madmark.myfastforum.org

Mark · Site Admin Joined: 13 Nov 2007 Posts: 1052

Flight 93: Cell Call Exposed 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjNB9MGSoWc

Cold blooded.

JohnP · Facilitator Joined: 29 Apr 2008 Posts: 9

There's another theory that says the plane landed elsewhere, but the only problem with this story is that the plane was visible on the radar from the control tower, then disappeared. How easy is it to spoof a plane on such high tech gear, and then somehow make the little dot on the screen disappear? Which is why this "empty plane" theory looks more likely.

However....take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s&feature=related

The hole in Shanksville was apparently there prior to the so-called crash, and there are no apparent pieces on the ground. So maybe the plane landed elsewhere, which doesn't solve the mystery of "how the radars lost track of the plane". It's a tangled mess and anything seems possible except the official version.

dyfet

This goes along with the curious question of the repainted plane that flew into the south tower (flt 175). These digital stills
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html

besides pointing out the profile of the aircraft is wrong for a 767, also, though unnoticed by the author, lacks the proper paint job...the engine coverlets were not painted dark blue then, and the ones that later were had the entire underbelly also painted dark blue to match.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki...oeing_767-300_United_Airlines.JPG

From the pictures of flight 175, you can clearly see the coverlet is painted from the right wing that is not hidden in shadow, and consistent with the one that is. Indeed, given the angle of the lighting, and the fact the fuselage bottom "stripe" is consistent on the left and right, like the coverlets, it is tempting to say that is not shadow but part of the paint scheme as well. There are 767's which were painted with dark blue bottom "stripes" that are narrower than the whole underbelly, and these too as far as I can find never were flown by United either...

JohnP · Facilitator Joined: 29 Apr 2008 Posts: 9

It seems to tie in, a modus operandi emerges: the planes were switched, and probably remote controlled (precision of the impacts). What I can't seem to grasp is how this could fool the control towers...unless the replacement planes took off from the same airports as the regular flights. Maybe the passengers were held back and told the planes were late. Now the question is whether these makeshift-767's could take off from big regular airports without looking suspicious. Would the untrained eye notice anything strange about them? Are there special, remote areas in these particular airports (11 and 175:Boston's Logan Airport, 77: Dulles International Airport, 93: Newark International Airport) that allowed these flights to take off without gathering too much attention?

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/bodycount.html#flights

hoop · Joined: 17 May 2008 Posts: 11

How does level-headed focus on this event get so muddled?