FW: 9/11 plane discrepancies "solved"

THE CLUE

First Clue – Few Passengers On The Four Flights: Many have remarked about
the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets. You might get a low turnout
for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four coast to-coast flights taking off
from the East inside of a few minutes of each other, all with short
passenger lists? Nuts. That's your first clue.

Second Clue – First Report of First WTC Crash: The second clue comes from
the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she
saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the state's witness, the
defense team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped
talking.

What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. She
saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the
North tower. She was certain in her description – most people know the
difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane.

[ CV comments:
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25,
2001, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart said of the first September 11 report:
"We were told it was a light commuter airplane. It didn't look like that
was caused by a light commuter airplane."
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTranscript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimony.html ]
Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the "United
Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had a hijacking, and they
gradually padded the story out until the viewer felt like he was part of an
unfolding revelation on the size and make of the plane. So the first
eyewitness's story got shellacked.

Third clue – Pentagon Crash: The first report on NBC said there had been
an explosion near the Pentagon heliport. No mention of a plane.

If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a
business jet had crashed into the Pentagon. Notice that this description is
similar to the first report about the WTC. A small plane, not a big,
round-nosed passenger jet.

Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole thing"
from his car on the freeway. It was an American Airlines passenger jet.
Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he was gawking. And of
course it was a big passenger jet scraping the light poles with it's belly
as it came in low. And that story paved the way for the official truth.

Fourth Clue – No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site: By now lots of
people have realized there is something very wrong with the story of Flight
77's crash into the Pentagon. What's the problem? The wingspan of a 757
is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between the two jet engines.

[CV comments: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/ext.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/boeing757-200

The hole left by whatever hit the building was 70 feet across.

US News & World Report, December 10, 2001, pg. 31
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn011210-1.jpg ]

After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one could
see the plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry – limestone – not steel
and glass. The aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped off and
left outside the building. We should have seen wing wreckage. But there
was none.

[CV comments:
I have studied TV footage taken contemporaneously by various networks and
reviewed photos from news magazines published just after 9-11. After the
smoke died down, no Boeing 757 debris was visible.

See the following URLs at the website of the U.S. Army Military District of
Washington, D.C., sent to me by researcher John DiNardo,
<[email protected]>. By the way, Mr. DiNardo suspects that inside
explosives were used at the Pentagon on 9-11. Certainly the damaged section
of the building had just been renovated; explosives would have been easy to
install.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/firetruck.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon6

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/capitolview.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon5

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/cars-damaged.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon2

The scenes depicted by the US Army photos are consistent with
contemporaneously published photos in the popular press. See, for example,
US News and World Report, September 14, 2001, pg. 40.

http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn010914-1.jpg

and the photo that appeared in Newsweek's 2001 "Extra" edition, pgs. 26, 27.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/nwkxtr-1.jpg

This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army Military
District of Washington site. It unwittingly demonstrates that there was no
Boeing 757 wreckage. Think now: a hundred thousand pounds of seats,
framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels, luggage, interior
panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context scrap of God-knows-what
was shown by the Pentagon.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/planepiece.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon0

In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's work, there
has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of Boeing 757 debris
outside the Pentagon. Now, magically, new photos of "Boeing 757" Pentagon
wreckage are beginning to appear. Check out the websites of Mike Rivero
<whatreallyhappened.com> and Joe Vialls for copies of these fakes. Rivero
and Vialls, by endorsing them as real, have surely identified themselves as
members of the fake opposition.

OK. Now back to Snake Plissken]

Fifth Clue – Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash: As you point out in
Operation 911: No Suicide Pilots
[http://www.Public-action.com/911/robotplane.html], the flying instructors
who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77 said they were hopeless. "It
was like they had hardly even ever driven a car …" The flight instructors
called the two, "dumb and dumber," and told them to quit taking lessons.

Yet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before it hit
the Pentagon. The huge jet took a 270 degree hairpin turn to make its
target. The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert pilots.

Something is wrong here. Now "dumb and dumber" are expert pilots. That is
your fifth clue.


Sixth Clue – Transponders Turned Off: As you point out, the "hijackers"
turned off the transponders which transmit information showing the airline
names, flight numbers, and altitude. But the FAA also uses conventional
radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the planes were still visible.
Why would the "hijackers" shut the transponders off, you asked? You are
looking at your sixth clue.

[Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 1
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

Seventh Clue – Confusion On Radar Tracks: As you point out, some of these
flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes. [See above-cited
URL.] That's your seventh clue.

Eighth Clue – Second WTC Tower Barely Hit: Have a look at the footage of
the second WTC tower being hit. The plane almost missed the tower and just
managed to hit the corner. Yet the first plane struck its target dead
center. That's your eighth clue.

[See diagrams from Wag the WTC website at:
http://www.public-action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/1/southtowerpath.jpg

HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED
* A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United Airlines
jet. It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of some NORAD types.
Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it parked at a military
airfield for the moment.

* The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low
that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the
fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own
operatives in each flight, maybe.

* After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down.
There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one
of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American
Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are under
terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders. Maintain radio silence.
Here is your new flight plan. You will land at [name] military air base."

* The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the
information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the
altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on
conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.

* What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never see the
real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a
tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the
other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that: As each of the
original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it,
at the same latitude and longitude. The blips of the two planes merge on
the radar scopes. Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of
the original plane. Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees
you're watching outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the
military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching
the wrong blips …

That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll never
see the radar records so we won't know exactly.

[For the alleged flight paths of the four jets, see
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html
For names and locations of military airfields in the US, try
http://www.globemaster.de/bases.html
You can search for a listing of bases in 9-11 related states by using the
search engine.]
* A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with
incendiaries/explosives – a cruise missile, if you like – is flown into
the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness saw.

* The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a
United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control –
without passengers – and crashed into the second tower.

Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.

Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the remote
operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn
passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and
almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary.
They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit
the corner of the tower.

* Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with
incendiaries/explosives – a cruise missile if you like – hits the
Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.

* Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the
Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77.
Reporters lie better than lawyers.

* Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the
military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your
own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.

* Flight is taken aloft.

* Flight 93 is shot down or bombed – makes no difference which. Main deal
is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of
15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot
in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.

* The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was
actually headed towards the White House but changed course.

* The trail is further confused by having the Washington Post wax lyrical
about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane
(Flight 77).

* The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial
catfight issues, such as – did The Presidential Shrub really see the first
tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat
…

So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The other
three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless
they were cut up for scrap.


[CV comments, January 1, 2004: The Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration
Center (AMARC) is located outside Tuscon, Arizona; it is an Air Force
aeroplane graveyard and a storehouse for spare parts. The Air Force also
uses AMARC to convert discarded planes into remote-controlled drones. See
http://www.modern-ruins.com/boneyard/boneyardtext.html
or
http://www.public-action.com/911/airforce-graveyard

AMARC is one likely repository for the original 911 passenger jets.]

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane
crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of them, it was the
wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to
get anyway, so it works.

WHY DO IT THAT WAY?
So there you have it. Not four planes. More than four planes. There were
the four original Boeing passenger jets that took off from the East Coast
airports, the remote controlled Pseudo Flight 175 Boeing, and two small
remote controlled jets or cruise missiles. Figure in a couple of extra
planes to confuse the flight paths of the original passenger jets.

The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike Boeing
and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote control. You called
it Global Hawk, and that's good enough. The mimic planes could have been
piloted or remote controlled.

Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you
described in NO SUICIDE PILOTS? Here's why: You might get remote control
gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would not notice, but
that would be more work, more time, and more people. Then you would have to
control your special plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it
lined up for that day, that time, that flight. Then you would have to
multiply those efforts by four. There would be too many chances of things
going wrong. Plane substitution would be much simpler. You'd just need
the NORAD insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe an
agent or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make sure things
go smooth. That should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent lots of
its people over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars.

[CV comments:
Gen. Eberhart, NORAD commander, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on
October 25, 2001 that " . . . we've actually moved manpower on the order of
about 200 people over the years to the FAA to operate these radars." Cited
in Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 2. See Eberhart testimony at:
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTranscript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimony.html ]
Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used with the
flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision coordinates for the
targets. Maybe the job could have been done that way, but it was not. You
know for sure it was not because flight computers do not fly planes the way
those were flown. A flight computer is given a set of GPS points
(geographic coordinates) to follow, and the computer charts the path between
them, correcting for cross-winds and other errors. The flight computer
flies smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky
corrections.

You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south tower
because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle that almost
missed the tower. An autopilot wouldn't make that mistake. The crash of
flight 175 was not a preprgrammed flight computer finding the optimum path.
What you see there in the path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the
physics of flight - and almost losing it.

You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run explanation, so I don't
have to analyze that again.

[http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]
I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened: Supposedly
AWACS (airborne military communications) hit the planes with EMF (radio
blast) and knocked out their manual electronics, then took over the 9-11
planes by remote and made them crash. That's a pipe dream. Anything that
knocked out the electronics from a distance would turn a plane into a flying
scrap heap. Those plane are completely dependent on electronics, and no
remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to destroy and which to
leave intact.

OTHER DETAILS
* Pentagon Security Photos: On March 7 CNN released four photographs taken
by Pentagon security camera on September 11, 2001. Look at the photos:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.htm

The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry, white
object near the upper right corner – possibly the plane just a few feet
about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American Airlines plane is not
clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon," March 7, 2002. )

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56670-2002Mar7.html

Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not
visible.

* Fireman's Video of First Crash. The NBC eyewitness said the plane that
flew into the North tower was small. This is corroborated by the fireman's
video taken on September 11:

http://www.xemox.net/wtc/movies/first.plane.hits.gp.med.asf

[Note to reader: There are other versions of this clip on the Internet, but
I have been unable to find one I can verify as the original clip. If you
can find a verifiable copy, let me know. CV <[email protected]>]

In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually
discussing some street work. The fireman looks up over his left shoulder,
then behind him, as though he is following a sound. The camera follows his
gaze, finds nothing at the original location, then quickly moves to a shot
of the WTC, visible through another corridor in the surrounding buildings.

Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC? I can only guess he heard the
impact of the plane. The camera does not show the plane in the air prior to
impact, so I assume it has already crashed.

In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site that grows
into a cloud and erupts into flame. After a few seconds, the flame dies
down and the smoke dissipates. At that moment, the camera shows the huge
S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.

[CV's comments, January 1, 2004: Another version of the "fireman's video"
is now available at :
http://www.serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/north_tower.htm
Footage from that clip shows a large plane - not a small plane - approaching
the tower and crashing into it.]


If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not be S-shaped.
The gash should be a straight line like the wings of the jet. But more
important: if the impact of the jet made
the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the camera is
first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the smoke and flame.

[http://www.public-action.com/911/gamma.jpg
and
http://www.public-action.com/911/911/gamma2.jpg ]


The Hijackers: I have read reports that some of the alleged hijackers are
actually still alive. This suggests the hijacker scenario and the resultant
mid-air telephone calls to the relatives is pure bull. But I can't verify
the alleged hijackers are still alive, so let's move on.

It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people with
Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around the country.
Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared. Then mid-air phone calls
are created, reporting hijackers who were never aboard the planes. That
would work.

As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on the
passenger lists of the four flights. The hijackers names don't even appear
on the list of passengers released by United on September 12 – the list of
passengers on Flights 175 and 93.

[http://www.Public-Action.com/911/uapassngerlist ]
Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger lists, but
nobody's perfect.

Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was, think about
the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 to their next of
kin in the moments before the crash. Supposedly, they learned of the
attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their handy cell phones, and they
figured out their own plane was hijacked for a similar purpose. So they
decided to be heroes and take the plane away from the hijackers.

According to the Dallas Morning News : "The fourth time Thomas Burnett Jr.
phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front: 'I know we're going to
die. There's three of us who are going to do something about it.'"

[Dallas Morning News, "Trapped in the skies, captives fought back,"
September 17, 2001.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/dmnheroes ]
Heroic, wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house. The heroes of modern
America. A high school basketball star, a college rugby player, a forest
ranger, a woman police officer …

But why did it have to be suicide heroism? "They knew their deaths were
inevitable, according to some family members with whom they spoke on the
phone, and they didn't want thousands more to die with them." It makes a
better story, of course: "Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."

Why did they have to die? The crew was still alive and "herded at knife
point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being held,"
according to the same report. They weren't dead. If the passengers got
control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the plane? Why didn't
those brave heroes say things like, "There's a chance we might save this
boat"? But they said, "I know we're going to die."

Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight bull sessions like they had
in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog". And the American public has
been trained on weak plots for decades on prime time TV, so they don't WANT
to think their way out of a wet paper bag. It spoils the show.

Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the passengers of
Flight 93 had to die. But the temptation was too much, so they put it in
the passenger dialog, too. And that's how you know the cell phone calls are
just theater, not fact.

By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious names
on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media could
interview fake relatives. Like that Operation Northwoods plan in which a
fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger jet. Whoever
planned that must have planned to use fake grieving relatives, too.

[http://www.public-action.com/911/northwds.html ]
And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice
simulation. How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight 93 and
said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a plaster fish
trophy. That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant wife – she didn't
talk to him directly, she just got a message from the answering service.

["The Final Moments of Flight 93," September 22, 2001, by Karen Breslau
(NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/finalmoments93
The state of the art in voice simulation is the subject of a Washingon Post
news article, "When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing" found at
http://public-action.com/911/voice-simulation/index.html ]
Is this all too much for your to swallow? Don't you believe people would
conspire to pull all this off? Well, look at the stakes. This current war
will go on for years and blot out one of the world's great religions,
legitimize military rule in the United States, redistribute the world's oil
resources, and change the entire power structure of planet Earth. All
that's needed to make it happen is ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men," and
a nation that is willing to be deceived.

The problem with people like you when you try to understand events like
this, you are not a trained killer. When you come to wiping out the
whoever, you shrink back. That's normal. That is one of the things you
have to train out of a soldier.

But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch at the
killing. He just takes that into the plans like one more or one less egg in
the omelet. If he has to kill the enemy or Americans or even himself, it
doesn't matter because sometimes he has to do that to win. He's trained
that way.

The only thing that matters is the Objective. Whatever a soldier has to do
to win the Objective, that is what he has to do. All of this false piety
about suicide bombers is nuts. Well trained Americans would do that if you
ordered them to. If they didn't, they weren't well trained.

So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand civilians, you
just do it in the best way that will help the Objective.

http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html