ACARS confirmed - 9/11 aircraft airborne long after crash of united 175

[Peter Lemkin]

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH
UNITED 175 IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.
These are the 'text' (ACARS) messages in question -
The format for these messages is pretty straight forward. To limit the technical details, we will explain the most important parts of the messages, however, for full Message Block Format Code standards, click here. The remote ground station (MDT in the message below) used to route the message to the aircraft, the time and date in which the message is sent (111259, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1259Z or 0859 Eastern), the flight number (UA175), and the tail number of the airplane in which the message is intended (N612UA), are all highlighted in red. The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane.

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA SFOLM CHI58R SFOFRSAM
.SFOLMUA 111259/JER
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUSFOLMUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
I HEARD OF A REPORTED INCIDENT ABOARD YOUR ACFT. PLZ VERIFY ALL
IS NORMAL....THX 777SAM
SFOLM JERRY TSEN

;09111259 108575 0543

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1303Z (9:03AM Eastern, the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA 111303/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
HOW IS THE RIDE. ANY THING DISPATCH CAN DO FOR YOU...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111303 108575 0545

This message was also sent on Sept 11, at 1303Z (9:03AM Eastern, the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA CHIYR CH158R
.CHIYRUA 111303/AD
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
NY APROACH LOOKIN FOR YA ON 127.4
CHIDD AD ROGERS

;09111303 108575 0546

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1323Z (9:23AM Eastern, 20 minutes after the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the PIT remote ground station (Pittsburgh International Airport).

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111323 108575 0574

If one references the standard message block codes linked above, you will notice that a "Technical Acknowledgement" section should be present in ACARS messages. What this means, is that the ACARS system can confirm if the sent 'text' messages have been received or not without requiring any crew input to manually acknowledge the message was received. Similar to an email which may have bounced back, or your cell phone telling you that your text message failed to send, this automatic technical acknowledgement would let the reader know the message failed receipt, or if it were received. An ACK or NAK should be present denoting received or failed, respectively, according to standard message formats. Unfortunately, these standard codes are not available in the above messages. However, according to a Memorandum For The Record(2) quoting United Dispatcher Ed Ballinger, the second time stamp on the bottom of the message, at United Airlines, is the "Technical Acknowledgement" from the airplane that the message has been received -

Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.

According to the above statement made by Mr. Ballinger, all of the above messages were received by the aircraft.
The 9/11 Commission has claimed which messages have been received by the aircraft. According to a another Memorandum For The Record (MFR), four ACARS messages were sent between 8:59AM and 9:03AM on the morning of Sept 11, to United Flight 175. The MFR reads as follows(3) -

1259:19Z A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crew acknowledged stating "I heard of a reported incident."
1259:29 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1259:30 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1303:17 Rogers-initiated message not received by the aircraft

The first message at 1259:19Z, as stated, was received by the aircraft, but not crew acknowledged, which is not required as technical acknowledgements are automatic. This is referring to the message noted above sent through MDT by Jerry TSEN (First coded ACARS message at top). The second (1259:29Z) and third messages (1259:30Z) referenced in the MFR were not provided through the FOIA. The last message (1303:17Z) referenced in the MFR is claimed to not have been received by the aircraft according to the 9/11 Commission. However, all we have is their word, which contradicts the statement made by Ballinger and the Technical Acknowledgement time stamp. The coded Rogers initiated ACARS message is included above, third from the top. Of course, the 9/11 Commission cannot admit if the last message was received by the airplane as that would immediately indicate to anyone that the airplane did not crash into the South Tower at 09:03am.
It is interesting to note that the Commission ignores the 9:03am ACARS message sent by Ed Ballinger routed through MDT (second ACARS message printed above), yet claims the 9:03am message sent by Rogers as not being received. Based on sequential numbers of the messages themselves, it is clear Ballinger's 9:03 message was sent before the Rogers message (0545 for Ballinger message, 0546 for Rogers, printed on bottom of the message), yet the Commission ignores Ballinger's message. Why would they ignore Ballinger's message, yet acknowledge Rogers? Is it because Ballinger's message was received by the airplane and they realized that an aircraft cannot receive an ACARS message at that distance and such low altitude? This message is more evidence the aircraft was in the vicinity of Harrisburg, and not NY. At least 3 ACARS messages were routed through MDT between 8:59 and 9:03am, and received by the airplane, according to the technical acknowledgement time stamps at the bottom of the messages.
The last message sent at 9:23AM, routed through Pittsburgh, has been completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission as well. Although important to know whether the messages were received, it is equally if not more important to understand how they are routed, received or not.
ACARS Networks are based on ARINC Standards for communications in the United States. ARINC is a provider of the communication protocol for ACARS networking. As ACARS networks are to Cell Phones, think of ARINC as perhaps a Verizon or AT&T. When a message is sent from the aircraft, or the ground, the message needs to be routed through remote ground stations as described above. Many remote ground stations (RGS) are located throughout the world. Here is a diagram of some of the stations located in the Northeast USA.

Click To Enlarge

Comprehensive List Of ACARS Remote Ground Stations Worldwide - scribd source link - Page 100

If you get on an airplane in say Chicago, headed for NY, you turn off your cell phone and off you go. When you arrive in NY, you turn on your cell phone and see you have a message waiting. Was this message routed through a cell tower in Chicago? No, you would never receive it, nor be alerted that you have a message waiting. It is routed through a cell tower in NY. How does the cell network know where you are?
Although not exactly the same, but similar to how cell phones track your phone based on location, choosing the best cell towers to route messages to your phone, ACARS networks track the aircraft in flight and know where the aircraft is in order to route messages to the aircraft (or vice versa) through the best remote stations on the ground. When a message is sent from the ground or in flight, it is routed through a Central Processing System. This system determines the best routing to a ground station based on the aircraft location. Two types of flight tracking (or flight following) protocols are used for this process. Category A and B(5).
First is Category A. This type of flight following uses Flight Tracking messages automatically sent from the aircraft, typically every 10 minutes. These messages are a data link and do not contain any text, therefore the customer airline does not receive these messages, they are used for Flight Tracking purposes only. When the Flight Tracking message is sent, the Central Processing System (CPS) recognizes which stations it has been sent through and picks the three best stations for routing messages to and from the aircraft. After roughly 10 minutes, another Flight Tracking message is sent from the aircraft, through a new set of ground stations in the vicinity of it's new location, and the Central Processing System dumps the old stations and replaces it with new stations better for routing messages to the aircraft. This process continues throughout the flight automatically.
The second type of Flight Tracking, Category B, is a bit more simple. The aircraft continuously monitors all stations as it travels on it's course. The Central Processing System continuously chooses the best station for routing purposes while the aircraft is in flight. If the flight plan route is amended in flight, and a diversion is necessary, the Central Processing System chooses a new remote ground station along the diverted flight path based on this flight tracking protocol, tracking the aircraft.
The reason for this type of flight tracking, Category A and B, is due to the fact aircraft divert from their flight plans all the time, daily. Some have argued that MDT and PIT were chosen for ground station routing due to the original planned route of flight, BOS to LAX. However, if ACARS routing was based on original flight planned route, aircraft diverting from their original route of flight would not be able to communicate via ACARS as they would quickly leave the areas in which remote ground stations have been chosen, rendering the network useless for the airline, and most importantly, the aircraft. On 9/11 especially, many aircraft were diverted from their original flight plans. If the ACARS network was solely based on flight planned route, 100's if not thousands of aircraft, would not have been able to communicate with their company and/or ATC via ACARS. Chaos would have ensued as ACARS communication is a valuable asset to facilitate aircraft operations and flight safety, and the skies would never have been cleared as quickly as reported.
Some have further gone on to speculate that United Airlines Dispatchers routed the messages themselves based on flight planned route. Flight Tracking protocol as described renders this argument moot as the Dispatcher does not have control over ARINC routing of ACARS messages through remote ground stations. This type of premise is the equivalent of saying that when you call someone from your cell phone, you have the capability to choose which cell tower around the world you want your call to be routed. It's absurd. But for the sake of argument, we will explore this hypothesis.
Dispatch Operations Centers monitor flight tracking of the aircraft in near real time on an Airspace Situational Display (ASD). The United Airlines ASD is refreshed every 60 seconds according to another Memorandum For The Record released by the 9/11 Commission(4)

When asked about the technical capabilities of the ASD (airspace situational display) program used by the dispatchers on their monitors to track planes, all United representatives conferred that the program's display refreshes every 60 seconds.
.....
McCurdy recollected that at the time of the crash into tower 2, the display on Ballenger's monitor still showed UAL 175 at 31,000 ft, having just deviated from the normal flight plan and heading into a big turn back east.

The reason Dispatchers have an ASD is due to the fact the aircraft across the globe deviate from their cleared flight plans daily due to weather, traffic, etc. With an ASD, Dispatchers can keep track of their flights and alert for weather (or other adverse conditions) along the route. Even if Dispatchers had the capability to choose which specific ground station to route a message, why would they choose MDT and then later PIT if the aircraft is diverting back to the east on their monitors? The answer is, they wouldn't. The hypothesis that Remote Ground Station routing is based on original flight plan is completely absurd and usually attempted by only those who obviously are not interested in the facts, instead need to speculate to hold onto their beliefs. As described, the Central Processing System routes messages through remote ground stations based on Flight Tracking Protocol(5).
These are the ACARS remote ground station locations as compared with the flight path of United 175, including the diversion from the flight planned route due to the alleged "hijacking". An overlay of the RADES Radar data, also provided through FOIA, has been included to show the location of the Target Aircraft (TA) for the time when the first message was sent through Harrisburg. PA (MDT) and received by the aircraft, at 08:59:AM.

"Converged with Target Aircraft" radar track showing where the tracks actually converge with "UA175" can be viewed in 9/11 Intercepted, or here based on the RADES Radar Data provided through FOIA
(Click Image To Enlarge)

.

Distances from the Target Aircraft to the relative Remote Ground Stations (RGS) are included.

As you can see, there are many stations surrounding the Target Aircraft which are much closer to the aircraft than MDT out in Harrisburg, PA. Twelve stations to be exact,

1. ABE
2. EWR
3. MMU
4. JFK
5. LGA
6. TEB
7. PHL
8. HPN
9. ISP
10. ILG
11. ACY
12. AVP

All of which are nearly half the distance to the Target Aircraft than MDT is presently at 08:59 AM.
There is no possible reason for the Central Processing System (CPS) to have chosen MDT for routing purposes based on Flight Tracking protocol described above, if this Target Aircraft truly were United Flight 175, N612UA. The twelve other stations would have had to been skipped over, and for some reason the CPS chose MDT way out in Pennsylvania. Another argument (read: speculation) is that all those other stations were "congested" at the time which is why the CPS chose MDT. First, in order for this to be true, all those stations would have to be "congested" at least four times over. As demonstrated by the MFR referenced above, as many as 4 messages were routed through MDT. What are the odds that all 12 ground stations were "congested" each and every time? This argument, if not absurd, is moot as when the CPS determines the best ground station based on flight tracking protocol, the message is placed into a queue routed through the best station and then sent in the order it was received. ACARS messages are not very large in terms of bytes. Multiple messages can be sent in less than a second. It is logical to queue the messages at a remote ground station which is closer to the aircraft than to route a message through a ground station much further away in which the aircraft may not receive based on distance and altitude. Ground stations can send messages up to 200 miles, but this is only guaranteed if the aircraft is above 29,000 feet, as stated in the MFR sourced above.
When asked how the ACARS network chooses a Remote Ground Station for routing messages to an aircraft, FDR, Radar, ACARS Expert and Electrical Engineer Dennis Cimino had this to say,

The aircraft are constantly in contact with whatever ground station is nearest to it, more or less in 'data link' mode, sending acknowledgements back and forth. In cases where multiple stations on the ground are within range, the dropped packet numbers decide which ground station gets the priority. not as sophisticated as N.T.D.S. (naval tactical data systems) but pretty close to that.
On a more 'system' level, the ground stations are more or less in spread spectrum constant transmit mode like cell phones now use, so they won't step on each other continually. when an aircraft receiver's MDS (minimum discernible signal) sensitivity is achieved or reached out of the 'tangential' noise floor level, the aircraft's receiver then begins to try to data frame sync with the ground. then once that happens and two way 'ping pong' as data link persons refer to it, happens, then any queued messages get shipped to the receiving system and data relative to the aircraft's flight get sent back down to the ground.

This corroborates the Flight Tracking Protocol as outlined above based on a July 2002 Newsletter published by ARINC titled The Global Link(5).
Now that it is understood there were many ground stations which should have been chosen by the CPS before routing messages through MDT, why would the Central Processing System ever choose PIT as the next ground station for routing purposes if the aircraft was being tracked by the ACARS network to NYC? The answer is, it wouldn't.
It is possible all messages can be fabricated, but that would attract multiple felony charges as well considering the information was provided through the Freedom Of Information Act and used as evidence to support the claims made by the 9/11 Commission. Pilots For 9/11 Truth encourage readers to contact an ARINC Specialist in your area to confirm or refute the above evidence offered. Contact information for an ARINC office near you can be located through a simple google search. Feel free to direct them to this site and article.
Based on Flight Tracking protocol, the only reason the Central Processing System would choose to route messages through the ground stations located at MDT, then later PIT, over the numerous ground stations much closer and surrounding NYC, is due to the aircraft being in the vicinity of MDT, and then later, PIT. This means that the aircraft observed to strike the south tower, was not United 175.

"Converging Aircraft " radar tracks showing the targets converging can be viewed in
9/11 Intercepted, or here based on the RADES Radar Data provided through FOIA
(Click Image To Enlarge)

All aircraft converging above can be viewed in the RADES Data or 9/11: Intercepted

This evidence strengthens previous evidence uncovered by Pilots For 9/11 Truth that a standard 767 cannot remain in control, stable or hold together at the speeds reported by the NTSB for the South Tower aircraft(6). So, if UA175 was somewhere out in Pennsylvania when an aircraft was observed to strike the south tower, and a standard 767 cannot perform at such excessive speeds as reported, then where did the airplane come from which was observed to strike the South Tower? That is a great question and the reason we are still here after 10 years attempting to get answers for the day that changed our world, and will never go away until those questions are answered.
Send this evidence to your Congress Representative, your Senators, Judges, Lawyers, print it out and hand it to your pilots when boarding a flight (Pilots love reading material while in cruise). Call into talk shows, tell them about this evidence. Grab our DVD's and make copies, hand them to friends, family, co-workers, etc. Demand a new investigation into the events of 9/11. The 9/11 Families, The 9/11 Victims, The American People, The World, deserves to know Truth about what happened on September, 11, 2001.
Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center Attack along with other information provided by several government agencies through the Freedom Of Information Act. The data does not support what we have been told. Government Agencies refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth continues to grow and exist only through your continued support. We thank you!
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store to help support Pilots For 9/11 Truth continued operations and research.
Read Part Two of this article here.
(1) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Team7..._ACARS.pdf - 12.9mb pdf
(2) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/t-014...-01090.pdf (bottom of page 6) - 1.3mb pdf
(3) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Miles_Kara_MFR.pdf - 681kb pdf
(4) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/mfr-d...ck-asd.pdf - 900kb pdf
(5) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/GLOBAL_LINK.pdf - Use Of Tracker Messages In Category A ACARS Networks, page 6, 174kb pdf
(6) 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed

[Peter Lemkin]

The implications of the above article and the data contained in it are devastating to the 'official' scenario of 911...if any more damage to it needs to be obtained! It is a little technical, but shows all kinds of electronic 'magic' and 'trickery' at play with Flight 175 and the other flights that day. :: :: Bottom line - we were lied to [BIG TIME] as to what happened, as well as why and by whom! The whole event was staged and controlled by forces well beyond anyone without access to the highest levels of command and control in the USA.

Below is part two of this blockbuster post!

IT IS CONCLUSIVE - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE WELL AFTER CRASH
UNITED 93 IN THE VICINITY OF FORT WAYNE, INDIANA AND CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS AT TIME OF SHANKSVILLE ALLEGED CRASH
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - More information has surfaced which conclusively demonstrates the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, were airborne well after their alleged crashes. This article supplements our last, "ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH" in which the ACARS system is explained as well as how to determine if a message were received by the aircraft, along with how ground stations are selected through Flight Tracking Protocol based on messages routed to United 175, N612UA. We now have further evidence which places United 93, N591UA, in the vicinity of Champaign, IL, 500+ miles away from the alleged crash site in Shanksville, PA. This information is further corroborated by a (now former) United Airlines Manager of Flight Dispatch Michael J. Winter.
On January 28, 2002, Mr. Winter gave an interview to the FBI at United Headquarters near Chicago, IL(1). During this interview, Mr. Winter reviewed a list of ACARS messages explaining the contents and which messages were received or rejected. The messages provided below are the most significant and fatal to what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission. Two messages were routed through the Fort Wayne, Indiana remote ground stations (FWA), followed by two more messages which were routed through Champaign, IL (CMI).

The remote ground station used to route the message to the aircraft (FWA or CMI), the time and date in which the message is sent (eg. 111351, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1351Z or 0951am Eastern), the flight number (UA93), and the tail number of the airplane in which the message is intended (N591UA), are all highlighted in red. The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane. Although the first two appear to be identical, the message number denotes that they are in fact two separate messages, which is highlighted in blue. The messages are as follows -

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111351/ED
AGM
AN N591UA/GL FWA
- UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
LAND ASP AT NEAREST --NEAREST AIRPORT.ASP .ASP ON GROND.ANYWERE.
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111351 108575 0669

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111351/ED
AGM
AN N591UA/GL FWA
- UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
LAND ASP AT NEAREST --NEAREST AIRPORT.ASP .ASP ON GROND.ANYWERE.
CHIDD ED BALLINGER
;09111351 108575 0676
DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111410/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CMI
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
DO NOT DIVERT TO DC AREA
CHIDD ED BALLINGER
;09111410 108575 0706
DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111410/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CMI
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
DO NOT DIVERT TO DC AREA
CHIDD ED BALLINGER
;09111411 108575 0707

As described in our first article on this topic based on Category A and B flight tracking(3), this aircraft would not have had messages routed through the above remote ground stations if it were enroute to crash in Shanksville, PA. Many other stations are much closer if in fact United 93 crashed in Shanksville. In order to follow the messages based on remote ground stations, we have included the Google Earth File used to construct the various stations and associated messages, with an overlay of the United 93 Flight path according to the National Transportation Safety Board(2).

Click Image To Enlarge

There are 10 remote ground stations closer to the flight path than FWA, even more if including CMI ground station in Champaign, IL which is nearly 500 miles from the Shanksville crater. However, according to Mr. Winter, United 93 received messages from CMI remote ground station in Champaign, IL more than 7 minutes after the alleged crash(1). Mr. Winter explains -

"Printer" and "Screen" indicate the printer on the flight deck and the flight management computer screen, respectively, as is described in the sourced documentation(1). Based on Category A and B flight tracking(3), it can be determined that TOL and FWA are not the best stations for routing messages, however routing through CMI is completely absurd if the aircraft in fact crashed in Shanksville. Furthermore, according to the NTSB animation reconstruction, the aircraft allegedly crashed in Shanksville at 10:03am(4). How can the aircraft possibly receive a message activating an audible signal in the airplane at 1410 (10:10am Eastern)? It can't if it crashed in Shanksville, it can if were in the vicinity of CMI. Finally, there is no possible way that an aircraft can receive a message from a remote ground station which is 500+ miles away. The range for remote ground stations is 200 miles, and that is only guaranteed above 29,000 feet(5).

We now have several levels of corroboration demonstrating the aircraft were still airborne after their alleged crashes -

- From our first article, the logs themselves showing time sent and received based on statements made by Ed Ballinger,
- Ground station routing based on flight tracking protocols,
- Expert statements,
- And now, messages that were received well out of range from Shanksville, PA after the time of the alleged crash.

It is conclusive, the 9/11 Aircraft were airborne long after their alleged crashes.

Send this evidence to your Congress Representative, your Senators, Judges, Lawyers, print it out and hand it to your pilots when boarding a flight (Pilots love reading material while in cruise). Call into talk shows, tell them about this evidence. Grab our DVD's and make copies, hand them to friends, family, co-workers, etc. Demand a new investigation into the events of 9/11. The 9/11 Families, The 9/11 Victims, The American People, The World, deserves to know Truth about what happened on September, 11, 2001.
Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center Attack along with other information provided by several government agencies through the Freedom Of Information Act. The data does not support what we have been told. Government Agencies refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth continues to grow and exist only through your continued support. We thank you!
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store to help support Pilots For 9/11 Truth continued operations and research.

(1) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Team7..._ACARS.pdf - page 55-57, 2.4mb pdf
(2) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/UA93_...verlay.kmz - Google Earth File, 27kb
(3) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/GLOBAL_LINK.pdf - Use Of Tracker Messages In Category A ACARS Networks, page 6, 174kb pdf
(4) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/NTSB_...100307.jpg - Image from NTSB Animation Reconstruction based on Flight Data Recorder
(5) Google Search For "acars 200 mile range" - Click

[David Guyatt]

So Pete, what happened to that plane if it didn't crash as claimed?

Yours in curiosity...

[Peter Lemkin]

So Pete, what happened to that plane if it didn't crash as claimed?

Yours in curiosity...

That is far from known, let alone generally agreed upon by those who speculate on planes being 'switched' either for other real craft or for phantom false electronic plane identities. There is, however, the very strange incident at Cleveland Airport [the plane supposedly flew almost over Cleveland - and perhaps there its identity was switched] where a plane was landed, moved to the very distant part of the runway [not near the terminal] and the passengers taken out....what happened to them and the plane exists in multiple versions. I think our job is not so much to find the exact answers, but to point out the falsehood and impossibilities in the official fictional version.

Along these lines, two of the planes serial numbers claimed to have crashed into the WTC were still listed in the AA inventory, until 911-Truth researchers noticed this - then they were removed. This was several YEARS after 911. Several theories exist for the switching of planes for drones or military planes painted to look like civilian ones. Also, once airborne it is now possible for electronics warfare planes to create false images of planes and hide the radar and electronic images of real planes and land them secretly.

Magic shows are possible and all the rage now!

[Peter Lemkin]

The best article on Cleveland just had its website expunged...strange...it was one of the better 911-Truth sites. Here is a summary article on another site.

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]

9/11 Passengers Landed in Cleveland

By Dean Hartwell [/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

On the day of September 11, 2001, one airport had unusual activity still not completely explained to this day: Cleveland.
There, two planes made emergency landings - Delta 1989 (scheduled for Los Angeles) and an unidentified plane within about a half hour of one another - 10:10 AM and 10:45 AM. (The emergency landings were ordered by authorities based on what turned out to be a false report of a bomb on board one of the planes).
A passenger from 1989 later said there were "sixty or so" passengers on her plane. Although early press reports said the second plane had 200 passengers, there appears to be no corroboration for this exact number and it may well have been an estimate.
Although there are no official numbers of passengers for the flights alleged to have been a part of the plot, manifests and other sources give us a very good guess. David Ray Griffin has used the numbers 92 and 65 for Flights 11 and 175, respectively, and 45 for Flight 93. Though the total number for all three flights (202) is much closer to the estimate, it is reasonable that a person would look at a group of 157 persons and estimate 200.
The researcher Woody Box concludes, based on press and eyewitness reports, that the 1989 passengers went to an FAA building at the south end of the airport and that the second plane passengers went to a NASA facility on the west end of the airport.
In an article on the site "Bravehost," a writer details transcripts purportedly from Flight 1989 and Flight 93 and notes the similarity in a message from "hijackers" on each plane about a bomb on board. The controllers contacted and received a response from the 1989 pilot, who agreed to land in Cleveland, but got no response from 93.



Under the most likely conclusion based on the direct and circumstantial evidence, they arrived in a plane that flew out of Boston. And they can be distinguished from another group of 69 people whom we can confirm took Flight 1989 and made an emergency landing earlier that morning in Cleveland.
None of the passengers apparently stayed around long enough at the airport to talk to anyone. They were simply seen according to reports. They walked in an orderly fashion to a NASA building at the airport, according to these reports.

So there is not much in the way of physical evidence. Circumstantial evidence includes the siting of passengers not previously accounted for and the identification of planes in the Cleveland area in time to make an emergency landing at the times that witnesses specified that flights landed. Two planes stand out, United 175 and United 93, with United 175 as the stronger choice because of its earlier take-off.

These 200 people are officially anonymous and, for all practical purposes, officially "unpersons" because no official report or supporter of the official theory acknowledges them.
The correctness of this theory nullifies the most important points of the official theory, such as the presence of hijackers, the idea of four specific planes taken over and the four crashes involving those four planes. This is why the road to 9/11 Truth goes through Cleveland!

[Carsten Wiethoff]

Another site carrying good information about the Cleveland mystery is:
http://911woodybox.blogspot.de/2007/02/c...stery.html

[Albert Doyle]

I think our job is not so much to find the exact answers, but to point out the falsehood and impossibilities in the official fictional version.

Forgive me if I have trouble with the suggestion the passengers were liquidated.

[Peter Lemkin]

I think our job is not so much to find the exact answers, but to point out the falsehood and impossibilities in the official fictional version.

Forgive me if I have trouble with the suggestion the passengers were liquidated.

You are forgiven for making a false assumption never implied. An unusually high number of 'passengers' on the 'doomed' flights were either government workers, those who worked for the MIC or relatives of same. There are other possibilities than that they were killed...but...many persons were killed...really killed on that day...so why is it hard for you to believe others might be as well? I believe those in the WTC, Pentagon and all others who died that day were all 'liquidated' by persons who have 'American flags' in their homes.

[Albert Doyle]

You are forgiven for making a false assumption never implied. An unusually high number of 'passengers' on the 'doomed' flights were either government workers, those who worked for the MIC or relatives of same. There are other possibilities than that they were killed...but...many persons were killed...really killed on that day...so why is it hard for you to believe others might be as well? I believe those in the WTC, Pentagon and all others who died that day were all 'liquidated' by persons who have 'American flags' in their homes.

Don't get me wrong. I 100% know 9-11 was a false flag where they already liquidated 3000 Americans including their own. These people are well beyond national borders and assumed loyalties and operate on a deep, as Charles put it, supranational basis. Yeah, no problem, but it then gets to a case by case basis where you have to explain what happened to each and every passenger including those who had nothing to do with any government association. It gets tricky at that point. I'm not saying they aren't capable of it, I'm just saying you have to follow each and every piece of evidence through on claims like these.

[Peter Lemkin]

Good summary of strange things having to do with planes and possible electronic control of them [not pilot control] on 9-11-01 by James Corbett here http://www.corbettreport.com/how-to-stea...+Report%29

How to Steal an Airplane: From 9/11 to MH370
Posted: 19 Mar 2014 02:07 AM PDT
by James Corbett
BoilingFrogsPost.com
March 18, 2014
As the mystery of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370the Boeing 777 bound for Beijing that vanished seemingly without a traceapproaches the two week mark, the talking heads of the corporate news networks are becoming increasingly desperate to fill the 24/7 news cycle with meaningless speculation and blather. In their desperation, they have even turned to speculation on a subject long shunned as outlandish conspiracy theory by these very same networks: the possibility of remote control hijackings of commercial passenger jets.
The speculation is prompted in part by a report in the Federal Register last November noting that several models of 777, including the 777-200 model used for Flight 370, were susceptible to outside attack.
Question mark headlines musing about the possibility of such a "cyber hijacking" serve to obscure or even deny a very important point. The first such "cyber hijackings" most likely took place over 12 years ago, on September 11th, 2001 using technology that was tested, proven and available long before that infamous date.
Although unamnned aerial vehicles, or "UAV," like the Global Hawk, Predator and Reaper drones used in the US' illegal extrajudicial assassination program are thought of as cutting edge military hardware, UAVs of various sorts have been used since August 22, 1849, when Austria launched 200 pilotless, bomb-filled balloons on the city of Venice. Development of UAVs continued with radio-controlled drones and pilotless torpedos developed in WWI, the creation of the US Air Force's "Pilotless Air Craft" branch in 1946, the deployment of military UAVs in the Vietnam War, Israel's development of the first drone with real-time surveillance capabilities in the Yom Kippur War and US use of the technology in Grenada before the birth of the modern era with the extensive deployment of Pioneer drones in the First Gulf War.
When it comes to the remote control of civilian aircraft, President Bush stated in late September 2001 that he would devote federal funds to developing new technologies for combating the threat of hijacking…including remote control technology.
But even at that time, remote control technology had been successfully demonstrated for commercial jetliners for nearly two decades. This is actual footage of a joint NASA / FAA experiment conducted in 1984 at Edwards Air Force Base in which a Boeing 720 was remote controlled through multiple takeoffs and landings before being crashed in a "controlled impact demonstration."
In August of 2001, this technology was further demonstrated by Raytheon, which successfully took off and landed a Boeing 727 six times at Holloman AFB in New Mexico without a pilot on board. Raytheon also developed a sensor suite for the Air Force's Global Hawk drones and Raytheon Network Centric Systems has recently won multiple contracts to help develop advanced communications systems for the E-4B, the US government's so-called doomsday plane that was spotted above the White House shortly before the strike on the Pentagon and which has since been confirmed was one of four functioning Doomsday Planes operating in the skies on that day.
Curiously, on 9/11 itself Raytheon employees with ties to the company's electronic warfare division, including a man described as the company's "dean of electronic warfare" and multiple senior engineers for electronic systems, were among the listed passengers on each of the three planes that hit their targets that day. Raytheon also had an office in WTC2 on the 91st floor, and despite the fact that there were only four survivors from the Twin Towers who were above the impact zone at the time of the plane hits, no Raytheon employees died in the office that day.
Another curious connection presents itself in Dov Zakheim, the comptroller of the Bush Pentagon and, until taking over his Pentagon role in 2001, CEO of SPC International, a subsidiary of Sytstem Planning Corporation, which provides a so-called "Flight Termination System" for the US military that the company boasts provides "a fully redundant turnkey range safety and test system for remote control and flight termination of airborne test vehicles." As comptroller of the Pentagon, Zakheim was responsible for the trillions of dollars that could not be accounted for in the Pentagon's books at the time of 9/11 and which prompted Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to declare a "war on bureaucracy" on September 10, 2001.
Flight 77 was supposedly piloted by Hani Hanjour, a flight school dropout who could not handle a Cessna 172, but somehow managed to steer a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn at 500 mph to come exactly level with the ground. Neither experienced pilots nor aviation officials could believe that such a move could be pulled off with such precision at such high speeds by any but the most experienced pilot. Watching the flight on her radar screen, Dulles International Airport air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien later remarked: "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane."
By what we are expected to believe is a massive coincidence, the flight ended up hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where the DoD staffers overseen by Zakheim were working on the question of the missing trillions.
As 9/11 researcher Aidan Monaghan told The Corbett Report in 2011, the remote control hypothesis also makes sense of various anomalies in the flight path of United 175 that hit World Trade Center 2.
As incredible as such a narrative is to the general public, that incredibility stems largely from the media's steadfast refusal to report on the proven technologies to accomplish such a cyber hijacking that have been available for well over a decade.
Whether or not Flight 370 was the victim of such an attack or something different altogether remains to be seen. But the many pieces of the 9/11 puzzle pointing to the use of remote control technologies to pilot the flights on that fateful day, from Raytheon's test flights of remote-controlled passenger jets to Zakheim's involvement with a company responsible for remote-control "flight termination systems" to the precision of United 175′s bank angle and turn start time to the presence of the E-4B doomsday planes in the skies that morning, provide a compelling counter-narrative to the tabloid press' claim that Flight 370 may be the first example of cyber hijacking.
One other piece of that puzzle provides yet further credence to the claim of remote control planes on 9/11. In a story so bizarre that it simply cannot be shoehorned into the official 9/11 story, police officers stopped a strange van near their temporary command post next to the still-smouldering twin towers while the chaos unfolded on the morning of 9/11. According to the official report of the Mineta Transportation Institute:
"There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck."
No explanation of who these men were or why they had a picture of a "remote controlled jet flying into the World Trade Center" painted on their "delivery" van on the morning of 9/11 have ever been provided, much less even asked for by the complacent, complicit mainstream media. If and when more details of the missing Malaysian Airlines flight do eventually surface, don't expect the media to do any better job answering questions about it, or connecting any of the 9/11 dots in what may very well have been the world's first "cyber hijacking" nearly 13 years ago.