Cool analysis of the flight paths for flight 11 and flight 175

[spooked911]

here:
http://www.team8plus.org/comment.php?comment.news.32

Some strange patterns show up....

[Andre II]

1. Absolutely amazing!

Must watch for everyone!
How do you explain these pattern with real pilots flying the planes ....?

[spooked911]

3. I like Frank L's idea that they were passing a virus from one to another

plane.

The whole thing is totally bizarre-- like some strange kabuki dance.

[Andre II]

4. I like kabuki!

But I'm afraid the people behind 911 have no feeling for traditional Japanese theatre!

[k-robjoe]

2. Ditto. Kick. n/t

[Andre II]

5. Link works again!

[seatnineb]

6. That is one ground breakin' animation!

[philb]

7. They don't seem to have any idea about a scenario to explain the

points that they make about the meetings or 100 mile triangles.
I don't see how there could be any obvious connection to the fact these planes came close together. I can't think of a reason that hijackers would want to do it, other than if they were trying to cause confusion so that the planes could be switched with other remote controlled planes. Kee Dwedney at Physics 911 has put together a scenario for take downs and remote control planes, that might be compatible with some of this. But without something like that I don't see any smoking guns here.
What I do find strange is that the choices of planes and routes do not appear to be logical choices for hijackers planning to take out the WTC and Pentagon. The round about routes meant that one would have expected NORAD to have intercepted them, so the plan as carried out shouldn't have had much chance of succeeding. It would have been possible to choose airports and routes that gave NORAD no time to react and intercept.

[Andre II]

8. Explanation

I really don't think that Frank doesn't have a scenario epxlaining what the animation shows. He clearly states that he refrains from explaining anything and also from using any speculative sources instead relying only on the official flight path, the radio communciation etc.
What seems to be the idea of this animation to me is clearly to show (only the facts only the facts) that these planes can't possibly have been flown by pilots. Everybody who believes there was a human being at the control of the planes (whoever the pilot was) has to explain all the pattern of extreme coordination between the different planes, the simultanety of events, the pattern of the meeting points etc etc etc.
And I'd be really happy if somebody explains this animation with assuming human beings at the control of the planes.

[Kevin Fenton]

9. What real hijackers would do

"The round about routes meant that one would have expected NORAD to have intercepted them, so the plan as carried out shouldn't have had much chance of succeeding."
A real hijacker has to make a choice about whether to attack immediately after taking off from an airport near the target (for example one of the three airports in New York) or wait until later, in which case he has to devise a more complicated plan.
I can see two immediate problems about attacking immediately:
(1) As soon as the second plane (possibly even the first plane) hits, the US authorities should know that something funny is going on and should start grounding planes. If some planes are delayed (and, let's face it, lots of planes are delayed), then the chances of them hitting their targets decrease significantly, because they aren't going to take off. As it happened, it seems that at least one plane that was supposed to be hijacked (United 23 from Boston to LA) didn't get off the ground. To overcome this you have to fly for longer, but this causes problems related to interception, so you have to try and make the planes disappear - which is why they would turn their transponders off in the radar gaps.
(2) Passengers are supposed to sit in their seats for the first few minutes of every flight. The hijackers buy themselves a little time to actually get into the cockpits by waiting until they can get up.

[Andre II]

10. Real hijackers

Explain us please how real hijackers managed all the surprising coordination between the hijacked planes as presented in the anomation and described in the text on the same site.

[spooked911]

11. did the hijackers really care if they were allowed to get up from their

seats? That seems kind of silly to me. The hijackers should raise alarm moving to the cockpit whether or not they are allowed to get up. We're not talking about one guy going to the bathroom here. We're talking about three or four middle-eastern-looking young men (possibly with red headbands!) who get up.

It also seems to me the extra alarm the hijackers getting up when they were supposed to remain int heir seats is worth the extra adsvantage in time getting to the destination and avoiding air force interception.

In theory.

Unless, the hijackers knew there would be no interception. OR there weren't even any real hijackings, and the whole thing was a ruse.

[Kevin Fenton]

12. There is some merit in that, but...

"The hijackers should raise alarm moving to the cockpit whether or not they are allowed to get up. We're not talking about one guy going to the bathroom here."
How do you know?

"It also seems to me the extra alarm the hijackers getting up when they were supposed to remain int heir seats is worth the extra adsvantage in time getting to the destination and avoiding air force interception."
Not if the other planes get stuck on the ground, it isn't.

Plus, we don't know if the hijackers had keys.

[Andre II]

50. Explain yourself ini view of UA 93 please

Why should on UA 93 the hijackers remain seated for so long?

[philb]

34. No one has provided convincing evidence that I've seen that the alleged

hijackers could have taken over the planes with limited weapons
and a locked cockpit and pilots in communication with flight attendants and pilots with the ability to prevent the takeover any time they wanted and without the pilots pushing a button to warn airline and FAA;

Also the majority of pilots don't appear to think it could have happened; even on one plane much less 4.

[k-robjoe]

13. Real hijackers

If the hijackers were worried about being intercepted, wouldn´t they wait longer before hijacking Flight 11? Since it was travelling in the right direction (before they hijacked it).

And wouldn´t they make plans to hijack all four planes at more or less the same time? And at a time when the planes were close to the target?

[Kevin Fenton]

14. Timing

"If the hijackers were worried about being intercepted, wouldn´t they wait longer before hijacking Flight 11? Since it was travelling in the right direction (before they hijacked it)."
Yes, you are correct. They hijacked it a few minutes early, but this applies whether the hijackers were "real" or not. I don't think going a couple of minutes early makes them so incompetent they cannot be real.

"And wouldn´t they make plans to hijack all four planes at more or less the same time?"
That would be one option. Another is to make the planes disappear in the radar gaps they believed existed. They chose the second option.

"And at a time when the planes were close to the target?"
The problem is the delays that affect planes. There's no way to guarantee all the planes will be close to the target at the same time.

[k-robjoe]

15. well

>"but this applies whether the hijackers were "real" or not"

Well, all the hijackings make sense if the hijackers knew they wouldn´t be intercepted. And make no sense if the hijackers had every reason to believe they would be intercepted.

[Kevin Fenton]

16. If you were a real hijacker how would you do it? (n/t)

[k-robjoe]

17. delays

Well, starting up with the coordination in time.

>"The problem is the delays that affect planes."

And so you don´t bother to even consider trying to get the hijackings at approximately the same time? Of course not.
Of course, if you plan with four teams (four planes), you would plan to hijack four planes at about the same time. Two very close to the WTCs and two very close to the Pentagon/White House, if those were the targets.

[Kevin Fenton]

18. If you have a set time

(say 8:15), then the problem is that some/most/all of the planes would be on the ground at that time and might go back to the gate (as many planes that had not taken off did on 9/11, for example United 23, which was also planned to be hijacked).

Specifically, two of the planes used on 9/11 (American 77 and United 93) had not yet taken off at 8:15. A real hijacker would take into account the possibility that a ground stop order could be issued immediately following the second (or even the first) hijack, so a real hijacker would give all the planes a reasonable chance to get in the air before the first hijack.

Due to the delays you don't know where any specific plane is going to be at any specific time. This is one of the problems you have to overcome.

[k-robjoe]

19. delays

>"Specifically, two of the planes used on 9/11 (American 77 and United 93) had not yet taken off at 8:15."

You are not forced to include Flight 77 an Flight 93 in your plans.
If the time you are planning for is 8:15, then you will of course choose planes that are meant to be close to the target at 8:15.
And if a Flight is, say 5-10 minutes late, then the interceptors will have 5-10 minutes more to intercept, not thirty to fourty minutes.

>"A real hijacker would take into account the possibility that a ground stop order could be issued immediately following the second (or even the first) hijack, so a real hijacker would give all the planes a reasonable chance to get in the air before the first hijack."

Ofcourse they are all in the air, if you hijack them all at the same time.

>"Due to the delays you don't know where any specific plane is going to be at any specific time. This is one of the problems you have to overcome."

You would get hijackings at approximately the same time, within ten-fifteen minutes.
Even if you planned to "dissapear" in "radar holes" you would of course try to get the hijackings at approximately the same time.

[Kevin Fenton]

22. How would they know?

"Of course they are all in the air, if you hijack them all at the same time."
How does a hijacker in plane A know that planes B, C and D have taken off?

[k-robjoe]

26. See

See my post below about Flight 77. It seems to me selfevident that it makes much more sense to chose a flight that will be by the "radar hole" at about 8:20, not fourty minutes later.

[seatnineb]

20. So why did they not attack the Pentagon first ...which was the toughest...

......TARGET.


Logic would dictate that if you attack a civillian target like the WTC first,then that would give the Pentagon and Capitol Hill a chance get some sort of protection up......

But.....

Those Pakistani Airforce pilots must have been so shit hot arrogant....to know that they could afford to attack the WTC first....and be secure in the knowledge that they could still have a free attack at the Pentagon....nearly 40 minutes later!

[Kevin Fenton]

21. Because the radar gap for American 77 was further away

[k-robjoe]

25. This

This brings me to what I was going to say to make my argument more clear.

They would not have chosen Flight 77. Knowing that the first hijack would come at 8:15-8:20 they would have chosen a flight that would be close to the "radar hole" at that time, not one that would be close to the "radar hole" 40-45 minutes later.

[Kevin Fenton]

28. Depends

"They would not have chosen Flight 77. Knowing that the first hijack would come at 8:15-8:20 they would have chosen a flight that would be close to the "radar hole" at that time, not one that would be close to the "radar hole" 40-45 minutes later."
It isn't 40-45 minutes. American 11 was hijacked at 8:15 (approx.), American 77 at 8:52 (approx.), so that's 37 minutes. Take off the 10-minute delay that American 77 suffered and you've got 27 minutes. Perhaps this should be adjusted further because, as you pointed out before, American 11 was hijacked a few minutes earlier than it should really have been. Was there a Boeing 757 or 767 in or near the Ohio radar gap in those 27 minutes? I have no idea. Perhaps it's also worth pointing out that, had United 93 been delayed by the same amount of time as American 77 (i.e. 10 minutes, not 41), it would have been hijacked 31 minutes earlier - at 8:57, about the same time at American 77. Also, United 175 was hijacked only a few minutes before American 77.

Alternatively (or additionally), it occurs to me that while only one flight was hijacked, there would be no reason to shoot it down, so perhaps they wanted the first flight to crash at the same time the others were hijacked.

I don't claim to know definitively what the hijackers were thinking, but their plan seems reasonable to me and it could have been the product of genuine hijackers. It doesn't prove the hijackers were genuine, but it's certainly consistent with it.

[k-robjoe]

30. Ohio

>"Was there a Boeing 757 or 767 in or near the Ohio radar gap in those 27 minutes?"

Why would it have to be near the Ohio radar gap, and not one of the others radar gaps?

The Ohio gap is certainly not closer to the Pentagon than the Flight 11 gap or the Flight 175 gap?

On edit : Flight 11 was not very close to its gap when it was hijacked, and that was the first to get hijacked, the most crucial to do handle quickly.

[Kevin Fenton]

31. 1 good point, 1 bad one

"Why would it have to be near the Ohio radar gap, and not one of the others radar gaps?"
OK, good point, it wouldn't have to. But what other gap could it go to?

"The Ohio gap is certainly not closer to the Pentagon than the Flight 11 gap or the Flight 175 gap?"
What Flight 175 gap? It didn't go into a gap.
If we assume the midpoint of American 77's turn is at 8:56, then it took it 39 minutes to get to the Pentagon, which it then circled. How long are you saying it would take to get there from the American 11 gap?

Whether there actually is a gap where American 11 turned its transponder off is open to dispute. If my understanding is correct, then there is a place which is not within the stated range of any radar, but because radar is a line of sight tool it still works there. The CR says American 11 turned its transponder off at 8:21 (p. 18), which would be six minutes (approx.) after it was hijacked. I think the hijackers are good, but not that good, so I'm not too bothered about a few minutes.

Just to clarify: what are you actually claiming - that the hijackers are bogus and that the way the hijacks were done prove this?

[k-robjoe]

33. what other gap

>"OK, good point, it wouldn't have to. But what other gap could it go to?"

The Flight 11 gap is just as close.
So my point is, if there was no Flight passing close by the Ohio gap in the period between 8:20 and 8:55 (which sounds very unlikely by the way ) then they would look for one passing close to the Flight 11 gap at that point in time.

And besides : If Flight 77 had to be in the plan, then it would make much more sense to chose later Flights than 11 and 175 for the WTCs.
There are lots and lots of Flights to chose from, and if the hijackers were worried about being intercepted they would do much better.

>"what are you actually claiming - that the hijackers are bogus and that the way the hijacks were done prove this?"

I clame that the "hijackers" did not do 911. But the way the hijacks were done is only one of many things that have led me to this conclusion.

[Kevin Fenton]

40. Where is American 11's gap?

"The Flight 11 gap is just as close."
I don't think so. I had a look at the info in the link in the OP and that seems to indicate it is 50-100 miles further away.

They can't just hijack any old flight, it has to be a 767 or 757 and it has to be a domestic flight.

Why shouldn't the hijackers hijack one flight first and then the rest when it crashes?

[k-robjoe]

41. away

>"50-100 miles further away"

O.K. But I think if you get there half an hour earlier, you have still saved fifteen minutes or something.

>"it has to be a 767 or 757"

Or some of the hijackers could have trained for the 747. If they wanted to cause more damage.

>"Why (not) hijack one flight first and then the rest(...)?

If you´re not worried about being intercepted, then there´s no reason why not.

-------------

If Flight 11 had kept going South for about ten minutes more it would have been pretty close to New York.
A hijack at that point, and then heading straight for New York, would give the interceptors far less time to intercept. Maybe 10 minutes. (Instead of 30 (?) minutes.)

Then Flight 175 would be hijacked sooner, and not making this turn down South of New York. Another ten to fifteen minutes more efficient.

The theory that it (Flight 11) had to go to a radargap in order to dissapear from radar is, well, it didn´t dissapear from radar.

[Kevin Fenton]

42. How many minutes?

Earlier you wrote:
"But the way the hijacks were done is only one of many things that have led me to this conclusion."

Obviously, I'm not claiming that the hijackers also planted the bombs in the Twin Towers, but I do think the way the hijacks were done is consistent with what genuine hijackers would do.

"O.K. But I think if you get there half an hour earlier, you have still saved fifteen minutes or something."
Yes, that's true, but if there wasn't a plane there half an hour earlier, but, say, only 20 minutes earlier (or even less), then the difference isn't much and the Ohio radar gap is a better one than American 11's (which perhaps doesn't actually exist at all).

I recognise that the hijacks could have been faster, but I can only see room for a few minutes' improvement, which I don't think is particularly significant. Given that the hijackers aren't really full professionals, but well-trained amateurs (or semi-pros), how slow do they have to be for you to think they are not genuine? One minute off the optimum time? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? 20?

"The theory that it (Flight 11) had to go to a radargap in order to dissapear from radar is, well, it didn´t dissapear from radar."
I'm not arguing that it did go into an actual radar gap, but that it went to a place where there is reason to believe a radar gap might be. I think one of the reasons that ATC didn't lose American 11 and United 93 is that there were suspicions transmissions from the cockpit before the transponders were turned off, so the ATCs were focusing on them, but there were no suspicious transmissions from American 77 and it just "disappeared".

Obviously, if NORAD hadn't knocked off after the second plane crashedt, there's no way the Pentagon should have been hit.

[k-robjoe]

44. how slow

>"how slow do they have to be for you to think they are not genuine? One minute off the optimum time? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? 20?"

First hijack 8:15. Flight 77 hits target 9:37

>"I can only see room for a few minutes' improvement"

Well, I see room for about fifty minutes to one hour improvement.
Twenty to thirty minutes between first hijack and last plane hits target.

[Kevin Fenton]

47. I thought you meant

you believed the hijackers weren't genuine because of (1) the times taken by the individual aircraft after they were hijacked (31, 21, 45 and 38 minutes respectively).

Now you seem to be saying that you don't believe the hijackers were genuine because of (2) the time between the first and third hits.

Is it (1) or (2) or both?

[k-robjoe]

48. It´s both

It´s both of those. And more. It´s pretty clear that you could make a plan that was a lot more efficient, if you were worried about being intercepted.

I feel like I could repeat most of what I have allready said. But that would be just tiring me out...

[seatnineb]

27. They could have used boston planes that took off later to compensate....

....just so they could hit the Pentagon first.

[Kevin Fenton]

29. If the Pentagon's the hardest target,

then you should attack that last, not first, because the chances of a successful attack get lower as the planes try to accomplish their missions. Doing the easy stuff first maximises the chances of the greatest partial success.

[seatnineb]

38. Pentagon = hardest target.It is even harder to hit after the WTC attack.

But was still hit anyway!

And also according to the paremeters of the official story......

Even after the Pentagon was hit......

It was only the Bingam,Burnett,Beamer and Glick show that prevented either the White House or Capitol hill from being attacked....

The whole official story wreaks to the high heavens.

[Kevin Fenton]

43. Official story

"The whole official story wreaks to the high heavens."
It does and American 77 and United 93 clearly should have been intercepted, but that doesn't mean the hijackers aren't genuine.

[seatnineb]

45. Well.....when John Doe II is posing as Hani Hanjour,anything is possible

Here is the modest Saudi pilot ,Hani Hanjour, who obtained his FAA license in 1999:



And here is Hani Hanjour passing through a check point at Dulles on 9/11/01...getting ready to board flight 77:



Only the Hani Hanjour in the above photo looks more like John Doe II....as sketched at the time of the Oklahoma city bombing in 1995......



It is not a question of hijackers being real.......it is a question of which hijackers were real.

[Kevin Fenton]

46. Obviously,

I'm not suggesting that the all the hijackers were who the 9/11 Commission said they were.

Do you think the still of "Fat Hani" is genuine?

[seatnineb]

49. Khalid al Midhar seems to be good buddies with John Doe II.

Khalid Al Midhar as known by the FBI..........



.....And Khalid Al Midhar checking through the very same checkpoint.....



....that transformed Hani Hanjour from this:



....to this:




...who looks more like this:



Oh yeah.......it seems that some hijackers were unscripted AFTER 9/11 to make way for others......

The footage we see is showing the original John Doe II/Hani Hanjour...before he was unscripted to make way for the Hani Hanjour we all know today....

[philb]

35. I don't think the alleged hijackers had reason to believe they could make

the planes disappear in radar gaps. There is all kinds of radar out there.
Airport, FAA, NORAD, Pentagon, Satelite, etc.

Turning the transponder off sets off alarms and warns NORAD and brings attention to yourself. Not something that hijackers with a plan would want to do.

[Kevin Fenton]

37. Transponder

American 77 did disappear in a radar gap (although I think the FAA notified NORAD faster than the 9/11 Commission says).

When a plane is en-route, only the FAA is looking at it, the others don't bother with it. After it turns its transponder off, there's no way to tell what sort of plane it is. ATC will obviously notice the plane is gone, but how fast will they be able to find it?

Of the three planes that turned their transponders off one did so in a radar gap, one did so in (or perhaps just near) a place with patchy radar coverage and the third did so in a place where some maps show no radar coverage (but I think it might well have had radar coverage). I just can't see that being a coincidence.

[philb]

36. I don't think the alleged hijackers had reason to believe they could make

the planes disappear in radar gaps. There is all kinds of radar out there.
Airport, FAA, NORAD, Pentagon, Satelite, etc.

Turning the transponder off sets off alarms and warns NORAD and brings attention to yourself. Not something that hijackers with a plan would want to do.

[Andre II]

51. Explain yourself in view of UA 93 please

They knew they had a delay of 41 minutes at take off. They could assume that when they reached cruising altitude that the first two attacks have happened. So, why do they wait until 9:27 (all in all 45 minutes) before hijacking the plane? Why not attack Washington directly? What sense does it make to go for a radar hole (that even according to MercutioATC doesn't exist) to go there for 45 minutes if you know that you have to go all the way back??? How could they have imagined that around 10:15 there is no air defense over WDC??

And please explain your theory in view of the military precision of the planes as shown in the animation.

[Kevin Fenton]

53. They stuck to the plan

What's wrong with that? Why should they abandon the plan? How would they know the other flights weren't delayed?

Why do you think the flights were being flown with "military precision"?

[Andre II]

54. Very clever

With 41 minutes delay ...!
Stuck to the plane hoping that 1 1/2 hours after the first plane (which already had had a delay!) had struck the WTC there would be no air defense over WDC. Very smart.

Prcision?
Maybe you should look at the animation!
The simultanety of events.
The meeting points.
The constant distance between events etc etc etc

[Kevin Fenton]

56. But if the plane was flown by remote control

then how come the all-powerful Bush administration couldn't get it to takeoff on time?

[Andre II]

57. Who is discussing remote control here?

You've stated again and again that the planes have been flown by pilots.
How please eplain the precision as shown in the animation which is especially striking given the fact
that planes had been delayed.
In case you're convinced that the planes can't have been flown by pilots we can discuss alternative scenarios.

[Kevin Fenton]

58. Come off the fence

and say what you really think.
Who was flying the planes?
I see nothing unusual in the animation. Why do you think it is precise?

[Andre II]

59. I don't care

It's your theory you've presented in this thread. Therefore I'm wondering how you explain the animation.

"I see nothing unusual in the animation. Why do you think it is precise?"
Really??
Ok.

So, for the rest of us I'll copy:
For images you've to check out yourself.
http://www.team8plus.org/news.php?item.32

Lets look at the bizarre events that occurred:

Meeting point 1: Flight 11 is issued a "merging target procedure" at 8.12. This is a warning to look out for another plane at similar altitude who is on a converging path. Both planes will appear as one spot on the radar. Just after these planes pass, Flight 11 stops responding to radio.

Meeting point 2: Flight 175 takes off at almost exactly the same time as Flight 11 is being hijacked. Due to the strange triangular path that Flight 11 follows, both planes end up very close together near Stewart Airport. The Controller turns Flight 175 to the right so he goes behind Flight 11 and avoids a collision.

Meeting point 3: Flight 93 (no transcript available) appears to have been turned to the right at take-off to avoid flight 175. Both these planes end up close together in the sky and for a brief period Flight 93 is following Flight 175

Meeting point 4: Delta Flight 1989, another LA flight from Boston that took off shortly after Flight 175 passes very close to Flight 93 just after it makes its U-turn over Cleveland airport. Delta 1989 was being watched carefully for signs of a hijack and was (at this time) poiting towards Chicago, home of the Seers Tower.

1. Take-off point Logan airport
2. Flight 11 stops responding
3. Flight 11 starts to turn South
4. Flight 11 and Flight 175 paths cross
5. Flight 175 starts to turn, Flight 93 very close in sky
6. WTC

The gaps between 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all 100 miles

Observe the timings
1. Flight 11 take-off a few seconds before 8:00
2. Flight 175 take-off 8:14 - Flight 11 hijack 8:14
3. Flight 11 turns south 8:27 (Flight Explorer)
4. Flight 11 and Flight 175 meet around 8:40
5. Flight 175 is turning over Allentown at around 8:53

In light of the fact that Flight 175 was supposed to depart from Boston at 8:00 am, perhaps the purpose of Flight 11's huge detour away from its target was to allow Flight 175 to catch up with it. Or perhaps the delays of both Flight 175 and Flight 93 were arranged on purpose to allow these meetings. This would seem less likely, but what if delays were caused by carefully planted passengers causing issues on the ground?

Looking at what happened it was almost as if something was being passed from plane to plane like a virus or parasite:
1. MD80 passes close to Flight 11
2. Flight 11 is hijacked
3. Hijacked Flight 11 passes close to Flight 175
4. Flight 175 is hijacked
5. Hijacked Flight 175 passes close to Flight 93
6. Flight 93 is hijacked (a bit later on)
7. Hijacked Flight 93 passes close to Delta 1989
8. Was Delta 1989 supposed to hit the Seers Tower?

And then there are the simultaneous events:
1. 8:13 Flight 11 hijacked/ Flight 175 takeoff
2. 8:42 Flight 175 hiajcked/ Flight 93 takeoff
3. 8:46 Flight 175 switches transponder code/ Flight 11 crashes

And there's the strange identical pattern taken by Flight 11 and Flight 175 - see the last frame of the animation above

The absurdity of the flight paths in general can be seen by looking at the distance from the various airports to the various targets and comparing them to the flight paths taken:

1. The distance from Dulles airport to the Pentagon 22 miles. But the distance flight 77 took from Dulles to get to the Pentagon was 627 miles. That’s an extra 600 miles to get intercepted, shot down or for suicide hijackers to reconsider their actions.
2. Assuming Flight 93 was also targeting the Pentagon (as speculated by the media). The distance from Newark to the Pentagon is 200 miles. The distance flight 93 would have taken to reach the Pentagon is 750 miles. That’s 550 unnecessary miles.
3. The distance from Logan to the WTC is 193 miles. Flight 11’s route to the WTC was 328 miles (135 extra). Flight 175 took 368 miles (175 extra).
4. The distance from Newark airport to the WTC is 8 miles. You could see the towers from the runway.


Summary and Conclusions
A close analysis of the flight paths and ATC transcripts shows bizarre "meetings" between the 9-11 planes and some other planes.
The distances (almost exactly 100 miles between most major events) and timings (13 -14 minutes between each event) involved show that these meetings were carefully planned and co-ordinated
The fact that these meetings were between hijacked and non-hijacked planes would indicate that they were not planned by any hijackers on board the planes.
The paths and key events in the paths seem to coincide and line up with a network of air bases and airports laid out in triangles on the East Coast. These bases and airports are separated (with the exception of where terrain prevents it) by roughly 100 miles


***UPDATE 6th Dec 2005***
Yet another very regular pattern. The significance of this is that both Flight 11 and Flight 93 flew to a point 65 miles away and at the same angle from departure. At these respective points, Flight 11 became hijacked, Flight 93 was just behind Flight 175, and flight 175 began to turn.

[Andre II]

63. So

all mentioned in post 59 is nothing unusual for you?
Or is it wrong, then why?
Or what is explanation?

[petgoat]

62. how come the all-powerful

"how come the all-powerful Bush administration couldn't
get <93> to takeoff on time?"

Because bumping the flight to the head of the list for no
reason would attract attention to the flight and to the person
who has the clout to order it done.

A "conspiracy of few players" theory requires that civilian and
military people be left to their own devices so much as possible.

[kerry_s]

23. Radar gaps

"o overcome this you have to fly for longer, but this causes problems related to interception, so you have to try and make the planes disappear - which is why they would turn their transponders off in the radar gaps."

Turning trandponder off don't make you disappeared. You are clearly visible as unmarked blip and "hijacked plane" for militaries.

Turning off in radar gaps?? How did they know where are radar gaps???
Which flight disappeared? Only one in Ohio.

[Kevin Fenton]

24. If you don't think the planes went into radar gaps,

then that means you don't think the planes were switched, right?

[kerry_s]

32. You are quibbling

You are quibbling or just not understanding:)

"Turning off in radar gaps?? How did they know where are radar gaps???"

Please, answer this question first. HOW DID THEY KNOW WHERE TURN OFF TRANSPONDERS, because you said that that they simply disappeared in radar gaps.

And, answering your question, I think, that we dont have to be in radar gap to simply turn off a transponder and make a switch.

[Kevin Fenton]

52. Radar gaps

There are lots of ways to find out about radar gaps - people have posted the information on this site, so it's hardly secret. The hijackers assocated with drug smugglers, who must surely know a thing or two about radar gaps.

If a switch was made outside a radar gap, how was it done? Surely the two planes would both be visible to radar? Wouldn't it be better for one plane to turn its transponder off when the other one turned it on with the same code?

[Andre II]

55. How do they know

when they are in the air that their plane is now in a radar hole?
Btw MercutioATC confirms the radar hole for AA 77 but states that there is none for UA 93.
According to you: How big is the radar hole of UA 93?

[kerry_s]

60. Is there any radar gap for fl175?

Check Flytecomm flight paths for Flight 11 and Fligh175:
http://www.team8plus.org/download.php?list.3

This flight change transponder code TWICE and then disaapear from Flytecomm (a biiiggg gap) and then reappear and at 9.07 it was still in air! It crashed WTC at 9.09!

At Flight explorer.com Flight175 MISSED WTC...


(notice two gaps in flight 175 final moments)

There is no "9.03 Impact"... 8.58 on Flytecomm Flight 175 is on the west of NYC but it still moving towards New York (9.07) and catch it at 9.09 !!!!!!! not at 9,03.
There is no errors with "take off" times an other planes timing ...

Flight 11- it was flying to radar border... and the we see a plane at south of its path...
And there are MORE discrepancies between Flytecomm and Flightexplorer.com. How it is possible?
How they got altitude and speed when the transponders were turned off?


Bytheway, you beliece in plane-switching at 911? I thought first that you are a sceptic...

[kerry_s]

61. Flight 175

Switched off its transponder for 30 seconds at the point when it met Flight 93. t then changes its code to some unknown code. At this stage - ATC controllers are assuming that this is the same plane... The first 3 blips are odd, first blip is at 3,500ft, the second blip is at 35,000 ft. Third blip is at 12,400ft. Speed only increaes from 210 to 295 from blip 2 to 3.ATC tracking became confused about which radar blip was Flight 175.
Whatever crashed into the WTC had its transponder on all the way (on whatever code) allowing ATC to view its rapidly descending altitude.Flight 93 was very close to Flight 175 when its transponder went off and the hijack apparently started. The two flights would have followed the same flight path, so if flight 175 switched off its transponder and flew on with Flight 93 they would have appeared as one spot on the radar.

http://airgames.bravehost.com/

[Andre II]

39. Explain

please the shown patterns of surprising coordination between the hijacked planes as shown in the animation.