Sunday, December 30, 2018

No Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) Activated When the Four Planes Crashed on 9/11

By Mark Conlon 


The Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT) are emergency transmitters that are carried aboard most general aviation aircraft in the U.S. In the event of an aircraft accident, these devices are designed to transmit a distress signal on 121.5 and 243.0 MHz frequencies. ELTs are mounted in the airplane, and designed to be triggered upon impact. Activation of the ELT triggers an audio alert, and 406-MHz ELTs transmit GPS position for search and rescue. [Emergency Locator Transmitters – AOPA]. https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/aircraft/aircraft-operations/emergency-locator-transmitters


According to the 9/11 Commission, AAL 11 crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. [The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 7.] However, two and a half minutes earlier, David Bottiglia, an air traffic controller at the FAA's New York Center, received an important message from one of the planes in the airspace he was monitoring. At 8:44 a.m. the pilot of U.S. Airways Flight 583 told Bottiglia: "I just picked up an ELT on 121.5. It was brief, but it went off." (121.5 megahertz is an emergency frequency that ELTs are designed to transmit their distress signals on.) A minute later, about 90 second before AAL 11 crashed into the WTC another plane in the New York Center's airspace reported the same thing. The pilot of Delta Airlines Flight 2433 told Bottiglia: "We picked up that ELT, too. But it's very faint." [Transcript of United Airlines Flight 175] - https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/16/national/transcript-of-united-airlines-flight-175.html 

According to author Lynn Spencer, "several" facilities picked up the ELT signal around this time. [Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 50.]. 

Peter McCloskey, a traffic management coordinator at the New York Center, later recalled that the ELT had gone off "in the vicinity of Lower Manhattan." [Memorandum for the Record: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) New York Air Route Center Interview with Peter McCloskey." 9/11 Commission, October 1, 2003].

And, around the time AAL 11 crashed into the WTC North tower, a participant in an FAA teleconference stated, "We got a report of an ELT in the area that (the radar track for Flight 11) was in." (Before it disappeared from radar screens, the track for AAL 11 had indicated the plane was about 20 miles from New York's JFK International Airport). [9/11 Air Traffic Control Transcript] https://www.scribd.com/document/13484898/9-11-Air-Traffic-Control-Transcript 

Additionally, while an ELT went off two minutes before AAL 11 crashed into the WTC, it appears that no ELT went off at the time of the crash itself at 8:46 a.m., as it should have done. Likewise with United Airlines Flight 175 (UAL 175), which “allegedly” crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. An ELT signal was transmitted in the New York area four minutes before, at 8:59 a.m. The pilot of Flight 583, who had reported the previous ELT signal, told David Bottiglia at the New York Center that he had noticed another ELT going off. The pilot said, "I hate to keep burdening you with this stuff, but now we're picking up another ELT on 21.5." Again, the same as the previous crash with AAL 11, with the ELT being transmitted four minutes before UAL 175 crashed into the South Tower. Interesting there was no ELT transmission activated at the time of the two crashes themselves, which should have happened.  

Furthermore, there is no evidence cited of any ELTs reported for American Airlines Flight 77 or United Airlines Flight 93 at the times of both crashes. This indicates that none of the four planes listed as being involved on 9/11 crashed at any of the named targets in the official 9/11 narrative.

The ELT activated over Ann Arbor, Michigan at 9:53 a.m.

Interestingly, an ELT was transmitted over Ann Arbor in Michigan at 13:53 p.m. PST, 9:53 a.m. EST. This ELT has not been officially related to any of the four alleged planes listed on 9/11. However, according to this evidence it indicates that a plane crashed in Ann Arbor at 9:53 a.m., but has never been accounted for or addressed by the authorities. Note, in the communication between the two controllers it appears there is an audio drop-out, or has been editing done, just after when the controller says "wait that doesn't make sense", and the other controller replies "yes it does, it... (audio drops-out or is edited)". The controller seems to go on to explain something to the other controller, however there's an audio drop-out or edit towards the end? Why was this information omitted? What was being concealed about this ELT occurrence?


Does this indicate that ELTs were being falsely transmitted which were part of the many military war games training exercises taking place on 9/11, where simulated scenarios of plane hijackings were taking place. The Ann Arbor ELT could explain why ELTs were being transmitted too early in the case of AAL 11 and UAL 175, ahead of their alleged crashes?
       
The official ELT evidence alone implies that none of the four planes crashed at their targets. The evidence of ELT signals being transmitted in the New York area before the World Trade Center towers were hit raises serious questions about the official plane’s narrative on 9/11. If ELTs had been activated, this should have been at the times the airplanes crashed into the towers and not several minutes beforehand. But while a number of Air Traffic Controllers (ATC) mentioned the ELT signals in their interviews with the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 Commission Report offered no explanation for these discrepancies. For example, where the sources of the ELT signals originated from? Or were they from somewhere else? And were the ELT transmitters themselves ever found? After all, according to the FAA, "In most installations the [ELT] is attached to the aircraft structure as far as practicable in the fuselage; or in the tail surface, in such a manner that damage to the beacon will be minimized in the event of a crash impact.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgNPRM.nsf/0/ae86aa83c819fdbd86256819006c1c0f!OpenDocument

What we can determine from all the available evidence is, no ELT transmissions were activated at any of the four plane crash impacts on 9/11, which is what should have happened. 

Update: Feb 2024

This is document is from the 9/11 Commission investigation files, in relation to an ELT being manually triggered. According to the Commission document, and their experienced pilot testimony of Paul Thumser, ELTs cannot be manually triggered in Boeing 767s.



This is damming evidence, because AA11 which is a Boeing 767 triggered an ELT two minutes too early before it allegedly crashed into the North Tower, which is impossible, but also even more seriously damaging is, there was no ELT at the point of the impact of the plane into the North Tower, where the ELT should have been activated. Also, UA175, which was also a Boeing 767, also triggered an ELT four minutes too early before it allegedly crashed into the South Tower, which again is impossible, and also did not activate an ELT at the point of impact into the South Tower either, which should have happened. Just to add, neither AA77 or UA93 which were Boeing 757s, triggered any ELT either before or at the points of impact which is highly questionable, and seriously damaging for the official plane narratives of the four planes. This calls into question all four plane crash stories, but also indicates that none of the four planes named by authorities crashed into the named targets. Something else took place instead with these four events. The evidence points to this conclusion. 


Friday, December 28, 2018

The NORAD tapes are proof 'Delta 89' was not 'Delta 1989' on 9/11


Three minutes after the Pentagon was hit, a strange aircraft with call sign "Delta 89" popped up on the radar screens of air defence Commander Kevin Nasypany's crew. It signaled a hijacking and was tracked by NEADS for three minutes before it suddenly disappeared again.

In the “official” story, Delta 89 doesn't exist. Better to say, for the 9/11 Commission as well as authors Michael Bronner and Lynn Spencer ("Touching History"), the plane tracked by NEADS as Delta 89 was in fact Delta 1989, and nothing more than a case of sloppy communication, however, this is impossible. It is easy to show that, apart from the different call sign, Delta 89's transponder code, flight plan and flight path differed from Delta 1989. The evidence is present on the NORAD tapes, a source of impeccable authenticity because you can virtually look over the shoulder of NEADS technicians while they're tracking Delta 89 on their displays. 

To demonstrate why Delta 89 was not identical with Delta 1989, I shall go through the NORAD tapes step by step and comment on them, however before starting the analysis, we need to get a rough understanding how NEADS radar works, as it is quite different from the FAA radar. Lynn Spencer explains in her book "Touching History" (Pg.32).

Slow and cumbersome, and not nearly as user friendly as more modern equipment, the NEADS monochromic radar displays are not designed to take internal FAA radar data or to identify radar tracks originating from inside the United States. The system offers little, if any, such low-level coverage over the country.

Their radar scopes are filled with hundreds of radar returns not just from aircraft but from weather systems, ground interference. and what's called anomalous propagation - false returns caused by conditions in the atmosphere, or by such obstruction as flocks of birds.

So the NEADS radar screen is filled with countless radar blips from planes - without the identifying data block common to FAA radar, however - as well as irregular radar returns. Only on special occasions like emergency cases, a plane's blip is highlighted and provided with a data tag. Lynn Spencer (Pg. 25/26).
 
Pilots have three special transponder codes that they can dial in: 7500 for hijacking, 7600 for loss of radio, and 7700 for other emergencies. Any of them will cause the airplane's tag to light up on his radar screen, but he doesn't see any such tag.

Now we are ready to start with the analysis. The complete transcripts are here. It is highly recommended to listen to the "original" audio file of the following channels (scroll forward to the respective time).

Channel 4   - 1:14:00
Channel 7   - 1:09:00
Channel 21 - 1:09:00

(Channel 7)
 
9:39:31 Colin Scoggins, Boston Center military. Hijacked aircraft Delta nineteen eighty-nine. I give you the code 1304, presently due south of Cleveland, heading westbound, destination Las Vegas. And is this one a hijack, Sir? We believe it is. Didn't it squawk hijack? We don't umm...I don't know - it's squawking 1304 if you want to crank him up. 767, altitude 350. Where did it take-off? Out of Boston. We're trying to get a tail number on that if you want to get someone up.

90 seconds before Delta 89 appears on stage, NEADS receives a verbal message from Colin Scoggins, the military liaison controller at Boston Center, regarding Delta 1989. The message is affirmed with professional calm. NEADS knows now that one of the many anonymous radar blips near Cleveland is a possible hijack. Note that Scoggins is wrong on the destination of Delta 1989: that was Los Angeles, not Las Vegas.
  
(Channel 4)
 
9:41:00 - Delta 89 is a hijack, they think it's a hijack, south of Cleveland, we have a code on him now

9:41:05 - Good! Pick it up! Find it!

9:41:05 - Another one. I hear someone going from Boston going to Las Vegas - another one

9:41:13 - Eight-nine. Boeing 767 Boston-Las Vegas. Another one - same place - Las Vegas

In striking contrast to Delta 1989, the appearance of Delta 89 causes big excitement among the NEADS crew. It is echoed through all of the channels. Lynn Spencer interprets this passage as a prompt reaction to Scoggins's message, but there are several reasons why this cannot be the case.

The different call sign: needless to say, transmitting the correct call sign of an aircraft is an absolute must in aeronautic communication. No air traffic controller would ever get the idea to abbreviate a flight number by omitting the first two digits because that will automatically lead to massive confusion.

"We have a code on him now" - obviously, the plane has squawked a special emergency code that causes its blip to lighten up on the NEADS radar displays - just as explained above. This is immediately noticed by the NEADS crew and leads to their excited reactions. The data tag informs them about the call sign (Delta 89), the flight plan (Boston-Las Vegas), the type of the plane (Boeing 767) and the cause of the emergency: a hijacking.

"Another one - same place - Las Vegas" - NEADS is already aware of Delta 1989 which was reported 90 seconds ago by Colin Scoggins. Now Delta 89 - "another one" - appears in the same vicinity. So NEADS does not identify Delta 89 with Delta 1989, but views it as a different plane. Delta 89's blip suddenly flashes on the NEADS screens - making it easy to follow - and indicates a hijacking. In contrast, Delta 1989's blip is not spotted yet. 
 
(Channel 21)

9:41:05 - Another one. I hear someone going from Boston going to Las Vegas - another one

9:41:30  - As before is one missing. Start a search. Range 53

9:41:35  - 288 for 92 miles search only

9:41:46 - I have a 280 for 97
 
9:41:58 - I have a 287 for 97

9:42:23 - The two really close together. One used - one has a code of 7112 - the one we are next to him

To understand what's going on here, I cite Lynn Spencer again (Pg. 32).

To identify American 11, the surveillance and ID techs must go through a gruelling process. The technicians must first determine which radar data on their screens is for aircraft, which they do by monitoring its movement, which is distinctive for planes. The technician must observe for at least 36 seconds to a minute just to confirm that a blip is in fact an aircraft track. The tech must attach what's called a tactical display number to it, which tells the computer to start tracking and identifying the target. If the target is in fact a plane, then over a period of 12-20 seconds, the computer will start to generate information on the track: heading, speed, latitude, longitude, and the identifying information being transmitted by the transponder.

The NEADS technicians start a "search" for Delta 89, described by Lynn Spencer as a gruelling process. But in contrast to American 11, which had turned the transponder off, Delta 89 is tagged, enabling them to curtail the procedure. In the course of the search, they detect two planes "really close together" - Delta 89 and Delta 1989 -, and obtain the squawk code of one of them: 7112. This is not Delta 1989's code, which is 1304, so it must be the code of Delta 89. The first digit "7" indicates that it's not the ID code of a usual civilian airliner - they never begin with a 7. Instead, the 7 is reserved for emergency cases like 7500, 7600, or 7700. By squawking 7112, Delta 89 manages to pop up on the NEADS radar screens and signals a hijacking.

(Channel 4)

9:42:43 - Indy Center? Indianapolis Center: Delta eight-nine have you information on that aircraft? I want to give you a heads-up. This is another hijacked aircraft, Boston to Las Vegas with a Mode 3 of 1304. We do have contact. ((Repeats information)).

9:43:04 - I give you a Lat-Long if you need that. Go ahead. 4121 North 08215 West. I'll give you a heads-up that's all we have right now, but he's a confirmed hijack

9:43:16 - (Indianapolis Center) We don't show him in our system at this point - you are tracking him, you say? We have him on the radar, Sir - he's headed your way. He's headed our way, okay.

9:43:35 - (Indianapolis Center) Boston to L-A-S, right? L-A-X. L-A-X? I've got Vegas, Sir, whatever Vegas says. L-A-S, okay, Las Vegas. Okay, cause we don't show him in the system anywhere. Do you have Mode 3 capability or anything? He's on a 1304 code? Okay, we bring that up.

Now NEADS contacts Indianapolis Center to inform them that Delta 89 is heading for their airspace. This is evidence that Delta 89 is flying southwest- or southbound at that point because the boundary to Indianapolis Center runs 40 miles south of Cleveland. In contrast, Delta 1989 never goes south, and especially at 9:43, it is flying westbound (direction 285) according to the Cleveland Center/Delta 1989 transcript:

9:40:57 - (Lorain Radar) delta nineteen eighty nine fly heading two eight five

9:41:00 - (Delta 1989) two eight five delta nineteen eighty nine

The next radio transmission between Cleveland Center and Delta 1989 occurs at 9:44am. In between, there is no order to change the direction, which is proof that Delta 1989 is not heading towards Indianapolis Center at 9:43am like Delta 89 (according to Stacia Rountree from NEADS). 
 
Back to NEADS:

(Channel 4)

9:44:03 - Where did it go? Somebody dropped the aircraft. Who dropped the aircraft? I DON'T KNOW!

(Channel 21)

9:46:25 - (?)52 on a 49 for 59 miles searching. We got a 1304 squawk this time

9:46:53 - The 1304 guy. That's not the guy then

At 9:44, Delta 89 is suddenly "lost". NEADS doesn't know where it's gone and is unable to track it. Obviously the pilot has turned off the transponder, making himself virtually invisible. The radar technicians resume the search. At 9:46:25, they are able to identify an eligible blip, but it's Delta 1989 this time. Their comment: "that's not the guy then" - the 7112 guy they lost and were looking for.

Now it's time to sum up the data:


Did the 9/11 Commission overlook these discrepancies? Unlikely. Did Commission staffers not check Channel 21 with the "code 7112" message? Oh yes, they did! On January 23, 2004, Miles Kara, Kevin Schaeffer, and Geoffrey Brown interviewed Sgt. Susan Marie Rose, whose voice is recorded on Channel 21 as she spots "code 7112":

Commission staff asked Rose is she recalled details on tracking Delta Airlines Flight 1989 or United Airlines Flight 93 (UAL 93). She replied that she and LaMarche tracked a specific suspected hijack that they believe was flight planned from Boston to Las Vegas through Cleveland and Minneapolis Center airspace. This flight, she believed, was headed to a specific airport, and he was manoeuvring to turn into the airport to land.

Rose noted that she is uncertain whether the aircraft reflected in Commission staff's recording was one that was search only or one that was a mode three. She surmised there being two aircraft that they followed based on listening to the tapes in which she pointed out a mode three squawking code 1304. The "surmise" of Susan Marie Rose is certainly correct, but squawk code 7112, evidence for a second plane is simply omitted in the report. Miles Kara and his colleagues don't seem to be interested in this other aircraft, despite the strange code and the fact that it was considered a hijacking. Code 7112 and Delta 89 were simply glossed over.
 
The NORAD tapes belong to the most authentic sources for the events of 9/11, and they are certainly not faked, as everyone will attest who has listened to them. As matters stand, the tapes provide watertight proof that Delta 89 was NOT Delta 1989, Delta 89 being defined as the aircraft that was tracked by NEADS between 9:41 and 9:44.

The analysis must not stop at this point. What kind of plane was this Delta 89? Discarding exotic scenarios like a drunken pilot or a foreign intruder playing games with the air defence, the plane's known attributes allow only one reasonable explanation - Delta 89 was a simulated hijacking as part of a military exercise:

- "Delta 89" was a fake call sign. The regular Delta Airlines Flight 89 was sitting at JFK airport and scheduled to depart for Los Angeles at 3:00 p.m.

- The behaviour of Delta 89 reminds of a hide-and-seek game. To facilitate the catcher's job, it left its cover and "cuckooed" for three minutes before disappearing in the dark again. Note that military exercises are often termed "war games".

- Delta 89 didn't squawk 7500, the emergency code for a "real world" hijacking, but another irregular code - 7112 - that was immediately interpreted as a hijacking by NEADS technicians.

- According to FAA directive 7110.65, certain beacon codes are regularly assigned to planes taking part in NORAD exercises - "7112" seems to have been one of them:
     
- NORAD will ensure exercise FAKER aircraft flight plans are filed containing discrete beacon codes from the Department of Defence code allocation specified in FAAO 7610.4, Special Military Operations, Appendix 8. 


Delta 89 fulfils all conditions for an "exercise faker aircraft" whose job was to simulate a hijacking. Alternative explanations are hard to imagine. Therefore it's time now to establish the central thesis of this text: Delta 89 was a faker hijack exercise.

So what - the interested reader might ask - what impact has this insight on the official story of the 9/11 attacks? Indeed, Michael Ruppert has already pointed out the existence of at least one "live-fly exercise" (with real aircraft involved) in his book Crossing the Rubicon. Lynn Spencer notes: 

"Today's training exercise runs a number of scenarios, including a simulated hijacking in which the perpetrators overtake an aircraft for political purposes, directing it to an island in order to seek asylum". (Pg.24) So is the case of "Exercise Delta 89" important at all?

Yes, it is, because of Delta 1989, which was kind of a "doppelganger" plane with nearly identical call sign (promptly leading to confusion), identical aircraft type (Boeing 767), identical origin airport (Boston), and flying in close vicinity when Delta 89 exposed itself at 9:41. Clearly the designation "Delta 89" was carefully chosen by the war-game designers to create a mix-up with Delta 1989. This is the first indication that the on-going exercises interfered with regular civilian air traffic.

In other words: Delta 1989, in spite of being a regular airliner, played a peripheral role in the exercise. It served as a cover-up for Delta 89. At first, NEADS was alerted by Delta 89, and when this plane stopped squawking and disappeared, the attention shifted to Delta 1989, which was closely observed until its landing in Cleveland.

Half an hour after Delta 1989, another mysterious airliner in distress landed at Cleveland Airport. Just like Delta 89, its existence seems to have been covered-up through "merging" it with Delta 1989 - a doppelganger case again. This naturally leads to the question whether the eerie Cleveland plane was identical to Delta 89. Indeed, there are surprising congruences:

- Both planes were reportedly a 767
- Both planes were reportedly coming from Boston
- Both planes were suspected of being hijacked
- Both planes were covered-up by Delta 1989


Thursday, December 27, 2018

The Mysterious United Airlines "Flight 177" On 9/11

By Mark Conlon


On 9/11, Mark Randol was manager of the Civil Aviation Security Field Office (CASFO) in Washington, DC, a subdivision of the FAA. He reported to the Commission.

By 9:25 a.m. Marcus Arroyo (Regional manager) called to report several hijackings, including AAL77, UAL 175 and UAL 177.

He made it clear that this was a terrorist act. Randol then immediately tasked his staff to find out everything they could about the flights. Randol remembers that the whole day was hectic and by 9:45 a.m. they had identified that AAL 77 had departed from Dulles, but they could not confirm whether it had been hijacked, while they discovered that UAL177 was being held at the gate in Boston.

The BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS (BTS) database tells us that UAL 177 was scheduled to depart at 6:55 p.m. from Boston, destination Los Angeles.

This raises two important questions:
  1.     Why was it reported hijacked?
  2.     Why was it reported "held at the gate" if its departure was only in the evening?
Most remarkably, the hijacking of United 177 was reported at 9:25 a.m. two minutes after Ed Ballinger, United flight dispatcher, sent the last message to 'Flight 175' while it was over Pittsburgh.

Research Source: WoodyBox: http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/11/mysterious-united-177-from-boston.html

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

Analysis of Steve De'ak's - Shanksville Plane Crater Recreation

By Mark Conlon

This is a video analysis of Steve De'aks theory regarding how the plane shaped crater was made in Shanksville on 9/11. In my video and blog below I show that his "alleged" reproduction comparisons using NASA's lab test impact craters and also his own recreation experiments do not sufficiently explain how the engine crater or tail section impression were made at the Shanksville crash site. I just want to make it clear to anyone reading this blog post, this is not a personal issue with Steve, it merely points out issues I wanted to raise which I feel are unanswered in his theory he proposes. It is meant to help rather than discredit him.
   

 

Background information:
Steve De'ak believes "multiple missiles" were used to create the plane shaped hole crater in Shanksville.


Steve has attempted to recreate the plane crater below (Fig A) and (Fig B), however in my opinion doesn't fully explain the observable crater hole in relation to how the plane's engine and tail section impressions in the ground happened in his recreations or with his "multiple missile" theory explanation? See below:

(Fig A) (No angle shown)
 
(Fig B) (6.6 Degrees)
 

The issues I observe with his recreation of the crater is, it does not account for the plane's engine crater or tail section impression which are observed in the crater images in Shanksville. Also there are issues with the angle trajectories Steve uses in his recreations seen in (Fig A) with NO angle trajectory clearly stated although in previous images there is cited - 9.2 degrees shown, and also in (Fig B) a 6.6 degree angle trajectory.

The confusion here arises because Steve cites some NASA lab experiments, where their results which Steve uses for "supportive" evidence of how the craters were created according to NASA using a 4.75 degree angle trajectory. See screen-shot from Steve De'ak's website below: 



Steve didn't state this information about the 4.75 degree angle trajectory in the NASA experiments in his articles and vaguely states 10 degrees under horizontal, which I didn't feel was helpful. See NASA's information below stating a 4.75 degree angle trajectory to achieve their crater which Steve uses in his articles and videos, however NOT mentioning this "specific" information. WHY?


This in the main part would make it very difficult in reality at the Shanksville crash site due to the treeline being far too tall to achieve such a low trajectory such as 4.75 degrees to create at least one side of the plane crater hole from a missile. There is also NO evidence of any damage or disturbance to the adjacent trees from a low angled trajectory such as JASSM missile which Steve "alleges" caused the hole crater. See below:



Comparison studies with the Steve's recreations and the "real" Shanksville crash site crater below:

 Steve's Recreation 1 below:
 
Steve's Recreation 2 below:

 Shanksville Crater Image 1 below:

 Shanksville Crater Image 2 below:

 Shanksville Crater Image 3 below:

 Another view from the ground:

The comparisons above using Steve's recreation attempts of the impact craters does not sufficiently explain how the engine crater or tail section impression were made at the Shanksville crash site. His comparisons do not contain these two distinct areas in his recreations to be accepted as adequate recreations as he claims. The same can be said for the NASA lab experiments comparisons which he uses to support his theory, as these are not sufficient for comparison purposes, although the idea is.

If "multiple missiles" were used to create the Shanksville plane crater then this would not be consistent with overwhelming eyewitness testimonies who speak of witnessing a "large" plane crash into the ground, not missiles? Steve does not address this evidence, and has been quite misleading about the eyewitness accounts, by saying that people both "heard" and "seen" missiles in Shanksville. See the screen-shot below from Steve De'ak's article.



There is no evidence of any eyewitnesses "SEEING" a missile or missiles. The only reports of missiles from witnesses is, what they "interpreted" to be a missile from only hearing the sound. No one actually observed anything with their eyes who report seeing a missile or missiles. Susan McElwain did see something small, however she did not reference the object to be a missile. The object she described flew over her vehicle and over the treeline, although it didn't disturb the trees or make any sound, and she didn't recall the sound of an explosion, which I find strange. I am still open to the possibility that it could be a missile.  

I have raised this several times with Steve during our comment exchanges on his website, however he seems reluctant to amend this in his articles or videos, even for the sake of accuracy, which I feel is a shame as it could be seen in a bad light and unhelpful for him, but I respect his choice not to. 

In conclusion:


For Steve De'ak to claim he can recreate the crater in Shanksville, he must demonstrate that he has recreated enough of the observable features to a reasonable high degree of accuracy based on the observable photographical and video evidence at the Shankville crater crash site. This is not the case with any of Steve's comparison recreations or the NASA lab experiments comparisons he cites. He must recreate the crater showing a tail section impression and also an engine crater, preferably using videos and not photos, and also at the correct angles so we can see how it was achieved. He also has to explain thoroughly how no treeline damage or disturbance to the trees adjacent to the crash crater in Shanksville was achieved. This has not been done up-to-now.

On a final note, this is not a personal attack on Steve De'ak, I am hopeful he may adjust or add to his test experiments with the information I provide here.

I am happy to update this article when Steve conducts new experiments and tests which solve the issues I raise in this analysis. I am not saying he is promoting disinformation, as I believe this would be unfair to say, and unhelpful. That would be an easy cheap shot, as he is trying to find answers to how the crater was created. This sometimes can take several attempts to fully reach a sufficient answer or recreation in this case. I wish him well in future experiments.

Update: 11th November 2018

After exchanges between me and Steve on his website comments section regarding the evidence of more than one crater in the Shankville plane crash crater, I believe Steve could eventually see I was being genuine in what I was pointing out to him with the extra craters in the plane shaped hole. His apology is welcomed and accepted. My video is no way a personal attack on Steve, I merely pointed out areas which I felt had been overlooked by Steve in his attempts at recreating the crime scene.

Myself and Steve differ greatly with our views of the evidence, however I wouldn't want that to prevent us from having any reasonable debates in the future. 



 Thanks for reading and watching the video.

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Nothing Unusual About UA175 & UA93's Deregistration?

By Mark Conlon

A lot has been made of the deregistration process of UA175 and UA93, because of the process taking up to 4 years for both of the planes to be deregistered on 28th Sept 2005. In reality this is nothing out of the ordinary, although some 9/11 researchers cite this as unusual, when in fact it is not.

One only has to take a look through the FAA Government Records to see it is not unusual for an aircraft to be deregistered many years later of its initial retirement of certification. 

I have listed some case study examples below of planes which have taken a long period of time to be deregistered. Anyone can checkout tail numbers at the FAA Registry - Aircraft - N-Number Inquiry: https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/nnum_inquiry.aspx

Example 1:

28 December 1978; United Air Lines DC8; N8082U, flight 173; Portland, OR: This was a scheduled domestic flight from Denver, CO to Portland, OR. After the landing gear was lowered, there were several indications of a landing gear - problem, including unusual noises and no indication that one of the landing gear had deployed properly. The crew went into a holding pattern while investigating the problem. The aircraft ran out of fuel while holding for landing and crashed in a residential area. Two of the eight crew members and eight of the 181 passengers were killed. No one on the ground was injured or killed. This plane was cancelled on Oct 13th 1981... nearly 3 years later.

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N8082U

Example 2:
  
Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 was a scheduled flight from Los Angeles, California, to San Francisco. On 7 December 1987, the British Aerospace 146-200A, registration N350PS, crashed in Cayucos, California, as a result of a murder–suicide by one of the passengers. It was not cancelled until 14th April 1993. (Thanks to 'Conspiracy Cuber' for this "excellent" case example).


 
https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N350PS&fbclid=IwAR0vXW5CzhNTscbkrX7tpBFt-3AhL070Zjay9Ln9IpYGm2Pezi4kfeVu204

Example 3:

On July 26, 2002, FedEx flight 1478, a Boeing 727-232F (N497FE) struck trees on final approach to Tallahassee Regional Airport at 5:37 a.m. The flight had originated in Memphis, Tennessee. The captain, first officer and flight engineer were seriously injured, and the airplane was destroyed by impact and resulting fire. www.aviationattorneys.com/national-content.cfm/Article/6366/Fed-Ex-Aircraft-Crash-Caused-By-Crew.html

So then visit the FAA Registry, enter the number, and this record pops up as of 17th April 2005:

N497FE is Assigned
Assigned/Registered Aircraft
Manufacturer Name BOEING
Model 727-232  Status Valid 
Registered Owner
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

Example 4:

On January 1, 2002, about 1802 eastern standard time, a Piper PA-31-250, N3525Y, registered to Taurus Wings Inc., and operated by Air Taxi Inc., as a Title 14 CFR Part 135 on demand air taxi flight, ditched in the Atlantic Ocean, near Hollywood, Florida. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20020107X00039&ntsbno=MIA02FA048&akey=1

An FAA Registry check on 10th March 2006 tells us:
 
N3525Y is Assigned
Assigned/Registered Aircraft
Model PA-31-350  Status Valid 
Registered Owner: TAURUS WINGS INC  

Example 5:

On October 18, 2001, at 1543 Alaska daylight time, a Bell 206L helicopter, N400EH, impacted the waters of Cook Inlet about six-tenths of a mile west of the shoreline off the approach end of runway 06 at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, Anchorage, Alaska. The pilot, who held a commercial pilot's certificate, expired as a result of the accident sequence. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20011026X02150&ntsbno=SEA02FA008&akey=1

And yet the FAA record as of 10th March 2006 says:

N400EH is Assigned
Manufacturer Name BELL
Model 206L 

Conclusion:

Again we have 9/11 researchers not fully checking the facts before promoting "alleged" anomalies in the data which are not valid anomalies at all.

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Flight 11 and the BTS Data-Base Discoveries Before 9/11

By Mark Conlon

The "unknown" statistic logged in relation to Flight 11 on 9/11 in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data-base is often used as proof that Flight 11 never took-off on 9/11, yet there are other instances showing the same statistic of "unknown" during the year of 2001 involving Flight 11.


(Flight 11 appears as a regular flight between BOS and LAX also on Tuesdays).

The BTS system returns "UNKNOWN" along with the usual 00:00 data for September 4 and July 10, 2001. Also, there's no data at all available for August 7, 2001. In all other instances AA-11 (Flight 11) appears to have flown on all Tuesdays before 9/11.

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

  • AA 07/10/2001 11 UNKNOWN LAX 07:45 00:00 366 0 0 00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
  • AA 08/07/2001 11 N/A LAX N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
  • AA 09/04/2001 11 UNKNOWN LAX 07:45 00:00 366 0 0 00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

UPDATE: 29/12/19


DATE CARR. TAIL_No FL_No ORIG DEST CRS_DEP DEPART TAX_OUT W/OFF W/ON TAX_IN CRS_ARR ARRIV CANCLD DVERTD AIR_TIME

AA 09/10/2001 198 N334AA SFO 06:24 06:03 334 314 -21 05:52 11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A


American Airlines "Flight 198" was the flight number with the plane tail number N334AA, which is a pendulum flight with Flight 11. Flight 198 arrived at Gate 32 in Boston, Logan Airport early in the morning on September 11, 2001. Although the reported date is 9/10/2001, the plane took-off from SFO on the west coast at 21:49 on 9/10 and actually landed at BOS on the east coast at 6:03 the next day on 9/11.

Apparently this detail created lot of confusion among 9/11 researchers, however this is the last tracked Flight for the plane - tail number N334AA before becoming the infamous AA11 on September 11, 2001.


Saturday, September 29, 2018

Flight 93's "Transponder On" at 10:05am According to FAA Transcript

By Mark Conlon

In this short analysis I will show through the use of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recording transcripts that Flight 93's transponder was still switched on at 10:05 a.m. after the "official" crash time in Shanksville. I will also touch briefly on other supporting evidence to show that Flight 93 did NOT crash at 10:03 a.m. as stated by the 9/11 Commission and also point-out other supporting evidence which indicates that Flight 93 did NOT crash at all on 9/11, as Flight 93 was located 15 miles past the "official" crash site heading towards the Washington D.C. area.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Transcript below:

1405 (10:05am)

ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet

doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred

ntmo-e: southeastbound still

doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him

ntmo-e: correct

doug: ok buddy

14 06 (10:06am)

ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three

Please Note: This strengthens the case that something took place in Shanksville at 10:06 a.m. NOT 10:03 a.m. the "official" crash time. The question is why was it so important to have the "official" crash time of 10:03 a.m., when all the evidence including the seismic readings place a trace recording in the ground at 10:06 a.m.? See the seismic readings below:



The 9/11 Commission lent on the seismologists to support the 10:03 a.m. official crash time, when clearly the evidence says different. Other evidence which suggests the plane shaped hole was made in the ground at 10:06 a.m. is the magnetometer data readings. See magnetometer readings data below: 

 
Notice the sharp dip fluctuation in the reading from 10:03 a.m. to 10:06 a.m. 

No Electronic Locator Transmitter (ELT) distress signal indicating a plane had crashed was picked-up at the time when Flight 93 "allegedly" crashed.

The FAA’s Cleveland Center, which had the last contact with Flight 93 before it crashed, suggests that no distress signal indicating a plane crash had occurred or was picked-up at the time Flight 93 went down. Flight 93 reportedly crashed in rural Pennsylvania at 10:03a.m. An “ELT” is an emergency locator transmitter, a device carried on most general aviation aircraft in the US that is designed to automatically start transmitting a distress signal if a plane should crash, so as to help search and rescue efforts in locating the downed aircraft The Cleveland Center controller’s information, as an FAA timeline will later state, therefore indicates that “No ELT signal has been picked up in the area where Flight 93 apparently crashed at this time.” Someone at the FAA’s Command Center in Herndon, Virginia, acknowledged the controller’s communication, responding, “Copy that, Command Center.” 
 
Whether anyone will subsequently report picking up an ELT signal in the area where Flight 93 apparently crashed is unclear. Major Allan Knox, who works at the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, which is “the contact for credible” ELT signals, tells the 9/11 Commission that he “does not recall an ELT detection being brought to his attention”. (9/11 Commission, 10/1/2003). 

Also, does this part in the FAA - Air Traffic Control transcription strengthens the case that Flight 93 was close to Washington D.C. as it was west of Dulles, furthermore strengthening the already overwhelming evidence of a landing at 10:28 a.m. at Reagan National Airport.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Transcript below:

14:07 (10:07am)

ntmo-e: sixteen south of Johnstown where they lost united ninety three and it was heading turning one four zero heading

doug: which will put him to what do you think

ntmo-e: uh I guess that put him down coming right just west of Dulles

doug: ok


SUMMARY:
 

Flight 93 switched on the transponder at 10:05 a.m. (two minutes after the "official" crash time), and the transponder indicated an altitude of 8200 ft. It was also heading southeast. One minute later, at 10:06 a.m., radar contact with Flight 93 is lost, at the position 39,51 north, 78,46 west. This point is about 15 miles southeast of the "official" crash site and around 15 minutes flying time from Washington D.C.



All the evidence points to Flight 93 landing at Reagan National Airport at 10:28 a.m. I will outline in more detail evidence to support this in my following blogs about Flight 93.


Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Simon Shack's - 9/11 September Clues Forum "Disinformation" Psy-Op Network

By Mark Conlon


I edited this short video together which was made by someone else which was a much longer version. The creator exposes Simon Shack promulgating "false" information in his September Clues forum. Shack claims the video and photographs are all fake on 9/11, however this video shows how he exploits parallax and different viewing perspectives and also different times in motion to promote video and photographic fakery.

Shack even tries to claim that a piece of video footage from the Bataclan attack had a "missing door" in it, which was provably false. 

This video appears to demonstrate attempts by Simon Shack to implant and promote misinformation. 

See video below:  


Thank you for watching!

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

The Disappearing and Reappearing Wing Study

By Mark Conlon

In this study analysis I am going to compare two videos which captured an anomaly involving "alleged" Flight 175's plane wing briefly disappearing before impacting the South Tower. I will also explore some of the most common explanations which have been put forward to try and explain these anomalies. 

Many 9/11 researchers have tried to explain away some of the anomalies captured in the "Flight 175" videos. One such case is the video footage showing the plane wing disappearing in some of the videos.

Some researchers believe that video compression was responsible for the plane wing's disappearance, while others say it is because of the background and the sky. To some degree these can be valid arguments put forward. To demonstrate these two points I have used below two videos taken of regular planes in the sky to demonstrate how these two factors affect the video camera's ability to register the "real" plane's wings and tail section depending on the colour of the sky and also the colour of the plane itself. See below:



As you can see in the image above taken of a "real" plane, the sky is grey and the colour of plane is similar in colour which makes it difficult for the video camera to differentiate, however we still see the wings and tail section in the video.

In the video below taken of a "real" plane you can see that for one frame the tail section's left-hand wing looks transparent, almost disappearing. The merging against the blue sky demonstrates a natural transparent looking plane wing for one video frame. So it is possible for this anomaly to happen in video footage and give the appearance that the tail section wing has disappeared, so this is a natural anomaly, laws of optics, not a fake video or CGI plane. 


The difference in the next two examples below is, it shows neither of those two explanations above can account for the disappearance of the plane wing documented in the two pieces of 9/11 video footage below:


The difference with this study is the videos are taken from two different directions and using two different video cameras both capturing the same missing wing anomaly. This proves that this was an anomaly captured from the "perceived" object in the sky and not an anomaly or malfunction of the video camera recording equipment itself. So then explanation of compression or sky backdrop and light can be ruled-out. Not in (Fig A & B) this was captured using high quality video camera equipment, and in (Fig C & D) the video camera was of a lower quality, and only captured the missing wing for one video frame only.  

In the 6 still images below taken from the Naudet video second plane hit, they captured the "alleged" plane for 6 frames in sequence where it shows the "alleged" plane's wing to be missing. See below:



See enlarged image below: Plane wing missing!


Over the 6 frames it shows no wing after the plane engine. The footage was taken using high quality video equipment. Was this why it picked up the missing wing for 6 frames instead of only one frame in the lower quality other video camera footage showing the plane wing missing? Was the high quality video recording equipment key to capturing this anomaly of the "perceived" object in the sky? Was this why we have never seen any professional news camera crew footage of the plane from the ground on 9/11? Were the news camera teams kept away in case they captured more anomalies like this of the plane in their higher quality equipment?

Below: Luc Courchesne was using professional video camera recording equipment and he also captured the missing wing anomaly in several frames in his video footage.



Luc Courchesne - Missing Wing Video:

In this case it could be that the shutter speed of the video camera was open for a shorter period of time, example 1/60th of a second as the video camera was facing into the sunlight on the east-side of the sky. Because of the camera's shutter being open for a shorter time-frame did it catch the "image projection" of the plane in mid drawing of the projection, thus "not" displaying a full image of the plane in the sky? (Example, if you imagine a strobe light, which flashes quickly and capturing it in between cycles of light and dark phase). 

Also we must take into account the high quality of the video camera used, which would have played a major role in capturing the anomaly, as it captured several frames not just one frame of the missing wing like other video camera's of a lower quality and with a longer open shutter speed exposure.  

Conclusion:
What I can positively conclude is, we are NOT looking at a "real" plane captured in the 9/11 video footage, and the anomalies were NOT caused by compression artifacts or video malfunctions. The anomaly issues are with the object itself in the sky which were captured by numerous video cameras from different locations, thus depending on the quality of the video camera and the location perspective of the video camera would explain to some degree how the anomaly (missing wings) would have been captured in the video footage.

Impossibility of Video Fakery, CGI Planes & Compositing...?
This also definitely rules-out any suggestion of inserted CGI graphic planes or composited planes into the TV media footage or the amateur video footage later. Why would the perpetrator's insert CGI planes which were NOT convincing enough or full of glitches? This is just not logical. Also how did they control all of the eyewitnesses in NYC of those who witnessed a planes hitting the buildings, and please note; before even seeing anything on TV or media coverage? Impossible. Yet we have NOT seen any videos put into the public domain showing no plane at all in the video footage, one would have thought at least one video over the last 17 years would of surfaced or slipped through the net of control depicting such claims made by the "video fakery" promoters. No matter what anybody tells you there are reliable eyewitnesses who seen what they took to be a plane in the sky and hitting both buildings. The "video fakery" promoters never critically analyses this accounts, yet make accusations calling all the eyewitnesses, videographers and photographers liars or being part of a big conspiracy. They have provided no credible evidence to support their claims.

Thanks you reading and caring!

Update: 12/12/19


Here's another study I have done. The video shows the wing disappearing for 6 frames.



This is now 3 videos showing a consistent missing "right" wing for 6 frames. This cannot be explained as digital artifact fault of the camera because we have two other videos showing exactly the same issue with the wing disappearing for 6 frames.