WTC attacks - the alternative thread

[WouldBe]

Or you can just concede that it indeed is technically possible.

That should be MIGHT be technically possible

I have never said that it is possible and I doubt very much that it was used on 9/11.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

You're telling me it is.

Why are you refusing to express an opinion on what you think is the most likely scenario? You tell me what you think really happened and then I'll be delighted to offer my opinion on the matter.

Why do you expect me to furnish you with an A-Z of my opinions on every one of the multitude of theories expressed thus far?

I'm not interested in wasting my time over the 'possibilities' of holographic missiles, thanks.

Well, I don't particularly have an opinion on 'the most likely scenario'.

I do, however, have an opinion regarding the technical possibility of remotely hijacking the aircraft in question.

I believe that it is indeed technically possible that the aircraft in question could have been hijacked remotely by person/s unknown without the requirement of additional hardware being installed on the aircraft.

This opinion is based on a careful review of the information available to me, which I have taken pains to share with you.

Now, either you agree with my opinion, or you do not.

If you do not, please tell me on what basis, so that I can perhaps supply you with further information that address your concern, whatever that might be.

I don't really feel that it is necessary or helpful for you to conflate a technical point with other theories concerning 'holographic missiles' or whatever else you choose to consider.

 

[editor]

I believe that it is indeed technically possible that the aircraft in question could have been hijacked remotely by person/s unknown without the requirement of additional hardware being installed on the aircraft.

Right. So how and when would this equipment and/or software upgrades have been implemented?
Who made them?
When would they have been tested?
Who would have installed and tested them? When?
How long would it take?
Where were the planes controlled from?
How would they stay in range?
Why was there no trace of the ground to aircraft transmissions reported?
Why has there been no trace of this invisible plug in technology reported anywhere in the world since?
Why didn't the pilot report that he'd lost control of his craft?
Why aren't the airlines suing for trillions if they had the slightest remotest suspicion that their planes had been interfered with by the government?

Could you show me any examples of large passenger aircraft being converted into remote control flying machines with no external or internal visible alterations, without anything showing up in pre-flight checks or ground crew examinations and with no extra time out for service required?

Could you explain how the pilot and crew's communications, passengers with mobiles and in-flight phones were also all cut off to stop pilots reporting that their aircraft had been 'taken over'?

Or are you now going to claim that the planes weren't the real ones and I'm going to have to start all over again explaining away another improbable scenario for your benefit.....

I do hope not because that would be very annoying.

 

[fela fan]

Sorry for quoting this in full but Fela asks several questions and his quote needs to be read unedited-


Firstly you state there were all these passengers, by this I am assuming you mean the fully loaded plane after the others have been switched. Then you later state bearing in mind the small passenger load

Which is it? a full plane or a lightly loaded one. Your not only cofusing yourself but me as well.

All their mobiles turned off This may well be 'the rules' but has been proved by posters on here and the experimenter on Dewdneys website, these rules are often ignored.

they get to hear about other aircraft being hijacked Why do they need to know about 'other' aircraft being hijacked? If you believe Dewdneys version they were told by the USG agents and an apparent hijacker removed from the aircraft at Harrisburg airport.

If the aircraft were actually hijacked it would be bloody ovious what was going on.

plane phones at the back While reasearching this it would appear that several versions of aircraft actually have satellite phones in each of the arm rests, so there would be no need to 'sneak to the back' or queue up.

1. No i didn't state that. I wrote it in another way in a literary style with the sort of tone of resigned unbelievability... there they all were...

2. My understanding is it was a lightly loaded plane. I am entirely unconfused by myself.

3. I haven't read anything by any Dewdney. I have never, in quite a lot of flying, ever seen anyone using their mobile on a flight. I go by my own experiences. They allow me to work out probabilites of something happening.

4. No hijacking in history has had anyone (it's an educated assertion, but if i'm wrong someone'll put me right), never mind 30 passengers in single file, storming the cockpit. And with a food trolley.

5. Yes, obvious. And with hijackers (only two needed) keeping an eye on the 30 passengers. That's what happens in hijackings.

6. Proponents of these calls being real have said that they went to the back to make them. Furthermore that report by msnbc, provided by editor, says that passengers were all sent to the back of the plane. That report was written by a jounalist who'd spend a year getting to the bottom of what happened on this flight.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Right. So how and when would this equipment and/or software upgrades have been implemented?
Who made them?
When would they have been tested?
Who would have installed and tested them? When?
How long would it take?
Where were the planes controlled from?
How would they stay in range?
Why was there no trace of the ground to aircraft transmissions reported?
Why has there been no trace of this invisible plug in technology reported anywhere in the world since?
Why didn't the pilot report that he'd lost control of his craft?
Why aren't the airlines suing for trillions if they had the slightest remotest suspicion that their planes had been interfered with by the government?

Could you show me any examples of large passenger aircraft being converted into remote control flying machines with no external or internal visible alterations, without anything showing up in pre-flight checks or ground crew examinations and with no extra time out for service required?

Could you explain how the pilot and crew's communications, passengers with mobiles and in-flight phones were also all cut off to stop pilots reporting that their aircraft had been 'taken over'?

Or are you now going to claim that the planes weren't the real ones and I'm going to have to start all over again explaining away another improbable scenario for your benefit.....

I do hope not because that would be very annoying.

Instead of an answer to a simple question, I get bombarded with thirteen more, only needing to read as far as the first of which to realise the futility of attempting intelligent debate with you.

Which part of 'without the requirement of additional hardware being installed' do you have trouble comprehending? What 'equipment' are you wibbling on about? Jeeesus.

Simply repeating questions that you have already asked and have already been answered in detail, then adding some more irrelevant/obvious/idiotic ones and even repeating the same question with different wording is just tedious 'crapflooding' and a total waste of time.

If you want to pick just one of your above questions out - the one you feel is most pertinent - then I will show you where it has been answered before, or demonstrate why I consider it irrelevant, obvious or idiotic.

Go on, pick one. 1 to 13?


If you can't manage even that, I suggest you go back and read what I said here to save yourself any confusion over why I am ignoring your 'output'.

 

[fela fan]

Of course, if you'd bothered to read what I wrote (and read the information when I posted the same thing yesterday), you would have understood that I presented that link to provide you with an answer to your the oft-repeated question as to how the passengers got to hear of the 9/11 attacks.

I've no interest in msnbc's emotive style of writing, but if you've got a single shred of evidence to suggest that any of the people who took the calls were lying, I'd be delighted to hear it.

But I guess I'll be waiting forever for that one, eh?

I did bother to read what you wrote, and your link (the second time you posted it). And as for the report by the journo who spent a year getting to the bottom of what happened on that flight, i read it all very carefully.

It was truly fascinating, and it got more and more incredible as the story unfolded. It would have done the Sun proud. I loved the way they told us the things folk on that flight had done in their lives prior to the flight, you know, the stuff that made them heroes, and the sort of folk that would storm a cockpit. With a food trolley. In single file. With the pilots at the back of the plane somewhere. With the hijackers making the wings dip from side to side in an attempt to make the passengers fall over while doing that storming of the cockpit...

You presented that story as an answer to my question as to how the passengers got to hear about other hijacked craft.

Well, after reading such dripping crassness by a reporter who thinks he's a novellist, i would find it difficult to believe a single thing in that article. It is full of complete and utter tosh ('hey folks, these weren't ordinary folks, these were... type A folks, and boy they were nah gonna be messed aroun' by none o those fancy hijacker evil dudes...').

I have no evidence to say those calls were fake, but i am much more tended to think so after reading your link. If that's your evidence, then oh dear.


But you know? The amazing thing is that it DOESN'T EVEN ANSWER my question! How did the passengers get to know about the other hijackings?

 

[editor]

But you know? The amazing thing is that it DOESN'T EVEN ANSWER my question! How did the passengers get to know about the other hijackings?

Fuck, you're thick and I'm losing patience with you.

I can't be arsed to repeat myself any more for your benefit and I don't really care about your idiotic fantasies any more.

Emotional, deeply personal 26 minute 'faked' calls from people who weren't even supposed to be on the flight?

Alice in fucking Wonderland. Get a grip.

 

[editor]

Instead of an answer to a simple question, I get bombarded with thirteen more, only needing to read as far as the first of which to realise the futility of attempting intelligent debate with you.

My questions are all pertinent to your claims about plug-in, invisible, 'instant remote control planes', as yet unseen anywhere else in the world.

Shame they're too much of a challenge for you to answer.

I've lost interest in this rubbish now. You choose to believe that the USG can fake long, deeply personal phone calls from any citizen it likes. I think that's a load of laughable, embarrassingly naive bollocks.

And you haven't a shred of evidence to back it up.

Ever wondered why so few people read these threads?

 

[kyser_soze]

No one has yet addressed my basic point - where is the motive for the USG to launch such an attack on the US homeland and provoke a war in a country with no natural resource and one that meant little or nothing to an administration that, from Clarke's accounts, seems to have been hell bent on invading Iraq.

Afghanistan has little or no strategic use as a base of operations to the US (Kazahkstan is far more useful), there is no oil or mineral resource tat I'm aware of and as we are no seeing the country is a pain in the ass to govern under any political system that doesn't involve rule of the gun.

Surely if the USG were going to conspire and create an event like 9/11 to justify a war they'd have gone for a strategically important nation or at least one that GWB has family issues with?

 

[fela fan]

Fuck, you're thick and I'm losing patience with you.

Not a personal attack and threat all rolled into one?

Okay, no probs, as from now i stop conversing with you. Coz i've lost patience too, and to keep you happy i'll not be bothering you any more with my stupidities.

Have a nice day.

 

[fela fan]

No one has yet addressed my basic point - where is the motive for the USG to launch such an attack on the US homeland and provoke a war in a country with no natural resource and one that meant little or nothing to an administration that, from Clarke's accounts, seems to have been hell bent on invading Iraq.

Afghanistan has little or no strategic use as a base of operations to the US (Kazahkstan is far more useful), there is no oil or mineral resource tat I'm aware of and as we are no seeing the country is a pain in the ass to govern under any political system that doesn't involve rule of the gun.

Surely if the USG were going to conspire and create an event like 9/11 to justify a war they'd have gone for a strategically important nation or at least one that GWB has family issues with?

Control of oil, and control of Eurasia.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq are necessities to control both.

As is a mandate from the american public. Fear is the best method of control over a free population.

Quite apart from the motives, there is now a mountain of irregularities over the Bush regime's actions both before, and after the attacks.

And the commission they tried to avoid all along, is now slowly and methodically uncovering the truth.

Let's keep watching, coz it must have teeth to get a presidential daily briefing declassified. I read that this is the first time ever. If correct, then we can expect a few more fireworks...

 

[kyser_soze]

hmmm - I don't have time to go into why Afghanistan isn't a strategic necessity anymore as I'm at work, but accepted on the other points...I still don't think it was the USG, or there were remote controlled planes or any of the rest of it.

 

[fela fan]

hmmm - I don't have time to go into why Afghanistan isn't a strategic necessity anymore as I'm at work, but accepted on the other points...I still don't think it was the USG, or there were remote controlled planes or any of the rest of it.

Here's one version i think it might be. But i constantly remain flexible, while hoping that the truth will out itself one day.

Elements of the USG, together with elements of other elites from military, intelligence, and coporate interests had the attacks organised.

This may well have included elements of the Israeli elites.

I don't think Bush knew who was responsible. I think he is just a puppet. Like Reagan was.

I think people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz most capable of blowing up loads of their own citizens.

And i repeat (I know you didn't disagree per se), there are just way too many anomolies with the official version given us by the USG.

 

[WouldBe]

I'm still waiting for DrJ to tell me wether Dewdney or ATC are lying. They can't both be right.

Either Dewdney is correct in that with the IFF turned off ATC cannot tell the height an aircraft is flying at. In which case how do ATC know 'flight 77' did a 6000ft descent in 2 mins?

Or ATC can tell the height of an aircraft with it's IFF off. In which case Dewdneys crucial theory is blown as you wouldn't be able to hide an aircraft switch from ATC.

So which is it?

I already know the answer

Just another point, if ATC are correct it is highly unlikely that some one could perform that flight manouver via remote control and it would almost certainly exceed the design constraints of the flight control computer for the aircraft to have flown automatically but I'm still looking into that.

 

[Jazzz]

With all aircraft in US airspace being forced to land at the nearest airport I'm supprised they had time to notice they would certainly have had their work cut out.

It's their job. A big point of sanitizing the airspace is so that Flight 77 (with its transponder) off could be identified wherever it was.

If the Pentagon is where I think it is, just west of the Potomac, then virtually half way between there and the white house is Ronal Regan international airport. So the radar would have been covered in blips of aircraft of all shapes and sizes coming into land and not all aircraft have IFF. In fact almost NO small aircraft have IFF fitted.

As for not being safe to fly a 757 like that I don't think that would have bothered the terrorists in the slightest.

Edit: According to Dewdney, if the IFF is turned off the ATC have no idea what height the aircraft is flying at, so how did ATC know the plane descended 6000ft in 2 minutes?

I don't know about IFF. What I was quoting (from memory), WouldBe, is the official story.

According to the official story, as reported by the New York Times (International Herald Tribune, 2001-10-17, p.8), the Boeing 757, AA Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon executed a 270-degree 7,000-foot descent over Washington while flying at 500 mph. It approached the Pentagon on a horizontal trajectory (so as to maximize the damage to the building) so low that it clipped the power lines across the street (but somehow managed to squeeze between two poles which were separated by less than the wingspan of a Boeing 757).

We were told (and, of course, expected to believe) that this maneuver was executed by an Arab pilot, Hani Hanjour, who in August 2001 was judged by the chief flight instructor at Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport as not having the piloting skills required to fly a Cessna 172 solo. (Is there something fishy here?)

source

... but perhaps, you are starting to have your doubts about the official story yourself? I note you haven't further attempted to defend George Bush's bizarre activity while all this was kicking off.

 

[Jay Emm]

I take it everyone has seen that urban legends web site?

 

[Jazzz]

Jay Emm, do you mean snopes, the website that claims that the wings of flight 77 hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon although photos after the crash show a lawn that looks like one of the greens at Augusta

some pics

from snopes... "As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building..." http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

 

[bigfish]

I take it everyone has seen that urban legends web site?

Which bit?

 

[Jay Emm]

No I didn't.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blxterror.htm

 

[mr_eko]

Dr J how can anyone defend/explain George Bush's activity while this was going on? Only he knows why he reacted in the way that he did. We could all offer loads of different explanations and make them fit in with whatever we believe. Maybe he was scared, maybe his secret service guys asked him to stay put, maybe he knew what was going on and wanted to stay put and see it through (but if he did why stay put and call attention to himself?) Also I can't see what bearing his activity has on the official version of events.

I think after the many threads about this we've established that there are some peeps that believe the official version and other peeps that don't and some peeps that just don't give a toss.

I tend to believe the official version because a) at the moment it makes the most sense to me and b) I just can't see the American Government cooking up such an elaborate plot to kill it's own citizens just so that it could start a war in Afghanistan and c) because in imho none of the other theories out there stand up to much scrutiny. I might be naive/wrong but until something comes along to convince me otherwise I'm gonna stick with the official version.

Can't we all just agree to disagree and leave it there?

 

[Jay Emm]

Dr J how can anyone defend/explain George Bush's activity while this was going on? Only he knows why he reacted in the way that he did. We could all offer loads of different explanations and make them fit in with whatever we believe. Maybe he was scared, maybe his secret service guys asked him to stay put, maybe he knew what was going on and wanted to stay put and see it through (but if he did why stay put and call attention to himself?) Also I can't see what bearing his activity has on the official version of events.

I think after the many threads about this we've established that there are some peeps that believe the official version and other peeps that don't and some peeps that just don't give a toss.

I tend to believe the official version because a) at the moment it makes the most sense to me and b) I just can't see the American Government cooking up such an elaborate plot to kill it's own citizens just so that it could start a war in Afghanistan and c) because in imho none of the other theories out there stand up to much scrutiny. I might be naive/wrong but until something comes along to convince me otherwise I'm gonna stick with the official version.

Can't we all just agree to disagree and leave it there?

That sounds fair enough to me.

 

[WouldBe]

It's their job. A big point of sanitizing the airspace is so that Flight 77 (with its transponder) off could be identified wherever it was.

But as I have pointed out with all the non IFF equiped aircraft in the vicinity and bearing in mind Dewdneys theory of switching aircraft, How could ATC accurately identify flight 77

I don't know about IFF. What I was quoting (from memory), WouldBe, is the official story.

It doesn't really matter wether you know about IFF or not. The conspiracy theory hinges on the ability to fool ATC about switching aircraft and the 'fact' that a crack pilot must have flown (by whatever means) flight 77 in to the pentagon.

Now either ATC were not capable of stating that flight 77 dived 7000 ft in 2mins in which case the crack pilot theory goes out of the window OR if they can tell what height an aircraft is at without IFF then Dewdneys theory of switching aircraft is wrong.

So which crucial fact do you believe and which do you disbelieve?

... but perhaps, you are starting to have your doubts about the official story yourself? I note you haven't further attempted to defend George Bush's bizarre activity while all this was kicking off.

No I'm not doubting the official story.

I can't speak for Bush (not that I'd want too) but he's not exactly the brightest spark out there is he. Perhaps it's just sheer incompetance but that doesn't mean that it was a conspiracy.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Dr J how can anyone defend/explain George Bush's activity while this was going on? Only he knows why he reacted in the way that he did. We could all offer loads of different explanations and make them fit in with whatever we believe. Maybe he was scared, maybe his secret service guys asked him to stay put, maybe he knew what was going on and wanted to stay put and see it through (but if he did why stay put and call attention to himself?)

...maybe he just wanted to hear what happened to 'Mr. Goat'.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I take it everyone has seen that urban legends web site?

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blxterror.htm

'Ang on a sec...

Hijacked airliner was purposely shot down
RUMOR: "I heard on the radio that the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down because it wasn't responding to radio calls, but can't get c/d on any of the TV stations."
STATUS: False; denied by Pentagon, unsupported by evidence.

That is simply not true.

...and again:

World Trade Center occupants received advance warning
RUMOR: "I know someone in the world trade center and they called on cell phone... They were warned 45 minutes before first hit to leave building."
STATUS: Unsubstantiated; not reported in media.

Eh? I've never heard a 'rumour' concerning phone calls pre-warning of the attacks, but there are hundreds of reports regarding Odigo, the Israeli instant messaging service.

So is it OK for a website proporting to be some sort of 'Oracle of Ultimate Truth' to go around conflating established facts with a bit of it's own 'makey-uppy' straw man bullshit, causing general confusion just to give itself something to 'debunk'?



Well, I can tell you one thing, folks... it's a textbook PSYOP tactic.

 

[Jazzz]

WouldBe - you are (like your tagline) utilising perverse logic.

I don't know where the 7,000 ft comes from. But it is the official story. That means that the official story has Hani Hanjour, a pilot known to be quite hopeless, pulling off the most incredible descent with 270 degree turn. Real fighter ace stuff.

But even if the altitude is not correct, it is still an extraordinary manouvre for a 757 let alone one with a pilot such as Hani Hanjour.

All that is necessary for me is to show that the official story is completely bizarre, which it is wherever you look. It's not up to me to second guess where the 7,000ft comes from. I've provided a link to the ATC interview which reveals that

• They were all watching the blip
• They had no idea it was flight 77
• They all thought it was a military jet - even though they would have know that the tracking of flight 77 was lost, and two planes had been piloted in to the WTC

This is all entirely consistent with a switch of flight 77 for an R/C drone such as Global Hawk and, IMHO, totally inconsistent with the official story. Likewise, the evidence of the crash scene.

Likewise, the inactivity of Bush, and Rumsfeld - who supposedly, knew nothing until it was all over!

"Can you believe this? Two planes hitting the Twin Towers in New York City did not rise to the level of Rumsfeld’s leaving his office and going to the war room to check out just what the hell went wrong." Mindy sounded scared. "This is my President. This is my Secretary of Defense. You mean to tell me Rumsfeld had to get up from his desk and look out his window at the burning Pentagon before he knew anything was wrong? How can that be?" Mindy Kleinberg, 9-11 widow

Four 9-11 moms battle Bush

These are the women who forced any sort of investigation into 9-11 to happen at all! Perhaps you would like to advise them to give it a rest, Jay Emm and ganjaboy...

And if this is in any was excusable behaviour from the top of the military, lord knows what would happen if a surprise nuclear strike was launched against the US, while Bush was watching Sesame Street...

 

[Jay Emm]

Seems like you're deciding what I think for me. Never offered my own opinion on any of this.

 

[WouldBe]

I don't know where the 7,000 ft comes from. But it is the official story. That means that the official story has Hani Hanjour, a pilot known to be quite hopeless, pulling off the most incredible descent with 270 degree turn. Real fighter ace stuff.
But even if the altitude is not correct, it is still an extraordinary manouvre for a 757 let alone one with a pilot such as Hani Hanjour.

The only place I have seen it mentioned is on conspiracy theorists sites. They then use the logic that if a fighter ace was required to pull off this manoever and Hani Hanjour was a crap pilot then the only way to have done it was with remote control.

As for the 'fighter ace stuff' try a bit of maths on the data.

Ignoring the turn to start with, we have an aircraft travelling at 550mph that descends 7000ft in 2 mins. So in 2 mins the aircraft travels ~18miles

(550mph/60mins) * 2 = 18.3 miles

5280 feet = 1 mile therefore 7000ft = 1.32 miles

So angle of descent = InvSin (opp/hyp)

= InvSin (1.32/18.3)

= 4.1 degrees

This is well within the acceptable glide slope of an aircraft coming into land which every pilot should be capable of doing never mind a crack fighter ace. Source para c

A 270 degree turn is a large sweeping turn which is easier and less stressful on an aircraft than a sharp 90 degree turn.

This is all entirely consistent with a switch of flight 77 for an R/C drone such as Global Hawk and, IMHO, totally inconsistent with the official story. Likewise, the evidence of the crash scene.

How on earth is it consistent with a switch of flight and a r/c drone being used?

The whole basis of the conspiracy theory is that the above manoever required such skill that it had to be performed by remote control with an 'ace fighter pilot' controlling it. Which is clearly crap and the whole conspiracy theory starts to fall apart rapidly.

 

[Jazzz]

What a load of piffle! The air traffic controllers all thought the manouvres extraordinary for a 757, just from watching the blip, and so did a group of military and civilian pilots who discussed the issue...

The extremely skillful maneuvering of the three aircraft at near mach speeds, each unerringly hitting their targets, was superb. As one Air Force officer -- a veteran of over 100 sorties over North Vietnam -- explained, "Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control." source

Simply taking the angle of descent as a measure of the difficulty of the manoeuvre is neither here nor there and you know it. Somehow - by a breathtaking piece of hand-waving - you describe the 270 degree hairpin at balls-out speed for a 757 as a 'gentle' turn. You cannot assume, against the remarks of those in a much better position to judge, that this turn had a large radius. And ignore the fact that the descent was simultaneous with the turn, the rate of both having to be carefully judged to pick out a blind target. And then there's the horizontal approach skimming the ground...

The only place I have seen it mentioned is on conspiracy theorists sites.

On my links you would find references to the New York Times quoting the 7,000ft with 270, and the ATC interview on another mainstream news agency. The 'conspiracy' sites seem to me to be the ones drawing reasonable conclusions about the official story.

How on earth is it consistent with a switch of flight and a r/c drone being used?

... must I repeat all my posts on the subject?

oh, and your comments about ATC getting snowed under with all the blips simply don't wash. As Kleinberg noted

Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings.

These "protocols" were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason--with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.

This is the most heavily protected airspace in the world! The idea that ATC - let alone NORAD - would suddenly lose track of which blip was what is an absurd one.

Here's a desperate attempt at a straw man...

The whole basis of the conspiracy theory is that the above manoever required such skill that it had to be performed by remote control with an 'ace fighter pilot' controlling it. Which is clearly crap and the whole conspiracy theory starts to fall apart rapidly.

Not at all - it is only one of a plethora of reasons that I reject the official story, as you well know. And I have seen nothing remotely in your argument to conclude that is 'clearly crap', and the only theory which is falling apart is the official one, which you are contorting yourself to accommodate.

 

[WouldBe]

This is the most heavily protected airspace in the world! The idea that ATC - let alone NORAD - would suddenly lose track of which blip was what is an absurd one.

So from this statement it would be impossible to 'fool' ATC that the aircraft had been 'switched' in mid air for some remote controlled aircraft.

To put it simply, for the hard of understanding, flights 11 and 175 did hit the WTC and flight 77 did hit the Pentagon.

So the official statement stands up. Admittedly there might be some loose ends like the USG underestimating the skill of the pilots.

 

[bigfish]

So from this statement it would be impossible to 'fool' ATC that the aircraft had been 'switched' in mid air for some remote controlled aircraft.

To put it simply, for the hard of understanding, flights 11 and 175 did hit the WTC and flight 77 did hit the Pentagon.

So the official statement stands up.

So, once again, where is your evidence that categorically proves 19 'hijackers' passed through 3 busy international airports and boarded the 4 flights concerned?

Is it a secret?