The 9/11 Forum

Isn't the Latin term 'cui bono'?

The same people and entity that Ike described is who benefited from the results of the events of the day, and there is a strong INTERNATIONAL flavor to that.

To me, "homeland" is quite reminiscent of "vaterland".

I have no opinion on this (yet), but I found it on ATS, posted by user "waypastvne", (who I've been accused of being by some no planer muppet, by the way) and I offer it here in this thread for either devastating critique or adoring praise. It takes an unconventional, perhaps even far-fetched view about the passport and why it got out.



Some interesting pictures in there. The soundtrack is annoying, but you'll have to endure it.

Again, I have no opinion on this yet. I'll share first and opine later. Feel free to bash or belaud.

Update: found previous discussion on ATS about this video here.

The video makes many good points, and I basically agree with it.

However it does not prove anything about the passport, IMO. Even if the passport was onboard the airplane, that does not necessarily mean that its 'owner' was onboard the aircraft.

Years later, close examination of the ATC records at BOS reveal that 2 different aircraft using the callsign "United 175" called for, and received clearance from Boston ground and/or tower. Like the controversy surrounding the gate assignment for American 11, this strongly suggests some sort of deception going on.

Heretic76 wrote:Years later, close examination of the ATC records at BOS reveal that 2 different aircraft using the callsign "United 175" called for, and received clearance from Boston ground and/or tower. Like the controversy surrounding the gate assignment for American 11, this strongly suggests some sort of deception going on.

Yeah, I've heard the callsign thing before... at the "Unexplained Mysteries" forum I think. Where can I read about it? Link?

If it's P4T, no problem, I'll read it too. I hate P4T (it's a long story), but I'm not going to bite your head off.

If anything, the fact that ATC could track UA 175 all the way in bothers me.

There was a TV helicopter which caught the second impact... where the hell were the fighters?

The fighters were taxiing at Otis. They got into the air about the same time the second aircraft hit.

The thing about the multiple call signs comes from going over the recorded data, a very tedious job, not my cup of tea. Stuff is there, but it takes a human to check it all out, and it's 10 years later. All that takes time. And that's the beauty of the 'truth' situation--there are many humans who DO devote large amounts of time analyzing data and details. And it's the age of the internet.

The fighter's unit was participating in a training exercise called Vigilant Guardian.

The official story lacks certainty--far too vague. A bunch of planted evidence gives only the appearance of certainty.

Okay, right, but I was wondering if you could refer me to a link or a source.

Heretic76 wrote:The fighters were taxiing at Otis. They got into the air about the same time the second aircraft hit.

Incorrect. The Otis fighters were on the runway when the first plane, AA11, hit at 8:46. They were airborne shortly after. They had been scrambled in response to AA11 being hijacked. When AA11 "disappeared", the fighters moved towards a holding pattern. It's been a while since I looked at the exact timeline, but it wasn't clear at all for minutes that the fighers should continue towards NYC. At any rate, while they could have reached NYC from Otis in the 15 or so minutes if they had gone straight, there were overriding concerns - it is, for example, not safe to have fighters speed through a busy civilain airspace. This part of the timeline is more difficult to explain than others - not because it is suspect or even evidence of a "stand-down", but because it requires a lot more insight into processes, real-life information flow between agencies, flight physics and technical data than most of us have.

Bottom line however is: Time really was to short for the fighters, given the state of information in real time. Only in hindsight does it appear as if they could have made a difference.

Heretic76 wrote:The thing about the multiple call signs comes from going over the recorded data, a very tedious job, not my cup of tea. Stuff is there, but it takes a human to check it all out, and it's 10 years later. All that takes time. And that's the beauty of the 'truth' situation--there are many humans who DO devote large amounts of time analyzing data and details. And it's the age of the internet.

I was interested a while ago and took a close look at research and explanations done by people more competent than I. iirc, a second call sign was introduced as a sim after UA175 got lost on radar, to indicate that ATC still believed that UA175 was airborne, or at least could be airborne, to facilitate the task of avoiding potential collisions. That sim track didn't get far and is certainly not evidence of any real plane being diverted somewhere.

Heretic76 wrote:The fighter's unit was participating in a training exercise called Vigilant Guardian.

This is incorrect or misleading. The ANG at Otis had two fighters with four crew on alert. The alert unit NEVER participates in anything when on alert. At NORAD, those monitoring and directing live activity did NOT have any training stuff on their screens - real life and excercises are strictly separate: different rooms, different systems, different people. Not a second was lost anywhere due to confusion over excercise or not. Quite possibly, the opposite is true: Because of the excercises, NORAD and other units were better staffed and more able to respond immediately.

Heretic76 wrote:The official story lacks certainty--far too vague. A bunch of planted evidence gives only the appearance of certainty.

You try to add false information to the vagueness. That won't help. And you STILL have zero evidence of planted evidence.
It is really quite unfortunate that you have made up your mind so completely that you post false claims just because they suit your prejudice.

Snow

The poster "Woody" over at Pilots for Truth is who discovered that. I think he also has his own website, something like Woody Box? Over the years he has done much analysis of the various records.

Oystein

I have here in my hot little hands, sorry no link, the June 3, 2002 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology. On page 48 it gives the story and timeline. I won't quarrel about the details of the timeline, but it does not say a word about the Otis flight holding anywhere. On the contrary, the flight went supersonic on the way to NYC, but they were too late. Some at Otis were still confused by the Vigilant Guardian exercises.

Perhaps you misunderstood my previous point. The audio records, or transcripts of them, from Boston Ground Control and Tower, reveal that 2 airplanes using the callsign United 175 called for taxi and departure clearance. As I recall they were separated by maybe 10 minutes or so. That is a major anomaly and suggest some sort of shenanigans going on.

You may or may not know that AW&ST is pretty much the bible of the aviation industry and military industrial complex. It clearly states that Colonel Robert Marr USAF wondered whether the call regarding AA11 was part of the VG drill.

Just so you know where I stand, I will believe an article in AW&ST much more quickly than I will believe whatever you might post here.

It's rather difficult, if not IMPOSSIBLE, to prove evidence is planted by a variety of agencies that are IN THE BUSINESS OF collecting, analyzing or destroying "evidence". The most obvious example of planted evidence is the collection of books and letters in the back seat of the "rental car" found in Maine. Can I prove it's planted? Heck no, but I've been on this planet long enough to have a good idea of when I'm being fed hogwash.

Heretic76 wrote:Snow

The poster "Woody" over at Pilots for Truth is who discovered that. I think he also has his own website, something like Woody Box? Over the years he has done much analysis of the various records.

Ah yes, Woody Box. Do you have a link?

No I don't. I'm guessing the information is at least 1 year old.

Heretic76 wrote:Snow

The poster "Woody" over at Pilots for Truth is who discovered that. I think he also has his own website, something like Woody Box? Over the years he has done much analysis of the various records.

I recall having checked out Woody Box's claims re ACARS messages found them to be untenable. Woody Box apparently has some knowledge of aviation terms and can express his claims well enoug, at least to my informed layman's ears, but not reliable on conslusions.

Heretic76 wrote:OysteinI have here in my hot little hands, sorry no link, the June 3, 2002 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology. On page 48 it gives the story and timeline.

Can you reproduce it, or the entries relevant to what you are discussing here? A little diffiicult to comment omn a source that we don't have...

Heretic76 wrote:I won't quarrel about the details of the timeline, but it does not say a word about the Otis flight holding anywhere. On the contrary, the flight went supersonic on the way to NYC, but they were too late.

There is no contradiction between the two.

Heretic76 wrote:Some at Otis were still confused by the Vigilant Guardian exercises.

Who? Any of the pilots or their mission commanders?

Heretic76 wrote:Perhaps you misunderstood my previous point. The audio records, or transcripts of them, from Boston Ground Control and Tower, reveal that 2 airplanes using the callsign United 175 called for taxi and departure clearance. As I recall they were separated by maybe 10 minutes or so. That is a major anomaly and suggest some sort of shenanigans going on.

Ah ok, yes, I was thinking about a different duplication of UA175, namely the inserted screen tag that was seen on Flight Explorer after UA175 had crashed. The episode at Logan is news to me, haven't heard about that before and can't comment without some some more info as fodder.

Heretic76 wrote:You may or may not know that AW&ST is pretty much the bible of the aviation industry and military industrial complex. It clearly states that Colonel Robert Marr USAF wondered whether the call regarding AA11 was part of the VG drill.

Did that wonder on Marr's part have any influence on the departure time or flight path of the Otis fighters? If not, it is just an episode of someone wondering in his private mind, not anything relevant.

Heretic76 wrote:Just so you know where I stand, I will believe an article in AW&ST much more quickly than I will believe whatever you might post here.

Fair enough. You have a june 2002 issue. We know that the 9/11 Commission was not happy about the infos from NORAD and other places, long after june 2002. Maybe AW&ST wasn't sufficiently informed at that time?
I wonder how AW&ST followed up on that, and what they believe today is the best explanation.

Heretic76 wrote:It's rather difficult, if not IMPOSSIBLE, to prove evidence is planted by a variety of agencies that are IN THE BUSINESS OF collecting, analyzing or destroying "evidence". The most obvious example of planted evidence is the collection of books and letters in the back seat of the "rental car" found in Maine. Can I prove it's planted? Heck no, but I've been on this planet long enough to have a good idea of when I'm being fed hogwash.

I understand that problem, however it does not entitle you to elevate your suspicion to the rank of "fact".

Right, I'm not discussing ACARS re: Woody, but what he has represented regarding the records of radio transmissions at Boston that day. His analysis indicates that 2 different aircraft were using the callsign United 175.

No sir, I cannot reproduce it, but I can paraphrase or quote it.

There is no contradiction between the two what?

The AW&ST article claims that VG actually helped "a rapid military response to terrorist attacks on September 11". The story describes the system-wide response, including the guys down at Tyndall in Florida and at NORAD in Colorado Springs.

Though I've been reading the magazine for several decades now, I understand full well that it is largely the news organ for what some call the Military Industrial Complex. Which is to say that the information is usually technically precise, but the way it is spun is very much pro DoD.

I can elevate my suspicions not to "fact", but to "quite likely", simply because of the behavior of DoD personnel regarding the 911 Commission, as you have already mentioned.

The details are interesting, and certain information can be derived from them, but regarding the events of the day, the "big picture", as it has been developed over 10 years of investigation, is the most interesting part for me.

Heretic76 wrote:Right, I'm not discussing ACARS re: Woody, but what he has represented regarding the records of radio transmissions at Boston that day. His analysis indicates that 2 different aircraft were using the callsign United 175.

Okay. I still don't have anything to review here.

Heretic76 wrote:No sir, I cannot reproduce it, but I can paraphrase or quote it.

That's what I meant: Can you quote relevand sufficient excerpts of that timeline?

Heretic76 wrote:There is no contradiction between the two what?

Between the fighters briefly going supersonic on their way to NYC, and their being diverted to a holding pattern. Both can happen during the same flight.

Heretic76 wrote:The AW&ST article claims that VG actually helped "a rapid military response to terrorist attacks on September 11". The story describes the system-wide response, including the guys down at Tyndall in Florida and at NORAD in Colorado Springs.

Though I've been reading the magazine for several decades now, I understand full well that it is largely the news organ for what some call the Military Industrial Complex. Which is to say that the information is usually technically precise, but the way it is spun is very much pro DoD.

So you didn't really mean it when you wrote "I will believe an article in AW&ST much more quickly than I will believe whatever you might post here", you actually meant "I will believe an article in AW&ST when it fits my prejudice and reject it as disinfo when it refutes my prejudice". Right?

Heretic76 wrote:I can elevate my suspicions not to "fact", but to "quite likely", simply because of the behavior of DoD personnel regarding the 911 Commission, as you have already mentioned.
I don't think you can, just like that.

Heretic76 wrote:The details are interesting, and certain information can be derived from them, but regarding the events of the day, the "big picture", as it has been developed over 10 years of investigation, is the most interesting part for me.

The big picture is actually that after 10 years, there is no big picture that any 2 truthers can agree upon and that are not lacking in most basic degrees of evidence support, internal consistency and plausibility. Observe the almost perfect emptiness of the "theories" subforum here.

This is not a truther site Oystein. It is a site which attempts scientific and engineering based analyses. Occasionally a theory or part of it will be debunked here... including aspects of the official narrative.

All BS is treated equally here. (even mine)