Friday, June 12, 2009

NEADS air traffic news...


Aircraft Parts and the Precautionary Principle

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft . and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.


The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government.s theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government.s 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country.s history.

Footnote: It will soon be five years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 unfolded, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written.

You think this was a radar inject they were tracking, or one of the "chase" planes?

going back through the NEADS tapes we released in 2007 and discovered something a little strange ...

DRM1 DAT2 Channel 4 ID Op

08:46:15: New York told me to hold on, you heard that, right?

08:46:36: Come on New York. (Dooley again) You know what, you know what, let's
get a tail number off of for American 11. (Roundtree) Call Boston, American 11 tail
number. (Dooley) Tell them we need the tail number of the aircraft, (male voice)
American one one. (Roundtree to New York) Yes it is, (right now he's primary only.)
Do you have Mode 3 or anything? Or a location? (Fm not showing anything, no.) Lat
Ion? (Hold on, I'll get a lat lon.) Good.


08:47:05: (Dooley?) We're going to get an updated lat Ion now. (to background
question) We called Boston his filed one [Mode 3] was 1443, but he's not working that,
he's primary only, we're getting an updated lat Ion position. (I'm showing 40 39 North.)
40 39 North. (74 03 West) 74 03 West.

08:47:35: End of HUNTRESS call to NY AMIS


If you input that Lat/Long into Google Maps ...

View Larger Map

You get an airspace 2.5 South of the WTC, on the EXACT trajectory Flight 11 would have taken.

So, NEADS picked up Flight 11 2.5 miles south of the WTC by primary radar at 8:47, less than a minute after it allegedly hit the North Tower.

I did dig up an additional one later on ...


08:53:17: 20 miles south of JFK. Where's JFK, turn on your NAVID ... they're telling us he's 20 miles south of JFK.

I know that Coast Radar can possibly be used to explain the first one at 8:47, but the one at 8:53?

<a href=",+74+03+W&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.176059,63.017578&ie=UTF8&ll=40.679336,-74.033089&spn=0.121317,0.246162&t=h&z=12&iwloc=A">MAP GOOGLE</a>

The important thing to realize is that "Phantom Flight 11" has always been attributed to Colin Scoggins, who appears to be the debunkers' and official story's fall guy, but this information at 8:47 came from NY AMIS, a completely different branch and person.

I've studied the NEADS tapes quite thoroughly, and I can say definitively that there is an innocuous explanation for flt. 11 being "picked up" by NEADS SOUTH of the WTC, AFTER the crash.

If you listen another minute on the tape, the NYC air traffic controller (the same lady who quoted the aircraft position as 40.39N 74.03W) explained that the target is "tracking coast" to which the NEADS ID operator replies, "what does that mean", and the NYC ATC says it means they've lost track on it". Well of course they have, it crashed.

When she said it was "tracking coast", she didn't mean it was following the coastline, she was referring to the radar tracking term "coast", which means, in a nutshell, when they lose radar contact w/ an aircraft, for whatever reason, the computer uses the aircraft's LAST KNOWN location, direction, and speed, to show APPROXIMATELY where the aircraft SHOULD BE. In other words, if the aircraft had not crashed, but continued on its last known course, it WOULD HAVE BEEN at 40.39N, 74.03W. This is misinterpreted by NEADS, as well as the poster of that story.

If you google "radar coast track" you'll see what I am talking about:

"A coast track (often incorrectly referred to as a .ghost track.) differs from a radar track in that it is not supported by radar returns but rather by a computer-generated, projected course for the flight."

"It takes a couple of minutes for a track to switch to a coast track, it will free track for a little bit then switch to coast, very recognizable though when it does. Where the digitized target symbol is the coast track will show a # sign, when in free track a triangle will appear over the target symbol, free tracks occur when the aircraft is outside of its flightplan limitations. When it is flat tracked it will show a diamond shape over the target."

and a 3rd example, from a a radar "international designators" webpage: :
"40. Coast/suspend list (aircraft holding, temporary loss of beacon/target, etc.) ......

Position symbols:

6. Free track (no flight plan tracking) [triangle symbol]

7. Flat track (flight plan tracking) [diamond symbol]

8. Coast (beacon target lost) [#]"

That is interesting. Don't know what to make of it.. If Flight 11 didn't hit the North tower, then it implies a plane substitution scenario of some kind.


Perhaps the war games provided cover for this as well? I wouldn't be surprised. But I thought enough plane wreckage was recovered to ID the plane.


It is important that people understand this. The government has plane parts - but refuses to release the serial numbers of these parts - thereby making it impossible to positively identify the plane associated with those parts.

Herblay FRANCE

bonsoir ,

they are caught in a dilemma because if they give the true numbers a lot of people will be put on trial. If they give false numbers and the 911 truth movement manages to obtain a 911 international investigation, the person that gave the false number will have to answer for the perjury and worst might be considered as an accomplice of the 911 murder.

So either way, the best they can do to save their neck's is say nothing and hope that the truth movement will move on.

We must find a legal way to have these numbers !

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 3:09 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home