This is the best explanation I have, I have no idea exactly what happened but I buy into this theory. It fits with this essay posted the other day on
ATS at the bottom of this post..
The pieces are coming together for me now, if I was investigating 9/11 I would have several names of people I would lkike to question. The cover up is
obviously deeper than I had imagined or some people would be under investigation. If thats right, then it can't be too long before someone blows the
whistle, someone always does, please BLOW!
"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
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
For names and locations of military airfields in the US, try
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
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 93 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 its 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
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.
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."
"Now why was an executive jet owned by one of Warren Buffett's companies "tracking" Flight 93 instead of a military jet try to intercept it?
More interesting is that fact that Flight 93 was rumored to have been shot down (in which the U.S. Government vehemently denies) and that a number of
witnesses claimed to have seen a "mysterious small white jet" in the same area that Flight 93 was before it crashed in which the FBI claimed there
was no other plane in the area and then changed it's story and said there was one, but it was just "taking pictures" of the crash."
I wanna hear the debunkers, I remember a few of you have failed to debunk this bumble bee theory once before. Please try again, it's accurate as far
as I can see.