IN THE PUBLIC'S MINDS. The ATCs at Dulles thought that the target was a military aircraft and ALL ATCs and FAA higher-ups stated that it was an "unkown" target, and NOBODY, at NO TIME, in ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, ever positively identified this transponderless primary target as being AA77.

This is a classic disinfo and psy-op program.

In the end, this primary target indeed may be AA77, but it will have to be proven as such by evidence at the crash scene because it CANNOT BE PROVEN by ATCS and any radar data studied...and this includes the RADES data provided by the military. So far, the evidence of such physical evidence at the Pentagon crash site is being effecively challenged.

P4T got into the 99/11 Truther game really late...its first considerations of what happened came from some flight tracking system used by relatives to see where their family's airplane was in the ATC system...this is like a crank guitar in comparison to one bult by Les Paul.

The damage done to thousands of people who looked at this flawed animation put out there by P4T will have to be undone by extra work by all of us regarding the saga of AA77.

Few "regular people" who see this animation will have a reason to look into how well the FDR? for AA77 matches up with this animation. They will buy the animation hook-line-and sinker.

Game-Set-Match...HI PERPS!

This is too bad...and P4T was warned before they went to press.

My aviation, ATC, and decades long HI PERPS' experiences instruct me to think that AA77, with Burlingame at the controls [far too coincidental for me...], is the modern day "Operation Northwoods", and actually served as the single "false-flag-flight" that was part of "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario" which was clandestinely, and effectively, buried within the other multiple War Games during the 9/11 attacks.

The reason that AA77 needed to play this role is because if all the other alleged hijackings" [and them flying into buildings] may not have happened as successfully as they seem to have happened, had failed...then there was still at least ONE successful attack that would have happened! Had all the "hijackers??? been caught, or all three airliners NOT been taken control of somehow, and the "terrorsts??? been thwarted, there STILL would have been a big explosion and deaths of american citizens for TV. And the hijackers??? would have STILL played a strong enough role as being part of another "plot against us" for Bush-Cheney Co. to invade Afghanistan and eventually Iraq.

Makes one think a bit differently about what Bush meant when he stated something along the lines of: "Looks like I hit the trifecta...".

Pundits stated the trifecta was a "save for his presidency, an excuse for Bush's economy, and a save for the republican party". I think that it might be that there were THREE buildings hit making Bush's trifecta...

AA77 is the Achilles Heel for the HI PERPS...and this is why they constantly steer everyone to other flights, why they fabricate and erase data surrounding AA77, and why they refuse to release tapes, FAA radar and communications data and other evidence such as the various video tapes surrounding the Pentagon.

Also, if Truthers had not been successfully "mind fucked" into thinking that the Pentagon was hit by an airvehicle, and they looked at facts in an unbiased manner,,,aka...the streak in the Pentagon lawn that somewhat matched the approach path, the fact that the vehicle shown in the FAB FIVE FRAMES was actually on or very near the ground, and that the exhaust was NOT smoke from a High By-pass turbojet engine, but looked like that of a rocket engine, then they would first suspect that the vehicle seen in the FAB FIVE FRAMES was not airbourne at all. Maybe it was a "rocket sled" and that these FAB FIVE FRAMES were designed to accomplish the same thing that the animation was designed to accomplish...PSY-OPS. And Barbara Honegger makes a strong case for the first explosion at the Pentagion being at 09:32-ish? HMMM?

AA77, the Pentagon explosions, and how NORAD was effectively "stood down", will bring down these criminals...and they do know this!

Robin Hordon

Interesting analysis

Interesting analysis Robin, but the substantial point is that the NTSB animation and the data file were proffered ostensibly to support the official story but fail to do so. Surely having established that we don't need to go any further with them - besides forcefully and vocally rejecting them. Speculating about what the files actually indicate or what purpose was served by publishing them may indeed lead us into a psy-op trap, but there's no need to go there. After all, it is the NTSB, not P4T who claim the data came from the AA77 FDR recovered from the Pentagon. And as Aidan just established, they have no record of any effort to positively match it to the plane.

Psy-op? Disinfo?

Perhaps P4T's work isn't perfect... How many things in this universe are? I think we all make mistakes, and US citizens were certainly provided precious little accurate information between Sept. 2001 and say June 2007. As we gain more and better information, we may need to amend some statements made earlier based upon faulty or incomplete information- such is the nature of learning and growth.

I do know that there are 4 pages of Flight AA77 threads plus 8 pages of Pentagon threads at the P4T forum that are likely more current than Mr. Hordon's review of "Pandora's Black Box," Chapter One of which was released in late 2006 and Chapter Two in Jan. 2007 with finite resources, I believe. Personally, I respect a person or organization for having the courage to speak out or produce something, even if it is imperfect (see LTW / "Loose Change" for example). Now as to the nature of "speaking out" that transpires on that Randi forum- well that's another matter...

IMHO, there appears to be liberal use of the words psy-op and disinfo above, and was there an implication of P4T dishonesty, or did I read that incorrectly? I did some analysis of the alleged AA77 and UA93 SSFDR data myself, completely independently of P4T's analysis, and my conclusions were awfully close to those of P4T's Core Memebers, based upon raw .CSV data (I didn't watch Pandora's Black Box or the NTSB animation very closely or completely before my data analysis). I also did analysis of the alleged USAF 84 RADES data for all 4 flights.

My $0.02
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized." - Edward Bernays

These are the only passenger jet crashes

on US soil that the NTSB did not investigate.

It's mindbogglingly, that 4 Passenger Jets crash on the same day and the Bush Administration got away with shutting down NORAD and the NTSB.

BTW: Have you ever contacted Boeing about their version of events. Boeing has a team in Seattle, that goes into high gear anytime a jet they've built fails. Part of the drill includes gathering all the records for the plane and collecting as much information as possible, as fast as possible about what happened. They normally work with NTSB and fully participate in the investigation. Except on 9/11. From what I've heard, on 9/11 Boeing's team in Seattle went into high gear and followed their normal procedures, when they got word that the planes had crashed. At least, until the next day. That's when the DOD showed up. They took all of their records and info and basically shut them down. Their excuse was this was a national emergency and the DOD would be taking charge of the investigation. Of course, that was the end of any investigation and the start of the cover up instead.

A Boeing employee was contacted

and even though he tried to be helpful, he ran into a brick wall pretty quick. Boeing has 1000's of employees and most of them are as clueless as the rest of the world, about what happened on 9/11 and their employer's role in that event.

The only people who know much (other then possibly some top execs) are the ones who were on the front lines that day. Ochin mentions the accident investigation authority and that they are the only ones at Boeing who have access to the data. This is the team that the DOD paid a visit to on 9/12, when they showed up to take over the investigation. If there was some way to find out who's on this team there might be something there. From what I heard most of them were not happy campers when their investigation got shut down.

This is fucking insane.

Can someone just walk this evidence physically into Kucinich's office, and Conyers, and Paul?

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

I'll try try again

Uncharted investigative methodology needed here...

This is a truly mind bending double bind so long as we lack a solution (a punishing and inescapable dilemma).

If leaving aside the investigations of controlled demolition, put options, stand-down and/or other curious air defense failures, hijacker identity and funding, and other lead-up to and morning-of 9/11 event anomalies...

This material represents (at least to me) our clearest lead and locks upon post event coverup actions by demonstrable domestic participants. This, the more enduring (and repugnantly disturbing) crime aside and separable from the event itself, seemingly presents a far more fruitful line worthy of pursuit. It does not rely on language translations, rare-ish collapse physics, nor, get this, the confusion of untangling the cacophony of media coverage as applied to so many of the other aspects to choose from in this case. This later part seems a valuable clue... media seems quite well aware of the weight of this line of inquire. It's been avoided like the plague of Main Stream Media-Death it is.

Aviation in America... had a well warn, at least for its first half century, philosophy and practice of policing its own. Such as pilot training and practical demonstration of PIC (pilot in command) competency was completely internal. An affair between pilots only. As in, who else could do it? Who exactly would be able to give Wilber and Orville their "license to fly"? Design, innovation, testing, and adaptation... who else could do it? A necessary self motivation to learn (to survive for example), as well to investigate the accidents of others to learn more. Who else could do it? Bureaucracy has a nasty habit of degrading things.

My intranssiently unshakable opinion on this (go figure, I was trained to be a pilot that way) quickly became my own driving force to resend my acknowledgment of the FAA's worthy position as a licensing agency over the air. If the FAA, the modern bureaucratic outgrowth of overseeing all things that get off the ground, was unable to DEMAND... in the sprit and demands of aviation SAFETY, the hard honesty necessary to disseminate such truths fundamentally vital to pilots and thus their beholden passengers... what good are they? Sure, aviation continues on today... but I promise you... it's no longer advancing in the way and spirit it can, could and damn sure should. American Lies now reign over her own unfriendly skies... as retardation for lack of spirit holds the day. To this day. I'd probably cry, if I wasn't so fucking pissed.

Some fucking small minded twits, enabled by legions of sycophantic know-near-nothing apparatchiks... now Command and Control who and what takes to the sky. Thinking hard about this actually makes me want to puke.

Dog Fighting these fuckers is what they deserve. But not really being whole pilots... they'd sooner call in anti-aircraft fire or as is their cowardly way, long distance fire-and-forget missiles. These people are truly the worst, passing out the permission slips for something that they have no rightful dominion over. Isn't that always the way with things unearned?

I'm not prone to idle prayers... but this IS a subject I seek guidance and patience to triumph. 'Lord, grant me the wisdom to help untangle this... and the patience not to do something stupid like kicking some twit's sack in the mean time. Amen'



Kucinich is on our media contact list. Their office gets every article we have written and will write.


I have also requested to interview Kucinich. Their office responded they will forward the message to him. Havent heard back.

I have also contact several congress representatives/senators in my area (when i lived in TN) by phone. Spoke to Chief of Staff for many. None returned calls.

And as many of you know, we have repeatedly contacted the NTSB, FBI and numerous media outlets wordlwide including Popular Mechanics who now refuse to discuss 9/11 topics (once they heard the P4T name?).


I'm sure he is.

But I was addressing Aidan Monaghan and HIS EVIDENCE, not your dubious theories about a "flyover at the pentagon."

Here's a very direct question:

Have you or any of your "Pilots for truth" ever worked for US intelligence in any capacity?

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Robin Hordon

I rarely get a chance to visit blogger much these days, but was notified of Robin's attacks. Since Robin has attacked us, i feel the need to step in.

1. Robin is out of his mind and extremely difficult to work with.
2. Robin has done more harm than good to this movement. He hasnt worked ATC since 1981.
3. The only reason Robin had to "scream" at P4T to include "not positive IDed" is because the first few times i told him that the NTSB claims it is from AA77, not us, that is why we treat it as if it came from AA77. (something Robin still fails to grasp). Yet, i agreed it should be pointed out that aircraft was never positively ID'ed and put it in the film. Robin emails me a few days later calling me shill because it wasnt good enough. I sat down and made a new clip, exclusively for "Robin" IN ADDITION to what we already placed in the film, and uploaded the new version to google.
4. Robin says he still knows people at Boston ATC working who think 9/11 was an inside job, but refuses to let anyone else know who they are or interview them anonymously.
5. Robin refuses to write up a critique of the Colin Scoggins interview, a person who actually worked the 9/11 flights.
6. Robin Hordon did not get onto the "9/11" scene till he heard me on Randi Rhodes and contacted us. Then i inteviewed him. It made Prison Planet and went viral. Robin thought he was then a "big shot". Up until that time, no one ever knew "Robin Hordon".

Robin, attacking us on blogger will get you no where. Telling others "nothing to see here, move along" regarding our work and the information distributed by the NTSB which doesnt support the govt story may make people think twice about your motives and call me asking "what is his problem", (as they did, to notify me of this thread).

Robin, we are still waiting on your sourced article for the "right, left, left, right" turn you claim WE should have published, yet cant find source which you still fail to provide.

Robin, anytime you would like to have a civil debate on any of the above, recorded (not a shouting match as it seems thats all you know how to do), you know where to find me.

Sorry folks, im tired of Robins' underhanded attacks and BS. I hear it through the grapevine and i had enough.

That is all.

Rob Balsamo

PS. Keep up the good work Aidan!

Edit to add: We are currently working on a new presentation regarding the Pentagon Attack complete with 3D animations and a scale model of Arlington which we hope to have done shortly. We will eventually be doing a remake of Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77. At that time, we will be pulling Robins interview from the film. Robins initial interview with me which got him started in "The movement" has been pulled from google video. We apologize for our mistake.

Enough fighting!

These bust ups are extremely destructive. Don't we have enough opposition without fighting amongst ourselves? Robin, I find the proprietorial implication of your remark "P4T got into the 99/11 Truther game really late..." inappropriate. We are not engaged in a game but a cooperative campaign for truth and justice. You have used your expertise to make important contributions to the campaign and as you say P4T "do some very good work". Can't we leave it at that and keep private differences out of public forums?

I've come across opposition to the pilotsfor911truth data decode before and assumed it stemmed from a reluctance to associate with anything that might support "no planers". Now I wonder if it doesn't boil down to in-fighting.

Arabesque - you are better informed about 9/11 than most. Why do you say "The black box data is consistent with the trajectory of the official flight path"? Do you dispute that the radar and pressure altitude both show the plane on too high a trajectory?

You also say: "This often repeated claim that the 'flight animation' is credible evidence that the official story about the flight path is wrong is an example of misinformation."

What do you mean by that convoluted sentence? The NTSB flight animation is an official story about the path AA77 took into the Pentagon. It does not match the forensics, therefore it is misinformation. But it is not misinformation to say it is misinformation!

Robin says "The animation is a psy-op". Self evidently, if it was not the result of some bizarre operator error as Arabesque implausibly suggests. But you seem to be saying "don't look at it, it psy-ops!" and ignoring the more important fact that it is a gaping hole in the government's evidential case.

The NTSB animation and the flight AA77 data decode are arguably more damaging to the official story than any amount of analysis of the implosion of WTC 7 because the FBI sourced them, and because they record in cold numbers with great precision the alleged plane's path. There's really no wriggle room.

Thank you.

That sums it up well, Cognito!

If this were a court of law and it was proven that the prosecution was falsifying evidence, the trial would be over.

Veracity of information...

The FDRs are being challenged as being the actual devices onboard the various airliners, and to present them as being truthful and accurate is premature. The same can be noted about the RADES radar data that the HI PERPS turned over via FOIA. So, there is quite a bit of "wiggle room" here.

Regardless of how the animation or the FDRs support or destroy the "Official Story", this is not what I am talking about.

The "psy-op" is that the animation is an easily perceived video showing the public that it WAS indeed AA77 that turned around and flew back to strike the Pentagon when this simply cannot be proven anywhere along its flight path...including at the crash site.

We all know that there was a rather well designed set of visuals, press releases, personal statements, interviews and other information carefully fed out to the public at the right place and at the right time. This was to "set" into people's minds exactly what the HI PERPS wanted to be the story line. This is "psy-ops".

The animation of AA77, whether or not supporting or destroying some finer points inside the "Official Story", was planted to have the "visual" become established into not only the public's minds, but even in the minds of some of the Truthers who feel strongly about one story or another surrounding the AA77-Pentagon saga.

I still remain open about what actually happened at the Pentagon and what happened to AA77.

The FACT is that nobody anywhere at anytime ever positively reidentified the primary target in question as being AA77 after it became the ONLY airliner lost to positive radar contact on 9/11. The way that the HI PERPS are attempting to "prove" that the primary target in question is AA77 is by building "backwards" from the crash site using questionable evidence that they hope proves their point. This physical evidence is under severe question, and there are multiple witnesses and sets of aviation activities happening all around the Pentagon explosion that can support a variety scenarios.


I challenge Webster Tarpley ONLY for using his 9/11 stage for spreading "concepts" and not facts about 9/11...

I challenge Alex Jones ONLY because he encourages aggressive and confrontational behaviors towards the very citizenry that we need to inform...

I challenge We Are Changes ONLY as being fronts for "The Ron Paul Experiment" for [originally] using the prowess of the 9/11 Truth Movement to launch their real objectives...electng Ron Paul...

And I continue to challenge P4T on this animation that they sent out to the public sans easily verifiable "truth", because it establishes erroneous information in the public's mind that it WAS AA77 that turned around and went back to WDC...and it may not have been. There is other evidence in the "radar data analysis pipeline" supporting this view.

Each of the above noted "challenges" are focused upon improving the public behaviors and information delivery systems used to educate the public surrounding the events on 9/11/2001.

Whatever the levels of my expertise may, or may not be, there are some researchers and authors who seek my opinins and analysis of some of the information that they have collected regarding radar data, ATC ops and NORAD. It appears to have been somewhat helpful to them as most of their work has been considered very credible, and it has been accepted as being at least a bit more valid because of such input and analysis. This is not the case for P4T.

Additionally, when any researcher or author has requested my liscenses and bonafides regarding my ATC and piloting backgrounds, I have provided copies of this information because I was wise enough to keep my original files from over 25 years ago. I was aware that the PATCO strike was a very big event, and I had been an activist for many years before then. It was clear to me that somehow, history would repeat itself, or that more bad things would be happening as they always do regarding empire.

I didn't think that it would be anything like 9/11 though...but...It wasn't at all that surprising as the attacks all unfolded. I began to do work with progressive friends in showbiz behind the scenes fully knowing that valid discussions in public about this event would need time to be able to get past the shock. My first phone call to one of my friends was around 2:00pm on 9/11...and I haven't stopped talking about it since...its been just been more public lately...and nobody gets my inside contacts...PERIOD!

Robin Hordon

Who's presenting them as truthful?

"The FDRs are being challenged as being the actual devices onboard the various airliners, and to present them as being truthful and accurate is premature."

Who's presenting them as truthful and accurate apart from the FBI/NTSB and media? Pilots for Truth certainly aren't. Callum Douglas wisely eschews any judgement on the matter in his presentation but the analysis indicates that they aren't. If the FBI does an about face at some time and says "whoops - we gave you the wrong flight recorder data" - that would be a different matter. But I wouldn't call that wriggle room.

I fully take your point, which I think you made in the Pilots for 911 Truth interview, that "nobody anywhere at anytime ever positively reidentified the primary target in question as being AA77 after it became the ONLY airliner lost to positive radar contact on 9/11" but I do not agree that Pilots for 911 Truth have in anyway undermined it. Certainly not in my mind anyway.

You say you still remain open about what actually happened at the Pentagon and what happened to AA77 and I don't see we have any alternative at this stage, but you cannot worry about what others may or may not conclude from the garbage the government feeds us as "evidence". We have to use our own judgement. I'm sure it is far more fruitful to devote our energies to challenging the official story than criticising others. The present administration is a real and present danger. Ron Paul becoming president is not.

Thank you

"Who's presenting them as truthful and accurate apart from the FBI/NTSB and media? Pilots for Truth certainly aren't."

And now you realize why Hordon was "shouting". Its because he doesnt listen.

Many will learn. Dont get burned.


Hello, McFly?

McFly-Hordon writes -

"And I continue to challenge P4T on this animation that they sent out to the public"

Who exactly is sending out this animation to the public? Anyone want to inform Robin?

Heres a hint...

(claim 4)

For those still lost (Hordon), the NTSB are the ones distributing the animation and FDR data to the American public through the Freedom Of Information Act, not P4T. Hordon is saying its a "psy-op, nothing to see here, move along". P4T are calling the NTSB/FBI and recording them on the phone saying, "Hey, your data doesnt support the govt story.. WTF?", while assembling aviation professionals found here.. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Why exactly does Hordon want people to look the other way of this data supplied by the govt which doesnt support the govt story?

Has Hordon ever filed an FOIA? Has Hordon ever recorded the FBI or NTSB? Has Hordon EVER contact a congress man saying the NTSB data is a "psy-op"? If not, why not?

My opinion, i no longer trust Hordon. Havent for awhile. I kicked him out of P4T days after he contacted me after my Randi Rhodes interview in which he first got started in the "movement". Havent thought of the man for a long while. But im tired of hearing about his underhanded attacks through the grapevine through my colleagues. I've had my run-ins with Hordon in the past. Now that he attacks us publicly, the gloves are off.

Your mileage may vary.

Hordon is a fraud. There, i said it. Anyone who takes the advice of Hordon, be advised he hasnt worked the ATC system in over 27 years.

Hordon, you're better off exchanging arguments and theories with the likes of Arabesque. He tries to prove AA77 hit the pentagon. Why not get on his case about positive ID?


McBullshit Tactics

Again: Have you, Rob Balsamo, or any other "Pilots for truth" ever worked for US intelligence in any capacity?

How about currently?

How about a chain of custody on that animation?

Where did it actually come from?

Caustic Logic blog has some analysis that directly contradicts you, and explains apparent errors in the flight path.

As long as you and your compatriots at "P4T" keep acting like assholes whenever challenged on any point, I have no reason to accept that you are legitimate, and are what you say you are.

At one time "Air America" was the largest airline in the world. The head of CIA asked for an inventory of all their aircraft, but it could not be catalogued because it was so huge, so widespread, so chopped up and used for parts around the world.

Seems like they employed a lot of pilots. No?

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Thanx Rob

Keep us updated on the efforts of P4T.

Intramural pissing contests

This exchange, and the perceived spirit of the discussion, contributes nothing to keeping the pressure on the perps. It does a great deal to sow discontent within the movement. There is a great deal of room between the official conspiracy theory and the most persuasive of the hard evidence to accommodate all kinds of pet theory, interpretation, conjecture, and internecine conflict over the actions of this or that investigator and the products of their investigation. All the while, those who would use 9/11 to accomplish their nefarious ends silently cheer on both sides of these fruitless slap-fights.

That ought to tell you something.

If you can't agree, put in a minority report with the best info you can muster and let the public decide for themselves but do it with respect. If you go after the reputation of an ally to damage them personally you are going to get it back in kind and nobody wins except our adversaries.

I can attest to the personal sacrifices of P4t and the amount of hard work done by core members to dig out the truth and present it in a manner that is persuasive and to the point. I appreciate Robin's contributions as well. I will leave it there.