We're trying to get the word out there. We couldnt do it without your support. If you haven't yet.. please feel free to pick up a DVD as it helps us to bring the news to you. Again. .thanks for your support.

Rob
Co-Founder
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

i was wondering if you pilots for 9/11 truth have ever looked into the crossing point of AA 11 and UA 175 over Stewart Air Force Base in New Windsor, NY at around 8:36? I wrote a little thing a while back on that. I think something fishy went on there, i'm be interested to hear what you guys think.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth911/truth911/investigation1.htm

-adam
http://www.truth911.net

Remember.. pilotsfor911truth.org is still in its infacy... i have dedicated my life to this research and growing a professional organization based on facts. We are currently wrapping up our AA77 investigation. We most likely will be moving onto United 93 next.. but we have some new information which may draw our focus to American 11 and United 175 flights prior to diving into UA93. Keep an eye on our site as we update it when we sort the information. I as well, disseminate information on a regular basis. When we start to cover the WTC flights, it will be made available far and wide..

Bottom line.. we at pilotsfor911truth.org are growing.. we want ANSWERS! We wont stop till we get them...

Cheers!
Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

well you guys are doing a great job! keep up the good work. i've done a lot of research on mainly the Norman Mineta testimony aspect of AA 77. i don't know if u guys are intested in that, but it might compliment what you guys are doing

http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth912/minetadraft2.doc

with plenty of time to intercept it. It will be covered in the new documentary...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

...but can you explain why we have complete Fligth Paths for all the "hijacks" on 9/11 except 77? The government says all four transponders were shut off, yet they could track the other 3, why not 77?

Excuse my ignorance concerning this anomaly.....

hey man, don't ever be embarrassed to ask a question, we're all learning here. it's not an ignorant question either, most people don't really know the whole story about AA 77. i'm sure when the pilots film is out, they'll explain it all better. but here it goes:

Routine radio communication was made with the pilot of AA 77 at 8:51. Shortly thereafter, the plane was suspected to have been hijacked since it made an unauthorized turn at 8:54 and then the transponder wass turned off at 8:56. Once the transponder was turned off, the flight path taken towards the Pentagon cannot be determined because ATC could not track the plane with primary surveillance radar (PSR). PSR operates totally independently of the target aircraft - that is, no action from the aircraft is required for it to provide a radar return. Since ATC could not track AA 77 with PSR like they had done with the other three hijacked planes when their transponders were turned off, ATC assumed it crashed. This reasonable assumption allowed AA 77 to hit the pentagon at 9:37 without being intercepted by the military.

flight path:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth911/truth911/flightsequence.jpg

so basically when they turned the transponder off, it dissappred from primary radar, which should be impossible, but they said it was in a low radar coverage area. what i think, is that the actual plane landed around 8:36, but a fake radar blip was incerted, so when they took the blip away (aka hijacker turns transponder off) the plane dissappears. then the launch their drone plane from god knows where and it hits the pentagon.

the best research on this is by team8+ where someone wrote a holes in radar article. the link doesn't seem to work anymore.

To read the full article click the link below http://www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/radar.htm Conclusions and Summary These are absolute facts that cannot be ignored:

* Within the area that the hijackings took place, there are two areas with no primary radar coverage that stretch up towards Canada.
* Flight 11 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
* Flight 77 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
* Flight 93 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
* United Flight 175 switched off its transponder next to United Flight 93.
* We have two incidences where a hijacked plane came very close to a non-hijacked plane. (What are the odds?) Flight 11(hijacked) meets Flight 175 (not hijacked). Flight 175 (hijacked) meets Flight 93 (Not Hijacked)

Question 1: How did the "hijackers" know exactly where these huge breaches in air defence were located? Question 2: Why go to all that trouble when you can take off from nearby airports (Dulles/Newark), hijack the plane and crash it straight away? This article was originally published on www.the-movement.com

...your post had a lot of information I wasn't aware of....especially about the areas without primary radar coverage and the transponders being turned off near them...I did know about the planes crossing paths near each other and find that noteworthy, especially as at least one of those occurs near an airport (Stewart)....

Also, we know the three planes with "complete" flight paths make major changes of direction over airports, another anomaly I find intrigueing in light of Operation Northwoods.

This part from the Kean Report (I believe) that you quote has always confused me, and is one reason why I asked the question:

"Once the transponder was turned off, the flight path taken towards the Pentagon cannot be determined because ATC could not track the plane with primary surveillance radar (PSR). PSR operates totally independently of the target aircraft - that is, no action from the aircraft is required for it to provide a radar return.

Since ATC could not track AA 77 with PSR like they had done with the other three hijacked planes when their transponders were turned off, ATC assumed it crashed." (Why?????, what was the difference???)

I still don't really understand why, if aircraft are required to do nothing for PSR to function and all 3 other airplanes were tracked after their transponders were turned off, 77 couldn't be tracked by PSR also....after all, as you state, they were near primary radar coverage-absent areas also...

i'm not quoting the 9/11 commission report, but that's in nut shell what they say. they assumed the plane crashed, because it all of a sudden dissappeard from radar. they could not find it on primary radar, so the only logical conclusion is that the plane is no longer flying in the air... therefore it must have crashed. the excuse used is that the FAA was seaching to the west because it didn't see it make the loop back. you're supposed to be able to track pretty much any big flying object on PSR, but they say that the transponder was turned off in a rare area of low PSR coverage. with the other 3 flights, their flight paths only briefly interceted areas with low coverage. unfortunately the article is down, but it shows how planes could be switched out there for a brief second i guess. so the 9/11 commission report doesn't say about about PSR coverage for the other three flights, but team8+ thinks that the transponders were turned off at exact points with a small hole in PSR coverage.

Anyone who wants to look at a real time graphic display of the four flight paths can find it here:

http://home.att.net/~professorboris/SPECTRE/Flash_colorful.swf

I don't know where you are getting your information that UAL175 and UAL93 came close to each other, truth911. The flight paths indicated in this graphic do not show that.

"Question 2: Why go to all that trouble when you can take off from nearby airports (Dulles/Newark), hijack the plane and crash it straight away?"

My opinion on this question: The reason they did this is so that they could stage a phony, mock-Arab hijacking on each plane. The object was to fool the passengers into thinking the hijackers were Arab-Muslims. The passengers were then allowed to pass this pseudo-information on via their phone calls, and in this way frame the Arabs. Remember, this was a false-flag operation.

There is evidence from both AAL11 and UAL175 that the hijackings took place after the planes had turned off their transponders and gone silent. Thus there were two hijackings on each plane: the real one and the phony one. The planes needed to take long circuitous routes for the hijackers to put on this phony display.

Also, since these hijackers may then have been Israeli operatives disguised as Arabs, they may not have wanted to complete suicide missions. Consider that they may have bailed out of the planes with parachutes, thus explaining that each flight flew over sparsely populated rural areas.

Good to see you posting here.. Call me when you get a chance...

Actually.. UA93 and UA175 did take the same exact path at the same exact time according to the NTSB. Not sure if i would rely on your graphic from the USAToday..

Go here to get all radar tracks...

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

Cheers!
Rob

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

Upon further review I see the graphic I provided is junk. It shows UAL93 departing at the same time as AAL11 and before AAL175. UAL93 actually departed at 8:42, which is 43 minutes after FL11 departed and 28 minutes after FL175 departed.

I apologize to everyone here, and shame on you USA Today...

"Since ATC could not track AA 77 with PSR like they had done with the other three hijacked planes when their transponders were turned off, ATC assumed it crashed. This reasonable assumption allowed AA 77 to hit the pentagon at 9:37 without being intercepted by the military."

Not that tracking it with PSR actually helps, as, according to the official theory, NONE of the planes were intercepted by the military either.

This is the Pentagon. It has more defenses than PSR tracking. NOTHING SHOULD HAVE HIT THE PENTAGON.

[mildly rude insult edited in the interest of Truth solidarity--but don't push your luck]

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

How about Accountability,Prosecution for TREASON & MASS MURDER.A BETTER USA

Mine's snappier.

Seriously though, anyone who sympathises or hasn't lived in a cave for the last century will understand impeachment and accountability in the context of 911 includes prosecution for treason and mass murder. And considering the military and economic might of the States around the globe, kicking the bastards in the States WILL make a better world.

Furthermore there is an assumtion in many people's minds, even people who are progressive and would never say this, things are the way they are JUST BECAUSE. Implicit in this assumtion is anyone who wants to build a better world is ridiculously naive or JUST DOESN'T UNDERSTAND. My other tagline "Bugger this; I want a better world" comes from a Wildstorm comic called "The Authority" [ imagine a super team who acted like people actually would if they had super-powers, not costumed boy-scouts]. That phrase made me realize that I had still been subconsiously operating under the ASSUMTION: things are just the way the are, just BECAUSE--not because people made them that way and so people can UNMAKE them.

It doesn't sound radical, but if your brain is still wired the "because" way, it is. I actually fought this wisdom(no pun intended)--then realized how stupid that was. And that what I was really fighting was the fear of failure. After all, I do want a better world. That's what being progressive means--actually making changes--not fighting pointlessly forever in circles(a la Chomsky, et al.) And "I want a better wordl" is a reminder to any bastards trolling or NSA gits that I'm not settling for less.

And isn't it sad it took a comic book to push my political awarness to critical mass? That's supposed to be the MSM job, or at least the school system's. So, along with that impeachment and accountability guff...

Bugger this; I WANT A BETTER WORLD.

You are of course free to use your own tagline...

Interesting that the two planes crossed just south of Albany New York. Just a speculation: Any possibility that the hijackers-- I mean the real ones, not the phony Arab ones-- could have parachuted out of the planes at this spot?

I'm just speculating; I'm not saying this happened. But is there any reason it couldn't have? I don't believe any of the crash scenes have yielded a number of bodies equal to the number on board....

"Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are commited to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers. We stand with the Scholars and Veterans for Truth along side family members of the victims -- family members of soldiers who have given the ultimate sacrifice -- including the many Ground Zero workers who are now ill or have passed away, when we ask for a new independent investigation into the events of 9/11. We do not accept the 9/11 Commission report as a satisfactory explanation for the sacrifice every American has made and continues to make -- some more than others. Thank you for taking the time to inform yourself."

This is an amazing group.