Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
bee

My ideas about 9/11

286 posts in this topic

I have never thought that 9/11 was an Inside Job per se...

But until the end of August this year I hadn't researched it.

I travelled far and wide....(on the internet..lol)

And this is what I've come up with.

This isn't going to please supporters of the Official Account..

or the die-hard Conspiracy Theorists..

But never mind...I can't help that... :)

In a nut shell this is it....

Militant Islamic Jihadists hijacked 4 airliners.

The day was chosen because Vigilant Guardian/ Global Guardian military exercises

were taking place...and the confusion would buy the terrorists time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Guardian

Flight 11 was crashed by terrorists into the World Trade Centre tower.

Flight 175 was crashed by terrorists into the other WTC tower.

The US military got on top of the situation and....

Flight 77 was taken by remote control over the Atlantic Ocean and shot down.

Flight 93 was taken by remote control to a rural part of Pennsylvania and shot down.

For political and propaganda reasons it was decided to cover up the fact that

the military were forced to shoot down the 2 planes.

(and bring down WTC 1,2 + 7)

It was decided to set up the Pentagon to make it look like flight 77 hit it.

Pentagon chosen because it is government property and there was an unoccupied section?

A helicopter fired a missile into the unoccupied area?

Or bombs (or similar) were set off to look like the building was hit?

Airliner wreckage was placed at the scene.

WTC 1,2 + 7....were brought down using Directed Energy Weapons,

Because they were badly damaged and for the safety of the area had to be dealt with

and brought down neatly into their own foot-print.

On that fateful and heartbreaking day...I think that 'war protocol' was quickly

applied and all the govt/military actions AFTER the Twin Towers were hit...

was DAMAGE LIMITATION.

To prevent more loss of life?

And more serious damage?

That's it.

Do these ideas make sense to anyone?

I think that they broadly cover all the discrepancies that concern people about that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting views Bee... but just how would "they" have got remote control over aircraft that were not equipped for FBW (Fly By Wire) technology?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting views Bee... but just how would "they" have got remote control over aircraft that were not equipped for FBW (Fly By Wire) technology?

Thanks for the feedback...

This is one of the links I looked at re. 'remote control over aircraft'....

It's the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum....(there's also an interview to listen to there

if you want to)

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20048&st=0

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bee - you probably don't realise the reputation of PFT.

Take some advice: go talk to aviation professionals OUTSIDE those.... people. Go find an aviation college, go talk to professional airline pilots at an airport. Do NOT rely on the clowns from PFT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bee - you probably don't realise the reputation of PFT.

Take some advice: go talk to aviation professionals OUTSIDE those.... people. Go find an aviation college, go talk to professional airline pilots at an airport. Do NOT rely on the clowns from PFT.

I looked at so much stuff in a short space of time...that this is the only link about that, that

I can remember. But I will look for more.

They appear to be a fairly level-headed lot. But like so many people.. don't feel the

Official Account is satisfactory.

I'm talking about genuine 'researchers' here...not the over-the-top crowd or the Muslim Fifth Column lot.

I haven't, though, looked at any of their other stuff.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20048&st=0

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center attack. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials along with Mainstream Media refuse to acknowledge.

As a matter of interest...

Do YOU think that (some?) airliners can be controlled remotely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal theory, I think, is that it all happened as per the official explanation, except that the hijackers weren't Al Quaeda, but were trained and financed by some other government intelligence service from a country supposedly friendly with the US; this would be quite sufficient, if said supposedly friendly country was a bastion of support for the US and one with close political and intelligence (not to mention economic) links, to account for the Bush administration to be very keen to blame it on someone else. Why would this supposedly friendly country have done this? Well, they all have their own agenda, don't they, and it may have been as part of their own ideological power games, or it may have been that they wanted to provoke the US into a military response that would ensure a US presence in the area {whichever area it may be} and so serve supposedly friendly country's purposes in shoring it up as a domninant power in the region. It's also, I think, not beyond possibility that the US intelligence may have had, perhaps quite specific, prior warning, but may have either allowed it to happen because they thought it would suit their purposes, i.e. they wanted a war or at least a military presence in the area for the foreseeable future, or that they never imagined that the threat would take the form it actually did; they may have been expecting a car bomb or something perhaps, but the scale of what actually happened took them completely by surprise. The subsequent rushed investigation, eagerness to not reveal everything, and the planting of evidence to pin it on Al Qaeda (in particular the fatuous discovery of one of the hijackers' passports) could, I think, all be explained by official panic on the part of a not very efficient and not very scrupulous government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also, I think, not beyond possibility that the US intelligence may have had, perhaps quite specific, prior warning, but may have either allowed it to happen because they thought it would suit their purposes, i.e. they wanted a war or at least a military presence in the area for the foreseeable future, or that they never imagined that the threat would take the form it actually did; they may have been expecting a car bomb or something perhaps, but the scale of what actually happened took them completely by surprise.

This is a possibility...

I, personally think that it is more likely that the US Intelligence was lacking in some way...?

And also that the planners of the terrorist/war act...(in my view...definitely Militant Islamic Jihadists.)

....are most definitely NOT stupid...and would make sure there were lots of red-herring-operations talked about

and discussed over mobile-phones/internet etc.

To confuse and bury the ACTUAL plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were able to take control of the Planes and fly them remotely why shoot them down? Why not just land them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback...

This is one of the links I looked at re. 'remote control over aircraft'....

It's the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum....(there's also an interview to listen to there

if you want to)

http://pilotsfor911t...opic=20048&st=0

:tu:

Very interesting Bee, and I promise to look at the video at some point today (46 mins is a big chunk of time!!) The flight engineer would of course be aware of any attempts to use the autopilot to take control of an aircraft, and within the avionics bay there is a "Kill-switch" to completely isolate the autopilot. I could do it myself by disconnecting the Flight Nav computer, but then i would have to think that there is malicious intent and so would be be somewhat reticent to do so. After consultation with the Pilot and Co-Pilot, also confirmation from Air traffic control, then I would have no problem in returning control to the flight deck. This of course, raises a whole can of worms eg who is doing this, is ATC under friendly control etc etc..

Finally, if, using my own judgment and having determined that the flight course was in any way dangerous then I would, without hesitation, disconnect the autopilot from the main control system. Pilots are extremely capable in flying without auto - comtrol so the safety consequences are irrelevant.

Will look at the video as said...

Saludos

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting views Bee and 747400.. I like them :)

Sounds as good as any theories floating around.

I'll kick in a bit too :) Got no proof in any way, but hey, it's a CT :)

I propose that a lot of the "proof" that 9/11 CT folks throw out there was "released" on purpose. Exactly for what it has done, made a fairly unreadable mess. What better way to make the public stupid about something then to appeal to their sense of CT? Some information has been held back for sure.. just plant in enough close information to start the process, sprinkle in some almost blatant hoaxing, and the public will take care of the rest after a year or two.

I'm just not sure if it would make more sense if the government was behind it- one hell of a smear campaign to cover tracks, or a juicier theory to propose a government undermining agency using hoaxes to rile up the public :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting Bee, and I promise to look at the video at some point today (46 mins is a big chunk of time!!) The flight engineer would of course be aware of any attempts to use the autopilot to take control of an aircraft, and within the avionics bay there is a "Kill-switch" to completely isolate the autopilot. I could do it myself by disconnecting the Flight Nav computer, but then i would have to think that there is malicious intent and so would be be somewhat reticent to do so. After consultation with the Pilot and Co-Pilot, also confirmation from Air traffic control, then I would have no problem in returning control to the flight deck. This of course, raises a whole can of worms eg who is doing this, is ATC under friendly control etc etc..

Finally, if, using my own judgment and having determined that the flight course was in any way dangerous then I would, without hesitation, disconnect the autopilot from the main control system. Pilots are extremely capable in flying without auto - comtrol so the safety consequences are irrelevant.

Will look at the video as said...

Saludos

Keith

The 757 and 767 are two-man crew...no FE. Just to clear that up. And the AP is a simple on/off switch, with several subfunction (alt, hdg, speed and such) switches under it. The hijackers disconnected the A/P pretty early on in each case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were able to take control of the Planes and fly them remotely why shoot them down? Why not just land them?

This is something I've thought about...and it does bother me..

But I'm thinking that in what rapidly became a National Emergency...decisions were made,

war protocol followed?

So much was going on, in a short space of time.

NOW we know it was 4 planes, but THEN they didn't know what was coming.

A lengthy/unpredictable hostage situation was not something that could be coped with

under the circumstances?

Just speculating on that point.

Also..details like the one you have brought up could explain why the

events of that day were/are classified.

Ie..Would the families understand?

What would the 'world' say...anti-American propaganda would have a field day?

And it would detract from the actual attack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose that a lot of the "proof" that 9/11 CT folks throw out there was "released" on purpose. Exactly for what it has done, made a fairly unreadable mess. What better way to make the public stupid about something then to appeal to their sense of CT? Some information has been held back for sure.. just plant in enough close information to start the process, sprinkle in some almost blatant hoaxing, and the public will take care of the rest after a year or two.

I'm just not sure if it would make more sense if the government was behind it- one hell of a smear campaign to cover tracks, or a juicier theory to propose a government undermining agency using hoaxes to rile up the public :)

I agree with you...

What started me off researching it..was when the penny dropped that the 9/11

conspiracy was ITSELF conspiracy based... :wacko:

Driven by maybe PSYOPs agents...and other politically interested parties.

Catching genuine 'truthseekers' in their net.

A good way to create a fog around events of the day ..cause doubt and confusion...

And to neutralize many people....who get side-tracked by the never ending cascade of

in-your-face 9/11 conspiracy stuff.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at so much stuff in a short space of time...that this is the only link about that, that

I can remember. But I will look for more.

They appear to be a fairly level-headed lot. But like so many people.. don't feel the

Official Account is satisfactory.

I'm talking about genuine 'researchers' here...not the over-the-top crowd or the Muslim Fifth Column lot.

I haven't, though, looked at any of their other stuff.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20048&st=0

As a matter of interest...

Do YOU think that (some?) airliners can be controlled remotely?

It is interesting to think about how this might apply to the deaths of Senator Wellstone, Senator Carnahan and Bush's White House webmaster.

Thank you for the link. I passed it on to my group of friends. I am sure they will pass it on to theirs, who will pass it on to theirs, who will pass it on to....

Always remember, things are seldom as they seem. And very seldom as we are told they are.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

double post

Edited by SolarPlexus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details:

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.

...

4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.

...

5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8:

...Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there....

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01 :

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, 2/27/1993 :

....Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer...

Frank A. DeMartini - Manager, WTC Construction & Project Management - on 25 Jan 2001:

The building were designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting....

video here

Edited by SolarPlexus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SolarPlexus....I guess you are presenting evidence to suggest that

WTCs 1,2 + 7 would not have just collapsed from the impact of the

airliners and the damage/fires that were caused by the impact.

I've got that covered..... :)

See my quote below.

It doesn't really affect my general idea of 'the day'...whether the

buildings were brought down by convensional explosives OR DEW weapons..

But I am inclined to go with DEW weapons.

I am presuming that a decision was made to bring down the buildings...

Because the structure was weakened by damage and fire...and no chances

were going to be taken that they might just collapse, over a period of days.

I have to observe that the hit on the South Tower (second hit..first collapse)

was a near perfect bulls-eye from the hi-jackers point of view.

So with the top section of the South Tower in danger of maybe crumbling and falling?

In spite of the safety assessments made during it's design?

It HAD to be brought down. Pronto.

The effects of THAT collapse severely weakened the North Tower and Building 7...? (+ the fires.)

:tu:

WTC 1,2 + 7....were brought down using Directed Energy Weapons,

Because they were badly damaged and for the safety of the area had to be dealt with

and brought down neatly into their own foot-print.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting to think about how this might apply to the deaths of Senator Wellstone, Senator Carnahan and Bush's White House webmaster.

Thank you for the link. I passed it on to my group of friends. I am sure they will pass it on to theirs, who will pass it on to theirs, who will pass it on to....

I wouldn't like to speculate on those deaths, re. remote

control of planes...but it's interesting that you do.

Always remember, things are seldom as they seem. And very seldom as we are told they are.

I know....9/11 is an absolute mine-field of conflicting information and 'evidence'...

During my research I had a couple of eureka moments...and other parts of the whole picture

kind of slid into place.

I'm not saying I'm definitely right with all my ideas. But I do think I'm on the right track..?

And I felt satisfaction when I was able to make some sense of the whole mess...

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting Bee, and I promise to look at the video at some point today (46 mins is a big chunk of time!!) The flight engineer would of course be aware of any attempts to use the autopilot to take control of an aircraft, and within the avionics bay there is a "Kill-switch" to completely isolate the autopilot. I could do it myself by disconnecting the Flight Nav computer, but then i would have to think that there is malicious intent and so would be be somewhat reticent to do so. After consultation with the Pilot and Co-Pilot, also confirmation from Air traffic control, then I would have no problem in returning control to the flight deck. This of course, raises a whole can of worms eg who is doing this, is ATC under friendly control etc etc..

Finally, if, using my own judgment and having determined that the flight course was in any way dangerous then I would, without hesitation, disconnect the autopilot from the main control system. Pilots are extremely capable in flying without auto - comtrol so the safety consequences are irrelevant.

Will look at the video as said...

Saludos

Keith

The 757 and 767 are two-man crew...no FE. Just to clear that up. And the AP is a simple on/off switch, with several subfunction (alt, hdg, speed and such) switches under it. The hijackers disconnected the A/P pretty early on in each case.

My thought on whether the hi-jackers could easily disconnect the remote control/auto-pilot...

I'm thinking that it would defeat the object...re. security..if it was just a 'flick-a-switch' affair.

I would imagine that pilots and co-pilots would have a code to use (that would be changed regularly)

if they felt the need to disconnect from Auto Pilot..?

So...a hi-jacker...would need the code..which I doubt that they could get hold of.

I think that it was the Vigilant/Global Guardian military exercises that day...

with transponders being switched on and off...for it?..that caused enough confusion for

the successful 2 hits on the WTC Towers....before the military got a proper handle on the situation,

and were able to positively identify everything in the sky...

And that it was confusion/time constaints that prevented the remote control of flights 11 + 175

being put into effect in time to stop the impacts...???

:tu:

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The autopilot is just a one switch affair, as I stated. No codes, no "security" system involved. The idea of thwarting a cockpit takeover isn't in the design concept.

As for the "bullseye" of the second jet, I'm thinking he almost missed his target. You see him bank sharply left at the last moments, and he actually hits the right portion of the building. This created the large fireball out the side of the building, along with the entry/exit damage. That, along with the lower impact point (more weight/stress on the damaged area) led to the early collapse. His bank angle also spread the damage over more floors.

Civil airliners are NOT used in military exercises. Also, participants in the exercise don't turn off their transponders unless they are in sterile airspace (closed to non exercise aircraft) like offshore warning areas. As for identifying "everything in the sky", NORAD doesn't do that. They coorelate flightplans from the FAA with aircraft locations coming towards the US from the outside, and transpondr codes are a major part of the ID process. Monitoring the traffic inside the US borders (thousands of planes) wasn't part of the task in those days. Yhe "threat from within" idea just hadn't been seriously considered, and any "confusion" was trying to adapt a defense system designed for external threats to respond to internal ones.

DEW weapons? Any evidence at all that such things exist on a scale like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The autopilot is just a one switch affair, as I stated. No codes, no "security" system involved. The idea of thwarting a cockpit takeover isn't in the design concept.

Ok...even if the autopilot is a one switch affair...What about a Flight Crew Lockout?

Discussed below (with audio interview)

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20048&st=0

Whistleblower Reveals "Backdoor" 757 Remote Control And Flight Crew "Lockout" Technology Available Prior To 9/11

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Wayne Anderson, an Avionics Technician is interviewed by Rob Balsamo, Co-Founder, Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Wayne reveals his observations of a remote guidance test on a Boeing 757 in which technology was used to control the aircraft remotely, while also being able to "Lockout" the Flight Crew from overriding the autopilot system in order to regain control of the airplane. The following interview discusses the details of this test which was performed prior to September 11, 2001, the violations of FAA regulations and the possibilities using such technology.

Post 9 on the forum (link above) says this..

All US civilian commercial passenger jets since 1972 have had NORAD flight control overrides of the autopilot system; this was mainly intended to prevent collisons but also provided remote control evasion capability in case of missile threats.

HTTP://bluenorway.org

Http://platinum-ii.in

I had a feeling the links would be gone...and so they were...

Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage... :(

mrbusdriver said...

As for the "bullseye" of the second jet, I'm thinking he almost missed his target. You see him bank sharply left at the last moments, and he actually hits the right portion of the building. This created the large fireball out the side of the building, along with the entry/exit damage. That, along with the lower impact point (more weight/stress on the damaged area) led to the early collapse. His bank angle also spread the damage over more floors.

I said...'near perfect bullseye'..... :)

Maybe the banking was deliberate, to damage more floors? Just a thought.

mrbusdriver said..

Civil airliners are NOT used in military exercises.

Thankyou...I stand corrected on that point...

It was a 'simulated' hijack situation.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=vigilant_guardian

Exercise Includes Simulated Hijacking - Vanity Fair reports that the “day’s exercise” (presumably Vigilant Guardian) is “designed to run a range of scenarios, including a ‘traditional’ simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum.” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] However, at NEADS, most of the dozen or so staff on the operations floor have no idea what the exercise is going to entail and are ready for anything. [utica Observer-Dispatch, 8/5/2004]

But I say even though it was simulated...this caused confusion as if it were the real thing?

same link as above..

When the FAA’s Boston Center first contacts NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) to notify it of the hijacking of Flight 11 (see (8:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001), personnel there initially mistake the hijacking for a simulation as part of an exercise.

Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins, mission crew chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise currently taking place (see (6:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001), will later say that initially she and everybody else at NEADS think the call from Boston Center is part of Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002] Although most of the personnel on the NEADS operations floor have no idea what the day’s exercise is supposed to entail, most previous major NORAD exercises included a hijack

and...same link..

Major Kevin Nasypany, the NEADS mission crew commander, had helped design the day’s exercise. Thinking the reported hijacking is part of it, he actually says out loud, “The hijack’s not supposed to be for another hour.”

mrbusdriver said...

Also, participants in the exercise don't turn off their transponders unless they are in sterile airspace (closed to non exercise aircraft) like offshore warning areas. As for identifying "everything in the sky", NORAD doesn't do that. They coorelate flightplans from the FAA with aircraft locations coming towards the US from the outside, and transpondr codes are a major part of the ID process. Monitoring the traffic inside the US borders (thousands of planes) wasn't part of the task in those days. Yhe "threat from within" idea just hadn't been seriously considered, and any "confusion" was trying to adapt a defense system designed for external threats to respond to internal ones.

I've got this about transponders ..

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude. Controllers at centers rely so heavily on transponder signals that they usually do not display primary radar returns on their radar scopes. But they can change the configuration of their scopes so they can see primary radar returns. They did this on 9/11 when the transponder signals for three of the aircraft disappeared.94

Before 9/11, it was not unheard of for a commercial aircraft to deviate slightly from its course, or for an FAA controller to lose radio contact with a pilot for a short period of time. A controller could also briefly lose a commercial aircraft's transponder signal, although this happened much less frequently. However, the simultaneous loss of radio and transponder signal would be a rare and alarming occurrence, and would normally indicate a catastrophic system failure or an aircraft crash. In all of these instances, the job of the controller was to reach out to the aircraft, the parent company of the aircraft, and other planes in the vicinity in an attempt to reestablish communications and set the aircraft back on course. Alarm bells would not start ringing until these efforts-which could take five minutes or more-were tried and had failed.95

So I'm guessing that when the hijackers turned the transponders off.(in 3 of the 4 planes?) it contributed

to the confusion and delayed the realization of what was unfolding.

mrbusdriver said...

DEW weapons? Any evidence at all that such things exist on a scale like this?

Yes (I believe I have)...but I will come back to you on this.....

Phew!..You made me work quite hard to address your points... :) ...but I don't mind because

I'm still fine-tuning my 'ideas' of the day and learning more about it all the time..

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing to note: If the transponder was turned off (not possible in a Commercial aircraft unless the C/Breaker in the avionics bay was thrown) then a signal will be sent (either 7600 or 7700 but most likely 7700) to ATC. This was in segregated airspace which is extremely important to understand). This would immediately inform ATC of loss of C&C link, and loss of Vocal communications with ATC. ATC would immediately try to establish voice communications with the aircraft. None was forthcoming. This would automatically require alternate radar tracking from the NORAD system. This did not happen. They were expecting an exercise, but were deficient, mortally, in recognising what was happening.

Remember, NYC (JFK) and its environs out to 40+Kms are under ATC Separation ordinance.

What happened that day would have lots of alarm bells ringing and the USAF SHOULD have been on station to prevent what finally transpired. They were not.

WHY??

Try this is humble UK and fighters would be scrambled to establish visual contact with the aircraft.

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with you on all things. I merely ask you to keep searching for more. There are gaps even you and I don't know about yet.

Please don't freeze your search now.

I wouldn't like to speculate on those deaths, re. remote

control of planes...but it's interesting that you do.

I know....9/11 is an absolute mine-field of conflicting information and 'evidence'...

During my research I had a couple of eureka moments...and other parts of the whole picture

kind of slid into place.

I'm not saying I'm definitely right with all my ideas. But I do think I'm on the right track..?

And I felt satisfaction when I was able to make some sense of the whole mess...

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing to note: If the transponder was turned off (not possible in a Commercial aircraft unless the C/Breaker in the avionics bay was thrown) then a signal will be sent (either 7600 or 7700 but most likely 7700) to ATC. This was in segregated airspace which is extremely important to understand). This would immediately inform ATC of loss of C&C link, and loss of Vocal communications with ATC. ATC would immediately try to establish voice communications with the aircraft. None was forthcoming. This would automatically require alternate radar tracking from the NORAD system. This did not happen. They were expecting an exercise, but were deficient, mortally, in recognising what was happening.

Remember, NYC (JFK) and its environs out to 40+Kms are under ATC Separation ordinance.

What happened that day would have lots of alarm bells ringing and the USAF SHOULD have been on station to prevent what finally transpired. They were not.

WHY??

Try this is humble UK and fighters would be scrambled to establish visual contact with the aircraft.

I am very interested in why our armed forces weren't doing their real job that day, 9-11-01.

That is what they are paid for, and why they get the big bucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(found my post to be off-topic, and erased it. I want to put a plug in for being able to delete one's own posts within a specified period of time)

I wouldn't like to speculate on those deaths, re. remote

control of planes...but it's interesting that you do.

I know....9/11 is an absolute mine-field of conflicting information and 'evidence'...

During my research I had a couple of eureka moments...and other parts of the whole picture

kind of slid into place.

I'm not saying I'm definitely right with all my ideas. But I do think I'm on the right track..?

And I felt satisfaction when I was able to make some sense of the whole mess...

:tu:

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.