WTC attacks - the alternative thread

[Backatcha Bandit]

O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he saw it too.

"I said, 'Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House,'" recalls Howell. "I was yelling … 'We've got a target headed right for the White House!'"

At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away, says O'Brien, "and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west … Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started relaying to them the information, [that] we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles west."

Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker. White House staff members were told to run away from the building.

"And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien.

But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver.

"We lost radar contact with that aircraft. And we waited. And we waited. And your heart is just beating out of your chest waiting to hear what's happened," says O'Brien. "And then the Washington National [Airport] controllers came over our speakers in our room and said, 'Dulles, hold all of our inbound traffic. The Pentagon's been hit.'"

National Air Traffic Controllers Association Website

-

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

...er... except for the bit where Ganjaboy says "I tend to believe the official version..." - which you quote, adding "That sounds fair enough to me".

So what is your opinion, if you haven't yet offered it? Why post links to website full of innacurate and misleading information (lies) proporting to be truth?

How much TV do you watch?

 

[nozferatu]

I know this isnt in keeping with the original question,its just more possibilities,here goes anyway(sorry if im just stating the obvious

The remote controlled theory seems a bit far fetched to me,even though its probably possible.There is/was no shortage of people willing and able to do a 9,11 style suicide bombing,probably even if they knew americans were involved in the planning etc.
Isnt it more likely that the plane hijackers were following instructions given by the people that orchestrated the attack,and that the police/security forces in the months/weeks before 9/11 were told to turn a blind eye,given a diversion or told to not get involved because it was a military (or whoever) matter.
I think people need to ask themselves if the Bush administration/corporate america had anything to gain by creating or allowing 9/11,as far as im concerned they most definately did,a chance to scare the US public into backing an attack on the middle east so they could get their hands on whats left of the worlds oil,among a shitload of other money-power orientated motives.
And there were so many shady things going on before and after the attacks,one example is the US govmt not having a proper inquiry into the multi billion dollar insider trading going on in the weeks before 911,maybe not by any of the bush admin directly,but possibly by one of there 'golf buddies' or a friend from the PNAC perhaps?

http://www.americanfreepress.net/05...Trades_Co/revealing_9-11_stock_trades_co.html

(dont know if americanfreepress is any good,its just the first link i could find)

 

[Jay Emm]

I agree with him when he said 'lets agree to disagree'.

I put up the links to play devils advocate I guess. What does it matter? And reading your post you haven't actually proved any of what it said wasn't true either, just put up some report that supports your side of the story is true which we could all probably do if it didn't get so boring. And I wouldn't say putting up a couple of examples makes it 'full of inaccurate and misleading information' even if you are right. But I'll say no more as I'm obviously too brainwashed to talk to somebody as enlightened as yourself

I'd share my opinion but I don't really see the point when you have to deal with the kind of arrogance suggested in your last sentence and your replies to the editor - you seem to turn your nose up at anyone with a different opinion from your own. Everyone makes their own decisions based on the information they receive (all of which could probably be pulled apart if we sat here long enough) so base a decision on what seems most probable to them. For all the links and opinions, nobody here knows anything really.

 

[bigfish]

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.

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.

I know, it's an absolutely dazzling display of erudition isn't it? I'm sure Ernst Mach himself would be proud... if he wasn't spinning in his grave right now!

But wait a minute, some kindly soul has furnished us with the eye witness account of an experienced air traffic controller who was on duty that day who tells us...

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away, says O'Brien, "and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west … 8 miles west."

...

"And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien.

But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver.

I don't know what it is, but somethings beginning to tell me that your BTEC in Advanced Potato Juggling isn't really up to the job in hand Wouldbe. Your sorry effort above reminds me of a quote from Marx who once famously remaked "Who are you going to believe - me, or your own two eyes?"

That was Groucho by the way not Karl.

 

[WouldBe]

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?

I have already given a possible explanation of how the hijackers could have got on board without going through check-in and why no 'arab names' appeared on the flight list.

However you in your own fantasy world seem to think that the only way to get to an aircraft is through check-in. When was the last time you saw mainenance, cleaning, catering or baggage handlers go through check-in to get to the aircraft?

When was the last time you saw a refulleing tanker drive through check-in to refuel an aircraft?

 

[WouldBe]

I don't know what it is, but somethings beginning to tell me that your BTEC in Advanced Potato Juggling isn't really up to the job in hand Wouldbe. Your sorry effort above reminds me of a quote from Marx who once famously remaked "Who are you going to believe - me, or your own two eyes?"

That was Groucho by the way not Karl.

I was going on the info provided by DrJ

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.

I also understand that it was a 270 degree turn that was debated by the Air force General and his panel of experienced pilots, but now it's suddenly 360 degrees.

What it the point of a 360 degree turn? It puts you right back where you started from. It's not even as though much of a course correction would be required. Coming in from the west there is very little separation between the white house and the pentagon so you could have hit either without having to do any acrobatic manouvers.

 

[bigfish]

I have already given a possible explanation of how the hijackers could have got on board without going through check-in and why no 'arab names' appeared on the flight list.

However you in your own fantasy world seem to think that the only way to get to an aircraft is through check-in. When was the last time you saw mainenance, cleaning, catering or baggage handlers go through check-in to get to the aircraft?

When was the last time you saw a refulleing tanker drive through check-in to refuel an aircraft?

Thanks for yet another fine demonstration of your potato juggling skills Wouldbe, it makes for excellent light entertainment I can tell you. However, you appear once again to be labouring under the mysterious allusion that we are all somehow fantastically interested in testing your own personal theory of what happened on that fateful day when in actual fact the only theory any of us are interested in testing is the official one.

So when you ask in that cheeky little way of yours: "when was the last time you saw mainenance, cleaning, catering or baggage handlers go through check-in to get to the aircraft?" Or "when was the last time you saw a refulleing tanker drive through check-in to refuel an aircraft?" one is left with the destinct impression that you are trying to imply that the 'hijackers' must have gained access to the aircraft by these methods and not by the conventional method of checking in and then passing through the airports concerned to the departure lounges and on to the flights... which if you recall is precisely the way the US government says the 'hijackers' boarded!

 

[Jazzz]

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.

wtf??? You are trying to twist my arguments in the most disingenous fashion. I was talking about all the other blips, identified and tracked beforehand, which you were remarking would cause them to be 'snowed under' - not the case at all. When the unidentified blip appeared, they quickly identified it - as unidentified, if you see what I mean (unlikely I guess). The room stood still while they tracked it.

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

It's so kind of you to oblige us simpletons with this information. I must confess, I am still rather puzzled as to how the cognoscenti such as yourself are so sure of this...

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

It stands up because you pronounce it as true?

I also understand that it was a 270 degree turn that was debated by the Air force General and his panel of experienced pilots, but now it's suddenly 360 degrees.

What it the point of a 360 degree turn? It puts you right back where you started from. It's not even as though much of a course correction would be required. Coming in from the west there is very little separation between the white house and the pentagon so you could have hit either without having to do any acrobatic manouvers.

Good question! Why on earth would the hijackers wish to avoid the North part of the Pentagon where all the top brass were hanging out, and hit a newly-reinforced relatively unimportant section of the South? The plane feinted as if going for the White House. After turning away from the White House, the plane could have far more easily hit the North of the Pentagon. But instead it doubled back to hit the South, keeping Rumsfeld and Cheney safe...

 

[WouldBe]

wtf??? You are trying to twist my arguments in the most disingenous fashion. I was talking about all the other blips, identified and tracked beforehand, which you were remarking would cause them to be 'snowed under' - not the case at all. When the unidentified blip appeared, they quickly identified it - as unidentified, if you see what I mean (unlikely I guess). The room stood still while they tracked it.

I'm not trying to twist anything. You stated that it would be absurd for ATC to lose track of which blip was which in which case it would be absurd to be able to 'switch aircraft' and to think ATC wouldn't notice.

When this blip appeared, the airspace was still full of aircraft, not 'sanitised' as you stated earlier. How could this ATC come to a stand still to watch this one blip when they should have been busy getting all the aircraft on the ground?

It's so kind of you to oblige us simpletons with this information. I must confess, I am still rather puzzled as to how the cognoscenti such as yourself are so sure of this...

If you can't switch the aircraft it must have been the origional flights that flew in to the WTC and the Pentagon. How else can you explain it?

Good question! Why on earth would the hijackers wish to avoid the North part of the Pentagon where all the top brass were hanging out, and hit a newly-reinforced relatively unimportant section of the South? The plane feinted as if going for the White House. After turning away from the White House, the plane could have far more easily hit the North of the Pentagon.

The ATC link provided earlier states the aircraft was heading in from the SW, couldn't see the white house because of some trees. It presumably then did it's 360 degree turn trying to find the white house before settling on a secondary target and flying into the west wall of the pentagon at a 45 degree angle because that would be directly infront of them at that point.

 

[sparticus]

And there were so many shady things going on before and after the attacks,one example is the US govmt not having a proper inquiry into the multi billion dollar insider trading going on in the weeks before 911,maybe not by any of the bush admin directly,but possibly by one of there 'golf buddies' or a friend from the PNAC perhaps?

http://www.americanfreepress.net/05...Trades_Co/revealing_9-11_stock_trades_co.html

(dont know if americanfreepress is any good,its just the first link i could find)

Hi Noz

I agree that the evidence of insider trading and the obvious lies told by Condi Rice and others that there was no prior knowledge is one of the key areas anyone buying into the official story needs to explain. Why has there been no inquiry or explanation of this unusual and suspicious trading?

This article and the links from it set out the evidence that contradicts the testimony of Ms Rice. In particular the links of Buzzy Krongard (Executive Director of CIA and former head of AB Duetsche bank) to insider trading and the CIA's promis software which tracks trading anomolies in real time and which would have allowed the CIA to have prior warning that something was about to happen involving American and United Airlines and WTC based companies.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/040804_condi_rice.html and http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/042202_bushknows.html

Ian

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I agree with him when he said 'lets agree to disagree'.

I put up the links to play devils advocate I guess. What does it matter?

It matters because by putting up links to disinformation, you assist in propagating lies. By reading disinformation and uncritically accepting it as truth, then offering it to others to read without comment - whether 'playing devils advocate' or for whatever reason - you assist those that seek to mislead us in perpetuating a lack of clarity and precision necessary in evaluating what is 'truth'. It simply adds to the fog of disinformation surrounding this issue.

If it doesn't 'matter' to you, why do it?

And reading your post you haven't actually proved any of what it said wasn't true either, just put up some report that supports your side of the story is true which we could all probably do if it didn't get so boring.

Again - you posted disinformation that can easily be shown to be such. If you reject my assesment of the (dis)information you elected to propogate, state the basis of your rejection and perhaps we can have a sensible, grown-up evidence based discussion regarding it.

I will happily provide you with more information that demonstrates the total invalidity of most of the shite on that site you posted. If you feel you 'could all probably' supply information that contradicts me, please do go ahead and provide it. If you find the prospect of doing so too 'boring' to contemplate, I respectfully ask you that you refrain from polluting the thread with crap you can't even be bothered to defend.

And I wouldn't say putting up a couple of examples makes it 'full of inaccurate and misleading information' even if you are right. But I'll say no more as I'm obviously too brainwashed to talk to somebody as enlightened as yourself

You sound like a sulking child caught telling fibs. My 'putting up a couple of examples' isn't what makes it a pile of shite, the contents of the link you provided makes it a pile of shite.

An 'example' is a small part of something else that 'constitutes a model or precedent' - in this case, that your link is full of shite.

If by 'brainwashed' you mean that you have been preconditioned to accept uncritically any 'information' that supports the 'official story' (that is based on falsity) as being 'truth', whilst automatically rejecting information that contradicts what you have been led to believe as 'conspiracy theory' or somesuch without pausing to reflect or educate yourself regarding the validity of either, then I'd agree (based on the evidence you supply, that is) 'brainwashed' would seem an appropriate term.

If by 'enlightened' you mean to imply that I am 'highly educated; having extensive information or understanding' regarding the matter under discussion, then again - despite your sarky tone - having spent a considerable amount of time over the last 2 years+ studying and researching the subject, I also agree.

I'd share my opinion but I don't really see the point when you have to deal with the kind of arrogance suggested in your last sentence and your replies to the editor - you seem to turn your nose up at anyone with a different opinion from your own.

Well, I'm sorry if you find it 'arrogant'. Was it really 'arrogant' of me to assume that watching television accounts for a fair proportion of your spare time? Mmmm?

What I personally find 'arrogant' is when people who have spent little or no time availing themselves of the information regarding a subject drop into a thread with some little clag-nut of a link that only serves to further the agenda of those that seek to propogate a fog of disinformation, then make sulky 'ooh I'm so hurt and you're so nasty' post when they get called on it.

In fact, it practically enrages me when people repeatedly make statements based on false assumptions (eg 'Remote control without the need for extensive additional hardware is impossible) then completely ignore all the evidence that is presented to them to the contrary, simply endlessly repeating the same stupid questions that have already been answered by someone who actually bothered to research the information, then sit and tirelessly break it up into little bite-size chunks and spoon-feed it to them.

My personal views regarding the likelyhood of the damn planes being remote controlled remain unstated on these boards - and would probably surprise a few people - but I will fight to the death regarding points of logic and to prevent the establishment of false assumptions based on no evidence taking root.

Flapjacking about shouting that such-and-such 'is impossible' and calling me a 'conspiracy theorist' (or worse) when the evidence available from completely irrefutable and concrete sources suggests otherwise leads me to question the intelligence and motives of those that do it. Maybe that's arrogant. Good. Get over it.

Everyone makes their own decisions based on the information they receive (all of which could probably be pulled apart if we sat here long enough) so base a decision on what seems most probable to them.

Here I think you are talking a lot of sense. We are currently engaged in an Information War for the truth about what happened on the 11th September 2001.

The extent and the purvasive nature of this War becomes more apparent the further you can distance yourself from the 'oppositions' primary weapon (you know what this is).

I consider a lot of what gets written here and elswhere to be analogous to (in military terms) 'Blue-on-Blue' - that is, we're all on the same side, just having a few problems identifing the 'enemy', and occasionally passing them ammunition - or worse - doing their shooting for them.

For all the links and opinions, nobody here knows anything really.

That, I believe, is unlikely to change much as long as we permit logical fallacy, ad hominem attack (that is attacking the source of information [eg going on about 'Joe Vialls' etc] rather than discussing the actual content on it's own merits), name calling (CT! CT!), crap rhetorical questions [sneery, shouty-bollocks questions to which the answer is 'obvious' asked to 'make a point'] and opinion dressed up as 'fact' to pass off as 'robust debate'.

IMO, anyway.

-

As an aside, I've just been reading through some threads from back in 2001 regarding a slightly different battle in essentially the same infowar - these center mainly around energy depletion issues as discussed on the immortal 'Petroleum Geologist' thread. I noted with interest that the whole notion of an imminent energy crisis was roundly scoffed at and dismissed using very similar language and falacious logic to that employed in these intermidable 9/11 threads. Someone even called me a 'Conspiracy Theorist', ffs!

Again, that subject is something I have personally taken a great interest in over a considerable time, so I find it very interesting and encouraging to see that the unpopular position I took (and have maintained - the position, that is - it's the 'popularity' of it that has shifted) is now fairly well represented in sections of the slightly more mainstream media.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that because I was 'right' about peak oil I am somehow 'right' about anything I say here, (now that would be arrogant) just that it's amazing how something that was considered by many to be utterly 'bonkers' can in a fairly short space of time become a sort of 'Hey, course we all know that!' kind of established 'common sense' fact.

Yep, that particular battle is far from being in any sense 'won', but I think it points to what may be the most effective tactics.

 

[Jessiedog]

My personal views regarding the likelyhood of the damn planes being remote controlled remain unstated on these boards - and would probably surprise a few people - but I will fight to the death regarding points of logic and to prevent the establishment of false assumptions based on no evidence taking root.

BB,

I thought you had mentioned that you didn't believe, in this case, that the plane(s) was (were) remote controlled.

Either way, I for one appreciate your efforts in researching and presenting here, evidence of the "possibility" of this being the case.

I have always imagined that, given the advanced state of autopiloting, it would hardly be "rocket science" to fly this plane by RC. Your work has now confirmed this for me, even though I (too) have my doubts that this indeed was what occurred in this instance.

Thanks again.



Woof

 

[fela fan]

I agree with jessie BB, you've doing good work indeed. Especially for those lazy bastards like me...

I'd like to bung in a quote i'm sure you've seen before, but i had to dig it out after reading your last post.

"All truth passes through three stages:

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is violently opposed.

Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.''

Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[sparticus]

Top posts BB IMO

This is indeed an information 'war' and we should anticipate that disinformation is fed into the system to muddy the waters and confuse the lazy. In 9/11 debates on this and other sites the same issues/evidence keep coming up. Lots of questions and evidence that challenges the official story on issues such as the use of mobile phones, the unprecendented collapse of the towers, the questions surrounding the identity of the hijackers, the Pentagon and Philidelphia crash site questions and so on. All very interesting but....

The result of digging up evidence and raising difficult questions around these subjects is that it leads to equally difficult and valid questions from non 911 skeptics. Prove it they shout. Tell us how it was done. We then disappear up our own arses debating the detail when the real issue, the place where all skeptics need to start is demonstrating the following.

1) They knew
2) They let it happen on purpose (LIHOP)

Any conspiracy (or criminal complicity or deception, if you prefer) relies on these 2 things and only these 2 things. In other words if they knew and LIHOP. the rest of the official story can be true and it is still the most outragous crime requiring the complicity of senior elements of the USG, military, FAA, FBI, CIA, the media/journalists and the co-operation of the UK, EU and 'the coalition of the willing' in the coverup.

Now those of you who follow the crimes of the USG will know that this degree of criminality and cover-up is indeed possible. IranContra to give just one example proved the CIA and senior USG figures oversaw importation and dealing of coke (Barry Seal, Mena, etc) to illegally fund 'terrorists/freedom fighters' (the Contras) to destabalise a democratic govt. and arranged a delay in the release of US hostages held in Iran in order ot influence a US election (The October Surprise). One example amongst many proveable 'conspiracies'. Rogue State by William Blum catelogues many, many more of these crimes since WWII.

Those of us familiar with these criminal deceptions end up believeing that the USG are capable of just about anything including holographic planes, electronic voice impersonation, remote controlled planes, secret concrete pulverising technology like HAARP and alien alliances. Now whilst it is interesting to speculate how they did it, in terms of building an evidence based case to convince the majority of people who accept the official story, such strategies plain don't work and they leave us open to disinformation and wild fantasy.

911 skeptics should IMO focus on the evidence that they knew and LIHOP. It is possible (although I personally believe other wise) that bin Laden and the named hijackers planned 9/11, the planes that took off were the same planes that crashed into the towers flown by the knife wielding hijackers, the passengers used the plane phones to call their loved ones, the towers collapsed solely due to the impact of the planes and the fires including WTC 7, the hijackers really did leave korans and flight manuals lying about and drank in strip bars, M Atta's passport wasn't planted and some undisclosed terrorist bad guys were the ones responsible for 'insider trading' and they did it cause they hate our freedoms, etc.......... (Bullshit I know, but stay with it) All this can be true and at the same time evidence can also exist that proves that the USG knew in advance and this together with the air defense failures, should lead people to strongly suspect they LIHOP and demand specific answers to specific questions relating to these 2 areas as the 911 families have done (see www.septembereleventh.org and other 911 sites for their 23 questions for Bush)

They knew

The USG had numerous warnings from the foriegn governments including Isreal, France, Russia and Eygpt and from their own sucurity agencies and these warnings were specific and not general. The FBI and CIA investigations into bin Laden and al qaeda were blocked or obstructed at the highest levels prior to 911 and members of bin Ladens family (who have long standing, provable connections to the Bush family) were given safe passage out of the US following 911 (as reported on Newsnight). They have software (promis) to track unusual stock trading in real time and so would be aware of the unusual trades in the airlines and WTC companies. Numerous people have stated they avoided flying or going to the WTC because of prior security warnings. 911 type war game scenario was being acted out on the day. (At my leisure I will dig out the sourced evidence that proves this and set it out point by point, although the links on my previous post are a good place to start)

They LIHOP

Short of whistleblowers coming forward, it is difficult to 'prove' they LIHOP rather than incompetence. However, the air defense failures (http://www.septembereleventh.org/airdefense.php) on the day were so huge, so inexpliciable, so counter to standard operating procedures and so little evidence or explanation has come forth to support the official story, that the media and public absolutely need to demand that the questions surrounding these failures are answered fully.

The inquiry

This is what the inquiry should be demanding of Bush. It won't of course because it is whitewash, the committee was selected and veted by GWB to produce a report which will be approved and editted by GWB prior to publication which to date has failed to ask or have answered any of the most difficult questions surrounding 911.

Fantastic though 911 scepticism appears at first, on taking a long hard look at the evidence, it is belief in the official version of 911 that is more fantastic. It would be nice if those people defending the official story could explain why the evidence/unanswered questions surrounding prior knowledge and air defense failures does not lead them to challenge the GWB version instead of dismissing all this stuff as bonkers conspiracy nonsense.

Ian

 

[WouldBe]

Fantastic though 911 scepticism appears at first, on taking a long hard look at the evidence, it is belief in the official version of 911 that is more fantastic. It would be nice if those people defending the official story could explain why the evidence/unanswered questions surrounding prior knowledge and air defense failures does not lead them to challenge the GWB version instead of dismissing all this stuff as bonkers conspiracy nonsense.

I don't believe so.

1. The more I look into the avionics of the 757 / 767 the less likely it appears that you could 'remote control' the aircraft without having to modify the systems.

2. It is not as easy as some people think to 'fool' ATC as to which aircraft is which, therefore any switching of the actual flights for drones / missiles would be nigh on impossible.

I found a link yesterday regarding the warnings from foreign governments. I also found a link that stated that the US had already decided to attack Afghanistan before 911, so there was no need to provide a reason for the 'war on terror'.

So as far as I see it this part of the official version stands up.

Personally I go for the LIHOP scenario but this does not mean that real hijackers didn't take over real aircraft and fly them into the WTC and Pentagon.

 

[sparticus]

Hi Would be

Obviously I wasn't clear.

What I am saying is that in order for there to have been a conspiracy/crime involving the elite of the USG, the official story can ALL be true EXCEPT (1) they knew in advance and (2) they LIHOP and it is STILL a conspiracy/crime of the highest order. I believe that there is much more than just these 2 things that is untrue about the official story, but for the sake of argument let us assume that it is all true EXCEPT they knew and they LIHOP.

That would still make 911 an outragous, cowardly crime by the USG. People wishing to debunk 'Conspiracy Theories' need to explain why (contrary to a lot of official news sources) they believe BUSH did not know and explain why the USG/FAA/NORAD, etc failed so spectacularly and why there has been no serious investigation into these failings or reprimands for the alleged 'incompetence'.

As for Afghanistan, whilst it is a provable fact that the USG (and its lapdog the UK) were planning to invade Afghanistan pre 911, they had yet to share this cunning plan with their electorates (unless their electorates are able to read between the lines of the writings of PNAC and Zbigniew Brzezinski, THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives) and therefore needed a new Pearl Harbour to carry the public along. The Afghan and Iraq wars are a direct result of 911 and the Global War on Terror.

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monsterous that he can not believe it exists" J Edgar Hoover

Ian

 

[bigfish]

Very well said Ian.. and you BB.

 

[Jazzz]

I'm not trying to twist anything. You stated that it would be absurd for ATC to lose track of which blip was which in which case it would be absurd to be able to 'switch aircraft' and to think ATC wouldn't notice.

When this blip appeared, the airspace was still full of aircraft, not 'sanitised' as you stated earlier. How could this ATC come to a stand still to watch this one blip when they should have been busy getting all the aircraft on the ground?



If you can't switch the aircraft it must have been the origional flights that flew in to the WTC and the Pentagon. How else can you explain it?

I'm sorry WouldBe but you are talking gibberish. When flight 77 reappeared ATC had no idea it was flight 77. They thought it was something else. How on earth can you make out that they tracked flight 77 continously when their very words reveal that they did not? Can you find anything at all from ATC that is inconsistent with a switch of planes? I can't.

Again, their own comments reveal that the room was watching the unidentified blip (supposedly flight 77), hardly suprising being the major event that it was.

I am failing to find any logic in your posts now. You seem to pluck conclusions out of thin air.

Are you trying to suggest that ATC somehow identified the mystery blip as flight 77?

 

[WouldBe]

We appear to be having communications problems here, I'll try to explain more clearly what I mean but firstly I'd like to clarify my 'snowed under' comment.

As you have stated this is one of the most heavily trafficked areas in US air space. By the time this aircraft was approaching the pentagon the ATC had switched from secondary to primary radar. Secondary radar only shows aircraft with an IFF responce, primary radar shows ALL aircraft. Due to trying to sanitize the airspace, aircraft would be diverted to the nearest airport to land. As a consequence of these actions there would be a lot more blips than usual on the ATC displays and the controllers would be having to handle more aircraft than usual, hence my comment about being 'snowed under'.

You have stated

The idea that ATC - let alone NORAD - would suddenly lose track of which blip was what is an absurd one.

Which I agree with, plus the fact that ATC can record the radar output. Now Dewdneys theory involves flying the origional flights on a crossing flight path with the drone or R/C plane. When one aircraft is above the other both aircraft turn sharply in an attempt to make ATC think they have carried on on their origional headings. Now bearing in mind that radar can tell what speed an aircraft is flying at due to doppler shift and to get an accurate position above the ground you have to have the altitude as well ( even if it's not provided by IFF) then the 2 aircraft would have to be on a collision course to fool ATC, not as Dewdney states the aircraft being at different altitudes. All it would need was ATC to replay the radar recordings to see that the aircraft had turned rather than carrying on their origional paths. So if you can't fool ATC by switching the aircraft, then as far as I can see that leaves only 2 possibilities.

1. The origional aircraft hit the WTC and the Pentagon or
2. The origional aircraft never took off with the drone taking off in it's place, in which case there would be witnesses at the departure airports of strange aircraft taking off.

Now lets look at the ATC eye witness statements, even if they didn't know it was flight 77.

They assumed it was a fighter aircraft so
1. Why the panic about it heading for the center of Washington? After all that's the bit you want to protect.
2. Why would a fighter be flying in from the west when the nearest airforce base is Andrews which is on the SE outskirts of Washington?
3. Why the statement about not flying a 757 like that if they didn't know what it was? or was that statement made with hindsight?

Wrt the so called 72 hour experienced pilots meeting
1. Why did the commercial pilots not know that the 757 / 767 are totally fly by wire aircraft?
2. Why did the military bods not know the affect a EMP weapon would have on electronics?
3. Why did an ex millitary, now a commercial pilot think that by flipping a 757 upside down it would break the neck of an hijacker when his head would only be a few inches from the ceiling anyway due to the diameter of the aircraft body?

Somebody please tell me that website is a spoof

 

[Jazzz]

eh? You've just reposted exactly the nonsense you said before, taking a comment I made and twisting it completely out of context, and making all sorts of assumptions.

Allow me to repeat:

Everything to do with flight 77 as witnessed by ATC was entirely consistent with a plane switch.

You have absolutely no evidence from ATC that the Pentagon impact was caused by flight 77. None whatsoever! No statement. No radar records. Nothing. Zilch.

My comment about 'losing track' of which blip was which referred to the many aircraft which weren't playing up in some way. Clearly, flight 77 did play up. And they lost track of it! It's thoroughly disingenous to take my comment and attempt to use it (in some bizarre way) to conclude that flight 77 must have hit the Pentagon.

If you are saying that they could not lose track of flight 77, then that is evidence that the Pentagon impact was not caused by flight 77, or they would not have lost track of it.

 

[WouldBe]

Everything to do with flight 77 as witnessed by ATC was entirely consistent with a plane switch.

How on earth do you work that one out?

I had literally a blip and nothing more

By 'nothing more' I can only assume there was no other info displayed, in other words the IFF was off or not fitted.

The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane

Thought it was a military plane??? Military aircraft have IFF fitted. IFF was developed for the military, hence it's name Identification Friend or Foe. So why was there no IFF from this plane?

we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft

They said it was moving at about 500mph.

The cruise speed of a 757 is 530mph so why is this speed unusual?
If fighter aircraft had been scrambled in a national emergency to protect the capital why would they be dawdling along at only 500mph?

Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker. White House staff members were told to run away from the building.

Yet according to all the timelines I have seen the White house wasn't evacuated until 20mins after the pentagon had been hit.

all of a sudden the plane turned away...But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver

So no mention of steep dives or highly skilled acrobatic manouveres then. Just a 360 degree turn as if looking for something. If this had been a drone it wouldn't need to look for it's target it would know exactly where it's target was.

I think that they came eastbound

You only think??? You were watching the RADAR screen, you were an experienced ATC yet you can't be certain which direction the aircraft was heading.

This entire account is full of holes and contradictions and if it was presented in a court of law would be ripped to shreds.

 

[editor]

Of course, until such a time as the proponents of the remote control theory can come up with a remotely credible explanation as to how a 25 minute conversation was somehow faked with such incredible precision that it completely fooled the wife of a passenger who wasn't even supposed to be on the doomed flight, the RC theory remains sheer comic book fantasy.

 

[editor]

Four 9-11 moms battle Bush

And none of them are supporting your bonkers remote-control/holographic-planes-WTC-imploded-from-within nonsense - so why try and associate their decent demands for a full investigation with your 'found on the internet' fantasies?

 

[Jazzz]

oh god, he's back...

editor you know perfectly well I have never once entertained the idea that the planes were holographic on these boards. Kindly desist from pretending that I have done so.

 

[editor]

editor you know perfectly well I have never once entertained the idea that the planes were holographic on these boards. Kindly desist from pretending that I have done so.

So, there's absolutely no chance of you coming up with a remotely credible explanation of the expertly 'faked' phone calls, then?

There's a surprise.

 

[Jazzz]

Troll

Clearly you have no interest in proper discussion here and have just come to this thread to cause trouble.

 

[editor]

Clearly you have no interest in proper discussion here and have just come to this thread to cause trouble.

Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple, directly related question?

Unless you can provide a credible explanation for the incredible faked calls, then the remote control theory is a dead duck. The planes could not have been flown by remote control because the passengers would have said so.
They didn't. They said that the planes had been hijacked. By hijackers.

This completely demolishes your remote control theory and no amount of childish 'troll' name calling will alter the fact that unless you can provide a credible explanation about how the calls were faked, your exciting remote control theory remains laughably unsubstantiated.

Now, have you a credible explanation you can offer, or are you going to continue to avoid this tricky topic with more name calling?

 

[bigfish]

Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple, directly related question?

Do you mean a simple, directly related question similar to the one Backatcha Bandit asked you to answer latterly on the thread?

And if you do, then why is it so hard for you to answer it?

 

[editor]

Do you mean a simple, directly related question similar to the one Backatcha Bandit asked you to answer latterly on the thread?

And if you do, then why is it so hard for you to answer it?

Which one?

I've been away for the past five days and since I've been back I've been rather busy trying to sort out a way of keeping these boards afloat.

But seeing as you've butted in with such a useful and highly productive comment, perhaps you might be able to provide a credible explanation for all these 'faked' calls - because without one, we can safely dismiss the remote control theory as the fanciful work of excitable homepage authors and move on to something more useful.

 

[Jay Emm]

BB

I think you've mixed me up with someone else in some of what you say as I've not even mentioned remote controlled planes or attacked anyone that has.

You can give me all the links you like but if it's just a news report, then we're just at the mercy of the author, even if they offer 'scientific evidence'. I don't necessarily believe everything on that website as even they only seem able to produce evidence via news reports but considering some of the (imo) highly unlikely scenarios being suggested by some, I think it was worth adding. I didn't exactly expect 'The Official Story' sceptics to change tact all of a sudden. But I personally think if people wanted to spread deliberate disinformation they'd sound more like Dr Jazzz than what is being suggested on the link I put up. What would be point in doing it half heartedly?

Your post made a lot of sense and I especially agree with the 'blue on blue' thing. I don't necessarily believe all of the Official Story either. Why not tell us what you believe happened (and reasons for) if you like and I'll do the same. I won't resort to any attacks, probably just ask questions.