Plane Swap was Likely Part of the 9/11 Live-Fly Hijacking Exercise

Clearly, one of the more unbelievable aspects of 9/11 was that terrorists with minimal flight training could fly hijacked planes so efficiently to their respective targets-- striking them perfectly in three out of three attempts. (I tend to believe the Pentagon was hit by some sort of plane -- even if it wasn't a 757.)

Another problem with the idea that the hijackers piloted the planes is that it seems likely that the hijackers were special agents, probably CIA assets, that were posing as Al Qaeda. Thus, it is not likely that such men could be willingly recruited to become suicide pilots.

To get around this "piloting problem", 9/11 researchers have postulated other scenarios for how planes were piloted into the WTC and Pentagon. The most reasonable alternative mechanisms for how planes were piloted into their targets are:

1) the hijacked planes contained real pilots and passengers and were taken over by some sort of remote control piloting system, or

2) the hijacked planes with pilots and passengers were not flown into the targets but rather remote control drones were flown into the WTC and Pentagon.

The main problem I have with the first scenario is that you have to postulate that a commercial plane was outfitted with remote control technology that could be activated at a certain time, which seems somewhat unlikely. Also not clear is what would happen with the real pilots when this system is activated. I have trouble accepting that knife-wielding hijackers could kill or subdue the pilots eight out of eight times. But if the pilots were not dead, wouldn't they try to contact air traffic control if the plane could not be controlled? Finally, if the real "hijacked" flights were crashed into the WTC, why were the black boxes found there kept a secret? Thus, this scenario seems less likely than the second one.

The second possibility, the use of remote control drones, can explain the anomalous Pentagon hit and can also explain why the planes that hit the WTC didn't look quite right.

All that being said, the big question I have wrestled with for a couple of months now is: how exactly did the NORAD live-fly hijacking drill that was run on 9/11 (apparently termed "Vigilant Warrior/Vigilant Guardian") mesh with the terror attacks of that day?

Here is my best guess:

NORAD, the USAF and the CIA planned the live-fly hijacking drill to test the response of NORAD to a real terrorist hijacking situation where terrorists took over commerical planes and flew them into buildings. This sort of drill had been simulated bfore, but this time they wanted to make the exercise more realistic. What they did was set-up planes with mock hijackings but at the same time they also wanted to have real planes that were supposed to fly into buildings that they could try to shoot down. I believe, therefore, the planned exercise was to have a plane-swap, such that there were remote-controlled drones instead of passenger-laden planes that would be intercepted by NORAD and shot down. This would be the official scenario. The drones were SUPPOSED to be intercepted or shot down before they hit their targets. The plane swap could be done when the "hijacked" passenger plane had its transponder turned off, and this was a key feature of all four "hijackings". Looking at the live-fly hijacking exercise this way, it makes a certain amount of sense for the plane-swap with remote control drones to occur.

I believe this was the nature of the exercise: there was a live mock hijacking of commercial jets and at the same time, there were remote-control look-alike planes mimicking the hijacked planes that were programmed to strike the WTC and Pentagon.

Of course, the exercise went horribly awry-- most likely as part of a malicious plan.


Here's what I think happened:

1) Real commercial planes with passengers took-off and there was a mock hijacking with "Al-Qaeda" hijackers inserted onto the planes by the CIA. These were the flights 11, 175, 77 and 93. (That the "hijackings" were merely acted out explains the lack of a hijacking alert from the pilots of these planes as well as the odd nature of many of the phone calls from these planes.)

2) A key feature of each "hijacking" was turning off the transponders to allow these planes to swap places with drones.

3) The "hijacked" planes landed at special air force bases along the routes of the real flights (there is such a base in upstate NY that could be used for flights 11 and 175.)

4) As the "hijacked" planes landed, remote control look-alike drones took off that were programmed to fly into their targets (the WTC and Pentagon).

5) the planes that landed on the ground continued the hijacking exercise, pretending they were flying and that the hijacking was still occurring-- hence the phone calls. (This exercise was similar to the "terror drills" that were acted out on airplanes prior to 9/11-- as described by Nico Haupt.)

6) the remote-control drones hit their targets.

7) the pilots, passengers, and hijackers of the "hijakced" flights were killed in some unknown manner after the drones hit their targets-- once the nature of the disaster was clear. Most likely the original hijacked planes were directed to fly to some remote area where they were shot down.

It is unclear if Flight 93 landed and underwent a swap with a drone-- or if flight 93 was meant to be "special".

This of course is all somewhat speculative as well as very grim. But this is my best guess of how the live-fly hijacking exercise was set-up.

Of course, a simpler alternative is that a live-fly hijacking exercise was run by merely inserting Al Qaeda operatives on the planes. They were supposed to "act out" a hijacking but actually they took over and flew the planes into the targets. There are a few problems with this theory and I think it is less likely than what I have outlined above. First, this theory assumes the hijackers really were excellent pilots (when there is no reason to belive this). Second, it assumes that hijackers armed with box-cutters and knives and mace could take over four planes out of four attempts-- all without the pilots alerting ATC of a hijacking. Third, this theory assumes that the fact that NORAD had run drills simulating planes crashing into buildings before 9/11 had nothing to do with the 9/11 hijackings. These are major problems with this theory.

Another alternative is that the hijackings of flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 were not connected in any way with the live-fly hijacking exercise run by NORAD on 9/11/01-- this was just an incredible coincidence. However, the NORAD exercise did interfere with an effective interception of the hijacked planes. This theory runs into the same problems as described just above-- the improbability of excellent hijacker pilots and the improbable effectiveness of box-cutters and knives and mace for taking over planes.

If anyone has any better ideas, please let me know! My goal, believe it or not, is to get at the truth of 9/11/01, not to spin wild theories. The goal is how to reconcile the improbability of highly skilled hijacker pilots and the improbable effectiveness of box-cutters and knives and mace for taking over planes with the fact that there was a live-fly hijacking exercise run by NORAD on 9/11/01.

(Note-- this post was edited extensively on 12/20/04.)