How Were the Planes Controlled on 9/11?
This post will precede on the assumption that hijackers who trained to fly on Cessnas and Microsoft flight simulators could not have flown the planes into the WTC towers or the Pentagon, due to the difficulty of these maneuvers. There are professional pilots who also doubt that the hijackers flew the planes on 9/11. Here are some other pilot's views of how hard the 9/11 maneuvers were (scroll down to "UPDATE 7/26/5".
So who the heck controlled the planes on 9/11?
Let's go through the various possibilities:
A) The hijackers were on the planes that flew into the WTC and Pentagon.
A1) There was a real hijacking and the plane was taken over by remote control and controlled from a distance, the plane was flown remotely into the targets. Possibly the people on the plane are killed by remote cabin depressurization (in order to make sure no communications or passenger rebellion taking back the plane).
A2) The plane is part of a hijacking drill (that we know NORAD was running that morning). The pilots and hijackers are "in on" the drill. The plane lands at a secret base and substituted for a remote drone that is used to hit the targets.
A3) The plane is part of a hijacking drill. The pilots and hijackers are "in on" the drill. However the plane is taken over by remote control, the people on the plane are killed by remote cabin depressurization.
A4) There was a real hijacking but the hijackers actually had other intentions than crashing the planes into buildings-- perhaps they wanted to land and negotiate for something. However, the plane either landed and was substituted with a drone (similar to A1) or the plane was taken over by remote control (similar to A2).
A5) There were other hijackers flying the planes-- real pilots-- besides the 19 official hijacker patsies. These were true suicide pilots.
B) There were NO hijackers on the planes that flew into the WTC and Pentagon. (The hijackers are pure patsies, just faces to associate with the terrorism.)
B1) The plane was simply taken over by remote control and controlled from a distance, the plane was flown remotely into the targets. Possibly the people on the plane are killed by remote cabin depressurization (in order to make sure no communications or passenger rebellion taking back the plane).
B2) The plane is part of a hijacking drill. The pilots are "in on" the drill. The plane lands at a secret base and substituted for a remote drone that is used to hit the targets.
B3) The plane is part of a hijacking drill. The pilots are "in on" the drill. However the plane is taken over by remote control, the people on the plane are killed by remote cabin depressurization.
B4) The were no real commercial planes used at all, flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 are a giant hoax.
C) Some combination of planes with hijackers and planes with no hijackers (and no planes at all).
So what happened?
Operationally, if we assume the attacks were not done by Al Qaeda operatives according to the official story, the surest of way of carrying out the attacks is having remote control drones and fake hijackings that can be disguised as part of the hijacking drill. Possibly, the attacks could be reliably carried out if they were faked using bombs, planted plane parts and video manipulation.
I think operationally, taking over a commercial plane by remote control after it has been hijacked is too risky-- you need to have the hijacking go right and the remote control timed right and also you need to insure that a) no one in the plane alerts ground control that the plane is being controlled remotely, and b) no one tries to interfere with the plane controls and somehow override the remote control. Finally, do the hijackers know the plane will be flown remotely? If so, how do you tell them? If not, how will they react when the plane starts flying by itself? Some of these problems could be solved by depressurization of the cabin leading to asphyxiation of everyone on the plane, although it is not clear if this can be done in the cockpit as well.
The plane swap with a commercial flight is a good solution except for the fact that you need to do something with the people on the plane-- killing them is possible but very messy. Giving them new identities and swearing them to secrecy is very risky and expensive. The one thing in favor of the plane swap idea is that it was actually contemplated by the US military in the Operation Northwoods scenario, and the passengers and crew were given new identities in that plot that was never carried out.
Nonetheless, I think most likely the planes that hit the WTC towers were remote control drones of some sort and there was no plane crash at all at the Pentagon or Shanksville. Both the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes could have been faked with explosives.
As I have recounted on this site previously, the Shanksville crash site makes very little sense-- about as much sense as the Pentagon hit. Since the physical evidence is so anomalous for the Pentagon and Shanksville "crashes", I think there is a high probability these incidents were faked. Quite possibly flight 77 and flight 93 were shot down somewhere else. I tend to think flight 93 and flight 77 existed at some level and had real hijackers since DNA profiles were done on the remains, and one analysis showed the presence of middle eastern men in the flight 77 remains (flight 93 was more unclear, oddly).
A big question, of course, as I have asked at this site before, is were any of the 9/11 planes part of the hijacking exercises that were taking place that day? My suspicion is YES, but it is mostly a suspicion.
The sad thing is exactly how much is UP IN THE AIR about the planes that flew on 9/11. The one thing that is clear, is that the official story is WRONG.
So who the heck controlled the planes on 9/11?
Let's go through the various possibilities:
A) The hijackers were on the planes that flew into the WTC and Pentagon.
A1) There was a real hijacking and the plane was taken over by remote control and controlled from a distance, the plane was flown remotely into the targets. Possibly the people on the plane are killed by remote cabin depressurization (in order to make sure no communications or passenger rebellion taking back the plane).
A2) The plane is part of a hijacking drill (that we know NORAD was running that morning). The pilots and hijackers are "in on" the drill. The plane lands at a secret base and substituted for a remote drone that is used to hit the targets.
A3) The plane is part of a hijacking drill. The pilots and hijackers are "in on" the drill. However the plane is taken over by remote control, the people on the plane are killed by remote cabin depressurization.
A4) There was a real hijacking but the hijackers actually had other intentions than crashing the planes into buildings-- perhaps they wanted to land and negotiate for something. However, the plane either landed and was substituted with a drone (similar to A1) or the plane was taken over by remote control (similar to A2).
A5) There were other hijackers flying the planes-- real pilots-- besides the 19 official hijacker patsies. These were true suicide pilots.
B) There were NO hijackers on the planes that flew into the WTC and Pentagon. (The hijackers are pure patsies, just faces to associate with the terrorism.)
B1) The plane was simply taken over by remote control and controlled from a distance, the plane was flown remotely into the targets. Possibly the people on the plane are killed by remote cabin depressurization (in order to make sure no communications or passenger rebellion taking back the plane).
B2) The plane is part of a hijacking drill. The pilots are "in on" the drill. The plane lands at a secret base and substituted for a remote drone that is used to hit the targets.
B3) The plane is part of a hijacking drill. The pilots are "in on" the drill. However the plane is taken over by remote control, the people on the plane are killed by remote cabin depressurization.
B4) The were no real commercial planes used at all, flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 are a giant hoax.
C) Some combination of planes with hijackers and planes with no hijackers (and no planes at all).
So what happened?
Operationally, if we assume the attacks were not done by Al Qaeda operatives according to the official story, the surest of way of carrying out the attacks is having remote control drones and fake hijackings that can be disguised as part of the hijacking drill. Possibly, the attacks could be reliably carried out if they were faked using bombs, planted plane parts and video manipulation.
I think operationally, taking over a commercial plane by remote control after it has been hijacked is too risky-- you need to have the hijacking go right and the remote control timed right and also you need to insure that a) no one in the plane alerts ground control that the plane is being controlled remotely, and b) no one tries to interfere with the plane controls and somehow override the remote control. Finally, do the hijackers know the plane will be flown remotely? If so, how do you tell them? If not, how will they react when the plane starts flying by itself? Some of these problems could be solved by depressurization of the cabin leading to asphyxiation of everyone on the plane, although it is not clear if this can be done in the cockpit as well.
The plane swap with a commercial flight is a good solution except for the fact that you need to do something with the people on the plane-- killing them is possible but very messy. Giving them new identities and swearing them to secrecy is very risky and expensive. The one thing in favor of the plane swap idea is that it was actually contemplated by the US military in the Operation Northwoods scenario, and the passengers and crew were given new identities in that plot that was never carried out.
Nonetheless, I think most likely the planes that hit the WTC towers were remote control drones of some sort and there was no plane crash at all at the Pentagon or Shanksville. Both the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes could have been faked with explosives.
As I have recounted on this site previously, the Shanksville crash site makes very little sense-- about as much sense as the Pentagon hit. Since the physical evidence is so anomalous for the Pentagon and Shanksville "crashes", I think there is a high probability these incidents were faked. Quite possibly flight 77 and flight 93 were shot down somewhere else. I tend to think flight 93 and flight 77 existed at some level and had real hijackers since DNA profiles were done on the remains, and one analysis showed the presence of middle eastern men in the flight 77 remains (flight 93 was more unclear, oddly).
A big question, of course, as I have asked at this site before, is were any of the 9/11 planes part of the hijacking exercises that were taking place that day? My suspicion is YES, but it is mostly a suspicion.
The sad thing is exactly how much is UP IN THE AIR about the planes that flew on 9/11. The one thing that is clear, is that the official story is WRONG.
posted by spooked at 11:59 AM
2 Comments:
my personal belief is that the planes were in fact switched, right after thier transponders were turned off. that was the whole idea behind turning them off. it wasn't to make them 'invisable', for it is WELL known there were many other ways to track those aircraft. no, it was done SOLELY so we wouldn't then know EXACTLY what aircraft were to go on an be involved in the attacks.
remember, this trick (plane switching) is EXACTLY what the joint chiefs had planned and were ready to do for their phoney-terror, "Operation Northwoods" back in 1962.
so...if the technology was available to them waaay back in 1962 to plane-switch, and then remotely control a large airliner until it crashed into their desired target...so, to how much more amazing heights/levels can you imagine this type of technology evolved in the 40 years that elapsed between their Robert McNamara rejected false-flag "Northwoods", and the 9/11 attacks?? the technology has evolved EXPONENTIALLY since then.
Even though plane-swapping makes the plan more idfficult (in terms of how you manage the real flights), I tend to think there was plane-swapping on 9/11. The evidence is not conclusive by any means, but the turning off of the transponders is important, plus the fact that the black boxes from flights 11, 77 and 175 were supposedly found but never released. They are clearly hiding something...
Post a Comment
<< Home