Taxi driver comes close to admitting he was part of 9/11 cover story

By Craig McKee, Truth and Shadows, 12.27.2010


If there is an Achilles heel to the official 9/11 cover story, it has to be Lloyde England.

The Washington D.C. taxi driver is an essential part of the official story that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. His car is supposed to have been hit by one of the light poles knocked over by the plane right before it hit the Pentagon. This story was supposed to offer rock solid confirmation of the Pentagon government account. Instead, it’s the weakest link.

Not only is England’s version of what happened to him that day not supported by the witnesses or the physical evidence (as we shall see), but in an unguarded moment in the film National Security Alert (by Citizen Investigation Team), England came very close to admitting he had been a part of the conspiracy.

England told CIT (he didn’t realize the camera was running, but he clearly understood he was talking “on the record.”) that there was a lot more to the 9/11 events than meets the eye:

“When people do things and get away with it, eventually it’s going to come to me. And when it comes to me, it’s going to be so big. So it had to be stopped in the beginning when it’s small, you see, to keep it from spreading.

“This is too big for me man. This is a big thing. Man you know this is a world thing happening. I’m just a small man. My lifestyle is completely different from this. I’m not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff. Well, I not supposed to be involved with this, I don’t have nothing.

“People with money – this is their thing. This is for them.”

People with money? Does that sound like he’s describing Al-Qaeda? If this was a case of a hijacking that briefly touched on him (as the result of his cab being hit), he wouldn’t have said, “…it had to be stopped in the beginning when it’s small, you see, to keep it from spreading.”

Is he talking about covering up the truth at the beginning before too many questions are asked? He certainly doesn’t sound like someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when a fundamentalist Muslim plot to attack America unfolded in front of him.

He goes on to say that what we’re led to believe happened by historical accounts isn’t necessarily true.

“History is ‘his story.’ It’s not the truth. It has nothing to do with the truth.”


England's own drawing of the pole through the windshield of his cab.

England says he stopped his car after it was impaled by the pole. The pole was supposedly wedged all the way in his back seat and protruding from the front of the car. He says he flagged down a man in a van who pulled over and helped him pull the pole out of the windshield.

To date, not one witness claims to have seen the pole hit the cab or anyone pulling it out of the car. And the physical evidence just doesn’t support his story.

England was interviewed in National Security Alert, a remarkable bit of investigative journalism by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of CIT. The film features interviews with a number of witnesses who contradict the official flight path of Flight 77. And that flight path is critical to the official story because of the downed light poles.

What makes these witnesses particularly important (in addition to the fact that two of them are Pentagon cops) is where they were positioned when they say they saw the plane. All the witnesses in the film were situated to the west of the Pentagon – in the vicinity of the Citgo gas station or the Navy Annex building – and were in a position to see whether the plane passed to the north or to the south of both. Both cops were at the station when the plane passed them; a third witness worked at the station.

The cops and all the rest of the witnesses that CIT interviewed confirmed the plane had passed to the north of the station and to the north of, or directly over, the Navy Annex. Not only does this contradict the official version (which had the approach on the south side) but it also means that the light poles that were allegedly hit by the plane (there were five) could not have been.

The pole evidence had to have been staged.

That brings us back to Lloyde England. If the pole evidence is fake, then he must have been part of the deception. And if he’s shown to have lied, then the official story crumbles.

By the time of the National Security Alert interview, England already knew of the witnesses who contradict the flight path “evidence.” He seemed to try to overcome this by insisting that he had been right beside the Pentagon instead of to the south where the poles were downed. Despite dozens of attempts by Ranke to show him photographic proof of where his car was, he continued to insist he was somewhere else. If he were being honest would he not have shown even a shred of doubt in the face of clear proof?

Photographs, including the one at the top of this article, show that the windshield of the cab is smashed. They also show that there was no damage to the hood of the car. Was the pole lying on the hood, England was asked? “Ya, ya. But there’s no scratches on the hood.”

The piece of the pole we see lying on the ground is more than 20 feet long. And England confirms that it was the curved and thinner end that was in his back seat. The majority of the length of the pole protruded well beyond the front of the car (the heavy end). Somehow, the pole stayed impaled in the car without damaging the hood. Interior damage to the car also was not consistent with a huge pole becoming embedded in the back seat (no more than a tiny rip in the upholstery).

After the plane had just smashed into the Pentagon to his left and a light pole had come smashing through his windshield, England made an odd decision. He decided he needed to remove the pole immediately.

England flagged down a man driving a van. He claims he lifted the pole out of the car with the help of the stranger, who then drove off without a word. Apart from how unlikely this all sounds, the idea that this long, heavy pole would stick out of the front of the car without crashing down on the hood is simply unbelievable. England even agrees with this, pointing out the lack of hood damage even before interviewers could point it out.

He also makes a point that there didn’t seem to be enough of a hole in the Pentagon to accommodate a 757. Did he say this to muddy the waters, to make himself sound more like he had no hidden agenda?

England’s wife, Shirley Hughes England, adds to the mystery. She was working for the FBI in 2001, and in an interview with CIT, she states that she knows why the FBI didn’t take the cab in for a forensic examination, but she won’t say more. Later in the film, she says the car was taken in “for a day or two.”

Ranke recounts how he told Hughes how the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon but continued on. She said, “ya.” He said, “What?” She said, “Ya, what you said. I’m not going to say anymore.”

There is obviously a great deal more to the England story than just having a pole hit his cab. He seems uncomfortable with his role in the whole thing. If the government had any real interest in finding the truth, then an attempt would be made to either verify or disprove England’s account.

We’ll just have to add this to the list of critical areas that have been ignored by any and all investigations into 9/11.



No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Everything Happening Now Was Planned Before 9/11

Special preface to folks in the military, law enforcement and intelligence and other government servants: You are sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, and the facts below may help you do so.

We’ve been told that “9/11 changed everything” and that we’re living in “a post-911 world”.

We’ve been told that what our government is doing now has been rendered necessary by the urgent post-9/11 threat from terrorists.

In reality, however, virtually everything happening now was planned before 9/11. Please see for yourself:

  • The Patriot Act was planned before 9/11 (and see this). Indeed, former Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke told Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig:

After 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.

The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.

(4:30 into this video).

  • The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11 (see this and this)
No comments:
Labels: , ,

Psychologists Explain 9/11 Denial

The government's lame explanation about what happened on 9/11 cannot - by any stretch of the imagination - possibly be true.

So why do most people remain blissfully unaware of the Big Lie? Here's why:

No comments:
Labels: ,

NEW FOIA INFO: It Is Conclusive - Two 9/11 Aircraft Were Airborne Well After Crash

United 93 In The Vicinity of Fort Wayne, Indiana and Champaign, Illinois at Time of Shanksville Alleged Crash

United 175
In The Vicinity Of Pittsburgh and Harrisville PA at Time Of Alleged Crash Into the South Tower

PART ONE: South Tower UA 175

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.



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


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. It's 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



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.

The Pilots for 9/11 Truth 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.

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_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf - 12.9mb pdf
(2) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/t-0148-911MFR-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-dispatch-track-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

PART TWO UA 93 SHANKESVILLE CRASH

UNITED 93 IN THE VICINITY OF FORT WAYNE, INDIANA AND CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS AT TIME OF SHANKSVILLE ALLEGED CRASH

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).

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_Box11_FBI302s_ACARS.pdf - page 55-57, 2.4mb pdf
(2) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/UA93_RGS_messages_wNTSB_overlay.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_Animation_UA93_100307.jpg - Image from NTSB Animation Reconstruction based on Flight Data Recorder
(5) Google Search For "acars 200 mile range" - Click
No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)