Question about Flights 11, 175 and 77 ocean shoot down theory

[DrDebug]

The last two days I've been looking into the 9/11 stuff again and especially Spooked's blog contained interesting and valuable reading.

I found the following story but without any additional references:

6) I think it is highly likely either that a) the hijacked planes were taken over by remote control by the CIA/military and remote-piloted into the WTC, OR b) flights 11, 175 and 77 did not crash into the WTC and Pentagon, but were piloted out over the ocean and shot down by a NORAD pilot thinking he was shooting down mock-hijacked drone planes. On 9/11/ 01, distress calls were heard from three planes over the Atlantic. Passenger-less drone planes were actually remotely piloted into the WTC and the Pentagon. The loss of transponder signals from the hijacked flights could have allowed a plane "switch" operation, where the hijacked planes land and drones take off at the same time thus "fooling" the radar. Importantly, since the US government is concealing the contents of the black boxes found at Ground Zero and the Pentagon, we can't really say for sure what planes hit there.

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/01/updated-working-hypothesis-for-events.html

I did find quite a lot about the remote flying theories and the drone swaps, but no additional references about this shoot down theory and especially references about the shooting down of Flights 11, 175 and 77 and the distress calls. Can somebody enlighten me with some references and webpages?

[spooked911]

1. The shootdown theory is pure speculation at this point. However---

I strongly suspect the two planes that hit the WTC were drones, for a few reasons:
1) the secrecy over the black boxes
2) that the transponders went off allowing the switch
3) the piloting involved in navigating to and hitting the buildings easier with remote control drones
4) the plane length and engine found in the street were wrong for flight 175 (http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/04/what-kind-of-planes-hit-wtc-and.html)

Also, the Operation Northwoods plan from the 1960's talked about passenger plane swaps with drones. So the military had been thinking about it.

I actually now suspect the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile or some sort of guided missile, believe it or not. See these posts: http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/03/did-you-ever-wonder-why-some-people.html
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/03/significance-of-pentagon-hit-911-coup.html

The problem is of course, what happened to the passengers on all these planes?
1) the planes were shot down in a remote area.
2) flights 11, 175 and 77 were fake, and had fake passenger lists.
3) the planes landed at a remote base and the passnegers were killed.

The first possibility seems the easiest to pull off-- particularly if the air force interceptor thought he was shooting down a drone in an exercise, or if he though he was shooting down a real hijacked plane for that matter.

There was a USA Today article written shortly after 9/11 that refers to the distress calls from three planes over the Atlantic. I linked to it on my blog in one post, but it would take me a while to find it now.

But of course, we can't prove any of this. All we can do is use logic.

[DrDebug]

2. Thank you. I've read your blog for hours on end today/yesterday

Initially I thought of remote flying or autopilots with the original planes, however that still meant taking out the original pilots and taking control of the airplane.

I agree with you on point (1)-(4) and that a remotely operated drone would make perfect sense, because it'll be very hard to find two excellent pilots who are willing to go on a suicide mission. That's the point with the official reading, the so-called terrorists would simply have missed the towers altogether at speeds of 400-500mph.

I'll be looking into that Operation Northwoods plan. I haven't heard about that. (Then again I'm just starting to really look into it. 3 1/2 year late but still...)

I agree with the missile hitting the Pentagon. Not just based on the damage and photographs, but also because it's incredibly hard to fly a big airplane that low and make a 270 degree turn. A missile is the most plausible solution. It does mean that the eyewitness testimonies are fake and I haven't figure that out yet. And the missile did pass over a major highway, so there must have been plenty of witnesses especially on the outside and Pentagon workers must have looked out of the window as well (After all it's a big bureaucracy and according the Dilbert Principle there wouldn't have been that many people actually working for 8 hours)

The passenger point. You can indeed make a switch and the position for the switch seems accurate, but you still need to get rid off the passengers, hence my question. Some flights could have been faked, but still there are 100s of people who have disappeared, so why? If it was a phoney list then who were the people on the list and why were there so many security cleared/military etc. on those lists?

I agree that we can't prove anything, but we can make a story which is a lot more plausible then the official reading. For me the story is becoming clearer except for Flight 93... I still don't understand any of that

[spooked911]

11. yes, flight 93 is very confusing and I don't really understand it either

particularly Ed Felt's call to 911 is odd.

As far as the passengers, it is striking how all four planes were well under capacity. There are other oddities too:
1) most of the passengers on Flight 93 were switched from another flight (UA91, I believe) at the last minute.
2) flights 11 and 77 never took off according to the BTS database
3) there were two different flight 11's that took off from different gates.
4) there was a live-fly hijacking drill being run on 9/11
5) there was a terror drill run at the Jonestown airport near Shanksville on 9/10.

Then there is the weirdness of the hijackings themselves, where no pilot notified ATC of a hijacking despite the fact that supposedly the hijackers only had knives or boxcutters. And the disparity in the phone calls from Sweeney and Ong on flight 11, and the improbability of all the passenger cell phone calls going through.

The bottom line is I really don't know how all this fits together.

Barabra Olson was on flight 77 and she was a celebrity who has not been heard from again after 9/11. So presumably she died that day, but then again we can't rule out she is alive living under a new identity somewhere.

All we can do is try to come up with different theories and see what fits the evidence best.

But I have no good theory for flight 93 except that I suspect that part of the drama was faked.

[DrDebug]

15. Cell phone calls from a flying airplane are extremely unlikely

So I am highly sceptical of those calls being real, because it shouldn't have been possible to make those calls in the first place. ( http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/news38.html )

I've just read that story at team 8+ and that does sound like they added an unscheduled plane and that it were mainly people who seized the opportunity to take an earlier flight, however for some reason that plane (or the swapped drone) was shot down (Rumsfeld's Christmas message) before it reached its final destination.

The weird point is indeed that there are many existing people on the passenger lists who haven't been heard off since. You could imagine that the passenger lists consisted of fake names with no real history (acc. to Operation Northwoods plan).

New identities have the downside of people changing their mind. If Barbara still exists and makes an appearance or is spotted somewhere and photographed then the whole official 9/11 conspiracy theory collapses overnight. So the only viable option is that she was killed as part of the coverup even though she played a vital role in the coverup.

[DrDebug]

16. What if Flight 93 had a technical failure and was a drone

Because unlike normal planes there is no pilot to take over the controls. So it could explain the erratic behaviour of the plane as the witnesses saw and then they had no choice but to shoot it from the air.

Edit: Flight number correction

[demodewd]

17. you mean?

Flight 77 or Flight 93?

[DrDebug]

18. Well spotted. I meant 93

Number are confusing LMAO

[demodewd]

21. could be

Could be. There was that half hour delay at the airport and then it flew all the way out to Cleveland before it reversed course.It would have been very difficult for the administration to explain why they didn't shoot it down after all the time elapse. Maybe the shoot down and passenger hero story were a back up plan in case something went wrong.

The passenger hero story is a nice touch though. Makes you wonder if that wasn't their plan all along.

[DrDebug]

22. The Hero story would make sense

I mean we are a Hollywood generation. In each villain story you need a hero, brave courageous, ordinary people who take on the bad guys. Something to give ordinary people something to aspire to. And of course it makes them look the other way while you carry out the coup d'etat.

Good point :thumbsup:

[demodewd]

19. re: calls

There were calls made. You do agree? And if so how were they made? Were they voice morphed? Did the conspirators intercept the calls being made while the plane was on hold on the tarmac and then used those numbers and voices to fake the calls?(Just a pet theory of mine)

[DrDebug]

20. Well there have obviously been calls made

There were calls made. You do agree?
Yes. There's talk about calls including a 911 call which got recorded, so at least one call was really made.

And if so how were they made? Were they voice morphed? Did the conspirators intercept the calls being made while the plane was on hold on the tarmac and then used those numbers and voices to fake the calls?

Well it's been proven quite a number of times by various people that the story that a cell phone goes dead while flying up in the air is a true story. It simply stops functioning, so they couldn't have been made in the air which means that they were made either on the tarmac or in a different place (ie not the airplane) as diversions (so they were planned calls).

Indeed they could have used numbers (I just made a mistake with a number as well and you can use any number with the right equipment because it's just a number send to the receiving post) and could even have faked the voices (which means that somebody else made the diversion call).

[demodewd]

3. and don't forget...

And don't forget the strange apparatus clearly seen on the undercarraige of alleged Flight 175 commonly referred to as the "pod" :)

[JackRiddler]

4. Ah yes

Other than that all higher-resolution photos demonstrate the pod is the standard wing fairing of a Boeing 767 and its shadow, there you go. Other than that this is the leading way now being used to lump all 9/11 skeptics together and boil them in a pot, you're there.

What if 9/11 was an inside job and they didn't leave such a convenient way of avoiding all the homework you have to otherwise do to demonstrate this as a likelihood?

Is it a coincidence the Pop Mech hit job starts with the pod?

Is the pod necessary? Are those who don't see it traitors?

[demodewd]

5. I do my homework every day

Other than that all higher-resolution photos demonstrate the pod is the standard wing fairing of a Boeing 767 and its shadow, there you go.

There are a number of independently produced photos that show the same "pod". It is too large and entirely too wide in circumferance to be the wing fairing.The photos that reportedly show no pod are all caste in shadow which obscures the area where the pod would be located. At least this is my experience. If you have other photographs,I would be most interested in seeing them. After all,I am in search for the truth.

Other than that this is the leading way now being used to lump all 9/11 skeptics together and boil them in a pot, you're there.

I am fully aware of this. But I see what I see irregardless of what is comfortable or believable to the majority of 9-11 skeptics.

What if 9/11 was an inside job and they didn't leave such a convenient way of avoiding all the homework you have to otherwise do to demonstrate this as a likelihood?

I'm sure that I would agree with you on most 911 skeptic topics. I research 911 on a daily basis to further improve my understanding of it,sifting through the info to pull out the most credible. The pod to me is credible. And there was a photographed flash. And this flash was not a result of the friction of the plane as it penetrated the building.It occurs only on the one side. If it were a phenomenon of friction,the flash would occur around the entire plane's circumference.

Is it a coincidence the Pop Mech hit job starts with the pod?

No it is not a coincidence. I am very aware that the "pod" is very controversial. Its controversy has taken on a caste of its own. To me this is unfortunate for it is TO ME plainly obvious.

Is the pod necessary? Are those who don't see it traitors?

Yes the pod is necessary for it exists.No one is a traitor outside the treacherous cabal of individuals who pulled off this horrific deed.

[DrDebug]

6. Two cents

The pod maybe the relevant as far as a clue that this is not a 767 but a 737 just like the engine story ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=36349&mesg_id=36349 )

So I don't find it somewhat relevant. Then again whether it is just a visual illusion or something real is beyond me.

Other than that this is the leading way now being used to lump all 9/11 skeptics together and boil them in a pot, you're there.

I am fully aware of this. But I see what I see irregardless of what is comfortable or believable to the majority of 9-11 skeptics.

We are all here for the same reason and that is to try to figure out what happened. Since there are numerous inconsistencies and coincidences, there are also numerous explanations and theories, so for the outside world we are all conspiracy nuts anyhow.

No one is a traitor outside the treacherous cabal of individuals who pulled off this horrific deed.

Indeed.

[spooked911]

8. my two cents as well

Some photos show a "pod" very clearly, others don't. I'm not convinced that it is real. I've seen the movies with the flashes and I don't know what to make of them. Thankfully, we don't need to rely on the pod to say something happened that didn't fit the official story. Personally, I think it is better not to emphasize the pod too much because it is relatively controversial and I'm not convinced that it isn't some trick of the light.

[demodewd]

12. I'm not a big underground success

The photos that don't show the pod very clearly are incased in shadow in that area. I haven't seen a photo pod refusal that isn't shadow incased.Show me one. Please.

There is not only a "pod" but piping that extends to the fore and aft of the plane. This is demonstrated on numerous photos where a crease is noticable the entire length of the undercarraige where it doesn't exist in other 757 photos.

I'm not here to submit to a collective consensus as to what is kosher and what isn't in regards to 911. I bring it up occasionally to get other's viewpoints.

I fear that we can easily fall into a trap of accepting the more recognizable voices of the 911 inquiry,ignoring those who also may have valid points. Is Jim Hoffman's scalar weapons theory plausible? Does it matter anymore? Isn't the demolitions theory exclusively the only theory accepted to the mass of 911 skeptics community? It appears to be. So we need not talk about the scalar idea anymore. Because it is disruptive to the "movement"?

How about the "pull it" statement of Silverstein? That seems to now be institutionalized within the movement as implying demolitions. Why? Because David Ray Griffin puts that spin on it? Now that he's a 911 skeptics icon? Well I guess little ol' me has to nod his way...now. To me it suggests that the fire crew would "pull" the hoses. This is verifiable fire fighting nomenclature. To pull it means to pull the hoses,stop fighting the fire. But the recognized interpretation is now what Griffin says or Jones etc. After all Griffin wrote a book,a big underground success.

[spooked911]

13. Sorry-- I don't know what you mean by this:

"photo pod refusal that isn't shadow incased"

Perhaps you could give an example?

Also, are you absolutely convinced there is a "pod"? Or do you merely think there is something odd there?

As far as the "pull it" comment, I think it would be weird for Silverstein to use that term in a TV interview if he meant they were going to demolish the building. On the other hand, it is not clear that if they just pulled the hoses, that the building would then collapse from the fire. Basically, it is not clear what he meant.

I must say that "pull it" sounds to me more like a demolition term than a firefighting term, but it could go either way.

I don't think anyone should build too much of an argument around "pull it", just like I don't think anyone should build too much of an argument around "the pod".

[demodewd]

14. Our numbers will gradually grow...no matter what

The "pod" and especially the "flash" to me is substantive physical evidence of a government conspiracy. You mention that you have seen photos where it is difficult to see the pod. I would like to see these. As I said..the ones I've seen have so much darkness or shadow in the undercarraige area that one could not determine whatever could be there.

"Pull it" is both a demolition term and fire fighting term.Dead Broke, a du 911 poster and seasoned firefighter stated this. It seems to me inconceivable that Silverstein would be referring to bringing the building down at that juncture of events. But that is just my opinion.. My point was that in the 911 skeptic community generally speaking the Silverstein incident has been interpreted solely as a demolition term. Now we have Griffin stating so and Alex Jones et al. I don't hear the other explanation in the broadcast circles. I think the other interpretation has merit.But its off the table,so to speak. The great ones have spoken.Case closed.

I don't think the controversy over the pod is critical. People of sound mind will decide for themselves. The 911 movement doesn't need to define its acceptable parameters so closely. There should be room for controversy. I don't think podsters scare off those who are truly seeking answers.Our numbers will gradually grow...no matter what.

[spooked911]

23. I must admit for a while I thought the pod looked real

then the pod concept was so strongly shot down by many groups that I thought it was bogus. And of course the pod debunkers presented photos that de-emphasized the pod.

The main problem I have had with the pod is why? Why put a missile or bomb at that part of the plane? It just seemed too weird, and aerodynamically unsound.

I just had a thought however. The pod is actually right where the landing gear come out. Could it be the pod is actually one of the landing gear doors starting to open? OR could it be flying full speed at low altitude has caused that landing gear door to start to break away?

On that note, I went to 911review.org to see if they had anything to debunk the pod, and found that the site had changed a lot and is run by Brad M. whoi believes in the pod.

He also posted this article which is quite interesting:
http://911review.org/flight175photo.html

suggesting remote control radio antennas on flight 175.

Actually, right now I can't find any pod debunking articles. The QuestionsQuestions site, which I know had a strong debunking of the pod claims is now inactive.

[DrDebug]

24. Nice story on 911review. Especially the last part

(...)
The plane would be giuded to the WTC by GPS, and at some point close to the WTC, the person operating the joystick would take over.

Personally, I would think it much easier to use the existing onboard VHF anttennas and modify, or install a transceiver on a different frequency, and pump a lot of power into an omni antenna.

Another problem with microwave, is it is VERY line of sight.
The higher in frequency you go, the easier it is to block the signal if something is in between the 2 antennas.

Of course if the antennas were very large, and on a rooftop, there would be no problem.

http://911review.org/flight175photo.html

[spooked911]

26. If that was WTC7, then we'd be set!

But I don't think it is. What building IS it?

[DrDebug]

28. It looks like NY AT-T Telephone building

This is the clearest picture I've found thusfar and it was prior to the building of WTC2


Barclay-Vesey Building
140 West St.
1923 Art-Deco style

Please note that none of the photographs show the antennas
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/LM070.htm

The building is next to the field command center and next to WTC7
http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~1930s/DISPLAY/chrysler/nytele.html

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=157663

The building after the collapse. Please note that the antennas are no longer there


Edit: It was the building next to it, so not 101 Barclay street

[spooked911]

29. Great research and pictures!

That is really strange about the antennas. It would be important to know how long were they there for. How soon after 9/11 were they taken down?

[DrDebug]

30. Not very long because not a single picture has those antennas

And those cranes on top of the building are missing as well.

While the rubble is still smoking. No cranes / No antenna (however they are low resolution photos, but the antennas and crane are gone)



And none of the photos taken when WTC was still standing show those antenna.

But there are more pictures during the fire/collapse which clearly show that there are additional antennas on the roof with two cranes as well






There is only one downside which is also the strength, a telephone building with antennas on the roof is pretty normal, however where are the photos which show them prior or after the WTC collapse.

What better place to do the controlling then the telephone exchange, because that building is filled with communication equipment. Then again you don't want it to be damaged especially since it is Art Deco architecture from the 20s, so if you blow up the building next door (WTC7) make sure that it is a precise explosion.

[k-robjoe]

31. Isn´t this building

"behind" WTC7?

It looks like you can see WTC7 between this building and the towers in those last pics.

[DrDebug]

32. It's next to 7 but behind 6

The partially damaged building you see in front is WTC6. 7 is hardly visible in the picture except for some smoke and rubble

This building #13 (Lucky 13)

[k-robjoe]

33. But the building

with antennas and cranes on top of it... must be "behind" WTC7 ??
Because in this pic WTC7 seems to be between this buiding and the towers... Not? If that isn´t WTC7, what is it?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[k-robjoe]

35. No,no,no...

It´s WTC7 man...

[ryan_cats]

36. The other WTC is behind this one

This is a picture (top picture)taken after WTC-7 was built which I thought was in the late 80's. They built both trade centers roughly a couple of months apart so when one was finished, the other one was around 80 stories tall.

[demodewd]

25. too large

The "pod" is too large in circumferance to be landing gear door. How do you acount for the orange flash just prior to entry?

[spooked911]

27. I have no idea what the flash thing is. Look at this article however--

perhaps flight 175 was all video or hologram trickery. The pod and the flash may have been aberrations of the video simulation program.

http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175.htm

This site has the best collection and analyses of the different flight 175 shots, and the pod is only clear in a few of them.

I have mused about whether flight 175 was real or not, and I can say there are a few things that support this theory:
a) police transcripts from 9/11 have some witnesses talking about missiles being fired from the Woolworth building. They didn't see a plane-- they saw missiles! These transcripts can be found at the Memory Hole. Other people simply reported explosions without a plane.
b) the video of the plane going into the tower simply looks fake the way the plane melts in.
c) the plane that was supposed to have gone into the WTC is still flying.
d) if you believe this site, there are a number of abnormalities in he videos and photos that give away the video or hologram fakery.


The main problem with this theory of course is that it supposes there was massive deceit by the media over the video images of an airplane going into the tower. Either that, or the military somehow made a really good hologram of a 767 going into the WTC which was captured on film. (Hologram technology might also explain what eyewitnesses saw at the Pentagon)

I don't know. It's an interesting theory, anyway.

[number6]

7. my feelings exactly

"Simply put, it is impossible that a 757 could fly so low to the ground as to produce the damage pattern on the Pentagon, without touching the ground. Not only this, the official story has it that an amateur pilot, who never flew a jet before, made this maneuver."


I call bullshit too ...

[spooked911]

9. Thanks!

[spooked911]

10. A couple of good sites with more on plane swapping

http://www.team8plus.org/news.php

http://www.the-movement.com/Radar/Radar.htm