Towards a Comprehensive 9/11 Conspiracy Theory:The “All Hijacked Passengers Survived” Hypothesis
Towards a Comprehensive 9/11 Conspiracy Theory:
The “All Hijacked Passengers Survived” Hypothesis
David L. Griscom, Ph.D.
Research Physicist, retired from The Naval Research Laboratory, Washington,
DC
"The [senior advisor to Bush] said that guys like me were 'in
what we call the reality based community,' which he defined as people who
'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible
reality.' That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire
now, and when we act we create our own reality."
It’s high time that we in the “reality-based community” expose
the crimes against humanity committed in the name of the new American empire,
including the murder of nearly 3,000 fellow Americans – and bring the
perpetrators to justice!
I. DEFINITIONS
The New Oxford American Dictionary:
In the words of the AUTHOR:
A theory in physics (e.g.,
It is the property of falsifiability that gives science its enormous power. Hypotheses in science are more frequently falsified than theories because by definition they are advanced on the basis of limited evidence. A hypothesis that resists falsification may eventually be elevated to the status of theory. Corollary: “theory” is
not a pejorative.Science has advanced throughout human history not only due to the brilliant imaginations of people like Newton and Einstein who conceived the grand theories but also because of the legions of lesser known scientists who have worked tirelessly to test and perchance to falsify these theories. In 90 years of trying, no one has succeeded in falisfying Einstein’s general relativity, even though a better theory is still being sought because of the widely perceived need to unite it with quantum mechanics. None of these searchers for the truth have ever been dismissed as a “tin hat” – except perhaps by persons who believe they can “create [their] own reality” without bothering to understand how reality really works.
II. BACKGROUND
I have previously prepared a PowerPoint (available on request)
based on eyewitness reports and the officially released Pentagon-security-camera
frames that supports a hypothesis proposed by others that the Pentagon was
struck on 9/11 by a smallish twin engine aircraft superficially resembling the a
Boeing 737, 757, or 767. Most probably the specific aircraft type was
Cold-War-era Navy A-3 converted to an unmanned air vehicle (UAV). UAVs are
commonly referred to as “drones.” According to eyewitness reports, this second
aircraft arrived at the Pentagon simultaneously with American Airlines Flight 77
(AA-77) but from a different quarter, at higher speed, and at lower altitude.
Thus, most witnesses caught a glimpse of one or the other of the two planes, but
not both. The expanding fireball of the A-3 impact then distracted everyone from
noting (or correctly interpreting) the escape of the Boeing 757. In this
analysis of the Pentagon attack, the passengers and crew of American Airlines
Flight 77 (AA-77) would have escaped unscathed. Thus, I began to wonder if the
same might also have been true of the passengers and crews of the aircraft
involved in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.
III. A NEW HYPOTHESIS OF THE 9/11 WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS: VERSION 1
An underlying postulate, or working hypothesis, of my Pentagon-model precedent was that the passengers on AA-77 volunteered to feign their deaths in return for cushy “witness protection” programs. This concept is not original to me. It was explored by the CIA in the early 60s as a component of a scheme to fake the shoot-down of an American airliner over international waters as a justification for invading Castro’s Cuba.
“The plan [Project Northwoods] was to replace said aircraft with an identical drone, flown by remote control, and land the original plane at an [Air Force] base where passengers, boarded under prepared aliases, would be evacuated. The drone would then fly the route and when over Cuba, emit a distress signal before being destroyed by radio signal.” The foregoing quote and the full story can be found at:
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/americas_phoney_wars_2.html
I envision a similar 9/11 scheme, but one where many or all
passengers boarded under their
Is it possible that any of the passengers and crews of planes that struck the World Trade Center (WTC) actually survived? Radar tracking seemingly showed that both American Airlines Flight 11 (AA-11) and United Airlines Flight 175 (UA-175) were continuously in the air from the times of their take offs from Boston’s Logan Airport until the instants of their apparent impacts with the North (WTC1) and South (WTC2) Towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center. If the passengers couldn’t debark, then they would certainly have been killed, in contradiction to my working hypothesis.
For the sake of argument, let us assume for a moment that the passengers
did die. In that case their deaths would either have been at the hands of hijackers (the “official” story) or as a result of their being duped into boarding pilotless (drone) Boeing 767 aircraft.However, I have considered and tentatively ruled out the latter possibility on the basis that both UA-175 (aircraft #N612UA) and AA-11 (#N334AA) would have to have been pulled out of service for a year or more in order to perform the extensive conversions and test fly them under remote control. Although I have not gone to the trouble of researching the maintenance records of these two planes, my bet is that no conspirators would be dumb enough to have “requisitioned” either aircraft from its respective airline and then to have suddenly returned it with the demand that it be put back in service on the morning of 9/11.
So I reasoned that that both UA-175 (#N612UA) and AA-11
(#N334AA) took off on the morning of 11 September 2001 as
http://911anomalies.wordpress.com/gallery/
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/rebuttals.html
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/plane-entering.html
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~johnm/Three-Lightbursts
Thus, I arrived at a quandary: I had concluded that both AA-11 and UA-175 must have been
unmodified airliners that took off from Boston Logan with real (though relatively few) passengers – and I hypothesized that these passengers survived. Yet in contradiction to my “all passengers survive” hypothesis, radar tracking appears to indicate that neither aircraft landed between Boston and the WTC. And contradicting my reasoned conclusion that neither aircraft #N612UA nor #N334AA was likely to have been modified is the extensive video evidence that the plane that hit WTC2 was conspicuously modified. (N.B. Some believe that all those videos were doctored and that the plane that struck WTC2 was not modified; however, even in the unlikely event that this should be the case, the hypothesis I will develop below would not be affected.)
Of course, there must be at least one hypothesis that fits all
of the available facts without violating any laws of physics, so I set out to
find one. To assist the reader to get his or her head into this puzzling (and
for some unthinkable) forensic investigation, I have chosen to include in the
following narrative many details of my thought processes and mention of some of
the blind alleys that I went down before arriving at my present hypothesis. This
hypothesis has evolved considerably as I have gradually taken into account more
and more known facts, and it is likely to evolve further as additional facts
and/or other possible explanations come to light.
From the beginning, I took as a given that a Boeing 767 could not have been
remotely hijacked without extensive rebuilding – and, to repeat, I ruled out that either aircraft #N612UA or #N334AA would have been taken out of service long enough to fit them out for such a task. Therefore, I conclude that these were indeed the exact same (unmodified) aircraft that took off from Boston Logan on the morning of 9/11 as UA-175 and AA-11, respectively. Second, while surfing the internet, I became captivated by the peculiar westward-pointing cusp in a web-published (unofficial) flight path of AA-11, where this aircraft appeared to have reversed course so sharply as to form an acute angle in its flight path, just before turning southward in the general direction of New York City (Slide 1, left panel).Only in August 2006 did the FBI finally release the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports of the
actual radar ground tracks of AA-11 and UA-175 in response to a FOIA request. In principle, these data and other NTSB-supplied information about these flights can be found here:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Government_releases_detailed_911_hijacking_information_0811.html
However, I’ve recently discovered that the links to the individual NTSB documents catalogued on these sites no longer function. (Why? After taking nearly 5 years to “sanitize” the NTSB reports, did someone suddenly realize they still contained clues they should have suppressed?) In any event, the maps and graphs in the accompanying Slides and some quoted passages in the text were retrieved using the Raw Story links that I accessed in October 2006.
The official NTSB radar ground track for AA-11 differs in several minor ways from the unofficial flight path that I had been studying. For one thing, the sharp, westward pointing cusp was replaced by a tight semicircle. It had been the sharpness of that cusp, combined with its westward orientation, that caused me to wonder whether a westbound AA-11 might have been met by another plane approaching eastbound from a runway somewhere due west. Still, the mere absence such a cusp in the official ground path does not negate the concept, namely, that two aircraft moving in opposite directions could briefly merge into a single blip on the radars that had been tracking them. Indeed, it is likely that the tight semicircle was an
assumption by the NTSB and not something that could be proved from the radar data. In any event, I reasoned that such a gambit (two planes meeting nearly head-on) could have allowed the true AA-11 to descend undetected to a hypothetical runway to the west, while the eastbound aircraft (which I presumed to have been a drone) would have taken its place on the radar screens and immediately thereafter executed a right turn to the south. Viewed on radar it would naturally be assumed that west-bound AA-11 had just turned left (Slide 2).
But is there really a useable a runway to the west? One where
the unscheduled landing of a Boeing 767 in American Airlines livery would not
have provoked suspicion on the morning of 9/11? Well, on the
Recent Google Earth satellite photos of Griffiss AFB show the runway and aircraft parking pads to be in mint condition – but totally devoid of aircraft, mute witness to its closure as an active military air base in 1995. But Griffiss AFB was collocated with,
and survived by, the Air Force Rome Laboratory (which I visited once long ago on official government business). Rome Laboratory currently specializes in “the development of technologies for command, control, communications and intelligence systems.” To my mind, it would be impossible to find better place to refit a normally-piloted aircraft as a UAV. And if such refitting were to be done by rogue elements within the Air Force, they would have had a perfect cover story, i.e., a national top secret need for drone aircraft for clandestine intelligence gathering while appearing to be commercial airliners. And, all the better for a conspiracy, the humongous Griffiss runway (built for scrambling droves of fully loaded B-52s) and its expansive fenced campus would have enabled trial remotecontrol takeoffs and landings with very few witnesses, and even then from vantage points typically a mile or more away. Perfect!Returning to the proposed ruse, I asked myself: Would it have been possible to fool the radars into missing two aircraft swapping places? Actually, the answer might have been “No” ...were it not for one thing: AA-11 turned off its transponder at a convenient time to cover up its possible substitution for a drone not possessing a transponder. This switchoff was done at point and time D on Slides 2 and 3, respectively – i.e., just before the two aircraft would have met near point E in my scenario. An aircraft’s transponder sends high-strength signals (so-called “mode C returns”) back the radar installations with encoded data specifically identifying the aircraft in terms of a four-digit number assigned by the air traffic controllers and giving its precise altitude based on an on-board airpressure altimeter. The “primary returns” (small triangles in Slide 3) represent reflections of the radar pulses off the skin of the aircraft, which bounce back to the radar receiver as signals very much weaker than those from the aircraft’s transponder ...and carrying no information about the aircraft’s identity. These weak primary returns are susceptible to large statistical errors when an attempt is made to extract altitude data from them (note scatter in triangles in Slide 3).
Nevertheless, as suggested by the bold arrows that I have added in Slide 3, the NTSB primary-return data appear consistent with actual detection of an unknown aircraft climbing to 30,400 ft and there meeting AA-11, which in turn promptly begins to descend.
So my hypothesis began to solidify. Without any obvious contradiction, I can propose that the real AA-11 (specifically, Boeing 767 #N334AA) actually did land on Griffiss’ long runway, there to secretly disgorge its passengers...
In earlier versions of this hypothesis, I supposed that all passengers were co-conspirators, who would have been sent on their separate ways to tropical islands or mountaintop retreats of their choices. Subsequently, it was suggested to me that the head conspirators might not have had complete trust in everyone privy to the conspiracy. Thus, while promising a cushy “witness protection program” to every co-conspirator ordered to board one of these flights on the morning of 9/11/01, it seems very possible that the leaders shunted aside and murdered those they considered less trustworthy. Moreover, on study of the occupations and travel priorities of some of the people on the passenger and cabincrew lists of the 9/11 “hijacked” jetliners, I now believe that a number of innocent people were allowed to board these flights as well ...and that
all of these innocents were murdered.Irrespective of the number of murdered passengers, my hypothesis envisions AA-11 (aircraft # N334AA) to have been swiftly repainted in the same bland military gray color as the drone/clone aircraft that Rome Lab employees and nearby residents had become accustomed to seeing (albeit from distant vantage points) flying in and out on test flights over a period of years. Extrapolating this view, not long after 9/11 this particular Boeing 767-223 (# N334AA)
in its fresh new Air-Force-gray livery might have been flown inconspicuously from Griffiss AFB to Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ, for fast-track reduction to scrap. However, while this may (or may not) have been the fate of the two American Airlines aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks, the two United Airlines aircraft supposedly hijacked and destroyed on 9/11 are still listed as operational and have actually been spotted back in service:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2QAh0rBrew&NR=1 (Missing 9/11 Planes FLV MP4)
But could the same model scenario also have allowed UA-175 – and its passengers – to land safely somewhere? If my model for AA-11 is correct and some variant of this model was employed also for UA-175, I reasoned that there must be at least one physically possible – and operationally feasible – scenario to explain the attack on WTC2 in this way.
Before the availability of the NTSB data, the popularly reported
flight path of UA-175 included a 60-degree cusp in its ground track in central
New Jersey (Slide 1, right panel) pointing almost directly at
McGuire AFB! Since
two of the three triangularly intersecting runways at McGuire were nearly
congruent with the legs of this cusp, it was almost too easy to postulate that
UA-175 had landed on the north-south runway simultaneously with the takeoff of
its drone-clone at a 60 degree angle toward the northeast and New York City.
This had been my baseline hypothesis for UA-175.
However, the 60-degree cusp might have been based on deliberate disinformation – since the conspirators would have realized that the Griffiss gambit would be easily perceived, so the rather obvious McGuire story could have been a blind ally deliberately cooked up to mislead future 9/11 “crime scene investigators” (such as me).
In fact, when I finally got a hold of the NTSB report, I learned first that there was
nothing at all like a 60-degree cusp in UA-175’s official ground track. Second, I learned that UA-175 was radar tracked at an altitude of 32,000 feet all the way from the Massachusetts-Connecticut border (point B in Slide 4) to its brief penetration of air space over Pennsylvania (point F) and also that radar showed it to descend only to 25,000 ft at its closest approach to McGuire (point G in Slides 4 and 5). Because at point G the distance to McGuire is only 15 miles, it would have been impossible for UA-175 to have descended to land there, except in an easy-to-detect spiral. And the mirror image of this problem would have affected any aircraft attempting surreptitiously climb out of McGuire to rendezvous at point G. Moreover, unlike the case of AA-11, UA-175’s transponder was (apparently) operational all the way from Boston to the WTC. Clearly then, a transponder-off rendezvous with a transponder-less drone aircraft (analogous to that proposed for AA-11 near Amsterdam, NY) cannot have happened in the case of UA-175. So my baseline idea was a non-starter this time.But I remained confident that an externally-modified drone substitution for unmodified 767 #N612UA is the only plausible explanation of all the known facts relating to AA-175. So I groped for suitable variations on the theme, eventually arriving at the scenario illustrated by bold arrows in Slides 4 and 5: Here, a drone Boeing jetliner painted in United Airlines colors (with videos seeming to show a peculiar pod and long fairing under the starboard side of its fuselage) is assumed to take off south-bound from McGuire, climb to an altitude of only about 1,500 feet (beneath most radars), and turn left to a pre-determined heading toward the Atlantic coast. The course I propose (yellow dashed line on Slide 4) crosses the virtually unpopulated New Jersey “Pine Barrens.”
Thus, the drone is unlikely to have been seen or heard by more than a handful of people on this leg. Once over the ocean, it would descend as close to the surface as practicable and pick up speed on a bearing toward New York Harbor, avoiding shipping by taking evasive actions dictated by an orbiting E-4B (National Airborne Operations Center
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=99 ) or, alternatively, an E-8C (Joint STARS http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=100 ) aircraft.In this scenario, the E-4B (or JSTARS) is assumed to have been monitoring the real UA-175, as well as its drone impostor – and to have been continuously recalculating the estimated arrival times of both aircraft at WTC2. With the aid of these recalculations, the E-4B (or JSTARS) would have remotely adjusted the speed of the drone and advised the pilot of UA-175 if he should need to change his speed to assure simultaneous arrival at WTC2.
It was likely an E-4B that was tracked by radar flying southward over New Jersey during the attacks on the WTC and mistaken for A-11. If so, it could have been the same one caught on TV film footage flying directly over the White House around the time of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgF9Fd4UyMY&feature=related
(Mystery 9_11 aircraft was military FLV MP4)
From
the NTSB altitude-versus-time data of Slide 5 and the distance data of Slide 4,
I calculated that the aircraft assumed to be UA-175 maintained an
In any event, the UA-175 scenario of Slides 4 and 5 postulates the near simultaneous arrival of
two extremely fast aircraft at the World Trade Center at “approximately 9:02:40” local time according to the NTSB report. The first big question to be asked is, is there any evidence of a second plane near WTC2 at the time of the impact?Well, in fact there were many eyewitness sightings of a “third jet” (counting the one that had already struck WTC1 as the first one). One of the eyewitnesses was Diane Sawyer of ABC News. In addition, one or more “third” aircraft were captured on several amateur videos. One of these “third jets” with its fuselage painted white (wrong color for UA-175) appears in the video frames aired on CNN by Aaron Brown and Paula Zahn that simultaneously recorded the attacking plane actually striking WTC2. But, because this film was taken from 30 blocks east of the WTC, it is very likely that this white aircraft, which had emerged from behind WTC1 climbing northward, had just departed Newark International Airport (which had not yet been closed). A summary and analysis of the “third jet” sightings can be found here:
http://911review.org/brad.com/batcave/WTC-Attack_exercise_plane.html
A large compendium of still and video photography of the 9/11 attack on the WTC2 can be found here
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html and here http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit.html . However, most of the videos found on 911conspiracy.tv have clearly been doctored, and Killtown’s more user-friendly YouTube account containing some less altered footage (which I had profited from so much when I first began this study) has since been shut down by person or persons unknown. And this is not because it contained pornography, which it didn’t. The most likely explanation is that the powerful forces that brought us the 9/11 attacks don’t want Americans to discover “smoking gun” evidence that the perpetrators were using military technologies beyond the wildest dreams of Osama bin Laden and the 19 Arabs alleged to have been hijackers.Among the films I was previously able to find at the Killtown site was one similar to the long-distance-approach film used by the Royal Aircraft Establishment to estimate the speed of the colliding aircraft as 575 mph. The link I was previously citing has since been removed from YouTube. However, in Slide 6 I provide a frame-by-frame dissection of a version that I found on the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8iB6FxTRlA&NR=1 (video lost)
Even though this video (taken from the New Jersey shore opposite the World Trade Center) doesn’t show the full approach of the aircraft purported to be UA-175, I believe it has particular importance to understanding how the second attack was carried out.
Specifically, what I see in this film is a super-fast aircraft much nearer the camera than to the WTC, which pulls out of a steep dive
practically simultaneously with the 767 attacker seen striking WTC2, banks sharply to its right, and disappears going away from the camera (in the general direction of the WTC). The object I am describing here has been widely noted but is generally spoken of as being a bird. However, no bird known to man is capable of flying laterally into our field of view and then turning away and disappearing in the distance in a total elapsed time of less than a second! Yet this is exactly what we see in Slide 6! It seems quite possible that this may be the very same “bird” as the one captured flying west to east just north of the World Trade Center just 14 seconds later (see the following video and Slide 7):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8hsFQ1UDCw&aia=true (WTC Tower 2 Plane Hit FLV)
The above video records the jetliner strike on WTC2 in three different ways, beginning with separate seismic and air pressure waves – which cause the building, and thus the camera, to tremor – and concluding with the fireball. Thus, one can count the time from the South Tower impact until the “bird’s” arrival, which turns out to be 14 seconds. Slide 7 captures the “bird’s” arrival in eight frames representing a mere fraction of the fourteenth second (by which time the fireball had been replaced by an expanding cloud of black smoke).
Still, probably the most famous “bird sighting” virtually coincident with the jetliner slamming into WTC2 is seen in the following YouTube video, where two versions of footage actually shown on TV are compared side by side ...proving that one (or both) has (have) been altered:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FCcPmyZNaU (9/11 Altered Footage Comparison: Pax TV FLV MP4)To prepare Slides 8, I went to the following site, selected the “PAX-TV FOX5” version, and performed a whole lot of split-second screen captures:
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_TV_amateurs.html
Slide 8b triangulates the position of the camera, and Slide 8c dissects this video into four revealing screen captures. As shown in Slides 8b and 8d, the geometry of the field of view in the above videos is quite easy to establish. I found that the first pair of small fast left-to-right-moving objects traverse the entire field if view in almost exactly 3 seconds. This information allows the actual speeds of any birds or airplanes to be determined in relationship to
how far away one supposes them to be. Since all moving objects in question are seen to first appear between the trusses of the Brooklyn Bridge as viewed from the camera’s position approximately 0.11 miles to the east of the bridge, the shortest possible trajectory is about 0.05 miles long (blue arrows in Slides 8b and d), yielding a speed of 60 mph – very fast for birds (which typically fly at speeds in the range 10 to 40 mph: http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/How_Fast.html ).Moreover, in the example of the bird silhouettes captured in the fourth frame of Slide 8c each bird occupies about 2.2% of the width of the entire field of view, which would make them about 6 feet(!) in size at the distance of 0.11 miles represented by the blue arrow (and even larger still if more distant).
On the other hand, if what we see in Frames 1 thru 3 of Slide 8c are aircraft, then when they entered the field of view they can have been no farther away than a building on the extreme left (0.47 miles from the camera), which a sequence of four other frame grabs (not shown in slides) showed them to have passed in front of. The red trajectory, curving to the right and about 0.38 miles long in Slides 8b and d, begins at that point and moves to the right-hand edge of the field of view at a point above and beyond the Woolworth Tower. The objects’ ground speed moving on this red trajectory in 3 seconds would be 456 mph and their airspeed would be higher still, given that they are obviously climbing. Such speeds are easily reached by fighter aircraft such as the F-16. As emphasized in Slide 8d, the fighter-plane model is the clear winner ...despite a concerted effort by hackers to suppress the evidence of fighter planes in all archived copies of this video –generally by replacing them with silhouettes of birds.
The very fact that such a massive effort has gone into altering these videos wherever they are found proves that (1) something other than birds were originally captured in this footage, and (2) whoever the hackers are, they don’t want us to know what the really were. However, these videos were so widely viewed and archived in the beginning that the truth suppressors decided that totally removing the fast moving objects from the most accessible archived copies would only serve to create suspicion. Thus their decision to cover up the original objects with fake the birds.
In my original model I assumed the real UA-175 to have made the greater-than-600-mph dive and bank away at the last moment to land safely at McGuire AFB (Slide 4, black arrow follows the reverse of the yellow dashed one). However, Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently proved that a stock Boeing 767 could not have withstood the dynamic air pressure of such a dive and definitely would have broken up in flight before nearing the World Trade Center:
http://vimeo.com/7340833
See also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCK9bgorCEE&feature=related
And now, supplementing this evidence that a Boeing could not possibly have made the dive, is the evidence presented above proving that fast fighter planes arrived near the WTC in perfect synchronism with what must have been a drone attacker striking WTC2.
These two factors have compelled me to revise my original hypothesis of how and where the real UA-175 landed to disgorge its still-alive passengers ...and precisely which aircraft actually took its place in the air (how and when?) and thence made the dive tracked by radar and reported by the NTSB as the blue curve in Slide 5.
From Slides 6 through 8d, one surmises that a swarm of at least five fighter aircraft made the 600+ mph dive. Perhaps such a large number was necessary to sustain strong enough primary radar returns to pass for a 767. In any event, in order to pull out of their treacherous dives convincingly close to the WTC, yet avert the risk of crashing into buildings in lower Manhattan, these fighters would have to have veered toward either the Hudson or East Rivers at the very last moment. Those choosing the latter needed to avoid the Brooklyn Bridge. The video evidence in my Slide 6 indicates that at least one fighter veered up the Hudson, pulling out of its dive near the New Jersey shore before abruptly turning eastward and apparently being caught on video as it passed north of the WTC 14 seconds later (Slide 7). Evidently, at least four headed up the East River, where they avoided the Brooklyn Bridge by pulling up over Lower Manhattan just north of the WTC (Slides 8).
IV. A NEW HYPOTHESIS OF THE 9/11 WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS: VERSION 2
My next scenario may seem to violate Occam’s Razor” (the simplest explanation is the most likely). However, notwithstanding a claim by physicist Manuel Garcia (which I discuss here:
http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01/hand-waving-physics-of-911.html ), in physics the simplest explanation is almost always only a starting point; historically, as more details are observed more complex theories have inevitably been necessitated. The same is definitely true outside of science, especially when human beings do unexpected things for nefarious reasons fully understood only by the perpetrators. So it should be no surprise that domestic conspirators intent on perpetrating a false-flag attack and having sufficient lead time and access to military technology would devise a highly complex plan, which would have certainly included some seemingly senseless twists and turns deliberately introduced for the purpose of misleading future investigators of their crime.As I will show you shortly, Flights 11, 175, and 93 all appear to have been choreographed on 9/11 to an extent that would have awed Nijinsky. This choreography is strong circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy involving many persons well prepared and drilled in the control and synchronization to within a few seconds, not only of high tech weapons systems – which, unlike bin Laden and the 19 framed Arabs,
they actually had access to – but also many of more banal but usually uncontrollable factors, such as the takeoff times of four airliners!
In fact, the
Since we have already allowed that AA-11 could very easily have been replaced over Amsterdam, NY, by a drone flying out of Griffiss AFB, how much more difficult could it have been to have replaced it by
two (or more) aircraft – one a drone, the other(s) piloted – flying in such close formation as to appear to be a single blip on the radar screens?Once this should be accomplished, it would be simple to detach the piloted Griffiss-based aircraft from the designated WTC1 drone attacker-cum-AA-11 surrogate, and re-connect it (them) to the actual UA-175 during the interval when their ground tracks came within two minutes of coinciding in both space and time over Stewart.
If you are with me this far, the rest would have been easily doable. First, the piloted aircraft out of Griffiss attaching itself (their selves) to UA-175 would be equipped with a transponder that identified it (them) as UA-175, but it wouldn’t turn it on yet. Rather, in my new scenario, only at point E in the ground track ascribed by the NTSB to UA-175 (Slide 4), would the Griffiss-based imposter(s) have turned on its (their) transponder – and at that exact moment the actual UA-175’s transponder would be turned off. The true UA-175 might then have begun an easy straight-line descent toward McGuire AFB (the southward-pointing salmon-colored arrow in Slide 9). Meanwhile, its surrogate replacement from Griffiss (now apparent from the video analyses I’ve described above to have been a swarm of as many as 5 fighter aircraft) would have maintained its altitude and heading, but added speed, in flying on to point F (blue dashed curve in Slide 9), after which, it would have flown the arc (with erratic altitude changes) from F to G, where it would lock into its high-speed dive toward the WTC.
Nevertheless, it is conceivable that the possibility of landing the real (passenger-carrying) UA-175 at McGuire was discarded early-on by the conspirators due to the high probability of its being witnessed. Or, even more likely, the easily visualized possibility of such a landing path may well have been deliberately devised and promulgated as disinformation ...which the conspirators would cause to appear in the unofficial UA-175 ground path (just as it is seen in Slide 1) as a ruse to fool and embarrass any 9/11-truth sleuths claiming they had correctly reverse-engineered the attacks to include UA-175’s safe landing at McGuire. Either way, it now seems more probable that UA-175 escaped westward (see also
Section VI) based on compelling evidence compiled by Woody Box:http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/10/flight-175-was-duplicated-threefold.html
V. UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 93
When I first started my WTC-9/11-attack project, United Airlines Flight 93 (UA-93) was far from my mind. The NTSB report doesn’t show a ground track for UA-93, but from the pilot-to-air traffic controller communications I inferred that it eventually assumed a northwesterly heading that would have put it in the same general air space as UA-175 if the latter is assumed to have taken the E-to-G ground track leading to a landing at McGuire as illustrated in Slide 9. In Slide 10, I plot as the green curve a reasonably accurate NTSB-report-based altitude-time profile for UA-93 overlaid on the NTSBreleased graph for UA-175. I have added a salmon-colored arrow to represent the hypothetical descent of UA-17 toward McGuire directly from point E. Based on the UA-93 data released by the NTSB, it seemed possible to me that (in my about to be abandoned model) during its descent toward McGuire AFB, UA-175 passed close enough to the climbing UA-93 to convince puzzled air traffic controllers that the primary returns suggesting a descending aircraft were actually random scatter from UA-93. However, my brother, who is a private pilot, told me that air traffic controllers are not responsible for tracking primary returns, since even private aircraft following Visual Flight Rules (VFR) as supposed to be equipped with transponders.
In any event, I remain convinced that UA-93 must have played a pre-calculated role in my “all passengers survived” hypothesis by obscuring the “get away” of UA-175 (
Section VI). But this in turn raises the next big questions: Did all UA-93 passengers survive? And, if so, how?Well, there is abundant evidence that an unidentified jetliner reportedly carrying 200 passengers (termed “Flight X” by Woody Box) landed in Cleveland International Hopkins about an hour an a quarter after UA-93’s last communication with the Cleveland-area air traffic controller. The “Flight X” jetliner was multiply witnessed parked at the west end of runway 28/10 near the immediately-before--evacuated NASA Glenn Research Center:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_26.htm
Another jetliner, Delta Flight 1989 (a Boeing 767), had landed at Cleveland Hopkins 40 minutes earlier and was quarantined near the south end of Hopkins runway 18/36 (over a mile from the spot to which Flight X was later directed), where 78 passengers and crew were reportedly debarked after a wait of a couple hours. In contrast to this detail, there was no mention at all of the debarkation of the 200 passengers of “Flight X.”
Only 13 minutes after the last communication from UA-93, Northeastern Air Defense Sector (NEADS) radar picked up two planes “really close together,” one of which was Delta Flight 1989:
http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/06/delta-89-code-7112-faker-hijack.html
The other was very likely “Flight X” ...which could well have been UA-93 or UA-175 attempting to sneak off undetected by flying in the radar shadow of Flight 1989. However, as I will explain in
Section VI, there is yet a third, and more likely, means by which UA-93 could have snuck away.Assuming for the sake of argument that UA-93
did get away with all passengers still alive, what then was the aircraft tracked as flying southeastward from Cleveland and eventually crashing near Shanksville, PA? Well, the first part of the answer is fact that the first responders at the alleged Pennsylvania crash site saw only a modest sized hole in the ground, some burned trees, and a small amount of shredded metal – but no bodies, blood, baggage, or identifiable airplane parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s
The official NTSB report on UA-93 consisted only of communications between the pilot and air traffic controllers; it excluded its radar ground track (why?). UA-93 – or an aircraft believed to have been UA-93 – certainly must have been tracked by radar all the way from Cleveland to Shanksville. My model for what actually happened is quite similar to the model I proposed for UA-175 separating from its radar imposter: UA-93 turns its transponder off at the very moment that an imposter aircraft flying nearby turns
on a transponder falsely identifying itself as UA-93.Pure speculation? Not at all! According to the NTSB report, at 09:27:25 EDT, the Cleveland air traffic controller advised UA-93 “that traffic for you is one o’clock twelve miles east bound at three seven zero.” This meant that there was an aircraft approaching UA-93 almost head on and only 2,000 feet higher. At 09:27:30, UA-93 replied “negative contact we’re looking United ninety three,” meaning they looked for the approaching plane but didn’t see it. (I believe that they didn’t have to see it, because they knew what it was supposed to be ...and that it would be pretty small.) Forty six seconds later the pilot of UA-93 was heard declaring “***(mayday)***(hey get out of here)***.”
My brother Robert, who has been a private pilot for more than 40 years once owned and operated a flight simulator for training pilots of all types of aircraft, had some profound observations with regard to the forgoing conversation between AU-93 and the Cleveland tower. He said “One anomaly I noted right away is that when they give you traffic to look out for, they ALWAYS tell you the type of aircraft you will be looking for. I did not see that in this transcript. And I can't believe it was an unknown primary target, because they seemed to know its exact altitude and direction.” Accordingly, I am led to believe that either the NTSB report was redacted to remove mention of the identity of the approaching aircraft or the Cleveland air traffic controller was covering up what he/she recognized it to be. In my model, this aircraft would have been an Air Force fighter, likely an F-16, equipped with a transponder that would soon begin squawking that
it was UA-93.The last transmission from the captain of UA-93 was recorded about 11 minutes after the first “mayday.” My brother finds it extraordinary that during those 11 minutes the pilot never thought to switch his transponder to special code “7500” signifying “unlawful interference with aircraft (i.e., hijack).” But maybe the reason was that the pilot of UA-93 had actually switched his transponder completely OFF and the “traffic” that had just passed close by had switched
its transponder ON, identifying itself as UA-93. (And maybe the pilot of the “traffic” had forgotten that he was supposed to switch his transponder to 7500 shortly afterwards.) In any event, it is unlikely that the pilot was killed by hijackers, since irrespective of whether UA-93 landed safely in Cleveland or some place else, it has been reported that the very aircraft that served as UA-93 and UA-175 on the morning of 9/11/01 (tail numbers #N591UA and #N612UA, respectively) are not listed as destroyed and in fact are still in service:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2QAh0rBrew&NR=1
According to the official story, the wreckage of UA-93 was first spotted by the same Minnesota Air National Guard C-130 transport that happened to be following AA-77 on its terminal approach to the Pentagon. Was this pure a coincidence? Remember that all other aircraft in the country were ordered to land immediately. How probable was it that one of the few planes still authorized to remain in the air just “happened to” observe close up the supposed fates of TWO of the four jetliners supposedly hijacked on 9/11 ...
130 miles apart? Talk about choreography!And speaking of that C-130, consider this: There were eyewitness reports of "...what looked like white confetti raining down everywhere" around the Pentagon at the same time as the C-130 was circling “the mushroom cloud.” And “...all over the highway were small pieces of aircraft skin, none bigger than a half-dollar.” My bet is that those airplane chips found near the Pentagon, as well as those found in the vicinity of Shanksville, PA, were pushed out the cargo bay of the same C-130. And, by the way, airplane chips are the residual low-value product of the never-ending recycling of obsolete aircraft at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson.
VI. WTC-ATTACK SUMMARY
In my “all passengers survive” hypothesis, it is easily surmised that AA-11 with its transponder turned off could have landed safely at Griffiss AFB after having been replaced over Amsterdam, NY, by a transponder-less drone attacker out of Griffiss. But because this possibility was almost too obvious, I believe that the conspirators added several levels of contra-Occam’s Razor complications to the choreography of AU-175.
To summarize my
original “all passengers survive” scenario for UA-175: The real passenger-carrying UA-175 deviated from its official NTSB ground track at point E and descended at a normal rate (transponder off and somewhat covered on radar screens by the takeoff of UA-93 Newark) for an uneventful landing at McGuire AFB, as illustrated in Slide 9. Five or six minutes later, WTC2 was struck by a drone aircraft resembling a Boeing 767 in United Airline colors, which I suppose to have been launched from McGuire. I postulate that this drone approached WTC2 stealthily, flying most of the way “on the deck,” first over the sparsely populated New Jersey Pine Barrens, then out over the Atlantic Ocean (yellow dashed lines in Slides 9 and 10). To maintain the UA-175 charade on the FAA radar screens, another aircraft – or as it turns out, swarm of aircraft in tight formation – completes the points-E-F-G arc imputed to UA-175 and just before point G commences a dive. Beyond point G, the swarm heads directly at the WTC at speeds averaging 605 mph and likely approaching 700 mph at the very bottom of the dive. These speeds, actually measured by ASR radars on 9/11, have been shown by Pilots For 9/11 Truth to be impossible for a stock unmodified Boeing 767:Several amateur videos filmed the morning of 9/11 and shown on TV appear to show smaller fast-moving aircraft suddenly appearing within a few hundred feet of the ground over lower Manhattan and the Jersey shore opposite the WTC simultaneous with, or a split second after, the impact of the drone jetliner on the South Tower (see Slides 6, 7, and 8c,
Section III, and/or):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8iB6FxTRlA&NR=1
This radar-deceiving decoy clearly comprised aircraft much smaller and far more agile than the Boeing attacker and, unlike the Boeing, capable of supersonic flight. These aircraft pulled out of a steep, and likely supersonic, dive just short of the WTC (indeed, likely short of the Battery), with at least four of them captured on video popping up just west of the Brooklyn Bridge and at least one other pulling out near the Jersey shore, turning eastward, and passing north of the WTC 14 seconds later. The small size and high agility of these aircraft strongly suggests that they were small fighters; I would suppose F-16s. As of 30 September 2001, there was a total of 1381 F-16s in the U.S. inventory – as many as 200 of which were in inactive storage, making these particularly easy to have been requisitioned by ranking military officers claiming them to be needed for “special projects” without arousing suspicions.
Otherwise, my
current “all passengers survive” scenario for UA-175 now rejects the notion that it landed at McGuire AFB, preferring instead a scenario wherein it flew westward in tandem with UA-93, resulting in a single radar blip recognized on the basis of the only squawking transponder as being UA-93 alone. Nevertheless, the ACARS communications with UA-175 gave away its westward course over central and western Pennsylvania (link at end of Section IV). In principle, the “Flight X” that landed at Cleveland Hopkins could have been either UA-93 or UA-175. But in light of the fact that one of these two (as well as the alleged Pentagon attacker, AA-77) would have needed to have landed elsewhere, I prefer to believe that all three landed at an inconspicuous spot farther west, say, an ad hoc runway somewhere “in the middle of nowhere” where all passengers and crews were deboarded, sorted by category, and dealt with according to the conspirators’ master plan for them. Then these three Boeings would have been flown off empty of passengers to other locations, with the two United Airline jetliners eventually being returned to the United Airlines fleet and the American 757 likely being sent off for conversion to a drone for some future false-flag attack. The runway would then have been broken up and trucked away and the ground restored to its previous unremarkable condition...N.B. My model for the Pentagon attack – described in a downloadable PowerPoint at
http://www.drivehq.com/folder/p1720199/03889269.aspx – presumes that AA-77 did not return from it’s supposed turning point at the Ohio-Kentucky boundary (apropos, see http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/08/where-was-flight-77-after-856.html ) and that a C-32 imposter out of Andrews AFB took its place as the designated Boeing 757 in American Airlines livery to over fly the Pentagon in the moment it was struck by a drone A-3 sweeping down over National Cemetery at tree-top level. “Flight X” may well have been part of a (conspirator-rigged) NORAD exercise, as surmised by Woody Box, and if so, this fact would be on file, ready to be brought to light in the event that 9/11 truth investigators should publicly insist that it had to have been UA-93. (Future discrediting the truth seekers had to have been an integral part of the 9/11 conspiracy.)
VII. POSSIBLE SOURCES OF THE DRONE AIRLINER
Finally, to round out my hypothesis, I need to say something about possible sources of the one, and possibly two civilian airliners that needed to be UAV-ized for the 9/11 WTC attacks (a military A-3 might have been used in the WTC1 attack). My first guess was that the source of dispensable jetliners would have been Davis-Monthan (D-M) AFB in Tucson – specifically the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC) at D-M – which currently inventories 4,400 aircraft from all branches of government on a 2,600 acre campus. However, I’ve found no evidence of any Boeing 767 ever having been purchased by the U.S. government prior to 9/11/2001. Nevertheless, there are plenty of commercial ones in storage. One need look no further than the Pinal Air Park between Tucson and Phoenix (in Slide 11, the planes with white wings and blue engines and tail fins in the top row are likely stored United 767s). Surely anyone posing as a representative of a third-world airline could fly away one of these upon producing a negotiable financial instrument in the asking amount drawn on some off-shore bank. And with military orders originating with a ranking military conspirator, such a plane might have been inconspicuously hopped 35 miles to the southeast to Davis-Monthan AFB for its conversion to a “remotely controlled drone” – which is one of the routine functions of AMARC (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Monthan_Air_Force_Base ). Or it could have been repainted there in Air Force gray and then flown to Griffiss AFB for its refitting...Alternatively, there are many plane crashes in third-world nations or at sea that take place under strange conditions and are poorly investigated. It seems entirely possible that conspirators who have no qualms about murdering innocent civilians whenever this should serve their larger purpose may arrange an occasional controlled “crash” wherein an airliner serving, say, some Arab, African, or Latin American nation is reported as having crashed, but is actually landed by a conspirator pilot at some obscure location intact. In these events, many or all of the passengers’ bodies would never found, perhaps due to the inaccessibility of the “crash site.” And one can imagine that some passenger bodies found at sea that don’t show the ravages of a violent crash might be explained as due to the jetliner having leveling out at the last moment before it struck the ocean. Who knows?
N.B. This is a work in progress. Additional facts, corrections, or suggestions are always welcome.
v12.8 12-11-09
Google Maps photo of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson,+AZ
|
|
 Marwan al-Shehhi Flight 175 World Trade Center South |
 Hani Hanjour Flight 77 Pentagon |
 Ziad Jarrah Flight 93 Shanksville |
757 Cockpit
The compass or heading indicator is front and center, clear for
anyone to see.
Why would Muhammed Atta steer Flight 11 NW instead of SW from Boston to NYC?
